By Vicki Batts | Natural News | August 24, 2018

At a recent pro-abortion event, “Rise Up For Roe,” in New York City, Chelsea Clinton declared that the advent of legalized abortion has been great for the economy. So great, in fact, that the young Clinton credited baby-killing for the $3.5 trillion American women contributed to the economy between the years of 1970 and 2009. As if women couldn’t be contributors to the world without Roe vs Wade, Clinton assumes that the success of women in America is “not disconnected” from the controversial 1973 legislation.

Clinton reportedly stated, “It is not a disconnect fact that American Women entering the labor force from 1970 to 2009 added $3.5 trillion dollars to our economy. The net, new entrance of women, that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think you can connect to this issue. Of course I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices, but if that is not sufficiently persuasive hopefully some of these other arguments you are hearing expressed so beautifully, will be,” the monologue continued.

Many conservatives and other pro-life supporters were incensed by Clinton’s contention that human life can be translated to a dollar value. Indeed, regardless of your feelings on the issue of abortion, the loss of life should not be a celebratory cause.

Evangelist Franklin Graham was particularly outraged by Chelsea Clinton’s statements. In a Facebook post, Graham reportedly stated, “Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, claims that legalizing abortion added trillions of dollars to the economy. What a lie. Hitler probably also claimed that killing the Jews would be good for their economy. Legalizing abortion hasn’t added anything to our country, it has only taken away. It has cost this nation more than 60 million lives—lives precious to God. Just think of the contribution these people would have made.”

Conservative Erick Erickson likened abortion to slavery over Twitter:

Beyond the outrage, there is also truth: Abortion has not been good for the American economy. In the year 2000, the Ethics and Public Policy Center reported:

By reducing the size of the population, abortion has correspondingly reduced the size of the economy; over time, it will undercut one main cause of the American economy’s current dynamism: innovation. By contributing to a sharp drop in the net marriage rate, legalized abortion has already reduced the standard of living of the average American household. Legalized abortion is also single-handedly responsible for anticipated imbalances in the Social Security retirement system…

John D. Mueller further contended that abortion is perhaps the single largest economic event to strike the American economy, even more momentous than the Great Depression or World War II. Mueller argues that if abortion had not been legalized, the American population would be substantially larger, there would be more marriages and more two-parent families, and that the overall standard of living in the United States would be higher than it is now.

In the past, economists agreed that population reduction inherently corresponded to economic decreases of about the same size. If the population is decreased by five percent, the economy can expect to shrink accordingly.

In other words, Chelsea Clinton’s assertion that abortion added trillions of dollars to the economy is false: While women who’ve had abortions may be making economic contributions, the fact remains that abortion inherently takes away from the economy, by virtue of the fact that abortion takes away from population size. Liberals may love abortion, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

See more stories about how abortion effects society at

Contributed by Vicki Batts of


By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | August 4, 2018

As the trial moves forward in the case of FBI W. Joseph Astarita, a member of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), who is charged with lying about firing at LaVoy Finicum in Oregon during a protest with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons, the Department of Justice is apparently attempting to try Bundy a third time.  This is coming even as the same prosecution violated the rights of the defendants and engaged in multiple Brady violations (something we are also seeing come to light in Oregon), which led to the last trial being dismissed with prejudice.  Now, Cliven Bundy, by way of his attorney, has said that he will fight attempts by the DOJ to appeal the dismissal and retry him again.

Chris White reports:

Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Cliven Bundy, issued a statement on behalf of Bundy vowing to fight the DOJ’s attempt to retry his client for his role in the 2014 standoff. Klayman is the founder of Judicial Watch and is a former prosecutor.

“My client and friend Cliven Bundy is confident that the Ninth Circuit will affirm Judge Navarro’s dismissal,” Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Bundy, said in a press statement Thursday. The government’s case was “based on prosecutorial misconduct,” he noted.

“That the prosecutors who committed and furthered this gross prosecutorial misconduct would now seek to file a notice of appeal underscores that my once proud alma mater, the U.S. Department of Justice, has become the Department of Injustice,” he added.

A federal judge rejected prosecutors’ request Tuesday to reconsider her dismissal of the case against Bundy. The prosecutors plan on appealing the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Well, knock yourselves out guys!  You look like fools for your pains, and you are definitely an office that is corrupt and engages in violating the law in order to get convictions against defendants no matter what the cost.

This office hid exculpatory evidence that was valuable to every single defendant in the Bundy case, several of who have received lengthy sentences as a result of evidence being withheld from the jury.

Others spent nearly two years in prison waiting to be tried when they were not a threat nor a flight risk.

Some even made plea deals because they were being threatened with what could be logically assumed to be life sentences, knowing all the while the government was manipulating the evidence, the court, the jury, and ultimately justice.

If you have not gotten caught up on all that took place, I invite you to read my archives on the subject and tell me this is nothing more than more injustices against Mr. Bundy an others in what appears to be a clear violation of the Constitution’s protections against Double Jeopardy.

Contributed by Tim Brown of

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at,, and He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | June 26, 2018

A blob of molten lava has been detected under three states in the Northeast.  The new supervolcano currently brewing under New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont is creeping upwards and surprising geologists.

The region in which the new volcano was discovered is geologically stable with no active volcanoes in the surrounding area.  Earthquakes are almost unheard of in the area. That means that the formation of the massive magma buildup in the northeast is a relatively recent event, scientists say. But keep in mind, in the timescale of Earth’s geological processes, this still means tens of millions of years.  If these findings hold up though, the northeast could be considered more active geologically than previously thought.

Fox News reported that the unexpected supervolcano has been gradually making itself known to geologists in the United States. A huge mass of molten rock is slowly climbing upwards beneath three of the nation’s northeastern states. The new supervolcano only became evident through a new and large-scale seismic study. “The upwelling we detected is like a hot-air balloon, and we infer that something is rising up through the deeper part of our planet under New England,” says Rutgers University geophysicist Professor Vadim Levin.

“Our study challenges the established notion of how the continents on which we live behave,” Professor Levin says. “It challenges the textbook concepts taught in introductory geology classes.” But there should be no fear of this supervolcano erupting anytime soon either. “It will likely take millions of years for the upwelling to get where it’s going,” Professor Levin explains. “The next step is to try to understand how exactly it’s happening.”

“It is not Yellowstone-like, but it’s a distant relative,” Professor Levin says.  And geologists say that the volcano may never erupt at all. “Maybe it didn’t have time yet, or maybe it is too small and will never make it,” Professor Levin told National Geographic. “Come back in 50 million years, and we’ll see what happens.”

These recent findings, which were published in the journal Geology, suggest that New England may not be so immune to abrupt geological change. “Ten years ago, this would not have been possible,” said Levin. “Now, all of a sudden, we have a much better eye to see inside the Earth.”

Originally published by Mac Slavo of


By Jayson Veley | Natural News | April 17, 2018

(Natural News) Earlier this month, electronic pop music star Moby made an argument that has the liberals absolutely outraged. What was the argument, you might ask? That food stamps shouldn’t pay for junk food – because God forbid somebody insists that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used on welfare recipients looking to stock up on Twinkies and Ho-Hos (sarcasm intended).

“Right now, a congressional arm-wrestling match is pitting those who want to preserve funding for SNAP against those who want to gut it,” Moby wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, adding that while SNAP really does help people in need, “it also puts a lot of unhealthful food on America’s plate.” The music star continued, “Its costs are huge, as are the added costs of treating diabetes, hypertension and other illnesses that poor eating habits cause.”

Truthfully, this argument seems like a rational solution to both health problems in the United States and wasteful spending within our welfare system. If welfare recipients are going to be getting money from the federal government (aka the American taxpayers), then it only makes sense that the money should be solely for healthy food instead of candy bars and chocolate cake. But like with most other rational solutions that have been proposed to solve the problems America faces, the liberals are standing in the way.

Indeed, Moby faced a substantial amount of backlash after writing his piece for the Wall Street Journal. Liberal feminist and senior staff writer at Parker Molloy took to Twitter and wrote, “Things Moby’s op-ed doesn’t address: 1, food deserts, 2, the fact that healthy food can be expensive, 3, the fact that some families on SNAP might not have the time/equipment to prepare healthy foods.” Another liberal blogger with the Twitter username “jes skolnik / texas calboy” wrote, “dear moby this is a bad and classist opinion other people’s bodies are none of yr business.”

Regarding Parker Molloy’s comment that healthy food can be expensive and that some families might not have time to prepare healthy food, here’s an idea that could enrage leftists even more than Moby’s comments in the Wall Street Journal: How about some of these welfare recipients find work so that they can more easily afford healthier foods? The idea that the American taxpayers have to subsidize bad eating habits just because buying healthy food would be mildly inconvenient to welfare recipients is absurd. (Related: In a shocking interview, a welfare recipient admitted to sitting at home, smoking weed and waiting for government money.)

Past research has shown that an enormous amount of welfare money is being spent on sweets and non-essential food products. According to a report published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Americans use food stamps to buy over $600 million worth of “sweetened beverages,” in addition to hundreds of millions more of sugary snacks and unhealthy foods.

Specifically, food stamps worth roughly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about one-fifth of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in the year 2011, according to the report. (Related: Children of welfare recipients are more likely to become dependent on government handouts.)

The main problem with this is that, obviously, the excessive consumption of sugary foods and drinks leads to poor health, and when welfare recipients experience a decline in health, then they rely on the American taxpayers again for medical expenses. Contrary to what the liberals tend to believe, our country’s welfare system should strive to make people more self-sufficient in the long run, not less. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to reform the entire welfare system, but a good starting point would be to require that welfare money is used solely for healthy food products.

Contributed by Jayson Veley of where this article was originally published.


By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | April 10, 2018

Applauded by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, liberals have devised a plan they think will destroy normal Americans in a new “Civil War.” But here’s the spoiler alert: it’s isn’t really that good of a plan, to begin with.

San Francisco-based social media platform Twitter isn’t known for their unbiased approach to social media. Now, the CEO applauded an article in something called Medium in which the writer of said article described how liberals intend to crush Normal Americans into serfdom in a bloodless “civil war.”

The goal of the “war” will be to turn the entire United States into California by offering up a supermajority of liberals in political power.  Because that’s working out so well in California: homelessness is spiking uncontrollably, the tax burden is forcing people to leave, regulations are shutting businesses, housing costs have soared to unbearable levels, and few have basic human rights there unless they pay the government for permission.  Try not to roll your eyes when you imagine your own state running like the communists in charge handle California.

Townhall said it best:

“Why do a bunch of San Francisco dorks think that 150 million Americans with 300 million guns are just going to give up their rights and their say in their own governance and submit to the commands of people who eat kale by choice?” That’s a fair question, and they have an answer.

Because you just are.

I didn’t say it was a good answer.

All humor aside, the article didn’t actually lay out anything that could even remotely be considered a war plan. And the problem with liberals taking over is the same as it’s been throughout history.

Normal Americans are not going to simply give up their rights and their self-determination because a bunch of liberals want them to. Sure, the weaponization of culture with corporations and tech companies trying to silence and marginalize decent citizens is troubling, but in short order, there will be a backlash as Normals react to these new, overtly fascist tactics. –Townhall

Even with enough brainwashing and propaganda, eventually, most people will figure out that they are being controlled.  Humans don’t want to be controlled; the default has always been freedom.  Once they figure it out, a liberal government will crumble and that may happen well before there’s any hope of convincing those who actually exercise their rights to give them up.

The harsh reality is that a Civil War would not be something, anyone, liberals included, should hope for. The last one in the United State was bloody and pitted brother against brother and shouldn’t be an aspiration. But when people are intentionally disregarded and oppressed, they will often react. It almost feels like liberals want to push people to a war then point their fingers and say “ha! We told you so! THEY are they violent ones!”

Contributed by Mac Slavo of where this article was originally published.