Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for August 2017

Claire McCaskill’s Ironic Planned Parenthood Question: “Why Defund the Entity Preventing Abortions?”

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
August 22, 2017

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill either does not know or does not want the voting public to know what the abortion chain Planned Parenthood actually does.

The pro-abortion Democrat from Missouri tried to explain her support for the No. 1 abortion business in the United States on Saturday by claiming Planned Parenthood does more to prevent abortions than any other group.

The Dunklin Democrat reports McCaskill described her support for the abortion chain during a town hall meeting Saturday in Kennett.

According to the report:

McCaskill shared her views on Planned Parenthood after an audience member questioned the practices on the organization.

“Teenage pregnancy is at an all time low in this country,” shared McCaskill. “Abortion is at the lowest rate that it’s been since Roe v. Wade was decided. It’s because we’ve made access to birth control so readily available.”

“It’s the most utilized source for birth control for millions of women,” stated McCaskill. “So why would we shut down the funding to the very entity that’s helping us prevent abortions? It makes no sense to me.”

The statement is almost laughable, except for the fact that McCaskill actually believes it or at least wants her constituents to. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood makes millions performing more than 300,000 abortions on unborn babies every year. It throws pizza parties and gives awards to abortion clinics that exceed their abortion quotas. And it promotes risky sexual behavior to teens in public schools across the country.

Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s main business, and its leaders have refused to give it up to focus on providing real health care to women. Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood leaders even refused an offer for an increase in tax funding as long as they stopped doing abortions. CEO Cecile Richards called the offer “obscene and insulting,” making it clear that abortions – not women’s health care – are Planned Parenthood’s primary focus.

McCaskill must have missed this. Or she had other motives for ignoring it. In 2015, Fox News reported the Missouri Senator received at least $26,000 in campaign donations from Planned Parenthood PACs since 2006.

She has a strong pro-abortion voting record. Back in 2015, she also made sexist remarks against men in a video for “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” On a range of issues, McCaskill said men should just “shut the hell up.”

The abortion chain that McCaskill supports to the tune of about half a billion taxpayer dollars per year aborts more unborn babies than any other group in the United States. In 2015, it performed 328,348 abortions on unborn babies, nearly 5,000 more than the previous year. That same year, it provided less birth control, saw fewer patients and received more taxpayer funding.

Abortions are down in the United States as a whole. In 2014, abortion numbers dropped below 1 million for the first time in four decades, according to the Guttmacher Institute. But Planned Parenthood’s market share has been increasing, and it now performs about one third of all abortions in the United States.

McCaskill does not have to look far to find this information. Planned Parenthood itself provides these numbers publicly through reports and statements. But maybe McCaskill just does not want to know the truth.

Apple Will Donate $1 Million to Pro-Abortion Group

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
August 21, 2017

Apple Inc. Chief Executive Tim Cook has announced that the tech company will make a $1 million donation to a pro-abortion organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center. However the organization not only supports abortion but was linked to a liberal activist who shot up the office of the pro-life group Family Research Council.

The donations were made supposedly to counter white supremacy.

Mr. Cook called the events in Charlottesville, Va., “repulsive” in an email to employees, saying he disagrees “with the president and others” who see a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis on one side and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights on the other.

“Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans,” Mr. Cook wrote in the email late Wednesday, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. He said he felt compelled to speak out on the events, which he found personally troubling, in part because he heard from many people at Apple “who are saddened, outraged or confused.”

“What occurred in Charlottesville has no place in our country,” he wrote. “We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality.”

But, in a chilling Federal Bureau of Investigation interrogation video, Floyd Lee Corkins, who shot up the offices of the Family Research Council on August 15, 2012, says that he picked his target from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) website. Corkins entered the lobby armed with a loaded semi-automatic pistol, 100 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He started firing at FRC’s building manager Leo Johnson who heroically tackled the shooter after a gunshot shattered his arm.

SPLC was the motivation behind the shooting.

The shooting at the pro-life group’s office captured national attention and the Family Research Council, today, released the video. The partial transcript reads:

FBI: Now how did you . . . This building, this organization. Did you . . .

