If the New York Times celebrates your Christianity, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

I must admit that being a professing Christian is not an easy thing, particularly today. I hate religious ‘posturing’ - especially in myself. The scripture is clear: Facts and action are clearly what define true religion. The Pharisee and tax collector, one a false ‘religious’ leader, the other a genuinely broken, penitent man, is one of Christ’s more poignant teachings on this. The Good Samaritan another. How real is your, or my faith?

So it is with sadness and carefulness that I must insist mentioning the actual actions: the facts and policies of the late President, James Earl Carter. The recent media swoon and adulation compel me. They swoon precisely because of his policies. They adulate for his leftist, neo-marxist legacy, carefully clothed in wool. While giving us the smiling face of a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, Jimmy Carter implemented some of the most family-destructive cultural policies our nation has now come to suffer.

The first Presidential Conference on Families sounded truly wonderful and nearly conservative, except for the fact that it was here, quietly, that the federal government first declared homosexual couples to be ‘families.’ The Christian sacrament of matrimony was directly assaulted with a toothy Baptist grin.

The real legacy of any President is the Courts they leave behind. Those justices will serve for life. You should know that every judge Jimmy Carter appointed was first vetted by the most radical abortion attorney in the nation, and her subsequent leftist panel on the judiciary.

Carter appointed a total of 262 federal judges during his four years in the White House, more than any single-term president in U.S. history. And despite never getting to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, Carter's judicial appointments were history-making in their own right. That's because he appointed a record number of minority and female jurists during his presidency, 57 minority judges and 41 female. BUT IT WAS NOT their color or plumbing that made them eligible candidates in the Carter world, it was their unabashed commitment to leftist ideology.

Strangely, the media at the time never examined the issue of ‘Judicial Temperment’. But that is precisely why Jimmy’s judges were appointed. They had the temperment the press desired. When Ronald Reagan made appointments THEN the actual thinking and policies really mattered to the media, regardless of a candidates’ gender or color, Reagan’s appointments were excoriated.

Legal knowledge and “judicial appointment help” for Carter came from Sarah Weddington, the Texas attorney who, at 26, had successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court. She had joined the Carter administration as an aide for women’s issues and leaked (the even then, notorious) Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name as an Appellate Court pick to the press. She hoped by making it public, then Carter wouldn’t be able to backtrack. As soon as Weddington leaked it, though, she went to the Oval Office and told the president what she’d done. He “didn’t mind,” she later told the Washington Post.

Yes, Jimmy Carter truly and faithfully served the leftist media-zeitgeist. For this his memory is now acclaimed.

We too must remember.

Mr. Carter in many ways served as a precursor to the ‘bumbling’ leftist assault we saw in the recent Biden Administration. He was an easily manipulated figurehead who allowed far-left staffers to simply have their way through him. One recognizable difference was that Mr. Carter freely accepted and then implemented the radical policies into which he was hornswoggled and manipulated. Biden? We really don’t know how much Biden actually understood; he was officially found mentally unfit to stand trial by his own Department of Justice.

Jimmy Carter consciously and intentionally implemented policies designed to destroy the family and respect for innocent human life. You don’t learn that in Sunday School.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian explores what’s ahead in 2025 and how the election victory of November is merely the beginning.

Brian also explained in detail the nature of his recent illness. His congestive heart failure had him hospitalized for three months - a month and a half in intensive care and a month and a half in cardio recovery care. He is now recovering at home.

Brian explains that the year ahead includes many challenges, including the very strong push for killing the medically dependent. Eleven jurisdictions across the United States have currently authorized physician assisted killing. These laws are aimed at the emotionally vulnerable as well as the physically challenged and/or financially challenged. Brian admits that he was emotionally vulnerable, and depressed during his hospitalization and brush with death. This made him a candidate for physician assisted suicide in California under current California law. Because the law is no longer an advocate, you must be willing to advocate for vulnerable family and friends.

Brian also explained that there is a great misunderstanding of the legal battles ahead for the ProLife cause.

As his book, Evil Twins: Roe and Doe, how the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing, makes clear, the real attack on society and culture in Roe was that it instructed doctors to be killers. This cultural and ethical departure in Roe is explicit and even feminist leaders like Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred: “Roe is not woman centered. It is physician centered.” These decisions instruct doctors to do whatever they see fit and in particular to even kill at their own discretion.

Many misunderstand what the Dobbs Decision of 2022 actually did to abortion law. It did not overturn Roe, it merely adjusted aspects of Roe v. Wade. In particular, the federalized compulsion to accept all abortions was removed and it was presented as a states’ rights issue.

It’s a great mistake to present or even view the Right To Life cause as a states’ rights issue. This does not address the real ethical, moral and cultural decay that was brought to us by Roe v. Wade.

The right to life cause needs to be prepared to speak up for all vulnerable human beings, regardless of their age, and to be on guard regarding the efforts to promote the killing of depressed, vulnerable, and medically dependent persons. In addition, the real issue of protecting vulnerable human lives, and not merely the emotional attraction of helping babies and mothers needs to be understood.

Brian also announced that many of his writings will now be readily available online at Substack. See @brianjohnston on Substack.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explores the idea of popular opinion polls. At election time, the media will often present what they claim to be public opinion on the issue of abortion.

It is critically important to understand that, very often the general, and unspecific nature of the terms used does not often reflect a valid view of public opinion. More specifically, generic feelings about “choice”, support for Roe, or reproductive freedom do not accurately reflect the average American’s view of abortion particulars.

Brian examine’s the current habit for many polling organizations, Pew Research Center as one example, do actually take polls state by state and reach sweeping and generic conclusions. The most common is the statement that the citizens of (fill in the blank) state support all or most abortions.

Yet the very terms ‘all’ and ‘most’ are, in fact, contradictory. All means 100%! Most means 50% or more. There is a chasm of difference. And yet this is the most frequently used phrasing of the Pew CharitableTrust.

Specific polling questions regarding the reasons for the abortion, the gestational age of the child involved in the abortion, and other surrounding factors, greatly impact the public view of the medical procedure. The recent Wall Street Journal poll confirmed what polls have indicated for more than a decade: The majority of Americans are opposed to late term abortion, or abortions that are done for social reasons (i.e. just done for choice) and have varying views regarding the medical purpose that may be involved. Killing a child because of a genetic anomaly is still opposed by the majority of Americans.

Similarly, if the woman’s life is actually in danger, the majority of Americans will condone such an abortion. If the definition of “health” is made specific, the majority of Americans only support abortions for very serious health issues. Under Roe versus Wade, because of its deliberate definition of “health,” as meaning any psychological or sociological reason that the abortionist himself could come up with, alarms the average American and such vague and unspecific definitions of health are not what they mean by endangering a woman‘s life. Yet, Roe versus Wade equated the two terms.