Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

Al-Shabaab kept women as sex slaves, subjected them to gang rapes and forced abortions

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
December 13, 2017

Why have we seen not just the Islamic State, but also Boko Haram and now al-Shabaab take sex slaves? Because it is sanctioned in Islamic law. The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex. In March 2017, Quebec imam Ewis El Nagar said that the Islamic ruling allowing slave girls was still in force.

The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.

“Sex Slave Survivor of Christian-Killing Group Al-Shabaab Describes Gang Rapes, Forced Abortions,” by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, December 12, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A woman who was held captive and repeatedly raped by members of Al Shabaab is sharing the horrific details of daily sexual abuse and forced abortions endured by those who are kidnapped by the the radical Islamic terror group.

Kenya’s The Standard reported on Sunday the story of one of the women who survived the ordeal at Boni Forest camp, identified as Fatuma, who said that she and others were raped by as many as six men at a time for five years.

“The women in the camp had to cook, wash clothes for the militants and undertake other household duties. The fighters frequently physically and sexually abused us. Some militants would beat us if they did not like something we cooked, which was often for me as I was not familiar with cooking Somali injera (bread) that was preferred by the militants,” Fatuma, who managed to escape the jihadists a year ago, explained.

She said the militants forced the women to use contraceptives and undergo abortions when they got pregnant.

The abuse reportedly worsened when Al-Shabaab fighters battled the African Union Mission in Somalia or Somalia National Army troops.

“They would drink and take drugs all day and night, whether celebrating the killing of Somalia National Army or AMISOM soldiers or mourning their own, and that’s when the gang rapes would happen,” she recalled.

Fatuma said that only the female captives who were married off to commanders were allowed to have children, and said that there were about 15 children at the camp.

The woman, who admitted that she was looking for work with Al-Shabaab before finding out what the group is really about, said that captives were also often forced to use drugs and were treated as prisoners.

“If you were lucky, a commander would take you as a wife and that would stop other militants from raping you. But those who were made wives were only native Somalis,” she said….

Without Concealed-Carry Reciprocity, Self-Defense Is A Second-Class Right

with one comment

By 
The Federalist
December 11, 2017

While rights like free speech are perceived as universal for all Americans, the right to keep and bear arms is idiosyncratically dismissed as a matter for local determination.

When civil rights advocates on the Left speak of the Bill of Rights, they are generally not referring to all ten amendments. The Ninth and Tenth are frequently forgotten or dismissed as tautologies. The Second Amendment, especially, gets ignored altogether.

This is not just a matter of what legal cases groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will take up. It also trickles down into the general understanding of our rights as Americans.

Equal Citizenship in all 50 States

One major benefit of the U.S. Constitution is that you can travel among the states without leaving your rights behind. The Constitution joined 13 semi-independent former colonies into one united country and, while it preserved a great deal of regional autonomy, it meant that a citizen of one state could not be treated as a second-class resident in another.

If you are married in Georgia, South Carolina cannot consider you unwed. If you are allowed to drive a car in Maine, New Hampshire cannot void your driver’s license. Fundamental rights are even more secure: your right to free speech in California is guaranteed whether you live there or are just visiting for the day from Nevada.

The exception to all this is the right to bear arms. Your concealed-carry permit issued in Pennsylvania won’t do you a lick of good in New Jersey. You might even find yourself in jail, as Shaneen Allen did in 2014, for innocently assuming that states are required to give full faith and credit to the acts of their neighboring states.

The provision that follows that one reinforces the point: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833, the “intention of this clause was to confer on [the people] a general citizenship; and to communicate all the privileges and immunities, which the citizens of the same state would be entitled to under the like circumstances.” Courts have generally agreed with Story’s interpretation.

After the Civil War, the idea of national citizenship was expanded and augmented by the Fourteenth Amendment, which declared that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, by this language the Constitution declares that any American can travel to another state and not be put at a legal disadvantage compared with citizens of that state.

The main author of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, said he understood the “privileges or immunities” in question there to be “chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” Courts did not agree with this interpretation, with the result being that the states became bound by the Bill of Rights only gradually, with a few parts of them still not deemed to apply to state governments. It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applied to the states, 142 years after Bingham’s language was written.

New Hope for the Second Amendment

Laws about gun ownership have still not caught up with the modern constitutional vision of McDonald and the Fourteenth Amendment. Now that the Second Amendment has been determined to apply to the states, we need a new legal framework to establish what that means for our outdated state gun regulations.