FBI: Did you, how did you find it earlier? Did you like look it up online?

Corkins: It was a uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh anti-gay groups

Corkins: I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website

FRC president Tony Perkins said Corkins act of terrorism has put sunlight on SPLC, which has targeted a wide swath of Americans for standing up for traditional values, most often Christian and conservative.

“The SPLC’s reckless labeling has led to devastating consequences,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “Because of its ‘hate group’ labeling, a deadly terrorist had a guidemap to FRC and other organizations. Our team is still dealing with the fallout of the attack, that was intended to have a chilling effect on organizations that are simply fighting for their values.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has now been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court, should put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their [agenda],” continued Perkins.

“In a civil society, shutting down debate is not how reasonable people and organizations operate. Intimidating and bullying others shreds the ‘ordered liberty’ of which our Founders wrote and for which they advocated, and places all of us in jeopardy of losing our sacred rights as militant extremists claim the public square exclusively for themselves,” concluded Perkins.

Pro-Life Democrat Says Democrats Will Lose Seats if Party Leaders Kick Out Pro-Lifers

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
August 21, 2107

Pro-life advocates warned the Democratic Party this week that its devotion to the abortion industry and rejection of pro-life candidates could lose them more seats in Congress.

Kristen Day, executive chairwoman of Democrats for Life, told The Washington Times that the party has become too radical and out of touch with voters on the abortion issue. Seats once held by pro-life Democrats now are Republican seats because the party is not backing pro-lifers like it once did, she said.

“When you look at the 1st Congressional District in Michigan, we’ve pretty much handed that over to Republicans,” Day told the newspaper.

The abortion issue has become a huge debate again in the Democratic Party. Some prominent Democrats are demanding support of abortion from all candidates, while others say the party should welcome pro-life candidates again.

The debate really flared up in the spring after abortion activists with NARAL criticized Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, Sen. Bernie Sanders and others for supporting Heath Mello, a Nebraska Democratic mayoral candidate who has a pro-life voting record.

Amid pressure from abortion activists, Perez described abortion as a “fundamental value” and said every Democrat should support it. But afterward, Perez faced pushback from members of his own party.

Then, a few weeks ago, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Ben Ray Luján said his committee will not deny support to candidates who are pro-life. However, another committee member contradicted Luján last week and told the Atlantic that they have “no interest” in working with Democrats for Life or other pro-life groups.

This is a huge mistake, Day said.

Here’s more from her interview with the Times:

The chief example of a seat where pro-life stances matter is Michigan’s 1st District, which was held by Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, for years until his 2011 retirement. Mr. Stupak led the push for pro-life protections to be written into Obamacare.

After his retirement, the seat went GOP.

Ms. Day says that’s because Democrats keep running candidates that are too extreme on issues like abortion and discount the importance of the issue to voters. She says this problem is seen across the country in “Middle America.”

“I think it’s become much more hard-line now. What happened is the pro-choice Democrats kinda felt like Hillary Clinton is going to win, and they made the abortion platform more radical. But what they didn’t realize is they alienated pro-life Democrats who didn’t vote for her,” she said.

Democratic Party leaders have been pushing an increasingly radical pro-abortion position. Last summer, the Democratic National Committee adopted a platform calling for full support of abortion for any reason up to birth and taxpayer funding of abortion – positions that most Americans oppose.

Abortion activists do not seem to realize just how radical and out of touch their position on abortion is with voters. Polls consistently show that most Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions.

A Politico/Harvard University poll in October 2016 found that a majority of voters oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. Just 36 percent of likely voters supported the issue, while 58 percent opposed it. These findings are consistent with previous polls from various groups.

Most Americans also oppose most abortions and want laws to limit abortions or make them illegal. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 29 percent of Americans want unlimited abortion up to birth.

Democrats for Life estimates more than 23 million Democrats in the U.S. are pro-life. Last year, Pew Research found that 28 percent of Democrats say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Marist/KofC polling also found that 23 percent of Democrats consider themselves pro-life and 40 percent say abortion is morally wrong.


ProPublica, working with Google to “document hate,” threatens counter-jihad bloggers

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
August 19, 2017

More on how the Left is moving in for the kill and trying to destroy the freedom of speech completely.

