Molding us into disarmed, disenfranchised serfs who obey in silence. The post This Is Not the America We Were Promised appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The announcement “I’m trans” can lob a grenade into the family, throwing everyone into chaos. Transgender identification strains relationships with siblings and extended family members and drives a wedge between those who applaud it and those who don’t. Young siblings of trans-identified kids have specific and special needs that parents must recognize. In addition, separated parents may experience a harder time working together on the issue—if they even want to. In some sad cases, one parent affirms the trans identity to capture the child’s loyalty and oust the other parent from the relationship. Parents dealing with any aspect of the gender ideology behemoth can feel like David standing in front of Goliath with nothing but a sling and a stone. Whether you’ve just begun this journey or you’ve decided you need to take a different path than before, recognize that a goal of gender ideology is to separate the vulnerable from those who’ll love and protect them. People without strong family connections are easier to manipulate and exploit. If that sounds familiar, it’s because cults use the same psychological trick. Being aware of this tactic will help you protect your home from becoming another casualty in the war on families. Whether you’re protecting your kids or you’re already in the fight, one of your best strategies for your whole family is to reinforce good relationships. Partner with Your Spouse Two parents who work together toward the well-being of their child is the best-case scenario in any family struggle. “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. . . . Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves” (Eccl. 4:9, 12, NIV). Do all you can to work in tandem with your child’s other parent. The God-ordained alliance between you is powerful. Parents dealing with any aspect of the gender ideology behemoth can feel like David standing in front of Goliath. Gender ideology has declared war on you, so strategize like you’re fighting on foreign soil. Shore up your strengths; mitigate your weaknesses. If you and your spouse can agree on this issue, it may be worth letting other marriage or family problems take a back seat for the moment. Remember you’re on the same team, and commit to having each other’s backs as you fight to save your child and your family. Gather your village. Children should hear truth from all the adults in their lives, but today they may get contradictory messages at home, at school, and on social media. So pull into the battle extended family members, neighbors, and friends who’ll echo truth to your child. Consider these practical suggestions: Set aside a regular time with your spouse to talk about how you’re each processing the situation. Set aside regular times when you talk about anything but the situation. Seek to enjoy each other for the good of your marriage. Together, if possible, have an honest conversation with the pastor or elders at your church so they know what’s going on. Affirm that you want their help to keep speaking truth to your child. Parent Your Other Children While you may need to put some family issues on the back burner for a time, don’t neglect your other children. Young children find a sibling’s transgender identification destabilizing and frightening: What if I suddenly change sex? Did Michael turn into Michelle because of something I did? Is Michael really dead? Do Mom and Dad still love him? Will they always love me? Check in with all your children often, and be available for hard conversations even when you’re not expecting them. If siblings have been brainwashed by gender propaganda, they may take up arms on the other side of the battle. How you respond will depend on the child’s age, but keep in mind that your goals are to pull your trans-identified child out of the cult and to preserve your family’s unity as best you can. Younger siblings may need guidance, whereas parents may need to set boundaries around adult siblings’ interactions with the child and/or family. Consider these practical suggestions: Reevaluate your child’s school situation and what options you have. If possible, consider switching to a schooling option where the adults and kids in his or her life will affirm biblical truth about gender and sexuality. Evaluate the daily environments of your other children as well. Are they learning in the same classrooms? Under the same influences? Visiting the same websites? Don’t stop having fun as a family. Watch a movie together. Go to a ball game. Bake something. Read your Bible and pray together. Serve at church. Go camping or visit another city. Celebrate how much you have in common and the activities you like doing together. Consider Other Relationships Grandparent-grandchild relationships can be another casualty in gender ideology’s war on the family. Whether because the grandparents won’t affirm the delusion or because they won’t stop affirming it, many are losing contact with grandkids. Aunts, uncles, cousins, and family friends may also be in the same situation. This is difficult for Christian parents, who want to be wise about influences. The gender cult has proudly and boldly adopted an us-versus-them dichotomy, wherein anyone who disagrees with their dogma is stigmatized as “toxic.” Gender activists glibly counsel their recruits to go “no contact” with anyone who won’t agree that a mental health condition should be irreversibly medicalized with drugs and surgeries. Again, the gender industry’s goal is to isolate vulnerable people from anyone who could protect them from making harmful choices with long-term consequences. Nefarious activists have turned “no contact” into the go-to response anytime anyone disagrees with others. Christian parents recognize the richness and beauty of relationships—God made us to live in community. But we also know the wrong relationships can lead to danger (Prov. 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14). Unlike those who advocate “no contact” for any and every perceived offense, we need to deliberately and prayerfully consider how to navigate relationships when we disagree with others. But, ultimately, we must be willing to sever (or put a pause on) harmful relationships if necessary while fostering healthy ones. Consider these practical suggestions: If possible, maintain contact with godly grandparents, aunts, and uncles. That’ll give your child a viable, attractive option for where to land if she ever wants to leave the LGBT+ cult. At dinner, share stories from when you were growing up. Talk about how much you appreciate your brother’s wisdom or your sister-in-law’s generosity. Start a group text with your mom, your sisters, and your daughters where you share funny memes, daily tidbits, and prayer requests. If you do need to pull away for a time from friends or family who are affirming, fill your child’s time with other relationships. Send him overnight to a trusted relative’s house. Get more fully involved in his youth group. Invite all the in-town family over frequently. Even as you carefully steward your child’s time and relationships, a policy of “no contact” for family members should be reserved for only the most intractably dangerous relationships. Commit to the Long Game Pulling a child out of the gender cult rarely—if ever—results in a quick fix. As desperate as parents may be to find the silver bullet that will free their child from the monster, families who have gotten their kids back report it took months or years. Pulling a child out of the gender cult rarely—if ever—results in a quick fix. Commit right now to holding the line on truth as long as it takes for your child to come to terms with reality. Every person in your family and social circles has agency about what to believe, how to behave, and with whom to associate. But as faithful and loving parents, you’re doing the crucial but challenging work of extracting your child from the influence of a cult. You have the right and responsibility to decide what—and who—is safe for your child and family and which influences you need to mitigate. Paul writes, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18), but parents cannot live at peace with people or ideologies who’ve declared war on them. Children and families are God’s good creations; at this moment in history, parents often feel they’re standing with no allies but each other and God in defending both. But we know that gender ideology is a giant God will help us fell.

Our attention is in demand, but the quality of our attention often doesn’t matter to those who demand it. Few in our attention economy seek our contemplative focus. Most demand our restless scroll, our aimless click. They seek what Henry David Thoreau describes as our “macadamized” mind—thoughts reduced to the size of cobblestones and stuck together randomly. We may feel the competition for our attention is particularly acute in our time, but Augustine of Hippo felt similar pressure in the fourth century. Augustine longed to turn his attention away from worldly concerns and toward his studies, but he didn’t long to be alone with his books. In his Confessions, Augustine wrote, To make conversation, to share a joke, to perform mutual acts of kindness, to read together well-written books, to share in trifling and in serious matters, to disagree though without animosity—just as a person debates with himself—and in the very rarity of disagreement to find the salt of normal harmony, to teach each other something or to learn from one another, to long with impatience for those absent, to welcome them with gladness on their arrival. These and other signs come from the heart of those who love and are loved. Similarly, in Words for Conviviality: Media Technologies and Practices of Hope, Jeffrey Bilbro, associate professor of English at Grove City College, argues that the antidote to a macadamized mind is friendship with the authors who went before us and with the readers who sit beside us. The remedy for the weariness caused by endless demands on our attention isn’t solitude or mindless relaxation but rather books and conversation. Fragmentation of Techno-Optimism Our fragmented attention has recently been the subject of many fine books. For example, Sherry Turkle’s Reclaiming Conversation and Alan Noble’s Disruptive Witness address the problem from a secular and a Christian perspective respectively. Bilbro looks at the problem through the lens of 19th-century literature. He draws on an impressive list of antebellum writers, including Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mark Twain, Frederick Douglass, Olaudah Equiano, and Margaret Fuller. He also glances backward at American founding figures in the 18th century, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Rush. Bilbro argues that new communication technologies are accompanied by a “techno-optimism” that sees technology—be it industrialized print in the 19th century or social media in recent years—as a way of creating a broad and seamless consensus around one authoritative view. Bilbro then examines a pessimistic reaction to this optimism, as those oppressed or exploited by this consensus seek to escape its dominance. Bilbro’s critique of techno-optimism uncovers intriguing parallels between the 19th century and today. For example, poet Walt Whitman’s characteristic gestures of intimacy with his readers prefigure the self-display that typifies Instagram influencers. Both are hollow at heart, Bilbro argues, as “the intimacy offered by both Whitman and the Insta-poets remains asymmetric: individual readers may feel a powerful emotional connection to the poet who seems to be baring his or her soul. The poets themselves, however, remain detached and aloof from the emotional lives of their readers or fans” (74). Such false company only leaves us lonelier. Unification Within Little Platoons We’re more than autonomous, interchangeable consuming units. Human flourishing requires what Edmund Burke called “little platoons,” those immediate attachments that give our lives meaning beyond our individual desires. We’re embedded in communities like families, churches, and neighborhoods. Techno-optimism threatens those bonds. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s techno-optimism imagines each of us as a “transparent eyeball” unchained from tradition, community, and kinship, fully equipped to access truth without mediation. Emerson thus contributes to the deterioration of the essential Reformation project of reading the Bible for yourself into the superficial practice of reading the Bible entirely by yourself. His perspective fragments the foundations of the church as a community focused on understanding and applying Scripture together. We often think of great writers as rebels against the materialist zeitgeist, yet Emerson’s brand of transcendentalist freedom serves the ethos of the atomized consumer. Are you unhindered by any creed? Buy this “coexist” bumper sticker. Buy this Mercedes to put it on. Untethered from mediating and contextualizing communities, we become easy prey for those who sell us new identities each morning. Worse, we become sitting ducks for those who liberate us from tradition only to enslave us to the regime of the moment. Bilbro offers in juxtaposition to the solipsistic Emerson the notoriously reticent poet Emily Dickinson, demonstrating how Dickinson’s seeming reclusiveness evidences a deeper form of community. Dickinson refused to participate in industrial print, preferring to circulate her work in a more personal, epistolary manner. According to Bilbro, Dickinson “shares her soul’s art in these marginal human and relational contexts because she saw the end of language as well-tended relationships rather than fame or profits” (143). She wrote poems for people she knew personally. If we, too, saw relationships as the goal of writing, perhaps we’d still publish, but would we tweet? Pilgrimage of Friendship Yet media technology isn’t the problem. It’s how we use it. We can reject technological determinism and isolating uses of technology and embrace instead a hopeful and convivial use of words. Thoreau, Fuller, Hawthorne, and Melville, for example, “imagined practices that might help us read and write in ways that foster this kind of interdependent, participatory society” (165). This requires a better set of metaphors for reading. Chief among these metaphors is walking. In the casual stroll and the pilgrimage, we experience the world not as a map we comprehend in total from above but as something we’re in and part of. In walking, we encounter nature and other people at eye level and at a pace that enables focused attention and even conversation. We should read as if walking. Bilbro writes, We can read slowly. We can wrestle with old books. We can memorize passages. We can discuss difficult texts with friends who interpret them differently. Further, we can contribute to communities of practice that honor and foster verbal virtues such as attention, magnanimity, care, and patience. (229) Such communities can exist in our age of fragmented attention and hyperindividualism. Bilbro offers a vision of textual community that can reshape the way Christians view their reading practices. Words for Conviviality demonstrates that if we wish to create a more convivial world in which conversation predominates over dictation, we must learn to walk again. We must meet each other at eye level, not as all-seeing and autonomous “transparent eyeballs” but, rather, as fellow pilgrims.

In the recent presidential debate with vice president Kamala Harris, former president Donald Trump said, “Her vice-presidential pick [Minnesota governor Tim Walz] says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay.” This line introduced the under-discussed issues of late-term abortion and the status of infants born alive after an attempted abortion. Unfortunately, Trump’s propensity for overstatement and infelicity with language undermined the substance of his point. This allowed Linsey Davis, a moderator of the debate, to interject by saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Davis is correct in that there’s no state where this is legal. That would be homicide. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ensures such a child would be protected by law. But it is legal to allow a baby to die after a failed abortion attempt, such as by withholding medical care. Last year, 210 House Democrats even voted against a bill requiring medical care for babies born alive after an abortion attempt. Similarly, Walz didn’t explicitly say that “abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine,” which allowed some “fact-checkers” to say Trump’s claim was false. But what Walz did do was sign a bill that allows abortion at any time during pregnancy. Nine states (Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont) and the District of Columbia allow abortion even in the ninth month. Yet despite this easily verifiable information, many Americans remain completely ignorant about the status of late-term abortion. A prime example is the NAACP, which on the night of the debate posted on social media, “For the record: You cannot have an abortion in the 9th month. You cannot have an abortion after birth. If we didn’t keep banning books, maybe we wouldn’t have to clear that up.” Four Perspectives on Late-Term Abortion This incident underscores the need for a more detailed understanding of the various perspectives that shape public opinion and policy on abortion. It’s helpful to examine four primary viewpoints that dominate the abortion discourse, especially regarding late-term procedures. These perspectives each bring distinct philosophical, emotional, and practical considerations to the table. Understanding these viewpoints is thus crucial for engaging meaningfully in the ongoing debate surrounding abortion in America. 1. Sanctity of Life View This view holds that human life begins at conception and is sacred from that moment onward. It relies on a philosophically consistent principle. Proponents argue the unborn child has an inherent right to life at all stages of development, from conception to birth. They oppose abortion at any stage, believing that ending a pregnancy is equivalent to ending a human life. Under this view, the stage of pregnancy at which abortion occurs carries little to no additional moral weight. An apt analogy is the killing of innocent people in their sleep—it’d be equally wrong whether done at midnight (soon after falling asleep) or at 7 a.m. (close to waking time). Similarly, abortion is considered equally wrong whether performed early or late in pregnancy. The key tenet is that the unborn have intrinsic value, independent of their developmental stage, others’ desires, or external circumstances. This view often aligns with religious beliefs but can also stem from secular philosophical positions on human rights and the value of life. 2. Wanted Baby View This perspective is rooted in an intuitive understanding that “babies” (primarily referring to newborns and infants) are inherently good and valuable. The value of the unborn increases as they become more “baby-like” and emotionally resonant with our idea of newborns. The unborn have intrinsic value, independent of their developmental stage, others’ desires, or external circumstances. This view can overlap with both pro-life and pro-choice perspectives. Some holding this view oppose all abortions because pregnancy, if unimpeded, has a high probability of resulting in a baby. Others may support legal protections only in later stages of pregnancy, such as after “viability,” when the unborn child is more developed. For example, at around 12 weeks an unborn child can suck her thumb and at 18 weeks she starts being able to hear sounds, such as her mother’s heartbeat. The pro-life movement has long understood that this view is prevalent among those who self-identify as pro-life. This is why graphic images of the unborn aborted late in pregnancy were once considered an effective means of swaying public opinion. It also helps explain why many who oppose abortion may still support IVF, as the resulting children are “wanted” and thus have high extrinsic value.* Under this view, the unborn’s value is largely extrinsic, derived from being wanted either by the birth parents or potential adoptive parents. The emotional resonance with “baby-like” features plays a significant role in determining when legal protections should apply, which is why many who hold this view support restrictions on late-term abortion. 3. Emergency Birth Control View This view is deeply rooted in modern perspectives on sexuality and autonomy. It contrasts with the orthodox Christian view of sex and aligns more with secular views that sex should ideally be free from unwanted entanglements or long-term consequences. Proponents see abortion as part of a continuum of birth control methods, which can start before or during sex and continue through pregnancy. The term “birth control,” coined by Margaret Sanger in 1914, encompasses both contraception (before pregnancy) and abortion (after pregnancy). While this view theoretically allows for abortion at any stage, most adherents put limits on when it should no longer be a legitimate option, often due to emotional factors similar to those in the Wanted Baby View. There’s no consensus on the exact time limit, but many (such as Trump) agree that six weeks is too short, as a woman may not yet be aware of her pregnancy. A “grace period” is often advocated, allowing time for a woman to become aware of her pregnancy and obtain an abortion. The unspoken agreement is that once a pregnancy is noticeable to outside observers (usually between 12 and 20 weeks), the legitimate time for obtaining an abortion has passed. This aligns with why in the public mind “late-term abortion” often refers to procedures at or after the 20th week of pregnancy. 4. Bodily Autonomy View This view holds that a woman should have absolute autonomy over what happens with or inside her body, particularly regarding the choice to become or remain pregnant. It shares similarities with the Sanctity of Life View in its attempt to apply a philosophical principle with absolute consistency. Under this view, considerations such as the unborn’s moral status, emotional resonance, or value (whether intrinsic or extrinsic) are secondary concerns that cannot override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. This perspective supports unrestricted access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including late-term procedures. Proponents argue that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will violates her fundamental human rights. They contend that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes any rights of the unborn, regardless of the baby’s stage of development or viability. This view often emphasizes the physical, emotional, and social effects of pregnancy and childbirth on women, arguing that only the individual woman can decide whether to accept these effects. It rejects the idea that the state or any other entity has the right to compel a woman to use her body to sustain another life against her will. Why We Talk Past One Another With this framework in mind, it becomes clearer why people so often seem to talk past one another on this issue. Sanctity of Life View: The hallmark is realism. This group is often the most informed about the reality of abortion in America and rarely surprised by “new” information about the procedure or its prevalence. They’re also less concerned about when an abortion occurs and so are less shocked by the fact that an unborn child can be killed closer to his time of birth. Their consistent philosophical stance means they approach the issue with a clear-eyed understanding of the facts, regardless of how emotionally challenging they may be. They tend to be well-versed in both the biological development of the unborn and the legal landscape surrounding abortion at all stages. Wanted Baby View: The hallmark is sentimentality. This group is most swayed by emotional appeals and imagery that humanize the unborn, particularly as the unborn child develops more recognizably human features. They’re likely to be deeply affected by ultrasound images, stories of fetal development, and narratives about adoption. Their position can sometimes appear inconsistent because it’s based more on emotional resonance than on strict philosophical principles. They may struggle with early-term abortions intellectually but find late-term abortions much more distressing due to the more developed appearance of the child in the womb. Emergency Birth Control View: The hallmark is incredulity. This group is the most surprised by the idea that elective abortion can occur late in a pregnancy. They believe that since the primary reason for abortion is emergency birth control (presumably after a contraceptive has failed), the only late-term abortions that could or would occur must be medically necessary. They therefore assume any restrictions during this stage would threaten the mother’s health, since no one would “choose” to have an abortion in the last months of pregnancy. This view often leads to a disconnect in discussions about late-term abortions, as they may dismiss factual information about elective late-term procedures as implausible or exaggerated. Bodily Autonomy View: The hallmark is indifference. This group is the least likely to be concerned with late-term abortions. The child’s welfare and the outcome of the pregnancy are secondary issues, much less important than preserving women’s “reproductive freedom.” They tend to view debates about fetal development or the specifics of abortion procedures as irrelevant distractions from the core issue of a woman’s right to control her body. This stance can sometimes appear callous to those with different views, as it prioritizes the principle of bodily autonomy over considerations that others find morally significant. Understanding these different perspectives and their characteristics helps us see why debates on abortion, especially regarding late-term procedures, often result in people talking past each other. Each group approaches the issue with fundamentally different priorities, emotional responses, and baseline assumptions about the nature and prevalence of abortion at various stages of pregnancy. How to Engage with Each Viewpoint The most consistently Christian perspective is the Sanctity of Life view. To effectively persuade those holding the other three views, pro-life Christians should tailor their approach to address each one’s specific concerns and characteristics. Wanted Baby View: We should focus on connecting emotional resonance and the continuity of human development to human dignity and the intrinsic value of life. This group is most swayed by vivid imagery and personal stories that highlight the unborn’s humanity at all stages. To emphasize how quickly human features develop, share fetal development information and ultrasound images from the earliest stages. Bridge the emotional gap by using consistent language that humanizes the unborn, such as referring to a “baby” or “child” instead of a “fetus.” Stories of premature babies surviving at earlier stages of development can also be powerful. The key is to emphasize the arbitrary nature of distinguishing value based on development or “wantedness” and to appeal to people’s intuition about the value of all human life regardless of circumstances. Emergency Birth Control View: Address their incredulity with factual information about late-term abortions while acknowledging their concerns about women’s health and well-being. Clear, sourced statistics on the reasons for and frequency of late-term abortions can be eye-opening for this group. Explain how many late-term abortions aren’t medically necessary, while also discussing alternatives to abortion that address underlying concerns such as support for mothers and adoption. Emphasizing how the Sanctity of Life view protects both mother and child can help align this perspective with their concerns for women’s welfare. Engage people on the ethics of using abortion as birth control at any stage—this can provoke thoughtful reflection on the implications of their view. Bodily Autonomy View: The challenge lies in questioning the notion of absolute bodily autonomy and presenting the unborn child as a separate individual deserving of rights. This requires engaging in philosophical arguments about competing rights and exploring when rights can be limited to protect others. Present scientific evidence of the distinct genetic identity of the unborn from conception. Discuss the logical extensions of absolute bodily autonomy and their societal implications in order to encourage critical thinking about this principle’s limits. Address concerns about women’s well-being by discussing support systems and alternatives to abortion, as this shows that the Sanctity of Life view isn’t indifferent to the challenges women face. Meaningful Dialogue for Meaningful Change Regardless of which view is being addressed, certain general principles apply. Starting with common ground—the shared value of human life in some form—can create a foundation for dialogue. Using scientific accuracy when presenting information about fetal development and abortion procedures can lend credibility to the discussion. Similarly, demonstrating how the Sanctity of Life view offers a consistent ethical framework across all stages of human development can appeal to those seeking logical coherence in their beliefs. The most consistently Christian perspective is the Sanctity of Life view. Throughout these conversations, it’s essential to show compassion by acknowledging the difficult circumstances that can lead women to consider abortion as well as offering life-affirming alternatives. Address underlying concerns by discussing societal support systems, adoption, and other resources that can help tackle the root causes of Americans supporting abortion as a “necessary evil.” Encourage critical thinking and invite others to examine their views and the logical conclusions of their positions—this may lead them to meaningful self-reflection and possibly to a change of heart. Above all, patience and respect are paramount. Changing deeply held beliefs takes time, and respectful dialogue is essential for persuasion. By tailoring the approach to each view’s characteristics while maintaining the core principles of the Sanctity of Life perspective, we can engage in more effective and meaningful dialogue and help create a culture that values all human life. *IVF is considered by many to be a fundamental good since it facilitates the creation of a most valuable good—babies. The children created by the process are almost, by definition, “wanted” and thus have high extrinsic value (even apart from whatever intrinsic value they may have as post-birth human beings). But the embryos destroyed in the IVF process are viewed differently. They have some extrinsic value as long as the parents believe they’ll want to implant them in the future. But the embryos often lack the emotional resonance because, if they’re seen at all, they appear as a mere “clump of cells” and lack the fingers and toes seen in ultrasound images later in the pregnancy.

In this breakout session from TGC’s 2023 National Conference, a panel featuring Vincent Bacote, Steve DeWitt, John Dickson, and Philip Ryken considers how race, sex, politics, and social media are tearing evangelical communities apart. They reflect on what pastors, teachers, and other Christian leaders can do to restore true Christian fellowship and empower effective gospel witness that’s faithful to Scripture and relevant to culture. They discuss the following: Challenges in the evangelical church The church’s reputation and loyalty What it means to live in a post-Christian society The need for pastoral resilience The term “evangelical” and its usefulness in the broader world Educational decisions for Christian families Political emphasis in the church and the need for discernment

Less than a week from a second attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice announces the indictment of an Alaska man on multiple charges related to violent threats against six Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Only one of the Big Three evening network newscasts found this to be newsworthy. Watch the full report as aired in its entirety on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, September 19th, 2024: JERICKA DUNCAN: An Alaska man has been indicted for allegedly threatening to torture and murder six Supreme Court Justices and their families. The suspect, 76-year-old Panos Anastasiou, pleaded not guilty. He's accused of sending more than 465 threatening messages. One of them dated July 3rd said, “We need mass assassinations.” Another said the justices should, quote, "Be very afraid to leave their home.” The indictment does not specify which justices were targeted. Scant, for sure, but infinitely more time than was afforded on ABC and NBC. ABC made no time for violent threats against the Supreme Court. Neither the reporting nor the DoJ press release disclose which Justices were threatened, but there were six. That kind of narrows it down significantly. From the press release: Beginning on Jan. 4, 2024, Anastasiou’s messages allegedly escalated to messages intending to threaten harm toward the victims. The messages contained violent, racist and homophobic rhetoric coupled with threats of assassination by torture, hanging and firearms. Anastasiou is charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.  NBC didn’t find the time for this story either, which is particularly weird given that it was correspondent Vaughn Hillyard who broke news of the indictment on X: The DOJ has indicted an Alaska man for threatening to “murder & torture…six U.S. Supreme Court Justices and some of their family members.” pic.twitter.com/PmSLxNMapj — Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) September 19, 2024 The Regime Media have spent the better part of the past week giving lectures on the dangers of rhetoric regarding Springfield, Ohio- although they were less than fulsome in disclosing that the bomb threats called in came from bad overseas actors. Of course, there is no similar introspection for the kind of violent rhetoric that leads to Supreme Court Justices and their families being threatened. Mind you, this isn’t the first time media talking heads and elected officials alike have engaged in this sort of rhetoric. Here’s Chuck Schumer issuing threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: In which Chuck Schumer threatens TWO sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. pic.twitter.com/pA3mryeVK2 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 4, 2020 Here’s Senator Sheldon Whiteclub calling the six Justices “a threat to the country”: Just two months ago, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse called 6 SCOTUS judges "a threat to the country." He lamented: "It's very hard to get rid of them because they have these lifetime appointments." pic.twitter.com/dhvdZDF5f3 — Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) September 19, 2024 Here’s a group of people (but primarily Joy Reid) calling Ginni Thomas an insurrectionist:

In a Tik Tok tirade, the Islamic influencer, known as Brother Rahide, makes it clear that the Dutch need to adapt to Muslims, declaring: “In the Netherlands, Muslims are in charge, If you don’t like…

Despite what delusional Nancy Pelosi believes, Kamala Harris did not win an open primary. She was coronated after Joe Biden was forced out of the race by the Democrat elite, including Pelosi. The Democrats…