FBI Employees Conducted 3.1 Million Questionable and Illicit Searches, Including Searches on US Citizens in 2017-2018

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Oct. 19):

According to a new declassified ruling FBI employees abused NSA mass surveillance data in 2017 and 2018. In 2017 FBI employees conducted over 3.1 million searches from the NSA database including searching activities of US citizens.

Under current FBI rules surveillance data can only be searched if there is reasonable suspicion of crimes having taken place or clear risks to national security. But FBI employees and even contractors were searching the database to see what information they could find on U.S. citizens.

CPO Magazine reported:

According to a new declassified ruling from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), FBI personnel systematically abused National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance data in both 2017 and 2018. The 138-page ruling, which dates back to October 2018, was only unsealed 12 months later in October 2019. It offers a rare look at how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been abusing the constitutional privacy rights of U.S. citizens with alarming regularity. The court ruling is also a stinging rebuke to the FBI’s overreach of its ability to search surveillance intelligence databases.

Key elements of the FISA court ruling

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, itself a super-secret court that traditionally approves each and every request of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, found that employees of the FBI searched data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in an inappropriate and potentially unconstitutional manner. These abuses, says the FISA court, included accessing NSA surveillance data to look into the online communications of U.S. citizens, including fellow FBI employees and their family members. All told, there may have been tens of thousands of these improper queries, all of them carried out without any reasonable suspicion of a crime or illegal activity posing a risk to national security. Moreover, many of the FBI’s backdoor searches did not differentiate between U.S. citizens and foreign intelligence targets.

[read more]

Yea, that is disturbing.

Another article on the FBI: Emails reveal FBI's accommodations for Clinton lawyers

NASA shows off patriotic new spacesuits for moon and Mars astronauts

From CNET.com (Oct. 15):

NASA astronauts will be strolling the moon in patriotic style.

The space agency broadcast a demonstration of new spacesuit designs for the Artemis moon mission at a Tuesday press conference, where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine hosted a dramatic catwalk-style unveiling of the new suits.

The public event showcased two prototypes. The orange Orion Crew Survival System suit is meant to be worn during launch and reentry on board the Orion spacecraft. The red, white and blue Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) is for moonwalking.

Bridenstine made sure to point out these spacesuits will fit astronauts of all body types, a reference to when NASA had to scrub the first planned all-female spacewalk due to not having enough spacesuit sizes available on the ISS. 

NASA dropped some details about the xEMU suits earlier in October, highlighting the maneuverability of the design and the advances made since the Apollo era. [read more]

The red, white and blue spacesuit does look nice.

Space 'elevator' to the Moon could happen by the end of the century

From Fox News.com (Oct. 14):

The concept of using an “elevator” to travel from Earth to space has been around for quite some time, with an early concept first proposed in 1959 by Russian engineer Yuri Artsutanov. But now, that seemingly far-fetched idea may become a reality.

The idea is relatively simple: a cable is stretched from a satellite counterweight above the geosynchronous orbit, where it’s attached to a floating anchor station at the equator. The cord is able to stand up on its own by centrifugal force, allowing a car to travel along the cable, directly from Earth to a space station.

NASA and space agencies in Japan and China have been working on this version of the space elevator for years. The Obayashi Corporation has promised to have its version up and running by 2050, estimated to cost $90 billion.

Recently, a non-peer reviewed study by Zephyr Penoyre from the University of Cambridge and Emily Sandford at Columbia University theorized that not only is an “elevator” to the moon possible, but it can be built using current materials. Their idea takes a different approach than that from NASA and the other space agencies.

As opposed to a cable stretching skyward anchored from the Earth, the cable proposed in the study runs from the moon down toward our planet, coming to an end and hanging in Earth’s geosynchronous orbit, 22,236 miles above the surface. This would place the cable out of danger zone of lower orbit, where it could be struck by satellites or space debris. The pencil lead-thin cord would be constructed from carbon polymers and hung from the moon. The cost is estimated to be in the billions of dollars. [read more]

Nice. In his sci-fi novel The Fountains of Paradise Arthur C. Clarke described a space elevator.

5 Things to Know About Top Iranian General Killed by US Airstrike

From The Daily Signal.com (Jan. 4):

President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike in Iraq on Thursday that killed Gen. Qassim Suleimani, one of the most senior members of the Iranian government.

Suleimani, with the rank of major general, headed the Quds Force, the terrorist arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terrorist plots as far away as New Delhi and London,” Trump said Friday, using an alternate spelling of the general’s name. “Today, we remember and honor the victims of Soleimani’s many atrocities, and we take comfort in knowing that his reign of terror is over.”

For about 21 years, Suleimani commanded the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, charged with carrying out clandestine military and terrorist activities outside Iran’s borders as the country seeks to expand its regional influence in the Middle East.

“We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war,” Trump said.

Here are five things to know about the fallen terrorist leader.

1. How Was Suleimani a Direct Threat to Americans?

Suleimani orchestrated a series of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq in the past several months, culminating in a rocket attack Dec. 27 that killed an American citizen, wounded four U.S. service members, and threatened the lives of many more American personnel.
…………….

       2. Where Did Suleimani’s Terrorism Strike?

Quds Force—under Suleimani’s direction—planned and conducted terrorist attacks across six continents and inside the United States, according to the State Department.

Suleimani was directly responsible for arming, funding, and training Iranian proxy groups—or militias—in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, leading to the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands, the State Department said. [read more]

Good riddance to him.

More stories on Iran:

• State Department says Iran still biggest state sponsor of terror, spends $1B per year on proxies
• Iran resumes underground enrichment at Fordow
• Iran: By eliminating terrorists, Israel committed 'war crimes'
• Ted Cruz: Iran missiles fired at Iraqi airbases were 'in a very real sense' paid for by billions that Obama sent Tehran
• Report: Senior IRGC Officer Flees Iran With Secret Intel
• Iran Has Been at War with America for 40 Years
• Iran activist: Don't believe U.S. media coverage of Soleimani 'mourners'
• 5 Top Iranian Officials You Should Know
• Trump’s Iran Endgame Remains the Same
• After Suleimani’s Death, Iran’s Theocracy Considers Its Options
• Trump’s Handling of Iran Deserves Praise
• Hans von Spakovsky: Trump killing of Soleimani and action against Iran legal – Despite Democratic complaints
• Iranian security forces purportedly fire live ammunition to disperse protesters despite Trump's warning

Was the early Christian church communist?

Few Christians, including Christian critics of capitalism, would now endorse communism. But what about the early church? Wasn't it communist? Here's how the book of Acts describes the first church in Jerusalem, which formed after the Holy Spirit descended upon the first Christians at Pentecost:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common… There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

Many who have read this passage have wondered if the Christian ideal isn't communism. After all, this was the first church in Jerusalem. They were "filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly" (Acts 4:31). If they didn't get it right, who did?

On the surface, this looks like communism. But it's not. First of all, unlike modern communism, there's no talk of class warfare here, nor is there any hint that private property is immoral. These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously. Second, the state is nowhere in sight. No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry. No one is being coerced. The church in Jerusalem was just that--the church, not the state. The church doesn't act like the modern communist state. No one in Acts gets their stuff confiscated. As
Ron Sider notes, "Sharing was voluntary, not compulsory." Third, when Peter later condemns Ananias and Sapphira for keeping back some of the money they get from selling their land, he condemns them not for keeping part of the proceeds of the sale, but for lying about it:

Ananias. . . why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the lands? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God! (Acts 5:3-4)

Peter takes for granted that the property was rightfully theirs, after it was sold.

Fourth, the communal life of die early church in Jerusalem is made the norm for all Christians everywhere. In fact, it's not even described as the norm for the Jerusalem church. What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still relatively small. Also, many of the new Christians probably had come from a long distance to worship in Jerusalem at Pentecost. These new Christians would have had to return home soon after their conversion had it not been for the extreme measures taken by the newborn church to allow these Christians to stay and be properly trained in discipleship.

Compared with modern nation-states, the Jerusalem church was a small community banding together against an otherwise hostile culture. The circumstances were peculiar. For all we know, this communal stage lasted six months before the church got too large. Paul elsewhere told the Thessalonian Christians to “earn their own living” and sternly warned that “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10, 12). So it‘s no surprise that the early communal life in Jerusalem was never held as a model for how the entire church should order its life, let alone used to justify the state confiscating private property.

Source: Money, Greed, and God. Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem (2009) by Jay W. Richards.

Da Vinci's Forgotten Design for the Longest Bridge in the World Proves What a Genius He Was

From Live Science.com:

Leonardo da Vinci was truly a Renaissance man, impressing both his contemporaries and modern observers with his intricate designs that spanned many disciplines. But although he's best known for iconic works such as "Mona Lisa" and "Last Supper," in the early 16th century, da Vinci designed a lesser-known structure: a bridge for the Ottoman Empire that would have been the longest bridge of its time. Had it been built, the bridge would have been incredibly sturdy, according to a new study.

In 1502, Ottomon ruler Sultan Bayezid II requested proposals for the design of a bridge that would connect Constantinople, what's today Istanbul, to the neighboring area known as Galata. Da Vinci was among those who sent a letter to the sultan describing a bridge idea.

Though da Vinci was already a well-known artist and inventor, he didn't get the job, according to a statement from MIT. Now, a group of researchers at MIT has analyzed da Vinci's design and tested how robust his bridge would have been if it were built.

The group built a replica of the bridge, after taking into consideration the materials and construction equipment available 500 years ago and the geological conditions of the Golden Horn,  a freshwater estuary in the Bosphorus Sea over which the bridge would've been built.

In his descriptions, da Vinci didn't indicate the materials or equipment needed to construct the bridge, but the only material available at the time, that wouldn't have collapsed under large loads on such a long bridge, would have been stone, Karly Bast, a recent graduate student at MIT who worked on the project, and her team found. The researchers also hypothesized that such a bridge would have stood on its own without any paste or material to hold the stone together. [read more]

He surely was a genius.

‘Godlessness and Big Government Go Hand in Hand,’ Allie Beth Stuckey Tells Social Conservatives

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 11):

The politics of millennials spring from their worldview, podcast host Allie Beth Stuckey told social conservatives Friday in Washington.

When people reject belief in God, Stuckey told the crowd at the Values Voter Summit, they usually embrace belief in government.

“I have never seen someone move to the left politically and become stronger theologically,” the host of the “Relatable” podcast said, as the crowd listened attentively.

Those who base their worldviews on self eventually make government more powerful and intrusive, Stuckey, 27, said.

“Godlessness and socialism, godlessness and totalitarianism, godlessness and big government always go hand in hand,” she said.

After interviews with many fellow millennials as a podcast host, Stuckey said, she sees that the generation’s worldview leads to meaninglessness. If people believe only in themselves, they have nothing outside themselves to live for and no belief in a God who can reform the self, she said.

“I think a lot of young people are saying, ‘That’s not really working out for me.’ Millennials have a higher rate of suicide,” she said. “They have a higher rate of depression, they have a higher rate of anxiety and fear and loneliness [than past generations.]”

From this place of despair, millennials often hope that government will help them fix their problems. [read more]

True. G.K. Chesterton once said “Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

More articles on socialism:

• These 3 Countries Tried Socialism. Here’s What Happened.
• Building a Movement to Stop ‘Democratic Socialism’
• Next Generation of Americans Will Embrace Socialism If We Lose ‘War on History’
• Young People Might Reject Socialism If They Knew These Facts
• Socialism's Unbroken Trail of Failure
• I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are My 6 Observations.

Acting OMB Director Russ Vought: Trump keeps promise to tame bureaucracy that runs roughshod over Americans

From Fox News.com (Oct. 9):

When President Trump took office in 2017, he promised the American people that he would clean up Washington’s regulatory overreach. He pledged to make government accountable to the people. And he has made good on his promises by driving the largest deregulation effort since President Reagan took office over 30 years ago.

This has supported an unprecedented economic comeback—with over 6.4 million jobs created since President Trump’s election, the lowest unemployment rate in half of a century, and nearly 2.5 million people raising themselves out of poverty since 2016.

This week, the president will build on his success by signing two Executive Orders that will level the playing field for American families and small businesses and shine a light on the Federal bureaucracy that runs roughshod over American citizens.

President Trump’s “Transparency and Fairness” Executive Order protects Americans against secret or unlawful bureaucratic interpretations of rules and guards against unfair or unexpected penalties for non-compliance. American families and entrepreneurs are not the enemy, and it is long past time D.C. stopped treating them as such.  [read more]

Another great executive order from President Trump that should be put into law. I wonder if the Republicans take control of Congress they will do that. Hope so. It would be a good idea if they did.

Planned Parenthood Uses Shell Company to Build Secret Mega-Clinic Near Missouri Border

From National Review.com (Oct. 2):

A new 18,000 square-foot Planned Parenthood clinic opened Wednesday in Southern Illinois, after over a year of secret construction. Codenamed “Alaska,” the project is just 13 miles from Missouri’s last Planned Parenthood, and was built by the organization with the intention of extending abortion access to women from Missouri, which has recently passed a string of restrictive abortion legislation.

“The truth is that our patients want easier access … [the new clinic] is an opportunity for them to get that care with less judgement, with less restriction, and with far fewer hoops to jump through,” Dr. Colleen McNicholas, the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, explained to CBS News.

Planned Parenthood began working on the facility in August 2018, and used a shell company to divert public attention and scrutiny from the construction of one of the largest abortion clinics in the country.

McNicholas said the decision to be secretive was in part intended to avoid delays. At previous Planned Parenthood construction projects in different parts of the country, contractors had refused to work on the project after learning the purpose of the building.

The clinic cost nearly $7 million, and will be equipped to see roughly 11,000 women per year. CBS News visited the location in August while the building was still under construction, but waited to release the story until the facility was completed. [read more]

If abortion is not wrong then why all the secrecy? To avoid delays? Really?

13 Pro-Abortion Assertions & How to Give a Pro-Life Response Part 4

Assertion #11: If a pre-born baby isn’t viable, the mother is justified in ending the baby’s life.

This claim is sometimes cited in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, in which the baby is growing in an area of the mother’s body other than the uterus, such as in the fallopian tubes, ovaries, or abdominal cavity. These pregnancies are thought to be fatal unless the baby and, at times, even the fallopian tubes, are removed. In these cases, the pregnancy ceases to be a typical pregnancy and doctors seek to save one life, rather than losing two. The medical actions taken are not to end a life, but to save life. The same is true for complications in a late term pregnancy. Medical professionals have affirmed that an abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother. A pregnancy with a child with Down syndrome or another chromosomal abnormality is a different matter. Though they experience challenges, families with a child with Down syndrome often speak of profound joy. Some have said that they cherish life more richly. Many individuals with Down syndrome go to school, even college, right alongside their peers. Their lives have equal value.

Assertion #12: A pro-life view is anti-science.

That’s not true. Science and medicine hold that, from the earliest stages of development, the pre-born are distinct, living, whole human beings. Embryology textbooks teach that human development begins at fertilization, when a male sperm unites with a female oocyte and forms a single cell called a zygote. It contains human DNA distinct from the mother’s. Therefore, a zygote is the beginning of a new, unique human being.

Assertion #13: Quit trying to force your religious beliefs on me.

Pro-life advocates don’t have to quote the Bible or draw from a faith tradition to believe that human life has value. Abortion is a moral issue because the pre-born are human beings. Is it right or wrong to end the life of a human being? Do certain circumstances dictate what’s right or wrong? Those are philosophical questions that deal with reality and existence. You are no less alive and human right now than you were as a teenager or an adolescent or a kindergartener or a toddler  or an infant or pre-born in the womb. Your size, development, and self-awareness have changed, but your inherent human value has not changed in your journey to today. A pro-life view is clear: Taking the life of another person — especially a defenseless human being like a pre-born baby — is wrong.

Source: Focus on the Family.com.

Other articles on abortion: 

• What Would You Say About Abortion and Rape?
• Socialism, Atheism, and Abortion

Earth's Magnetic Poles Can Flip Much More Often Than Anyone Thought

From Live Science.com (Oct. 4):

Hot liquid that churns around Earth's outer core powers a gigantic magnetic field that's been hugging our planet since its infancy, protecting it from harmful solar radiation. But this magnetic field is known to get restless — and a couple of times every million years or so, the poles flip, and magnetic south becomes magnetic north and vice versa.

Now, a new study suggests that the magnetic poles can flip much more frequently than scientists thought. That's what seems to have happened around 500 million years ago during the Cambrian period, when Earth's creatures were undergoing evolutionary growth spurts, transforming into more complex life-forms.

To understand the workings of the magnetic field during this time, a group of researchers from the Institute of Physics of the Globe of Paris and the Russian Academy of Sciences collected sediment samples from an outcrop in northeastern Siberia.  [read more]

Hmmm. That doesn’t sound good.

The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama

Commentary from Allen West on CNS News.com (Oct. 7):

Yes, you read the title of this missive correctly.

As a career military officer, we never believed that you win on defense. During the constant, incessant, and insidious attacks on President Trump, I believe there should be a full-fledged attack to evidence the abject, utter hypocrisy of the progressive socialist left. If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.

If in this current frenzy by the left and their media accomplices about Ukraine, the issue is about national security, I can counter that.

Early in 2009, Barack Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. I have no issue with his wanting to have an outreach. But we should all agree that Obama’s requesting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be in attendance, front and center, was ill advised. All one need to do is understand the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern-day Islamic jihadism.

…………..

When Morsi won the election, quite questionably, it was Barack Obama who congratulated him and offered US support, to include military aid…to a Muslim Brotherhood backed president. The people of Egypt were indignant, and in the end, revolted against Morsi and overthrew him for a new President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Barack Obama condemned Egypt and its so-called coup, threatening to cut off any US aid…which he was willing to supply to a Muslim Brotherhood backed government.

Second point, Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi. There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi. Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists? [read more]

Colonel West made good points.

I think Bill Clinton should have been impeached but not for lying—although that is bad too but for assault which I believe is a felony. Let me explain. I was listening to Dick Morris’ audiobook   Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary when he mentioned that Bubba tackled him when Clinton was president. Dick Morris wouldn’t lie for Hillary Clinton (which might be impeachable—talk about abuse of power!) so Bubba tackled him when Dick Morris walked away from him. Bill was about to start hitting him when Hillary stopped him. Morris said this was reported in the press but I don’t remember hearing about it (I wonder why!).  I wonder if Alan Dershowitz and other constitutional scholars/lawyers would say this was an impeachable act.

Progressive Base Sees Religious Freedom As Hate Speech

From CNS News.com (Oct. 14):

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke expressed the deep, heartfelt desire of many progressives: to punish conservative religious people for their beliefs. At a CNN Town Hall on Thursday, he was asked if he believed that “religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities” should “lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”

“Yes,” said O’Rourke, an answer met with raucous applause and loud cheers from the Democratic crowd. “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

Although the progressive audience enthusiastically and overwhelmingly supported O’Rourke’s proposal, it was later criticized by legal experts and religious people. Progressive commentators responded by going into damage-control mode. Recognizing that O’Rourke’s proposal might be unpopular with the broader public, commentators aligned with the Democratic Party sought to downplay its significance. They pointed out that O’Rourke is a second-tier presidential candidate with little hope of becoming president.

But O’Rourke’s proposal plainly is popular with the progressive base of the Democratic Party, and other candidates at the CNN Town Hall made no effort to distance themselves from O’Rourke’s position. In response to the same question, Sen. Cory Booker said that religious institutions would face “consequences,” and that he would “press this issue.” Booker avoided “saying” whether he would take away their tax-exemptions, “because … this is a long legal battle.”

Most legal commentators said that O’Rourke’s proposal is unconstitutional under Supreme Court rulings like Speiser v. Randall (1958). Those rulings forbid withholding tax exemptions based on the viewpoint advocated by a person or organization. Such viewpoint discrimination is forbidden by the First Amendment. [read more]

Other religious freedom articles:

• Why Faith Is Key to Preserving Our Liberty
• Democratic Cold War on Christianity is heating up
• For Chick-Fil-A, a Hard Lesson Is Coming

How Soros trains CEOs to get with the globalism program

From Free Pressers.com (Oct. 2019):

An astonishing document underwritten by progressive billionaire George Soros details why global companies must dedicate themselves to social activism and how to avoid losing customers as they do so.

The report titled "Human Rights Policy Engagement – The Role of Companies" was published in June by BSR (Business for Social Responsibility). "We are global in mindset, staffing, and activities," the group proudly proclaims on its website. The bought-and-paid-for Soros entity bills itself as "a global nonprofit organization that works with its network of more than 250 member companies and other partners to build a just and sustainable world."

In an acknowledgment section at the top of the document, BSR salutes the man who made the report possible: Soros and his Open Society Foundations network.

"The authors wish to thank our corporate members who were engaged in the Business Action Platform for Human Rights who generously gave their time to provide insights for this report," the acknowledgment reads. "We would also like to thank the Open Societies Foundations for the grant under which this report was written."

The report reads as a how-to guide on challenging public pushback against globalism in nations around the world via corporate social action. [read more]

Spooky Dude is at it again.

More articles on George Soros:

• Soros project: Weaponizing cities against the nation state
• Soros Group Has Given $1.5 Million To Organization Closely Linked To Fusion GPS

13 Pro-Abortion Assertions & How to Give a Pro-Life Response Part 3

Assertion #8: Pro-life views are anti-woman.

That’s not true. Pro-life advocates believe women ought to choose a great many things that impact their lives — the doctor they visit, their education path, their career pursuits, where they live, and so on. But those are all non-moral choices though. Some choices are moral, such as whether or not to take an innocent life. No one — woman or man — should end the life of a defenseless human being for her or his own gain or convenience. That’s what elective abortion does. Also, it is important for pro-life advocates to acknowledge that there are women who have real hurts and fears as they face an abortion decision. They may be dealing with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy and experiencing pain and anxiety. Pro-life advocates want to show them care and treat them with compassion. We want to help them no matter what circumstances they are facing. In the same way, people with pro-life views see women who have had an abortion in the past as deserving of grace and kindness, not indignity and disgust.

Assertion #9: Pre-born babies aren’t developed enough or self-aware enough to be considered human.

It’s true that we were less developed when we were embryos in our mothers’ wombs. But why does that matter? Why would the level of development be the thing that gives human beings rights? It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. A 4-year-old girl does not yet have a mature reproductive system and is less developed compared to a 24-year-old woman. But we don’t think the 4-year-old is less human or has less value than the 24-year-old. Why is development needed to measure worth? It isn’t. Human worth is not based on brain function or age or level of development.

Assertion #10: Abortions are safe, legal, and rare, and pro-lifers exaggerate the abortion issue to make it seem worse than it is.

President Bill Clinton coined the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” in 1996 to describe his abortion policy during his re-election campaign. He used those words to appease voters with moral uncertainties about abortion. Today, however, many abortion advocates brand themselves  as “pro-choice” and want abortion access on demand. They view abortion as a sign of support for women. That’s false.

• First, abortions don’t help women, and they are not safe. A human being dies. Half of those are females who never will get to enter the world.
• Second, suggesting that abortion is legal does not equal that it is moral. It still involves ending a life.
• Third, who decides what’s rare? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed more than 638,000 abortions in 47 of the 50 U.S. states in 2015. (California, New Hampshire, and Maryland don’t share their abortion data with the CDC.) By comparison, the American Cancer Society says that about 590,000 Americans die of cancer each year. The American Heart Association says that 610,000 U.S. citizens die of heart disease each year. Abortions top them both! The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider, estimates that 25 percent of all American women will have an abortion by the age of 45. That’s not rare.

Source: Focus on the Family.com.

For the first time in history, the US economy has started and ended a decade without a recession

From CNBC.com (Dec. 19):

As of December, the U.S. economy has expanded for a record 126 straight months, the longest time period in the country’s history according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Put another way, the U.S. has avoided a recession for an entire calendar decade for the first time ever.

“It is unusual that this has been such a persistent recovery,” Michelle Meyer, chief U.S. economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told CNBC. [read more]

That’s great news! The economy is slow growing because the last president screwed-up the economy and this president had to reverse what Obama did. It takes time to put the economy on the right path to recovery.

FDA ties ‘puberty-blocking’ drug to 6,379 deaths

From Free Pressers.com (Oct. 4):

More than 6,000 deaths have been linked to a puberty-blocking drug which is increasingly being given to children who claim to be transgender, the Food and Drug administration (FDA) reported.

The FDA between 2013 and June 2019 reported 41,213 adverse events, including 6,379 deaths and 25,645 “serious” reactions in patients who took Leuprolide Acetate, the hormone blocker known as Lupron.

Lupron is being used — without formal FDA approval — as a puberty blocker on an increasing number of children and adolescents who say their gender identity is not consistent with their biological sex, Breitbart News noted in an Oct. 2 report.

In 2017, AbbVie, which produces Lupron, said sales of the drug were $669 million in the United States alone.

  Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Breitbart News that Lupron “is off-label for lack of long-term studies,” adding it “undoubtedly causes irreversible loss of fertility and many other adverse effects that are potentially lethal. It does not turn a male child into a female child, only into a eunuch who will lose his full potential for growth and strength. Children have no capacity to comprehend these long-term consequences, so the use of this drug in gender-confused children constitutes unethical experimentation; informed consent is not possible.” [read more]

That’s too bad.

The FBI’s annual crime report is out, and the anti-gun crowd won’t like it

From Conservative Review.com (Oct. 1):

The Federal Bureau of Investigation released its Uniform Crime Report for 2018 on Monday, and the numbers indicate that more people were killed by knives than rifles.
The annual report touts an overall drop in violent crime for the second consecutive year, according to the Bureau’s news release on the numbers. However, the numbers specifically on homicides in the United States offer some insight into America’s ongoing gun control debate.
Due to multiple shooting massacres that took place in August, gun control proponents have once again turned their animus toward semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. Perhaps the most salient example of this is 2020 Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke’s pledge, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
However, as has been the case in previous years, the numbers show that rifles in general — including semi-automatics as well as others — only account for a fraction of a percent of the total homicide rate in the United States.
……………….
Once again, deaths from knives and “personal weapons” like hands, fists, and feet were higher than the number of homicides committed with rifles. More than five times as many murders were committed with knives (1,515) as with rifles, and more than twice as many people were killed with “personal weapons” (672). Other years included in the FBI report’s table — which spans 2014-2018 — show similar disparities between the same weapon types. [read more]

More stories on firearms and the 2nd Amendment:

• 11 More Examples of How Firearms Save Gun Owners’ Lives, Property
• Navy pilots demand right to bear arms on Pensacola base
• Wag Illustrates Second Amendment Quotes  
• Gun sanctuary revolt goes 'organic' in Virginia, 9 other states
• Virginia taxpayers to be charged for new gun-control laws

New York City Will Fine You for Saying ‘Illegal Alien.’ That’s an Assault on the Constitution.

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 3):

The propaganda, surveillance, and censorship of Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel “1984” has now arrived in New York.

The city’s Commission on Human Rights recently released new legal enforcement guidelines that ban the use of the term “illegal alien” by employers, housing providers (including hotels), and law enforcement as “discriminatory.” Violators can be punished with exorbitant and punitive fines—up to $250,000 per offense.

In other words, the city will now censor and penalize anyone for using the correct legal term that has been used in both federal immigration law and numerous court decisions, including by the Supreme Court.

This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment.

Open-borders advocates and pro-illegal alien groups have been waging a propaganda war for years, very successfully, to convince media outlets and government officials to abandon the term “illegal alien.”

They want it replaced with a euphemism, the term “undocumented immigrant,” to disguise and hide the unlawful conduct of aliens who break our immigration laws and enter this country illegally.

“Undocumented immigrant,” the preferred term used by the New York commission in its guidance, is a made-up term that ignores the law.

As noted in a prior Daily Signal article, “illegal alien” is the correct legal term and it makes no sense to say you are being “offensive” when you use precise legal terminology. [read more]

That is a stupid law. The city should be more worried about the homeless spreading diseases.

Another free speech article: Is Twitter Really Censoring Free Speech?

13 Pro-Abortion Assertions & How to Give a Pro-Life Response Part 2

Assertion #4: If a woman can’t afford to deliver and raise a baby, she has the right to end the baby’s life so they’re both not financially burdened.

First of all, the pro-life view is to show compassion to a woman in that situation. She’s facing real-life struggles. A pro-life response is to encourage her to visit a pregnancy resource center, where healthcare professionals and caring people could give the mom direction and help. But notice what this line of thinking is really saying — that the pre-born baby is not human. Here’s why: We wouldn’t apply the same rationale to an older child. No mother would end the life of her 2-year-old toddler so she could balance her checkbook or pay her rent. No family would eliminate a son or daughter so they’d be in a better financial position. Why would it be OK to end the life of a pre-born baby for financial reasons? It’s not. In a hardship situation, adoption would be an option that allows the mother to choose life.

Assertion #5: An embryo isn’t life.

It’s true that human beings were less developed when we were embryos in their mothers’ wombs. But tell me why that matters? Why would size determine value? Why would level of development be the thing that gives us rights? It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. Adults aren’t more  human or have more value than kids do. We don’t think Shaquille O’Neal is more human or valuable than we are, simply because he’s 7 feet tall and we’re not. Remember what embryology says: The pre-born are human beings from fertilization. When a male sperm unites with a female oocyte, it forms a single cell called a zygote that has its own DNA distinct from the mother’s DNA. That’s a new life!

Assertion #6: A baby isn’t human until it is born. Therefore it has no rights.

How do two parents — two human parents — create offspring that is not human, but later becomes human? Can you explain that? The argument that a pre-born baby isn’t human until it’s born is actually claiming that location determines human value. But that’s faulty. At the delivery of a baby, how does a change from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the baby? How does a journey of eight inches from the womb to the birth canal suddenly transform a baby from non-human to human? How does that baby change from a non-valuable thing we can eliminate to a human being who is valuable? In reality, location has no bearing on our worth. No one believes that a resident of Colorado has more inherent value than someone from Texas. Our intrinsic human worth doesn’t change based on our address.

Assertion #7: Abortion is healthcare.

What do you mean by healthcare? The original Hippocratic Oath explicitly forbade abortion as valid medical practice. Even the maxim, “Do no harm,” which undergirds the Hippocratic Oath, suggests that ending a life is antithetical to the purpose of medicine. Healthcare involves health and wellness, not the intent to kill. Elective abortion does involve the intent to kill. Therefore, elective abortion is not healthcare.

Source: Focus on the Family.com.