Matt Cassady: Conservatives, Keepin’ It Classy

Freedom of Speech is important when the Left needs it to make a point.

Yet, despite the extreme offensiveness behind a spiteful message directed at President Trump, conservatives continue to keep it classy.


Location:  Fort Bend County, Texas. 

Situation A sheriff posts a picture on his Facebook page of an anti-Trump decal on a pickup truck, asking for community help to find the owner. 

While the Left has carried out numerous attacks on free speech by assaulting Trump supporters, rioting on college campuses and staging violent protests, it seems liberals are poking fun at conservatives offended by a decal on the back of a pickup truck.

A decal which reads, “F— Trump and F— you for voting for him!” 

Texas resident, Karen Fonseca, has gone on record stating while she understands how some could be offended by the message, due to its vulgarity, she nor her husband apologize for it.

PHOTO: Karen Fonseca

Fort Bend County Sheriff, Troy E. Nehls, posted a picture of Fonseca’s truck on his personal Facebook page; asking for the community’s help in locating her. The sheriff stated he had received numerous complaints about it and wanted to discuss it with the vehicle owner(s). According to Nehls, he was concerned about the possible harm it could cause to the driver or someone offended by the message.

As he explained, “Those are fighting words. Because now you’re challenging an individual. You’re focused on that one person. Because it says ‘F-you for voting for him’. And that person gets offended, and all of a sudden screaming and yelling. Then the local sheriff’s office or local police get called, now you have a breach of the peace. ”

The sheriff had made comments about charging Fonseca with ‘disorderly conduct’ siting context which falls under the charge

“(a) a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” 

Fonseca stated she was irritated by the sheriff’s post, referring to it as an invasion of privacy. And, to no surprise, the ACLU was quick to react, stating the officer as trying to violate her right to free speech.

Yet, in a day and age of camera phones and social media, no one’s safe from becoming a possible spectacle over the internet.  And, if Fonseca didn’t want to draw attention to herself, perhaps it would’ve been best to not display a decal with the F-word listed twice.


It’s ironic to hear liberals call conservatives snowflakes; especially after the numerous ways they’ve tried to silence Republican supporters from speaking (does Berkley ring a bell?).

In fact, the election introduced a new term to the American public called ‘safe spaces’.

Special rooms designed for liberals to retreat and sort out their hurt feelings.

Feelings not hurt as a result of name-calling or belittling their intelligence but to escape those with opposing viewpoints.


Yet, despite the offensive decal, based on Fonseca’s own statements, no conservative attacked her or caused damage to her pickup.

The Left-wing progressive stated the decal had been on the truck for more than a year without incident.

Keep in mind, she and her husband live in Texas; a Right-wing conservative state and NO ONE attacked her or her husband. She told reporters both her and her husband have been driving the pickup out in public for months and this was the first time anyone had expressed – to them – of having an issue with it.

Do you think a Trump supporter would’ve been so lucky displaying an offensive decal on their vehicle condemning former Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton?

As history reminds us, that vehicle would’ve likely ended up in a junkyard flatten like a pancake.


So, are liberals right to call conservatives snowflakes over the decal? Let’s consider the following:

First, the profanity. 

Why should children be subjected to the vulgar language which parents generally discipline their kids over?

It’s likely parents who also voted for Hillary took offense to the message as well.

It’s difficult for parents to explain why the ADULT driving the pickup has such unrefined language displayed on their rear window. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. While the Fonseca’s have the right to display their disgust for President Trump, it certainly could’ve been done without the extreme profanity to make their point.

Second, the message it sends to their children. 

As the old saying goes, ‘The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’. 

According to reports, Fonseca has 12 kids. While she doesn’t have to support the outcome of the election, it’s important she and her husband consider the message they’re sending to their children. Fonseca’s actions and response to ‘not getting her way’ will be seen by their children.

Keep in mind, the younger a person is, the more reactive they are. A teen can rationalize a scenario better than a toddler, but an adult can rationalize a scenario better than a teenager. The older one gets, the more rational they generally become – not in all cases, but most.

Therefore, a parent’s actions are extremely important in terms of how their children interpret how to handle conflict and disappointment.

As the Fonseca’s are discovering, throwing a temper tantrum has changed nothing.

Third, it’s just plain hateful.

Their approach is extremely spiteful, showing a complete lack of judgment.

When someone’s overly emotional, self-centered and defensive, rational thinking becomes clouded.

It’s obvious Fonseca and her husband didn’t consider many parents – on both sides of the political aisles – might take offense to their children being exposed to their decal. It seems being offensive is – for some people – the correct way to protest.

It’s apparent the Fonseca’s didn’t care what others think and, likely, were hoping it would offend Trump supporters. As a means to ‘stick it to them’. 

Plus, as Karen mentioned, she receives compliments from total strangers. Yet, while it may be judgmental to ask, exactly what types of people are patting the Fonseca’s on the back?


In the end, justice was served.

As a result of the officer’s post, Karen was found and authorities discovered she had an outstanding warrant for fraud.

If the Fonseca’s don’t understand how words impact people’s behaviors and actions, perhaps they’ll at least consider not doing or saying anything which may draw attention, especially when they’re wanted by the law.

In the meantime, conservatives … keep it classy.


Matthew Cassady: Hitting Women Back

It was a right hook which one entitled young women received, teaching her “when you hit someone, you’re likely to get hit back”. 

A viral video, now at the center of controversy, spawning a nationwide debate which challenges traditional social norms around gender.


THE DATE: November 4, 2017

THE PLACE:  Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, Florida

On a beautiful Florida afternoon, the Miami Hurricanes faced off against the Virginia Tech Hokies. Throughout the game, a Miami fan, Bridget Frietas, consumed a lot of alcohol. Reports indicate she was running high on ‘liquid courage’, and began getting belligerent with some fans in her section; screaming a number of profanities at them.

Four officers were called to the section where the 30-year-old Hispanic woman was seated.

Authorities attempted to escort her to the nearest corridor to speak with her. Yet, intoxicated and running high on emotion, she refused to leave. Following several requests, the four officers, along with two men and one woman, lifted Freitas up over their shoulders and began to carry her up the stairs to the corridor.

Freitas was not going out without a fight – which she now understands was a big mistake. She kicked and waved her arms while being carried up the stairs to the corridor. During her temper tantrum she slapped Miami-Dade Detective, Douglas Ross, who was retraining her right leg; immediately afterward, Ross’s fist connected with the right side of Freitas’ face, knocking her back like a rag doll.

Freitas has been charged with felony battery on a police officer and disorderly conduct misdemeanor. Reports do not indicate she spent any time in jail.

The cop, of course, is on a temporary suspension following an investigation.

Based on initial responses over social media, it appears the majority of comments lean heavily in the officer’s favor. People saw a woman, acting like a brat, being carried out like one, get serve a mouth-full of justice.

Could this be a possible sign our culture has woke to what a genderless society looks like? What equality across the board really means?

It certainly begs the question; should there be exceptions to how genders are treated?


For centuries men were taught to honor and protect women.

When instances of women being physically assault happened, society was quick to come down harshly on the male abuser. If a man was caught doing something inappropriate – such as a husband cheating on his wife – she could slap him and be applauded for standing up for herself.

In instances where a man physically assaulted a woman, he would be viewed as a ‘weak’ and classified as a ‘bully’, drawing a plethora of insults. This cultural norm, I do believe, is still present in our nation today.

Again, the original expectation was for men to honor, respect and protect women. Not use their size to intimidate and force them into submission. And, if a woman were to get upset and slap a man, generally the assumption was he was asking for it.


The feminist movement helped further women’s causes and, as a result, leveled the playing field. 

Aside from the random male chauvinist, the majority of men are supportive of women equal rights.

Yet, today, not everyone is on the same page when it comes to physical retaliation against women. The third wave feminism movement has complicated the matter. While there’s no argument it’s NEVER acceptable to hit a woman out of anger or while being verbally provoked, the debate is whether a man should have the right to retaliate if a woman initiates an assault on him first.

With equality being the focal point of the feminist movement, it seems many were under the impression certain privileges still applied.

Many feminist still believe they have the privilege of hitting a man for whatever reason she deems fit, expecting no physical retaliation. This was not part of the initial ‘equality’ standards they advocated to acquire.

This is comparable to accepting a higher paying job and not realizing what responsibilities came along with it. The employee does not have the right to pick and choose which duties to perform in their new position. The responsibilities are the same across the board for whoever is offered the position. Duties are not simply altered as a result of gender, race or sexual identification.

In the past, many women would use their gender to carry out physical assaults, knowing both men and women would come to their aid should their male victim retaliate. The irony is the present-day feminist push for a genderless society while retaining certain privileges bestowed to their gender.

So where does this leave us as a nation?

Is it more important to focus on the creation of a genderless society? Or, should American culture work harder to remind men how to treat a lady and simultaneously teach women the importance of respecting men?

Matt Cassady: Left Pushes Abortion on Teen Immigrant

It was billed as a Trump-led war on women and immigrants. 

However, wording and facts are integral to getting the whole story.

Before we begin, the backstory.


In September, a 17-year-old teen – from somewhere in Central America – attempted to illegally cross into Texas from Mexico. 

The undocumented teen was apprehended by U.S. border security and taken into custody. She was transported to a U.S. government-funded shelter.

There’s no confirmation if she was traveling alone or with other people.

Initial reports indicate she had no family traveling with her and none were living close to the facility where she was staying.

So there’s your backstory. Now, the issue. 

The Issue

Once at the shelter, the young teen received a medical exam.

After being examined, it was discovered she was 15-weeks pregnant. Reports indicate she was surprised by the news and requested an abortion. 

Texas state law doesn’t permit minors to get an abortion without parental consent.

If a minor doesn’t have parents or guardians to represent them, the law requires they seek approval from a state judge. The ACLU presented her case before a Texas court who approved her request. 

That’s when Trump Administration officials stepped in and appealed the original ruling. 

Reason for Interference

Constitutional Rights 

ACLU lawyers, representing the foreign teen, argued her constitutional rights were being violated.

While women have the constitutional right to abort ( kill ) their children in the United States, the RIGHT refers to legal American citizens. Undocumented immigrants don’t have the “constitutional right”. Oddly, ACLU lawyers apparently weren’t aware of this as this was their initial defense. 

Due to President Trump’s stance on abortion, and the fact the girl was residing in a federally-funded shelter, the government wasn’t jumping up and down to help facilitate an abortion. Quite the opposite. 

Undocumented and Illegal

The undocumented teen came to the United States illegally, refused to leave and demanded America help her obtain an abortion. 

Originally, a federal appeals court ruled if the girl can get someone to sponsor her, then the government would release her to the sponsor’s custody. However, if the girl was not able to get a sponsor by October 31, an appeals court would be ready to rule in favor of the immigrant getting an abortion regardless where she resided. In that event, the government would have been allowed to appeal the decision one more time. 

Sadly, a federal appeals courts sided with the ACLU on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, to allow the girl to get an abortion. As of Wednesday, October 25, 2017, the baby was aborted. Nine-weeks living in a womb and the child was killed and carcass removed from the mother’s womb.

Aside from liberals simply pushing their ‘My body, my choice to kill a baby‘ agenda, some medical professionals were urgent to get the teen to an abortion clinic more sooner than later.

Why the Rush?

When the teen was detained and transferred to the Texas federal shelter, she was 15-weeks pregnant.

If she were to have reached 20-weeks pregnant, per Texas state law, she would not have been able to get an elective abortion. She would have had to travel to another state which permits abortions over 20 weeks. 

Plus, medical physicians supporting the teen’s wish to obtain an abortion said the longer the teen waited the riskier the abortion procedure will have on her life.

While this may be true, it’s also true the child inside the womb was going to be executed. Yet, there are three liberal-conceived reasons to rush this abortion. 

Health Is At Risk If Not Done Soon

As already mentioned, supposedly this young immigrant’s life is at risk if she was denied getting an abortion soon.

The ACLU constructed the narrative it’s a ‘now or never‘ dire situation.

The Left doesn’t even consider the option of her having the child. Why not? At this stage, much of the baby is formed. Therefore, another option could have been carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. 

But wait …

Health Is At Risk If Not Done Soon 

The young immigrant’s life had even a greater chance to experience complications if she should go through and have the baby. 

While there’s research to support the reality of potential pregnancy complications, some can be predicted which help prepare doctors and nurses when the time comes to deliver or, sometimes complications cannot be foreseen and happen in the heat of the moment. Yet, this certainly doesn’t justify killing a child. 

While complications may be a reality, it’s also a reality the mother will – LIKELY –  deliver her child without any. 

In this specific case, no medical professional had come forward to say this immigrant ‘could’ or ‘is likely’ to die giving birth. The statement was just used to create an urgency to get the abortion done. There’ was the only speculation she ‘may‘ have complications if she doesn’t get the abortion soon or if she carries the baby to term. 

Yet, there’s one more reason for the Left to push this girl to get an abortion.

The Agenda

The groups supporting this girl are ones who want ‘abortion on demand‘ to continue being the law of the land. 

With so much ruckus over the issue, the Left could not simply give in. Not just because they despised Trump, but more so it’s vital to the Left’s narrative there’s ‘no other option’ when – in fact – there was. 

The girl in question chose to engage in intercourse and found herself pregnant. 

Her situation falls within the majority of women who have had abortions; a decision to preserve a lifestyle and negate responsibility.

The ACLU had even gone to further lengths to distract viewers stating, ‘Hundreds of girls in federal shelters are pregnant’. To further the victimhood of the immigrant, ACLU members added, ‘Many have been raped while migrating to the U.S.’.

While both statements may be true the point about rape doesn’t apply to the girl’s situation. Yet, to draw sympathy, it was mentioned. 

In Summary

This is a prime example of the Left manipulating judges and society into believing abortion is a ‘necessary‘ action which needs to supposedly remain legal.

The angle used in this case as ‘urgency due to the girl’s health possibly being in danger‘. Thier limited understanding believed there were no other options available in this girl’s case. Throughout this case, the ACLU interchanged ‘abortion‘ with such terms as ‘treatment‘ and ‘procedure‘ in an attempt to persuade the so-called necessity to kill the innocent child.

If one did not know any better, they would have the young teen needed a tumor removed. Something which requires a ‘procedure‘, ‘surgery‘, and ‘treatment‘.  Yet, if a human being is growing and developing inside, it too can apparently be demonized as a cancerous tumor which needs to be removed – for the sake of a lifestyle.

Matt Cassady: The Right To Kill Your Equal

We all enter the world through a woman and (spoiler alert) everyone dies.

Regardless how you exit this world (natural causes or freak accident) no human being’s immortal. We’re all here today and gone tomorrow.


Aside from various man-created hierarchies, are there any universal categories to determine who’s greatest amongst us? 

Today, people judge others on:

• What family they come from?
• Their level of attractiveness?
• What occupation they have?
• How financially stable they are?

All these categories are based on one person’s opinion over another’s. Yet, they’re all shallow reasons and, in the end, everyone’s time runs out. 

How are Value and Worth Determined for Human Beings?

Considering how fragile life is, it’s almost comical how one human being believes they have the right to determine the value of another fellow human on genetics alone.

If everyone comes into the world through a woman – and eventually dies – how can any human lay claim to be superior over another? No one’s immortal. Everyone’s life expectancy is around 80 – 100 years. Therefore, the only way anyone can claim dominance over another is through complete ignorance.

Like members of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).

Each member of the white supremacy group arrived into the world through a woman and eventually will die, exactly like the very people they hate. Therefore, only through complete ignorance handed down from generation to generation would members of the KKK believe they’re superior over anyone.

Adolf Hitler believed the Arian race was superior to any other. Yet,  the 1936 Olympics and World War II revealed the Arian race wasn’t, in fact, the most superior race. A reality Hitler came to terms with moments before taking his own life. 

It poses the question, “How could white supremacy groups or the Nazi’s believe their lives were more valuable than those they oppressed?” 

We All Endure The Same Process

Keep in mind, everyone goes through the same process.

Regardless what stage of development a person is, humans will go through a number of development stages beginning with conception, then birth, transitioning into a toddler, then an adolescent, and before you know it, the teen years arrive (which every parent loves), adulthood, and eventually we get really, really old.  It’s the same process for everyone. 

Now those who want to believe conception is nothing more than a group of cells, they have to understand something cannot develop from nothing.

An egg and sperm separate from each other are just that – an egg and a sperm. Yet, put them together, they begin the process of LIFE. Just like planting a seed and watering it. 

Criteria For Abortion

Criteria used to justify abortion is, ironically, not about the EQUALITY feminist scream about. 

First, they attempt to justify an abortion with size, using the ‘clump of cells’ theory. If this is a real criteria to measure everyone by, it leads to more questions than answers. For example, is an average height man/woman equal or greater than a little person? Using this as criteria is discriminating and demeaning. Does height and weight determine how HUMAN one is?

What about environment? Is personhood determined if one is outside or inside a house? Is the one outside the house more human than the one inside? Again, that is a ridiculous analogy to base someone’s humanity on.



What Technology Can’t Confirm

With the latest advancements in medical technology, we’re able to see a child inside the womb. Technology can identify many physical traits of a child before they come into the world.


Yet, what technology cannot determine is the value and worth of a child.

Currently, no machine exists which can identify a child’s real potential to either be a benefit or burden on society.

Studies confirm the majority of abortions are single moms who prefer a future without the inconvenience of a child. Which begs the question, “What’s so important in a woman’s life who elects to have their baby’s life end?”


What’s so important in the mother’s future which warrants all distractions be eliminated?

Will her important plans have a long-term effect on society – even after she passes away? Is she working on a cure for cancer? Will she be able to figure out how to repair the ozone layer? Or, is her decision self-serving?


False Narrative Claims Baby is Part of Mother

The “My Body My Choice” Delusion

And- REALITY CHECK – even if those scenarios were actually the case, guess what, she could have the child and still pursue her passion. 

What pro-choice supporters refer to as “justifications” are actually lame excuses to manipulate themselves into believing they’re doing some type of justice for the world, especially the most manipulating reason ever, “I just couldn’t bring that not wanting to bring the child into this world to save it from potential suffering.”

Can Value Be Determined Inside Woman’s Womb?

In determining if a life will be a benefit or a burden on society, some type of special characteristic or trait would need to be identified early on while a child was still in the womb, perhaps through an advanced ultrasound.

Ultrasounds which could zero in on certain character traits in determining the child’s overall benefit or threat.

At the present time, ultrasounds only determine we’re all the same, that we’re all, in fact, equal. Which means, to have an unborn fetus killed is to pretend you have the right to know they’ll be more of a burden on your life, and the false truth your life is so important than theirs.

As Americans, we’re granted the right to life, not the right for a convenient life. Our life is determined by the choices we make.

Who Should Die?

Those who murder don’t respect life. Therefore, they’re not worthy to keep theirs! Murderers choose to kill for their own personal reasons.


They’re people who kill their genetic equals.

If someone chooses not to respect the life of their genetic equal (i.e., serial killers) then it’s justified to have that person executed. Why? Because they infringe on another human being’s right to life.

During trials, there’s a point where family members and friends are allowed to share their pain with the killer. Generally, during those testimonies, those who speak try to humanize victims in an effort to shame and guilt killers.

Yet, when it comes to abortion, the goal is to dehumanize the infant in the womb. 

So, murdering outside the womb comes with consequences, yet if the child’s inside a womb, U.S. lawmakers and pro-choice supporters consider it to be a noble act.

The irony is, U.S. laws lock up or execute killers because they’re a threat to our society while providing women the legal right to kill their equals without repercussions. 

Matthew Cassady: False Narrative Claims Baby is Part of Mother

In August 1999, photographer Micheal Clancy was allowed to sit in on a spina bifida operation taking place at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. 

The patient was a 21-week-old unborn child by the name of Samuel. 

Once the surgery was completed, surgeons were preparing to sew up the womb when, according to Clancy, something amazing took place.  

“Out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist.” 


Clancy took the famous image, which has circled the globe, showing proof of development inside the womb. 

Four months after the surgery, Samuel was born. 

The event changed Clancy’s view on life forever. Before that day, Clancy considered himself an open-minded pro-choice supporter. Upon witnessing life in the womb, it became crystal clear to him, he wasn’t witnessing a clump of cells. 

Since that fateful day, Clancy has been a pro-life supporter ever since. 

Pro-choice supporters claim the baby is part of the mother. 

Meaning, removing a child from the mother’s womb is supposedly similar to removing a cancerous tumor or another body part (like tonsils). If this were true, it would mean the baby is an extension of a mother, just like an arm or leg. 

Yet, science confirms, in order to be considered part of a body the actual  PART would have to share similar genetic code as the rest of the body. Unfortunately, science dispels that notion as an infant’s body has its own DNA structure. 

How Can One Live and One Die? 

Why is it a mom may live yet – under different circumstances not related to abortion – a child dies? Or, how about a mom who dies but a child can still be delivered alive? 

How is this possible if both are simply part of the mom? If that was the case, when the mother or baby died, the other one would as well. 

This is proof they’re two separate individuals. 

In prenatal surgeries, an infant is left connected to the umbilical cord and given anesthesia as medical professionals (key phrase) have discovered the child can feel pain. If the child was nothing, it would have no feelings of pain, or the mother would likely feel the pain as well if it was, in fact, part of her. 

Plus, those same medical professionals refer to the child they’re operating on as a patient, which is why they create medical records in such cases. 


The “My Body! My Choice!” Delusion

Not Acceptable to Harm a Pre-Born yet Acceptable to Kill One

When a pregnant mother is murdered, her killer is charged with a double homicide. And, if a pregnant mother abuses drugs or drinks heavily while pregnant, she’s charged with child endangerment. 

Pregnant and Addicted.jpg

Yet, if she chooses to have an abortion which ends a child’s life, it’s OK. 

Odd how our society shames a mother who ENDANGERS her unborn child with drugs or alcohol but if she chooses to hire a doctor to murder her child, it’s perfectly legit. In fact, it’s likely she’ll be embraced by pro-choice advocates and considered courageous. 

Being Inside Something Doesn’t Make it Part of Something

When someone goes inside their house, they don’t become part of the house. When someone boards a plane, they’re not part of the plane. When a boat is placed in the water, it is not part of the water.

You get the idea. 

Founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries, Randy Alcorn who wrote, ‘Why Pro-Life? Caring for the unborn and their mothers’ summarized it perfectly stating, “Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their place of residence. The child’s nature doesn’t magically change in the twenty inches between the uterus and the birthing room.” 

Matthew Cassady: The “My Body My Choice” Delusion

Chanted at women’s rights marches, shouted during pro-choice rallies, and screeched in protest toward pro-life advocates is the epic 1970’s political anthem . . .

 “My body! My choice!” 

A popularized feminist slogan in support of a mother’s legal right to make life and death decisions of their unborn children. An alleged social issue which takes away one set of rights so another can choose to live free from parental responsibilities and maintain their free-from-adulting lifestyle. 


For decades, pro-choice advocates have successfully manipulated U.S. lawmakers, Supreme Court justices, along with average citizens into believing abortion is both necessary and a woman’s rights issue.

However, it’s much more complex than that.

Both arguments, purposely, set aside the gruesome details and injustices carried out against the unborn.

We’re no longer in the dark about what point life inside a mother is considered a child.

Latest advancements in medical technology have confirmed life does, in fact, begin at conception. Yet, pro-choice advocates continue to ignore facts, instead shifting this controversial issue into a false moral debate of who’s rights are more important. One thing’s for certain, it’s certainly not about equality. If it were about equality, abortion would be illegal. 

Ultra sound on woman's body.jpg

When comparing the context of, “My body! My choice!” to how abortion advocates apply it, the meaning isn’t really about freedom or choice. What may have initially begun as a movement for woman’s rights has gradually transitioned into a narcissistic preference to be free from consequences and responsibilities. 

It’s become very evident, the cry for freedom is nothing more than a wolf of false narratives disguised to appear as a sheep of women’s right’s causes.


Much of the pro-choice strategy requires distorting the TRUTH.  

It’s about denying the reality of what an abortion is and redefining constitutional rights. 

Why do pro-choice supporters become so irate when pro-life protesters display images of aborted fetuses? If pro-choice advocates are so convinced their position was valid, why do those photos generate such outrage? 

Photos of aborted fetuses are, agreeably, disturbing. 

When questioning an abortion advocate how they can consciously support such a disgusting practice, it’s actually hard for many of them to answer. It becomes a struggle to dispute strong visual evidence so, instead, they change topics from defending murder into a deceptive moral right’s issue. 

However, the real issue is not gruesome photos of dismembered fetuses, it’s the act which is responsible for it. 

Abortion activists prefer to remain in the dark regarding the outcome of an abortion. Because, seriously, who could look at those images and justify abortion? It’s easier to go through an abortion when you’re oblivious to the reality of it.

Because what abortion does to an unborn fetus is difficult for even the most coldhearted liberal to defend. 

The strategy behind pro-choice brainwashing is a mixture of dismissing sciencecreating alternate realities, and selective word choices.

Dismissing Science

Science is not a democracy.

Science is about facts. Conclusions and outcomes are not determined by how many are in support or opposed to an idea. The study of science consists of theories, hypotheses, and solid answers. Everyone knows theories and hypothesizes require research and experimentation to find conclusive answers. 

Determining when life began used to be a tougher debate. Before the advancement of medical technology, answers were unclear and opinions were based on personal perspectives and religious reasons. 

Yet today, science has confirmed life begins at conception.

Regardless, like children refusing to listen to reason, pro-choice advocates choose to cover their ears, close their eyes and sing out loud; holding on to out-dated arguments which have long been disproven. 

Advocates for abortion still claim the only thing which exists at conception is a lifeless clump of cells. However, the cells in question are living cells with separate DNA. Meaning, a living being is in the process of development at conception.


The “clump of cells” is a fictional tale or alternate reality used as a coping mechanism to reduce guilt and long-term regrets. 


False Narrative Claims Baby Is Part of Mother

The Right to Kill Your Equal

Create an Alternate Reality

Humans are naturally hardwired to internally validate bad decisions before and after they’re made. 

The greater impact a decision has on ourselves or someone else, the greater need to focus on the good while blurring out the bad. Therefore, well-crafted narratives are necessary for those who choose abortion to help reduce feelings of guilt, remorse and a possible lifetime of regret. 

When a woman consents to intercourse, she’s aware the only one who may get pregnant is her. And, no form of over-the-counter or medically prescribed birth control is 100% save. There’s always a chance pregnancy can happen even when various forms of protection are used. 

At the present time, legalized abortion allow women to be much more promiscuous.


In this day and age, it’s easier to throw caution to the wind knowing, for a small fee, if something should unexpectedly find its way into her uterus, she can have it removed and go on with her life. 

There are several selfish-justifying excuses liberals use to neutralize the severity of abortion. 

One is by playing the victim. Pretend to feel conflicted about the decision, then admit they’re just not adequately equipped to raise a child. The false-victim narrative is a way to feel validated as a result of being  . . . 

• Unprepared to take on parental responsibilities
• Financially unstable
• Less likely to finish school or get a decent job

Basically, the child’s considered to be an injustice on her. Yet, by exercising her ‘right to choose,’ she chooses to carry out an injustice to another living being. 

The other deceptive belief some women use is convincing themselves they’re doing the child a favor through a mercy killing; a ridiculous thought process where the mother not only believes she’s sparing the child from a lifetime of hardship but also – narcissistically – believes she’s noble for doing it. If that was true, we could all justify murdering anyone with that logic. 


There are also claims a child inside the womb is worthless.

Sadly, there are medical professionals who validate that claim (which proves even some medical professionals with PhD’s aren’t experts in ethics or morality).

With that line of reasoning, what criteria determines who has a purpose and who doesn’t? 

If children in the womb are considered to be meaningless, can we also consider any elderly individual in need of around-the-clock care to be meaningless? At that point in their life, they are no contributing to society necessarily. If euthanasia was a legal practice, we could save taxpayer dollars used to support those in nursing homes and hospice facilities. 

Why don’t we just do that? Because it’s inhumane, just like abortion. 

Selective Word Choices

Words like ‘murder’ and ‘kill’ are considered insensitive by liberal orthodoxy.

Instead, more appealing terms like ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ are preferred. Word choices which sound less convicting. 

You can terminate a program. You can terminate an employee. You can abort a mission. You can abort a computer program. So, what do ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ really have to do with sucking a human being into a vacuum or tearing it apart with surgical instruments? 


Pro-choice is a term abortion advocates associate to ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’. 

However, ironically, the phrase has been used throughout history to support many injustices. 

Before slavery was abolished in 1865, pro-choice slavery implied a white man had the RIGHT to buy and sell slaves. It meant slave-owners should have the FREEDOM to own other human beings with no restrictions by the government (part of what set off the American Civil War).

Today, there’s no argument, African American human rights were violated.

A portion of abortion pro-choice supporters try to politically ride the fence, claiming, “I, personally, would not have an abortion, however, I’d support a woman’s right to choose.” A claim used to invoke a sense of moral high-ground, an attempt to seek acceptance on both sides of the debate.

Yet, what pro-choice supporters don’t understand, they’re either pro- or anti-abortion; they can’t be both. If you’re pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion.Or, if you claim, “I’d never do it myself” you’re actually against it. 

Consider this, imagine an older gentleman claiming he was pro-choice when it came to rape.

He states, “I’d never rape someone myself yet I support the choice for another human being to rape another.” Would anyone – in their right mind – consider his position to be noble? Even after stating he wouldn’t do it himself? Not likely. The issue isn’t the fact he wouldn’t rape anyone, the issue is the absurdity he would even support rape. Therefore, knowing he supports rapists, it could be assumed he also would do it if he thought he could get away wth it.

Similar to slavery and rape, abortion is a violation of human rights. It’s about one human infringing on another’s rights for selfish gain.


Although liberals believe denying an abortion is an infringement on their rights, they overlook the fact it’s not a mother’s body which gets torn apart and disposed. Someone dies during an abortion procedure, and it’s not them. 

It’s an act which doesn’t take the real victim’s human rights into consideration. 


So far, we know abortion activists reject scientific evidence. 

To accept life begins at conception would discredit (which it does) what the pro-choice movement, supposedly, stands for which they claim is freedom. 

However, as abortion advocates protest for the freedom to choose, the freedom they’re adamant about retaining is not only the right to legally end a child’s life, it’s more about WHY they want to end their child’s life. The real freedom they desire is the freedom from responsibilities. 

Again, we’re in an age where women can be more promiscuous, with an available out if they should get pregnant. 

Plus, with numerous false and self-serving narratives to neutralize the severity of abortion, more women today are feeling less and less guilty or ashamed following an abortion. 

According to a study published by PLOS One, 95% of women they interviewed said they did not regret their decision. Hold on ! There’s an ‘however’. 

However, the study also revealed the majority who claimed they didn’t regret their decision surrounded themselves with a good support group. They gravitated toward people who helped them create a justifiable narrative to have an abortion.  


So, the question is, what would they’ve done if they had other people in their lives who supported a child’s right to life? What if pro-life supporters encouraged them to have their child and provided them the necessary physical and emotional support needed? 

This falls under the “It’s not what you know (abortion to be physically and morally wrong), but who you know (to help you justify it and feel content with a decision which takes a human life). 

The “My body! My choice!” delusion is unfortunately driven by a movement intent on defying responsibility and accountability for poor choices.

It’s a position which holds strongly to the denial of reality and false narratives. 

Abortion should NEVER be an option. There are government programs which may need to be reformed to better serve single mothers. Programs which offer better resources to single moms and struggling families up to a certain point they can support themselves and their families. 

Or, reform the adoption process to provide couples (who cannot have children) with a child if the biological mom feels unfit to raise a child. 

These options are, unquestionably, significantly moral and just compared to taking the life of an unborn child and creatively thinking of false narratives to justify the decision. 

Matt Cassady: Science Proves Life Begins At Conception

For centuries people from around the globe believed the sun revolved around the earth.

There were some scientists and astronomists who had a hunch that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet, without PROOF, that theory was considered delusional. It took about 18 centuries between the time the first person revealed the theory until it was proven as fact. 

Science is Factual

Science is about facts which dispel myths and opinions.

Science is not a democracy which allows opinions and different viewpoints to enter the equation.  Therefore, just because THE MAJORITY believes an idea is factual, science will prove or disprove it.

 Pro-choice Disregards Proof

The intense debates in support of abortion are opinion focused rather than fact based. 

Arguments centered around whether a woman should have the RIGHT to murder a child (I use the term murder as that’s the true nature of abortion. To say “abort” or “terminate” are pro-choice terminology phrases used to dilute the severity of abortion). 

Pro-choice supporters make the argument, “At conception, it’s nothing more than a CLUMP OF CELLS”. Yet, science confirms the so-called “clump of cells” are, in fact, LIVING! Therefore, science (which is not a democracy where majority rules) confirms a living being begins at conception.

Science vs. Feelings

Consider this, if scientists discovered the same “CLUMP OF CELLS” on a distant planet, you know what they’d say?

They’d likely scream, “We’ve discovered LIFE!”

Yet, pro-abortion advocates debate hard proof with their feelings and opinions. In fact, some I’ve debated admit, “Well, I don’t believe a clump of cells is a baby”. Even with the knowledge provided by medical professionals confirming cells at conception are ALIVE, the truth is instead diluted by opinions and well-crafted justifications to lessen the severity of abortion. 

Matthew Cassady: Women’s March Serves As Masquerade for Presidential Insults

Less than 24 hours following President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President, hundreds of thousands of women activists assembled throughout our nation, as well as around the world, in support of women’s rights.

Many demonstrators marched proudly, displaying their knitted pink stocking caps complete with cute kitten ears cleverly referred to as ‘Pussy Hats’. The caps became a symbol of outrage toward sexually explicit comments made by President Trump over a decade ago. In addition to the caps, other feminist marchers dressed up in vagina costumes to send a message to the president, “this pussy’s not for grabbing!”

Pussy Hats.jpg

While the majority of marchers wore respectable clothing, a small percentage of female demonstrators removed their shirts displaying their breasts with black tape covering their nipples.

Demonstrators arrived with picket signs protesting specific issues while others carried messages of hate toward the Trump Administration such as, “Not my president!”, “Love Trumps Hate!”, and “F-Trump!”.

The initial platform was to draw awareness to women’s issues yet many protesters who took part in the march came with different agendas geared toward other social causes which were neither gender-specific or fell under the women’s rights crusade.

Unclear Purpose

A pamphlet posted online listed the different causes demonstrators were marching for regarding women’s rights which included fair wages, reproductive options, freedom from sexual violence, and access to more affordable medical services and options.

However, other protestors voiced concerns over a multitude of other social issues including immigration reform, healthcare reform, environmental protection, police brutality, racial profiling, gay and transgender rights, freedom of religion, and illegal immigrant protection. Again, issues which were neither gender-specific nor categorized as women’s rights. 

Trump Labeling

If this protest was necessary, why didn’t take place during the Obama, Bush or Clinton Administrations?

There are no indications women’s rights in America are in jeopardy under the Trump Administration. The same issues women equality advocates marched against the weekend of January 21, were identical to those under the Obama Administration. It’s no secret, those who opposed the President used the audio leak of Trump’s crude comments about women, 11 years ago, as the basis for their march. Ironically, when asked questions about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior and convictions during his presidency, it seemed to be a non-issue. Therefore, the march leaned more toward hatred of Trump than actual issues laid out in the event’s pamphlet.


Democratic congresswoman, Elizabeth Warren, stirred up fears with accusations the Trump Administration was preparing to carry out their attacks against women, immigrants, LBTG community, and religious groups.

In addition to Warren’s fear-based presentation, liberals have taken comments made by Trump, while he campaigned for the presidency, and continue to cast a shadow of false narratives which claim he’s a racist, homophobic, and xenophobic.

Considering Trump’s cabinet picks include women, different races, and a gay man, Trump doesn’t appear to fit the narratives his opponents have labeled him.

Was This About Equality or Creating a Narrative?

The key word repeated throughout the march was “EQUALITY”.

Equality for women.
Equality among races.
Equality for Muslims.
Equality for the LBTG communities.
Equality for immigrants.

Pop singer and Hollywood actress Madonna added her two cents at the rally, delivering a five-minute politically-fueled speech criticizing the President, revealing her deep desire to commit a terrorist act on the White House, however not forgetting to end it on a positive note encouraging attendees to always “choose love”.


The musical pop star claimed the march was “. . . the beginning of OUR story.” However, it wouldn’t be until the second day of protests as to who’s story Madonna was specifically referencing.

When pro-life activists arrived on the scene Sunday morning, it was abundantly clear the story Madonna referred to was inclusive to specific political ideologies. Ideologies which excluded certain groups from the EQUALITY the march was supposedly meant to represent.

During America Ferrera’s speech, the female actress explained the march was for, “. . . the moral core of this nation, against which our new president is waging a war.”

The irony, women came to march for their own “moral code” which supports the right to life movement, only to face harsh resistance toward their side of the abortion argument. Highly emotional pro-choice advocates surrounded the 50 pro-life supporters chatting, “My body my choice!” while blocking signs which said, “Abortion betrays women”. One pro-life advocate claimed she was spit on while another had her sign ripped to shreds.

A movement organized to empower ALL women to rise up and defend their freedoms apparently came with fine print, excusing the abuses and harassment of pro-choice supporters toward pro-life advocates. The march revealed the movement wasn’t so much about equality as it was about following a specifically crafted narrative.

What organizers overlooked was the fact reproductive rights are not owned by one specific group.


Pro-life advocates want to march for many similar causes such as more affordable medical options for pregnant women, required paid maternity leave, and the creation of more social programs to help single mothers or low-income families.

Yet, pro-choice advocates see the pro-life movement as a threat to their current freedom to choose abortion as a form of birth control. Therefore, in typical non-tolerant and hostile fashion, liberal opponents refuse to consider anything which contradicts the deceptive narratives they’ve worked hard to develop over the decades.


When Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with Monica Lewinski, he was impeached by the House of Representatives yet saved by the Senate.

He then went on national television and delivered his famous four-minute scripted national apology speech ending with, “So tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the last seven months, to repair the fabric of national discourse, and turn our attentions to all the challenges, and all the promise of the next American century.”


Following Clinton’s television appearance, liberals were quick to forgive as Republicans demanded Clinton’s resignation. Liberals asked conservatives to ‘get over it’ and ‘move on’. Lectures from Democrats followed about the importance of moving forward and working together to repair the county; not rehashing Clinton’s wrongdoings with a young intern.

Ironically, one of the biggest reasons for the march was due to massive liberal outcry of Trump’s audio leak. Even though the recording took place 11 years ago, he apologized for it and clarified it was nothing more than ‘locker room talk’, those who oppose him are still less than forgiving and continue to rehash the comments.

When you consider the multitude of issues represented during the march, the consistent presidential-bashing speeches by celebrities and politicians, along with the timing of the event; the true nature of the protest is easily recognized. The so-called “Women’s Rights” movement was a masquerade for the real objective of creating a platform to insult the man who defeated their candidate for president.