Human Life International lists Products that use Aborted Fetuses – Warning gruesome!

Two current issues that separate the two major political parties are climate change and abortion.

One party believes that the climate is changing but mankind has little to do with the changes. The other party believes that it is mankind that is destroying the planet and therefor mankind must be punished (with taxes and regulation) or even cannibalized in order to save the planet. A closely related issue is abortion. Why? Because by having fewer babies, or no babies at all, one can save the planet from extinction according to the policies of one major political party candidate for President of the United States, Senator Bernie Sanders.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Planned Parenthood and Environmentalists have joined forces to save planet earth by controlling global population. In the Planned Parenthood Global booklet titled Health Has No Borders on page 10 describes the intersection of the abortion industry and environmental movement, as a global partnership:

Women’s health is directly linked to the state of their environment. When rural environments become unsustainable, it is women whose lives are most disrupted. To address this issue, Planned Parenthood partners with local environmental advocates to integrate women’s health and empowerment into the work that they do. [Emphasis added]

Health Has No Borders describes how Planned Parenthood partnered with environmental advocates like Fundaeco (Foundation for Ecodevelopment and Conservation) in Guatemala:

In Guatemala we work with Fundaeco, one of the country’s largest environmental organizations. Before partnering with Planned Parenthood Global, Fundaeco had done some community organizing, but felt they had hit a brick wall in disseminating their message. To truly get their campaigns going, they determined they needed to focus not just on the local environment, but on the human rights of the local population.

Enter Planned Parenthood Global.

We made an initial investment to pilot three community health centers in one of the protected areas in southeast Guatemala. To ensure local ownership, these health centers were created by donations of land or supplies from local villages within the protected areas. [Emphasis added]

The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger wrote:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

This mantra is being carried out globally, and funded by local governments and organizations such as the United Nations.

SELLING HUMAN FETUSES

On July 19, 2015 we published an article titled Kraft, Pepsi, and Nestle Using Aborted Babies For Flavor Additives in which listed dozens of companies that use fetal tissue to enhance the flavor of their products. Note: Food and beverages do not contain any aborted fetal material; however, they may be tastier because of it.

Since that time the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has published a series of undercover videos detailing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of fetuses to companies for profit. Here is just one CMP video:

Andrea Byrnes from Human Life International published a column titled Products That Use Aborted Fetuses.

Byrnes writes:

Do some products contain fetal parts? The short gruesome answer: Yes.

Today’s consumer products are not the soap and lampshades of recycled Nazi concentration camp victims. The new utilitarian use of people is a sophisticated enterprise, not visible to the human eye.

Byrnes looks at three areas where fetal body parts are used:

  1. Food and Drink
  2. Cosmetics
  3. Vaccines and Medicine

While actual fetal body parts are not contained in food and drink products they are contained in cosmetics, vaccines and medicine. Byrnes reported:

The fountain of youth…is babies.

Commercially, it’s known as Processed Skin Proteins (PSP), developed at the University of Lausanne to heal burns and wounds by regenerating traumatized skin. The fetal skin cell line was taken from an electively aborted baby whose body was donated to the University.

[ … ]

The Vaccine Card at the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) website lists over 21 vaccines and medical products that contain aborted fetal cell lines. The Card is updated yearly, and also lists ethical vaccine alternatives when there are any.

EUGENICS

“Eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. “ – Margaret Sanger, Eugenist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

In a column titled New York Times’ ‘1619 Project,’ the MacArthur Foundation and Eugenics we wrote about the 1998 book “Archons And Acolytes: The New Power Elite” written by Clarence C. Walton wrote:

Eugenics became a fashionable cause, and courses in the subject were soon introduced by a number of colleges and universities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided ample financial support, generously funding international conferences and research projects, and earning unwanted praise from the Nazis who welcomed the international respectability that their eugenicists needed. Today the Ford and MacArthur Foundations have also made population control a major objective of their funding efforts. In the first phase of the eugenics movement, artificial birth control (with Margaret Sanger identified as its major force) became the preferred method for controlling population growth.” [Emphasis added]

Eugenics was created in the United States and its goal was and remains “population control.” Eugenics was quickly adapted by the Nazis to further their ideology of a “genetically superior” Aryan race.

Today eugenics is called genetics. It’s goal is the same, a genetically pure race.

A genetically pure race requires the ultimate in government control. The Green New Deal provides for tyrannical government control over every aspect of our lives and lively hoods. The battle cry is “save the planet.” Their success will measure in the reduction of numbers of people globally. It’s ultimately about the elites, in government and research labs, determining who lives and who dies.

About Andrea Byrnes:

Writer Andrea Byrnes was the first producer of U.S. March for Life coverage at EWTN Global Catholic Network, which she continued to supervise for seven years. She attended her first HLI conference in 1989, where she first met Servant of God Dr. Jerome Lejeune. She and her husband would later pray for Lejeune’s intercession for her son’s health difficulties discovered before birth, and thanks be to God, he is thriving.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mapped-out: Where It’s Dangerous in America to Be Born Alive

Stillborn Baby Showed Signs of Life, But This Doctor Put Him in the Morgue Fridge to Freeze to Death

Babies Born Alive After Abortion Can be Left to Die in 16 States

Planned Parenthood Fights To Hide Evidence Of Selling Fetal Tissue In Daleiden Trial

Moroccan Feminists Vow To Abort Their Babies to Protest Laws Protecting the Unborn

Comprehensive List Of Companies That Use Aborted Fetal Cells As Flavour

Meet the Company Buying Planned Parenthood’s Baby ‘Specimens’

Prager U misses the key piece on leftist-Tolerance

NC Legislators Working To Overturn Gay Marriage: “Tell It To Satan!”

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Pagan Prayer and Tree Planting at the Vatican.

How are Banks Harming Small Businesses?

As much as 78 percent of small businesses report positive corporate profitability, rating their happiness level to 8, on average (from a scale of 1-10). The past couple of years seem like the ‘golden’ years for small businesses, thanks to the increasing consumer demand, innovation, and technology – great possibilities and opportunities are present in the business sector.

But while big brands thrive, many small businesses suffer. Why?

Apparently, too much regulation by governments is interfering with the free market, which greatly affect the health of small businesses.

Rigid policies and regulations make sourcing capital difficult.

If you tried your luck of borrowing money from your bank and got turned down, you’re not alone. Only one in five business loans are approved by traditional banks.

Why? Banking policies say so. Let’s talk about Basel III as an example. This law is a set of banking regulations that place stricter standards on the quantity and quality of capital that banks must hold.

What does this mean for small businesses? Many experts believe that Basel III reduces credit availability for small enterprises. This means that bank loans will get more expensive and thus, far more difficult for many businesses to obtain.

Banks’ supreme power over loan contracts.

Take a look at any bank loan contract and you will know – banks hate young entrepreneurs. What most small business owners think is that as long as they are keeping up with their payments, they won’t be in trouble.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The standard business loan contract gives banks an inordinate level of power over the borrower, without the latter knowing about it. For example, banks have the power to call in a loan and demand for payments in an unrealistic time frame. They may also perform a new valuation of assets securing the loan. And if the value has gotten down, the borrower faces potentially unmanageable loan costs.

Federal regulations hurt small businesses.

Small businesses are the heart of America’s economy. 45% of the U.S. gross domestic product is driven by small enterprises. But despite their prevalence, federal regulations and their infrastructure have a disproportionate impact on the free enterprise in America, especially on small businesses. Such regulations alone are estimated to cost small businesses as much as $1.9 trillion a year in direct costs, productivity loss, and higher prices.

The federal tax code, for example, adds additional burden to small businesses more than the amount of money they have to pay. It’s not just business taxes they have to deal with. Payroll taxes are a hassle as well. One-third of small businesses spend 80 hours per year on federal taxes and nearly half spend $5,000 on accountants and tax practitioners.

Another law – the Affordable Care Act (also called Obamacare), brought so many data collection and reporting requirements from small businesses. To comply with the new law, employers need to invest so much time, people, and in some cases, complex IT infrastructure – something that small organizations cannot afford.

Outdated banking technology hinders growth.

While the rest of the world is keeping up with the latest technology, banks don’t. That’s despite having the money and resources to do so. You won’t believe it but most of them still use the technology from the 1970s, a sad reality that causes a greater burden to small businesses.

For instance, it’s far easier and faster for companies to pay their suppliers in person than send a request for a bank wire transfer. If entrepreneurs need to get an update about their loans, they have to call the bank (worse, go there personally). There’s lack of transparency as to how much of the repayment has been deducted from the actual loan and how much went to the interest.

Another issue with banks concerns accepting international payments. More and more small businesses are entering the global market. Unfortunately, bank limitations are always challenging. It’s funny how consumers can easily track their $5 payment but small businesses could not trace their $10,000 supplier payment.

Bottom-line

Banking laws and government regulations are hurting small businesses in so many ways because of rigid policies and practices, lack of transparency, and the use of outdated technology. Because banks take full control over contracts (from loans to other financial services), entrepreneurs are often left in the dark. Additionally, many federal regulations, such as the federal tax code, cost small enterprises due to its complexities.

Will the situation ever change? Not until the government make their policies fair and less rigid for small businesses.

Why Even Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”

Given the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.


When you’re several decades older than Greta Thunberg, her impassioned warning of impending doom hits you differently than it may college students or early twenty somethings. In a word, it sounded “familiar.”

I’m not just talking about the climate change movement, nor exclusively about the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been hearing about impending doom that can only be averted by massive increases in the size and scope of government my whole life, from both the right and the left.

The earliest example I remember came from the right. During the 1980s, the airwaves were flooded with reports on the military superiority of the Soviet Union. I don’t mean their nuclear weapons capabilities, which were and remain a valid cause for concern, as are those of every nuclear-armed government. No, the American public was saturated with reports of the Soviet Union’s superiority in waging conventional war, with planes, tanks, ground troops, etc.

The only solution, said the Reagan administration, was massive increases in military spending, which not only doubled the size of the federal government overall during Reagan’s two terms but started a trend of massive military spending that continues to this day. The conventional wisdom of the right says it was this spending that caused the Soviet Union to collapse because they tried to keep up and couldn’t. It wasn’t. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its communist economic system, which former KGB agent Vladimir Putin admitted in 2009 when he said,

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

The truth is, the Soviets were never a military threat, outside their nukes, which Reagan’s spending did nothing to deter. Poor countries generally don’t win conventional wars against much richer ones. Knowing that now, would you like to have those trillions in unnecessary military spending back?

The 1980s also saw a massive increase in the so-called “War on Drugs.” Capitalizing on the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias, drug warriors succeeded in convincing the American public that only draconian drug laws and sentencing guidelines could save their children from certain death due to an imminent, nationwide epidemic of drug addiction. The legislation pushed through on the heels of this fear-mongering resulted in the mass incarceration of generations of disproportionately black and brown people, many for as little as possessing too much marijuana, which is now legal in more than half of US states.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have those millions of destroyed lives and families back?

In 2003, with the American public still shell shocked from the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration embarked upon a fear campaign similar to the Reagan administration’s Soviet scare featuring an even less plausible boogeyman: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless dictator and a generally bad guy, but he was never a threat to US national security. The Bush administration evoked images of massive chemical weapons attacks and even “a mushroom cloud” in a major US city. It was all baloney.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have the Iraq War back?

So, what does all this have to do with climate change? Environmentalists are using the same tactics, only for different ends. Right-wingers often revere the military and law enforcement. For all their talk about “small government,” no increase in either would be too much for many of them.

They’ve generally got what they’ve wanted in those areas by employing a thus far foolproof tactic that goes something like this: Oh my God! I’ve discovered a dire threat to all our lives and civilization as we know it. And believe it or not, the only solution is for you to give me everything I’ve ever wanted politically.

Shouldn’t any thinking person be suspicious of this? Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

I’m not trying to convince liberals there is nothing to the anthropogenic climate change theory. But I am calling attention to the fact that the very same tactic that gave us the Iraq War, the largest prison population in the history of the world, and an out-of-control national debt due largely to unnecessary military spending is now being used to achieve a political result to address climate change.

Let’s not forget that before the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s dramatic turn away from communism and towards a market economy, the hard left’s chief argument against free markets had nothing to do with the environment. For most of the 20th century, they claimed that full-on communism or socialism was a better economic system. It was only when its failure in so many places became impossible to deny that the focus shifted to the environment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) didn’t form until 1992, the year after the Soviet Union disappeared and just after China’s market reforms got underway.

Coincidence? Maybe, but shouldn’t it at least raise an eyebrow? How can anyone be blamed for skepticism when the very same people who wanted a centrally planned economy based on its economic merits suddenly discover it’s the only way to “save the planet”? Shouldn’t that give pause to even a true believer in climate change?

This is before even asking the question of whether giving the government these sweeping new powers (not to mention trillions more of our dollars) would actually solve the stated problem. Past experience should make us skeptical of this, too. Did the War on Drugs result in fewer drugs on the street? Did the Iraq War result in less terrorism? Believing the government is suddenly going to be wildly successful based purely on its doing the bidding of the other political tribe seems more like religious faith than reason.

One thing Greta Thunberg’s speech is honest about, at least indirectly, is that adopting the drastic environmental measures called for by the hard left will make us poorer. She derisively asks how any of us can even talk about “economic growth.” That’s easy for Thunberg and other First-Worlders to say, given what this will cost them vs. what it will cost truly poor people, of which there are very few in the United States or Sweden.

The truth is eliminating fossil fuels at the rate the hard left suggests could cost billions of poor people their lives, not merely their hamburgers. Given that grim reality and the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward the hard left’s claims and demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where Will Climate Change Solutions Be Found?

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Jilts Google in Copyright Dispute at Supreme Court

The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a long-running copyright dispute between Google and Oracle Corp., dealing a considerable blow to Google’s efforts to avoid an $8 billion damages award.

At issue in the dispute, billed as the copyright fight of the decade, are software interfaces called API declarations, which are shorthand commands that facilitate prewritten, complex computer functions. Google used a trove of Oracle-owned Java API declarations when building its Android smartphone operating system.

dailycallerlogo

“[Google] copied 11,500 lines of computer code verbatim, as well as the complex structure and organization inherent in that code, in order to help its competing commercial product,” the Trump administration’s legal brief reads. “The record demonstrates, moreover, that [Google’s] unauthorized copying harmed the market for [Oracle’s] Java platform.”

Sun Microsystems originally developed the contested API declarations. Oracle acquired Sun in 2010. Shortly thereafter, Oracle sued Google in federal court for patent and copyright infringement, saying Google impermissibly copied the API declarations. Years of litigation followed.

Now before the Supreme Court, Google questions whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place. The federal Copyright Act provides that protection does not extend to “methods of operation.” In Google’s view, APIs are a method of operation because they help developers access prewritten, complex functions.

“The Java API declarations simply tell developers how to access the prewritten methods to perform tasks carried out by the implementing code,” Google’s petition reads. “In that respect, the declarations are analogous to a set of rules developers are trained to follow when writing programs in the Java language. If the rules were changed, the prewritten methods would not work. For that reason, the declarations are necessarily part of the method of operating the libraries of prewritten code.”

The Trump administration disagreed, saying APIs do not count as a method of operation simply because they perform a function.

“Although there is a sense in which all computer code could be described as a method of operating a computer, the Copyright Act as a whole makes clear that computer programs can be protected by copyright, refuting any suggestion that the functional character of computer code suffices to bring it within [the Copyright Act],” the government’s brief reads.

The Supreme Court gives the federal government’s views great credence when, as here, the justices ask for its guidance about whether to take a case.

However, Google contends the federal appeals courts are split as to whether copyright protections reach software interfaces like APIs. The Supreme Court justices are much more likely to take a case featuring a question of law over which multiple courts disagree.

Google prevailed at the case’s first trial in 2012. A jury deadlocked over Oracle’s claims, prompting the judge to sign with Google. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court for patent appeals, reversed that decision and ordered a new trial in 2014.

Google appealed the Federal Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, but the justices turned the request down in 2015.

A second trial followed in 2016. A jury sided with Google, finding fair use protected its reliance on the API declarations. The Federal Circuit overturned that verdict, ruling Google had not engaged in fair use. It returned the case to a lower court for a trial on damages.

That decision is now pending before the Supreme Court. On April 29, the justices asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the petition.

The case is No. 18-956 Google v. Oracle America.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Daley

Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: Child Protection Services attack Christian families for teaching the gospel

In a LifeSite News article titled “Multi-year Child Protective Services investigation devastates Texas family” Candi Summers reported:

August 26, 2019 (Texas Home School Coalition Association) — On November 21, 2013, Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) forcibly removed seven children of a Texas homeschool family, in spite of no evidence of abuse or neglect, by order of Judge Graciela Olvera of the 256th District Court of Dallas County.

The action against the Tutt family calls to mind the saying “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Tutts were a Christian family with five biological children, three adopted children, and one in the process of private adoption. (Three of the biological children are grown and living outside the home.) The Tutts spent several years as a licensed CPS foster home, adopted a child from CPS foster care, and were serving with Safe Families, working with at-risk families and directly with CPS to help children in need of care because of abuse or neglectful situations. At the time of the incident that drew CPS’s attention, they were caring for a sibling group of five, including an autistic child, through Safe Families. Additionally, CPS had independently placed an infant with them, knowing that they already had 11 children in their home. This family obviously had a heart for helping children in bad situations, and CPS itself was aware of this goodwill and called on the family as a resource for such children for many years.

On September 21, 2013, a four-year-old autistic child in the Tutts’ care wandered away from the home after climbing over a baby gate, out a dog door, and over a 5-foot fence. The Tutts’ eight-year-old followed the four-year-old but could not bring him back, so he stayed with the child while the other Tutt children notified their father, Trevor, who immediately got in his car and began to search for them. Unfortunately, Trevor turned right at the end of the block while the children turned left, and a police officer picked the children up and returned them to the home before Mr. Tutt could find them. Without entering the home, but seemingly upset with the number of children there, the fact that the shaded yard did not have grass, and the fact that the autistic child had soiled himself, the officer contacted CPS.

Read more.

Child Protection Services have been overrun by liberals and are now weaponized tools of the left.

VIDEO: Where the House Judiciary Actually Got Things Right

While there was plenty wrong with Wednesday’s House Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1296, the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), there were some shining moments for those who still support the Second Amendment.

First, there were the two women who testified in opposition to the latest attempt at banning America’s most popular rifles.

Amy Swearer, the Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, used an effective combination of statistics, research, analytical thinking, and anecdotal evidence in her testimony [below] to point out the massive flaws with enacting a revised version of the failed 1994 Clinton gun ban.

From a statistical standpoint, Amy explained that the firearms targeted by H.R. 1296 are used in a fraction of all firearm-related crime. She explained that Americans are four-times more likely to be stabbed to death than to be killed by a criminal wielding one of these firearms.

And while many in the gun-ban community continually ask why anyone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle, Ms. Swearer pointed out that these so-called “assault weapons” are particularly suited for civilians to use for personal protection, especially at times when the government is “unable or unwilling to defend entire communities from large-scale civil unrest.” Amy stated that in 1982, during the Los Angeles riots, many business owners and private citizens used such firearm to protect their lives and their property from rampant looters when the police were nowhere to be found. Similarly, during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, these firearms were again utilized by law-abiding citizens for lawful, defensive purposes.

Amy drove home her point about the suitability of guns like the AR-15 for personal protection by relating the story of taking her mother, who was not familiar with firearms, to the range to teach her how to safely use a gun. Ms. Swearer related that her mother, like many handling firearms for the first time, had difficulty with using a handgun accurately and effectively. When she switched to an AR-15, however, Amy said her mother was able to control the firearm far more easily than a handgun, and her accuracy improved vastly.

“That is why law-abiding citizens buy millions of these firearms,” Amy said. “When accuracy and stopping power matter, they are simply better.”

Pointing out that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for personal protection between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times a year, Ms. Swearer closed by hoping politicians do not strip her mother of the ability to use the most effective firearm possible for ending threats to her safety.

Dianna Muller, a retired 22-year police veteran, spoke next [below]. A professional competitive shooter who has represented the United States in competition, Mrs. Muller also works with The DC Project, a nonpartisan educational initiative that seeks to bring 50 women, one from each state, to the nation’s capital to promote gun rights.

Mrs. Muller pointed out that gun rights are women’s rights. She stated that she is particularly vulnerable to violent criminal attack because she is likely smaller and “less equipped for violence” than someone who may seek to do her harm, especially if she is outnumbered. “My firearm is the great equalizer,” Dianna testified, “and levels the playing field.”

Also addressing the question of why someone “needs” an AR-15, she stated hers is her preferred firearm for home defense, and that her husband also uses one for hunting. Mrs. Muller also pointed out that if legislators want to look at reducing firearm-related fatalities, rather than demonizing gun owners, they should look at promoting several programs she mentioned that have already had an impact, and would be more effective than adding restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Among the programs she highlighted were NRA’s Eddie Eagle and School Shield.

Outnumbered by five anti-gun panelists, and facing a hostile majority in the House Judiciary Committee, Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller did an outstanding job representing the views of those opposed to banning guns.

Several staunch defenders of the Second Amendment who serve on the House Judiciary Committee also exhibited their strong support of law-abiding gun owners.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Collins also pointed out the hypocrisy of those who promote banning guns like the AR-15 in order to allegedly save lives. While those opposed to these firearms keep trying to tie them to an “epidemic of gun violence,” the ranking member pointed out that rifles of ANY kind were used in 403 murders in 2017. Semi-automatic rifles that fall under the restrictions of H.R. 1296 would be only a fraction of those homicides.

By comparison, he pointed out that in 2017, knives were used in 1,591 murders, and hands and feet in 696. The “epidemic” would seem to be far worse in areas unrelated to semi-automatic rifles.

Ranking Member Collins also pointed out that speeding was the stated cause in 9,717 fatalities in 2017, and further pointed out that nobody is seeking to limit automobiles to a maximum top speed of 70 MPH.

During the period when committee members could question the panelists, Collins asked Dianna Muller—who was on the police force before, during, and after the Clinton gun ban—if the ’94 ban had any discernible effect on her as a law enforcement officer. She said it had zero effect.

When Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to speak, Amy Swearer related that the official report on the effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban found that renewing it would likely have no measurable effect on violent crime.

When it was time for Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to speak, he pointed out that the discussion of banning so-called “assault weapons” focused on cosmetic features, rather than how a firearm functions. After stating that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle is legal in most states, he asked the panelists if hunting rifles should be banned. Only Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller stated they should not.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) used part of his time to point out that, when President Barrack Obama asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to look at existing research on gun violence, they found that “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” and that “semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly used in self-defense, especially in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they’re easier to control than handguns.”

It was during Representative Biggs’ questioning that Dianna Muller made what was possibly the most widely reported comment during the hearing. When speaking about the proposed ban on semi-automatics being discussed, Mrs. Muller stated, “I will not comply with the ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan (R) was the next Second Amendment supporter to speak, and he succinctly summed up what the legislation would ban, stating, “Semi-automatic weapons, with a magazine capacity of ten rounds or more, with scary features….”

During his questioning of Amy Swearer, the two discussed the fact that the “scary features” don’t have any impact on how the firearms function, and would not benefit criminals intent on doing harm. Both seemed to agree that those law-abiding citizens who follow the law will be less able to effectively defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals.

In fact, Ms. Swearer expressed concern that, should the bill become law, “You’ll see millions of law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for having scary looking features on firearms.”

As the two discussed the commonly understood fact that criminals try to avoid armed victims, and that the bill would only disarm law-abiding citizens, Rep. Jordan made another simple, but powerful point.

“Bad guys aren’t stupid, they’re just bad,” he said.  “They’re just evil. They’re not going to follow the law. What this legislation will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding people like you, like all kinds of folks, to protect themselves when some bad guy is bent on doing something wrong.”

Florida Representative Greg Steube (R) pointed out that those promoting the ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, if successful, will eventually look to banning other guns until they are all banned. He also attempted to ask Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall Brackney to clarify an earlier remark about banning all firearms. Chief Brackney seemed unwilling to either clarify or walk back her earlier statement.

Other Republican committee members also spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bill, including Representatives Ken Buck (Colo.), Ben Cline (Va.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and Tom McClintock (Cal.).

Our thanks go out to all of those who spoke in support of law-abiding gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms, especially considering they were in a hostile committee where pro-gun panelists were outnumbered 5-2.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Election Fraud Charges Brought in Michigan

I know that by now you might be thinking this blog could be renamed Michigan Frauds and Crooks.

Is it Michigan or is it that papers like the Detroit News are doing their jobs?

And, to one of my critics—you see I do write about American crooks when the news interests me!

Thanks to reader Cathy for this story published yesterday:

Southfield city clerk charged with 6 felonies tied to November election

Detroit — Southfield City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins was charged Monday with six felony counts over “unauthorized and inaccurate” changes to absentee ballots in the November 2018 election.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made a joint announcement of the charges in Detroit, calling it a “rare” case.

“Voting is fundamental to the very essence of our democracy,” Nessel said during a Monday news conference. “It is incumbent upon state governments to safeguard the electoral process and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected.”

Allegations that Hawkins altered 193 absentee voter records came to light during the 14-day canvass following the election. Benson said the Oakland County Clerk’s Office reported with the Bureau of Elections “the potential for these irregularities and from there we began our investigation.”

[….]

Hawkins, a Democrat who just a few months ago was honored by the state party with the Dingell/Levin Award at its Legacy Dinner in Detroit, could not be reached Monday at her office for comment or a number listed in public records. Her attorney also could not be reached.

[….]

After taking office in January, Benson and Nessel, both Democrats, wanted to make sure the state’s elections were protected from “every conceivable threat,” Nessel said.

“Every citizen must know that when they enter the ballot box, the vote that they cast will be counted and that the collective will of the voters will be carried out,” Nessel said.

Hawkins,38, was arraigned Monday in 46th District Court in Southfield on the charges, which include election law-falsifying returns or records, forgery of a public record, misconduct in office and multiple counts of using a computer to commit a crime.

Forgery of a public record is a 14-year offense, Nessel said.

[….]

“After the city has examined the underlying facts of this matter, we will explore all appropriate and legal avenues to protect the voting process and rights of the Southfield Citizenry,” the statement issued by [City Council] spokesman Michael Manion said. “Mrs. Hawkins will be on administrative leave with pay at this time.”

Hawkins is paid $101,500 per year in Southfield as the city’s clerk.

[….]

Hawkins made history in November 2017 as the first African-American elected as city clerk, according to the clerk’s page on the city’s website. She formerly served as Pontiac’s city clerk.

More here.

Just for fun, see my tag for ‘Michigan’ to see how often the state has been the scene of some criminal activity reported here at Frauds and Crooks.

RELATED ARTICLE: Good Summary at Powerline Blog on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Apparent Scam on America

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

by Jesse Russell  •  ChurchMilitant.com

Responding to CNA’s Mary Farrow

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

With the post-John Paul II Church in America split between two rival camps of traditionalist and leftwing Catholics (a.k.a. “Left Cats”), one of the oddest media outlets is Catholic News Agency (CNA).

On one hand, during the Francis era, CNA has been an invaluable resource for Catholics, providing detailed analysis of the infiltration of the Catholic Church in America by George Soros-tier NGOs and Democratic Party operatives.

On the other hand, CNA will regularly publish pieces that sound like a whitewashed and toned-down version of something penned by one of the many Left Cat writers, many of whom are literally funded by George Soros.

In addition to a steady stream of cringe-worthy, “just a few million more” pieces arguing for the right of the entire world to enter the West via illegal and legal immigration, a recent gem on CNA’s website is a piece arguing for the classic Democratic Party “middle ground” approach to gun control in which Americans will be slowly stripped of their firearms via a dialectical series of compromises.

In “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control,” CNA’s Mary Farrow presents the argument that although the Catholic Church teaches that humans have a right to defend themselves, the Church also teaches that the state has a right to protect the common good by regulating gun ownership.

While such an argument seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, Farrow’s piece is a masterpiece of gaslighting worthy of a CNN-tier fake news segment argument for “common sense gun control.”

In fact, the lead photo of the piece is of two serious-looking teenage girls, one of whom is holding a sign with a crossed out AR-15 crudely drawn on it and accompanied with the (all caps, of course) words “COMMON SENSE” and “WE NEED GUN REFORM NOW.”

The message, of course, is that while our country along the entire West is rapidly becoming a violent, God-less hellscape, it would be only common sense to disarm the American population and leave them at the mercy of criminals who have no concern for gun laws.

Farrow begins her piece with a narrative of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings along with a body count of those killed and some pleading words from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Luring the reader into assurance that her piece is not going to be a screed arguing for immediately taking away any and all guns from Americans, Farrow presents an argument from the Dominican Fr. Thomas Petri about the right Catholics have for self-defense.

However, with her gun-owning reader relaxed, Farrow then opens up her bag of tricks.

Taking aim at the iconic AR-15 and other high-capacity rifles, Farrow paraphrases Fr. Petri as saying, “A claim that does not seem to be morally or reasonably supported by Church teaching is the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government.”

With respect to Fr. Petri, such a claim is, in fact, made by another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who, in  Chapter 7 of , allows for legitimate resistance against a tyranny, writing in paragraph 49: 

If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.

Farrow finally gets to the heart of the matter by quoting Fr. Petri’s apparent argument, in the key of the radical Left itself, that the state needs to intervene with increased regulation and monitoring of Americans who own serious weapons:

A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what’s the reason for that? Well, it’s to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. So yes, I think Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they’re in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.

Like the innumerable pieces produced by CNA cheering on the now rapid death of the West via mass immigration, “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control” buries its subversive message within a deluge of noble and pious verbiage and a few  Teddy Ruxpin – level tear-jerking stories.

Contrary to CNA’s arguments, the worst thing imaginable would be to grant a judicial system and law enforcement apparatus under President Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to disarm and humiliate those guilty of the crime of “wrong think.”

Moreover, those at CNA and their pals at the USCCB who think they can appease the power structure ruling our country and much of the world by selling globalist ideas to confused conservative Catholics must realize that they are only useful idiots whose shelf life will eventually wear out and who will someday find themselves red-flagged for their own all too conservative Catholicism.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

Priest Tells Joe Biden: You Can’t Be Catholic and Support Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Democrats don’t hate your guns, they hate you!

In an article titled “Have They Lost Their Minds?” John C. Sigler wrote:

Last year I was criticized for saying “they don’t hate your guns, they hate you” – Well, it looks like I was right. San Francisco’s defamatory and utterly hateful and ridiculous resolution shows just how far off the deep end their hatred for you, the NRA, and America’s traditional values has driven the anti-gun crowd.

But there is a method to their madness. The real meat of their preposterous resolution lies not in the defamatory and inflammatory labeling of NRA as a so-called “domestic terrorist organization”. No, the real meat of their preposterous resolution lies in the purpose of that resolution which is to do the same thing that New York tried to do – scare off businesses who do business with NRA and its 5+ million law-abiding God-fearing, freedom-loving patriotic members. Here’s the punch line from their hate-filled resolution:

“The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization”( meaning the NRA and its members). [Emphasis added]

What we have seen since the election of Donald J. Trump is a global effort to delegitimize his administration and a national effort by the Democratic Party and the media to dehumanize his supporters.

The Democratic Party is working day and night to turn America into a socialist nanny state.

Their strategy is to use political correctness to silence the overwhelming majority of Republicans, growing numbers of Independents and Democrats who believe the party has gone to far. Even Rahm Emanuel, during a panel discussion on ABC’s show This Week, said,

We have taken a position so far, and the candidates have, through the process — a few have not — about — on basically Medicare for all, which is, we’re going to eliminate 150 million people’s health care, and we’re going to provide health care for people that have just come over the border.

That is an untenable position for the general election. [Emphasis added]

Whether it is the New Green Deal, Medicaid for all, free healthcare for illegal aliens, forgiveness of tuition debt, giving away money to everyone not working at the expense of those who are working, or attacks on the U.S. Constitution, the Democratic Party has left America.

On September 11th, 2019 CNBC reported that the Democrat controlled House passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Florida Gulf Coast. The day after this bill passed drones attacked the Saudi oil fields. This has driven oil and gas prices up globally. The Democrats do not have what is good for working Americans in mind. Emma Newburger reported:

The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf Coast of Florida. It was set to vote on a third bill banning drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The legislation could hamper President Donald Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development.

Conclusion

Democrats are unabashedly the party of Karl Marx and Mao.

Only President Trump had the foresight to make America energy independent. Only President Trump is unabashedly pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-jobs and pro-America.

That is the choice on November 3rd, 2020.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

Flag on the Play: Media Promotes Gun Confiscation Laws by Exaggerating “Study” Results

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

William Pelham Barr, Patriot or Traitor?

John Brennan writes: “But if democracy is a process rather than a state, the democratic process may involve, at some point, the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice.”

“This is the chilling apologia for the anti-Trump conspiracy.  In order to keep the regime moving “forward,” the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice” is justified, whether it is an unpaid campaign adviser being violated (Carter Page) or the National Security Advisor (General Mike Flynn); whether it entails launching a disinformation campaign (Trump/Russia), or reversing an election (the Mueller probe).  The ends – their ends – justify any means.” – Diana West in her book, The Red Thread


William Pelham Barr has a history of cover-ups, and the more I look at the facts, the more convinced I’ve become that he will protect the Deep State.  Resistance to the onslaught of evil is almost non-existent.  Socialists control the mass media, they have all the money in the world, they control higher and now even lower education, and they have edged their way into the pulpits of America.  Add all of that up along with our ignorant electorate who blindly vote without any knowledge of the candidates and how the hell are we ever to win?  These freedom hating socialists belong in the center of Dante’s hell.

It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.  Recent history alone gives us a good look at several of them…Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Janet Reno (1993-2001), Dick Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.

Barr, however, seems to be a particularly spectacular and sordid case. As George H. W. Bush’s most notorious CIA insider from 1973 to 1977, and as the AG from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors.  In fact, his modus operandi is a great deal like that of his close friend, Robert Mueller. Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including serving as Deputy Attorney General.

The CIA, Congress and Covert Operations

The issue of notification of Congress about imminent clandestine activities was at the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal when President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William Casey specifically ordered that lawmakers be kept in the dark about the infamous, covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran.

Barr was by no means alone in pushing these views, the documents show. Other notable proponents during the Iran-Contra aftermath included then-Congressman Dick Cheney and John R. Bolton, who was also at the Justice Department.  After Cheney became defense secretary, he continued to press for extraordinarily broad Executive Branch authority, advising then-President George H. W. Bush to veto the Senate’s intelligence appropriations bill on the grounds it “attacked” presidential prerogatives – resulting in the only known such veto since the CIA’s creation.  Link

Spook Air Moves to Ohio

Previously documented was Mr. Barr’s involvement with the CIA, the Iran-Contra scandal, the covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s sellout to the CIA.

Arkansas was great for Iran Contra, but it was a wealthy Ohio businessman and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye State. Those men were billionaire philanthropist Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein.  Wexner owns The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, and during this period, he had entrusted all of his money to his longtime friend, Jeffrey Epstein, a secretive financier.

Wexner and his company had a relationship with the CIA and Southern Air Transport (SAT) which was directly owned and used by the CIA for covert operations from 1960-1973.  SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering “humanitarian aid.”

Ohio gave lucrative tax incentives to SAT for a promised 300 new jobs they’d bring to Columbus that never transpired.  Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing SAT’s relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT’s covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America. Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver North during Iran-Contra.

Fiers was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush with help from then AG Bill Barr.

William Safire on AG Barr

Back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H. W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraq-gate” and “Iran-Contra.”  Iraq-gate was essentially the Bush administration using the agriculture department and banking to illegally divert funds to build up Saddam Hussein’s military after the Iraq-Iran war, including selling him weapons of mass destruction.  This was a huge scandal that Safire was involved in covering.

Barr has been the go-to guy for protecting a president, covering up scandals, and obstructing investigations. In August 1992, Safire wrote about Barr’s refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate what he called Iraq-gate.  Safire lasered in on what he thought was “the Bush Administration’s fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.”

Another independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, had been named to investigate the Iran-contra affair in 1986 and would infuriate Republicans when he issued high profile indictments on the eve of the 1992 election.

AG Barr was already covering up for Bush, Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state; Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and former CIA officials Clair E. George, Alan D. Fiers and Duane Clarridge and others from the Reagan administration.

Elliott Abrams; George H. W. Bush; Caspar Weinberger; William Barr (AP/Getty/Salon)

On October 19, 1992, Safire wrote of Barr’s unwillingness to appoint an independent counsel to look into Iraq-gate, “Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead: to Dick Thornburgh, James Baker, Clayton Yeutter, Brent Scowcroft and himself (the people who organized the sale of WMDs to Saddam). He vainly hopes to be able to head it off, or at least be able to use the threat of firing to negotiate a deal.”

Three months later, Safire revisited the issue after Barr “handpicked a whitewasher” who would successfully filibuster the probe until after the election.  Barr pushed hard for last minute pardons for six individuals caught up in the investigation, including former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.

Lawrence Walsh had been appointed to investigate the Iran-Contra activities of the Reagan administration and determine if crimes had been committed.  But the pardons by Barr aborted Weinberger’s trial and virtually eliminated what was left of Walsh’s investigation.  Walsh denounced the pardons and stated that doing so “undermines the principle that no man is above the law.”

Walsh’s tenure effectively discredited the independent counsel law in the eyes of both parties.

In Safire’s article, Justice Corrupts Justice, he accused Barr of not only rigging the cover-up, but of being one of the criminals who could be prosecuted.

John Bolton

John Bolton has always been a war hawk, one who promoted funding for the military industrial complex.  As such, I am thrilled that our President fired him.

Bolton has made a career out of defying Congress. During the Iran-Contra investigations, he refused to comply with Congressional demands for records. Bolton also believed that the Independent Counsel law was unconstitutional and did everything he could do preempt Congress’s efforts to investigate Iran-Contra. Bolton has no record of building up and reforming institutions. He defies laws, believes in might makes right, and has worked to undermine the system of checks and balances that is key to America’s representative republic.

The Inslaw/Promis Octopus

Inslaw Inc. is an information technology firm which developed the famous Promis software. A bankruptcy court determined Inslaw was defrauded of its intellectual property rights. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for the company that illegally marketed the software worldwide. Mary Jacoby, wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, is the daughter of a major investor in the company Hillary Clinton represented that marketed the stolen software.

The Promis software is a National Crime Information Center (NCIC)-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial

institutions, and utility companies. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Department which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by the US intelligence community worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks. The program included a “backdoor” for US intelligence to hack into.

Once the original version of Promis was delivered, the DOJ handed off a copy to the CIA which subcontracted Wackenhut Corp. to develop the “backdoor.” Wackenhut hired a technical and electronics whiz-kid, Michael Riconosciuto as its Research Director. A child prodigy who built an argon laser at 16, invented the electrostatic bomb, and published his Riconosciuto Italian to English dictionary still in use by most online translators among his many other inventions, Riconosciuto was put to work designing the covert “backdoor” for the co-opted Promis program. The work was done at a facility on the Cabazon Indian Reservation in Indio California. Another modification would take place in Little Rock, Arkansas, to tailor the Promis software for use by banks.

In October 1991, Barr appointed then retired Democratic Chicago judge Nicholas Bua as special counsel in the Inslaw scandal. Few people understand the full ramifications of Promis software, and the undetectable spying apparatus placed in foreign computers. In 1989, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-TX, launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and Democrat D. Lowell Jensen a former assistant and deputy attorney general and former US district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal Promis software from Bill Hamilton’s company, Inslaw.

Bua’s 1993 report found the DOJ of no wrong doing in the matter, despite a 12-year lawsuit by Inslaw, regarding the government theft of their software.  One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story and boxes of documents relating to the case were destroyed, stolen, or conveniently “lost” by the DOJ. Software piracy, conspiracy, cover-up, stonewalling, covert action…just another decade at the corrupt DOJ.

Barr’s Blanket Immunity for Federal Agents

Barr told the New York Times in 1993 that he was not directly involved in the Ruby Ridge operation. Two years later, the Washington Post revealed that “top officials of the Bush Justice Department had at least 20 phone contacts concerning Ruby Ridge in the 24 hours before Vicki Weaver was shot,” including two calls involving Barr.

Barr spent plenty of time organizing former Attorneys General and others to support “an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges in connection with the Ruby Ridge incident.” Barr also “assisted in framing legal arguments advanced in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”  He called this, “serving the disadvantaged” pro-bono charitable work, (for FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, who already had a federally-paid law firm defending him) that helped tamp down one of the biggest scandals during Barr’s time as Attorney General from 1991 to early 1993.

Barr was responsible for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two federal agencies whose misconduct at Ruby Ridge “helped to weaken the bond of trust that must exist between ordinary Americans and our law enforcement agencies,” according to a 1995 Senate Judiciary Committee report.

When Boundary County, Idaho filed criminal charges against Horiuchi, Barr sprang to action seeking immunity for FBI snipers. He spearheaded efforts to sway the court to dismiss all charges because holding a sniper liable would “severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski warned in his dissent of a new James Bond “007 standard for the use of deadly force” against American citizens, stating, “A group of FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat.  Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”  Link

BCCI Banking Scandal

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a shadowy but very real institution with connections to governments and intelligence services all over the world. BCCI’s owners specialized in evading regulators so that they could speculate and bribe with the depositors’ money. As the fraud mounted and spread, law enforcement officials and bank regulators the world over discovered what the CIA had been trying to hide.

Tampa’s federal prosecutors launched an investigation of money laundering in 1991.  The District Attorney of Manhattan investigated a broad array of bank activities and received zero cooperation from Justice Department and CIA.  And Barr sat on the influential deputies committee of the National Security Council, which controlled the paperwork.

“We couldn’t get records. We couldn’t get witnesses. We could barely get a meeting,” said John Moscow, the lead BCCI prosecutor in Manhattan.

Barr was up for confirmation as attorney general. Moscow said he heard that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made Barr promise to let the BCCI investigation go ahead.  Trouble was, the big shots were indicted, but got away and Barr did not press Pakistan for their extradition, nor did his successors in the Clinton administration.

Conclusion

AG Barr appears to be someone who would protect the Deep State, not the law, and the Barr family history of Marxism is more than troubling.  The move from extreme leftism to rightwing conservatism resembles the liberal establishment takeover of the old right Republican Constitutionalists by Trotskyite Irving Kristol (father of Bill) and William F. Buckley, CIA Agent, Council on Foreign Relations member, and Yale Skull and Bones member.

That takeover neutralized the strong Republican support for our Constitutional God given freedoms and squelched the desire to fight the enemies of our Republic.  The ultimate question is…will the DOJ enemies of freedom ever truly meet justice?!

Rule of Law or Coverup General?  You decide.

18 Years After 9/11 the Threat of Terror Attacks Continues

Looking back to 1998, the dots were connected — and then ignored.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred nearly 18 years ago yet the impact still reverberates around the world.

It is disconcerting that Americans who are now coming of age to vote were born after the attacks of 9/11 and what they know or don’t know about those attacks depends on what they have been taught by teachers who are not being “Politically Correct” but actually provide lessons that conform to Orwellian Newspeak as does the mainstream media.

On August 30, 2019 The Hill reported, Trial for men accused of plotting 9/11 attacks set for early 2021.  That report begins with this excerpt:

The trial for men charged as plotters of the 9/11 attacks was set Friday for Jan. 11, 2021, The New York Times reported.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men are set to be charged for their alleged role planning the 2001 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Mohammed has been accused of being the mastermind behind the strike.

While the media typically attributes the death of approximately 3,000 innocent victims to the attacks, in reality the actual death count is much higher and victims of those attacks continue to suffer and die because of their exposure to the toxins that were released as a result of the attacks.

As we approach the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 terrorism-related stories are still making news, underscoring the irrefutable fact that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over our heads, not unlike the Sword of Damocles.  However, the lunatic Left seeks to leave America defenseless.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks there was no shortage of politicians who stood behind podiums festooned with forests of microphones in front a television cameras and pounded those podiums, demanding the answer to the question, “Why didn’t anyone connect the dots so that the attacks could have been prevented?”

In reality, however, the “dots” had been connected on numerous occasions fears before September 11, 2001 because there had been a number of terror attacks committed by aliens who had gamed the immigration system to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities around the United States so that they could go about their deadly preparations.

In 1993 the United States suffered two deadly terror attacks conducted entirely by radical Islamist aliens who had managed to enter the United States thus enabling them to carry out those deadly attacks.

In January 1993 a Pakistani by the name of Mir Aimal Kansi stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia.  When the smoke dissipated, two CIA officer lay dead and three other were seriously wounded.  Kansi fled the United States and was ultimately brought back to stand trial.  He was found guilty and executed for his crimes.  He had applied for political asylum.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110 story towers down sideways. As a result of the explosion, 6 innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street.

That attack was also carried out by alien terrorists who managed to not only game the visa process in order to enter the United States and get past the inspections process at ports of entry, but game the immigration benefits program as well.  This enabled them to remain in the United States and embed themselves as they went about their preparations to attack the United States and cause massive casualties.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first Congressional hearing. That hearing was predicated on those terror attacks and was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the topic: Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

On February 24, 1998 The Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, Foreign Terrorists In America: Five Years After The World Trade Center.

One of the senators who participated in that hearing was none other than Dianne Feinstein.  She discussed a number of issues but then turned to deficiencies in the immigration system and focused on the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (at the time of the hearing the Visa Waiver Program had not yet been made permanent).

Feinstein also identified the dangers inherent in providing visas to aliens who are citizens of countries that are associated with terrorism, providing education to students from such countries with education in STEM courses of study who could then use their new-found skills and education to create weapons of mass destruction and even noted how aliens who had gamed the political asylum program had subsequently gone on to commit crimes.

Some of the information she provided was truly startling.

Here are some of the excerpts of her prepared statement at that hearing conducted more than 21 years ago and more than 3 years before the terror attacks of 9/11.

Consider this excerpt:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

Yet the State Department often does not do in-depth background checks on the students, and once they are in the United States, the INS has no ability to track the students to make certain they actually study the subjects they claim to study and to attend the schools they said they would attend.

Between 1991 and 1996, the State Department has issued about 9,700 student visas to students from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria to attend undergraduate and graduate studies in the United States.

Senator Feinstein went on to note:

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through nonimmigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Finally, consider this excerpt:

Mr. Chairman, under the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress requires the INS to create a pilot project to track information on foreign students — where they are, what they are studying, if they commit any crimes, and if they are studying the subjects they planned to study. The act requires INS to submit a report by 2001. The act also tightens up the asylum process by making it harder for aliens to claim asylum fraudulently, and section 110 of the Immigration Act requires an entry/exit system at all ports of entry by September 1998.

As you know, there is a move on this very committee to essentially remove that.

I know there are concerns over the implementation of international student tracking systems and the entry/exit system required by the 1996 law. And I realize it takes time to build the automation systems and the infrastructure necessary to make the requirements work. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of having the ability to track international students, particularly those from terrorist-supporting countries and having an entry/exit system ability so we know who is coming in and out of the country.

In 1998 Feinstein certainly “connected the dots” and supported them with irrefutable facts that point to the clear nexus between failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel identified and connected still more “dots.”

Yet the Democrats create “Sanctuary Cities” and demand the termination of immigration law enforcement while refusing to secure our nation’s vulnerable borders.

On May 5, 2005 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.  This excerpt from the prepared statement of the then-chairman of that Subcommittee, Republican John Hostettler, will serve as the summation for my commentary today.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Gives Green Light To Trump Administration’s Asylum Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

PODCAST: Swamp Ready To Pass Gun Control; Pundits cheering for a recession; Black Americans for a Better Future!

GUESTS

Dudley Brown President National Association for Gun Rights, has nearly three decades of professional experience in political activism with 25 years as a gun lobbyist, firearms instructor, and expert in American firearms laws and legislation. He founded Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in 1996, which is one of the most successful — and feared — state gun rights groups in the country. Throughout his career, Dudley has worked in the trenches of State Legislatures across the nation as a leader for gun rights.

TOPIC: D.C. Swamp Ready To Pass Gun Control!

Alfredo Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, where he has led the defense of small businesses from the onslaught of bad government policies. Alfredo has testified before legislative committees about the impact of taxation and regulation on small business growth, and speaks frequently to business organizations across the nation about the need for job creators to seize responsibility for defending free enterprise.
He has been widely published in major media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNBC, The Hill, and U.S. News & World Report and is a frequent guest on cable news networks and national radio talk shows, including CNN, Fox News, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, and the Dennis Prager Show.

TOPIC: Pundits cheering for a recession!!

Raynard Jackson is a Pulitzer Prize nominated columnist and President & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC, an internationally recognized political consulting, government affairs, and PR firm based in Washington, DC. Jackson is an internationally recognized radio talk show host and TV commentator. He has coined the phrase “straticist.” As a straticist, he has merged strategic planning with public relations.

TOPIC: Black Americans for a Better Future

© All rights reserved.

Student of Environmental Science explains how it has gone from Science to Scientism

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link.

Autism –– Still looking for answers in all the wrong places

Updated from an April 2014 article on this issue.

According to 2018 statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), about 1 in 59 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), up from the one in 68 in 2016.

PLUS ÇA CHANGE…

As always, the powers-that-be at the CDC trot out the age-old rationales to explain these disturbing statistics:

  • Greater awareness and therefore earlier and more accurate diagnoses
  • The role that being older parents play not only in the incidence of autism but also Down syndrome and other developmental disabilities
  • Genes
  • “Something” in the environment

Five years ago, a CDC study found that the incidence of autism in blacks “continues to lag behind whites and Hispanics,” which some experts attributed to racial bias––i.e., blacks lack equal access to medical care. But other experts say that blacks may simply be less vulnerable to autism for some unknown reason.

What is consistently omitted, however, is the role that ultrasound exams during pregnancy may and probably do play in the rapidly-escalating incidence of this lifelong condition.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Autism is a neurological disorder that affects the normal development of the brain, causing self-defeating behaviors and an inability to form social relationships. It usually appears before the age of three. Most scientists believe that autism is strongly influenced by genetics but allow that environmental factors may also play a role.

To be diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, a child must have deficits in three areas:

  1. Communication (most children can’t make eye contact; others can’t speak).
  2. Social skills (typified by disinterest in both people and surroundings).
  3. Typically “normal” behavior (many autistic children have tics, repetitive behavior, inappropriate affects, et al).

Those diagnosed on the autistic spectrum range from high-functioning, self-sufficient people––even geniuses––to those who need lifelong supportive help.

A LARGELY-DEBUNKED THEORY

The increased incidence of autism has been attributed by legions of parents and a number of professionals to the mercury-containing preservative thimerosol, used to prevent bacterial or fungal contamination in the vaccines babies and children routinely receive.

This is not backed up by hard science.

Thimerosol, which has been used in vaccines since the 1930s, has not been used in the U.S. since 2001 and the vaccine dosages containing the preservative that were given before then had about the same amount of mercury found in an infant’s daily supply of breast milk.

Numerous studies––by The CDC, The Institute of Medicine, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The World Health Organization, and The National Academy of Sciences, among other prestigious organizations––have found no autism-vaccine link, while other studies have shown an increase in autism in countries that have removed thimerosal from vaccines.

In fact, between late 1999 and late 2002, mercury was removed from most childhood vaccines, including DPT (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis), Hepatitis B, and Hib [Haemophilus influenza b]. The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), which is a live vaccine, is not compatible with thimerosal.

What appears significant, however, is the degree to which diagnoses of mental retardation and learning disabilities throughout the country have decreased at the same time as diagnoses of autism have risen, as reported in a May 2006 issue of Behavioral Pediatrics.

Some experts theorize that “diagnostic substitution” may explain this phenomenon. Diagnostic Substitution means that children who were diagnosed with other conditions––including ADHD and learning disabilities––are now diagnosed with autism.

MY THEORY

In the early ’70s, I worked as a delivery-room nurse at a university-affiliated hospital. It was a revolutionary time in obstetrics, when the Lamaze method of “prepared childbirth” and the use of sonograms to visualize fetuses in the womb were just gaining popularity.

Ultrasound technology was first developed in Scotland in the mid-1950s by obstetrician Ian Donald and engineer Tom Brown to detect industrial flaws in ships. But it was only in the early 1970s that it was used in American hospitals to check that the developing baby, placenta, and amniotic fluid were normal and to detect abnormal conditions such as birth defects and ectopic pregnancies, et al.

At the end of the ’70s, I became a certified Lamaze teacher and spent the next 22 years giving classes in my home. In a very real way, I had my own laboratory, as I learned directly from my clients about the increasing escalation of sonogram exams.

In the early 1980s, it was common for only one or two out of the 10 women in my classes to have a sonogram. In just a few years, every woman in my classes had had a sonogram. And in the late ’80s and ’90s, almost every woman had not one but often two or three or four or five sonograms––starting as early as three-or-four weeks of gestation and extending, in some instances, right up to the ninth month!

It was in the ’90s, in fact, that it began to occur to me that the scary rise in the incidence of autism might be linked to the significant rise in ultrasound exams. Over the years, I’ve posited my theory to a number of people and written letters to the editors of newspapers––including the NY Times, for which I wrote for over 20 years, but they still refused to publish my letter.

I contacted autism researchers Dr. Marcel Just and Dr. Diane L. Williams, who told me via e-mail that Dr. Pasko Rakic at Yale was, indeed, exploring the autism-ultrasound link.

AN AHA! MOMENT

Then, in 2006, I found an article in Midwifery Today: “Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism,” by writer-researcher Caroline Rodgers.

“The steep increase in autism,” Rodgers wrote, “goes beyond the U.S.: It is a “global phenomenon”… that “has emerged…across vastly different environments and cultures.”

“What do countries and regions with climates, diets and exposure to known toxins as disparate as the U.S., Japan, Scandinavia, Australia, India and the UK have in common?” Rodgers asked.

“No common factor in the water, air, local pesticides, diet or even building materials and clothing can explain the emergence and relentless increase in this serious, life-long neurodevelopmental disorder,” she stated.

“What all industrial countries do have in common,” she added, “is …the use of routine prenatal ultrasound on pregnant women. In countries with nationalized healthcare, where virtually all pregnant women are exposed to ultrasound, the autism rates are even higher than in the U.S., where due to disparities in income and health insurance, some 30 percent of pregnant women do not yet undergo ultrasound scanning.”

The cause of autism, Rodgers continues, “has been pinned on everything from ’emotionally remote’ mothers…to vaccines, genetics, immunological disorders, environmental toxins and maternal infections, [but] a far simpler possibility…is the pervasive use of prenatal ultrasound, which can cause potentially dangerous thermal effects.

ENTER HARD SCIENCE

In August 2006, Pasko Rakic, M.D., chair of Yale School of Medicine’s Department of Neurobiology, announced the results of a study with pregnant mice undergoing various durations of ultrasound. The brains of the offspring showed damage consistent with that found in the brains of people with autism.

The research, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, also implicated ultrasound in neurodevelopmental problems in children, such as dyslexia, epilepsy, mental retardation and schizophrenia, and showed that damage to brain cells increased with longer exposures.

Dr. Rakic’s study, Rodgers said, “… is just one of many animal experiments and human studies conducted over the years indicating that prenatal ultrasound can be harmful to babies.”

Jennifer Margulis, author of Business of Baby: What Doctors Don’t Tell You, What Corporations Try to Sell You, and How to Put Your Baby Before Their Bottom Linewrites that Dr. Rakic “concluded that all nonmedical use of ultrasound on pregnant women should be avoided.”

In her research, Margulis discovered that “there is mounting evidence that overexposure to sound waves––or perhaps exposure to sound waves at a critical time during fetal development––is to blame for the astronomic rise in neurological disorders among America’s children.”

PROBLEMS WITH SOUND AND HEAT

A 2009 Scientific American  article by John Slocum explains that sonar––Sound Navigation And Ranging systems––first developed by the U.S. Navy to detect enemy submarines, “generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels, [while] the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. These sound waves can travel for hundreds of miles under water, and can retain an intensity of 140 decibels as far as 300 miles from their source.”

This is relevant because many mass deaths and strandings of whales and dolphins have been attributed to the sonar waves emitted from Navy ships. As many as 3,000 dead dolphins were found in Peru during the summer of 2012, which researchers attributed to the deep-water sonar by ships in nearby waters. And in June of 2008, four days after a Navy helicopter was using sonar equipment in training exercises off the coast of Great Britain, 26 dolphins died in a mass stranding.

Quick question: If sonar beams can kill fully-developed dolphins, what effect do they have on the developing brains of in-utero embryos and fetuses in the first three months of development?

WHAT DOES ULTRASOUND ACTUALLY DO?

Rodgers explained that ultrasound used in fetal imaging emits high-frequency sound waves that are converted into images and waves that can heat both tissue and bone.”

She cited a warning the Food and Drug Administration issued in 2004: “…even at low levels, [ultrasound] laboratory studies have shown it can have…`jarring vibrations’ – one study compared the noise to a subway coming into a station – `and a rise in temperature.’”

Imagine how these assaults affect the fragile brain of a developing fetus!

Just as concerning, as far back 1982, a study by the World Health Organization (WHO)––”Effects of Ultrasound on Biological Systems”––concluded that “…neurological, behavioral, developmental, immunological, hematological changes and reduced fetal weight can result from exposure to ultrasound.”

 

Two years later, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that when birth defects occurred, the acoustic output [of sonograms] was usually high enough to cause considerable heat.

And yet, in 1993, the FDA approved an eight-fold increase in the potential acoustical output of ultrasound equipment, ostensibly to enhance better visualization of the heart and small vessels during microsurgery. Clearly, the health and well-being of developing fetuses was not a consideration!

“Can the fact that this increase in potential thermal effects happened during the same period of time that the incidence of autism increased nearly 60-fold be merely coincidental?” Rodgers asks.

KEEPING THE HEAT ON (so to speak)

In 2010, Ms. Rodgers presented a lecture about autism and ultrasound entitled “The Elephant in the Room” at the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These were but a few of her shocking conclusions:

  • A worldwide autism boom was identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that began in 1988-1989.
  • Ultrasound use and autism are more prevalent among higher socioeconomic groups.
  • An increased prevalence of autism occurs among better-educated, more affluent communities. Among other things, women in these communities have more ultrasound exams.

Women who are at higher risk of bearing children with autism include:

  • Mothers who receive first-trimester care
  • Mothers with higher educations
  • Mothers with private health insurance
  • Older mothers

Rodgers concludes: Only increased exposure to prenatal ultrasound can explain all of the above.

THOSE WHO DISAGREE

Numerous studies “prove” fetal ultrasound exams are safe, like the recent study reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association, which essentially said no problem!

In addition, WebMD touts the benefits of the technology, including that sonograms depict 4D imaging which vividly presents “the baby’s in utero facial expressions.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tells prospective parents that ultrasound provides “a valuable opportunity to view and hear the heartbeat of the fetus, bond with the unborn baby, and capture images to share with family and friends.”

And the CDC denies any association between ultrasound and adverse maternal, fetal or neonatal outcomes.

SKEPTICISM, ANYONE?

And yet, Jim West, author of Ultrasound: Human Studies Indicate Extreme Risk, contends that the “subtle and not-so-subtle” biological effects of ultrasound “have set the human species on a tragic path” from which it may take generations to recover….a single exposure to ultrasound produces cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest X-rays—and damage [is] permanent and heritable for 10 generations and beyond.”

Ultrasound also uses non-ionizing radiation (used in cell phones, cell towers, etc.), which can cause cellular and DNA damage.

We also know that when there is a vested financial, professional, ideological or political interest in a certain result, scientific “experts” are quite susceptible to “shaping” their findings to fit the views of the people who are funding the study.

We’ve seen this with the tobacco industry and the sugar industry, and another perfect example, as written extensively about by Henry Payne in National Review––Global Warming–Follow the Money––are the climate change so-called scientists who always “shape” their results to their benefactors’ satisfaction.

Another reason for skepticism are the numerous examples of rosy promises that turned into disasters.

  • Diethylstilbestrol (DES), given to women from 1940 to 1970 to prevent miscarriages until catastrophic health conditions happened to the daughters and sons of the women who took the drug.
  • The Copper 7 intrauterine device (IUD), introduced in the mid-1970s, ultimately was found to cause pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancies, septic miscarriages, infection, et al.
  • Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), introduced in the 1940s to help women with symptoms of menopause, was highly effective until a front-page article in The Wall St. Journal (in about 2008) cited studies linking this therapy to a rise in metastatic breast cancer, effectively destroying the world’s best-selling drug, Premarin––a high-estrogen medication.
  • Vioxx, approved by the FDA in 1999 for pain relief and reducing inflammation of osteoarthritis, was pulled from the market in 2004 because of all the heart attacks and strokes it caused.

This is the very very very short list! But if you want more info on the drugs approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and then pulled off the market because of disastrous effects, Laima Jonusiene, M.D., spells it all out here.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

There is a vast human tragedy––a true man-made disaster––taking place before our eyes.

For whatever reasons––follow the money?––the mountain of evidence that points to a causal relationship between prenatal ultrasound exams and an escalating pandemic of autism is being completely ignored.

Could it have anything to do with the huge investments doctors and scientists have made in ultrasound technology, which, according to Jennifer Margulis, “adds more than $1 billion to the cost of caring for pregnant women in America each year”?

Could it have anything to do with the revenue now pouring like an avalanche into the coffers of diagnostic and treatment centers and classrooms?

Could it have anything to do with modern journalism’s complete abandonment of hard-nosed reporting and life-saving exposés?

As Caroline Rodgers said, there is an elephant in the room when it comes to the subject of autism. And that elephant is the worldwide blitzkrieg of ultrasound exams on pregnant women–– exams that have bombarded the babies they’re carrying with the brain-warping sound waves and heat that will affect them every second of their autistic lives.

 

What’s wrong with this picture? America has 320-million people. If even half that number are parents or grandparents, when will all of them start to demand accountability from our health experts, as well as answers––and action!––from our feckless politicians?

Liberals Propose First Gun Grab Since Lexington and Concord

One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like “mandatory gun buybacks.” Unless the politician they’re talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it’s impossible for him to “buy back” anything. No government official — not Joe Biden, not Beto O’Rourke, not any of the candidates who now support “buyback” programs — has ever sold firearms.

What Democrats propose can be more accurately described as “the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord,” or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.

The “mandatory gun buyback” exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism. Democrats want to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transforms the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime.

And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.

While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don’t alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an “assault weapons” ban expired in 2004.

It’s also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by “rifles” of any kind, not only “assault weapons.” To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking.

Although a number of Democrats now unequivocally support a “buyback,” no one has explained how the procedure will unfurl. What will the penalty be for ignoring the “buybacks”? Fines? Prison terms? Will local police be tasked with opening case files on the 100 million homes of suspected gun owners who are armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, or will it be the FBI?

Maybe Democrats will propose “paying back” family members and neighbors who snitch on gun owners? How else will they figure out who owns these AR-15s? There is no national tracking of sales.

Then again, many Democrats support “universal background checks,” which would necessitate a national database. So subsequent confiscations would be far easier, I suppose. (I can remember a time not very long ago when liberals accused a person of being a tin-foil-hatted nutter for merely suggesting that anyone had designs on their guns.)

It’s unclear to me if every candidate supports mandatory buybacks. Imprecision, after all, is the hallmark of gun control rhetoric. Of course a noncoercive “buyback” program wouldn’t work either because no patriotic American is going to sell his firearms under market value. If you pay gun owners more than market value, they will surely turn a profit and purchase new weapons.

The criminal class and deranged would-be mass shooters have absolutely no incentive to participate, anyway. But you knew that.

Then there is the little matter of constitutionality. I’ve noticed an uptick in gun grabbers — a phrase that’s no longer hyperbole — arguing that Americans don’t need AR-15s to hunt, as if it mattered.

Although ARs are used by hunters, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment mentions hunting, because the right of self-defense — an individual concern, as well as a collective one — has nothing to do with shooting deer and everything to do with protecting Americans from those who endeavor to strip them of their inalienable rights.

The District of Columbia v. Heller decision found that the Second Amendment protected weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” The AR-15 clearly meets both criteria. It’s one of the most popular guns in America. Its semi-automatic mechanism is the same mechanism found in a majority of other legal firearms in the nation.

The arguments for a ban on “assault weapons” — a purposefully elastic phrase that allows the liberal legislator’s imagination to run wild — is centered on aesthetics, on the false claim that the AR is a “weapon of war,” and on the firearm tastes of a handful of deranged, sociopathic murderers.

Democrats and their allies like to mock these sorts of arguments as nothing more than semantics; mostly because they need to conflate and euphemize terms to make their arguments work. It’s how they generate favorable polling. I’m sure you’ve heard about the popularity of gun-control measures. But like “Medicare for All,” and other vaguely positive sounding policies, once voters learn what specifics entail, those numbers tend to settle along the usual partisan lines.

If you think you’re going to have overwhelming support for “mandatory gun buybacks” when people learn that you’re really talking about “the confiscation of 20 million guns,” you’re fooling yourself.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter:.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Support For Gun Control Going Up Or Down Or Staying The Same?

Trump Meets With Lawmakers, Could Soon Announce Gun Control Plan

Dem Governors Push Trump, McConnell To Back Anti-Gun Measures

Have they lost their minds?

What San Francisco Got Wrong About the NRA and Its Definition of Domestic Terrorism


Dear Readers:

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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.