Ellen White: The Greatest Author In History?

On the 100th anniversary of Ellen White’s death, this information is based mostly on testimony by non-Adventists who came in contact with her writings. And her writings were not just made-up stories like Shakespeare. They are non-fiction counsels on how to live healthy, happy, and if you wish, holy, from a biblical perspective that is largely non-denominational.

Her book, The Ministry of Healing, is perhaps the greatest single book ever written. It includes chapters on the life of Christ as the great medical missionary who came as “the unwearied servant of man’s necessity….the burden of disease, and wretchedness and sin He came to remove…to bring restoration.”

It’s chapter, The Physician an Educator explains that while drugs offer relief of symptoms, they rarely address the cause and, therefore, cannot cure disease. She lists the true remedies of nature as pure air, sunlight, rest, exercise, proper diet, use of water, trust in God, also abstaining from harmful substances that now is an increasing problem due to Monsanto’s putsh for gmo “foods” to not be labelled as such.

Dr. Clive McCay, Professor of Nutrition at Cornell University reviewed Ellen White’s writings on health and summarized a six-page review by wondering how she managed to avoid the many fads and fallacies in her day to write what he said was the best overall guide available on nutrition, and he noted that she was able to induce so many to adopt health principles that result in 7-8 years more life than average. She said tobaco was “a malignant poison” in 1864–100 years before the US Surgeon General recognized it.

Dr. Florence Stratemeyer was Professor of Education at Columbia University’s Teachers College when she discovered Ellen White’s book, Education. Writing in the 1960’s, she said the book was more than 60 years ahead of its time with advanced educational concepts. If she were reviewing White now, she would probably say it was 120 years ahead. Education would be a great guide for all home-schoolers.

Considering what used to be HEW—Department of Health, Education and Welfare that morphed into separate departments, all doing poorly, we should realize that the best healthcare is selfcare based on what we put into our mouths. The same is true for education, based on what we feed our minds. TV dinners are bad for the body and worse for the mind. Considering how sex education is done at school, parents should think about homeschooling their kids and the book Education would offer great insights.

In 1888, Ellen White saw her church reject a message of righteousness by faith so that her writings after that became non-denominational. She said the apostasy would continue till the Lord comes. Was she a prophet? She described tall buildings in New York City that were warranted to be fireproof that were “consumed as if made of pitch.” Testimonies for the Church, Vol 9, pages 11-13 [9-11 published in 1909.

Readers wishing to sample or read her entire books (those above or others) online may do so by clicking here.

This author has not read The Acts of the Apostles listed among 10, but the others are all classics of higher quality than I could write with 25 years of education, and Ellen White only had three grades of schooling due to an injury in childhood.

If the reader might like to see Ellen White Exposed, I recommend starting at the 10:30 minute point on YouTube:

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling was board-certified in internal medicine before teaching at Loma Linda University. He believes Ellen White foresaw http://LeadingCauseOfDeathPrescriptionDrugs.com and did not want pharmacology taught at Loma Linda.  Adventists could have helped alternative medicine to be far ahead today. Dr. Ruhling’s website offers Ellen White’ s book on health at http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com.

VIDEO: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) on Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Body Parts

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) hits it out of the ball park with a phenomenal, heartfelt speech to President Obama.

Senator Lankford talks about the horrific practice of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby body parts, which surfaced this past week in an investigative video.

Please watch Senator Lankford’s impassioned remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

selling body parts law quotes

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood helps Sex Traffickers get Abortions for Child Sex Slaves

Planned Parenthood Cell Phone App to 12-Year-Olds: “Having Sex Feels Good”

Planned Parenthood Sells Body Parts of Aborted Children

Planned Parenthood nominated for 2013 “World Population Control Award”

In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

Real Hero Anne Hutchinson: America’s First Feminist Was a Radical Libertarian by Lawrence W. Reed

Opinions of Anne Hutchinson have, shall we say, covered the waterfront.

In his masterful tome, Conceived in Liberty, 20th-century economist and libertarian historian Murray Rothbard cast her as a staunch individualist and the greatest threat to the “despotic Puritanical theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.”

John Winthrop, the 2nd, 6th, 9th, and 12th governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, thought she was a “hell-spawned agent of destructive anarchy” and “a woman of haughty and fierce carriage, a nimble wit and active spirit, a very voluble tongue, more bold than a man.”

The state of Massachusetts apparently agrees with Rothbard. A monument in the State House in Boston today calls her a “courageous exponent of civil liberty and religious toleration.” She was, in fact, the preeminent female crusader for a free society in 18th-century New England, for which she paid first with banishment and ultimately with her life.

The story is bound intimately to the “antinomian” or “free grace” controversy involving both religion and gender. It raged in Massachusetts for the better part of two years, from 1636 to 1638. Hutchinson was an unconventional, charismatic woman who dared to challenge church doctrine as well as the role of women in even discussing such things in a male-dominated society. In Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, historian Emery Battis wrote,

Gifted with a magnetism which is imparted to few, she had, until the hour of her fall, warm adherents far outnumbering her enemies, and it was only by dint of skillful maneuvering that the authorities were able to loosen her hold on the community.

Antinomianism literally means “against the law” and was a term of derision applied against Hutchinson and her “free grace” followers. While the Puritan establishment in Massachusetts argued, as good “Reformers” of the day did, that Christian understanding derived from scripture alone (“Sola Scriptura”), the antinomians placed additional emphasis on an “inner light” by which the Holy Spirit imparted wisdom and guidance to believing individuals, one at a time.

“As I do understand it,” Hutchinson herself explained, “laws, commands, rules and edicts are for those who have not the light which makes plain the pathway. He who has God’s grace in his heart cannot go astray.”

Barely a century after Martin Luther sparked the great divide known as the Reformation, the Protestant leaders of Massachusetts saw antinomianism as dangerously heretical. Their theological forebears broke from Rome in part because they saw the teachings of priests, bishops and popes as the words of presumptuous intermediaries — diversions by mortals from the divine word of God. When Anne Hutchinson and other antinomians spoke of this supplemental “inner light,” it seemed to the Puritan establishment that the Reformation itself was being undone. Worse still, Hutchinson accused church leaders in Massachusetts of reverting to the pre-Reformation notion of “justification by works” instead of the Martin Luther/John Calvin perspective of justification by faith alone through God’s “free grace.”

In England where she was born in 1591, Hutchinson had followed the teachings of the dynamic preacher John Cotton, from whom she traced some of her anti-establishment ideas. When Cotton was compelled to leave the country in 1633, Hutchinson and her family followed him to New England. There she would live until her death just 10 years later, stirring up one fuss after another and serving as an active midwife and caregiver to the sick simultaneously. That she found the time to do all this while raising 15 children of her own is a tribute to her energy and passion.

Hutchinson organized discussion groups (“conventicles”) attended by dozens of women and eventually many men, too. This in itself was a bold move. It was empowering especially to the women, who were supposed to remain quiet and subordinate to their husbands, particularly in matters of religion and governance. But Hutchinson’s meetings were full of critical talk about the “errors” in recent sermons and the intolerant ways in which the men of Massachusetts ran the colony. Her influence grew rapidly and by all accounts, Boston became a stronghold of antinomianism while the countryside aligned with the establishment. It was only a matter of time before religious and gender differences spilled over into politics.

In 1636, Hutchinson and her antinomian, “free grace” allies such as Cotton, Reverend John Wheelwright, and Governor Henry Vale came under blistering attack by the orthodox Puritan clergy. In churches and public meetings, they were assailed as heretics and disturbers of the peace who threatened the very existence of the Puritan experiment in New England. Accusations of immoral sexual conduct, thoroughly unfounded, swirled in the flurry. Cotton was sidelined by the pressure. Wheelwright was found guilty of “contempt & sedition” for having “purposely set himself to kindle and increase” strife within the colony and was banished from Massachusetts. Vale was defeated for reelection and a Hutchinson enemy, John Winthrop, became governor in 1637. Despite initial wavering under the intense pressure, Hutchinson held firm.

In November 1637, Winthrop arranged for Hutchinson to be put on trial on the charge of slandering the ministers of Massachusetts Bay. He declared that she had “troubled the peace of the commonwealth and churches” by promoting unsanctioned opinions and holding unauthorized meetings in her home. Though she had never voiced her views outside of the conventicles she held, or ever signed any statements or petitions about them, Winthrop portrayed her as a coconspirator who had goaded others to challenge authority. Before the court, with Hutchinson present, he charged:

You have spoken divers things as we have been informed [which are] very prejudicial to the honour of the churches and ministers thereof, and you have maintained a meeting and an assembly in your house that hath been condemned by the general assembly as a thing not tolerable nor comely in the sight of God nor fitting for your sex.

Hutchinson mostly stonewalled the prosecution, but occasionally shot back with a fiery rejoinder like this one: “Do you think it not lawful for me to teach women, and why do you call me to teach the court?”

The first day of the trial went reasonably well for her. One biographer, Richard Morris, said she “outfenced the magistrates in a battle of wits.” Another biographer, Eve LaPlante, wrote, “Her success before the court may have astonished her judges, but it was no surprise to her. She was confident of herself and her intellectual tools, largely because of the intimacy she felt with God.”

The second day didn’t go so well after a moment of high drama when Hutchinson cut loose with this warning:

You have no power over my body, neither can you do me any harm — for I am in the hands of the eternal Jehovah, my Saviour. I am at his appointment, the bounds of my habitation are cast in heaven, no further do I esteem of any mortal man than creatures in his hand, I fear none but the great Jehovah, which hath foretold me of these things, and I do verily believe that he will deliver me out of your hands. Therefore take heed how you proceed against me — for I know that, for this you go about to do to me, God will ruin you and your posterity and this whole state.

What Winthrop and his prosecutors hadn’t yet proved, Hutchinson handed them in one stroke. This was all the evidence of “sedition” and “contempt of court” that they needed. She was convicted, labeled an instrument of the devil and “a woman not fit for our society,” and banished from Massachusetts Bay. This was the verdict of her civil trial. She would be detained for four months under house arrest, rarely able to see her family, until a church trial that would determine her fate as a member of the Puritan faith. In that trial, because she would not admit to certain theological mistakes, she was formally excommunicated with this denunciation from Reverend Thomas Shepard:

I do cast you out and deliver you up to Satan … and account you from this time forth to be a Heathen and a Publican … I command you in the name of Christ Jesus and of this Church as a Leper to withdraw yourself out of the Congregation.

Hutchinson, her husband William, and their children departed Boston in April 1638. They trudged for nearly a week in the snow to get to Providence, Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams as a haven for persecuted minorities. Five years later, on a terrible day in August 1643, Anne and her entire family but for one daughter were massacred by marauding Siwanoy Indians.

The woman who rocked a colony was gone, but as Rothbard writes, “the spirit of liberty that she embodied and kindled was to outlast the despotic theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.”

As America’s first feminist, and a woman of conscience and principle, Anne Hutchinson planted seeds of libertarianism that would grow and help establish a new nation a little more than a century later.

For further information, see:

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.

EDITORS NOTE: Each week, Mr. Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.

COUNTDOWN: Four Days Left to File for SCOTUS Marriage Re-hearing

We have rarely seen anything as disgraceful as this.

There are just five days to go before the July 21 deadline to file for a re-hearing before the US Supreme Court on its recent 5-4 “same-sex marriage” ruling. But chances are bleak that this crucial filing will be done. The cave-in by the GOP has spread to major pro-family organizations.

July 10 meeting in DeWine’s office. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (in red tie) watches Constitutional Law Professor David Forte (far left) discuss the Motion for Recusal filed in April and a Motion for a Re-hearing to be filed immediately. Seated to DeWine’s left is Solicitor General Eric Murphy. Nearly 50 Ohio pro-family activists, citizens, and pastors were also in the room.

As we described in our report last week, the US Supreme Court “same-sex marriage” fight is not completely over. According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling, a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” if there are pertinent issues meriting an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled for “same-sex marriage” — were clearly required by federal law to recuse themselves from this case. The 25-day period to file for a re-hearing expires on Tuesday, July 21.

It seemed like a simple and obvious step for our side to take, especially given the outrageous nature of the ruling. So a few days after the June 26 ruling, national pro-family activist Janet Porter called together a few dozen of the top pro-family groups (including MassResistance), activists, and some legal scholars to help get it moving. But we certainly didn’t anticipate this much opposition to this from our “friends”.

Of the four state AGs who are eligible to file the motion (from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee) it was decided for various reasons focus on Mike DeWine of Ohio. Several in the group have connections to him.

Pro-family citizens meet with Ohio AG Mike DeWine

DeWine is a Republican with long connections to pro-family people in Ohio. Janet Porter and several in the group are Ohio residents – some of them know DeWine personally. They were able to arrange a meeting last Friday, July 10, in DeWine’s office, to ask him to file for a re-hearing.

Even with short notice, nearly 50 people showed up for the meeting in DeWine’s Columbus office. They included Janet Porter, Constitutional Law Professor David Forte of Cleveland State University, several Ohio activists, and a large group of pastors. Alongside DeWine was the Ohio Solicitor General, Eric Murphy.

Prof. Forte started the meeting by going over the Motion for Recusal filed on April 27 (the day before the Court hearing) and outlining the legal issues for re-hearing the case. DeWine responded by saying he would not be filing for a re-hearing, then opened up the floor for questions and statements from others.

Pro-family activist and Ohio resident Coach Dave Daubenmire attended the meeting. Here’s his account of what happened.

As soon as Prof. Forte was done presenting, Michael DeWine said he had no intentions of re-filing. He said that there’s no chance of winning; it takes 5 justices to agree to do it. He doesn’t want to give false hope to people that this might be reversed. And it’s now time to direct our focus to protecting religious liberty, he said.

The meeting lasted about an hour and 45 minutes. We had thought we were going to just get 15 minutes. He took every question. Some great points were made. One gentleman asked him, “What about his duty to protect children? Because of this ruling, it’s now going to be taught to our children in schools. It’s going to be mandated. And you have an obligation to protect the children.” Another pastor stood up and said, “This is your Moses moment. The Lord has been preparing you. And you’re an elected official. You represent the will of the people who voted on this issue. And the Supreme Court is totally out of bounds and we want you to appeal it on our behalf. ” Then DeWine went through that whole thing again about why he wasn’t going to file it.

And I told him, “Listen, Attorney General DeWine, I was a football coach for 30 years. I didn’t just play the games I thought we would win. We had to play every game on our schedule. And this game’s not over. We have our legal right to an appeal. And on behalf of the concerned Christians and citizens of Ohio we want you to appeal.” This went on for about an hour and 30 minutes. Everybody who had a question and raised their hand, he listened to the question. He didn’t always answer or respond, but he listened.

And then the meeting was done. At the end of the meeting he didn’t say that he wouldn’t do it, but he didn’t say that he would, either. He promised us that he’d read David Forte’s brief and that he would take it under consideration.

How does DeWine know that somebody’s heart [on the Supreme Court] won’t be changed? We need to at least get them on record about this lack of recusal. The people feel robbed.

One attendee told us this:

I believe that DeWine wants to be Governor. And I believe the Republican Party wants the issue to go away, and that he doesn’t want to cross the party bosses. That’s what I think really happened. But who do you serve? I think he serves the [establishment] Republicans and not the citizens of Ohio.

DeWine reacts to flood of emails & calls (from everywhere)

Over the last week, since MassResistance and others have publicized this, DeWine’s office has his office has received a flood of calls and emails from Ohio, across the country, and even foreign countries. (We know that from people who’ve also contacted us.)

It doesn’t appear that the July 10 meeting moved DeWine much. And his “reasons” for not filing are even weaker than before. Here’s a response DeWine’s office emailed to an activist in Maryland on Tuesday, July 14.

Dear Mr. xxxx:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.

I defended Ohio’s Constitution and statutes in this area at the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

As you know, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court rejected our argument that the definition of marriage should be left to the States and the people.  Before the Court issued its decision, a suggestion for recusal was filed by amicus parties and the individual Justices had the duty to consider their impartiality.  The Justices did not recuse themselves.  Under Supreme Court rules (and specifically Supreme Court Rule 44.1), motions for reconsideration are to be denied unless they have the vote of at least five Justices.

Again, thank you for contacting my office.  If we can ever be of assistance to you in the future, please feel free to contact us.

Very respectfully yours,

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General

Absurd reasoning by DeWine

DeWine’s reasoning in the above email is very disturbing.  (1) He refers to a “suggestion for recusal,” i.e., the Motion for Recusal. But that was not a formal part of the process because it was filed by an outside party – and was most likely ignored by the Justices. And it was submitted the day before the Aril 28 Supreme Court hearing. (2) The fact that a vote to accept a hearing requires five justices not a legitimate reason not to file for a re-hearing. Upon seeing the new evidence, one or more of the majority could change.

Moreover, DeWine’s refusal to file for an appeal arguably constitutes malpractice. There is a universally accepted requirement that a lawyer must zealously fight for his client’s interests, not fold up his tent when it’s inconvenient or unpleasant. The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state, “As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.” This is replicated in just about every other Bar Association code of ethics – even using the word “zealously”. The fact that in 2004 62% of the voters in Ohio passed the state’s Marriage Amendment makes DeWine’s inaction even more outrageous.

What about the other three states eligible to file for a re-hearing?

The Supreme Court case, Obergefell v Hodges, originated in Ohio, but was also a consolidation of cases in Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky – the other states in the Sixth Circuit. Thus, the Attorneys General of all four states have standing to act.

Janet Porter’s ad-hoc pro-family activist committee had connections to DeWine, but unfortunately none of them had effective  political connections to any of the other AGs.

We had assumed that that the larger national pro-family groups would also use their considerable influence to push this. We certainly made this known to them. But they all pretty much backed away. One national leader told Janet that this was a “waste of time.” What about the National Organization for Marriage? Not a word. We could name so many others. (There’s certainly a lot of fundraising going on over this ruling.) Or even the Federalist Society, which had the inside track to the legal process in this case?

Here’s what everyone can do now

CALL, EMAIL, TWITTER, or even FAX these AGs.  They need to hear from more people than they’ve ever heard from before:

Demand that they file a “Motion for Rehearing” in the Supreme Court marriage case by next Tuesday, July 21st. The Court must consider the information about how Justices Kagan Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating homosexual “weddings” before the ruling, and not recusing themselves from this case.

OHIO Attorney General Mike DeWine (Republican)
Phone: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)
Twitter: @OhioAG

TENNESSEE Attorney General Herbert Slatery  (Repubican)
Phone 615-741-3491
Fax 615-741-2009
Twitter: @TNattygen  [https://twitter.com/tnattygen]
Chief of Staff: Leigh Ann Apple Jones

MICHIGAN Attorney General Bill Schuette (Republican)
Phone 517-373-1110
Fax 517-373-3042
Email: miag@michigan.gov

KENTUCKY Attorney General Jack Conway (Democrat)
Phone 502-696-5300
Fax  502-564-2894
Email: web site contact page

Why filing this motion for a re-hearing is very important

We’ll repeat what we said earlier. Even if it’s not ultimately 100% successful this is extremely important:

First, it will “officially” bring the issue of Kagan’s and Ginsburg’s failure to recuse themselves (in violation of federal law) into the public spotlight. Right now, it’s relatively buried in ignored motions and various news articles in some conservative media.  And it will reinforce understanding of the overall illegal nature of this ruling.

Second, it spotlights the overall illegitimacy of today’s Supreme Court, its overtly un-Constitutional approach to shaping our laws, and its illegal power grabs far and beyond what was intended by the Founders.

If this opportunity is lost, it will be a terrible indictment to this movement. If only the homosexual movement would give up this easily.

Florida Supreme Court Opinion is Anti-Self-Defense

Judicial activism is alive and flourishing on the Florida Supreme Court.  The victims of this activism is the Second Amendment and citizens of the Sunshine State’s fundamental right of self-defense.

On Thursday, July 9, 2015, liberals on the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in a self-defense case that clearly has a chilling effect on the constitutional right of self-defense and the immunity from prosecution for exercising self-defense provided by the Legislature in the “Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground” law.  The presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been turned on its head.

Rather than follow the intent of the Legislature, the Court chose to rewrite the law to achieve its own policy goals.

In the Opinion Justice Pariente, who was joined by Justices Labarga, Quince, Perry and Lewis, defiantly said:

“We conclude that placing the burden of proof on the defendant to establish entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity by a preponderance of the evidence at the pretrial evidentiary hearing, rather than on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of force was not justified, is consistent with this Court’s precedent and gives effect to the legislative intent.”

In a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ricky Poltson concurred, Justice Charles Canady correctly wrote:

“By imposing the burden of proof on the defendant at the pretrial evidentiary hearing, the majority substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.”

The entire majority opinion and the dissenting opinion is here:

“By imposing the burden of proof on the defendant at the pretrial evidentiary hearing, the majority substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.”

The entire majority opinion and the dissenting opinion is here:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc13-2312.pdf

Below is a link to an example of how others see this opinion:

Here’s What the Legislature Should Do After Bretherick by Greg Newburn, FAMM State Policy Director posted to FAMM.org on July 10, 2015

Girl Sues Draft for Only Registering Males by Ilya Somin

A recent lawsuit filed by a teenage girl in New Jersey (in conjunction with her mother) challenges the constitutionality of male-only draft registration, arguing that it violates the Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sex [h/t: Elie Mystal of Above the Law]:

A New Jersey teenage girl has brought a federal class action against the Selective Service System, claiming its refusal to consider women for the draft is discriminatory.

“With both males and females available for such roles today, the two sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes and there is no legitimate reason for the government to discriminate against the female class, so equal protection applies,” the complaint states. “Further, with both males and females available for such combat roles, there is no reasonable basis for infringing the associational interests of the female class by preventing them from registering.”

Noting that she will turn 18 this year, E.K.L., as she is named in the complaint, says she attempted to register for the draft on the website of the Selective Service by filling out the online form.

Once she clicked “female” during the online registration process, however, the website prevented her from registering….

E.K.L. and her mother call it undisputed that the Military Selective Service Act creates a sex-based difference.

Banning women from the pool of potential recruits is not rational given the role females currently play within the military, according to the complaint.

“If the two sexes can fight and die together, they can register together; if not, then no one should have to register,” the complaint states.

More information about the lawsuit is available in this article.

predicted that such a case would arise back in early 2013, when the Pentagon made women eligible to serve in nearly all combat roles (though I expected it to be brought by men forced to register for select service, rather than by women excluded from doing so).

The Supreme Court previously upheld the constitutionality of male-only draft registration in the 1981 case of Rostker v. Goldberg. However, as I also pointed out in that post, that ruling was partly based on the theory that women would not be as valuable draftees as men in an era when the armed forces excluded women from most combat positions.

Obviously, that logic is no longer valid. I also noted other reasons why the Court might overrule or at least severely limit Rostker if the issue came before it today:

Lower courts applying Rostker could therefore still conclude that male-only draft registration is constitutional, though Rostker is ambiguous enough on the amount of deference due [to federal government] that the issue is not a slam dunk.

If the issue gets to the Supreme Court however, I’m far from certain that Rostker wouldn’t be overruled or severely limited. As compared with 1981, the idea of women serving in combat is far more widely accepted by both elite and public opinion. And sex discrimination in draft registration is likely to seem like an outdated relic of the days when women were barred from numerous positions in the military.

If the Pentagon sticks to its new policy on women in combat, I think it’s likely that some male plaintiff will bring a new challenge to the Selective Service registration system, and that plaintiff will have a good chance of succeeding. Like most other constitutional law scholars, I think that Rostker was a dubious decision, and would not shed many tears if it were overruled.

For reasons outlined by Steven Calabresi and Julia Rickert, there is also a good originalist case for courts taking a strong line against sex discriminatory laws.

I would add that, since 1981, the Supreme Court has taken a tougher line against sex-discriminatory laws and policies. Most notably, it invalidated the exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. The exclusion of women from a military college is not exactly the same as their exclusion from draft registration. But the two situations have obvious similarities.

There is a chance that this case will end up being thrown out on procedural grounds. A court could potentially rule that women exempt from draft registration don’t have standing to sue because they don’t actually suffer any harm as a result (draft registration is usually considered a burden, not a benefit).

This is one of the reasons why I thought a case would be more likely to be brought by men subject to draft registration than by women exempt from it.

Also, a court might deny the plaintiff’s bid to certify the case as a class action on behalf other similarly situated women. But if the case does go forward, there is a real chance it will ultimately result in the invalidation of male-only draft registration.

To avoid misunderstanding, I should emphasize that I do not support either drafting women or forcing them to register for a possible future draft. But I also oppose drafting men. Conscription is both a severe infringement on individual liberty, and tends to reduce the quality of the military relative to an all volunteer armed forces.

Ultimately, the best way to avoid conscripting women is to not have conscription – or draft registration – at all. By taking that step, we could simultaneously reduce the likelihood that the draft will be reimposed in the future and eliminate one of the last bastions of open sex discrimination in government policy.

In my view, a decision striking down male-only draft registration is more likely to lead to the abolition of draft registration altogether than to its extension to women.

This post originally appeared at the Volokh Conspiracy. 

Ilya Somin

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. He blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Lessons from the Richest Duck in the World by Robert Anthony Peters

Scrooge is an unlikely name for a hero. Since Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, it has elicited thoughts of disagreeable skinflints. That all changed with Scrooge McDuck.

At first, Donald Duck’s Uncle Scrooge was quite Dickensian in character, but creator Carl Barks knew that a churlish miser would not sustain an audience’s sympathy. To really give this character legs (or wings), he would have to give him the kind of morals that resonate with readers.

It worked. Disney’s Duck universe has been popular for over 60 years. My generation enjoyed Duck Tales on TV. An older generation avidly read Uncle Scrooge comics, the first issue of which has Scrooge explaining how he earned his fortune: “I made it by being tougher than the toughies, and smarter than the smarties! And I made it square!”

Barks created a wealth of economic lessons through fables that are still enjoyed around the globe today.

A Modern-Day Aesop

Barks was born in rural Oregon to a farming family at the turn of the 20th century. Growing up, he had a hardscrabble existence. Due to several moves, living far from schools, and poor hearing from childhood measles, he had minimal education. He worked as a farmer, cowboy, swamper, railroad worker, printer, and more. His first gig as an illustrator was for a men’s humor magazine. In late 1935, he discovered an ad in the newspaper for Disney. Though the job offered only half his current pay, he decided to join the animation department and eventually the comic book publisher. Barks was a man who was willing to work hard, work well, and take a chance on great possibilities. The storytelling in these comics featured Barks’s strongly individualist outlook, his belief in the entrepreneur, and his optimism in markets resulting in human benefit.

Trade, Trade Again

Before Barks created Uncle Scrooge, he was already exploring the beneficial nature of trade in 1947’s “Maharajah Donald,” an issue of the Donald Duck comic book series, which featured Donald and his nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie. The story begins with the boys cleaning out the garage at Donald’s behest, with the understanding that they could keep whatever he did not want. Predictably, he wanted all the things and was only willing to part with one stub of a pencil that’s “not worth a thing.” Less than thrilled, the boys keep it to trade for something else. They run into Piggy, who offers them a ball of string. Figuring it is not worse, they trade. As luck would have it, they run into a kid whose kite flying is limited by his length of string. Eager to get it really soaring, he trades them his knife for their string. One of the nephews feels a pang of guilt, but in short order, the other two chime in, “Don’t let it bother you” because “he’s happy!”

Eventually, they trade up to a pearl and decide to cash in. There happens to be a man in the jewelry store who was about to sail to India to obtain a pearl much like what they have in their hands. They exchange it for the steamboat ticket, which Donald promptly steals from them. Donald boards, the nephews stow away, and they arrive in India, only for Donald to run afoul of the local magistrate to the point of being fed to the royal tigers. While wracking their brains to find ways to save him, his nephews run over their list of assets: “We don’t know a soul we could ask for help … and we haven’t a cent for bribing the guards … we just can’t do something that is impossible.” But lo and behold, what do they spy next but an old stub of a pencil! To which the nephews declare, “We’re rich!” They then commence trading goods until they have acquired a creative solution to free their uncle from his predicament.

The story presents a cornucopia of economics lessons: subjective value, mutual gains from trade, and entrepreneurship. What better display of subjectivity than to have your life saved by the application of market exchange to a good that you considered worthless? Mutual gains are clear by the voluntary nature and perceived benefit of each party to the trade. (Most poignant is the Kirznerian alertness to the pencil and its use in trade.)

A Land without Greed

“Tralla La” is the tale of an exasperated Uncle Scrooge. Tired of being hounded for his wealth and time by charities, businessmen, and tax collectors, he finally snaps, telling Donald, “I want to go someplace where there is no money and wealth means nothing!” From his physician, he hears of the land of Tralla La, a land without gold, jewels, or money, deep in the Himalayas. Scrooge, Donald, and nephews set forth, and as they fly overhead, they see a land of abundance. The leader explains, “We Tralla Lallians have never known greed! Friendship is the thing we value most!”

All is serene until a farmer discovers a bottle cap that Scrooge had carelessly tossed out of the plane window. The honest peasant attempts to return it to Scrooge, who declines it, considering it worthless. Subjective value makes its appearance here, when the farmer and his fellow villagers invest this item with great desirability, leading to a bidding war that goes from 10 sheep to 20 and finally to a year’s yield of rice. When it is discovered that Scrooge has a case of bottles, all with caps, the Tralla Lallians attempt to purchase it, to no avail. Finally, the mob declares him a “meanie” and wants his taxes raised. The only solution to this problem is to call in an air strike — not of bombs, but bottle caps.

Even a humble bottle cap can spark desire because of its scarcity. Its price will be high if it is the only one around and perceived to have value. The results of “Helicopter Ben’s” strategy are on display here as well. Though the Federal Reserve may believe that it can make people wealthier by increasing the money supply, Uncle Scrooge knows that increasing the number of bottle caps will diminish their worth.

From Riches to Rags to Riches

Finally, and probably the most famous Uncle Scrooge story in economics circles, we have “A Financial Fable.” Beginning as a bucolic idyll, the story opens with  the entire Duck clan working the fields and tending the livestock. The nephews sing the praises of hard work while Donald complains, wanting money for nothing.

Scrooge investigates his new bank, a corn crib, hiding his money in plain sight. This may not have been his brightest idea: a cyclone whips through and takes all of his money, scattering it over the countryside. The nephews are distraught, but Scrooge simply replies, “If I stay here and tend to my beans and pumpkins, I’ll get it all back.”

Donald and the rest of the country quit their jobs and set off to “see the world.” Meanwhile, Scrooge and the boys continue to labor on their farm. With no one else working and nothing being produced, Donald and the rest of the world come straggling back. Scrooge is happy to feed them — at new market prices. Eggs are a million dollars apiece, cabbage is two million, and ham is a bargain at a cool trillion. With each purchase, the money from Scrooge’s corn crib trickles back and he becomes, yet again, the richest duck in the world.

With another “helicopter” scenario, we see the inflationary effects of a massive injection of money. We also get a glimpse into many aspects of wealth — how it is created, how it is maintained, and what happens when we redistribute in ways that are not related to market performance. Barks knew he was creating a morality tale of capitalism, admitting, “I’m sure the lesson I preached in this story of easy riches will get me in a cell in a Siberian gulag someday.”

Economic Tales

Economics is all around us — even in our comic books.

Now cable channel Disney XD has announced plans to relaunch Duck Tales in 2017. As long as the show sticks to the characters and stories inspired by the great Carl Barks, it will offer us plenty to enjoy — and economics lessons that are sure to fit the bill.

Robert Anthony Peters

Robert Anthony Peters is an actor, director, producer, and member of the FEE alumni advisory board.

Could Hillary Really “Restore” the Middle Class? by Donald J. Boudreaux

Eduardo Porter opens his column today by asking “Could President Hillary Clinton restore the American middle class?” (“Sizing Up Hillary Clinton’s Plans to Help the Middle Class”).

Mr. Porter illegitimately presents as an established fact a proposition that is anything but. It’s true that between 1967 and 2009 the percent of American families with annual incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 (in 2009 dollars) fell from 62 to 39 – a fact that, standing alone, might be interpreted as evidence that the middle class is disappearing.

Yet this fact does not stand alone, for it’s also true that the percent of families with annual incomes lower than $25,000 also fell (from 22 to 18) while the percent of families with annual incomes of $75,000 and higher rose significantly – from 16 to 43.*

So given these Census Bureau data – which are strong evidence that America’s middle class, if disappearing, is doing so by moving into the upper classes – to ask if President Hillary Clinton could restore the American middle class is to ask if she will make the bulk of today’s prosperous families poorer rather than richer.

This post first appeared at CafeHayek.

Donald Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

5 Unintended Consequences of Regulation and Government Meddling by Robert P. Murphy

Voters frequently support measures that sound noble and beneficial but end up causing serious mischief — and often hurt the very groups the measures were intended to help.

A well-known example is price controls, which include minimum wage laws and rent control. These can cause unemployment among low-skill workers and apartment shortages for those without connections.

But that’s not all. Not by a long shot.

Here are five more examples of unintended consequences.

1. “Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up”

The Endangered Species Act and other laws restrict how landowners can use their property if it is discovered that their actions may adversely affect vulnerable wildlife. Besides the injustice of violating property rights, this regulation produces perverse results.

Imagine a landowner in the Midwest who had plans to sell to an outside developer who wanted to build a shopping mall. One morning, a few days before closing the deal, the man is sipping coffee and looking off his back porch into the woods. He suddenly sees a woodpecker that he recognizes as a protected species. What will the man do, if he follows pecuniary incentives? Is he going to call up federal bureaucrats and tell them the good news?

No. The man will probably go get his gun and shovel and never speak of this incident to anyone.

2. Seat Belt Legislation Kills

In the typical debate over seat belt mandates — in which drivers can be heavily fined if caught driving without buckling up — advocates of liberty tend to stress individuals’ “right to be stupid” while others claim that public safety trumps absolute freedom. Ideology aside, do such laws make us safer?

Economist Sam Peltzman looked at the evidence after some states enacted seat belt legislation, while others did not. He found that drivers did buckle up more frequently because of the government penalties but that traffic fatalities were roughly unchanged.

True, the probability of dying in a car crash went down, if you were in a crash, because wearing a seat belt definitely helps you survive a typical accident. However, the states that passed the seat belt legislation saw anincrease in rates of traffic accidents. Because people felt safer, they drove just a little more recklessly. No individual driver wakes up and says, “I’m going to get in a fender bender today,” but with millions of people driving hours per day, 365 days per year, we will definitely see more accidents in the aggregate if people are even slightly more aggressive on the margin.

Peltzman found that total fatalities were about the same. The death rate for motorists crept down, but this was offset by a higher death rate among pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars. Some groups obviously did not benefit from the higher prevalence of seat belt usage.

3. Stricter Vehicle Fuel Economy Mandates Do Little for the Environment

The federal government imposes minimum corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards on certain vehicles. Some states wanted to “do more” for the environment, so they passed tighter mandates. In other words, states like California imposed higher mile-per-gallon requirements on cars sold in California than the federal government insisted on.

But the way the states structured their rules led to a significant “leakage.” If a car manufacturer increased the average fuel economy for its vehicles sold in California, for example, then those cars counted as part of its “fleet” in calculating the average fuel economy for its cars sold in the nation as a whole. The manufacturer could then get away with selling cars that had lower fuel economy in the states that did not supplement the federal rule, and they were still satisfying both state and national standards. Thus, the California rule as originally designed led to fewer emissions per vehicle-mile in California — but not nearly as much in the nation as a whole. Some economists estimated this “leakage” to be as high as 74 percent. The hodgepodge of standards simply raised the total costs of vehicles while doing little to reduce total US emissions.

4. Jane Jacobs Combats City Planning

Fans of Austrian economics should not be surprised to learn that Jane Jacobs, the champion of the American city, found several flaws with typical bureaucratic city planners. For example, zoning regulations broke up the spontaneous growth of cities into “residential” and “commercial” sections, spawning crime and other social ills.

Originally, apartments were interspersed with shops, so that the owners could always keep an eye on their businesses and on their children. This “natural surveillance” was destroyed with zoning and other regulations, not to mention the interstate highways that would rip neighborhoods apart and the austere “housing projects” that placed most adults far away from the street and thus unable to monitor and shoo away unsavory characters. Zoned neighborhoods became unsafe neighborhoods.

5. Three Strikes Mean You’re Out

In an understandable reaction to “liberal” judges who would give slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders, the 1990s saw a wave of automatic sentencing legislation to take away judges’ discretion. This included California’s famous 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” rule (Proposition 184), where someone convicted of a third felony would get 25 years to life. Currently, 24 states have some form of “three strikes” legislation.

One problem with these rules is that many acts are felonies that most people would consider petty, such as bringing a smoke bomb to high school. In California, one man with two prior felony convictions was sentenced to 25 years to life for being with a friend who got caught selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover cop.

An unintended consequence of the “three strikes” rules is that someone with two prior felony convictions now has a serious incentive to evade arrest for a third. And in fact, empirical studies of Los Angeles data suggest that more police officers have been killed because of this effect.

The Upshot

Incentives matter. It’s not enough for voters to endorse legislation that has a nice title and promises to do something good. People need to think through the full consequences of a policy, because often it will lead to a cure worse than the disease.

Robert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy is senior economist with the Institute for Energy Research. He is author of Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action (Independent Institute, 2015).

Obama: The Most Pro-Abortion President in America’s 239 years — Hillary Clinton will be worse!

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of St. Bonaventure” as we are still trying to recuperate from the appalling video we all witnessed yesterday showing the disgusting Planned Parenthood executive speak about abortion and selling the babies’ body parts. Now, we are talking about extreme outrage and going way over the top…and something needs to be done immediately. I know the good & bold Pro-Life folks from Created Equal are at the steps of the White House as I write this piece. Thank you, Mark Harrington. Thank you, Seth Drayer. You guys make a difference – and our gutless, Pro-abortion President in the White House (who regards Planned Parenthood as “the best thing that ever happened to women”) – needs to be called out on this more than ever. He has a lot at stake here. But, like always – The Emperor will put on his clothes, over-ride this controversy, put out another Executive Order…and literally “get away with murder” once again…

After all, how can the President of the Free World punish an evil organization that he promotes, funds and has great stock in?

Well, we are about 17 months from the Presidential Elections of 2016 and we all really need to digest everything that has occurred in “our” White House during these past 6 plus years that the liberal, Constitution-defying Obama has been occupying it. Just in terms of the atrocities of abortion, I can write volumes. For starters, just last month, he funded Planned Parenthood another 5.6 million dollars! That’s money from tax-payer pockets that he is using to fund PP so that they can kill innocent babies – going against the 5th Commandment, while throwing the Constitution of the United States & the Declaration of Independence out the trash along with these aborted babies as if human rights never existed. And, unborn babies have the same human rights as you and I do…

But, what exactly is an “unborn baby”? How do you define an unborn baby? What is a fetus? What is this “blob of cells” that the Pro-abortion liberals refer to? When does a baby become a human being? When does that baby have a heartbeat? When does an unborn baby begin to have those human rights that I just spoke about? What does “conception to natural death” really mean?

If the experts at Planned Parenthood continue to tell these women that “there is no baby – it is just a blob of cells” – why in GOD’s name are they selling these “body parts” for serious money when it is just a blob of cells? When did a blob of cells ever contain a fully-formed liver or kidney that these degenerates are getting up to $100.00 for? Let that sink in for a moment…

Are these Pro-abortion liberals finally owning up to the fact that this is a real baby – with real living body parts – as opposed to that “blob of cells” that they tell these young ladies about who come in for a desperate abortion? Are they now agreeing with Pro-Lifers that it is “from conception…”?

This argument may just be the one that we Pro-Lifers have been looking for for the past 42 years to maybe reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision…

If we Pro-Lifers do not call Planned Parenthood out on this atrocity and take this all the way up to the Supreme Court to bust them outright, then, we are missing a golden opportunity to put a STOP to the killings at these “baby killing chambers”? This particular video on Planned Parenthood that I am referring to was actually taken about a year ago and it shows clear evidence that PP has been committing all types of criminal infractions and this is just as bad as what former Philadelphia baby killer, Kermit Gosnell, did in his heyday to countless babies, who were at least 22 weeks old…Ironically, Killer Kermit is doing “life”, after taking so many…

But, it all begins at the top…And, when the Land of the Free has a radical leader running the country like Obama, who has been embracing, supporting, promoting and funding abortion for decades – where he puts Planned Parenthood up on a pedestal as the solution to this so-called “War on Women” – what can the 317 million Americans in this country do? What can the wholesome, Pro-Life citizens in this country do with this terrific opportunity that came out yesterday with this controversial “selling of baby body parts” by PP in order to take advantage of it? Now, it is time to put pressure on Obama & Planned Parenthood while the iron is hot? Now is the time for us Pro-Lifers to really put the heat on PP and just like we did with Kermit Gosnell (who even the liberal Pro-abortion folks were appalled by) – take this criminal activity to another level and pursue this atrocity like we did with Gosnell and try to put an end to these “killing fields” in locations that are inappropriately called Planned Parenthood…

Friends: We all have to VOTE PRO-LIFE in this up-coming 2016 Presidential Elections to make sure that the even-more, Pro-Abortion Hillary Clinton does not even have a chance in being elected to run our country. That will be a total disaster!! Like I have said many times before – “If we think Obama is evil, liberal and very Pro-abortion – just wait to see what happens to our beloved country if this ‘Witch from Mad-as-Hell County’ gets elected”.

Pastor Rick Warren, author of A Purpose Driven Life, interviews Barack Obama and Senator John McCain in 2008, before the Presidential Elections of 2009. Listen for John McCain’s immediate and to-the-point, answer – “At the moment of conception”. A three second correct answer. What all of us Pro-Lifers would answer with. Then, listen to Obama’s answer…It actually hurts to see this “nobody without credentials” struggle for a gutless answer. And, this is who 53 % of Catholics in this country voted for in our last two elections:

Barack Obama at it again – forcing Religious non-profits to provide abortifacients. The HHS Mandate of 2012 truly destroyed the Religious Freedom that our beloved country enjoyed for so many decades and it’s Obama, himself, who is the main culprit behind it.

Please read this column: Obama administration forces religious nonprofits to provide contraceptives.

Hillary Clinton, also in bed with Planned Parenthood, gets help from a Planned Parenthood CEO to open up an office in Iowa…conflict of interest or what? When there are no rules & regulations for the liberals like Obama & Clinton – how can a “conflict of interest” ever exist? It’s the Outlaws who are running this country – therefore “all laws are out”.

Please read this column: Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz CEO Helps Hillary Clinton Open Iowa Office.

Finally please watch this appalling video of a Planned Parenthood Official Taped Discussing Sale of Aborted Baby Body Parts:

Will Your Child become a Robot’s Pet? Apple’s Co-founder Thinks So…

I have written about how technology can be used for both good and evil. Technology has become ubiquitous, it is everywhere. Our children and grandchildren are becoming more addicted to technology, as they do so the evil side may rear its ugly head.

The Guardian reports:

Apple’s early-adopting, outspoken co-founder Steve Wozniak thinks humans will be fine if robots take over the world because we’ll just become their pets.

After previously stating that a robotic future powered by artificial intelligence (AI) would be “scary and very bad for people” and that robots would “get rid of the slow humans”, Wozniak has staged a U-turn and says he now thinks robots taking over would be good for the human race.

“They’re going to be smarter than us and if they’re smarter than us then they’ll realise they need us,” Wozniak said at the Freescale technology forum in Austin. “We want to be the family pet and be taken care of all the time.”

Artificial intelligence was the theme of the movie Ex Machina. The prime character is another tech billionaire who believes, like Wozniak, that he can create the perfect AI robot. This dream results in his death and the death of others. As I wrote in my column “Ex Machina: Consciousness without a Conscience“:

This film is disturbing because is shows how humans without a conscience (morality) can, when given the chance, pass along their lack of morality to a machine.

[ … ]

Humans must control their urges to use technology to become God, as Caleb points out to Nathan. Robots must never be allowed to act alone. Think of the film The Terminator. You see machines may have a goal but lack a soul.

If the goal of AI machines is to have us as pets then perhaps we need to rethink having AI machines?

In “Cyber Security: Where are we now and where are we headed?” I warned:

The more we tune in, turn on and hook in to technology the greater the threat to individual privacy and freedom.

[ … ]

What are the future threats?

bio chip embedded in hands

Sub-dermal chip implants.

Restorative and enhancement technologies, biohackers, cyborgs, grinders and sub-dermal technology (chipping). Restorative technologies include devices used to help individuals medically. They are devices, that include a computer chip, used to restore the lives of individuals to normal or near normal. Restorative technologies include devices such as: heart pace makers, insulin pumps and prosthetic devices.

Enhancement devices are those which the individual implants into their bodies outside of the medically approved arena. Individuals can for just $39 buy a glass-encased embeddable chip that works with some Android smartphones.  A full DIY cyborg kit, including a sterilized injector and gauze pads, runs about $100. Amal Graafstra, a cyborg who creates and sells biohacking devices, said, “Some people see the body as a spiritual vessel not to be tampered with.  And some people understand their body is their own, treating it like a sport utility vehicle. I see [biohacking] as, I got fancy new fog lights on my SUV. “

Some of these enhancement devices are being designed to be used with computer games. The idea is to give the gamer a more realistic experience by using sub-dermal technology to provide pleasure and pain as the game is played. Mr. Jorgensen states that the gaming industry is “spending $300 million annually” to provide sub-dermal gaming chips, effectively turning gamers into cyborgs.

Will your grandchild become a cyborg’s pet or become a cyborg? It is immoral to have a human become the “pet” of a robot.

Pet is another name for slave.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Killer Robots Will Leave Humans ‘Utterly Defenseless’ Warns Professor

In ‘Tomorrowland,’ We Get a Glimpse of the Left’s Vision for the Future

‘World’s first’ robot kitchen cooks for visitors at CES Asia in Shanghai

Robot learns skills through trial and error, like you do

Robot Tongue Identifies The Correct Beer Every Time

The End of Boys and Girls: These Companies Are Going to Change How Your Kids Dress [+video]

 

Benevolence Betrayed

pushke

Pushke…

To the best of my knowledge, when I was growing up everyone had a pushke, a tin can that served as an alms box.  I remember two types, cylindrical and squared, always wrapped in paper with a Star of David, and a coin slot at the top.  Each Sabbath (Friday) evening, we dropped coins into it, and when it was full, we would bring it to the local synagogue to be given to Jewish groups that would somehow help the Jews in Europe.

We trusted the Jewish Federations, but just as our world has changed and become unrecognizable, so have the charitable organizations upon which we once depended. Now we must stop and scrutinize their websites to learn if they are, indeed, carrying out the philanthropy they promised, as some have surely deviated from their original mission.  All too often, they bear Jewish or Zionist names, but the aid flows to Muslims in the name of multiculturalism and compassion while those immigrants flood our shores in the name of jihad – to establish Islam and Sharia law throughout the free world.  And if that weren’t enough, the Saudi Prince has just pledged $32 billion to advance the Islamization of America, to be fashioned after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that produced Common Core.

The Jewish Coalition for Syrian Refugees in Jordan, for example, is the umbrella organization for organizations such as the ADL, AJC, JCPA, Jewish Federations of North America, and others that work to bring Muslims to America, to accomplish their Qur’anic obligation of jihad.  A group once known as the Hebrew Immigration American Society, has since dropped “Hebrew” from its name.  HIAS now uses Jewish donations to resettle Syrian Muslims in America. US Together is resettling Afghan and Syrian refugees in Toledo, Ohio, which already features a mosque, shopping center, large apartment complex, Arabic charter school, and a huge employer, the University of Toledo, within walking distance.

We can no longer trust, unconditionally, what we knew or what we hoped.  Our world is a very different place.  The following is a list of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim organizations known to work against the best interests of Jews, Israel, and America. Without the use of violence, they pose a real and present danger to all.

  • Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER): regularly links anti-war and anti-Israel movements at rallies; coordinated rallies against Israel during flotilla and other wars.
  • Al-Awda: largest Palestinian-American grassroots organization. Hosts conferences to strategize about ways to oppose Israel; champions Palestinians’ “right of return.”  Norman Finkelstein is a member.
  • American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: Deals with cases of “discrimination, defamation, and hate crimes” against Arabs, monitors “stereotyping and bias in films”; this is an extension of Islamophobia, controlling what may be spoken about Muslims and Islam, including homeland security issues, etc.,  Gives voice to anti-Semitism, supporting terrorism and genocide, and destruction of the State of Israel
  • American Friends Service Committee: While claiming to work for peace and social justice in the US and around the world (including racial injustice, women’s issues, equality for sexual minorities), it has been called ‘the most militant and aggressive of Christian anti-Israel groups.
  • CODEPINK, a woman-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement that is boycotting Israel products on behalf of Palestinian issues, and attracts anti-Semitic supporters.
  • Council for the National Interest  (CNI): an anti-Israel organization that opposes aid to Israel  and disseminates demonizing propaganda about Israel to academics, politicians, and other audiences.
  • Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation trial, is linked to Muslim Brotherhood, supports Hamas, and promotes lawsuits to thwart American laws (lawfare).
  • Friends of Sabeel-North American (FOSNA): Jerusalem-based Palestinian Christian organization, forges alliances with mainline Protestant churches; accuses Israel of racism, oppression, human rights violations.
  • HIAS used to stand for Hebrew Immigration American Society, a charitable organization that responded to the needs of Jews from the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the Holocaust to the collapse of the Iron Curtain. HIAS and ADL under the auspices of the UJA Federation of NY have joined together, using Jewish money to bring Muslims to America – their commitment to diversity, without regard to consequences.
  • If Americans Knew (IAK): demands end to US support; speaks at colleges, etc. Invents conspiracy theories: USS Liberty, harvesting Palestinian organs, “transplant tourism,” etc.
  • International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network: an international network of Jews committed to “liberating” the “Palestinian people” and land, and dismantling Israel. They create policy and set anti-Israel agenda.
  • International Solidarity Movement (ISM): Anti-Israel movement, such as “Free Gaza Movement” with eight-boat flotilla mission and violent clashes with Israeli Navy.
  • Islamic Society of North America (ISNA): named as unindicted co-conspirator in the US Dept of Justice Holy Land Foundation trials, it is connected to virtually all other Islamic organizations (including MSA). Its purpose it to replace the US  Constitution with sharia law and government with Islamic state.  Projects: Islamic education, youth organization, mosque construction and control, media and science.
  • J Street: a George Soros-funded, far-left organization that claims to be “pro-Israel,” but spends its energy opposing Israeli policies. Posturing as pro-peace Americans who seek security, it consistently advocates for a perilous two-state solution that would ultimately diminish Isael’s borders, cede land to her enemies, ad further endanger Israeli citizens.
  • Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP): Led by Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of the New York chapter, JVP uses its Jewish identity to call an end toIsrael. It is dedicated to disparage and defame Israel as a racist, apartheid state and support BDS – sometimes violently – against Israelis, and at the University of California.
  • Muslim American Society (MAS): promotes, organizes anti-Israel activity in US.  Works with mosques to attract demonstrators to support terrorist groups; raised funds for Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza (2009). Co-sponsored Chicago conference to eradicate Israel.
  • Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP): Anti-Israel events and campaigns on campuses, including Israeli Apartheid weeks, mock “apartheid walls” and “checkpoint” displays. Divestment campaigns.
  • Student Muslim Union (SMU) or Association (SMA) purports to serve the needs of the Muslim community. With claims of social injustice and oppression, they instigate and encourage boycott (BDS) against Israel, and harassment against Jewish students.  They are the campus arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel: Academics and organizations in “Palestine,” the US, the UK, and other countries to boycott Israeli universities and academics; to isolate Israel and align with the greater BDS movement. (Other scholars and politicians describe the campaign as “profoundly unjust.”
  • US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO): over 200 national groups to persuade US government to cut aid to Israel. They strategize and formulate policies and oppose Israeli blockades. Conspiratorial speakers included Dennis Kucinich (former U.S. Representative from Ohio, twice candidate for Democratic nomination for U.S. President, 53rd Mayor of Cleveland, with “the strongest liberal perspective,” and Brian Baird (president of Antioch University Seattle, U.S. Representative for Washington’s 3rd congressional district, member of Democratic Party.

The following are some organizations that are known for strongly supporting Israel:

  • ZOA – Zionist Organization of America,
  • AFSI – Americans For a Safe Israel,
  • CAMERA – Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America,
  • CJUI – Christians and Jews United for Israel,
  • EMET – Endowment for Middle East Truth,
  • HonestReporting,
  • MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute,
  • Stand With Us, and
  • Tom Trento’s The United West organization.

Planned Parenthood Sells Body Parts of Aborted Children

LOS ANGELES, July 14—New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”

“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”

Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).

Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”

The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: Aborted Baby Parts Being Used to Grow Human Organs in Rodents

These Famous Food Companies Have Been Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives

6 Scandals Involving Planned Parenthood

Senator Ted Cruz calls for ‘immediate’ investigation into Planned Parenthood

2016 GOP Contenders Call for Investigation of Planned Parenthood

Should We Fear the Era of Driverless Cars or Embrace the Coming Age of Autopilot? by Will Tippens

Driving kills more than 30,000 Americans every year. Wrecks cause billions of dollars in damages. The average commuter spends nearly 40 hours a year stuck in traffic and almost five years just driving in general.

But there is light at the end of the traffic-jammed tunnel: the driverless car. Thanks to millions of dollars in driverless technology investment by tech giants like Google and Tesla, the era of road rage, drunk driving, and wasted hours behind the wheel could be left in a cloud of dust within the next two decades.

Despite the immense potential of self-driving vehicles, commentators are already dourly warning that such automation will produce undesirable effects. As political blogger Scott Santens warns,

Driverless vehicles are coming, and they are coming fast…. As close as 2025 — that is in a mere 10 years — our advancing state of technology will begin disrupting our economy in ways we can’t even yet imagine. Human labor is increasingly unnecessary and even economically unviable compared to machine labor.

The problem, Santens says, is that there are “over 10 million American workers and their families whose incomes depend entirely or at least partially on the incomes of truck drivers.” These professional drivers will face unemployment within the next two decades due to self-driving vehicles.

Does this argument sound familiar?

These same objections have sprung up at every major stage of technological innovation since the Industrial Revolution, from the textile-working Luddites destroying looming machines in the 1810s to taxi drivers in 2015 smashing Uber cars.

Many assume that any initial job loss accompanying new technology harms the economy and further impoverishes the most vulnerable, whether fast food workers or truck drivers. It’s true that losing a job can be an individual hardship, but are these same pundits ready to denounce the creation of the light bulb as an economic scourge because it put the candle makers out of business?

Just as blacksmithing dwindled with the decline of the horse-drawn buggy, economic demand for certain jobs waxes and wanes. Jobs arise and continue to exist for the sole reason of satisfying consumer demands, and the consumer’s demands are continuously evolving. Once gas heating devices became available, most people decided that indoor fires were dirtier, costlier, and less effective at heating and cooking, so they switched. While the change temporarily disadvantaged those in the chimney-sweeping business, the added value of the gas stove vastly improved the quality of life for everyone, chimney sweeps included.

There were no auto mechanics before the automobile and no web designers before the Internet. It is impossible to predict all the new employment opportunities a technology will create beforehand. Countless jobs exist today that were unthinkable in 1995 — and 20 years from now, people will be employed in ways we cannot yet begin to imagine, with the driverless car as a key catalyst.

The historical perspective doesn’t assuage the naysayers. If some jobs can go extinct, couldn’t all jobs go extinct?

Yes, every job we now know could someday disappear — but so what? Specific jobs may come and go, but that doesn’t mean we will ever see a day when labor is no longer demanded.

Economist David Ricardo demonstrated in 1817 that each person has a comparative advantage due to different opportunity costs. Each person is useful, and no matter how unskilled he or she may be, there will always be something that each person has a special advantage in producing. When this diversity of ability and interest is coupled with the infinite creativity of freely acting individuals, new opportunities will always arise, no matter how far technology advances.

Neither jobs nor labor are ends in themselves — they are mere means to the goal of wealth production. This does not mean that every person is concerned only with getting rich, but as Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, real wealth consists in what is produced and consumed: the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in. It is railways and roads and motor cars; ships and planes and factories; schools and churches and theaters; pianos, paintings and hooks.

In other words, wealth is the ability to fulfill subjective human desires, whether that means having fresh fruit at your local grocery or being able to easily get from point A to point B. Labor is simply a means to these ends. Technology, in turn, allows labor to become far more efficient, resulting in more wealth diffused throughout society.

Everyone knows that using a bulldozer to dig a ditch in an hour is preferable to having a whole team of workers spend all day digging it by hand. The “surplus” workers are now available to do something else in which they can produce more highly valued goods and services.  Over time, in an increasingly specialized economy, productivity rises and individuals are able to better serve one another through mutually beneficial exchanges in the market. This ongoing process of capital accumulation is the key to all meaningful prosperity and the reason all of humanity has seen an unprecedented rise in wealth, living standards, leisure, and health in the past two centuries.

Technology is always uncertain going forward. Aldous Huxley warned in 1927 that jukeboxes would put live artists out of business. Time magazine predicted the computer would wreak economic chaos in the 1960s.

Today, on the cusp of one of the biggest innovations since the Internet, there is, predictably, similar opposition. But those who wring their hands at the prospect of the driverless car fail to see that its greatest potential lies not in reducing pollution and road deaths, nor in lowering fuel costs and insurance rates, but rather in its ability to liberate billions of hours of human potential that truckers, taxi drivers, and commuters now devote to focusing on the road.

No one can know exactly what the future will look like, but we know where we have been, and we know the principles of human flourishing that have guided us here.

If society is a car, trade is the engine — and technology is the gas. It drives itself. Enjoy the ride.

Will Tippens

Will Tippens is a recent law school graduate living in Memphis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Roads of the Future Are Made of Plastic

Apple co-founder: Robots to own people as their pets – English Pravda.RU