Connect with us


Report: Pro-Abortion Groups Looking To Target Churches On Mother’s Day With Protests



Multiple pro-abortion groups have announced planned protests targeting Catholic churches on Mother’s Day. The move comes in response to news of a draft opinion indicating the landmark Roe v. Wade decision may be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Fox News reports that a pair of abortion rights organizations – Ruth Sent Us and Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights – have revealed their respective calls to action.

Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights has an announcement posted on their website called “Actions Outside of Churches” in cities that will host “protests outside of prominent churches.”

These protests will consist of varying actions including dress-up time as Handmaid’s Tale characters, passing out fliers to churchgoers, or even conducting the ever-popular die-in – especially ironic when you’re protesting something that results in dead babies.

Ruth Sent Us, meanwhile, posted a social media call for protests against “extremist Catholics” on the Supreme Court on Mother’s Day.

Their tweet includes video of a group of people in their Handmaid cosplay outfits inside a church chanting about “abortion on demand and without apology.”

RELATED: Liberal Group Publishes Home Addresses Of Supreme Court Justices, Calls For Protests

Pro-Abortion Protests Planned at Churches

The above video from Ruth Sent Us is encouraging a far more aggressive approach to protesting, actually showing pro-abortion advocates interrupting church services and risking an escalatory response from people trying to enjoy a quiet Mother’s Day service.

Their behavior indicates they do not care about how these actions affect other people, however.

“Whether you’re a ‘Catholic for Choice,’ ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe,” they write.

“Stand at or in a local Catholic Church Sun May 8.”

Targeting Mother’s Day, irony aside, is yet another example that these people only support some women. Targeting churches? Well, you know who else targets churches?

RELATED: Biden Slams MAGA, Claim’s It’s The ‘Most Extreme Political Organization In American History’

Church Vandalized in Colorado

The Ruth Sent Us organization may sound familiar to readers of The Political Insider. We reported on the group earlier this week allegedly publishing the home addresses of six conservative Supreme Court Justices and calling for protests at those locations.

They later claimed the pinned addresses weren’t exact locations of their homes.

The White House refused to condemn the harassment.

When Fox News reporter Peter Doocy pressed White House press secretary Jen Psaki on whether President Biden cares that protesters are planning to gather outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, she dodged.

“I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest,” she replied.

“Do you think the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of the justices’ houses are extreme?” Doocy pressed.

“Peaceful protest?” Psaki replied.  “No. Peaceful protest is not extreme.”

She went on to suggest that the protests aren’t the point – the anger is.

“The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years,” she said defending these groups.

“Their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own healthcare are at risk,” she added. “That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.”

And in her view, that justifies targeted harassment at people’s private family homes.

Psaki was also asked about a church in Boulder, Colorado that fell victim to vandalism from pro-abortion extremists who reportedly spraypainted “my body, my choice” across the church doors.

The vandals reportedly smashed windows and defaced sculptures in what the church says amounts to thousands of dollars in damages.

Psaki initially denied hearing about the reports regarding the vandalized church.

“What would you say to those vandals going after — targeting Catholic churches, especially when it involves Roe?” a reporter asked anyway.

“We don’t condone vandalism,” Psaki replied, devoid of any true conviction. “We condone peaceful protest.”

President Biden earlier this week was trying to ratchet up the rhetoric on the subject of abortion by claiming MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans are “the most extreme political organization in American history.”

Republicans, you see, are the real extremists in Biden’s view. Not people targeting the homes and families of Supreme Court Justices. Not those conducting pro-abortion protests and targeting churches. Republicans.

And certainly not a President who claims to be a devout Catholic but can’t get his spokesperson to state definitely whether or not he supports abortion up until birth.

“Does the President support abortion up until the moment of birth?” Doocy asked.

“I would refer you to his own comments about abortion and a woman’s right to choose and make decisions about her body with her doctor, which is what any of those women would do,” Psaki replied.

This, despite recently stating that the life inside a womb is indeed a “child.”

“In the wake of the shameless leak of a draft opinion of the Supreme Court, pro-abortion groups are now threatening to disrupt Catholic churches and to protest outside the homes of Supreme Court justices this Sunday,” a statement from Brian Burch, president of the Catholic advocacy organization Catholic Vote reads.

“President Biden must immediately and forcibly condemn these domestic terrorist threats.”

Biden will almost assuredly be celebrating – not condemning – these pro-abortion church protests come this Mother’s Day.

This Article was first live here.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Nuts & Bolts—Inside a Democratic campaign: Don’t let others redefine you



Redemption and Love stories define our culture

I want you to sit back and think about all the great movies and films you’ve seen over your lifetime. Think about the driving forces within those stories. The majority were built around either the concept of redemption of a character or love for another character. These two forces are so profoundly built into the human experience that we seeing them, even fictionalized, motivates us. 

When we see them in a way we think is not fictionalized, like reality television, we can feel sucked in or emotionally involved with people we barely know. It isn’t that we have any great connection with them on real interpersonal grounds, it is our own understanding of a redemption story or a love story.

I’m now going to present an example in a fictional campaign. Sarah Flowers is running for a city council position in her mid-sized city. Let’s say 100k voters. At a certain point in the story, it becomes known that in the mid-1990s, while in high school, a nude photo of her circulated and is now in the hands of someone else. There will be people around who will tell her how terrible this is, how damaging it is to her campaign and some will ring their hands and say “it’s over”. I want to point out: I have seen exactly this situation happen with almost exactly this type of events, and Democratic support system come up with exactly this conclusion.

What should Sarah do? She has her own story, and her story is the truth. She was young, in love, and unfortunately, that was taken advantage of; she has never regretted falling in love, she learned a lot from her youth, and she feels sorry for those who want to traffick in kiddie pornography photos of her in order to harm her. This is enabling the vengeance of someone else, but she’s just sad that they are doing it. 

She can look at that photo now and say: yes, that’s me. It’s who I was then, and I don’t regret the love I had. I can’t regret the terrible actions taken by someone else, that is on them. We have all done things in our youth we wish we hadn’t done. 

You can own something, ask for redemption and point out that the redemption your asking for has limits. You aren’t asking to be redeemed for something that isn’t your fault. You can tell a love story where one side is broken-hearted. 

In other words: it is perfectly okay to have regrets. Everyone does. Share them with others and people will relate to you. Offer flat affect responses and people will wonder why you aren’t more emotionally in touch with who you were and who you are now.

When others define you, you lose.

One of the greatest failures of a campaign is to just assume that a story will “go away”. It is a Friday story and no one will care is something that was true in the pre-internet era and it is no longer true. Once a story is available, people will speculate, find interest, recirculate and continue to discuss it. They want to choose a side. They want to understand what is going on. People who were committed to vote against you have made up their mind before they read the first sentence. 

For everyone else, though, they are looking for a common ground that defines you. Let’s take another candidate. Billy is running for the state legislature. Billy is pressed by the fact that a few years ago he was divorced from his wife of 8 years and has since moved on. The advice given to Billy is “say as little as possible”. There is some value in that. Saying: “I think it is best to protect my children and my former spouse that I don’t want to speak to harm them, and I’d encourage people to keep them off limits, because I still love and care for what happens next.” Or any similar response. Billy might also respond by saying that he once loved his partner, things changed and they grew apart or whatever reasoning. 

People are OK with simple understandings. What Billy can’t do is get angry about the question, change the narrative to a challenge of his opponent or make demands of someone else as a response. The moment you try to go on the attack when you can shut something down through an answer, people will continue to ask the question. The press is not your enemy. They have inches to fill and columns to write, and if you give them content they will generally run it. If you stonewall instead, or if you let your own anger and dismissiveness take over, you are going to be in trouble. If anyone on your campaign advises you to stonewall the press, unless that press source is one you know specifically is already in the tank against you than that advice is generally bad advice, in my opinion and the opinion of the vast majority of campaign workers who have helped build this series.

In the end, when it comes down to conveying who you are to a voter the reality is simple: be yourself and don’t let others define who you are because you refuse to do so. If you can hold strong to that piece of advice you will already be ahead of a great number of candidates — ask soon to be ex-representative Cawthorn.

This Article was first live here.

