Less of Us ~ The historical and ongoing errors of The Limits to Growth

The back cover copy of the celebrated book, The Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows, et al. begins as follows: 

When each of us decides to buy something, we first consider the price. Yet society at large has long bought the idea of continual growth in population and production without adding up the final reckoning.

"The final reckoning" sounds a little terrifying, doesn't it? The Christian often thinks of "the final reckoning" as the Last Judgment: that moment when the human soul stands alone before Christ, the Just Judge. All his faith, thoughts, and deeds are weighed in the balance at that instant, and the final eternal destination of his soul is determined. But this is not the kind of reckoning Ms. Meadows and her co-authors are considering. Good materialists that they are, theirs is a much less metaphysical kind of reckoning. 

The copy continues:

Now a team of MIT scientists, with the aid of a giant computer, has completed a study of the future if present growth continues. Their inescapable conclusions are beyond anyone's grimmest fears. Possibly within as little as 70 years, our social and economic system will collapse unless drastic changes are made very soon.

Again, terrifying, right?

Can you guess when The Limits to Growth was written?

Answer: 1972.

The phrase "with the aid of a giant computer" should have been the give away.

This book was one of of a series of very highly touted and extensively promoted works, like Paul Erlich's Population Bomb, that predicted that humanity was only a few scant decades away from total annihilation unless immediate, drastic changes were made to our economic and social systems. 

Does that sound at all familiar? If you've been reading this blog semi-regularly, it should.

The same class of literary, scientific, corporate, and cultural anointed ones are saying the same things today that they did in 1972, but with extended time frames, of course. I guess the human race has been given an extension for good behavior—another 20 years before the damage we are doing becomes irreversible; another 50 years before complete and total destruction is assured. Conveniently, those spaces of decades are beyond the frame of most people's memories and lives. So the expounders of catastrophism are rarely, if ever, called to account for their errors.

Among the anointed class and their followers, catastrophism is perpetually popular. Prophets of Doom are never without an audience.

Now consider the types of immediate changes that are commonly demanded by the high priests of catastrophism if we are to avoid the inevitable materialist apocalypse. In The Limits to Growth, the solution is the attainment of "planetary equilibrium." This is to be brought about by reducing industrial output, reducing demand for raw materials, and other strategic reductions both numerous and varied. But all of these solutions are predicated upon the reduction of one particular resource which, if not reduced, will scotch the whole deal:

The number of human beings.

We are the problem. The ultimate solution is: less of us. 

Note that the solution is never less of the anointed ones. 

This final solution has been spoken sotto voce by the anointed ones for decades now. Recall the Georgia Guidestones monument which stood in Elbert County, Georgia. The very first precept carved into this enigmatic monument urged mankind to "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

Of course, that would require the reduction of 95% of the Earth's current population.

Even if the Georgia Guidestones were blasted to pieces by a vandal in 2022, this extreme reductionist concept has not disappeared—far from it. If you look carefully at the hottest of hot button issues being pushed loudly and incessantly by the wise sages in Brussels and northern Virginia even to this day, every one of them has the ultimate side effect of — less of us. For example:

• Climate change: The entire climate change theory begins and ends with the thesis that humanity is a scourge on the planet, and ultimately the only way to save the oceans, the rain forests, the prairies, wolves, owls, ocean sunfish, caracals, skinks, and bird-eating spiders is — less of us.
  
  
• The rainbow agenda is predicated upon the idea that sterile sex acts are the moral equivalent of the procreative act between husband and wife. If you have ever wondered why such unnatural acts are pushed with such unrelenting ferocity even upon the youngest of children in schools, here is your answer. Such acts, if practiced widely and exclusively, can not result in more of us.
  
  
• The unending push for universal contraception and abortion on demand without limits results in much less of us. Abortion alone has resulted in over 60 million less of us since The Limits to Growth was written.
  
  
• The ongoing fanatical campaign to mandate that children receive as many vaccines as early as possible seems to run contrary to this thesis. It also blatantly contradicts the perennial slogan of the pro-abortion movement: "My body, my choice." On the surface, vaccination campaigns which can save millions from potentially deadly viruses seem like they would work against the goals of The Limits to Growth. And indeed, prior the the 1970s, that may have been the case. But within the past 40 years, the number of vaccines mandated or pushed by government, medical, educational and cultural orgs has exploded while the overall health of Americans has progressively declined. Add to this occasional slips by population control obsessives like Bill Gates who said that if we do a really good job on vaccines, we could reduce population growth by 10-15%, and recent scholarship pointing to higher miscarriage rates associated with the COVID vaccine (here and here), and suddenly the unremitting vaccination efforts morph into yet another path to making sure there will be less of us.
  
  
• Trans-kids. Perhaps the most lunatic obsession of the political and cultural anointed ones over the past decade has been the push to make the medically-assisted destruction of one's genitals into a childhood fad. If you're following me on the above points, then the rationale behind the spread of this social virus should be obvious: if you make yourself into a eunuch or otherwise sterilize yourself as a child, you can't make more of you. And even if you come to your senses later in life, it will be too late.
  
  
• Finally, there is euthanasia which is being embraced throughout the West at a depressingly rapid rate. Touting the practice as a voluntary end to suffering, the proponents encourage the elderly and disabled not to be a burden on their families. It's worth pointing out that the burden, such as it is, would be much more easily handled if parents had more than zero or one children, and said children had more than zero or one grandchildren. In Canada alone, which established euthanasia under the MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) program in 2016, nearly 100,000 Canadians have been put down—over 5% of all deaths in that God-forsaken realm which is doing an excellent job making sure there will be less of them to burden their burgeoning population of newcomers.

There have been a few pockets of resistance to the mindset promoted and embraced by the authors of The Limits to Growth and their ilk. 

The Catholic Church took the lead in opposing this demand for childless sterility early on with the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968, a truly prescient document that was released to much chagrin four years before The Limits to Growth was published. The Church's effort seemed to thrive for the next several decades, but has lost steam over the past 15 years. This is thanks in large part to a Vatican that can't get out of its own way when it comes to promoting the Culture of Life. Today, Catholics are faced with a situation where even the Pontifical Academy for Life, established by Pope Saint John Paul II, features fellows who publicly dissent on contraception, abortion and other long-established Church teachings on sexual ethics. Until prelates rise to leadership who are willing to promote actively the Church's perpetual teachings on these questions, and purge our institutions of the "less of us" mentality, the Catholic Church will remain on the sidelines at best. 

While all this reductionist navel-gazing is going on in the West, the Islamic world has largely rejected this approach, and the results over the past 100 years are stunning. As one example, Turkey's authoritarian president Erdogan regularly calls out contraception as the equivalent of treason and urges Turkish families to embrace three or more children. "One or two (children) is not enough. To make our nation stronger, we need a more dynamic and younger population. We need this to take Turkey above the level of modern civilizations,” Erdogan has said. “In this country, they (opponents) have been engaged in the treason of birth control for years and sought to dry up our generation." Despite this rhetoric, Turkey's fertility rate has declined over the past 20 years, a situation which Erodgan calls "a disaster." Even so, Turkey's population growth continues to outpace that of every large European nation.

A quick look at the statistics shows where this is all heading:

The combined population of the UK, France and Italy in 1926 was about 125 million.
The combined population of Egypt, Iran, and Turkey in 1926 was about 40 million.

Today in 2026, the combined population of the UK France and Italy is about 194 million.
Today in 2026, the combined population of Egypt, Iran, and Turkey is about 289 million.

Those three large European nations had roughly three times the population of those three large Muslim nations, but are now on a trajectory to have half the population in a decade or two.

For an even more stark contrast, Spain currently has a population of about 49 million. The country of Yemen on the Arabian peninsula, by contrast, has a population of 43 million. When The Limits to Growth was written, Yemen had a population of about 8 million.

Keep in mind that these stats do not take into account the large numbers of non-native immigrants living in European countries today, many of whom are Muslim.

Though the West whole-heartedly embraced the ludicrous alarmism of works like The Limits to Growth, the results of this unfathomably foolish strategy do not appear to resemble anything like the envisioned planetary equilibrium. 

Meanwhile, the Islamic world has largely rejected the dire warnings of the catastrophists which they categorize correctly as Western imperialism. They are also smart enough to understand that the catastrophist idiocy of the West will be a boon to them in the future. If you doubt that, do a quick search for Islamic scholars and imams who say the quiet parts out loud. Erdogan in Turkey isn't the only one preaching the ultimate Islamic victory via demographics.

As author Mark Steyn says on a regular basis, "The future belongs to those who show up for it."

If you're wondering why the anointed elites in the West are increasingly cozying up to Islam, here is your answer. In their short-sightedness, they believe that they will be able to remain leaders by welcoming and enriching the masses of Islamic newcomers who are surging into Western countries. But our modern anointed ones are as wrong about that as were their intellectual progenitors in The Limits to Growth. What many of them don't realize is that the Great Satan that is frequently denounced by Islamic political and religious leaders is actually them—the Western intellectual class, the political and cultural elite, the ideological colonialists (as Pope Francis called them), the champions of diversity and intersectionality: the soulless secular Left in the West. 

The Islamic crocodile won't even do the Western anointed ones the favor of eating them last.

As for the rest of us, it appears that many, even among Catholics, have been taken in by the toxic rhetoric to be found in works like The Limits to Growth. The inevitable result will be less of us, too. 

What needs to happen is that the ideological errors which have grown out of works like The Limits to Growth need to be repudiated and discarded by the West immediately. 

A return to the philosophy of Humanae Vitae would change everything in a generation.

Deus Non Vult? - Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, Clermont, and Lepanto

Medal showing Pope St. Pius V struck in honor of the victory of the Holy League at Lepanto.

Last week's blow-up between the Roman Catholic Pontiff and the American President generated considerable heat, but not very much light. Every pundit and influencer on every side registered an opinion, and most of them were ill-informed, facile, or just plain wrong.

Does the Pope have a right to sound off on political questions, even when his opinions are directly critical of a given country's current policies and actions? Of course he does. Popes have been doing this for centuries, millennia even, sometimes at tremendous cost to themselves. Many modern critics of the Papacy have often attacked Popes in hindsight for not sounding off loudly enough or soon enough on such issues.

Should Catholics be surprised if the Holy Father receives return-fire when he wades into political issues? No, we should not, particularly in the United States. There may be many Catholics in the U.S. but the vast majority of the country is not Catholic. When the Pope steps into the political arena, no Catholic should expect meek acquiescence from non-Catholic political figures who, rightly or wrongly, feel targeted.

Were Mr. Trump's broadsides against the Holy Father appropriate? I would say "yes" but only to the extent that Mr. Trump is a non-Catholic political figure who lives in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined as a civil right. Trump takes full advantage of that freedom, having made his reputation as a blunt-talking political street-fighter. There is very little nuance in what Mr. Trump says. If you say or do things he doesn't like, he won't pretend to be polite to your face and throw ashtrays in private. He'll tell you straight out what he thinks, vulgarities included. While this kind of talk tends to make America grate again on the world stage, it's hard to deny that his style has been a political success. Compared to the duplicity of most political figures, Trumps transparency is seen as refreshing by many. 

Trump's TruthSocial post calling Leo "WEAK on crime and terrible for foreign policy," was crass, provocative, and not thoughtfully presented. But coming as it did from a non-Catholic political figure who has no particular love or respect for the Papacy as an institution, it was not inappropriate. If you asked me whether Trump's obloquy was smart or effective, my answer is an emphatic "no" on both counts. Trump's attacks on Leo generated only expressions of horror, dismay, or misguided defense from his Catholic supporters, infighting amongst Catholics more generally, and joy from the anti-Catholic political Left who were only too happy to amplify the comments to foment division within the Church. 

In short, the Pope has the right and the duty to speak publicly and forcefully on pressing political issues. At the same time, he must realize that such comments will be polarizing and may engender or exacerbate exactly the types of conflict he's hoping to ameliorate. 

With the polemics flying last week, there was one statement by the Holy Father that caused some needless confusion among Catholics. It is this: 

"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples." [Pope Leo XIV, on X, April 10, 2026]

Posted as a stand-alone statement on social media, this statement seems to contradict the teachings of most of the previous Popes until very recently. By way of example, here is an excerpt from Blessed Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont in AD 1095, as recorded by Balderick of Dol:

Click for more info.

"If, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels. We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battle-line, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old — struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers." [Krey: The First Crusade, p 35].

Later, in this same account, we see Bishop Adhemar of Puy receive the blessing of Pope Urban and undertake his commission as official Papal legate of the crusaders. 

As those present were thus clearly informed by these and other words of this kind from the apostolic lord, the eyes of some were bathed in tears; some trembled, and yet others discussed the matter. However, in the presence of all at that same council, and as we looked on, the Bishop of Puy, a man of great renown and of highest ability, went to the Pope with joyful countenance and on bended knee sought and entreated blessing and permission to go. Over and above this, he won from the Pope the command that all should obey him, and that he should hold sway over all the army in behalf of the Pope, since all knew him to be a prelate of unusual energy and industry. [Balderic of Dol's account of Urban II's speech at Clermont in Krey: The First Crusade, p. 36].

15th century miniature of Pope Urban II presiding at Clermont. Upon his call for a crusade,
the assembled cried, "Deus Vult!" ~ God wills it!

About 500 years later, Pope Saint Pius V sent this letter to Don John of Austria who had been given command over the forces of the Holy League in AD 1571: 

To our well-beloved son in Christ, health and the apostolic benediction. Almighty God, the author of all good, has been pleased that, with his divine favour, the League should be concluded, which our right dear son in Christ the Catholic King of the Spains your brother, and the Illustrious Republic of the Venetians some months ago began to negotiate against the most cruel tyrant, the lord of the Turks; which having come to so good an issue, it appeared to us right to congratulate your nobleness on the occasion, as by these letters we do, being assured that our message will be welcome and agreeable to you, on account both of your piety towards God, and of your desire for the increase of the Christian world. Greatly do we rejoice to behold you thus prosperously navigating this our sea, that together with the fleets of the other members of the League you may make a beginning of the destruction of the common enemy; and therefore do we entreat and warn you in Christ our Lord, that, imitating the virtue of the captains-general, your predecessors, you use your discretion diligently both to provide all things requisite to the success of the expedition and to avoid delay, which, in affairs of war, is so important and so praiseworthy. We would further urge this upon you with many reasons, did we not know that the business carries with it its reward in the common benefit of the Christian world, and your particular honour, and that you need no further exhortation from our zealous and fatherly love, being assured that your nobleness will never be found wanting either to the one or to the other.  Given at Rome on the 24th of May 1571 [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 352-353]

When the Holy League's ships were ready to sail to meet their destiny at the Battle of Lepanto in October of 1571, we are told:

The Papal Nuncio, in virtue of the powers which he had brought from Rome, proclaimed a jubilee; the officers and men thronged to the churches to confess and receive the sacrament; and, with great state and ceremony, the Pope's representative, in his master's name, bestowed upon the whole armament of the Holy League — princes, generals, soldiers, sailors, slaves, and shipping — the Apostolical benediction, and announced anew the indulgences which in past times had been conceded to the conquerors of the Holy Sepulchre. [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 383]

Any student of history can find dozens if not hundreds of additional examples of Popes summoning and blessing those who would make war for the defense of Christendom. This leaves the devout Catholic at something of a loss. Pope Leo XIV's statement is general and unequivocal in a way that appears at odds with prior Church teachings, as well as the words and actions the two Popes aforementioned, one of whom is Blessed, and the other a Saint. This is, perhaps a simplistic reading of the Pope's words, but that is the way most Catholics will read it.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of the current ill-conceived war against Iran that the United States has embarked upon. The rationale for this conflict has been haphazardly explained, and I struggle to categorize it as a just war as traditionally understood by Catholic doctrine. Politically, it seems like a foolish, short-sighted decision, appearing to be more a crusade to ensure the safety of the secular state of Israel than any kind of defense of Christendom. That said, I am happy to be proved wrong on any of these points should the miracle of an unexpected peace emerge in the chronically war-ravaged Middle East as a result of these actions. 

Lack of clarity and consistency in teaching, particularly on moral issues, was an unfortunate hallmark of the previous Papacy. One hopes and prays that Leo XIV will steer the course of thoughtful, prayerful nuance and consistency with his predecessors when offering his observations on political and foreign policy issues in the future. The last thing the world needs is a Pope who creates novel, contradictory doctrines which force Catholics into a position of having to side either with the current occupant of the See of St. Peter, or sainted Popes from history. 

As for Mr. Trump, he sees himself as an American patriot, and I do believe that his ultimate desire is for peace and prosperity among nations, even if, paradoxically, he thinks it takes B-2s and cruise missiles to accomplish the goal. He needs our prayers. I won't suggest that Mr. Trump attempt to be more nuanced in his public statements on social media—that will never happen. But perhaps Mr. Trump would do well to pray sincerely before he posts. A little humility would go a long way.

A better course of action for both the Holy Father and the American President would be to refrain from firing rhetorical fusillades at each other, and instead offer prayers that Almighty God will grant them both wisdom and charity. Based on the Holy Father's most recent statement, it seems like he wasn't intending to get into a shouting match with President Trump, and has declared that many of his statements have been misinterpreted by the media. In response, Vice President Vance has written a conciliatory post about the Holy Father, saying: "He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we'll be in his."

These are good signs. 

Leo XIV has only been Pope for about a year. He deserves an opportunity to grow into the role, and not be hammered for every diplomatic stumble. 

May Christ grant him the wisdom to be zealous and saintly Pope!

They had to silence his voice with a bullet: The political assassination of Charlie Kirk and a Turning Point for America

Requiescat in pace, Charles James Kirk (1993 -2025)

Charlie Kirk was assassinated while doing what he loved—talking with young people and getting them to ponder what they believe and why they believe it. 

Charlie was supremely effective at engaging with college-age crowds. The reason for this is because he was authentic. If he talked about Jesus, it's because he truly loved Jesus and he wasn't afraid to say so into a microphone in front of a thousand people, many of whom might not have been particularly receptive to the message. If he touted marriage, it's because he was married and knew that strong marriages are the core of a strong nation. If he rejected abortion, it's because he had a deep love for life and fathered two beautiful children of his own. If he loved freedom of speech, he proved it by giving a microphone to anyone who wanted to have a go at him in front of an audience. 

These same virtues made Charlie an object of pure hatred to the political Left. If he was authentic, the Left hated him because they are hypocrites. If he was joyful, the Left hated him because he made them appear positively miserable by comparison. If he was willing to have deep conversations with confused young people who disagreed with him, the Left hated him because angry slogans and blue-haired vitriol are all they have to offer. 

---

It’s all about Jesus.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 17, 2025

---

If Charlie was tremendously brave to the point of standing before hostile crowds, one of which proved to have an assassin embedded within it, the Left hated him because at heart, they are cowards.

Charlie's outspoken and unapologetic love for the United States of America—our country, institutions, and history—caused an immediate and violent allergic reaction among the true believers on the Left. They recoiled like Howard Zinn when confronted with a primary source historical document.

The "hate has no home here" crowd could not tolerate such an eloquent, authentic, and exuberant advocate of faith, family, and freedom. And since they could not debunk his authenticity or refute his arguments, they had to silence his voice—with a bullet. 

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, when Charlie's death was broadcast on social media, many, many on the political Left responded with: "Thoughts and prayers. Isn't that what we're supposed to say?" This mocking comment was repeated over and over, as if it was the epitome of a clever riposte. It was accompanied by many hundreds and thousands of "laugh" emoticons. 

This reaction well defines the state of post-Christian America today. Ugly only begins to describe it. I can only pray that most of the "people" reacting that way were bots and not actual humans. 

The best thing that could happen in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk would be the emergence of ten thousand more Charlie Kirks. Ten thousand more authentic young people who love America and are unafraid to engage in debate with the Left. Ten thousand more men who are unafraid to enter the lists and run toward danger, knowing that the Left may try to kill them. Ten thousand sharp, eloquent, enthusiastic voices who will confound the stale, soulless rhetoric of the Left.

What more fitting legacy could emerge than millions of zealous, activated young Americans joining Charlie's Turning Point USA to confront and ultimately defeat the Left? 

God willing, Charlie Kirk's death will truly become the turning point for America.

"There they go again." ~ The critics hate Reagan. But they're wrong -- again.

Is anyone surprised that the critics have absolutely savaged the new film, Reagan? 

I'm not. 

As a teenager in the 1980s, I came of age during the era when the likes of Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, and Connie Chung savaged President Reagan on TV every single night. It was then at the pre-dawn of my political awareness that I started asking myself why such a folksy, likeable, patriotic American president like Ronald Reagan was so hated by seemingly everyone on the nightly news. Why did these talking heads despise him so much, while the actual human beings in my life—my parents and other adults I respected—did not? 

It wasn't until somewhat later that I realized that President Reagan was an anomaly. In an era when everyone was supposedly anti-communist, but most American politicians were just faking it, Ronald Reagan was a true believer. He recognized the threat that militant, expansionist international communism represented. He was keenly aware that this threat possessed the ability to destroy the United States—on the military level with the thousands of Soviet nuclear ICBMs pointed at us; on the political level by infiltrating and subverting our cherished institutions; and on the spiritual level by spreading propaganda to convince Americans that God and religion were useless fictions and that Christianity was particularly pernicious.

Reagan not only recognized this threat, he was fiercely determined to fight it.

This is what made Reagan so different from his flaccid predecessor, Jimmy Carter. This is what set Reagan apart from his insincere globalist successor, George H. W. Bush. Unlike previous Republicans such as Richard Nixon, Reagan was not interested in détente—in lowering tensions through diplomacy. He realized that détente only made the US weaker, while the Soviets and other communist nations grew stronger because they never had any intention of holding up their ends of the bargain. Détente was always a one-way street which led, inevitably, to defeat for America.

And Reagan was interested in victory—in securing peace for America by standing up to thugs and bullies on the world stage. 

All of this comes through very clearly in the newly-released film, Reagan.

I entered the theater to see this film with some trepidation. Films which seek to portray unique historical figures who were alive during the living memory of the viewer can often seem contrived or become parody. But once Dennis Quaid appeared on screen in the primary role, any sense of strangeness wore off within minutes. After that, Quaid became Reagan. Indeed, by the end of the film, he almost became more Reagan than the man himself. Quaid should be congratulated for a truly stellar performance that likely would have earned him an Academy Award in the era before the entertainment industry became captive to the political hard left. 

Biopics about individuals who lived such long and eventful lives can also suffer from trying to do too much in two hours. This defect may be found in Reagan, but the pacing of the film is so good that the viewer is engaged throughout and never gets lost in the weeds.

But where the film really shines is simply conjuring the halcyon days of the 1970s and 1980s. The sets and costuming were beautifully created and highly evocative of the era. Period music such as Land of Confusion by Genesis helped enhance the drama, while a few well-placed if unexpected covers—like Bob Dylan singing Don't Fence Me In over the end credits—provided the proper atmosphere.

The other aspect of Reagan that really appealed to me—and will likely provide no end of irritation to your standard leftist reviewer—is the storytelling. The film is told in retrospect from the point of view of an elderly KGB agent, played effectively by John Voight. The agent has come to terms with the defeat of the USSR and finds himself explaining to a young, up-and-coming Russian politician how it all happened. These scenes will be triggering to our present-day friends on the left. They don't like to be reminded about how much they adored and apologized for the Russians from the 1960s through the 1980s. They also don't like to be reminded of how the Evil Empire came crashing down in the early 1990s, despite their insistence at the time that the Soviets were ascendant. And they get particularly uncomfortable when people start asking why they cozied up to the communist Russians prior to 1990, but utterly despise the post-Soviet Russians of our own time. These inconvenient questions alone suffice to explain the terrible reviews this fine film has garnered from the usual suspects. 

But even absent the political overtones (to which I admittedly have a strong predisposition) this is simply a solid, feel-good film. It's a love story between Ron and Nancy. It's a regular-guy-makes-good story. And, it's a solid history lesson. Throughout the film, I found myself leaning over to my wife, saying: "That actually happened." 

One historical incident portrayed in the film that I had to look up afterwards was the visit of Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill to Reagan's hospital room after the president was shot in March of 1981. In this scene, O'Neill is shown with a Rosary in his hand, praying the 23rd Psalm with the wounded Reagan. Did this actually happen? Yes, it did. You see, in those days, there were still a few Democrats who believed in God. Regarding the assassination attempt, there is also a statement from the KGB agent in the film that it wasn't their idea. Then, later in the film, it is hinted that someone in our own government may have played a role. Now that is something I had never heard of or considered, but apparently, the theory is out there. 

The historical aspects of the film were greatly enhanced by the reel at the end showing photos and video clips of the man himself. The footage of his beloved Nancy approaching his coffin may evoke a tear or two.

In sum, if you're a child of the 1980s, go see this film. I guarantee you'll get a kick out of it. If you're the child of parents who grew up in the 1980s, go see this film. It will give you some insight into why your parents behave as they do. 

And for heaven's sake, don't pay any attention to the critics. They hated Reagan in the 70s and 80s. They hate Reagan now for the exact same reasons. 

Reagan hasn't changed. 

And neither have they.

The United States in 2020—and Mexico in 1988

The mural decorating the bedroom wall in Mexico City featuring Che and Pancho.

As we bid farewell to 2020, a year overloaded with the ridiculous and the outrageous, full of comfortable lies and unacceptable truths, I find myself pondering death. Not so much the death of 350,000 who, we are told, succumbed to a plague unleashed from China, but the otherwise unheralded death of our dear Uncle Sam. 

Admittedly, the patient had been declining for some time. Since the 1960s, the elderly gentleman had ceased making the really hard decisions in his deliberative centers. In the early stages of his dementia, he devolved all of the truly difficult, unpopular, and detrimental decisions onto an unaccountable committee made up of black-robed trustees who cared not a whit for his best interests. 

More recently, Uncle Sam found that he could no longer manage his finances. Instead of making a budget and sticking to it, his dereliction had progressed to the point where he could only pay his bills by taking on more debt. Yet, despite his economic straits, his list of dependents, heirs and hangers-on grew longer. It seemed that every verminous bloodsucker on earth wished to attach itself to the old man as he fumbled confusedly with his checkbook.

Over the past twelve years, we have watched the pitiable old man's executive functions fail him. Foreign pathogens were introduced into his system which spread corruption throughout his central command pathways. One by one, he lost control of even his most vital organs.

During the past four years, the patient was placed on life support with little hope of survival. In private, his heirs gathered around him like vultures, anxiously awaiting his coming demise while upholding the public fiction that he was still perfectly healthy. They recorded the time of his death in secret: 2:00 AM on November 4, 2020. Some say that he died peacefully in his sleep. I, however, think that the old man was snuffed by his unscrupulous heirs while those meant to stand guard were bribed or drugged.

Rather than continue on with this somewhat maudlin metaphor, let us return to reality wherein we find that the American Republic has ceased to function as it was meant to. For how can a republic built on the bedrock of free elections of representatives by a free and virtuous people, continue on in a circumstance where that foundation has been drilled away by individual corruption and corporate vote fraud on an unimaginably galling scale? 

Blatant, widespread electoral fraud on the scale needed to overturn a national election, as we have witnessed in 2020, is the hallmark not of a free republic, but of a banana republic. We are presented with a situation where the the chosen candidate of the DC oligarchy (Uncle Sam's corrupt heirs mentioned above) said overtly before the election that they had, "put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Some maintained that Mr. Biden's words have been taken out of context or that he simply misspoke. Personally, I think we witnessed in that instant the demon speaking through him, forcing his pride-addled brain to say the quiet part out loud, much like the way he had previously bragged about bribing Ukraine to stop investigating Burisma. 

Mr. Biden's stolen victory has wakened many Americans to the fact that the free republic represented in our traditional schooling is now largely a fiction, much as the Roman republic under Lucius Domitus Ahenobarbus, though maintaining the forms and offices, was a fiction. 

As of 2021, we must face the fact that we are not a shining city on a hill. We have no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are Venezuela. We are Argentina. We are Mexico. 

I was in Mexico City when the PRI stole the Mexican presidential election in 1988. At that time, the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional or Revolutionary Institutional Party) made up most of the Mexican federal government, having ruled Mexico for 59 uninterrupted years. By 1988, the PRI were entrenched, unaccountable and disconnected from the average Mexican—much like the the DC oligarchy is in the US. Hence, they were deeply unpopular with the people who nonetheless felt powerless to change things. Like the American oligarchs, the PRI controlled most of the institutions along with the broadcast media.

In the immediate aftermath of the election of 1988, there were mass protests. I distinctly remember lying in a bedroom decorated with murals of Pancho Villa and Che Guevara and hearing fireworks or gunfire go off outside in the early evening. One of my roommates said, somewhat nervously, "Let's hope they're not coming for the gringos."

Our Lord or Rambo? You decide. 

The people I was staying with were middle-class Mexican Catholics but with a distinct tilt toward the radical left. In their dining room was a picture of Jesus well-equipped with bandoleras. These folks insisted that there was clear evidence of fraud and were furious that the government had cheated them out of their victory. The official results had been withheld, with the Secretary of the Interior blaming the delay on a computer system failure. The opposition party candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, claimed that the computer failure was caused by a manipulation of the system used to count votes. It turned out that he was right.

Cardenas was kept out of the presidency, despite maintaining that he had won. In the end, the election was upheld by the PRI-dominated media and institutions, and Carlos Salinas de Gortari of the PRI became president of Mexico. Three years later, all of the ballots from the 1988 election were burned. 

Then, in 2004, Miguel de la Madrid, Mexico's PRI president at the time of the 1988 election, admitted in his autobiography that, on the evening of the election, he received news that the PRI was going to lose. That same year, the New York Times published this article:

Ex-President in Mexico Casts New Light on Rigged 1988 Election. 

The article read in part as follows:

Initial results from areas around the capital showed that Salinas was losing badly to the opposition leader Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. “I felt like a bucket of ice water had fallen on me,” de la Madrid recalled. “I became afraid that the results were similar across the country and that the PRI would lose the presidency.” 

Thus began the frantic staging of a fraudulent victory. In his writing of the event, the all-powerful former president chooses his words carefully and describes himself more like a supporting actor than the lead strategist. If he did anything wrong, it was on the advice of his staff, and for the stability of the nation. 

On election night 1988, de la Madrid said, the secretary of the interior advised him that the initial results were running heavily against the PRI. The public demanded returns, de la Madrid wrote. And rather than giving them, the government lied and said that the computer system tabulating the votes had crashed.

What was Mexico in 1988 is now America in 2020.

Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan in the suburbs of Mexico City, 1988.

It should be recalled that Mexico under the PRI was described by leftist Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa as "the perfect dictatorship."

"The perfect dictatorship is not communism, not the Soviet Union, not Cuba, but Mexico, because it is a camouflaged dictatorship. It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power." [Mario Vargas Llosa]

The United States enters 2021 as a one-party system under even deeper cover than Mexico in 1988. The Kabuki-style conflicts between Republicans and Democrats are merely part of the costume. If nothing else, the rigged election of this past November, which removed the outsider Trump and replaced him with the ultimate corrupt DC uniparty insider, with the consent and tacit support of both political parties, has helped the average American peek through the disguise.

It is worth remembering that the 1988 election was a watershed moment for Mexico and marked a period of sharp decline for the PRI which would ultimately lose the presidency to Vincente Fox in 2000. It remains to be seen if the 2020 elections will signal the ultimate downfall of the DC oligarchy, the renewal of the American Republic, and a general national recovery, or serve simply as a way-station on the road to terminal decay and decline.

A dim photo of the tilma of St. Juan Diego from 1988.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for the US and for Mexico.

The choices in the 2020 election: D. J. Trump versus D. C. Swamp

Click here to share on Facebook.

If you liked business-as-usual in the corrupt Washington, DC swamp, they've got the perfect candidate for you this time around.

Let's face it. Joe Biden is the candidate of the out-of-control, hyper-politicized Washington DC bureaucracy. He's a man who has spent 47 years making himself and his family extremely wealthy as a member of the ruling elite. Worse, it seems like he has sold himself and his family out to foreign interests, including communist China. 

There was a time when those in DC were considered "public servants." Is it not clear that the only people our public servants in DC are helping these days is themselves? A man who goes to Washington as an elected official, stays there for 47 years, and emerges mega-wealthy is a crook, plain and simple. 

It's time to truly drain the swamp. 

"No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." ~ Pius XI and Quadragesimo Anno.

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory
terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic
and a true socialist."
—Pope Pius XI, May 15, 1931

One of the saddest hallmarks of our times is profound historical ignorance. What makes this ignorance particularly grievous is that it is not self-aware. Rather, it arrogantly considers itself wise and possessed of deep, often hidden truths. Whether this ignorance manifests itself in the study of the saints, Christopher Columbus, the Church Fathers, the Great Persecution, Late Antiquity, Catholic morality, or a million other topics, it is found everywhere. It is truly pandemic. We are surrounded by sophomores in the literal sense of that word—and the sophomores in question are not only wise fools but nasty bullies as well. 

It is an old saw that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. We have now raised several generations who not only don't know history, but who have been presented with a false history based on "alternative facts." What they think of as historical facts are quite often politically-charged fictions. But as U.S. Vice President Mike Pence recently quipped, "You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." 

Most Catholics have been nurtured on alternative facts for decades now. Thus, is it any surprise that the anti-Church political movement is being led by apostate politicians who have the audacity to declare themselves devout in order to garner Catholic votes? Is it at all unexpected that these politicians ally themselves with those who consider the Knights of Columbus to be an extremist group? 

This scam has run for decades now with hardly a half-hearted whimper from our bishops. It is now reaching its apogee as an abortion-loving puppet of the socialist left with Rosary beads wrapped around his wrist is one election away from the presidency. The followers of Gramsci and Alinsky may have finally attained that tipping-point where a majority of the uncatechized-by-design have been drawn into the moist embrace of socialism without ever knowing that the Church has a longstanding history of condemning socialism. 

There are a few priests and bishops who will dare to preach on this subject these days, though they tend to be voices crying out in the wilderness. But the cool thing is that you don't need to have access to solid preaching to discover the truth in the Information Age. A sixty second web search will bring you to the papal encyclical known as Quadragesimo Anno (Forty Years) as written in 1931. In this encyclical, we see Pope Pius XI's forceful, clear and unequivocal condemnation of socialism, including the quote featured above. Here is the context of that particular quote, along with a few other pertinent excerpts from this timeless encyclical letter:

"Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society. Indeed, possession of the greatest possible supply of things that serve the advantages of this life is considered of such great importance that the higher goods of man, liberty not excepted, must take a secondary place and even be sacrificed to the demands of the most efficient production of goods. This damage to human dignity, undergone in the "socialized" process of production, will be easily offset, they say, by the abundance of socially produced goods which will pour out in profusion to individuals to be used freely at their pleasure for comforts and cultural development. Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.

If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."

Pius XI goes on to diagnose why so many Catholics succumb to the allure of socialism:

The root and font of this defection in economic and social life from the Christian law, and of the consequent apostasy of great numbers of workers from the Catholic faith, are the disordered passions of the soul, the sad result of original sin which has so destroyed the wonderful harmony of man's faculties that, easily led astray by his evil desires, he is strongly incited to prefer the passing goods of this world to the lasting goods of Heaven. Hence arises that unquenchable thirst for riches and temporal goods, which has at all times impelled men to break God's laws and trample upon the rights of their neighbors, but which, on account of the present system of economic life, is laying far more numerous snares for human frailty.

If this was true in 1931 near the height of the Great Depression, how much more true it is in our own day when the "disordered passions of the soul" have become the norm rather than the exception? 

This next passage is also quite applicable to where we find ourselves now. For any who hope that by softening some of Christ's hard teachings or by adopting some of socialism's tenets, we may convert those drawn to socialism, Pius XI throws cold water on that notion:

There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.

Sadly, those Catholics who have attempted to bring socialism within the Church have indeed "connived at error" to the point where error has replaced sound teaching in many places where it should not be tolerated at all—that is, our schools and institutions of higher learning. Pius XI predicted that just such a thing would happen:

All these admonitions which have been renewed and confirmed by Our solemn authority must likewise be applied to a certain new kind of socialist activity, hitherto little known but now carried on among many socialist groups. It devotes itself above all to the training of the mind and character. Under the guise of affection it tries in particular to attract children of tender age and win them to itself, although it also embraces the whole population in its scope in order finally to produce true socialists who would shape human society to the tenets of Socialism.

With the insinuation of socialism into our Catholic schools over the past several decades, what has been the result? What fruit has the toleration, acceptance and celebration of socialist-materialist ideals borne among our Catholic youth? Are the poor better off? Are our cities where socialists rule bastions of peace, justice and kindness? Are our churches thronged with zealous Christians yearning to imitate Christ in service to the poor? 

Or are we witnessing instead the disintegration of society and the auto-demolition of the Catholic Church in America?

Pope Pius XI, pray for us.

"Hate has no home here" -- Unless you're one of the +60 million Trump voters

 So I figured out how to use Photoshop to make an animated GIF today. This is my first attempt.

I have always been suspect of these "Hate has no home here" signs which began popping up after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why? Because I knew for a fact that some of the folks putting them up were indeed consumed with hatred. They hated Donald Trump. They hated everyone who voted for him. They hated Republicans generally and conservative republicans specifically. They hated religious people, particularly devout Christians. They especially hated anyone who is pro-life. 

If you doubt any of the above, try coming out and making any of the following statements in a social media group:

• I voted for Donald Trump.
• I am a registered Republican.
• I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
• I love the Catholic Church.
• I am pro-life.
• I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you're a leftist, go ahead. Perform a sociology experiment and post one of those statements to your feed. See what kind of response you get from your leftist friends if they have any suspicion that you might be serious. Here's the kind of response you might get:

The above is an actual tweet from a woman in Texas from March of 2020. How much more raw can hatred get than this? 

If the election weren't enough to bring out the pure hatred by itself, Mr. Trump's recent bout with corona virus really let loose the ghouls as displayed in this tweet from the former national spokesperson for Hillary Clinton:

If you truly believe that "hate has no home here", you need to acting like it. Virtue signalling is one thing. Naked hypocrisy is something completely different. 

Wishing you a Happy Coup Day

Click here to share on FaceBook.

At this festive time of year, when the Generic Winter Holiday spirit is swelling, and non-cisgendered, positive body image Parent/Guardian of the Season brings carbon-neutral gifts to all the children of the world without judging them, we are proud to offer a new re-educational product from Leftist Banana Republic Games: Coup! 

This new game joyfully celebrates the sad, somber and wholly constitutional attempt to overthrow an elected but deplorable president by a body of non-partisan Democrat heroes, fully supported by an objective, unbiased media. We are fortunate to live in these historic times when those who are critical of the antiquated, racist, living document known as the Constitution, are keen to appeal to it as the motivation behind their noble and completely legal obligation to subvert the Constitution.

So be sure to get a copy of Coup!, one of a series of Partisan Witchhunt Games sponsored by Leftist Banana Republic. It will help bring a solemn, reflective sense of savage political euphoria to the season, whether you be celebrating Festivus, Saturnalia or the Winter Solstice.

Resolution to Impeach the President

Presenting the actual articles of impeachment to be considered against Mr. Trump by Mr. Nadler's kangaroo court...

The Purpose of Opinion Polls is to Influence Public Opinion, Not to Measure It.

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

I created the above graphic four years ago as the presidential election cycle was just ramping up. As we approach election year 2020, it is even more critical to make American citizens aware of this. Public opinion polls, especially this far out from an election, are not about gauging your opinion about a particular candidate. Honestly, the pollsters don't much care what you think.

The true purpose of most opinion polls is to influence public opinion, not to measure it. 

This is especially true the farther from the election you are. Why? Because the election is the only real test of how accurate the pollsters are. A poll taken six months, a year, or eighteen months before an election will not be tested for a long time. By the time of the election, such erroneous or fraudulent polls will be long forgotten.

Pollsters seek to create an illusion of viability in some candidates or issues because they know that many low-information voters will simply glom onto whoever the perceived front-runner is as the election approaches. Rather than allowing this sleight-of-hand to influence your opinion, don’t let the polls determine which candidates are viable for you. Rather, do the research and find out which candidates are on record as having views that mirror your own, and vote for that person, particularly in the primaries.

In short, don't be a low-information voter. Ignore the polls completely, not just because they are inaccurate but because they are purposefully manipulative.

If everyone did that, we wouldn’t be stuck with media-approved “lesser of two evils” candidates in every single election.

Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels...

I recently came across an article from the Associated Press written by Peter James Spielman that is fascinating for one reason. Please read the first few paragraphs which I am pasting here so that it's not lost in case the AP pulls the original down at some point:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed [deleted text].

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Read the full article at this link: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

The article is intriguing because of the [deleted text] above. Can you guess what goes there?

Here it is: "by the year 2000." This article was written in 1989.

It seems to me that articles exactly like this have been written hundreds if not thousands of times in the thirty years since this story first appeared. Now ask yourself—how many entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth? How many of these predictions of three foot sea level rises, new dust-bowls in the Midwest, the Maldives underwater, etc. have come to pass? Answer? None.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of science is that when you are habitually wrong when posing outlandish hypotheses, you lose credibility as a scientist. And yet, the climate change catastrophists have continued to push this same theory that was first trotted out in the 1970s and 80s, the only difference being the terminology (climate change vs. global warming) and the volume level which is now amplified about 1000%.

Honestly, I can't take them seriously anymore. They've been singing the same tune for going on 40 years now and with the same, unsurprising solution -- transfer of wealth from ordinary people to national and supra-national organizations who are the only ones who can "save us."

It's long past time for people of good sense to stop listening to them.

Legalizing Marijuana is a Terrible Idea

It seems that many states, my home state of New Jersey included, are hell-bent on legalizing recreational use of cannabis. The arguments in favor of this, though loud and dominant in the media, are not particularly convincing.

Most of the advocates tout the desire to legalize the drug so that the state can raise additional tax revenue off of the sales. Enhancing the ability of an over-bearing confiscatory high-tax state like New Jersey to extract even more revenue from its citizens is never going to be a compelling argument for me.

Slightly better is the argument that legalizing the drug will result in fewer individuals in prison for usage. While I agree that we have far too many individuals in jail for such petty crimes, full-scale legalization of recreational usage seems like an over-reaction to a problem which may be fixed by simply reducing the penalties involved.

But the absolute worst argument in favor of legalization is that cannabis is harmless or somehow beneficial to users. You will find these types of claims all over websites which market marijuana-related products, and they are absolutely false and extremely dangerous. If there are any mild benefits for a healthy person using cannabis, they are far outweighed by the negatives. Sadly, the proponents of marijuana usage will often laugh off any suggestion that using their drug of choice can do harm as a return to "Reefer Madness," a supposedly comical early 20th century belief that using cannabis can cause you to go crazy.

The sad facts are these: the more research that's done, the more science has realized that cannabis usage for healthy people is detrimental, both on a personal neuro-cognitive level, and on a societal level. It is particularly bad for youth as the impact of the active ingredient in cannabis--tetrahydrocannabinol or THC--on the developing brain can be profound and long-lasting. Here is a list of articles detailing some of these findings. I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to at least skim over these studies:

Cannabis as a Neuro-Toxin:

• Does Cannabis Cause Lasting Brain Damage? (2012)
  "Recent studies using high-resolution imaging techniques, combined with more robust delineations of specific brain regions in very heavy cannabis users, have revealed evidence of dose-related alterations, mostly in the hippocampal and parahippocampal regions."

• Is Cannabis Neurotoxic for the Healthy Brain? (2013)
  "Our results suggest that in the healthy brain, chronic and long-term cannabis exposure may exert significant effects in brain areas enriched with cannabinoid receptors, such as the hippocampus, which could be related to a neurotoxic action."

• Long-term Effects of Marijuana Use on the Brain (2014)
  "Our findings of negative correlations between connectivity indexes and measures of marijuana use suggest a cumulative deleterious effect of marijuana on OFC (orbitofrontal cortex of the brain) connectivity."
• Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological Decline from Childhood to Midlife (2012)
  "Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education. Informants also reported noticing more cognitive problems for persistent cannabis users.

Impact of Cannabis on Memory

• Effects of Cannabis on Memory and Cognitive Function
  "Cannabinoids appear to disrupt short-term memory by interfering with the filtering of information, such that a greater volume of information reaches consciousness, overwhelming the ability to store, or prioritise such information for storage in memory."
• The Chronic Effects of of Cannabis on Memory in Humans: A Review (2008)
  "Sufficient evidence has accumulated from recent studies of cannabis users in the unintoxicated state to conclude that long-term heavy cannabis use is associated with impaired memory function."
• Study Shows Memory Loss Due to Cannabis Related Harm to Mitochondria (2016)
  "Acute cannabinoid intoxication induces amnesia in humans and animals, and the activation of type-1 cannabinoid receptors present at brain mitochondria membranes (mtCB1) can directly alter mitochondrial energetic activity."
• Even pro-cannabis sites admit that the substance impacts memory in a negative way...
  9 Ways to Prevent Cannabis-induced Memory Loss

Impact of Cannabis on Executive Function
(Note: Executive function is the set of mental skills that govern time management, attention, planning and the ability to cope with multiple tasks at the same time.)

• Cannabis Use Before age 15 and Subsequent Executive Functioning (2011)
  "The results suggest that chronic cannabis users process complex information more slowly and performance worsens in cognitive overload tasks as lifetime consumption increases."
• Executive Function Deficits in Short Term Abstinent Cannabis Users (2008)
  "The cannabis users, compared to both control groups, had deficits on verbal fluency, visual recognition, delayed visual recall, and short- and long-interval prospective memory....These findings suggest that cannabis use leads to impaired executive function."
• Cannabis and Cognition: Short- and Long Term Effects (2011)
  "A range of cognitive functions, encompassing attentional, memory and executive and inhibitory processes, are impaired both during the acute intoxication period and following long-term use of cannabis."

Impact of Cannabis Usage on the Developing Brain

• Cannabis and Neurodevelopment: Implications for Psychiatric Disorders (2006)
  "The effect of cannabinoids in the adolescent suggest long-term deleterious outcomes in cognition, depressive symptoms, schizophrenia and substance use disorders."

• Effects of Cannabis on the Adolescent Brain (2014)
  "Teens who engage in heavy marijuana use often show disadvantages in neurocognitive performance, macrostructural and microstructural brain development, and alterations in brain functioning."

• Cannabis and Adolescent Brain Development (2014)
  "Accumulating evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that regular heavy use during this period is associated with more severe and persistent negative outcomes than use during adulthood, suggesting that the adolescent brain may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis exposure."
• Adverse Effects of Cannabis on Adolescent Brain Development (2016)
  "These data provide compelling longitudinal evidence suggesting that repeated exposure to cannabis during adolescence may have detrimental effects on brain resting functional connectivity, intelligence, and cognitive function."

Societal Impact of Cannabis Legalization
While the above articles are mostly from scholarly journals, here are some news stories on the impact of cannabis legalization is having on society, largely from mainstream media sources that are otherwise favorable toward legalization:

• Vagrants Overrun Colorado Town. Residents Cite Legalized Marijuana as Reason. (2017)
• Pot Fuels a Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths. (2014)
• Traffic Fatalities Linked to Marijuana are Up Sharply in Colorado. (2017)
• Legalized Pot Sends More Teens to the ER in Colorado. (2017)
• Is Colorado's Homeless Surge Tied to Legalized Marijuana? (2017)
• Colorado Drug Overdoses Up in Almost Every County and Ahead of National Average (2016)
• Survey: Colorado Stands Out for Consuming Drugs, Alcohol (2016)
• Marijuana-related Fatal Car Accidents Surge in Washington State after Legalization (2016)
• Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double after State Legalizes Drug (2016)
• How Big is Colorado's Drug Problem? (2017)

The message here is that even if voters and state legislatures are stupid enough to legalize this substance, if you care about the health of your brain, you would do well to avoid smoking weed. Fears of "reefer madness" may be overblown, but the conventional wisdom regarding the degraded behavior and reduced prospects of "pot heads" is pretty much on the money.

And let's not forget the ulterior motives of politicians and businesses who are looking to reap the benefits of legalization. Do they really care about the health and safety of the people they supposedly serve? Or are they simply looking for a way to make society more docile, stupid and ultimately easier to rule, while raking in big money? On this question, history is instructive:

A Disgraceful Little War -- The Opium War and Commissioner Lin

Clinton cronies plot to foment a "Catholic spring"

Click the image at right to see a newly released leaked email wherein Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chair, John Podesta, entertains a conversation on how to "plant the seeds of revolution", create a "Catholic Spring" to end the "middle ages dictatorship." His interlocutor is Sandy Newman, President of Voices for Progress who says, to wit:

"There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church....I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would 'plant the seeds of the revolution,' or who would plant them."

Podesta's response is also telling:

"We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now."

For those Catholics who have thought about supporting Mrs. Clinton to this point, here is what you are voting for--a cadre of radicals who plot to foment revolution within the Catholic Church for their own political gains.

Where are the US Catholic bishops on this? Will they be MIA as usual?

The heart of the problem...

As long as the Republican Party is run by people that don't believe in the platform and who aren't willing to articulate and fight for the beliefs of the base, then conservatives can expect defeat after defeat. It's time to demand new leadership.

The definition of insanity...

...is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If the Republican Party isn't going to be a home for conservatives anymore, we're going to need a new party.

Lukewarm Catholics

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." ~Pope Saint Pius V

Hard to argue with this following the result of the 2012 election with pro-abortion zealot Barack Obama getting somewhere north of 52% of the “Catholic” vote.  Disgraceful.