On January 14, 2025, Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. Hegseth, a former Army National Guard officer and Fox News host, entered the chamber to chants of “USA” from many in attendance, then faced rigorous questioning from senators concerning his qualifications, past conduct, and views on military policies.

Allegations and Controversies

Hegseth confronted inquiries about several serious allegations, including a 2017 sexual assault claim, which he has denied, asserting the encounter was consensual. Additionally, concerns were raised about his past financial management and reported instances of heavy drinking. Hegseth addressed these issues by labeling them as part of a “smear campaign” and emphasized his commitment to maintaining high standards within the Department of Defense.

Views on Women in Combat

A significant portion of the hearing focused on Hegseth’s previous statements opposing women serving in combat roles. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa and a retired lieutenant colonel, questioned him on this stance. Hegseth responded by affirming that women should have access to combat roles, provided that rigorous standards are upheld, and committed to reviewing these standards to ensure they remain uncompromised.

Commitment to Addressing Sexual Assault in the Military

Senator Ernst also pressed Hegseth on combating sexual assault within the military. Hegseth pledged to appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response, signaling his commitment to addressing this critical issue.

Protests and Public Reaction

The hearing was marked by disruptions from protesters, some dressed in camouflage, who were removed by Capitol Police. These interruptions underscored the contentious nature of Hegseth’s nomination and the polarized public opinion surrounding his potential appointment.

Support and Opposition

While Republican senators, including Ernst, appeared supportive, focusing on Hegseth’s commitment to military standards and his alignment with President-elect Trump’s defense policies, Democratic senators expressed skepticism. They questioned his qualifications, lack of senior leadership experience, and past controversial remarks, particularly concerning women and minority service members.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., called out Democratic senators’ “hypocritical” line of questioning of Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing. “I think it’s so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side, to be talking about his qualifications,” Mullin said of his Democratic colleagues before starting his line of questioning for Hegseth. “And yet your qualifications aren’t any better.”

Next Steps

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote on Hegseth’s nomination in the coming days. Given the Republican majority in both the committee and the Senate, his confirmation appears likely, barring any unforeseen developments. For those interested in viewing the proceedings, the full hearing is available online.

SOLUTION: Before probing the depths of the abortion issue, and how it may affect the upcoming elections, let me here propose a companion solution to the problems discussed. Conservatives should immediately promote a federal program that offers young women $30,000 to have their tubes tied. Who will respond to such an offer? What will be the result—in the elections, and among our various communities? What would be the long-term financial savings of such a program? Perhaps the answers to those questions will become clearer as we discuss the abortion issue.

Legal History of Abortion in the U.S.

For centuries, women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies sought out the services of underground practitioners who would accommodate them, with varying levels of care and professionalism. Most societies felt that the taking of an innocent human life was wrong, even a grave wrong from a moral or religious view, so most governments took steps to restrict or abolish the practice, and protect those innocent lives.

The state of Texas had a restrictive abortion law, which dictated that only in the case of danger to the mother’s life would abortion be allowed. The restrictive state law was challenged by “Jane Roe,” who asserted that she should be able to terminate her pregnancy for personal reasons, much broader than those provided under the Texas statute. She sued the District Attorney, Henry Wade, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Roe, striking down the restrictive law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the seminal case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court carved out a new “right” under the U.S. Constitution, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental “right to privacy,” which protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Legal scholars, across the political spectrum, privately agreed that the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade was constitutionally flawed, and likely could not withstand the rigors of constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a day of reckoning awaited the unconstitutional expansion of rights to one class, to the lethal detriment of another class, granted in Roe. Political conservatives always held the that issue is one reserved to the states by the founders and the constitution, and that each state must deal with the issue as it deals with every other moral or criminal issue—according to the will of the citizens of each state. In that discussion, conservatives felt that the innocent life is human, and must be protected. Liberals felt that the issue should be left entirely up to the individual woman affected by the pregnancy, and that aborting the unborn fetus should be her prerogative, right up until the moment of birth. A great moral, legal and political tug-of-war ensued, wherein opponents of abortion attempted to limit the practice by enacting state restrictions on how far into the pregnancy abortion would be allowed, and liberals fought to keep the practice entirely unshackled from any restrictions.