Continue Reading


ROGER STONE EXCLUSIVE: Guilt by Association Smears Just Won’t Stop



Guest post by Roger Stone

Guilt by association smears just won’t stop. 

Webster’s dictionary defines “guilt by association” as moral guilt or unfitness presumed to exist on the basis of one’s known associations. It is the favored tool of the fake news media and it grows tedious.

In an all too familiar pattern of smear, conjecture, supposition and good old fashion “guilt by association” the New York Times last week attempted yet again to imply that simply because I know President Donald Trump and I know or came into contact with members of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers that I must surely have been involved in some way with the illegal acts went down at the Capitol on January 6th. Wrong !

TRENDING: Name Them and Shame Them: Glenn Greenwald Releases Video on ‘Typhoid Mary of Disinformation’ Nicolle Wallace

Neither of CNN’s previous claims that they were in possession of “secret encrypted ” text messages regarding arrangements for a perfectly legal speech that I gave at a legally permitted rally on January 5 nor the new New York Times claims that my inclusion in a chat room that was neither initiated nor administered by me prove in any way that I was involved in the politically counterproductive and illegal activities at the Capitol on January 6th. That Reuters reported months ago that the FBI had concluded that neither Alex Jones nor I were involved in any illegal conspiracy is just ignored in the rush to slander me.

In a repeat of the same slander, I experienced in the two-year ordeal in which I was the target of a politically motivated witch hunt designed to pressure me into testifying falsely against President Trump in which I was wrongly charged with “lying to Congress” about Russian collusion that we now know definitively was an entirely false narrative propagated by the Clinton campaign and accelerated by their many handmaidens in the fake news media.

Incredibly some former prosecutor named Glenn Kirschner who previously accused me of being a Russian spy now insists that I will go to prison in a January 6th matter or that I will flip and somehow testify against President Trump. Ridiculous. Kirshner has no evidence of wrongdoing on my part and his comments come excruciatingly close to defamation. There is nothing to ‘flip” about.

The continued attacks on me are motivated largely by bloodlust and the fact that the hysterical left cannot get over the fact that I avoided the deadly snare so cleverly set for me by corrupt and politically motivated prosecutor Robert Mueller and his cohort Congressman Adam Schiff.

Let me say it again. Any claim assertion or implication that I knew about, was involved in or condoned any illegal activity on January 6th at the Capitol or any place else at any other time is categorically false. If Kirschner or any of his ilk have any evidence to the contrary they should produce it. There is no document, communication or witness who can claim otherwise.

Perhaps this new round of baseless attacks on me is based partially on the fact that the gross criminality and total fabrication of the entire Russian collusion hoax by Hillary Clinton and her lawyers and top Aides is collapsing around their ankles in the DC courtroom where Special Counsel John Durham is prosecuting Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman.

In fact, former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook admitted that Hillary herself signed off on a statement by her national security advisor accusing Donald Trump falsely of having some involvement with a Russian bank. The Clinton campaign’s funding of the entirely bogus Steele dossier, compiled with the assistance of Russian intelligence assets, has already been firmly established. How ironic that this is the same Robby Mook who attacked me relentlessly as a”Russian collaborator” during the Soviet-style show trial I was subjected to in Washington DC in early 2020. Mook was lying then and he actually knew it.

These recycled personal attacks grow increasingly tedious and expensive. My wife and I are already burdened with unpaid medical bills from her recent cancer treatments as well as massive legal bills for defending myself before the January 6th committee as well as in six baseless civil lawsuits against us including a Biden Department of Justice civil suit which implies but does not claim that we somehow cheated on our 2006 income taxes. This is called lawfare which is the filing of false but sensationalized civil claims against an individual to generate negative media coverage and run up huge legal bills for the target.

People who want to help us in our never-endings struggle with the Deep State Democrat/Media cabal can go to

(Please help Roger Stone if you can.  Thank you.)


This Article was first live here.

Continue Reading


Will Biden and Stacey Abrams Eat Their Words That Georgia’s 2021 Election Law Is Jim Crow 2.0? | National Review



Don’t bet on it, despite record voter turnout in the state’s primary.

This Article was first live here.

Continue Reading