• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Do Blue City Murderers Stir Dems because They’re Dems?


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

I wholeheartedly endorse the conservative plan to reduce homicides that Paul wrote about earlier today. With respect to the latest round of mass shootings, I haven’t yet had time to delve into the statistics, but here are a few observations.

First, the last couple of mass shooters likely are copycats. More than anything else, giving less press coverage to mass shootings, and especially refusing to publish “manifestos,” would reduce the number of these events. One might say that mass shootings are a price we pay for freedom of the press.

Moreover, somewhere around 7,500 people die every day in the US, with about 100 per day dying in car accidents and 46 per day murdered, mostly in “blue” cities. Mass shootings are a vanishingly small cause of death. Whether deaths, violent or otherwise, make the news is a matter of editorial judgment. For whatever reason, our editors and reporters have chosen to magnify the significance of mass shooters.

Second, the U.S. homicide rate has been cut in half since the Clinton administration, coinciding with a boom in handgun ownership and an unprecedented issuance of carry permits. These latest mass shootings don’t change that.

There was an uptick in homicides during the last two years of the Obama administration, apparently because of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Obama administration’s embrace of that movement. But, as I wrote here, the downward homicide trend has resumed under President Trump. We are talking about thousands of lives being saved because of Trump’s pro-law enforcement position. I calculated that the spike under Obama represented more than 5,000 homicides. Somehow our press has little interest in these numbers.

Third, contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is not home to an unusual number of mass shootings. Rather, we are a very large country. On a per capita basis, as of a few months ago the U.S. ranked 56th in the world in mass shootings (as defined by the FBI) and 61st in per capita deaths in mass shootings. Gun laws have nothing to do with these numbers. In the US, some of the states with the highest rates of gun ownership, like Idaho, also have the lowest homicide rates. Cabot Phillips makes the point well on Twitter:

Cabot Phillips


We own half the world’s private guns but account for less than half of one percent of the world’s murders.

I don’t think this stat proves what you think it proves. https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1168223496461279233 



Americans make up less than 5% of the world’s population, yet they own roughly 45% of all the world’s privately held firearms. https://bit.ly/2MNk7T5 

Fourth, liberals are, as usual, advocating policies that will do no good. Mostly, they want to ban certain categories of semiautomatic rifles, based on random, largely-aesthetic criteria that supposedly make them “assault weapons.” Such a ban was tried during the 1990s. It did no good and was abandoned. Rifles–not just AR15s, but all rifles–are among the least popular of murder weapons. Four times as many Americans are murdered with knives as with all rifles combined (not just “assault weapons”). More Americans are murdered with both blunt objects and bare hands than with rifles. Nor are “assault weapons” uniquely valuable to would-be mass shooters. Semiautomatic pistols and other semiautomatic rifles (like my Marlin 60, a rifle that, here in the Midwest, fathers often give to their sons as a 16th birthday present) can fire just as fast and are just as deadly. My guess is that today’s Supreme Court would reject an “assault weapons” ban as an irrational infringement of a fundamental constitutional right.

Finally, liberals do have one proposal that might actually do some good: the so-called “red flag” law, which has already been enacted in some states. The idea is that friends, relatives and family members of an allegedly mentally ill and dangerous person could turn him in, leading to a court hearing that could result in an order barring the person from buying firearms, and directing police to confiscate whatever guns he may have in his possession. Such a hearing might be ex parte, meaning that the allegedly deranged person would have no opportunity to appear and defend himself.

Such a procedure might prevent a few homicides–in particular, perhaps, a few mass shootings. It almost always turns out that the perpetrators of such crimes were generally considered by those who knew them to be crazy and likely dangerous, so providing an outlet for such friends and relatives might prevent a few violent crimes. On the other hand, the potential for abuse is obvious. One can foresee that quite a few of those exercising “red flag” prerogatives will be ex-wives. And best case, we are taking about depriving a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong of a fundamental constitutional right. Far better we should focus on getting violent illegal aliens out of our country–something that the Democratic Party opposes.

Still, the “red flag” concept is the sanest of the Democrats’ proposals, and I would be willing to implement it on a limited basis in hopes of determining whether it might, to a small degree, work.


Some Comments on Guns

Lefty Abortionist Killings on the Decline?

New Poll Has a Few Encouraging Results for Pro-Life Voters

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has released an interesting poll this week regarding public attitudes toward legal abortion. Most public-opinion polls conducted by media outlets and survey-research firms contact only several hundred people. This PRRI survey, conducted between March and December of last year, surveyed more than 40,000 Americans. As a result, it is able to provide state-level data on public attitudes toward life issues, and on attitudes about abortion among some relatively small demographic groups.

The poll contains two findings that are particularly helpful to the pro-life movement. First, this poll, like several polls conducted so far this year, shows that a plurality of Americans oppose using Medicaid funding to cover the costs of abortion procedures. When asked if government health-insurance programs for low-income women, such as Medicaid, should cover abortions, 46 percent of respondents agreed and 48 percent disagreed. Survey questions that specifically ask about taxpayer funding of abortion typically show higher levels of disapproval. Even so, it is still noteworthy that even when polls use wording sympathetic to taxpayer funding of abortion, a plurality of Americans still express disapproval.

Second, this poll bolsters an existing body of survey research showing that, among single-issue abortion voters, the pro-life position continues to enjoy a sizable advantage. The PPRI survey shows that 27 percent of Americans who oppose abortion will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on the issue. In contrast, just 18 percent of voters who describe themselves as pro-choice will only vote for a candidate who favors legal abortion. Pundits and political professionals often encourage pro-life candidates to downplay their opposition to abortion in order to be more electable. This poll, along with many other surveys, suggests that espousing pro-life beliefs might be politically advantageous. . . .

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Fascistic Hollywood Readies Soviet Kin Movie Encouraging Murder of Republican “DEPLORABLES”!


by  John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

I wrote here about the bizarre movie The Hunt, in which liberal elites hunt and murder red state “deplorables.” Sort of a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the left. The film was to be released next month, even though advertising was pulled after the El Paso and Dayton shootings. But that was before President Trump weighed in on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump


Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and with great Anger and Hate! They like to call themselves “Elite,” but they are not Elite. In fact, it is often the people that they so strongly oppose that are actually the Elite. The movie coming out is made in order….

65.7K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump


Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and with great Anger and Hate! They like to call themselves “Elite,” but they are not Elite. In fact, it is often the people that they so strongly oppose that are actually the Elite. The movie coming out is made in order….

Donald J. Trump


….to inflame and cause chaos. They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!

53.5K people are talking about this

That was enough, apparently, to cause Universal Studios to wilt:

A controversial soon-to-be released movie trashed by President Trump on Twitter Friday has been canceled entirely, Universal Studios announced Saturday.
The backlash forced the studio to change its plans.

“We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, like those associated with this satirical social thriller,” the studio said in a statement to The Hill. “But we understand that now is not the right time to release this film.”

I will go out on a limb and guess that Universal executives shelved the movie because of Trump’s suggestion that film violence contributes to real violence, for which Hollywood liberals “then try to blame others.” The executives, I suspect, didn’t want to do anything that might compromise the Democrats’ ability to blame President Trump.

STEVE (maybe) dissents: Without actually seeing the movie, it is hard to know whether withdrawing the film isn’t a blunder. If it is true that the hunters are the bad guys—with an EU connection!!—and the hunted “deplorables” the good guys who win revenge in the end, then maybe this movie would have been slightly pro-Trump. It wouldn’t be the first time that a film or TV show made by liberals backfired on them. One thinks of All in the Family, where Norman Lear’s intention totally flopped, or Joss Whedon’s Firefly series and Serenity film. Although Wheedon is a big leftist, his TV show and movie are hugely popular with libertarians and conservatives generally.

It could be that Universal decided to shelve the movie because they figured out that they had blundered and might actually help Trump.

JOHN responds: I’ve wondered about that, too. Whatever would possess a group of liberals to make a film that shows liberals as the ultimate villains, hunting down and murdering innocent conservatives? It’s a puzzle. In any event, I don’t think it matters who made the film or which side gets a worse portrayal. I think it is totally inappropriate to make or release a film that depicts liberal and conservative Americans slaughtering one another. And calling it a “satire,” as Universal insistently does, doesn’t help. So I am glad Trump got the film killed, if that is what happened, or alternatively that Universal thought better of it, even if the company’s motives were political.


On The Hunt, Trump Gets Results [Updated]

National Education Association Declares Abortion Murder is a “Fundamental Right”!

