Prior to the 1990s, the birth ‘control’ pill invented by a “Jewish” doctor (98+% lacking Israeli tribal DNA) in1959 originally contained high amounts of estrogen to prevent the male and female gametes from joining. But when it was found that such a high dose of estrogen causes cancer in women using the pill, all pharmaceutical companies globally but quietly reduced the amount of estrogen, resulting in the allowance of conception. So they introduced chemicals that would either make the uterus wall so slick that the new baby could not attach to it for nourishment, thus starving it to death or they used other chemicals that killed the new developing child by the 12^th. day after conception.

Yet, women still refer to these murder pills as “birth control” or “contraception” pills, yet ask any pharmacist and he or she will tell you that they call them abortifacients (Latin facient, they make; aborti – abortion).

The sinfulness of all “clergy” today is they generally know this but refuse to mention it in their “preaching.” To do so might hurt their cash flows. This growing infanticide via pills – as globally promoted by Hillary Clinton & Mrs. Obama – is just another result of living in the ongoing Great Apostasy from true Christianity.

The goal of certain proponents today of a One World Government is to reduce the earth’s population to 500 million. That’s an achievable number because what these abortifacient pills don’t kill, a nuclear war with China et alia just may.

How are we supposed to establish unity in this country when the mainstream media is showing their liberal bias on a daily basis? We’ve known for a while that the New York Times leans to the left. However, we never expected them to provide an actual definition of “crime,” according to the Republicans.

You see, David Firestone, a member of the editorial board with the NYT believes that crime is defined differently between the Republicans and Democrats. It’s no longer about the fact that people are breaking the law. Instead, it’s about the TYPE of crime being committed as well as WHO is being blamed.

Sounds a bit crazy, doesn’t it? But that’s liberal logic for you.

Firestone starts out by talking about the riots that were taking place in 1968 and how President Nixon called for “a return to law and order.” However, according to Firestone, that simple campaign is also layered with racial coding.

He goes on to point to Florida and Governor DeSantis calling the state a “law and order state.” And Nikki Haley said that “We must have law and order.”

Apparently, establishing law and order is only something desired by Republicans. It shows that there are too many Democratic cities that have completely run amok. It’s as if they forgot that there are laws and that order can be established by making sure that those laws are being followed.

That is where Firestone really takes a liberal power pose. He writes, “But the crimes they want to get tough on are always of the same kind: ‘violent’ crimes on the streets of American cities, preferably cities run by Democrats. The kind of crimes that make suburban residents install doorbell cameras, stock up on guns, and vote for the politician who says ‘lock them up’ the loudest.”

So, you’re saying that the Democrats don’t want to handle the crimes that are violent? That doesn’t sit well with me. In fact, it’s no wonder why so many people are moving out of liberal-run cities. After all, mainstream media is essentially touting that the Democratic Party doesn’t care to address violent crimes.

Firestone thinks that he makes a win for the Democrats – and instead, he perpetuates the fact that the liberals don’t have a true grasp on what crime is.

Democrats focus on crimes that “pollutes a river.” He also goes on to talk about hate groups and tax cheats, but that’s not really accurate. After all, the sitting president is the one turning Republicans into a hate group by calling us extremists. And tax cheats? If the Democrats focused on crimes like that, Joe and his whole damn family would be sitting in a white-collar prison somewhere.

The idea that we can ever establish unity in this country is a joke – especially when one of the heaviest circulated publications is releasing dribble like this.

As people reject Christianity and other organized religions and check the “agnostic” or “none of the above” or “New Age” box on belief surveys, witchcraft is on a noticeable rise. In 2019, Pam Grossman declared that “more and more women than ever are choosing the way of the witch, whether literally or symbolically.” Last month, former Disney Channel star Vanessa Hudgens, whom Variety calls a “self-taught student of witchcraft,” released Dead Hot: Seasons of the Witch to inspire viewers to “open their hearts, minds, and soul.” And there are other examples, including hip witchcraft and fears that witchcraft is now too mainstream.

What exactly is witchcraft? This folksy spirituality is a branch of neo-paganism, a return to the worship of gods of all stripes and a turning away from what looks or feels like arbitrary, outdated, patriarchal rules, especially in Christianity.

