How Cuba’s Infant Mortality Rank Fell from 13th to 49th in the World

Cuba has made less progress in health care and life expectancy than most of Latin America in recent years due to its decrepit health care system.

It has never been a safer world in which to be a child. According to the UN, in 1950, most of the world had a child death rate (by age five) of over 20 percent, while only a few countries, such as the United States, Cuba, Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand had child death rates of below 5 percent. By 2015, most of the world had a child death rate of below 5 percent, and every country on Earth had a child death rate below 20 percent (even war-torn Yemen, whose child death rate fell from 50 percent in 1950 to 4.8 percent in 2015, the first year of its current civil war).

For many developed countries, the child mortality rate is now below 1 percent. It’s less than 1 percent in the United States; all but two countries in the European Union; Japan, Korea, and Malaysia; Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and parts of Arabia. (See “Child Mortality in 1800, 1950 and 2015,” three maps from Our World in Data).

And world hunger and poverty have diminished enormously. As the Cato Institute’s Marian Tupy pointed out, in 1981, “44.3 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty.” But in 2015, only “9.6 percent” did. The last 40 years have seen a “massive and historically unprecedented decline in global poverty.”

Cuba in 1950 had a lower child mortality rate than all but a handful of the world’s countries—lower than Canada and on par with the United States. That was long before the Communists took over in Cuba in 1959. The Communists did not give Cuba its unusually good world health ranking. Cuba had already achieved it long before the Marxist dictator Fidel Castro seized power.

Yet Castro’s regime took credit for the prior achievement of his non-communist predecessors, and many progressives have gullibly swallowed that propaganda. In 2016, The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, debunked such claims. He gave “three Pinocchios” to Canadian Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for claiming that Castro made “significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.” He pointed to data about how Cuba already had well-developed health and education systems by world standards.

But similar claims have been made by many other gullible progressive politicians. They depict the dictator Castro as the savior of Cuba. Bernie Sanders claimed it was Castro who “educated their kids, gave their kids healthcare.” Jimmy Carter claimed that Castro gave Cuba “superb systems of health care and universal education.” Obama also promoted the myth of excellent Cuban health care, saying, “The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care.”

In reality, Cuba has made less progress in health care and life expectancy than most of Latin America in recent years due to its decrepit health care system. “Hospitals in the island’s capital are literally falling apart.” Sometimes, patients “have to bring everything with them, because the hospital provides nothing. Pillows, sheets, medicine: everything.”

As Townhall notes, in 1958, the year before the Communists took over Cuba:

Cuba ranked 13th from the top, worldwide with the lowest infant-mortality rate. This meant that robustly capitalist and immigrant-swamped pre-Castro Cuba had the 13th lowest infant-mortality rate in the world. This put her not only at the top in Latin America but atop most of Western Europe, ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Today all of these countries leave Communist Cuba in the dust, with much lower infant mortality rates.

Today Cuba is ravaged by diseases that had been long-eradicated in pre-Castro Cuba (dengue, cholera, for a few examples.) And of Cuba’s “doctors” fortunate enough to escape their indentured servitude to the Castro-Family-Plantation, the overwhelmingly majority flunk the exam given in the U.S. for licensing as doctors assistants.

And even plummeting from 13th (Capitalist) to 49th (Communist), Cuba’s “impressive” infant mortality rate is kept artificially low by Communist chicanery with statistics and by an appalling abortion rate of 0.71 abortions per live birth. This is the hemisphere’s highest, by far. Any Cuban pregnancy that even hints at trouble gets “terminated.”

A few years ago Dr. Juan Felipe García, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., interviewed several recent doctor defectors from Cuba. Based on what he heard, he reported the following:

“The official Cuban infant-mortality figure is a farce. Cuban pediatricians constantly falsify figures for the regime. If an infant dies during its first year, the doctors often report he was older. Otherwise, such lapses could cost him severe penalties and his job.”

It should be noted that the official Cuban infant mortality rate is still quite low compared to most of the world. But relatively speaking, it has lost ground, especially compared to capitalist countries in Asia like South Korea.

Cuba also lost the big edge in life expectancy it once enjoyed. Prior to communism, it led virtually all countries in Latin America in life expectancy. But by 2012, Chileans and Costa Ricans lived slightly longer than Cubans. Back in 1960, Chileans had a life span seven years shorter than Cubans, and Costa Ricans lived more than two years less than Cubans on average. In 1960, Mexicans lived seven years shorter than Cubans; by 2012, the gap had shrunk to just two years.

In celebrating Communist Cuba’s non-existent achievements, progressive politicians don’t even listen to fellow progressives who have actually studied Cuba’s record under communism, to their chagrin. As the progressive economist Brad DeLong points out (he calls it “hideously depressing”):

Cuba in 1957—was a developed country. Cuba in 1957 had lower infant mortality than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had doctors and nurses: as many doctors and nurses per capita as the Netherlands, and more than Britain or Finland. Cuba in 1957 had as many vehicles per capita as Uruguay, Italy, or Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had 45 TVs per 1000 people—fifth highest in the world …Today? Today the UN puts Cuba’s HDI [Human Development indicators] in the range of … Mexico. (And Carmelo Mesa-Lago thinks the UN’s calculations are seriously flawed: that Cuba’s right HDI peers today are places like China, Tunisia, Iran, and South Africa.) Thus I don’t understand lefties who talk about the achievements of the Cuban Revolution: “…to have better health care, housing, education.”

Cuba’s outmoded Marxist education system also does not deserve praise. Obama mistakenly called Cuba’s “system of education” an “extraordinary resource” that “values every boy and every girl.”

But there’s nothing “extraordinary” about Cuba’s educational system. Children are taught by poorly paid teachers in dilapidated schools. Cuba has made less educational progress than most Latin American countries over the last 60 years. According to UNESCO, Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80 percent) before Cuba was taken over by the communists. And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100 percent).

Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950—such as Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic—are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40 percent literacy rate in 1950 but has an 88 percent literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50 percent literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5 percent literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6 percent literacy rate. The Dominican Republic’s rate rose from a little over 40 percent to 91.8 percent. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro’s first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved.

