Abortion: The Four-Part Series

It is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life is an unalienable right. It's straightforward. Furthermore, the Constitution passes our rights to our posterity. Who is that? Our unborn children yet to come.

Progressives have done everything possible to discredit our Founding documents, with even President Woodrow Wilson saying, "You can't listen to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution is an old dusty document." Progressives would have you believe that abortion has always been a constitutional right, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. In this four-part series on abortion, we'll look at the history of abortion in America, including our Founders's clear beliefs that abortion was murder.

Listen to the Full Series on Abortion

Abortion Part I: The Founders' Views

In 2015, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recited a common refrain of the pro-abortion activists: "We do not support rolling back the protection that the constitutional right to make your own reproductive choices established in Roe vs. Wade has given to women."

It should be noted that the United States Constitution actually says nothing about abortion specifically. And while it is true that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized abortion in 1973, the high court cannot write constitutional amendments, meaning women's reproductive rights are still not mentioned in the Constitution. However, it would seem that the unborn babies would qualify as our posterity, and thus, deserve a chance for life and liberty.

While there is no specific language in the Constitution regarding abortion, the Founders did leave behind their beliefs on the topic. For that insight, we turn to author and historian David Barton.

After America separated from Great Britain and the Founding Fathers made their own brand-new and unique government, they still preserved and protected the legal position against abortion. This fact is made clear by founding father James Wilson. James Wilson was one of only six Founders who signed both the declaration and the Constitution. He was the second most active member at the Constitutional Convention, and he was placed as an original justice on the US Supreme Court by President George Washington.

Wilson began America's first organized legal training, and he authored our first legal textbook for students in which he told law students, quote, with consistency, beautiful, and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb by the law that life is protected, end quote.

American law was clear. As soon as it was known that there was life in the womb, at that point, that life was protected by law for the purpose of government was to protect all unalienable rights, including that of life. In the Founders' day, they recognized that there was a right to life in the womb, so soon as James Wilson said, quote, the infant is first able to stir. That is, when movement can be felt inside and, thus, they knew for sure that there was indeed life within. But with today's technology, it is now possible to know with a certainty that life is within the womb for only a few days after conception.

Regardless, whenever it is known that life was within, according to the documents penned by our Founding Fathers, at that point, unborn life was to be protected under the law.

In the late 1700s, America's attitude on life stood out compared to the rest of the world. Because our Founders believed the things that they did about God and nature, there was a difference between the law here and elsewhere around the world. Across much of secular Europe, it was wrongly believed that parents --- not God --- gave life to their children. So under the law of those countries, parents had the right to take their child's life. After all, they believed they had given it. But Americans knew that the life of a child came not from parents, but from God. Parents, therefore, had no right to deprive an unborn child of its life.

A signer of the declaration, John Witherspoon acknowledged, "Some nations have given parents the power of life and death over their children. But here in America, we have denied the power of life and death to parents."

It may well be that America's Founding Fathers didn't specifically address the abortion issue because they couldn't conceive of a people that would destroy the lives of 55 million unborn babies in a 43-year period of time.

Abortion Part II: Margaret Sanger

The year, 1957. Mike Wallace interviewed 78-year-old Margaret Sanger, the founder of what eventually became Planned Parenthood, a group that now receives nearly half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money to function as America's largest abortion provider.

Near the beginning of the interview, Wallace sought to determine her motives for birth control. Even a young Mike Wallace seemed shocked by some of what he heard from Margaret Sanger that day, including her belief that "the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when they're born."

Sadly, and strangely, Wallace never asked Margaret Sanger about the most controversial aspects of her character --- her association with eugenics, and the ample evidence of her racism. In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger wrote about a speech she gave in 1926 at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey. The Planned Parenthood founder bragged about the fact that afterward, she was invited by 12 other Klan chapters to speak at their events.

Because of Margaret Sanger's vision, there are, in fact, disproportionately fewer blacks in America than any other race. Since 1973, legal abortion has killed more African-Americans than AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and violent crime combined. Every week, more blacks die in American abortion clinics than were killed in the entire Vietnam War. African-American Pastor Clenard Childress has said, "The most dangerous place for an African-American to be is in the womb of their African-American mother."

In Sanger's 1922 book, Women, Mortality, and Birth Control, she wrote, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

In her magazine, Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

If it sounds familiar, it should. It's essentially the same policy advocated and carried out by Germany's Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, whose sterilization policy Sanger openly praised. Most people associate eugenics with Hitler and the Nazis. And while the Nazis may have perfected the movement, they did not start it. It began in England and spread to the United States very early in the 20th century.

Margaret Sanger was, in fact, a racist and eugenicist who advocated for the, "extermination of the Negro population."

Abortion Part III: Roe v. Wade

In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion, ruling that it was a private matter between a mother and her doctor within the first three months of pregnancy. The 7-2 ruling overturned laws in Texas, Georgia and 17 other states, stating the government had no right to enter into the now protected decision. The court ruled that during the second three months of pregnancy, the state could regulate abortion procedures, but only to ensure the safety of the mother. During the last three months of pregnancy, state laws would prevail.

Unwittingly, the Supreme Court also sentenced 55 million unborn babies to death over the next 42 years, including well over 14 million African-American children. The ruling overturned centuries of laws prohibiting taking the lives of the unborn.

How was this monumental change accomplished? How could a nation that promised the blessings of life and liberty to its posterity, a nation that so treasured its children become capable of allowing millions of its posterity to be wiped out before birth?

Lies and spin from the progressive left.

Pro-abortion activists became something everyone could love — pro-choice. Who could possibly be against choice in America? It wasn't about aborting an unborn baby anymore, but a woman's right to choose what she wanted to do with her body. In order to nullify the objection over the human being growing inside the womb, they also began a campaign to dehumanize the human fetus by referring to it as tissue or cells.

If the spin wasn't enough, there were also lies.

One of the most prominent pro-abortion activists was renowned abortionist --- and cofounder of NARAL --- Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson and his allies lied relentlessly and spectacularly about the number of women who had died each year from abortions. He claimed that between 5,000 and 10,000 women died each year from illegal abortions. The actual number in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, was 39. Nathanson later confessed he had lied about the numbers, knowing full well the figures were totally false. He stated his overriding concern was to eliminate the laws against abortion and "anything within reason that had to be done was permissible."

Bernard Nathanson had a change of heart one year after the nation's abortion laws were overturned in 1973. By 1980, he had given up the abortion industry entirely and eventually became active in the pro-life movement, later converting from Atheism to Christianity. But the damage had been done.

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade --- Norma McCorvey, a young woman who lived in Texas --- became pregnant with her third child. She wanted an abortion, but they were illegal in Texas. So Jane Roe, as she would come to be called in court, found two young lawyers to challenge the laws. They lost their initially court battles, but appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Roe's favor, negating the abortion laws in 46 states. Jane Roe, never had the abortion, giving her baby up for adoption instead.

Norma McCorvey came to deeply regret her decision and her part in overturning abortion laws. For decades since, she has been a committed warrior in the pro-life movement.

It's a bittersweet irony that two of the people most responsible for legalizing abortion in America became adamantly and actively pro-life.

Abortion Part IV: Today's Fight

In the 43 years since abortion became legal, 55 million babies have been destroyed and hundreds of years of laws and beliefs erased from much of society. The battle to change what we know about biology continues as the pro-life movement seeks to stop the slaughter.

Pro-abortion activists control the debate today in America. So much so that Planned Parenthood --- the organization providing the vast majority of abortions in America today --- maintains its federal funding after secret videos exposed it illegally selling body parts from aborted babies.

If this weren't such a deadly, serious issue, it would be almost comical listening to people like DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz avoid referring to her own children as human before they were born.

President Obama, then Illinois State Senator Obama, once awkwardly and painstakingly discussed a bill about whether a child born alive during a failed abortion should receive medical treatment (a bill that Barack Obama opposed).

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician, who has determined since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus. That . . . if that fetus or child --- however, whatever way you want to describe it --- is now outside of the mother's womb, and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable, but there's, let's say movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Hillary Clinton, the woman many consider to be the odds-on favorite to become the next president of the United States, believes that in order to bring about the kind of abortion-on-demand world she envisions, "deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs have to be changed." Additionally, she believes that "the unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights."

The United States extends rights to illegal aliens, terrorists tried on our soil and mass murderers. How is it possible that an unborn person, as she admitted the fetus was and is, doesn't have constitutional rights? Rights have been granted to the unborn --- our posterity --- from the very beginning of the Constitution in the preamble.

Conservatives want the government involved where it should be involved --- protecting life.

Then Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz summed it up this way:

I think the first obligation of everyone in public office is to protect life. Life is foundational. In fact, as you look at the Declaration, that ordering of unalienable rights --- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --- I think is a very deliberate ordering. Without life, there is no liberty. And without liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. That each builds upon the other."

The left speaks of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision as if it had been carved into tablets on a mountaintop. They once spoke the same way about the 1883 Supreme Court decision allowing individuals and corporations to discriminate against blacks. It's time for Americans to realize that Supreme Court decisions are not --- and should not be --- the final and only word in this land.

Glenn created "The Senate Fails to Condemn INFANTICIDE" in response to the Senate not passing Nebraska Senator Ben Sasses' bill banning infanticide early this year. In an effort to help support pro-life charities, Glenn first posted this for sale on eBay before being banned multiple times before we finally had enough and put it up for sale on bidpal.net.

At the time of this post, the bid was up to $4,700 — but we can do better than that. Please help us raise money for a good cause, you don't even have to display it anywhere in your home, you can just keep it in storage or something! If you want this priceless piece created by one of the most influential people in the world of art, place your bids here.

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.