Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wants the big budget reconciliation plan extending President Donald Trump’s tax cuts sent to his desk — ready for signature — by July 4. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) would like it even sooner: Memorial Day. This tight timeline is forcing Congress into high-stakes negotiations to unify on a budget. Meanwhile, Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill.) is waging a fierce campaign among her Republican colleagues to make defunding Planned Parenthood a non-negotiable piece of the final proposal.

On Monday, Miller sent a passionate letter to Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, obtained by Breitbart News. In it, she urged Guthrie to “use every legislative option available to cease all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood,” exposing the organization’s deep entanglement in abortion and transgender treatments. “Abortions and transgender treatments have exploded in clinics across the country,” she wrote.

Citing the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Miller highlighted that “abortions made up 97.1% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services from 2021-2022, performing nearly 400,000 abortions.” She also underscored the crisis in her home state, noting, “In 2023, my home state of Illinois performed 72,143 abortions, the most in our history since the state started reporting abortion totals in 1973.” Miller laid bare Planned Parenthood’s financial empire, stating, “Due to a lack of decisive Congressional action, Planned Parenthood has become a federally funded health network with private assets valued at $2.5 billion. Recent numbers show that Planned Parenthood received nearly $700 million in taxpayer revenue from 2022-2023.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Her letter concluded with a call to action: “It is essential that we protect taxpayer dollars and stop funding this organization. President Trump has already issued an Executive Order that implements such a plan. Therefore, I urge you to do everything possible to ensure Planned Parenthood never receives another penny of taxpayer dollars.”

Speaking to Breitbart, Miller doubled down, declaring, “Planned Parenthood is a multi-billion-dollar abortion business that continues to receive millions in federal funding.” She praised Trump’s leadership, stating, “President Trump had it right when he issued an Executive Order to cut off taxpayer dollars from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood,” and insisted, “it’s time for Congress to make that policy permanent. I urge the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure that not another dime of American tax dollars goes to this murder-for-profit organization.”

Miller’s crusade is part of a broader Republican offensive. In late March, pro-life advocates and lawmakers united for the Big Abortion Lobby Day, pressing Congress to shield taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. Several GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), have repeatedly echoed the same demands as Miller, introducing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and advocating for its inclusion in the reconciliation package.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) signaled strong intent to confront “big abortion” in the budget reconciliation, according to Fox News. Two sources close to the House Energy and Commerce Committee told reporters that defunding Planned Parenthood is under serious consideration as lawmakers seek $1.5 trillion in spending cuts to offset Trump’s tax priorities. “[I]t’s been discussed,” Guthrie confirmed. “We are working on a lot of different options, but that’s been discussed.” And it’s not just Republicans who are calling for this action. An army of pro-life Americans are chiming in as well.

In March, when Miller shared a post about her push to defund abortion businesses, those in the comments expressed their shared passion to defund Planned Parenthood. “Cut them off forever,” one wrote. “How did taxpayers ever get forced to pay for someone else’s abortion in the first place?” another questioned. “Defund planned parenthood.” For pro-lifers near and far, one comment hit the nail on the head: “The American people don’t want to pay for abortion.”

Thune, speaking to Breitbart, outlined the sweeping scope of the reconciliation agenda, emphasizing its alignment with Trump’s campaign promises. “[T]he objective in reconciliation is border security, it’s national security, it’s rebuilding the military,” he said. “It’s tax relief. … It’s cutting spending. And it’s creating energy dominance for this country. Those are all agenda items the president campaigned on, the American people voted for, and we need to deliver on.” He acknowledged the complexity, noting, “there are a lot of moving parts around it. … But … I always believe you underpromise and over-deliver. So, as we look at what we have to get done, we want to be sure it gets done right.”

According to Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, including the defund abortion agenda is worth every ounce of effort. As she put it, “American taxpayers do not want their tax dollars paying for the killing of unborn children. This makes sense — who wants their hard-earned money used to kill a human being?”

“Moreover,” she continued, “Planned Parenthood specifically is guilty of not only killing millions of unborn children, but they are also guilty of being one of the largest providers of hormones to minors who are experiencing gender dysphoria.” Ultimately, Szoch concluded, “This organization should not receive any money from taxpayers. Thank goodness for the work of pro-life congressmen and women who are trying to protect American taxpayers from unwillingly taking part in this evil.”

LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.

The post Republicans Must Make Defunding Planned Parenthood Part of Reconciliation Bill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

New analysis from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates there are 15 community health centers offering women’s health care for every Planned Parenthood facility in the United States. That’s over 8,800 community women’s health providers compared to just 579 in-person and virtual Planned Parenthood locations.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

The research examined 5,500 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) which are community-based health care providers vetted and funded by the federal government to provide comprehensive health care services to low-income, vulnerable and underserved populations. It also examined 3,300 rural health clinics (RHCs) which are located in rural areas that are particularly vulnerable to health care shortages. These RHCs qualify for federal government funding to make health care available to Medicare and Medicaid recipients in underserved areas.

Tessa Cox, senior research associate at CLI, and one of the lead researchers in this analysis, said:

“With research showing that nearly 70% of women who had abortions described them as unwanted or inconsistent with their preferences and values, we know that many women are looking for better options. Community health centers give those options, providing care in underserved communities and filling critical health care gaps. Women deserve comprehensive care from providers who offer real health care, not abortion.”

Planned Parenthood’s motto is “care, no matter what,” but according to their 2022-2023 report, they only have a few options to resolve a woman’s pregnancy: prenatal services, adoption, miscarriage care, and abortion. Their own reporting shows 97% of the time, she’s sold an abortion. Since 2010, Planned Parenthood’s total cancer screening and prevention services have dropped by 71%, including declines of 72% for breast exams and 74% for pap tests, and prenatal services are down 80% from a record high in 2009.

Despite rapidly declining non-abortion services, Planned Parenthood reported receiving $699.3 million in the form of government grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements (34% of its total revenue) in 2022-2023.

Karen Czarnecki, executive director of CLI, said:

“This report makes one thing abundantly clear: Women aren’t receiving comprehensive medical care at Planned Parenthood, despite what the abortion lobby claims, because their business is abortion. Women, especially ones in underserved areas, deserve access to quality health care. Planned Parenthood isn’t meeting the needs of these women, especially considering recent reports of botched services.”

CLI’s full analysis, including maps and a state-by-state breakdown, is available at LINK.

The post Community Health Centers Outnumber Planned Parenthood 15-1, Offer Better Health Care Without Killing Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Senator Josh Hawley is urging the Trump administration to reverse Biden-era policies on dangerous chemical abortion drugs, arguing that states like Missouri should be empowered to impose safety restrictions on mifepristone to protect women and unborn children.

In a letter dated May 7 to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Hawley called for the Justice Department to reconsider its defense of Biden’s mail-order abortion policy, which he says has led to severe health risks for women.

The letter highlights a recent study showing that 1 in 10 women who use mifepristone experience serious complications, such as infection or hemorrhaging, often requiring emergency medical care within 45 days.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

“The Biden administration’s mail-order abortion policy poses a grave threat to the health and safety of American women,” Hawley, a Missouri Republican, wrote. “I strongly urge you to reconsider the Justice Department’s defense of this policy in court.”

Hawley’s push aligns with his broader efforts to reinstate safety regulations on mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions.

On April 28, he introduced legislation aimed at restoring safeguards that were stripped away under Democratic administrations, including in-person doctor visits and mandatory follow-up care. The senator cited a study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which found that the rate of adverse events from mifepristone is at least 22 times higher than the FDA’s reported rate of less than 0.5%.

“The grounds for dismissal sought are mostly procedural in nature,” Hawley wrote in his letter, referring to a lawsuit filed by Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas to limit access to the drug. “I am troubled by the fact that the Justice Department has sided with the Biden administration’s position.”

Pro-life advocates have long warned about the dangers of mifepristone, especially after Biden’s policies allowed the drug to be mailed without medical supervision.

LifeNews.com reported yesterday that a pro-life group urged President Donald Trump to limit the abortion pill’s availability, citing cases where women have suffered severe complications or even died.

Missouri, a state at the forefront of the legal battle, has seen a drastic decline in abortions since the 2022 Dobbs decision, with only 64 abortions performed between June 2022 and March 2024 under emergency exemptions. However, the state reported 186 complications from pill-based abortions between April 2018 and August 2023, according to litigation data. Hawley and other pro-life leaders argue that these statistics underscore the need for stricter oversight of mifepristone, which they say endangers women by allowing abortions without proper medical supervision.

The senator’s letter to Bondi emphasized the role of states in protecting their citizens, particularly in light of Missouri’s recent voter decision to legalize abortion—a move Hawley acknowledged but said should not prevent safety measures.

“Missouri’s litigation aims to reverse that policy and protect women,” he wrote, urging the Justice Department to support the state’s efforts rather than obstruct them.

The post Josh Hawley Calls on Trump to Let States Stop Dangerous Abortion Pills appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The head of Catholics in England and Wales has taken the solemn oath of secrecy inside the Sistine Chapel as the conclave to select the successor to Pope Francis begins.

Cardinal Vincent Nicholas, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, is one of three English cardinals among the total of 133 cardinal electors who will choose the next head of the Roman Catholic Church.

The cardinal electors all recite the oath, promising that if elected pope, they would faithfully fulfill the ministry of universal pastor of the Church, that they will follow the rules of the conclave scrupulously and keep secret the results of the votes.

Only one round of voting will take place on Wednesday night, with four ballots on each subsequent day, two in the morning and two in the afternoon, until a new pope is selected. If the cardinals have not elected a new pope after 12-13 ballots, they will take a break for a day of prayer and reflection before continuing.

A nun in St Peter’s Square as cardinals begin their conclave to elect a new pope, Vatican, 7 May 2025. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.)

The past two conclaves, in 2005 and 2013, were short, with a pope elected on the fourth and fifth ballots, resulting in a new pope within two and a half days.

Though most cardinals have insisted that they believe this year’s conclave will also be short, many observers have speculated that it could also last longer, given that there are more cardinals, and many do not know each other.

In this regard, the pre-conclave general congregation meetings have been essential, allowing the cardinals a chance to get to know one another and jointly discuss their vision for the Church, and the profile of the new pope.

Once the doors to the Sistine Chapel close, cardinals will effectively be entirely shutoff from the rest of the world, with phone jamming systems and Wi-Fi blockers in place.

They will also have no newspapers or television news available while they remain closed in together in the Santa Marta residence, to allow for complete privacy and to prevent the interference of any external factors that might sway the voting process.

Cardinals’ deliberations end as conclave and discernment begins

Photo: Faithful watch a giant screen displaying cardinals taking oath of secrecy inside the Sistine chapel, at St Peter’s Square on the first day of the conclave to elect the next pope, Vatican, 7 May 2025. (Photo by STEFANO RELLANDINI/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post Cardinal Nichols takes solemn oath of secrecy before first conclave vote first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Cardinal Nichols takes solemn oath of secrecy before first conclave vote appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Kansas City’s Archbishop Joseph Naumann will offer the closing Mass and the opening prayer for the gala at the 54th National Right to Life (NRL) Conference in Overland Park, Kansas, June 20-21.

The NRL website states that Archbishop Naumann has “consistently challenged pro-abortion Catholic politicians and spearheaded pro-life efforts and ministries in Kansas and throughout the country.”

When serving as the pro-life coordinator in the Archdiocese of St. Louis from 1984 to 1995, Archbishop Naumann helped establish a Project Rachel ministry and the Lifeline Coalition, the website adds.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

The NRL conference organizers say the event prepares participants to advocate for life.

“Across two dynamic days, we’ll spotlight developments on the medical, scientific, political, legislative, and grassroots fronts, giving attendees a comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities ahead,” the website states. “You’ll hear directly from national leaders to local advocates from those shaping the conversation in courts, classrooms, communities, and the media.”

After the closing Mass, the conference will conclude with a gala, where the NRL will present a pro-life leader with the Proudly Pro-life Award.

LifeNews Note: Grace Porto writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Archbishop Joseph Naumann Will Headline Pro-Life Event appeared first on LifeNews.com.

ProPublica has received a 2025 Pulitzer Prize for a report critics say falsely blamed a Georgia woman’s death on pro-life legislation — despite evidence that her fatal complications stemmed from the abortion pill.

The reporting team, which included Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, was awarded the prize for coverage the Associated Press described as “reporting on pregnant women who died after doctors delayed urgent care in states with strict abortion laws,” according to Shawn Fleetwood of The Federalist.

Left unmentioned was that the story at the center of the award has been widely challenged for its misleading framing.

ProPublica centered its reporting on the 2022 death of Amber Thurman, a Georgia mother whose passing it attributed to alleged confusion about the state’s abortion laws. The story ran just weeks before the 2024 presidential election.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

However, Thurman “died on the table during a surgery only needed because she suffered severe complications from ingesting abortion pills associated with sometimes fatal complications,” according to Federalist’s Jordan Boyd.

Last week, the Ethics and Public Policy Center released the largest known study of the abortion pill, revealing that more than 10% of women who take mifepristone experience sepsis, hemorrhage, or other serious complications — a rate that is 22 times higher than the FDA approved drug label’s claim of “less than 0.5 percent.”

“Thanks to the Biden administration’s radically relaxed abortion pill expansions, Thurman was able to induce abortion hours away at home unsupervised,” Boyd noted.

CatholicVote previously reported that prominent pro-life leaders decried the media’s handling of Thurman’s story, calling it a case of “medical negligence and misinformation.” Analysts pointed out that Thurman’s death was not the result of pro-life policy, but of a dangerous lack of oversight in the administration of chemical abortion drugs.

After former Vice President Kamala Harris falsely claimed during the 2024 campaign that Donald Trump’s abortion policies caused Thurman’s death, The Wall Street Journal ran a fact-check exposing the inaccuracy.

ProPublica’s award follows what Fleetwood described as a growing trend of journalism prizes being awarded to politically driven narratives.

“If Americans needed further proof that the Pulitzer Prize has become nothing more than a glorified gold sticker given to the media’s biggest left-wing propagandists,” Fleetwood wrote, “the award’s 2025 winners are sure to convince them.”

LifeNews Note: Rachel Quackenbush writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Liberal Media Wins Pulitzer for Lying About Abortion Bans appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Theresa Ickinger, a post-conciliar champion of the Faith active in many realms, spoke at one of my first Roman Forum meetings in the early 1970s. I cannot remember which of her battles she recounted to us, but I do recall that it took place in Philadelphia. She noted that after discussions with the church authorities brought about the usual depressing failure, she regained her courage by…

Source

New Delhi has claimed it was targeting terrorist sites in an overnight raid

Pakistan has accused India of killing civilians in a cross-border military operation overnight and promised a forceful response. In the attacks, Indian forces targeted what New Delhi described as “terrorist camps” in the neighboring country.

The escalation follows a terrorist attack in India’s Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory that left 26 civilians dead last month. The Indian government has accused Islamabad of harboring an armed group linked to the incident and characterized the pre-dawn missile and drone strike on Wednesday as retaliation.

The Pakistani National Security Committee (NSC) has dismissed India’s justification for the military action, calling it an “unprovoked, cowardly and unlawful act of war” in a statement issued after a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Islamabad maintains the targeted sites were civilian areas and that the terrorist camps described by India are “imaginary.” Reports from Pakistan have mentioned at least 26 fatalities and 46 injuries. The NSC also claimed that Pakistani forces downed five Indian aircraft involved in the operation, including fighter jets and drones.

”Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing,” the statement warned, urging the international community to hold New Delhi accountable for alleged violations of international law.

New Delhi described its Operation Sindoor as “focused, measured and non-escalatory,” targeting locations associated with the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The April attack was claimed by a group called The Resistance Front, reportedly an offshoot of LeT, which India identified as the mastermind behind the incident.

Russia has condemned the initial attack in Kashmir, with the Foreign Ministry stating that Moscow “objects to any terrorist activities and emphasizes the need for the international community to unite to effectively fight against this evil.” The country has urged both New Delhi and Islamabad to exercise restraint and pursue diplomatic solutions to their differences.

The American system of medical-care delivery has no name. It is neither single payer nor based on private enterprise. It is a patchwork of cockamamie carrots and sticks, agencies and incentives, exceptions and accounting tricks, cajoles and punishments, cobbled together over some 50-100 years of legislation that itself was a product of pressure-group pushes, graft, loopholes, mandates, and subsidies. 

It’s not even a clean public-private partnership. It’s a public-private-nonprofit-grifter-payola regulatory cacophony of confusion and chaos over which pharmaceutical companies and professional lobbyists exercise the dominant influence. 

Still it quasi-functions. It hobbles along year after year with ever more expense and administrators, with ever worse results. Absolutely no one would design such a thing from the ground up. No one is particularly happy with it but neither is there much push to change it fundamentally. 

The Covid years devastated trust or, perhaps, just pulled back the veil. Every poll confirms it, e.g. a Harvard/Northwestern poll showed that trust fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% by January 2024 across all groups. The reality is likely far worse. Everyone is asking how to restore trust. 

The last time centralized reform was attempted was 15 years ago. The debates about Obamacare minted a healthcare expert daily and generated think-tank blueprints reflecting every ideological bias. The final product of a thousand pages, in which no one group got its way, was shoved through with great huzzahs on one side and boos on the other. It resulted in more coverage, yes, but also cost increases anywhere between 50 and 500 percent depending on how one chooses to measure it.

No one can produce evidence that it has made America more healthy. A statistical tour through chronic disease data, or a casual walk through a mall or airport, proves that. 

The debate over the Affordable Care Act pretty well exhausted the appetite for far-reaching reform. And maybe that is a good thing because the drive today is not for one system for everyone but a realization that the needs are so diverse and diffuse that it would likely have more success with a series of parallel systems that emerge from the ground up. 

Thus has most of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda focused on matters that individuals and families can do themselves. They include being more scrupulous about diet, exercise, sleep, sunshine, and caution about prescription medications, whether for mental or physical maladies. The movement against mandates is at the core simply because it now (versus a few years ago) pertains to children and relates directly to the grave concern about ill-health and the rise of autism. 

Again, this is a more productive conversation than going back to the drawing board to reform a system that has no name and hardly anyone understands in its totality. It recognizes something crucial, namely that health is not granted by a system of government or a large insurer but rather emerges from individual decisions and habits. In large part and with the exception of unpredictable twists of fate, much of what we call health is mainly within our own control. 

Given that insight, we have a better starting point in which to discuss real policy reforms that can give people a greater degree of control than they currently have under the existing bureaucratic patchwork of programs, mandates, agencies, and bureaucratized systems. Here are eight examples that can make a massive difference and should be favored regardless of ideological bias. 

1. Liberalize generic therapeutics from prescription control and make them over the counter. People are not idiots, though the US’s prescription system presumes they are. Fourteen states are working toward making Ivermectin and other common medicines like Hydroxychloroquine more available, thus liberating people from dependency on medical services. With the ubiquity of AI and quality medical information everywhere at our fingertips – no longer monopolized by the lab coats – we are better positioned to care for ourselves in our own interest. Probably hundreds of generics that people take routinely could be so regarded. 
2. In many countries, pharmacies have nurses and doctors available for diagnostics, which seems like a much better system than ours. It is far easier to get routine medical care in Mexico than it is in the US. This should not be the case, but regulatory barriers limit pharmacists’ roles in diagnostics or prescribing. Liberalizing the system and breaking down professional barriers and regulated buckets could better serve the healthcare consumer. 
3. Allow employers to offer employees an opt-out of mandated health insurance. The mandates are hugely expensive for employers. Every employer with more than 50 employees must comply. We don’t even have to change the mandate but simply permit options for the workers. Allowing their workers an extra $5-10 thousand or so in salary and wages would be accepted by many and give the direct primary care industry a boost. This would lower costs and boost job options. 
4. Permit anyone to make contributions toward a Health Savings Account, not just people with high-deductible health plans (as it stands today). The HSA is a bit of an annoyance – its troubling how government uses the tax system to direct spending choices – but it at least allows some tax-free choice that can otherwise earn money in financial markets. It makes no sense why these should not be open to anyone, even and especially people who elect against expensive coverage. It would serve as a substitute for insurance and add to the country’s store of savings and capital. 
5. Permit insurers to offer catastrophic-only plans to people of all ages. For that matter, health insurers need to be free from the shackles of predefined plans that are inclusive of services that most people do not want or need. A catastrophic-only plan would be selected by many. This might be the worst aspect of Obamacare, and it needs to go. We should be able to buy health insurance the way we buy any other good or service, which is to say, according to our own perceived needs, risk aversion, and willingness to pay.
6. Put actuaries to work not just on large groups of people but on individuals, and allow premiums to adjust based on actual individualized health risks. This would strongly incentivize better living. For example, there could be discounts for people who join and use gyms, follow a keto diet, don’t abuse substances, and so on. Reward them and many more will join in better practices. It’s possible that this could happen even without repealing the non-discrimination for pre-existing conditions. Simply reward people with lower premiums for being less likely to use medical services. 
7. Eliminate legal indemnifications from pharmaceutical harm. The rest would take care of itself. 
8. Permit non-allopathic services providers such as naturopaths and homeopaths to enlist to be paid with insurance money. This would save insurance companies millions if not billions of dollars. Such doctors rely on supplements and alternatives, not drugs, that cost far less. And they help people fix their lifestyle choices. This fits where the market is going in any case, as people are seeking out a greater range of opinion. 

None of these eight reforms rub hard on ideological wounds. All are about respecting individual choice, which is the essence of health. They can all be pursued without touching existing entitlement systems and legacy welfare provision. They would amount to the first major steps toward creating parallel systems of experimentation, all within the framework of the existing system. It seems like they should earn bipartisan support. 

Reprinted with permission from Brownstone Institute.

From Ukraine to Kashmir: The old laws of power still apply

There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere – and provides some useful lessons.

Since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, India’s official stance has generally aligned with Moscow’s interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace.

While many in India’s political and media elite – especially the pro-Western crowd – have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles.

India’s official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said:

“India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence.”

Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added:

“The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability.”

And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums:

“Wars are not the way to settle disputes.”

The consistent refrain at countless conferences about “peace in Europe” boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some “public intellectual” would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope – advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today.

It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov’s 2005 movie Dead Man’s Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: “Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.”

It wasn’t just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called “rising powers” repeated similar mantras.

Now, let’s be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about “wisdom” and peace as if it’s a fresh insight is banal – and, frankly, vulgar. Because when real danger arrives – when an enemy or existential threat targets your home – there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That’s not bloodlust; it’s the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today’s global order. You can deny it, but you can’t make it disappear. 

Western propaganda’s greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia’s offensive was a “war of choice” rather than a “war of necessity” – which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise. When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will – without even realizing it – abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life.

As the Bible reminds us: “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

What should Russia do now? Stay the course – finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed. 

Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second.

Happy World War Two Victory Day – to us, and to peace.

It must be quite a burn for Brussels elites when Washington says their most vaunted quality is not as good as they try to make it look

This one stings. When asked how the EU might dodge US President Donald Trump’s tariff hammer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent replied, “My observation... goes all the way back to [former US Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger’s statement: ‘When I call Europe, who do I call?’ So, we’re negotiating with a lot of different interests.” Translation: You can’t sit with us until you stop fighting at your own lunch table.

Sure, the continent is tripping over its own policies and tumbling down an economic staircase, but at least everyone’s falling in sync. Brussels tightens the “unity” straitjacket, and they all cheer, or risk getting whacked back into line. Unity is the brand. Unity is the product. Unity is the hashtag.

“Only together can we address the grave challenges we face,” unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in January 2024.

“It is thanks to all this that in the last five years, Europe has weathered the fiercest storm in our economic history. And we overcame an unprecedented energy crisis. 

We did this together, and we can do it again. And we have the political will. Because when Europe is united, it gets things done,” she said in an address earlier this year at the Davos World Economic Forum, explaining how solidarity will help the EU weather the problems created by its own policies.

“The EU’s strength lies in its unity, including when confronted with major health crises. European solidarity, in sharing medical supplies, treating patients or helping repatriate citizens, and in the reconstruction of our economies, helped us to protect our citizens together and overcome the most difficult phases of the pandemic,” she said in 2023 about the Covid fiasco, during which she brokered a non-transparent deal for jabs with her pal, the CEO of Pfizer, via text messages that have since vanished. Contracts which ultimately left EU member states on the hook even after they had no use for the jabs.

“This 4th Ukraine meeting was another demonstration of European unity,” Queen Ursula posted a month ago on social media. Of course it was. What isn’t?

Even just this week, in evoking fires in Israel and EU assistance, she wrote on social media that it was “EU solidarity in action.”

Unity and solidarity are important to the EU in the same way that the concept of family is important to evoke every time two toddlers want to poke each other’s eyes out with crayons. As in, “you’re supposed to be brothers, so play nice!” All that helps to paper over the unfortunate history of family infighting and battlefield beatdowns.

Enter Scott Bessent, politely suggesting that he’s not impressed by the EU’s unity thirst traps.

And that hits deep. It’s like telling someone that what they think is their very best feature is really their worst. Say, for example, you really love your own butt, have been spending years in the gym doing every kind of squat, lunges, hip thrusts, and you’re so proud of your butt – and then one day, someone you’re interested in is like, “You know, you should really work on those glutes more.” That’s exactly what Bessent’s comment is when he says that the problem with the EU is their lack of unity.

Nothing the US can do about it, he implies – just a little friendly feedback. Back to the gym, Brussels. And Queen Ursula must be fuming since she talks like it’s her best feature and she already spends all day and night obsessing over it. How is she possibly supposed to do more when she’s already maxed out on her unity obsession? Which is all superficial by the way. Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s that place their own country’s interests above those dictated by a supranational institution of global governance.

This is some brutal negging on the part of the Trump administration saying basically, look, you’re not as hot as you think you are. So go work on yourself and then maybe get back to us afterwards. Because this is a YOU problem.

Bessent specially mentioned the wide variation within the bloc when it comes to taxation of digital services. “We want to see that unfair tax on one of America’s great industries removed,” Bessent said. Funny how they can’t agree on that, but have no problem marching in step behind the Digital Services Act, which basically deputizes “fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations with specific expertise on disinformation,” to keep EU internet users “safe and accountable.” When it comes to taxes, the EU is a jazz band. When it comes to censorship, they’re a military parade.

Meanwhile, von der Leyen reportedly tried to book time with Trump at Mar-a-Lago before his inauguration. No dice. Her staff was ghosted by the White House despite blowing up its phone. When she finally caught up with Trump in Rome at Pope Francis’ funeral, it was said to be… not exactly a summit. More like a celeb sighting.

Word is that Trump told her they’d meet. Perhaps just to get her to release his hand.

Other than the fact that Queen Ursula is unelected, unlike all the leaders of individual EU nations with whom Trump has been meeting, why else might he be ignoring the EU’s top boss? Well, maybe it’s the constant scolding. “Global markets are shaken by the unpredictable tariff policy of the US administration,” von der Leyen said this week at a political gathering in Spain. ”My friends, we cannot and we will not allow this to happen. We have to double down on our hallmark policies of open markets of win-win trade and investment partnership, and of free and fair trade.”

Bessent’s whole “fix yourselves first” vibe also lines up with Trump's vice president, J.D. Vance’s stance. According to the UK Independent, Vance reportedly wants future trade deals tied to countries, like the UK, abandoning speech-curbing laws.

So if the Trump doctrine is a world order of free nations over rule by top-down globalist committee, then using trade as a crowbar to pry open authoritarian institutions certainly checks out.

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

We are being frog-marched into tyranny at the end of a loaded gun. Or rather, hundreds of thousands of loaded guns.

Let’s not mince words: President Trump’s April 28 executive order is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: martial law masquerading as law and order.

Officially titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” this order is a “heil Hitler” wrapped in the goosestepping, despotic trappings of national security.

Don’t be fooled by Trump’s tough-on-crime rhetoric, cloaked in patriotic language and the promise of safety.

This is the language of every strongman who’s ever ruled by force.

The White House claims the order will “empower state and local law enforcement to relentlessly pursue criminals and protect American communities.” But under this administration, “criminal” increasingly includes anyone who dares to exercise their constitutional rights.

The order doesn’t merely expand policing—it institutionalizes repression.

It sets us squarely on the road to martial law.

If allowed to stand, Trump’s executive order completes our shift from a nation of laws—where even the least among us had the right to due process—to a nation of enforcers: vigilantes with badges who treat “we the people” as suspects and subordinates.

Without invoking the Insurrection Act or deploying active-duty military forces, Trump has accelerated the transformation of domestic police into his own paramilitary force.

With the stroke of his presidential pen, he has laid the groundwork for a stealth version of martial law by:

• Expanding police powers and legal protections;
• Authorizing the DOJ to defend officers accused of civil rights violations;
• Increasing the transfer of military equipment to local police;
• Shielding law enforcement from judicial oversight;
• Prioritizing law enforcement protection over civil liberties;
• Embedding DHS and federal agents more deeply into local policing.

All of this has occurred without congressional debate, judicial review, or constitutional scrutiny.

For years, we have watched as the government transformed local law enforcement into extensions of the military: outfitted with military hardware and trained in battlefield tactics.

However, this executive order goes one step further—creating not just a de facto standing army but Trump’s own army: loyal not to the Constitution or the people, but to the president.

This is the very danger the Founders feared: a militarized police force answerable to a powerful executive, operating outside the bounds of the law.

This is martial law without a declaration.

Law enforcement today is equipped like the military, trained in battlefield tactics, and given broad discretion over who to target and how to respond. But these are not soldiers bound by the laws of war. They are civilian enforcers, wielding unchecked power with minimal oversight.

And they are everywhere.

Armored vehicles on neighborhood streets. Flashbang raids on family homes. Riot police in small towns. SWAT-style teams deployed by federal agencies. Drones overhead. Mass surveillance below.

We are fast approaching a reality where constitutional rights exist in name only.

In practice, we are ruled by a quasi-military bureaucracy empowered to:

• Detain without trial;
• Punish political dissent;
• Seize property under civil asset forfeiture;
• Classify critics as extremists or terrorists;
• Conduct mass surveillance on the populace;
• Raid homes in the name of “public safety”;
• Use deadly force at the slightest provocation.

In other words, we’ve got freedom in name only.

It’s the same scenario nationwide: in big cities and small towns alike, militarized “warrior” cops—hyped up on power—ride roughshod over individual rights by exercising almost absolute discretion over who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence has already ensured that unarmed Americans—many of them mentally ill, elderly, disabled, or simply noncompliant—will continue to die at the hands of militarized police.

From individuals shot for holding garden hoses, to those killed after calling 911 for help, these tragedies underscore a chilling truth: in a police state, the only truly “safe” person is one who offers no resistance at all.

These killings are the inevitable result of a system that rewards vigilante aggression by warrior cops and punishes accountability.

These so-called warrior cops, trained to act as judge, jury and executioner, increasingly outnumber those who still honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public.

Now, under the cover of executive orders and nationalist rhetoric, that warrior mentality is being redirected toward a more dangerous mission: silencing political dissent.

Emboldened by Trump’s call to reopen Alcatraz and target so-called “homegrown” threats, these foot soldiers of the police state are no longer going to be tasked with enforcing the law—they will be deployed to enforce political obedience.

This is not a theory. It is a reality unfolding before our eyes.

We are living in a creeping state of undeclared martial law.

The militarization of police and federal agencies over recent decades has only accelerated the timeline toward authoritarianism.

This is how freedom ends—not with a loud decree, but with the quiet, calculated erosion of every principle we once held sacred.

We’ve come full circle—from resisting British redcoats to submitting to American forces with the same disdain for liberty.

Our constitutional foundation is crumbling, and with it, any illusion that those in power still serve the public good.

Congress, for its part, has abdicated its role as a constitutional check on executive power—passing sweeping authorizations with little scrutiny and failing to rein in executive overreach. The courts, too, have in the past sanctioned many of these abuses in the name of national security, public order, or qualified immunity. Instead of acting as constitutional safeguards, these institutions have largely become rubber stamps.

Indeed, the president, Congress, the courts, and the police have come to embody the very abuse the Founders fought to resist. Only now are the courts beginning to show glimmers of allegiance to the Constitution.

This is not about partisanship. This is about power without restraint.

As tempting as it is to place full blame on Trump for this full-throttle shift into martial law, he is not the architect of this police state. He is its most shameless enabler—a useful frontman for the Deep State in its ongoing war on the American people.

As we warn in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

We ignore these signs at our peril.

Reprinted with permission from Rutherford Institute.

A Department of Justice attorney accused of orchestrating a campaign to imprison pro-life activists is now being compelled to testify before Congress, marking a significant moment for pro-life advocates who were unfairly targeted under the Biden administration.

Sanjay Patel, a DOJ attorney, faces scrutiny for his alleged role in what pro-life groups call a deliberate scheme to prosecute and jail activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, issued a demand for Patel, along with Special Counsel David Weiss and other Biden-Harris DOJ officials, to appear and address claims of misconduct and weaponization of federal law enforcement against pro-life Americans.

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

The controversy stems from the Biden administration’s aggressive use of the FACE Act to charge and convict 23 pro-life advocates, many of whom were sentenced to years in prison for peacefully protesting outside abortion clinics. Critics argue the law, intended to protect access to reproductive health facilities, was misused to silence pro-life voices.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pardoning all 23 individuals, condemning what he called Biden’s “lawfare” targeting elderly protesters and others engaged in nonviolent demonstrations.

“This is a great honor to sign this,” Trump said, emphasizing the need to restore justice for those he described as wrongfully persecuted.

The pardons followed formal requests from the Thomas More Society, which submitted detailed appeals highlighting the activists’ moral character and the excessive nature of their prosecutions.

Pro-life leaders hailed the pardons as a victory but stressed that accountability for DOJ officials like Patel remains critical.

The House Judiciary Committee’s probe focuses on allegations that the Biden DOJ selectively enforced the FACE Act, ignoring attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers while aggressively pursuing activists. According to reports, over 100 crisis pregnancy centers and churches were attacked following the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, yet few perpetrators faced prosecution.

As Patel prepares to face congressional questioning, pro-life activists see the hearings as an opportunity to highlight what they view as systemic bias in the justice system.

The hearings are expected to draw significant attention, with pro-life supporters calling for transparency and reform. For now, the 23 pardoned activists, including grandmother Joan Bell and ministry leader Bevelyn Williams, are free, but their advocates say the fight for justice continues.

The post Biden Attorney Behind Putting Pro-Life Americans in Prison Forced to Testify Before Congress appeared first on LifeNews.com.