Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Students: It’s okay to kill toddlers



If you’ve ever seen “Naked Gun 33 1/3,” you’ll remember the “Thelma and Louise-esque” spoof scene following “Jane’s” (Priscilla Presley’s) stun-gun takedown of an overly friendly, redneck trucker. Jane’s gal pal rushes to Jane’s aid and, grabbing her firmly by the shoulders in overly-dramatic style, attempts to quite literally shake some sense into the now murderous Jane. While Jane’s loyal friend diligently shakes Jane with melodramatic gusto, the darling Jane’s hairstyles keep magically changing with each firm jolt. It always makes me laugh. Watch:

Well, that very movie scene has been replaying in my mind for the past few minutes as I attempt to mentally digest the behemothic amount of deleterious imbecility I have just observed, courtesy of a University of Tennessee – Knoxville student. I’d like to get into my car, drive myself all the way to the other side of the state, find that young man, and then give him a good, hard shake by the shoulders until his hairstyles start changing a few times!

In an interview with Students for Life of America’s Appalachian Regional Coordinator, Brenna Lewis, the UT student, the stultus magna – “great fool” – announced his support for infanticide… for the infanticide of two-year-old children. Lord help us! There is trouble in Rocky Top! (Or, at the minimum, there’s yet another prime specimen proving himself fit to wear orange – that is, UT orange.) To be honest, as an aunt, this makes me a bit nervous, considering UT-Knoxville will be gaining my smart, hard-working, handsome and precious nephew this coming fall. Is apathy toward infanticide a standard part of the curriculum?  But, I digress…

Though alarming, this college student’s morbid apathy toward the murder of toddlers is not the real problem here. What should haunt every American in our beds at night – shaking us awake with night sweats and parched mouths – is this college student’s colossal, stupefying and credulous stupidity? I recognize the harshness of this statement: I am identifying a young man, a college student as ignorant. My statement is not sweet or nice.  Then again, a mindset that is accepting of the killing of children is not a sweet or nice mindset.  So, please, make no mistakes about my sincerity regarding this matter. Though harsh, I mean every single word.

Let’s examine why…

Evidence for Ignorance:

Stultus Magna’s argument in concurrence with infanticide appears, based on observation, to be a result of (a) his painfully obvious inability to exercise critical thinking or deductive reasoning, or to merely formulate cognizant, coherent assumptions and conclusions; and (b) his preoccupation with an erroneous understanding of “sentience.” It can also be said that this college student appears to be unaware of the various modes of communication that humans have employed for millennia; both verbal and nonverbal. Thus, in essence, this poor young man is essentially functioning as a highly literate moron; it is as if he were little more than a trained monkey banging together two brass symbols. A loyal pup, Stultus Magna simply follows the script of the academic bioethicists, the death educators, and the Malthusian euthanasia enthusiasts. Original thoughts are for the birds.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, online, has an excellent explanation of what it means to be sentient. After watching the video of this college student (below) and given the easily comprehensible concept of sentience (quoted below), we can confidently declare Stultus Magna to be ignorant regarding the term’s meaning; ignorant beyond a reasonable doubt.

“You may have guessed that sentient has something to do with the senses. The initial spelling sent- or sens- is often a giveaway for such a meaning. A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. Sentient ultimately comes from the Latin verb sentire, which means ‘to feel’ and is related to the noun sensus, meaning ‘feeling’ or ‘sense.’ A few related English words are sentiment and sentimental, which have to do with emotions, and sensual, which relates to more physical sensations.”


If an infant is hungry, does he not feel that hunger? If so, is he not sentient? Will the hungry infant cry out to be fed? If the infant does cry out to be fed, is not this cry a form of communication?

If a toddler falls upon rough pavement, will she cry? If she cries, are not her cries a form of communication?

Do some young children, not yet verbal, attending day care not bite peers in frustration? Would this be an expression of nonverbal communication, as well as a clear indication of emotion?

Would not each example above clearly indicate sentience?

The Science:

The Child Development Institute’s 2017 chart, “Ages and Stages: Birth to 5 Years,” provides examples of typical behaviors observed in young children in several developmental categories (also referred to as domains): physical, linguistic, emotional, social. As stated on the chart, babies 2-3 months in age smile [at faces], and babies 4-6 months of age visibly “enjoy being cuddled.” At 7-9 months old, a child “protests separation from mother,” and “enjoys peek-a-boo.” Between the ages of 10months to 1 year, children will begin to show “fear of strangers,” and will respond to his name, wave goodbye, understand the meaning of “no,” and play Pat-A-Cake. At 18 months, those infamous temper tantrums begin. Combined, a clear progression of development emerges: the development of clearly sentient little people.

In my years of teaching, every child who passed through my preschool classroom knew the difference between a toddler and a tree, between a two-year-old and a plant – an ability that Stultus Magna, on video, declared himself to be without. Not once have I met a Kindergartener who believed toddlers were incapable of communication, regardless whether that communication was done in verbal or nonverbal fashion. Not a single precious first grader was foolish enough to consider toddlers or infants to be anything other than, as I put into the adult language of this subject, conscious persons, responsive to sensory input, persons capable of experiencing and communicating emotions. Kids get it! I’ll say that again- kids get it!

 Are we being untaught?

My Junior-Kindergarten students may not have been able to button their pants or tie their shoes, but every one of those awesome little kiddos was a thousand times more intelligent than this UT student. So, what’s the deal? How can a simple concept – the sentience of a human being, a concept so easily understood by children – prove so difficult for adults to comprehend? Is it perhaps possible that adults might be unlearning the obvious? Are we perhaps being taught, being instructed in the denial of our own senses? I believe the possibility should at least be considered.

Stultus Magna isn’t the only articulate, young, credulous college student to use sentience as an acceptable excuse for ending another’s life. The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) is a conservative college student organization that often hosts speakers at various college campuses. At a YAF question and answer session following his speech, conservative thinker Ben Shapiro was approached by a student who used sentience to justify abortion. The exchange is quite interesting in several ways: (a) it demonstrates how easy it is to disintegrate any argument which is in congruence with justifying the ending a life on the grounds of sentience(b) the video serves as evidence that young people are being instructed in intellectually weak, insubstantial theories and that educators are not providing the proper, academically necessary activity of weighing, examining, and deconstructing those theories; (c) the video is also chilling in its foreshadowing: as we sadly now see, thanks in part to Stultus Magna, sentience is now being used to justify the killing of post-birth humans. Watch:

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” 
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works

Being instructed in weak, insubstantial theories have very real consequences long term, as do misunderstanding of or changes to the meaning of words. The demonstrated elephantine, deleterious ignorance may be a luxury for Stultus Magna, a grown adult, but it is precisely this very willful idiocy and a baneful dose of toxic apathy that is dangerously raising the stakes for our society’s toddlers. Ignorance has raised the stakes to life or death. Accepting infanticide can only come from a hypnosis-like idiocy. Stultus Magna is a young man whose mind has been infected with relativism, as he has quite evidently been taught to deny and to second-guess what his own eyes can see. Stultus Magna may be one student, but, in our tragic reality, he in many, many students. He is a generation untaught.

The plight of Stultus Magna is unacceptable ignorance, life-changing ignorance, and, potentially, life-ending ignorance.  Think about that…

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading


  1. ed

    January 5, 2018 at 9:47 pm

    Well said.

    Amen !


    Thank you for posting this.

    • Paige Rogers

      January 6, 2018 at 1:18 am

      Thank you, Ed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.