NOTE: This article was formerly titled, “Democrats’ bloody conscience, J. D. Vance, and Christian witness.”
A 2021 speech and follow up interview by Tucker Carlson with Pres. Trump’s VP candidate Sen. J. D. Vance has enraged Democratic women. Jennifer Aniston, Whoopi Goldberg, Ella Emhoff, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of Swifties are losing it over some of the things Vance said in this interview:
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6358784788112
Why such fury?
Because Sen. Vance stated some plain truth that is not to be uttered in America today: namely, that the decision not to have children and replacing them with cats (famously, Taylor Swift has no children and three felines) is a demonstration of incivility at one’s core, and that such women and their men should not be chosen for civil leadership. Refusing to build the future through having children is the most fundamental act of disinvestment in a nation, and raising such selfish individuals into positions of leadership is delusional.
Among responsible citizens of a truly civil society, those Vance described who refuse to bear the weight of responsibility raising the next generation disqualifies them from leading the present generation.
As Vance put it in the Fox interview:
We’re effectively run in this country—via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs—by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. How does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?
If Sen. Vance were a comedian, everyone would be laughing. What he said is true and everyone knows it—especially the women who are now livid. He used the expression “childless cat ladies” because it’s a trope. We all know and love one or another childless cat lady, but the reasonable among us are not foolish enough to want them leading our civil union into the future.
Chasten and Pete Buttigieg holding their adoptive newborns.
During this interview, Sen. Vance mentioned a number of names typifying his concern. One was Pres. Biden’s Vice President, Kamala Harris, who is married and mother to several stepchildren. Another he mentioned was Pres. Biden’s Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, who at the time of the interview was childless, but has since adopted two children with the man he calls his “husband.”
Taking Vance’s words in context, the names he mentioned were not intended to communicate each of them had “cats,” was “childless,” and was a “lady.” Secy. Buttigieg plays the woman, but he’s a man.
To the larger point, though, let us ask whether Sen. J. D. Vance is right? Specifically, are the commitments and character of the sort of woman and man put forward by the Democratic Party as candidates who serve as poster girls and boys for the planks of their Democratic Party good or toxic to our civil union here in the United States of America?
Take abortion, for instance: these poster girls and boys of the Democratic Party are shameless in their promotion and defense of this bloody religious rite we should all make a habit of referring to as “child sacrifice.” With an abortion lifetime prevalence rate among women that, holding steady at 25% for years now along with a lifetime self managed abortion rate among women that is estimated to be 5%, even if we refuse to include babies killed in the womb by the use of hormonal birth control methods, over the course of their childbearing years thirty percent of American women kill at least one of their children.
But this figure is not controlled for party affiliation. Taking into account the degree to which the Democratic Party’s fundamental plank promoting abortion is fiercely protected and promoted by their female supporters, it’s probable among Democratic voters who are women, over 50% of them have killed at least one of their children. And to return to Sen. Vance’s point, it is safe to assume the prevalence of abortion among female politicians affiliated with the Democratic Party is even higher.
Knowing a very conservative estimate of the percentage of female Democratic pols who have killed one of their children is 50%, it is necessary to consider what kind of a civil ruler a woman so selfish that she has killed one of her children will be? Certainly every Christian will conclude such women should never lead anyone or anything.
Is it monstrous or even lacking compassion to say this?
No, it is necessary to say this. Sanity requires us to conclude that those who have murdered their own descendants should not be given faithful mothers and fathers’ descendants to govern. It was King Solomon who judged that the woman who wants to kill the baby should have that baby taken from her.
Similarly the Democratic Party platform promotes sodomy and lesbianism—both of which are the rejection of the necessity of our next generation being raised in the lifelong monogamous union of man and woman as husband and wife, then father and mother. If they decide to have children, sodomites and lesbians refuse to allow those children to be taught, disciplined, and loved by both sexes, male and female. These couples rob their children of the beautiful diversity of half our race.
Again, this destructive self-centeredness in defiance of nature’s bestowal of children on male and female together should disqualify such sexual narcissists from promotion into positions of civic leadership. The mutual decision of two women or two men to deny their children a father or mother is a level of selfishness that all previous generations of fathers and mothers would have thought only lunatics were capable of, but this lunacy is the central commitment of that half of our nation which votes Democratic.
Such people should be disqualified from running for any office at any level of government, but our nation has gone mad.
We could continue to deconstruct the Democratic Party’s platform into its particularities which cohere at the point of insane self-centeredness they demand be referred to as “liberty,” “freedom,” and “civil rights,” but those reading here are unlikely to need much more convincing.
Nailing it down, yesterday the Pew Research Center put out a report on American attitudes and trends of childlessness. Confirming what reasonably observant citizens already know, childlessness today is simply generational selfishness, and that selfishness is exploding in popularity meaning it will become harder and harder to find men willing to consider the wellbeing of future generations as they lead our towns, cities, states, and nation. They will be in ever shorter supply because such men (and women) are in drastic decline.
First, Pew documents the explosive growth of childlessness within our population, reporting that, over the course of the past five years, the percent of childless Americans who declare themselves unlikely to have children in the future has risen ten percent. In 2018 it was 37% and in 2023 it was 47%.
But secondly, and of greater importance for our purposes, is the question why? To the heart of the very thing Sen. J. D. Vance was condemning, Pew reports:
Reasons for not having children—or being unlikely to ever have them—differ between the older and younger groups. The top response for those ages 50 and older is that it just didn’t happen. Meanwhile, those in the younger group are most likely to say they just don’t want to have kids. Women younger than 50 are especially likely to say they just don’t want to have children (64% vs. 50% of men in this group).
Majorities in both groups say not having kids has made it easier for them to afford the things they want, have time for hobbies and interests, and save for the future. In the younger group, about six-in-ten also say not having kids has made it easier for them to be successful in their job or career and to have an active social life.
Increasingly, the younger generations among conservatives have chosen to be informed by social, rather than corporate, media, and we suppose there is some merit to their choice. Corporate media publishes the lies of the leftists who make up the vast majority of the Ruling Class, whereas social media can be a more friendly and comforting place for Christians and other conservatives. But something to keep in mind is that both purveyors of leftist corporate and conservative ghettos of the social media are partisan to their core, and feeding from partisans is inimical to true Christian discernment and witness. Yes, corporate media is almost never sympathetic to God’s authority, doctrine, and Moral Law, and one can find a substantial body of consumers of social media who are sympathetic to the same.
Yet a herd is a herd, and trying to extricate oneself from the herd as they stampede is risky business. Be truthful. Stampeding is the fundamental nature of social media.
Right this second, hordes of the corporate media are frothing at the mouth over V. P. candidate J. D. Vance’s warning that, as he put it, childless cat ladies ought not to be allowed to direct this nation into the future they refuse to invest in themselves. But sadly, even social media conservatives are having doubts about Vance because of their perception that he’s insensitive to women, the childless, gays, and animal lovers. “This guy should shut up already. He might lose us the election!”
Well yes, he might. But who’s to blame—J. D. Vance or Christians who have refused to publicly confess, teach, and preach the very truths this brave man spoke out there in public. As a politician. As a Roman Catholic politician.
We Protestants, Reformed and otherwise, have long ago stopped making disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ by teaching them to obey everything He commanded. Nowhere is this more obvious than our Lord’s command given the entire race of man at the very beginning:
Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
Sen. Vance is Roman Catholic and he’s left to be pilloried by the childless cat ladies and their men by Christians who are not Roman Catholic.
Our Lord gave us His command to make disciples of all nations right after He declared:
Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
If our Lord’s Father has given Him “all authority… in heaven and on earth”; and if our Lord has commanded us to teach them to observe all He has commanded us; and if from the very beginning in the state of perfection in the Garden of Eden He commanded all men everywhere for all time to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth,” what’s up with us?
Why are we not teaching all men and women to obey His command? Or more to the point, why are we ourselves not witnessing to, teaching, and obeying this His command ourselves?
When it is only the Roman Catholics who bear witness to God’s command of fruitfulness, we should not be surprised to watch Sen. J. D. Vance hanging from a tree, blowing in the wind with a mob of shrews screaming at him.
