First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference

/0 Comments/in , , /by

First lady Michelle Obama was present Friday at a Hillary Clinton campaign event, held at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., where she spoke to a group of college students.

After taking the stage, Obama said, “My family is almost at the end of our time in the White House.” This statment was met with groans, followed by shouts of “four more years.”

During Obama’s speech, she lauded her husband for his accomplishments and the decisions he has had to make while in office.

She also urged them to vote for Clinton, adding, “Being president isn’t anything like reality TV.”

“Hillary is one of the few people on this entire planet, and clearly the only person in this race that has any idea what this job entails,” Obama said. “Who has seen it from every angle, hear me, the staggering stakes, the brutal hours, the overwhelming stresses. And here’s the thing: She still wants to take it on.”

She suggested that Donald Trump’s actions throughout the campaign speak to how he would act should he win the election.

“A candidate is not going to suddenly change once they get into office. Just the opposite, in fact.” Obama said. “Because the minute that individual takes that oath, they are under the hottest, harshest light there is. And there is no way to hide who they really are. And at that point, it is too late.”

The first lady told the college students, “I hear folks saying they don’t feel inspired in this election. Well let me tell you, I disagree. I am inspired. Because for eight years, I’ve had the privilege to see what it takes to actually do this job, and here is what I absolutely know for sure. Listen to this: Right now we have an opportunity to elect one of the most qualified people who has ever endeavored to become president.”

The first lady told the crowd the president of the United States needed to be someone committed to taking the job seriously.

“We need someone who is steady and measured because when you’re making life or death, war and peace decisions, a president can’t just pop off,” she said, without mentioning Trump by name.

Praising Clinton, Obama told the crowd she has what it takes to be president.

“When she didn’t win the presidency in 2008, she didn’t throw in the towel. She once again answered the call to serve, keeping us safe as our secretary of state. And let me tell you, Hillary has the resilience that it takes to do this job.” Obama added, “See, because when she gets knocked down, she doesn’t complain or cry foul. No, she gets right back up and she comes back stronger for the people who need her the most.”

The first lady went on to say she has been inspired by Clinton’s “persistence and her consistency, by her heart and her guts.” (For more from the author of “First Lady Campaigns for Clinton, but Audience Seems to Have a Different Preference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pornography: A Public Health Issue in a Digital Age

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pornography is a widespread public health issue, according to social researchers, health experts and legal experts who spoke at an event hosted by The National Center on Sexual Exploitation at the U.S. Capitol regarding the effects of pornography on society, reported USA Today.

Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart, who was abducted at age 14 from her home and held hostage for nine months while being raped and abused, spoke at the event as well about the connection between porn and sexual abuse. “Pornography provides a slippery slope to take the next step to abuse and exploitation,” he said. Each speaker in turn emphasized that “pornography is a public health issue,” citing cultural expectations and research.

The wide reach of the internet allows millions access to pornography, boasting more users than Netflix and YouTube, according to Gail Dines, founder and president of Culture Reframed, an organization dedicated to educating the public on the harmful effects of pornography. The sheer number of users demands that society treat pornography as a health issue. “You don’t solve these kinds of problems by pulling out the women from the river one at a time,” said MaryAnne Layden, Ph.D., the director of education at the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania. “You have to go upstream and find who’s pushing them in.”

Pornography in a Digital Age

As technology progresses and it becomes easier to access information and images, pornography use has become much more frequent. A new study from Barna, commissioned by Josh McDowell Ministry, shows that technological advances have brought more viewers into the world of porn and that has made the industry much more successful. According to Barna:

Pornography is not new, but the digital age has made it more ubiquitous and accessible than ever before. The technological realities of smartphones and high-speed internet have fundamentally changed the landscape of pornography, and ushered it into the cultural mainstream where it enjoys increasingly widespread acceptance.

Youth’s Wider Acceptance of Pornography

Roxanne Stone, one of the lead analysts in the study, said that there are marked generational differences with behavior and attitudes toward porn. This means that as porn becomes more and more accessible, a moral ambiguity toward porn becomes evident — particularly for younger people.

“Teens and young adults are living in an environment where porn is more acceptable — and more ubiquitous than ever before,” she said. “As access to pornography has increased, the stigma toward it has seemingly decreased.”

The problem won’t be going away any time soon. A new report from Juniper Research says that by 2017, 250 million people will access adult content on their mobile devices as the devices become increasingly personal.

Pornography, Christians and Pastors

Covenant Eyes, an internet accountability and filtering organization, put together a report based on their research in 2015. A 2014 survey showed that 79 percent of men ages 18-30 viewed pornography once a month; 67 percent of men ages 31-49 did so; and 49 percent of men ages 50-68 watched porn at least once a month. Women who viewed pornography once per month consisted of the following: 21 percent of 18-30-year-olds; 5 percent of 31-49-year-olds; and 0 percent of 50-68-year-olds.

The problem of porn isn’t simply a secular one. Barna’s 2014 report showed that of those surveyed, 64 percent of Christian men and 15 percent of Christian women viewed pornography at least once per month, while 37 percent of Christian men and 7 percent of Christian women viewed porn multiple times per week.

What’s more, pastors are just as likely to become involved with watching pornography as laity. Thirty-three percent of pastors said they had visited a pornographic website. Of those, 53 percent said they’d viewed it a few times in the past year and 18 percent of pastors said they visited pornographic sites from between “a couple of times a month” to “more than once a week.”

A 2000 survey showed that 51 percent of pastors struggle with the temptation of pornography, while 37 percent of pastors said viewing pornography was a “current struggle.” Perhaps tellingly, 75 percent of pastors surveyed said that they “do not make themselves accountable to anyone for their Internet use.”

Effects of Pornography on the Brain

In his article, “The Effects of Porn on the Male Brain,” brain researcher Dr. William M. Struthers notes that when men view pornography, it triggers “a cascade of neurological, chemical, and hormonal events,” which he likens to the “hit” of a drug. This in turn forms a neurological memory, “that will influence future processing and response to sexual cues,” said Struthers. “As this pathway becomes activated and traveled, it becomes a preferred route — a mental journey — that is regularly trod,” setting the stage for pornography addiction.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinov, former professor at Princeton in the Department of Politics, along with his colleagues, Dr. MaryAnne Layden and Dr. Judith Reisman, presented research to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2004 in which he described the effects of pornography on the brain as comparable to hard street drugs. “Like any other addiction, the addiction is both to the delivery system itself — the pornography — and to the chemicals that the delivery system delivers … modern science allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction …” prompting the viewer to watch more and increasingly toxic pornography.

Reisman, president of The Institute for Media Education, reported to the Senate Committee that the effects of pornography on the human brain are far-reaching and long-term. “Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail,” which, once established, are difficult or impossible to delete.

Damaging Effects of Pornography on the Psyche

Watching pornography goes beyond simply viewing images, or even creating new pathways in the brain, allowing addiction to take hold. Pornography harms the viewers psychologically as well, affecting not only their sexual performances but also how they view others.

Layden, in her presentation to the Committee, discussed the harmful effects of pornography on the viewer’s sexual performance:

I have … seen in my clinical experience that pornography damages the sexual performance of the viewers. Pornography viewers tend to have problems with premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. Having spent so much time in unnatural sexual experiences with paper, celluloid and cyberspace, they seem to find it difficult to have sex with a real human being. Pornography is raising their expectation and demand for types and amounts of sexual experiences; at the same time it is reducing their ability to experience sex.

Pornography “affects not only how we form memories and make attachments but also how we understand sexuality and how we view each other,” according to Struthers. Rather than viewing each other as valuable people made in God’s image, those who watch pornography will view women as a disposable commodity. “Human beings become objects of consumption rather than individuals requiring dignity and in this process those involved in its production and its consumption are harmed,” he said. “This harm is not only sociological and psychological, but also spiritual.

Spiritual Effects of Porn

Pornography hijacks the body’s biological response that God intended to bond a man to his wife, said Struthers. The body’s reaction to sexual stimuli is intended to bind the man to the object he is focusing on, “in God’s plan, this would be his wife,” said Struthers. Watching pornography “corrupts and pollutes our brains as it attempts to make sense of humanity’s sexual nature.”

God’s directive on human sexuality is straightforward. When we follow God’s guidelines, we will begin to honor each other rather than consume one another. “By moving beyond the lie of pornography — that people are nothing more than sexual objects to be consumed — we can appreciate each other as brothers and sisters in Christ,” said Struthers. “We can begin to move beyond objectification and false intimacy to real relationships, which honor the dignity of each person.”

More than the neurological and biological responses to pornography, sin separates us from God (Romans 5:12). Everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34). But in rejecting sin, we become holy and reap eternal life (Romans 6:22).

Pornography Affects Everyone

Pornography is not only harmful to the viewer and the performer (who often has a drug or alcohol abuse problem, depression or other mental health disorder), but — perhaps not surprisingly — is also harmful to the spouses and the children of the viewer and performer. Spouses suffer from depression and low self-esteem, while children may begin to view all relationships as sexual, have a low self-esteem, have a greater likelihood of experimenting sexually at an earlier age and have an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs. The distorted beliefs about sex and sexuality are reinforced and modeled by the viewer parent.

What Now?

There is hope for those struggling with an addiction to pornography. Those who are successful in fighting the addiction are most often part of an accountability group, or have an accountability partner. Perry Noble, former pastor of NewSpring Church in Anderson, South Carolina, struggled with an addiction to pornography for years. Then he made himself accountable to another believer — something he suggests anyone with an addiction to pornography should do. “Ask for accountability,” he said. “I am challenging you to find someone who does not struggle with the problem … and ask them to get in your face.”

Traylor Lovvorn, author of an article titled, “Beyond the Checklist: Casting a Vision for Real Accountability,” said that, to be successful, accountability groups “…must be full of real, great, and hard-boiled sinners where our sinful, broken human condition is understood and the solution is not ‘trying harder’ but deeper surrender.”

There may be other steps to take for those struggling with the addiction. For Pastor Noble, it meant getting rid of the internet. “Jesus said if your right eye causes you to sin then gouge it out so I don’t think it is a stretch to say if your computer causes you to sin then get rid of it,” he said. “…For about five years, I did not have the internet in my house because I did not trust myself.”

If you are struggling with an addiction to porn, or for more information, visit XXXChurch, or find a Celebrate Recovery program in a church near you. (For more from the author of “Pornography: A Public Health Issue in a Digital Age” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Zika Funding Might Result in Raise for Planned Parenthood, Despite GOP-Controlled Congress

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fears are mounting among some conservatives that under a Republican-controlled Congress, Planned Parenthood could soon be getting a raise.

“I hope that pro-lifers will wake up and realize that we have major issues when it comes to the U.S. Senate, when we have our ‘friends’ put us in very tough positions,” Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs for the pro-life group March for Life Action, told The Daily Signal.

McClusky said he and other pro-life groups have been involved in ongoing discussions with House and Senate leadership regarding a government spending measure that is expected to include emergency funding for the Zika crisis. The concern, McClusky said, is the possibility that Planned Parenthood will get more government funding as a result of the Zika spending bill.

Republican leadership in the House and Senate have not yet released language detailing what the spending package will include, and thus far, they maintain that Planned Parenthood will not get more funding. Democrats, however, say they refuse to agree to any spending measure that bars Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates from receiving funding.

Backdoor negotiations, McClusky said, don’t look good for pro-life groups.

“The most current language, we’re not happy with at all,” McClusky said. “There’s a number of things that Sen. [Mitch] McConnell has given his approval to that we disagree with—Zika being the major one.”

The Daily Signal reached out to McConnell’s office, but an aide said they are not commenting until the bill’s language has been released.

Conservatives are calling for a specific prohibition against Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving Zika funds, which is precisely what Democrats say they’ll reject. Anything short of that, they say, will wind up landing the nation’s largest abortion provider more money.

“Planned Parenthood is like a pig searching for truffles,” McClusky said. “If [money] is there, they’re going to go searching it out.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2,920 Americans have been infected with Zika while traveling overseas, and 43 people have been infected locally in Florida.

In Puerto Rico, Zika infections are “increasing rapidly,” according to the CDC, with 17,315 locally acquired cases.

Zika is known to cause microcephaly in as many as 13 percent of infants. Microcephaly is a severe birth defect that results in a baby’s head to be unusually small and its brain to be underdeveloped.

Conservatives argue that it makes no sense to allocate Zika funds to Planned Parenthood, which operates only two branches in Puerto Rico that are only able to provide limited services. Instead, they argue Zika health-related funds should go to federally qualified health centers that are equipped to treat the virus and its effects on patients and children, both born and unborn. In Puerto Rico, there are 20 federally qualified health centers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

According to CQ Roll Call, McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate majority leader, is planning a procedural vote on the spending measure for Monday.

If the measure doesn’t specifically prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving funds, Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said Republicans will ultimately “give Planned Parenthood a raise.”

“During this year’s reconciliation process, the Republican majority in both chambers made clear that their position was to defund Planned Parenthood entirely,” she said. “Now, in the [continuing resolution], congressional Republicans are looking to give Planned Parenthood a raise by giving them their annual appropriation in addition to money for Zika.” (For more from the author of “Zika Funding Might Result in Raise for Planned Parenthood, Despite GOP-Controlled Congress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What We Can Learn From the Gay Schoolteacher Who Allegedly Abused Boys

/0 Comments/in , /by

It turns out that there was more to the story of a gay schoolteacher and his “husband” who were found dead August 25th as the apparent result of a murder-suicide. According to court documents, the men were under investigation for serially abusing underage boys, and with their deaths, even more boys are coming forward with reports of abuse.

According to People Magazine, “The apparent murder-suicide of a Minnesota elementary school teacher and his husband last week now seems to have masked a darker truth: Police say the couple, teacher Aric Babbitt and Matthew Deyo, are being investigated after multiple teenagers accused them of sexual abuse.”

Does this mean that all gay men, or at least, gay schoolteachers, are sexual predators, preying on underage boys? Certainly not, and to draw that conclusion would be totally unfair.

There are countless cases of heterosexual schoolteachers, both male and female, who have had inappropriate sexual relationships with underage students, and we don’t draw the conclusion that all heterosexuals, or, more specifically, all heterosexual schoolteachers, are sexual predators.

These heterosexual abusers include coaches, administrators, librarians, teachers, and others, and no one is branding all heterosexual coaches, administrators, librarians, and teachers as child abusers because of the heinous acts of a relatively few. (Note that even if the sex was consensual in some cases, it was still illegal and, because of the relationship, abusive.)

But there is something important we can learn when it comes to this gay couple and their alleged abuse of underage males, and it has to do with the unique role a gay teacher can have in our schools today.

In the case of Babbit, who since 2002 taught at Lincoln Center Elementary School in South St. Paul, Minnesota, the teenager who reported him to the police confessed to having an ongoing sexual relationship after coming out as gay.

The teen stated that Babbit was his “former elementary school teacher, volunteer work supervisor and mentor,” and that Babbit and Deyo “invited him to a jazz concert in Minneapolis soon after he turned 16, where they stayed overnight at a hotel. At the hotel, the two men allegedly plied him with alcohol and had sex with him, the teen said.

“The teen said he didn’t want ‘to do this, but felt unsure about how to say no,’ according to the Pioneer Press.

“The teen also allegedly provided police with Polaroid pictures of himself naked with Babbitt, who he said became his mentor after he came out as gay, according to CBS Minnesota.”

Again, this does not mean that all gay schoolteachers are sexual predators, but it reminds us that it is not uncommon for a gay teacher to take a student under his or her wings after that student comes out as gay (Babbit was seen as a mentor and father figure), with the parents having no knowledge of this whatsoever. The danger of such a teacher-student relationship is self-evident, and it is something that can happen with greater frequency within same-sex circles.

After all, if the parents do not affirm and celebrate their child’s coming out as gay, they are now the enemies, and the child needs to be protected from these bigots for his or her good. What better protector than a gay teacher?

Tragically, Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are found in schools throughout America, beginning in middle schools, and in these GSAs, students can come out as gay to their peers and to participating school officials, and by school policy, this information can be kept from the parents. And groups like the ACLU fight vigorously for the “right” of these groups to exist.

Yet it is in GSAs that vulnerable, impressionable, and still maturing kids can be introduced into the larger gay culture — often with the help of older “mentors” — and this includes “youth pride” events where these children can get pamphlets instructing them on “how to ‘safely’ engage in homosexual oral sex, anal sex, and other behaviors.” (The pamphlet linked here is sickeningly graphic, with references to acts that the vast majority of adults, let alone children, would consider perverse.)

Again, this situation is uniquely prevalent in LGBT circles, and it is not surprising to read that, “‘In interviews with … victims, Babbitt and Deyo would expose the teens to porn, give them access to porn subscriptions, and encourage them to communicate with them without their [parents’] knowledge, on social media,’ police allege, according to the documents.

“The couple would also give their victims gifts, according to the documents: In one instance they gave a teenage boy, who was also gay, some underwear and yoga shorts, with Babbitt telling the teen’s concerned mom that it was a ‘gay thing’ and he was helping.”

The lesson, then, for parents, is obvious: First, you need to stand against any group or organization in your school that would allow your kids to confide sexual secrets to teachers or officials without your knowledge. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Second, if your child comes out to you as gay, rather than reacting in such a way that will drive him or her away, you must show that child unconditional love (without changing your biblical convictions) and encourage complete transparency so you can be there for your children when they need you the most.

And third, if your child does come out as gay, be on the lookout for any inappropriate relationship with an adult of the same sex. This really is a danger zone, and we need to be vigilant.

The safety and well-being of our kids is at stake. (For more from the author of “What We Can Learn From the Gay Schoolteacher Who Allegedly Abused Boys” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

The University of Chicago’s president, Robert J. Zimmer, wrote a Wall Street Journal article, titled “Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education.” In it, he wrote:

Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university. Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable. Individuals are forced to apologize for expressing views that conflict with prevailing perceptions. In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.

Sharing the president’s vision, the University of Chicago’s dean of students, John Ellison, sent a letter to freshmen students that read, in part:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Those are hardly the sentiments of dishonest and spineless administrators at other colleges. At DePaul University, a visit by conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was disrupted by student activists. School security refused to restore order and later banned Yiannopoulos from returning.

Conservative Ben Shapiro was invited by Young America’s Foundation to California State University-Los Angeles to deliver a speech titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem.”

University President William Covino wrote an email that read, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas.”

But note that the university invited leftists such as Cornel West, Angela Davis, and Tim Wise without feeling a need for differing viewpoints.

Sociologist Barry Glassner is the president of Lewis & Clark College. Morton Schapiro is the president of and a professor of economics at Northwestern University.

Schapiro wrote in The Washington Post: “I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort.”

Both presidents, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, said campus protests are a “sign of progress” toward diversity and inclusion and are “noble” methods of change, as opposed to the opining of “pundits and politicians … from gated communities and segregated offices.” They added, “Students are coming of age in a time of political, social and economic turbulence unseen in a generation.”

Many college administrators have generalized contempt for American values. Here’s just a bit of the evidence. A reporter from Project Veritas covertly recorded an administrator at Vassar College following through on her request to shred the Constitution.

Carol Lasser, professor of history and director of gender, sexuality, and feminist studies at Oberlin College, said that “the Constitution is an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow process. Wendy Kozol, chair of comparative American studies at Oberlin, agreed, saying, “the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” and added that she rarely discusses the Constitution in class and that when she does, she tends to focus on specific amendments.

The University of Michigan and Case Western Reserve University have announced safe spaces to protect students from unwelcome opinions. University of California-Santa Barbara students want trigger warnings for all classes and the right to be excused from any lessons that might “trigger” them.

The courage shown by University of Chicago administrators is relatively rare. The academic tyranny seen on many college campuses reflects a dereliction of duty by those who are charged with the ultimate control—the boards of trustees.

Trustees have the power to fire a president and his key administrators for yielding to campus tyrants. College administrators buy into today’s nonsense because they lack backbone and are cowards. Worse yet, they may see merit in safe spaces, trigger warnings, and student disruption of speakers with uncomfortable ideas. (For more from the author of “Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message

/0 Comments/in , /by

A pro-abortion group wrongly calling itself “Catholic” is once again drawing fire from those who actually adhere to the church’s 2,000-year-old, immutable teachings on life.

This week, the group “Catholics for Choice” ran full-page, color newspaper ads in multiple states where Catholics form a significant voting bloc. One such ad that ran in the Chicago Tribune carries the heading “Abortion in Good Faith,” featuring an elderly woman named Linda saying, “It is because of my Catholic faith, not in spite of it, that I support women who make conscience-based decisions to have an abortion.”

The ad is in direct contradiction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” and that the “teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable,” and that every willed abortion “gravely contrary to the moral law.” The ad goes on to call taxpayer-funded abortions a “social justice issue.”

Catholic bishops across America have taken issue with the group’s grossly errant statement and message, especially when it comes to portraying itself as a Catholic organization.

“Despite what is implied by its name, Catholics for Choice is not a member-oriented organization and has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church,” reads a statement from the Texas Catholic Conference, a statewide association of the Roman Catholic dioceses in Texas, in response to similar ads run in the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express-News. “Instead, it is financed by grants from a few secular organizations pushing a pro-abortion agenda. It seldom ventures beyond Washington to Texas, unless it is to buy expensive, full-page ads when it serves their pro-abortion agenda.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, issued a statement, calling the misleading ad offensive.

“The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person,” reads another statement from Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in Houston. “The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.”

This is not the first time “‘Catholics’ for Choice” has clashed with bishops over a media campaign. Last year, the group took out another full-page, color advertisement on The Washington Post’s daily Express tabloid in June smearing the National Bishops Conference “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign, which seeks to defend and uphold religious liberty against a host of secular attacks.

The ad depicts a cartoonish caricature of a Catholic bishop pointing to the reader (a la Uncle Sam), saying “We want YOU to help us discriminate.”

Ethics & Public Policy Center fellow Stephen White called the ad “old-timey anti-Catholicism” in response, saying “the folks at the Washington Post (who ok’d this travesty) and at Catholics for Choice could do with some prayers.” (For more from the author of “‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Planned Parenthood looks to spend a record $30 million this fall to influence the November elections and keep its taxpayer funding flowing, Live Action has released a new online tool pro-lifers can use to help counter the kind of propaganda $30 million can buy.

Live Action’s new “3 Percent Abortion Myth” video dispels one of Planned Parenthood’s greatest myths—that abortion only makes up 3 percent of its services.

In order to justify its half-billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, Planned Parenthood downplays its abortion numbers by falsely claiming that abortion only makes up three percent of its business—and instead plays up its cancer screenings and so-called “women’s health care.”

However, Planned Parenthood’s own numbers prove that it’s an abortion corporation, focused on abortion, not on women’s health care. The fact is, Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform a single mammogram and performs less than 2 percent of all women’s cancer screenings in the United States. Yet, as America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood commits over 30 percent of America’s abortions—887 abortions a day, one abortion every 97 seconds, and over 320,000 abortions last year alone.

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so focused on abortion that it aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption (it doesn’t do adoptions itself). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy goes to Planned Parenthood, that child is 160 times more likely to be poisoned or dismembered than to be put up for adoption to a waiting family.

Live Action’s new motion graphics video not only shows that Planned Parenthood’s market share of abortions dwarfs its share of cancer screenings, it also illustrates how Planned Parenthood calculates its ridiculous 3 percent statistic to deliberately mislead the public and downplay its abortion business. The figure is derived by dividing the number of abortions it does by the total number of services it provides, counting a $10 pregnancy test or a pack of condoms the same as a $500 abortion.

Even The Washington Post and Slate have called out the abortion corporation for its deception.

Three percent is a hugely important figure to understand, because Planned Parenthood and its allies in Washington, Hollywood, and the media often use it to dismiss its critics as well as taxpayers who object to being forced to support the abortion chain with hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Three percent is not a real number, but over 320,000 abortions a year and a 30 percent market share of all U.S. abortions are.

Planned Parenthood by the numbers:

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for Pap tests is 0.97 percent. It performed 271,539 tests in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 28.1 million tests nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.

Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption.

Planned Parenthood is spending more than it ever has — and double what it spent in 2012 – to influence this November’s election. Citizens have a right to know the truth about an organization that has a hold on the media, our elected leaders, and our wallets.

You can share this video to help counter one of Planned Parenthood’s biggest lies and help educate other voters. Planned Parenthood’s millions of dollars are no match for the millions of voices speaking up for the most vulnerable among us — our precious preborn children. (For more from the author of “The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.

/0 Comments/in , /by

How often have you heard sexual progressives claim that those of us who hold to traditional sexual morality and marriage are “on the wrong side of history?”

But as one new book points out, it’s the proponents of the sexual revolution who are embracing a sexual morality that history left behind millennia ago—in the dusty ruins of the Roman Forum.

Yes, today Western civilization is undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. In just a few short years our society has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage, embraced the notion that men can become women, and is now promoting the idea that grown men should be welcome to share a bathroom with women and young girls. Not unexpectedly, we’re also seeing movement toward the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest.

It’s precisely in times like this that we need some historical perspective. Which is why Lutheran pastor Matthew Rueger’s new book, “Sexual Morality in a Christless World,” is a timely godsend. In it, Rueger shows how Christian sexual morality rocked the pagan world of ancient Rome. The notions of self-giving love, sexual chastity, and marital fidelity were foreign, even shocking to the people of that time.

Citing existing scholarship, Rueger details the Roman sexual worldview that prevailed for hundreds of years. Women and children were viewed as sexual objects; slaves—male and female–could expect to be raped; there was widespread prostitution; and predatory homosexuality was common. Christian sexual morality might have been seen as repressive by the licentious, but it was a gift from God for their victims. (Read more from “We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Two Cheers for PolitiFact Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Lie

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) is in a tight race for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s seat, and the Super PAC for America’s largest abortion company, Planned Parenthood Votes (PPV), wants Nevada voters to believe that he voted to send women to jail for having abortions.

He hasn’t, and even left-leaning Politifact called them on it.

Heck holds a slight lead over former Nevada Attorney General Cortez Masto, a liberal and pro-abortion Democrat. While Heck’s overall record is centrist, he has voted for pro-life legislation such as a ban on abortions performed after 20 weeks’ gestation and a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

In its ad (below), PPV claimed that “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.” Complete with a woman’s voice and the faces of several women, the ad strongly insinuates that Heck wants to throw women in jail for having abortions.

Thanks to PolitiFact, however, we know this isn’t true. Once again, Planned Parenthood is parsing words in order to fool the public. The 2012 bill referenced by PPV — and quoted by PolitiFact — literally says women cannot be prosecuted for getting an illegal abortion.

Bar To Prosecution.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 based on such a violation.

As PolitiFact noted, “[T]he Planned Parenthood ad fuzzes the difference between prosecuting the abortion provider and prosecuting the woman receiving the abortion.” Politifact analyzed PPV’s careful blending of ambiguous wording and misleading pictures:

The use of “for” in the sentence “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims” could be interpreted to mean that rape victims would bear the legal consequences, even though the law makes clear that they would not.

In fact, the ad visually reinforces the notion that women would be left open to criminal penalties by featuring a succession of young women, none of whom wear the tools of the medical profession, such as a lab coat or a stethoscope.

PPV, which did not respond to my request for comment, defended its dishonest ad to PolitiFact:

“Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion,” said Erica Sackin, communications director for Planned Parenthood Votes. “Whether the law sends women to jail or doctors to jail, the end result is the same: Women would have been left with nowhere to turn to for safe, legal abortion.”

I’ve long been a critic of PolitiFact’s left-leaning bias, including its own parsing of words on the issue of abortion. And while its “Half-True” ranking of the ad is too kind to PPV, PolitiFact deserves two cheers for effectively shredding the ad’s multiple levels of dishonesty, even if the final ranking leaves much to be desired. (For more from the author of “Two Cheers for PolitiFact Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Lie” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Washington, DC dinner, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine butchered the Bible and made one of the most twisted arguments for same-sex “marriage” that you’ll ever hear. Yet the very article laying out his arguments described him as a “devout” Roman Catholic. How can this be?

Putting aside the obvious question of how Kaine could serve on a presidential ticket with the radically pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton — indeed, he has already been challenged for “saying he is both a ‘traditional Catholic’ and a strong supporter of abortion” — Kaine raised further eyebrows when suggesting that the Catholic Church could one day change its position on same-sex “marriage,” just as he has done.

In support of his viewpoint, he cited Pope Francis’s oft-quoted comment about gay Catholics (“Who am I to judge?”), failing to realize that the Pope was not sanctioning homosexual acts and relationships but rather saying, “If someone is same-sex attracted and wants to be part of the Church, who am I to judge?”

This is very different from saying, “If two men are in love and want to have a romantic and sexual relationship, who am I to judge?”

But I am not a Catholic, nor can I predict where the Roman Catholic Church will be in 5 or 50 years. What I can say with certainty is that Sen. Kaine’s use of Genesis 1 to buttress his support of LGBT activism amounts to scriptural malpractrice.

He said, “I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, ‘It is very good.’”

And, he added, “Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Seriously? Kaine is going to Genesis 1 to argue for same-sex “marriage,” along with the larger LGBT agenda?

Genesis 1 and the Natural Family

Allow me to give a helpful hint to the senator: Sir, although you will find no support for your position anywhere in the Bible, the worst place you can go to argue your case is Genesis.

It is in Genesis 1 that we see the importance of gender distinctions, as God creates humankind as male and female — not as male, female, and an infinite number of variations, including agender, bigender, and third gender, along with multi-gender options like ambigender, bigender, blurgender, collgender, conflictgender, cosmicgender, crystagender, deliciagender, duragender, demiflux, domgender, fissgender, gemelgender, gendercluster, genderfluid, gendersea, genderfuzz, genderfractal, genderspiral, genderswirl, gendervex, gyaragender, libragender, ogligender, pangender, polygender and trigender.

Is this what Kaine was referring when he spoke of “the beautiful diversity of the human family” that we should celebrate? Genesis 1 states the exact opposite.

It is also in Genesis 1 that God blesses His human creation with the words, “be fruitful and multiply,” and it is only heterosexuals, by design, who can do this. That’s why, to this moment, no homosexual couple has ever been blessed by God with the ability to procreate by themselves.

The Bible and the Natural Family

This sets the pattern for the rest of the Bible, where the only marital relationships blessed by God, without exception, are heterosexual, with the male and female being uniquely designed for one another biologically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Accordingly, it is based on Genesis 1 that Paul explains in Romans 1 that homosexual acts are contrary to nature — meaning, contrary to God’s intended, natural plan for men and women.

And it is based on Genesis 1 that Jesus explains in Matthew 19 that marriage, as intended by God from the beginning, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Does Sen. Kaine now have insight into Genesis 1 that not only escaped his own Catholic Church, but Jesus and Paul as well?

The Fall of Man

As for Kaine’s argument that when the Creator “surveyed the entire world, including mankind [He] said, ‘It is very good’,” — meaning that homosexuality and bisexuality and more are all good — he seems to have forgotten that “very good” was God’s description of His creation before the fall, when sin entered the world.

After the fall, His assessment changed dramatically to this: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

So much for the “very good” assessment applying to human nature today!

Porneia

As expressed by Jesus, “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:18-19).

And note carefully that the Greek word for sexual immorality, porneia, is used in the plural here, referring to all sexual acts outside of marriage, which Jesus defined as the union of one man and one woman (see Matthew 19:4-6).

So, the very thing that Sen. Kaine wants to celebrate, the very “diversity” that he claims God established in creation, is the precise opposite of what God intended for His creation, as stated clearly in Genesis 1 and reaffirmed throughout the rest of the Bible, from Moses to Jesus to Paul.

Mrs. Clinton’s running mate would do well to submit his thinking to the Scriptures rather than twisting the Scriptures to fit his thinking. It is the senator who must change, not the Word of God. (For more from the author of “‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.