Ryan Matters: mRNA ‘Vaccines’, Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism


Blog Editor: John R. Houk

Intro posted August 29, 2021

In case you have been living under a stone, YOU have to be aware the science-sewer spewing from the U.S. government and its so-called science agencies are tainted by a control-the-people for a Left-Wing government to remain in power. AS SUCH to keep We-The-People brainwashed and pliable to unconstitutional and bureaucratic despotic laws and rules, the science representing the Globalist-Dem-Marxist Left is doing EVERYTHING in its nefarious power to discredit ACTUAL empiric science contradicting the control narrative.

If you concur with my sentiment of government control, here is some science-history posted by Ryan Matters about mRNA jabs came into existence and about one of the scientists very instrumental in mRNA research. That instrumental researcher is Dr. Robert Malone, currently much maligned by Globalists for warning there is an mRNA jab problem.

To be honest the history lesson is lengthy. This article is well documented with sources. I emphasize the sourcing because the latter half will sound a bit like science fiction to the skeptic. The “sourcing” hopefully will bring some open-mindedness to the skeptic. EXAMINE the information I share into the hands of Americans still concerned about Liberty more than Sheeple compliance. If it’s too long for you book mark and return and become aware the world we now live in is insidiously influenced by Globalist-Marxists who ironically have infected greedy corporations. This kind of Socialistic mixture in the past was called Fascism and/or Nazism (an acronym when anglicized translates as National Socialism).

JRH 8/29/21

I need your generosity in 2021 via – credit cards, check cards

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or if donating you can support by getting in the Coffee from home business earning yourself extra cash – OR just buy some TASTE GOOD healthy coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

*************************

mRNA “Vaccines”, Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism

The worldwide rollout of mRNA “vaccines” is part of a much larger agenda that encompasses eugenics and transhumanism. This agenda is being funded and promoted by a network of global institutions, politicians, and billionaire technocrats.

Transhumanism

By Ryan Matters

August 28, 2021

Off-Guardian

In 1989, researchers from the Salk Institute in California published a paper detailing how they developed an RNA transfection system that could “directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos”.

The concept of using RNA as a drug is first described in this paper, making it the seminal work that formed the foundation for decades of further research in this area. The “Discussion” section of the paper states that:

“The RNA/lipofectin method can be used to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos (R.W.M., C. Holt, and I.M.V., unpublished results), raising the possibility that liposome-mediated mRNA transfection might offer yet another option in the growing technology of eukaryotic gene delivery, one based on the concept of using RNA as a drug.” 

One of the Salk Institute researchers listed on the paper is Dr Robert W. Malone, a scientist who has recently been censored on social media for warning about the possible dangers of the covid-19 vaccines. It could be argued that there’s no expert more qualified to warn us about the dangers of mRNA injections than the man who helped pioneer the technology, nevertheless, Big Tech decided he was expounding “misinformation”, because, well, they know better apparently.

Malone’s research, which resulted in a procedure that could be used to “efficiently transfect RNA into human cells” using a “synthetic cationic lipid” was supported by grants from the American Cancer Society and the National Institute of Health (who currently have a stake in the Moderna mRNA vaccine, showing their allegiance to the technology. More on this later).

While Malone’s contributions to the development of mRNA technology are well-known and well-documented, Wikipedia decided to remove all mention of him from their “RNA Vaccine” entry shortly after the scientist began speaking out about the dangers of the rushed-through covid vaccines. The June 14th version of the article mentioned Malone by name 3 times and cited his work 6 times. The current version of the article mentions him 0 times and cites his work only 3 times.

However, this is unsurprising considering Wikipedia’s documented bias towards the pharmaceutical industry. Far more interesting is the institution that produced the research in the first place – the Salk Institute.

The Salk Institute, named after Jonas Salk, the creator of the Salk polio vaccine, was constructed in 1962 thanks to funding from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, today known as the March of the Dimes.

The March of the Dimes (MOD) was established in 1937 with the mission of eradicating polio and during a time when the Eugenics Establishment was already a prominent, but not yet popular, feature of the American health scene. The theory of Eugenics is based on the idea that selective procreation can lead to the gradual “improvement” of the human race and that certain families are fit to lead society by virtue of their “superior” genes.

At the time, the nation’s key eugenics organizations included the American Eugenics Society (AES) and the American Society of human Eugenics (ASHE), funded by the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman families, as well as the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It should be noted that the Rockefellers were instrumental in funding and promoting eugenics around the world. The Eugenics movement promoted selective mating, artificial insemination and compulsory sterilization and euthanasia as important means of weeding out so-called “inferior” human beings.

The first sterilization law in the US was passed in 1907, in the state of Indiana, and by 1931, many more states had followed suit by enacting similar laws. According to the Indiana Historical Bureau:

“In 1907, Governor J. Frank Hanly approved first state eugenics law making sterilization mandatory for certain individuals in state custody.”

Those sterilized under eugenics law were deemed “undesirable” on account of mental or physical impairments such as epilepsy, blindness and physical disabilities, as well as “social inadequacies” such as drug addiction or criminality. According to estimates, around 60,000 individuals were sterilized under such laws, deprived of their right to have children and forever branded as “feebleminded”.

In fact, the prominence of the American eugenics movement resulted in its adoption by the National Socialist Party of Germany, which sterilized more than 350,000 persons by the end of the second world war. After WW2, eugenics notions were dropped from public conversation, but the movement never dissipated, no, instead it was “re-branded” using more acceptable terminology such as “population control” and “reproductive health”, as we shall see later on. [Blog Editor Emphasis]

The emergence of the MOD  as a major player in the American Eugenics movement can be traced back to the organization’s early association with the Rockefeller Institute from where it procured many of its key members and advisers, including professor Anton Julius Carlson, a member of the American Eugenics Society, recruited to serve on the MOD’s  Medical and Research Committees and Professor Clair E. Turner, another AES member who served as assistant to then President, Basil O’Connor.

Just before the establishment of the Salk Institute, the MOD announced it would be phasing out its polio programs and focusing its resources on “birth defects”.

In 1959, the MOD funded courses in “medical genetics” at the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a genetics institute founded in 1929 by Clarence Cook Little, who, “at one time or another” served as the president of the American Eugenics Society, the American Birth Control League and the American Euthanasia Society.

Jackson Laboratory’s claimed mission is “to discover precise genomic solutions for disease and empower the global biomedical community in its shared quest to improve human health.” Noteworthy is that the lab received increased funding in 2020, largely from the National Institute of Health (NIH), including a grant of $10.6 million to find treatments for rare genetic diseases by using gene-editing technologies. [Blog Editor Emphasis] And at the start of the coronavirus “pandemic”, the lab worked to develop genetically modified mice for use in vaccine studies and other research related to Sars-Cov-2.

Beginning in the 1960s, the MOD financed several “Birth Defects Prevention Centers” located at medical institutions across the US. These new centers offered prenatal testing via amniocentesis to determine whether a baby would be born with “defects” and then gave the couple the opportunity to abort the affected child.

The MOD has also made direct donations to Planned Parenthood, a clear contradiction of their claimed mission, which is to “fight for the health of all moms and babies”. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides “reproductive health care” in the US and abroad.

From 2019-2020 the organization committed over 350,000 abortions and has been criticized as “steering resources away from women’s health and toward abortion.” Unsurprisingly, a look into the organization’s history reveals that Planned Parenthood has its roots in Eugenics ideals.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who, far from a “birth control activist”, as the mainstream would have you believe, was a racist eugenicist who sought to rid the world of “unfit” human stock. In her essay, “A Plan for Peace”, she describes the main objects of her proposed “Population Congress” which includes

“a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

She also mentions the need to “control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”

As mentioned earlier, these Eugenics ideals inspired the Nazis who took many of Sanger’s ideas and ran with them, so to speak. In his book, The War Against the Weak, Edwin Black details how the Nazi sterilization law of 1933 as well as subsequent euthanasia laws were based on blueprints drawn up by Sanger and other American “activists”. In fact, associates of Sanger knew about these Nazi euthanasia programs and praised them.

Coming back to the Salk Institute, it should be noted that the mainstream account of the 20th-century polio outbreak, namely the notion that the disease is caused by a virus and that Dr Salk’s miracle vaccine was single-handedly responsible for ending the epidemic, is dubious and likely altogether false.

Paralytic polio appeared suddenly in the US in the early 1900s with continual, dramatic fluctuations in cases – a pattern that continued until the end of the 1950s. The introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1954 seemed to coincide with the almost instantaneous decline in cases, which continued for more than two decades.

But prior to being called “polio”, conditions involving infirmity of the limbs were known by various other names including apoplexy, palsy and paralysis. Many historical writings refer to paralysis resulting from exposure to toxic substances and many of these accounts were documented by Dr Ralph Scobey in his 1952 statement to the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products titled The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions to its Investigation.

Scobey’s paper includes references to several investigations that seemed to indicate a link between polio outbreaks in the 20th century and the consumption of fresh fruit, providing a link between Polio and toxic pesticide exposure.

One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, a highly toxic organochlorine that was widely publicized as being “good for you”, but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr Morton Biskind published a paper in the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:

“McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101), and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.”

The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxil conducted two brilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.

Although Salk’s vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itself caused many cases of injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesn’t equal correlation, especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.

Interestingly, Dr Salk’s polio research was funded by the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation.

May’s views on immigration were radical, to say the least, and according to some, she favoured compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries. May later joined the board of the Population Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III focused on population reduction.

In 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the WHO to create fertility regulating vaccines.

It would be a mistake to think that the polio epidemic was not related to the current ‘age of vaccination’ we find ourselves in. On the contrary, claiming that polio was “eradicated in the United States” due to vaccination alone is a lie that garnered public favour for childhood vaccinations and helped to set the groundwork for the widespread belief in the safety and efficacy of all vaccines.

Diseases such as polio and smallpox (another lie that is beyond the scope of this article), and the subsequent pro-vaccine propaganda, “primed” much of the population to accept, without question, an experimental jab based on poorly understood technology.

TWISTING THE SCIENCE

In 1997, 8 years after the Salk Institute paper, the FDA approved the first-ever trial of transfected RNA to develop immunity in cancer patients. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Health then voted to continue approval some months later, leading to the first-ever mRNA-based vaccine administered to humans.

Though mRNA is propagandized in the media as the next revolution in health, those with keen perception may be alarmed when reading excerpts such as this one, taken from an article on the history of mRNA, written by Damian Garde, a Biotech reporter for STATS:

“The concept: By making precise tweaks to synthetic mRNA and injecting people with it, any cell in the body could be transformed into an on-demand drug factory.”

Talk of cells being turned into “on-demand drug factories” is exactly the sort of meaningless techno-rhetoric meant to impress and entice an uninformed public. mRNA vaccines are based on the following concept: a piece of synthetic mRNA is shuttled into your cells, where it is used as a template to create the viral “spike protein”. Once this protein leaves the cell, the body produces antibodies and “learns” how to fight future Sars-Cov-2 infections.

mRNA-based vaccines are often touted as a safer alternative to DNA-based vaccines, which, according to experts “may trigger permanent and dangerous changes in the genetic information of treated people”. However, do we know for sure that mRNA vaccines don’t permanently change the genetic makeup of our cells? A 2001 paper titled RNA as a tumor vaccine: a review of the literature states that (emphasis added):

“unlike DNA-based vaccines, there is little danger of incorporation of RNA sequences into the host genome.”

The use of the word “little” would seem to indicate that there may be at least some danger of genome integration, or more likely, researchers simply don’t know.

In the 2004 “expert opinion” paper by Pascolo cited above, he outlines the link between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies, something which is continually denied and dismissed by the mainstream:

“Although located in the cytosol and not in the nucleus, mature mRNAs belong to the biochemical family of nucleic acids. mRNA, similarly to DNA, may be considered a gene and, consequently, it’s use as a vaccine may be viewed as ‘gene therapy’.”

Interestingly, it is purely due to a technicality of regulatory law that covid-19 gene therapies are allowed to be called “vaccines”. This is explained in a paper titled The European Regulatory Environment of RNA-Based Vaccines, which states that:

The definition of a gene therapy medicinal product as outlined in Annex 1 to Directive 2001/83/EC is as follows:

Gene therapy medicinal product means a biological medicinal product which has the following characteristics:

(a) it contains an active substance which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid used in or administered to human beings with a view to regulating, repairing, replacing, adding or deleting a genetic sequence;

(b) its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect relates directly to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence it contains, or to the product of genetic expression of this sequence.

Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.

As is evident, the mere act of calling a gene therapy a “vaccine against infectious disease” negates its classification as a gene therapy, the approval process for which, at least in Europe, involves going through the CAT which is the EMA’s (European Medicines Agency) “Committee for Advanced Therapies”.

Evidently, this play on language would seem to constitute a “loophole” of sorts, allowing easier approval for mRNA-based gene therapies planned for human use.

Approval is certainly a contentious topic when talked about in the context of the current covid-19 vaccines, none of which have been fully FDA approved, only authorized under emergency use (EUA), and labeled as “investigational” products, a fact that many people are unaware of. However, early in the year vaccine manufacturers already set their sights on full regulatory approval, after only 6 months of trial data.

On the 7th of May, Pfizer formally initiated their application to the FDA, with the aim of having the first-ever fully approved covid-19 vaccine. But with millions of vaccines already administered under EUA, what’s the rush?

Furthermore, for the six “first in disease” vaccines approved by the FDA over the last 15 years, the median trial duration was just shy of two years. A vaccine approved after 6 months of data would constitute one of the fastest ever.

The phase three clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are two years in duration, but the FDA has not clearly stated their position with regards to minimum follow-up prior to consideration for approval.

Longer, placebo-controlled trials are paramount to assessing vaccine safety. It is extremely alarming then that vaccine manufacturers, within weeks of receiving EUA, began to unblind trials by offering those in the placebo group the chance to get vaccinated.

Moderna announced that “as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine”, meaning that their placebo group no longer exists and as such, they have no way to accurately measure long-term safety.

In an article for the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi quotes the FDA, on several occasions, saying that the maintenance of a placebo group would be critical to assessing both the safety and efficacy of covid-19 vaccines, which is obvious to anyone who understands the consequences of failing to adhere to scientific rigor when testing a new medical therapy.

In reality, there could be many reasons for manufacturers wanting FDA approval for their vaccines, but likely top of the list is the “stamp of approval” that comes with full licensure and the ability to use this as a way to convince those who remain skeptical regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Moreover, full FDA approval would pave the way for easier vaccine mandates, putting immense pressure on those of the “awakened class” who represent a thorn in the side of the Great Reset/Great Convergence agenda pushers.

More disturbing inconsistencies can be found in the FDA’s process for assessing and approving these experimental vaccines. For example, the FDA recently cautioned against the use of antibody tests for evaluating immunity or protection from covid-19, “especially” after a person has received a vaccination, despite their EUA being originally granted, in part, due to antibody responses.

The implication for this reversal is that the EUA given for covid-19 vaccines should also be reversed, but what’s the likelihood of that happening after millions have already been jabbed?

Moreover, the idea that “antibodies” provide protection from so-called viral infections represents a poor understanding of the body and the immune system. The fact that antibodies play little role in viral infections has been known by medical scientists since the 1950s based on research that shows persons with the genetic inability to produce antibodies, called “agammaglobulinemia”, have normal reactions to typical viral infections and even appear to resist recurrences.

BILL GATES, MODERNA AND EUGENICS 2.0

One of the covid-19 vaccine manufactures most talked about in the media is Moderna, a biotech company co-founded by Robert Langer, a researcher and inventor at MIT.

In 2013, the biotech startup received $25m in funding from DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a research arm of the United States Department of Defense, and an organization well-known for ruthlessly pursuing dystopian, transhumanist technologies, such as implantable nanoparticles and bio-brain interfaces (more on this later).

Noteworthy is that the US government, through the National Institute of Health, appears to have a financial stake in the Moderna vaccine thanks to a contract signed by both parties, giving the NIH joint ownership over Moderna’s mRNA vaccine candidates. According to Axios:

“The NIH mostly funds outside research, but it also often invents basic scientific technologies that are later licensed out and incorporated into drugs that are sold at massive profits.”

This is more than alarming considering the NIH is responsible for prioritizing promising treatments for covid-19 as well as improving clinical trial effectiveness, which, for Moderna, is impossible considering their trial no longer contains a control group.

NIH’s vested interest in Moderna’s success may also provide a plausible explanation for why the biotech startup received EUA for their vaccine despite failing, for over 10 years, to bring a single product to market.

In an interview for Economic Club, NIH director Francis Collins denied that covid-19 vaccines would be money-makers, saying that “Nobody sees this as a way to make billions of dollars”.

However, evidence points to the contrary as Moderna’s covid-19 vaccine sales reached $1.7 billion in the first quarter of 2021, making their CEO, Stephane Bancel, one of the many new pharma billionaires.

“Operation Warp Speed”, the name given to a partnership between several US Federal agencies aimed at accelerating the development of a covid-19 vaccine, was also wrought with conflicts of interest.

The Operation Warp Speed administration hired several “consultants” with ties to Big Pharma, including two former Pfizer executives. And in May 2020, it was reported that their chief adviser, Dr Monsef Slaoui, a former pharmaceutical executive himself, held $10m in GlaxoSmithKline stock, the same company that was later awarded a $2 billion contract to supply the US government with 100 million vials of covid-19 vaccine.

Dr Slaoui also held significant stock in Moderna, to whom the federal government has awarded over $2.5b in funding.

