Skip to content
February 5, 2019 | 17 Comments

Pope Signs Document Nobody Asked Him To Sign

So the Pope did what nobody was asking him to do: sign a document that appears to have emanated from Harvard’s SJW dungeon, the same serpent that had such a hard time convincing Eve to eat that apple whispering into the authors’ ears.

Why the Pope signed I leave for you to tell me. Here, the highlights (all emphases mine) from “A document on human fraternity for world peace and living together.

Through faith in God, who has created the universe, creatures and all human beings (equal on account of his mercy), believers are called to express this human fraternity by safeguarding creation and the entire universe and supporting all persons, especially the poorest and those most in need.

Creatures are equal to human beings? Mary remove mousetraps what a dumb thing to say. Surely they can’t mean it. Look at those parentheses: I’m misreading it. Maybe they only meant to imply the false and pernicious lie that all people are equal, a belief contradicted directly in scripture?

Now if this description of this Netflix cleaning show is accurate, people have a hard enough time safeguarding their sock drawers, so I don’t know how they’re going to begin to safeguard the entire universe. Who’s going to be in charge of the extra-galactic patrols?

This transcendental value served as the starting point for several meetings characterized by a friendly and fraternal atmosphere where we shared the joys, sorrows and problems of our contemporary world.

The meeting was, after all, sponsored by Kleenex&tm;.

There followed some words about “therapeutic achievements“, “social injustice”, “inequality”, “discrimination”, and so on, cut and pasted from the New York Times opinion page. Then came the real meat.

In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity…

No, no, and no.

In the name of human fraternity that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders them equal…


Now war, poverty, torture, calamity, and other assorted horrors the document decries are bad and undesirable. Which everybody knows. And which everybody has always known. While there does exist the odd bloodlusting fool who calls for torture and terrorism, these people are not what anybody would consider to be a pressing problem. Not when — ahem — people are apostasizing on the pretext that today is Tuesday.

Surely the eternal souls of his flocks are of more importance than their attitude about recycling? The document nods in that direction:

[T]he most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles.

This is profoundly true. And so is this, more or less:

While recognizing the positive steps taken by our modern civilization in the fields of science, technology, medicine, industry and welfare, especially in developed countries, we wish to emphasize that, associated with such historic advancements, great and valued as they are, there exists both a moral deterioration that influences international action and a weakening of spiritual values and responsibility. All this contributes to a general feeling of frustration, isolation and desperation leading many to fall either into a vortex of atheistic, agnostic or religious extremism, or into blind and fanatic extremism, which ultimately encourage forms of dependency and individual or collective self-destruction.

Over-reaction is not as good as reaction — be a reactionary — but it is not a surprise it occurs, especially in a declining civilization.

But then comes this, the most curious and inexplicable bullet point, which is here broken in two pieces.

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action.

That there is or should be freedom of expression and action is utterly false. It is as far from truth as infinity is from 0; this sentiment is even the opposite of what they preached earlier about having no freedom of action to commit torture, etc. In children, there is not and should not be freedom in thought and belief. Consciences have to be formed, not discovered. Keep children in mind when you finish reading the paragraph.

Here is where the meat turns rancid.

The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

No. But if it were true God wanted diversity of religions, then He should not have issued that first Commandment. And then we may as well embrace or have “dialogue” with Santeria Voodists, worshippers of Santa Muerta, Wiccans, Satanists, Baalites, Aztec heart surgeons, Planned (Un)Parenthood baby-blood drinkers, whatever demon Nancy Pelosi bows to, and on and on. If what this paragraph says is true, then there is no need for the Church, and thus no need for the Pope. Smart money says he doesn’t resign, though.

The rest of the document, littered with “rights”, and no remembrance Christ said he came to bring the sword.

If you cannot say This Is Right, you must bow to somebody who will.

February 4, 2019 | 1 Comment

How To Do Predictive Statistics: Part X: Verification 1

We are finally at the most crucial part of the modeling process: proving if the damned thing works.

Not “works” in the sense that we get good unobservable parameter estimates, but works in the sense that the model makes useful, skillful predictions. No model should ever be released, by any researcher, until it has been verified at least using old data, and preferably using never-before-seen-or-used-in-any-way data. I’ll later have a paper on this subject, but I go on and on about it in this award-eligible book.

We’re going to use the Boston Housing data available in the mlbench package in R.


The last line of code will explain the dataset, which is 500-some observations of median housing prices (in $1,000s), from the 1970 Census, in different Boston neighborhoods. The key measure was nox, atmospheric “nitric oxides concentration (parts per 10 million)”, which we will take was measured without error. Which is not likely. Meaning that if we could take into account whatever uncertainty in the measure exists, we should use it, and the results below would be even less certain.

The idea was that high nox concentrations would be associated with lower prices, where “associated” was used as a causal word. To keep the example simple yet informative, we only use some of the measures: crim, per capita crime rate by town; chas, Charles River border indicator; rm, average number of rooms per dwelling; age, proportion of owner-occupied units built prior to 1940; dis, weighted distances to five Boston employment centres; tax, full-value property-tax rate; and b, a function of the proportion of blacks by town.

The ordinary regression gives this ANOVA table:

fit = glm(medv ~ crim + chas + nox + rm + age + dis + tax + b, data=BostonHousing)

              Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept) -11.035298   4.193677  -2.631  0.00877  
crim         -0.110783   0.036748  -3.015  0.00270  
chas1         4.043991   1.010563   4.002 7.25e-05 
nox         -11.068707   4.145901  -2.670  0.00784  
rm            7.484931   0.381730  19.608  < 2e-16 
age          -0.068859   0.014473  -4.758 2.57e-06 
dis          -1.146715   0.207274  -5.532 5.12e-08 
tax          -0.006627   0.002289  -2.895  0.00395 
b             0.012806   0.003142   4.076 5.33e-05 

Look at all those excitingly wee p-values. Glorious, no? No. We'll soon see they lead to bitter disappointment.

Let's now fit the Bayesian version of the same regression, using defaults on the priors as we've been doing. We'll fit two models: one with nox, one without.

fit.s = stan_glm (medv ~ crim + chas + nox + rm + age + dis + tax + b,data=BostonHousing)
fit.s.n = stan_glm (medv ~ crim + chas + rm + age + dis + tax + b,data=BostonHousing)

We could look at the summaries of these models, and you should, but they would only give information about the posterior parameter distributions. Since we're using numerical approximations (MCMC methods) to give answers, we should see if the algorithms are working. They are. We could do better by tuning the approximation (larger resamples), but the defaults are close enough for us here.

So how do we check if the model works?

We have to ask a question that is pertinent to a decision we would make using it. The third quartile observed housing price was $35,000. What is the predicted probability prices would be higher than that given different levels of nox for data not yet observed? The answer for old data can be had by just looking. Why this question? Why not? If you don't like it, change it!

In order to answer our question, we also have to specify values for crim, chas, and all the other measures we chose to put into the model. I picked median observed values for all. If you have other questions or other values you like, try them!

Let's look at the predictions of housing price for future varying levels of nox: I used a sequence from the minimum to maximum observed values, with all other measures at their medians.

nnox = seq(min(BostonHousing$nox),max(BostonHousing$nox),by=.01)
s = length(nnox)
newdata = data.frame(crim = rep(median(BostonHousing$crim),s) , 
                     chas = rep("0",s) , 
                     nox = nnox ,
                     rm = rep(median(BostonHousing$rm),s) ,
                     age = rep(median(BostonHousing$age),s) ,
                     dis = rep(median(BostonHousing$dis),s) ,
                     tax = rep(median(BostonHousing$tax),s) ,
                     b = rep(median(BostonHousing$b),s) )
p.s.n = posterior_predict(fit.s,newdata)
p.s.non = posterior_predict(fit.s.n,newdata)

We built predictions many times before, so if you've forgotten the structure of this code, review! Now let's see what that looks like, in a relevance plot:

  plot(nnox,colMeans(p.s.n>35), type='l', lwd =3, xlab='nox (ppm)', ylab='Pr(Price > $35,000 | XDM)')
    lines(nnox,colMeans(p.s.non>35), lwd = 2, col=4)
    legend('topright',c('With nox','No nox'), col=c(1,4), lty=1, lwd=3, bty='n')

The predictive probability of high housing prices goes from about 4% with the lowest levels of nox, to something near 0% at the maximum nox values. The predictive probability in the model without nox is about 1.8% on average. The original p-value for nox was 0.008, which all would take as evidence of strong effect. Yet for this question the probability changes are quite small. Are these differences (a +/- 2% swing) in probability enough to make a difference to a decision maker? There is no single answer to that question. It depends on the decision maker. And there would still not be an answer until it was certain the other measures were making a difference. I'll leave that as homework.

We need this helper function, which is a simple adaptation of the original, which I don't love. If you'd rather use the original, have a ball.

 ecdf <- function (x) 
    x <- sort(x)
    n <- length(x)
    vals <- unique(x)
    rval <- cumsum(tabulate(match(x, vals)))/n

Now this is a fun little plot. It shows the probability prediction of Y for every old observed X, supposing that old X were new. This assumes my version of ecdf.

# the old data is reused as if it were new
p.s = posterior_predict(fit.s) 

P = ecdf(p.s[,1])
plot(P$vals, P$ecdf, type='l',xlim=c(-20,60), xlab="Price = s", ylab="Pr(Price < s | XDM)")
for (j in 2:nrow(BostonHousing)){
  P = ecdf(p.s[,j])
  lines(P$vals, P$ecdf, type='l')

Price (s) in on the x-axis, and the probability of future prices less than s, given the old data and M(odel), are on the y-axis. A dotted red line at $0 is shown. Now we know based on external knowledge to M that it is impossible prices can be less than $0. Yet the model far too often gives positive probabilities for impossible prices. The worst prediction is about a 65% chance for prices less than $0. You remember we call this probability leakage.

So right now we have good evidence this model has tremendous failure points. It is not a good model! And we never would have noticed had we not examined the model in its predictive form---and we also remember all models have a predictive form: even if you don't want to use that form, it's there. What we should do at this point is change the model to remove the leakage (and surely you recall we know how to do that: review!). But we won't: we'll keep it and see how the rest of the model verifies.

Let's look at four predictions, picking four old X, because the all-predictions plot is too busy. And on this we'll over-plot the ECDF of the observations, which are, of course, just step functions.

for (j in base::sample(1:nrow(BostonHousing),4)){
  P = ecdf(p.s[,j])
   plot(P$vals, P$ecdf, type='l',xlim=c(-20,60), xlab="Price = s", ylab="Pr(Price < s | XDM)")
   lines(stepfun(BostonHousing$medv[j],c(0,1)),xval = P$vals,do.points=FALSE)


From this plot we have the idea that the closer the ECDF of the prediction is to the ECDF of the observation, the better the model does. This is a good idea, indeed, a great one. It leads to the idea of a score that measures this distance.

One such, and very well investigated, score is the continuous ranked probability score, or CRPS. It is not the only one, just the one we'll use today.

Let F_i(s) = Pr( Y < s | X_i D_n M), i.e. a probabilistic prediction of our model for (past) measure X_i (which can be old or new; the D_n is the old data, as we have been writing). Here we let s vary, so that the forecast or prediction is a function of s, but s could be fixed, too. Let Y_i be the i-th observed value of Y. Then

    CRPS(F,Y) = sum_i ( F_i - I( s ≥ Y_i ) )^2,

where I() is the indicator function. If s is fixed and Y dichotomous, CRPS is called the Brier score. We can look at CRPS for each i, or averaged over the set. There are various ways to calculate CRPS, depending on the model assumed. Here we'll just use straight-up numerical approximation.

Why not use RMSE or MAD or R^2? Because those scores are not proper. I'll write elsewhere of this, but the idea is those scores throw away information, because they first have to compress the probability (and all our predictions are probabilities) into a point, thus they remove information in the prediction, leading to suboptimal scores. Proper scores have a large literature behind them---and you already know which award-eligible book writes about them!

Let's calculate, for both models with and without nox, the CRPS for each old observation.

crps = NA
crps.n = NA
k = 0
for (j in 1:nrow(BostonHousing)){
  k = k + 1
  P = ecdf(p.s[,j])
  crps[k] = sum((P$ecdf - sf(P$vals))^2)/length(P$ecdf)
  P = ecdf(p.s.n[,j])
  crps.n[k] = sum((P$ecdf - sf(P$vals))^2)/length(P$ecdf)


plot(BostonHousing$medv,crps, xlab="Price ($1,000s)", ylab="CRPS (with nox)",ylim=c(0,.35))

The stepfun creates a function which we use to compute the value of the ECDF of the observed price, which we need in our approximation of CRPS. Note, too, it uses the already computed posterior predictions, p.s. The crps is for the nox model; and crps.n is for the non-nox model. The plot is of the individual CRPS at the values of prices.

See that "floor" in the CRPS values? Looks like CRPS can go so low, but no lower. This turns out to be true. Given a model form, we can calculate an expected CRPS, and then bust up that expectation into pieces, each representing part of the score. One part is the inherent variability of the Y itself. Meaning, given a model, we have to accept the model will only be so good, that uncertainty will remain. There is much more to this, but we'll delay discussion for another day.

We could also do this:

plot(crps.n,crps, ylab="CRPS (with nox)",  xlab="CRPS (no nox)")

I won't show it, because it's hard to see, by eye, whether the nox model is doing better. But you can look on your own.

Enter the idea of skill---which was another of Fisher's inventions. Again, you know where you can read about it.

Skill scores K have the form:

    K(F,G,Y) = ( S(G,Y) - S(F,Y) ) / S(G,Y),

for some score function S(.,Y) (like CRPS), where F is the prediction from what is thought to be the superior or more complex model and G the prediction from the inferior. Skill is always relative. Since the minimum best score is S(F,Y)=0, and given the normalization, a perfect skill score has K = 1. Skill exists if and only if K >0, else it is absent. Skill like proper scores can be computed as an average or over individual points.

Models without skill should not be used!

Why not? Because the simpler model beats them! If you don't like CRPS, then you should, always should, use the score that reflects the cost-loss of the decisions you will make using the model. As always, a model may be useful to one man and useless to another.

Here is the skill plot:

plot(BostonHousing$nox,(crps.n-crps)/crps.n, ylab="Skill",  xlab="nox")

Everything below 0 are times when the non-nox model did better.

The overall average skill score was K = -0.011, indicating the more complicated model (with nox) does not have skill over the less complicated model. This means, as described above, that if the CRPS represents the actual cost-loss score of a decision maker using this model, the prediction is that in future data, the simpler model will outperform the more complex one.

We don't actually know how the model will perform on future data, we can only guess. So that model scores on old data are themselves predictions of future performance. How good they are is an open research question; i.e. nobody knows.

Whether this insufficiency in the model is due to probability leakage, or that the CRPS is not the best score in this situation, remain to be seen.

We have thus moved from delightful results as indicated by p-values, to more sobering results when testing the model against reality---where we also recall this is only a guess of how the model will actually perform on future data: nox is not useful. Since the possibility for over-fitting is always with us, it is the case that future skill measures would likely be worse than those seen in the old data.

Most of this post is extracted from an upcoming (already accepted) paper, which will be posted when it is published. This post is only a bare sketch.

February 3, 2019 | 2 Comments

Summary Against Modern Thought: God Preserves All Things In Being

Previous post.

Being didn’t happen for no reason, and the so-called laws of physics, or whatever is being claimed to be at base, such as quantum “fluctuations”, cannot account for themselves.


1 Now, from the fact that God rules things by His providence it follows that He preserves them in being.

2 Indeed, everything whereby things attain their end pertains to the governance of these things. For things are said to be ruled or governed by virtue of their being ordered to their end. Now, things are ordered to the ultimate end which God intends, that is, divine goodness, not only by the fact that they perform their operations, but also by the fact that they exist, since, to the extent that they exist, they bear the likeness of divine goodness which is the end for things, as we showed above. Therefore, it pertains to divine providence that things are preserved in being.

3 Again, the same principle must be the cause of a thing and of its preservation, for the preservation of a thing is nothing but the continuation of its being. Now, we showed above that God, through His understanding, and will, is the cause of being for all things. Therefore, He preserves all things in being through His intellect and will.

4 Besides, no particular univocal agent can be the unqualified cause of its species; for instance, this individual man cannot be the cause of the human species, for he would then be the cause of every man, and, consequently, of himself—which is impossible. But this individual man is the cause, properly speaking, of that individual man.

Now, this man exists because human nature is present in this matter, which is the principle of individuation. So, this man is not the cause of a man, except in the sense that he is the cause of a human form coming to be in this matter. This is to be the principle of the generation of an individual man. So, it is apparent that neither this man, nor any other univocal agent in nature, is the cause of anything except the generation of this or that individual thing. Now, there must be some proper agent cause of the human species itself; its composition shows this, and also the ordering of its parts, which is uniform in all cases unless it be accidentally impeded. And the same reasoning applies to all the other species of natural things.

Now, this cause is God, either mediately or immediately. For we have shown that He is the first cause of all things. So, He must stand in regard to the species of things as the individual generating agent in nature does to generation, of which he is the direct cause. But generation ceases as soon as the operation of the generative agent ceases. Therefore, all the species of things would also cease as soon as the divine operation ceased. So, He preserves things in being through His operation.

Notes What this means for evolution, especially of man, is obvious.

5 Moreover, though motion may occur for any existing thing, motion is apart from the being of the thing. Now, nothing corporeal, unless it be moved, is the cause of anything, for no body acts unless by motion, as Aristotle proves. Therefore, no body is the cause of the being of anything, in so far as it is being, but it is the cause of its being moved toward being, that is, of the thing’s becoming.

Now, the being of any thing is participated being, since no thing is its own act of being, except God, as we proved above. And thus, God Himself, Who is His own act of being, must be primarily and essentially the cause of every being. So, divine operation is related to the being of things as the motion of a corporeal mover is to the becoming and passive movement of the things that are made or moved. Now, it is impossible for the becoming and passive movement of a thing to continue if the motion of the mover cease. Therefore, it is impossible for the being of a thing to continue except through divine operation.

6 Furthermore, just as art work presupposes a work of nature, so does a work of nature presuppose the work of God the creator. In fact, the material for art products comes from nature, while that of natural products comes through creation by God. Moreover, art objects are preserved in being by the power of natural things; a home, for instance, by the solidity of its stories. Therefore, all natural things are preserved in being by nothing other than the power of God.

7 Again, the impression of an agent does not continue in the product, if the agent’s action ceases, unless the impression be converted into the nature of the product. Indeed, the forms of things generated, and their properties, remain in them after generation until the end, since they become natural to them. And likewise, habits are difficult to change because they are turned into a nature. But dispositions and passions, whether of the body or soul, endure for a little while after the action of the agent, but not forever, since they are present in a state transitional to nature.

Now, whatever belongs to the nature of a higher type of being does not last at all after the action of the agent; light, for instance, does not continue in a diaphanous body when the source of light has gone away. Now, to be is not the nature or essence of any created thing, but only of God, as we showed in Book One [22]. Therefore, no thing can remain in being if divine operation cease.

8 Furthermore, there are two positions regarding the origin of things: one, from faith, holding that things have been brought into being by God, at the beginning; and the position of certain philosophers, that things have emanated from God eternally. Now, in either position one has to say that things are preserved in being by God. For, if things are brought into being by God, after they were not existing, then the being of things, and similarly their non-being, must result from the divine will; for He has permitted things not to be, when He so willed; and He made things to be, when He so willed. Hence, they exist just as long as He wills them to be. Therefore, His will is the preserver of things.

But, if things have eternally emanated from God, we cannot give a time or instant at which they first flowed forth from God. So, either they never were produced by God, or their being is always flowing forth from God as long as they exist. Therefore, He preserves things in being by His operation.

9 Hence it is said: “Upholding all things by the word of His Power” (Heb. 1:3). And Augustine says: “The power of the Creator, and the strength of the Omnipotent and All-sustaining is the cause of the subsistence of every creature. And, if this power were ever to cease its ruling of the things which have been created, their species would at once come to an end, and all nature would collapse. For the situation is not like that of a man who has built a house and has then gone away, and, while he is not working and is absent, his work stands. For, if God were to withdraw His rule from it, the world could not stand, even for the flick of an eye.”

Notes A sobering thought and a hint, as we believe Peter, in what is to come. And also a proof that a physics which ignores the reason for physics, is a benighted physics.

10 Now, by this conclusion the position of the exponents of the Law of the Moors is refuted, for, in order to be able to maintain that the world needs God’s preservation, they took the view that all forms are accidents, and that no accident endures through two instants.

So that, in this view, the informing of things would be in continuous process, as if a thing would not need an agent cause except while in the process of becoming. Hence, also, some of these people are said to claim that indivisible bodies (out of which, they say, all substances are composed and which alone, according to them, possess stability) could last for about an hour if God were to withdraw His governance from things. Also, some of them say that a thing could not even cease to be unless God caused in it the accident of “cessation.” Now, all these views are clearly absurd.

Notes Amen.

February 2, 2019 | 14 Comments

This Week In Doom — Men Can Have Abortions Edition

Item Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

Please re-read this essay about women’s “rights”.

Item Man interrogated by police for liking a ‘transphobic’ tweet

Harry Miller, who believes ‘trans women are not women’, says the formal probe by Humberside Police was into his ‘thinking’ and his reasons for liking the limerick on Twitter. The limerick referred to trans women as ‘stupid’ and made comments about vaginas and ‘synthetic’ hormones.

Mr Miller, who used to be a policeman, says an officer told him he was investigating reports of a hate crime. ‘Cop said he was in possession of 30 tweets by me,’ he recalled on Twitter. ‘I asked if any contained criminal material. He said “No.” ‘I asked if any came close to being criminal and he read me a limerick. Honestly. A limerick. A cop read me a limerick over the phone.’ After telling the PC he did not write the limerick, he reportedly said: ‘Ah. But you liked it and promoted it.’

He concluded: ‘It’s not a crime, but it will be recorded as a hate incident.’…

‘Lastly, he told me that I needed to watch my words more carefully or I was at risk of being sacked by the company for hate speech.’

Urgent reader task: Anybody know what the limerick is? Will post it in next Doom.

Reality, as we have long stressed, is now illegal in many venues. Speaking of Reality is a ‘hate’ crime. Threatening and carrying out violence on those who admit Reality is, as it does not need saying, an efficient method to silence.

Item 9 Arrested In Climate Change Protest At Rockefeller Center: Cops

A banner draped across a statue at Rockefeller Center read “climate change=mass murder.”…

The demonstration at Rockefeller Center was staged to protest climate change. Photos posted to social media showed protesters participating in a “die-in” at the ice skating rink. Photos also showed a banner draped across a statue at the rink that read “climate change = mass murder.”

The Facebook event for the protest, named “Rebellion Day One,” says the goal of the group organizing the protest — Extinction Rebellion — is to get to net zero emissions by 2025 by participating in mass civil disobedience.

I am saddened to report to you that this was not a real die-in, but a simulated die-in. These millennials have no commitment. Let’s all encourage them to do better next time!

Item The World Health Organization Says “Men” Can Get Abortions

he World Health Organization (WHO) has issued medical guidance on abortion intended to reflect the latest scientific evidence in the field. However, its most apparent change was cultural rather than medical. This new report began by insisting it is not only females who can become pregnant, but so can women who think they are men, that is, “those with varying gender identities.”

The guidance further stated that abortion must be provided in a manner promoting health and human rights “including sex and gender equality,” implying a sharp distinction between the two….

If a healthcare employee objects to abortion as a matter of conscience, the guidance offers only the suggestion that task-shifting to nurses, midwives, pharmacists, and other health care employees might “reduce the burden” and ensure abortion access is unimpeded. In an earlier 2012 technical and policy guidance on “safe abortion,” WHO instructed that conscientious objectors must provide a timely referral. If this is impossible, WHO insists the objector “must provide abortion to save the woman’s life or to prevent damage to her health.”

Since killing the lives inside would-be mothers is the goal of abortion, it is, of course, impossible not to damage the health of these lives.

Item Proposed law would make animal cruelty a felony across the U.S.

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives re-introduced a bill last week that would make malicious acts of animal cruelty a felony nationwide. A person convicted of the crime could face a fine or up to seven years in prison, or both.

The bill, known as the Preventing Animal Cruel and Torture (PACT) Act, is co-sponsored by Democrat Ted Deutch and Republican Vern Buchanan. PACT would criminalize “crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating and impaling animals.” The measure would also address bestiality and other attempts to sexually exploit animals.

It is, of course, a good thing to criminalize bestiality, but not if it’s done for the wrong reason (“…the final treason”). It should be illegal because it goes against man’s nature, not because it frightens the horses.

Here’s a law they’ll use, we might guess, to start banning some meats. Not immediately. But it will be judged this or that farming or slaughter or hunting practice is cruel. And what is cruel will slowly expand to acts such as axing a turkey’s head or placing a bullet between the ribs of wild animals. Maybe these pushes stall at first, but PETA-type organizations will absolutely attempt to use the law as a wedge.

And then comes animal “rights.” It will be call the “true equality”. Wait and see.

Item Financial Blacklisting: NewsGuard Advises Advertisers to Avoid Pro-Trump Media

NewsGuard, the news-filtering browser extension recently partnered with Microsoft and run by neoconservatives, Obama-Clinton alumni, and other assorted Trump haters, has advised advertisers to withdraw their business from websites on its blacklist of “unreliable” news websites — a list that includes Breitbart News, The Drudge Report, and the Daily Mail.

Labeling Drudge and DM “right” wing is amusing, so let’s first chuckle. The real meaning is the media on the dissident right is going to have to find another way to fund itself than via advertising. Most capital is now woke. Ads therefore are out. We’re going to have to self fund.

Item Catholic Church in Texas Names Nearly 300 Priests Accused of Sex Abuse

The Roman Catholic Church in Texas on Thursday released the names of almost 300 priests who it said had been credibly accused of child sex abuse over nearly eight decades.

Not that these largely homosexual predators are innocent, but I’m struck by how the phrase credibly accused entered our vocabulary so quickly as a synonym of guilty.