In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which had banned abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions only for medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, the law was challenged by a local abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization as too restrictive. The question was put to the Supreme Court, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion of the Court, issued on June 24, 2022, stating therein that Roe and its progeny were “egregiously wrong from the start,” and the underlying reasoning supporting it was “exceptionally weak,” thereby overturning Roe. The practical result of the Roe decision, Alito noted that the Court’s overreaching in that line of cases had “enflamed debate and deepened division,” reasoning that overruling Roe would now “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Political Implications of Abortion

Indeed, Roe had inflamed debate and deepened division among the American people, with feelings on both sides of the issue running to heated extremes. Leftist groups used the abortion issue to lure female and young voters to support their candidates, chanting incessantly that women must exercise control over their own bodies, and creating euphemisms like “reproductive liberty” to describe the act of ending the viable fetus living in the womb. Although some pro-life protagonists declared that all abortions were unacceptable, under any and all circumstances, most sought to balance the health needs of the mother with the baby’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Public polls, however, reflected that most of the country was nowhere near the extremes. Abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life was in danger, was something that most Americans reluctantly supported—even many religious groups. Few, however, supported abortion in the late stages of pregnancy. Most states attempted to regulate abortion past certain points in the pregnancy—the first trimester, for example. More liberal states pushed those boundaries all the way up to the moment of delivery, creating deep resentment among most citizens.

In the aftermath of Dobbs, which ruling had been leaked ahead of the announced decision, abortion advocates vehemently denounced the Court, and swore vengeance in their wrath. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y., pledged violent retaliation as he shouted from the steps, “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

This sentiment was carried into the streets, and indeed affected the outcome of the 2022 mid-term elections. Polls had shown Republican candidates making sweeping gains in federal and state elections, but those were pared to a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and failure to take the Senate, by the time the elections were completed.

Democrats are currently whipping up upcoming election support based on the pro-abortion fervor that they hope will continue to grow as election day draws near. Their control of the White House and Senate has left the nation in shambles, with every economic and quality-of-life measurement reflecting in the worst presidential incumbent approval numbers in history. Support for Democrat congressional candidates is gloomy. But abortion—yes, abortion—that’s the winning ticket; in their collective minds, anyway.

Will the abortion issue carry the day for the Democrats in the 2024 elections? Will it still pack the same indignant punch in the minds and hearts of middle-of-the-road voters?

The reality appears to be much different than the promised whirlwind. Women being forced into back-alley abortions as a result of the Court overturning Roe has not materialized. In fact, each state has been deliberating its own abortion policy, deciding it based on local feelings and mores—as they decide most other issues. Most women still have access to an abortion if that’s what they choose, without burdensome hardships heaped on them. It all turned out to be nothing but a poof in the wind, instead of the circling hurricanes predicted by abortion advocates. A nothing-burger.

The Abortion Issue in the 2024 Election

Pro-life forces are still against terminating innocent lives, and pro-abortion forces still stress abortion on demand. The American people are still somewhere in the middle. Political operatives on the left have been ginning up their base with promises that states will deprive them of their “right” to abort their children. Therefore, they must donate generously to Democratic candidates, and support their elections. Some conservative voices have been warning conservative candidates to stay away from the issue to the extent possible, and to take a “reasonable” public stance. Is it possible for a pro-life candidate to say, Okay, go ahead and abort some babies, for the good of our long-term survival as a political philosophy?

Here is some practical advice from someone who believes that terminating a pregnancy is the taking of innocent life. Yes, the “science” confirms that human fetuses are human lives, with organs and brains that function at a viable level. The more mature the fetus becomes, the more viable and alive it is. There’s no escaping that scientific truth. However, in the 2024 election, we are told to be a little more ‘pragmatic’ about the subject. Can I be pragmatic about killing babies? Am I become Hamas? Let us reason a little together.

Who is it that supports abortion? The left. Who is it that receives abortions? Mostly those on the left. Since 1970, approximately 59 million abortions have been performed in America. Most of those were minority babies. Most of those would have become Democratic voters. Those voices were silenced in abortion clinics.

If approximately 50 million potential Democratic Party voters have been removed by the Democrats from the voter polls, why are the Democrats still so keen to abort their babies? It’s political suicide, literally, to support the practice. Do they answer to a higher calling than garnering political power? They do not. Political power is their main focus, and they acquire it through any pretense or device they can contrive. So why do they so fervently support their own suicide? Because their long-term goals are always accomplished through short term gains. Counting the costs has never been the strong suit of the left. They never display any reservations about anything based on its cost. They simply plough the political field to harvest the crop of power, even if they know that field will be destroyed in the process. Burn it to the ground, and rebuild it in our own image, is their philosophy. Run up the debt until the nation is crushed under the weight of interest, and there’s nothing left for social services or welfare programs. It doesn’t matter; as long as they get more power today. This short-sighted methodology dominates leftist thinking, and is destroying everything that made America a great place to live and raise families.

So . . . why do Republicans fight so hard to keep Democrats from aborting their next generation of voters? Why do they fight so hard to preserve tens of millions who would probably end up on public assistance for most of their lives, and criminally victimize one another, as many do in our Democratically controlled cities? Would it not be more expedient for Republicans to just ignore the abortion issue? After all, like so many suicidal dalliances of the left—it’s a problem that eventually resolves itself. Imagine the state of our nation if Roe had never been the law of the land. Tens of millions more Democrat voters would have voted in leftist, Marxist, anti-American candidates, who would have turned the entire nation into downtown Detroit decades ago.

Is there any reason for Republicans to champion the cause of saving these unborn babies? Politically, the answer is no. Let the dead bury the dead. Ethically, morally and religiously, however—yes, there’s the rub. How many babies can we send to the ‘gas chambers’ of the abortion clinic, and still look at ourselves in the mirror? How many are expendable, for our own short-term political gains in the upcoming election?

Indeed, this is a very hard question. We are victims of our own morality, as much as the left are victims of their own godlessness. Pundits tell us to temper our stance, and speak in “reasonable” tones about aborting babies. Is that okay? WWJD? The left tells us that Jesus supports abortion. I can tell you for a fact that He does not. He holds all accountable for this evil and pernicious practice. It would be better, He says, that a millstone were draped around your neck and you were sent to the bottom of the sea, than you should offend an innocent little one.

Conclusion

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. Be as wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. Our nation is at an existential crossroads. This 2024 election will play a great part in determining our future as a constitutional republic; or, a totalitarian state. The stakes have not been so high since the Civil War, and the players are essentially the same as then, with very similar philosophies of governance. It seems that for this election, it is better for all conservative candidates to adopt a “reasonable” position on the issue of abortion, and allow the people to decide which side of the issue they support. Of course, we can teach by example as we do what is right, and how to care for the innocent among us. But perhaps the pundits are correct at this snapshot in time. Perhaps the answer to abortion should be, If leftists want to abort their babies, that’s up to them. We do not see abortion as a birth control device, but if others wish to cut themselves off from the happiness that naturally flows from living the true American dream, then we will not compel them. We will garner for ourselves the liberties that our Founders preserved to us, and create an environment that is hospitable to our children, and nurturing for the future generations of our nation. We may have to collectively bite our tongues, for a season, and perhaps God will forgive us when we are eventually able to cultivate a restored republic and live in peace and prosperity, where children are welcome and cared for by loving parents.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an analyst, author and professional ghostwriter.

In the Utah Senate Race, Utah Has a Clear Choice . . . and it isn’t the Pretend Conservative

Senator Mike Lee has represented the interests of the state of Utah, and the nation, extremely well during his tenure in office. He has voted and acted like a conservative, championing the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending philosophies of the Republican party—often providing lacking leadership in those arenas.

Evan McMullin, conversely, has been skulking and hobnobbing with liberals, busily undermining those principles and philosophies whenever the occasion has permitted. As we warned during the 2016 presidential election (Mormons Determined to Give White House to Clinton, and Supreme Court to Left, Oct 24, 2016), wherein McMullin attempted to deprive Donald Trump of the presidency with a divided conservative vote, his purpose was to deliver the White House to Hillary Clinton. If he had succeeded in that attempt, Roe vs. Wade would still be the law of the land. Let me say it again—McMullin would have deprived Trump of badly needed electoral votes in what appeared to be a razor thin margin, and Hillary Clinton would have nominated the next 4 Supreme Court Justices (so far), and the 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, etc. That was McMullin’s plan, and he was depending on the people of the state of Utah to accomplish it.

The damage we’ve seen in just two years of democratic dominance would now be in its sixth year if McMullin had succeeded, and as bad as things have gotten, we can easily project how much worse they would be if Trump had been defeated. Your rights as Christians and citizens would have been eroded to unrecognizable levels had McMullin succeeded.

McMullin has been railing against Senator Mike Lee, falsely accusing him of stupidity and wrongdoing. He is lying, and he knows it. His accusations are the thinly disguised talking points of the left, ignoring reality and constitutional principles. McMullin says he will reach out to the democrats if elected. I’m not sure how that is a virtue, when the party has been taken over by hard-left socialists. On which issue should he reach out—which means join them?

A vote for McMullin is a vote for Chuck Schumer as the Senate Majority Leader.

Utah–it’s time to cut McMullin loose. Send a message, and stand strong with the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending practices of Mike Lee.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an LDS writer and professional ghostwriter, who is well acquainted with Utah politics — he was ghostwriting the book of Utah’s late Speaker of the House, Becky Lockhart, when she died suddenly and unexpectedly.

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Author Den has James’ latest book projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number — a book that discusses government admissions about UAP and other interesting matters.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fired several top Twitter executives after officially taking control of the company Thursday evening, according to multiple reports.

CNBC’s David Faber reported Thursday evening that Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and CFO Ned Segal have “left” Twitter’s headquarters and “will not be returning as the Musk era begins.” 

People familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the move came after Musk’s $44 billion deal to takeover over the company closed. 

They told the outlet that Agrawal and Segal, as well as Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety, were shuttled from the building after being fired.   

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion on Friday to temporarily block President Biden’s student loan handout plan.

The appeals court ruled in favor of six Republican-led states who requested that Biden’s handout plan is halted while the court works through its request for an injunction.

Biden’s plan, which aims to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients in college and up to $10,000 for others who borrowed using federal student loans.

Qualifications for the handout include having an adjusted gross income of less than $125,000 individually, and less than $250,000 if married.

By Adam Sabes

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision centered on a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion.

Alito’s opinion began with an exploration and criticism of Roe v. Wade and its holding that while states have “a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,” this interest was not strong enough to prohibit abortions before the time of fetal viability, understood to be at about 23 weeks into pregnancy.

“The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning,” Alito wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the viability line “never made any sense,” but said he would have taken “a more measured course” with this case. Rather than overturn Roe v. Wade altogether, Roberts said he would have continued to recognize a right to get an abortion, and that the right should “extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.”

The court’s majority took a firmer stance against Roe v. Wade and the subsequent case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding “that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote. 

The Court’s opinion recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has been found to guarantee certain rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution, but that those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, the Court said, “does not fall within this category,” as “such a right was entirely unknown in American law” until the late 20th century.

The opinion continued to shred the Roe decision, saying it “was egregiously wrong from the start,” and that “[i]ts reasoning was exceptionally weak[.]”

Rather than continue the tradition established by Roe and Case, the Court wrote that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The opinion comes after a leak of a draft opinion from February striking down Roe caused nationwide debate and promoted pro-choice activist protests at the homes of the six conservative justices. In addition, dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized since the opinion leak, Catholic churches were targeted for protests and unrest, and a suspect was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

At least 13 Republican-led states have already passed “trigger laws,” in the event Roe was overturned, that would immediately restrict access to abortion.

Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, has reported.

On the other hand, pro-choice advocates will have to work to codify Roe or enact looser abortion restrictions by passing state-level legislation. 

New York passed a bill in 2018 designed to codify Roe, and other blue states are expected to follow suit after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Public opinion polling has also indicated that despite that more than six in 10 registered voters think the court should uphold Roe, the majority of Americans are in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

When Americans were asked in a recent Fox News poll about how they would feel if a law banning abortions after 15 weeks were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed. 

At the federal level, the Senate failed to advance a bill to codify federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the week following the leaked draft.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act. It needed 60 votes to advance but died in a 51 to 49 tally, with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining with all 50 Republicans in voting no.  

Democratic campaign arms have already signaled that abortion will be a key issue heading into the midterms and will galvanize their base. Republicans are largely convinced that “sanctity of life” issues will spark renewed enthusiasm for conservative candidates in state-level elections.

By Ronn Blitzer , Kelly Laco

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” it says, before calling abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes.”

It also declares that “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

However, despite that clarity, liberal Catholic politicians have consistently attempted to try and align their Catholic beliefs with their support of abortion rights. Then New York Gov. Mario Cuomo famously declared himself personally opposed to abortion in 1984, but said he could not impose that view on the country. 

But since then, Democrats such as Pelosi have been more full throated in their support of pro-abortion policies. President Biden, also a Catholic, had once supported the Hyde Amendment — which prevented U.S. funding going to pay for abortions abroad. He flipped on that amendment when he ran for president in 2020, and recently described “a woman’s right to choose” as “fundamental.”

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

Pelosi has sparred with the Church for years on the matter as she has tried to present herself both as a “devout” Catholic, while also a full-throated supporter of a practice that the Catholic Church condemns as a moral evil.

In a 2008 interview, Pelosi claimed that “as a devout, practicing Catholic,” the Church has “not been able to make that definition” of when life begins — a remark that brought a slew of criticism from a number of top U.S. bishops – and then said that “the point is, it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” In that interview she also said she wanted abortion to be “rare.”

But in the wake of the leaked opinion this month suggesting that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v Wade, Pelosi has not talked about reducing abortion, but she has continued to claim that her pro-choice stance is in line with Catholic teaching.

“This [topic] really gets me burned up in case you didn’t notice, because again I’m very Catholic, devout, practicing, all of that. They would like to throw me out. But I’m not going because I don’t want to make their day,” she said this month.

Pelosi met with Pope Francis last year, where the Vatican did not say if the topic of abortion was discussed. Pope Francis has compared having an abortion to hiring a hitman but has also been cautious about suggesting politicians be barred from communion.

“I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone,” the pope said last year, although he said that he did not recall a time when a politician stood staunchly against Church teaching on abortion and came to him for communion. 

He referred to communion as “a gift” and not “a prize for the perfect.”  In that same interview, however, he emphasized that the Catholic Church views abortion as homicide. 

“Whoever has an abortion kills,” the pope said. “It is a human life.”

Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, with a focus on immigration. He can be reached at adam.shaw2@fox.com or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY. Fox News’ Peter Aitken contributed to this report.

Twitter announced in a press release it has agreed to be acquired by billionaire Elon Musk for $54.20 per share, which is a 38% premium to Friday’s closing price. The deal is valued at $44 billion.

Observers have been wondering if the billionaire would be able to get the Twitter board of directors to accept the offer, in light of Musk’s public statements that he would reform the social media giant by restoring it to a free-speech platform.

For years, Twitter, and other tech giants, have been purposefully burying stories that leftists deem undesirable for public knowledge, and have been cutting off all accounts raising viewpoints that are not in lock-step with leftist policies and propaganda. Musk has been highly critical of these severe censorship practices, and has promised to make the Twitter platform politically neutral and available for the expression of all reasonable viewpoints.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said in a statement.

Twitter’s shares were up about 6% following the news.

Stay tuned for updates on this breaking story.

A Nation Under God Need Fear no Tyrant

We who have known something more than out of control spending, unfathomable national debt, unemployment, poverty, violence in the streets, government regulation and political/social/commercial cancellation have known a different America than most Americans today have seen.

This once-great nation was founded on principles of individual liberty, honor, and being responsible for one’s own family. These were principles taught long ago by the Lord of all humanity, and venerated in all of our teaching for the first 100 years of nationhood — which coincides with the explosive growth of the American economic system. Everything grew exponentially during that initial time, and nothing could possibly derail the steady progress of our nation, except a menace that began to overtake the earth in the late 19th Century — socialism.

Socialists pandered to the upwardly-mobile working class to gain a power base, promising people rewards for which they had not risked their own labors or capital. Socialism swept through the Soviet Union, then across China, and socialist leaders ordered the murders of millions of “rich,” who in China happened to be anyone with more than 1 acre of land, so that their property could be ‘redistributed.’ In fact, most of that property was merely seized and kept under the control of the socialist ruling class. No one gained anything more than they had before—except for the leaders—and most lost much in the deal.

The family unit, which had been a necessary component of the American nation’s rise from obscurity to global greatness — and indeed, under those principles this nation became great — was seen as an enemy to the spread of socialism. The family unit reminds people of their spiritual nature, and makes family members rely on one another. This is abhorrent to socialists, because the state must be one’s only family, and one’s only god. Indeed, today’s socialistic government propaganda teaches American women and minorities — and indeed, everyone — to depend on the government, for everything they need, from cradle to grave. The government merely prints the money, and throws the party.

Because Americans were reaping the tremendous rewards of liberty and capitalism for the first 100 years (capitalism is liberty’s economic engine), it was  impossible for socialists to make significant inroads in the US. However, in the early 1900s they began to find weaknesses in America’s working class, and began to infiltrate labor, then government. Their plan was simple–exploit the weak and the ignorant — by creating a sub-class of American citizens and by taking over the education system and media outlets.

Progressives, as they called themselves, fought civil rights for America’s blacks, forcing the newly liberated (by Republicans) citizens into long-term poverty. When Republicans tried to force through voting and other civil rights for blacks and other minorities, it wasn’t until Progressives adopted them as poster children for vastly expanded government spending that they went along with these Republican ideals, now claiming that they were the ones who had fought for civil rights. That promised liberty was never realized, however, because Progressives immediately used the underclass they had created to begin pulling the entire capitalist nation down with the Great Society they  launched in 1964, followed by decades of welfare spending (over $24 trillion to-date) — with only negative results.

It is now the end of 2021 and in this single year we have seen our country go from wealth to poverty. Because of the efforts of Progressives in the past few years, America has gone from civil to violent, from morality to immorality, from Christian to agnostic; and what do we have to show for these ‘progressive’ inroads? As we said at the outset, we have an ignorant nation with no understanding of where we came from or how we got to be the greatest nation in the world. Our teachers and journalists have re-educated our children and rewritten our history to the point that the man on the street believes that the KKK was made up of Republicans, that no one has to pay for gifts given by a generous government, and that guns should be taken from law-abiding citizens because young black men use them to kill fellow young black men in Democrat ghettos. It is absolute madness — and the insanity machine keeps cranking, day in and day out without the mainstream media taking the time to stop and think about why America is in such rapid decline.

I, like a fellow Republican, have a dream. One in which morality and reality retake their rightful place at the head of the Christmas table. Where the Lord Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign, and those whom we elect are public servants who diligently toil to uphold our Constitution and protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. My dream is that our children will learn nobility through selflessness, instead of what they learn from these self-centered, self-serving socialists who have infiltrated our fair nation and brought it to the brink of total bankruptcy–economic and moral.

My wish for Christmas is that my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters of every race, color and creed, will look back to see where we came from, and how we got here, and join me in restoring this nation to its former glory — as it was before the socialists took it over and prepared it for final destruction.

Surely, an enemy hath done this. He who has an ear, let him hear.

James Thompson