“ProPublica, Working with Google to ‘Document Hate,’ Threatens Conservative Bloggers,” by Paula Bolyard, PJ Media, August 19, 2017:

Google revealed in a blog post that it is now using machine learning to document “hate crimes and events” in America. They’ve partnered with liberal groups like ProPublica, BuzzFeed News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to make information about “hate events” easily accessible to journalists. And now, there are troubling signs that this tool could be used to ferret out writers and websites that run afoul of the progressive orthodoxy.

In the announcement, Simon Rogers, data editor of Google News Labs, wrote:

Now, with ProPublica, we are launching a new machine learning tool to help journalists covering hate news leverage this data in their reporting.

The Documenting Hate News Index — built by the Google News Lab, data visualization studio Pitch Interactive and ProPublica — takes a raw feed of Google News articles from the past six months and uses the Google Cloud Natural Language API to create a visual tool to help reporters find news happening across the country. It’s a constantly-updating snapshot of data from this year, one which is valuable as a starting point to reporting on this area of news.

The Documenting Hate project launched in response to the lack of national data on hate crimes. While the FBI is required by law to collect data about hate crimes, the data is incomplete because local jurisdictions aren’t required to report incidents up to the federal government.

All of which underlines the value of the Documenting Hate Project, which is powered by a number of different news organisations and journalists who collect and verify reports of hate crimes and events. Documenting Hate is informed by both reports from members of the public and raw Google News data of stories from across the nation.

On the surface, this looks rather innocuous. It’s presented by Google as an attempt to create a database of hate crimes — information that should be available with a quick Google search, it should be noted. But a quick glance at the list of partners for this project should raise some red flags:

The  ProPublica-led coalition includes  The Google News Lab,  Univision News, the  New York Times,  WNYC,  BuzzFeed News,  First Draft,  Meedan,  New America Media,  The Root,  Latino USA,  The Advocate,  100 Days in Appalachia and  Ushahidi. The coalition is also working with civil-rights groups such as the  Southern Poverty Law Center, and schools such as the  University of Miami School of Communications.

ProPublica poses as a middle-of-the-road non-profit journalistic operation, but in reality, it’s funded by a stable of uber-liberal donors, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and Herb and Marion Sandler, billionaire former mortgage bankers whose Golden West Financial Corp. allegedly targeted subprime borrowers with “pick-a-pay” mortgages that led to toxic assets that were blamed for the collapse of Wachovia. The Southern Poverty Law Center, of course, is infamous for targeting legitimate conservatives groups, branding them as “hate groups” because they refuse to walk in lockstep with the progressive agenda. And it goes with out saying that The New York Times and BuzzFeed News lean left.

A perusal of the raw data that’s been compiled thus far on hate stories shows articles from a wide array of center-right sites, including The Daily Caller, Breitbart News, The Washington Times, National Review, and the Washington Examiner. It also includes many articles from liberal sites like BuzzFeed News and The New York TimesOne story from PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson is included in the list. It’s a report about a Sikh ad campaign aimed at reducing hate crimes against members of their faith community. Many of the articles are simply reports about alleged hate crimes from sources running the gamut of the political spectrum.

ProPublica vows to diligently track “hate incidents” in the coming months….

Note that Google, which recently fired an employee for expressing his counter-progressive opinions, thinks this information could be used to “help journalists covering hate news leverage this data in their reporting.” What do they mean by “leverage this data”? They don’t say, but an email sent to several conservative writers by a ProPublica reporter may give us some indication. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer along with some others received this from ProPublica “reporter” Lauren Kirchner:

I am a reporter at ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in New York. I am contacting you to let you know that we are including your website in a list of sites that have been designated as hate or extremist by the American Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. We have identified all the tech platforms that are supporting websites on the ADL and SPLC lists.

We would like to ask you a few questions:

1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?

2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?

3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?

4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?

In other words, nice website you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

To summarize: Liberal ProPublica, working with the smear merchants at SPLC — powered by Google — sent a reporter out to issue not so veiled threats against conservative websites. It’s blatantly obvious that the goal here is to tank websites they disagree with by mounting a campaign to pressure their advertisers and tech providers to drop them as clients. This comes on the heels of Google, GoDaddy, CloudFlare, Apple, and others singling out alt-right sites for destruction in the wake of the Charlottesville riots.

Robert Spencer (who also writes for PJ Media) responded to the threat on his Jihad Watch blog:

The intent of your questions, and no doubt of your forthcoming article, will be to try to compel these sites to cut off any connection with us based on our opposition to jihad terror. Are you comfortable with what you’re enabling? Not only are you inhibiting honest analysis of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but you’re aiding the attempt to deny people a platform based on their political views. This could come back to bite you if your own views ever fall out of favor. Have you ever lived in a totalitarian state, where the powerful determine the parameters of the public discourse and cut off all voice from the powerless? Do you really want to live in one now? You might find, once you get there, that it isn’t as wonderful as you thought it would be.

Spencer has recently criticized Google and the SPLC here at PJ Media for their attempts to squelch dissent, so it’s not surprising that they’ve decided to target him. Only instead of fighting Spencer’s words with words of their own, they’re lashing out with actions designed to silence him….

Robert Spencer wrote, “Authoritarianism in service of any cause leads to a slave society despite the best intentions of those who helped usher it in.”…

BOYCOTT PAYPAL: PayPal bows to Left-fascist pressure, endorses jihad, drops Jihad Watch

leave a comment »

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
August 19, 2017

Yesterday I published an email from Soros-funded ProPublica’s Lauren Kirchner, threatening to use the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious hate group listing to pressure various platforms to drop Jihad Watch. Kirchner apparently was angered by having her fascism publicly exposed, since even though she sent her threatening letter to many people, today at 1:45PM, ProPublica published its hit piece, and it led off with me:

Because of its “extreme hostility toward Muslims,” the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site’s director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013.

But its designation as a hate site hasn’t stopped tech companies — including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax — from maintaining partnerships with Jihad Watch that help to sustain it financially. PayPal facilitates donations to the site. Newsmax — the online news network run by President Donald Trump’s close friend Chris Ruddy — pays Jihad Watch in return for users clicking on its headlines. Until recently, Amazon allowed Jihad Watch to participate in a program that promised a cut of any book sales that the site generated. All three companies have policies that say they don’t do business with hate groups.

Within hours, PayPal bowed to this defamation. At 6:02PM, I got this email from PayPal:

RE: Notice of PayPal Account Limitation

Dear Robert Spencer,

We have recently reviewed your usage of PayPal’s services, as reflected in
our records and on your website https://www.jihadwatch.org. Due to the
nature of your activities, we have chosen to discontinue service to you in
accordance with PayPal’s User Agreement. As a result, we have placed a
permanent limitation on your account.

We ask that you please remove all references to PayPal from your website.
This includes removing PayPal as a payment option, as well as the PayPal
logo and/or shopping cart.

If you have a remaining balance, you may withdraw the money to your bank
account. Information on how to withdraw money from your PayPal account can
be found via our Help Center.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or
need our support, please contact the PayPal Brand Risk Management
Department at aup@paypal.com.

PayPal Brand Risk Management

And please help us keep going: donate via check to Robert Spencer, 1040 1st Ave. #121, New York, NY 10022. Your donation helps me, among other things, appear at worthy events that can’t fund my appearance, and keeps our website operating.

The SPLC lumps legitimate groups in with real hate groups in order to defame its political foes, but PayPal allowed no discussion, no appeal. It acted as judge, jury, and executioner.

In reality, I oppose jihad mass murder. PayPal apparently thinks that makes me a “hatemonger.” I oppose the murder of people who decide in conscience to leave Islam. PayPal thinks that makes me a “right-wing extremist.” I oppose honor killings, female genital mutilation, scripturally-sanctioned wife-beating, etc. PayPal thinks that means I am too hateful to use their service.

So: if you support the work of Jihad Watch, close your PayPal account now. Contact them and tell them why. Tell all your friends that PayPal has bowed to Left-fascism, and to boycott it.