The child mortality statistics above are from the United States Population Division (2017) for 1950 and 2015 and Gapminder for 1800. The maps depicting that data are by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. The child death rate discussed above refers to the percentage of kids dying by age 5, not just in the first year of their life.

This article was reprinted from Liberty Unyielding.

COLUMN BY

Hans Bader

Hans Bader

Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by joffi on Pixabay Pixabay.

MOVIE REVIEW: Alita – Battle Angel is Anti-Socialism & Pro-Christian

Alita – Battle Angel is a visually stunning film with a heavy Christian theme. While Alita is a cyborg she is on a mission to confront evil wherever she may find it. Alita has unique abilities programmed in her that the Zalems and their agents will stop at nothing to destroy. These unique abilities include: a moral sense of right and wrong, kindness, a willingness to fight and die for the oppressed and of course great fighting skills. Alita is a human being. The Zalems want to stop Alita from becoming what she was ordained to be.

Alita Battle Angel (2019 poster).png

Theatrical release poster from Wikipedia

The world in which Alita must live, Iron City, is filled with evil. Iron City looks much like some areas of Detroit, Los Angeles or Chicago. Floating above Iron City is Zalem, the last of the aptly called “Sky cities.” Iron City is made up of oppressed factory workers who provide Zalem with goods made from the waste that falls from Sky City. Alita is part of that waste, an outcast, but a special outcast. Zalem is populated with a mysterious, but evil, ruling class who use the people of Iron City to do their bidding.

Zalem is the perfect socialist society. As Ayn Rand wrote it in her 1946 monograph Textbook of Americanism,

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

The citizens of Iron City are ruled by the collectivists on Zalem (the group) and their Iron City agents led by Vector. Vector is an evil and satanic man who is Alita’s nemesis.

MovieGuide.org notes:

Happily, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL has a strong Christian worldview that evokes many allegorical messages. For example, the movie’s references to “the fall” stress the corruption of power and sin. At one point, Alita says, “I will not stand by in the presence of evil.” At another point, she and Hugo hide in an abandoned church and find protection. Also, in one scene, the villain, Vector, says, “I’d rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.” His comment echoes Satan’s comment in John Milton’s classic Christian poem PARADISE LOST. ALITA also touches on the idea of indulgences or buying your way into heaven. For example, in the story, different characters are trying to buy their way into Zalem, the sky city. Eventually, Dr. Ido’s wife sees the error of her greed and desires to be different.

During the movie Alita takes a sword away from one of her protagonists named Zapan. She tells him that he is not worthy of such a sword. The sword becomes part of Alita and she wields it with great skill. This may also be a Biblical reference as the word sword appears 406 times in the Bible. The sword represents both a weapon used to defend oneself and as the Word of God. Genesis 27:40 reads:

“You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother. But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck.”

Alita appears destined to throw the yoke form the necks of the people of Iron City. She is serving her brothers and sisters. Zalem is not heaven, at least not in a spiritual sense. Iron City is, on the other hand, hell on earth in a materialistic post modern Nietzsche/Darwin way. It’s dog eat dog or rather cyborg killing cyborg.

Iron City reminds us of Ecclesiastics:

Man’s fate is like that of animals; the same fate awaits them both. As one dies so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust and to the dust all return (3:19-20)

There is not a righteous man on earth, who does what is right and never sins (7:20) … one sinner destroys much good. (9:18).

At the end of the movie Alita enters a large arena filled with people from Iron City. She defiantly stands on a platform and points her flaming sword directly at Zalem as Zapan looks down upon her. Is judgement day coming to Zalem?

Let us see if Alita – Battle Angel can continue to do what is right and defeat the sinners in Sky City in the sequel. Alita has the power and the will. Does she have a Godly purpose? Or will the sequel devolve into a paradise lost with stunning animation but no moral message?

New Congress Members Support Green New Deal

This opinion originally appeared in the Detroit News on February 13, 2019. 

Right before Election Day a Gallup poll ranked voters’ top concerns: number one was healthcare (a major issue for 80 percent), followed by the economy and immigration (both at 78 percent). The rest of the list trickled down through sexism, guns, taxes, foreign policy, trade, Brett Kavanaugh, etc. Way down in 11th place out of 12 spots there was “climate change.”

The new Congress was elected by Americans whose biggest concerns (healthcare, economy, taxes) revolved around goosing a growing economy to thrive even more. But a radical agenda to rip up that economy and start over is guiding 73 members of Congress – including Michigan’s Andy Levin (D-Bloomfield Twp.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) – who co-sponsored the so-called “Green New Deal.”

Who got them thinking this way? Talking points released by the proposal’s sponsor declare its goals for just the next ten years to be upgrading or replacing “every building” in the United States, replacing “every combustion-engine vehicle,” and even beginning the process of eliminating air travel and “farting cows.”

The sticker price for what is described as a “massive transformation of the economy” is not provided, but there is an admission that to “pour all the resources” of “every billionaire and company” into this agenda still won’t pay for it.

It has more in common with Mao Zedong’s ruinous Great Leap Forward than FDR’s New Deal.

It is impossible to know what this “Green Leap Forward” will cost to accomplish the impossible, but we can we affix a price to what was paid to get an otherwise practical nation discussing a Maoist fantasy. The estimate starts at around $100 million—in campaign cash. And, we also know who paid the big bucks to turn this into a priority for Michigan.

Four left-wing political action committees plunked down a combined total of $99 million to get their candidates elected to Congress last year. For example, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is a supporter of the Green New Deal. Michigan’s Levin and Tlaib are two of the 56 brand-new U.S. Representatives the LCV describes as its “environmental champions.” The Center for Responsive Politics reports the LCV Victory Fund spent $28.9 million on the 2018 midterm election. Those 56 freshmen are a potentially influential caucus promoting the Green New Deal in a chamber Democrats control by fewer than 20 seats.

NextGen Climate Action and the Sierra Club also support the Green New Deal. NextGen Climate Action Committee, run by leftist billionaire Tom Steyer, spent $63.8 million on federal politics last year, aimed at the same priorities LCV was promoting. Similarly, the Sierra Club’s political committee ponied up $1.5 million.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) says the Green New Deal is an “important step forward.” EDF’s Environmental Defense Action Fund chipped in $4.8 million to win eleven House and two Senate seats for Democrats.

And this is just the political spending. EDF is also an educational non-profit that spends more than $100 million per year advocating for the same policies as the candidates explicitly boosted by its political action committee.

Similarly, the Sierra Club Foundation spends more than $50 million annually, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund $10 million per year, and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate America adds another $3 million annually. All together that’s likely another $300 million or more spent over the last two years.

A month into the new Congress they’re well on the way to getting what their $400 million-plus investment paid for.

But is this what Michigan voted for?

Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for InfluenceWatch.org and the Capital Research magazine. He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six…+ MORE BY KEN BRAUN

RELATED ARTICLE: Tom Cotton Calls Out Media for Using ‘Stalin-Like’ Techniques To Help Green New Deal

Support Capital Research Center’s award-winning journalism

Donate today to assist in promoting the principles of individual liberty in America. 

EDITORS NOTE: This CRC column with images is republished with permission.

For What Robot Did Jesus Die?

Recently, amazing claims have been made about robots. One of them is that people will start to fall in love with robots. Another is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will one day eclipse man. There is even the claim that AI will one day eclipse God.

Writing for zdnet.com, Greg Nichols (2/8/19) penned an article, “Robot Love: Why romance with machines is a foregone conclusion.” The subtitle is “Sex robots are sold for physical pleasure, but emotionally fulfilling relationships with machines is closer than you may think.”  It’s incredibly dehumanizing for creatures made in the image of God to engage in such mechanical acts.

Is that “love”? I reached out to Dr. Robert J. Marks for a comment on the idea of falling in love with robots. Marks is the Director of The Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence at Baylor University.

Marks told me via email: “Those proclaiming that exclusive truth lives totally in naturalism are constrained to a sadly narrow view of the world. In their constrained silo, love and romance must have a materialistic explanation. But computers, including AI, are limited. They are all constrained to follow programmed instructions called algorithms. Things nonalgorithmic are not computable. Human creativity, sentience, consciousness and qualia are not computable. Can anyone write code to explain to a computer your true sensory experience of enjoying hot buttered sweet corn? Sex with a human-appearing robot can be simulated, but love and romance are not computable. Those married to the love of their lives for forty years like me know this.”

A few years ago, when stories were coming out along the lines that AI was a potential threat to humanity, I interviewed Dr. Marks on the radio.

For example, I asked him about this quote from Stephen Hawking about AI: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Marks responded, “Well, I think it’s actually just hyperbole. And I think that people who say these sorts of things need to go back to the fundamentals and understand what computers can’t and can do.”

Marks observed, “A computer will never be creative. It will never have consciousness. It will never have understanding. It only does what you tell it to do….They will never have a soul. They will never have an understanding of what they do. They will never have a consciousness. Computers can only do something which is algorithmic….a fancy word for recipe. You have to give a computer step-by-step instructions on doing something, just like a recipe.”

But all of these claims get us back to a core issue: What is a human being and why do we have intrinsic value? For what robot did Jesus die?

In my opinion, over-glorifying man-made machines is just a symptom of a godless worldview—that sees humanity as a glorified animal or a chemical machine, as opposed to a special creation of God, who made us in His image.

In his book, The Death of Humanity (2016), history professor Dr. Richard Weikart writes: “As many intellectuals have abandoned the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic in favor of secular philosophies, we have descended into a quagmire of inhumanity. Some today view humans as nothing more than sophisticated machines or just another type of animal. For them, humans are nothing special—just another random arrangement of particles in an impersonal cosmos.” This is the view of evolutionary materialists, who believe life is merely a chance product of time and material.

Going even further, AI will one day replace God, according to some. Dan Brown, author of the anti-Christian novel, The DaVinci Code, says:  “Humanity no longer needs God but may with the help of artificial intelligence develop a new form of collective consciousness that fulfils the role of religion. Are we naïve today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?” But no robot has risen from the dead, so I predict that 100 years from now, Jesus Christ will still be worshiped all over the globe.

Robots may be great tools, but they are no substitute for humanity, no substitute for God, and no substitute for love.

Perhaps Allan Sherman, the singing humorist (“Hello, Muddah, Hello, Faddah”) had the best idea. In 1963, he did a song called “Automation”: “I thought automation was keen, / Till you were replaced by a ten ton machine….  / You’re a girl who’s soft, warm and sweet / But you’re only human, and that’s obsolete…./ How could I have known, when the 503 / Started to blink, it was winking at me, dear / I thought it was just some mishap, / When it sidled over and sat on my lap / But when it said ‘I love you’ and gave me a hug, dear,  / That’s when I pulled out its plug!”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

New Study Finds Estrogen Responsible for Changes in Meth Addiction Between Men and Women

A recent study by Science Daily has found that Estrogen, the female hormone, is responsible for changes in the impact that methamphetamine addiction has on rats. This could provide one explanation as to why men and women react differently to meth, offering researchers possible insights into sex-specific meth addiction treatment strategies for stimulant addiction.

Men vs. Women and Meth Addiction

Male rats are usually the focus of addiction studies, but recently scientists are finding that female rats should also be considered as the impact of addiction to meth or other drugs is likely different for different sexes. Researcher Carmela Reichel mentions that we have very limited information at our disposal when it comes to how sex hormones such as testosterone or estrogen impact addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Studies have found that the female rat responds different to drugs than the male rat, signifying a possible impact of estrogen on addiction. According to the CDC, meth kills nearly 100K people annually, so finding a cure or better treatment for the disease of addiction is vital. Finding ways to effectively treat men and women, using their own biological backgrounds as the basis for treatment strategy, may be the key to effective recovery.

Reactions of Rats

Stimulants release excessive amounts of dopamine into the brain. Methamphetamine increases activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brain causing rapid sense of pleasure for a short period of time. The release of dopamine is responsible for motivation, movement, memory and learning. Unfortunately, a lack of the stimulant can cause the brain to stop producing dopamine after addiction has set in and this causes a lack of motivation or feel good sense for the user.

Rats are given the ability to self-administer methamphetamine in the test environment. Female rats were seen consistently taking more and more methamphetamine. During the first six hours of the addiction, female rats were seen repeatedly taking more of the drug. Researchers believe this explains why addiction to methamphetamine is so powerful for females—as they seem to have a consistent early urge to take more drugs more frequently.

Examining Rat Brains

Addicted rats and non-addicted rats were examined. Researchers were checking the prefrontal cortex of the male and female rat brains to determine the level of change that occurred as a result of methamphetamine abuse. Female rats showed lower resting activity than males before drug use. Post meth use, females had a stronger response in the brain’s synaptic activity followed by a faster fall once the drug wore off.

This suggests that hormones such as estrogen can play a role in the ability for a rat (or human) to become addicted to drugs such as crystal meth. Using this as a guideline, researchers suggest that treatment approaches that are directly related to women be developed to better treat those suffering from addiction to this and to other drugs.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured

Energy & Environmental News

Again a cycle with a lot of news: Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

A continued very hot topic is the Green New Deal proposed by US Progressives. There is a separate section in the full Newsletter that addresses it. Here are some good commentaries from that collection:

The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal is a leftist politician’s worst enemyGreen New Deal: The Devil Is in the Details

Green New Deal: Looks Like A Dem Parody Bill

The Green New Deal is a Prescription for Poverty

Green New Deal Would Be a Giant Leap on the Road to Serfdom

Study: Internal Contradictions of the Green New Deal

Some of the other more interesting Energy related articles are:

Bill Gates about the foolishness of renewables

Short Anti-wind video by Ohio citizens

Study: The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the gridEvolution of Electricity Rates

New Huge Study: Wind Turbines Devalue nearby Homes

Abstracts for upcoming 8th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise

PhD Letter re Turbine Health Impacts

German citizen anti-wind effort results in installations slump

Electoral Platitudes = Energy Truama for Citizens

Goodbye to a misguided war on coal

Hot Day in Australia results in massive blackoutsWind + Natural Gas

Study: Grid Scale Electricity Storage Can’t Save Renewables

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles are:

Physicist: Don’t fall for the argument about ‘settled science’

Greenhouse-warming theory does not appear to even be physically possible

Revised: Deficiencies In the IPCC’s SR15 Special Report

Stop The Climate Stupidity

Why the Left Loves and Hates Science

The Three Major Problems with a Carbon Tax

Three New Studies: Sea Level Rise Whiplash

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.
Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Microchips and Their Potential Influence on Gambling

The cyberpunk era is approaching, and microchips are its heralds! These integrated circuits have been around for decades now, as farmers use them to track and identify animals. However, when it comes to human microchip implants, the burning questions arise: Is it safe? Is it ethical? Is it legal at all?

You may be surprised, but nowadays thousands of people are walking around with small chips embedded into their palms. The future is here, so let’s figure out how it can serve our needs.

Understanding the Case

According to Wikipedia, a human microchip implant is a tiny shelled device embedded into the body. These transmitter/responder devices store unique ID details or other sensitive data, and can interact with external computers such as transport or banking terminals, IoT devices, etc.

It might seem alarming, but think again. Body-inserted devices are way more widespread as they are often used in healthcare. Pacemakers, nerve stimulators, IUDs, artificial limbs, integrated hearing aids, even brain-computer interfaces – a lot of people are able to interact with the world thanks to this innovation.

Human Microchipping Reality

Today, microchips are no longer associated with sci-fi novels. The millimeter-sized gear is installed in your palm to turn it into a next-gen controller. Chips may cost you from $30 to $340, and are readily available thanks to biohacking firms. But, are they really so widespread?

  • The UK. As of 2018, BioTeq produced 150 human microchip implants. They are used to access offices and cars or to store medical data. Big firms also consider microchipping their employees to manage their work efficiently.
  • The USA. Patrick McMullan and his Three Square Market work on advanced RFID chips, which provide for higher security (for managing sensitive data) and accuracy (for pacemakers).
  • Sweden. The stats show that more than 4000 people in Sweden have already implanted microchips in their bodies. They use Biohax chips as unique passcodes or signatures to pay in shops and even travel with Swedish railways SJ.
  • Germany. Thousands of citizens use chips created by I am ROBOT as alternatives to their credit cards, keys, and data storages. Ultimately, these devices can be used to facilitate any task related to regular activity. 

The society grows suspicious about such implants as they can potentially track everything you do and leak this data. Physicians have doubts about the safety of human microchipping, while large enterprises are getting increasingly interested in the devices and consider using them for employees.

Pros and Cons of Human Microchipping

Still, it’s clear that microchips are here to stay, so it’s high time to understand how they can help us and what aspects to be aware of.

Advantages

  • Simple routine tasks. You can use a chip as a wallet, keys, controllers for various home devices, and so on. Nobody can steal it.
  • Smooth identification. Packed with all necessary ID info, a microchip is your passport, driver’s license, transport ticket, and even a signature for your gun.
  • Accessible medical records. Chips with unique codes grant access to medical databases, which accurately store all your health records.

Drawbacks

  • Potential health threats. Integrated circuits can harm your health in tons of ways – migrations of chips inside bodies, electrical hazards, MRI scans, and even cancer.
  • Constant oversight. You never actually know who can access your chip data and track it. GPS modules, for example, make it easy to find you even in the most crowded city.
  • Hacks. Finally, chips are hardware devices based on protocols, which can be hacked.

The Impact on Gamblers

Surprisingly, human microchips can facilitate gambling activities greatly. Read on to reveal how these high-tech devices help casino visitors and even online gamblers.

1. Interact with Casinos Easily

Although microchips are widely used for casino tokens, they are still new for casino visitors. Human chips will make the casino-player interaction more innovative. For instance, you will be able to use gestures to play games or communicate with real/virtual dealers. As well, it will be much easier to access casino accounts as microchips store all key login data.

2. Make Instant Purchases

Both offline and online casinos should benefit from microchipped gamblers because they will get another simple option to spend money. As microchips replace cash and credit cards, people could spend more money on gambling, because they would have no control over money flow. Although it might look as the best-case scenario for casino operators, gamblers can also benefit from innovation if they play responsibly. Microchips would allow for smooth transactions in no time.

3. Keep Your Data Safe

Last but not least, chips could become a valid alternative for other types of identification. With them, you can stop worrying about losing your ID card or leaking passwords to fraudsters. Most likely, the hackers of tomorrow will find new ways to break into chips’ protection systems, but it would be more difficult.

The Future Is Now

Microchips are here to stay. Probably, only a portion of people from Generation Z will have chips in their bodies in the near future, but their kids will certainly be implanted with such devices. With the increasing awareness and demand, more individuals will be reaping the benefits of small integrated circuits, just like the previous generations are getting used to computers, smartphones, and wearables. We can expect that microchips will penetrate into our daily life unless they are replaced with even more innovative stuff.

While the reviewed tech is wonderful and useful for various sectors, it’s vital to remember about safety. We mean both physical health and cybersecurity. Body-integrated chips are quite unusual now and the industry lacks general standards. The future is here, but it’s up to you to decide whether this future is appropriate.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

Why Many Americans Are Praying For President Trump

Extremely respectful and supportive of Islam, Obama was more hostile to Christianity than any other U.S. president. 

With the election of president Trump, prayer has made a striking comeback in the political arena. Everywhere I turn, I hear people asking fellow Americans to pray for our president. During a conference call, VP Mike Pence asked religious leaders to pray for president Trump. President Trump humbly asked for our prayers. “Trump Prayer Warriors” is one of several Facebook groups advocating praying for our president. Christian leaders contributed prayers to a book titled, “Prayers for the President”. Why are so many Americans feeling an urgent need to pray for our president and country?

Mainstream media seek to convince us that a majority of Americans embrace their anti-Christian anything-goes-sexually agenda. The truth is, millions of Americans are disturbed by our nation’s cultural and moral decline. A growing number of TV commercials selling everything from milk to phone services interject homosexuality. I told my wife, “Next they will have men kissing.” Thirty minutes later, a Diet Coke TV commercial featured two men kissing in a cab.

With every new TV drama and sitcom, the question is, in which episode will the show promote homosexuality? LGBTQ are only 3% of the population. Why is there such an intense, relentless push to shove homosexuality into our faces?

While babysitting, my brother overheard the kid video his grandson was watching talk about having two daddies. The video promoted homosexual parents. My brother discarded the DVD.

Some say, Lloyd, get over it. The LGBTQ agenda is the new normal. Why don’t you accept it and move on? Every time we allow ourselves to become desensitized to a deviance, Democrats introduce another more evil. Who could imagine Democrats would seek to legalize pedophilia and murdering babies even after they are born?

Our nation was shocked when Democrats in New York responded with a standing ovation to passing a bill to kill babies even on the date of birth. Virginia’s Democrat governor, Ralph Northam, kicked Democrats’ evil up to a new extreme by defending a bill to murder babies after birth

Rather than backing away from this demonic idea, other Democrat states are pushing to pass laws to murder babies on their birth date. 

In a sane world, how could these evil people get elected? Rush Limbaugh theorizes that because Democrats fear the overturn of Roe v Wade, they seek to kill as many babies as possible.

For years, Planned Parenthood claimed abortion was okay because they were only removing an unviable tissue mass, not a baby. Technology confirms that it is a baby. “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.” Jeremiah 1:5

Planned Parenthood now says it does not matter that it’s a baby. A mother has a moral right to abort her baby for any reason she deems necessary before or after birth. Here is a link to a brief video of an abortion doctor explaining to congress, in graphic detail, the procedure he used to perform second trimester D&E abortions. Anyone not extremely disturbed by this video is spiritually ill.

Democrats desiring to murder born alive babies is a whole new level of satanic evil.

Speaking of Democrats rising to new levels of evil, Democrats are pushing to legalize pedophilia. Tom Delay exposed an Obama DOJ secret memo which included pedophilia on a list of 12 perversions it planned to legalize.

“Big Mouth” on Netflix is an insidiously evil animated cartoon to sexualize teens going through puberty. The show features boys and girls masturbating and talking to their genitalia. One scene has a boy’s father telling him it is okay to kiss another man’s penis. Despite public outrage over the show’s pedophilia, Netflix has signed on for season 3 of “Big Mouth”.

A film on Netflix titled, “Desire” features play between two girls under 10 years old that becomes sexual. Again, public outrage availed nothing.

Leftists (Democrats) claim pedophilia is a sexual orientation that society should accept. They will argue that opposing pedophilia is bigotry. They plan to keep forcing pedophilia upon us until we become desensitized or give up pushing back against it. Their narrative is pedophilia is simply another form of love. Who can argue against love? How many Christians will be deceived into embracing pedophilia believing it is what Jesus would do?

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away–it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

The LGBTQ agenda has progressed from supposedly only seeking tolerance to destroying and jailing anyone who does not bow down in worship to their lifestyle.

Americans are beginning to comprehend mainstream media’s unprecedented intense hatred for Trump and his voters. They see fake news media’s 24/7 lies to stop Trump’s America first agenda and to remove him from office. Even some in Trump’s own party are colluding with his enemies.

Americans realize Trump is the only wall between We the People and leftists’ anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-morality tyranny.

Only almighty God can protect Trump. This is why so many Americans feel divinely led to pray for president Trump. Please keep our president in your prayers.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Samuel Martins on Unsplash.

National Day of Mourning & Repentance — February 23rd, 2019

IMG_7016.JPG
Poster for Business and Supporters to Display.

President Donald J. Trump at the State of the Union said the following:

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

 Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.  And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth:  all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

There will be a National Day of Mourning in silent protest of the state of New York’s infanticide law.

Saturday, February 23, 2019
1:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12210

According to the National Day of Mourning website:

The state of New York just voted to expand abortion access right up to the birth of the baby! To celebrate this unbelieveable depravity they lit the One World Trade Center in pink! Women used to celebrate motherhood and find joy in their children. Today, in places like New York City, they are taking joy in destroying their children. N.Y. State has crossed a line of inhumanity that should drive us to our knees. 46 years of the state sanctioned killing of our most helpless and defenseless children should cause us to weep, to mourn, and to take action. What is to be thought of a society that kills her own children? What will the future be of such a hearltess society that celebrates such barbaric inhumanity?

“If the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) We are calling for a National Day of Mourning and repentance. We are in desperate need for God to move upon the hearts of young and old in our nation. If our hearts do not break over the killing of these little image bearers of God in the womb, then how can we expect those growing up in this lost, confused and decadent culture to take our message seriously? Join us February 23rd for “A National Day of Mourning.”

WEAR BLACK

DON’T SHOP

CLOSE BUSINESSES

REPENT FOR ABORTION

Please CLICK HERE to sign the National Day of Morning petition.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Short Is the Road That Leads From Abortion to Infanticide, Euthanasia

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Third Time

Attacker Kills Woman 5 Months Pregnant, New York’s New Abortion Law Says Her Baby Isn’t a Human Being

One Democrat Stood When Trump Called for Banning Late-Term Abortions: Because They’re “Horrific”

EDITORS NOTE: All images and information for this column is from the National Day of Mourning website.

State of the climate

In delivering his State of the Union before a joint session of Congress last night, President Trump spoke about the nation’s burgeoning economy, strong national defense, and improved opportunities being opening up for the poor and middle class.

One thing he didn’t mention, however, was climate change. And that put CNN’s John King into a tizzy:

“Every leader, whatever his party should be talking about climate change. You can have a debate about what to do about it. But that the President of the United States, at this moment in the world, did not mention climate change in even a sentence is, just frankly, a disgrace.”

Of course, global warming was dutifully mentioned in the Democratic response to the President’s speech. It was, to be sure, a throw away line. All Georgia’s Stacey Adam’s simply said was: “We can do more, [like] take action on climate change.” Apparently that was enough for Mr. King to praise her as delivering the “best response” he ever heard.

Other Democrats were similarly put off by the President’s attack on socialism. After denouncing the Venezuela’s authoritarian government, Trump boldly proclaimed, “We will never be a socialist country.”

It was a good line. A great line. It brought almost everyone, even Nancy Pelosi, to their feet.

Not, however, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She remained plopped down. Frozen. “Is this a campaign stop or a State of the Union?” she would later chirp to a reporter. As for the President’s “socialism” remarks, “I thought it was great – I think he’s scared.”

One doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand the Democrats are not happy today. The president scored well last night. They are left to nit pick.

They are right about one thing though: No, the president didn’t directly mention “global warming.” Perhaps he should have. Of course, not in the manner the Greens would suppose.

It might have been nice if the President mentioned how he saved America from the disastrous Paris Accord, redirected priorities away from enforcing senseless climate regs that hamper businesses and our military, and steered the EPA away from imposing costly rules that would have shuttered countless energy plants, lost jobs, and driven up prices. These are indeed noteworthy achievements, we believe, but probably wouldn’t have earned him any additional good will from across the aisle.

The truth is the president did talk about the environment, albeit indirectly. How so? By letting us all know how well America’s economy is humming along.

The fact of the matter is that a growing economy is good news for the environment. Countries which have full employment, robust economic growth and provide law and order are precisely the ones that can best furnish for their citizens clean air and water. Socialistic countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China and the former Soviet Union stand as rich examples of the opposite.

The President, by pushing America’s economy to perform better through tax cuts, less regulation, and unleashing our energy potential, is doing more than his predecessor did in helping us keep America’s environment better protected.

If only Mr. King and Ms. Cortez had a clue.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column with images is republished with permission.

Killer Party: Dems Stand Alone on Infanticide

Years from now, when history looks back on the Democratic Party, one date will almost certainly stand out: July 25, 2016. That was the Tuesday, in the capital of the Revolution, when everything changed. For the first time in America’s 240 years, a major political party threw its full support behind one of the most savage and violent practices of the modern age: full-term, no-apologies abortion.

It’s just a party platform, some said. It doesn’t mean anything. Try telling that to Americans today, who watched in stunned silence last night as a leader of the U.S. Senate walked to the same floor where giants of freedom have stood and defended the killing of a perfect, fully-born child. It was not just a party platform when another senator, Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), looked at the other side of the aisle and saw a group of men and women willing to “betray the universal truth of human dignity and [turn] the stomachs of civilized people… in every country on earth.” And it wasn’t just a party platform when, the only other time this issue came up for a vote, every Senate Democrat agreed: infanticide is wrong.

The moment Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) rose to her feet and objected to protecting the survivors of abortion will be a defining one for Democrats. It should have signified to everyone that the radicalization of the party that started in 2016 is now complete. And like so many others, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) could only look on in horror. “This is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” she said. But “there is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane, about the discussion that we have before us today.”

New Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stood in disbelief. “Is this really the extremism of the Democratic party?” After decades of proving that there was still some scrap of moderation in their abortion agenda, liberals have thrown off any pretense of solemnity or restraint. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh debate, they’ve significantly overplayed their hand. “I can’t imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people,” Hawley argued.

He’s right. “Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions ‘generally’ legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position,” Alexandra Desanctis warns. Less than a quarter of their own party is willing to follow them into the most radical terrain on abortion ever broached. “Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.”

With almost an eerie detachment to the issue at hand, Murray tried to frame the bill as unnecessary. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed in her brief justification for stopping its passage. But, as so many have pointed out, only 26 states have “affirmative protections” for born-alive babies. Even if all 50 did, what’s the harm in reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to protecting these innocent survivors? Surely a party that can eat up hours of the legislative clock with a passionate plea to save the Delta Smelt can spare some sympathy for endangered children.

Even after yesterday’s disgrace, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no intentions of walking away from survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, who wouldn’t be alive today if Democrats got their way. Before the vote, McConnell cautioned that if the other side stopped the bill, it “would make quite a disturbing statement.” If they do, he vowed, “I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.”

To almost every American, “health care” does not include the killing of innocent newborns. “But in defending bills that expand the right to abort [living children], Democrats are giving away the game,” Desanctis predicts. “Most people, even those who favor some abortion access, instinctively recoil from what they see. These late-term abortion bills do more than reveal Democratic radicalism. They draw back the veil of euphemism to expose abortion for what it is: At every stage of pregnancy, it is the taking of a human life. For the anti-abortion movement, it is a pivotal moment to insist upon that truth.”

That’s where you come in. If you haven’t contacted your senators about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, make sure you do today. Let them know that extremists like Patty Murray stand alone!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Slaughter of Innocents Shows Our Culture’s Moral Rot

The Rediscovery of the Born-Alive Act

SOTU 2019: What to Watch For

Pope and Change

Eugenics, Euthanasia, Infanticide, and the Lord’s Work

New York’s Catholic Democratic Governor had the World Trade Center in lights to celebrate its abortion-on-demand-until-the-day-of-birth law. This law was framed as empowering women through guaranteeing “Reproductive Health.” Women in New York must be really powerful since New York’s abortion rate is twice the national average. This and eight other similar state laws were largely ignored as merely codifying Roe v Wade. But the state of Virginia’s Democratic pediatrician governor’s ghoulish advocacy for abortion until delivery of the infant was jaw-dropping as he explained that killing the infant after birth was allowed.

How can we tolerate this moral regression? Infanticide was the norm throughout ancient Athens and Sparta where the elders inspected the newborns to ensure that only the strong survived, and the weak were left to die. Early Roman law decreed that deformed children would be put to death. Fortunately, by the 4th century, European law, religion, and medicine rejected the intentional killing of an infant.

Americans have been sucked in before by pretty words that mask the brutal reality of “evolved” policies. There was a time when America’s best and brightest were teaching Dr. Josef Mengele a thing or two about eugenics, the “science” of improving the human gene pool for the preservation of society.

The Sordid History of Eugenics in America
Poster issued by the Eugenics Society, 69 Eccleston Square, London, England.

At the First International Eugenics Congress in 1912, a Carnegie Institute-supported paper, Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population (“Breeder’s Report”), analyzed the problem of the “unfit” and the need to find solution to “cut[ting] off the supply of defectives.”

Even black intellectuals jumped on board. The Harvard-educated professor and civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois believed only fit blacks should procreate to “eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.” The NAACP promoted eugenics theory by hosting “Better Baby” contests.

The Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (1914) was the blueprint for the sterilization of the “socially inadequate” including the feeble minded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, dependent, orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless, and paupers. By the 1920s, thirty-three states had compulsory sterilization laws.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated for mandatory IQ testing for the lower classes and the issuance of government-approved parenthood permits as a prerequisite to having children. Sanger criticized philanthropy as tending to perpetuate “human waste.” She also proposed that “the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.”

Compulsory sterilization of the “feebleminded” was etched in stone by the revered liberal Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Buck v. Bell (which has never been overruled) concluded that “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

With Congress steamrolling exclusively government-controlled medical care with Medicare-for-All, we must reflect on our past as well as the present policies of our civilized neighbors. What happens when the government runs out of money to pay for everything our politicians promised?

The Model Sterilization law’s selling point was that sterilization of those maintained wholly or in part by public expense was cost-effective: segregation for life cost $25,000 and sterilization a mere $150.

In Belgium, a nine and an eleven-year-old were euthanized for conditions that we in the United States vigorously treat: cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. Canada is considering allowing such barbarism–aka medical assistance in dying—to be perpetrated upon its children.

Iceland has virtually eliminated Down’s syndrome through abortion. Coincidentally the Ministry of Health lists Down’s syndrome as the most expensive disease for the state-funded health care program.

The British National Health Service’s Institute for Health and Care Excellence supports the use of “quality-adjusted life years” (QALY) to measure the quality and quantity of life added due to a particular medical treatment. If the cost per QALY gained exceeds a predetermined amount, the government denies payment for that treatment. ObamaCare architect Ezekiel Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” prioritizes adolescents and persons with “instrumental value,” i.e., individuals with “future usefulness.” With current nursing home costs averaging $7,500 per month, hospice care could be the default medically necessary treatment for the disabled.

It was not too long ago that the top Democrat official, Nancy Pelosi said “[Republicans] pray in church on Sunday and they prey on people the rest of the week. And while we’re doing the Lord’s work, ministering to the needs of God’s creation, they are ignoring those needs which is to dishonor the God who made them.” I don’t know whose “lord” she is talking about—perhaps the overlords who aim to take over mankind in sci-fi stories or the “Lord of the Flies.”

The day erecting a barrier to stop drug and human trafficking is considered immoral and killing viable live babies is celebrated is the day some Americans tossed morality into the abyss.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Sordid History of Eugenics in America

RELATED VIDEO: Do College Students Believe In God?

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured images are courtesy of The Church Militant.

Why Racism and Sexism Never Diminish—Even When People Become Less Racist and Sexist

The paper gives us a way of thinking more clearly about shifts in the Overton window.

The idea that concepts depend on their reference class isn’t new. A short basketball player is tall and a poor American is rich. One might have thought, however, that a blue dot is a blue dot. Blue can be defined by wavelength so unlike a relative concept—like short or rich—that there is some objective reality behind blue even if the boundaries are vague. Nevertheless, in a thought-provoking new paper in Science, the all-star team of Levari, Gilbert, Wilson, Sievers, Amodio, and Wheatley show that what we identify as blue expands as the prevalence of blue decreases.

In the figure below, for example, the authors ask respondents to identify a dot as blue or purple. The figure on the left shows that as the objective shading increases from very purple to very blue more people identify the dot as blue, just as one would expect. (The initial and final 200 trials indicate that there is no tendency for changes over time.) In the figure on the right, however, blue dots were made less prevalent in the final 200 trials and, after the decrease in the prevalence, the tendency to identify a dot as blue increases dramatically. In the decreasing prevalence condition on the right, a dot that was previously identified as blue only 25 percent of the time now becomes identified as blue 50 percent of the time! (Read upwards from the horizontal axis and compare the yellow and blue prediction lines).

Clever. But so what? What the authors then go on to show, however, is that the same phenomenon happens with complex concepts for which we arguably would like to have a consistent and constant identification.

Are people susceptible to prevalence-induced concept change? To answer this question, we showed participants in seven studies a series of stimuli and asked them to determine whether each stimulus was or was not an instance of a concept. The concepts ranged from simple (“Is this dot blue?”) to complex (“Is this research proposal ethical?”). After participants did this for a while, we changed the prevalence of the concept’s instances and then measured whether the concept had expanded—that is, whether it had come to include instances that it had previously excluded.

…When blue dots became rare, purple dots began to look blue; when threatening faces became rare, neutral faces began to appear threatening; and when unethical research proposals became rare, ambiguous research proposals began to seem unethical. This happened even when the change in the prevalence of instances was abrupt, even when participants were explicitly told that the prevalence of instances would change, and even when participants were instructed and paid to ignore these changes.

Assuming the result replicates (the authors have 7 studies which appear to me to be independent, although each study is fairly small in size (20-100) and drawn from Harvard undergrads) it has many implications.

…in 1960, Webster’s dictionary defined “aggression” as “an unprovoked attack or invasion,” but today that concept can include behaviors such as making insufficient eye contact or asking people where they are from. Many other concepts, such as abuse, bullying, mental disorder, trauma, addiction, and prejudice, have expanded of late as well. 

… Many organizations and institutions are dedicated to identifying and reducing the prevalence of social problems, from unethical research to unwarranted aggressions. But our studies suggest that even well-meaning agents may sometimes fail to recognize the success of their own efforts, simply because they view each new instance in the decreasingly problematic context that they themselves have brought about. Although modern societies have made extraordinary progress in solving a wide range of social problems, from poverty and illiteracy to violence and infant mortality, the majority of people believe that the world is getting worse. The fact that concepts grow larger when their instances grow smaller may be one source of that pessimism.

The paper also gives us a way of thinking more clearly about shifts in the Overton window. When strong sexism declines, for example, the Overton window shrinks on one end and expands on the other so that what was once not considered sexism at all (e.g. “men and women have different preferences which might explain job choice“) now becomes violently sexist.

Nicholas Christakis and the fearless Gabriel Rossman point out on Twitter (see below) that it works the other way as well. Namely, the presence of extremes can help others near the middle by widening the set of issues that can be discussed or studied without fear of opprobrium.

But why shouldn’t our standards change over time? Most of the people in the 1850s who thought slavery was an abomination would have rejected the idea of inter-racial marriage. Wife-beating wasn’t considered a violent crime in just the very recent past. What racism and sexism mean has changed over time. Are these examples of concept creep or progress? I’d argue progress but the blue dot experiment of Levari et al. suggests that if even objective concepts morph under prevalence inducement then subjective concepts surely will. The issue then is not to prevent progress but to recognize it and not be fooled into thinking that progress hasn’t been made just because our identifications have changed.

This article is reprinted with permission from Marginal Revolution.

COLUMN BY

Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen. 

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with images.

Will Starbucks Values Hit the Campaign Trail in 2020?

Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, tweeted his interest in running for president of the United States… as an independent.

Now, with an outspoken CEO who regularly leveraged his position to push an agenda, Starbucks could hardly be considered a centrist entity under Schultz’s leadership—that would essentially require neutrality on the issues, or at least some semblance of playing both sides. Looking at Starbucks’ long receipt of liberal activism over the years, you can understand why we view this new-found moderation with healthy skepticism.

After his voluntary departure in 2000, Schultz returned in 2008 after the company reported serious financial troubles. The return also marked a jumpstart in the activism that has earned Starbucks a 2ndVote score of 1 (Liberal).

During his second tenure, Schultz told Christian shareholders to take a hike if they didn’t agree with the company’s support for same-sex marriage. Later that year, Starbucks banned all customers from legally carrying firearms in their stores.

Additionally, in what is surely a carry-over from Schultz’s time as CEO, the new Starbucks chief has been forced to defend his company’s financial support for abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Click here to see more on Starbucks’ support for the Paris Climate Accords, sanctuary cities, and more!

Obviously, conservatives are unlikely to cast their first vote for Schultz in 2020. What should concern the new leadership at Starbucks is the fact that they won’t cast their 2ndVote buying their coffee until the stain of activism is erased from the kitchens.

Hold Starbucks accountable by buying your coffee from these better alternatives.Contact Starbucks!

Reach Out to Starbucks on Facebook!

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Corporate Dollars Fuel Planned Parenthood’s Push to Infanticide

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse slammed Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s defense of a legislation to expand late-term abortion earlier this week:

The comments the governor of Virginia made were about fourth-term abortions. That’s not abortion, that’s infanticide.

Indeed, Northam’s description of an infant having his or her fate determined by a discussion between a doctor and patient after delivery was quite horrific:

If a mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.

Northam’s comments were made in the wake of the New York’s legislative rollback of limitations on late-term abortion and come in the midst of Planned Parenthood’s push to enshrine abortion to the moment of birth. However, Northam may have overplayed the abortion lobby’s hand and exposed Planned Parenthood’s true intentions as public outcry helped defeat Virginia’s controversial bill.

Now, the battle to protect the lives of fully formed, full-term babies is not done, and FoxNews reports Planned Parenthood Action Fund expects to push for similar measures in over half the states in the country. That is why it is imperative we demand Planned Parenthood’s corporate sponsors cease funding the abortionists infanticide agenda.

Our research has found the following companies and organizations are direct supporters of Planned Parenthood:

Adobe
Aetna
Allstate
American Express
Amgen
AutoZone
Avon
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Boeing
BP
Charles Schwab
Clorox
Craigslist
Converse
Deutsche Bank
Diageo
Dockers

Energizer
Expedia
ExxonMobil
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Frito Lay
General Electric
Groupon
Intuit
Jiffy Lube
JPMorgan Chase
Johnson & Johnson
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Heinz
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
March of Dimes
Microsoft
Mondelez International
Monsanto

Morgan Stanley
Nike
Oracle
Patagonia
PayPal
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Progressive Insurance
Prudential
Qualcomm
Starbucks
Shell
Susan G. Komen
Unilever
United Airlines
United Way
US Bank
Verizon
Wells Fargo

Use the links above to see our research and the contact buttons provided to reach out to these corporations.

Planned Parenthood’s disgusting celebration of New York’s Reproductive Health Act clearly illustrates the abortion giant’s agenda—the unrestricted ability to kill fully formed babies. Corporations that support this agenda need to hear from you that they are funding the deaths of their own customers. They also need to know why they will not be doing so with your dollars as you take your business to companies that do not fuel Planned Parenthood’s industry of death.

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Kamala Harris Running on Anything Other Than Abortion?

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo s by Ryan Graybill on Unsplash.