As with any hurricane season, it’s important to be prepared for anything, including worst-case scenarios. While some seasons are far busier than others, all it takes is one storm to change someone’s life forever. This is why it’s necessary to know what your risks are in areas you live that are prone to such natural disasters. While it’s impossible to know exactly how many storms we’ll see or what areas will see exact landfall, using science, math, and history can guide us, giving a general idea of what’s to come. Click the image below to view my 2020 Atlantic hurricane season outlook. A PDF file will open up in a new tab.
Some say abortion is a “health care” option for pregnant women. Others say it is the forced separation of soul and body of an unborn human being. In the U.S., the debate about whether abortion is good or bad for our society has become white-hot, with blue-state legislatures passing pro-abortion laws and red states laws opposing abortion. The gap between pro-abortion Democrats and anti-abortion Republicans has been widening every year since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that abortion is legal in all states. The Democratic Party now uses “support of abortion” as a no-exception litmus test to be passed by any politician wishing to join the party. The divide between political parties on the issue is now so wide that it is preventing rational debate on nearly all legislative issues, whether abortion-related or not.
To understand the growing enmity between political parties on this issue requires a deeper look into the origins of abortion in modern society. The widespread practice and acceptance of abortion is a 20th-century phenomenon, but its philosophical basis is a direct outgrowth of a 19th-century philosophy about human nature called Scientific Socialism.
Most Americans think of “socialism” as a movement in the ’20s and ’30s that attracted immigrant Italian, German, and Irish blue-collar workers — mostly Catholic — seeking better working conditions and higher wages. Socialism in America was championed by men like Norman Thomas, a Presbyterian minister and pacifist. In 1928, Thomas became president of the Socialist Party of America (SPA). Under Thomas, the SPA adopted, in addition to workers’ rights, civil rights and integration as causes. Thomas was a founder of the National Civil Liberties Union, the predecessor of the ACLU. However, with declining membership support, the SPA ceased operations in December 1977. By then, its causes had already been largely adopted by the national Democratic Party.
But the brand of socialism pushing for no-limits abortion in the U.S. is not the socialism our fathers and grandfathers knew. This socialism is the more virulent strain that has controlled life in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (now the Russian Federation) since 1920 and in the People’s Republic of China since its formation in 1949 by Mao Zedong. This is the socialism conceived by Feuerbach, Engels, and Marx and implemented by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. It is now creeping into the U.S. political system through the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This wing’s persistent advocacy has succeeded in coercing the party’s national leaders and elected representatives to join in openly promoting no-limits abortion in our country.
For 1,500 years, from the 4th-century writings of Saint Augustine that codified the Christian faith until the socialist theories of the 19th-century German philosophers, religion and philosophy were inseparably intertwined. In 1841, Ludwig Feuerbach, Christian-born philosopher and anthropologist, published “The Essence of Christianity,” in which he postulated that religion had no role to play in the understanding of reality and should not be a part of any philosophical study of human nature. For Feuerbach, a convert to atheism, religion imposed a restraining and debilitating fear in the minds of men, and its influence should be eradicated from society if humankind is to progress.
Karl Marx, a contemporary of Feuerbach, advanced the idea that religion places an unnatural inhibition on society. In the introduction to his 1843 “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx wrote that “religion is the opium of the people.” He argued that religion is a “social authority” imposed by the ruling class on the working masses to keep them under control. This thesis was the foundation of all of Marx’s political and economic theories that followed. Seduced by the concept that religious beliefs are detrimental to human progress, Marx, the grandson of a rabbi, turned away from Judaism to atheism. “Atheistic Marxism” and “Scientific Socialism,” the titles later given to Marx’s theories, proposed that future societies could survive and develop to their full potential only if their masses were emancipated from religion. These new liberated societies would have no churches or religious orders or societies and would permit no mention of God or religion in their schools.
Friedrich Engels was born in Prussia to a middle-class Protestant family. In his twenties, through association with radical activists at political “clubs,” he became a militant atheist. Engels, a skilled writer, soon gained recognition among young German liberals as a persuasive anti-religion philosopher. In 1844, Marx saw several articles by Engels that articulated the very principals of socialism that Marx was advocating. After numerous written exchanges, Engels met Marx in 1845. The two immediately formed a partnership to develop, promote, and implement plans for their new political vision: Atheistic Marxism.
Born in Simbirsk, Russia in 1870 to Christian parents, Vladimir Lenin turned to atheism upon the death of his father in 1886. In 1887, Lenin decided to study law, and during his university years, he joined a political club that was advocating Marxism for Russia. Lenin became enamored of the Marx-Engels theories and immediately began to develop plans for their promotion and implementation. His first target was Russian farm workers. In 1903 he published an article titled “Letter to Rural Peasants” espousing the benefits of the new society for farm workers:
We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. This new and better society is called a socialist society. The teachings about this society are called ‘socialism’.
After the successful 1917 Russian revolution, Lenin became the first premier of the United Soviet Socialist Republics and quickly implemented his version of Marxist socialism. One of his first acts was to eliminate all religion in Russia and begin the conversion of the population to atheism. And in 1920, abortion was approved by the new government. Thus, under Lenin, Russia became the first country in history to sanction atheism and abortion as government imperatives. All of the Soviet socialist countries followed suit, as did China under Mao in 1949.
The common thread that unites the social engineers and the implementers who followed is atheism. The state-supported practice that has become socialism’s identifying mark is abortion. For those who promote and operate the abortion industry, with no belief in God or in an afterlife, accepting the notion that abortion does no harm to anyone is understandably easy. There have been over 1.5 billion abortions worldwide since 1980. So an ironic flaw of this atheistic scheme has emerged: the socialist emancipation of mankind from God is facilitating part of mankind’s own destruction.
The growing divide between national political parties certainly is about abortion. But it is also about the Democratic Party’s attempt to integrate Scientific Socialism of which abortion is emblematic into our political system. Neither this strain of socialism nor abortion is compatible with the beliefs and practices of our free enterprise system — a system based on trust in God. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/socialism_atheism_and_abortion.html
Obama’s Illegitimate Presidency 1. Barack Obama, knowing in advance the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President, ran for and won the election for President. 2. His eligibility for that office has never been established by any Constitutionally assigned authority (which doesn’t even exist), nor by the Supreme Court, nor by Congress. The State of Hawaii declined to certify that Obama was Constitutionally qualified to be President. https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/obama-nation-2/
Appearing on CBS Sunday Morning this weekend to promote her new book, “The Book of Gutsy Women,” failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went on yet another Trump-stole-my-thunder tirade, called President Donald Trump a “corrupt human tornado” and an “illegitimate president,” then topped it all off by declaring, “of course, he’s obsessed with me.”
In May 2010 Obama’s Twitter account ranked as the fourth most followed account with about 4 million followers. By May 16, 2011, @BarackObama was followed by 7.4 million people, including twenty-eight world leaders. His account became the third account to reach 10 million followers in September 2011.
Sen. Kamala Harris said on Monday night that President Trump should have his Twitter account suspended over his tweets about the whistleblower whose complaint has helped launch an official House inquiry into his potential impeachment.
“The President’s tweets and his behaviors about this are just further evidence of the fact that he uses his power in a way that is designed to beat people down instead of lift people up,” the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate told CNN.
“Frankly, when you look at what he’s been tweeting today directed at the whistleblower, directed at so many people, you know, I, frankly, think that based on this and all we’ve seen him do before, including attacking members of Congress, that he, frankly, should be — his Twitter account should be suspended.”
Harris said Trump’s latest tweets, in which he called the whistleblower “close to a spy,” is evidence that he is “irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to other people.”
To test the limits and break through No right, no wrong No rules for me I’m free! many time will kids sing this what are they be taught here? ( No Right, No Wrong, No rules for me I Free ” Liberalism 101 that why is line is so deathly)
When all else fails, ask yourself what Elsa would do. Then proceed to belt this song at the top of your lungs. Test your limits and sing along with Idina Menzel as Elsa:
The snow glows white On the mountain tonight Not a footprint to be seen A kingdom of isolation And it looks like I’m the Queen
The wind is howling Like this swirling storm inside Couldn’t keep it in Heaven knows I tried…
Don’t let them in Don’t let them see Be the good girl you always have to be Conceal Don’t feel Don’t let them know… Well, now they know!
Let it go, let it go Can’t hold it back anymore Let it go, let it go Turn away and slam the door! I don’t care what they’re going to say Let the storm rage on The cold never bothered me anyway
It’s funny how some distance Makes everything seem small And the fears that once controlled me Can’t get to me at all!
It’s time to see What I can do To test the limits and break through No right, no wrong No rules for me I’m free!
Let it go! Let it go! I am one with the wind and sky! Let it go! Let it go! You’ll never see me cry! Here I stand and here I’ll stay Let the storm rage on…
My power flurries through the air into the ground My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast I’m never going back The past is in the past!
Let it go! Let it go! And I’ll rise like the break of dawn! Let it go! Let it go! That perfect girl is gone!
Here I stand in the light of day… Let the storm rage on!!! The cold never bothered me anyway
Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal:“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”(Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#5b86bca668a3
How do you take over the world? You find a way to terrify the world’s children to believe they will die if they don’t listen to you.
In what amounts to nothing less than intentional child abuse, the Left has sought since the 1980s to terrify the world’s children about global warming. This cabal of socialist elites have preyed, like hyenas, upon the fragile emotions of easily-frightened — and easily-indoctrinated — young people, the most famous being Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was severely traumatized when she was a little girl by climate hysteria. And she is still deeply traumatized, as evidenced by the pained look on her face at her emotional speech at the UN.
Try telling Al Gore you heard that redistributing (giving away) America’s wealth to poor nations of the world is the real agenda behind climate alarmism. Try telling him that and he will look you squarely in the eye and say this with a straight face: Oh, that’s just another right-wing conspiracy theory. All we’re trying to do is save the planet.
What Gore and his fellow globalists are attempting is to destroy capitalism in the world’s largest capitalist nation to pave the way for a new world order, i.e. global governance. That’s a serious charge, so please allow me to justify it by citing the words of two prominent UN officials in the thick of the plot to strip away America’s sovereignty.
In a frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the UN’s real purpose in promoting climate fear is to kill off capitalism:
This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.
The economic model she referred to is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America’s two-party constitutional democracy is hampering the UN’s climate objectives. She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to do as it pleases. In other words, for the UN to have its way, America must become a single-party communist society.
Figueres is not alone. Another high-level UN Marxist had comments of his own about the hidden agenda behind “climate change.” If you’re among those who believe global warming alarmists when they say all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.
In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC’s Working Group III, made this shocking admission:
One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the UN’s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on climate change is a hoax. The same admission was made earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who revealed that the Green New Deal is not about “saving the planet:”
It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.
In other words, the Green New Deal is using climate hysteria as a backdoor way to turn America into a socialist nation.
Figueres, Edenhofer and Chakrabarti aren’t the only prominent communists to recognize the value of using environmental hysteria as a fig leaf to hide the true agenda behind “climate change.” In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev advocated climate fear as a means of implementing global communism:
The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.
The ‘new world order’ to which he referred is world governance under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For that to that to happen, America must give up its national sovereignty.
They’re coming for your liberty
Powerful progressives in this country feel it’s not fair that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in , while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. The progressive elites who feel that way also believe that America’s wealth must therefore be “shared” to an unprecedented extent with poor nations of the world. Wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism.
The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan Horse to justify the stratospheric new carbon taxes clamored for by progressive elites like Al Gore, Barack Obama and John Kerry, none of whom have denounced the profoundly anti-American sentiments of two of the UN’s top climate officials.
The words of one of those officials revealed that such taxes would be used not for environmental healing, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hard-working U.S. taxpayers, and given to corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”
Progressives in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, a collusion to plunder unprecedented sums from taxpayers of the world’s largest capitalist nation. Why? To implement on a global scale the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America’s wealth a major setback when he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, the progressive elites who push climate fear would have you believe they’re nothing more than environmentally-concerned Americans who would never even dream of participating in a subversive attempt to turn their country communist. These Marxist wolves in sheep’s clothing have been lying to you, and now you know it.
Sometimes the circumstances surrounding a pregnancy are tragic. Perhaps the woman was raped. Maybe the baby has been diagnosed with a defect. Or the woman’s health might be at risk. However, one tragedy is not answered with another. We do not erase a rape by killing a child. We do not cure a baby by taking his life. And we do not avoid all health issues by avoiding the reality of another human being.
Women who have been raped must be compassionately cared for. But compassionate care does not include executing a woman’s child. Parents facing a difficult prenatal diagnosis must be given real facts and directed to others with helpfulexperiences. They must not be forced into a quick choice for abortion or urged to take the life of their child instead of giving her a chance to defy the odds. Women with high-risk pregnancies must be treated by real medical professionals. But treatment does not include intentionally killing a child. (If a child dies during the course of treating the woman – i.e., during chemotherapy for cancer, removal of an ectopic pregnancy, etc. – this is not an abortion.)
2) It takes innocent lives.
Science could not be more clear. Unborn human beings are living, separate, and unique. From the moment of fertilization – better known as conception – a new human life is in existence. Ending this life is not ending “potential.” It is ending a life. We would do well to understand the modern science that reveals the humanity of the unborn. (Here is a scientific report, quotes from textbooks, photos, and a video.) Here is an innovative new video series that uses non-graphic medical animation to demonstrate exactly what happens in the different types of abortion. The series also describes the risks each type of abortion poses to women.
3) It violates civil rights.
Civil rights are violated when people are deprived of their basic rights in a discriminatory fashion. Unborn children are deprived of life – the most basic right of all – simply based on their location (their mother’s womb) and their developmental status. This is discriminatory, inhuman, and cruel.
4) It punishes innocent people.
A child does not deserve to die for the crimes of his father. A five-year-old cannot be killed because his father is a rapist. A five-month-old unborn child should not be allowed to be killed for the same reason.
A child does not deserve to die because her mother and/or her father were irresponsible. A child is completely innocent. A child did not decide that his parents would have sex or that they would use ineffective contraception. An unborn child is always innocent and should never be punished.
5) It can harm women.
Real-life stories demonstrate again and again that abortion harms women. Harm comes in a variety of forms – mental, emotional, relational, and physical – and in some cases, women’s lives are lost through abortion. They can also experience the loss of their fertility or an increase in miscarriages after an abortion. To find out more, check out this study, this paper, this compilation of stories, theseexperiences, and these stories.
6) It is damaging to relationships and families.
Any time a family member dies, the rest of the family is affected. And this is true of abortion. A real, living, irreplaceable child has been killed, and the parents and siblings are damaged. Fathers attempting to stop abortions can read this article. Siblings who need a place to express their pain can go here. And for more information on how abortion damages relationships, read this and this. Many women who abort just to convince a man to stay with them find that they are left alone anyway, shortly after the abortion. Abortion is never the way to a successful and loving relationship.
7) It never goes away.
No matter how hard we try, we can never erase what abortion does. Abortion takes — it kills — an innocent human being. Time does not erase murder or ease the reality of what it is. Abortion is a cruel tragedy, but it is also a choice that should never be made. Such a choice stays with us forever.
Some people believe that ending a child’s life will solve their problems. And in the immediate present, it may appear that the problems have been erased. Perhaps college becomes an easier option, maybe parents never find out that their daughter was pregnant, or possibly an affair remains undiscovered. But in reality, abortion only hides problems: it doesn’t solve them. Many women finish college while still giving life to their babies. Many parents are far more accepting and loving than their daughters or sons believed possible. And the truth is better than a lie, when a lie would cost an innocent person’s life. In the end, that’s what this is really about: our problems are not solved through killing an innocent person. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. And just because it’s often a hidden choice doesn’t mean it won’t stay with you forever.
Parents often experience great pressure to choose abortion without being told of the great gift they’ve been given.
9) It avoids responsibility.
Abortion is sometimes used as an easy cover-up for a one-night stand or a solution to a relationship gone bad. However, when two adults make the choice to participate in an activity known to create babies, these adults must accept responsibility. Contraception can fail. The best planning can fall apart. But responsibility should not be avoided at the cost of an innocent child’s life.
Responsible people have to make hard choices sometimes. Timing may seem bad, and circumstances might be difficult. But this does not justify killing an innocent person. Choosing to raise a child is responsible. Choosing adoption for a child is responsible. But choosing abortion and denying life to a child who already exists is irresponsibly – and irreparably – wrong.
10) It’s not empowering or liberating for women.
As a woman who considers herself a feminist, I find it appalling that abortion is classified as part of “women’s rights.” It is not my “right” to kill my child. I should not be the only person who has the power to order my child’s execution at the hand of an abortionist. Letting my child suffer a death in which her spine is sucked into a tube or her limbs are torn apart or her heart is stopped through poison is not empowering or liberating. These choices ought not to be choices at all. They are cruel tragedies for all involved, and they should not be permitted in a civilized nation. Women do not receive freedom through the blood of their children.
Abortion erases the choice of a human being. (Photo credit: katie.kap on Flickr)
4/29/2014 Emails Show Susan Rice Prepped To Lie By White House Newly obtained emails on Benghazi show then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was coached by a key White House aide to lie and ignore the facts known and reported on the ground to make the administration look good.
The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes, and no further proof is needed than a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, contained in more than 100 pages of documents released by Judicial Watch and obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.
That email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 p.m. ET,” was sent to other key White House staffers such as then-Communications Director David Plouffe and Press Secretary Jay Carney the day before now-National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her whirlwind tour on five Sunday news show appearances to specifically and emphatically blame an Internet video for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other nationals were killed. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/benghazi-emails-white-house-prepped-susan-rice/ Libya attacks spontaneous
Former national security adviser Susan Rice slammed President Donald Trump for storing the notes from his phone conservation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on a top-secret server — then admitted the Obama administration stored communications on the same server.
Speaking at the Texas Tribune Festival, Rice tore into the Trump administration for “unprecedented” actions, claiming officials have attempted to “bury” information.
“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice said. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
Then Rice was asked by the moderator how often the Obama administration did what she is criticizing the Trump administration for doing.
“We never moved them over unless they were legitimately, in the contents, classified,” she admitted
Ava will not being doing any more MINI AOC content.
The Left’s Harassment and death threats have gone too far for our family. We have been getting calls on our personal phone numbers. For our safety and for our child’s safety, we deleted all Mini AOC accounts.