Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Malthusian humanism and death education, Part II



  “I fancied myself as some kind of god.”

 – George Soros

[This is the second part in a two-part piece. The first part, which discusses cultural-transformative “death education” in public schools can be read here. The second part focuses on programs, people, and influences behind the death education movement in higher education, and the societal ramifications of such.]

“Death education, also called education about death, dying, and bereavement, is based on the belief that death-denying, death-defying, and death-avoiding attitudes and practices in American culture can be transformed…” states an article in the Encyclopedia of Death (emphasis mine). “Death education is critical for preparing professionals to advance the field and accomplish its purposes.” For school-aged children, one of those purposes is to mold America’s children “to be less afraid of death.” Ahh! What about higher education? Are our young professionals-to-be spared? The answer is no.

 Further reading in the Encyclopedia of Death reveals one of the main conductors of the death-ed movement, specifically in higher education, and exposes the movement’s nefarious underbelly; a taboo-breaking, culture-changing, social-engineering experiment on American society in order to create Utopia. “One of the stated goals,” the article reads, “of the Project on Death in America of the Open Society Institute is to ‘understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement in America” (emphasis mine). The Open Society Institute (now called Open Society Foundations) is the brain-child of George Soros, an uber-wealthy megalomaniac with Malthusian tendencies and a god-complex. It was created to advance the development of a world-wide, “open” society. In other words, the foundation serves as the means through which Soros has been meddling in (transforming) America’s culture and policies since the 1970’s.

“Choices arise which would not even have been imagined in an earlier age. Euthanasia, genetic engineering, brainwashing become problems of practical importance. The most complex human functions, such as thinking, may be broken down into their elements and artificially reproduced.” 

 -George Soros, “Opening the Soviet System” (describing his ideal open society)

The Project on Death in America – a time-limited social engineering project designed to get the ball (of death) rolling  in America – focused on “palliative care,” which the pro-suicide lobby has now transformed from meaning pain management to meaning euthanasia. During PDIA’s public unveiling at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York (1994), Soros expressed his admiration for his mother’s choice to commit suicide, and he lamented America’s medical “culture so intent on curing disease and prolonging life…” Having identified a need for professionals willing to advocate for “end of life care,” the Project on Death in America (PDIA) funded numerous efforts through their “Faculty Scholars Program,” successfully integrating death-ed into the curriculum of numerous schools in the fields of “medical ethics, medical education, economics, geriatrics, psychiatry, critical care, neurology, paediatrics, paediatric oncology, general medicine and nursing,” in addition to the arts and humanities. These “faculty scholars” are now mentoring (indoctrinating) new generations of professionals. Transforming a culture into a “death-accepting” culture – a culture with broken morals where, for example, “withholding/withdrawing nutrition & hydration” can be seen as a perfectly acceptable form of murder – requires indoctrinating the masses.

Now, consider this for a moment… What this essentially means is that at least two generations of indoctrinaires (since the late 90’s) are now practicing professionals: they are our doctors and they are our nurses… all across our country.

In collaboration with various other foundations and grant-funding organizations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), PDIA succeeded in lobbying for palliative care to be accepted as a subspecialty of medicine. In 2006, the Council of Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties recognized this new specialty, and in 2008, accreditation of training programs and certification of physicians began. Soros’s PDIA “scholars were principal investigators for many of the RWJF-funded projects” ( A single glance at the array of transformative projects that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been funding is all that one needs in order to gain an understanding of the Malthusian future in store for American Society (check out this diagram).

 “In fact, they view traditional American society as ‘the enemy,’ something to be manipulated and defeated so that their goals can be achieved.”

  Ron Panzer, Hospice Patients Alliance

Soros has gone on to fund numerous other suicide lobbying groups, all having disarming names. “Compassion and Choices,” for example, has been especially active in the pro-death movement. Ever-aware of societal challenges, the 2008 Compassion and Choices annual report bragged about having “successfully changed more than 200 headlines from ‘Assisted-Suicide’ to ‘Aid in Dying’ or ‘Death with Dignity’” (Capital Research Center).

 The deceptive, euphemistic language, however, isn’t restricted to titles of pro-death organizations. The entire language of our discussions of such subjects has been steered by empty pleasantries of truth-concealing, linguistic propaganda.  Words and phrases such as death with dignity, employed in the stead of truthful words – suicide, euthanasia, or even murder – are nothing more than lies “dressed in the language of euthanasia advocates,” as Michael Brendan Dougherty from National Review puts it (as in the case of 10 month old Charlie Gard). “The tongue is a small thing, but what enormous damage it can do. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark,” (James 3:5).

 “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.”

– Proverbs 16:31

What exactly does euthanasia have to do with an open society? In 1984, the then Colorado Gov. said, in reference to the elderly, “You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way… Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.” Quite simply put, in the kind of open society that the many utopian central-planners envision, a right to die becomes a duty to die (more specifically, a duty to die cheaply). As the very wise Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. explained in Slouching Towards a Duty to Die, “death is the ultimate and most efficient form of rationing.” “Article after article, in the medical literature have subtly and not-so-subtly extolled the virtues of utilitarian (collectivist) ethics in its various incarnations, e.g.. population-based medicine, shared ethics, futility of care, distributive ethics, and the like,” he continued. “All of these proposals seek to submerge the heretofore supremacy of the individual-based ethics of Hippocrates for a collectivist (authoritarian) ethic in which the physician is no longer beholden to his individual patients, but to the greater, collectivist good of society,” just as the physicians in Nazi Germany became active participants in the “science of killing” (Ktenology) for the good of society, for the health of the German nation, Dr. Faria explains. This is precisely the direction that George Soros and other utopian central-planners are steering us; toward repetition of the Nuremburg war crimes, but on a global scale.

 Think this is just hyperbole? Let’s examine a few examples:

  1. The Netherlands [Jane Doe (info kept private)]: This year, a Dutch court cleared a doctor of wrongdoing in the case of an elderly woman living in a nursing home who “fought desperately in an attempt not to be killed.” Facing resistance from the victim, the doctor drugged her coffee. Still, when the doctor attempted to administer the lethal injection, the victim resisted. The doctor then solicited the help of family members in holding the victim down. You can’t make this stuff up! The Netherlands is a good example of the slippery slope from euthanasia to legalized state-sanctioned murder. For example, in 1990, 4,941 people were euthanized without their consent!
  2. United Kingdom [Charlie Guard, Age 10 months]: A terminally ill infant was, essentially, sentenced to death by the Europe’s Human Rights Court. Charlie’s parents sought to transfer Charlie to a hospital here in America for an experimental treatment that has helped some patients with Charlie’s type of condition, though not as severe. Instead, the court ordered Charlie’s life support (ventilator) be disconnected. The utilitarian outlook that has taken over in Britain, with its National Health Services, is evident in a piece published by The Independent in which the author briefly acknowledges the secular, Utilitarian argument for terminating life-sustaining care, stating “Other very sick children with a better chance of life, it might have been argued, had a greater claim to a finite and expensive resource.” Charlie’s parents, through private citizen donations, have raised all of the necessary funds in order to pay for Charlie’s transfer and experimental treatment, without needing public funds. Nevertheless, the courts have declared that Charlie must die.
  3. United Kingdom [Patrick Pullicino]: Dr. Pullicino has cited a lack of clear guidelines for placing patients on the “Liverpool Care Pathway” (LCP) – the creepy name for a program for terminally ill patients – as leading to the premature placement of thousands of elderly people onto the LCP… in what amounts to a death sentence. Pulllicino cited pressure on the number of beds as one reason for the thousands of premature LCP placements. Sadly, the elderly aren’t the only victims of NHS rationing.
  4.  Reno, Nevada [Brian Callister]: Callously taking the lead from Britain’s NHS, several American insurance companies have stopped paying for some life-saving, curative procedures. While they won’t pay for you to be cured, they will pay for you to kill yourself, as Dr. Brian Callister was shocked to find out. He had attempted to transfer two of his patients to other states to undergo life-saving medical procedure. However, since those states (California & Oregon) allow doctor-assisted suicide, the insurance companies decided death was easier on the companies’ pocket books. Let this serve as a reminder that there is a very big difference between health insurance and health care.
  5. Oregon [Nora Harris]: Nora was diagnosed in 2009, with early onset Alzheimer’s at age 56. Mentally incompetent, but fully conscious, Nora needed to be spoon-fed. While Mrs. Harris has filed paperwork indicating she did not wish to receive a feeding tube, but she did not ask to be starved and deprived water while still capable of eating and drinking. A failed lawsuit by her husband Bill – which attempted to force Nora’s care facility to deprive her of food and water – prompted the creation of a legislative bill that just recently passed in Oregon’s Senate. The bill essentially removes the legal safeguard’s that prohibit medical representatives from ending the life of mentally-incompetent, non-dying, conscious adults.
  6. California [Stephanie Packer, Age 33]: Diagnosed with scleroderma, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes scar tissue to form in her lungs, at the age of 29, the married mother has already outlived the 3 years her doctor expected her to. Stephanie is, unfortunately, finding little to no support for her hard fight to stay alive and with four children (aged 7-13). “In June [2016], her home state of California enacted a law permitting doctor-assisted suicide. And something terrible happened. Premature passing away with medical help is now widely seen as preferable to painful, prolonged living, Packer says. But she’ll fight to live with every last labored gasp drawn from her oxygen tube before ultimately accepting a natural end.”

 “I have to concentrate on what goes on in America. The fight for an open society now has to be fought there.” 

– George Soros, 2003

To turn our eyes away, to ignore crimes against our nation’s morality would be a travesty. James Madison said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” What is happening to American society is nothing less than theft – the theft of our conscience through so-called death education. Thieves come only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10). To steal the God-given, blood-earned conscience of America is to steal freedom’s last safe place in this world. With the efforts of those who seek to continue the acidic erosion of America’s conscience steadily increasing, we must be vigilant to guard our hearts. Hold your conscience close, guarding it from those who seek to destroy our culture. Talk with your children about what they are learning in school. And, most importantly, never allow yourself to forget the value of each and every human life. America, and her cultural conscience must never be stolen. Guard her and keep her safe. As Samuel Adams said…

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” (Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776).


Resources for further of this topic are listed below.

Stealth Euthenasia: Health Care Tyranny in America, Hospice Patients Alliance:

Hospice Patients Alliance:

Panel clears Dutch doctor who asked family to hold patient down as she carried out euthanasia procedure, The Telegraph:

Right to Die Can Become Duty to Die, the Telegraph:

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide, Daily Signal:

Encyclopedia of Death: 

NHS rationing ‘is denying patients care’ as cash crisis deepens, The Guardian:

Oregon Senate votes to allow dementia patients to be starved to death,

Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year, Daily Mail:

The Instincts of Charlie Gard’s Parents Should Echo in the Courts, the Independent:

The Vatican’s Statement on the Charlie Gard Case Is a Disgrace, National Review:

Terminally ill mom denied treatment coverage — but gets suicide drug approved, New York Post:

Thousands in Netherlands Die Without Consent Since Euthanasia OK,

Gov. Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have ‘Duty To Die’, New York Times:

Slouching Towards a Duty to Die:

The Duty to Die Cheaply:

Anne McTavish Neatherlands’ Euthenasia Stats are Appauling:

Oregon Bill Would Allow Starvation of Alzheimer’s Patients, Could Set Up Death Panels\

George Soros, Godfather of the Left Gives $550 Million to Liberal Causes:

Op-Ed: Selling suicide with George Soros’ money:

Against a duty to die, AMA Journal of Ethics:

The Project on Death In America:

Is there a duty to die?:

Approaching Death:

AUTHOR Bennett^ Roger V,
TITLE Death and the Curriculum,
NOTE 18p,; Paper presented at the American Educational
Eesearch Association Meeting (Chicago^ April 15-19 1974)

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
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control




The issue of security is a serious matter, we should be following the realistic examples of what works to keep our children safe.

So what is the best way to protect people from evil? Taking a page from ranchers or other rural folk who need to protect their flocks from predation may be the best way of figuring this out. We know what doesn’t work, and that would be depriving the people of their liberty of self-preservation. But this doesn’t stop the left from obsessing over inanimate object control. This is a futile pursuit since even in an environments where the Liberty of self-defense is heavily controlled, shootings still take place.

It would be far better if we did not need these measures, but the Socialist-Left has insisted upon tearing down the country’s moral underpinnings to replace them with it’s vile collectivist ideals. So we have to decide the best way to protect from that which the enemies of Liberty on the Left have imposed on the nation. The fact of the matter is that these commonly held arms have been around for over 100 years while these attacks are of a more recent phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It’s Not A Growing Epidemic as reported on Left-Leaning NPR.

Examine how is security provided in other fields to decide what Will Work.

As has been always the case, Liberty control will not work because evil will always find a way to kill. Witness recent events in Austin, Texas where bombs replaced guns in bringing on terror. Even if guns could be wiped from existence criminals, terrorist or governments would find a way to deliberately slaughter people. Therefore the choice is that of restoring our moral underpinnings or providing new guards for our security. While the national socialist Left still holds sway over the culture, media and government indoctrination centres that necessary restoration will have to wait. So the only realistic option is one of armed, on-scene responders to protect our most precious resource.

Similar circumstances teach the best forms of security: The example of livestock control and protection.

Law enforcement personal are often referred to ‘sheepdogs’. They maintain control over crowds of people in varying situations while also protecting them. We can extend this analogy further as a way of illustrating the way to keep people safe from predation. Ranchers have two main types of animals to assist them, for control they use the venerable herding breeds of dogs ranging from the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Corgi, Sheltie, etc. To protect them they also have animals commonly referred to as Livestock guardians. These range from special breeds of livestock guardian dogs to Llamas or Donkeys. They normally live with the flock to provide around the clock protection. They also blend in with it to a certain extent so that the predators cannot single them out.

Guardian protect the flock while sheepdogs maintain control.

In both situations it’s the guardians who blend in and are always on the scene in case of attack. With the ‘flocks’ of humans, the guardians are the people carrying concealed weapons. Those bent on evil don’t know who this may be, their numbers or location. The element of uncertainty keeps the human predators at bay. By contrast the sheepdogs usually stand out in a crowd. While they also offer a deterrent effect, this can be negated by their visibility. They can also be targeted first in an attack to defeat that layer of security.

In the world of the rancher attempting to both protect his (or her) flock, they have the sheepdogs to move and control the flock while the guardians protect it. The sheepdogs do offer a layer of protection, but they cannot be present all the time. It’s the livestock guardians who bond with the flock who protect it around the clock.

The Takeaway.

Recent events illustrated that it’s impossible to keep people safe by banning guns or any other Liberty control measures. The only way to keep them safe in the immoral environment brought on by the Left, is to have both uniformed law enforcement and those carrying concealed on site as dual layers of defence. Merely decreeing a ‘Gun-Free’ zone or banning firearms are dangerous notions that do not work. These fanciful Leftist constructs only serve to deprive the innocent of the Liberty of self-defence and do nothing but raise the body count.

Continue Reading

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

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.