Moderna co-founder, Robert Langer, whose net worth has also skyrocketed into the billions, is one of the world’s most cited researchers. A scientist at MIT, Langer holds over 1,400 patents and specializes in biotechnology, nanotechnology, tissue engineering and drug delivery.

Furthermore, Langer holds an administrative role at the MIT Media Lab, the same institute that was the focus of a scandal after it was revealed that the lab accepted funding from convicted sex-offender, Jefferey Epstein. Epstein also happened to have a disturbing fascination with “transhumanism”, a modern-day version of eugenics  (transhumanism is discussed later in this article).

Then director of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito, approved two donations from Epstein of $1.75m and allowed the prolific paedophile to “direct” funds to the lab from other wealthy benefactors, including a $2m donation from Bill Gates, who also has unsettling ties to Epstein, having flown on his private jet and met with him on several occasions.

When the news broke out and Joi Ito resigned from his post at the lab, Langer was one of the first people to sign a letter calling for him to stay, and as an administrator for the lab’s Director’s Office, it’s hard to believe he didn’t know about the Epstein donations in advance.

Described as the “common denominator” in several coronavirus efforts, Robert Langer is certainly an interesting player in the transhumanist movement. In 2015, his company,  Microchips Biotech, partnered with Israeli pharmaceutical giant, Teva Pharmaceutical, to commercialize its “implantable drug delivery device”.

Noteworthy is that Teva Pharmaceutical has received significant investment from Warren Buffett, who, in 2006, pledged to gradually donate his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization whom he served as a trustee up until very recently.

Langer also has ties to Charles Lieber, a Harvard nanotech scientist who was arrested in January on account of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his collaboration with Chinese researchers at the Wuhan University of Technology.

In 2012, Langer and Lieber worked together to create a “material that merges nanoscale electronics with biological tissues”. The material was described as “a first step toward prosthetics that communicate directly with the nervous system”.

Much of Langer’s research is backed by Bill Gates, who began funding mRNA technology in 2010 and has also invested millions into Moderna.

In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored a project at Langer’s lab to create a microparticle vaccine delivery system that could generate a “novel type of drug carrying particle”, allowing multiple doses of a vaccine to be administered over an extended period of time with just one injection.

Then in 2019, Gates and Langer teamed up again to create an invisible ink tattoo that “embeds immunization records into a child’s skin”. Disturbingly, the eventual goal of the project is to inject sensors that can be used to track “other aspects” of health.

Gates claims he needs the data for “disease prevention”, referring to his efforts to wipe out polio, measles and other “infectious” diseases from around the world. However, Gates’ various “health-related” initiatives in developing countries are not the work of a loving philanthropist, like the media would have us all believe. Instead, evidence would suggest that Gates’ involvement in public health represents the continuation of a long-standing eugenics agenda, hiding in plain sight.

Gates’ links to the eugenics movement start with his father, who praised the Rockefellers for their work in “public health” and even met with them in 2000 to discuss matters relating to infectious disease, vaccines and the environment. During the meeting, Gates senior was quoted as saying:

“Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.”

Interestingly, almost ten years after that meeting, Gates junior co-hosted a meeting with David Rockefeller to discuss population reduction.

Perhaps even more telling is the fact that in 2012 Bill and Melinda Gates hosted their London Summit on Family Planning, where they announced their commitment to population control in the third world, on the 100th anniversary of the First International Eugenics Congress, also held in London.

Gates is well-known for his obsession with vaccines, a curious pursuit considering that the 9,000,000 people who die every year from hunger would be better served by having clean water, food supplies and sanitary living environments.

In 2009, Gates’ Foundation funded observational studies in India for a controversial cervical cancer vaccine that was given to thousands of young girls called “Gardasil”.

Within months, many girls began to get sick and within a year, five of them had died. During a similar study for a different brand of the HPV vaccine, many girls were hospitalized and a further two died. The Economic Times of India reported on this in 2014, with the shocking revelation that:

Consent for conducting these studies, in many cases, was taken from the hostel wardens, which was a flagrant violation of norms. In many other cases, thumbprint impressions of their poor and illiterate parents were duly affixed onto the consent form. The children also had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. The authorities concerned could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.”

Gates has also heavily promoted the oral polio vaccine in India, after endeavouring to eradicate the disease. However, as discussed earlier in this article, toxic chemicals are involved in the etiology of polio and thus the disease cannot be eradicated by the use of vaccines. In fact, global health numbers indicate that more cases of polio are now being caused by the vaccines themselves than anything else.

In 2018, a group of brave Indian researchers published a paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health showing a correlation between the oral polio vaccine drives and increased cases of “acute flaccid paralysis”, a condition described as “clinically indistinguishable” from polio.

Ironically, Gates has a $23m investment in Monsanto, the company that markets “roundup” a glyphosate-containing pesticide that is known to cause adverse health effects, including neurological disorders and paralysis.

While many believe Gates to be selflessly giving away his money in order to fund these vaccination campaigns, it should be noted that Gates’ investment in vaccines has netted him a massive return. By 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had donated just over $10b to various vaccine-related initiatives including GAVI (the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization). Gates called it the “best investment he’s ever made”, estimating a 20-1 return, or around $200b over 20 years. Indeed, Gates’ net worth has more than doubled over the last 10 years.

And lest we forget that more than half of all deaths in low to middle income countries are caused by noncommunicable diseases, which the Bill and Melinda Foundation seems to have little interest in, directing less than 3% of their budget towards such conditions.

Furthermore, Gates’ activities in public health are wrought with conflicts of interest that that would seem to undermine the notion that Gates cares about the health of the population.  Many of these conflicts of interest are outlined in a study published by Harvard researcher, David Stuckler, titled Global Health Philanthropy and Institutional Relationships: How Should Conflicts of Interest Be Addressed?, in which he states that:

“As one example, we found that Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has substantial holdings in the Coca-Cola Corporation, and also participates in grants that encourage communities in developing countries to become business affiliates of Coca-Cola. It has been noted by some commentators that sugary drinks such as those produced by Coca-Cola are correlated with the rapid increase in obesity and diabetes in developing countries.”

Stuckler also notes that:

“Many of the Foundation’s pharmaceutical development grants may benefit leading pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.” And that “Several grants are linked to companies that are represented on the Foundation’s board among its investments.”

The media rarely reports on these disturbing conflicts of interest, which isn’t surprising considering Gates funds all the major news outlets.

To call the negligent, wide-spread administration of covid-19 experimental vaccines an initiative steeped in eugenicist thinking would not be amiss considering how many figures and institutions involved in the vaccine race have ties to the eugenics movement. In fact, the developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine are also linked to the now renamed British Eugenics Society, founded by the father of Eugenics, Francis Galton. These connections are detailed by investigative journalist, Whitney Webb, in her article titled Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement.

When it comes to protecting public health, the recklessness displayed by politicians, scientists and pharmaceutical companies is unforgivable considering the widespread impact that these experimental vaccines will have. We have already begun to see the results of unleashing a dangerous gene therapy technology on a naive and trusting public, with VAERS, (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) showing more deaths linked with covid-19 vaccines than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years. [Blog Editor Emphasis]

None of this is surprising though, considering the haste with which clinical trials were conducted and the question marks surrounding the reliability of the data reported. For example, vaccine manufactures reported their vaccines were “95% effective”, a number they arrived at by using a relative risk reduction as opposed to an absolute risk reduction, which was around 1% in most cases, a fact never highlighted by the mainstream media.

Furthermore, vaccine trials were not designed to assess the vaccines’ effect on infection, transmission, hospitalizations or deaths, which is puzzling considering that, if there really was a viral pandemic, these would be the most important endpoints to test for. Though perhaps this was a calculated move by vaccine manufacturers, who knew they’d have a better chance at rigging the results using the endpoint of ‘covid-19 of any severity’. After all, the dramatic increase in the use of influenza vaccines has not been associated with a decrease in mortality.

Peter Doshi, an editor for the British Medical Journal, has called into question numerous aspects of the controversial vaccine trials, including the potential for pain medication to mask covid-19 symptoms in trial groups and the objectivity of “primary event adjudication committees” in charge of counting covid-19 cases. In the case of Pfizer, this committee consisted of Pfizer employees.

Recently, Doctors for Covid Ethics, a group consisting of Dr Michael Palmer MD, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi MD and Dr Stefan Hockertz PhD, published an expert statement relating to the danger and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine that was submitted as part of a lawsuit challenging the EU’s authorization of the use of the vaccine for children 12 years and older. The paper states that the reported efficacy of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “most likely altogether fraudulent” and that “Pfizer, the EMA, and the FDA have systematically neglected evidence from preclinical animal trials that clearly pointed to grave dangers of adverse events.” [Blog Editor Emphasis]

But of course, none of this is ever surfaced in the mainstream. Instead we are fed the same party lines over and over; “vaccines are safe and effective”, “follow the science”, “listen to the experts”. And by “experts” they of course mean the soulless, pharmaceutical sock puppets like Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases whose been spewing lies about so-called viral infections ever since AIDS broke out in 1984.

The fact that a character like Fauci has held his post for more than 30 years is rather telling of how the system works. The late Nobel prize winner and inventor of Polymerase  Chain Reaction (PCR), Karry Mullis, castigated Fauci in an interview, saying that:

“He doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you will know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in […] Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”

A TRANSHUMANIST FUTURE

Besides being gene therapies, a technology associated with eugenics and transhumanism, according to scientists, mRNA technology “allows rapid development of novel vaccines within a very short time span of weeks rather than months”. Hence, we may be faced with the possibility of a future filled with on-demand vaccines created to “protect” the public against new, invisible threats.

Indeed, with vaccinologists already talking about “variants”, booster shots and periodic covid-19 top-up vaccines, it certainly looks like things are headed that way. And of course, thanks to intelligence-linked Big Tech conglomerates, this data will all be recorded on a “vaccine passport” linked to your smart phone, which will no-doubt form the basis for a new type of digital identity pass tied to your bank account and, eventually, your social credit. [Blog Editor: Something already practiced by the CCP in Communist China.]

Indeed, in 2019, Bill Gates’ Microsoft filed a patent, aptly named Patent WO2020060606, for a “Cryptocurrency system using body-activation data”, another clue as to the true intentions of the technocratic elite who are funding and promoting the transhumanist agenda. The patent’s title alone conjures up images of a slave society in which humans are fitted with biosensors and awarded digital coins for completing tasks issued to them by the ruling elite.

But perhaps even more alarming is the rush to get gene therapies licensed for use in young children. Pfizer are currently in the midst of a global clinical trial, where they are testing their mRNA jabs in babies as young as 6 months, despite the fact that “Covid-19”, if we suppose there is such a disease, barely affects children.

In fact, according to CDC numbers, the IFR in children is 20 per 1,000,000, or 0.002%, which is likely lower than the risk of permanent injury or death from the MMR vaccine. It’s also lower than the covid-19 vaccine death rate as calculated using VAERS data at the time of writing (5,612 deaths over 165,000,000 fully vaccinated in the US = 0.003%).

Furthermore, research has linked Pfizer’s vaccine to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence rate of 1 in 3000 or 1 in 6000 in young men.

The rush to bring mRNA vaccines into the mainstream as part of the regular childhood vaccination schedule is not about health or protection, but rather a step towards a much more sinister goal, which is to attain control over the human body itself.

As mentioned previously in this article, DARPA, the research arm of the US Department of Defense, has been working to create nanotechnology that can interface with biological cells. In 2014, DARPA launched its “In Vivo Nanoplatforms (IVN)” program, with the aim of developing implantable nanoplatforms to collect biological data and provide “continuous physiologic monitoring”. The program has since helped to create injectable hydrogels that monitor physiologic responses and can sync to a smartphone.

Furthermore, DARPA, together with the NIH, heavily funds Profusa, a Google-backed biotech company developing and marketing this very same injectable hydrogel technology, only now it is being punted as a way to detect future “pandemics”.

Allegedly, Profusa’s sensors can “detect flu-like infections even before their symptoms begin to show”. While incredibly disturbing, this is only a step towards DARPA’s ultimate goal, which is to establish dominion over the mind. This goal is reflected in DARPA’s research  to create “mutant-powered soldiers” using “genetic weaponry” that can “undermine people’s minds and bodies using a range of chemical, neurological, genetic and behavioral techniques”.

DARPA is also looking at ways to genetically engineer the brain in order to read peoples thoughts and induce images and sounds in people’s minds. The research involves the use of “magnetic nanoparticles”, the same technology that some have speculated may be included in current or future covid-19 vaccines.

Equally distressing is the “Wellcome Leap”, a new initiative created by the eugenics-linked Wellcome Trust, the world’s richest medical research Foundation, in partnership with two former DARPA frontmen. The program’s official aim is to “Deliver breakthroughs in human health over 5 – 10 years and demonstrate seemingly impossible results on seemingly impossible timelines.”

Currently, the initiative has 5 main projects, the first of which is “RNA Readiness + Response”, which seeks to (emphasis added) “create a self-sustaining network of manufacturing facilities providing globally distributed, state-of-the-art surge capacity to meet future pandemic needs”, referring to the manufacturing of RNA-based products (mRNA gene therapies). Note the seeming surety of a future pandemic.

However, the top contender for most disturbing Wellcome Leap project is, without a doubt, “The First 1000 days” (1kD), a program which seeks to use infants as test subjects in order to monitor their brain development and create AI models that can be used to “accurately predict and improve EF [executive function] outcomes”. The project also notes the use of “mobile-sensors, wearables and home-based systems”. In a detailed article on the matter, researcher Whitney Webb writes that:

“True to the eugenicist ties of the Wellcome Trust (to be explored more in-depth in Part 2), Wellcome Leap’s 1DK notes that “of interest are improvements from underdeveloped EF to normative or from normative to well-developed EF across the population to deliver the broadest impact.” One of the goals of 1DK is thus not treating disease or addressing a “global health public challenge” but instead experimenting on the cognitive augmentation of children using means developed by AI algorithms and invasive surveillance-based technology.”

The Wellcome Leap’s timeline of 5-10 years happens to line up with elite frontman, Elon Musk’s Neuralink project, which seeks to establish “the future of brain interfaces” in order to “expand our abilities”. In an interview Musk said, “I think we are about 8 to 10 years away from this being usable by people with no disability”.

Musk, whose wealth increased by more than 500% during the covid-19 “pandemic”, founded Neuralink in 2016. The company recently raised $205m in funding from 7 venture capital firms (including Google’s GV) and 5 Silicon Valley executives.

However, Neuralink isn’t the only biotech company pursuing this technology. Recently, Synchron, a small biotech firm and Neuralink competitor, received the go-ahead from the FDA to begin testing its brain chip implants in humans.

10 years from now would take us to 2030, a year that comes up again and again as a year in which transhumanist technologies will be commonplace in mainstream society. According to predictions made by the US National Intelligence Council, “human augmentation” (the merging of man and machine) will be a major theme in 2030. Their Global Trends 2030 report, published in 2012, states that:

“Successful prosthetics probably will be directly integrated with the user’s body. Brain-machine interfaces could provide “superhuman” abilities, enhancing strength and speed, as well as providing functions not previously available.”

Interestingly, the report also predicts “an easily transmissible novel respiratory pathogen” that could cause a great disruptive impact. The report goes on to state that “Unlike other disruptive global events, such an outbreak would result in a global pandemic that directly causes suffering and death in every corner of the world, probably in less than six months.”

ENSLAVEMENT: A FREE WILL CHOICE

The roll out of mRNA gene therapies and the push towards a transhumanist society represents the continuation of the eugenics movement, which was based on the pseudoscientific concept that some humans, by virtue of their genetic composition, were more “fit” to lead society than others.

The “hero” of the Polio epidemic, Jonas Salk, had his own ties to eugenics and so does the institute named in his favour, the Salk Institute. Their mRNA research, funded by the NIH, set the foundation for the development and mass roll out of gene therapies, controversially being called “vaccines”. The danger of this experimental technology is evident, having already caused thousands of injuries and deaths worldwide.

The role of intelligence organizations, billionaire technocrats and pharmaceutical initiatives in funding, researching and promoting mRNA vaccines, “bio-brain” interfaces, gene editing and other technologies steeped in eugenicist ideals paints the picture of a global agenda set to hit its stride fully by 2030.

The current covid-19 “pandemic” has served as a means to accelerate this agenda by centralizing wealth and power, bringing transhumanist technology into the mainstream and normalizing authoritarian rule.

Pfizer’s infant trials and the Wellcome Leap’s alarming “1kD” project indicate that key to this agenda is the conditioning and control of children from a young age, something that Aldous Huxley detailed extensively in his disturbingly prophetic, eugenicist novel, Brave New World.

This agenda, though backed by some of the world’s most powerful individuals and institutions, has an obvious weakness – its success is reliant on our compliance. It will only advance if we allow it to advance. Therefore, it is up to each one of us, through compassionate, non-violent resistance, to sow the seeds of awakening in the collective consciousness of mankind. [Blog Editor Emphasis]

____________________________

Ryan Matters is a writer and free thinker from South Africa. After a life-changing period of illness, he began to question mainstream medicine, science and the true meaning of what it is to be alive. Some of his writings can be found at newbraveworld.org, you can also follow him on Twitter and Gab.

Copyright © 2021 OffGuardian

Beyond a Sad Day In America


Justin Smith addresses the immorality of various States passing abortion laws allowing the murder of full term babies. God have mercy on America.