A bill advancing through Congress looks to address part of this, and ensure that Second Amendment rights are honored for non-residents of a state. H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, would allow people who are allowed to own guns and who have concealed-carry licenses in their states keep their rights and privileges when they cross state lines. H.R. 38 passed the House this month by a vote of 231 to 198. The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, rightly calls it “a simple, common sense solution.”

Reaction has been about what you would expect from gun controllers. “Essentially, we are telling states who are responsible in the requirements that they place on their concealed-carry permits that that doesn’t matter anymore,” Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell told the New York Times.

Swalwell’s comments echo those of many ill-informed opponents of concealed carry permits. As has been shown time and again in studies, concealed-carry permit-holders are among the most law-abiding people in America. They are even more law-abiding than police officers, and by a large margin. Leftists love to scoff at the theme of a “good guy with a gun,” but that is exactly the group opponents of reciprocity would ban from their states. Criminals, who do not bother to apply for permits and are ineligible to receive them, would have no such impediment.

Federalism is an important part of our republic, but the need for local control cannot be raised as an objection to the natural rights that the Constitution protects for all Americans. Just as no state could ban free speech for visitors from other states, neither should they restrict any other right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, nor any privilege granted by state governments.

Over the past few years, states have been forced to reckon with expanded definitions of marriage that courts have discovered in the Constitution. It stands to reason that rights explicitly protected in that document must be given the same treatment. Hudson’s bill is a good step toward treating all Americans as equals in their Second Amendment rights.

Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.

Texas Court Case Exposes The Gruesome Reality Of Dismemberment Abortion

with one comment

By 
The Federalist
November 9, 2017

Abortion providers in Texas don’t think the state should require them to kill a fetus before dismembering it in its mother’s womb.

Editor’s Note: This article contains descriptions of human dismemberment caused by second-trimester abortions.

A bizarre spectacle unfolded this week in a federal district courtroom in Austin, Texas, where a group of abortion providers argued they shouldn’t have to kill a fetus before dismembering it in its mother’s womb, and the state argued that they should.

The law in question wouldn’t ban such a procedure, but it would require abortion doctors in Texas to ensure that a fetus is dead before they dismember it. The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, hinges on the constitutionality of the Texas law and marks the first time the merits of such a statute have been considered at a trial.

Other states have passed similar bans of live dismemberment abortion, and some of those laws have been challenged in court without proceeding to the trial phase. Arkansas and Alabama immediately appealed temporary restraining orders against their bans, forgoing trials at the district court level. Texas did not, opting instead for a five-day trial before federal district court Judge Lee Yeakel, which concluded Wednesday. No doubt Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wants to build a record in anticipation of an eventual hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dozens of abortion providers from across the state claim the Texas law effectively bans second-trimester abortions. There is simply no way, they say, to ensure the death of a fetus prior to dismemberment in a “safe and effective” way, so the law creates a substantial burden to a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

Hence the bizarre spectacle. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued this week that there’s nothing wrong with dismembering a live fetus, while attorneys for the State of Texas have been at pains to demonstrate just how “safe and effective” it is to kill a fetus before dismembering it in utero. You can inject a chemical called digoxin into the unborn child. You can inject potassium chloride directly into the child’s heart, which causes it to stop beating within minutes. Or you can simply sever the umbilical cord and allow the child to bleed to death. It’s all rather straightforward.

No Wonder We Euphemize Abortion

In a court case like this, everyone meticulously employs medical jargon and euphemism. A dismemberment abortion, for example, is called a “dilation and evacuation,” or simply D&E. (The idea is to refer to what’s being done to the woman’s cervix and uterus rather than what’s being done to the fetus.) Speaking of the fetus, the favored term for what happens when it’s killed is “fetal demise.” Expert witnesses and attorneys on both sides in this trial have discussed at length the question of fetal demise. How can fetal demise be accomplished safely and effectively? What complications might arise from causing fetal demise? How often does an injection of digoxin fail to bring about fetal demise? Is fetal demise medically necessary?

The purpose of such language is to hide from ourselves the horrifying reality of we’re talking about. One expert witness for the plaintiffs, Dr. Mark Nichols of Portland, Ore., corrected a state’s attorney’s offhand use of the phrase, “unborn child.” “That’s not the term we use,” he said. “That’s not the medical term.” Sometimes, Nichols said, doctors will cause fetal demise prior to performing a second-trimester abortion to guard against “extra-mural delivery,” which is when a baby that’s supposed to be aborted is instead born alive—an event that can “cause distress” to the patient (the mother, not the unborn child). Later, he spoke of “removing parts of the pregnancy,” by which he meant ripping the limbs off a live human being. No wonder we speak of such things in euphemisms.