Witches aim to unleash power from within themselves or harness natural or elemental power to achieve certain goals. Womanhood, the modern witch claims, is mighty, and identifying as a witch, whether by performing spells or hexes, keeping crystals on hand, or merely “tapping into” her inner witch, makes her more genuinely “woman,” someone to be in awe of, or perhaps even to fear. She (or these days, it might even be he) probably won’t look like the warty, green-skinned witches on Halloween decorations, but rather a creature who deals in a concept of womanhood that is dark and mysterious, dynamic and glamorous. She is a woman of the world who holds a fascination for the supernatural, seeking meaning for herself through herself.

Do her efforts pay off? There is no definitive yes or no, and certainly, the efficacy of spells and hexes may be retroactively determined by confirmation bias. But even if they ever do work, let us not be naïve; it is only ever through the permission of the Lord that there might be any worth, or appearance thereof. Not that the witch would agree.

But try as we might to eschew organized religion, the Spirit of the Lord calls to us. Many folks, unfortunately, misinterpret this as an invitation to explore false religions. It feels bizarre to type this, but here it goes: there are witches among us, and it is a problem.

The more people try to turn away from God, the more they go seeking him, and in all the wrong places. So neo-paganism, with Wicca, witchcraft, nature worship, and the like, alongside its counterpart, New Age, have seen a rush of interest. Folks look to the stars, to nature, to crystals, cards, and potions for meaning, answers, and rooting.

It seems, too, that the rise in witches corresponds with the feverish whooping up of late that women’s rights are on the line. What better time to tap into our inner goddess or divine nature than now, when “women’s rights” are under attack?

The dangers of witchcraft are not negligible. Traditionally, witches have been said to pay honor “to the Prince of Darkness, and in return receive from him preternatural powers.” Whether this is the case, over the centuries, there have been recorded confessions of accused witches confirming their involvement with demonic forces.

We mustn’t downplay why these women (and some men) feel the need to practice witchcraft. These people are seeking, and they are restless, and we know that the restlessness they experience will not cease until they find rest in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

But first, they need to be introduced to Jesus in a genuine and heartfelt way—and it is up to Catholics to do the introducing.

How can we reach out to practitioners of witchcraft? As with any impactful evangelization effort, asking meaningful questions is always a good place to start.

Is the witch interested in deepening her understanding and love of the natural world? The Catholics have saints for that!

Is she looking to understand or tap into the divine? Jesus offers himself intimately and beautifully in the Eucharist, giving us the means to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

Is she looking to ascend, through the use of sorcery, from the seemingly endless troubles and woes that afflict her and her loved ones in this life? Prayer and fasting are both powerful ways to align ourselves with God’s plan and make a real impact on those around us.

Is she searching for meaning and power in the use of crystals, potions, or other material objects? The Lord understands humans’ needs for the physical and has provided us with sacraments and sacramentals that we can touch, smell, see, taste, and hear to elevate our bodies and minds to the divine.

Does she want to live more attuned to the ebb and flow of the different seasons and stages of life? The liturgical calendar has it all, from feasts to ember days to entire seasons dedicated to various aspects of our faith, helping us to live a good and holy life.

Is she concerned for “the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised”? That is what the invitation to hex Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh a few years ago suggested witchcraft is really for. Well, Catholic charities have cared for and upheld the dignity of millions of people whom the world seems to have otherwise forgotten—and no one has to get hexed.

Does she believe she needs magic as a weapon on the battleground that is our fallen world? In Padre Pio’s words, “the rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today.”

Is the witch desiring a community of like-minded seekers, especially other women who strive to lead holy, beautiful lives? Hi! Welcome to the One True Church!

We can see that much of what someone interested in witchcraft seeks can be found in the Catholic tradition—but in its full and God-given form, not in a creature-oriented product that has the witch worshiping, relying on, or otherwise misusing creation (including demons), when she could and should be worshiping and relying on the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

The witch puts inordinate power in herself or seeks to harness power that is not granted humans according to their nature. She wants to affect the world and people around her through subversive and often destructive means. She is dissatisfied by the fullness of the humanity given to her by God. She holds typical feminist grievances and finds womanhood infinitely powerful but sadly chained by “the big bad patriarchy.”

The witch is a woman who is broken, lost, and oftentimes angry. She is in pain, whether she will admit it or not, and it isn’t a pain caused by the patriarchy or the injustice du jour. It is pain caused by missing out on God. She is seeking validation for her goodness, value, and beauty as a woman outside how God supports and nourishes womanhood through the Catholic Church. We ought to pray for her—that she might turn, with all the energy she has put into her false spirituality, to love the One who loves her unconditionally and won’t ever stop calling her home to him.

SergeyCo / shutterstock.com

Tara Reade was supposed to testify before Congress any day now about how she was “allegedly” raped by Joe Biden in the 1990s. That’s not going to happen now.

Reade has fled the country and is now an asylee in Russia, having escaped from the US government with her life intact. That cannot be a decision that was made lightly. While she has not told the full story yet about why she fled, we hope that she does soon. The rest of the world deserves to know about the unelected monster that is currently occupying the White House.

Tara Reade first tried to tell the world her story in the run-up to the 2020 election. She thought it would only be fair for the American voters to know that Joe Biden once raped her back in the 1990s. Reade was an aide working in then-Senator Joe Biden’s office. She says that one night in a darkened hallway, Joe Biden pinned her against the wall and sexually assaulted her.

Reade provided corroborating evidence to back up her claims. She told her brother and a former neighbor about the rape at the time. Her mother even called in to Larry King Live on CNN at one point and complained about what had happened to Reade. But the same Democrat Party which had been telling us to “believe all women” during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings suddenly declared Tara Reade to be a liar and a crazy person. Reade even filed a criminal complaint against Joe Biden for allegedly raping her with the Washington, DC police—which is something Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers were never willing to do.

She was totally dismissed as a nutjob. Then, when it was definitively proven that the Ashley Biden diary was real, people started to reconsider Reade’s claims. Joe Biden had taken “inappropriate showers” with his own daughter when she was a young child. That is so creepy and wrong, and such an obvious sign that the man is a sexual predator, that it caused Tucker Carlson to declare on his former Fox News show that maybe we all should have listened to her more closely.

On May 7th, Tara Reade tweeted that if anything happens to her, Joe Biden did it. She says she has been subjected to three years of “political machine threats, bullying and intimidation” by Joe Biden and the DNC. She added that she is not suicidal. The tweet was sent after Reade was invited to describe her rape at the hands of Joe Biden before the US Congress. They must have really turned up the heat on her then.

On May 30th, Reade held a press conference from Russia because she had just defected. Reade told Russian newspapers, “I just didn’t want to walk home and walk into a cage or be killed, which is basically my two choices.”

The Biden regime has become so tyrannical that Vladimir Putin is now offering to build refugee villages for American conservatives and offering us asylum there. Tara Reade obviously took him up on the offer. Russia sees what is going on in the United States right now because they’ve already lived through it.

Speaking of Russia, ten years in the gulag was the longest sentence that Joseph Stalin ever gave to any political dissidents during the purges in the former Soviet Union. The Biden regime just sent one of the January 6 peaceful protesters—Stuart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers—to prison for 18 years.

Tara Reade says she feels safe and secure now. She may be the first person to defect to Russia since Edward Snowden, but we have a sinking feeling that she won’t be the last.

In a Senate Health Committee hearing in March, Bernie Sanders accused Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel of “corporate greed” and noted how he became a billionaire overnight “as soon as Moderna started to receive billions of dollars from the federal government.” Sanders is right about what occurred, but of course he obfuscated the fact that it is the pharma fascism of his party that has allowed Bancel to earn billions off the blood of the vaccine-injured. These people are not about to relinquish the same modus operandi of mass vaccination that allowed them to get rich overnight by killing people all over the world. They will only stop when we actively strip them of the legal and monetary authorities given to them.

Some might be tempted to drop the vaccine injury epidemic from the panoply of issues we have to monitor. After all, there is no lack of existential threats to our life, liberty, and property emanating from government. Now that Biden is finally ending the remaining COVID mandates, we might think we can continue our focus on other issues, as if the past three years never occurred. The problem is that Big Pharma and its bagmen at the FDA have no plans to let the human experimentation go. It is too empowering and too profitable. Unless we strip them of their authority to experiment on us with known dangerous technology, they will hit us with the next iteration before the end of the year.

