INSANITY: 27-Year-Old Man Plans to Sue His Parents for Having Him Without His Consent

A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents — with whom he admits to having a good relationship — because they brought him into the world without his consent. . .

Raphael Samuel of New Delhi said that children aren’t indebted to their parents and that children should ask their mothers and fathers “for an explanation as to why they gave birth to you.”

“I want to tell all Indian kids that they don’t owe their parents anything,” Samuel told India’s The Print. “I love my parents, and we have a great relationship, but they had me for their joy and their pleasure.” . . .

Samuel’s belief is part of a system called “anti-natalism,” which promotes the notion that children shouldn’t be forced to be born, especially at the expense of the planet. . .

The outlet reported that Samuel runs a Facebook page called “Nihilanand,” which boasts a whopping 800 followers. You can find various memes and videos advocating for allowing the human race to die. (Read more from “INSANITY: 27-Year-Old Man Plans to Sue His Parents for Having Him Without His Consent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Fairfax Said His Accuser Should Be Respected — but He Said Something Far Worse in Private

By The Blaze. In the most recent outlandish development in Democratic politics from the state of Virginia, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax reportedly lashed out at his sexual assault accuser with a profane insult, before publicly asking she be respected.

A report said that Fairfax responded by exclaiming, “f**k that b**ch!” which many saw as falling far short of the new standards set by the “Me Too” movement against sexual harassment.

Fairfax reportedly made the comments on Monday at a private meeting, but they leaked out to reporters by Wednesday.

Dr. Vanessa Tyson accused Fairfax of forcing her to perform oral sex on him at the Democratic National Convention. She released a very detailed and disturbing statement about her accusations. (Read more from “Fairfax Said His Accuser Should Be Respected — but He Said Something Far Worse in Private” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Virginia Lt. Gov. Fairfax Reportedly Made Some Profane Comments About His Accuser Amid Sexual Assault Allegations

By Townhall. . .Tyson, a professor at Scripps College, alleged that Fairfax had physically forced her to perform oral sex in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention.

Fairfax strongly denied the allegation in a statement Wednesday, saying that the encounter was “consensual.”

“I would like to encourage the media, my supporters, and others to treat both the woman who made this allegation and my family with respect for how painful this situation can be for everyone involved,” he wrote. “I wish her no harm or humiliation, nor do I seek to denigrate her or diminish her voice. But I cannot agree with a description of events that I know is not true.”

Virginia Democrats have been scandal-ridden this past week. Gov. Ralph Northam’s shocking medical school yearbook photo of someone in blackface and another person in a KKK hood surfaced and, in a press conference Saturday, he admitted to wearing blackface for a dance competition.

Fairfax implied that Gov. Northam was behind his sexual assault allegations coming out shortly after the yearbook photo. (Read more from “Virginia Lt. Gov. Fairfax Reportedly Made Some Profane Comments About His Accuser Amid Sexual Assault Allegations” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Nancy Pelosi Reveals Her Repulsive View on Late-Term Abortion

By The Daily Caller. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded Wednesday to President Donald Trump’s call for legislation to ban late-term abortion by saying it’s a “sad thing.”

“It’s really quite a sad thing when you know that we’ll be talking about something that applies to the health and life — health and ability to have other children of women,” she said when asked by The Daily Caller. “I hope that in his family, he never has to face that crisis and apply his attitude toward it.”

During his State of the Union speech, President Trump expressed to lawmakers, “To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.” (Read more from “Nancy Pelosi Reveals Her Repulsive View on Late-Term Abortion” HERE)

__________________________________________

On Abortion, Trump Agenda Likely Leads to Supreme Court, Not Congress

By Reuters. President Donald Trump urged lawmakers in his State of the Union address to put new limits on abortion, but partisan division in the U.S. Congress means the Supreme Court likely will set the agenda on the divisive issue, as it has for decades.

Bolstered by Trump’s appointment of two conservative justices, the nine-member court could soon begin to pare back abortion rights, starting with a major case from Louisiana that is one of several similar pending appeals.

The addition of Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could alter the conservative-majority court’s approach to abortion. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed abortion rights in key rulings in 1992 and 2016. (Read more from “On Abortion, Trump Agenda Likely Leads to Supreme Court, Not Congress” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Infanticide Is the Historical Hallmark of a Pagan Culture

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who just made deeply troubling comments on abortion, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who just signed the country’s most radical abortion law, have been the subject of intense ire in recent days. The outrage is coming not just coming from “radical” pro-lifers, but people from across the political spectrum.

Why? Because virtually no one but the far left believes it is morally acceptable to allow infants to be murdered seconds before birth, or to be left to die after delivery at the behest of the mother.

Yet the nation has been shocked by radical left’s boldness in their mission to define preborn human beings as disposable non-persons. Where is this evil coming from, and how do we stop it?

The Slaughter of the Young and the Elderly

Abortion and infanticide have historically been common practices. In the first century AD, infanticide was a common and culturally accepted practice across the world. The murder of infants was a regular occurrence in Europe into the Middle Ages and beyond, despite being condemned by both church and state.

The practice was not confined to the desperate, illiterate, impoverished masses, as if “enlightened” thinkers knew better. The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, admired by Cicero, contains the command that, “A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.”

Likewise, the wealthy first century Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote, “We doom scabby sheep to the knife, lest they should infect our flocks. We destroy monstrous births, and we also drown our children if they are born weakly or unnaturally formed; to separate what is useless from what is sound is an act, not of anger, but of reason.” This from a Stoic, who supposedly believed virtue to be the highest good. Notably, Seneca was Nero’s tutor.

Infanticide was an acknowledged option for any child who was deformed, sickly, of uncertain paternity, the wrong sex, or simply unnecessary to the household. Aristotle, revered by many a university professor, wrote that, “As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared,” and “if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it before it has developed sensation and life.”

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans all practiced child sacrifice to appease their gods. The Chimú civilization, located in what is now Peru, sacrificed more than 140 children at one time some 550 years ago. The children’s chests were slashed open, presumably to remove their hearts.

The citizens of the powerful ancient city Carthage in Phoenicia ritually sacrificed their infants. Archaeologists believe the preferred age of sacrificial infants was less than three months old. According to the writing of early AD Greek biographer Plutarch, “But with full knowledge and understanding [the Carthaginians] offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds.”

The residents of the broader region of Canaan (late second millennium B.C.) were condemned numerous times by the ancient prophets of Israel for their child sacrifice. The prophet Jeremiah, in his judgment against apostate Israel, foretold that the valley of Hinnom, where the Israelites were sacrificing children to Baal, would be called “the valley of Slaughter” (Jeremiah 19:5-6).

Evidence for both ritualistic and utilitarian murder can be gathered from around the globe. In times of famine, the Inuit would abandon the elderly (both with and without consent) or dispense of them by quicker means. The Bactrians of ancient Persia were reported to have fed their sick and elderly to dogs trained especially for this purpose. Nearby cultures were supposed to have had similar senicidal customs. Among the Massagetae, Herodotus wrote that, “Human life does not come to its natural close with this people,” but that the people sacrificed their elderly, boiled their flesh, and ate it.

Not every single community on earth had such evil practices, but the embrace of death as the first solution to a family or tribe’s problems has been wickedly banal, historically speaking.

Judeo-Christian Morality Has Saved Us from Much Evil

Northam’s endorsement of infanticide by exposure is only shocking because we have lived in a rare cultural moment in which infanticide is considered abhorrent. This extraordinary development is no accident. A sense of morality about life and death is not the product of evolution over the last 2,000 years. Rather, humanity’s progress out of death culture is due to nothing less than Judeo-Christian influence.

As formerly mentioned, the Christian God condemned child sacrifice through his prophets; Israelites were specifically commanded not to kill their children. The concept of bloodguilt is found throughout the Old Testament, even in cases where death was seemingly accidental.

Murder was an abomination. The blood of Abel, the first recorded murder victim in the Bible, “cried out” to the Lord from the ground. The gravity of taking a human life was no less firm among the followers of Jesus, who consider the Hebrew scriptures the word of God. As the gospel spread, so did the idea that all human life is precious.

The belief in the sanctity of life overrode even the commonly accepted practice of abortion. Contrast the evil of Aristotle’s belief with what Tertullian, an early church father, wrote in “Apologia”: “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb…To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.”

Elsewhere, he wrote: “Thus, you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremias: ‘Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.’ If God forms us in the womb, He also breathes on us as He did in the beginning: ‘And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life.’…Was it, then, a dead body at that stage? Surely it was not, for ‘God is the God of the living and not the dead.’”

As Tertullian recounted, believers in the early church would search through the heaps of refuse in Roman cities and rescue infants from among the refuse and broken pottery. There is archaeological evidence to support the fact that infants were thrown in the trash or into the sewer, sometimes deliberately killed instead of being out left to die by exposure. That children should never be trash was a revolutionary concept in the early centuries after Christ.

The fourth century Roman emperor Constantine, who is generally believed to have converted to Christianity and was at the very least influenced by it, considered infanticide a crime. Later, Emperor Valentinian, also a professed Christian, officially outlawed the practice by requiring that all children be reared.

Since that time, the belief that God made man in his own image and set him apart from the rest of creation for communion with his creator, that he is “fearfully and wonderfully made,” and that therefore God’s prohibition against murder is to be upheld, has been the basis for the protection of human life.

Christianity Deeply Shaped the Early Days Of America

Infanticide was outlawed in colonial America. The earliest recorded execution for infanticide was in 1648 in Massachusetts. Similar court cases from the 17th and early 18th century are found in Maryland, Maine, Virginia, and New York. Abortion was also a prosecutable offense. Between 1670 and 1807, there were 51 convictions of infanticide in Massachusetts.

The seriousness with which our forefathers considered the murder of children was not due to the influence of the “great” philosophizing of Aristotle, Seneca, or Cicero. It was due to the Christian faith. It is Christians who have historically run orphanages, adoption agencies, and pregnancy clinics. It is Christians who advocate most fiercely for heartbeat bills and abolition. It is Christians out on the sidewalk, day after day, begging women not to kill their babies and offering to connect them with church members who are willing to adopt. Christians take seriously the biblical command to “look after the orphan and widow in their distress.”

Where the kingdom of God* invades, death flees, both spiritually and physically. Where populations dwell in spiritual darkness, death finds favor. How can I know this for sure? How do I know our contemporary revulsion toward infanticide is not simply the result of human “progress” over the last two millennia? Because when Christianity is aggressively suppressed within a culture, as it has been under Communist and Socialist regimes, society chokes on the stench of death.

Recent Godless Regimes Did Not Value Human Life

Adolph Hitler’s genocidal socialist regime* practiced the euthanasia of “life unworthy of life” and murdered about six million Jews. Communist dictator Joseph Stalin had no qualms with mass starvation. A quarter of the Cambodian population died under Pol Pot. Altogether, godless collectivism led to the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century. Karl Marx’s philosophy implicitly assumed that some segments of the population must be “left behind” in the march toward utopia.

American culture has stood in stark contrast against this backdrop of death and misery, and it’s not because Anglo Americans are inherently better than any other people group. It is because this nation was founded on Christian principles, namely that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. First among those rights is life. The principles of Christianity have been deeply formative to American culture. Restraining evil and promoting prosperity bound us together with a common creed.

But as we are now witnessing, that influence is fading. Majority support for legal abortion has been steady for decades, and millennials are just as supportive of it as the previous two generations. We are less religious than ever, and it is no coincidence that the godless are some of the biggest proponents of late-term abortion and infanticide. Those who profess Christianity and publicly bless abortion clinics do so against the core teachings of their own faith––it is not an intramural dispute, but an aberration.

What we are seeing now is a return to a world that does not know God and does not want to know God. This is the consequence of our detachment from Christianity and its moral system. The truth is that you do not attain a culture where human life (albeit born life) is almost universally cherished without the knowledge of the one true God.

As the Apostle Paul reiterated from Old Testament writers: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God…Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The fact that we are surrounded by a wealth of resources and still 13 percent of all pregnancies in America and 28 percent in the state of New York end in murder should tell you something. This is not a matter of inequality of rights between the sexes or inequality of resources. It is a matter of the heart, and a heart without God is “desperately wicked.” The god of Progress has led its worshippers to embrace death as easily as the Canaanite gods that surrounded the people of Israel.

Where idolatry is not directly involved, a perceived lack of resources has, for millennia, been the excuse to choose death, not the reason. In such a wealthy and technologically advanced society, it is perhaps more obvious a truth now than it was 2,000 years ago, but the truth has always been there.

*I am not talking about the political Christendom of Europe and the Crusades. I am talking about the spiritual kingdom of God as referred to by Jesus and the New Testament writers.

**Before you tell me, “Hitler was a Christian!” watch this video of a “Christmas tree” with a Swastika suspended over the top. Hitler also is reported to have said, “I’ll have my reckoning with the church. I’ll have it reeling on the ropes.” The Nazis who surrounded Hitler deeply hated Christianity and wanted to see it destroyed.

(For more from the author of “Infanticide Is the Historical Hallmark of a Pagan Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

1000+ Top Scientists Challenge the Massive Fraud of Evolution

With Darwin Day, February 12, approaching, it’s good to report that the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list currently tops a thousand names of PhD scientists who publicly declare their skepticism in the face of absolutist claims for evolutionary theory. The key word there is “publicly.”

February 12 is Charles Darwin’s birthday…The Dissent statement represents a splash of cold water on the great man. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The signers hold professorships or doctorates from Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Berkeley, MIT, UCLA, the University of Pennsylvania, and many other prominent institutions. . .

The nonexistence of scientific skepticism was only natural since, as Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott would say in 2009, “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.” See here for the “The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution.”

What’s significant about the Dissent from Darwinism list is not so much the names and the institutions listed there but what they tell you about the many Darwin skeptics in the science world who wouldn’t dare sign. Scientists know the career costs that would come from publicly challenging evolutionary theory. Discovery Institute and its sister research lab, Biologic Institute, have welcomed refugees who were chased out of top spots in the research world. Douglas Axe, Günter Bechly, and Richard Sternberg are well known to Evolution News readers. Check out the Free Science website for other stories. . .

The signers of the Dissent list have all risked their careers or reputations in signing. Such is the power of groupthink. The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that “the scientists” are all in agreement and only “poets,” “lawyers,” and other “daft rubes” doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it. (Read more from “1000+ Top Scientists Challenge the Massive Fraud of Evolution” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Kansas Judge Said Minors in Sex-Abuse Case Were ‘Aggressor’

Prosecutors in Kansas are considering appealing the sentencing decision of a judge who called two minor girls the “aggressor” in a sex-abuse case involving a 67-year-old man.

Leavenworth County District Judge Michael Gibbens made the comments during a Dec. 4 sentencing hearing for Raymond Soden, who had been convicted of contacting one of the girls on the internet and offering to pay for sex acts. . .

“I do find that the victims in this case, in particular, were more an aggressor than a participant in the criminal conduct,” Gibbens said, according to a transcript of the hearing released by the Leavenworth County court. “They were certainly selling things monetarily that it’s against the law for even an adult to sell.” (Read more from “Kansas Judge Said Minors in Sex-Abuse Case Were ‘Aggressor'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump to Announce Plan Stop HIV Transmission in U.S. At State of the Union

By Daily Wire. During Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Trump is expected to announce a plan to end the spread of HIV by 2030.

POLITICO reported that four individuals “with knowledge of the planned remarks” said that Trump plans to address the HIV epidemic, though the speech is still not finalized.

“Under Trump’s HIV strategy, health officials would spend the first five years focusing on communities across roughly 20 states where the most HIV infections occur,” POLITICO reports. “The ultimate goal is to stop new infections over a 10-year period, said two officials, with some parallels to how the Trump administration is targeting the opioid epidemic.”

One of the biggest influencers of Trump’s decision is reportedly AIDS researcher Robert Redfield, who became the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March of last year. . .

Carl E. Schmid II, the deputy executive director of the AIDS institute, reportedly welcomed the plan and called it “very bold,” and said it “could be one of his [Trump’s] greatest achievements.” (Read more from “Trump to Announce Plan Stop HIV Transmission in U.S. At State of the Union” HERE)

_________________________________________

Trump’s State of the Union Pledge: Ending HIV Transmissions by 2030

By Politico. President Donald Trump plans to use Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to promise an end to the HIV epidemic in America, four individuals with knowledge of the planned remarks told POLITICO.

Under Trump’s 10-year strategy, health officials would target the U.S. communities with the most HIV infections and work to reduce transmissions by 2030. The strategy has been championed by top health officials, including HHS Secretary Alex Azar and CDC Director Robert Redfield.

While Trump’s plans for the address remain fluid — and one official cautioned that the speech is not finalized — HHS has pressed the White House to ensure the HIV strategy is highlighted on Tuesday night, said two individuals. The agency is also planning a broader rollout this week.

An HHS spokesperson referred questions to the White House. A White House spokesperson declined to comment. (Read more from “Trump’s State of the Union Pledge: Ending HIV Transmissions by 2030” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Block Infanticide Ban, but It’s Not Over. The Senate Must Vote

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., kept his word Monday evening, coming to the Senate floor and giving all 100 U.S. senators the opportunity to condemn infanticide. The opportunity was declined by Senate Democrats.

Sasse asked for unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would protect infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures by requiring doctors to provide medical care to those — I must stress this — born-alive infants. Without these protections, an infant who survives an abortion procedure may be left to die on the table in a state like New York, where late-term abortion up to the point of delivery is now legal if an abortionist says it is necessary to “protect the mother’s health” or that the fetus is not “viable.”

“Every senator will have the opportunity to stand for human dignity – to stand for the belief that, in this country, all of us are created equal,” Sasse said. “Because if that equality means anything, surely it means that infanticide is wrong. Frankly, this shouldn’t be hard.”

Sasse moved to pass this bill after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, in defense of a bill introduced in his state similar to the New York law, suggested that a mother and her physician would have a “discussion” about what to do with an infant born alive after an attempted abortion.

“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said.

Sasse said Governor Northam endorsed infanticide.

No euphemisms. No weasel-words there. Infants could kept comfortable and resuscitated. And also, baby girls could be left cold and alone to die.

Just a few years ago, the abortion lobby was really clear in its talk about hoping that abortion would be “safe and legal, but rare.” This was the slogan. Abortion would be “safe, legal, and rare.” Now we’re talking about keeping a baby comfortable while the doctors have a debate about infanticide.

That is what we’re talking about here on the floor tonight. We’re not talking about second-trimester abortion; we’re not having some big, complicated discussion about a mother’s reproductive freedom, as important as all those debates are. We’re actually talking about babies that have been born. The only debate on the floor tonight is about infanticide.

Sasse’s bill, cosponsored by 42 Senate Republicans, would require those physicians to save the life of the baby born alive. He pleaded with his Democratic colleagues, asking them not to object to his unanimous consent request.

There are only two sides of the debate on the floor tonight: You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide. That is actually what the legislation is that’s before us.

Please don’t block this legislation.

Please don’t let Governor Northam define you. Don’t let an extremist pro-abortion lobby and pledge hold you hostage. Please don’t protect infanticide.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington stood in objection to the bill, claiming that infanticide is already illegal and accusing the Republicans of mischaracterizing Sasse’s bill.

“We have laws against infanticide in this country. This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered, and therefore, I object,” Murray said.

Murray is wrong, of course. As Sasse noted, the New York abortion law removed the protections for infants born alive during an attempted abortion. National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis points out that only 26 states have affirmative protections for infants who survive abortions. And it’s hard to understand how Sasse and others have “mischaracterized” his bill, which is only seven pages long and not difficult to understand. The bill states that Congress finds: 1) “If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws”; and 2) “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

Specifically, the bill Murray claims is grossly mischaracterized requires that a health care practitioner present when a child is born alive shall “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” Then it requires that health care practitioner to take the baby to a hospital for further care. The penalty for failing to follow the law would be at least five years’ imprisonment. Additionally, the intentional killing of a child born alive would be prosecuted as murder.

The bill has a mandatory reporting requirement, so people working at an abortion facility would be required to report if and when an abortionist does not work to save the life of an infant born alive. The bill also gives a mother the legal right to sue if her baby is born alive and the abortionist did not follow this law, letting the child die.

And that’s it. What exactly is Sasse mischaracterizing? His legislation protects infants born alive after attempted abortions from being left to die and clarifies that killing such an infant is murder. It’s an infanticide ban, exactly as Sasse describes.

It’s Murray and the other Democrats defending or excusing Northam’s comments and the New York abortion law who are making a gross mischaracterization. This is not hard. They are defending and excusing the murder of children born alive. By blocking the bill, Murray and the Democrats who support her protected infanticide.

Now it is time to push for a roll call vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised this would not be the last time this bill is considered.

Speaking in support of Sasse’s bill, he said it is “harrowing” that this bill is necessary.

What could be more unanimous than this: That what medical professionals owe every single newborn American citizen, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, is attention and care — not neglect, and certainly not violence. Frankly, it’s harrowing that this legislation is even necessary. It was even more disturbing when, last week, a Democrat governor was unable to clearly and simply state that of course, these newborn babies have human rights that must be respected.

I’ve been co-sponsor of Senator Sasse’s legislation. And I hope that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle invent any reasons to block this request later today. That would make quite a disturbing statement. If they do inexplicably block Senator Sasse’s effort, I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.

Likewise, Sasse promised to continue to seek a roll call vote on in the Senate on this bill. Every member of the United States Senate should go on record to oppose infanticide. This shouldn’t be a controversial position. It’s not a philosophical or scientific debate about when life begins. This is about little babies who are clearly, visibly alive and shouldn’t be killed or left to die. This is about what we, as Americans, are willing to do to protect those little babies.

Voters ought to know where their senators stand on opposing infanticide. The Senate must vote. (For more from the author of “Democrats Block Infanticide Ban, but It’s Not Over. The Senate Must Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Liam Neeson’s Racism Confession Is Actually the Beginning of a Very Important Conversation

Actor Liam Neeson shocked fans when he recounted a story about his own dalliance with prejudice and racism. Neeson said that after a close female relative revealed to him that she’d been raped by a black man, he walked around for about a week just hoping to find someone to confront…and punish. . .

You know that “honest conversation about race” Americans are always being told we need to have? I’ve never thought we were capable of having it. Truthfully, I think Neeson’s confession is the perfect place to start.

I once attended a community development conference in Chicago and on the second day they hosted a forum on “racial reconciliation.” The goal of the forum was to invite representatives of different races to participate on a panel and have a “brutally honest conversation” about race in America. The program flyer for the day warned that they would pull no punches and some people might feel uncomfortable about what they were hearing. Naturally I was in the front row, excited to see what this “honest conversation” might look like.

The panel was made up of a White woman, a Black man, a Chinese-American woman and a Latino man. The moderator began by asking each panel member what their biggest concern was about race in America. The white woman said she chose to acquiesce her time to the other members as she did not feel her voice as a white person was valid to the conversation (a sentiment I found extremely unhelpful). The two men gave their own standard “here’s what’s wrong with White people” answers, but the Chinese-American woman strayed from the PC script. . .

“At what point do we have to stop and admit that there is more to racism than just the racist? Why can’t we talk about the reasons people harbor racism in their hearts? Look at my dad. Is he wrong for judging all black people based on his own experience? Yes, and it shames me. But what about the resentment and hatred he was treated with? How did that shape his views? I want to have an honest conversation about race, but it seems to me that no one wants to really talk about the uncomfortable parts or ask the uncomfortable questions. Until we can sit and listen to the very uncomfortable things that people like my dad think, we can’t really air out our differences.”

(Read more from “Liam Neeson’s Racism Confession Is Actually the Beginning of a Very Important Conversation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ralph Northam’s Truth-Reveal Party Unmasked Abortion’s Evil

It is ironic that the most volatile controversy in American politics—abortion—hasn’t really been a debate: it’s been more like a mystery story. The truth has been cloaked in misdirection and sugar-coated with words like choice and rights. . .

Pro-choice extremists advocate policies unheard of anywhere else in the free world—publicly financed abortion on demand, up to the moment of birth, justifiable even when the baby is a girl instead of a boy—yet they are called moderate politicians.

Let’s not beat around the bush. This cannot be explained by sympathy for “women’s reproduction rights” or the “health of the mother.” These excuses have nothing to do with the left’s barbaric support for the killing of children in America. No. It’s deliberate and calculated. They’re just lying. . .

Abortion is violence, perpetrated by the powerful against the weak and innocent, usually for a handsome profit. Every baby announcement, every sonogram image, every gender-reveal party, every baby shower, every first kick or hiccup from the womb, every tragic miscarriage, and every miraculous preemie testifies anew to what we already know: they’re babies in there, and abortion kills them dead. Abortion is legal, but it shouldn’t be, and that is the truth the pro-abortion movement must conceal and suppress at all costs.

So, after the nausea wears off, the pro-life movement should be grateful to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. This week Northam defended proposed legislation in the Virginia legislature that would, following New York’s lead, gut remaining restrictions on late-term abortions up through and, apparently, after the child’s birth. (Read more from “Ralph Northam’s Truth-Reveal Party Unmasked Abortion’s Evil” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE