Planned Parenthood Openly ‘Targets’ Black Community

/in , , , , , /by

With the release of a second video showing yet another Planned Parenthood doctor talking about the harvesting and selling of aborted baby body parts, a new allegation has surfaced.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, the racial cleansing of American society. In Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12, Sanger wrote:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Kelsey Harkness from The Daily Signal reports:

Following allegations that Planned Parenthood is selling aborted fetal body parts for profit, black pro-life leaders are calling to defund the organization and address what they call “targeting” of their community.

“It’s an open secret that they are targeting the black community, that they have located their facilities within a two-mile walking radius of a black or Latino neighborhood…and they are coming after black women,” Catherine Davis of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition told The Daily Signal while gathering with other pro-life leaders in Alexandria, Va.

To hear that this organization is allowed by our government to do that kind of targeting is very disturbing to me. I call it today’s 21st Century Jim Crow.

Davis, a longtime critic of Planned Parenthood, said the only difference between Planned Parenthood and Jim Crow is that “we can’t see” the targeting because it occurs inside abortion clinics.

Read more.

Planned parenthood cartoon mengeleIn 1926 Margaret Sanger was a guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, New Jersey. Sanger wrote in her biography:

Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.

Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.

In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

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

Planned Parenthood Pulls Names of Corporate Donors After Coca-Cola, Ford and Xerox Object

The Relationship Between Planned Parenthood and Redefining Marriage

Meet the 41 Companies That Donate Directly to Planned Parenthood

2nd Smoking Gun Video: Planned Parenthood Abortionist Haggles Over Payments For “Intact Fetal Specimens” [+video]

Planned Parenthood videos should appall even pro-choice advocates – Boston Globe

Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Executive Haggles Over Cost of Aborted Baby Body Parts

Planned Parenthood Spent $679,596 in 2014 to Help Elect These Candidates

Rand Paul Vows to End Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

16 Tweets Reacting to Another Video Exposing Planned Parenthood

RELATED VIDEO: Brit Hume Commentary on Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts:

EDITORS NOTE: Kate Scanlon from The Daily Signal compiled these 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.

RELATED VIDEO: Mike Wallace interview with Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood:

 

VIDEO: Florida Muslim ‘Gun Free’ Zone

/in , , , /by

If you ever wanted to see an illustration of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” you have no further to look than at today’s show.

We feature Florida gun store owner Andy Hallinan who made a very provocative You Tube video about not allowing Muslims to buy guns or use his range. Predictably, the lefty nitwit talking heads like Carol Costello of CNN were all flummoxed as they tried to make Mr. Hallinan out to be some nut case, but, just the opposite occurred as Hallinan “schools” his interviewers and make some amazing points.

Next up, CAIR, Florida and their leader, Hassan Shibly as they take a “shot” at Hallinan and try to catch him in some legal snare.

Our money is on Andy, take a look!

Kerry: Iran vow to defy U.S. “very disturbing”

/in , , , /by

It begins to dawn even upon the Secretary of State that he may not quite have achieved peace in our time. But he has already given away the store.

“Kerry says Iran vow to defy U.S. is ‘very disturbing,’Reuters, July 21, 2015:

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama/Kerry Released Iranian Nuclear ‘Scientist’ But Left Jailed Americans Behind

Authorities seek to revoke citizenship of Oregon imam who aided jihadis

D.C.: Muslim accused of fundraising and recruiting for jihad terror group

The Spy in Your Pocket by Joseph S. Diedrich and Nicole Kardell

/in , , , /by

Does the government need a search warrant to know where you’ve been? Not if your cell phone provider knows. If you don’t like how that sounds, there may be ways to change it.

Take the case of Quartavious Davis, a Florida man convicted of robbing at gunpoint a pizzeria, a gas station, a drugstore, an auto parts store, a beauty salon, a fast food restaurant, and a jewelry store. The prosecution offered multiple lines of evidence, but there was one in particular that Davis’s lawyers objected to: records the government obtained from Davis’s cell phone provider, MetroPCS.

The records, which MetroPCS kept in its normal course of business, showed “the telephone numbers for each of Davis’s calls and the number of the cell tower that connected each call.” From this information, police concluded that “calls to and from Davis’s cell phone were connected through cell tower locations that were near the robbery locations, and thus Davis necessarily was near the robberies too.”

Prosecutors got their hands on the MetroPCS cell tower records using a court-ordered subpoena. In criminal cases like Davis’s, courts may grant subpoenas on “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Although this standard is higher than that for typical subpoenas, it’s lower than the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard.

Not Even a Search

On appeal, Davis argued that the cell tower records were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But the 11th Circuit — the federal appeals court encompassing Alabama, Georgia, and Florida — disagreed (United States v. Davis).

In fact, the government’s actions weren’t even a “search,” according to the court. In legal terms, a search occurs only when police invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of your phone conversations — what is actually said during your call — so eavesdropping on the conversation would constitute a search.

In Davis’s case, though, the police didn’t eavesdrop on his conversations. Nor did they use GPS to track his precise movements while he was making them. Because they merely obtained business records from a third party, the court says that the police didn’t invade Davis’s privacy:

Davis has no subjective or objective reasonable expectation of privacy in MetroPCS’s business records showing the cell tower locations that wirelessly connected his calls at or near the time of six of the seven robberies.… Instead, those cell tower records were created by MetroPCS, stored on its own premises, and subject to its control. Cell tower location records do not contain private communications of the subscriber. This type of non-content evidence, lawfully created by a third-party telephone company for legitimate business purposes does not belong to Davis, even if it concerns him.

Because there wasn’t a “search,” the Fourth Amendment didn’t even apply.

Outdated Doctrine Meets Modern Society

Despite the court’s logic, something about this case still makes many observers feel uneasy. Even AT&T filed a brief in the case, arguing that the government’s actions were illegal. We all turn over huge amounts of information to third parties every day, and almost all of our activities can be tracked through our “smart” devices. And as the amount of data that businesses collect on us grows, so do concerns over the government’s ability to access that data.

So when the 11th Circuit focused its decision in Davis on something called the third-party doctrine, there was reason for a little gasp. The third-party doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court in the 1970s to draw a line between a person’s “reasonable” expectation of privacy and the information that person voluntarily shares with third parties. Back then, the Supreme Court held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy over his or her bank records, because that information was voluntarily provided to the bank. Nor can you have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the phone numbers you dial, because you furnish those numbers to the phone company in order to place calls. And so the government may subpoena these records from the business collecting them without meeting heightened standards under the Fourth Amendment.

The Davis court discussed these cases to support the premise that when people turn over their data to third parties by virtue of using those parties’ services, that information falls outside Fourth Amendment protection. A breathtakingly low point can be found in one of the judges’ concurring opinions:

If a telephone caller does not want to reveal dialed numbers to the telephone company, he has another option: don’t place a call. If a cell phone user does not want to reveal his location to a cellular carrier, he also has another option: turn off the cell phone.

In other words, if you want your information protected by heightened privacy standards, go off the grid.

Today, that position is practically untenable. And this is what makes the 11th Circuit’s opinion troubling: it allows the government easy access to your data by virtue of your participation in modern society. The court’s holding helps grease the slippery slope that takes us away from historically reasonable expectations of privacy.

The court attempted to soften the blow by categorizing the subject information as noncontent data. In other words, the data in the Davis case was less private because it was not the actual substance of phone calls, texts, or other communications. Instead, it was the nonsubstantive cell-tower data that allowed the government to track where Davis was when he made or received calls. But we all know that a precise record of our movements reveals a lot about us, as the dissenting judge in the Davis case pointed out:

A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.

Toward Privacy

There is still a chance that the Supreme Court will reverse the 11th Circuit’s holding. Even if it doesn’t, other options exist. As mentioned in the Davisdecision, Congress can still legislate greater privacy protections.

The market provides another option. Although a court order forced MetroPCS to provide its records, “federal law did not require that MetroPCS either create or retain these business records.” As technology changes, and as we all become more attuned to privacy issues, we will look to the market for options. When this happens, cell phone providers will benefit from offering an “enhanced privacy” version of their services. Some customers will prefer that their data not be collected at all — or that it be anonymized. Providers could charge a higher price for anonymous services, or customers could forego certain personalized services.

By providing customized levels of privacy, the market can create de facto immunity from third-party “searches.”


Nicole Kardell

Nicole Kardell is an attorney with Ifrah Law, a Washington, DC-based law firm. She represents clients in government enforcement actions and other regulatory compliance matters before federal and state agencies.


Joseph S. Diedrich

Joseph S. Diedrich is a Young Voices Advocate and a law student at the University of Wisconsin.

The Neo-Thought Crime: Offending Someone

/in , , , , /by

The term “thought crime” was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thought crime is “the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party.”

In today’s society it is a thought crime to offend the ruling party’s ‘selected someones’.

In 2015 America we see those “upholding unspoken beliefs or doubts” labeled as radicals and in some cases prosecuted as criminals. Examples include: speaking ill of a black President or a woman running for President, Planned Parenthood, Muslims, minorities, illegal aliens, homosexuals or opposing long-time members of the ruling party, to name a few.

Those who are designated as radicals or prosecuted as criminals include, but are not limited to,: Caucasians, heterosexuals, males, Conservatives, gun owners, legal immigrants, Christians, Jews and those who oppose the ruling party.

ABC NBC CBS MONKEYSThe ruling party uses a variety of tools to stop thought crimes: taxation, regulation, education, propaganda, Executive Orders, departmental policies, research, government largess (free stuff), and allies of the ruling party (the Main Stream Media, Hollywood, TV studios, corporations, etc.).

As George Orwell warned:

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead.

Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness [is] always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . .

When key media outlets feel the pressure of government to tow the ruling party line some cave or are already fellow travelers. Others continue to fight. Those who cave or are already fellow travelers are the “Newspeakers.” Orwell warned about those who work to “narrow the range of thought”. The neo-Newspeakers create a wall of protection around the offended.

The media begins the process of stopping the publication of “unspoken beliefs and doubts” against the ruling party by first changing their style manuals eliminating the use of certain words in their publication referring to: race (black or Arab), religion (Islam), political orientation (Democrat, liberal, progressive) and sexual orientation (homosexual, lesbian).

However, these same media outlets (Newspeakers) are quick to label those who have doubts about the ruling party: heterosexual/straight, married couples, homophobic, Islamophobic, Conservative, Right Wing, Christian, Jew and white/Caucasian.

The ruling party needs the support of the media to keep those who disagree in line. This neo-thought crime is any belief or statement which may offend the ruling party’s protected groups. Those standing in opposition are labeled thought criminals.

Those who continue to fight both Newspeakers and the ruling party are predominantly bloggers and social media warriors.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Remember what Orwell wrote, “Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

What 10 Republican Presidential Candidates Said in Iowa This Weekend

Here’s What 5 Democratic Presidential Candidates Told Their Party Faithful in Iowa

Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Based Database

RELATED VIDEO: Liberals Sign Petition to Support “White Privilege Tax”

America, Stop Allowing the Steamrolling

/in , , , , /by

The gay population is only 2%. Rush said despite their 2% number, they are succeeding in everything they want. He said the majority is just sitting idly by letting it happen. Rush asked his audience of millions, why? “Why is there no uprising against it…why is there no uprising in support of these businesses being shut down?”

An evangelical minister called into Rush’s radio program with an answer. He explained that Christians realize they are engaged in a spiritual battle. He said the reason why Rush is not seeing outward protests is because Christians are fighting back by praying about the Left’s attacks, bullying Christians and forcing its agenda on all Americans.

Folks, timely divine interventions have made me a huge believer in the power of prayer, but I believe God expects us to do our part. The Bible says, “Faith without works is dead.”

Imagine praying for God to give you a job. You do not educate yourself, send out resumes or respond to want ads. You just sit there in your room praying, expecting God to send you a job.

Christian bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein are being persecuted for standing up for their right of the “free exercise of religion.” Oregon state official Brad Avakian threw the Kleins Constitutional rights out the window.

Avakian decreed that the Kleins can publicly speak about the case, but he implemented a gag order preventing the Kleins from publicly expressing their view of marriage.

Can you believe that folks? What country does this guy think we live in? Aaron Klein disobeyed Avakian’s outrageous unconstitutional decree. Aaron said publicly that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. 

Allow me to clarify an important point. It is being spun that the Kleins refuse to serve homosexuals. Not true. The lesbian plaintiff is a longtime customer of the Klein’s bakery. When asked to bake a cake for her wedding to a woman, the Klein’s had to decline to remain true to their religious conscience.

Brad Avakian is Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner who has decreed that for not betraying their Christian faith, Aaron and Melisa Klein must pay a lesbian couple $135k in damages. Folks, check out this kangaroo court list of alleged damages – “acute loss of confidence,” “high blood pressure,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoke habit,” “weight gain,” and “worry.” No folks, this is not the script of a SNL or Comedy Central skit. This absurd list of alleged damages is real.

Though the minister reported that Christians are praying about the Left’s bullying rather than outwardly protesting, I suspect another reason for Christians’ silence is intimidation. A tactic of the Left is to brand all opposition hate which sends many running to the tall grass in fear.

klein family

Klein family.

For example, I proposed patriots coming to Oregon for a rally expressing massive support of the Kleins. Numerous “smart people” cautioned me not to do such a rally because the Left will call it a hate rally.

Okay, so we should allow Christians/Americans to be bullied because the evil bias mainstream media, Democrats and other Leftists will gang up on us and call us names?

Folks, in case you have not noticed, this Leftist invasive army marching across our country occupying everything in sight has gotten out of hand. For crying out loud, the Left wants to ban the term, “husband and wife”. 

Lincoln Nebraska schools will no longer refer to the kids as boys and girls because it is not gender inclusive. They must be called “purple penguins.”

Leftist media are publishing articles claiming that homosexual marriage is superior to heterosexual. 

A Leftist article says homosexuals are superior parents. 

A shocking video exposed that Planned Parenthood is harvesting and selling aborted baby body parts. While sipping red wine and eating a salad, an abortion doctor was caught cavalierly explaining how they are careful not to crush the most prized body parts. She, disrespectful of human life, mentioned recently doing a “17 week-er” (aborted a 17 week old baby). Disturbed by her callousness, Dr. Ben Carson said at 17 weeks a baby is responsive to its environment. Shamefully, the Left rallied to defend the stone-cold abortionist while demonizing the people who exposed the evil scandal. Dr. Carson said it is tragic that opposition to a woman killing her baby is deemed (by Leftists) hate for women.

We are fast approaching the day when Christian ministers who preach the Bible will be arrested. 

Pushing back against the Left’s tyrannical evil is not easy and could cost you everything.

For the past week or so, this little chorus keeps popping up in my brain. “I have decided to follow Jesus. I have decided to follow Jesus. I have decided to follow Jesus. No turning back. No turning back.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

What 10 Republican Presidential Candidates Said in Iowa This Weekend

Here’s What 5 Democratic Presidential Candidates Told Their Party Faithful in Iowa

Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Based Database

RELATED VIDEO: Liberals Sign Petition to Support “White Privilege Tax”

Kraft, Pepsi, and Nestle Using Aborted Babies For Flavor Additives

/in , , , /by

UPDATE: We have published new information about the use of body parts from live fetuses in a new column Human Life International lists Products that use Aborted Fetuses – Warning gruesome!

If you thought that Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies was evil, then you will be shocked by those companies using these body parts as flavor additives.

The 1973 science fiction film Soylent Green was about food produced from human body parts. It appears Kraft Foods, Pepsi Corporation (PepsiCo) and Nestle are creating a new wave of products using aborted baby body parts provided by Semonyx and StemExpress. Science fiction is now a scientific reality. Should the Food and Drug Administration require a label on those products, listed below, that use baby parts as flavor additives?

Perhaps we should call these products Semonyx Green or StemExpress Green?

Senomyx_logoThe Conservative Post reports:

Famous food companies have been exposed using tissue from aborted babies to make flavor additives in processed foods.

Kraft, PepsiCo, Nestle, work with Semonyx, a California-based [company] that uses aborted embryonic cells to test fake flavoring chemicals.

The aborted human fetal cell line is known as “HEK-293,” and it is used to see how the human palate will react to synthetic flavors. Since most of today’s processed food lacks flavor, companies like Semonyx are hired to develop flavors on their own.

“What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 — human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,” said Debi Vinnedge of the pro-life group Children of God for Life. “They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors.”

stemexpress logoIn a column titled Meet the Company Buying Planned Parenthood’s Baby ‘Specimens’ Paul Bios writes:

Planned Parenthood’s hand in this nauseating maltreatment of human beings represents only the tip of the iceberg and has been the source of tremendous benefit for one company purchasing PP’s baby parts and then selling them off to biomedical researchers for profit.

That company is StemExpress, and it describes itself as “a multi-million dollar company that supplies human blood, tissue products, primary cells and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers.” It also boasts of offering “the largest variety of raw material in the industry, as well as fresh, fixed and cryopreserved human primary cells.”

On the company’s site, which has been experiencing difficulty in recent days owing to high traffic, StemExpress openly states in bold print its “human tissue products range from fetal to adult” while guaranteeing that “every sample delivers the purity, viability and quality” the buyers look for.

Taking its cues from Amazon, StemExpress provides easy-to-use shopping carts complete with user-friendly dropdown boxes that allow the customer to purchase products like a “fetal liver” of their choice for as low $610. See screenshot:

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2015-07-17 03:45:52Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard, FREE Community Edition, on 2015-07-17 03:45:52Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com

Read more about StemExpress.

RELATED ARTICLE: Meet the Company Buying Planned Parenthood’s Baby ‘Specimens’

Here’s a full list of products and companies provided by the Conservative Post:

PEPSI BEVERAGES:
• All Pepsi soft drinks
• Sierra Mist soft drinks
• Mountain Dew soft drinks
• Mug root beer and other soft drinks
• No Fear beverages
• Ocean Spray beverages
• Seattle’s Best Coffee
• Tazo beverages
• AMP Energy beverages
• Aquafina water
• Aquafina flavored beverages
• DoubleShot energy beverages
• Frappuccino beverages
• Lipton tea and other beverages
• Propel beverages
• SoBe beverages
• Gatorade beverages
• Fiesta Miranda beverages
• Tropicana juices and beverages

NESTLE PRODUCTS:
• All coffee creamers
• Maggi Brand instant soups, bouillon cubes, ketchups, sauces, seasoning, instant noodles

KRAFT – CADBURY ADAMS PRODUCTS:
• Black Jack chewing gum
• Bubbaloo bubble gum
• Bubblicious bubble gum
• Chiclets
• Clorets
• Dentyne
• Freshen Up Gum
• Sour Cherry Gum (Limited)
• Sour Apple Gum (Limited)
• Stride
• Trident

CADBURY ADAMS CANDIES:
• Sour Cherry Blasters
• Fruit Mania
• Bassett’s Liquorice All sorts
• Maynards Wine Gum
• Swedish Fish
• Swedish Berries
• Juicy Squirts
• Original Gummies
• Fuzzy Peach
• Sour Chillers
• Sour Patch Kids
• Mini Fruit Gums
• Certs breath mints
• Halls Cough Drops

NEOCUTIS “BEAUTY” PRODUCTS:
Neocutis uses aborted male baby cells after a 14-week gestation period in their anti-wrinkle creams. The following creams they sell contain aborted fetal cells.
• Bio-Gel Prevedem Journee
• Bio-Serum Lumiere
• Bio Restorative Skin Cream

VACCINES:
• MMR II (Merck)
• ProQuad (MMR + Chickenpox — Merck)
• Varivax (Chickenpox — Merck)
• Pentacel (Polio + DTaP + HiB — Sanofi Pasteur)
• Vaqta (Hepatitis-A — Merck)
• Havrix (Hepatitis-A — Glaxo SmithKline)
• Twinrix (Hepatitis-A and B combo — Glaxo)
• Zostavax (Shingles — Merck)
• Imovax (Rabies — Sanofi Pasteur)

OTHER MEDICINES:
• Pulmozyme (Cystic Fibrosis — Genetech)
• Enbrel (Rheumatoid Arthritis — Amgen)

Are you going to boycott these products? If so, please share this column to let people know and make up their own minds.

Death Toll Rises in Chattanooga Islamic Terror Attack

/in , , /by

Saturday brought more somber news of a fifth victim of the Islamic terror massacre perpetrated by 24 year old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. He was killed by Chattanooga police in the rampage at a Naval/Marine Recruiting Center on Thursday, July 17, 2015.  The Wall Street Journal reported:

Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith was a reservist serving on active duty in Chattanooga. Officials said he died early Saturday morning. Mr. Smith, 26 years old, joined the Navy because he was inspired by the service of his late grandfather, said his step-grandmother, Darlene Proxmire. Mr. Smith was a married father of three girls and grew up in Paulding, Ohio, she said.

The other victims were four Marines:

Along with Mr. Smith, four Marines were killed in the attacks. U.S. official and family members on Friday confirmed the identities of the deceased Marines: Thomas Sullivan, of Springfield, Mass.; Skip Wells, from Marietta, Ga.; David Wyatt, of Hixson, Tenn.; and Carson Holmquist, of Grantsburg, Wis.

More emerges on the shooter-Abdulazeez and his family

The shooter, Abdulazeez, was a Kuwait-born naturalized U.S. citizen. He was a 2012 graduate the University of Tennessee –Chattanooga with a degree in electrical engineering who lived with his parents in nearby Hixson, Tennessee. He had just started a position with a local cable and wire firm.  The parents may have been among several hundred thousand Palestinians expelled from Kuwait following the First Gulf War in 1991, many of whom fled to Jordan. These Palestinians, unlike those who fled Israel during the 1948-1949 War, were not covered by the UNWAR refugee program. Rather they were eligible for refugee and asylum status under the UNHCR program.  The New York Times reported:

Born in Kuwait in 1990, Mr. Abdulazeez became an American citizen in 2003 through the naturalization of his mother, federal officials said; his father was also naturalized. Because he was a minor, he did not have to apply separately for citizenship. A divorce complaint filed by his mother in 2009 and then withdrawn, said the parents were from “the State of Palestine.”

Counterterrorism officials had not been investigating Mr. Abdulazeez before Thursday’s shootings. His father had been investigated about seven years ago for giving money to an organization that apparently had ties to Hamas. … The investigation did not result in charges. But the father was placed on a watch list for a while. A similar investigation was conducted in the 1990s and it, too, did not lead to charges.

Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the watch list had for a time prevented the elder Mr. Abdulazeez from flying. “I believe there was a preliminary investigation, but there was no derogatory information, and he was taken off the list,” he said.

The shooter appears to have been heavily armed in the rampage, equipped with an assault weapon and two other long guns. It is reported that he purchased on-line some of the weapons for the rampage including an AK-47, AR 15, Saiga 12. He had also purchased two 7mm and 22 caliber side arms. He had a history of interest in guns, trained in using them at a local range and firing BBs at targets in the backyard of family’s home in Hixson. He also had a history of alcohol and drug related problems.  Following his graduation from UT-Chattanooga he received an offer of employment at a nuclear plant operated by Cleveland-based First Energy. Abdulazeez had been an intern at a TVA nuclear facility during his undergraduate career. A mandatory First Energy employment drug test in 2013 resulted in the loss of his job.  Notwithstanding, Islamic prohibitions against alcohol and drugs, Abdulazeez sought counseling for the problem in 2012 and 2013. Nevertheless the problem persisted as attested by his being arrest   in April 2015 on a DUI charge by Chattanooga police. A New York Times article noted the circumstances:

The only run-in Mr. Abdulazeez had with the law in the Chattanooga area appears to have been an April 20 arrest on a charge of driving while intoxicated; he posted a $2,000 bond.

According to a police affidavit, officers spotted him weaving through downtown Chattanooga after 2 a.m., in a gray 2001 Toyota Camry, and when they pulled him over, they smelled alcohol and marijuana, and he failed a sobriety test. They said his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, he was “unsteady on his feet,” and he had “irritated nostrils” and white powder under his nose, which Mr. Abdulazeez said came from snorting, crushed caffeine pills. He was scheduled to appear in court on July 30.

Those trips to Jordan

Abdulazeez, who held a US passport, made several trips to Jordan beginning in 2003 to visit a maternal uncle and family. He also made a side trip to Kuwait during a 2008 trip to Jordan. His father accompanied him on a trip in 2010 to Jordan after his no fly status had been lifted.  He made a 2013 trip to Jordan that returned home via Canada.   In April 2014, he purchased a one way ticket to Jordan, finally returning home via Doha, Qatar. What he did and where he went on that trip has yet to be determined, by law enforcement, FBI and foreign intelligence sources.  At issue is whether he made contact with the Al Nusra front or Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Islamic Action Front, or possibly ISIS via social media and whether he made a possible trip to either Iraq or Syria.  A WSJ report commented on the final trip to Jordan by Abdulazeez:

Mr. Abdulazeez wasn’t a familiar figure among jihadists in Jordan, according to Mohammad Shaabi, known as Abu Sayyaf, who sympathizes with the al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. He said it is still possible Mr. Abdulazeez could have contacted extremists through means such as social media.

A few ISIS sympathizers on Twitter referred to Mr. Abdulazeez after the shooting as “a soldier of the Islamic State” and “an individual lion.”

Evidence of Family Problems – Bankruptcy and a Divorce Filing

The Abdulazeez family went through a spate of difficulties.  The father Youssuf filed for bankruptcy in 2002 which was completed by 2005. More troubling was a divorce filing by his wife Rasmieh I. Abdulazeez in 2009.  The Times reported:

Mrs. Abdulazeez said that her husband, Youssef S. Abdulazeez, had “repeatedly beaten” her and had “on occasion” abused the children by “striking and berating them without provocation or justification.”

The complaint also accused Mr. Abdulazeez of sexual and verbal abuse, and of declaring his intentions “to take a second wife, as permitted under certain circumstances under [Sharia] Islamic law.”

Evidence of Anti-Israel, US Animus and Salafism in final text message

Abdulazeez had evidenced concerns about IDF actions during the 2014 summer rocket war by Hamas.  According to a Reuters report, friends noted that following the 2014 trip he became increasingly concerned about Middle East conflicts. It was after the final trip that he went on-line and purchased weapons and went to practice using them at a gun range.  Friends said:

Abdulazeez’s friends, who asked not to be identified for fear of a backlash, said he was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza and the civil war in Syria.

“He felt Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia were not doing enough to help, and that they were heavily influenced by the United States,” said the friend who received the text message.

Another friend said, “He had always talked about it, but I’d say his level of understanding and awareness really rose after he came back.”

A text message containing a Hadith sent the night before the attack may have indicated his adoption of fundamentalist Islam:

“Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of mine, and then I have declared war against him”.

An Islamic expert explained:

For jihadists and ultraconservative Salafist Sunni Muslims, the Hadith “is usually understood within the context of al-wala wa-l-bara (or) love for Islam and hatred for its enemies,” said David Cook, an associate professor who specializes in Islam in the department of religion at Rice University in Texas.

Pew Trust Islamic Extremism chart

Conclusion

The nationwide outpouring of mourning and grief at the wanton killing of five US service personnel in this Islamic inspired jihad at the Chattanooga Naval/Marine Recruiting Center was palpable.   The immediate national reaction to the tragic attack by troubled Abdullazeez was reflected in an offer by Governor Rick Scott in Florida to provide security by moving military recruitment centers in Florida to local National Guard armories.  There were also calls for lifting state laws barring US military uniformed personnel from carrying side arms.

There was still the conundrum of how federal and state law enforcement and homeland security agencies can prevent another Islamic inspired homeland jihad and acknowledge the threat.  Ultimately, it will require a new more responsive and clear eyed Administration. An Administration that appreciates what a recent Pew Trust poll has found: a surge to 53% of Americans concerned over domestic Islamic extremism.  Concern over ISIS is even higher at 73% of those polled by the Pew Trust.

The Chattanooga Recruitment Center massacre has another poignant side effect. It took six years for the Pentagon to award Purple Hearts to the service victims of both the  June 2009 Little Rock Army Recruitment Center attack and the November 2009 Fort Hood Massacre perpetrated by domestic Jihadis. We hope that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and incoming Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, Jr. will waste no time in making suitable posthumous awards to the grieving families and loved ones recognizing these valiant service personnel who died in combat against domestic Islamic terrorism in our midst.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is courtesy of the Miami-Herald.

Obama: Opening the Pandora’s Box of Nuclear Proliferation?

/in , , , /by

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, former Ambassador to the U.S., was a target of a failed bombing plot by the Iran’s Quds force at a Washington restaurant. He was at the State Department yesterday in preparation for a meeting with President Obama today regarding the Kingdom’s concerns about the announced nuclear pact with Iran.

The White House committed a faux pas on announcement of the Iran nuclear deal when it first suggested that the Quds force commander, General Qassem Suleymani, was not on a list of 700 Iranians whose travel bans and asset restrictions were lifted. General Suleymani had been deemed responsible for hundreds of U.S. Service personnel casualties during the Iraq War and now is involved with advising Iraqi Shiite militias fighting ISIS.  The Iran FARS news agency and ABC News both confirmed that the legendary head of the Quds Force was indeed on the list. We trust that President Obama will apologize when he meets with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir today. A Wall Street Journal report set the stage for today’s meeting:

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the Arab states that have been deeply skeptical of Mr. Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran.

The Saudis have been deeply worried about the Iran agreement; both because of fears it won’t stop the Iranian nuclear program and because of broader concerns that it will allow Iran to grow as a regional power when it receives the financial windfall from the end of sanctions under the accord.

The Sunni Saudi government already is locked in a proxy battle with Iranian allies in neighboring Yemen. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels overran Yemen’s capital earlier this year and were targeted by a Saudi airstrike campaign backed by the U.S. In addition, Shiite-led Iran is the most important backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; Saudi Arabia is committed to his removal.

However, there is the overarching issue of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East Sunni countries opting to secure their own nuclear infrastructure and weapons.  A  WSJ  op ed in today’s edition  by Karen Elliot House, former publisher and Pulitzer Prize winner for her coverage of the Middle East, addressed what many observers belief is a potential nuclear Pandora’s Box, “Obama Pours Gas on the Mideast Fire”:

The short subdued statement this week by Riyadh’s embassy in Washington again calling for “strict sustainable” inspections speaks volumes about the kingdom’s precarious position and the lack of good options.

[…]

A final option open to the Saudis: Get a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Prince Turki al Faisal, the kingdom’s former head of intelligence vowed in the spring that “whatever the Iranians have, we will have.”

[…]

The nuclear deal with Iran will stoke more Sunni-Shiite violence, and the Saudis may go shopping for nukes.

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, a Middle East Roundtable discussion was convened by Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio 1330 AM WEBY’s co-hosts  of “Your Turn,” Mike Bates and this writer. Our panelists were Omri Ceren, Managing Director for Press and Strategy of The Israel Project (TIP) and Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.  Bryen was calling in from Washington, D.C.  Ceren was calling in from Vienna, Austria where he had spent 19 days working with journalists covering the final deliberations of the nuclear pact with Iran. Ceren had also been in Lausanne, Switzerland covering the April 2nd announcement of a framework for a final JPOA.  The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming August 2015 New English Review article on the Iran nuclear agreement based on the radio panel discussion. This excerpt reveals the dangers that could result should nuclear proliferation spread in the Middle East, beginning with Saudi Arabia. The arguments presented here are the opinions of Ceren and not necessarily those of TIP.

Omri Ceren(1)

Omri Ceren, Managing Director at the Israel Project.

Jerry Gordon:   What is the risk in this region that non-proliferation ends and the opposite occurs?  Is this the opening of a Pandora’s Box?

Omri Ceren:  Not just the obvious, but the well nigh undeniable. We talked earlier of what a lot is dangerous about this Administration’s communications with American lawmakers and the American public is that they just don’t tell the truth.  They make excuses for Iranian cheating. But another aspect that has been widely remarked upon is they say insulting things in order to defend their policies. One great example is their answers to the potential that Saudi Arabia will respond to a bad deal by going nuclear.  Let’s be clear, Saudi Arabia will respond to a bad deal by going nuclear. They have not been bashful and have told us in as many words that they will not wait to gain their own nuclear capabilities till the Iranians get a nuclear bomb. They’ve said that they will respond with their own infrastructure when they believe that it is now inevitable that they will get a nuclear bomb.  And they have said that this deal makes it inevitable that Iran gets its nuclear bomb, which is correct. You then have these very clear declarations from a traditional American ally that sits in the center of the world’s energy markets that they intend to go nuclear in response to this deal. If they go nuclear then the entire deal is trashed because there is no chance that the Iranian military will permit the Sunnis to get a bomb without their having a nuclear bomb.  They will respond by backing out of the deal. Now obviously this is a worst case scenario for the White House.  Yesterday, you were in a world where you had no deal and no Iranian bomb. Now you have a deal and you may have an Iranian bomb. What have been their responses? I don’t want to overemphasize this but it is difficult not notice that we have a scenario that will trash everything that the Administration has hoped to create, all costs and no benefits.  What is their answer? They say two things about the Saudis. One is that the Saudis lack the resources  to go nuclear which is insane given the example of North Korea and given what we know about Saudi Arabia’s GDP and how they allocate their resources. The second is what one of the top hands at the NSC wrote in a pamphlet was that the Saudis will never go nuclear because they are afraid of an international oil embargo. I’m sorry but that is not a sophisticated argument. The entire success of the deal and the potential that the deal will fail could leave an entire nuclear Middle East in its wake.

RELATED ARTICLE: UN Set to Adopt Iran Nuke Deal Monday in Obama Blitzkrieg

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

VIDEO: An Israeli Analysis of the Iran Nuke Deal

/in , , , /by

We are joined by the editor in chief of Israeli Homeland Security, Arie Egozi and Jerusalem Post journalist, Dr. Martin Sherman.

We discuss the implications of the Iranian nuclear deal in regard to Israel, and they are not good. How Iran’s financial windfall will allow Hezbollah to get more and better weaponry to attack Israel from the north, to funding HAMAS terrorism in south.

Why would America put its’ only true ally in the Middle-East in such danger? Why would America negotiate a deal perceived as weak by many in the left-wing media? Are John Kerry & Barry from Hawaii TRAITORS to the country they are charged with defending?

Join us for the analysis and opinions of two Israeli military and political insiders!

Netanyahu: “Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?”

/in , , /by

“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well.” Indeed.

“Benjamin Netanyahu to Lester Holt: Iran Nuclear Deal Poses Threat to U.S., Israel,” by Elizabeth Chuck, NBC News, July 15, 2015:

The landmark Iran nuclear deal poses a threat to both Israel and the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NBC News’ Lester Holt on Wednesday.

“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well,” Netanyahu said, a day after Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., reached the historic agreement. “Iran has killed more Americans than anyone other than al Qaeda.”

“They’re going to get hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military machine,” he added.

The pact between Iran and world powers ends a decade-long dispute, and grants Tehran some relief from tough economic sanctions in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. President Obama said the accord ensures that “every pathway to a nuclear weapon” has been cut off.

But Netanyahu said Wednesday that he and Obama have a “real disagreement.”

“Iran is different. It’s a zealot country,” he said. “It’s killed a lot of Americans. It’s killing everybody in sight in the Middle East.”

Netanyahu contends Iran — long suspected of harboring enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon — cannot be trusted with any sort of nuclear program.

“I think Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal,” he said.

According to the terms of the agreement, United Nations inspectors will be able to check any suspicious facility in Iran within a period of up to 24 days.

“Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?” Netanyahu said. “That’s a lot of time to flush a lot of meth down the toilet.”

Israel, a strong U.S. ally, has been vocally opposed to any deal. In March, Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress blasting the negotiations as a way to empower Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” he warned. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal, Explained

Netanyahu: “Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal”

France say jihad terror plot against military bases foiled earlier this week

U.S. will help Iran stop Israeli threats to its nuclear program

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

/in , , , , /by

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]

 

Planned Parenthood Sells Body Parts of Aborted Children

/in , , , /by

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

Bernie Sanders Thinks the Middle Class Is Deteriorating: He’s Wrong! by Corey Iacono

/in , , , /by

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist running for President of the United States, and his passionate populist message has won him many admirers on the left. His willingness to push for radical progressive policies (such as top income tax rates of 90 percent), which mainstream Democrats are too moderate to embrace, is steadily eroding Hillary Clinton’s dominance of the Democratic primary field.

There are several “facts” upon which Sanders has built his campaign. Probably the most important is the claim that the American middle class has been declining for quite some time. According to Sanders’s website:

The long-term deterioration of the middle class, accelerated by the Wall Street crash of 2008, has not been pretty…

Since 1999, the median middle-class family has seen its income go down by almost $5,000 after adjusting for inflation, now earning less than it did 25 years ago.

The situation is clearly dire, and the right man for the momentous job of saving the middle class is Sen. Sanders. Well, at least that’s [the] message his campaign seeks to convey.

But what if the middle class isn’t becoming worse off over time? What if the American middle class is actually doing as well as ever? Would Sanders’s supporters be as likely to endorse his more radical ideas if they weren’t convinced that the middle was becoming poorer over time — and that only progressive policies could reverse this trend?

It’s worth taking the time to examine Sanders’s claim that the middle class is worse off now than in the past. He doesn’t cite a source for his statistic, but it seems to rely on looking at the median household income over time and adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

This is a problematic methodology because it does not control for the well-known fact that the median household has itself grown smaller over time. Even if median income stayed the same over time, a decline in the number of people in the median household over time would lead to an increase in income per household member.

Additionally, Sanders’s statistic looks at income before taxes and transfers. Transfer payments and tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) make up a significant portion of income for many lower-income families. Not controlling for these factors understates their true economic well-being.

The figures cited by Sanders also fail to take into account the fact that a larger proportion of worker compensation comes in the form of non-cash benefits (such as health insurance) now than in the past.

According to research published by the National Tax Journal, “Broadening the income definition to post-tax, post-transfer, size-adjusted household cash income, middle class Americans are found to have made substantial gains,” amounting to a 37 percent increase in income over the 1979-2007 period.

Similarly, in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office found that adjusting for changing household size and looking at income after taxes and transfers, households in all income quintiles are much better off than they were a few decades ago.

The incomes of households in the three middle income quintiles grew 40 percent between 1979 and 2011. Somewhat surprisingly, given the histrionics about the state of America’s poor, income in households in the lowest quintile was 48 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 1979.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis comes to even more optimistic conclusions.

The Consumer Price Index is widely understood to overstate inflation — among other reasons, by failing to accurately account for improvements in quality and consumer substitutions for newer or cheaper goods — which is why the Federal Open Market Committee uses an alternative measurement for inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, which includes more comprehensive coverage of goods and services than the CPI.

If the CPI does, in fact, overstate the extent to which prices rise over time, then it also consequently understates the growth in real, inflation-adjusted incomes over time.

Indexing median household income (post taxes and transfers) to inflation using the PCE, rather than the CPI, and adjusting for the long-run decline in household size shows that median incomes have “increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006.”

Moreover, the focus on statistical categories ignores what is happening at the level of individuals and households, which may move up or down the income ladder, through different income quintiles. And studies have consistently shown that this income mobility has not changed in decades.

While the rate of growth for some income categories in recent years has been sluggish, the claim that middle incomes are declining precipitously is false. Based on these findings, it seems appropriate to conclude that Sanders’ claim that there exists a “long-term deterioration of the middle class” is patently untrue.

Learn more about wage “stagnation” from former FEE president Don Boudreaux:

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Look Who’s Defining Sin… Say What?

/in , , , /by

My first thoughts were, “Say what?” Yeah. And you’ll be saying “Say what” too after reading this statement from the president of the National Education Association (NEA), Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

First, for those unfamiliar with the NEA, it is the nation’s largest labor union – not just the largest teacher’s union, mind you. But the largest labor union in the country. Period.  It has more than three million members.

Its mission is “to advocate for education professionals” blah, blah, blah. In other words, they are an organization of teachers who unite to demand more money, benefits, better work environments and whatever else they can get their hands on.

They also advocate for just about any left-wing liberal cause that enrages conservatives, even if it has nothing to do with teaching.

One of those left-wing causes is homosexuality. No surprise here for anyone familiar with the NEA. In their own words, the union states it has a “goal of changing public opinion on homosexuality, starting with the youngest generation.”

Clearly, they’re going after your kids, whether you like it or not. At least they’re upfront, honest and forthright about their mission. I’m sure that makes you feel better.

Even so, as brazen as this statement is (telling parents, “To hell with you, it’s all about what WE want your children to believe”) this isn’t …

… and I repeat, this isn’t the “Say what?” experience I’m talking about.

The “Say what” experience happened during NEA’s 2015 Annual Meeting on July 3 in Orlando, Fla.

That’s when the union president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, took to the stage and said this after applauding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual marriage:

“My son, Jeremy, called me and said, ‘Ma! Mike and I are no longer living in sin!’ My son and Mike are legally married in the great state of Utah.”

Can you join me in a “Say what” moment?

Does the Supreme Court now decide what is “sin”? Is this the new message to youngsters from the country’s largest teacher’s union … nay, the country’s largest labor union – that the Supreme Court will determine what is sin?

Before laughing off this crazy, overly exuberant rant of the country’s most powerful labor union president, consider the deeper message Lily Eskelsen Garcia is pushing.

Government will now decide what is sin and what is not sin. Not the Bible. Not God.

The word “sin” is decidedly a Judeo-Christian word. There’s no mention of “sin” in the Quran. There’s no such thing as “sin” in Buddhism. And there is no “sin” against God in Hinduism.

So, in reality, the NEA is only concerned about “sins” as defined by the New and Old Testaments. The government will now define those sins.

It’s mighty painful for the NEA – and others on the liberal left – to explain away biblical sins, with homosexuality being a big pain in the butt (no pun intended) as one of those difficult “sins” to dismiss. There are just too many Scriptures condemning homosexuality to brush them aside, reinterpret or reject.

So why not let the government – Big Brother – decide what is sin and what is not?

This is a big advantage for the NEA and their liberal lackeys, whether they are in government, business, media or law enforcement.

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the left. But refusing to serve a cake at a gay wedding is a sin, and punishable with a $135,000 fine, as experienced by the Christian owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Gay marriage is not a sin. But opposing gay marriage is a sin and a punishable offense, as experienced by the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who was fired because of his opposition.

The liberal left would love for the government to be in the business of defining sin, as if they aren’t already.

Being anti-gun is not a sin. But being pro-gun can get you arrested, as experienced by a teen-ager in West Virginia who was arrested after wearing an NRA T-shirt to his middle school.

Abortion is not a sin. But protesting abortion can land you in jail, as happened to nine college students in Birmingham, Ala., this year who were arrested for distributing pro-life literature on a public sidewalk at Parker High School.

Radical Islam is not a sin. But exposing it can get you demoted, suspended or fired, as happened to Lt. Col Matthey Dooley who was fired as an instructor at West Point for teaching a course on “Islamic Radicalism.”

Being anti-religious is not a sin.  But say “Bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezes may get you suspended from school, as happened to Kendra Turner at Dyer County High School in Tenesssee.

Opposing the goals of the liberal left is not just about being politically incorrect. It’s about sin. Because clearly these are not criminal acts. This is why they need to redefine these acts as “sins” that can carry severe consequences – jail, fines, loss of jobs, mandatory sensitivity training classes, suspensions and demotions. 

The NEA teacher’s union doesn’t want children to think “Bible” when they hear the word “sin.”  They want them to think government. And if the government does not consider something a sin, then it’s not.

But if it does consider your moral rantings or activities a “sin,” then …

… you better dig deep into your pockets, dust off your résumé and perhaps dress for orange.

I’ve got some disturbing news for the homosexuals who are celebrating their victory and newfound freedom from “sin” – handed to them by the Supreme Court:

The Court may have legalized marriage … but they are still NOT married. They will have to appeal to an authority higher than the Supreme Court for that dispensation.

Did I just hear a “Say what?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: 59% Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Decline Gay Weddings

After Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling, How We Can Protect Freedom for Everyone

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Lily Eskelsen Garcia.