Is adult film star Bonnie Blue sending a pro-life message?



OnlyFans “influencer” Bonnie Blue rose to fame after sleeping with over 1,000 men in a single day — and she doesn’t seem fazed by it one bit.

“The big 1,000 was completely done,” Blue happily said in a video posted to social media while clad in a robe. “The room was absolutely full. Then we did groups of five, like one after the other of fives. I wanted to give people more time, so then it went down to, like, one-on-ones.”

“So, like, one person would watch whilst I was with somebody, and then it would literally just be like a rotating circle,” she continued.

And Bonnie Blue might have even more news.


“There’s good news, everybody,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” says. “You’re going to be surprised to hear, if you took health class in eighth grade, that experience of having 1,000 different men inside of her may have — we don’t know for sure because we don’t know when this happened — but may have resulted in a pregnancy.”

“In just eight months' time, I am so excited to do the world’s biggest livestream of a birth,” Blue said in another video uploaded to social media.

“Now, look, I don’t think a lot of people want to see her have sex with 1,000 men. I think it sounds pretty icky. But I assure you, no one wants to watch a livestream of the birth. That’s not a thing,” Stu comments.

But it’s not just the potential for a livestream that bothers Stu.

“We’re talking about an obviously horrible way to build a family, and I don’t even know how big that family would be. Would you have 1,000 different dads? Would you go on Maury Povich and maybe try to figure out who the dad was? That would be highly rated, I suppose,” he says.

“It’s a horrible way to conceive a child, a horrible way to go through this. This is — you’re going to be surprised to hear — not really all that biblical. It’s not the path to a nuclear family that most people would design,” he continues.

“That being said, that child still deserves a chance to live. Even a baby conceived in these bizarre and ridiculous circumstances still has value,” he says, adding, “In a very strange, roundabout way, she should be commended, and has a heck of a lot more moral fortitude than a lot of women who go and abort their child and end their lives for no good freaking reason.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Blaze News original: Pro-lifers dunk on New York Times for falsely accusing Trump of lying about Dems' abortion ambitions



The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.

The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.

This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.

Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.

'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'

In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."

Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."

'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'

Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."

Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.

NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."

The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.

National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."

When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."

Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.

'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'

When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.

This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."

"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."

"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."

Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.

The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."

Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."

The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.

A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.

A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.

Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."

"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.

Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Video: Pro-life Christian detained for preaching the gospel outside abortion clinic, defiantly returns to save unborn lives



A pro-life activist was detained by police for preaching the gospel outside of an abortion clinic in Ohio. Despite being hit with criminal charges, the Christian defiantly returned to the abortion clinic to present alternatives to pregnant women and save unborn lives.

Zack Knotts and his wife spent three Saturdays in December preaching the gospel outside of the Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, roughly five miles from Akron. The Christian couple pled with pregnant women to choose life.

'I will preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will warn people of the wrath to come if they don’t repent. But I always say that there’s good news. There’s hope for you in Christ.'

Zack and Lindsay Knotts were at the abortion clinic to offer resources to pregnant women to hopefully sway their opinions about aborting their babies.

“We have free resources available," Zack told the Daily Signal. "We contacted an adoption agency, a couple of pregnancy resource centers, and got some of their information. We have folders with literally everything they could need if they were able to come talk to us, and we hold it up in the air."

The Knotts are so dedicated to their pro-life mission that they are willing to adopt a baby that would have otherwise been aborted.

"One of the greatest things that we think we could do to demonstrate that is to adopt a child that would have otherwise been murdered, bring them into a family that will love them, will show them Christ, will give them everything that they need," Knotts stated.

"Knowing God used us to save that baby, that would be the greatest thing in the world, the greatest victory of our lives," he explained. "To hold the baby that week the Lord used us to help stay alive."

The Knotts have a 3-year-old of their own.

Knotts was preaching the gospel from the sidewalk outside the Northeast Ohio Women’s Center on Dec. 28.

“There’s hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ for all of you,” Knotts said.

Lindsay Knotts captured video of the moment that police interrupted Zack and demanded, "You're coming with us."

The officer accused Knotts of committing disorderly conduct.

Knotts is compliant with the officer's commands; he walks to a police cruiser and gets inside the vehicle.

Knotts vowed to sue the two officers, the police department, and the city of Cuyahoga Falls for violating his First Amendment rights.

Lindsay is seen on video asking the officer what crimes her husband has committed, and the cop responds, "So we've had complaints that he's causing an inconvenience or alarm to another. We also have recordings of him doing that, and obviously the statute here in the city of Cuyahoga Falls — you're not allowed to do that — under disorderly conduct."

The other officer is heard telling Zack that there have been "a lot of people complaining about you."

Lindsay said of the incident, "My first emotion was just pure shock. He was standing there on the public sidewalk, pleading with these escorts, with the women, telling them about the good news of the gospel, that they can be forgiven, that we have free resources for them."

Knotts was charged with disorderly conduct.

According to the misdemeanor citation, Knotts “did knowingly generate noise by means of a megaphone causing [inconvenience] and alarm to passersby at the Women’s Clinic.”

The Cuyahoga Falls disorderly conduct ordinance 509.03 (a) (6) states: "Generating or, being the owner or person in possession or control of a vehicle or premises by reason of employment, agency, or otherwise, permitting to be generated unreasonable noise or loud sound which is likely to cause inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities by means of a radio, phonograph, television, tape player, loudspeaker or any other sound amplifying device or by any horn, drum, piano or other musical or percussion instrument.”

Knotts told Live Action, "The charge was based on the claim that my preaching ‘annoyed’ passersby, which is an entirely subjective basis for restricting free speech. This action was taken despite my clear constitutional right to free speech and religious expression, and we firmly believe it violates my First and Fourth Amendment rights."

Zack explained, "I will preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will warn people of the wrath to come if they don’t repent. But I always say that there’s good news. There’s hope for you in Christ."

Nonetheless, the Knotts defied the authorities and returned to the clinic this past Saturday to try to offer help to the pregnant women.

During their most recent appearance at the abortion clinic, the Knotts were besieged by patient escorts who hoisted up large umbrellas and blared loud noises with kazoos in close proximity to the pro-life activists.

The Knotts contend that the screeching of the musical instruments violates ordinance 509.03 (a) (6) — the same ordinance that Zack was cited for in his disorderly conduct charge.

An Instagram video from Lindsay shows the confrontation by the clinic escorts.

However, when a complaint was made to a Cuyahoga Falls Police Department officer regarding the noise of the kazoos, he responded, "The kazoos are not annoying you."

After pointing out that the ordinance specifically says "musical or percussion instrument," the officer said he would still not enforce the ordinance until a local resident lodged a complaint. The officer claimed that because the pro-life activists were on the sidewalk, they "don't really qualify as a resident."

Knotts told Blaze News, "The Cuyahoga Falls Police Department refused to enforce the same ordinance with the escorts that they enforced against me. There is clear partiality, and now we have a violation of my 14th Amendment rights."

"I have always had tremendous respect for the police, but I do believe it is only fair they are held to the same standard all of us are held to and when they are wrong, there is accountability," Knott stressed to Blaze News. "If we don’t hold them accountable, then any oppression will only get worse. Subjective, arbitrary ordinances are unconstitutional and give police the ability to do exactly this — enforce the 'law' unjustly and with partiality. That’s always wrong, and it needs to change."

The Cuyahoga Falls Police Department declined to provide a comment to the Daily Signal.

During his first court appearance on Thursday, Knotts pleaded not guilty. He has a hearing scheduled for Jan. 9.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'This isn't 1984, but 2024': Court finds British Army veteran guilty over silent prayer for his dead son



British Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor of Southampton traveled to the English county of Dorset in 2022 to silently pray near an abortion clinic for his son Jacob and "for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff."

A pair of officers then accosted the grieving 51-year-old father and notified him that in his silence, he had breached a Public Spaces Protection Order. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council subsequently charged and slapped Smith-Connor with a hefty fine, which the veteran challenged.

Bournemouth Magistrates' Court ultimately found Smith-Connor guilty on Wednesday, claiming his prayer amounted to "disapproval of abortion."

The faith-based freedom advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom International, which represented Smith-Connor, indicated that Smith-Connor was sentenced to a conditional discharge and ordered to pay prosecution costs amounting to nearly $12,000.

The condition of his discharge is that he must refrain from similar behavior for the next two years. He will have a criminal record regardless.

'Thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the U.K.'

In response to the ruling, Smith-Connor said, "Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts — silent thoughts — can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. All I did was pray to God, in the privacy of my own mind — and yet I stand convicted as a criminal?"

"I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon," continued Smith-Connor. "I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the U.K."

Smith-Connor said in an ADF International testimonial last year that "22 years ago, I drove an ex-girlfriend to a facility where I paid for her to have an abortion. Many years later, I came to realize what I had done, and it has been a source of great grief to me in my life."

"I now pray for my son and to God for forgiveness," added Smith-Connor.

Blaze News previously reported that the penitent approached a British Pregnancy Advisor Service abattoir on Nov. 24, 2022, to pray for his son. He did so positioned behind a tree with his back turned to the clinic.

The BPAS is the top provider of abortions in the U.K. and boasts on its website that one in three British women will "have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."

Standing nearby the BPAS clinic, Smith-Connor slightly bowed his head, clasped his hands, and prayed. This caught the attention of law enforcement.

Footage of the incident shows a male and female officer press the Christian father about his intentions.

'I'm sorry for your loss. But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines.'

"What is the nature of my prayer? I'm praying for my son," Smith-Connor tells the officers.

The female officer states that there is "a clause within the Public Space Protection Order around prayer and around disapproval around the activities at the clinic here."

In areas where Public Spaces Protection Orders are in effect, the "Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act" prohibits protest, "namely engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling."

Anyone found in violation will face "an unlimited fine."

In the footage, Smith-Connor admits to the officers that he was indeed praying for his slaughtered son, and the officer replies, "I'm sorry for your loss. But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines of the Public Space Protection Order, to say that we are in the belief that therefore you are in breach of clause 4a, which says about prayer, and also acts of disapproval around the activities at the clinic."

GBNews presenter and former parliamentarian Miriam Cates said in a statement, "This isn't 1984, but 2024 — nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind."

"It's outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin," continued Cates. "Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs."

'To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offense.'

"It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head," said Edward Leigh, a member of Parliament and incumbent father of the House. "Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the U.K. when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs."

Isabel Vaughan Spruce was similarly charged with violating a PSPO near an abortion clinic in Kings Norton, Birmingham.

In January, a Christian singer was accosted in London for daring to sing gospel music "outside of church grounds." The backlash over the incident ultimately prompted Metropolitan Police to issue an apology.

"To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offense," continued Leigh. "The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right."

Britain is set to further curb speech rights around abortion clinics later this month.

Whereas there are presently five councils across the U.K. with censorship zones around abortion clinics — officially referred to as "buffer zones" around abortion clinics — the government is imposing 492-foot censorship zones around every abortion clinic around the isles on Oct. 31. Inside these zones, it will be illegal "to do anything that intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision to use abortion services, obstructs them, or causes harassment or distress to someone using or working at these premises."

Andrew Tettenborn, professor of law at Swansea Law School, noted in the Spectator (U.K.):

Smith-Connor's case was in some ways unusual, since he actually admitted to the police officers that approached him that he was praying for his dead son. But what if it had been different? Many people, thus approached by officialdom in a public place and interrogated as to their private thoughts, would have an entirely creditable Englishman's instinct to tell the official concerned in no uncertain terms to mind his own business. Would this protect them? Possibly. One fears not, though. The lack of an admission may make it more difficult to get a conviction, but might still allow an officer to arrest that person.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Bull****. This is systemic': Army won't identify consequences for briefing that designated pro-life groups as terrorists



Members of the House Armed Services Committee grilled the U.S. Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and training this week over the recent revelation that nearly 10,000 soldiers at North Carolina's Fort Liberty — called Fort Bragg prior to the Biden-Harris administration — were trained to believe that pro-life organizations qualify as "terrorist groups."

Lt. Gen. Patrick Matlock suggested during the Thursday hearing that corrective action has been taken, though he was altogether light on details, refusing to indicate whether someone had actually been fired, suspended, and/or demoted for likening champions of the unborn to mass-killing jihadists.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chairman of the subcommittee on military personnel, and members from both parties did not appear to be buying what Matlock was selling — especially his piece about accountability.

"I think the reason that you can't answer the question is because you know and we know that no one has ever been held accountable for this training that started in 2017 and occurred until a few months ago," said Banks. "I think that's a big embarrassment for the U.S. Army."

"It's dangerous; it's a bad pattern," added Banks, who stressed at the outset that the Biden-Harris Pentagon and the U.S. Army are undermining the First Amendment and "targeting conservative speech and values."

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) suggested that letting this happen for nearly seven years and then remaining mum on what the consequences are when finally called out serve only to "increase the recidivism of this type of behavior."

"He's literally saying that we have no idea whether or not it's going on in other locations in the Army," said Florida Rep. Cory Mills (R). "We have no idea whether or not this is continuing as it has for seven-plus years."

'Peaceful pro-life Americans are labeled "terrorists."'

Blaze News previously reported that a slide from the Fort Liberty anti-terrorism awareness training session was posted on social media on July 10 by DOD whistleblower Samuel Shoemate.

Shoemate received the image from a U.S. Army soldier who sat through the training meeting.

That same soldier told Blaze News, "The briefing was simply a class on how to be a gate guard and what to look for when on duty."

"Gate guard duty is something all of us have to do from time to time. It was presented by a DOD civilian, not an anti-terrorism officer," added the soldier.

The offending slide, which appeared immediately after a section on the mass-raping, mass-killing jihadist group ISIS, was labeled "Terrorist Groups" and featured the logos of National Right to Life and Operation Rescue.

It also featured an image of a customized "Choose Life" license plate — the kind sold in at least 33 states and the District of Columbia to help raise money for crisis pregnancy centers.

The slide noted that extra to opposing "Row [sic] v Wade," these supposed terrorist groups engage in picketing, demonstrations and protest, and mass sidewalk counseling.

"Only under the Biden administration can peaceful law-abiding citizens and their peaceful activities be considered 'terrorism,'" NRL president Carol Tobias responded at the time. "The Biden administration promotes the deaths of preborn babies and advocates for unlimited abortion, but peaceful pro-life Americans are labeled 'terrorists.'"

Blaze News' Steve Baker, the investigative journalist who originally spoke to the soldier who first exposed the pro-life group's misleading characterization in the Army briefing, said, "That slide is devastating."

"Can you imagine a soldier's wife with one of these pro-life bumper stickers, of which there are millions across the country, pulling up to a guard gate at Fort Liberty or Fort Wherever, and all of a sudden, the guard who sat through that training where that slide was showed ... immediately figures the soldier's wife and the two kids in the back seat for terrorists on the level of ISIS?" said Baker.

Despite the appearance that the Army has an issue with Americans harboring pro-life views, Matlock alleged Thursday that the Army is unbiased, that there was "no political motivation behind the training," and that the issue was localized.

'Bull****. This is systemic.'

Baker cast doubt on Matlock's claims.

The Army initially implied in July that the slide was an aberration, stating that "the slides presented on social media were not vetted by the appropriate approval authorities" and that they "do not reflect the views of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Liberty, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense."

However, Baker noted that military whistleblower Samuel Shoemate of Terminal CWO was soon inundated with calls and messages from all over the country "saying, basically, 'bull****. This is systemic. We've seen it in our own bases and in our own briefings.'"

Baker underscored that the systemic antipathy for Americans with pro-life views at the Pentagon has made its way down to the lowest rungs but that this ideological capture has been years in the making.

"The decapitation and replacement of the military's leadership began in earnest during the Obama administration," said Baker. The bulk of the top brass were "dismissed and replaced for nothing more than philosophical and political reasons."

Now, the senior leadership is largely made up of political activists, said Baker.

Baker's recent exclusive report about how the Pentagon dropped the ball on the Jan. 6, 2021, riot highlighted the fallout in the military of the prioritization of politics over strategy and effectiveness.

Baker and Joseph M. Hanneman detailed various indications that career officials at the Pentagon interfered with the deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6 over fear of bad "optics."

"This can only be solved by the next commander in chief," said Baker. "He's the only one that can solve it. He's the only one that will have the authority to go in and replace those political activist generals, admirals, and the rest of the leadership within the Pentagon, both enlisted and civilian."

It's clear which commander in chief Baker has in mind.

"It's not going to be fixed under a Harris-Walz administration, because this activism falls in line with their ideals, their values, their desire to use the military as a social engineering playground," said the investigative journalist.

Subcommittee Chairman Banks noted in his prepared remarks, "The Army is using an overly broad policy to police the speech of conservative service members, quiet dissent, and require service members who believe in conservative ideals to hide their identities for fear of retaliation from their commands."

Danielle Runyan, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, the legal outfit representing the whistleblower, said in a statement Thursday, "Once again, the Army was caught exercising clear viewpoint discrimination in their training slides — offering that some views and religious exercise are worthy of punishment."

"We are thankful the House Armed Services Committee and the 88 members who sent a letter to the Army are committed to holding their feet to the fire. The flagrant lack of political neutrality in our military must be rectified immediately," added Runyan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Health establishment claims abortion-pill reversal unscientific — fine print suggests otherwise



Democratic officials and various pro-abortion organizations have gone to great lengths to attack abortion-pill reversal, characterizing the life-saving practice as dangerous, unscientific, and ineffective.

A recent report highlighted how the Biden-Harris Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chief among the institutional exponents of this smear, may have unwittingly planted the seed of this narrative's undoing.

The CDC acknowledged in its 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive report that medical abortions can be potentially reversed by precisely the means pro-life organizations employ in their rescue efforts — and it is not the first institution to do so.

Mifepristone

To extinguish the lives growing within them, some pregnant mothers take a drug called mifepristone in conjunction with misoprostol up to 10 weeks into their pregnancies.

Mifepristone — which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has indicated is linked to a number of serious adverse events as well as the deaths of dozens of mothers — starves the uterus of progesterone, a hormone required for a pregnancy to continue.

Misoprostal then forces the uterus to contract and expel its contents, including the child, usually within days of starting the medication. The Mayo Clinic noted, however, that sometimes mifepristone tablets are not enough to completely end a pregnancy or clear away human remains. In such cases, surgery is required.

Those mothers who immediately regret taking the abortion pill are not altogether hopeless.

Reversal

Numerous pro-life organizations and health care professionals across the country provide abortion-pill reversals. The reversal process reportedly involves the administration of progesterone to undo the effects of the abortion pill; a follow-up ultrasound to confirm the viability of the baby; and at least two weeks of continued progesterone treatments.

There have, however, been conflicting studies in recent years about whether the use of progesterone actually helps reverse the effects of mifepristone.

'The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective.'

A 2016 paper published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, for instance, suggested that the administration of a progestin-based contraceptive — either an etonogestrel implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection — on the same day as mifepristone "did not alter the success rates [of the medical abortions]."

Another study published that same year in Obstetrics & Gynecology alternatively indicated that the administration of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestin hormonal medication sold under the brand name Depo-Provera, increased the chances of "ongoing pregnancy."

Pregnancy Help News noted why Depo-Provera would help in this regard:

With an increased concentration of progesterone, such as the progestin in DepoProvera, the mifepristone is quickly displaced from those receptors. When providing APR, prescribers offer supplemental bio-identical progesterone, which is similar to what the mother’s body produces. This treatment works rapidly to fight the effects of mifepristone blockage.

In 2017, a case report published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care concluded, "Progesterone use in early pregnancy is low risk and its application to counter the effects of mifepristone in such circumstances may be clinically beneficial in preserving her threatened pregnancy."

In 2018, a study published in the peer-reviewed professional journal Issues in Law & Medicine claimed, "The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective."

Admissions

Pregnancy Help News' Christina Brown highlighted a telling admission in a recent CDC report concerning progestin-only injectable contraceptives, such as Depo-Provera.

Under the section, "Special Considerations," there is a subsection titled "Postabortion (Spontaneous or Induced)." There, the CDC states:

After a first trimester medication abortion that included mifepristone, concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone might slightly decrease medication abortion effectiveness and increase risk for ongoing pregnancy (U.S. MEC 2) (1). Risk for ongoing pregnancy with concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone versus DMPA administration after abortion completion should be considered along with personal preference and access to follow-up abortion and contraceptive care.

Brown noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, another fierce critic of abortion reversals, also appears to have admitted that DMPA can save some babies' lives.

In an October 2020 practice bulletin, ACOG stated, "DMPA injection at the time of mifepristone administration may slightly increase the risk of an ongoing pregnancy."

Despite ample evidence that the administration of progesterone during pregnancy is safe — it is, after all, usually administered during the IVF process as well as to prevent preterm birth in singleton pregnancies — and its constituents' ostensible acknowledgments that reversal is possible, the American health establishment nevertheless appears committed to denying remorseful mothers the choice of saving their babies.

Criticism

The ACOG states on its website, "Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Claims regarding abortion 'reversal' treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards."

The ACOG notes further that while the "concurrent administration of DMPA may slightly decrease the effectiveness of mifepristone for medication abortion, the results do not demonstrate that DMPA 'reverses' medication abortion."

The ACOG has dutifully furnished leftists with the perceived credibility they need to target pro-lifers.

When New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and 11 pro-life pregnancy organizations in May for promoting abortion-pill reversal, she cited the ACOG's concerns.

"Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe," said James. "Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising 'abortion reversals' without any medical and scientific proof."

James' lawsuit accused the pro-life groups of fraud for saying that abortion-pill reversal "can reverse the effects of the abortion pill and allow you to continue your pregnancy" — precisely what the CDC's recent report appears to suggest.

James is hardly the first pro-abortion activist to clamp down on those seeking to remedy mothers' regret.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) also sued Heartbeat International last year and a chain of crisis pregnancy centers over their promotion of medical reversal. His lawsuit also referenced the ACOG's claims.

Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis ratified legislation in April 2023 exposing health care practitioners to discipline if they dared perform an abortion reversal. The law also forced limits on advertising by crisis pregnancy centers.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico blocked the law from taking effect late last year, stating, "The law at issue here runs afoul of these first amendment principles."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigates: Florida might join blue states in enshrining nearly limitless abortion as a right. Here's a look at the fight ahead.



Voters in Florida will decide on Nov. 5 whether to scrap hard-won legal protections for the unborn and effectively legalize late-term abortion through a constitutional amendment to the Sunshine State's Declaration of Rights.

Pro-life advocates have shared critical insights with Blaze News regarding the political significance of Florida's Amendment 4; its implications for the unborn and their advocates both in Florida and out of state; and what it reveals about the pro-abortion movement's strategy going forward.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2022 Dobbs decision rekindled hopes that the Founders' long-eroded constitutional federalism might be on the mend and that untold millions of human beings might be spared from franchise abattoirs.

Time will tell whether the forces of centralization will be arrested and reversed. As for the unborn, the legal question of whether and when they can be exterminated has been localized, repeated, and, in some cases, answered.

Florida Republicans passed SB 300, the Heartbeat Protection Act, early last year.

SB 300 prohibits the slaying of unborn children after six weeks of pregnancy, unless the mother's life is in danger; the mother is a victim of rape, incest, or human trafficking; or the baby has a fatal fetal abnormality.

The law also expanded eligibility for Florida's pregnancy support and wellness services network to women who are up to 12 months postpartum and to parents of children under the age of 3 for up to 12 months. This support network, topped up with $25 million annually, provides both material assistance and counseling to parents in need.

"We are proud to support life and family in the state of Florida," Gov. Ron DeSantis said upon ratifying the legislation. "I applaud the Legislature for passing the Heartbeat Protection Act that expands pro-life protections and provides additional resources for young mothers and families."

While the anti-abortion legislation enraged the usual suspects, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Florida, it also rankled various right-of-center political operatives and personalities.

'Them winning in Florida I think really represents the end of the pro-life movement.'

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), for instance, was among those who criticized DeSantis for ratifying the legislation, telling CBS News' "Face the Nation" that "signing a six-week ban that puts women who are victims of rape and girls who are victims of incest and in a hard spot isn't the way to change hearts and minds. It's not compassionate."

Mace suggested instead that "15 to 20 weeks is the sweet spot here."

After months of relative quiet, debate about the law picked up nationally when former President Donald Trump questioned the Florida law in a late August NBC News interview.

Trump — who nominated the Supreme Court justices who helped overthrow Roe and whose running mate noted in 2022, "If you're not willing to stand up to the left on abortion, you can't be trusted on anything else" —said six weeks "is too short" and that there "has to be more time."

The Republican also upset some pro-life advocates by insinuating he might even vote for Florida Amendment 4 in November.

Following significant backlash, including from some fair-weather friends, Trump reversed course. The incident was nevertheless survived by discussions on the right about the perceived political liability of pro-life activism and the place for pro-lifers in the Republican Party.

Florida Amendment 4

In November, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada will decide whether to amend their respective state constitutions to guarantee residents the legal right to kill the unborn at various stages of development.

In Florida, the choice has taken the form of Amendment 4, an initiative sponsored by Floridians Protecting Freedom — a coalition comprising the ACLU of Florida, Planned Parenthood, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, SEIU 1199 Florida, and various other radical outfits.

If Amendment 4 passes, then the people's democratically elected representatives will be barred from passing any law prohibiting, penalizing, delaying or restricting abortion "before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider" — meaning both that Florida would fall into line with the most radical of the pro-abortion states and that even Mace's proposed 15-week "sweet spot" would be out of reach.

Gov. DeSantis has opted not to sugarcoat the decision before Floridians: "If you care about building a culture of life in this state or this country, them winning in Florida I think really represents the end of the pro-life movement," DeSantis told a crowd in Tampa last month, reported the Tampa Bay Times.

'Amendment 4 would be a travesty for our nation.'

Critics have noted that the amendment is deceptively worded.

Liz Wheeler, host of BlazeTV's "The Liz Wheeler Show," told Blaze News, "Amendment 4 is a radical, gruesome abortion policy that would allow abortion up to the moment of birth. This means big, healthy full term babies would be aborted for any reason."

"Amendment 4 is dishonestly presented as allowing abortion 'just' until viability — but what is viability?" continued Wheeler. "The term viability is not defined in the legislation, and viability is not a scientific or ethical concept about when a human life begins anyway, but simply a term that defines, on a moving scale as medical knowledge advances, our capacity to keep that baby alive outside the womb before the baby reaches full term."

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moodypreviously highlighted that "even the pro-choice-aligned American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes the two medical definitions and urges that 'the concept of viability of [an unborn baby] is frequently misrepresented or misinterpreted based on ideological principles. This perpetuates incorrect and unscientific understandings of medical terms.'"

Vote No On Amendment 4 Florida has also accused the authors of Amendment 4 of crafting "it to be as vague and deceptive as possible."

Taryn Fenske, a spokeswoman for the Vote No group, suggested to Blaze News that the reason for the "misleading language" and the amendment's undefined terms is "because the Soros-backed radicals pushing Amendment 4 know that they need to conceal the shocking reality of how their scheme would endanger women and children in Florida."

The leftist billionaire has poured "substantial" funding into the Tides Foundation, which contributed millions of dollars to the group sponsoring the initiative, Floridians Protecting Freedom. Whereas FPF appears to have netted over $51 million in contributions from such deep-pocketed leftist organizations, Ballotpedia indicated the five committees registered to oppose Amendment 4 have together raised less than $4 million.

"Simply put, Amendment 4 would be a travesty for our nation," stressed Wheeler. "Thousands and thousands of big, healthy babies would be killed in the womb because of it."

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, among the more outspoken opposition groups, similarly noted in a statement earlier this year that the amendment "is an extreme proposal that legalizes full-term abortion with no protections for the preborn child, including when the child is capable of feeling pain."

'If only people that are pro-life oppose it, it very well might pass.'

"We urge all Floridians of goodwill to stand against the legalization of late-term abortion and oppose the abortion amendment," continued the bishops' statement. "In doing so, we will not only protect the weakest, most innocent, and defenseless of human life among us but also countless women throughout the state from the harms of abortion."

The American College of Pediatricians has also spoken out about the threats posed by Amendment 4.

Dr. Richard Sandler, cochair of the Pro-Life Committee at the ACP, said in a statement shared with Blaze News, "Florida's Amendment 4 is dangerous to children: it exposes preborn children to abortion until the day of birth and it eliminates parental consent for minors. Additionally, it's dangerous for women as it removes common sense maternal health and safety regulations."

According to Florida first lady Casey DeSantis, the amendment would not only eliminate parental consent for minors but also "open the door to taxpayer funded abortions."

Blaze News reached out to Planned Parenthood for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

'Florida would be like every other state with a ballot initiative that failed to defend life.'

To pass, the amendment needs to net at least 60% of the vote. Recent polling data suggest that the pro-abortion amendment might have the requisite amount of support.

"If you look at the state of Florida, we do not have a pro-life majority," DeSantis said last month. "We've got a big chunk, but we don't have a majority. If only people that are pro-life oppose it, it very well might pass."

Constitutional attorney Catherine Glenn Foster, the CEO of First Rights Global and board member of Democrats for Life of America, told Blaze News that the passage of Amendment 4 would mean that Florida, like every other state that preceded it in putting abortion on the ballot, "would have fallen victim to the abortion ideology that conflates women's health, reproduction, and abortion. Florida would be like every other state with a ballot initiative that failed to defend life and enshrined abortion as a State constitutional right."

According to Foster, the passage of the ballot initiative would also require a re-haul of the pro-life agenda (a re-haul she recommends pursuing in any event):

It would then fall to the Florida Legislature to adopt a new full-spectrum life agenda, including maternal and prenatal care, healthcare costs, parental leave, childcare, early childhood education, educational opportunities for parents and students, flexible work accommodations, economic and workforce development, end of life issues, and more.

Contours of victory and next steps

If Amendment 4 fails, then Florida's Heartbeat Protection Act will remain the law of the land.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of the Archdiocese of Miami, told Blaze News in a written response that the defeat of Amendment 4 "would be a tremendous victory for Life and the rights of the unborn."

"Most Americans are uneasy about abortion and do not endorse what amendment 4 would foist upon us: abortion till the moment of birth, the erosion of parental rights, and exploiting vulnerable women facing a crisis due to their pregnancy."

'Conservatives must fervently, loudly champion the lives of these babies, so beautiful and yet so vulnerable.'

Catherine Glenn Foster indicated that a pro-life win would also break a recent trend of ballot setbacks.

"After back to back defeats for Life in 7 states, if Florida voters defeat Amendment 4, Florida will have solidified itself as America's pro-life defender, the first state in the nation to achieve a win for life in a statewide constitutional ballot initiative on abortion," Foster told Blaze News.

The successful defeat of the amendment may also serve to energize pro-life efforts further afield and demonstrate to skeptics that protections for life are not necessarily political liabilities.

John Quinn, deputy director of Democrats for Life of America, told Blaze News, "The biggest potential upside of defeating Amendment 4 is that it would be the first ballot measure the pro-life side has won after Dobbs."

"Pro-lifers generally struggled to win ballot measures before Dobbs (but did pass a constitutional amendment in Louisiana, led by pro-life Democrat State Senator Katrina Jackson-Andrews), so this struggle isn't new, but it has taken on an increased prominence since Dobbs, especially because we are losing pro-life protections in states that would otherwise have them precisely because of ballot measures (Ohio being a tragic example of this)," said Quinn.

Quinn added, "If we have success against Amendment 4 in Florida, hopefully we can replicate that success in other states that put similar measures on the ballot."

Wheeler told Blaze News that it is critical to continue this work of banning abortion "everywhere for every reason except rare instances where the life of the mother is at risk."

"Pro-lifers and conservatives must not be afraid to say this. It shouldn't even be controversial," said Wheeler. "We're talking about the killing of babies. Obviously we should protect the lives of unborn children in the womb. Science shows us that life begins at conception. Our society is built on the objective truth that every human life is valuable. What right do we have to kill these babies? Conservatives must fervently, loudly champion the lives of these babies, so beautiful and yet so vulnerable."

'Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government.'

When asked by Blaze News about the arguments for pro-life incrementalism or, alternatively, for prioritizing cultural and/or social persuasion over legislative efforts to deconstruct the abortion regime, Wheeler noted that the strategies are not mutually exclusive:

It's not mutually exclusive to pursue legislative protection for unborn children or fight against the cultural forces that tell women that babies are a burden and tell men that promiscuous sex without the consequences of a baby is manly. Every incremental legislative change that protects an additional life is a victory for life, as long as we are not compromising the moral position that all life must be protected at all times.Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops permits the 'art of the possible' as long as the goal is complete protection of the dignity of life. The problem arises when squishy Republicans don't believe in the dignity of all human life, and seek to compromise on abortion morally, not just as a practical tactic in the fight overall.

Archbishop Wenski answered that the "aim is not to win the debate but to protect the unborn."

"Our goal is to make abortion not only illegal but unthinkable," Archbishop Wenski told Blaze News. "But to this end, while not surrendering our ultimate goal, we must be ready to accept what we can get through the legislative process. That's why we supported the 15 week ban, and now the 6 week ban."

Florida Right to Life president and Do No Harm Florida co-founder Lynda Bell told Blaze News that it is "better to pursue laws at the state level."

The Catholic prelate appeared to agree, stating that "obviously at the present time, we can hope to have better legislative results at the state level, unless there are significant changes in the make up of the U.S. Congress."

Catherine Glenn Foster made clear, however, that change won't come easy and that "the pushback is hard."

"Femininity is being weaponized. Earnest words are being twisted to score political points. The abortion side is turning tribal to the point of ferality," continued Foster. "Planned Parenthood pink pins are like the cover charge to the cool kids club — in Hollywood, New York City, and Silicon Valley. Coastal elites are bullying Main Street America into sacrificing our children. And that is reflected in the votes."

While federally, there is hope of regaining lost territory, Foster indicated that it's time now "for a change in the winds, for a new message of hope and inspiration. We have to persuade the people who believe that abortion is necessary or a good, or worse still, the people who never think about it at all. And as we do that, we must move forward at every level of government to protect all human life, because every life is inherently, intrinsically valuable, and must be cherished and supported in that. That requires full-spectrum life legislation."

To move the needle on making abortion unthinkable, Archbishop Wenski appeared to be on the same page, noting, "We need to continue to form consciences through education; also, we need to work to help support vulnerable women to choose life rather than choosing to the end the life of their child because of economic or social pressures."

When addressing the matter of the continued need to dismantle the abortion regime, Wheeler quoted Mother Teresa as saying, "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'I'm prepared to die': Biden-Harris DOJ celebrates concentration camp survivor's felony conviction over pro-life advocacy



The Biden-Harris Department of Justice got what it wanted last week when a federal jury all but guaranteed that concentration camp survivor 89-year-old Eva Edl would do prison time for peacefully protesting a variant of the dehumanization she thought she escaped when immigrating to America after World War II.

Edl told nationally syndicated radio host and co-founder of Blaze Media Glenn Beck Wednesday that she is ready to die in prison for daring to do what many proved reluctant to do early in the 20th century: stand up for vulnerable human beings deemed unfit for life.

"As a child, when I was pushed in that cattle car and nearly choked to death because we were so tightly put together — well, I wish that somebody in my country would have loved Jesus enough to risk their own freedom or even their lives and gathered in front of that train, stood on those railroad tracks to keep us from being shipped in there," said Edl.

"Well, this is basically what I'm doing," continued Edl. "When I stand in front of those clinic doors, I'm just buying time for our sidewalk counselors to reach women in a calm and quiet way and touch their hearts."

'This was the land of the free and the brave.'

Blaze News previously reported that at age 9, Edl was thrown into one of communist dictator Josip "Tito" Broz's concentration camps in Yugoslavia along with thousands of other Danube Swabians who had been collectively branded as Nazi collaborators by Tito's communist Partisans and targeted for their German ethnic backgrounds.

"At the end of the war, the communists came in," Edl told Beck. "They decided to just say, 'Because you are of an ethnic background of a certain evil group, ... your blood is already evil. So even if you're a newborn baby, you are evil in itself and have to be exterminated.' And that was their excuse."

Edl suggested that the motivation behind such bloodletting both then and now is really greed. However, it is often masked by ideology and pseudoscience.

"Our natural mind can justify anything our evil hearts want to do," said Edl.

She suffered the consequences of such twisted justifications, losing all of the skin on her legs in camp Gakowa, where she was also hobbled by sores.

"People gagged when they came near me," she said. "The flies and the fleas and the lice and the bed bugs just loved this festering body."

Edl and her remaining family members managed to escape to Austria, then bounced around various European refugee camps before moving to the United States.

When asked by Beck whether she ever envisioned facing prison in America, Edl answered, "No, no. When I came here, I was so idealistic. This was the land of the free and the brave."

"I thought if I ever ended up in court, all I would have to do is explain my situation," continued Edl. "I found out very differently."

A federal judge found Edl guilty of a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act earlier this year for staging a peaceful protest inside the Carafem abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, on March 5, 2021. The protest involved songs and prayer in support of those persons who had been and would be slain deep inside the slaughterhouse.

Edl explained to Beck the strategy anti-abortion activists have settled upon, despite its obvious legal risks:

I was a sidewalk counselor for many years and a rescuer, but when you're so far away from the women as they jump out of the car, you only have a few seconds, but you have to shout in order to be heard, which sounds like you're screaming at them. But by standing in front of the door and buying time for our sidewalk counselors to approach women, it's much more effective, I believe, and women get help, and there are many that are just grateful afterwards that we were there and kept them from murdering their own babies.

On Aug. 20, Edl was convicted in a separate case for supposedly obstructing access to an abortion clinic in Saginaw, Michigan, on April 16, 2021.

According to the Biden-Harris DOJ, "The evidence proved that Edl and Idoni violated the FACE Act by using physical obstruction to interfere with the clinic's employees and patients because the clinic was providing, and patients were seeking, reproductive health services."

'Have mercy on this nation.'

The DOJ, which has its own pro-abortion task force, deemed the result a "victory" and assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division went further, thanking the jury and vowing to "continue to hold accountable those that oppress the free exercise" of the supposed right to obtain an abortion.

"These defendants orchestrated an unlawful clinic blockade and physically obstructed patients seeking access to their doctors, without regard to the serious medical needs of the women they blocked from accessing reproductive health care," Clarke said in a statement. "We thank the jury for the [sic] time, attention, and careful consideration of the facts of this case."

U.S. attorney Dawn N. Ison for the Eastern District of Michigan stated, "This case is about the rule of law, and today's verdict is a victory for that principle."

Facing jail time for playing her part in the implementation of this strategy, Edl told Beck, "I'm prepared to die in there, and I'm not afraid, really."

"I believe in the Lord Jesus. I have eternal life now in him," continued Edl. "So why would I be afraid? The main reason I'm doing what I'm doing is simply in obedience to him. He said in John 14, he said: 'He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me.' And I love him and therefore I keep his commandments.'"

Beck, visibly moved by Edl remarks, asked that she lead the show and its audience in prayer.

Edl obliged him saying, "Lord, we humbly come in the name of Jesus. Lord, our nation is in dire trouble. Lord God, we are ripe for judgment, Lord, and if we don't change, you have to judge us because the blood of these innocents that have been murdered throughout the years — not just 60 million [but] many more — Lord, innocent blood cries out for justice, and Lord, there is still no repentance in our nation."

"Father, I just pray: in your mercy, give us a spirit of humility and repentance before you. Let your church arise and love you, Jesus, by obeying you, Lord," continued the concentration camp survivor. "Lord, we ask you, in Jesus' name, Father, that you will shake our consciences and bring us into obedience before you, Lord, and have mercy on this nation."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Street preacher says Subway worker refused to serve him over his T-shirt condemning homosexuality with biblical reference



A street preacher said a Subway worker in Wisconsin recently refused to serve him over his T-shirt displaying a phrase condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Rich Penkoski told the Christian Post he was wearing a T-shirt displaying the phrase "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1" when an interaction took place — which was recorded on video — in the Waunakee restaurant. Penkoski was traveling with other pastors after preaching outside the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, the Post added. Waunakee is about an hour and 20 minutes west of Milwaukee.

'If the shoe were on the other foot, if somebody walked in and said, 'Oh, I'm gay' or whatever, and I said, 'Nope, I'm not serving you,' this would be all over the place, and I'd be fired, or I'd be getting sued.'

David Grisham, apparently also one of the street preachers, posted a Facebook message Tuesday with multiple photos saying, "This person working at Subway in Waunakee Village Mall refused to serve us because of our Christian T-shirts. Christophobic bigotry should not be tolerated. Please give Subway corporate a call." It isn't clear on what date the interaction occurred.

One of the photos Grisham posted shows four men outside a Subway wearing T-shirts displaying phrases such as, "Abortion is murder," "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1," and "Planned Parenthood murders children and rapes their mothers."

Grisham posted video of the interaction in the Subway, writing in the caption, "Subway Karen refuses to serve street preachers because of Christian T-shirts in Waukanee [sic] Wisconsin." The following is how the exchange went down:

"Are you refusing to service customers? She's refusing to serve us," one man says in the clip. "She just said she's refusing to serve us."

"What are you talking about?" another man asks.

"This girl right here said she's refusing to serve us," the first man replies.

"So we have to go somewhere else?" a third man wonders.

"I want her to say it again," the first man says.

"I am refusing you service," the Subway worker behind the counter replies.

As for her reasons for the refusal, she soon says it's a "personal matter."

The first man asks if it's "because of my T-shirt?"

She replies, "Yes."

"OK, [I'm] sure Subway Corporate will love to hear that," the first man replies.

The Christian Post reported that the Subway employee speaking in the video was referring to Penkoski's "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1" T-shirt.

"If the shoe were on the other foot, if somebody walked in and said, 'Oh, I'm gay' or whatever, and I said, 'Nope, I'm not serving you,' this would be all over the place, and I'd be fired, or I'd be getting sued," Penkoski told the Post.

Penkoski added to the Post, "But these LGBT people are so emboldened that they think just because they're either gay or gay allies, they can say and do whatever they want. So if they really want equality, then they should be OK with me suing them the same way they sue us."

Penkoski said he has spoken with his attorney about possible legal action against Subway for a civil rights violation, the Post added.

Grisham noted in a Facebook comment that his group "did NOT purposely try to antagonize anyone. We just went in for a sandwich. A local pastor was buying us dinner, and we had only been inside for less than a minute and hadn’t said a word to anyone. She just saw our shirts and blurted out profanity and said she wouldn’t serve us. REASONABLE people are reasonable when it comes to differences of opinion and are professional enough to just serve someone without letting their emotions go into elementary schoolyard mode and whine publicly."

Grisham noted in another comment that "if we had been homosexuals with rainbow shirts, and they refused us service, there would be riots in the streets."

But plenty of commenters on Grisham's Facebook posts about the incident pushed back hard. To wit:

  • "Learn the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism," one commenter shot back. "[You] all are simply bigots, and that’s why she refused you service."
  • "I wouldn’t serve you, either," another commenter said. "You wear disgusting shirts like that to get a reaction out of people. Good job. You got your reaction."
  • "Subway will not take your side, nor will any reasonably minded person," another commenter declared before adding, "You are not a Christian in any way shape or form."
  • "Having these kinds of shirts on and calling them 'religious T-shirts' is a CRAZZYYY reach," another commenter wrote. "Speaks volumes to the values of your religious priorities, I guess. You're always welcome to have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequence. To everyone saying you should sue based on 'religious discrimination' has (1) never seen the shirts you guys were actually wearing or (2) is grossly misinformed as to how the legal system actually works. The prosecutors would laugh it out the courthouse in an hour."

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 sided with Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he refused to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. But last October, the Colorado Supreme Court said it would take up a lawsuit from transgender plaintiff Autumn Scardina against Phillips after he refused to make a cake to celebrate Scardina's gender transition.

The Christian Post said Subway's corporate office did not respond to its request for comment by time of publication.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Massachusetts State Government Rolls Out Misleading Anti-Pregnancy Center Campaign

The 'public education campaign' warns women to avoid centers that offer 'hope' and feature 'pictures of babies and children.'