The Left is moving in for the kill now and trying to delegitimize and silence all voices of dissent. Don’t allow this rapidly creeping totalitarianism to succeed.

Georgia judge resigns under pressure: said “nut cases tearing down monuments equivalent to ISIS destroying history”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
August 17, 2017

“In her statement, Blum made clear the suspension came because the posts jeopardized Hinkle’s position as an unbiased arbiter of the law.”

This is laughable. There are Leftist activist judges all over the United States. Federal judges ignore the clear law regarding the President’s power to restrict immigration, claim that Trump is an “Islamophobe” because he doesn’t speak in accord with what they deem to be acceptable norms, and they are not only not removed from the bench, but are lauded as heroes. Hinkle, by contrast, notes quite correctly the correlation between the Islamic State’s contempt for jahiliyya and contemporary Leftists’ contempt for U.S. history, and observes (horrors!) that Islam is a violent religion, and he has to go.

It is increasingly the case in America that only one point of view can be expressed in the public square. The freedom of speech is becoming a dead letter before our very eyes.

“Gwinnett Judge Resigns After ‘Snowflakes’ and ‘Nut Cases’ Posts,” by Doug Gross, Loganville Patch, August 17, 2017:

LAWRENCEVILLE, GA — A Gwinnett County magistrate judge and longtime local politician has resigned from his court position after being suspended over controversial posts he made on Facebook.

Jim Hinkle, a part-time judge who has served on the court for 14 years, resigned Wednesday, Chief Magistrate Judge Kristina Hammer Blum said in a written statement. Blum had suspended Hinkle indefinitely after his Facebook posts came to light on Saturday.

“For 14 years, Judge Hinkle has dutifully served this court,” Blum said in her statement. “He is a lifelong public servant and former Marine. However, he has acknowledged that his statements on social media have disrupted the mission of this Court, which is to provide justice for all.”…

In other posts, Hinkle has condemned Islam as a violent religion.

By Wednesday morning, Hinkle appeared to have either deleted his Facebook account or set it to a private setting. But the Atlanta Journal Constitution captured images of his posts before he did so.

“In Charlottesville, everyone is upset over Robert E. Lee statue. It looks like all of the snowflakes have no concept of history,” Hinkle wrote Saturday. “It is what it is. Get over it and move on. Leave history alone – those who ignore history are deemed (sic) to repeat the mistake of the past. In Richmond, VA, all of the Confederate monuments on Monument Ave. have people on horses whose asses face North. PERFECT!”

Later, he wrote “The nut cases tearing down monuments are equivalent to ISIS destroying history.”…

In her statement, Blum made clear the suspension came because the posts jeopardized Hinkle’s position as an unbiased arbiter of the law….

Study Claims Armed Drivers Are Aggressive Drivers

with 3 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
August 16, 2017

A psychological study recently concluded that drivers with a gun in the car drive more aggressively than drivers who don’t.

This news flies in the face of experience by most gun owners who routinely travel with all manner of firearms yet do so in a normal, sane way. I know that I drive the same way regardless of whether I’m armed. The only way my driving differs at all is when my kids are riding with me, in which case I take a bit more caution.

Yet science seems to indicate otherwise. How can science be so wrong?

Well, as Nick Leghorn at The Truth About Guns points out, it’s not all that difficult.

The study makes its conclusions based on the observations of 60 “random” people. Not necessarily the best sample size from a statistical perspective. But wait, it gets worse.

As is often the case in psychology experiments, the subjects were university students — most likely drawn from the never-ending pool of Psych 101 attendees required to participate in such studies for credit.

College students a poor choice for this study, given their under-developed decision making capabilities. Liberal arts students in particular tend to have had significantly less exposure to firearms and the safety culture surrounding them.

This is a group that’s most likely to join anti-gun movements and rely on “blood in the streets” arguments for their opinion that gun owners are unstable and can’t be trusted with firearms. A classic example of projection, according to some gun rights supporters.

In contrast, gun owners tend to be a self-selecting group who believe in taking responsibility for one’s own actions and defense.

The sample size alone makes this study almost meaningless.

