Pardon Me for Taking Sides!

Perhaps we should choose a presidential candidate who can stop airing personal grievances.

opinion by Paul Gottfried at American Greatness

Although he is a decidedly leftist and unmistakably anti-Trump columnist, Jeff Greenfield has offered a plausible reason for why so many conservative Republicans want Trump renominated for the presidency. Because these fans believe election rigging took place in 2020, they continue to view Donald Trump as our real president. They see him as a gravely wronged, bold leader, who fought the Left fearlessly but was denied a second term because of massive fraud.

Unlike Greenfield, I don’t find Trump’s grievances to be without merit, and I can fully understand the anger directed against those in the Republican establishment who reacted to the results of the last presidential election with joy or relief. I, too, experienced some of the angry disgust noted by Greenfield after the election. Even now, when I read Julie Kelly or Molly Hemingway on election rigging, I am reminded of how furious I was when Trump-haters praised the honesty of the 2020 presidential election.

But our feeling about being cheated in a previous election does not amount to a justification for nominating Trump one more time. The former president missed the chance to head off some of his troubles by not sending multitudes of Republican attorneys long in advance to prevent the constitutionally dubious arrangements by which state Democratic officials were able to change voting procedures. Afterward, Trump could have articulated his procedural objections coherently and with suitable evidence instead of repeatedly exploding on TV, like an unhappy child.

The instructions that Trump gave Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the received election results predictably backfired and caused the outgoing president to be attacked by the international media for trying to overthrow the American government. (Of course, the Democrats were already tending to that task full-time.) And though we can recognize the malicious hyperbole of his enemies in the media, Trump’s response to the official election outcome showed defective leadership. For this, he was certainly responsible. If an unscrupulous enemy pushes you into rash acts, you are nevertheless responsible for your impulsive actions.

Trump also failed, as Pedro Gonzalez has observed, to come to the aid of his followers from January 6, who have been kept in prison in truly appalling conditions down to the present day. Trump could have granted these victims of Democratic brutality a pardon before leaving office. At the very least, he should have called attention to their cause instead of focusing single-mindedly on his own.

Further, even while recognizing that Trump was treated unfairly throughout his presidency, do we really want a Republican candidate who can’t or won’t turn the page? Douglas Murray may be right that another Trump-Biden contest may become a replay of 2020. Pitting Trump against Biden, according to Murray, would amount to a “clown show” that most Americans have no interest in attending. Perhaps we should choose a presidential candidate who can stop airing personal grievances. 

Is the best way to deal with such grievances in any case to organize a do-over contest, featuring the same cast? Quite possibly, the previous outcome might repeat itself. Further, dwelling on being cheated in the past does not prepare us for future challenges. Perhaps the best remedy for dealing with our justified complaints is to take all possible actions to make sure the wrongs in question don’t happen again. Keeping the Democrats from winning elections, without campaigning and with minimally sentient candidates, and then from weaponizing the permanent state against Republicans should be more important to conservatives than Trump’s political future. Unless certain first-order obstacles are removed, no Republican candidate is likely to win. Having Trump complain about his loss and his personal adversaries for one more presidential campaign won’t improve our political situation. 

Finally, conservatives should be looking for a candidate who presents his positions both forcefully and reflectively. Josh Hammer, in a recent column, reminds us of DeSantis’ measured statements about how he plans to deal with the deep state and particularly with the dangerous politicization of the Justice Department and FBI. DeSantis goes well beyond lamenting the misdeeds of “very bad people.” He offers concrete, concisely stated plans for removing those problems. To his credit, DeSantis does not lapse into emotional outbursts against his personal enemies; nor does he call his Republican challengers childish, insulting names. It may be an unintended compliment that DeSantis’ critics ridicule his rationality as well as his relentless war against the woke Left.

According to Hammer: 

The 2024 Republican presidential primary is shaping up to become a grand battle royale between an eccentric, larger-than-life Baby Boomer who obsesses over relitigating the last election and is constantly distracted by self-imposed wounds and personal grievances, and on the other hand, an extremely disciplined, mission-oriented Gen X conservative who single-handedly made the nation’s largest swing state ruby-red and has overseen the implementation of the most transformative right-wing agenda in modern American history. That is the basic choice.

I couldn’t have framed the choice better myself. 

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 4

 

End American Gerontocracy

As America loses its competitive edge, it is imperative we get younger, scrappier, hungrier men and women in positions of prominence.

posted by Josh Hammer at Newsweek

Joe Biden’s viscerally jarring fall on Thursday in Colorado Springs, while on stage dispensing diplomas to new U.S. Air Force Academy graduates, underscores a terrifying reality: The octogenarian denizen of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, palpably in the throes of debilitating mental and physical senescence, is not well. The sight of the commander-in-chief physically falling in front of a graduating Air Force Academy class, no less, is outright depressing to active-duty servicemen and telegraphs national weakness to America’s many adversaries abroad.

Make no mistake about it: Joe Biden is an absolutely massive liability as president of the United States, in charge of the nuclear football and primarily responsible for issues of war and peace. His vice presidential junior sidekick and would-be successor, the cackling nincompoop Kamala Harris, may well be totally insufferable, but this column has argued—and still maintains—that Biden should resign for the good of the country. At a bare minimum, it is foolish and selfish in the extreme for the doddering dolt from Delaware to seek reelection in 2024.

Biden’s Centennial State fall is hardly the only recent example of a high-ranking senior citizen appearing less-than-stellar in the public eye. The 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose political career first began in 1970 (one year before Biden’s), recently missed over two months of senatorial work while recovering from a nasty bout of shingles and encephalitis. When she finally made her way back to the Capitol, Feinstein, in the words of a May 18 New York Times article, “appeared shockingly diminished.” Since returning, the now-wheelchair-bound Feinstein has required additional staff assistance to merely cast her votes and has apparently forgotten she was ever out of commission to begin with: “No, I haven’t been gone,” she told Slate on May 16. Come again?

Overall, an incredible 68 percent of U.S. senators in the current Congress are aged 60 or older. The single most popular subgroup, at a whopping 34 percent of the putative “world’s greatest deliberative body,” is the sexagenarians—most of whom are old enough to receive Social Security benefits. The constitutional minimum age for being a U.S. senator is 30, but the cumulative share of senators in the current Congress  under the age of 50 is a paltry 10 percent. There are three times as many senators in the current Congress aged 70-79 than there are senators aged 30-39. That ought to be alarming—these men and women are charged with decisions pertaining to declaring war and assessing our most sensitive intelligence, among other crucial matters. As for the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett is the youngest justice at age 51, and five of the nine black-robed oracles are old enough to potentially receive Social Security benefits.

Nor, of course, is American gerontocracy limited to the political and judicial arenas. As American Affairs Editor Julius Krein wrote in a 2020 essay: “The average ages of university professors and administrators, banking executives and corporate CEOs, and many other leading figures have all been steadily rising for some time. Perhaps Silicon Valley has been so successful precisely because it is the only place in America where people who are not on the cusp of senility can get promoted or raise capital. Conversely, perhaps the pharma lobby is so successful because it is not only the biggest donor but probably the largest vendor to the assisted living facility that is Congress.”

Even holding aside the obvious civilizational pitfalls and national security risks of placing issues of war and peace in the hands of so many Baby Boomers (and even some from the Silent Generation that preceded the Boomers), there is a more fundamental problem here that cuts to the very core of the rot now afflicting so many once-great American institutions. That problem, from higher education to the Fortune 500 boardroom to the political arena, can in one sense be summarized as a failure of long-term vision. Just as “short-termism” in the boardroom can take over and misdirect the market’s “invisible hand” away from the general welfare of the broader community, so too are politicians incentivized to merely care about their impending short-term election results, rather than leading with any grand vision or presenting any grand strategy.

It is extremely difficult to foresee how this situation might be remedied so long as the elderly generations, which are more wedded to outmoded conventions and definitionally more prone to short-term thinking than the more longer-term-thinking younger generations, remain in power. As a Millennial conservative commentator myself, I know all too well the dangers of letting the Boomer conservatives—or “BoomerCons”—continue leading us astray and repackaging stale 1984 dogma instead of advancing cutting-edge 2023 solutions that actually deal with our present problems.

As America loses its competitive edge in increasingly more areas and as China rises to unprecedented heights in our new 21st-century great power competition, it is imperative that we get younger, scrappier, hungrier men and women in positions of prominence across the countless institutions comprising the nation’s public and civic life. Private entities should increasingly utilize mandatory retirement ages, and the Constitution should be amended to mandate retirement ages for all constitutional oath-taking actors in the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These are nonpartisan, commonsense steps to help reinvigorate our sclerotic, late-stage republic.

Unfortunately, polling for the 2024 Republican presidential primary is currently dominated by a highly visible Boomer. That Boomer, in many ways, embodies the follies of his generation. As Republicans gear up to take on the oldest president in American history next year, perhaps their chances would be buoyed if they were to instead nominate a younger, scrappier, hungrier Gen Xer. Perhaps that Gen X conservative might even be a highly successful governor of one of the nation’s largest states, known for his ruthless competence and broader worldview orientation toward American renewal.

Wouldn’t that be something?

What State Harassment and Institutional Terror in Woke America Looks Like

Conservatives cannot afford to stay cowed any longer. 
The VDare case shows why. 

by John Kline for American Greatness

A federal court ruling likely to drop this month should provide a good indication as to whether America still has a fully functioning First World justice system. The case, involving an investigation from New York Attorney General Letitia James into the supposed mismanagement of controversial news outlet VDare.com, has received zero media coverage so far, despite it being as crude, brutish, and nakedly political as James’ other lawfare campaigns (notably against former President Trump and the NRA). In fact, it’s arguably worse, as it was clearly designed to dox VDare’s writers and volunteers and bankrupt the tiny outlet out of existence.

In a recent column about James’ investigation, VDare founder and editor Peter Brimelow recounts with frustration the increasing difficulty his outlet has had in spreading its advocacy of “immigration patriotism” over the years. This includes being blocked by social media and payment processors, potential advertisers being subjected to Anti-Defamation League-style intimidation campaigns, and even lawyers and accountants being unwilling to help the group publicly. Its very ability to exist online was threatened a few years back when a black supremacist lawyer now leading the Justice Department’s Civil Rights section tried to pressure its registrar into delisting its domain.

Considering Brimelow is a bestselling author, a reputable financial journalist going back decades, and, according to him, someone who has not changed his views on immigration, diversity, and racial issues generally since he was writing about them in National Review years back, the increasing prejudice and character attacks do draw sympathy as well as a considerable amount of head-scratching.

Post-Trump, it is basically impossible for the group to host anything publicly, as its forced conference cancelations can attest (“more than a dozen,” Brimelow says). In a 2017 case that should have created a national furor, a VDare conference scheduled in Colorado Springs was met with an announcement by city mayor John Suthers that he would direct local police not to protect the venue in case Antifa or BLM protesters showed up. Considering this was quite literally an open invitation to cause violence, venue management understandably canceled the event.

Even in light of all this, Brimelow says James’ current attack is the “most serious threat” he and his wife and VDare-partner, Lydia, have ever faced in the outlet’s 24-year history.

Among the claims James is investigating is that VDare’s New York-registered foundation has been dormant for some years. (Says Brimelow: “We were working through another foundation registered in a different state. This is why we made no further filings: they were not necessary.”) She also alleges the Brimelows are taking advantage of a conference center bought by their nonprofit (a historic house in West Virginia) by living in it rent-free (something that is palpably not true, they assert). James also claims VDare’s board is solely overseen by Brimelow family members (again, not true, they assert, but, in any case, not abnormal). Oddly, she further impugns the fact that the Brimelows failed to specify in VDare filings that they are married.

Finally, James asserts that the conference center was bought by the Brimelows’ foundation but then transferred to a for-profit corporation controlled by Peter’s wife. But according to tax records available on VDare’s site, it’s not Lydia, but the same foundation that actually controls it. As Peter wryly states in his column: “FOR THE RECORD: every step of the [conference center] transaction was carefully monitored by expensive lawyers—because we were well aware that we were susceptible to scrutiny by a malicious and unscrupulous politically motivated regulator.”

Considering the investigator in question, the real motivation behind the charges certainly deserves strong skepticism. Having campaigned for her attorney general position by promising to go after Trump without even specifying on what basis (just like New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg), James has tainted everything she touches. Around 100,000 charities are registered in New York, and the number of open investigations being pursued by the attorney general’s charity bureau cannot be more than a few dozen. And, again, Brimelow’s operation deals primarily with West Virginia and effectively has had no ties to New York for some years.

But even if dismissed by the courts as meritless, just by opening an investigation, James knows the costs to the organization will be destructive. Peter Brimelow says, in addition to severely limiting VDare’s normal operations, the compliance costs to the small, two-employee outlet have so far topped $300,000. This mainly involves complying with James’ mammoth subpoena, which encompasses close to 50 separate demands for internal documents, nearly all of them wildly improper, Brimelow explains. Among them is a perplexing order to produce deposition transcripts from his 2019 defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, something that appears to have zero relevance to James’ role as a charity regulator.

Then there is the aforementioned and highly disturbing demand that Brimelow hand over “[d]ocuments sufficient to identify” the names and addresses of all of VDare’s past and present employees, volunteers, and independent contractors, including the many pseudonymous writers VDare publishes. Considering such information is clearly unnecessary to investigate Brimelow’s own supposed misconduct, one can fairly conclude James’ subpoena is simply designed to dox and intimidate and is steeped in political discrimination. (James’s office has leaked GOP donor information before.) New York state and congressional Republicans, as well as privacy advocates generally, should be condemning her attacks in the strongest terms possible.  

Despite their good-faith efforts to comply with James’ bad-faith subpoena, continued, unyielding pressure from James’ office has forced the Brimelows to file a federal lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the First Amendment rights of its past and present contractors, etc., are being violated (the decision we should be getting soon). 

In his column, Brimelow alleges James’ office initially asked for an extension of the three-week response time to their federal claim because an attorney working the case came down with COVID. But that was a ruse. According to Brimelow, the point of the extension was to allow James’ team to stealthily file a state court petition in ultra-friendly Manhattan to force VDare to comply with the subpoena’s demands.

Filed on a special expedited basis, the petition was intended to secure a ruling on the subpoena before a decision could be rendered in Brimelow’s federal claims—something which state courts usually await before issuing their own ruling. Unfortunately, earlier this year, that special and rarely-awarded request was granted to James, and with the “unprecedented speed” of a single business day after it was filed, by Manhattan judge and Democrat Sabrina Kraus—Kraus gave James everything she wanted, basically. If Peter’s claims are true and James lied about her fellow attorney’s COVID, this would be a striking level of professional malfeasance even for her.

Now, on top of seeking to enjoin James’ subpoena entirely on First Amendment grounds, the Brimelows are mounting an ethics complaint against James and demanding her disbarment.

American conservatives should send the Brimelows their support and wish them all the best in their David-versus-Goliath-esque battle. Not defending them against such a patent abuse of power is to display the same disregard for justice and fairness that James is guilty of—Brimelow’s former employers at the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and, yes, National Review have so far been silent about James’ clear abuse of state power.

And after all, no conservative advocacy group will be unaffected should VDare get taken down. The Southern Poverty Law Center labels VDare as a “designated hate group,” but it did not always. It took years of conservatives looking the other way for Democratic Party attack dogs like the SPLC to shift its defamation campaign from cartoonish KKK-types to immigration reform groups, like VDare, until, finally, they came for Christian and other conservative groups as well. That shift will happen with Democrat-run apparatuses of state and private power too, if it has not already. 

As Evangelist Franklin Graham recently warned after the Family Research Council was de-banked by “junior staffers” before being reinstated by the bank’s president: “Listen, those junior people—guess what—are gonna be in the next five or 10 years the senior people.” For American justice (as opposed to “their” justice) to prevail, conservatives cannot afford to stay cowed any longer.

No Forgiveness For Pandemic Sins Until The Guilty Repent

The people who abused their power and imposed tyranny during the pandemic will do it again if we don’t hold them accountable.

by John Daniel Davidson for The Federalist

Christianity Today published a curious piece by Paul Miller on Thursday calling for everyone to forgive each other for our supposed “pandemic sins.”

He doesn’t exactly say who sinned, just that “We got things wrong,” and “Some officials made mistakes in the early days.” Things happened. Mistakes were made. It’s time to move on. Miller’s argument is basically a warmed-over, lightly Christianized version of the essay Brown University economics professor Emily Oster wrote for The Atlantic last November, which argued for a “pandemic amnesty” on account of how “uncertain” and “complicated” things were in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic like Covid. The ruling class did its best, OK? 

Oster’s piece elicited well-deserved scorn from many on the right, including our own Joy Pullmann, who noted that a genuine amnesty “requires an admission of guilt and a commitment to repairing the wrongs done.” The absence of such an admission and commitment to change, says Pullmann, is “an indication that you’re going to do it again,” and makes it impossible to rebuild trust.

Of course, the people responsible for shutting down the economy, closing schools and churches, destroying countless businesses, and condemning the elderly to die alone in their hospital rooms are not at all sorry about what they did. To this day, they don’t acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever. Certainly not Anthony Fauci, who in an April interview with The New York Times defiantly faulted ordinary Americans for failing to listen to him, the self-proclaimed embodiment of science.

The same people who needlessly imposed massive learning losses on schoolchildren, or barred families from burying their dead, then foisted an ineffective vaccine on the public and tried to shame or coerce everyone into taking it, regardless of their age or health status. Plenty of Americans, including those in the military and medical professions, were faced with the terrible choice of taking a shot they didn’t trust or losing their careers and livelihoods.

None of the people who did this are sorry about it. In fact, they’re proud of it — and they will absolutely do it again the next chance they get. Here’s the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mandy Cohen, jokingly relating how she and her fellow health officials came up with draconian mandates during Covid:

Notice the phrase “let them.” These people felt — and still feel — that the freedom to run your business, attend school, go to church, gather together with friends and family, all these things are entirely contingent on whether Mandy Cohen and her colleagues let you.

In this context, arguing for forgiveness or amnesty is really just calling for a total lack of accountability for the people who did real lasting harm to the entire country. Just as amnesty requires admission of wrongdoing, so too does forgiveness require repentance. It also requires justice and accountability. But none of the very powerful people who made cruel and ruinous decisions during the pandemic have asked for forgiveness or even acknowledged their devastating failures. None of them have been held accountable. There has been no justice.

Miller focuses much of his essay on the question of church closures, urging unnamed churchgoers to “extend grace to one another.” That’s fine advice as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far in this debate, since the main culprits here aren’t the pastors and clergy who caved to public health orders to close their doors. They were wrong to cave, but the blame ultimately rests with the officials who issued those orders — and who will issue them again the next time something like Covid comes along. There is zero reason to “forgive” those people, because they believe, to this day, that they were justified in their wrongdoing.

It’s worth noting, too, the unbelievable hypocrisy of a publication like Christianity Today running a piece like this. As some commentators noted, during the pandemic, CT was outspoken in pushing for mask and vaccine mandates as well as school and business closures, and it shamed everyone who dissented as a bad Christian.

Daily Wire reporter Megan Basham replied to CT’s tweet of the article by saying, “Sure, as soon as you all admit that you are now disqualified to hold any sort of church leadership or to speak with any sort of authority on anything of spiritual significance because in the moment of crisis you chose to heap legalistic burdens on your brothers and sisters in order to retain an alliance with the influential and powerful.”

She also noted that evangelical leaders like Russell Moore partnered with the former director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, using CT as a vehicle to push regime propaganda during the pandemic.

My colleague Sean Davis put it more bluntly: “You told people they were bad Christians and risked going to Hell if they went to church, didn’t wear masks, or refused a dud vaccine. Repent for what you did, acknowledge the damage you inflicted on the church, and seek forgiveness. Until then: shut up, you little snakes.”

With apologies to Miller, that about sums it up. No forgiveness without repentance. And no forgetting what the ruling class did to this country. Ever. 

Alarming Trend: Most Americans Unaware They're Ingesting Deadly Fentanyl

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

The migrant crisis has carried with it several deleterious issues for the country, one of which is the terrifying increase in overdose deaths due to fentanyl. New data confirms what many suspect about the rate of deaths the opioid has caused: Most of those who ingest the drug are not aware that they are ingesting it. This has led to tens of thousands of overdose deaths, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is still unable – or unwilling – to address the problem:

More than 80% of New Yorkers who inject drugs test positive for the opioid fentanyl, despite only 18% reporting using it intentionally, according to a new study by researchers at the NYU School of Global Public Health.

The findings, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, suggest that many people who inject drugs are unknowingly using fentanyl, which may increase their risk for overdose and potentially their tolerance to fentanyl if it is used over time.

In 2021, more than 100,000 people died of a drug overdose in the United States, with 66% of these deaths involving illicit fentanyl—a synthetic opioid that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine

Much of the fentanyl being consumed by unsuspecting Americans is being trafficked by Mexican drug cartels over the southern border. These entities have been taking advantage of the ongoing migrant crisis to smuggle the opioid into the country, where it is laced into common street drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, and even marijuana.

Overdose deaths are already a serious issue. But the problem becomes even more pronounced after acknowledging that foreign entities are essentially poisoning Americans. This is nothing short of wholesale murder being carried out by Mexican drug cartels with the help of Chinese manufacturers who help to supply them. Unfortunately, these tragic deaths will persist as long as the Biden administration continues to allow this problem to persist.

Border authorities along with other federal law enforcement organizations have been doing their best to prevent the proliferation of the opioid into communities across the country. The Drug Enforcement Agency announced that it seized over 379 million deadly fentanyl doses in 2022. But how much more have traffickers been able to get into the country without being caught?

Unfortunately, the Biden administration still seems flummoxed when it comes to dealing with this issue. Having reversed most of former President Donald Trump’s border policies, the president and his team have struggled to find other ways to address the problem. With border authorities stretched thin due to the constant influx of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, it has been difficult to stop traffickers from smuggling fentanyl into the country.

Republicans in Congress have called on the White House to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations, which would allow the government to do more to stop these bad actors from continuing to murder Americans by poisoning them with fentanyl. So far, the White House has not made any real moves in this direction nor has it taken serious action to curb the activities of the cartels. The president has also done little to deal with the Chinese Communist Party, which has assisted the cartels in manufacturing the opioid before it is smuggled into the United States. The harsh reality is that this will likely be the state of things until there is another president in the White House who is willing to take this issue seriously.

Viral Margaret Sanger Clip Reminds Us That Planned Parenthood Victimizes The Vulnerable

A resurfaced clip of a 1957 interview between Margaret Sanger and Mike Wallace exposes the depravity of Planned Parenthood’s founder.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso reporting for The Federalist

A now-viral clip of a 1957 interview between Margaret Sanger and Mike Wallace is exposing the depravity of Planned Parenthood’s founder. The clip reveals to millions the eugenicist origins of America’s largest abortion provider, which since its founding has preyed on the vulnerable, from the poor and disabled to the gender confused.

“Do you believe in sin?” asked Wallace. “When I say believe, I don’t mean you believe in committing sin; I mean do you believe there is such a thing as sin?” he added. “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically,” responded Sanger. “Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That, to me, is the greatest sin that people can commit.”

The clip, which has reached nearly 800,000 people on Instagram and over two million on Twitter, plainly lays out Sanger’s eugenic beliefs. If you were poor, mentally or physically disabled, nonwhite, or had a criminal history, Margaret Sanger did not think you should have children.

While some individual Planned Parenthood clinics tried distancing themselves from Sanger, her eugenic goals are still being met by the organization she founded. Studies show that babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted at a rate of somewhere between 60-90 percent in the United States. Townhall reported that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in or near African American and Latino neighborhoods, and another study found black women in New York City have more abortions than live births. 

In the 1990s, Planned Parenthood’s first Black female president, Faye Wattleton, admitted her organization’s donor base includes people who want “all welfare mothers and all black women to stop having children.” But since then, Planned Parenthood has made racism, ableism, and classism a more implicit feature of their organization. However, enthusiastic abortion supporters haven’t quite caught on, and many still proudly endorse the eugenic incentives behind the abortion industry.

Sanger once said, “Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most.” This statement could very well have been uttered by Democrat Representatives like Katie Porter and Gwen Moore.

On MSNBC, Porter said families can abort their children to survive Joe Biden’s inflationary economy. Similarly, during a House of Representatives debate over the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, Wisconsin Congresswoman Gwen Moore suggested it would be better for unborn children to be aborted than grow up poor eating “ramen noodles” and “mayonnaise sandwiches.”

And “The View” co-host Ana Navarro may well have used Sanger’s favorite term, “feebleminded,” when she said it would be better to kill preborn disabled children than to give them a shot at life.

Today, Planned Parenthood has expanded its exploitative and harmful money-making tactics to include the transgender industry. Last month, Live Action reported that Planned Parenthood is now “the second-largest provider of transgender-related services in the nation.”

Life News stated the organization appears to be “giving out hormone prescriptions like candy to any child or adult who wants them,” with multiple people claiming Planned Parenthood doctors prescribed them cross-sex hormones and recommended they undergo transgender surgery without in-person consultations.

“In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit,” reads Planned Parenthood’s website. “No letter from a mental health provider is required.”

“I was going through a period where I was just really isolated at school, so I turned to the Internet,” said 23-year-old Helena Kerschner. “My dysphoria was definitely triggered by this online community. I never thought about my gender or had a problem with being a girl before going on Tumblr,” she added.

Kerschner was given a testosterone prescription after one visit to Planned Parenthood and without seeing a doctor. She later realized that the prescription she was given was four times the normal dose, and after experiencing severe psychological side effects, she quit taking hormones.

Planned Parenthood’s financial report deceptively lumps together its “Gender-affirming services” (GAC) with its “Other Procedures, Women and Men” (WIC) services. However, it should be noted that from 2020 to 2021, this combined GAC and WIC category rose by over 1500% since the previous fiscal year in terms of services provided.

Planned Parenthood has taken advantage of every “underprivileged” demographic that it claims to support via its alignment with wokeism, including minorities, the poor, the physically disabled, and the mentally unwell. And we, the American taxpayer, are subsidizing its damaging and predacious behavior.

Live Action reported that the organization now receives over $1.8 million from taxpayers every day, and Planned Parenthood’s “excess revenue over expenses now stands at a whopping $204.7 million, the highest amount of profit recorded since 2017.” Margaret Sanger pioneered a business out of victimizing the vulnerable. Her contemporary proteges have diligently carried out her goals, and they’re making big bucks doing it.

Surprising Survey Shows Even Democrats Reject Extreme Transgender Ideology for Kids

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

It’s Pride Month again, which means conservatives and progressives on the airwaves and interwebs are re-engaged in the typical rhetorical donnybrook over issues pertaining to the LGBTQ community. While conservatives have been pushing boycotts of various corporations, data suggests they might have more success in the culture war if they focused on an issue on which they would have more widespread support: children.

On the right, politicians and influencers alike have been pushing boycotts of companies like Bud Light, Target, Kohls, and a slew of others due to their embrace of LGBTQ politics. These particular cases have been hotly debated among the opinion molders of society. The country is deeply divided on the matter, with some supporting the corporate pandering and others pushing back against it.

Yet another poll showed that there are topics on which most Republicans and Democrats agree – and each of them is related to the movement to “trans” minors. Rasmussen published the results of a survey showing that 62 percent of Americans approve of laws banning sex change surgeries for minors. This isn’t surprising given that most of the country is still sane for the time being.

But even among Democratic respondents, most supported these laws. About 56 percent indicated they favored laws passed in red states that prohibit surgical treatments for children suffering from gender dysphoria.

Rasmussen’s survey also found that 54 percent of Democrats believe hormone replacement therapy for children should be illegal. This is yet another poll showing that even most Democrats are not on board with the movement to trans children. Indeed, several such surveys show that folks who vote Democrat do not support the extreme “progressive” agenda on these issues. In 2022, a poll revealed that a majority of Democratic voters supported Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, which disallowed instruction on sexuality and gender identity for small children.

This is a hot-button issue on which most Americans can come together, with conservatives and libertarians leading the charge, unlike the debate over Pride Month and corporations. This isn’t to say that pushing back on woke corporatism is not a worthy endeavor. But strategically, it will not be as beneficial for conservatives who want to expose the left’s most pernicious agenda when it comes to children.

To put it simply, the push to promote transgender ideology among children is one of the Democratic Party’s most glaring weaknesses – especially among those who call themselves progressive. It is the reason why they rarely offer direct defenses for pushing drag shows for kids, inappropriate material in classrooms, and “gender-affirming care” for minors. Instead, they lie about it. They claim these things are not happening, or are not widespread. They falsely accuse detractors of simply wanting to “ban books” and discriminate against children dealing with gender dysphoria. The majority of their arguments are based on falsehoods and deflections.

There is a reason for that.

The reason is that sexualizing children and encouraging them to identify as the opposite sex is indefensible. Most people, regardless of political affiliation, know this is the case, which is why Democrats arguing in favor of these things have to engage in deception and subterfuge. When conservatives make this the top priority when it comes to the sexuality/gender debate, this will be an easy battle to win if they prioritize this issue over the others.