5 Selfless Acts of Christmas Charity That Will Make You Cry Tears of Joy

Here are five stories of the most powerful acts of charity this Christmas season.

1. 5-year-old boy gives a homeless man a gift, and receives one in return

Five-year-old Dylan Hurt from Seattle wanted to help the homeless. So, with his dad’s help, he gave a man living in one of Seattle’s tent cities a one hundred-dollar bill, Q13 Fox reports.

The homeless man thanked Dylan with a hug … and with his own gift in return — a skateboard! The experience was so positive for young Dylan that he wants to continue the charitable acts.

2. 8-year-old boy gives up birthday presents to donate to Akron school

Second-grader Colin Roubic told his parents he didn’t want any presents for his birthday. Instead, Colin asked for footballs, soccer balls, basketballs, kick balls, and jump ropes to donate to the Akron Public School system, so other kids may play.

“I have lots of stuff and other people don’t, so I wanted to donate something,” Colin told News 5 Cleveland. That is the picture of charity.

3. Doctors said young girl would never walk. Now she runs to bring Christmas gifts to needy children

Faith Russell was born with spina bifida and doctors feared she would never walk. But the 10-year-old girl beat the odds, and now runs monthly 5k races. She invites everyone to come and see her race, but on one condition: They must bring shoe-box supplies for Operation Christmas Child.

NBC News reports that Faith and her donors filled 500 shoe boxes with supplies for needy children last year. This year, her goal was an ambitions 20,000 boxes. “Wow, we have been working for at least eight weeks, three to four days a week,” said Faith’s mom, Robin. “It has taken a village.”

Faith exceeded her goal, packing an amazing 20,001 shoe boxes for needy children all around the world.

“I just want to let them know that they are not forgotten,” Faith said. “And that they’re loved.”

4. 9-year-old student mows lawns to buy presents for strangers

Charles Howard is doing what many young entrepreneurial kids do — mowing lawns for an extra buck. But he’s not keeping the $10 he makes for every yard for himself.

No, Charles is laboring in order to buy “dozens” of Christmas presents for less fortunate kids in his community. “They’re going to a Toys For Tots place,” Charles told Tampa’s WTSP. “It feels really good inside. It makes my heart feel really good.”

Charles’ mother set up an Amazon wish list for anyone who wants to contribute to Charles’ mission.

5. Secret Santa pays off $46K in layaway items at a Pennsylvania Walmart

A small Pennsylvania town of about 1,700 people recently received a big unexpected Christmas blessing.

Walmart store manager Ryan Kennedy received an anonymous phone call from “Santa B.” On that phone call, the mysterious stranger told Kennedy he wanted to pay off all the Everett store’s layaway accounts, which allow financially strapped customers to pay off items over time. Santa B’s check came out to be over $46,000 for the 194 people with layaway accounts.

“It was complete disbelief,” Kennedy told CNN. “It was definitely a great gesture. I was completely shocked.”

Tearful shoppers wanted to know who the donor was to express their gratefulness, but the secret Santa remains secret. (For more from the author of “5 Selfless Acts of Christmas Charity That Will Make You Cry Tears of Joy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McConnell Is Going to Hate This Latest Trump Hire

Donald Trump just put a lump of coal in Mitch McConnell’s, R-Kentucky (F, 40%) Christmas stocking.

McConnell and Trump have been playing nice since the election. Will Trump’s selection of Jason Miller as White House director of communications fray that relationship? Miller was a certified thorn in McConnell’s side and helped to run the unsuccessful GOP primary campaign of then businessman Matt Bevin against McConnell in 2014. Ouch.

It’s not just Bevin that Miller has been involved with. He was also a senior advisor to the presidential campaign of Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%), McConnell’s least favorite senator. According to his biography on the Jamestown Associates website, Miller “served as Senior Communications Advisor on the presidential campaign of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, overseeing the Communications Department and creating more than two dozen television and radio ads as part of the campaign’s advertising team.”

Miller has also worked with other anti-establishment conservatives including South Carolina representative Mark Sanford, R-S.C. (A, 90%).

Miller, and Jamestown’s work against Establishment Republican incumbents, got them blacklisted by both McConnell, and the House Republican’s campaign arm. To say McConnell held a grudge is an understatement. Here is how the Daily Caller described the blacklisting.

The damage done to the Republican ad firm Jamestown Associates as punishment for working for the controversial outside group Senate Conservatives Fund could be even more substantial than first thought. It was originally reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee would blacklist the company. But that might be just the beginning.

Aside from the NRSC, Jamestown has, in the past, been awarded contracts to create independent expenditure ads for groups like the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Chamber of Commerce.

McConnell’s grudge against Jamestown is so complete that he even targeted Ben Sasse, R-Kansas (A, 94%), during the now senator’s primary in 2014. Why? Because he had the temerity to use Jamestown associates. Here’s how Erick Erickson described it.

Ben Sasse, the conservative candidate in Nebraska on the most recent cover of National Review and who has the backing of the Senate Conservatives Fund, RedState, and others, suddenly finds Mitch McConnell and the NRSC holding fundraisers for his opponent. Sasse, it should be noted, is widely considered a brainiac opponent of Obamacare and healthcare policy expert.And just yesterday, the National Republican Congressional Committee blackballed Jamestown Associates from helping elect Republicans. The NRCC is joining the NRSC in attacking Jamestown. Why? Because Jamestown Associates has been working with conservative candidates the House and Senate GOP leadership opposes.

It is fair to say that Miller, and the company he is a partner in, are some of Mitch McConnell’s least favorite people. In fact that may be an understatement.

With Trump’s choice of Miller to run his White House communications team, he has not only chosen someone unafraid to fight against the “Washington Cartel,” but also defied McConnell’s blacklist. For conservatives, this is a very welcome Christmas present. (For more from the author of “McConnell Is Going to Hate This Latest Trump Hire” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Yahoo! Serious With This Absurd Ivanka Trump’s Alleged Pre-Flight Harrassment?

More airline harassment. More media malfeasance.

Reports emerged Thursday afternoon that Ivanka Trump was accosted by a man while on a JetBlue flight. According to TMZ, an “out-of-control passenger” on the plane allegedly began “verbally berating” Ms. Trump and “jeering” at her children:

Ivanka was on a JetBlue flight leaving JFK Thursday morning with her family when a passenger started screaming, “Your father is ruining the country.” The guy went on, “Why is she on our flight? She should be flying private.” The guy had his kid in his arms as he went on the tirade.

The unruly man was reportedly escorted off the plane by JetBlue personnel. But wait, there’s more.

Twitchy collected a series of since-deleted tweets from one Matthew Lasner, a professor at Hunter College in New York City, who said it was his husband who was the man kicked off the plane.

“Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them. #banalityofevil,” Lasner tweeted (preserved via screengrabs from Twitchy).

“Ivanka just before @JetBlue kicked us off our flight when a flt attendant overhead my husband expressing displeasure about flying w/ Trumps,” read another one of his tweets.

“Ivanka and Jared on our flight. My husband expressed displeasure in a calm tone, JetBlue staff overheard, and they kicked us off the plane,” read a third.

A statement from JetBlue explains that the decision to remove a passenger “is not taken lightly,” explaining: “[I]f the crew determines that a customer is causing a conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight.”

So, let’s review the facts.

JetBlue policy is to remove a passenger pretty much as only a last resort. The husband of the alleged offender tweeted that his husband was going to “harass” the future first daughter, and her husband Jared Kushner. And TMZ’s report confirms that Ivanka and her children were verbally abused by this passenger before JetBlue personnel were forced to deplane him.

Now, let’s look at how Yahoo! News reported the story.

“Man kicked off JetBlue flight for questioning why Ivanka Trump was on it.” Are you kidding, Yahoo!?

“Questioning”?

Ivanka Trump was, reportedly, verbally assaulted. She was allegedly harassed — her innocent children yelled at. The entire incident and deplaning did not revolve around some questions.

And, of course, Yahoo! is not alone in this egregious distortion of the facts. ThinkProgress editor Judd Legum’s attempt at spinning the story said the passenger was “kicked off Jet Blue flight for talking to Ivanka Trump.”

No, he wasn’t kicked off for “talking”; he was kicked off for harassing a fellow traveler simply due to her familial association. But facts don’t matter to many on the Left. Over and over again, they demonstrate they don’t care much for inconvenient truths.

And that is, ladies and gentlemen…

(For more from the author of “Is Yahoo! Serious With This Absurd Ivanka Trump’s Alleged Pre-Flight Harrassment?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This 7-Year-Old Got a Job at Mcdonald’s. The Reason Why Will Inspire You

This 7-year-old is putting all of us to shame this Christmas.

Trenton Gardner, hailing from Bicknell, Indiana, is the newest employee at his local McDonald’s. So great is his work ethic, he begged for a job there, despite his young age.

“He asked for a job and they told him he was too young, and he burst into tears because he was so upset,” General Manager Rhonda Butler told WTHI. But Trenton persisted. He kept coming back and asking for a job until he was hired as an “honorary employee.”

Now Trenton cleans tables for just $1. And he loves it. “You see, when I wipe tables and customers are at the tables, I get paid for it,” he said, “It’s the coolest job I’ve ever done.”

His manager loves it too.

“Just to see someone so young have that kind of ethic, and just want to help and be a part of something, and he’s like ‘McDonald’s is the best place ever!’,” Butler said, “So it’s good to know that hey, this could be one of my future employees.”

But the coolest part of this story is Trenton didn’t want a job for himself. He’s saving the money he makes to buy Christmas presidents for less fortunate children in his community. His family has even donated his own toys to the Toys For Tots charity.

“When Toys For Tots bins started coming out, he wanted to know what it was,” Trenton’s mother explained. “Me and his dad explained to him that not every kid is fortunate enough to get toys like he did for Christmas, and that made him very upset and very sad.”

“We’ve always raised Trenton that not everything in life is handed to you and you have to work hard for what you get,” she said, “So low and behold that led him to asking his Grandpa Terry if he could take him to McDonald’s to get a job.”

Wow. What a great kid. His parents should be proud. (For more from the author of “This 7-Year-Old Got a Job at Mcdonald’s. The Reason Why Will Inspire You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Weiner Delivered Clinton’s October Surprise, Not the FBI

Bill Clinton says that FBI Director James Comey cost his wife the 2016 election.

Has he met Anthony Weiner?

Weiner, after all, is the reason why FBI Director Comey went to Congress in October, notifying lawmakers that investigators had discovered emails on Weiner’s computer that could be related to its investigation of Clinton’s off-the-books email arrangement while she served as secretary of state.

Had Weiner, married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, not sent sexually explicit text messages to a minor, the FBI would have never had a reason to seize his laptop in the first place. There would have never been any “October surprise.”

It’s not as if this is the first time Weiner has gotten, literally, caught with his pants down, either. He resigned from Congress in 2011 after he was caught posting a lewd image on Twitter. Then in 2013, during his failed New York City mayoral bid, the Hollywood gossip site TMZ posted explicit messages he sent to women in 2012 under the alias “Carlos Danger.” Then, he exchanged more messages with a minor in 2016, which elevated his scandalous behavior to a felony level.

So, how is Comey to blame exactly? Clinton wasn’t “schlonged” by the FBI, as Trump may say. She was “Weinered.”

Yet, the Clintonistas are far more outraged at the man who investigated disgusting sexually deviant behavior toward a young woman than the man who actually conducted the disgusting sexually deviant behavior toward a young women.

Hm. Sounds … familiar.

Some things never do change. Definitely not the Clintons. (For more from the author of “Weiner Delivered Clinton’s October Surprise, Not the FBI” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shapiro: Obama Tries to Define Away Reality, but Reality Wins

Last Friday, President Obama gave his last press conference as commander in chief. Undeterred by his would-be successor’s devastating loss to Donald Trump in the presidential election, unswayed by Republicans’ complete domination of Congress, state legislatures and governor mansions, he maintained his cool and collected self-aggrandizement. Why not? According to Obama, Obama has been a major success.

Perhaps the most hilarious moment of delusion came when he talked about terrorism. “Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas,” Obama stated. He then continued, saying no attack has been executed “in a rainstorm with the attacker driving a tractor with one hand, drinking a Miller High Life with the other and wearing a clown nose.”

To be fair, Obama didn’t add those final qualifiers. But he might as well have. In order to define away the problem of terrorism that has grown dramatically worldwide on his watch, he simply spoke of terrorism as a problem of organized groups within defined territories. That’s not how modern terrorism works. Terrorist groups can recruit without formal structures and can operate as independent cells within various countries.

Just three days after Obama’s statements, an alleged jihadi plowed a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin; the same day, a Turkish terrorist murdered the Russian ambassador to Turkey. These latest attacks aren’t outliers. In the past several years, we’ve seen terrorist attacks in Turkey, Germany, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada and Australia.

This sort of terrorism isn’t relegated to foreign countries, of course. Here is an incomplete complete list of radical Islam-related terror attacks and attempts on American soil under Obama: shootings of American military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas; the massacre at Fort Hood; the Boston Marathon bombing; an attempted bombing of the airport in Wichita, Kansas; hatchet attacks on New York City police officers; attempted shootings at the “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas; the attacks on military recruiters in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the massacre at the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center; the Orlando nightclub shooting; the New York and New Jersey bombings; and the Ohio State University car attack.

Obama still thinks he can cover his abysmal record with closely drawn definitions of terrorism. It’s the equivalent of President Bill Clinton saying he’s been faithful to his wife except for certain areas, like sex. It’s technically true so far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far.

Americans know that, and they reacted to Obama’s consistent lying-by-omission by electing Trump, a man who needs little evidence to jump to conclusions. Obama is so careful to avoid spotting fact patterns that he simply omits inconvenient data points. Trump is so eager to spot fact patterns that he simply includes convenient non-data points. But Americans would rather have Trump’s jump-to-conclusions mentality than Obama’s avoid-conclusions-at-all-cost mentality — Trump’s mentality may lead to mistakes, but those mistakes are less likely to cost Western lives.

So Obama can hawk his faux sophistication on terrorism as much as he wants. If Democrats want to ensure that Republicans continue to win elections, they ought to follow his lead. (For more from the author of “Shapiro: Obama Tries to Define Away Reality, but Reality Wins” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Sen. Lee Forced McConnell’s Hand on Repealing Obamacare

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 51%) and Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) have garnered plaudits recently for their strong stance on repealing Obamacare.

As voters await the repeal vote they’ve long been promised, it’s worth reflecting on how Republicans have finally gotten to this point.

It was Senator Lee who, in July of 2015, forced the repeal issue in the Senate — despite severe and unwarranted opposition from his own party’s leadership. And it is because he did so that Republicans are now poised to repeal this unwanted, unaffordable and unworkable law.

During a little-noticed floor fight over a transportation bill in the summer of 2015, Sen. Lee found a procedural loophole that would have allowed Senate Republicans to take a meaningful vote on Obamacare repeal. (By “meaningful,” I mean a vote requiring only a 51-vote majority to pass, not the 60-vote threshold more frequently employed in the Senate.) Lee entered the repeal vote, via an amendment to the transportation bill. And in doing so, he turned the Senate Republican conference on its head.

Despite campaigning on the pledge to repeal Obamacare “root and branch,” McConnell actually had no intention of allowing Lee to go ahead with a repeal vote.

Rather, he took a leaked email from a Lee staffer (full disclosure, that staffer was me) discussing the repeal vote, and used it as a tool to bludgeon Lee in front of his colleagues — not once, but twice — claiming that Lee was using this opportunity only to “divide the party.”

Dividing the party over repeal of Obamacare? The one campaign pledge that they all had in common?

As Ben Domenech later wrote in The Federalist, McConnell’s “bizarre and childish tantrum” over an Obamacare repeal vote raised the question — did McConnell have the yips?.

But rather than respond in kind, Sen. Lee chose to be the statesman. He withstood the unwarranted scorn of his colleagues and the scathing rebuke from McConnell, and offered to withdraw the amendment — but for something in return. Rather than repeal Obamacare then, he agreed to withdraw the amendment for a promise to repeal Obamacare via the reconciliation process later in the year — a more potent and powerful opportunity to issue a first strike at the law.

That promise, extracted by Lee from McConnell, formed the basis of the repeal effort, and is the reason McConnell and Ryan can so confidently line up the process in January.

How?

As a result of Lee’s efforts, Republicans passed a reconciliation bill last year that repealed Obamacare. Though it was subsequently vetoed by President Obama, that effort was the single step which proved that Senate Republicans can pass repeal, over all procedural and policy objections. That effort forms the baseline for what Republicans are about to tackle in January. Without Sen. Lee’s courageous stand, they’d be starting from scratch. As a direct result of his efforts, they are instead starting with the wind at their backs.

Some might say that end counts more than the means — so, since Republicans are going to repeal Obamacare in January, it doesn’t matter how they got there. To them I would reply: Until Lee forced repeal to be included in last year’s reconciliation, it was clear that Senate leadership would make no effort to offer a meaningful vote. Rather, up until that point, they continued to hide behind show votes at a 60-vote threshold — the kind where members can vote for something, confidently knowing it will never get the 60 votes to pass.

Lee’s actions forced the Senate majority to put its money where its mouth was. No more could they talk a big game while hiding behind show votes; they would actually have to cast a meaningful vote in the direction of full repeal. Without Lee, Senate Republicans would never have fulfilled the promises they made to the voters who elected them.

After spending nearly a decade as a staffer in Congress, I can confidently say there are very few politicians courageous enough to stare down Senate leadership and the ire of their colleagues without blinking. Sen. Lee did just that.

In Washington, holding yourself and others accountable to campaign promises can be a thankless task. Amid all the celebration and self-congratulation that will accompany the first repeal vote in January, Sen. Mike Lee deserves considerable gratitude as the unsung hero of the repeal effort. (For more from the author of “How Sen. Lee Forced McConnell’s Hand on Repealing Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Newsweek Editor Admits He Faked News on Fox

Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald said Tuesday that his baseless claim that President-elect Donald Trump was once institutionalized in a mental hospital was actually part of a series of jokes and intended to be a “signal to a source” to talk to him.

Eichenwald’s explanation came Tuesday on “Good Morning America,” as host George Stephanopoulos asked him about the September tweet in which he said, without evidence, he believed “Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990.”

“Any regrets about that?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“There’s a long story behind it,” Eichenwald said after some brief laughter. “When you go through the full lead-up to that tweet — there was a reporting purpose for that tweet going out, which is more than you are going to want to hear about.

“I was making fun of Fox News and the rest, who were doing ‘Hillary has seizures,’ ‘Hillary has multiple sclerosis,’ ‘Hillary has Parkinson’s,’ you know, let’s go to Dr. Oz,” he continued, referring to a point in the election during which the two major-party presidential nominees’ health was under the microscope. (Read more from “Newsweek Editor Admits He Faked News on Fox” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THE OBAMA LEGACY: Best Post-Election Graphic Yet

Philip Bump at The Washington Post accurately captions it “The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized.”

As Dave Blount observes, “In 2008, the Democrat Party abandoned the last vestiges of moderation and threw itself behind the very personification of moonbattery, Barack Hussein Obama.”

While Democrats have thus far blamed James Comey, Julian Assange, Russian hackers, Fake News, and (presumably) George W. Bush for their crushing losses, there’s a much simpler explanation.

They nominated a thoroughly unlikeable, villainous harridan who pushed the party even further to the left thanks to the honorary President of Venezuela, Bernie Sanders, and President “I’ve Got a Pen and a Phone” Davis.

And while Democrats point to a popular vote victory for Hillary Clinton, that notion is also bogus:

161219-democrats-decimated

Let’s stipulate that California — even ignoring its massive population of illegal aliens — accounted for Hillary’s popular vote “victory”.

But let’s subtract out a few items from her popular vote total:

• There’s evidence of systematic Democrat vote fraud all over the country.

• There are also reputable estimates that millions of illegal aliens voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

• And Democrat efforts to undermine voter ID requirements, extend early voting periods, and make absentee ballots easier to obtain and forge have all contributed to the scam.

Subtract all of that Democrat criminality and it’s clear that Trump won the popular vote — and the electoral college — by a veritable landslide.

The evisceration of the Democrat Party is Obama’s real legacy. And no one tell Paul Krugman. He’s suffering from a bad case of walking butthurt. (For more from the author of “THE OBAMA LEGACY: Best Post-Election Graphic Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Brave New World: Terrifying Pro-Life Consequences of UK’s 3-Parent Decision

It’s official. We are living in a brave new world.

This week, the British government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority approved new reproductive procedures that will allow doctors to “create babies” by combining the DNA of three “parents.” HFEA Chair Sally Cheshire called it a “life-changing” decision that could prevent a small group of at-risk children from inheriting life-threatening mitochondrial diseases (like muscular dystrophy and major organ failure) from their mothers.

Proponents of the methods have assured that the decision will not activate a new age of genetically modified babies, as the procedures will be implemented on a case-by-case basis. British pro-lifers responded with a collective, “Yeah, we’ll see about that.”

Each of the new techniques involves manipulating a mother’s egg, a father’s sperm, and a donor egg to ensure that the mother’s mitochondrial DNA is not passed on. The DNA from the donor amounts to an estimated one percent of the child’s genes (hence the three “parents” claim).

“The fact that there are now calls in Newcastle for egg donors — in practice, to produce healthy embryos solely for spare parts — tells us much about attitudes to women used to produce embryos this way, and harms and endangers us all,” bioethicist Anthony McCarthy, education director at Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the Catholic Herald.

Per Dr. McCarthy, only one of the two approved procedures, pronuclear transfer, destroys two viable human embryos in order to create what doctors hope will be a healthy, disease-free child. And while the alternative procedure, maternal spindle transfer, doesn’t require that an embryo be destroyed, Dr. McCarthy noted that “the new life has come to be through a production process which fragments maternity and will in practice be subject to quality-control.”

The doctors and scientists who advocated for the approval of these procedures undoubtedly believe, in their quest to give all children healthy bodies free of any deformity, that the procedures are humane. But in order to achieve their desired end, these individuals are willing to discard countless lives. If that sounds like eugenics, it’s because it is. These procedures approved by the British government aim to rid society of “undesirables.” Not very humane when you put it that way, right?

Even when the embryos are spared, as in the case of maternal spindle transfer, these procedures raise concerns regarding the purpose of procreation and parenting.

If mitochondrial DNA manipulation is permissible, why couldn’t this lead to other forms of selective DNA manipulation? For example, what if the donor has a higher IQ than the mother? Better hair? A nicer voice?

Is it fair to subject a child, who has rights of his own, to such a procedure? Shouldn’t he at least be given the choice of having a full 50 percent of his DNA come from his mother, and his mother alone?

Pro-life advocate and chairman of Oxford’s Conservative Policy Forum, Mark Bhagwandin, called the new procedures “very uncertain and potentially dangerous.”

“Whilst we are deeply sympathetic to the plight of people with mitochondrial related diseases, the ends [do] not always justify the means,” Bhagwandin told Catholic Herald. “We would encourage and support greater investigation and research into ethical remedies which do not seek to genetically modify human beings.”

At the core of the pro-life movement is the belief that children who are physically, mentally, and economically “disadvantaged” are still better off alive, with two (not three) parents who love and care for them. The pro-life community is rightfully troubled by progressive efforts that attempt to defy this belief. (For more from the author of “Brave New World: Terrifying Pro-Life Consequences of UK’s 3-Parent Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.