NEA Supports Killing Future Students, Backs So-Called “Fundamental Right to Abortion”


American’s largest teachers union officially embraced a position supporting the killing of its future students during its annual assembly Saturday.

The National Education Association (NEA) Representative Assembly passed a measure declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right,” Christian Headlines reports. The union also attacked President Donald Trump and other pro-life politicians who work to protect unborn babies from being slaughtered.

NEA Business Item 56 states: “Furthermore, the NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person’s right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people. The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.”

“The most misogynistic forces, under Trump, want to abolish the gains of the women’s rights movement,” it continues.

NEA watchdog Mike Antonucci, who writes at EIAOnline.com, explained that the business item is a one-year directive that expresses the will of the union’s policy-making body.

He said Saturday’s vote marks the first time the union officially has supported abortion.

Here’s more from the report:

The NEA passed a resolution in 1985 stating the organization “believes in family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom,” although it didn’t include the word “abortion.”

LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.

“This [1985 resolution] was widely understood by both sides of the debate as being a pro-abortion stance,” Antonucci wrote. “But for the last 34 years, the union has denied it takes any position on abortion. The word has never appeared in the union’s resolutions.”

The NEA has been hesitant to take an official stance on abortion or Roe because there are “a significant number of teachers” who “refuse to join NEA because they believe the organization supports abortion,” Antonucci wrote.

Susan B. Anthony List slammed the vote in a statement, saying it removes all doubt about the union’s politics.

“It is appalling and flies in the face of logic that America’s largest educators’ union, claiming to speak for more than three million members nationwide, would side with the extreme abortion lobby in embracing an explicitly anti-child and anti-family stance,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Furthermore, while purporting to be non-partisan, the Assembly went on record attacking President Trump and his pro-life agenda. We encourage pro-life teachers and parents to stand up and voice their opposition loudly and clearly to union leadership.”

For years, LifeNews has reported about the large donations NEA and other unions make to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America. In 2011, it also gave $60 million to support President Barack Obama for re-election. Obama has been described as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.

NEA Supports Killing Future Students, Backs So-Called “Fundamental Right to Abortion”

Reducing Murder by Slaughter in America

Roe v. Wade Repeal a Heartbeat Bill Away

by Daniel John Sobieski        (Article sent by  Mark Waldeland.)
I have often said that said that if ultrasound pictures of the unborn had been available in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision would have been quite different. It is hard to talk about “lumps of tissue” and “collections of cells” when one can actually see a leg kicking, a hand reaching, a mouth sucking. Or listening to a heartbeat.

Since then four decades of medical advances have changed the meaning of the word “viable” when applied to the unborn. They should also have changed the meaning of the word “human.” Consider the case of the world’s tiniest baby born recently weighing just over eight ounces . . . https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/emroe_v_wadeem_repeal_a_heartbeat_bill_away.html#ixzz5q6SRuCsJ

Clarence Thomas’ Truth about Supreme Court Cowards’ Avoiding Abortion Slaughter Industry Issue

Clarence Thomas Speaks the Truth for SCOTUS on Abortion

by Mario Diaz  at  American Thinker:


In today’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Justice Clarence Thomas dared speak the truth about the abortion industry in an area of law and policy infested with euphemisms, deception, and distortion.  That “the Constitution itself is silent on abortion,” for example, is a most obvious observation that anyone old enough to read can confirm.  But to write it plainly in a Supreme Court opinion, as he did, is nothing short of an act of courage in today’s day and age, when the darkness of abortion has such a firm grip on our political, legal, and cultural environments.

The case dealt with an Indiana law that contained two provisions.  The first dealt with the “disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers,” and the second barred “sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions by abortion providers.”  In a Per Curiam opinion (meaning it comes from the Court as a whole and not signed by any particular justice) the Court granted cert. on the first question and reversed the lower-court ruling that had invalidated the law.  But it denied hearing on the second question, leaving in place the lower court’s ruling that invalidated it.

On the first question, dealing with the disposition of fetal remains, the Court said, “The Seventh Circuit clearly erred” in saying the state’s interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains is not legitimate.  Justice Thomas said the lower court’s decision was “manifestly inconsistent with our precedent.”  He is right.  The Court had already said in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that “a State has a ‘legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.'”

The only question, the Court said, is if Indiana’s new law is “rationally related” to that clearly legitimate interest.  This is the lowest standard possible; it just needs to be rational.  Yet the lower courts insisted on toeing the abortion preservation line at all cost.  Justice Thomas was just as dumbfounded as the rest of us.  “I would have thought it could go without saying,” he wrote, “nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”

It was an easy decision to make, as evidenced by the fact that the Court did not even need oral arguments to decide it.  But as Justice Kennedy acknowledged in the Gonzalez v. Carhart decision, “longstanding maxim[s] of statutory interpretation … [fall] by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion.  The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.'”

Even the denial of cert. for the second question in this case reeks of political calculations.  It too is not a difficult decision to make.  The Court should have addressed it.

Deciding not to do so, the pro-life community should be thankful that Justice Thomas nevertheless took the time to discuss the question in his concurring opinion, and he did not mince words.  “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” he concluded.

He wrote separately to address that second part dealing with sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions.  He meticulously goes through the sordid history of abortion and eugenics, proving that it “is not merely hypothetical.  The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement.  That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement.  And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.”

Justice Thomas notes, “Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates — including future Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher — endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.”  He reminds us of the legitimacy of the eugenics movement among intellectuals, noting, “Leaders in the eugenics movement held prominent positions at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, among other schools, and eugenics was taught at 376 universities and colleges[.] … Harvard was ‘more central to American eugenics than any other university[.]'”

After delineating the close connection between eugenics and racism, Justice Thomas highlights the Supreme Court’s own troubling past with assisting in its spread.  “This Court threw its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law.”  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

In that sense, the Court shares this distorted view of the value of human life with the eugenic sympathies of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.  After discussing Sanger’s “Negro Project,” an effort to promote population control among black Americans, it is understandable why Justice Thomas concludes that this case “highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”  Should it surprise us that it is Planned Parenthood, still today, standing as party before the Supreme Court objecting to a law that prohibits the targeting of babies because of their race, sex, or disability?

Eugenics is the stuff of nightmares.  As we pointed out in our brief, which the Court noticed, “abortion has proven to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.”  In Iceland, babies with Down syndrome are being systematically exterminated.  In Asia, sex-selective abortions are commonplace.  Where are the feminists on that?  “[A]s many as 160 million ‘missing’ women — more than the entire female population of the United States,” notes Justice Thomas, have been targeted through abortion because of the mere fact of being female.

It is against this putrid backdrop that this Indiana law stepped in to humbly uphold the value of every human life.  It was promptly challenged by none other than Planned Parenthood.

To their shame, the District Court and the Seventh Circuit went right along with “Big Abortion” without any precedent compelling them to do so, whatever legal, mental gymnastics they tried to do to justify their unjust rulings.  They pointed to the Casey decision, but as Justice Thomas forcefully said, “Whatever else might be said about Casey, it did not decide whether the Constitution requires States to allow eugenic abortions.”  That “remains an open question.”  And Justice Thomas was quick to point out that “[t]he Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement with the decision below.”

We can only hope that the Court takes up the question in the not too distant future and ends once and for all this prolonged nightmare of the targeting of children because of their race, sex, or disability.



Trouble, Trouble, Trouble in the US CITY?!


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

There was a time in my early adulthood when many believed that American cities would soon become uninhabitable. New York City was the prototype: crime and social decay had made the city a dystopia. Many expected New York to collapse, and other cities to follow.

It didn’t happen, because New York’s officials–most notably Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton, although others were involved–adopted the philosophy of Broken Windows policing. That policy proved remarkably effective, and made New York City livable again. George Kelling, who played a major role in developing the Broken Windows philosophy, told the story in 2009 in How New York Became Safe: The Full Story. Other cities followed New York’s lead, and in the end, the only American urban area that arguably succumbed to a crime-driven death spiral was Detroit.

George Kelling died yesterday, and Heather Mac Donald has written a fine tribute to him and to the public safety methods he developed and advocated for, at City Journal:

Go to a police-community meeting in any troubled neighborhood—whether the South Side of Chicago or South Central Los Angeles—and you will rarely hear complaints about what most criminologists call “serious” crimes, such as robbery or shootings. Instead, residents will plead for surcease from open-air drug dealing, the unruly teens colonizing corners, loud music, and other affronts to civility. Kelling recognized this yearning for public order among the poor and in so doing created one of the most important contributions to urban policy in the last half century: the Broken Windows theory of policing.
In the 1990s, Kelling chaired a panel at Rutgers University (where he taught) on whether the New Jersey State Police were engaged in “racial profiling.” The panel rightly challenged the conventional wisdom among political and journalistic elites that racially disparate car stop-and-arrest rates indicate police racism, rather than racially disparate rates of offending.

Kelling endured withering attacks for his public-order advocacy. Ivory tower criminologists and law professors view order-maintenance policing as a pretext to oppress minorities. A Columbia University law professor, Bernard Harcourt, has made a career arguing that Broken Windows enforcement is racist.

The tragedy is that, although the facts are in and the data are incontestable, we are still fighting the same old battle. The Left is more insistent than ever that effective policing is “racist,” whatever that means when the primary beneficiaries of such strategies are the minority residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Heather concludes:

The endgame for much of academia and for “progressives” is to eliminate proactive policing in minority neighborhoods. These critics remain wedded to the idea that crime can be lowered only by solving its alleged root causes: racism and poverty. Kelling asserted the opposite: that constitutional, responsive policing is the best hope that law-abiding residents of high crime areas have to live free from fear, a right that people in safer neighborhoods take for granted. Portraying the police as a force for evil is one of the most destructive consequences of the 1960s revolt against traditional authority. George Kelling’s empirically based wisdom revived the understanding that protecting public order is an essential and humane function of government—and that the viability of cities rests on respect for the law.

George Kelling, RIP.

“Unplanned” Opening…

‘So Much Evil Mommy, Those Poor Babies’


by Michael Brown  at  the Stream.       (Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

To the surprise (and consternation) of Hollywood, Unplanned opened to more than $6 million in box office receipts, finishing number 5 in the nation. And it did this while opening in fewer than 1,100 theaters nationwide.

More importantly, this powerful, pro-life movie that exposes the evil of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry is making a powerful impact on its viewers. This could truly be a major game-changer in the days ahead.

Despite Opposition, Unplanned Doubled Expectations

Not that the left didn’t try hard to stop the film from getting out of the gate, let alone succeeding.

Lead actress Ashley Bratcher was warned that she was “probably gonna be blacklisted” by Hollywood if she took the role.

The Hollywood Reporter notes that, “Lifetime, Hallmark Channel, HGTV and several other cable networks” rejected advertising for the movie.

And still, despite all this opposition (and more) the movie brought in more than $6 million in the first weekend, more than doubling prior estimates.

I’ve heard of theaters that dropped the movie before its release, only to reinstate it after protests.

Then there was the ridiculous R-rating the movie was saddled with, without possible justification.

And over the weekend, Twitter temporarily suspended the movie’s account, only to restore it a few hours later after a storm of protests. (Can anyone tell me any possible rationale, other than sheer, anti-life bigotry, for shutting down this account?) Then, once the account was restored, more than 100,000 followers realized they were no longer listed on the account. This is beyond suspicious.

Still, despite all this opposition (and more) the movie brought in more than $6 million in the first weekend, more than doubling prior estimates.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

It’s also quite revealing that, on Rotten Tomatoes, critics (15 so far) have given Unplanned a rating of 53, while viewers (1,996 at present) have given it a score of 94. Right now, that makes Unplanned the highest viewer-rated movie of all new releases, way ahead of Dumbo and Captain Marvel, both of which have viewer ratings of 60. It’s even doing better than How to Train Your Dragon, at 88.

The Testimonies of Viewers

But these ratings only tell you so much. It’s the testimonies of the viewers which are so powerful.

One man posted this on my Facebook page: “I had tears throughout the movie. Got to my car and really broke down. Thank you God that you are allowing people to see your side of this issue.”

A woman wrote: “I cried through so much of this movie. I don’t understand how people can continue to justify the killing of the unborn. I walked out of this movie with the conviction to get involved in crisis pregnancy assistance ASAP.”

Another said this: “I couldn’t stop crying and at one point wanted to wail and pray. I had to force myself to get it together.”

And another: “Within the first ten minutes I was sobbing as was the lady sitting beside me. I know what happens with an abortion but seeing it was powerful. If I weren’t already pro-life I would be after watching this movie.”

A mother posted this: “I took my 16 year old and she was greatly impacted. She had no strong opinion on abortion until she saw this movie. I’m taking my 11 year old to see it next.”

And one viewer commented, “I was overcome by the strong message of grace and forgiveness.”

One viewer after another described the powerful impact of Unplanned, with many feeling the need to get involved in the pro-life movement now.

“So Much Evil, Mommy”

But the comment that moved me most was this one, from another mother who went with her daughter. Her own story is compelling as well. Read this and weep:

“Wow what a movie! I went to see it with my 11yrs old daughter Bella. I was reluctant at first to take her, I prayed about it and got the green light from The Holy Spirit. Yet there were scenes where she covered her eyes, she was glad she saw it too. At the end she hugged me so tight, started crying uncontrollably and said ‘So much evil mommy, those poor babies. Everyone needs to see this movie.’

“She is also one of those babies who got saved by prayer. I was one of those women who had an appointment to murder my baby when I was 12weeks with her, but cancel the appointment hours prior doing ‘the procedure’ at a clinic here in Houston…”

May God have mercy on our nation. May He turn the tide in our country. May He act on behalf of more than 60 million slain in the womb.

And so we pray, “So much evil, Lord! These poor babies! Help us to do our part to awaken the conscience of the nation. We beseech You, Father, to change hearts and minds. It’s time!”


‘So Much Evil Mommy, Those Poor Babies’

Mpls’ “Mohammed” Copper Goes On Trial for 2017 Murder


by  Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

The long-awaited trial of former Minneapolis police officer Mohammed Noor for murder begins tomorrow in Hennepin County District Court before Judge Kathryn Quaintance. In an egregious example of police incompetence, Noor killed Justine Damond on July 15, 2017. Noor should not have been on the force. His killing of Damond represents an utterly needless tragedy that exposed Minneapolis’s kakistocracy for the world to see and now, in the words of the old antiwar left, the whole world is watching. The Star Tribune previews the trial in today’s paper.

For us, it is a local story. Indeed, one of Noor’s attorneys (Peter Wold) is a former law school classmate of mine and the Damond family is represented in its civil suit against Noor and the city by an old acquaintance whom I got to know in my first days in private practice (Robert Bennett). Last year I spoke with Bob about the law underlying his civil lawsuit against the Minneapolis authorities for the post “Notes on the Damond lawsuit.” I included a copy of the civil complaint at the bottom of that post.

The criminal case has been assigned to Hennepin County District Judge Kathryn Quaintance. Judge Quaintance and Chief Judge Ivy Bernhardson have issued a restrictive set of media guidelines for press coverage of the trial. The order is posted online here. I cannot even comprehend Judge Quaintance’s Friday order excluding bodycam footage from public viewing.

I first asked for media credentials to attend the trial on March 14. I was told by a court administrator that they were still sorting out the logistics and advised to keep checking this page, but I really needn’t have bothered. All of eight seats were allotted to the media in two courtrooms. They are long gone under a process that I have not found spelled out anywhere.

This is one aspect of the case that the Star Tribune has not been inclined to sugarcoat. They covered it in March 29 stories here and here. Certain of the media big boys have banded together to retain counsel and object via correspondence to the Chief Judge posted here by the Star Tribune. I will be following the case from a distance.



Murder by Any Other Name Introducing Fourth-Term Abortion

by Greg Morse at disiringgod.org                 Article sent by Mark Waldeland.

How does one group of people murder another and sleep at night? Answer: they don’t. German soldiers didn’t slaughter humans, Southern whites didn’t lynch humans, and Planned Parenthood isn’t killing humans either.

The infectious pathos, rising from the pit of hell and blackening the darkest periods in human history, is an idea, an idea that a hierarchy of human and subhuman exists. Men who kill men in cold blood lose sleep; men who kill beasts don’t. In Germany, they called the subhuman creatures the Untermenschen. The German propaganda Der Untermensch (thought to be edited by Hitler’s right-hand man, Heinrich Himmler), manifested the serpent’s whisper this way:

The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes, and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being. Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. . . . Not all of those who appear human are in fact so. Woe to him who forgets it!

Though it may appear to be human, it isn’t. It may look like it is made in the image of God, may look like an actual man, woman, or child — but it isn’t. Its color, disability, or lack of development betrays the fact that the terrible creature is only partially human. And as history repeatedly teaches: when “they” are not fully human, “they” — when their dignity inevitably conflicts with our interests — become not at all human. Our evil, having arrogantly defied God’s law (thou shall not murder, lie, steal), goes on to defy mathematics: rounding three-fifths down to zero.

Fourth-Term Abortions

In the American theater, we have moved from despising dark subhuman creatures we brought into cotton fields to despising creatures hidden in the dark whom God placed in the womb. They appear human, but the parent’s desire for the child often determines whether it is in fact so. Since Roe v. Wadethe serpent, conspiring with our Supreme Court and government of appointed representatives, has swallowed millions upon millions upon millions of boys and girls whole. The biggest city in America, the one that terminates more black children than it keeps, has led the way with its recent repeal of the state’s protection for abortion survivors. Adam and Eve’s offspring bite from the (Big) Apple, bringing death to their children.

Now, to the most recent developments. No longer can we call the unseen, unheard, unheld creature in the womb a subhuman — we now rise to such boldness as to include the child staring us dead in the face outside of the womb. Senator Ben Sasse recently called the Senate to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which sought to protect infants born after a botched abortion.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said the bill was “anti-doctor, anti-woman, and anti-family.” The head of the American Gynecologists named it a “gross interference into the practice of medicine, putting politicians between women and their trusted doctors.” Senator Sasse captured the clarity of the moment, saying, “I’m going to ask all one hundred senators to come to the floor and be against infanticide. This shouldn’t be complicated.” And on the floor, he said, “This isn’t about clumps of cells. This is fourth-trimester abortion.”

The Baby on the Senate Floor

The bill states, as unemotionally as I can impart, that a baby who has survived the abortion should be protected with the same rights as a child who was born otherwise (to parents who wanted him or her to live in the first place). In other words, should the murder get “botched,” the bill prevented the attempted murderer — after seeing the baby regrettably pass through the birth canal alive — from finishing the job. If the abortionist was thwarted by the defenseless child, the lab coat couldn’t have a second go. It sought to establish fair play outside of the American Colosseum.

A similar bill, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously(with full bipartisan support) back in 2002, but did not include criminal penalties for doctors, nor specify what medical care must actually be provided for the survivor. But the new bill states that anyone present would be legally obligated to protect the child and admit it into a hospital. Should anyone leave the baby to die on the table — after previously overseeing its torture — they could be charged with a fine and up to five years in prison. Should they take active means of killing the child, they could be tried for murder.

Schizophrenic Uncle Sam would go, should the bill pass, from funding such hits with taxpayer money, to punishing them, as he did on Kermit Gosnell, who is currently serving several life sentences for three counts of first-degree murder because he cut the spinal cords of three babies who survived botched abortions at his clinic. Jailed, not because he was an assassin, but because he cleaned up after shoddy attempts at assassination.

So, on Monday, the baby lay again on the Senate floor. Friendless. Wombless. Defenseless.

Separated from the “health issues” of his mother. A child with ears, hands, legs, eyes, and mouth — and “even the semblance of a brain.” Staring at this child — no cover of skin hiding it, no plantation boundaries veiling it, no concentration camps concealing it — 44 of 47 Democrat senators voted down the bill and left the child on the table. And there, the baby lies.

Where Will This End?

Have we forgotten how to weep? Oh, how I lament my own hardness of heart — how can I write these words with dry eyes?

After the angel of death executed judgment on the Egyptians, we are told, “There was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead” (Exodus 12:30). As Herod hands the weapon again to the second-rate angel of death and walks away, tweeting to his followers how he stood for women’s rights, do we cry a great cry? Do we share God’s horror at our ability to terminate pregnancy and infancy?

Make no mistake: God hates our child sacrifice at the altar of convenience. “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:21). Such giving up to Molech was unhesitatingly a capital offense (Leviticus 20:2). And should God’s people “close their eyes” and pretend like they did not see it, scrolling right past it in their news feeds, they too would incur God’s wrath (Leviticus 20:4–5). Child sacrifice is such an abomination before a holy God that it “did not even enter into his mind” (Jeremiah 32:25).

America is in the middle of a holocaust. Can we now, legally and otherwise, look at children out of the womb and kill them? In failing to pass this bill, our representatives have, for the meantime, given their answer. It’s no secret that we’ve been talking about killing babies all along — there it lies. And instead of nursing the child, we dispose of it. Instead of collecting fingerprints, we leave none behind. Lord, have mercy on us.