Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

Planned Parenthood Closing Multiple Abortion Clinics in Iowa After State Defunds It

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
May 18, 2017

The abortion chain Planned Parenthood announced plans Thursday to close four Iowa clinics as a result of a new state law that defunds it.

At the end of June, Planned Parenthood facilities in Burlington, Keokuk and Sioux City, Iowa will close; and a fourth in Quad City will close when the building is sold, Iowa Public Radio reports. Three of the facilities did abortions.

Eight other Planned Parenthood facilities will remain open in Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register.

“This is good news for families in the state of Iowa,” said Iowans For Life Director Maggie DeWitte.  “We worked hard this last session to educate legislators and the general public that there are many quality community health centers in Iowa that provide comprehensive healthcare to women and families across the state. And they do so without taking the life of precious human beings.”

The abortion group claims the closures will hurt minorities, young adults, low-income families and people in rural areas. One abortion supporter even told the Register that she thinks abortions will go up because the four Planned Parenthoods are closing.

Jenifer Bowen of Iowa Right to Life refuted this, saying, “The reallocation of our tax dollars, away from the abortion industry, and into the hands of true health care facilities will only empower more Iowa women.”

The tax money that used to go to Planned Parenthoods in Iowa now will be given to community health clinics that offer comprehensive health care but not abortions. In contrast to the 12 (soon to be eight) Planned Parenthood facilities, there are 221 community health clinics in Iowa, according to local news reports. These facilities will be able to expand services to low-income, minority and other patients with the funding increase.

Planned Parenthood said the four facilities saw about 14,600 patients in the past three years.

Here’s more from the Register:

Planned Parenthood said it is proceeding with the closures because of the loss of about $2 million in public funding under the state legislation.

Gov. Terry Branstad signed a $1.7 billion health and human services appropriations bill last week that calls for the Iowa Department of Human Services to discontinue the federal Medicaid family planning network waiver, foregoing about $3 million in federal funding. Instead, the state will use about $3.3 million to recreate its own family planning network so that it can prohibit the funding of clinics that provide abortions.

Bowen continued: “Planned Parenthood’s CEO is claiming that ‘defunding Planned Parenthood will set a health care crisis in motion in Iowa.’ Truly their arrogance knows no bounds. Planned Parenthood is NOT a ‘health care’ provider. They primarily provide services related to abortion. … we are pleased to see Iowa rapidly returning to a state where women and their unborn children are safe from the shrinking abortion giant.”

At least eight other Planned Parenthoods across the country also have closed or plan to close this year, according to LifeNews’s tally. These include three in New Mexico, two in Pennsylvania, one in Wyoming and one in Maryland. The Rocky Mountains affiliate told the AP of plans to close at least one more facility, but it did not specify which one.

Except in Iowa, Planned Parenthood officials said state and federal defunding efforts were not the reasons for the closures. Many mentioned patient numbers and finances as reasons.

The effort to defund abortion groups comes in response to a series of undercover videos showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling aborted babies’ body parts. Since the undercover videos revealed shocking and potentially illegal activity at Planned Parenthood, state and federal lawmakers have introduced measures to end taxpayer funding to it and other abortion groups.

Planned Parenthood aborts more than 300,000 unborn babies every single year. It is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and it receives nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars annually from the federal government.

Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood leaders refused an offer to receive an increase in taxpayer funding if the group stopped doing abortions. CEO Cecile Richards called the offer “obscene and insulting,” making it very clear that abortion – not women’s health care – is essential to Planned Parenthood.

The abortion group’s annual reports show patient numbers and non-abortion health care services have been dropping in the past few years while its abortion numbers remain steady. Out of character, Planned Parenthood has not released its annual report yet for 2016. It typically releases the report in January.

Judge throws out clock boy ‘discrimination’ lawsuit

with one comment

By Rick Moran
American Thinker
May 20, 2017

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the city of Irving, Texas and the local school district that alleged discrimination against Ahmed Mohamed, the student who brought a “clock” to school that looked suspiciously like a bomb.

Mohamed was arrested and charged with bringing a hoax bomb to school.  Those charges were later dropped, but the resulting furor from the incident became a litmus test for “Islamophobia” in America.  Those who supported the “innocent” teen were tolerant, broad-minded, and welcoming of diversity.  Those who think the student wrong were haters.  Ahmed ended up being invited to NASA headquarters and an event that featured President Obama as the left rallied to his cause.

Meanwhile, his father moved the family to Qatar but stayed only nine months.  When the family moved back to Irving, they demanded $15 million not to pursue legal action.  The town and school district refused to pay the extortion, which resulted in the lawsuit thrown out yesterday.

Daily Mail:

Court papers obtained by DailyMail.com reveal on May 18, a judge dismissed the entire case. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages along with attorney fees.

The judge wrote: ‘Plaintiff does not allege any facts from which this court can reasonably infer that any IISD employee intentionally discriminated against Ahmed Mohamed based on his race or religion.’

Further, he notes that the suit failed to identify any policy, custom, or practice of the City that was allegedly the moving force behind any violation of Ahmed’s Fifth Amendment rights.

When the lawsuit was first filed in 2016, the district hit back at the Mohamed family’s allegations saying Ahmed deliberately disobeyed his teacher by activating the clock despite her warning.

The judge said the  failed to allege any facts from which the court could reasonably conclude that Ahmed was discriminated against based on his race or religion.

The ruling said the suit had: ‘Absent allegations of intentional discrimination, or allegations from which the court can reasonably infer intentional discrimination, Plaintiff fails to allege an equal protection violation against the IISD.’

Mohamed’s complaint also said Irving Independent School District has an ‘ugly history of race struggles,’ and the State of Texas and the IISD have a ‘history of discrimination against Muslims in Texas curriculum and schools.’

Prior to filing the most recent lawsuit, the family demanded $15 million dollars in damages in the months after the arrest.

Damages are only granted for intentional discrimination. Mohamed is allowed to file an amended complaint by June 1.

The lawsuits and extortion demand are pretty strong indications – if not proof – that the entire incident was a scheme concocted – probably by the father – to soak the city and school district for as much money as they could get. Obviously, the family was expecting a quick settlement.  But Irving fought back and has now been vindicated.

The family say they will refile the lawsuit, and the judge has given them until June 1 to do so.  But the judge’s reasoning in throwing out the suit in the first place – that Mohamed failed the most basic legal test in a discrimination lawsuit – means that a similar result will ensue following the refiling of the lawsuit.

Portland State U: Muslim student says those who leave Islam will be killed in an Islamic state

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
May 13, 2017

 

 

 

The Muslim student is right, and unusually honest. The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

Middle School Student Suspended From School For Liking This Picture On Instagram

with one comment

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
May 8, 2017

Social media. It can be a great tool for reconnecting with old friends and long lost family members. For one middle school student, however, it became a nightmare.

Edgewood Middle School student Zachary Bowlin of Trenton, Ohio was suspended for 10 days after ‘liking’ a photo of a gun on Instagram.

The notice Bowlin’s parents received explained why their son was being suspended: “The reason for the intended suspension is as follows: Liking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence.”

The best part? It was an airsoft gun. 

“I liked it, scrolling down Instagram at night about 7, 8 o’clock I liked it,” Zachary FOX 19“The next morning they called me down [to the office] patted me down and checked me for weapons.”

“I was livid, I mean, I’m sitting here thinking ‘you just suspended him for ten days for liking a picture of a gun on a social media site,” father Marty Bowlin recounted. “He never shared, he never commented, he never made a threatening post… anything on the site, just liked it.”

The school dropped the suspension but sent an email to parents recounting the situation:

Yesterday evening school officials were made aware to an alleged threat of a student bringing a gun to school. We act on any potential threat to student safety swiftly and with the utmost importance. This morning, the alleged threat was addressed and we can assure you that all students at Edgewood Middle School are safe and school will continue as normal. Thank you.

Seriously? A threat of bringing a gun to school? What if *gasp* the student went to the gun range with his parents? Does that make him the next school shooter?

I understand wanting to protect students from any potential threat, especially the threat of a shooter on campus but this is just overkill.

Of course, the Superintendent doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with the school administration’s actions. This is the statement FOX 19 was provided with:

“Concerning the recent social media posting of a gun with the caption “Ready”, and the liking of this post by another student, the policy at Edgewood City Schools reads as follows:

The Board has a “zero tolerance” of violent, disruptive, harassing, intimidating, bullying, or any other inappropriate behavior by its students.

Furthermore, the policy states:

Students are also subject to discipline as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct that occurs off school property when the misbehavior adversely affects the educational process.

As the Superintendent of the Edgewood City Schools, I assure you that any social media threat will be taken serious including those who “like” the post when it potentially endangers the health and safety of students or adversely affects the educational process.”

Watch FOX 19‘s coverage of the incident:

“Shoot to Wound” vs. “Shoot to Stop” vs. “Shoot to Kill.”

with 2 comments

By Andrew Branca
Bearing Arms
February 15, 2014

[It seems that every time we post a story on a defensive gun use here, we have people claim in the comments that they are going to keep shooting at any person that feel justified in firing upon until that person is dead,  on the theory that if the person is dead, that then can’t sue them in civil court. I asked Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, about this “conventional wisdom.” This is how he responded. –ed.]

The issue you raise is a common one, but fortunately not a complicated one.  It’s simply the self-defense law element of proportionality–a person is allowed to use only as much force as is necessary to neutralize the threat, and no more than that.  Proportionality has both an intensity and a temporal (or time) dimension.

In terms of intensity, one can meet a non-deadly attack only using non-deadly means, and a deadly force attack with deadly means (also, of course, non-deadly means).

In terms of time, one can use force only for as long as the threat remains imminent (that is, until it is neutralized).  If it takes 5 shots to do that, but 6 are fired, that 6th round is excessive force and does not qualify for justification as self-defense.  The first 5, you may be all good. The 6th gets you a murder conviction.

In this context, whether the threat has been neutralized is based on the reasonable perceptions of the defender.  Nevertheless, if the defender did or should have reasonably known the threat was neutralized, the legal justification for the continued use of force is gone, and every additional quantum of force thereafter is unlawful.

In the scenario you describe, where the defender keeps shooting NOT to neutralize the threat but merely to (supposedly) avoid civil liability, every unnecessary shot they fire into the neutralized-attacker sets them up for a murder or attempted murder conviction. (In any case, how are they to know if their attacker’s death frees them of civil liability? Not if he has any surviving family, it doesn’t.)

On the issue of shooting to wound, that gains you absolutely nothing in terms of mitigating either criminal or civil liability.  If you put a bullet in someone, you’ve shot them, deadly force, period.  Shoot them in the leg or shoot them in the chest, from a legal liability perspective it’s all the same (the only variance is whether they die or not, obviously the consequences are more severe if they die, but a gunshot to the thigh can accomplish that quite as effectively as one to the chest).

Further, if you are foolish enough to state out loud that you only shot to wound, it opens the door to the State arguing that you lacked the good faith subjective fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify your use of deadly force. After all, if you’d feared imminent death, you’d have shot to neutralize the threat decisively, not just make him more angry with a pistol-caliber bullet wound to an extremity.  If there was no genuine fear of death or grave bodily harm, your use of deadly force was not lawful self-defense, and off to jail you go.

The whole “never say you were shooting to stop, only shooting to kill” is not exactly untrue (and it IS better to phrase it that way), but it’s a bit of an overblown concern.  If someone is trying to imminently kill you, the law says you are allowed to kill them first if (and only if) necessary to defend yourself from their deadly attack. That’s the law, it’s permitted, justified even.  Merely having said “I shot to kill in order to save my life” is not going to lose you self-defense.

Of course, what we want to avoid is the “he only killed him because he wanted to, not because he had to,” line.  But in most cases of genuine self-defense, that’s not a very effective attack.  If it’s a concern in a case I was involved on I’d just bring in a defensive force expert and have him testify to the “coincidence” that the most effective way to stop also has the unfortunate consequence of being the most likely to cause death–but it’s exactly how every bailiff in the court room, every cop in the city, county, state, country, was trained.

Any questions?

Imam praised as moderate by New York Times arrested for Islamic State ties

leave a comment »

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
May 11, 2017

This underscores yet again what I have said for years: there are sincere Muslim reformers, but there are also a great many deceivers (“War is deceit,” said Muhammad), and it is essentially impossible to tell one from the other. What is even worse about this story is that policy analysts read the New York Times and take it seriously, and base their recommendations upon it. If this imam had been in the United States, he could have attained great influence and access, as did another “moderate,” Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is now in prison for financing al-Qaeda, or at very least tremendous influence in the Islamic community, as did Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also praised as a moderate in the New York Times and seen briefly in a PBS documentary on Muhammad, leading Islamic prayers on Capitol Hill with Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Randall Ismail Royer, who later served time in prison for jihad activity, in the congregation.

“The jihadist of Alicante who even fooled the New York Times lives with four women and 18 children,” translated from “El yihadista de Alicante que engañó hasta al ‘New York Times’ vive con cuatro mujeres y 18 hijos,” by Alejandro Requeijo and Daniel Montero, El Español, April 28, 2017:

“Jihadists use religion for their personal purposes and declare war on Jews and Christians, but I want people to follow what Islam actually says.” So innocently did a pious Hesham Shashaa present himself seven years ago in a feature that the New York Times dedicated to him. The Muslim leader was living in Germany, where he said he would promote interreligious dialogue and warned that radical Islamists would brainwash young people. In order to fight against jihad, he justified his trips to mosques and madrasas from all over the Muslim world. However, this Wednesday the National Police arrested him in Alicante and accused him of aiding terrorists, some of them from the Islamic State.

As confirmed by various antiterrorism sources involved in his arrest, he is the same person who posed as a harmless Muslim believer in the pages of the American newspaper. He had succeeded in deceiving even the German authorities, as demonstrated by a police official who is cited in the New York Times report in which he was featured: “We know that he speaks and works against terrorism groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and that is important.” This representative of German security, who preferred to remain anonymous, added that Shashaa “is the only example who is doing it in this way here in Germany, and in this sense he is effective.”

The American newspaper report even relates an anecdote in which the German police asked this man about a book on women in Islam that, given its content, is prohibited in Germany. They went to look at Shashaa’s personal library. “I need to know what is in these books; how else can I know how to communicate with the recruiters?” The Muslim leader came to Germany because, he told the newspaper, he lost his briefcase on a stopover in 2000 while on his way to Great Britain from Romania, where he had been living. “Everything was gone, the papers, the money, so I thought it was God’s will that I stay here,” he explained. But the National Police have another impression of this 46-year-old Egyptian citizen.

Relationship with Daesh

According to the statement issued by the Interior Ministry after his arrest, “he facilitated the return of Islamic State terrorists who had decided to return from Syria and Iraq by providing them with the necessary places of transit and refuge and assisting them in the documentation and procurement of economic resources.” The return of terrorists who have fought in conflict zones is one of the main concerns of Western security forces for fear of receiving more radical and more experienced jihadists in the handling of weapons and explosives.

In addition, the Department headed by Juan Ignacio Zoido adds that “the detainee took advantage of his privileged position within the Islamic Community of the province of Alicante to spread material that extols the attacks committed by DAESH and cruelly disparages their victims.” He also used social media as an instrument “to generate hate with the publication of videos in which terrorist leaders called for violent jihad as a method of indoctrination of their followers.”…

Abortion Doctor Who Did 1,200 Abortions Tells Congress to Ban Them

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
May 11, 2017

This week, the House of Representatives is voting on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The last time the House considered this bill, a former abortion practitioner urged members of Congress to pass it.

Dr. Anthony Levatino is a pro-life physician from New Mexico but, before having a change of heart on the issue of abortion he was an OBGYN who also performed abortions. Levatino did as many as 1,200 abortions — some of them after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Then, after his daughter died in a tragic automobile accident, he re-evaluated his position on abortion and stopped doing abortions.

Dr. Levatino told members of a Congressional committee that they should support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

 

 

Levatino’s full testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice appears below:

 

Chairman Franks and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Anthony Levatino. I am a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist. I received my medical degree from Albany Medical College in Albany, NY in 1976 and completed my OB-GYN residency training at Albany Medical Center in 1980.

In my 33-year career, I have been privileged to practice obstetrics and gynecology in both private and university settings. From June 1993 until September 2000, I was associate professor of OB-GYN at the Albany Medical College serving at different times as both medical student director and residency program director. I have also dedicated many years to private practice and currently operate a solo gynecology practice in Las Cruces, NM. I appreciate your kind invitation to address issues related to the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

During my residency training and during my first five years of private practice, I performed both first and second trimester abortions. Duringmy residency in the late 1970s,second trimester abortions were typically performed using saline infusion or, occasionally, prostaglandin instillation techniques. These procedures were difficult, expensive and necessitated that patients go through labor to abort their pre-born children. By 1980, at the time I entered private practice first in Florida and then in upstate New York, those of us in the abortion industry were looking for a more efficient method of second trimester abortion.

The Suction D&E procedure offered clear advantages over older installation methods. The procedure was much quicker and never ran the risk of a live birth. Understand that my partner and I were not running an abortion clinic. We practiced general obstetrics and gynecology but abortion was definitely part of that practice. Relatively few gynecologists in upstate NY would perform such a procedure and we saw an opportunity to expand our abortion practice.

I performed first trimester suction D&C abortions in my office up to 10 weeks from last menstrual period and later procedures in an outpatient hospital setting. From 1981 through February 1985, I performed approximately 1200 abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester Suction D&E procedures up to 24 weeks gestation.

Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. At twenty-four weeks from last menstrual period, her uterus is two finger-breadths above the umbilicus.

If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus a half from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby kick for the last 2 months or more but now she is asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help her with her problem pregnancy.

The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument you reach for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the center approximately ¾ of an inch in diameter.Picture yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid that looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of stainless steel. At the end are located jaws about 2 ½ inches long and about ¾ of an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can.

At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard–really hard. You feel something let go and out pops  a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush d own on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you.

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose.

If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.

Before I close, I want to make a comment on the necessity and usefulness of utilizing second and third trimester abortion to save women’s lives. I often hear the argument that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives in cases of life threatening conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy.

Albany Medical Center where I worked for over seven years is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life threatening conditions related to or caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.

Portland State U: Student fired from paper for reporting about Muslim student’s statement

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
May 13, 2017

Andy Ngo reported on a Muslim student admitting that his religion mandated death for those who leave it, and was summarily dismissed from his position at the Vanguard, the campus newspaper. No one at PSU seems particularly concerned with the plight of those who leave Islam in Muslim countries, but those who call attention to this fact are “predatory” and “reckless.” This is modern academia: truths that deviate from the Leftist line are ruthlessly suppressed.

“Student Shares Video Critical Of Islam, Gets Fired From College Newspaper,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, May 12/2017:

An Oregon college student lost his job at the school newspaper after he tweeted a video of a Muslim student admitting his religion killed nonbelievers, according to an article he wrote concerning the incident Friday.

Andy Ngo, former multimedia editor for the Vanguard at Portland State University, posted a video and brief commentary from an “Unpacking Misconceptions” religion panel he attended before losing his job, according to a column he published in National Review.

“At Portland State interfaith panel today, the Muslim student speaker said that apostates will be killed or banished in an Islamic state,” tweeted Ngo on April 26.

“And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law — that means there is no other law than the Koran,” the Muslim student said at the panel, according to the tweets. “In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].”

Breitbart included the former multimedia editor’s tweet in an April article, and Ngo asserts that his editor-in-chief Colleen Leary and managing editor Tim Sullivan then met with him.

Leary purportedly called Ngo “predatory” and “reckless,” stating the former multimedia editor had risked Muslim students’ lives as well as the lives of his family. She claimed that Ngo had “violated the paper’s ethical standards” by not “minimizing harm” directed at the speaker and had “a history” of indirect association with conservative outlets that damaged the newspaper’s reputation. Leary proceeded to fire Ngo.

Ngo told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he received $1,900 per quarter at the Vanguard and worked for 15-20 hours a week.

“From the ideologues within the paper, the reaction was hostility and aggression,” Ngo told TheDCNF. “Most of them were quick to cut off any ties to me, as if I was suddenly branded untouchable– or deplorable.”…

Gloria Steinem Backs Abortion Because: “Forced Childbirth is the Single Biggest Cause of Global Warming”

leave a comment »

By Sarah Stites
LifeNews.com
May 11, 2017

According to radical feminist Gloria Steinem, women will never be “fully equal” to men unless they have abortion rights. Oh, and the patriarchy’s to blame for climate change too.

In an interview with Refinery29 writer Lindsey Stanberry, Steinem shared thoughts on feminism, and unsurprisingly, everything came back to female reproductive rights.

When the writer commented that some considered climate change to be a feminist issue, Steinem avidly agreed, opining that forced childbirth was the cause of many of the earth’s problems.

“Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population,” the 83-year-old icon exclaimed. “If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have.”

In 2015, Steinem articulated the same perspective to Cosmo’s Prachi Gupta, declaring that the Pope and all “other patriarchal religions” were responsible for global warming, because of dictating women’s reproductive rights.

And on that front, when conversation moved to Ivanka Trump, Steinem affirmed the common liberal view that one cannot simultaneously be a feminist and pro-life.

When Stanberry commented that the first daughter had “gotten a lot of criticism for trying to co-opt feminism,” Steinem bluntly responded: “Nobody on earth thinks she’s a feminist, are you kidding me?”

“So how would you define a feminist?” Stanberry asked in return.

And that’s where things got predictable. To be a feminist, one must tote the progressive party line: in other words, the idea that “full equality of the sexes” equates to being pro-choice.

“I have not seen her standing up and saying women should have a right to control their own bodies and decide when and whether to have children, no,” Steinem expounded, before also criticizing Trump’s maternity leave policy.

“I’m not saying that [Ivanka] knows this, but [the Nazis] were paying women to have children,” Steinem continued.

LifeNews Note: Sarah Stites writes for Newsbusters, where this article originally appeared.

Hillary Clinton Celebrates Abortion at Planned Parenthood Gala, Slams Pro-Lifers as “Groups of Men”

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
May 3, 2017

On Tuesday night pro-abortion failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton celebrated abortion at Planned Parenthood’s Gala honoring its 100 years of pushing its abortion agenda.

Clinton received the company’s “champion of the century” award and slammed pro-lifers using sexist terms.

She called pro-life advocates “groups of men” trying to strip away Women’s Health protections. Here’s more:

“As we speak, politicians in Washington are still doing everything they can to roll back the rights and progress we’ve fought so hard for over the last century,” she said, according to CNN. “I mean, could you believe those the photos of groups of men around that conference table deciding to strip away coverage for pregnancy and maternity care?”

Clinton pointed out that Planned Parenthood is a living embodiment of one of the Handmaid’s Tale’s most recognizable slogans: “Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.” Basically, Clinton is saying Planned Parenthood hasn’t let the bastards grind them down.

Clinton addressed the crowd at the Planned Parenthood celebration, recalling the strength and resolve with which the organization has defended reproductive rights and healthcare over the last 100 years. The speech came just a week after Margaret Atwood’s iconic dystopian novel premiered as a television show, which the Huffington Post reports Clinton pointed out is an uncanny coincidence.

“We come tonight to celebrate the last 100 years, the progress that so many generations have fought so hard for,” she said. “What a time it is to be holding this centennial. Just ask those who’ve been watching The Handmaid’s Tale, a book I read and was captivated by years ago.”

Specifically, Clinton pointed to “Nolite te bastardes carborundorum,” a phrase the book’s main character, Offred, finds engraved in her room that gives her strength. Offred is essentially imprisoned by a new regime that creates a values system in which women exist primarily for reproduction. The phrase translates to “don’t let the bastards grind you down.”

“To paraphrase Margaret Atwood, ‘We can never let them grind us down,’” Hillary said.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

Hillary Clinton did everything possible during the presidential election to stand up for the Planned Parenthood abortion corporation. At every turn Clinton signaled her support for abortion without limits and said unborn children have no constitutional rights.

She appeared in front of a major Planned Parenthood rally to encourage abortion activist to turn out in force to stop pro-life candidate Donald Trump. That didn’t work out very well.

Despite her failure as a presidential candidate — not once but twice — Hillary Clinton’s best friends of Planned Parenthood will coronation her as their champion of the century anyway.

Clinton lost the presidential election, despite strong support and expectations from the abortion chain. Planned Parenthood spent more than $30 million to help Clinton and other pro-abortion candidates get elected. Most of the candidates lost after touting radical pro-abortion platforms, including forcing taxpayers to directly fund abortions.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards also was involved heavily in Clinton’s campaign, traveling to dozens of states to stump for her. Clinton supported the abortion group’s hopes of forcing taxpayers to directly fund abortions, and she promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand up until birth, if elected.

This is not Clinton’s first award from the nation’s largest abortion provider. In 2009, Planned Parenthood gave Clinton its Margaret Sanger Award, named after its eugenicist founder.

Clinton described the award as a “great privilege,” according to Townhall. “… the overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago.”

On the campaign trail last year, she thanked the abortion group for its work and promised to partner with it “for the long haul.” Clinton went on to thank the Planned Parenthood abortion activists for helping women who are victims of sexual assault even though the abortion company has been found to cover up cases of statutory rape, allowing rapists to rape again.

Planned Parenthood is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. In the past 100 years, it has destroyed the lives of an estimated 6.8 million unborn babies.

%d bloggers like this: