Main Contents

Are Jews Our Misfortune?


Are Jews Our Misfortune?
By Brother Nathanael Kapner May 26 2019

“Die Juden Sind Unser Ungluck!” was a slogan, (a quote actually), printed on the bottom of the popular Third Reich newspaper, Der Sturmer.

Translated, the slogan states, “The Jews are our Misfortune!”

Der Sturmer was published by Julius Streicher from 1923 to 1945. The paper was endorsed by Hitler as a tool to influence the man on the street.

After the war, Streicher was tried and condemned at the Nuremberg trials for “crimes against humanity”—translate—”criticizing the Jews,” and the Jews got him “hung from the gallows” simply for publishing the paper.

(Sound familiar? Simply say you’re opposed to the genocide of the Palestinians and the hanging judge whether a shill or a Jew is at the door.)

THERE IS MUCH for which to criticize Jews today and one finds himself mining a mountain of malfeasance that wearies the soul in an effort to process a myriad of names and the attendant offenses.

Beginning with the promotion of sexual-deviancy we find Jews in high places not only advocating this accursedness but actuating laws that grant to it credence and validation.

And not only is its affirmation legislated from the bench but a tacit censure on those who oppose its proliferation is set in motion.

While the Jew-owned main stream media celebrates the Jews who subvert the laws of nature—Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor (her mother a Sephardic Jew)—a plague inflicting a scourge on society has been unleashed.

The irony conjoined with the promotion of anal intercourse is Jewry’s push for wars abroad.

For while claiming to be broad minded, Jews on all sides of the political aisle—like Adelson (Republican), Dershowitz (Democrat), and Singer (Libertarian)—are narrowly fixed on one goal, that the goyim should fight wars for Israel thousands of miles away.

COMPARING PRO-LIFERS to ‘Nazis,’ feminist and Jewish icon Gloria Steinem touted with desecrated tongue Jewry’s abortion agenda on NBC’s Today Show last Monday.

Responding to a gushing introduction, (NBC is owned by the JEW Brian Roberts and run by Jews Ron Meyer and Adam Miller with a few Gentile shills thrown in), Steinem exclaimed:

“It’s relevant in terms of the right wing’s position against abortion that Hitler was elected based on his anti-abortion stand, I mean, he padlocked the family planning clinics.”

Surely, if that was indeed the case, the family planning clinics were doubtless run by Jews, and Hitler had good reason to shut them down.

And not so surely is Ben Shapiro’s controlled-opposition posturing that Judaism is “pro-life.”

Well, if Judaism, is Pro-life, it’s for the Jews, not for the Goys, seeing that Senators Richard Blumenthal and Bernie Sanders—both JEWS—are at the vanguard in the murder of the unborn and newly born.

And not only Sanders and Blumenthal (sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act which would prohibit states from banning abortion early in pregnancy if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and would invalidate state laws limiting late-term abortion), but a whole slew of Jewish organizations (hundreds of these miserable influential lobbies) push for the genocide of in-the-womb and out-of-the-womb (Gentile) babies.

AND WHY TALK about only killing babies? How about killing free speech?

No surprise here that JEWS lead the charge for there is no realm of all that is good and virtuous that Jewry hasn’t taken up arms to destroy.

Once you lose your God-given right to speak your mind then the tyranny of Judaic ideology which denies the resurrection of Christ seizes control of your thoughts and tongue.

For with the Anti-Defamation Leagues’ Jonathan Greenblatt and Eileen Hershenov, and the SPLC’s Hate Map monitors, Seth Levi and Heidi Beirich—BOTH groups designated as the official flaggers of Google and YouTube—once again we find JEWS leading the attack on the First Amendment.

How is it, one might ask, that a few JEWS determine “community standards” for internet postings?

If Jews make up only 1.8% of the population then how did this tiny minority become the arbiters of who should live and who should die on the web? Next thing you know they’ll throw your ass into prison for criticizing their genocidal Jewish State.

We could go on and on of how Jewry militates against all of our hard won freedoms but who has the time to write such a voluminous indictment?

For with these few facts enumerated above the question stares us right smack in the face:

Are Jews our misfortune? No doubt about it.



Mark Of The Beast Here

Jewish Tyranny At Supreme Court Here

Attack Of The Algorithm Here

Mystery Babylon In Swift Key Here

What You Need To Know About Google Here

My Struggle Here

Riders Of The Storm (BANNED by JEWtoob) Here

What If Jews Ran America? Here

Seeds Of America’s Collapse Here


Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Online donation system by ClickandPledge

Support +BN On Patreon

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

Scroll Down For Comments

Brother Nathanael @ May 26, 2019


  1. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 1:29 pm

    Watch My NEWEST Video Worldwide & In All EU Countries CENSOR FREE:

    “Velcome To Vile TV!” @

    This is my STATE-OF-THE-ART Video Platform AND I OWN It! It Bypasses ALL Jew-Censorship.

    ALL Jew-Ruled EU Countries Can NOW View ALL My Vids Without JEW-CENSORSHIP! @

  2. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 1:30 pm

    Dear Real Jew News Family,

    If you like my Articles and Videos please help me continue.

    Donate by Click and Pledge @

    Patreon @

    Bitcoin @

    MAIL: Brother Nathanael Foundation; POB 547; Priest River ID 83856

    God Bless Us All! +Brother Nathanael


    Special THANKS to:

    “Keep Up The Good Work”
    John C (from California)

    +Brother Nathanael Kapner @

  3. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 1:30 pm

    Dear All,

    My computer tech informed me that I need a new computer because my current one can no longer process complex renders of my Videos.

    I will need a custom-made computer to handle Adobe Creative Cloud complex renders of my Videos which will cost me $5,000.

    Th last Video I rendered ON MY OWN COMPUTER (I am now leasing a computer on a short term expensive lease for current Vids) underwent many crashes during rendering indicating current computer deficiencies.

    Can anyone help me with a special love offering for a custom made computer?

    Please let me know: bronathanael at {yahoo} dot com

    MAIL: Brother Nathanael Foundation; POB 547; Priest River ID 83856.

    Click and Pledge @

    Patreon @

    Bitcoin @

  4. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 2:08 pm

    Follow +BN On Gab and Voat!

  5. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 2:08 pm

    “Got a notice from JewToob today” @

    “Hey goys…I’m your Jew censor” @

  6. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 2:10 pm

    Why did JEWtoob BAN this?

  7. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 2:21 pm

    ANOTHER notice from JEWtoob today @

    Went to a Memorial Day parade today @

  8. Warren J Raftshol May 26, 2019 @ 4:11 pm

    The question of how to solve the JQ remains.

    Martin Luther favored burning synagogues and driving them away.

    E. Michael Jones, as a Catholic, states the traditional Catholic view that Jews should not be harmed physically, but should be denounced as non-believers, and criticizes Martin Luther for suggesting violence.

    Certainly the most successful solution was in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) around 300 AD which forbade Jews from holding public office or attaining influential positions and prohibited them from educating the young.

    Ezra Pound and Eustace Mullins point to this success which allow the Byzantine Roman Empire to remain unsubverted until it was conquered by the Ottomans in the mid 1400s. The Jews in this empire led peaceful and properous lives, and this appears, to me at least, to be the best solution.

  9. Cornelius May 26, 2019 @ 4:53 pm

    Dear Brother Nathanael,

    The truth you stated above cannot be denied and will wipe out ten years of Jewish brainwashing in five minutes.

    Don’t be upset that the Jews are building a wall around you to keep the truth from spilling out. You are on the winning team and you are doing incredible damage to the Jews’ work.

    Every time there is a truth-leak in the dam, the Jews will be in a frenzy to do damage control, but they can’t stop the force of nature.

    Nature cannot stand a lie, because nature abides by God’s laws.

  10. Citizenfitz May 26, 2019 @ 5:09 pm

    Steinem speaks of Hitler being elected. He was never elected… he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg.

    Once again we see how some talentless mediocrity rises to celebrity – for the sole reason that they’re a Jew.

    Which would explain why the sign of the times screams, “Mediocrity!”

  11. DachsieLady May 26, 2019 @ 5:29 pm

    19 minute audio by Bishop Donald Sanborn
    Judaism vs Christianity

    Partial transcript…

    “…And after two hundred years we see our institutions which have come down to us through our forefathers in the faith completely ruined. And we live in a world which is dominated by the temporal messianism of the Jews.

    “The Jews for their part have historically supported every movement which has been hostile to the Church. In the Middle Ages, in the Renaissance, it supported Protestantism, it supported the Turks, it supported Freemasonry during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and continues to do so, every type of social movement.

    “It supported communism. It is not a secret that most of the people, most of the movers of the communist revolution in Russia, perhaps 95% were Jews. It is no secret that most of them are sympathetic to socialism and other anti-Catholic movements. It is no secret. Because they are involved in a deep battle with Christ and a deep battle with the Catholic faith.

    “And this struggle will continue until the appearance of anti-Christ and he will embody organized naturalism and will persecute the Church as if to re-crucify Christ.

    “It is important to understand this obstinancy of Judaism in the face of the Messias for we cannot truly understand the course of history, the two great poles if you want, that seek to influence the world and society are the Church on the one hand and Judaism on the other.

    “Everything else falls in between the cracks, and we should, by this, understand that the culture that we live in is something alien to our Catholic faith and that we should isolate ourselves, even build a fortress around ourselves, with regard to that culture in order not to be corrupted by it.

    In the name of the Father and the Son and Holy Ghost, Amen. “

  12. Stephen Smith May 26, 2019 @ 8:11 pm

    Your title reminded me of an old William Pierce video by the exact same name.

    The video was of course done some time after he died. But Pierce was WAY ahead of his time! Enjoy…

  13. KathJuliane May 26, 2019 @ 8:16 pm

    Once upon a time in Weimar Germany (1918-1933)…



    In 1919, Magnus Hirschfeld and Arthur Kronfeld, founded the “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft” (Institute for ‘Sexual Research’) in Berlin.

    Both were active in the German Communist Party and were prominent members of Berlin’s Jewish community.

    A multitude of degenerate services were offered at the institute, including the first surgical sex changes in modern history, abortions, lectures and ‘sex counseling’, room rentals, a large library of pornography and erotic literature on every possible perversion (including bestiality and pedophilia), and a Museum of Sex featuring a wide array of homosexual fetish items, dildos, “masturbation machines”, etc.

    The institute hosted tens of thousands of visitors each year, including school class field trips.

    Hirschfeld was a notorious sodomite, popularly known in the Berlin gay scene by his cross-dresser name Tante Magnesia.

    He also founded a committee for gay rights and wrote and published many degenerate books and journals, including Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen (Yearbook for Intermediate Sexual Types).

    In fact, he’s the sinister figure that coined the term ‘transvestite’. Hirschfeld campaigned to end the Berlin police department’s arrest of cross-dressers and prostitutes.

    In 1921, Hirschfeld organized the First Congress for Sexual Reform, which led to the formation of the World League for Sexual Reform, with conventions held in Copenhagen [1928], London [1929], Vienna [1930], and Brno [1932].

    In short, Hirschfeld was the quintessential Hebraic culture-killer who Adolf Hitler explained thus: “And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity.

    “Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race.

    “It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of Jews seemed specially designed by Nature to play this shameful part.” ~ Mein Kampf. ibid. 42. Adolf Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as the most dangerous Jew in Germany.

    Hirschfeld’s institute was a monument to moral sickness and represented everything the NSDAP stood against.

    In May 1933, the Deutsche Studentenschaft (German Students Union) stormed this den of debauchery shouting Brenne Hirschfeld (Burn Hirschfeld) and began beating the staff and smashing the premises. The Institute was permanently closed and its extensive lists of names and addresses were seized.

    A few days later the entire library was famously burned in the streets, some 20,000 books and images, along with Marxist literature and other subversive material.

    Ever since, without background or explanation, corporate media and palace publishers have protested against the German students emptying their swamp.

    At the time, Hirschfeld was on an international speaking tour lecturing on sexuality. He never returned to Germany and died in exile two years later.

    In October 1941, co-founder of the institute, Kronfeld, committed suicide in Moscow at the approach of German troops.

  14. KathJuliane May 26, 2019 @ 8:29 pm

    Russia Insider: Joseph Goebbels’ 1945 Editorial on the Influence of Jewish Elites in the US, UK and Russia

    THE JEWISH QUESTION – The Creators of the World’s Misfortunes

    Published on January 21, 1945 in Das Reich, the leading German weekly newspaper of that time.

    One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and keep humanity in the dark.

    It is, so to speak, the mortar that holds the enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class, ideology, and interests.

    Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit.

    International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see that it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

    There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes anti-Semitism — or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question — by death.

    The expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world.

    In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.

    It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by the executioner, but rather by death through economic and social boycott and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.

    Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt were made by Jewry. They enjoy its full support and reward it with their full protection. They present themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is fully justified.

    Jewry is a taboo theme in the enemy countries.

    It stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its host peoples.

    While enemy soldiers fight, bleed, and die at the front, the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and black markets.

    If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press, chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into public contempt.

    Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world, giving Jewry absolute power and freedom from prosecution.

    He who objects or even debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe through his neck.

    There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the nations that deserve freedom.

    That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance. We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the Reich, but they have not given up.

    They did not rest until they had mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every Russian, English, and American soldier is a mercenary of this world conspiracy of a parasitic race.

    Given the current state of the war, who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front for the national interests of their countries!

    The nations want a decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of the war would mean the dawning humanity’s knowledge of the unhealthy role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out this war.

    They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.

    They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things are already too far along.

    The hour will come in which all the peoples of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here, too, things can only go so far.


  15. Darrell May 26, 2019 @ 8:31 pm

    Warren says, “E. Michael Jones, as a Catholic, states the traditional Catholic view that Jews should not be harmed physically, but should be denounced as non-believers.” Only the first part of that is correct.

    The traditional Catholic view, as stated in “Sicut Iudeis non” by Pope Gregory I (called Gregory the Great) in the late 6th C. is that Jews should not be harmed physically, nor their property, but they should not be allowed to undermine the faith and morals of the Christian people with whom they live.

    See Dr Jones on youtube and at

  16. Brother Nathanael May 26, 2019 @ 9:19 pm

    YouTube Warning

  17. Israhell May 26, 2019 @ 9:19 pm

    A List of prominent Jewish Neocons and their role in getting the U.S. into Iraq and Homeland Security

    The Ritual Talmudic Execution and Torture Methods of the Bolsheviks Were Satanic

    Zionism’s Master Plan for World Power. Documented and Dated

    This article is not intended to focus on the Jewish people, only the individuals listed.

    Before the American Mercury Magazine came into its present ownership, it was owned and controlled by a noted patriot by the name of Russell Maguire. He was a man of wealth and intelligent business initiative.

    He became alarmed over what he knew to be Zionism’s Master Plan for World Power. A documented research manuscript came into his hands and he had the courage to publish it.

    Following its publication, he was the victim of attempted blackmail, physical threat, danger of assassination and the complete sabotage of his business enterprises. His life became so harassed that he left America for an isolated island home where he felt he could be safe from harassment, persecution and the risk of death itself.

    Herewith is the Manuscript that this courageous patriot had the courage to reproduce.

  18. native dancer May 26, 2019 @ 10:16 pm

    The jews attempt to put truth on trial throughout the world will ultimately fail.

    The only 2-step you will ever need to know is to not get removed with them.

  19. Israhell May 26, 2019 @ 10:16 pm

    Given that most of those countries have not discriminated against the Jewish people for decades (and even longer if we read the WWII revisionists such as my uncle), one has to wonder why the sudden increase, especially from developed countries such as Russia, US/Canada/Europe… unless the Zionists are, indeed preparing WWIII and lining up their proxies to get them ready and willing to fight for Israel…


  20. Israhell May 26, 2019 @ 10:47 pm

    They need to do first a retaliatory strike in Israel with RS-28 Sarmat missiles too, before it´s too late!

    A military expert told how the “Dead Hand” of the Russian Federation will respond to US nuclear strikes…

    “It turns out that rockets flying from one side and the other will meet in orbit, only we now have a bet on rockets that fly faster than the US.

    “That is, in the case of a retaliatory strike of the “Dead Hand” system, the territory of the United States will suffer before their missiles reach Russia. If we take the Minuteman III missiles, which will serve in the United States until 2050, then they are 2.5 times less than the RS-28 Sarmat missiles by 2.5 times,” the Russian analyst continues.


  21. Children of the Devil May 27, 2019 @ 7:45 am

    The Bible isn’t joking about Satan being the ruler of this world.

    It’s sooo true. All institutions with great power are ruled by the children of the Devil.

    Big government, courts, judges, congressmen, prime ministers, presidents, big banking, big business, big corporations, masonry, secret societies, mass media, big entertainment, big sports, big education, universities, public school administration, anything with great influence and power, is controlled by Zionist Jews.

    Governments and big corporations have been infiltrated, subverted, and turned into Zionist front organizations.

    Even when the ‘wicked one’ at 2 Thess 2 is revealed, lots of people will be deceived and think it’s all good. Lots of people think current day Israel is the prophesied government from which God’s rule will come, just as the Devil and his children want.

    If Jews were still God’s chosen people, Jesus wouldn’t have told the Jews they are the children of the Devil at John 8:44.

    People who believe Jews are still God’s chosen people are primed to be fooled by the ‘wicked one.’ Like Satan deceived Eve, Satan still deceives the world today.

  22. AR May 27, 2019 @ 8:23 am

    The Bull, Cantate Domino 1441 Anno Domini, says it well and dogmatically!

    Jews must convert. Vatican II 1962-65 is a council of Modernists!

  23. patriots' day May 27, 2019 @ 11:10 am

    Congressional loyalty oath?

    I pledge allegiance
    to the flag
    of the United States of Israel
    and to the vassal
    for which it stands
    one nation
    under satan
    with liberty
    and justice for none. (especially white people)

  24. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 12:09 pm

    Hillary In Blue MuuMuu

  25. KathJuliane May 27, 2019 @ 1:03 pm

    Dear +BN,

    God bless you and thank you for a brilliantly done Article.

    Truly, the Jews are our misfortune.

    Despite Shapiro’s feeble crap trying to defend Judaism as actually “pro-life” (for Jews as you pointed out, since Rabbinic Jewish law excludes non-Jews), in the ever-widening Jewish/progressive spiderweb of “intersectional politics,” below are names of some of the “interfaith” Jewish organizations involved in pushing abortion.

    In the United States, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism are usually aligned with the interfaith Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

    Orthodox Jewish organizations such as the Orthodox Union and Agudas Yisrael have occasionally partnered with pro-choice organizations when necessary to ensure that abortions will be available to women whose lives are endangered by the fetus.

    Polls of Jews in America report that 83% of American Jews are pro-choice.

    The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) founded in 1973 by clergy and lay leaders from liberal mainline denominations and faith traditions to create an interfaith organization following the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the U.S.

    In 1993, the original name – the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR) – was changed to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).

    In 2013, RCRC listed these organizations below as members of their Coalition Council.

    They no longer list their Coalition Council and which organizations are members, but I doubt very little has changed.

    In this 2013 listing, 14 out of 27 RCRC organizations (more than 51%) are Jewish. Combing through their newest website, it appears that RCRC did some reorganizing and vanished the member organization names by removing the Coalition Council page.

    On their Affiliates page, they now simply list RCRC coalition affiliates by state which “promote RCRC programming at the community and state level by coordinating efforts with various faith communities”.



    At our core, RCRC is a coalition of national religious organizations and independent religious organizations. Like any coalition, the views of each denomination or organization are their own and often vary.

    The power of our collective voice for reproductive justice is in fact magnified by the unique, diverse views of our various member organizations – views which are grounded in thousands of years of scriptural texts and accepted beliefs around the moral agency of people to make the decisions that are best for them and their reproductive lives.

    Each member organization is encouraged to appoint a representative to RCRC’s Coalition Council, which is an active advisory body to RCRC’s Board of Directors and Staff.

    If you would like information on having your organization or denomination join RCRC’s Coalition Council, please contact Coalition Council Chair Kate Lannamann.


    Member Organizations

    ✡️American Jewish Committee

    ✡️American Jewish Congress

    ✡️Anti-Defamation League

    Catholics for Choice

    ✡️Central Conference of American Rabbis

    Disciples for Choice

    Episcopal Church

    Episcopal Women’s Caucus

    General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church

    ✡️Jewish Reconstructionist Movement

    ✡️Jewish Women International

    Lutheran Women’s Caucus

    Metropolitan Community Church

    ✡️ USA (Jewish Women’s Organization Supporting Israel)

    ✡️National Council of Jewish Women

    Presbyterian Mission Agency

    Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO)

    ✡️Rabbinical Assembly

    ✡️ Rabbinical Association

    ✡️Society for Humanistic Judaism

    ✡️Union for Reform Judaism

    Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

    Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation

    United Church of Christ

    United Methodist Women

    ✡️Women of Reform Judaism

    ✡️Women’s League for Conservative Judaism

    According to Mondoweiss, the Jewish head of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Texas Jew Elise Hogue, along with Amy Everitt (California head of NARAL) were scheduled to speak at AIPAC.

    Hogue also serves on the Advisory Council of J Street, better known to anti-Zionist activists as “AIPAC lite.”

    I’m trying to dig up whether she did speak at AIPAC despite a belated Twitter campaign to get her to cancel.

    NARAL itself was founded in the 1960s by four Jews including Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who later turned pro-life and converted to Catholicism, remaining an outspoken opponent of abortion, whistleblower on all of the lies and manipulations of the abortion advocates, and Roe v Wade for the rest of his life.

    Hogue is also on the board of directors for Progressive Jewish org — Bend the Arc.

    Excerpt from Maggie’s Notebook:

    [Maggie’s Notebook has copied an interesting and much older article about Nathanson dating from the 1990s, his turning away from abortion and exposing the multi-faceted lies and manipulations of NARAL in getting Roe v Wade passed, as well as his later coming to faith from a position of atheism followed by his many-year gradual conversion to Catholicism – Kj].

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson is Abortion Doctor, NARAL Founder Video.

    The video below is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) speaking about how NARAL purposely lied and misled women into believing abortions were not about taking a human life, and why he decided that abortion is a wrong choice.

    The video [a 2009 South Dakota Pro-Life campaign ad. Dr. Nathanson died in 2011- Kj] below is Dr. Nathanson speaking. He was born in 1926…

    Starting at 0:21

    “We founded NARAL with the goal to export our pro-abortion mentality across the land. One of our strategies in order to mislead the American public was to deny what we knew to be true, that an abortion kills an existing human being.

    “We denied that fact in an effort to mislead the American public and the courts of this land.”

  26. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 2:00 pm

    JewToob Warns The Goys @

  27. KathJuliane May 27, 2019 @ 2:08 pm

    National Review: Should Any Late-Term Abortion Be Illegal? Democrats Won’t Say.

    [In general, despite Shapiro’s bleating to the contrary that in his personal belief, human life begins at conception, a peculiarly Christian idea, in the general consensus of rabbis through the ages, Jewish law does not consider a pre-born baby a person until after it’s birth. And approximately 70-80% of Jews vote Democrat – Kj]

    According to a January Marist Poll – 75% of Americans, even people identifying as “pro-choice,” believe that abortion should be limited to within the first three months of pregnancy.

    So the Democrats and their extreme abortion on demand agenda aren’t even paying attention to the American people to begin with.

    In another Marist poll conducted in February it jumped to 80%.

    Crux: New poll: Vast majority of Americans want abortion restrictions

    NEW YORK – According to a new Marist poll released on Tuesday, seventy-five percent of Americans believe that abortion should be limited to within the first three months of pregnancy.

    Further, sixty-five percent – or nearly two-thirds – of Americans believe that if the Supreme Court revisits Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States, that either abortion should be made illegal or that states should be allowed to set their own restrictions on abortion law.

    These findings are a part of the eleventh annual Marist Poll on American attitudes toward abortion, which is sponsored by the Knights of Columbus.

    (The Knights of Columbus are a principal partner of Crux.)

    Between the two major political parties, 75 percent of Democrats self-identified as “pro-choice” and 70 percent of Republicans identified as “pro-life.”

    On a conference call on Tuesday, however, Knights of Columbus Vice-President for Communications Andrew Walther and Director of the Marist Poll, Barbara Carvalho observed that the “pro-choice” label does not indicate that the same individuals would oppose regulation or restrictions on abortion.

    Instead, they challenged that the debates over labels are not always reflective of the policy questions at hand.

    The survey also found that three out of four Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion abroad, widely referred to as the Mexico City Policy. Opposition to this funding includes almost all Republicans (94 percent) and independents (80 percent) and a majority of Democrats (56 percent).

    Sixty-two percent of respondents said they oppose abortion of children with Down syndrome and a majority of Americans, fifty-four percent, oppose the use of any taxpayer funding for abortion.

    In addition, fifty-five percent of respondents said they believe doctors, nurses, and organizations who have moral objections to abortion should not be required to perform or provide insurance coverage for abortions.

    The survey of 1,066 adults was conducted January 8 through January 10, 2019 and the results have a margin of error of ±3.7 percentage points.

    Reflecting on the recent data, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson said: “As in past years, this poll shows that the pro-choice label on the abortion issue is simply insufficient.

    “The majority of Americans – in both parties – support legal restrictions on abortion. Two-thirds of Americans want Roe revisited to allow for state regulation of abortion or to ban it altogether. The majority of the American people deserve to have their opinions heard,” said Anderson.

    The findings of the 2019 Marist Poll come in advance of the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. The annual event in protest of Roe v. Wade draws tens of thousands of people to the nation’s capitol for what is widely considered to be the world’s largest pro-life gathering.


    Axios: New poll finds “dramatic shift” on abortion attitudes

    The recent debate over “late-term abortion,” fueled by state measures in New York and Virginia that loosened, or sought to loosen, abortion restrictions toward the end of a woman’s pregnancy, has caused “a dramatic shift” in public attitudes toward abortion policy, according to Barbara Carvalho who directed a new Marist poll, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization.

    By the numbers: The poll found Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47%) as they are pro-choice (47%). Last month, a similar Marist survey found that Americans were more likely to identify as pro-choice than pro-life 55% to 38%, a 17-point gap.

    The survey also found that 80% of Americans support abortion being limited to the first three months of pregnancy, an increase of 5 percentage points since last month’s Marist poll.

    Between the lines: Marist has been polling Americans’ attitudes on abortion for over a decade, and Carvalho told Axios this is the first time since 2009 that as many or more Americans have identified as pro-life as have identified as pro-choice.

    But what Carvalho said she found most significant was that Democrats, specifically those under the the age of 45, seem to be leading the shift:

    This month’s poll found 34% of Democrats identify as pro-life vs. 61% pro-choice. Last month, those numbers were 20% and 75%, respectively.

    Among Americans under 45, 47% identify as pro-life vs. 48% pro-choice. In January, those numbers were 28% and 65%, respectively.

    “This has been a measure that has been so stable over time. To see that kind of change was surprising,” Carvalho said. “And the increased discussion [of late-term abortion] in the public forum in the past month appears to have made the biggest difference in how people identify on the issue.”

    Why it matters: Republicans have been on the offensive about this issue since the State of the Union, when Trump seized on the outrage over Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s abortion comments and the passage of a New York law to promote a congressional ban on late-term abortions.

    In November, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would require insurers send customers separate bills for coverage provided for abortion services.

    On Friday, the Trump administration issued a new rule barring organizations that provide abortion referrals, like Planned Parenthood, from receiving federal family planning money.

    Axios health care editor Sam Baker points that by far the most significant thing Trump has done on abortion is replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh. “State abortion restrictions will very likely be upheld no matter what public opinion is.”

    Go deeper:

    Trump’s anti-abortion push

    How “late-term abortion” could become a 2020 flashpoint

    Methodology: This survey of 1,008 adults was conducted via landline or cell phones, Feb. 12–Feb. 17 by The Marist Poll, sponsored and funded in partnership with The Knights of Columbus.

    Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect that, among Americans under 45, 47% identify as pro-life vs. 48% as pro-choice. (An earlier version of this story stated those figures reflected Democrats under 45.)

  28. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 2:54 pm

    Voat is HOT (ignore the profanity etc)

    VERY creative ‘Auntie Semitism’ @

  29. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 4:45 pm

    JewToob Just Uploaded A Message @

  30. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 4:58 pm

    Shalom you stupid goys..

    I’m Eileen Hershenov your trusted flagger.

    I’m the Policy Director for ADL’s Hate Index in Silicon Valley.

    We Yids believe in free speech. HOWEVER…

    PS You can keep your guns. HOWEVER…@

  31. KathJuliane May 27, 2019 @ 5:30 pm

    Excellent read.

    Live Action News: The case against Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey

    On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. That same day, the Court also decided Doe v. Bolton.

    In Roe, the Court struck down a Texas abortion law. In Doe, the Court threw out the restrictions on abortion in a more liberal Georgia law. The combined result overturned the laws that restricted abortion in every state.

    In Roe, the Supreme Court adopted a trimester framework for state regulation of abortion.

    The Court held: in the first trimester of pregnancy, states may not regulate abortion; in the second trimester, states may regulate abortion only in ways related to protecting the mother’s health; and in the third trimester, states may “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

    But the language that seemed to allow a third trimester ban on abortion was deceptive, because in Doe, the Court gave “health” such a broad definition that states have been prevented from successfully imposing bans on abortion, including late-term abortions.

    The Supreme Court ruled that a restriction on abortion is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the right to privacy.

    Delivering the Court’s opinion in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote, “This right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

    Even pro-abortion proponents admit that Roe is intellectually indefensible.

    Edward Lazarus, a former clerk to Blackmun, wrote, “What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent.”

    Blackmun claimed that a fetus isn’t a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He noted that “the Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words.” The word “has application only postnatally.”

    He observed that state laws restricting abortion “are not of ancient or even of common-law origin.” The laws derive from changes “in the latter half of the nineteenth century.”

    So, the word person as used in the Fourteenth Amendment “does not include the unborn.”

    Each of these arguments falls apart under scrutiny. First, the Constitution doesn’t define person, but the Constitution doesn’t define privacy either.

    The Supreme Court applied a double standard in Roe, arbitrarily giving the word person a narrow definition and the word privacy a broad definition in order to rationalize its decision to legalize abortion-on-demand.

    Second, if a fetus isn’t a person because the provisions of the Constitution don’t apply to a fetus, then infants aren’t persons either, because the provisions also don’t apply to infants. Or adolescents in some instances.

    Third, it’s irrelevant if state abortion laws were less restrictive in the past. Many laws were less restrictive in the past. And it’s irrelevant if state abortion laws originate from statutes not common-law. Many laws originate from statutes.

    Fourth, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, abortion was already restricted by at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures, including the very Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in Roe.

    Or in other words, state or territorial laws restricting abortion were already recognized when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted: the Amendment wasn’t intended to overturn laws restricting abortion.

    Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment has always included the “unborn” as “persons” entitled to Constitutional protection.

    Despite the evidence, Blackmun ruled otherwise. Further, he claimed the state laws that restricted abortion were inconsistent with the position that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person.

    He challenged three features of the state laws: the exceptions allowing for abortion to save the mother’s life; the lack of penalties for the woman with respect to an abortion; and the difference in penalties for abortion compared to murder.

    If the fetus is a person, he argued, the state laws shouldn’t contain these features.

    Blackmun overlooked the obvious. First, the Supreme Court accepts that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to life of an adult while also accepting that a right to take the life of an adult in self-defense exists.

    The same principle applies to a mother if the fetus is posing an imminent, physical threat to her life. Abortion laws, including the Texas law, simply recognized this accepted principle.

    Second, the lack of penalties for a pregnant woman reflect the widely-held view that a pregnant woman is also a victim of those who are willing to perform abortions and take advantage of her vulnerable situation.

    Third, the penalty for killing an infant in some states is also less than the penalty for murder, but the Supreme Court hasn’t legalized infanticide.

