Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

conflict

Western leadership’s detachment from reality is causing terror and death across the globe

Published

9 months ago

16 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The international crises caused by Western interference in Ukraine and Israel ‘foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU,’ retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor said.

With defeat looming in Ukraine, and the reckless provocations of Israel threatening a war which could involve Russia and the U.S., the question of the role played by terror in the policies of the “rules-based order” of the West has never been more urgent.

The Russians, with a presence on Israel’s borders, have been drawn into a de facto alliance with both China and Iran, following the failed attempt to destroy its economy by sanctioning it into isolation from the Western system.

Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy complex in Syria on April 1, considered to be a grave violation of international law, has been the latest attempt by Israel to provoke Iran into sparking a regional war. Reliable Western commentators such as retired U.S. Colonel Douglas MacGregor, British diplomat Alistair Crooke, former U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman, and many others, have indicated that this is designed to trigger direct U.S. military intervention in a war that Israel cannot possibly win on its own. They warn this would likely lead the United States into a war not only with Iran, but also with Russia. The danger of a nuclear war is clear and present.

What is worse, the nuclear doctrine of Israel, known as the Samson Option, states that in the event of an “existential threat” to Israel, it will launch nuclear weapons at regional – and even European – population centers, taking the world down with it in a deliberate attempt to start nuclear Armageddon. This is the closest ally of the United States, a regime of nuclear blackmail engaged in genocide.

READ: Blinken again vows to have Ukraine join NATO as globalist narrative unravels

A further desperate escalation was seen in the terrorist attack on the Crocus theatre in Moscow on March 22. Four gunmen, captured alive, shot and killed over 140 people before setting fire to the venue. Within one hour, Western sources disclaimed any Ukrainian involvement, saying that “ISIS-K,” an Islamic militant group, had said it was responsible.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confidently proclaimed that “[t]here is no indication at this time that Ukraine, or Ukrainians, were involved in the shooting,” despite hearing of the attack in Moscow only minutes before he gave his briefing at the White House on March 22. “I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine,” he said. 

Now the Russians are building a case which traces the planning of the attack through Ukraine to Western-backed proxies. This case has been derided in Western media, yet it is one whose central claim has a long pedigree. According to a 2019 report by the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, ISIS commanders and fighters have for years enjoyed a safe haven in Ukraine, with the collusion of its government and security forces.

On November 21, 2019, Oliver Carroll wrote from Kiev. His piece for the Independent was titled “How Ukraine became the unlikely home for ISIS leaders escaping the Caliphate.” In it, he details how “hundreds” of ISIS fighters had made a new home in Ukraine, with the Ukrainian authorities seemingly unconcerned about their presence.

In 2013, Akhmad Chatayev was detained in Ukraine whilst in transit to Georgia. Chatayev, an ISIS commander, had “bomb instructions” and “photographs of dead bodies” on his phone. An alleged bribe saw him released against the advice of the Moscow office of Interpol, says Carroll, in a process overseen by then-Ukrainian Minister of the Interior, Yuriy Lutsenko.

Three years later, Chatayev would be suspected of coordinating the 2016 suicide bombing of Istanbul airport in Turkey.

Carroll’s article also treats the case of Cesar Tokhosashvili, known also as Al Bara Shishani. “Shishani” is the Arabic rendition of “Chechen” – the ethnic and Muslim group native to regions of Georgia and the Russian Federation.

This man was presumed killed in a 2016 air strike in Syria which killed his namesake and erstwhile leader, fellow Georgian Omar al-Shishani. In fact, he escaped to Ukraine and lived there for two years, despite being responsible for “public beheadings” and “directing terror operations abroad.”

“According to the SBU [Ukrainian intelligence], Ukraine’s admittedly unreliable security agency, Al Bara Shishani even continued to coordinate ISIS terror operations from Kiev,” Carroll wrote.

In a recent interview with Judge Antony Napolitano, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor was asked whether “MI6, the CIA, Mossad” could be behind the terrorist attack in Moscow.

“Yes, we had a hand in it,” said MacGregor, adding that while there was no “concrete evidence” to support that claim, it was “unlikely the SBU did this without U.S./U.K. knowledge.”

MacGregor’s charge about the toleration and even use of ISIS operatives in Ukraine is far from groundless, and extends beyond a couple of documented cases.

In his Independent piece, Carrol cites Vera Mironova, a visiting Fellow at Harvard and a specialist in studying jihadi movements:

Mironova estimates ‘hundreds’ of former ISIS fighters have decamped to Ukraine.

This is not a mere question of quantity – but also of quality. The quality here being danger. ‘But it is not the numbers that should be of primary concern,’ she said. The cluster of terrorists in Ukraine were by their nature a ‘self-selecting’ elite.

Mironova continued,

This isn’t a random selection. The slower guys stop as soon as they get to Turkey. After all, it is a multiple-step operation to get to Ukraine. The ones who get there are the dangerous ones.

Carroll also quotes a Ukrainian investigative journalist, Katerina Sergatskova, who covered the story of Al Bara Shishani’s unexplained release by Ukrainian authorities.

“Sergatskova, who has almost single-handedly covered the subject in Ukrainian press over the past year, says authorities remain strangely relaxed about the issue.”

She said she was accused making the story up by the Ukrainian authorities: “Whenever I wrote on the subject, government officials have accused me of inventing the problem.”

Yet she appeared to be vindicated with the Chechen ISIS commander’s capture – in the “safehouse” of Ukraine’s capital.

But the arrest of one of Islamic State’s top commanders here in Kiev, right under our noses, would surely suggest many of the world’s most dangerous men do think of Ukraine as a safehouse. Corruption in all state bodies – the police, courts, prosecutors – opens doors to abuse.

Carroll notes that the Ukrainian intelligence service met his report with similar denials.

“When contacted by The Independent, the SBU rejected claims that Ukraine was in any way hospitable to international terrorism.”

Russia’s claim that there is a Ukrainian connection to the terror attacks at its Crocus theatre in Moscow is not without “proof,” as many Western media sources assert.

Most of them now rely on the SBU for their “intelligence” reports about the situation in Ukraine, which accounts for the disconnection from reality seen in Western reportage. In this picture, Putin has been dying for two years, and Russia is losing the war. A Ukrainian “victory” is inevitable. Why is this the case?

Because for our “globalist elites,” as Colonel MacGregor styles them, a Russian victory is as unthinkable as it is obvious. Defeat in Ukraine for the political class that has staked everything on winning means they are finished.

“These are the actions of a dying regime” said MacGregor to Napolitano in his April 3 interview.

MacGregor says the recent tactics of the U.S.-, U.K.-, and EU-backed Ukrainian regime, including the strike on a Russian oil refinery, betray a mounting desperation over a lost cause.

“I think the globalist elites running Europe are unwilling to admit the truth” he says.

“They’ve had it.”

He says the rulers of Britain and the EU have “committed suicide by rejecting cheap Russian energy” and face political wipeout in forthcoming elections.

“They’re going to persist in this fantasy [of a Russian defeat] because they have nowhere else to go.”

MacGregor’s assessment of the dire situation of U.S. and Western elites is compounded by the atrocities in Israel – as well as mounting troubles at home. It is a crisis so severe, he says, that it “foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU.”

Speaking of the so-called “war” in Gaza, he notes that in a war, “Normally we don’t annihilate the entire population on the ground” as Israel has been doing.

Even if you are indifferent to this fact, MacGregor says Netanyahu’s strategy of “eliminating Hamas” does not make sense.

“You can’t kill an idea,” he returns, before saying this strategy has been counterproductive. “What this campaign has done is elevate Hamas.”

Just as the project to destroy Russia on the battlefield and collapse it with sanctions has seen its military strength vastly magnified, and its economic prosperity secured by exclusion from the Western system, the strategy of the Israelis has empowered their enemies and perhaps fatally undermined their own security.

Now, says MacGregor, “The only solution is the final solution.” Speaking of the Israeli move to destroy Gaza and starve its population of over 2 million, he said, “Hatred has taken over.”

There are no limits to Israeli offensive operations, be they conducted against civilians, or the Iranians. Since Israel bombed Iran’s embassy complex in Syria on April 1, frantic measures have been reportedly underway to prevent a large-scale military retaliation against Israel.

As former British diplomat Alastair Crooke pointed out, “Even Nazi Germany respected embassies.” In another interview with Napolitano, he stressed the need to “deradicalize” the Israelis, saying that it was “Western [intelligence] services” which had “created ISIS” in the first place.

To bomb an embassy is to attack the sovereign territory of another nation. This is an act of terror for which Israel has, as yet, faced no consequences. With the U.S. continuing to arm Israel, it is noteworthy that the Israeli army has now almost completely withdrawn from Gaza.

This may be due to rumors of an Iranian demand made to the U.S. for an immediate ceasefire and to cancel the planned ground assault on Rafah by Israel. Talks are underway in the Egyptian capital of Cairo to agree a halt to Israel’s assaults.

Yet the Israelis maintain they are simply withdrawing to mount another attack on the Palestinians. Zionist extremist and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has vowed that, “If Netanyahu ends the war without the Rafah operation, he will lose his mandate.” The implication is that either the killing stops, or the leadership goes.

The regime, MacGregor points out, has become “a pariah” like Israel. He warns that “no one wants to serve in our military anymore,” and gravely mentions the likelihood of the U.S. resorting to the recruitment of illegal migrants to swell the ranks of an army whose wars are destroying the U.S. and the West.

The big picture is alarming. When you zoom in to the shady pixels, the devil emerges from the detail. As MacGregor says, we are ruled by an elite insulated from reality, and whose only interest lies in serving their own insane agenda, whatever the cost in human life.

“The globalists denounce isolationism – but they are the cause of our isolation,” he says.

The world has united in horror at the lengths to which this elite will go to preserve itself. MacGregor’s warning of the dangers at home are the domestic dimension of a campaign of death, degradation, and plunder which makes our current leadership the enemy of humanity and of life, wherever it is found.

To MacGregor, it is a case of us or them.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
armed forces / 1 hour ago

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Business / 1 hour ago

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

Daily Caller / 24 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

conflict

Sending arms to Ukraine is unnecessarily placing American lives in danger

Published on December 18, 2024

By

U.S. President Joe Biden signs the guest book during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Ukrainian presidential palace on February 20, 2023, in Kyiv, Ukraine

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

Joe Biden’s direct military support, coupled with ignoring peace efforts and sidelining containment principles, could spark global conflict.

To understand why a congressional budget fight over continuing or possibly expanding the Ukraine-Russia war is so fraught with dangers, some background of the relevant history and politics must be considered.

Ukraine-Russian hostilities

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated what he designated as his “special military operation.” He undertook this action in Ukraine which was an extension of the hostile acts that started in February 2014 with a U.S.-supported coup of the Ukraine government. But, recall that Putin approached Biden in late December 2021 through mid-February 2022 with proposals to forestall or avoid Russian military action mainly centering around assurances that Ukraine and other countries would not join NATO, an expansion policy which had its proximate beginnings at the end of the Cold War right after the reunification of Germany.

Putin did not approach Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with such proposals because the United States, and specifically President Biden, was the sine qua non for making such a decision regarding Ukraine’s entrance into NATO both for the U.S. and NATO. Basically, Biden told Putin there was nothing to talk about, especially with regard to reaching any agreement on Ukraine not entering NATO.

Biden rejects Ukraine-Russia peace agreement

Biden and British Prime Minister Johnson refused to accept bona fide peace agreements reached and worked out between Ukraine and Russia during the first weeks of this unnecessary conflict achieved  with the assistance of Israel’s 13th prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Former Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote that Biden and Johnson urged Zelensky to reject a more than 100-page peace treaty, “each page of which had been initialed by both sides, and its essence accepted by the Kremlin and by Kyiv,” and that by trusting the U.S. and Britain for military assistance, eastern Ukraine could be protected and Ukraine would not have to make concessions to Putin.

For these reasons, Biden and Great Britain own this war and bear partial responsibility for the Ukraine, Russian, and other lives lost as well as other war costs incurred after the treaty’s rejection.

So, American, Russian, and Ukrainian citizens now suffer the political, economic, and military consequences of the myopic and imprudent judgments of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, and perhaps much less so by Volodymyr Zelensky who apparently believed promises of continued economic and military support from Biden and Johnson.

Biden trashes Kennan Containment Doctrine

Containment worked! America avoided nuclear war.

Direct U.S./NATO Attacks on Russia

The headlines, of course, say that “Ukraine fires UK-made missiles” and that “Russia says Ukraine attacked it using U.S. long-range missiles.” Not so fast. Zelensky may have given the order to fire, or maybe even pushed the buttons, but the White House needs to explain to the American voters who paid for these weapons, who guided the missiles to their targets in the Russian homeland, and why it is not constitutionally and morally irresponsible for Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to risk a much wider or even a worldwide nuclear holocaust to call Vladimir Putin’s bluff.

On November 24, Rebekah Koffler, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, told Fox News that “we are now on the escalation ladder inching towards a nuclear war. Those ATACMS do not fire by themselves.”

Even if Ukrainian soldiers technically pushed the button, “the targeting of the weapons systems, ensuring that there is a proper flight trajectory of the missile, that it destroys the right target, and the actual battle damage it achieved that we wanted it to achieve, all requires U.S. personnel and U.S. satellites. This is why the Russians have stated that the United States and European targets are now in the crosshairs. In every wargame that we conducted back in the intelligence community ended up in a nuclear war.”

This is direct engagement.

In September, Vladimir Putin explained why a decision like Biden’s is radically different from all other “redlines.”

[T]his is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes … using Western-made long-range precision weapons. … This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or U.S. satellites. … [O]nly NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. … Therefore … It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not. If this decision is made … this will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia.

Biden finesses radical policy change

Biden has still refused to take public ownership of his radical departure from George Kennan’s Cold War containment policy of communist powers when he committed the one cardinal sin of American diplomacy: authorizing the direct military attack of a nuclear opponent, however “small.”

The initial press coverage from the Associated Press on November 17 announced that President Biden had authorized Ukraine, for the first time, to use U.S.-made long-range missiles for use by Ukraine inside Russia, “according to a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter…. The official and the people familiar with the matter were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.”

The stark refusal of even one Biden official to put their name to this monumentally dangerous and radical policy change is astonishing. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) noted on X that, “Joe Biden just set the stage for World War III[.] Let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that[.] Otherwise, we may never forget where we were [t]he moment we received this news.”

AP also noted that “Biden did not mention the decision during a speech at a stop to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil on his way to the Group of 20 summit.”

Press disguises Biden policy switch

Biden’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to not acknowledging the political-military consequences of his own actions was received with favorable “silent” coverage from the nation’s compliant mainstream media.

Indeed, none of the following news organizations told readers that Biden has converted American military personnel and civilian employees into warfighters who are directly engaging Russian troops, equipment, buildings, and territory by his direction: Associated Press, New York Times, NBC-Washington, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News, ABC-News, Public Broadcasting, Seattle Times, Minnesota Star Tribune, Miami Herald, and The Hill.

Checking the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department websites for this period reveals no press releases, fact sheets, or acknowledgments about the unprecedented and radical missile policy change with Ukraine or any of its particulars. However, Biden’s White House website posted a note on November 20 expressing sympathy with the Transgender Day of Remembrance but is silent on the possible escalation toward World War III.

Even a week later, National Security Advisor John Kirby still did not acknowledge that Biden has authorized direct attacks on Russia in obvious disregard of Kennan’s successful policy of avoiding nuclear war by avoiding direct military to military conflict with nuclear powers. Below is an exchange between National Security Advisor John Kirby and a reporter at an “on the record” press gaggle:

QUESTION: In the past, you kind of downplayed [the] potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin. How do you see it now?

KIRBY: Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis. And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast. I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing. But nothing has changed about the – well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.

Biden’s war escalation ladder

At this point, in light of the grim statistics about a completely avoidable war killing and maiming young men and women, Americans are entitled to the truth, not to a rehash of tired legalisms about Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

On November 25, Judge Andrew Napolitano cited 27-year veteran former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a frequent guest on Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” podcast, as confirming that Biden made the decision to let Ukraine use the ATACMS missiles without any input from his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which is highly unusual.

Biden and weakening Russia

Previously, Austin admitted on April 25, 2022 that the point of the war is “to see Russia weakened,” and Zelensky told The Economist on March 27, 2022, that “there are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” As Leonid Ragozin wrote in May 2024:

The West has crossed many red lines and is willing to try even more, but it is impossible to predict how the close-knit group of criminally inclined individuals which rules Russia will act if their country begins losing. It has always been a tough proposition to play chess with a guy who is holding a hand grenade. And it makes no sense, as Biden’s predecessors knew very well during the Cold War.

Biden initiated direct but “lower level” hostilities with Russia on November 19, and Biden ally, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, followed suit with similar hostile bombardments of Russia on November 20, partially fulfilling the goal of British and American war hawks attempting to push Russia into larger hostilities under Biden’s lead, or that of his “handlers,” to turn the second cold war with Russia – the aspirations of Washington and London’s armchair generals – into a conflict more likely in their minds of bringing Putin into a more contentious and uncontrollable situation that would relieve Putin of power.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Continue Reading

conflict

Trump’s election victory shows the American people want peace in Ukraine

Published on December 17, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

Americans resolutely rejected Kamala Harris’s war policies, electing Donald Trump on a platform of de-escalation. Joe Biden’s late delegation of missile control to President Zelensky and $24 billion funding serves only to deepen global conflict and risk elevation to WWIII

On November 5, 2024, American voters rendered their verdicts on several important questions where Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had polar opposite policies. The Russia-Ukraine war was one of them.

  • In September, Trump said, “I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being uselessly killed by the millions…. It’s so much worse than the numbers that you’re getting.”
  • Harris, after having opposed a peace agreement worked out between Ukraine and Russia in 2022, said in late September, “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.”
  • Harris, who reminded us constantly that “democracy [was] on the ballot” here in the United States, seemed to care not a bit that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had canceled Ukraine’s elections, perhaps in a bid to avoid his own voters. Further, in a Gallup poll of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, “an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible. Nearly four in 10 Ukrainians (38%) believe their country should keep fighting until victory.”

When many millions of Americans and Ukrainians clearly want peace, and neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris can define “victory,” what are we to make of Joe Biden’s two, giant, post-election steps toward expanding the war into Russia proper and central Europe?

  • Step 1) Initiating unprecedented direct missile strikes on Russia: Biden took the first step on November 17, 2024, when he (or his handlers) delegated his authority over targeting U.S. ATACMS long-range missile batteries in Ukraine to Volodymyr Zelensky. Not only did Biden authorize Zelensky to select targets inside the Russian Federation, he also authorized Zelensky to have virtual command and control through U.S. military and civilian personnel who are the only military forces capable of firing these missiles and using NATO/U.S. satellites to guide them to the Russian and North Korean facilities, soldiers, and civilians Zelensky wanted destroyed or killed!
  • Step 2) Asking Congress to write Biden another Ukraine war check: President Biden wants a Supplemental Appropriations of $24 billion for Ukraine before he leaves office on January 20, 2025. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wisely refused to permit a lame-duck Congress to authorize Biden and Zelensky to continue the war into 2025 in an effort to box in or block Trump from ending it, because until noon on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump takes office, he has no formal veto powers – all Trump has is the moral authority to call the nation to its senses.

With most of official Washington focused on the transition, the president-elect’s appointments, and the drama of confirmation battles in the Senate, now is a good time to reflect on some basic truths about the defense of our homeland against invasions and attacks by enemies, both foreign and domestic.

For good or for ill, significant portions of this struggle over whether officially Washington and London want a “hot” war with Russia will be played out in the congressional budget process during the deliberations of any future appropriations bills, made all the dicier because of the micrometer-slim Republican majority in the House, where, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1).

And remember, Republican and Democratic House and Senate war hawks, as well as their civilian supporters, campaign donors, weapons’ manufacturers providing local jobs in 70-plus U.S. cities, leftist media harpies, and the legions of “Never Trumpers” have not disappeared. So, concern over Ukraine war funding still applies to any future appropriations for Ukraine after January 20, 2025.

  • On November 19, following Biden’s delegation of authority to Zelensky to command U.S. troops to target Russian territory, “President Vladimir Putin … formally lowered the threshold for Russia’s use of its nuclear weapons … [that] allows for a potential nuclear response by Moscow even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power.”
  • On November 29, Hungarian Defense Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky stated, “Until the inauguration of the U.S. president on January 20, we will go through the most dangerous period in the Russia-Ukraine war that has been going on for nearly three years now.” Hungary is a NATO member.

In electing Trump, Americans also voted resoundingly for aggressive defense of the homeland. They will not tolerate continued invasions and attacks on our people and infrastructure by foreign nationals, organized criminal gangs, border jumpers, and terrorists. Russians and Ukrainians have the same rights to self-defense and self-determination. We know exactly what Americans would think if our homeland, territories, or military installations were threatened or attacked by Russia’s or any other hostile power’s missiles based in Cuba, Mexico, or overseas. We would either respond in kind or at least seriously and convincingly warn of equal repercussions.

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!

And, right on cue to prove his point, some current NATO advisors are urging that President Biden give the Zelensky administration nuclear weapons. Several NATO officials “suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov responded, “These are absolutely irresponsible arguments of people who have a poor understanding of reality and who do not feel a shred of responsibility when making such statements. We also note that all of these statements are anonymous.”

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

X