When constructing a study, a large sample size is the best way to get rid of any statistical “noise.” After all, people are individuals and have their own individual traits. In a small sample size of 30 people—remember that the observations here are based on 60 total, which means half were assigned to each group—it only takes three people sharing some quirk that would skew the results.

In this case, when coupled with Nick’s other observations about the probable subjects, to call the findings “conclusive” would be like saying Madonna is a woman of grace and virtue.

What wasn’t studied were actual gun owners. You know, the people who generally drive with a firearm in the car? Why not take a look at how folks like us drive?

Then again, maybe that was by design.

After all, psychology is considered a social science, and social science departments are rife with activist students and academics looking to push an anti-gun line any chance they get. They don’t get that being a gun owner is more than just putting a gun in someone’s possession. Many gun owners never carry a firearm much of anywhere except hunting or the range, while many of us carry on a daily basis.

Further, the more immersed in the gun culture you find someone, the less likely they will act aggressively, either behind the wheel or in general. We tend to understand that if we are the cause of an altercation that results in the loss of life, we may well be prosecuted for it. As a result, even if armed, we make it a point to not do anything that could be taken as someone else as provocation.

Not that a psychology department as a university would be expected to understand that.

Pro-Life Investment Plan Hits $1 Billion in Assets By Rejecting Pro-Abortion Companies

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
August 17, 2017

Many Christians choose movies, music and even retailers based on how they impact their faith. Why, asks financial expert and nationally syndicated host Dan Celia, should investing be any different?

Celia leads Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries and focuses on biblical investing and important economic trends during his daily, three-hour program, “Financial Issues,” which is sponsored in part by Timothy Plan.

For more than 20 years, Timothy Plan, which recently hit $1 billion of assets under management, has helped investors achieve their financial goals while investing in a biblically and morally responsible manner. Timothy Plan does not invest in those companies that support pornography, abortion, same-sex marriage or have other agendas contrary to the teachings of scripture, or are actively participating in activities that may prove destructive to our communities at large.

“What this means to me is that there are 1 billion dollars that are not supporting the darkness of this world,” Celia said of the Timothy Plan milestone. “This, of course, does not even take into account the billions of dollars from those who have other areas of investments that are biblically responsible as well. I recently read an article based on a survey that claimed that fewer people are concerned with following a faith-based agenda and feel no need to attend church. This excellent news from Timothy Plan illustrates 1 billion rebukes to that claim.”

Celia, a foremost authority and one of the most trusted experts on biblically responsible investing, has seen a dramatic increase in the past several years in the growth of the market of investors who want to honor God with the money He has entrusted to them.

Timothy Plan Mutual Funds give testimony to this change and dramatic shift in conscience, as they have seen dramatic inflows from evangelical Christians who are dedicated to making sure the money they have been blessed with is not being used to further erode the moral fiber of America.

Timothy Plan offers a biblically responsible family of funds designed to suit the various needs of Christian investors. In 1994, Timothy Plan, founded by Arthur Ally, pioneered the first pro-life, pro-family screening standard and will not invest a single penny into any company that violates these screens. Timothy Plan’s two-page “Know Your Investments” document represents a small portion of companies failing the screens.

Planned Parenthood Doc Broke State Law and Did Abortion on 13-Year-Old, Claims He Didn’t Know Her Age

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
August 11, 2017

A Kansas medical board is considering whether to suspend or revoke a Planned Parenthood abortionist’s license after he failed to follow the law regarding a 13-year-old’s abortion.

Allen Palmer is a traveling abortionist from Missouri who has been tied to criminal allegations in the past. Palmer now is facing possibly disciplinary action related to an abortion he performed at a Kansas Planned Parenthood in 2014, The Daily Mail reports.

Kansas requires that abortion facilities submit tissue from the aborted baby to the state Bureau of Investigation for patients younger than 14. The law helps provide information for cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.

Palmer did not collect or submit the tissue to the bureau in the 13-year-old’s case, according to the report.

On Thursday, a state medical board heard testimony about the incident and considered whether to suspend or revoke his medical license. The board has not reached a decision yet about disciplinary action.

During his testimony, Palmer accused the clinic staff of not informing him of the young girl’s age, and said he would have collected the additional information if he had known her age.

“I’m as shocked and awed by this failure as anybody here, but they want to hang it on me, and maybe that’s the way it is,” Palmer said. “I’m telling you that I did not know and I would not have proceeded if I had known.”

Here’s more from the report:

According to the petition, the 13-year-old girl impregnated by her then-19-year-old boyfriend during consensual sex sought a surgical abortion at what then was known as Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Inc. in December 2014, when the fetus was nearly 11 weeks old.

Palmer, while filling in for a vacationing medical director, performed an in-clinic abortion but failed to meet a state requirement that fetal tissue be turned over to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for any abortion performed on a girl younger than 14.

When questioned about why he did not ask the girl’s age, Palmer said he relies on counselors and nurses to inform him when there is an issue that he should be aware of.

A spokesperson for the Kansas Planned Parenthood told the AP that Palmer no longer works for them.

According to Operation Rescue, Palmer worked part-time for Planned Parenthood in Kansas for years. During his time there, the Overland Park facility was “charged by former District Attorney Phil Kline with 107 criminal counts related to illegal late-term abortion and manufacturing evidence to cover their crimes. Those charges were eventually dismissed after incriminating evidence in the custody of the State Attorney General’s office was mysteriously destroyed,” according to the pro-life group.

Palmer also worked part-time for South Wind Women’s Center, another abortion facility in Kansas. It is not clear if he still works there.

In 1979, Palmer was convicted of corporate tax evasion and spent time in prison, according to the pro-life group. He also had his medical license suspended in Missouri for two years and later was placed on five-year probation.

Baltimore’s Latest Anti-Gun Scheme Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
August 16, 2017

It’s well-known that most major American cities are outright hostile to the idea of ordinary people owning firearms. Far too many of them, when they can get away with it, restrict the right of private citizens to purchase guns.

Thanks to both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, their ability to do that is greatly reduced.

Some cities, however, are trying new ways to make it difficult to be a law-abiding gun owner in their community. They just make more things involving guns illegal.

For example, the City of Baltimore is looking to impose mandatory minimums of people who have a gun just a smidge too close to certain buildings.

The measure originally aimed to criminalize the carry or transport of a handgun, either openly or concealed, within 100 yards of a public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly” with a mandatory penalty of one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

However, as modified last month in committee, first-time offenders would not be eligible for the mandatory sentence except in cases where the illegal handgun they possessed was used in a crime. Also, the state’s attorney’s office could use discretion in charging individuals with violations of the city ordinance should it become law, skirting the issue entirely.

“Although the legislation is stripped down, it is still bad policy for Baltimore,” said Adam Jackson, with the community group Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle. “The fact that this bill is essentially the status quo further proves that this will not solve Baltimore’s crime problem.

While it’s very true this will do nothing to solve Baltimore’s crime problem—a problem that stems more from poverty and failed economic policies over recent decades—it’s important to remember that this proposal was only about fighting crime on a rather superficial level.

While the new policy is watered-down, the original bill would turn people into criminals for simply making a poorly timed wrong turn. After all, their firearm, which was legal in one place, but one inch closer suddenly becomes a public menace.

Further, look at the places being “protected.” Public buildings, churches, parks, and schools. Are these really high-crime facilities, even by Baltimore’s standards? No, not really.

However, they are buildings that tend to be scattered throughout the community somewhat evenly, creating large pockets where guns are now forbidden. Further, while some of these locations may exist close to one another, they don’t always. From time to time, the zones created by this law may only allow a few yards for the safe transport of a firearm.

Many lawful gun owners will look at that and simply decide it’s not worth it to carry a gun. After all, they don’t want to break the law, even if they disagree with it.

This, boys and girls, is a feature, not a bug.

Unfortunately for the City of Baltimore, it’s also pointless. After all, how many criminals will look at this law and think, “I’m going to go hold up that liquor store and kill the clerk, but now I can’t take my gun. I don’t want to break the law in the process, now do I?”

Instead, as with all gun laws, the criminals will keep doing what they do and it’ll be the law abiding that will suffer for it.

Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia.


%d bloggers like this: