These laws ignore our 5th and 14th Amendment rights of Due Process and I predict will result in consequences for legal, law abiding gun owners over time. I’m personally not convinced that these are “unintended” consequences either but rather another intentional chipping away of our 2nd Amendment and Due Process Rights.
Gun Owners of America have been outspoken on this subject and I recommend you consider joining GOA as I did several years ago.
I am hopeful an iron-clad lawsuit will be filed before much longer to challenge FL’s Risk Protection Order and; if not eliminating it, as a minimum require holding a hearing before seizure and not exparte except in exceptional cases where there is overwhelming evidence/probable cause of potential harm by the gun owner. As the language is currently written, it is too open to interpretation resulting in differing procedures by different court jurisdictions and potential to be used as a political weapon by liberal gun control enthusiasts.
I am a Life Member of the NRA and want to know where is the NRA-ILA on this issue? So far – Crickets – chirp – chirp.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2019-06-08 15:52:172019-06-11 17:40:49Good - Short Video on Red Flag Laws
If you’re keeping track of Joe Biden’s policy positions, you’d better have plenty of erasers. The former vice president has done so much waffling he ought to buy a maple syrup company. On taxpayer-funded abortion alone, he’s had three positions in three weeks. The Democratic front-runner has changed his mind so much that most people probably don’t even know which statement he’s reversing at this point.
The short version goes something like this: he does, he doesn’t, he does again. When an ACLU “volunteer” ambushed Biden at an event May, Barack Obama’s second-in-command said twice: the Hyde amendment has to go. Two weeks, later, he told reporters he didn’t understand the woman’s question — not the first time he answered it, and apparently, not the second. “He has not at this point changed his [support for] the Hyde amendment,” his campaign clarified on ABC News. He “misheard the woman,” Biden’s staffers explained, “and thought she was referring to the Mexico City policy.”
Until 2016, a lot of Democrats felt like Biden did — that regardless of how people feel about abortion, Americans shouldn’t be forced to fund it. Then came the new party platform, which torpedoed Hyde and sent moderates packing. Sticking to his stance would have set Biden apart as the reasonable voice on abortion that his party is not. Instead, after a little tug at the strings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, he snapped to attention and saluted the new Democratic Party abortion orthodoxy turning his back on 40 years of common sense. Barely a day later, he’d been reeled back to the pack — like a breakaway rider caught by the peloton.
In a speech Thursday, he might as well have said, “About those four decades I spent defending taxpayers: just kidding!” What he actually told the audience is that he’d been struggling with the “problems” of the Hyde amendment and decided (again) he could “no could “no longer support [it].” “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” Huh? It’s bad enough that his on-again, off-again relationship with abortion funding is harder to track than a celebrity couple — but what do zip codes have to do with it?
Planned Parenthood tried to explain in its ‘atta-boy tweet, insisting that blocking taxpayer-funded abortion somehow hurts minority women. False. What actually hurts minorities is abortion, which disproportionately targets them — and has, since Margaret Sanger founded the organization. Even now her eugenics legacy lives on, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued, in a scathing opinion this month on race-based abortion.
Eight decades after Margaret Sanger set up her birth-control clinic in Harlem, Justice Thomas writes, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive — and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.” Leana Wen’s clinics alone kill 247 black babies a day. So if you want to talk about zip codes, try Planned Parenthood’s. An overwhelming majority are located in black or Hispanic neighborhoods. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a business model.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden isn’t the only one burning through flip-flops. The same radical candidates who welcomed him back to Left field aren’t exactly the picture of consistency on Hyde. “Nearly every member of Congress running for president has voted multiple times for spending bills that include Hyde language,” the Washington Post reports. “Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) all voted for a bill passed in September that funded HHS along with the departments of Labor, Defense and Education. So did Democratic Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Seth Moulton (Mass.), as well as former congressman Beto O’Rourke (Texas.).”
Funny, the Post went on, “but those realities didn’t stop many of the contenders from piling on Biden, after his campaign said Wednesday that he still backed Hyde. One of those cultural chameleons, Amy Klobuchar, insisted that backing a wall between taxpayers and abortion would have been “a big problem” for Biden. But says who? Certainly not Americans — or even Democrats — who support Hyde 2-1. What she probably meant to say is that it would have been a big problem for the extremist fringe calling the shots. Biden, like the other 22 candidates, is just showing himself for what he is: a puppet on the strings of radical abortion, LGBT activists.
It’s pathetic, NRO’s Rich Lowry agrees. “This isn’t a move of a confident front-runner. It shows that whatever is Biden’s relative moderation compared to the rest of the field will be eroded during this process. Disorderly retreats like this, if they become a pattern, also have potential to harm his image as a strong general-election candidate. If he’s the nominee, his new support for taxpayer-funded abortion will certainly be a liability in the Rust Belt, where Trump currently needs to make up ground.”
If there’s one thing the president has going for him, it’s this: No one has to guess where he stands. Not on abortion — not ever.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-06-08 05:08:322019-06-08 05:11:53Biden: Dr. Jekyll and No More Hyde
Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) swore he would make Illinois the most extreme state in the country on abortion. And right now, he’s one signature away from succeeding.
No one thought an abortion law more radical than New York’s was possible, but the Land of Lincoln is proving everyone wrong. In an astonishing move that sweeps away every possible barrier, Governor Pritzker is about to make history by allowing any kind of abortion, at any time, for any reason. Gone is the state’s partial-birth abortion ban, its protection for newborn survivors, its conscience rights, and parental consent. Of all the similarities to the New York law, though, one stood out — and that’s how elated liberals were to pass it.
To most people, that’s astounding. According to a new Harvard Center for American Studies poll, only six percent of the country sides with the Pritzker and the 2020 Democratic candidates on infanticide. And the number who agree with third-trimester abortions is just as miniscule at eight percent. Officials like Pritzker who think this barbaric new crusade is a winning strategy are kidding themselves. Even local Democrats — more than 140 of whom have voted with pro-lifers on state bills — can’t stomach the extremism seeping out of places like Washington. In Illinois, one of the bluest states in America, six Democrats voted against their own party. Four others voted “present.”
Maybe they were as upset as the Republicans about how low Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy had to stoop just to get the chamber to consider her proposal. Believe it or not, Illinois’s bill was so controversial that she had to take a completely irrelevant measure, gut it, and add this abortion language at the last minute. Everyone knew: Cassidy’s bill was in limbo for a reason — it didn’t have enough support to push it through the regular process.
Ironically, the day after liberals proclaimed victory on their “Reproductive Health Act,” a local pastor was asked to open the legislative in prayer. It was with that tragic backdrop that Cory Musgrave from New Beginnings Church in Fairfield offered a passionate plea for God’s forgiveness. “God, none of our evil actions have been hidden from You. You see everything,” he prayed. “Lord, You have told us those things which You hate, and among them are hands that shed innocent blood. I stand here in this House, in this high place in Illinois, and ask You, O God, creator of Heaven and Earth, if there is anything more innocent than a baby that is being created in the womb.”
Musgrave quoted Psalm 139 and then explained that pro-lifers have tried to be “a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves as You have commanded us,” Musgrave went on. “Those appeals were denied, but we have one final appeal left and that is to the courts of Heaven… I ask you to rise up, God, and judge Illinois for the sanctioned destruction of the innocent unborn. In this House, I pray for justice to roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty river.”
When FRC’s Sarah Perry talked to Pastor Musgrave about the prayer on “Washington Watch,” he explained that he’d been invited back in February, long before the abortion debate exploded. He’d gotten instructions a week before from the clerk not to proselytize, but when he saw what the chambers had done, Pastor Musgrave knew: he couldn’t let the moment pass by.
“I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Sunday night in the last week of the legislative session, they pulled this bill back out. It had been shoved back in subcommittee. They had a rigged committee hearing where they had very limited debate. They give the Republican side one hour’s notice, [and] they call it on a Sunday evening. And they decided to push that bill through. And as I sat there and watched that and heard what they were doing, it broke my heart that we are allowing this in my state.”
During the prayer, he found out later, five liberals walked out of the room. Others turned their backs to him. How did he take that, Sarah asked? “Well, I was focused on praying… I was unaware of it until after it was over. Also, someone who was standing up there with me, they said there was a discernible hiss from the crowd. But I was just focused on praying to God. My prayer was not to them it was to God.”
What an exercise in courage! Let’s hope there are other pastors and Christians out there who hear Cory’s story and are encouraged to be just as bold as he has been.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-06-06 07:18:042019-06-06 07:18:04The Most Dangerous Place in Illinois: The Womb
I find it ironic that Hollywood is bullying the state of Georgia to protest its new law to protect unborn children. The heartbeat law stipulates that an abortion cannot be performed in the Peach State if the fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Agence-France Presse reports (5/30/19), “WarnerMedia, Sony Pictures and NBC Universal on Thursday joined a growing number of major studios threatening to pull their productions out of Georgia should a controversial abortion law in the southern US state go into effect.”
In his End of Day Report (5/31/19). Gary Bauer notes, “Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, has joined the left-wing assault on Georgia’s new pro-life law. He said it would be ‘very difficult’ for Disney to continue working in Georgia if the heartbeat law remains in effect.”
So an entertainment giant geared toward children is unhappy with a law to protect unborn children? Bauer adds, “Walt Disney must be rolling over in his grave.”
Netflix is reported to be working with the ACLU to try and legally stop the Georgia law. This is the same Netflix that seems to have no problem with filming productions in some Middle East countries with serious human rights violations.
And on it goes.
I asked Evangelist Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a champion of civil rights for the unborn, her opinion on the Georgia controversy. She told me, “There are many filmmakers who are producing lovely movies without supporting killing as an option for solutions to life’s challenges. As a US citizen of Georgia, and as a black woman who has suffered from the scourge of abortion, I suggest to Hollywood and the world at large that healing will always trump killing. #istandwithga4life.”
First of all, why is Hollywood even making movies in Georgia and not in Hollywood? Tax breaks. I don’t blame them for that.
But I do blame them for attempting to bully Georgia for passing a humane law to deal in a humane way with a gross violation of human rights.
Hollywood claims to stand foursquare against bullying, as well they should. A smattering of Hollywood movies dealing with the issue of bullying include: “Carrie” (1976), “The Karate Kid” (1984), “Back to the Future” (1985), “Mean Girls” (2004), “Never Been Kissed” (1999), “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” (2010).
I remember how poignant, how “consciousness-raising,” was an anti-bullying scene in “Never Been Kissed” with Drew Barrymore, where, as I recall, she was about to go on a date. She was so excited. But it turned out to be a cruel hoax to set her up for humiliation, as bullies stop their car, pelt her with eggs, and then drive off in laughter. It’s a powerful scene demonstrating the cruelty of bullying.
Yet at the same time, Hollywood supports the ultimate bullying in our society—abortion. Can you think of anyone more vulnerable than a preborn child?
Look at every single method of abortion. Every single one. They are inhumane. They mete out cruel and unusual punishment to the most innocent, defenseless amongst us. Sometimes the children are killed through chemicals—human pesticides. Sometimes, their limbs are torn apart in utero. Sometimes, they have their brains sucked out first and are then delivered (dead), breach style.
The most common form is via a gigantic vacuum. It is as if the unborn baby experiences a tsunami. Abby Johnson, an eight-year veteran with the Planned Parenthood chapter in Bryan, Texas, worked her way up to management. One day she actually saw through a sonogram what an abortion does to the unborn, and her eyes were opened. She left the clinic. Today she is playing for the other side. And her story has even been told in a surprise-hit movie, Unplanned.
Abby Johnson told D. James Kennedy Ministries television that seeing the suctioning of the preborn baby was quite disturbing: “I saw [the child] begin to move its arms and legs, and I saw it begin to move away from that instrument. And I was just in shock …. I saw the child’s body begin to go through that tube. For those few moments I was watching this child fight hard for its life. It didn’t have a chance. We had all those instruments and all that technology, and that little baby didn’t have a fighting chance—and it did fight.” [Emphasis added]
This is why I say abortion is the ultimate bullying. Indeed, the preborn do not have a chance.
Jesus said, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” What a golden rule. Why can’t this golden rule be applied to the preborn child? We were all once preborn children—even people in Hollywood. Would we have wanted our lives snuffed out by the ultimate bullies?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe2019-06-05 18:01:502019-06-06 06:49:59Hey, Hollywood, Pick On Someone Your Own Size
How many victims of childhood sexual abuse lived as the objects of sexual torture experiments funded and promoted by Indiana University’s Alfred Kinsey has never been revealed; but Kinsey is lauded unashamedly throughout the State of Indiana, with his victims never receiving compensation for their fears and tears and years of diabolical human experiments performed by men devoid of conscience, one such man being a Nazi SS officer, who furnished Kinsey, at his request and cost, with sexual experimental data on Holocaust children.
Although Kinsey died before being brought to human justice, his SS cohort was sentenced to prison. Also on the Bloomington Indiana University campus was the budding career of Jared Fogle, whose pornography business was operated from his campus room and then succeeded by a lucrative role as spokesman for Subway fast foods, ending in a federal prison sentence for abusing boys and girls for years and years worldwide, despite a decade of credible reports filed against him.
Jared was raised in Indianapolis, where his family vigorously supports him and maintains high status at the Indy Jewish Community Center, frequented by convicted predators, with easy access to children. For reporting child abuse at the Indy JCC by one of its counselors, my family and I were targeted by attorney Robert W. York, a hearing officer for the Indiana Supreme Court, receiving tens of thousands of dollars paid by Hoosier taxpayers.
When Robert York threatened my husband, York’s associate attorney, that he would be fired unless my husband and I would be silent about the abuse I had witnessed at the JCC, York’s years-long vendetta against our family began, continuing through today.
At the top of Indiana’s legal system, housed nearby to USA Gymnastics and USA Diving, which also concealed years of sexual abuse complaints, is the Indiana Supreme Court and its justices, including Steven David, who fined me, when he was a trial judge just north of Indianapolis, $60,000 for attempting to subpoena the mother of a convicted child molester to testify under oath about more victims that her son had contacted weekly for six years. Robert W. York serves the Indiana Supreme Court despite his intimidation of an eyewitness to child abuse, which intimidation and persecution of our family are well known to Indiana’s justices and follow the patterns of retribution seen against the families reporting abuse of their gymnasts and divers.
In Columbus, Ohio, the Heartland Ohio State University concealed decades of reports against its official physician, who is believed to have molested thousands of young male athletes, required to be examined by him in order to play sports at OSU. As an OSU family, we denounce this university in the strongest of renunciation for its inestimable harm to the youth on its teams. OSU, with full knowledge of credible reports against its physician, promoted him to positions of high repute, heartlessly sacrificing young lives.
Cradled in America’s Heartland, in its corporations, courts, and universities, is a golden triangle, like the Bermuda Triangle, where babies, children, and youth enter and never emerge the same.
Note: This story contains graphic descriptions of sexual abuse that may be offensive to some readers or painful to survivors of sexual assault. We think it is necessary to report this information as a warning and a reminder of what comprises sexual abuse.
Former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was sentenced Wednesday to 40 to 175 years in prison, after pleading guilty to sexual assault.
But what did Larry Nassar actually do to his victims?
Nassar, 54, was a doctor of osteopathic medicine and performed osteopathic manipulation, in which a doctor uses his or her hands to move a patient’s muscles and joints with techniques that include stretching, gentle pressure and resistance.
For more than a year after being accused in criminal complaints of sexual abuse, Nassar maintained he was performing legitimate medical procedures.
Do you use a cordless telephone? A cell phone? A Smart phone? A Smart television? Wi-Fi? A Wi-Fi router? A Smart meter? If so, for the sake of your own life and health, you need to read this article. Information about health dangers is being withheld from you.
In the following explanations of a highly dangerous and new technology, the letter G means generation and generation refers to a set of requirements that determine a standard and what compatible devices and networks qualify for the standard. It also describes technologies that power new types of communication. The letters EMF mean electromagnetic force/field. It sounds like it’s going to be a dull, complicated article. It’s not. It’s an attempt to help you save your health (possibly life) and that of your children.
Consumer use of the technology which has made our lives so much easier is not the only important reason you need this information. A new 5G (5th generation) technology is about to inundate us with EMFs (electromagnetic fields/forces) which, according to scientific research, are much higher than allowed in most of the technologically sophisticated world. Will they de-populate America?
Comparison of U.S. limit to other countries’ standards:
USA/Canada = 1000 microwatts /cm2 (same as ICNIRP 1998)
Australia = 200 microwatts /cm2
Aukland (New Zealand) = 50 microwatts /cm2
Italy,Russia, Poland, Luxembourg, Paris (France), Hungary, Bulgaria,
China, Switzerland – 2.4 to 10 microwatts /cm2
Salzburg (Austria) = 0.0001 microwatts /cm2
The research studies say that Russia, France, China, Italy, et al, set a legal limit of 10 microwatts emitted by towers. America’s limit is 1,000 microwatts — 100 times greater than other high tech nations allow out of concern for the health of their people. Brussels, Belgium, has banned 5G altogether… as have several California cities (northern California where the tech geniuses live).
This is not just a hard article to write, it is all but impossible – so please stay with me while I explain the difference between 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G EMFs and why it is critically important for you to know and understand why autism, Alzheimer’s, cancer and other diseases are rising at such alarming rates (scroll down to health risks). Scientific studies prove there is a connection between these diseases and EMFs and there are some things you can do to protect yourself. Use the links throughout this article and at the end of it.
One other important reason for this article will be called a conspiracy theory. It has to do with President Trump – and we all know how crazy liberal socialists get when his name is mentioned… but it in this case, they may be the very ones setting up the President. They’ve done it before… think: “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
The people of America would revolt if they found the policies of their government caused children to get cancer, possibly killing them.
Scientific research shows that 5G technology can sterilize young men and boys… and adult men, too. And based on the fact that the FCC has told the President that 5G technology falls within its recommended safety standards – standards rejected by American and international scientists – President Trump has come out with strong statements about America’s need to spread 5G nationwide as quickly as possible. China wants to take over the Internet and 5G technology offers the means to defeat them in this endeavor.
Logically, Trump wants to avoid Chinese control of the internet and the FCC is telling him 5G is within their ridiculous safety standards.
Can you think of a better way for liberal socialists to win an election than to get their opponent to strongly support something they can, one month before an election, prove sickens and possibly kills children?
The evidence I found is based on scientific research and is compelling. In California, Sprint had to take down a tower on the grounds of a school because 4 children and 3 teachers got cancer. It’s interesting; companies that install towers appear to target schools – especially elementary schools – as their favorite location.
As a strong supporter of President Trump, I do not for one moment think he would support a major technology that would be harmful to the American people if he knew it to be harmful. If you know the President, please send him a copy of this article. I will be glad to provide all of my research.
I believe the President needs to make an informed and very important decision about whether 5G (Fifth generation technology) dangers are being withheld from him before he offers such strong support to technology companies which intend to spread it all over the country.
But this article is not about trade negotiations with China, or charges against a high tech Chinese company named Huawei (pronounced wah-way… sounding very close to the Hebrew name for God, Yaweh). It’s about the scientifically known dangers of EMFs to human beings.
It might help to keep in mind that human beings are made up of electromagnetic fields. All animal life is. Plant life, too. Human EMFs are compatible with those of nature. They are not compatible with the EMFs sent out by scientifically created technology. One of the problems with 5G is it can literally change human DNA.
The point is, in 2016 it was Russia. Perhaps the Chinese have been tapped by Hate Trumpers for 2020. Perhaps because Huawei, a Chinese company accused of being a conduit to Chinese intelligence, is pushing so hard to control the technological future, Democrat politicians know President Trump will push back. If they can get him to back a destructive technology by withholding from him information about the danger of that technology, can they make him look like a liar when he talks of his love for this nation and the American people?
That may be what is happening. Donald Trump does love this country and its people. He would not support something destructive to either. Not knowingly. And there, as Mr. Shakespeare would say, is the rub. No one is telling Trump of the dangers.
So I am.
EMF – Electro-magnetic fields (or forces)
This is one of those subjects you don’t want to know about because your plate is already full… maybe brimming over. You might shout at me: “I don’t have time to learn about the latest scientific advances! I love my smart phone, my smart television, and the convenience of wi-fi wherever I go. My business is dependent on technology! I don’t need to know how scientists give me faster downloads and make life more and more convenient via technology… I just want the technology! Keep it coming!”
Ask yourself: How much more important than technology is your life and the lives of your spouse, your children, your parents or your friends? In a bad economy if you have to work two jobs to survive, at least you’ll survive. For most people, making sure government isn’t plotting their demise is more important than the square footage of their homes, whether their oven informs the family cook that the roast is done, whether you can download episodes of The Blacklist in 10 rather than 20 seconds, or whether Uber will soon provide driverless cars.
The conveniences of advancing technology are wonderful. No doubt about it. But if the price of convenience is lost health — or death – is it worth it?
Chemicals that have been banned for years in Germany, France and the UKare routinely used in America. According to the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses, here are the less serious but bothersome illnesses caused by human exposure to EMFs:
Brain fog/difficulty concentrating
Depression or anxiety
Visual disruptions/light sensitivity
You can add male sterility and/or reduced capacity to reproduce to that list and dangers to pregnant women and the babies they carry. These are the LESS serious health problems caused by EMFs. Here is what the World Health Organization says some of the more serious illnesses caused not by 5G, but by 4G exposure (4G – what we have now – is weaker than 5G):
Risk of damaging DNA. Our body acts like an energy wave broadcaster and receiver, incorporating and responding to EMFs. In fact, scientific research has demonstrated that every cell in your body may have its own EMF, helping to regulate important functions and keep you healthy.
Strong, artificial EMFs like those from power lines can scramble and interfere with your body’s natural EMF, harming everything from your sleep cycles and stress levels to your immune response and DNA!
3. Risk of Cancer. After hundreds of international studies, the evidence linking EMFs to cancers and other health problems is loud and clear. High Voltage power lines are the most obvious and dangerous culprits, but the same EMFs exist in gradually decreasing levels all along the grid, from substations to transformers to homes.
4.Risk of Leukemia. Researchers found that children living within 650 feet of power lines had a 70% greater risk for leukemia than children living 2,000 feet away or more.(As per British Medical Journal, June, 2005).
5. Risk of Neuro-degenerative diseases. “Several studies have identified occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as a potential risk factor for neuro-degenerative disease.”(As per Epidemiology, 2003 Jul; 14(4):413-9).
Risk of Miscarriage. There is “strong prospective evidence that prenatal maximum magnetic field exposure above a certain level (possibly around 16 mG) may be associated with miscarriage risk.” (As per Epidemiology, 2002 Jan; 13(1):9-20).
In non-scientific personal terms, 1G EMFs would be the equivalent of a ping-pong ball hitting your head; 2G a padded golf ball, 3G a basketball, 4G a football thrown by John Elway in his “hey day” and 5G is the equivalent of a needle hitting your head: it penetrates.
In scientific terms, First-generation wireless (1G) was voice transmission. It gave us cell phones. Second-generation (2G) allowed both talk and text which expanded our ability to communicate via our cell phones, online access to the internet, and it enhanced banking services. Third-generation (3G) combined the wireless and digital networks and broadened what the internet could offer. Today’s technology is based on Fourth-generation (4G) technology, not 5G. 4G completed the digital migration. It made higher speeds for more complex applications like video via computer. I read one article which says 5G will connect the unconnected. The limitations to Uber driverless cars, for example, will be eliminated by 5G.
As you look out your front door, how many towers that spread 4G EMFs from one tower to the other do you see? Chances are, none. However, 5G waves are ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity penetrates things like trees, buildings… and human bodies. In fact, scientific evidence has clearly found that human perspiration attracts 5G EMFs to our bodies. Thus, 5G towers will be much smaller but they will be much closer to one another… like every few houses on your block.
In fact the street lamps outside of your home will probably become 5G towers.
According to CBS News, it is estimated that the big cell phone companies will be putting up at least 300,000 of these small towers at a cost of hundreds of billions dollars to meet 5G activation requirements. Guess what that will do to your monthly cell phone bill. The new 5G uses an as yet untested bandwidth called “millimeter wave” (MMW) and poses more health risks than 4G – and according to hundreds of scientists internationally, the risks of 4G are substantial. MMW is a pulsed radio wave of extremely high frequencies of 30 GHz and 300 GHz. There have been no government safety tests for 5G technology – which is why so many nations limit the microwatt frequencies to 10 while America considers microwatt exposure up to 1000 to be safe. And that is the information that has been given to President Trump: “It is safe to expose the public to up to 1000 microwaves.” .”
It would take a book, not an article, to give you all of the information you need. Preparing your home for EMFs may be more important than buying survival food should the electric grid go down or if an economic crisis occurs. Your family’s life, health and well-being may be dependent on how much you know about EMFs and protections are available.
How did I, an old woman who lives at the foot of a big mesa in Western Colorado, a retired banker who usually writes about politics, the economy and banking end up going to a public hearing that was to be held to discuss an internet tower that would be built less than 300 feet from my home? By law, the town had to notify me. I got a letter.
Because of recent serious health problems, I thought I had better do some research. I was shocked by what I found. Surely the town administrators knew the dangers involved in towers… it only took me 15 minutes of research to realize the dangers. Surely they knew that the FCC requires them to let others use their tower – to add to it… radio and television stations, military, police… and anyone who wants to install 5G. Once a tower is installed, there is little local government control over what can be added to the tower. Surely they had researched the dangers involved in such an important decision?
An elementary school playground abuts my backyard fence. As my research showed 10 times the increased health dangers to children by comparison to adults, this research project changed from concern for my health to the health of those little kids who would be playing within feet of the proposed tower.
I began putting research data together in individual packets, one addressed to each Planning Board member. The material came from scientific journals, not internet web sites.
I was still not well enough to go to the meeting alone. I had to carry an oxygen tank and the packets for the Planning Commission and I was newly released from the hospital and barely able to get myself there. Rose, a dear friend who had helped me through my illness and hospital stay, carried the packets and oxygen and drove me there so I could limit how far I had to walk to get to the meeting room. When we got there, we found the public comment portion of the meeting had been cancelled. The tower installer, however, was given time to sell his project. We, the public in the audience, were not supposed to talk, but I raised my hand and they allowed me to say a few things and to ask some questions.
As a result of the material I put together for the meeting that night, I was contacted by a brilliant woman (8 years in graduate school, 10 years working for Johns Hopkins in Baltimore). She wanted to help. She has a son who attends the elementary school. I had contacted the principal of the school – no one had told her about the tower. I contacted the PTA President. No one had told her about the tower or the meetings.
Melissa’s help was a miracle… this was a professional who really knew how to do research and document things. The second meeting – with the Mayor and Town Trustees – was only a week after the first meeting and as I gained access to more and better information, the information contained in my packets for the City Council changed. It was stated that the public comment portion of the program was cancelled, but the Mayor allowed it. The Town Council handled the matter extremely well and notified us they would make a decision within a week or two.
The Mayor and Town Council decided against the tower located by an elementary school. They will, however and undoubtedly, be pressured to put a tower in another location and so the fight has just begun. The school district and county seat of my county have already allowed two towers… one on the grounds of a high school and another at the most used athletic field for high school sports. I just received notification that another tower installation has been applied for by Verizon… on the grounds of an elementary school.
It’s interesting, isn’t it? They (the tower installers) appear to be fixated on putting towers in the place they can do the most health damage… especially to young boys whose reproductive capacities can be diminished or destroyed by EMFs. Perhaps the United Nations is serious about eliminating 90 percent of the population?
If I told you what I suspect, you would get out your aluminum foil and begin making me a hat.
This is a long article and if you read this far, you are probably a person I would like to meet. But, as I said, this is a very serious and long-term project. I will make some links available below. And I’m working on a blog (http://meand5g.blogspot.com) where all of the research Melissa and I gathered will be made available to the public. A copy of the letters each of us wrote to the Mayor and Town Council as well as to the Superintendent of our District’s schools will be made available. There will be directions as to how to find and get copies of your city’s or town’s monthly meetings so you know when something involving tower installation is happening and how to be respond to it. When it happens, fight it! Me and 5G will give you the resources to win!
General Omar Bradley of World War II fame once said: “If we continue todevelop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” The General died April 8, 1981.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Marilyn MacGruder Barnewellhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarilyn MacGruder Barnewell2019-06-05 06:45:432019-06-05 06:45:435G: A Plan to Depopulate Earth?
As we promised you, Church Militant is going to be vigilant and relentless in exposing the filthy squalor into which many of the members of the hierarchy have descended.
And the point to keep uppermost in your mind is that this stuff — all of it — has been known and is still known by multiple bishops, chancery personnel, lawyers and Catholic media types who continue the cover-up.
It is of little significance, except from a criminal law standpoint, if what happened was two years ago or 20 years ago.
All of this filth stains the hands of the dozens of people who did it and covered it up as well as enabled it back in the day and still continue to enable it by refusing to come forward with what they know.
Many of the rats who were running around their chanceries back in the day are today bishops or auxiliary bishops who know many dark secrets and simply refuse to divulge them, especially their own role in the filthy business.
Take for example the case of Fr. Andrew Millar from the diocese of Rockville Center, New York back around the year 2000.
In May of that year, Millar was arrested for sodomizing a 15-year-old mentally disabled teenage boy in a bathroom at a popular beach on Long Island. In November of the same year, a finding of guilty got him a prison sentence of one to three years.
Now, here’s the hitch. Millar was roaming about and able to commit what detectives called a “crime of opportunity” because he was living near the beach in retirement at a Rockville Center parish.
The reason he was “retired” and living at the parish was because he had been stashed away there by then-Bishop James McHugh after Millar had been accused to the diocese of sexually abusing a different child — this one a 10-year-old boy.
McHugh did not tell the police he had a child molester on his hands; then shipped Millar off to the notorious St. Luke’s in Maryland for a few months; then brought him back to the diocese and “retired” him to the parish.
Eight months later, he got caught raping the 15-year-old boy by the boy’s father at the beach bathroom. The boy’s father chased him down and held Millar until the police arrived.
So why, you may reasonably ask, did the bishop “retire” him? Good question — to shuttle him away, hoping he wouldn’t rape any more boys in “retirement.”
And retirement here was key because as McHugh’s lawyer’s tried to assert in the civil suit which followed, since he was “retired,” he was no longer an “employee” of the diocese, so the diocese could not be held financially liable.
Yeah, you heard that right. If, Bp. McHugh reasoned, we could reclassify the rapist priest as a non-employee, then the diocese would be shielded from liability. You can’t make this stuff up. And as the saying goes, but wait, there’s more.
McHugh actually wrote a letter to Millar regarding his retirement and in that letter, McHugh, the bishop remember, knowing full well of the sexual assault against the 10-year-old, thanked Millar for his 41 years of “priestly goodness.”
Eight months later, Millar sodomized the mentally disabled teenage boy. And believe it or not, there’s actually more.
During the criminal trial, McHugh actually intervened on behalf of Millar who had been declared guilty and tried to have the court forgo a prison sentence and remand Millar over to the diocese, seemingly forgetting that Millar had already been under the authority of the diocese when he raped the boy that he was now facing sentencing for.
The bishop, through his attorneys, actually had the audacity to suggest to the court that Millar be handed over to the bishop who would then transfer him to a facility in the western United States where he could receive counseling.
The bishop never discussed that neither he nor the diocese have any jurisdiction in the western United States, nor that Millar would owe absolutely zero allegiance to the bishop since he was “retired.”
In short, Bp. McHugh intervened to have the rapist priest that by the way he knew had abused at least two boys, the case of the original boy not known by the court or law enforcement at the time of the sentencing, that would come out in the civil case, he intervened to have him go completely scot-free, unsupervised.
Now, to show the spiritual insanity of all this, there was at the same time this case with Millar was going on, another case with one of McHugh priests, a Fr. Murphy who had been arrested falsely for trespassing at an abortuary.
Father Murphy had, in fact, not trespassed at all but had to undergo the charge by the child-killers that are commonly hurled at prayer warriors in front of the killing centers.
Catholics directly petitioned McHugh and asked him if he would intervene in the case of Fr. Murphy, and the cold-blooded, hypocritical response of McHugh was, paraphrasing, “I will not intervene in a case I have not been invited to intervene in.”
So when it comes to protecting a known and convicted homopredator rapist, McHugh intervenes to try and get him released. But in the case of another one of his priests who had not broken the law, McHugh defers and hides behind proper decorum.
McHugh went on to say that the request for him to do something in the Fr. Murphy abortion trespassing case was “abusive.”
Yet when the father of the 15-year-old mentally disturbed rape victim was made aware of McHugh’s letter to Millar thanking him for his “priestly goodness,” the father said he was furious about the bishop’s letter saying the entire incident “eats me up alive.”
Apparently, that doesn’t count as abusive because the bishop is allowed to dump on victims and cover-up crimes.
And by the way, just one more thing on the topic of covering up crimes, McHugh didn’t just intervene in Millar’s case knowing full well that he had sexually assaulted a 10-year-old prior to this case, he actually expressed in public, in no uncertain, clear as a bell terms, that this was for Fr. Millar the “first time to engage in such an act.”
Why not throw in perjury while you’re at it?
So who were the men and women, who were the priests, who were the lawyers working in the chancery at Rockville Center back in 2000? How do they sleep at night?
The judge in the case disregarded McHugh’s ridiculous intervention. Millar was shipped off to prison.
As for McHugh, three weeks after Millar went to prison, he died.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-06-03 11:12:232019-06-04 06:28:23The Vortex — Abortion & Sodomy: How do the bishops handle each of these? [Video]
“I don’t feel safe,” says a Harvard student in a video.
What threatens her? The dean of her Harvard dormitory, law professor Ronald Sullivan, agreed to be part of accused sexual harasser Harvey Weinstein’s legal defense team.
Sullivan and his wife were deans of the dormitory for years, but no matter. Now the professor is apparently an evil threat.
A group calling itself “Our Harvard Can Do Better” demanded Sullivan be removed from his dean job.
Sullivan is black, but black activists joined the protest, too. On the videotape, one says, “Dean Sullivan told me to my face that I should view his representation of Harvey Weinstein as a good thing because that representation will trickle down to black men like me who constantly face an unjust justice system.”
Seems reasonable to me. But the privileged Harvard students laugh and clap when the protester goes on to say, “F— that!”
Colleges don’t show much courage when pushed by student activists. Harvard administrators removed Sullivan and his wife from the residence hall.
Do the students really “feel unsafe”?
“They’re lying,” says Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in my newest video. “Anybody who says they feel unsafe in the presence of a lawyer and his wife are looking you in the eye and committing the equivalent of perjury. They don’t feel unsafe. They’ve learned the language of the new McCarthyism.”
In other words, people call themselves “victims,” knowing they can get results they want by saying they are traumatized by the presence of their enemies. Schools and other businesses, wanting to avoid protracted fights and accusations of sexism, racism or “insensitivity,” rush to comply with activists’ wishes.
Dershowitz is mad about what’s happened at his school: “The mantra of the day is ‘We feel unsafe.’ Well, that’s just too bad! Learn to deal with it. You’re going to have to live in the real world in which your neighbors, friends, relatives are going to disagree with you. If you start using the criteria of ‘unsafe’ in your life, you’re going to be a failure.”
Worse, he adds, “You’re going to impose restrictions on the rest of us.”
I told Dershowitz that the students protesting Sullivan were mostly young women. Some had been sexually assaulted. Isn’t it reasonable that they not be reminded of that?
“No, it’s not reasonable not to want to face the reality that due process requires that everybody be represented,” replied Dershowitz.
Harvard didn’t fire Sullivan from his professor job, only his dean job.
So I said to Dershowitz: “Don’t students have a right to say, ‘Look, we’re living with this guy. He creeps us out because of what he does. Get somebody else’?”
“If they could say that,” replied Dershowitz, “they could say it about somebody who supports Donald Trump for president, somebody who is a Muslim, who’s gay, who’s Jewish, you name it.”
Sullivan, who like Dershowitz has defended clients considered monsters by the general public, has long argued, “For the rights of all of us… to be protected, we have to live in a system where we vigorously, vigorously defend the guilty.”
“You get the right to counsel no matter how despicable you are thought to be,” explains Dershowitz. “These students would have fired John Adams. They would have not allowed him to come to the Constitutional Convention or write the Declaration of Independence because he defended the people who were accused of the Boston Massacre.”
The new McCarthyism requires that everyone bow to demands of “victims.” That’s a lot of people.
On the videotape, one student says she worries not just about her own safety, but the well-being of “survivors, transgender and gender nonconforming people, BGLTQ people, undocumented, DACAmented and TPS people, indigenous people, first generation low-income people…”
I don’t even know what some of those words mean.
Most of us want to protect genuine victims. But it makes little sense that America, a country where even poor people live longer and better lives than almost anyone in history, has become a place where spoiled children paying $60,000 tuition consider themselves “victims.”
There have been many debates concerning the connection between gun ownership and mental health. In fact, many politicians have outlined on several accounts that there is a connection between mental illness and gun shootings. This perception is widespread around the public as well and numerous Americans blame the mental health system for the many unfortunate incidents associated with gun ownership.
In this debate, there are many questions that require an answer. One of them is: should a psychiatric examination be incorporated into the background check of a person before purchasing a gun? While it’s 100 percent accurate that mental health should be considered when it comes to gun ownership, the term mental illness is comprehensive, in the sense that it implies a wide range of conditions, including social anxiety. In other words, it would be safe to say that not all mental conditions feature a risk of doing harm to others.
What Do Studies Indicate?
According to a study that analyzed the way in which mental illness and gun violence are connected, the results weren’t necessarily predictable. That is to say, individuals with high hostility are much more likely to threaten someone else by using a gun – in fact, they are 3.5 times more likely to do so. In lines with the Centers for Disease Control, on a yearly basis, roughly 75,000 to 100,000 Americans suffer injuries because of firearms, while 30,000 to 40,000 die because of this.
This points out that the amount of research on the topic is rather limited and far from being comprehensive. In other words, by connecting violent behavior with mental illness struggle, the stigma around mental illness will most likely be increased. This would make it more difficult for people struggling with such conditions to ask for help.
What seems to be the common factor in the case of most mass shooting incidents is actually anger. According to a 2012 analysis, studies of people with impulsive and angry personalities are more likely to have violent outbursts, when compared to the general population. On a different note, people that have violent, compulsive behavior, usually display this behavior in relation to their coworkers and peers, having a record of anti-social conduct.
This means that gun ownership should be restricted for violent, angry individuals. However, this leads to various challenges, since people can buy guns online, at gun shows, or even from private sellers without any screening or anything of the sort. This is worrisome considering the high rates of shootings. For example, in California, the perpetrators of crimes such as assault are prohibited from acquiring guns.
Is Limiting Gun Ownership to People with Mental Issues Troublesome?
The truth is that limiting gun ownership to people suffering from mental issues is complicated. Gov. Rich Scott of Florida had outlined in the past that the state lawmakers should attempt to restrict gun ownership from the mentally ill. Although this umbrella term is quite vague, the situation is more complicated than it seems at first glance. Lawmakers have been challenged to allow police powers to detain people to evaluate their mental health on grounds of worrying social media posts or anything that would outline violent, angry behavior.
On the other hand, gun control and mental health advocates alike highlight that there are more and more states that enable law enforcement officers or even family members to petition a court, in order to take a firearm from people posing a danger. This measure is referred to as red flaw laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders. It has actually limited the rates of suicide in the state of Connecticut. This is where the law was first approved in 1999.
On a different note, although the media usually attributes mental health illness to mass shootings, the root isn’t always there, as we already pointed out above. It is true that mental health might increase the risk of suicide. In other words, the law enforcement segment in the US should aim at better understanding the way in which laws could limit or prevent shootings from taking place.
For instance, in the case of the suspect in the Florida shooting – 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz – he had been expelled from high-school. Not to mention that the majority of his former classmates avoided him as they thought that he was dangerous. As he had also lost his mother, he was also displaying signs of depression.
Federal laws forbid the purchase of guns by people that have stayed at a psychiatric hospital or people that have been found to pose danger to themselves and those around them. However, the laws vary by the state.
Some states have even attempted to make their own databases of people who were mentally unstable so that they couldn’t be allowed to carry guns. New York is known as one of the most restrictive states when it comes to gun control laws, but after placing roughly 34,500 people on that list, mental health advocates had indicated that too many people were perceived as dangerous.
The bottom line is that gun safety is a topic that is well worthy of our attention – especially considering everything that is happening nowadays, all the mass shootings, the worrying suicide rates, and so on. This is why it is crucial to prevent guns from reaching the hands of the wrong people.
To ensure that your gun is always protected, our advice would be to invest in the best gun safe, as opposed to simply hiding it under your bed. This way, you can be 100% confident that you are the only person that will be using the gun, and it won’t be accessible to children, unstable members of the family or even burglars. Being precautious is always the best policy.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jay Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJay Chambers2019-06-02 17:28:582019-06-02 17:28:58The Importance of Mental Health Considerations in Gun Ownership
I was the co sponsor of the heartbeat bill and the main sponsor of the pain capable unborn child protection act and will file the same legislation again next year.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a supporter of limiting abortion. As a member of Congress he voted “yea” for HR 4712Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Politico reported that then candidate DeSantis, “pledged…to sign legislation to ban abortions ‘after a fetal heartbeat is detected’.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-06-02 08:34:232019-06-03 05:16:37Would Disney World close if the Florida legislature passed the 'Pain capable unborn child protection act'?
Dr. Gerard Francis Lameiro is an author, political analyst, and expert on forecast models. Dr. Lameiro is the author of five books and is a popular TV and Talk Radio show guest. Dr. Lameiro has been called by media hosts “America’s #1 Political Analyst” and the “Nostradamus of Political Elections.” Early on Dr. Lameiro correctly predicted every state that Donald Trump won. Dr. Lameiro’s website is GreatNewsForAmerica.com. Dr. Lameiro’s newest book is, More Great News for America. TOPIC…Dr. Lameiro’s chances of beating cancer are much better thanks to Trump’s policies.
Tom Del Beccaro, author, speaker, Fox News, Fox Business and Epoch Times opinion writer and the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of the historical perspectives The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, heard by millions each year, including Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…Polls show President Trump is right politically, on tone, approach and leadership!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Conservative Commandos Radio Showhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show2019-06-01 05:21:332019-06-01 05:21:48PODCAST: Trump policies helping beat cancer. Polls show President Trump is right politically, on tone, approach & leadership!
Few topics, however, draw out media bias like abortion, where the concerns of pro-life Americans are left on the back page or uncovered, and a magnifying glass is put on anyone who challenges pro-abortion orthodoxy.
Ultimately, media bias regarding abortion is nothing new.
Ross Douthat, a conservative New York Times columnist, wrote in 2012:
Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant, and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person—and certainly no self-respecting woman—could possibly question or oppose.
This is certainly the case today.
Not only is coverage of abortion highly skewed, but it’s clear that the language used to describe it is made to soften the reality of what the practice is, while diminishing the concerns of those who believe fundamental rights are being violated.
NPR, which is of course publicly funded, recently updated its language guidelines for reporters.
Here are some of the terms now off-limits for NPR journalists: pro-life, late-term abortion, fetal heartbeat, partial birth.
Instead they are to use terms such as “intact dilation and extraction” (to describe a partial-birth abortion)and “medical or health clinics that perform abortions” (instead of simply “abortion clinics”).
The phrase “abortion doctor” also would drop off the list of acceptable phrases. Instead, NPR reporters are instructed to list the doctor’s name and write that he “operated a clinic where abortions are performed.”
If anything, the attempt to use more scientific language to describe abortions,such as “intact dilation and extraction” in the place of “partial birth abortion,” at best merely confuses readers as to what actually is being performed.
Of course, NPR has also set strict guidelines about how to treat the words “unborn” and “baby,” making sure that reporters never describe, well, unborn babies in anything other than technical language to remove thorny debates about personhood or humanity. NPR instructs its reporters:
The term ‘unborn’ implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a ‘baby’ or ‘the unborn’ is part of the strategy used by antiabortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.
Media bias on this issue will become only more pronounced as the “positive good” school of thought about abortion becomes more pronounced on the left than the “safe, legal, and rare” camp.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion, attempts to dance around prickly questions about life and humanity are unlikely to solve the division.
The media, as is so common today, distinctly reveals its biases and lets slip the mask of objectivity that’s becoming increasingly difficult for Americans to believe.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-28 05:57:262019-05-28 06:14:29Abortion Debate Shows How Media Deploys Language Gymnastics to Serve Left-Wing Goals
Abortion and sex trafficking aren’t often brought together in the same sentence, but they have a lot more in common than meets the eye and doubles the devastation in many women’s lives.Earlier this week, our friends at Americans United for Life and Global Centurion hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill on the connection of abortion to sex trafficking and various ways the women are impacted from their mental health to their physical health.
What people may not realize is that sex trafficking victims are often coerced into abortions by the trafficker so that he or she can continue to make a profit off of them. Believe it or not, it’s not always a male who is the trafficker, and it’s not unusual for women to be in charge of a harem of victims. At other times, trafficking victims are impregnated by their pimp so that they can remain under their control.
As discussed in our “The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion,” it’s nearly impossible to know the total number of abortions committed on sex-trafficked women” but a in a survey of 66 women who were sex trafficking survivors, about 71 percent reported that they became pregnant at least once while being trafficked, and about 21 percent said they had five or more pregnancies while being trafficked and that from these 66 women they had a total of 114 abortions among them while being trafficked.
Abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood aren’t complaining because it’s more business for them. In a 2014 Beazley Institute Report, over 1,000 female victims of sex trafficking from across the United States gave information regarding their experience at health care facilities. Over a quarter (29.6 percent) of the survivors had visited a Planned Parenthood facility while they were being trafficked. One victim of sex trafficking said that they went to Planned Parenthood because “they didn’t ask any questions.”
Instead of reporting the traffickers, Planned Parenthood enabled them to abuse these women over and over again. More stories like these can be read in our Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman publication. Of course, it’s one thing to see the statistics — and another to hear the stories that put faces to the numbers. Our Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy, Patrina Mosley, was there and explains that it was very emotional for listeners to hear the evils these women experience. But on the other hand, you could also tell it was freeing for the survivors to give their testimonies, because they know more people will be moved to fight for justice.
Patrina also shared on the panel that, in essence, the way forward is understanding the signs of sex trafficking in our everyday surroundings. The more people pay attention, the more likely it is that someone will be rescued. And secondly, there’s no way around the part values and sexual morality play in this crisis. Paying for sex and killing a child in the womb both devalue human dignity. Alongside punitive justice to deter bad behavior, we cannot abolish the modern slavery and holocaust of our time until we return to understand that sexual relations were designed to occur in the sanctity and safety of marriage.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-05-24 05:24:262019-05-24 06:24:58Abortion and Trafficking: Two Birds of a Feather
The goal of the new, strict Alabama abortion law is to potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The law would penalize abortion doctors, and it contains no exception clauses, except for the life and health of the mother.
In all of the brouhaha about the new Alabama law, there is a long-stilled voice that has been forgotten. That of the repentant Roe of Roe v. Wade.
Of course, Norma McCorvey was the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. After converting to Christ and the pro-life position (about 15 years after the Supreme Court decision), she proclaimed to the world that the whole case had been based on a lie (a few lies, really). Chief among the lies was that she was raped (gang-raped at that), and that was why she needed an abortion.
By the time, Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, Norma had already had her baby (a girl), whom she gave up for adoption. Justice William Rehnquist, one of two dissenters in the decision, voted against it because it was a moot point. Roe’s baby had already been born.
The opinion of Roe of Roe v. Wade is significant for the abortion debate, including the Alabama law, because abortion was accepted on a wide scale throughout the country, only by judicial fiat. It was not something “we the people” voted on.
Look at how divided the country continues to be on the subject of abortion. Well, why not? We the people did not decide that case on that fateful Monday. Dissenting Justice Byron White, the only Justice appointed by JFK, said that Roe was an “act of raw judicial power.”
Those who live by court decisions should die by court decisions. And Roe herself, after her pro-life and Christian conversion, tried to legally overturn Roe v. Wade since it was all based on lies. Therefore, if the new Alabama law helps overturn Roe, so be it.
Yet one person called the Alabama law “a major step towards the death of democracy.” Oh brother. The Constitution shows that the courts, including the Supreme Court, were never designed to legislate or execute our laws.
There obviously was a time when Roe favored abortion. She was in opposition to Henry Wade—the pro-life attorney general of Texas, where Norma was living at the time of the lawsuit that worked its way up to the high Court.
In an interview with D. James Kennedy Ministries television, she said, “My story began many, many years ago in 1969 when I found myself pregnant, on the streets. I was into drugs, and I really didn’t have any other alternatives in line. I did not believe in God, and I’d fallen away from the church at a very early age.”
Jumping ahead, change came about because of new neighbors moving in. Unwelcome neighbors at first. What transformed her in particular was meeting a little girl who truly loved God.
Norma continued, “In retrospect, when I look back on those days, and I see what a sad person I was, I have to really kind of smile and think about little Emily: a little seven year old girl who came up to me at my office one day and told me that if I knew God that I wouldn’t be going to the place downstairs. She befriended me when Operation Rescue moved in next door to the abortion clinic where I worked. And at first I didn’t like them there because they reminded me of what we were doing. I worked in an abortion clinic. We killed children for a living.”
She added, “I was a child-killer. I was an executioner.…There’s a fellow in the Bible; his name was Baal. He was into child sacrificing, and that’s basically what you’re doing out there today—you are sacrificing your child for a career, or high school or college.”
Norma found forgiveness through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who died for sinners, paying the penalty for our sins, for those who believe: “And I think once you’re forgiven by God, you should forgive yourself. But then you really should not put yourself in that kind of situation either.”
Norma warns against what happens in an abortion: “You are totally different after you’ve had an abortion. Abortion kind of sucks your soul dry; it makes you a very angry person inside, from what I’ve seen.”
This is why for the last several years of her life until her death in 2017, Norma McCorvey fought against abortion on demand. She would have welcomed Alabama’s new law as a way to try to undo the damage of Roe.
She said: “We want the child-killing to stop….There are other alternatives, other than abortion; there’s adoption….We don’t want to see Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land anymore. We want our children back.”
When we talk about “pro-life” in our national discussion about abortion, “life” is understood to be about the unborn child in the mother’s womb.
But it would serve us well to expand our understanding about what “pro-life” means.
We should understand that respecting the sanctity of life is key to the values and behaviors in general that sustain and nourish all our lives today and create the necessary conditions for our future.
A just-released report from the National Center for Health Statistics, a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reports that the total number of births in the United States in 2018 was down 2% from 2017 and is the lowest number of births in the country in 32 years.
It also reports that the general fertility rate—the number of births per 1,000 women aged 15-44—was also down 2% and is at a record low.
The total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women to keep our overall population at steady state—not shrinking. It now stands at 1,728 per 1,000 women.
If the alternative to “pro-life” is so-called “pro-choice,” the mindset of legal abortion on demand, the latter is capturing, and destroying, American society. We are choosing to extinguish ourselves.
It turns out that “reproductive freedom,” the banner under which “pro-choice” operates, translates into the freedom to not reproduce.
University of Southern California demographer Dowell Myers calls the declining birthrates we are witnessing a “barometer of despair.”
Birthrates decline, according to Myers, when people are not optimistic about the future.
How about the general collapse of the marriage institution?
In 1960, 72% of Americans 18 and above were married. By 2016, this was down to 50%.
At a conference at the Vatican in 2014, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, called marriage “the single most humanizing institution in history.”
He said that life begins “when male and female meet and embrace.”
“Morality,” he continued, “is the love between husband and wife, parent and child, extended outward to the world.”
A society in which sanctity of life is respected is a society that appreciates that we are all part of something larger than ourselves. When we lose this awe, this appreciation for the sacred, we disconnect from one another and disappear into our separate selves.
Love, marriage, children, and our future begin to recede.
It’s a spiritual tragedy with profound and destructive practical implications for society.
The Census Bureau projects that in 2035, for the first time, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will exceed the number of Americans under 18.
As society ages, the number of retirees per each working American increases—what is called the dependency ratio.
We are already seeing the implications with huge deficits in our Social Security and Medicare programs, where payroll taxes finance retirement and health care costs of the elderly.
A healthy pushback is starting to occur at the nation’s grassroots.
States are getting aggressive to stop the destructive abortion culture. Most recently, Alabama and Georgia have enacted laws making abortion that is legal under federal law illegal in the state.
This puts state law on a collision course with federal law.
Whether this will wind up at the Supreme Court with a revisiting of the Roe v. Wade decision remains to be seen.
We should be praying it will happen.
The current abortion culture that has been defining America since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 is part and symptomatic of an America whose future is in danger.
We must fight for restoration of a pro-life culture in our country that respects the sanctity of life and will restore the American family, children, and our future.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-22 17:41:222019-05-22 19:11:30Alabama and Georgia Abortion Laws on Right Track