Levatino doesn’t do abortions anymore. He stopped performing them after his daughter, two months shy of her sixth birthday, was killed in a car accident in front of their home. She died in his arms on the way to the hospital. Within weeks of her death, he had to perform a previously scheduled dismemberment abortion. When he ripped out the first body part, he stopped short.

“I didn’t want to continue,” he said. “But I had to because you can’t leave any body parts in the woman. We don’t pile up body parts on the table to be gruesome, we do it to keep inventory. If we don’t get all the parts out, the woman will get sick, get an infection, she could even die.” Dr. Levatino added that when he looked at the pile of body parts he’d removed from that woman, “I didn’t see the woman’s right to choose or the $800 cash I’d made in 15 minutes. I saw somebody’s son or daughter.”

He went on to describe a 20-week-old fetus as being about the size of the palm of an adult hand, from fingertip to wrist, “not counting the legs.” A dismemberment abortion, he explained, involves reaching into a woman’s uterus with forceps and “grabbing whatever is there. Maybe you rip off a leg, which is about four-inches long,” then you pull out “an arm, the spine. The skull is the most difficult part. Sometimes there’s a little face staring up at you.” He understandably called it “an absolutely brutal procedure, in which a living human being is torn to pieces.”

Abortion Is Based On A Monstrous Lie

Our laws have gradually come to reflect this. Although the landmark 1992 Supreme Court case Casey v. Planned Parenthood reaffirmed the central holding in Roe—a woman’s right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to abortion—it opened the way for states to regulate abortions in the first trimester or at any stage before fetal viability, as long as they don’t impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion.

The crucial shift in the court’s ruling in Casey was twofold. It recognized that advances in medical technology had shown that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks, as opposed to the 28 weeks set forth in Roe, and that the state had a legitimate interest in the “potentiality of human life,” which could include completely banning abortions after viability.

In 2003, Congress banned partial-birth abortions, or “intact dilation and extraction,” a term that, like dilation and evacuation, obscures the grisly reality of the procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, a living fetus is delivered feet-first and its skull crushed before its chin clears the uterus, inches before the completion of live birth. In the later stages of pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion isn’t much different than simply killing a newborn infant as it emerges from the womb. Before the ban, such abortions were usually performed in the second trimester, after 15 weeks and up to the point of viability. At the time of passage, Congress rightly called it “a gruesome and inhumane procedure,” and noted that 27 states had already passed laws banning partial-birth abortions.

In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart that the federal law did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the law “expresses respect for the dignity of human life” and affirmed the government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession. “The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,” Kennedy wrote.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued, quite remarkably, that there is really no difference between partial-birth abortion and dismemberment abortion. “Nonintact D&E could equally be characterized as ‘brutal,’” she writes, “involving as it does ‘tear[ing] [a fetus] apart’ and ‘ripp[ing] off’ its limbs.” (But of course for Ginsburg, this is a reason not to ban dismemberment abortion but instead to preserve partial-birth abortion.)

Like CaseyGonzales was an important development in abortion jurisprudence because it acknowledged that the government has a legitimate interest in respecting the life of the unborn, that a fetus is not simply a tumor or a clump of cells to be cut out or removed however an abortionist sees fit. Implicit in Gonzales, much like federal and state fetal homicide laws that impose additional criminal penalties for violent crimes against pregnant women, is the recognition that a fetus is in fact a human life and that how you take that life matters. In fact, in his majority decision, Kennedy says outright that dismemberment abortion “is a procedure laden with the power to devalue human life.”

Describing Dismemberment Abortion Exposes Its Horror

That brings us to the current case in Texas. In his closing statement Wednesday, Darren McCarty, lead counsel for the attorney general’s office, said that Senate Bill 8 isn’t a ban on dismemberment abortion, but only regulates “the moment of death—the moment, and nothing more. Is the lethal act going to be dismemberment, or an injection, or the snip of the umbilical cord?” He added that banning live dismemberment, as the law does, is not a step backwards but “a sign of progress in society.”

In a brief for the district court before the trial, Paxton argued that “We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denying an act of destruction. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Janet Crepps, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, didn’t see it that way. Live dismemberment abortion is an “advancement” for women, she said, because the procedure doesn’t take as long as it would if the state required fetal demise beforehand. In fact, she argued, Senate Bill 8 offers no benefits whatsoever to women seeking an abortion, because causing fetal demise prior to dismemberment is not “medically necessary.” Therefore, any additional burden the law might impose should render it unconstitutional. The fetal demise requirement, she said, “is part of a larger scheme to restrict abortion by banning it one procedure at a time.”

No doubt, plenty of lawmakers in Texas would like to do just that. But in the meantime, treating the unborn with dignity and humanity should be a bare minimum. After all, criminals on death row are not dismembered alive, nor are animals condemned to be euthanized. As McCarty noted in his closing, “it would be a great irony if the constitution that required the humane execution of criminals would ban the state from requiring the humane death of an unborn child.”

In the meantime, the Texas Legislature is determined to shine a light on what really happens in abortion clinics across the country. The Texas lawmaker responsible for the parts of Senate Bill 8 being challenged in federal court is Rep. Stephanie Klick, a registered nurse and medical consultant from Fort Worth. She attended much of the trial this week, and at one point told me that when she laid out the bill on the floor of the Texas House some people found out for the first time about dismemberment abortion. She said one woman approached her and explained that she’d had an abortion at 17 weeks, and wanted to know if that’s what they’d done to her. “I said, ‘Do you want to know the truth or do you want to feel good about your decision?’ She said, ‘No, I want to know the truth,’ and I said it’s very likely that you had a dismemberment procedure done. She was horrified by that.”

Klick also said that some Democrats voted for the bill who had never voted for anything pro-life in the past. “This procedure is so heinous that’s it’s changing hearts and minds when the public learns about how horrendous it is.”

John is a senior correspondent for The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

Amnesty International caught taking Soros cash to push abortion in Ireland

leave a comment »

By Monica Showalter
American Thinker
December 9, 2017

Amnesty International, the sanctimonious purported human rights group that champions halting the death penalty, has been caught taking $160,000 from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation to promote…abortion, in contravention of Irish law.

File under “unclear on the concept” in championing the value of human life.

It’s hard to say which player in this drama here is most loathsome.

Soros is appalling just for his uni-world vision with rotted out values, from pot legalization to releasing predators out on the streets from prisons to coercive, anything-goes redefinitions of family.  He calls himself a “stateless statesman” and sees that as his license to foment revolutions in struggling and established democracies, using NGOs as the arms of his multi-tentacled operational octopus.  He also loathes America.  During the Bush administration, he compared Americans to Nazis.  He’s only gotten worse ever since, moving into the promotion of abortion.

Abortion is an awful topic, too: the ending of human life, and cheapening it into a convenience and commodity.  Without abortion, there would be no sale of baby parts, as the current Planned Parenthood investigation announced yesterday by the Department of Justice signals.

Amnesty International is yet another problem, a sanctimonious non-government organization whose mission has led to a lot of useful idiots, as its founder once admitted to me back in the 1980s in San Francisco.  Originally focused on the noble mission of freeing political prisoners and ending the death penalty, it rapidly morphed into a hypocritical organization that ignored human rights violations in places such as Cuba and the Soviet Union and found infinite violations in the U.S.  Naturally, Soros has been bankrolling the organization for years.

Now with Amnesty International as his catspaw, Soros is using his cash to spread abortion into nations that have never known the barbaric practice, such as Ireland.  The stateless statesman doesn’t think laws against foreign organizations funding political campaigns apply to him.

Abortion is horrible as always, and even its record isn’t stopping its proponents.

Amnesty is failing in its mission to defend human life.

Let’s see what consequences look like for those who would wreak their havoc on nations that don’t want their globalist meddling.

Justice Dept. Launches Criminal Investigation of Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
December 8, 2017

The U.S. Department of Justice officially is investigating whether the abortion chain Planned Parenthood sold aborted babies’ body parts for profit.

Fox News broke the story late Thursday after obtaining a letter from Justice Department Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd requesting unredacted documents from the U.S. Senate committee that investigated the abortion chain last year.

The committee, as well as a U.S. House investigative committee, both recommended that the DOJ investigate Planned Parenthood after finding strong evidence that the abortion chain broke the law.

The investigation came about as a result of a series of undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress that exposed the baby body parts trade inside the nation’s largest abortion provider.

“The Department of Justice … would like to request the Committee provide unredacted copies of records contained in the report, in order to further the Department’s ability to conduct a thorough and comprehensive assessment of that report based on the full range of information available,” Boyd wrote.

The department sent the letter, dated Dec. 7, to U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, who led the committee, the Independent reports.

“At this point, the records are intended for investigative use only – we understand that a resolution from the Senate may be required if the department were to use any of the unredacted materials in a formal legal proceeding, such as a grand jury,” Boyd continued.

Planned Parenthood repeatedly has denied all allegations of wrong-doing. A spokesperson refused to comment on the letter Thursday for the Independent.

David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress praised the move, pointing to the undercover videos showing how Planned Parenthood employees callously and flippantly negotiated the price of tiny baby hearts, lungs, livers and brains.

“Since then, two Congressional investigations found even deeper wrongdoing and confirmed that Planned Parenthood Federation of America, several of their biggest affiliates, and multiple business partners broke the law in a profit-driven scheme to commodify dismembered baby body parts,” Daleiden said in a statement. “It is time for public officials to finally hold Planned Parenthood and their criminal abortion enterprise accountable under the law.”

National pro-life leaders also were pleased about the confirmation of a federal investigation.

“Women have been betrayed for too long by Planned Parenthood and lied to about the sale of fetal body parts. Taxpayers have had enough of Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer dollars to traffic body parts and commit crimes,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood manager and current head of And Then There Were None, said: “This is long-awaited, good news. Planned Parenthood has actively participated in illegal activity, selling the body parts of aborted babies in exchange for profit. They’ve lied to the very women they purport to fight for. I saw it first-hand when I worked for the abortion giant and yet, they still manage to obtain over half a billion dollars a year in our tax dollars. Congress should immediately halt any money to the abortion giant until the FBI completes their investigation.”

The abortion chain Planned Parenthood receives approximately half a billion taxpayer dollars every year, while performing about 320,000 abortions annually.

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all 14:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth videoHolly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
  • In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
  • The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
  • The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
  • Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
  • The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
  • The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
  • The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.
  • The 14th video: catches Planned Parenthood executives discussing gruesome abortion procedures and the sale of body parts from aborted babies for profit.

 

Why Radical Islam Is the Baby Boomers’ Fault

with one comment

By Elliot Friedland
Clarion Project
December 7, 2017

Millenials get a bad rap for being lazy entitled snowflakes who can’t take criticism or do a hard day’s labor. We also are criticized for pandering to Islamist sensibilities out of our misplaced desire for political correctness. Well, hold my avocado toast, old timer, because I need to explain some things to you.

This is your fault.

No, not you specifically (don’t get cranky), but the fault of baby boomers in the aggregate. You’re the generation that’s held power since the late ’60s (sorry Gen X, you never quite rocked the boat enough to get attention). Don’t get upset you didn’t know any better. You just weren’t paying attention and now we’re here, with terrorist attacks a possibility anywhere and at any time.

So here’s how the baby boomers set us up for radical Islam.

1.You Made the Saudis Rich by Buying All Their Oil

Since the 1970s, the government of Saudi Arabia has been spending money like a sailor on shore leave to fund extremism around the world. It’s estimated they’ve spent somewhere in the region of $100 billion funding their ultraconservative brand of Islam worldwide — paying for schools, mosques and extremist literature. All that money to support ideas that women are worth less than men, that gay people and apostates should be killed, etc.

But where did they get the money? Boomers gave it to them. Your thirsty little cars guzzled the stuff down like there was no tomorrow and you made no effort to invest in different sources of power.

By contrast, millenials have a significantly lower rate of car ownership than previous generations and are far more likely to support alternative sources of energy.

2.You Propped Up Extremists to Screw the Communists

Ronald Reagan armed and trained jihadi fighters in Afghanistan to get the Soviets out. Reagan also gave three billion in economic assistance and two billion in military aid to dictator General Zia Ul-Haq’s Pakistan. This is a regime that suspended elections and actively promoted Islamist groups such as Jamaat I-Islami, which is actively opposed to democracy. Pakistan’s Internal Security Agency (ISI) still supports the Taliban.

The accounts have been improperly audited and the Islamist-affiliated Pakistani government largely embezzled American largesse. Zia Ul-Haq is the dictator who aligned himself with extremist groups and promoted an extremist version of Pakistan that prior to him had not existed, including purging the universities of liberal- and Western-aligned elements.

Without the actions of Zia Ul-Haq, Pakistan would not be in the dire, Islamist controlled situation it is today. Who supported this? Boomers.

3.You Invented Political Correctness

If you’re worried about all the safe spaces and not being able to tell the truth about the ideology of Islamism, don’t look at millenials, look in the mirror.

Left-wing professors began preaching post-modern doctrines of cultural relativism in the 1970s. The upshot of those ideas is that it’s morally wrong for any group to uphold its values as better. And that given the history of power dynamics between Western and non-Western groups, it is doubly wrong for a Western group to hold its values as better than any given non-Western group.

The idea that Westerners ought to feel supremely guilty for the sins of the 19th and early 20th centuries are not millenial notions, they are boomer ideas.

Millenials are impacted by radical Islam in a big way. But that doesn’t mean the factors driving it are our fault. On the contrary, we inherited this world from earlier generations. Boomers set it up like this.

Radical Islam is on you.

House Passes National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

leave a comment »

By Matt Vespa
Townhall
December 6, 2017

UPDATE: Shocker—the Democratic reaction has been well…unhinged.

I wish every state were constitutional carry, in which you don’t need a permit to carry a firearm, but we all can’t get what we want. There’s the political reality. To fix this, national concealed carry reciprocity has been one of the major goals for those who support civil rights and the Second Amendment. To put it simply, all law-abiding gun owners with gun permits can carry them in any state that recognizes carry rights. As of 2014, all 50 states recognize concealed carry rights, though some states have different statutes regulating such a right. This bill comes in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas that left 25 people dead, with another 20 injured.

This tragic incident occurred because the perpetrator, an Air Force veteran, didn’t have his criminal history forwarded to the FBI by the Air Force. They admitted to tripping up. The shooter, Devin Kelley, was a disturbed man who was court-martialed for domestic abuse in 2012, sentenced to a year in jail upon conviction, and was given a bad conduct discharge in 2014. A bad conduct discharge is not the same as a dishonorable one, which would have barred Kelley from purchasing firearms. Still, the domestic abuse conviction and jail sentence still made him a prohibited person; this shooting could have been prevented.

Now, Congress decided to fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with this bill, while including a national concealed carry reciprocity provision. It passed earlier today (via AP):

The House approved the bill, 231-198, largely along party lines. Six Democrats voted yes, while 14 Republicans voted no.

The measure would allow gun owners with a state-issued concealed-carry permit to carry a handgun in any state that allows concealed weapons. It now goes to the Senate.

Republicans said the reciprocity measure, a top priority of the National Rifle Association, would allow gun owners to travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state laws or civil suits.

Opponents, mostly Democrats, said the bill could endanger public safety by overriding state laws that place strict limits on guns.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., called the bill an attempt to undermine states’ rights, “hamstring law enforcement and allow dangerous criminals to walk around with hidden guns anywhere and at any time. It’s unspeakable that this is Congress’ response to the worst gun tragedies in American history.”

Well, criminals already do that, congresswoman, but that’s beside the point. There was some pushback from pro-gun groups that this bill would expand background checks, but Stephen Gutowski at the Free Beacon said no such provision alluding to that exists in the current bill [emphasis mine]:

The Fix NICS provisions now contained in the combined bill establish incentives for states and federal agencies to better comply with current law on reporting disqualifying criminal and mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). They also include punishments, such as stripping bonuses from political appointees, for states and agencies that don’t fully comply.

Some pro-gun groups have opposed the bill claiming it expands the background check system. The text of the bill shows, however, that it does not expand the classifications of who is considered prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, nor does it expand the kinds of criminal or mental health records required to be submitted to the system. The bill also doesn’t expand which agencies are required to report records to NICS.

Despite what appears in the bill’s text, Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, described it as establishing “a gun control super-database” and “expanding the Brady-NICS gun owner registry.”

“Weak Republicans always push gun control laws under the guise of ‘enforcing the laws we have,’ but only end up pushing the Democrat agenda, giving gun owners more reasons to worry,” he said.

Meanwhile an alert from Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), claimed Fix NICS “would require that the rolls of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ObamaCare be trolled for recipients with PTSD, ADHD, or Alzheimer’s—that is, people who have had guardians appointed,” the group’s legislative council said it was not arguing the bill would create new categories of prohibited people. Instead, he said, the bill’s attempt to gather all of the records required under current law, which dates back nearly a decade, is the problem.

“No, we are not arguing that ‘Fix NICS’ adds new categories,” Michael Hammond, general counsel for GOA, told the Free Beacon. “But we are arguing that 18 U.S.C. 922(g), as interpreted by the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act and its regulations at 27 CFR 478.11, is so potentially broad, that, if every eligible name were submitted to NICS, as the bill proposes, the result would be the submission of a large number of names of otherwise law-abiding Americans.”

Despite any concerns it has with the Fix NICS Act, GOA encouraged members of Congress to vote for the combined bill in hopes that the package had a better chance of passing the Senate.

It now heads to the Senate, where it’ll be more of an uphill battle given the 60-vote threshold. For starters, there’s disagreement with having the Fix NICS and concealed carry provision in the same bill. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) supports the concealed carry measure, but told AP, “I think it’s a mistake to try to combine this with the ‘Fix NICS’ background check.”

