​   The founding of our Republic begins with the story of a group of people who sought to leave England in order to freely practice their religion. The persecution that they faced was so bad that the idea of facing the harsh wilderness was a welcome one, so they would have the freedom to worship as they choose. This fact was never far from the front of our Founding Fathers’ minds as evidenced by the 1st Amendment.
   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Founders thought that some rights were so important that they decided to enshrine them in what we call the Bill of Rights and chief among them were Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, the right to peaceably assemble (protest). But as important as those rights are to Americans, then and now, the Framers put Freedom of Religion ahead of everything else. They never forgot that it was a quest for religious liberty that is at the very heart of this nation.
   In the many years since our Republic’s creation our government and our military have established ceremonies and traditions many of which use symbolism to represent values, principles, and the people. Given that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it is not surprising that Christian symbols made their way into many of these traditions. The Cross, open prayer in the name of Jesus, and quoting the Bible are not unusual practices during many of these ceremonies and traditions.
   One such tradition is the “Missing Man Table” at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. According to the National League of POW/MIA Families the “Missing Man Table” is a memorial recognizing soldiers absent from a dining hall because they are prisoners of war or missing in action. And as reported by Life Site News, "Every element serves a symbolic purpose, from the table’s round shape symbolizing 'everlasting concern' to a Bible representing 'strength gained through faith to sustain us and those lost from our country, founded as one nation under God.” To many of us, this would be a thoughtful, meaningful way to honor and to remember those who chose to serve the nation but have not come home. Many of us would respect the symbolism and understand that this isn’t about us, it’s about those listed as POW or MIA and their families desperately hoping that someday they may yet come home.
   However, in our current age, there will always be someone who wants to make everything about them and how they feel. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) claimed that 31 active-duty airmen of varying faiths and denominations stationed at F.E. Warren contacted them in May to oppose the Bible being part of their dining hall’s “Missing Man Table”. The number of objectors rose to 36 by the end of June. After an investigation of the complaint, Col. Stacy Jo Huser announced that a generic "book of faith" will replace the Bible. "Our chaplains are purchasing a generic ‘book of faith’ and will let me know when that book is expected to arrive," Huser told MRFF. "Until it arrives, I’ve asked them to rotate the book placed on the table (rotate it through various faiths)”. Huser also said that this generic book will have "spiritual writings and prayers from the five DoD Chaplain-appointed faith groups and a sixth set of blank pages to represent those who find solace by other means."
  
   A generic book of faith? Solace by other means? What Col. Huser calls a generic book of faith I call a book of no faith at all. A book filled with “spiritual writings” from five faith groups recognized by the DoD Chaplain is a book of spiritual philosophy, not faith. By sharing small parts of these various writings, you are left as fulfilled as reading the blank pages that are to be included. This generic book is exactly that, plain, bland, and devoid of what makes any religious text from any faith worth reading, the power of the word.
        The Military Religious Freedom Foundation claims that their mission is “to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment”. After reading articles at the website (https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/), seeing what they call victories, even their use of the phrase “Establishment Clause” I tend to believe that they are more like the Freedom From Religion Foundation than a group dedicated to protecting religious liberties for anyone. Their goal appears to be the eradication of Christianity within the Armed Services in the name of “protecting” people of other faiths. If the MRFF was truly on the mission they claim then they would have the same obligation to protect the Christians to the same extent as any other faith not dismiss them in favor of others.
   Forget for the moment that the “Establishment Clause” doesn’t mean what leftist politicians and activist judges have twisted it to what they want it to mean. Forget that an outside Foundation has put undue pressure on military command officers in a P.R. fashion. Give the MRFF and Col. Huser the benefit of the doubt and say that they only have the best intentions, which they very well may have. (Although we know where the road paved with good intentions leads to don’t we?) This still comes down to one simple thing. It’s not about the people on base.
   The “Missing Man Table” is about those who are currently classified as POW/MIA. This is a memorial established with the aid of the National League of POW/MIA Families and has been in place for far longer than any of the current airman at F.E. Warren have been stationed there. The Bible was chosen for a reason and it wasn’t to establish a religion for the base, it was to express faith, which the true meaning of the “Establishment Clause” protects. (Remember the part that says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”) The people who created this memorial have the right to use the Bible as their symbol of faith. And if this is offensive to fewer than 40 members of a staff that numbers over 3,000 then that is unfortunate, but they are not being forced to practice or participate in a faith other than their own so their rights to religious liberty are not being infringed. Their delicate sensibilities do not entitle them to infringe upon the rights of others. If it bothers you that much, don’t look at it, stay as far from it as you can and remember that nowhere in the Constitution is there a clause to protect your feelings. Besides, the proper application of Freedom of Speech pretty much guarantees that you will be offended at some point, so suck it up buttercup. You’re in the Air Force for crying out loud, someday it might be you who is POW/MIA. On THAT day, then it will be about you. 

​   How many of you have heard about the proposed movie titled “Rub & Tug”? Don’t feel bad if you haven’t, I myself had not until a few weeks ago when I first heard that a “Culture War” controversy had broken out over the lead actress. You see the movie tells to story of Dante "Tex" Gill, a female massage parlor owner during the '70s and '80s who "preferred to be known as a man” aka transgendered before the T had been added to LGB, but SJWs got up at arms when the lead was revealed to be a cisgender female and not transgender male (just to help everyone keep score both are biological females).
   When you pitch a script in Hollywood you hope that you can convince studio executives, production companies, directors and big-name actors/actresses to sign on for your project. “Rub & Tug” had managed to get Scarlett Johansson so excited about the project that not only had she committed to play the lead character but her production company, These Pictures, was set to co-produce the film. Now you would think that LGBTQ activists and SJWs everywhere would be excited about having this story told and having one of the hottest stars in Hollywood attached, but you’d be wrong.
   In the realm of the Social Justice Warrior, it often seems that virtue signaling is of more import than the cause du jour. (I often like to point out that virtue signaling isn’t the same thing as actually having virtue when the topic comes up, but I digress.) This would seem to be a case of exactly that. The SJWs were angered by the fact that Johansson, who is cisgender, was set to play the part of the transgendered Gill. In their virtue signaling mindset it is completely unacceptable that a woman who believes that she is a woman should have the role of a woman who believed she was a man. It’s called acting SJWs and it’s something that Scarlett Johansson is pretty good at doing. It doesn’t matter that the movie would have a much better chance of being successful at the box-office with Johansson attached and that she would mostly do a great job of portraying the Pittsburg born gangster; no it’s far more important that someone else, anyone else as long as they are the appropriate transgender, success of the movie be damned, play this role.
   At first, Johansson pushed back against the SJWs saying that there is no difference between her playing a transgender character and a transgender actor playing a cisgender character, but that only served to further enrage the activists. So, Scarlett Johansson has changed her mind is no longer going to be in the movie. Victory for the cause, right? Well, not so fast. Because of Johansson’s withdraw, the movie now is in serious jeopardy of getting made at all. With Scarlett no longer playing the lead it is no longer a certainty that These Pictures is still on board with co-producing the film and there is as of yet no word if Joel Silver's production company Silver Pictures will move forward with the project if Johansson’s company pulls out. While several groups are celebrating the “win” and are now making lists of “approved” actors to take the role, they seem to miss the point the making movies is still a business and no matter committed to the cause a studio may be, they still want to make money.
          After reading what I have about “Tex”, I would like to see the movie get made. I think it is an interesting story about the kind of person who fits the description of “Larger than Life”. I am forced to ask the SJWs out there a question. What helps the cause more, the movie getting made with big stars in it and people going to see it while it’s in theaters or making it “pure” and possible stopping it from being made? Oh, wait, I answered this one already. Virtue signaling, it’s always more important to virtue signal.

   In politics, it has always been a case of “Buyer beware”. You have a responsibility to know who you are voting for and where they stand on the issues that are important to you. It has never been good enough to simply take a politician at their word. You have to look at their voting record (if one exists), watch who they choose to associate with, and if possible find out what they say when they think that most would-be voters will never find out. And make no mistake, this is true of politicians no matter what party they claim membership.
   Sadly, in our modern world, we have moved past expecting a certain amount of dishonesty from those seeking office to encouraging it in some cases. One example of the totally accepted kind of intentional deception is the time-honored art of telling half-truths known as “spin”. (These days we are lucky to get to half-truth.) Little more than a marketing ploy, the idea is to focus only on the parts of the topic you want the people you are speaking with to know. If you are for knocking down an old building to make room for a new business, then you are going to talk about how the new business is going to create needed jobs but you’re not going to mention that small creek on the property that feeds the city parks pond. If you are against that same building being removed, you are only going to bring up how it’s a historic landmark but you’re never going to talk about how badly those new jobs are needed. Both point of views are telling their audience part of the truth but neither side wants you looking at the issue from any other standpoint so they don’t bring it up and hope you never find it out.
   Another form that is almost demanded in today’s politics, and once again regardless of your political leanings, a large number of people have come to expect bias-confirmation from our media sources and from our selected office holders. We have come to expect that our elected representatives be paragons of the virtues we want them to express, even if they have to exaggerate for our benefit. We want to hear how our folks are the saving the world and how those “others” are trying to destroy it all. We can hardly blame them for giving us what we want; which is part of why the consequences for dishonesty in politics aren’t as harsh as they once were.
   There is yet another form of dishonesty however that merges the last two ways that I mentioned and counts on you to be uninformed. To me, this is the worst form because it is an all out lie. In order to raise funds, fire-up the base, or just get the room excited the politician in question will tell you something that they know simply isn’t true and count on you not knowing any better. In short, they are counting on you to be “dumb enough to fall for it”. They will try to add some spin, if there is any truth that can be peppered in for effect, and tell you what they think you want to hear because you are less likely to question the rest of what they have to say, but their goal is to push you to take action, action for them. The pander, then they use fear, anger or both over an issue that they know doesn’t exist so that you will answer their rallying cry.
   Hillary Clinton recently executed the “Can I Make You Fall For It” type of dishonesty. She was speaking to the American Federation of Teachers when she decided to go way over the top when discussing Donald Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh. She started off even-keeled enough for the crowd she was playing to by warning of “devastating consequences” if Kavanaugh is confirmed but she got caught up in the emotion and took it much further. Clinton said in her speech. "This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers’ rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, including those to make our own health decisions." All of which, while I find these concerns to be unfounded, are legitimate issues for the folks who lean to the left. But then she continued in a way that is meant to anger you further but also requires you to know nothing about how our government works. Something that you should expect that she would know better than to think possible after she has been the First Lady, a U.S. Senator, and the Secretary of State. She said, “I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s".
   The 1850s, of course, predate the American Civil War, meaning that Clinton believes that under Kavanaugh it would be possible for the United States to return to the days of slavery. She basically told this crowd that a Kavanaugh confirmation would somehow lead to the nullification of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the people of this nation would somehow be okay with the idea of owning another human being. The political left doesn’t like Kavanaugh but where do any of them see a desire in him, or any other conservative justice for that matter, to dismantle the Constitutional ban on slavery? My guess is that they don’t, but they sure want their base frightened that those “Mean Ole Republicans” are working hard to make “A Handmaid’s Tale” the new America.
   Here are some facts about our federal government. Facts that Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton know or at least should know. The Supreme Court is bound by our Constitution the same as the other branches are supposed to be. They are not free to re-write it or pick and choose which parts they will follow and which parts they will ignore. Once amendments are added (the 13th for example) it requires yet another amendment to repeal it. That means someone has to propose said amendment either by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate or by a Convention of States called for by two-thirds of the state’s legislatures. If this happens then the purposed amendment is sent to the Governor of each state who in turn submits it to that state’s legislature. Then if thirty-eight of the fifty states (three-fourths) vote to ratify then the purposed amendment becomes part of our Constitution. Notice that there is no mention of either the President or Supreme Court Justices in the process?
   This statement about a return to the 1850’s was not an off the cuff remark. It was meant to paint a picture of conservatives pushing women back into the kitchen, LGBTQ folks back into the closet, and black American into bondage. It was meant to get the people in that room fired up about trying to stop Kavanaugh. (It was also meant to try and show that Hillary is still a viable candidate in the next election cycle for the Democrats but that’s another topic entirely.) But it was also one more shot at all those people she called the “Basket of Deplorables” during her last campaign.
    She knows that there is nothing in Kavanaugh’s record that would hint that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and certainly nothing to suggest he would like to own himself some people. She also knows that even if the SCOTUS was made up of nine White Supremacist, they wouldn’t have the power to repeal the 13th Amendment. But then she knows that a lot of the people she is talking to at these rallies don’t know any of that.
   There was one more point worth bringing up. I did have a Hillary supporter ask me how I know that she knows all of this. I pointed out to him like I did earlier in this piece that she has been a U.S. Senator and had served as the Secretary of State and she has asked twice to be President. A big part of doing those jobs is, in fact, knowing how our government is supposed to work. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she isn’t intentionally being dishonest, does her not knowing these things make her more or less qualified?

​     I spend a lot of time watching news stories from Western Europe and the U.K. in particular, as many of the political changes in the world often manifest themselves first across the Pond before we see them here in the States. Decades ago we saw the spreading of socialism across Europe like a bad rash from summer camp. Now we see the next stages of civilizational jihad marching through the Western parts of the continent and there is no question that we here in North America are targeted for the same as what’s happening there.
  I have been saying for months now the intersectionality is doomed to fail. I have seen the signs for some time however, it wasn’t until a conversation with Don Smith of The Don Smith Show (great conservative talk show host by the way; look him up if you don’t already listen) that it clicked in my mind that there is an expiration date on the leftist alliance. But let me offer up some supporting evidence. I saw three news stories from the U.K. this past week (and no they had nothing to do with protesting President Trump’s visit) that when taken together I think demonstrates why the cobbled coalition of special interest groups will only hold together for a limited time.
   First, for the benefit of anyone who may not know, intersectionality is the idea that all of the various groups that feel they have been marginalized, persecuted, or are the victims of some form of bigotry should unite for their common good. It began as part of a feminist philosophy but was soon adopted by other leftists who saw the value of bringing these different groups together in order to push back against their common political enemy … conservatives. You see, leftists are very well read and draw tactics from many sources including Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. “The enemy of my enemy” and all that. However, there is something a little different in our modern world that Sun Tzu never had to contend with in his day, but I’ll come back to that later.
  The first of the three news stories demonstrates how the left tries to push the P.C. agenda on the rest of us. John Berkow, the speaker of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, made the statement that LQBTQ rights must always be considered as more important than religious rights. He was speaking to an organization called PinkNews when, channeling Hillary Clinton, he said that LGBTQ rights are “Human rights”. Now I would have interjected that religious rights have been considered “Human rights” throughout the Western world for better than two centuries now but I was not there. Bercow claimed to "respect people’s rights to adhere to and profess their faith," but went on to say that when "somebody’s adherence to faith on the one hand and the acknowledgment of and demonstration of respect for human rights" come into conflict, "the latter has to trump the former." In simpler terms, the LGBTQ agenda is more important than anyone’s religious liberties.
  The second story demonstrates what happens when you don’t play by their rules. Dr. David MacKereth, a 55-year-old doctor who had worked for NHS since he was 29 was fired from his job as a health and disability assessor. He had started training for the new job back in May of this year and before that he had been an Emergency ward physician. According to Mackereth, he was required to refer to patients or clients by there self-identified gender on official reports. Mackereth recalled, "I said that I had a problem with this. I believe that gender is defined by biology and genetics”. This doctor of 26 years has been relieved of his duties because he wouldn’t play along with the P.C. game on the grounds of science. Heaven forbid that a doctor might recognize, that in some cases, knowing the actual gender and having it in the report might affect outcomes. Possibly even effect life and death decisions for patients. Dr. Mackereth stated that he believed it was wrong to engage in this practice and because he challenged the purveyors of intersectionality protections he now faces the ending of his career.
  The third news story demonstrates what happens when the members of different factions come in conflict with one another. At the recent London Pride Parade, a group of “lesbian activists” disrupted the event.  It seems that the group of eight women were unhappy at the inclusion of transgender people. It would appear that these folks have come to the conclusion that trans-women are not biological women. Once you accept that basic truth you then must also accept that there are differences between biological men and biological women. To say that a man can be a woman simply because he feels that he is one is to say then that there is nothing inherently special about being a woman thereby negating female empowerment. (I think you can see how the thread continues to pull the different groups apart here.) These “activists” realized that trans-women are biological men so they are of no practical use to lesbians. Pushing an agenda that supports trans-people, at best distracts from the LGB cause and at worst works against the LGB and Third-wave feminist causes. These lesbians aren’t the first to recognize the contradictions among the coalition nor do I image they will be the last.
  Recently in Seattle, members of Antifa became at odds with members of the local members the Democratic Socialist of America when they felt betrayed as the police showed up many of the DSA left the Antifa folks to the mercy of law-enforcement. Last summer in South Carolina, at a LGBTQ parade, members of Black Lives Matter demanded that police not be involved in helping to secure the event. The organizers of the parade disagreed and there was a very loud and very public disagreement. The truth remains a simple one; all of these different groups may think of conservatives as their enemy, but their goals are not the same.
  The fundamental flaw with intersectionality as it has been made manifest under the modern leftist is something Sun Tzu never had to contend with in his day. (See, I told you I’d come back to it.) These different groups are not warriors waiting to be led into political battle by a unifying force against a common enemy. They are instead competitors in another game of the left’s creation; who’s the most oppressed, who’s the biggest victim. In the battle to show that they are the biggest victim, of capitalism, of society, of the heterosexual, cisgendered, white men, or whoever or whatever is holding them back; they must form a hierarchy and in doing so there will only be more riffs among them. It is only a matter of time before many of them will see each other as a bigger rival than conservative. And the clock is ticking.

​   There can be little doubt that President Trump has a flair for the dramatic and a talent for showmanship that has not been seen when it comes to the holder of the mantle of POTUS. And, like it or not there is one part that conservatives can take at least some joy in … it drives the Left nuts. It makes Democrat office holders, leftist in academia and the media say and do things that continue to reveal themselves to the American people in general. (A big part of the reason that #WalkAway exists.) How President Trump announced his nominee to secede Justice Kennedy on the SCOTUS is no exception.
   Donald Trump first gave a date on which he would make his choice public. Not a self-imposed deadline as many characterized it, but an opportunity to build anticipation. The President wanted a television event akin to a “Reality TV” reveal. He made sure that everyone knew who his final four happened to be, in order to keep the discussion focused on what these choices might mean to the future of the country. It pushed media personalities and left-leaning pundits to show their devotion to the so-called “progressive” agenda over adherence to the Constitution as they spoke about Brown v. Broad of Education, implying that the Mean Ole Republicans will bring back school segregation and Roe v. Wade, claiming that abortion is “settled law” (funny that none of them mentioned Citizens United during those conversations) and even talking about how dangerous Judge Amy Barrett would be as a Justice on the High Court because of her Bible study group.
   To further demonstrate the left’s opposition mindset ABC news ran a graphic calling Trump’s pick controversial, before Kavanaugh was announced. The Women's March group put out a release: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women's March released the following statement...." They put a couple of Xs in there as placeholders just waiting for a name to insert … and then they forgot to go back and put in the name. Campus Reform released a video on July 8th (meaning that it was put together days before and released the day before the announcement was made) showing college students thoughts about Trump’s pick and it’s clear that a lot of these student’s mind were already made-up on the issue.
   But, with all of that said, there does happen to be a few good reasons why conservatives might have a few reservations about the choice of Kavanaugh. In a case called Seven Sky, Kavanaugh made a strong effort to avoid jurisdiction over Obamacare by calling the “Fair-Share” fine a tax. In fact, he was the first judge to make the legal argument which opened the door for Chief Justice Roberts to find Obamacare constitutional. In another case, Priests for Life, that raises some red flags for conservatives, Kavanaugh said that the government has a “compelling interest” in provision of contraceptive coverage from employers. In Garza, a case involving the question of whether the government must provide an abortion for an illegal border crosser that was being detained awaiting a hearing, he did not join a dissent that criticized Roe v. Wade. In yet another high-profile case Kavanaugh granted standing to an atheist who was suing the government over the Pledge of Allegiance, remember that in order to have standing you must prove both that you have been damaged and that you have been targeted (or at least that used to be the legal standard). I don’t want to meet the person who has been “damaged” in any real way by the line “One nation, Under God”.
   All things considered, the Democrats should be happy with this pick from the President. He may not be a leftist activist judge which they might prefer, but he is clearly open to leftist arguments. He could very easily become a true replacement to Justice Kennedy in so much as he could be a swing vote allowing leftist policies to advance or stand when a true constitutionalist would simply vote to strike them down. Besides, it’s not like the American political left would like any of the other Judges on President Trump’s list any better (Personally I’d love Mike Lee from the Presidents list). The Democrats have to cry and moan in order to raise funds and keep the party base in activist mode but in truth, for them options don’t get any better.
   Now that I have pointed out a few concerns I’d like to add another point or two for the conservative out there who may be unhappy with the choice. First, while we may get an idea of how a judge may approach their rulings; previous decisions are not always indicative of how a Justice will act once on the SCOTUS. Second, speaking as someone who had serious concerns about Donald Trump while he was a candidate it, we should be willing to give Kavanaugh a chance to prove us right or prove us wrong. He may just surprise us all. 

​The Republicans are currently working to keep, what was to most of them, a campaign promise. The de-funding of Planned Parenthood has been talked about by Christians and Conservatives since the first of tax-payer dollars made their way to the eugenics-based organization disguised as a women’s health provider. While Christians are clear on their moral reasons and Conservatives have made compelling financial arguments for not supporting the Margaret Sanger founded abortion provider, for some reason the political left has insisted that our federal government should continue to fork over millions of dollars a year. 
Planned Parenthood for years now have been playing accounting games in order to show documentation that no American tax dollars are being spent on the abortions themselves. I would suggest that any dollar spent on any part of the organization simply allows more dollars from other, private sources to be used for abortions, therefore, all the dollars still go to help pay for the ending of innocent lives. American leftist still claim that PP does “so much more than abortions” but it doesn’t take long looking at PP’s own numbers see a very different truth. Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report shows increases in abortions and taxpayer funding and decreases in contraception, breast exams, and overall patient numbers. PP remains the largest abortion provider in the United States, having performed 328,348 abortions of unborn babies. Meanwhile, the abortion chain received more taxpayer funding. The report shows Planned Parenthood received $554.6 million, up from $553.7 million the previous year. 
Forget the racist, eugenics beginnings of Planned Parenthood, (Margaret Sanger is on record saying her “birth-control” efforts were meant to rid us of black people and other undesirables), and ask yourself why would an organization that receives so much money in the form of private donations that the nearly half billion dollars from the federal government would hardly be missed still requires such veracious defending by Democratic politicians? Every time the idea of our government ending it’s “meager” support for the illegal traffickers of embryotic tissue the false narratives about reproductive rights, women’s health, a woman’s right to choose, and the Republican’s War on Women all come out to be used as a club to silence anyone say that it’s time to end our subsidizing the murder of the unborn.
Nancy Pelosi, my personal shock that the Catholic hasn’t already excommunicated her aside, has now sunk to a new low in the battle to protect the abortion-mill. She now claims that Republicans are dishonoring God in their effort to end the practice of handing the practitioners of child sacrifice tax-payer funds. Her reasoning, (and it’s a stretch to call it that) “… So, this is God’s creation, we have a real responsibility to it…to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us…”. That’s right, Nancy Pelosi believes that PP is God’s creation and that it is doing God’s will and that we are obligated, as an act of faith, to support it. I can’t quite square that with what I know about the God of the Bible (which I’m pretty sure is the God that the Catholic Church worships) nor can I quite understand how someone who claims to be a practicing Catholic could make such an outrageous statement. 
Putting Dr. Sharon Schuetz’s suggestion that Pelosi now worships Moloch (not saying she is wrong, just putting it aside for the moment) there are sadly just a few options that make any sense. The first possibility being that Nancy has been noticing that evangelicals have been showing up at the polls much more the last two election cycles and she thinks she can somehow lure them in with her talk of God. The next possibility being that she simply knows her base and is desperate to instill the notion of normalcy of abortion among the religious, although it is entirely possible that she is merely trying to convince herself that she hasn’t sold her soul to win elections. Then there is, to my mind, the saddest of them all; the possibility that Rep. Pelosi has become so far removed from her faith that she might actually believe what she said. In an attempt to attack Republicans she has revealed that she no longer seems to have a grasp on the most basic of tenets of any denomination of the Christian faith… the sanctity of life.