 

JRH 2/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

Beyond a Sad Day In America

The Monstrous Abortion Laws 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/2/2019 8:00 PM

 

Deuteronomy 30:19 ~ I have set before you Life and Death and Cursing; therefore Choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

 

It is beyond a sad day in America, when we witness illegitimate “laws” and infanticide, that allow a full term baby capable of living outside the womb to be murdered on its way through the birth canal, if a woman so chooses for any reason. We’re witnessing a deliberative body of several state legislatures, swayed by radical, demonic abortionists in the Democratic Party, from New York to Virginia and Rhode Island to Vermont, among many others, make conscious, premeditated decisions to legalize murder, and, as a rule, they prefer to sign a baby’s death warrant rather than seek alternatives that protect both the unborn child and the woman, the mother to be.

 

The Democratic Party and its followers seem to have taken a page from the writings of Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger and the March 1st 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, that I noted on March 12th 2012 in ‘Choose Freedom … Choose Life’. Abortion has long been used to destroy family units to ensure government power and control, and today we are seeing Malthusian eugenics make a resurgence, along with the monstrous suggestion that a child, any child, does not have a moral right to life AFTER its birth.

 

Thankfully, Virginia’s infanticide bill failed, and in the course of events, a video of delegate Kathy Tran explaining  how her bill would allow abortion, as the expectant mother was in the middle of contractions, ignited fiery controversy. Tran later acknowledged that her law would have run afoul of existing anti-infanticide laws.

 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, further inflamed America with his comments days after New York Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act that allows late term abortion “at any time” to “protect a patient’s life or health”. The RHA also repealed protections for born babies that survive failed abortions, and other states, like Rhode Island are following suit and introducing bills that would repeal bans on partial-birth abortion.

 

Yes. Don’t let a little thing like the baby actually exiting the mother’s womb stop anyone from murdering it.

 

On January 30th, Governor Northam spoke with DC’s WTOP Radio, in reference to failed abortions. According to Northam, the baby is out of the womb, the umbilical cord cut, and lying on a table next to the woman’s bed, and after a discussion between the doctors and the woman, the baby could be killed in the same manner a full-term baby is killed in a partial birth abortion. The baby’s brains are sucked out through a vacuum until her head collapses, even though just moments earlier she was crying, instinctively longing to be held and fed.

 

Medical experts such as Dr. Omar Hamada recently stated, “There’s absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivery in the third trimester”.

 

It is a shame that the majority of abortionists don’t have the same epiphany as Dr. Anthony Levatino had years ago. His testimony on May 17th 2012, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) should be required reading for all high school youths. He spoke of the Sopher clamp with its ragged rows of jagged teeth made for clamping and crushing tissue and of the white fluid that leaves the woman’s cervix after the baby’s brain has been crushed — a procedure he had performed over 1200 times between 1981 and 1985. And then, he tells how his adopted daughter, Heather, was hit by a car and killed on June 23rd 1984, which prompted him to reject doing any more abortions.

 

Dr. Levatino, encouraged by a Catholic bishop, now tells everyone: “When you lose a child, life is different. Everything changes … the idea of a person’s life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore … it’s your child buried … I couldn’t even think about a D&E abortion anymore.”

 

Continuing his Congressional testimony, he gives one example of saving a woman’s life by “terminating her pregnancy” through a Cesarean section; mother and baby did well afterwards. And he ends his testimony noting: “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

 

Leftist abortionists can tout baby murder as in the interest of women’s health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. These new laws, like New York’s, allow non-physicians to perform abortions; they dismiss research that reveal the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions; they refuse to inform young women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These abortionists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of “choice”.

 

No question exists that a partially delivered baby is a human being, although some will argue that it’s not so cut and dried early on in the pregnancy. At forty weeks, there is absolutely no reason to prevent the UnBorn Child from claiming his or her God-given right to life, which supersedes the woman’s vacuous right to privacy.

 

The Leftist position is morally repugnant, and goes against the grain and most Americans’ belief in protecting innocent life. They believe baby murder to be perfectly acceptable in their defense of abortion rights, and even so, they try to pretend they hold the moral high ground. Surely a viable baby is innocent, too.

 

These latest laws are atrocious to human beings, and they are nothing short of eugenics, nothing less than infanticide manifested in evil human selfishness in the ugliest way imaginable, and a fundamental shift in America’s conscience. The red radical Democratic Party makes a big show of empathy for the weak and marginalized, and yet, few if any shed a tear for the slaughter of millions of UnBorn Children, the most vulnerable among us. And this is the most tragic and complete denigration of America’s founding spirit of righteousness.

 

Roe v Wade is only an activist ruling made by the Supreme Court. It is not “the law of the land” as many Leftists suggest, and it is certainly not settled “law”.

 

On the federal level, Americans must stop allowing any majority of activist Black Robes to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by finding “new rights” within the Constitution that require a flight of fancy to discover. Only Congress can actually make law, and Congress needs to restrain the Court to its proper role and ignore Roe v Wade and also move to make abortion illegal across the country, except, in the most rare of circumstances, when a young mother’s life is truly endangered by the pregnancy, and she already has small children.

 

“There are times which we attempt to compromise in order to bring two opposing sides together for the benefit of all concerned.

 

There are other times when we are presented with a clear and distinct watershed. The opposition has as its only purpose to impose their will on all without compromise, without apology, and without recourse to the opposed.

 

It is at these times we must be courageous, stand firm, and fight. That time is now!” ~ Francis Schaeffer / ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE


Facebook is using censorship to block the publicity of the Pro-Life movie exposing the nefarious behind the scenes lies and manipulation that was behind the Supreme Court making unborn baby-murder (abortion) on demand legal via Roe v. Wade in 1973. The flick is called ROE v. WADE the Movie.

 

VIDEO: ROE v. WADE The Movie INDIEGOGO CAMPAIGN

 

Posted by Roe v. Wade The Movie

Published on Jan 8, 2018

 

Indiegogo Campaign for “Roe v. Wade” Launches January 10, 2018.

[Blog Editor: You can donate to the cause with this link:] https://tinyurl.com/yaz6zehk

 

I’m running with the WND story on Facebook censorship, but should note that Breitbart claims Facebook is backing off on the censorship if “crowdfunding” for the movie. However, the Breitbart story shows how Facebook took crowdfunding page down, then restored the page and then took it down again. Ergo, as of this post, who knows how many times Facebook will remove and restore.

 

JRH 1/13/18

Please Support NCCR

****************

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE

Theatrical drama to tell ‘true story’ of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood

 

By ART MOORE

January 12, 2018

WND

 

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

 

A crowdfunding site for a theatrical drama in production that promises to tell the “true story” of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a “right” to abortion has been blocked by Facebook.

 

The movie’s producer, Nick Loeb, told WND the content of the pro-life movie, which exposes Planned Parenthood’s roots in the eugenics movement, clearly is the reason for the censorship.

 

Actor and producer Nick Loeb

“They have even blocked people sharing the ads I paid for,” Loeb said.

 

“This is stealing or fraud.”

 

Facebook has not responded to requests for an explanation.

Loeb told WND he and his colleagues are looking for a lawyer to take on the case.

 

Learn the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

The executive producer of the movie is Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and the head of the group Civil Rights for the Unborn.

 

The film features Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight as a Supreme Court justice.

 

On the film’s Indiegogo crowdfunding page, the makers describe it as “the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”

 

“Many documentaries have been made, but no one has had the courage to make an actual feature film, a theatrical movie about the true story.”

 

The producers, calling it the “most important pro-life movie in history,” say Hollywood “only wants you to hear their version of the story,” noting there are three movies in development that take a pro-abortion stance.

 

“But you shouldn’t be surprised. Hollywood has always had an agenda to influence Americans to accept abortion, even if they have to re-write history to do it.”

The movie opens with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, speaking about her “Negro project” initiative aimed at reducing the growth of African-American population in the United States.

 

It continues as abortionist Bernard Nathanson joins with famed feminist-activist Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood to recruit for a legal case “a broke girl with a 10th grade education named Norma McCorvey,” who became known as “Jane Roe.”

 

The opposition to the activists seeking to legalize abortion is led by the film’s protagonist, Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, who believed “that she became a doctor to protect life, not destroy it.”

 

Later, Nathanson, through the help of new sonogram technology, “realizes he is killing babies, confesses to all the lies and becomes a leading activist in the pro-life movement,” and McCorvey, realizing she had been manipulated, also joins the pro-life cause.

 

Internet freedom

 

WND reported last month censorship of Christian and conservative speech online by tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple is the target of an initiative called Internet Freedom Watch, launched by the National Religious Broadcasters.

 

The initiative has established a website, InternetFreedomWatch.org, to document cases, including Twitter’s removal of an ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., in October and Facebook’s removal of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s post supporting Chick-fil-A in 2012.

 

NRB, which has published a chart with more than 30 instances of Internet censorship, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner have endorsed the effort.

 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has accused Twitter and other tech companies of being disingenuous by arguing for a free and open Internet while they “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.”

 

NRB also wants Congress to hold hearings on the “severe problem of viewpoint censorship on the Internet.”

 

In a recent case noted by Internet Freedom Watch, PJ Media D.C. editor Bridget Johnson was suspended from Twitter with no warning or explanation.

 

WND reported in August that days after the launch of a book arguing fascism and Nazism are ideological spawns of the left, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and his promotion team were locked out of his Facebook page by hackers.

____________________

DONATE TO WND

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Palin uses Photo to Slap Reality into Leftists


John R. Houk

© July 29, 2015

Updated 7/29/15 5:55 PM

Sarah Palin has posted a simple photo on her Facebook page that has a powerful message for Democrats, Lefts, Baby-Killers and BLT activists. The photo has side-by-side a Confederate Flag and the logo of Planned Parenthood. The caption on the photo: “WHICH SYMBOL KILLED 90,000 Black Babies Last Year”.

The Confederate Flag deserves to be controversial. On one hand it is the vestige symbol of African-American slavery to White masters. On the other hand the Confederate Flag is a symbol of southern American culture that in all honesty was more than the horrors of man owning other men and women as property on par with livestock.

Here is an excerpt from an American southerner that ennobles Southern Culture in the Antebellum days:

We specify the Southern Gentleman and Southern Lady as opposed to the simple terms of “gentleman” or “lady”. There is a difference. The word “gentleman” is also used for the English tradition of the gentleman. That is largely determined by birth and the English nobility structure. The Southern Gentleman, on the other hand, has no formal connection to the family one was born into other than the fact that the characteristics of a Southern Gentleman are usually passed down from one generation to the next in families that value those characteristics. One can overcome the place and circumstances of his birth and be a Southern Gentleman by making the decision to follow that path. The “Southern” in Southern Gentleman also refers to the warmth and traditions of Southern culture.

… Like true nobility, being a Southern Gentleman is determined by actions – not by birth.

… (Southern Culture and Heritage; By Stephen McGehee; The Southern Agrarian)

Daniel Lawrence Slusser writes of the mythic sense of Southern honor and the sense of superiority of the Southern Gentlemen:

The Southern Code was not a written law, but an unspoken tradition that prescribed proper behavior and specific punishment for those who deviated from the “proper” course. It covered nearly every aspect of a Southern gentleman’s life, including: how a gentleman should speak to a woman, the proper relationship between a white man and his slave, the proper mode of dueling with other gentlemen, and the appropriate means of punishment for slander.9 Yet, the Code’s prescribed punishments were not meant to apply solely to the uncouth brigands in the North. In the Southern gentleman’s mind they were applicable to any dispute between men in the North or the South. …

The decades preceding the Civil War saw the emergence of a new type of gentleman known as the Southern cavalier. These cavaliers were a kind of puffed up Southern gentleman playboy that viewed himself as a valiant knight of royal white descent who claimed the right to demand reverence. …

… It was administered in a manner that was endorsed by the “Southern Code”; a code that existed for the purpose of defining and protecting honor. The fixation of the Southern gentry on this perceived need for honor motivated a violent response to the negative judgments cast by Northerners. Ultimately, this tendency to violent defense of honor helped to precipitate the Civil War and made the idea of entering into such a war more palatable to Southerners. It may have made some of them even relish it.31 Later, during the course of the Civil War, Southern General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson expressed this Southern morbid honor sentiment at Harpers Ferry: “What is life without honor? Degradation is worse than death.”32 (IN DEFENSE OF SOUTHERN HONOR: PRESTON BROOKS AND THE ATTACK ON CHARLES SUMNER; By Daniel Lawrence Slusser; Digital Commons; 2010)

AND YET this same Southern Culture was one of the last bastions of slavery in the Western World (Brazil being the last North/South American nation to abolish slavery in 1888). A culture that treated human beings as chattel to be worked to the whims of a slave owner’s benevolence or brutality. AND even if benevolence was the rule the rule of law enforced among the Southern Slave States were brutal and harsh as only a slave culture can be to exist. Here is an excerpt from Boundless.com that portrays the worst case scenario for Americans:

General Elements in Slave Treatment

 

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied widely depending on conditions, times and places. Treatment was generally characterized by brutality, degradation, and inhumanity. Whippings, executions, and rapes were commonplace. Exceptions, however, did exist to virtually every generalization, for instance, there were slaves who employed white workers, slave doctors who treated upper-class white patients, and slaves who rented-out their labor. These are not, however, the common rule.

Slaves were generally denied the opportunity to learn to read or write, in order to ensure that they did not form aspirations that could lead to escape or rebellion. Medical care to slaves was generally provided by other slaves or by slaveholders’ family members. Many slaves possessed medical skills needed to tend to each other, and used many folk remedies brought from Africa. After such well-known rebellions as that by Nat Turner, in 1831, some states prohibited slaves from holding religious gatherings, as slaveholders feared such meetings would facilitate communication and might lead to rebellion.

Sexual Abuses

Slavery in the United States included frequent rape and sexual abuse of slave women. Many slaves fought back against sexual attacks, and many died resisting. Others carried psychological and physical scars from the attacks. Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which READ ENTIRETY(Treatment of Slaves in the U.S.; Boundless.com; 7/21/15)

And here is a less pathological picture of slavery but still not a life a free person encompassed with Constitutional Rights:

It is a mistake to think that slave labor was mostly unskilled brutish work. Cultivation of cotton, tobacco, rice, and sugar requires careful, painstaking effort. On larger plantations, masters relied on slave carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, tanners, tailors, butchers, masons, coopers, cabinet makers, metal workers, and silversmiths. Large numbers also worked as boatmen, waiters, cooks, drivers, housemaids, spinners, and weavers.

During the 1850s, half a million slaves lived in southern towns and cities, where they worked in textile mills, iron works, tobacco factories, laundries, and shipyards. Other slaves labored as lumberjacks, as deckhands on riverboats, and in sawmills, gristmills, and quarries. Many slaves were engaged in construction of roads and railroads.

Most slave labor, however, was used in planting, cultivating, and harvesting cotton, hemp, rice, tobacco, or sugar cane. On a typical plantation, slaves worked ten or more hours a day, “from day clean to first dark,” six days a week, with only the Sabbath off. At planting or harvesting time, planters required slaves to stay in the fields 15 or 16 hours a day. When they were not raising a cash crop, slaves grew other crops, such as corn or potatoes; cared for livestock; and cleared fields, cut wood, repaired buildings and fences. On cotton, sugar, and tobacco plantations, slaves worked together in gangs under the supervision of a supervisor or a driver.

There is a tendency to think of slavery as an economically backward and inefficient institution. In fact, sugar and cotton plantations were the most innovative economic unit of their time in terms of labor management and organization. They anticipated the assembly line and the factory system in their reliance on such as close supervision and division of tasks.

Slave masters extracted labor from virtually the entire slave community, young, old, healthy, and physically impaired. Children as young as three or four were put to work, usually in special “trash gangs” weeding fields, carrying drinking water, picking up trash, and helping in the kitchen. Young children also fed chickens and livestock, gathered wood chips for fuel, and drove cows to pasture. Between the ages of seven and twelve, boys and girls were put to work in intensive field work. Older or physically handicapped slaves were put to work in cloth houses, spinning cotton, weaving cloth, and making clothes.

Because slaves had no direct incentive to work hard, slaveowners combined harsh penalties with positive incentives. Some masters denied passes to disobedient slaves. Others confined recalcitrant slaves to private jails. Chains and shackles were widely used to control runaways. Whipping was a key part of plantation discipline.

But physical pain was not enough to elicit hard work. Some masters gave slaves small garden plots and permitted them to sell their produce. Others distributed gifts of food or money at the end of the year. Still other planters awarded prizes, holidays, and yearend bonuses to particularly productive slaves. (Slave Labor; Digital History ID 3041; Digital History; © 2014 [Look at: The Origins and Nature of New World Slavery])

Thus the Confederate Flag is certain to inspire reactions that could lead to some human conflict.

Then enters Sarah Palin’s contrasting photo that should lead an intelligent person to comprehend that no matter the rights and wrongs of Antebellum society, the abortions voluntarily embarked upon simply as birth control has cost more human lives than African-Americans experienced as slaves than the human souls extinguished in the name of birth control. Palin pointed points out those murdered babies numbered 90,000 African-American babies in 2014 alone.

Forget all the arguments that abortions performed due rape, incest, birth defects or saving the life of the mother are necessary. I have some personal feelings on those issues; nonetheless the humongous amount of abortions occur as an activity of birth control after sex between a consenting male and a consenting female. There is no other way to define such abortion as the murder of a human soul that has not been born.

ALSO the feminist/Leftist argument that a woman has rights over her own body is completely ludicrous. A human soul inside a woman’s body is kept alive by the woman but is absolutely separate from her body. HENCE terminating an unborn baby inside a woman’s body is essentially murder. No matter how many times one tries to call an unborn baby a fetus as if it is the same as an

appendix, it simply is not true. That organ medicine calls a fetus is a human soul. Terminating the human soul is murder. Since SCOTUS legislated from the bench in Roe v. Wade forcing legalized abortion there have been “57,762,169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973”. Just so I know you read that number, since 1973 nearly FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION babies have been murdered by doctors primarily as birth control between consensual sexually active males and females.

The number one purveyor baby killing in the USA is Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was founded in 1942. It grew out of the American Birth Control League, which was established in 1923 by the radical social activist Margaret Sanger

Today, PPFA is the largest abortion provider in the United States, with some 850 clinics around the country (down from a peak of 938 in 1995). …

PPFA opposes any limitations on access to abortion, including the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and also opposes mandatory parental notification for minors wishing to undergo the procedure. Approximately one-third of PPFA’s clients are girls younger than 18 who live with one or both parents. Some 97 percent of these girls qualify for federal assistance to reimburse a provider of social services. This is because PPFA teaches its affiliates how to exploit federal “family planning” programs by qualifying as many clients as possible for federal subsidies of pregnancy tests, contraceptives, and abortions covered by Medicaid.

READ ENTIRETY (PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA (PPFA); Discover The Networks)

If you have listened to the news in the last week or so you are aware Planned Parenthood – America’s baby killing machine – has been caught callously talking about aborted murdered baby parts to sell for research:

A shocking video released by a pro-life activist group Tuesday shows a top Planned Parenthood executive on a hidden camera bragging about how the abortion provider’s doctors perform the procedure so skillfully that infant body parts can be salvaged for sale.

The video, shot by investigators for LifeNews, was shot in 2014. It wasn’t clear why it wasn’t released until now.

On it, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation senior director of medical services, is with actors who are posing as buyers interested in purchasing infant body parts. She literally brags about how she aborts babies in such a way that she can harvest their parts.

(Warning: Contents will disturb some viewers.)

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on July 14, 2015

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola said on the video. “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola added. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

According to the video, besides being repugnant, the practice is also illegal.

U.S. federal law states that, “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”

In one of the most disturbing parts of the video, Nucatola admitted she didn’t always know what the body parts were going to be used for.

“Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean that’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess they want muscle,” she said while casually eating a salad.

The Twitterverse was rife with users damning the abortion provider. (Planned Parenthood director caught on video proudly selling aborted baby body parts; By Carmine Sabia; BizPac Review; 7/14/15)

The Center for Medical Progress released this video further exposing the heinous actions of Planned Parenthood:

VIDEO: Human Capital – Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on Jul 28, 2015

Background track “Cylinder Four” by Chris Zabriskie () used under Attribution License (). CMP claims no ownership of this track.

Fetus animation adapted from Nils Tavernier, “L’odyssee de la vie” () under fair use. CMP claims no ownership of this artwork.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

#PPSellsBabyParts EX-CLINIC WORKER REVEALS PROFIT MOTIVE IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD BABY PARTS SALES, VP MEDICAL DIRECTOR PRICES BODY PARTS “PER ITEM”

“We Can See How Much We Can Get Out of It,” says Planned Parenthood Affiliate VP; Whistleblower Who Harvested Aborted Baby Parts Details Traumatic Job in Planned Parenthood Clinics in New Documentary Web Series

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

LOS ANGELES, July 28–The first episode in a new documentary web series features a woman who once worked in Planned Parenthood clinics describing the profit motive involved in Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, and includes new admissions from top-level Planned Parenthood leadership about the illicit pricing structure.

The “Human Capital” documentary web series is produced by The Center for Medical Progress and integrates expert interviews, eyewitness accounts, and real-life undercover interactions to tell the story of Planned Parenthood’s commercial exploitation of aborted fetal tissue. Episode 1, “Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts,” launches today at:

Episode 1 introduces Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.

For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress: “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”

Episode 1 also shows undercover video featuring the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Dr. Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San Diego, describes her affiliate’s long-time relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a middleman company that has been providing aborted fetal organs since 1989: “We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”

“Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts is an offensive and horrifying reality that is widespread enough for many people to be available to give first-person testimony about it,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for The Center for Medical Progress. “CMP’s investigative journalism work will continue to surface more compelling eyewitness accounts and primary source evidence of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking and selling baby parts for profit. There should be an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while Congress and the states determine the full extent of the organization’s lawbreaking.”

###

See the video at:

Tweet: #PPSellsBabyParts

For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.

The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.

Check out what the Center for Medical Progress did for the Planned Parenthood hacks and Leftists that are spinning these expose videos are edited propaganda taken out of context. They posted a full unedited version to demonstrate nothing was taken out of context:

VIDEO: FULL FOOTAGE: Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices – 1:13.37

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on July 21, 2015

EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:00 AM ET, 21 JULY 2015

#PPSellsBabyParts SECOND PLANNED PARENTHOOD SENIOR EXECUTIVE HAGGLES OVER BABY PARTS PRICES, CHANGES ABORTION METHODS

President of PPFA Medical Directors’ Council Mary Gatter Doesn’t Want to “Lowball” Price, Suggests “Less Crunchy” Technique, Says She Wants a Lamborghini

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?”

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out READ THE REST at Youtube post

Planned Parenthood is an organization that has a transformist agenda and ideology that I am certain brings a twinkle of glee to President Barack Hussein Obama. That transformist agenda/ideology was planted by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Here are some DTN excerpts that shows Sanger more as an Anti-American rather than a righteous women’s rights activist:

· Founder of Planned Parenthood

· Marxist

· Feminist

· Opened America’s first birth-control clinic in 1916

· Advocate of eugenics

Margaret Higgins Sanger was a radical feminist, eugenicist, Marxist, and the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

In 1912 Sanger and her family settled in New York City. She became a member of both the Women’s Committee and the Marxist Committee of the New York Socialist Party. “Our living-room,” she would write in her 1938 autobiography, “became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World members] could meet.”

After separating from her husband in 1913, Sanger began writing an eight-page monthly feminist-socialist newsletter called The Woman Rebel, which often promoted contraceptive use and sex education. Using the slogan “No Gods and No Masters,” The Woman Rebel was distributed through the mail, and once again Sanger came under fire for violation of the Comstock Law. In 1914 she was indicted on criminal charges but promptly fled to England.

Sanger’s reasons for advocating birth control stemmed, in part, from her views on race and heredity. She was a devoted eugenicist who advocated forced sterilization — of the poor and the mentally deficient, in particular, who she believed were likely to produce “subnormal” offspring — for the purpose of improving society’s overall gene pool. Examples of her ideas on selective breeding are found throughout her columns and newsletters. For instance, she wrote:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.”

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,” Sanger elaborated.

At a March 1925 international birth-control event in New York City, Sanger advocated — for the “salvation of American civilization” — the sterilization of those “unfit” to procreate. In addition, she condemned the “irresponsible and reckless” rates of procreation among those “whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She was referring specifically to Catholics who rejected the use of contraception. “There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people,” she added, “that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

In her quest to engineer a civilization devoid of “subnormal children,” Sanger often worked jointly with groups and individuals whose goals vis a vis eugenics overlapped with her own, even if their larger agendas differed from hers. In 1926, for instance, she presented a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. In September 1930 she invited Nazi anthropologist Eugen Fischer (whose ideas were cited by the Nazis to legitimize the extermination of Jews) to meet with her at her home.

Sanger’s commitment to eugenic “sexual science” dovetailed seamlessly with her Marxist vision. While she had been heartened by the success of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, she doubted that a revolution for a new communist order in the U.S. could be carried out by a proletariat class of limited intellectual capacity. … Sanger wrote in The Pivot of Civilization, “my purpose is not to depreciate the efforts of Socialists aiming to create a new society, … unless sexual science is incorporated … and the pivotal importance of birth control is recognized in any program of reconstruction, all efforts to create a new world and a new civilization are foredoomed to failure.”

… Sanger turned her attention specifically to the reproductive practices of black Americans. She selected former ABCL director Clarence J. Gamble (of the Procter and Gamble company) to become BCFA’s southern regional director. That November, Gamble drew up a memorandum titled “Suggestion for Negro Project,” whose ultimate aim was to decrease the black birth rate significantly. Anticipating that black leaders would be suspicious of anyone exhorting African Americans to have fewer children, Gamble suggested that BCFA place black leaders in high positions within the organization, so as to give the appearance that they were in charge of the group’s agendas. BCFA presented birth control as a vehicle for the upward economic mobility of blacks.

READ ENTIRETY (MARGARET SANGER; Determine The Networks)

Margaret Sanger was a Marxist-Nazi Admiring racist determined to bring a New World Order devoid of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights. So which issue is more heinous? A Confederate Flag representing a long gone culture or Planned Parenthood still nefariously killing babies for bucks.

JRH 7/28/15 (Hat Tip: Noisy Room)

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Sarah Palin’s rebel flag scores direct hit on Planned Parenthood

By Steve Berman

July 28, 2015

BizPac Review

 

Nothing makes heads explode on the left faster than flinging their own banned images in their face, and Sarah Palin has scored a direct hit.

Palin’s recent Facebook post featuring an image of the Confederate battle flag side by side with Planned Parenthood’s logo poses the question: “which symbol killed 90,000 black babies last year?”

The post has garnered over 120,000 “likes” since Sunday.

Since the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress released its first undercover video on July 14, which shows one of its executives, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, negotiating the price of aborted babies’ body parts with investigators posing as buyers, Palin has nearly exclusively devoted her Facebook page — with 4.4 million followers — to taking down the abortion provider.

Posts using the hashtag #defundplannedparenthood feature statistics such as CEO Cecile Richards is paid $1.50 for each abortion performed (her annual salary is $500,000), and that 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

As of Tuesday, Sunday’s post has generated over 5,000 comments, many of them personal attacks on the pro-life movement. When liberals post “Lol Sarah’s just salty because she is an aborted fetus all grown up” and “Sarah Palin is dumber than a ten pound sack of stupid,” it’s a good indication that a nerve has been struck.

Watching the left twist itself into pretzels defending the killing of unborn innocents while digging up the grave of long-dead Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest because of the rebel flag would be amusing it if were not so outrageously ghoulish — and painfully sad.

____________________________________________________

Palin uses Photo to Slap Reality into Leftists

John R. Houk

© July 29, 2015

____________________________________________________

Sarah Palin’s rebel flag scores direct hit on Planned Parenthood

 

Steve Berman

Steve is a serial entrepreneur who has been starting and running businesses for 25 years. Writing about conservative causes is his passion.

 

Copyright © 2015. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

Baby Killing and God Almighty


John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
 
 
Published by mendel7
Published on Published on Oct 3, 2012
 
Yurki1000 responded to a comment presented by a person who calls himself “That guy” who wrote quite a pejorative comment to a January 2014 post entitled “Be informed: What Girl Scouts USA does with their cookie ‘dough’”. The original post was about the Girl Scouts of America became supportive of the baby killing machine known as Planned Parenthood. One thing to keep in mind about Planned Parenthood is that it was founded by Margaret Sanger who was a promoter of Nazi-style eugenics. Sanger’s eugenics theories were utilized the belief that African Americans were an inferior race and that the physically and mentally handicapped could be eliminated by weeding out the gene from the populace via abortion (aka baby killing).
 
Before I proceed further I’ll share an edited version of “That guy’s” profanity laced Left Wing defense of Planned Parenthood:
 
You’re ridiculous [sic], making the scouts [i.e. the Girl Scouts] out to be little minions of satan killing babies with every small oz. of nougat and coconut goodness. If you boycotted every institution that did supposed “immoral” things you’d most likely be starving, homeless and without a country to live in. It is total douches like you helping create ignorance and further the lack of intelligence in people. I hope you didn’t have kids that will one day grow up to be as ignorant as yourself. [Sounds like a disciple of Margaret Sanger, right?]
 
Instead of pointing the finger at those “damn liberals and their baby killing ways, maybe try looking deeper into your closed minded DEMOCRATIC leaders (not just the right but also the left) who sign bills with no regard of which let your children ingest poison from Monsanto and give them immunity in any court of law within the USA [Like there is an equivalent comparison between baby killing and a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) like companies like Monsanto that modify plant food genetically with potential harmful side effects]. If your child gets liver cancer from a roundup [Roundup Ready] soaked [More on Roundup GMOs] tomato, you can’t do sh*t but put more money in their pockets with her medical bills.
 
I’ve said my piece. Pick your battles wisely you f**k*ng goof ball. [Comment from That guy; 4/2/15 12:21 AM; Text and Links enclosed by brackets by this Editor]
 
Adding genetically modified material to a plant hoping for a better food product is not the same as killing unborn babies to terminate the genetic line of humans that race-supremacists dream of to eliminate the perceived detriments to the human race. Even though the overall concept of GMO foods may have long health risks for all human health, the intention is to increase the food supply for the growing population. (The scary thing is if Leftist population control advocates begin using GMOs to actually phase certain humans much like Sanger thought she could do with murder.)
 
 
Published by WestPhillyGurl
Published on Jan 3, 2011
 
Here are some titles with embedded links so you can get a good picture of the racist/master-race eugenics of the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
 
·         GROSSU: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaireWashington Times 5/5/14
 
 
·         The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black America – (Part one of six part post) BlackGenocide.org © 2012
 
Now in setting up the nefarious nature of Planned Parenthood’s beginnings and matching that to the fact that PP’s nationwide baby-killing machines are responsible for the most murderous abortions in America. Yurki11000’s comment focuses on Roe v. Wade in 1973 opening the floodgates of legalized baby-killing as measured to the Biblical morality of the debacle initiated by America’s Left.
 
Yurki1000 excerpted a 2013 Denison Forum essay entitled “WHAT ABORTION HAS COST AMERICA’S FUTURE”. I encourage to read the entire relevant essay but here I am just utilizing Yurki1000’s comment excerpt.  Within the Jim Denison essay is a link to another Denison essay written in 2011. That very informative and yes, very lengthy, essay examines abortion from through the eyes of a Christian but in a fair way presents the Pro-Choice (idiots) view validating abortion. That is a good read to start, refer back to occasionally and learn. That essay is entitled “ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD”. I am cross posting Denison’s essay directly after Yurki1000’s excerpt comment.
 
JRH 4/7/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************
 
 Roe v Wade
Of course many businesses are bad. But still. God’s opinion counts.
 
 Thou Shalt Not Kill
 
 SCOTUS rules abortion legal
 
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
 
The year was 1971, and the date was December 13th. Roe v. Wade was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on January 22nd on 1973, 39 years ago, the Court ruled to protect a woman’s right to access an abortion. This week marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that struck down many state laws restricting abortion. Surprisingly, only 44 percent of Americans under age 30 know that Roe deals with abortion. Even more surprisingly, 53 percent of Americans think abortion “is not that important, compared to other issues.” Here’s why they’re wrong.
 
Since Roe, more than 55 million lives have been aborted. According to the Movement for a Better America, the resulting labor lost to our nation will cost our future GDP some $45 trillion. By comparison, our national debt stands at $16 trillion. Consider the impact on Social Security: each day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. At current trends, Social Security will be bankrupt in 21 years. One major reason: of the generation under 45 whose taxes support Social Security, a third was aborted.
 
______________________________
ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD
 
By Jim Denison
July 22, 2011 17:04
 
Every year, approximately 40,000 people die on American highways. Every ten days, that many abortions are performed in America. Doctors conduct 1.5 million abortions every year in the United States, more than the total of all America’s war dead across our history.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in January of 1973, more than 48 million abortions have been performed in America. This is a number larger than the combined populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Depending on the year, an abortion occurs for every three or four live births in our country.

Abortion is the moral issue of our time. It seems impossible to wrestle with the difficult issues of our day without addressing this crucial debate. Most conservative Christians believe that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore wrong. But are we sure? Is this a biblical fact? If the answer is clear, why have so many denominational leaders taken pro-choice positions? Is there a biblical, cohesive, practical position on this difficult subject?

I began this essay with the conviction that the pro-life position is most biblical. But I did not know much about the legal issues involved, or the theological arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion. As you will see, the debate is much more complex than either side’s rhetoric might indicate. But I believe that there is an ethical position which even our relativistic society might embrace.

Choosing sides

An “abortion” occurs when a “conceptus” is caused to die. To clarify vocabulary, “conceptus” is a general term for pre-born life growing in the mother’s womb. More specifically, doctors often speak of the union of a sperm and an ovum as a “zygote.” A growing zygote is an “embryo.” When the embryo reaches around seven weeks of age, it is called a “fetus.” However, “fetus” is usually used in the abortion debate to describe all pre-born life.

A “miscarriage” is a spontaneous, natural abortion. An “indirect abortion” occurs when actions taken to cure the mother’s illness cause the unintended death of the fetus. A “direct abortion” occurs when action is taken to cause the intended death of the fetus.

Why do so many people in America believe that a mother should have the right to choose direct abortion?

In 1973, the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, its landmark abortion ruling. In essence, the Court overturned state laws limiting a woman’s right to abortion. Its decision was largely based on the argument that the Constitution nowhere defines a fetus as a person, or protects the rights of the unborn.

Rather, the Court determined that an unborn baby possesses only “potential life” and is not yet a “human being” or “person.” It argued that every constitutional reference to “person” relates to those already born. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees protections and rights to individuals, but the Court ruled that the amendment does not include the unborn.

The Court further determined that a woman’s “right to privacy” extends to her ability to make her own choices regarding her health and body. Just as she has the right to choose to become pregnant, she has the right to end that pregnancy. The Court suggested several specific reasons why she might choose abortion: “specific and direct harm” may come to her; “maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future”; “psychological harm may be imminent”; “mental and physical health may be taxed by child care”; problems may occur associated with bearing unwanted children; and “the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood” should be considered.[1]Since 1973, four positions have been taken in the abortion debate:

 
·         There should be no right to an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. This has been the Catholic Church’s usual position.
 
·         Therapeutic abortions can be performed to save the mother’s life.
 
·         Extreme case abortions can be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or severe deformation of the fetus. Most pro-life advocates would accept therapeutic and extreme case abortions.
 
·         Abortion should be available to any woman who chooses it. This is the typical “pro-choice” position.
 
Moral arguments for abortion [2]
 
“Pro-choice” advocates make five basic claims: (1) no one can say when a fetus becomes a person, so the mother is the most appropriate person to make decisions regarding it; (2) abortion must be protected so a woman who is the victim of rape or incest does not have to bear a child resulting from such an attack; (3) no unwanted child should be brought into the world; (4) the state has no right to legislate personal morality; and (5) a woman must be permitted to make pregnancy decisions in light of her life circumstances. Many theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders consider these claims to be both biblical and moral.

First, “pro-choice” proponents argue that a fetus is not legally a “person.” They agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the Constitution nowhere grants legal standing to a pre-born life. Only 40 to 50 percent of fetuses survive to become persons in the full sense. A fetus belongs to the mother until it attains personhood, and is morally subject to any action she wishes to take with it.

Second, abortion must be protected as an alternative for women who are the victims of rape or incest. While this number is admittedly small in this country (approximately one percent of all abortions), it is growing in many countries around the world. As many as one in three women may become the victim of such an attack. They must be spared the further trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

Third, no unwanted children should be brought into the world. If a woman does not wish to bear a child, she clearly will not be an appropriate or effective mother if the child is born. Given the population explosion occurring in many countries of the world, abortion is a necessary option for women who do not want children. The woman is more closely involved with the fetus than any other individual, and is the best person to determine whether or not this child is wanted and will receive proper care.

Fourth, the state has no right to legislate our personal moral decisions. The government has no authority to restrict homosexuality, consensual sex, cigarette consumption, or other individual decisions which many people consider to be wrong. Since there is no constitutional standard for when life begins, decisions made regarding a fetus are likewise a matter for individual morality.

The state should impose legislation on moral questions only when this legislation expresses the clear moral consensus of the community, and when it prevents conduct which obviously threatens the public welfare. Nearly everyone condemns murder, for instance, and believes that it threatens us all. But Americans are divided on the morality of abortion. It is hard to see how aborting a fetus threatens the rest of the community.

And so abortion should not be subject to governmental control. It is better to allow a mother to make this decisions than to legislate it through governmental action. Many who personally consider abortion to be wrong are persuaded by this argument and thus support the “pro-choice” position.

Fifth, the rights and concerns of the mother must take precedence over those of the fetus. Even if we grant fetuses limited rights, they must not supersede the rights of mothers, as the latter are clearly persons under the Constitution. If we allow abortion to protect her physical life, we should do so to protect her emotional health or quality of life as well.

This was one of the Court’s most significant arguments, as it sought to protect the mother’s mental and physical health. Many “pro-choice” advocates are especially persuaded by this argument, and view the abortion debate within the context of a woman’s right to control her own life.

Moral arguments against abortion

“Pro-life” advocates counter each of these claims with their own ethical arguments. First, they assert that a fetus is a human life and should be granted the full protection of the law. The fetus carries its parents’ genetic code and is a distinct person. It does not yet possess self-consciousness, reasoning ability, or moral awareness (the usual descriptions of a “person”), but neither do newborns or young children. As this is the central issue of the debate, we’ll say more about it in a moment.

Second, most “pro-life” advocates are willing to permit abortion in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. Since such cases typically account for only one to four percent of abortions performed, limiting abortion to these conditions would prevent the vast majority of abortions occurring in America.

Third, “pro-life” advocates agree that all children should be wanted, so they argue strongly for adoption as an alternative to abortion. They also assert that an unwanted child would rather live than die. By “pro-choice” logic, it would be possible to argue for infanticide and all forms of euthanasia as well as abortion.

Fourth, “pro-life” supporters do not see abortion legislation as an intrusion into areas of private morality. Protecting the rights of the individual is the state’s first responsibility. No moral state can overlook murder, whatever the personal opinions of those who commit it. The state is especially obligated to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.

But what of the claim that legislation must always reflect the clear will of the majority and protect the public welfare? The collective will of the culture must never supersede what is right and wrong. For instance, marijuana is so popular that as many as 100 million Americans say they’ve tried it at least once. Nonetheless, we ban it because its harmful effects are clear to medical science. The effects of abortion on a fetus are obviously much more disastrous to the fetus. And just because society is unclear as to when life begins does not mean that the question is unknowable.

If more of the public understood the physical and ethical issues involved in abortion, the large majority would consider abortion to be a threat to public welfare. Abortion threatens the entire community in three ways: (1) it ends the lives of millions, on a level exceeding all wars and disasters combined; (2) it encourages sexual promiscuity; and (3) it permits women to make a choice which will plague many of them with guilt for years to come. And so abortion meets the standard for legislative relevance, and must be addressed and limited or abolished by the state.

Fifth, “pro-life” advocates want to encourage the health of both the mother and the child, and do not believe that we must choose between the two. As the rights of a mother are no more important than those of her newborn infant, so they are no more important than those of her pre-born child. The stress, guilt, and long-term mental anguish reported by many who abort their children must be considered. The legal right to abortion subjects a woman to pressure from her husband or sexual partner to end her pregnancy. Killing the fetus for the sake of the mother’s health is like remedying paranoia by killing all the imagined persecutors. For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates argue that a moral state must limit or prevent abortion.

When does life begin?

This is obviously the crucial question in the abortion debate. If life does not begin until the fetus is viable or the child is born, one can argue that the “right to life” does not extend to the pre-born and abortion should be considered both legal and moral. But if life begins at conception, there can be no moral justification for abortion, since this action kills an innocent person.

There are essentially three answers to our question. “Functionalism” states that the fetus is a “person” when it can act personally as a moral, intellectual, and spiritual agent. (Note that by this definition, some question whether a newborn infant would be considered a “person.”)

“Actualism” is the position that a fetus is a person if it possesses the potential for developing self-conscious, personal life. This definition would permit abortion when the fetus clearly does not possess the capacity for functional life.

“Essentialism” argues that the fetus is a person from conception, whatever its health or potential. It is an individual in the earliest stages of development, and deserves all the protections afforded to other persons by our society.

Our Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If an unborn child is considered a person, it possesses the “inalienable” right to life as well.

So, can we determine when life begins? Our answer depends on the definition of “life.” A “pro-choice” advocate recognizes that the fetus is alive in the sense that it is a biological entity. But so is every other part of a woman’s body. Some consider the fetus to be a “growth” and liken it to a tumor or other unwanted tissue. Biology alone is not enough to settle the issue.

What about capacity? Many ethicists define a “person” as someone able to respond to stimuli, interact with others, and make individual decisions. A fetus meets the first two standards from almost the moment of its conception, and clearly cannot fulfill the third only because it is enclosed in its mother’s body. Would a newborn baby fulfill these three conditions?

What about individuality? If we view a fetus as a “growth” within the mother’s body, it would be easier to sanction her choice to remove that growth if she wishes. But a fetus is distinct from its mother from the moment of its conception. It is alive–it reacts to stimuli, and can produce its own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity. It is human, completely distinguishable from all other living organisms, possessing all 46 human chromosomes, able to develop only into a human being. And it is complete–nothing new will be added except the growth and development of what exists from the moment of conception.

It is a scientific fact that every abortion performed in the United States is performed on a being so fully formed that its heart is beating and its brain activity can be measured on an EEG machine. At 12 weeks, the unborn baby is only about two inches long, yet every organ of the human body is clearly in place.

Theologian Karl Barth described the fetus well:

The embryo has its own autonomy, its own brain, its own nervous system, its own blood circulation. If its life is affected by that of the mother, it also affects hers. It can have its own illnesses in which the mother has no part. Conversely, it may be quite healthy even though the mother is seriously ill. It may die while the mother continues to live. It may also continue to live after its mother’s death, and be eventually saved by a timely operation on her dead body. In short, it is a human being in its own right.[3]And note that you did not come from a fetus–you were a fetus. A “fetus” is simply a human life in the womb. It becomes a “baby” outside the womb. But it is the same physical entity in either place.

For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates believe that the U. S. Supreme Court was wrong in deciding that a fetus is not a person entitled to the full protections of the law. Apart from spiritual or moral concerns, it is a simple fact of biology that the fetus possesses every attribute of human life we find in a newborn infant, with the exception of independent physical viability. Left unharmed, it will soon develop this capacity as well. If a life must be independently viable to be viewed as a person, a young child might well fail this standard, as would those of any age facing severe physical challenges.

 
The Bible and abortion

These statements are based on moral claims and legal arguments. They are intended to persuade society regardless of a person’s religious persuasion. But many in our culture also want to know what the Bible says on this crucial subject.

Silent on the issue?

“Abortion” appears nowhere in the Bible. No one in the Bible is ever described as having an abortion, encouraging one, or even dealing with one. The Bible says nothing which specifically addresses our subject. And so many have concluded that the issue is not a biblical concern but a private matter. They say that we should be silent where the Bible is silent.

“Pro-life” advocates counter that by this logic we should be silent regarding the “Trinity,” since the word never appears in Scripture. Or “marijuana” and “cocaine,” since they are not in a biblical concordance. However, these issues came after the biblical era, while abortion was common in the ancient world. So this argument doesn’t seem relevant.

If abortion is a biblical issue, why doesn’t the Bible address it specifically? The answer is simple: the Jewish people and first Christians needed no such guidance. It was an undeniable fact of their faith and culture that abortion was wrong. How do we know?

Consider early statements on the subject. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides are a book of Jewish wisdom written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50. They state that “a woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.”

The Sibylline Oracles are an ancient work of Jewish theology. They include among the wicked two groups: women who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” and sorcerers who dispense materials which cause abortions (2:339-42).

The Mishnah (“instruction”) was the written record of Jewish oral teachings transmitted since the time of Moses. These teachings were committed to writing around 200 B.C. In the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin we read: “We infer the death penalty for killing an embryo from the text, He who sheds the blood of a man within a man, his blood shall be shed; what is ‘a man within a man’? An embryo” (Sanhedrin 57b, quoting Genesis 9:6).

An abortion was permitted only to save the life of the mother:

If a woman was in hard travail [life-threatening labor], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the great part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life (Oholoth 7:6).

The Jews in the Old and New Testaments did not need to address the issue of abortion, since no one considered it a moral option. In a similar vein, I have never preached a sermon against cigarette smoking or plagiarism. The Bible does not specifically speak to these subjects, and they are legal within certain limits, but no one in our congregation would consider them to be moral or healthy choices.

When the Christian church moved out of its Jewish context, it encountered a culture which accepted the practice of abortion. And so, after the New Testament, Christians began speaking specifically to the subject.

For instance, the Didache (the earliest theological treatise after the Bible) states: “thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide.”[4] And the Epistle of Barnabas (early second century) adds, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own life. Thou shalt not procure abortion, thou shalt not commit infanticide.”[5] These books were widely read and accepted in the first centuries of the Christian church.

Important biblical passages

While the Bible does not use the word “abortion,” it contains a number of texts which relate directly to the beginning of life and the value of all persons. Let’s look briefly at the most pertinent passages.

Exodus 21:22

“Pro-choice” scholars usually begin the discussion with this statement in Exodus:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 21:22-25).

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus commented on this text:

He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given to the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.”[6] (Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:33).

But notice the translator’s note: “The law seems rather to mean, that if the infant be killed, though the mother escape, the offender must be put to death; and not only when the mother is killed, as Josephus understood it.”[7]And note this later statement by Josephus:

The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have done so, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind.[8]

If this text does indeed teach that a person causing a miscarriage is only to be fined, while one causing “harm” is to receive severe punishment, we would have an important indication that the fetus is not as valuable as its mother. Is this what the text clearly teaches?

The New Revised Standard renders the text, “so that there is a miscarriage.” The New American Standard follows suit, as does the New Jerusalem Bible. But the New International Version translates the text, “she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury.” The New Living Translation similarly states, “they hurt a pregnant woman so that her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results . . .” The English Standard Version renders the phrase, “so that her children come out, but there is no harm.” Why this crucial difference in translation?

The Hebrew phrase is literally rendered, “And they come forth children of her.” “Children” is the plural of yeled, the usual Hebrew word for child or offspring (the Hebrew language has no separate word for “fetus” or the pre-born). “Come forth” translates yatsa, a word which does not specify whether the child is alive or dead, only that it leaves the womb. And so the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22 does not indicate whether the woman suffered a miscarriage (NRSV, NASB, NJB) or experienced a premature healthy birth (NIV, NLT, ESV). But it does refer to the fetus as a “child.” And it is important to note that the text does not use shachol, the Hebrew word for “miscarriage” (this word is found in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14 among other occurrences).[9]Verse 23 settles the issue for me: “But if there is serious injury . . .” (NIV), implying that no serious injury occurred in verse 22. In other words, both the mother and her child survived the attack and were healthy. And so this passage does not devalue the pre-born life or speak specifically to the issue of abortion.

Genesis 2:7

The Bible describes man’s creation in this way:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up–for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground–then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Gen 2:4-7).

It seems that Adam did not become a “living being” until he could breathe. And so some believe that a fetus is not a “living being” until it can breathe outside the mother’s womb. Until this time it is not yet a person. President Bill Clinton explained his pro-choice position as based significantly on this logic. He said that his pastor, W. O. Vaught, former pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, told him that this was the literal meaning of the text.

There are three problems with this argument. First, Adam was an inanimate object until God breathed into him “the breath of life,” but we know conclusively that a fetus is animate from the moment of conception. Second, the fetus breathes in the womb, exchanging amniotic fluid for air after birth. Third, Adam in Genesis 2:7 was a potential life even before he became a human being. By any definition, a fetus is at the very least a potential human being. We’ll say more about this fact in a moment.

Psalm 139

One of David’s best-loved psalms contains this affirmation:

For it was you who formed my inward parts;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made

Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.
In your book were written

all the days that were formed for me,
when none of them as yet existed (Psalm 139:13-16).

David clearly believed that God created him in his mother’s womb and “beheld my unformed substance” before he was born. “Pro-life” theologians point to this declaration as proof that life is created by God and begins at conception.

Of course, those who do not accept the authority of Scripture will not be persuaded by this argument. And some who do believe that David’s statement is poetic symbolism rather than scientific description. He is simply stating that he is God’s creation, without speaking specifically to the status of a fetus.

Jeremiah 1:5

As part of God’s call to the prophet Jeremiah, the Lord issued this declaration: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God clearly formed Jeremiah in the womb and “knew” him even before that time. He “consecrated” or called him to special service even before he was born. God’s plan for Jeremiah began before his conception and his birth.

It’s hard for me to see how those who accept biblical authority could make a “pro-choice” response to this statement. I suppose they could claim that the verse is symbolic and spiritual, not scientific, that it is a metaphorical description of God’s eternal plan for Jeremiah. But the text seems to be specifically related to Jeremiah’s conception and gestation.

Luke 1:39-45

Luke’s gospel records the visit of the pregnant Mary to the pregnant Elizabeth:

In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Luke 1:39-45).

When Elizabeth said that “the child in my womb leaped for joy” (v. 44), she made clear the fact that her “fetus” was a fully-responding being. She used the word brephos, the Greek term for baby, embryo, fetus, newborn child, young child, or nursing child. It is the same word used to describe Jesus in the manger, where the shepherds “went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the manger” (Luke 2:16).

Paul used the word in reminding Timothy “how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). The Bible makes no linguistic distinction between the personhood of a human being, whether before or after its birth.

The rights of the innocent

The Bible consistently defends the rights of those who are innocent and undeserving of punishment or death. For instance:

 
·         “Do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty” (Exodus 23:7).
 
·         “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
 
·         The Babylonians attacked Jerusalem “for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to pardon” (2 Kings 24:3-4).
 
It is clear that God cares for the innocent and defenseless of the world. Children, whether before their birth or after, would be among his most valued creations.

The witness of Christian history

How has the Church viewed the issue of abortion across its history? Are “pro-choice” religious leaders in step with traditional Christian thinking on this subject? Or has the Church even spoken with a unified voice when addressing the question?

Early church fathers were clear in their opposition to abortion. Athenagoras (ca. AD 150), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian (ca. 155-225), St. Hippolytus (ca. 170-236), St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-79), St. Ambrose (ca. 339-97), St. John Chrysostom (ca. 340-407), and St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) all issued strong condemnations of this practice.

However, these theologians did not specifically say when the body receives a soul. This is the process called “animation” or “ensoulment” by early philosophers. Many in the ancient world followed the thinking of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) on the issue. He believed that “ensoulment” occurred 40 days after conception in males and 90 days in females, and taught that abortion prior to this time was not murder.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), arguably the greatest theological mind after Paul, can be quoted on both sides of the issue. As regards whether souls are given to bodies at conception, Augustine said, “He . . . who formed them, knows whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them after they had been formed. . . . I have no certain knowledge how it came into my body; for it was not I who gave it to myself.”[10] He was critical of a theologian who was too dogmatic on this issue, claiming, “how much better it is for him to share my hesitation about the soul’s origin.”[11] He did not believe that we can know when people “obtain their souls.”[12]

And yet Augustine was convinced that those who die in the womb will be resurrected with the rest of humanity and given perfect bodies in heaven. If they died, they must have lived; if they lived, they will be resurrected. Babies deformed at birth will be given perfect bodies in paradise as well.[13] It would seem that Augustine believed life to begin at conception, as the moment the fetus can die, it must have been alive.

Theologians, popes, and church councils in the centuries to follow would continue to debate this issue. St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) could speak of the “murder of an unborn child” (Letter 22:13), and yet he could state that abortion is not killing until the fetus acquires limbs and shape (Letter 121:4). Pope Innocent III (ca. 1161-1216) stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus when the woman feels the first movement of the fetus (the “quickening”). After such “ensoulment,” abortion is murder; previously it is a less serious sin, as it ends only potential human life.

Thomas Aquinas (1225?-74) condemned abortion for any and all reasons. However, he agreed with Aristotle’s conclusion that a male child was formed enough to be judged human at 40 days, a female at 80. Only when the fetus could be considered human could it have a soul.

On the other hand, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued a decree in 1886 which prohibited all procedures which directly kill the fetus, even to save the life of the mother. He also required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

To summarize, Christian leaders across church history have been uniform in their condemnation of abortion once the fetus was considered to be a “person.” Many in the ancient and medieval world were influenced by Aristotle’s beliefs regarding the time when this occurred. If they could know what we know about the fetus from its earliest stages of life, I believe they would revise their opinion and condemn abortion from the moment of conception. But it is impossible to know their position on information they did not possess.

 
What about rape and incest?
 
The Bible makes rape a capital offense:
 
If the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor (Deuteronomy. 22:25-26).

God’s word clearly condemns such a crime against women. “Pro-choice” advocates often point to this issue early in the debate, arguing that a woman should not continue to be victimized by bearing a child as the result of such a horrific crime.

Unprotected intercourse results in pregnancy about four percent of the time. If one in three women is likely to be raped in her lifetime, and incestuous relationships subject a woman to repeated sexual abuse, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are so likely that abortion must be legal as a remedy for women subjected to such crime.[14] Nearly all pro-life advocates concede the point, allowing for abortion in the case of rape and incest.

However, it has been established by numerous surveys over the years that rape and incest victims represent approximately one percent of the abortion cases recorded annually in this country. A decision to limit abortions to this exception would prevent the deaths of nearly all of the 1.5 million babies who are aborted each year. Only about three percent of the abortions performed each year in America relate to the health of the mother, and three percent relate to the health of the child. Ninety-three percent are elective.

To allow for abortion because of the very rare incidence of abortions performed because of rape and incest is something like suspending all marijuana laws because of the small number of patients who could benefit from its medicinal effects. We could stop the use of traffic lights because of the incidents when they slow a sick person’s rush to a hospital, but would we not cause more harm than we prevent?

At the same time, Americans must be conscious of the fact that rape and incest are far more common in some other countries and cultures. Rape in particular is a typical means of coercion and military control in some societies. There the percentage of abortions related to rape may be much higher than is the case in America.

This caveat stated, I’m not sure that even this decision is the moral choice. I must quickly admit that my status as an American, Anglo male makes it very difficult for me to commiserate with women who have experienced such trauma as rape and incest. But it is hard for me to understand how the child which is produced by this terrible crime does not deserve to live. Ethel Waters, the famous gospel singer, was the product of a rape. So was a student I taught at Southwestern Seminary, an evangelist with a global ministry today. I tread very lightly here, but would at the very least suggest that this issue is far from the primary cause of abortion in America today.

Conclusion: a way forward?

“Pro-life” advocates typically believe that life begins at conception, so that abortion is wrong. “Pro-choice” advocates typically belief that life begins when the fetus is viable independent of its mother or at birth, and that abortion should be a legal choice for the mother prior to that point. The framers of the Constitution did not address this issue. The Supreme Court in 1973 interpreted this silence to mean that constitutional rights to life do not extend to the pre-born. And yet the Bible speaks with a single voice in viewing the pre-born as the creation of God and as children deserving of protection and care. In light of these contradictory facts, is there a way to move forward?

Given that the participants in this debate come from a variety of religious and personal worldviews, it seems implausible to find common ground by beginning with biblical teachings or religious convictions. So I suggest the following non-religious, constitutional strategy.

First, we should build a consensus for permitting abortion to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. These account for a small percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year. Even though some (like me) question the morality of this position, most would concede the point in order to reduce the 93 percent of abortions which are elective in nature. Allowing for this exception removes the most obvious and emotional obstacle to the “pro-life” position.

Second, we should understand that the pre-born possess at least the potential for “life,” however it is defined. Many of us believe that a fetus is a human being by every definition of the term except independent viability, and note that the pre-born will attain this status unless harmed. But even those who disagree with this assertion will admit that every fetus is in the process of becoming a “person.”

Third, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates should work together to fulfill President Clinton’s desire that abortion be “rare.” Even the most ardent “pro-choice” supporters surely would support an agenda intended to decrease the number of abortions performed each year.

One way to achieve this goal would be for both sides to promote adoption as the best answer to an unwanted pregnancy. Both sides could also support abstinence and birth control education. Many “pro-life” advocates view birth control measures as promoting sexual promiscuity, but we may have to choose between sexual activity or unintended pregnancy and a resulting abortion.

Both sides could join forces in educating the public about the actual characteristics of the fetus. It has been proven that women are far less likely to choose abortion when they see a sonogram of their unborn child or learn about its present capacities. Adoption would then become a more likely option for the mother to choose. Leaders from both sides could be asked to adopt a united agenda aimed at decreasing the number of abortions performed each year in our country. If this strategy is successful, it may change the public’s opinion regarding the morality of abortion.

Fourth, whatever the “pro-choice” position decides to do to help limit abortions, “pro-life” advocates must do all we can to care for both the unborn child and its mother. We must care for the mother and the father of the child, and do all we can to help those who have chosen abortion in the past. We must work hard to advocate adoption and to provide life necessities for at-risk families. We must be “pro-life,” not just “pro-birth.”

It may be that these steps would eventually help to change the legal status of abortion. A constitutional amendment extending legal protection to the fetus would be more likely to pass if more Americans were taught to view the fetus as a life. Alternately, it would be more likely that the courts would recognize the rising consensus against abortion and rule in light of this conventional wisdom.

Conclusion: choosing life

Mother Teresa, writing to the U. S. Supreme Court as it was considering petitions related to the abortion issue, stated boldly:

Your opinion [in Roe v. Wade] stated that you did not need to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” That question is inescapable. If the right to life is an inherent and inalienable right, it must surely obtain wherever human life exists. No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency. It was a sad infidelity to America’s highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined, when the inalienable right to life began for a child in its mother’s womb.[15]

She has been widely quoted as stating, “It is a deep poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”[16]

I attended my first National Prayer Breakfast in 1995, where I heard remarkable speakers address the president and other national leaders. Those attending were still talking about the previous year’s keynote speaker. Mother Teresa, 83 years old in 1994, had said to the 3,000 in the audience, “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” Later in her speech she implored the gathering, “Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child.”[17] She received a standing ovation. After her speech, she approached President Clinton, pointed her finger at him, and said, “Stop killing babies.”

Would abortion be a moral choice when a family is very, very poor; they have 14 children, and another on the way? That child was John Wesley. What about a father who is ill and a mother with tuberculosis; their first child is blind, the second is deceased, the third is deaf, and the fourth has tuberculosis. Now she is pregnant again. Her son would be called Beethoven.

A white man rapes a 13-year-old black girl and she becomes pregnant. Her child is Ethel Waters. A teenage girl is pregnant, but her fiancée is not the father of the baby. Her baby is Jesus.

In a church I once pastored, a woman gave me her unsolicited testimony regarding an abortion she had chosen eleven years earlier. Here’s her story:

I cried tears of shame, tears of pain, tears of heartache. I cried for my sin so black I didn’t believe that there could ever be a way that I could make amends–ever be a way that I could atone for what I had done. That there could ever be a way that I could be clean again. For 11 years I cried for myself, because I couldn’t get away from what I had done.

But God blessed me. In the depths of my dark and lonely valley he was there. His grace and mercy are great–his love is so wonderful. He wooed me back to his side, saying to me, My child, my child, I love you. O my child I love you. Yes, I forgive you.

I am blessed. I know that I am forgiven. I have forgiven myself–God has headed me. But many are not so blessed–they never get to meet my Jesus; they never experience his love and forgiveness. For them, the crying goes on.

 
[NOTES]
 
[1] http://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe. [2] For more on the ethical arguments for and against abortion see Milton A. Gonsalves, Right & Reason: Ethics in theory and practice, 9th ed. (Columbus: Merrill Publishing Co., 1989).[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985 [1961]) 3.4.416.[4] The Didache, or teaching of the twelve apostles (Nashville: Christian Classics, 1980) 2:2, p. 27.[5] The Epistle of Barnabas 19:5, in Christian Classics p. 118.[6] Josephus: Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978) 4:3:33, p. 100.[7] Ibid., 100.[8] Josephus, Against Apion 2:25, p. 632.[9] For further discussion of this linguistic issue see Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,´inReadings in Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 32-5.[10] Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed, Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1991) 1:25; vol. 5, p. 325.[11] Ibid., 1:17; p. 322.[12] Ibid., 4:5, p. 356.[13] Augustine, Enchiridion 85; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 3:265.[14] Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Reproductive Choice: Basic to Justice for Women,” in Readings n Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 2:27.[15] Mother Teresa, “Recalling America,” in First Things May 1994, 9.[16] Illustration Digest Nov-Dec-Jan 1993/4, 15.[17] Mother Teresa, “Whatsoever you do,” speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994; http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html
____________________________
Baby Killing and God Almighty
John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
_________________________
ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD
 
© 2009-2015 Copyright, Denison Forum. All rights reserved.
 

Tony Newbill Emails Beginning 4-7-14


BHO Economic Motivational Note

These Newbill emails begin on April 7 and culminate on May 13. This series of emails are more up to date than yesterday’s Newbill emails. The themes range from USA, Russia and China duking it out over global influence particularly the future of the U.S. Dollar. There is speculation of Global Warming reversal due to the potential effects of nuclear war on Climate Change. The emails explore the conspiracy of the imposition of an unconstitutional world tax. They look at a cancer cure cover-up because there is no profitability. There is the subject of eugenics in population control which includes the nefarious support of Leftists supporting baby murder (aka abortion).

 

JRH 5/14/14

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Russia, China leading efforts to bypass U.S. as IMF reforms stall on Capitol Hill

Sent: 4/7/2014 8:53 AM

 

We are well on our way to seeing a collapse of our Economic and Financial Independence at the hands of these KINGS in Washington , and the transformation of the 50 Star flag into a ONE STAR FLAG!!!!!

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/6/russia-china-leading-efforts-to-bypass-us-as-imf-r/?page=2#ixzz2y9qOg9pb

 

Russia challenged U.S. power at the IMF well before Moscow’s annexation of Crimea last month, a move that raised diplomatic tensions and prompted the leading Western powers to impose economic sanctions on Russia.

 

China has used more cautious diplomacy, even as it explores alternative financial aid mechanisms that eventually could make the IMF obsolete. China’s extensive loans and assistance to other developing countries already dwarf the aid provided by the World Bank and the IMF.

 

Even nations with historically friendly ties to the U.S. are losing patience. India’s finance minister recently noted that the congressional impasse reflects badly not only on Washington but also on the whole economic order set up by the U.S. and its Western allies after World War II.

 

“This is perhaps the first visible failure of the G-20. This has reduced the credibility of the G-20,” India’s economic affairs secretary, Arvind Mayaram, told reporters at the G-20 meeting in Sydney. Implementation of the 2010 reforms is “vital for the credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness of the IMF,” he said.

 

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde continues to insist that there is little she can do without U.S. approval. Analysts point out that European countries, which continue to dominate the IMF’s board of directors and stand to lose the most clout under the reforms, have been happy to let the U.S. block the legislation even while publicly deploring the congressional delays. While American voting power would be mostly undiluted under the reforms, the greater power given to emerging countries would come largely at the expense of smaller European countries that would lose voting shares. (Russia, China leading efforts to bypass U.S. as IMF reforms stall on Capitol Hill; By  Patrice Hill; Washington Times; 4/6/14)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The New World Order will not be with the USA leading the way… 

Sent: Mon 4/7/2014 8:53 AM

 

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-emerging-dynamics-of-petro-yuan-standard.aspx?article=5353541706H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Jim+Willie+CB

 

The shocks will be many as the US Dollar struggles and falls off the global financial stage in full view. The desperate maneuvers like in Syria and Ukraine should be seen as last ditch efforts to save a dying system. For two decades the US Dollar has been defended by military means. Worse, for 50 years the US Govt has been a hidden nazi enclave of wicked fascists who have hidden behind their overt disdain for communism, with Kissinger the flag bearer, with Brzezinski the ideologue, with Papa Bush the executor, with narcotics and genetics and gold thefts their principal agenda. The official US support of fascist regimes includes a list of nations as long as your arm. Since 2008 when the Lehman kill was executed in order to rescue Goldman Sachs, when Fannie Mae was hidden under the US Govt roof to prevent its $trillion fraud from being exposed, and when AIG was tucked in the US Fed basement closet for ample monetized rescues to patch the derivative black holes, the Anglo-American banking system has indeed been going through trials and tribulations, leading to its death throes. The climax of the banking system death process is upon us finally, the fibrillations of sudden illiquidity against the backdrop of relentless unforgiving insolvency so evident to those with eyes that function. Never before has the US Govt been so plain in its fascist ways, with abuses on domestic soil and installed nazi regimes on foreign soil. They kill economies systematically. They wage war relentlessly, using it as a business initiative. They control bank movements obsessively. They monitor human movement compulsively. In Kiev were seen the swastikas on armbands. The name Neo-Con is derived as a more palatable version of Neo-Nazi. The game is over for their captured gutted violated US Dollar kingdom in a veritable killing field of nations.

 

The entire world must create a more workable system, an equitable system. The banking structures and trading systems require it. No longer can the Anglo-American free credit card be tolerated. No longer can the READ THE REST (Emerging Dynamics of Petro-Yuan Standard; By Jim Willie CBHat Trick Letter; 24hGold.com; 4/4/14)

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How Crazy have the ECO Environmentalists become?

Sent: 4/8/2014 10:06 AM

 

http://www.peakresources.org/peak-resources-blog/hypothetical-nuclear-war-reduce-global-warming

 

Peak Resources brings you an overview of the NASA model for climate change if nuclear war were to break out. For most of us, the thought of nuclear war sounds incredibly wrong, there could very well be a positive side. In the face of runaway global warming, nuclear war could actually reverse the process.

 

One of the great fears of the war of words that existed between the United States and the USSR was plunged into a nuclear winter that would occur if words failed. The conflict, had it escalated would likely have emptied the arsenals of nuclear bombs on both sides of the pond. The result of those nuclear explosions would have sent plumes of dust into the atmosphere, created infernos in cities and forests, which would have added ash and smoke to the environment.

 

Geologists estimate that the asteroid that struck the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula, which caused Chixulub crater to form would have had the impact of 150 Hiroshima bombs. This is the same asteroid that likely finished off the dinosaurs. The impact of that meteor created much of the same type of events that nuclear weapons can create today.

 

Nuclear war today

 

Even in today’s world, the threat from nuclear weapons and nuclear war are real.

 

During the cold war, only a handful of countries had nuclear capabilities. Today, the list of nations with nuclear weapons is much longer, and the players are not as easily controlled. NASA modeled the events of nuclear war to see what the effects would be.

 

The outcome was very similar to the events described above. On earth, the effects would be long term famine, months and years without adequate sunlight, and disease. In today’s climate, global warming is occurring along a predictable level, but a nuclear war would cause temperatures on earth to decrease dramatically over the ten years following such a disaster.

 

Where does this information lead us

 

The model created by NASA has been verified through independent analysis three times. The results of each analysis support the conclusion of the READ THE REST (Hypothetical Nuclear War Could Reduce Global Warming; Peak Resources Blog; 4/7/14)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

A new world trade currency is about to be born

Sent: 4/9/2014 10:16 AM

 

The Currency collapse of the dollar as world trade currency will hyper-inflation existing supply in the states and as planned bring on the crisis that nationalization of the free markets to stabilize prices is what will be the reason and martial law to oppress the opposition.

 
Notice in this first link that the White House already has a plan for reindustrialization of the USA that fits into the Green movement.

The New Industrialization of America

http://philosophyofmetrics.com/2014/04/09/the-new-industrialization-of-america/

 

The realization is finally beginning to dawn on many that the dollar may not have much time left as the world’s primary reserve currency.  The G20 deadline for the US to pass the IMF 2010 Reforms is quickly approaching as both NATO and Russia exchange equal threats over the Ukraine.

 

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry is warning that Russia could invade the eastern region of the country at any time.  Pro-Russian protestors are taking control of government buildings and the world watches as one major component of the problem/reaction/solution process unfolds before our eyes.

 

When it comes to the IMF Governance and Quota Reforms, the United States is the odd man out.  With even Britain now calling on America to pass the reforms, the world can only shrug at the wanton and contrived, and most likely scripted, reluctance of Congress to pass supporting legislation to the reforms.

 

The average American, for his or her part, is completely ignorant of what is taking place.  If they do happen to hear about the READ THE REST (THE NEW INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AMERICA; By JC Collins; Philosophy of Metrics; 4/9/14)

 

The Death of Money with Jim Rickards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2ZceSeGK3s

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Data published by the New York Stock Exchange at the end of March…

Sent: 4/9/2014 4:18 PM

 

Data published by the New York Stock Exchange at the end of March shows margin debt – at an all-time high!!!!!

 

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/fears-of-market-collapse-amid-record-margin-debt/#FqCZWi7HXGRMBAVA.99

 

NEW YORK – Borrowing money from stock brokers to buy stocks has now hit an all-time high, triggering fears of a downward market adjustment and a collapse of the brokerage-made loan market investors typically use to fuel continued bull market growth.

Data published by the New York Stock Exchange at the end of March shows margin debt – the loans made by stock brokers to permit investor clients to buy stocks on credit – has reached a record high of $466 billion, approaching for the first time a half-trillion dollars.

 

Analysis of NYSE margin debt shows previous peaks have foreshadowed severe market corrections.

 

It happened in the summer of 2000 just before the dot.com stock market crash and in the summer of 2007, preceding the bursting of the housing bubble that caused the dramatic economic downturn that began in 2008.

 

Stock market technical analysts have recently drawn attention to the rising level of margin debt. They note that when, as now, the margin debt drops below its 12-month moving average a strong signal is being given to investors to get out of the stock market because “investors are using less of the rocket fuel (i.e., margin debt) needed to keep stock prices artificially high.”

 

The fundamental problem with using margin debt to buy stocks on credit is READ THE REST (Fears of market collapse amid record margin debt: Money borrowed to buy stocks nears half-trillion; By Jerome R. Corsi; WND; 4/8/14 8:43 PM)

+++++++++++++++++++++++

A New World Tax Regime

Sent: 4/10/2014 12:11 AM

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/17987-a-new-world-tax-regime

 

To anyone who even casually monitors international agencies — such as the UN, the OECD, and the IMF — it will come as no surprise that those agencies have long wanted stable sources of funding that they could count on, rather than relying on handouts from governments around the world. But it would likely come as a surprise to most that we will likely see the initial operation of a world tax regime to fund international entities by 2015.

 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — a 34-member (presently) international economic organization that works to influence world financial operations — openly announced plans to advance the longtime socialist-backed dream of a planetary taxation regime. The plans call for legitimate governments and dictatorships worldwide to share all private financial data on citizens. It is all openly inspired by, and modeled on, Obama’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) aimed at coercing banks and governments around the world into reporting all accounts and assets held by “U.S. persons” to the IRS. (Click here to see related FATCA article.)  And that, experts say, in conjunction with other related machinations, such as an emerging plan to force businesses to pay equally high corporate taxes in all jurisdictions of the world rather than setting up shop in lower-tax nations, will lay the foundation upon which to build a “World Tax Organization.”

 

In mid-February, in fact, the OECD officially unveiled its plan informally called GATCA (Global Account Tax Compliance Act) by analysts. Calling its ploy to put the final nail in the coffin for financial privacy “game changing,” the tax-funded OECD said it would require governments to collect massive amounts of sensitive personal information on individuals from banks and other financial institutions in their jurisdictions. “The reality will be that for the automatic exchange of information rules should cover what kind of information is to be exchanged, how often, who should collect the information, to whom it should be sent, and in what format,” claimed Pascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, speaking as if the plot were already a done deal.

 

Once gathered, the vast troves of private data would be automatically exchanged between all participating governments and dictatorships. “You collect the data, you put it in the pipe and it goes to the other party,” said Saint-Amans, who, as could probably be expected, pays no taxes on his bloated tax-funded salary.

 

Autocrats “R” Us

 

Over 40 governments, which the Paris-based OECD misleadingly refers to as “countries,” have already committed to the controversial scheme. In a “joint statement,” participating governments celebrated the planetary plot, implying READ THE REST (A New World Tax Regime; By Alex Newman; The New American; 4/8/14 11:30)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What a bunch a bull, Yeah this market is rigged

Sent: 4/24/2014 9:54 AM

 

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35232/Reuters-Analysis-Printing-Money-Is-More-Important-Than-Ever-for-Yellen/

 

Yellen shows her hand … Yellen said this week that she is more worried that a shock to the economy might lead to deflation — a debilitating spiral downward in prices and demand — than rampant inflation. Those who cling to old certainties about the economic notions that dominated policy between the 1980s and late 2008 find themselves today tilting at windmills such as the likelihood of a return to high inflation. – Reuters

 

Dominant Social Theme: Just print, baby.

 

Free-Market Analysis: This Reuters editorial presents the reality of Yellen’s upcoming Fed regime. Peter Schiff and others – including The Daily Bell – were correct.

 

There is not going to be any radical tightening at the Fed.

 

Supposedly, Yellen was going to cease quantitative easing. But QE is simply a strategy and whether or not it continues does not necessarily have an effect on the larger money-printing environment.

 

This article tells us what is probably the truth about the Fed regime: People misinterpreted Yellen’s initial remarks on the subject. Just because she is departing from Ben Bernanke’s goal-based employment doesn’t mean Yellen is departing from the idea of printing currency to create jobs.

 

___ ___ ___ ___ ___

The idea of keeping interest rates artificially low while finding ways to inject increased currency into the economy is a purely Keynesian approach to prosperity.

 

When recessions are shallow, additional amounts of currency in large doses can have an economic influence. But today’s Great Recession is READ THE REST (Reuters Analysis: Printing Money Is More Important Than Ever for Yellen; By Staff Report; The Daily Bell; 4/22/14)

 

***************************

Lies, Lies and More Lies

Sent: 5/12/2014 9:35 AM

 

Oh the Irony of it all!!!!!!!!!  Look how the Eugenicists try and SPIN this Truth about Cancer cures!!!!!!!!   

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

 

DCA Cancer Cure

 

Claim:   Researchers have found a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

 

MIXTURE

 

Example:   [Collected via e-mail, May 2011]

 

Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

 

 

Origins: In 2007, medical researchers at the University of Alberta reported that dichloroacetate (DCA), a relatively simple compound, had showed promise for treating cancer in rodent models, and the university’s DCA Research Team announced they would begin clinical trials of DCA on human patients in the spring of 2007. One of the members of that research team, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, expressed concern that because DCA was not patented, the potential profit margins in marketing it would likely be small, and thus it might be difficult to obtain funding for DCA clinical trials from private investors:

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this preliminary information soon led to hyperbolic claims that a “simple cure for cancer” had been found but a lack of interest on the part of pharmaceutical companies was preventing it from reaching cancer patients, prompting some desperate cancer sufferers to seek it out for themselves from unscrupulous vendors:

 

 

Despite investigators’ concerns about potential difficulties in obtaining funding, DCA studies have been undertaken, and in 2010 the substance was in the news again after researchers published a paper reporting their results with testing DCA on glioblastoma tumors:

 

 

 

 

As Dr. J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the national office of the American Cancer Society, wrote of that last study in 2010, DCA studies appear to be worth pursuing, but the substance is still far from being proved an effective treatment for any type of cancer, much less a cancer “cure”:

 

How would I characterize this report?

Simply stated, the science is intriguing and I believe is something to be pursued both in the lab and in the clinic. BUT, and this is a big but, it is not a cure for glioblastoma or any other cancer based on these results.

My concern is that this paper is READ THE REST (DCA Cancer Cure; By Snopes.com; Last Updated – 3/20/12, Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014; Editor: Apparently Snopes is a stickler about copyright – They require permission)

 

Let’s consider that we are growing an economic sector that Promotes DEATH for PROFIT and that Obamacare is now in place to even go one step further and limit that industries growth at end of life!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/18/big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure/

 

On April 12, 1955, the first successful polio vaccine was administered to almost 2 million schoolchildren around the country. Its discoverer, University of Pittsburgh medical researcher Jonas Salk, was interviewed on CBS Radio that evening.

 

“Who owns the patent on this vaccine?” radio host Edward R. Murrow asked him.

 

 

“Well, the people, I would say,” Salk famously replied. “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

 

In a world where the cancer drug Avastin — patented by the pharmaceutical company Genentech/Roche — costs patients about $80,000 per year without having been proven to extend lives, Salk’s selflessness has made him the hero of many medical researchers today.

 

One of Salk’s admirers is Evangelos Michelakis, a cancer researcher at the University of Alberta who, three years ago, discovered that a common, nontoxic chemical known as DCA, short for dichloroacetate, seems to inhibit the growth of cancerous tumors in mice. Michelakis’ initial findings garnered much fanfare at the time and have recirculated on the Web again this week, in large part because of a blog post (“Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice”) that ignited fresh debate with people wondering if it was true.

 

 

Following the animal trials, Michelakis and his colleagues did tests of DCA on human cancer cells in a Petri dish, then conducted human clinical trials using $1.5 million in privately raised funds. His encouraging results — DCA treatment appeared to extend the lives of four of the five study participants — were published last year in Science Translational Medicine.

 

 

Like Jonas Salk, Michelakis hasn’t patented his discovery. It’s not because he doesn’t want to, but because he can’t. When it comes to patents, DCA really is like the sun: It’s a cheap, widely used chemical that no one can own.

 

In today’s world, such drugs don’t readily attract funding.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are not exactly ignoring DCA, and they definitely aren’t suppressing DCA research — it’s just that they’re not helping it. Why? Drug development is ultimately a business, and investing in the drug simply isn’t a good business move. “Big Pharma has no interest whatsoever in investing [in DCA research] because there will be no profit,” Michelakis told Life’s Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience.

 

 

“Profit is the incentive for the risk that the company takes,” Ogbru wrote. “Without the promise of a reasonable profit, there is very little incentive for any company to develop new drugs.”

 

It would be nearly impossible to make a profit on a drug like dichloroacetate. “If DCA proves to be effective, then it will be a ridiculously cheap drug,” Michelakis said.

 

Daniel Chang, an oncologist at the Stanford Cancer Center who recently began looking into DCA, concurred. “I’m sure the lack of patentability is playing a role in the lack of investigation,” Chang told us in an email.

 

While government health organizations like the National Cancer Institute give research grants to help fund clinical trials, “those would never be enough to get DCA approved as a cancer treatment,” said Akban Kahn, a Toronto doctor. “You need hundreds of millions of dollars, and a government grant is not that big.”

 

 

“We are seeing about 60 to 70 percent of patients who have failed standard treatments respond favorably to DCA,” Khan told Life’s Little Mysteries. Khan’s group just published its first peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Palliative Medicine. “It’s a case report of a patient with a rare form of cancer who had tried other treatments that weren’t working, so he came to us for DCA.

 

 

Perhaps not entirely new. For inspiration and encouragement, Michelakis often recalls the story of the polio vaccine: “It succeeded in eradicating a deadly disease without making a profit.”

[Fox News] Editor’s Note: This story and headline were updated May 18 to remove any impression that Big Pharma is to blame for the lack of research into DCA. In fact, as READ ENTIRETY (Is Big Pharma Ignoring a Potential Cancer Cure? Fox News; 5/11/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We need to Separate the Money from the Policy makers that want to control Population Growth!!!! Watch this Video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7nR68cjXq0

 

[Then] read this Natural News article and prepare to become Pissed off!!!! 

 

The Ultimate Conspiracy: Eugenics and population control (opinion)

 

By Hesh Goldstein

May 15, 2012
NaturalNews – http://www.naturalnews.com/035896_eugenics_population_control_babies.html#ixzz31VhFAZVv

 

 

(NaturalNews) On March 20, 1969, Dr. Richard Day, the National Medical Director of the Rockefeller-sponsored “Planned Parenthood” program and Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, spoke before a group of students and health professionals at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society.

Although Day was aware of the “Secret Agenda” within organized medicine to cull the world’s population, he was now free to speak because the closely guarded “Closed Conspiracy” was now an “Open Conspiracy” stating that “…everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.”

Bear in mind that besides the Rockefeller Foundation, other proponents of this “conspiracy” are Bill Gates, Barack Obama and probably Monsanto.

Dr. Day’s topics of discussion were as follows:

“Population control; permission to have babies; redirecting the purpose of sex – sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex; contraception universally available to all; sex education and canalizing of youth as a tool of world government; tax funded abortion as population control; encouraging homosexuality; technology used for reproduction without sex; families to diminish in importance; euthanasia and the “demise pill”; limiting access to affordable medical care makes eliminating elderly easier; medicine would be tightly controlled; elimination of private doctors; new difficult to diagnose and untreatable diseases; suppressing cancer cures as a means of population control; inducing heart attacks as a form of assassination; education as a tool for accelerating the onset of puberty and evolution; blending all religions into one and eliminating the old religions; changing the bible through revisions of key words; restructuring education as a tool of indoctrination; more time in schools, but pupils “wouldn’t learn anything”; controlling who has access to information; schools as the hub of the community; having books disappear from the libraries; changing laws to promote moral and social chaos; the encouragement of drug abuse to create a jungle atmosphere in cities and towns; promote alcohol abuse; restrictions on travel; the need for more jails and using hospitals as jails; no more psychological or physical security; rime used to manage society; curtailment of US industrial pre-eminence; shifting populations and economies – tearing out the social roots; sports as a tool of social engineering and change; sex and violence inculcated through entertainment; travel restrictions and implanted I.D. cards; know how people respond – making them do what you want; falsified scientific research; use of terrorism; surveillance implants and televisions that watch you; home ownership a thing of the past; the arrival of the totalitarian global system.”

If you look at what’s happening with government, food choices and many other issues, you can see many of Dr. Day’s topics slowly but surely coming into play.

What this means is that we can longer remain complacent and simply bend over forward for the “powers-to-be”.

READ THE REST

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I say this is soooo telling of the Left’s agenda…..

Sent: 5/13/2014 8:32 AM

 

Hey Planned Parenthood is promoting HIV Internationally as a Right to tell your partner whether or not you have the killer disease!!!!!! Page 3

And on page 6 they give the impression that it’s just plain wrong for the infected person to have to tell their partner, sounds like they would like to see the HIV spread…. hmm sounds like a population controlling interest at work here:

http://www.ippf.org/resource/Healthy-Happy-and-Hot-young-peoples-guide-rights

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/02/planned-parenthood-doesnt-think-someone-with-aids-should-tell-their-sexual-partner-first/

 

If someone with the AIDS virus was about to have sex with you, should they have to tell you about their HIV-positive status first? Planned Parenthood doesn’t think so.

 

In a brochure entitled Happy, Healthy, and Hot, which Planned Parenthood describes as a “guide for young people living with HIV to help them understand their sexual rights, and live healthy, fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives,” the giant of the abortion advocacy world proclaims:

 

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status…
You know best if and when it is safe to disclose your [HIV] status…
There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself! …
It is not always possible to talk about to your partner(s) or to practice safer sex…

 

There is no if, and there is no question of when. The only appropriate time to disclose one’s HIV status is before having sex with your partner. That is the “right way.” An organization that really cared about sexual health would not need me to explain this.

 

I’m hardly the first to write about this problem with Happy, Healthy, and Hot. It got a fair amount of coverage when the brochure first came to light in 2010. But if you read the whole thing, it turns out that there’s enough baffling propaganda for several articles.

 

For example:

 

Some people have sex after they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice.

 

That’s alarming, especially given that Healthy, Happy and Hot is directed to young people who READ THE REST (Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Think Someone With AIDS Should Tell Their Sexual Partner First; By Chris Rostenberg; LifeNews.com; 5/2/14 9:58 AM)

 

 

Oh and how special they award one of their Taxpayer funding agents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Nancy Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood Award

 

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nancy-pelosi-to-receive-planned-parenthood-award/

 

The nation’s largest abortion provider will recognize the Catholic politician with its highest honor, prompting a fresh round of criticism from those who say her faith is incompatible with her public record.

SAN FRANCISCO — On March 27, Planned Parenthood will bestow its highest honor on Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., minority leader in the House of Representatives and a self-identifying Catholic. The Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, who was a known proponent of eugenics, will recognize Pelosi for her legacy of “excellence and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement.”

 

The move will revive questions from Catholics and pro-life activists who have pressed Church leaders in the United States to direct the congresswoman to refrain from receiving the Eucharist due to her public acceptance of what the Church calls intrinsic evil. And the ensuing debate will likely draw attention to Pelosi’s repeated and often contradictory references to her faith while defending or advancing her position on controversial legislation.

 

“Abortion and Catholicism never go together. When a national leader, such as Speaker Pelosi, conflates the two, it, unfortunately, can lead READ THE REST (Nancy Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood Award; By JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND; National Catholic Register; 3/11/14)

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

I want to know if Hilary Clinton will be accepting and Promoting Planned Parenthoods …

Sent: 5/13/2014 12:05 PM

 

I want to know if Hilary Clinton will be accepting and Promoting Planned Parenthoods announcement that it’s “OK to Conceal HIV from your Sex Partners“?

 

Planned Parenthood Honors Hillary Clinton with Margaret Sanger Award

 

http://www.sba-list.org/newsroom/news/planned-parenthood-honors-hillary-clinton-margaret-sanger-award

 

On Friday, March 27th, Secretary of State Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award at Planned Parenthood Awards Gala. The Margaret Sanger Award is named for Planned Parenthood’s founder, a noted eugenicist.

 

In accepting this ‘honor’ Hillary Clinton praised Sanger’s “vision”, defended the Obama Administrations funding for international groups that promote abortion, and advocated for more U.S. tax payer funding to go to “family planning” organizations at home and abroad.

 

Here are some telling excerpts from Secretary Clinton’s READ THE REST (Planned Parenthood Honors Hillary Clinton with Margaret Sanger Award; Susan B. Anthony List; 3/30/09)

 

 

I wonder if Warren Buffet is OK with supporting an organization Like Planned Parenthood that supports the concealment of HIV between sex partners too???

 

Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/13/warren-buffet-donates-12-billion-to-abortion-groups/

 

May 13, 2014, marks one year since Philadelphia abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder “in the deaths of three babies who were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy, ‘house of horrors’ clinic,” according to the Associated Press. Gosnell instantly became the face of abortion in the prolife community.

 

But there’s another, more recognizable face pushing abortion in the U.S. – liberal billionaire Warren Buffett. The so-called “Oracle of Omaha” has donated more than $1.2 billion to abortion organizations from 2001 to 2012.

 

That’s equal to the cost of roughly 2.7 million first-trimester abortions – more than twice the number of abortions that occur in an entire year in the United States. Unlike Gosnell, however, everything Buffett has done has been entirely legal. But Buffett does share something else in common with the abortionist. Both their stories have been largely unreported.

 

Imagine the equivalent of the lives of 2.7 million children snuffed out to serve the whims of the third richest man in the world. Most people would say that’s a story, most likely several.

 

Oh no, supporters will cry. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other similar groups do more than just abortions. And Buffett does more than fund the abortion industry. But that is the core of his agenda, just as it is theirs.

 

Buffett’s own charity, The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, is named after his first wife who was an abortion supporter. Its domestic operation is led by pro-abortion activist Tracy Weitz, Ph.D., MPA. Weitz has worked at Planned Parenthood, The Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health and once defined abortion as “a moral action undertaken by moral agents.”

 

None of that is obvious from the charity’s website. It includes information on READ THE REST (Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups; By Dan Gainor; Fox News; 5/13/14)

 

__________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Although there is a load of copyrighted data here under the fair use law and giving pseudonym writer Tony Newbill the research credit.

Newbill Emails from 3-29 to 4-2-13


Monsanto Frankenfoods

Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Here are a series of emails from Tony Newbill with a bit of editing by yours truly. Newbill’s emails typically deal with Conspiracy issues which I love to read. I hope you enjoy them as well.

 

JRH 4/29/13

**********************************

Corporate-Government Conspiracy is Fascism

Sent: 3/29/2013 9:31 AM

 

To better understand this article you should become familiar with the Monsanto Company, the Monsanto Protection Act and Genetically Engineered Organism (GMO) which also known as Genetically Engineered (GE) seed.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_deception_GMOs.html

 

(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama campaigned on promises to end secret prisons, decriminalize marijuana, balance the budget, honor the Second Amendment and make health care affordable. But what really unfolded was an explosion in the national debt (now $16 trillion and climbing), the signing of the NDAA, a claimed new power to kill any American at any time, even on U.S. soil, the use of military drones to murder American children overseas, a full-on assault against the Bill of Rights, a doubling of health insurance rates and the destruction of the U.S. economy.

But that’s not all.

Now Obama has signed the “Monsanto Protection Act” into law, stabbing America in the heart yet again and proving that no matter how convincing politicians appear on the campaign trail, they are still sociopathic liars in the end.

The Monsanto Protection Act, part of the HR 933 continuing resolution, allows Monsanto to override U.S. federal courts on the issue of planting experimental genetically engineered crops all across the country. Even if those experimental crops are found to be extremely dangerous or to cause a runaway crop plague, the U.S. government now has no judicial power to stop them from being planted and harvested.

As ibtimes.com reports, the bill “effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

GMOs now evade all regulations: America has become a grand Monsanto experiment

 

A Food Democracy Now petition now states:

With the Senate passage of the Monsanto Protection Act, biotech lobbyists are one step closer to making sure that their new GMO crops can evade any serious scientific or regulatory review.

This dangerous provision, the Monsanto Protection Act, strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment.

Corporate-government conspiracy is fascism

 

This new law forces the USDA to automatically approve all GMO planting permits sought by Monsanto and other biotech firms, effectively granting Monsanto dominion over the U.S. government. This is the very definition of fascism, a form of tyrannical government where corporations conspire with the government to destroy or confiscate all rights, powers and assets, leaving the people impoverished and powerless.

What’s interesting about this development is that now even democrats … Read the Rest

_____________________

Reason for Rejecting U.S. Dollar and U.S. Food Trade?

Sent: 3/29/2013 11:16 AM

 

This could create the reason why the US dollar is rejected with the rejection of US food trade.

 

http://naturalsociety.com/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own-monsanto-protection-act/

 

It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

 

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

 

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left versus right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

 

This is one of the most blatant offenses against the citizens of the United States I’ve seen in a long time. A population that Blunt swore to serve. It’s not for the United States public at all, and it’s a serious matter that I don’t think is properly understood. The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).

This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment or the public will be immune from United States government action. Theoretically, one million studies could find that Monsanto’s latest creation was causing a massive cancer wave and … Read the Rest

___________________________

This is why WE MUST NEVER GIVE UP OUR GUNS!!!!!

Sent: 3/30/2013 9:38 AM

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vK-x9mqXML8   

 

__________________________

What do You Think about These Videos????

Sent: 3/30/2013 10:09 AM

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mE8hvfZsMLg

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ATCjAOhHS0g

 

________________________

Oh the Hypocrisy…… Capitalism relies on Trust..!

Sent: 4/1/2013 7:44 AM

 

Oh the Hypocrisy…… Capitalism relies on Trust and this does nothing to ensure the system is trustworthy!!!!! 

 

Cyprus’ President-related company transfers 21mn to London prior to bailout agreement – report

 

http://rt.com/news/cyprus-president-money-withdraw-129/ 

 

A company owned by in-laws of Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades wired 21 million from Laiki Bank to London days before the Eurogroup’s crisis-triggering levy proposal, claims a Cypriot newspaper. The president demands an investigation.

 

During two days, 12 and 13 of March, the company A. Loutsios & Sons Ltd., co-owned by Loutsios John, the husband of Nikos Anastasiadis’ daughter, Elsa, took five promissory notes worth 21 million from Laiki Bank. The money was then transferred to London, reported Cypriot newspaper Harangue, affiliated to the communist-rooted AKEL party.

 

The withdrawal was fulfilled just three days before the Eurogroup meeting when euro finance ministers agreed a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout for Cyprus.

 

The company, however, has firmly denied the reports.

 

 

Earlier in March the Eurogroup proposed the Cypriot government impose a new tax that would make citizens shoulder a 12.5-percent crisis tax on savings larger than 100,000, with a tax of 3 percent on smaller deposits.

 

The initial agreement suggested 9.9 and 6.7 percent levies on deposits above and below the 100,000 threshold respectively.

 

At dawn of March 25, Cyprus and the troika of international backers (EU, ECB, IMF) reached agreement on a 10bn bailout plan, aimed at preventing the bankruptcy of the island’s financial system and the country’s exit from the Eurozone.

 

The depositors holding over 100,000 euros at the Bank of Cyprus will lose 37.5 per cent in money in exchange for bank shares. These big depositors may further lose up to 22.5 per cent more if the experts consider bank’s balance insufficient.

 

This means that those with big deposits in Cyprus’ largest bank could lose could lose up to 60 percent of their savings in a harsh new EU and IMF bailout deal. Those with deposits less than 100,000 euros will be protected under the Cyprus deposit guarantee.

 

Read Entirety

 

_________________________

Thanks, World Reserve Currency, But No Thanks: Australia And China To Enable Direct Currency Convertibility

4/1/2013 10:34 AM

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-31/thanks-world-reserve-currency-no-thanks-australia-and-china-enable-direct-currency-c

 

A month ago we pointed out that as a result of Australia’s unprecedented reliance on China as a target export market, accounting for nearly 30% of all Australian exports (with the flipside being just as true, as Australia now is the fifth-biggest source of Chinese imports), the two countries may as well be joined at the hip.

 

 

Over the weekend, Australia appears to have come to the same conclusion, with the Australian reporting that the land down under is set to say goodbye to the world’s “reserve currency” in its trade dealings with the world’s biggest marginal economic power, China, and will enable the direct convertibility of the Australian dollar into Chinese yuan, without US Dollar intermediation, in the process “slashing costs for thousands of business” and also confirming speculation that China is fully intent on, little by little, chipping away at the dollar’s reserve currency status until one day it no longer is.

 

That said, this latest development in global currency relations should come as no surprise to those who have followed our series on China’s slow but certain internationalization of its currency over the past two years. To wit: World’s Second (China) And Third Largest (Japan) Economies To Bypass Dollar, Engage In Direct Currency Trade, “China, Russia Drop Dollar In Bilateral Trade“, “China And Iran To Bypass Dollar, Plan Oil Barter System“, “India and Japan sign new $15bn currency swap agreement“, “Iran, Russia Replace Dollar With Rial, Ruble in Trade, Fars Says“, “India Joins Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone, Will Transact With Iran In Rupees“, and “The USD Trap Is Closing: Dollar Exclusion Zone Crosses The Pacific As Brazil Signs China Currency Swap.”

 

And while previously the focus was on Chinese currency swap arrangements, the uniqueness of this weekend’s news is that Read the Rest

 

_____________________

The Culmination of Limiting Life in the USA

4/2/2013 9:10 AM

 

The Culmination of Limiting Life in the USA: Is this driven from an Ideology about Global Overpopulation Fears among the Elite that see the world from their Private Jet Window???

 

Is the President’s Efforts to Map Human brains a path towards using Eugenics to Select what Human traits are desirable and which are NOT???? And will this chart a course that takes Humanity away from the True Creator of Life and interrupt LIBERTY for all people if that Person is deemed not desirable due to a Human Determined Defect?? Does this set Humanity in the USA and the world on a dangerous slippery Slope of Limiting Unalienable Rights???

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3] Eugenics is widely referred to as a pseudoscience [4] and is infamously linked to the racial policies that led to Nazi Germany’s Holocaust.[5].

 

It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.[6]

 

Read the Rest

 

Obama unveils White House brain-mapping project

 

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/02/17565983-obama-unveils-white-house-brain-mapping-project?chromedomain=usnews

 

VIDEO: President Obama has proposed $100 million in federal funding to start an exhaustive brain mapping initiative. NBC’s Robert Bazell reports

 

By Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

 

President Obama pitched a human brain research initiative on Tuesday that he likened to the Human Genome Project to map all the human DNA, and said it will not only help find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and autism, but create jobs and drive economic growth.

 

Obama proposed $100 million in federal funding to kick start the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies or BRAIN Initiative.

 

 

It’s not clear just what the initiative will do. Obama and collins said they’d appointed a “dream team” of experts to lay out the agenda — they should report back before the end of the summer. They are led by neurobiologists Cori Bargmann of Rockefeller University and William Newsome of Stanford University.

 

 

The public-private initiative, with money from groups such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s brain mapping project, aims to find a way to take pictures of the brain in action in real time.

 

The $100 million funding will come from the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation, the White House said.

 

“We want to understand the brain to know how we reason, how we memorize, how we learn, how we move, how our emotions work. These abilities define us, yet we hardly understand any of it,” said Miyoung Chun, vice president of science programs at The Kavli Foundation, which is taking part in the initiative and which funds basic research in neuroscience and physics.

 

The project has some big money and some big science to build on. Allen pumped another $300 million into his institute’s brain mapping initiative a year ago, and has published freely available maps of the human and mouse brains. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute built a whole research campus devoted to brain science, called Janelia Farm, in Virginia.

 

Arati Prabhakar, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) pointed to a project that allowed a quadriplegic woman to control a robot arm with her thoughts alone.

 

 

Not everybody is happy about a centralized, administration-led project. Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, said earlier this year that grand projects in biology such as Project ENCODE for DNA analysis were emerging as the “greatest threat” to individual discovery-driven science.

 

“It’s one thing to fund neuroscience, another to have a centralized 10-year project to ‘solve the brain,'” Eisen wrote in a Twitter update in February.

 

VIDEO: President Barack Obama announces a new research initiative that he hopes will advance understanding of the human mind and will help revive middle class job growth.Read Entirety

 

 

There needs to be Limits Placed on where this Kind of Practice Intersects with Political and Congressional Legislative Law and Order in Effecting decisions made on the Individual basis of LIFE because as you see in Washington State trying to Force Capital Investment in Limiting Life would set a dangerous Precedent on Just How and why Life would be allowed or not.

 

Senator: Abortion insurance bill won’t move forward

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/25-state-senators-express-support-for-abortion-insurance-bill-200942271.html

 

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) – Despite a majority of Washington state senators having signed a letter in support of a measure requiring insurers to cover abortion, a key lawmaker said Monday that it will not advance from her committee.

Republican Sen. Randi Becker of Eatonville, chairwoman of the Senate Health Care Committee, announced that the bill would not move forward hours after her panel heard testimony on it.

“Even advocates of the bill admit that there is no need for the bill today as every health insurer in the state of Washington provides for abortion coverage,” said Becker in a written statement. “As such, the decision of the committee is that the bill will not move forward from here this year.”

 

 

The hearing attracted more than 250 people from both sides of the abortion issue, with many of those wearing rival buttons and ribbons and dressed in dueling color schemes left to watch the proceedings on a screen in a nearby room.

The bill, which supporters call the Reproductive Parity Act, was passed by the House by a 53-43 vote in February, with mostly Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat and a bill supporter, has repeatedly urged the Senate to vote on it.

The bill would make Washington the first state to require insurers that cover maternity care – which they all most do – to also pay for abortions. Similar legislation has been introduced each session in the New York State Assembly for over a decade but has never received a public hearing.

In testimony before Becker’s committee, those supporting the measure said it would ensure continued abortion coverage in the state once federal health care reforms taking effect next year trigger bureaucratic hurdles for insurers paying for the procedure.

The bill would ensure that a woman’s decision about whether to get an abortion “is left with her, her family, her health-care provider and her God,” said Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, addressing the committee. “Not with government, not with her insurance plan, and with all due respect, not with any of you.”

Opponents countered that abortion insurance coverage is already widespread in the state and that the bill is unnecessary. They also said the measure threatens the religious freedoms of businesses and individuals who oppose abortion rights and do not want to subsidize the cost of the procedure for others.

“You all have the second amendment right to bear arms, to own a gun,” said Peggy O’Ban, spokeswoman for Human Life of Washington. “But does that mean I have to buy it for you?”

 

Read Entirety

 

JRH Comment: God bless State Senator Randi Becker for preventing murderous Leftist Democrats from mandating insurance companies to kill unborn babies for birth control.

___________________________

© Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk

The Religion of Eugenics and the State [Scientific Tyranny]


NWO Caution Sign

 

It looks like Sunday will be Conspiracy Theory day. NoGuff has sent to me some links related to one of the Left’s agendas for a New World Order (NWO). In this case the agenda is Population Control. The substratum of Population Control is the focus of Eugenics.

 

NoGuff utilizes a YouTube link that is entitled, “The Religion of Eugenics and the State [Scientific Tyranny]”. This YouTube post by Goodfightlads lists a series of links dealing with the Population Control conspiracy of the NWO. I am going to take those links and post the articles behind them. I believe the story built by GoodFightLads will be fascinating to you. Remember that most Conspiracy Theories usually have an element of truth behind them. The more outrageous the theory usually means the more dubious the facts; however when the theory is built up around confirmed facts you have to decide whether the theory conclusions are valid or not.

 

JRH 10/2/11

*******************************

Personal Message from NoGuff

Sent: September 27, 2011

 

This is a conspiracy right under our noses. And no one will talk about it.

-BC

__________________________

The Religion of Eugenics and the State [Scientific Tyranny]

 

Uploaded by GoodFightLads

Uploaded: Jul 25, 2011

 

YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6taFxHovXjE

 

The Population Control Agenda

 

The Population Control Agenda

 

By Stanley K. Monteith, M.D.

Radio Liberty

 

One of the most difficult concepts for Americans to accept is that there are human beings dedicated to coercive population control and genocide. Many readers will acknowledge that our government is helping to finance the Red Chinese program of forced abortion, forced sterilization, infanticide, and control of the numbers of live births. Most readers will accept the fact that our nation is helping to finance the United Nations’ world-wide “family planning program,” a form of population control. Most rational men and women, however, find it impossible to believe that such programs are really part of a “master plan” to kill off large segments of the world’s population.

I shall have to admit that I studied the politics of AIDS (HIV disease) for over a decade before I finally came to a horrifying conclusion. The real motivation behind efforts to block utilization of standard public health measures to control further spread of the HIV epidemic was “population control.” That was not an easy concept for me to acknowledge, despite the fact that I had long recognized that the twentieth century has been the bloodiest hundred-year period in all recorded human history.

It was not until I journeyed to Elberton, Georgia, stood within the dark shadows of the great Druid-like monument built there, and read the words engraved on the massive stone pillars of that structure that I finally came to accept the truth. At that point it became obvious that just as our Lord has given mankind Ten Commandments to guide our lives, so, too, those from “the dark side” have been given their instructions from the “one” they worship. The ten programs of the “guides” are inscribed in eight different languages on the four great granite pillars of the American Stonehenge. That message foretells a terrifying future for humanity, and explains why efforts to approach the AIDS epidemic from a logical point of view have been consistently thwarted.1

Before you scoff, and reject my suggestion as some sort of madness, check out my references, then try to disprove my conclusions. If my allegations are unfounded, you will soon recognize the deception and return to your daily activities, certain that there is no cause for concern. On the other hand, should you determine that my assessment is correct, or even partially correct, then you have a moral obligation to decide just what part you intend to play in response to the unfolding world genocide – how you will protect yourself, your loved ones, and the countless millions of helpless human beings throughout the world who have been marked for destruction.

 
You must never forget the warning recorded for posterity by Martin Niemoeller, the Lutheran minister who lived in Hitler’s Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. His words echo down to us over … READ THE REST at SlantRight 2.0.