    After deciding that a fetus isn’t a person, Blackmun dodged the main issue of Roe by claiming,

    “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

    What Blackmun didn’t disclose was that the Supreme Court knew the answer.

    The Court deliberately ignored the facts and misled the public.

    First, the question of when human life begins is neither one of philosophy nor theology; the question is one of science.

    Second, the medical community had already arrived at the consensus that human life begins at conception.

    In October 1971, a group of medical experts filed a brief of amicus curiae (advice to a court from a person or persons not a party to the case) to the Supreme Court.

    The brief showed conclusively that science (embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology) establishes that human life begins at conception. And not a single person or group refuted the brief.

    Instead of reviewing the scientific facts, though, Blackmun undertook perhaps the most disingenuous endeavor of any Supreme Court Justice ever when delivering an opinion.

    He used nearly 4,000 words to review the history of human thought, informing the public that, among other things, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t offer much opposition to abortion.

    Blackmun failed to mention that, while permitting abortion, the ancient Greeks and Romans also engaged in human sacrifices, but in his defense, he probably wasn’t implying that we should also permit that practice today. Just abortion.

    Because a fetus, Blackmun decided, is merely a “potential life.” But, while the states can’t override a woman’s “right to terminate her pregnancy,” the states have an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the potential life, he ruled.

    This interest reaches a “compelling” point at viability, which is when “the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.”

    Blackmun’s argument is illogical and unjustifiable. A fetus inside the womb and an infant outside the womb are both still completely dependent on others for survival.

    The claim that one has the capability of meaningful life and the other doesn’t has no medical or legal basis.

    In summary, Blackburn concluded that “the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician.”

    Wrong. Abortion “in all its aspects” is the intentional killing of innocent human life, which isn’t a medical decision. And responsibility for it rests with the government, not the physician.



    Also see: Blackmun’s Daughter’s Teen Pregnancy and Failed Shotgun Marriage May Have Influenced Roe v. Wade Ruling

  32. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 7:07 pm

    A Message From Your Trusted Flagger @

  33. Brother Nathanael May 27, 2019 @ 8:28 pm

    Community Guidelines @

  34. Jewish Slavers May 27, 2019 @ 11:08 pm

    Millions of lives were turned into torment and destroyed because Jews made slaves out of people.

    Mystery Babylon, Jewry, was prophesied to trade in cargoes of human beings sold as slaves – Rev 18:13 NIV.

    Lots of articles document that Jews were behind slavery much more than any other race.

    Jews Media rants about white plantation owners and white people owning slaves is one more example of Jews falsely accusing their victims of what Jews were much more guilty of doing.

    Just as Jews falsely accuse Germans of “the holocaust,” starting WW1 and WW2, etc, the Jews falsely accuse white people of slavery even though the percentage of Jews who owned slaves was much higher than the percentage of gentiles who owned slaves.

    Jews accusing white people of white supremacy and white nationalism is another example of Jews falsely accusing their victims of what Jews actually do. Jews actually have established a Jewish motherland – Israel. Jews actually are trying to rule the other races and on several fronts they already do.

    Jews are richer than other races and it was only the super rich who had plantations and slaves. Gentiles were seldom rich enough for it. Names associated with riches like Goldman, Silverstein, Diamond, Pearlstein, Rich, Richman, Goldstein, are Jewish names. By the power of money Jews owned plantations and slaves.

    Jews brought the misfortune of slavery on millions of slaves.

  35. Glory B. May 28, 2019 @ 10:13 am

    Jews are hypocrites and liars.

    They claim that they are fighting terrorists, but it is the Jews who are the terrorists, literally imprisoning millions of innocent Palestinians.

    Israeli so-called “settlers” — in reality bandits — claim they are building homes on soil that was given to them by their god. In reality they are stealing land lived on for thousands of years by Palestinians — and paying nothing for it.

    Jews in Israel and America are responsible for thousands of deaths of American Christian men and women that are sent overseas to fight their Jewish wars.

    In America, Wall Street Jews import millions of illegal immigrants to work for next to nothing in their sweatshops and multi-million dollar estates.

    Jews claim they are for freedom of religion, but they scream like schweinhunds when Christians try to pray in school or before football games.

    Who is it that prevents Christians from placing Nativity Scenes in taxpayer-supported public places? Why, none other than filthy kikes.

    If there is a threat to world peace, it is the kikes’ war against Christians and other non-Jews, and Jewish control of the news media, finance and government.

    I am an ex-Jew who got fed up with Jewish hypocrisy and ridiculing Jesus Christ and His followers. I turned my life over to Our Savior and was baptized on Easter Sunday.

    The only way for there to be universal world peace is for Jews to give up their parasitical religion that is sucking the lifeblood out of non-Jewish humanity.

    However, that probably won’t happen, as Jews are too stuck-up and money-hungry to change their satanic ways, and humble themselves before Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

    It will take Jesus Christ returning to Earth to finish the work that He started before the Jews crucified Him. At His Second Coming, Christ will judge the living and the dead.

    Then the Jews will beg and plead and grovel before Our Lord, pleading not to be sent to the eternal fires of Hell, but IT WILL BE TOO LATE.

  36. who's god May 28, 2019 @ 11:49 am


    Netanyahu in Hebrew = Satan is our god.

  37. KathJuliane May 28, 2019 @ 11:53 am

    Haaretz: First Openly Gay Orthodox Rabbi Ordained in Jerusalem

    27-year-old Daniel Atwood was denied by his New York seminary despite the school originally agreeing to ordain him

    –Gay rabbinical student to be ordained in Jerusalem after being denied by New York seminary

    –A Chicago space for LGBTQ Jews becomes a ‘queer yeshiva for everybody’

    –Israel trip fundraiser for gay rabbinical student denied ordination in U.S. reaches 3K in hour

    A gay rabbinical student denied ordination by a liberal seminary in New York was welcomed into the rabbinate in Jerusalem, breaking a longstanding taboo against homosexuality in the Orthodox community.

    Daniel Landes, a prominent American-Israeli rabbi, granted semichah, Hebrew for ordination, to Daniel Atwood alongside a mixed group of men and women at the Jerusalem Theater on Sunday evening during a ceremony attended by more than 200 guests.

    Atwood was informed earlier this year that he would not be ordained after completing his studies at New York’s Yeshivat Chovevei Torah despite the school previously saying it would ordain him.

    While there has been a significant increase in empathy for LGBT Jews in recent years within the Orthodox community, inclusion has rarely reached the level of communal leadership, and same-sex marriage is universally prohibited. Atwood became engaged to another man last fall.

    “I was told three years ago that my giving woman semichah would create chaos and damage them and their families and dumb-down Torah learning.

    “The opposite has been the case,” Landes, who until recently was the longtime head of the co-ed, nondenominational Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, told attendees at the ordination ceremony.

    “Here’s the real question. Is our Torah and halachic system so weak and devoid of resources that it cannot be challenged by a new situation?” Citing the verse “The Torah is perfect, restoring the soul,” Landes thundered that “it is a perfect Torah only when and if it restores the soul. That’s what we need to work for.”

    In 2006, Landes ordained eight Orthodox women as rabbis in a ceremony here. The ordination program is part of Yashrut, an organization he heads that aims to build “civil discourse through a theology of integrity, justice, and tolerance.”

    Atwood — a 27-year- old graduate of Yeshiva University, Modern Orthodoxy’s flagship institution — smiled throughout the ceremony, dancing with Landes and his fellow ordainees.

    “I feel very excited to be receiving semicha and very grateful to Rabbi Landes and Yashrut for taking me on,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, adding that his joy was tempered by “a little sadness to not be with the cohort and teachers that I learned with for many years at YCT.”

    Asked how he felt to be a representative of the LGBT community within American Orthodoxy, Atwood replied that he felt “that responsibility very strongly” and that while he had not set out to be a symbol, he hoped that he could become “a rabbinic presence for LGBT [Jews] and Jews of all sorts, whatever their orientation, who feel left out.”

    Many young gay Orthodox Jews who would have previously left the fold are staying “and it’s almost unimaginable for them to not have a place,” he continued. “They are demanding a place and I think that having spiritual leadership guide that along is important.” He also downplayed any conflict between his LGBT and Orthodox identities, saying that he was not “looking for labels that are going to get in the way of the good work that needs to be done.”

    Orthodox Judaism had traditionally firmly opposed same-sex relationships, although there is a growing movement toward inclusion among more liberal elements of the community. However, Atwood’s case shows that even this tolerance has limits.

    While Chovevei Torah initially welcomed Atwood with full knowledge of his orientation, the yeshiva’s dean told JTA that a recent, unspecified event caused a reevaluation of the decision to grant him ordination. Six months ago, Atwood and his partner got engaged on the stage of a concert in New York City.

    “He came out to us in the end of his first year and we were fully prepared to give him semichah until certain circumstances arose over a few months ago,” Linzer told JTA last month. “Because this is such a sensitive issue, it took us a few months to come to the decision that I came to. I was trying to figure out if there was a possible way forward. I came to the conclusion there was not.” He acknowledged that the process of denying Atwood ordination “was not handled well.”

    The Reconstructionist and Reform movements began ordaining gay rabbis in the 1980s, with the Conservative movement following in 2006.

    Atwood’s fiancé, Judah Gavant, told JTA that he is very proud of both his partner and “our whole community” and that Atwood’s ordination was part of a process of “moving things forward and making a Jewish world that is available to more people that want to be a part of it.”

    Late last year several dozen Israeli and American Orthodox rabbis co-signed an open letter in support of the LGBTQ community in response to a letter from some 200 other Orthodox rabbis in Israel that called its members “perverts” and an “organization of abominations.”

    For his part, Landes does not believe that the Biblical prohibition of same-sex relations applies to people for whom homosexuality is “not an act of volition” and thinks that there is room for LGBT Jews in the wider community.

    Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, another prominent rabbi who has occasionally come into conflict with the Orthodox mainstream, agreed with Landes, telling JTA that while he didn’t have a rabbinic source to back it up, he believes that “the prohibition [on homosexual acts] only applies to those who are purely heterosexual.”

    “I think that people really trying to serve the Jewish people should be looked after and that I have a small role in that,” Landes told JTA. “And when they are totally outstanding I want to be helpful.”

    Asserting that Orthodox views of homosexuality have been slowly changing, he said that there is a new awareness that “they’re not pedophiles, they’re not people of falsehood or whatever, they’re good people.”

    Landes said that the genesis of his transformation from the mainstream Orthodox position, which views homosexuality as a grave sin, came several decades ago after he explained to members of his own congregation in the United States why he had declined to attend a conference organized by the Central Conference of American Rabbis after the Reform-affiliated group passed a resolution on LGBT inclusion. A young man with whom he was close walked out of the explanation with a hurt look on his face.

    “I saw his eyes the look of betrayal,” Landes said. “I never suspected. What did I do wrong? I knew I did something terribly wrong. So that has haunted me. And did I ever find him? I found him. He didn’t want to speak to me. So there is no happy ending to the story.”

    And while the rabbi initially couldn’t imagine gay Jews wanting to remain in the Orthodox community, let alone become Jewish scholars under its auspices, he now has a different view. “I think we will start within the gay community itself and if there is the ability to create a real community on the religious level it will lead to acceptance or maybe it will be limited for a long period,” he said. “Things happen when you have some openings.”

    Asked for comment, Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman of the Orthodox Agudath Israel organization, told JTA that “if ‘Orthodox’ retains any meaningful meaning, the adjective is merited neither by the institution that declined Mr. Atwood nor the individual who is ordaining him.”

  38. KathJuliane May 28, 2019 @ 12:23 pm

    Since before the American War for Independence, the personhood and natural right to life of the unborn child was a matter of settled English law and theory, and abortion had long been outlawed in English common law codified as criminal homicide.


    Live Action News: Article in Harvard Law Journal concludes: The preborn child is a constitutional person

    By Calvin Freiburger | June 1, 2017

    Pro-lifers and honest pro-abortion legal scholars agree that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. But just how wrong is it?

    Is it bad law solely because it declares a right to something the Constitution is silent about, or does its judicial malpractice run deeper?

    I have long argued that legal abortion violates not only the spirit of the Constitution, but the text itself – specifically, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guaranteed equal protection of all people’s right to life has always applied to the preborn.

    Now, The Stream reports that the “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy” has published an article written by Harvard law student (and former Live Action contributor) Josh Craddock that lays out the case in perhaps the most depth it’s ever received.

    The first key point of Craddock’s work, critiquing the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia from the right, is an audacious undertaking, but here it’s warranted.

    You see, while Scalia was a committed originalist and clear opponent of Roe, he was also of the opinion that the Constitution is neutral toward abortion – that its use of the word “persons” “clearly means walking-around persons,” and therefore, states should be left free to set whatever abortion laws they want.

    Craddock notes several other pro-life judicial originalists who hold (or held) this view, though Scalia is the most recent and most revered modernly.

    Craddock concedes that there is some basis for this thinking because “natural rights were not exhaustively enshrined in the federal Constitution” and “states have traditionally decided the question of personhood.”

    However, he rightfully maintains that a truly originalist answer to the question has to consider what the word “persons” was understood to mean when the Fourteenth Amendment was written and ratified.

    He proceeds to explain that layman’s dictionaries treated the concepts of humanity and personhood interchangeably, and so did legal terminology – more explicitly so, in fact.

    As we’ve discussed in the past, Craddock notes that Blackstone expressly recognized that personhood and the right to life existed before birth with a simple and clear legal standard: “where life can be shown to exist, legal personhood exists” (emphasis added).

    This also perfectly explains why it’s irrelevant that past laws didn’t protect the preborn prior to quickening.

    Craddock next shows that many of the states that voted to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment had also criminalized abortion, meaning they understood personhood then in much the same way that pro-lifers understand it now:

    “By the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, ‘nearly every state had criminal legislation proscribing abortion,’ and most of these statutes were classified among ‘offenses against the person.’

    “The original public meaning of the term “person” thus incontestably included prenatal life. Indeed, ‘there can be no doubt whatsoever that the word ‘person’ referred to the fetus.’

    In twenty‐three states and six territories, laws referred to the preborn individual as a “child.” Is it reasonable to presume that these legislatures would have used this terminology if ‘they had not considered the fetus to be a “person”‘?

    “The adoption of strict anti‐abortion measures in the mid‐nineteenth century was the natural development of a long common‐law history proscribing abortion.

    “Beginning in the mid‐thirteenth century, the common law codified abortion as homicide as soon as the child came to life (animation) and appeared recognizably human (formation), which occurred approximately 40 days after fertilization.

    “Lord Coke later cited the ‘formed and animated standard,’ rearticulating it as ‘quick with childe.'”

    From there, Craddock explains how the quickening standard was little more than a practical evidentiary standard, not a meaningful commentary on prenatal life (or lack thereof).

    But interestingly, he points out that even by the mid-nineteenth century, courts and states alike were increasingly rejecting it as scientifically obsolete, and replacing it with – surprise! – fertilization.

    “When the Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized children in utero as persons.

    “Twenty‐three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their statutes proscribing abortion. At least twenty‐eight jurisdictions labeled abortion as an “offense[] against the person” or an equivalent criminal classification.

    “Nine of the ratifying states explicitly valued the lives of the preborn and their pregnant mothers equally by providing the same range of punishment for killing either during the commission of an abortion.

    The ‘only plausible explanation’ for this phenomenon is that ‘the legislatures considered the mother and child to be equal in their personhood.’

    “Furthermore, ten states (nine of which had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment) considered abortion to be either manslaughter, assault with intent to murder, or murder.”

    Next, and perhaps most importantly, Craddock examines the thinking of the Fourteenth Amendment’s drafters.

    There’s an understandable assumption that because the amendment’s primary purpose was extending citizenship to freed blacks after the Civil War, its effects shouldn’t be construed to extend beyond that purpose.

    But under the originalist principle of authorial intent, the first word is often the last word in resolving such confusion:

    “Senator Jacob Howard, who sponsored the Amendment in the Senate, declared the Amendment’s purpose to ‘disable a state from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty and property without due process.’

    “Even the lowest and “most despised of the [human] race” were guaranteed equal protection. Representative Thaddeus Stevens called the Amendment ‘a superstructure of perfect equality of every human being before the law; of impartial protection to everyone in whose breast God had placed an immortal soul’ […]

    “The primary Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, Representative John Bingham, intended it to ensure that ‘no state in the Union should deny to any human being . . . the equal protection of the laws.'”

    In light of this evidence and reasoning (as well as rebuttals to possible objections I have skipped, but which you should take the time to read), Craddock concludes that there is only one proper constitutional approach to abortion:

    “If prenatal life is to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress or the courts must intervene in states that do not guarantee equal protection and due process to preborn human beings.

    “After all, ‘the [Fourteenth] amendment was designed to limit state power and authorize Congress to enforce such limitations.’ Should a state refuse to protect prenatal life, it would be a violation of equal protection[.]”

    Exactly, and it’s not “statist” or “big government” or “judicial activism” to say so. The principle of limited government means the government mustn’t exceed its constitutional purposes, but protecting the right to life is its most basic purpose – and a national-level responsibility.

    While the Founding Fathers wanted federalism to leave states free to decide a wide range of policy decisions for themselves (so America’s large, diverse, spread out population could live in harmony under a single flag while expressing different secondary values and experimenting with different ideas), they also believed that a select few principles, like our most fundamental rights, require a uniform standard.

    Craddock concludes on a pessimistic note, predicting that the Supreme Court is unlikely to abandon Roe anytime soon, making a human life amendment to the Constitution politically necessary even though it’s not legally necessary. That’s true for the time being…but it doesn’t have to be.

    The past four decades’ worth of abortion jurisprudence has nothing to do with legal merit and almost everything to do with the partisan politics of the presidents who nominated judges and the senators who reviewed them.

    So while this rot has been allowed to fester for a long time, there are no legal barriers keeping us from challenging it – we need only the will and imagination to change our tactics.

    We can demand that our presidents select bolder, more proven judges. We can push Congress to assert its coequal right and duty to protect individual rights by enacting the Life at Conception Act.

    And we can call on our lawmakers to exercise their constitutional powers to rein in and punish judges who refuse to protect the constitutional rights of every American.

    This is where national-level pro-life activism needs to go…and fortunately, Josh Craddock has given that effort an unassailable foundation.


    Craddock’s complete essay:

    Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?


    The Atlantic: Meet the Face of the Millennial Anti-Abortion Movement

    30-year-old Lila Rose advocates for reversing Roe v. Wade in a new short documentary from The Atlantic.

    Read more: []

  39. AJ May 30, 2019 @ 3:26 pm

    Unfortunately the answer is of course, yes… However a careful study of the Jews will reveal their M.O. and break through their infamous deception.

    Perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future there will be curriculum dedicated to study on the Jewish question, so that all Gentiles can develop a clear understanding on the greatest problem facing the World. It should be taught in every high school and university everywhere. An education on the history of the Jews and exposure of all of their misdeeds would help with creating a “final solution” to the problem, as your website itself is doing.

  40. robertvnik May 30, 2019 @ 9:51 pm


    I long ago wondered if you still exist

  41. Darrell June 1, 2019 @ 11:31 pm

    Here’s a good ebook on the Jews vis a vis the Church:

Leave a comment