Democratic Fundraiser Charged With Racially Motivated Gun Crime

with one comment

By Matt Vespa
Townhall
December 5, 2017

Well, this is a wild story, albeit a local one, coming from Missouri. A top fundraiser for the Democratic Party has been arrested and charged with a racially motivated gun crime. Matthew Lieberman is accused of drawing a handgun at two locations, firing shots, and shouting racial epithets. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that surveillance footage captured Lieberman with a firearm, along with shell casings at the scene that matched those found in his car. He was arrested on November 29. His bail has been set at $250,000 (via St. Louis Post-Dispatch):

Veteran Democratic fundraiser Matthew Lieberman has been charged with multiple felony gun crimes after allegedly firing a handgun and shouting racial slurs at eyewitnesses at two businesses Tuesday.

Lieberman pointed a handgun at someone at the Amoco gas station on Skinker Boulevard and Highway 40 (Interstate 64) while using racial epithets just after 11 p.m. Tuesday, according to court documents. He then allegedly fired multiple shots at the building from his car.

In court documents, investigators said surveillance footage showed Lieberman with the gun, and bullet casings at the scene matched the make and model of bullet casings found in Lieberman’s car.

Less than 15 minutes later, Lieberman was at the Jack in the Box on Hampton Avenue, shouting racial epithets at maintenance workers, according to court documents. He fired a gun several times from a Mercedes sedan, the documents say.

[…]

Lieberman, 38, was arrested Wednesday and now faces charges of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action. One weapons charge includes a hate crime enhancement, with officers reporting that Lieberman’s “conduct and use of epithets indicate his actions to be motivated by race.”

The Truth About The 4,000 Guns Sold By Gun Stores To Prohibited Individuals

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
December 6, 2017

Sutherland Springs exposed flaws in the NICS system. Whether you agree with background checks or not, they’re the law and the Air Force blew it on that one. They failed to input the information into the system. Plain and simple.

However, is the lack of data being input the only flaw in the system by any stretch of the imagination. Well, the FBI asked BATFE seize thousands of firearms from prohibited people who bought them in gun stores, most after NICS failed to report that the individual was prohibited.

Federal authorities sought to take back guns from thousands of people the background check system should have blocked from buying weapons because they had criminal records, mental health issues or other problems that would disqualify them.

A USA TODAY review found that the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests last year for agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retrieve guns from prohibited buyers.

It’s the largest number of such retrieval requests in 10 years, according to FBI records– an especially striking statistic after revelations that a breakdown in the background check system allowed a troubled Air Force veteran to buy a rifle later used to kill 26 worshipers at a Texas church last month.

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) vets millions of gun purchase transactions every year. But the thousands of gun seizure requests highlight persistent problems in a system where analysts must complete background checks within three days of the proposed purchase. If the background check is not complete within the 72-hour time limit, federal law allows the sale to go forward. ATF agents are asked to take back the guns if the FBI later finds these sales should have been denied.

It appears that the claim is that the NICS is overworked and mistakes get made, yadda yadda yadda. A former BATFE agent even called the three-day provision on background checks “reckless.”

Of course, that former agent now works for Giffords, so you know where his loyalties lie, and it’s not with the United States Constitution.

Now, 4,000 mistakes sound like a lot, but let’s put this in perspective. According to USA Today, the total number was 4,170 goofs. However, the NICS processed over 27.5 million checks in 2016 alone.

I’m not the only one who sees this perspective.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the firearm industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation, noted that the FBI’s seizure directives represent only a small portion in the flood of of transactions that the bureau has been processing in recent years. On Black Friday alone, FBI examiners fielded more than 200,000 background check requests, a one-day record for the system.

“What we support are more resources for the NICS operation to process the volume of requests,” Keane said.

Keane said there has been no discussion in the industry about extending the three-day time limit for completing background checks, adding that more than 90% of all checks are completed almost immediately after the request is forwarded to the FBI. He said less than 1% of all firearms transactions are later referred to the ATF for retrieval.

Unfortunately, looking at the numbers, it appears Keane overstated the problem. You see, we’re actually looking at more like 0.015 percent of all background checks made resulted in a situation like this, not one percent.

What’s happened here is a journalism trick.

Journalists know that people won’t freak about a problem that represents 0.015 percent of the total number. Even if that represented millions of people, that number sounds so small as to be trivial. It simply can’t be presented as being that small a sample.

So what they do is they phrase it such a way that will grab your attention. “Thousands” sounds like so much larger a problem with 0.015 percent, even if it’s the same exact thing. “Thousands” gets your attention, it makes it seem like something you need to be concerned with, makes it a problem you should be talking about with your co-workers around the office water cooler.

But the numbers are what they are.

Does that mean USA Today meant to mislead people? Perhaps.

You see, this trick really has more to do with marketing your story to editors and the readers–yes, this works on editors too–and less with manipulation, as a general rule. If the headline doesn’t grab you, if that happens enough, no one will buy the paper or access the website. It’s something we all do, to some extent. Think of it as an early form of clickbait.

Where USA Today crossed the line, however, is in presenting this information with no reference to just how many total background checks do take place. They failed to provide sufficient information so the reader could discern the scope of the “problem” for themselves.

There are only two reasons to do this: Laziness and Lying.

Laziness is just failing to do it because you couldn’t be bothered. However, the report is done in a manner where laziness doesn’t appear to be an issue. The journalist contacted people from both sides, quoted them, and appears to have done the difficult legwork just fine. It was the minute detail in one aspect missed. Now, that doesn’t mean laziness couldn’t be an issue. After all, everyone overlooks something that might have been revealed with just a bit more work from time to time, right?

Besides, didn’t the reporter quote Keane from the NSSF?

Well, yes. At the end of the piece.

You see, newspaper writers tend to use a format called the inverted pyramid. You put all the most important information at the top of the story, and then work your way down in order of importance. Here’s a visual of what it would look like.

(Public domain image)

This is done so editors can make cuts easily. They just start at the bottom to chop off information so the story will fit in the newspaper space available.

In the age of the internet, this is still in use at many sites because readers lose their attention after a time. You provide the key points at the top, then work your way down in order of importance, ostensibly so the reader gets all the relevant information.

Keane’s quote, however, is at the bottom. It’s where readers are least likely to see it, meaning many will read a chunk of the story and then click away to read something else, all the while believing there’s this epidemic of firearms in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. They have no reason believe this is really a non-issue because they clicked away before that.

Now, couple the placement of Keane’s quote with the lack of information about the total number of background checks–information available with a quick Google search–and it’s really difficult to see any way this is an honest mistake.

This isn’t fake news. This is activism masquerading as journalism, and it’s pathetic.

The fact is that there is no problem with massive numbers of bad guys getting guns and then doing horrible things. USA Today even notes that the BATFE agents charged with recovering these guns don’t view most of these people as dangerous, and that’s because few ever do anything dangerous with those guns.

The only real problem here is when supposedly unbiased media outlets present manipulated facts in order to sell a narrative.

Senate Removed Unborn Child Savings Plan Provision from Tax Bill Before Passage

with one comment

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
December 4, 2017

The Senate tax reform bill, which passed along party lines early Saturday morning, did not include a provision which allows expectant parents to contribute to a 529 college savings account for their unborn baby that was a part of the House tax reform plan.

The portion “on unborn children was not included in the measure that passed the Senate,” Julia Lawless, a spokeswoman for Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, told Bloomberg Monday.

She explained that the language was not compatible with the Senate’s “Byrd Rule” which “prohibits changes that aren’t directly related to taxes and spending under the process that Senate leaders are using to pass their tax bill.”

The proposal was dropped from the final version of the bill released Friday before the vote, a Senate aide told Bloomberg.

The provision’s failure to pass the Senate indicates that it may not be included in the final tax reform package that the House and Senate must agree on and send to President Trump for approval.

Pro-life groups, such as the Susan B. Anthony List and the March for Life, praised the provision when it was added initially to the House bill in November. Planned Parenthood and NARAL criticized the language arguing that it was an attempt to undermine abortion access.

“A child in the womb is just as human as you or I yet, until now, the U.S. tax code has failed to acknowledge the unborn child – all while granting tax breaks for those seeking an abortion under the pretense of ‘healthcare,”’ March for Life president Jeanne Mancini commentedon the provision at the time. “The proposed tax plan is a huge leap forward for an antiquated tax code, and we hope this is the first step in expanding the child tax credit to include unborn children as well.”

“It is absurd that House Republican leaders would use a tax bill to try to advance their agenda to undermine access to safe, legal abortion,” Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s vice president of public policy and government affairs, said in a statement. “Politicians in Washington, DC have no place inserting themselves in decisions about women’s health and lives, not on this bill and not on any bill.”

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) called the provision “dangerous” arguing that it could have “far-reaching implications on women’s health” which prompted Rep. Kristi Noem (R-ND) to ask what was so dangerous about allowing parents to save money for their unborn child’s education.

%d bloggers like this: