Fleccas Talks & Krocs On | Women’s March in L.A. (January 2020)

This week I headed to DTLA for my THIRD ever Women’s March. The usual suspects were out and about. As usual not much got accomplished.

This year at the Los Angeles Women’s march I wanted to talk to the men. I wanted to meet the guys who marched next to all these women, calling for equal rights. (CAUTION, ADULT LANGUAGE and SEXUAL TOPICS)

10 Reasons Why Blacks Should Leave the Democratic Party

Does the Democratic Party represent the interests of black Americans? Larry Elder gives 10 reasons why blacks might consider leaving the Democratic Party.

10. School Choice
9. Social Security
8. Race-Based Preferences for Diversity
7. War on Poverty (Welfare State)
6. Illegal Immigration
5. Hostility Towards Police
4. Job Killing Regulations
3. The Great Recession (Housing Crisis)
2. Playing the Race Card for Votes
1. Pro-Abortion

Reactions To Real Abortions (Struggling w/Pro-Choice Realities)

We asked the people of London what they thought about abortion, then we showed them the reality. Watch their responses, then see the video that challenged their thinking: https://www.abortionreality.com

They see the below video of a 12-week abortion and a fifteen week abortion. I couldn’t go any further.



Kirsten Gillibrand Compares Pro Life Beliefs To Racism

This woman is really confused… to say the least. Since pro-life positions affect mainly minority women (since they get the most abortions), how does wanting MORE black babies equal racism. She also seems to pigeonhole the issue as a religious one. As I have noted MANY times before, there are many well-known atheists who are pro-life. Likewise, there is a group of feminist pro-lifers called: FEMINISTS FOR LIFE

More on feminists who are pro-life:

“They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t \want to have an abortion.” – Abortion doctor quoted in New Dimensions magazine, 1990

Invariably, the feminist position on abortion is portrayed as the “pro-woman” position—mostly because feminist leaders have convinced their followers that this procedure is essential to women’s liberty. As Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, said, “‘abortion’ became a symbol of our independence, because reproductive freedom is fundamental to a woman’s aspirations.”

This is also known as the “pro-choice” position. But how do feminists feel about women who don’t choose abortion—and, more importantly, the women who assist them in making that choice?

Don’t be fooled by the deceptive labels and euphemisms. When it comes to “reproductive rights,” feminists have a very specific agenda—one that involves a lot more abortions, but not necessarily more choice.

At Temple University in Philadelphia, Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, faced a tough crowd. As Crisis magazine described the scene, “The 40 or so students gathered to hear Foster are mostly women. Not even the pro-lifers are smiling. The student who introduced her asked those with differing opinions to be respectful. It set an ominous tone. Would they start chanting soon? Blowing whistles? Would they get violent?”

But then, somehow, Foster performed a miracle. She threw the cover off “the dirty little secret of women’s studies departments” — America’s earliest feminists were anti-abortion. In the words of coura­geous suffragette Susan B. Anthony, abortion was “child murder,” and “no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

Foster then asked the crowd, “If women were fighting for the right not to be considered property, what gives them the right to consider their baby property?”

It was something to think about. From that moment on, even students who had showed up to protest couldn’t help but nod in agreement.

That night, Foster raised a point that feminists dare not discuss: before the women’s movement was hijacked by leftists in the 1960s, abortion was never viewed as a good thing for women. In fact, the prac­tice was unthinkable to individuals like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the mastermind behind the historic Seneca Falls Convention and mother of seven chil­dren. (If Stanton applied for a teaching position in a women’s studies department today, she would be labeled a “Jesus freak” and promptly dismissed.)

“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit,” Stanton wrote to her friend Julia Ward Howe in 1873.

She wasn’t the only one.

Victoria Woodhull, the first female stockbroker on Wall Street, also became the first woman to run for President in 1870. An early suffragette with a flair for the outrageous, Woodhull epitomized the modern feminist slogan “well-behaved women rarely make history.” (She was repeatedly arrested for her polit­ical activities.) And she too hated abortion.

“A human life is a human life and equally to be held sacred whether it be a day or a century old,” Woodhull wrote. “Wives…to prevent becoming mothers…deliberately murder [children] while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized condition than this? “

Alice Paul, who authored the original Equal Rights Amendment, was willing to face arrests, harassment, and physical assaults in-order-to win the right to vote. Later, when 1960s feminists began advocating the repeal of abortion laws, Paul asked, “How can one protect and help women by killing them as babies?” She considered abortion “the ulti­mate exploitation of women.”

Who are the modern descendents of Anthony, Stanton, Woodhull, and Paul? They can be found at Feminists for Life of America, whose founder, Pat Goltz, was kicked out of NOW for her anti-abortion views. On its website, FFL issues a challenge: “If you believe in the strength of women and the poten­tial for every human life…If you refuse to choose between women and children…If you reject violence and exploitation, join us in challenging the status quo. There is a better way.”

FFL reaches out to women facing crisis pregnan­cies and opposes any legislation that might make it harder for them to keep their children—much of which has been proposed by Republicans, proving that FFL hardly deserves the “right- wing” label assigned to it by pro-abortion feminists. In 1996, FFL attempted to dissuade President Clinton from signing a Republican-backed welfare reform bill that elimi­nated additional assistance for babies born to girls under 18. Their rationale? If a pregnant girl couldn’t afford to raise her child, she would have no choice but to abort.

FFL also pressures universities to provide special resources for pregnant and parenting students, a move opposed by many conservatives on the principle that pregnant women aren’t entitled to handouts. But FFL refuses to compromise its mission: to make moth­erhood a viable option for women facing unwanted pregnancies.

FFL is not actively involved in efforts to outlaw abortion. Instead, the group is interested in “system­atically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions.”

This is a truly “pro-choice” position—the one that groups like NOW and NARAL claim to uphold. But evidently a lot of feminists do not believe that women deserve better than abortion.

“Who are the Feminists for Life? In a word, dangerous,” began an article in the online magazine Nerve.

“Feminists for what?” the author gasped. “Not a typo: Feminists for Life. As in, against abortion.” The horror!

As the article explained, the women of FFL “aren’t really feminists—a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child.”

Feminist hysteria over FFL indicates that the only “choice” they deem acceptable is the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The way FFL was treated by the Lilith Fair, a feminist music festival organized by singer Sarah McLachlan in the late 90’s, proved that different views on abortion will not be tolerated.

“Women are everywhere. Walking in groups, laughing and talking. Sitting on the grass. Playing the guitar. Reading pamphlets on women’s issues picked up from booths in the Village area,” a reporter described Lilith Fair’s stop in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. “There is also a woman with a gag in her mouth standing in front of one of the booths, wearing a T-shirt reading, ‘Peace begins in the womb, Sarah.'”

That woman was Marilyn Kopp, the director of Ohio Feminists for Life. Lilith Fair, despite its stated mission of “raising consciousness of women’s issues,” denied booth space to any group that did not wholeheartedly support abortion as the ultimate cata­lyst of gender equality.

Naturally, Lilith Fair’s feminist organizers were outraged that FFL had the gall to show up at their concert.

“This isn’t a democracy. This is a tyranny,” fumed singer Sheryl  Crow, justifying Lilith’s ban on pro-life groups.

However, some ordinary concertgoers were unimpressed with the notion of tyranny in the name of women’s advancement.

“As Kopp’s friend Denise Mackura stands gagged in front of the NOW booth, a group of teenage girls walk up to her. When they find out what’s going on, they’re shocked,” reporter Laura Demarco wrote. “They see the situation as a violation of civil rights, not a defense of women’s rights. ‘This is wrong,’ says Casey Patton, 17.”

The sight of FFL members standing in front of NOW’s booth with gags in their mouths spoke volumes about the authoritarian nature of the modern feminist movement. As DeMarco observed, “It’s hard to miss the hypocrisy of feminists censoring other women like this… they patronizingly assume women aren’t smart enough to hear all sides on an issue and decide for themselves.”

The prospect of women deciding for themselves is terribly threatening to the feminist establishment—which might also explain their fanatical opposition to Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Ashley Herzog, FEMINISM VS. WOMEN (Xulon Press, 2008), 85-91.

“My” Body, Not Governments

I came across this on a friend’s Facebook, and wanted a simple anatomy lesson as a response:

(I colorized the above a bit) Here is my response (click pics for links):


  • Different genetic code.
  • Different blood type.
  • Different gender.
  • Different race.
  • Fetus can die and mother live; mother can die and “fetus” live.
  • Fetus can feel pain when mother does not, vice versa.

Humans do not have:

  • 2-heads
  • 4 arms and legs
  • 2-beating hearts
  • Multiple blood types
  • 2-brains/waves

Take note as well that if THAT BODY even “j-walks,” the government can ticket that body (woman) for not following government rules. There are all sorts of legal restrictions on SAID BODY.

ETC — even atheists and non-Republicans get it:

Human From Conception – Kathy Ireland

This video is from the late 90’s via POLITICALLY INCORRECT… and is a centerpiece to a great presentation by Scott Klusendorf (“The Case for the Pro-Life Position (Part 1) ~ Winning the Argument“). I looked for this years back but gave up. After some short talk with Larry Elder, I decided to give it another shot… walla, GODTUBE had it (longer file.

She was also (a few years later) was on the HUCKABEE SHOW and explained this again.

Great stuff!

CNN’s Moral Insanity!

A CNN panel falsely claimed that abortion is moral and human life doesn’t begin at conception. Dennis Prager explains why this argument directly violates science and reason. MOONBATTERY notes:

In the video below, a moonbat proclaims with a straight face that an unborn baby is not a human being. That is conventional insanity, of the type treated at psychiatric hospitals.

Meanwhile, the supremely odious Chris Cuomo desperately clings to the argument that it doesn’t matter if babies are human beings so long as they are not legally regarded as persons. If only they had realized this during the Nuremberg Trials, some Nazis might have escaped the rope.

Craziest of all is the underlying liberal belief that abortion is moral….

The Abortion Enthusiasts… Who Are They?

(MOONBATTERY hat-tip) Abortion is the ultimate sacrament in the liberal religion. Even to acknowledge the prolife point of view — let alone agree with it — is considered beyond the pale. How can something so awful have such intense proponents? Dave Morrison finds that the most vehement abortion enthusiasts are often childless middle-aged women who, rather than face the horror of their mistakes, attempt to cast their errors as virtue:

A Christian Abortionist Argues Against Himself (Mike Adams)

  • “He kills people for a living… by his own standard.” — Dr. Mike Adams 

(Via the DAILY WIRE) On Thursday, February 21, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington hosted a debate on abortion, which was organized by the College Democrats and College Republicans, among others:

The DAILY WIRE article notes the reason they posted the above debate:

  • The hour and a half-long debate also featured a Q&A in which the two professionals took questions from the crowd. At the 1:19:42 mark, a man asks Adams about the commonly discussed “rape exception” as it pertains to abortion.

Yep, good stuff.

This debate “TRIGGERED” ? (joking) in my memory a short conversation between Dr. Mike Adams and myself and a good book by him, “Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand.” I complained about a lack of (none in fact) footnotes to reference his quotes and some of his positions in it. (The part I wish to note is at the 11:50 to 12:10 mark above.) This is not a “take-down” of professor Adams at all. We probably agree 99% on the varied topics of politics and faith. It is however, a call to better scolorshipo of anyone writing a book, even if they intend it to be a quick read.

Just some feedback on your most recent book. Obviously it is geared for a “postmodern” audience. I had to put it down due to the lack of footnotes/references.I put down all books without them. I love your work, but the work reminded of Sean Hannity’s non-referenced screeds. Sorry to be so harsh… but no footnotes? Do your students get it that easy?

At any rate, I did reference it in response to a local “columnist”

Dr. Adams makes a point about the direction of his book, linked above:

The footnotes were removed to make it resemble an email conversation. Emails don’t have footnotes. Come on.

To which I simply respond,

My emails do. At any rate, maybe the softcover will include them? I will then buy it and read it. Much thought your way. By-the-by, you up at Summit right now? If they ever talk about getting a speaker who combines choices and worldviews, keep me in mind. I am a “retired” ex-con.

The response by Dr. Adams was a funny quip that I laughed at then over Facebook and would laugh at if we were sharing some beers and time together as brothers in Christ. Here was his last point (where I chose to leave it):

Oh, yes, Sean. Will have the editor put them back in just so you’ll read it.

I merely responded: “Hahaha, yes.” My most recent note to Professor Adams was this (remember, I am picking up a conversation from May, 2013):

I just watched your wonderful take down of illogical positions by Dr. Parker. But I wish to note your point about “footnotes” in Parker’s book, and our discussion from 2013 — archived above.

Here is the convo from today, Dr. Adams:

That is why I did not use my book to establish when life begins. Your “point” is thus irrelevant.

My last response is,

All I am saying is that (as an example), is, on pages 31-33* (and others) when you separate out quotes [or] definitions, that the poli-sci person or someone grabbing the book from the sociology section of the book store could further their understanding FROM your book. Obviously this is a dead horse, but I encourage you in future endeavors to at least add some for context and reference for the bibliophile, thus encouraging even the millennial reader to further their reading scope. Blessings to you and yours Dr. Adams, from, “Still a Huge Fan and Supporter of all You Write and Do.”

Dr. Adams may be emotional that some yahoo he doesn’t know is telling him how to write a book. But I would encourage all who write books should include some power to their own references, thus separating out opinion versus factual claims.

  • * Pages 31-33

Even in theology if a person quotes Scripture, they don’t merely say “Matthew,” or, “Deuteronomy,” — they note chapter and verse.