On Tuesday, Pfizer announced it raked in $18.28 billion in revenue, but even with the pandemic long over, close to 40% of the sales came from COVID products, all fully supported by taxpayers. But as COVID revenue declines, CEO Albert Bourla said that he expects an increase in revenue over the next few years from the company’s RSV and flu combo shots. In other words, the money train of universal respiratory viral or mRNA vaccines is too great to let go after such amazing success. They are not done, not by a long shot.

We’ve already reported that Pfizer and GSK’s own trials showed serious problems with their RSV shots for seniors. Yesterday, despite the fact that the CDC’s advisory committee warned GSK’s shot “can overstimulate the immune system,” the FDA approved GSK’s shot. Moderna also has another RSV shot based on the mRNA platform that could receive FDA approval this year. Are we going to allow millions of deaths and injuries to occur with the blood money from taxpayer subsidies without any legal reforms?

Earlier this week, Alex Berenson reported on the clinical trial data from Moderna’s mRNA RSV shot, which the company brags is 83.7% effective. It’s de ja vu all over again. Companies are able to openly report an insane level of adverse events with their own (likely contrived) trial data, yet they will get approved and promoted by the government without regulators batting an eyelash. This already happened with Pfizer and GSK’s RSV shot.

Let’s just take their efficacy data at face value for a moment. Moderna’s numbers show that for each RSV infection prevented, the shot caused 200 side effects, including 10 severe side effects. Among the total participants in the trial, those receiving the vaccine incurred an extra 10,156 side effects, including 455 rated Grade 3 or higher, in return for contracting 46 fewer cases of RSV. What is astounding about this level of risk is that RSV, to begin with, is rarely deadly. Most people over 60, the age of the trial participants, are already at least partially immune to it and wouldn’t get deathly sick. So even if we trust their own data on efficacy and side effects, this shot has a negative risk-benefit profile out of the gate.

Moreover, with zero proven benefit for death and serious illness (so few non-infants die from RSV), it’s hard to believe they are telling the truth about efficacy against cases. Fauci himself co-authored a paper in January conceding that respiratory viral vaccines are not good at conveying immunity and that we are just not there yet. He observed that the challenges for flu and RSV vaccines are “many and complex,” are prone to mutation with “antigenic drift,” and require “outside the box” thinking to “make next-generation vaccines.”

Yet we are to believe that Moderna and Pfizer have already cracked the code with the same faulty technology? Moreover, they are not hiding the fact that these vaccines are going to be annual shots, not once or twice in a lifetime. So you will have to incur the risk every single year.

Despite the slam-dunk case against these shots before they are even out the door, there is no effort in Congress to investigate, much less shut down, the pipeline of endless dangerous and needless vaccines funded and indemnified by the government, despite everything we learned about mRNA and the way the pharma companies developed the COVID shots.

To being with, why are we OK with incurring so many short-term side effects and unknown long-term effects from vaccines for every single respiratory virus that doesn’t need a vaccine and that, Fauci himself admits, are not even that effective? This is not polio and smallpox. Is it really OK to inflame the body with uncontrolled spikes of antibodies in an ever-growing list of jabs for viruses we’ve lived with for so long? Who is to say that all that gain-of-function research to create the vaccines is not going to create more strains of these viruses, just as it did with coronavirus?

These are just some of the questions Congress must ask before signing off on billions more for the vaccine enterprise. And that is before we even delve into mRNA as the platform for many of these future vaccines. What has become self-evident is that the lipid nano particles deliver the mRNA throughout every corner of the body. There is no shutoff switch or modulator, so the mRNA can code your body to produce an unlimited number of proteins at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Also, aside from the mRNA concerns, the LNPs themselves contain polyethylene glycol. Many people are allergic to PEG, but even those who don’t have a direct allergy are at risk for allergies and inflammation, as PEG is designed to evade your immune system. Pfizer knew about these autoimmune disorders from day one in its infamous Feb. 28, 2021, document of over 1,400 serious categories of adverse events. One known reaction to PEG is antiphospholipid syndrome, an immune disorder that causes blood clots. A mother of one of the victims of vaccine-induced antiphospholipid syndrome was on my podcast last year. Well, it turns out that Pfizer knew about something this rare and permanently debilitating in February 2021!

This is no longer speculation or even experimental. It is all over Pfizer’s own documents from day one, as well as our own government’s pharmacovigilance systems. As early as Nov. 2020 – before a single person got the shot outside clinical trials – the European Medicines Agency raised concerns about this mechanism of action causing autoimmune disorders and requested Pfizer to perform a study. No study was forthcoming, despite everything we now see with ubiquitous and diverse forms of autoimmune disorders.

So, we are just going to allow Pfizer to move on to the next vaccines that are rooted in the same problems with the same faulty rationale? How is this not the biggest pro-life issue of our time? Even short of full mandates, most doctors and hospitals will harshly force these shots on patients without any enlightened consent. And remember, most OB/GYNs are still pressuring their pregnant women patients to get the COVID shots, despite everything we know about the safety problems.

How many people need to die so that well-connected elites can use our own money, laws, liberty, and bodies against us in the process of getting rich? Congress needs to launch investigations into what Pfizer, Moderna, and our own government knew, when they knew it, and what is coming down the pipeline. Also, state attorneys general need to follow in the footsteps of Texas AG Ken Paxton in investing consumer fraud committed by Pfizer in lying about safety and efficacy.

As the Florida grand jury reaches the gag phase for the next few months and we will be unable to view the details of the findings, nothing is stopping AGs from running parallel investigations that can be shared with the public in real time.

Recently, Moderna co-founder Noubar Afeyantold the Financial Times that politicians and judges need to get out of the way of “science” and stop questioning their taxpayer-funded, mandated, distributed, marketed, and indemnified ventures into our bodies. Which means it is all the more necessary for elected federal and state officials to investigate this more than any other issue. As they prepare the flu and RSV mRNAs (with birth defect vaccines, cancer vaccines, and God knows what else in the pipeline), time is of the essence.

There’s been a lesser-known firing of a much lesser-known individual than Tucker Carlson, and I’ll get to that in a moment. And this one likewise speaks volumes.

First, in case you missed it, last night Tucker released a video, right at the time his normal broadcast would have taken place, in which he said the following:

Good evening. It’s Tucker Carlson.

One of the first things you realize when you step outside the noise for a few days is how many genuinely nice people there are in this country, kind and decent people, people who really care about what’s true. And a bunch of hilarious people also. A lot of those. It’s got to be the majority of the population even now.

So that’s heartening. The other thing you notice when you take a little time off is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are. They’re completely irrelevant. They mean nothing. In five years, we won’t even remember that we had them. Trust me, as someone who’s participated.

And yet, at the same time and this is the amazing thing, the undeniably big topics, the ones that will define our future, get virtually no discussion at all. War, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources.

When was the last time you heard a legitimate debate about any of those issues? It’s been a long time.

Debates like that are not permitted in American media. Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them, and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it.

Suddenly, the United States looks very much like a one-party state. That’s a depressing realization, but it’s not permanent. Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them.

This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t. The people in charge know this. That’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion. They’re resorting to force.

But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink, and they become weaker. That’s the iron law of the universe. True things prevail.

Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some. And that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.

That’s pretty close to exactly what I would say to America if I had their attention for two minutes.

We don’t debate major things. Major things are decided for us already. The talking heads on television pretend to disagree with each other, but they’re usually debating trivialities on the edges of the actual issues.

Ukraine is an excellent example. Good luck finding a debate on that subject!

The CIA, the U.S. military, Hollywood airheads, the political class, the official opinion molders, the corporate CEOs, you name it — they all have the same opinions, and it wouldn’t even occur to them to foster debate, or that their opinions are debatable in the first place.

These are people who can have entire conversations about financial crises and bubbles without once mentioning the role of the central bank.

Somebody like that is not in the business of informing the American public. Somebody like that is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, in the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

People who are highly suggestible, or mentally slow, or desperate to be in the in-group, will unthinkingly adopt whatever is presented to them by these elites.

But there are a lot of us who instead look at the American establishment and say: these are unimpressive and ignorant people whose opinions are worth nothing and whose track record is a joke.

There are enough of us that something has to happen. Certainly the suppression of our voices can go on for only so much longer.

And that brings me to the other firing.

After 37 years, Ted Galen Carpenter, one of the only people worth much of anything at the Cato Institute, was suddenly let go.

Carpenter reports:

“After 37 years, my role as a scholar with the Cato Institute has come to an end. We did not part on pleasant terms. I discovered the hard way that criticizing Ukraine’s government or Washington’s support of that government can prove fatal to one’s career.”

Most unfortunate.

But: there are far too many of us who agree with these silenced voices for those voices to vanish altogether. I rather suspect they will come back with a vengeance. I hope so. I pray they do. I’m counting on that.

Commentary

Now-former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is pictured during the 2022 FOX Nation Patriot Awards at Hard Rock Live at Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood on Nov. 17. (Jason Koerner / Getty Images)

Geraldo Rivera, the man whose height of fame (and infamy, two things he has trouble telling apart) came when a neo-Nazi  broke his nose during an altercation on his trashy syndicated talk show over 30 years ago, would like you to think he Spoke Truth To Power™ when it came to now-former fellow Fox News employee Tucker Carlson.

Twitter users would like Rivera, the token liberal on Fox, to know what they think of him. Namely: “He is such a loser.”

So, as you’ve no doubt heard if you follow cable news in general or Fox News specifically, Carlson, long the network’s top-rated prime-time host, was let go without warning on Monday afternoon.

There was no reason given at the time, just a terse statement from the network that “FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”

The general assumption was that it had something to do with the network’s $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over individuals who came on the network in the wake of the 2020 election and claimed the company’s vote-tabulation software and hardware were responsible for massive voter fraud.

However, Carlson was actually one of the first hosts to explicitly call these theories out on air, and other sources pointed to Carlson’s faith combined with the increasing instability of Fox News shot-caller Rupert Murdoch, now 92.

Regardless of what the reason actually was, that didn’t stop Geraldo Rivera from wading into the controversy like he knew what was inside Al Capone’s vault. and bad-mouthing Carlson in the process.

“I don’t wish ill on anybody, but there is no doubt-as I said at the time-Tucker Carlson’s perverse January 6 conspiracy theory was ‘bulls***,’” Rivera tweeted.

“Having lost the election President Trump incited an insurrection that sought to undermine our Constitutional process.”

Now, first off: If you ever feel the need to start a social media missive with “I don’t wish ill on anybody…”, stop. Stop right there, delete it all, practice deep breathing and share something more useful, like a video of a re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg done entirely with hamsters or something like that.

Second, the co-host on Fox News’ “The Five” didn’t follow up with which “perverse January 6 conspiracy theory was ‘bulls***’” and hasn’t tweeted about it since then. Carlson recently aired video of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion that showed it to be far less of a “coup” or a “threat to democracy” than Democrats have intimated, but Geraldo seems to indicate in his tweet that his qualms go back further.

Needless to say, this reaction was met with near-universal non-acclaim, including from Rivera’s co-host on “The Five,” Greg Gutfeld, who sarcastically called him “a class act”:

Another said it was time for Geraldo to “seek help!”

Another brought up “The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vaults”, the infamous, much-hyped live televised special in which Rivera hosted and did a play-by-play as fortune-hunters blasted into what was supposed to be the gangster’s personal safe to report on what they found. Spoiler alert: Nothing of worth.

Another Twitterer advised Rivera to “take a good hard look in the mirror and look at yourself and reflect, and also use it to comb your hair once in awhile.”

However, two tweets best summed up the entire affair. One remarked that Rivera is a serial loser who somehow still managed to hang onto relevance long after he’d been disgraced many, many times.

Another simply noted that Fox’s, um, interesting personnel decisions was causing him to take his viewership elsewhere:

And that’s the problem with Rivera’s take: The only reason he clings to a job with the network is that he’s a punching-bag liberal. He doesn’t make sound arguments. He hasn’t been much of a reporter for decades now; he’s an éminence grise, sans éminence. He’s there because he can reliably do a bit of shouty-shouty with the rest of “The Five” and that’s about it.

Carlson wasn’t just a real presence at the network, you got the sense he was the one unafraid to speak truth to power. It’s probably part of the reason he’s jobless right now. Rupert Murdoch is supposed to be the ultimate conservative media scion, but at the end of the day, he prefers Geraldo Rivera to Tucker Carlson.

Viewers, on the other hand, may prefer something else, as ratings for Fox’s prime-time lineup in the wake of Carlson’s departure seem to indicate. This is why you hear calls to boycott Fox News from the right on Twitter.

And that’s the problem for Rivera. Geraldo knows full well he can’t bite the hand that feeds him, but he doesn’t have enough sense to keep from biting the hand that keeps him fed — or, by the tone of this tweet, even acknowledging he knows there’s a difference.

To put it another way: After more than a half-century in the media, Geraldo still can’t figure out which vaults he should be breaking into and when someone’s going to break his fucking nose.

In a move that probably didn’t surprise very many people, the charges against Hollywood actor, Joe Biden spokesman and accused killer Alec Baldwin have been formally dropped. Utilizing a legal loophole known as “being a Democrat Party donor,” Baldwin was able to escape being put on trial for manslaughter after he allegedly killed some poor lady on a movie set.

Baldwin was on set for a movie filming in New Mexico in 2021 when the shooting happened. He was ranting about Donald Trump and waving his sidearm from the movie around on set when he (obviously) pulled the trigger. For some reason, the gun had a live round in it, which killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded the movie’s director.

Most people don’t realize this, but all modern firearms – including ones like the prop gun used by Alec Baldwin – are stress tested in a laboratory by gun manufacturers. They put the guns through “drop tests” and all sorts of interesting tests to try to make them accidentally go off. The purpose of the tests is to make sure that before that firearm ends up in someone’s hands, there is one thing, and hopefully only one thing that will make it fire — and that’s when a human being pulls the trigger.

Which is what Alec Baldwin obviously did. His story that the gun “just went off” never made any sense to anyone with basic knowledge of firearms. The truth is that Baldwin was waving the gun around like a reckless and entitled Hollywood liberal and he pulled the trigger, killing Hutchins.

Not that it matters, since the corrupt justice system has now let him off the hook for “committing crimes while being a Democrat.” He’s now free to go smoke crack with Hunter Biden and do some money laundering while cavorting with trafficked Ukrainian hookers, and like the First Son, he’ll never face any consequences.

I stand firmly behind Alec Baldwin, and you should too. That’s the only safe place to be when he’s waving a gun around like the mad democrat human loser that he is.

The current understanding of human rights was built on Kant’s idea of universal human rights

Protesters raise their fists and placards during a demonstration in observance of the International Human Rights day in Manila on Dec. 10, 2022. (Photo: AFP)

“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Politicians and leaders are fond of quoting this challenge posed by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 1961. They are in a way right to remind us of our responsibilities and duties. But we also need to realize our rights and privileges, which alone can enable us to have duties.

We discuss often on unalienable rights and obligations in every community. But, we must consider the fundamental right that enables all other rights. A key component of the discussion on human rights is the idea of the “right to have rights.” In the years following World War II, this idea was frequently linked to the German political philosopher Hannah Arendt. She contended that the right to own rights is the most fundamental of all rights. We will talk about the history of this idea, how important it is in today’s political debate, and the problems it creates for the fulfilment of human rights in this article.

Origins of the Right to Have Rights

The concept of the “right to have rights” may be found in the writings of Enlightenment theorists including French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and German scholar Immanuel Kant. The current understanding of human rights was built on Kant’s idea of universal human rights, which was based on each person’s intrinsic value and dignity. The evolution of the human rights discourse was also inspired by Rousseau’s social contract theory, which holds that people voluntarily cede part of their rights to the state in exchange for safety and security.

The contemporary notion of the “right to have rights” originated with Arendt’s examination of the idea of statelessness, i.e., when people have no political state to protect them.  The migrants and refugees are the contemporary examples.

The notion of the “right to have rights” originated in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, which showed the limits of the existing legal and political frameworks for defending human rights of both individuals and groups.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), a German-Jewish philosopher who escaped Europe during the war, articulated this thesis in her important contribution “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” In this book, Arendt maintained that the human rights breaches committed by Nazi Germany were made possible by the weakening of the legal and political protections that had previously guaranteed individual liberty. According to Arendt, the Holocaust showed how even the most fundamental rights, like the right to life, might be violated when people did not have the ability to exercise their rights.

Significance of the Right to Have Rights

Since it highlights the significance of political and legal safeguards for human rights, the right to have rights is crucial in today’s political and ethical discourse. It emphasizes that in addition to being individual liberties, human rights are also communal goods that rely on the presence of governmental structures capable of defending them. In this view, the manifestation of other human rights, such as the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial, is a prerequisite for the achievement of the right to possess rights.

Some Challenges to the Realization of the Right to have Rights

Despite its significance, the right to have rights faces numerous challenges in the contemporary world. The emergence of authoritarian regimes, which threaten democratic institutions and weaken the political and legal safeguards for human rights, is one of the biggest challenges.

The continuation of structural disparities that restrict access to governmental and political institutions, particularly for vulnerable groups including refugees, immigrants, and racial and ethnic minorities, is another problem. The plight of the migrants, who are compelled to flee their own country and are left in the hands of “merchants of death,” seriously tests the morality of the developed world. Their cries for justice and the heinous denial of their right to any rights is a wake-up call for all of mankind.

The neoliberal or libertarian emphasis on individual rights above or against common goods, which frequently favors free market over social wellbeing, puts the right to have rights in jeopardy, for many disadvantaged people.

In conclusion, the right to have rights is a vital component of the human rights discourse that highlights the significance of legal and political safeguards for individual liberty. This idea was developed in the wake of the Holocaust and World War II, and it is still important in today’s political debate.

The growth of authoritarian regimes, the continuation of structural disparities, and the neoliberal emphasis on individual rights are only a few of the obstacles that the right to have rights must overcome. To overcome these obstacles, everyone must work together to defend and advance the political and legal frameworks that uphold even the most basic rights.

It is the absolute minimum we can do to protect our fundamental rights, especially those of immigrants and stateless people. The most fundamental right, which serves as the foundation for all other rights, is the right to one’s political identity.

The Church is very forthright in demanding its rights.  It stands for the rights of the poor, tribal and marginalized people, inspired by Pope Francis. At the same time, the Church needs to reflect on its moral obligation to provide the right to have rights, especially to its own laity and to women religious.

The Church needs to realize that reminding them of their duty can only be done, if it recognize its primarily rights and above all the right to have rights. That comes from the very fact of God having created all of us in his own image and likeness. Then we can do justice to the fundamental rights (Maulik Adhikar) that the Indian constitution so proudly speaks of!

Overpopulation is a Myth

Have you ever heard the argument, “We need abortion because the world would be overpopulated otherwise. We won’t have enough resources for everyone if all the babies were born.”
Or maybe someone challenged you with conversations about poverty, stating the claim that abortion is merciful when confronted with lack of financial resources or other material challenges. Abortion and overpopulation is a complex issue.

Let’s get one thing straight first: the world is not overpopulated. In fact, people like Elon Musk propose quite the opposite – that a global baby bust is going to be our demise. In the United States, the population has been below replacement rate since the 1970s (people are not being born at a higher rate than people are dying). So this “crisis” is very much overstated, at the very least.

The myth of overpopulation originated in 1798 with Thomas Malthus. In An Essay on the Principles of Population, Malthus predicted that overpopulation would lead to a food shortage by 1890, ultimately leading to the destruction of humanity. This “crisis” was re-predicted numerous times over the past two centuries, but conveniently rescheduled when it did not occur. Yet, here we are, over 100 years later with the highest population of people on earth and the best food production rate in history. 

The myth stems from the idea that there are so many people on the planet that our resources can’t possibly keep up. But, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as well as the World Food Programme say, “There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.” And “the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it.” In other words, what we have is a distribution problem – not a supply problem. 

The World Food Programme lists 6 key causes of hunger, and overpopulation is not one of them. Reducing the number of hungry people will not make people less hungry if the infrastructure to get resources to them is inadequate, or war is destroying crops and interfering with relief efforts. The tendency to suggest abortion as a “solution” to suffering suggests that we ought to eliminate the sufferer instead of solving problems. 

Abortion and Overpopulation – Is it a Solution?

Although we’ve already established that overpopulation is a myth, even if the earth was overpopulated, does that justify the taking of innocent life?

Killing living human beings is not an acceptable solution to any problem. If we attempted to kill human beings to solve the overpopulation problem, it would make the most sense to kill the people who are not contributing to society – toddlers and infants. Is it morally acceptable to kill them? No. We would never accept the killing of toddlers to reduce the population, so if we believe in true human equality, we cannot accept killing of preborn human beings to accomplish the same goal.

In the name of overpopulation, abortion is justified by its supporters because they refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn, not because we are actually lacking in resources. Conversations about abortion must always start and end with what abortion is and what preborn humans are. 

Below are some great videos to review to better understand the myth of overpopulation and limited resources.

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth

7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!

Urbanization: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad City

Poverty: Where We All Started

Food: There’s Lots Of It