lifesitenews--2020-03-07--A tale of two terror-linked families influencing US politics

March 6 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders recently appointed Fairfax County school board member Abrar Omeish as the co-chair of his Virginia campaign .
As with another recently elected Virginia politician , state delegate Ibraheem Samirah , Ms. Omeish has been associated with controversial Islamist organizations and hails from a terror-linked jihadist family .
It was not long ago that the political establishment considered such theocratic beliefs beyond the pale .
Yet , thanks to a complex public relations strategy , one that appropriates the language of civil rights and victimhood politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Islamists as celebrated humanitarians and social reformers .
On February 4 , the Chicago Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR-Chicago ) continued this rebranding project by circulating a newsletter glorifying the achievements of two terror-linked families : the Omeishes and Samirahs .
The message encouraged the public to attend CAIR-Chicago 's 16th annual banquet , where Ms. Omeish and Del .
Samirah appeared on a panel to discuss their experiences as young Muslim politicians .
Ironically , CAIR-Chicago titled its newsletter `` Two Families : An American Muslim Saga @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians overcame the `` destroyed reputations '' and `` Islamophobic smears '' of their Hamas-linked fathers — Dr. Sabri Samirah and Dr. Esam Omeish — and made it to public office .
CAIR , a self-styled Muslim civil rights and advocacy group , survived a `` saga '' of its own in 2008 , when it was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation 's largest terrorism finance trial .
On appeal , a federal judge ruled that there was `` ample evidence '' linking CAIR to Hamas , a designated terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event claimed that the Omeish and Samirah sagas are `` multigenerational stories ... of our community 's challenges and victories in the last few years . ''
The Islamist group bragged that , through 12 years of activism and networking , Islamic organizations `` have built strong alliances and learned from the work of other minorities . ''
Abrar Omeish is the daughter of Dr. Esam Omeish , who resigned from his position on a Virginia state immigration commission in 2007 , after former Virginia governor Tim Kaine became aware of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , telling Muslims in Washington , D.C. `` that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land . ''
In the same speech , Omeish accused Israel of genocide against Palestinians and arguing that the `` Israeli agenda '' controls Congress .
Dr. Omeish maintained `` close ties '' to the International Institute of Islamic Thought , which has fundraised for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad .
In addition , a Libyan parliamentary committee included Dr. Omeish on a list of 75 `` terrorists '' for his affiliation with the Revolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamist opposition group affiliated with al-Qaeda .
In the case of Abrar Omeish , like many other Islamist families , the apple did not fall far from the tree .
While Dr. Omeish formerly headed the Muslim American Society ( MAS ) , his daughter was president of the Muslim Students Association at Yale University .
Both organizations are known to be façades for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood .
In 2014 , Ms. Omeish led a campaign to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali , a Somali-born American feminist who was a victim of female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now advocates for women 's and children 's rights .
The second family featured in CAIR-Chicago 's `` American Muslim Saga , '' the Samirahs , was represented by Del .
Ibraheem Samirah and his father , Dr. Sabri Samirah .
While the Virginia lawmaker appeared beside Ms. Omeish on the banquet panel , his father currently resides in Jordan after he was banned from entering the U.S. for ten years .
In its newsletter , CAIR-Chicago explained the elder Samirah 's absence : `` All it took back then was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government to smear and banish Dr. Sabri for an entire decade from re-entry back to his adopted homeland . ''
In fact , Dr. Samirah was a senior leader of a now-defunct Hamas network in the U.S. called the `` Palestine Committee '' and also was chairman of the Palestine Committee 's main propaganda arm , the Islamic Association for Palestine ( IAP ) .
The IAP issued Hamas press releases and published the Hamas charter , which called for Israel 's destruction and the murder of Jews , and held events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1994 , Dr. Samirah hosted the `` Jerusalem Festival '' in Chicago , where thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians live .
Addressing the audience , Dr. Samirah referred to Chicago as `` the Muslim capital of America '' and gave tribute to `` the martyrs who gave their blood for Palestine . ''
Even worse , the elder Samirah once led a youth retreat where children were recorded singing Arabic songs praising Hamas founder Ahmed Yasin and glorifying armed struggle against Jews , chanting : `` With daggers in our hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies . ''
As with the Omeish family , the younger Samirah has carried his father 's legacy of religious extremism .
Delegate Samirah inherited his father 's penchant for anti-Semitism and was involved with campus activism as a member of Students for Justice in Palestine , a key proponent of the global Boycott , Divestment , Sanctions ( BDS ) campaign .
In an August 3 , 2014 Facebook post , the future Virginia state legislator agreed that `` funding Israel is like 'Sending money to the KKK . '
'' There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Samirah will seek to uphold the political objectives of his father , who remarked in 2014 , `` We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine .
Long live Palestine . ''
A year later , Samirah Jr. lionized his father in a Facebook post , calling him a `` role model '' and admitting , `` I would not have dedicated myself to the Palestinian human rights ' [ sic ] cause without him . ''
With Islamist politicians holding local and federal office , and many others running in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as CAIR feel confident in their ability to infiltrate the American political system and implement a theocratic agenda .
But part of the rise of the Islamist political class includes an acute historical revisionism , one that necessitates turning perpetrators into victims and terrorists into freedom fighters .
CAIR-Chicago 's `` American Muslim Saga '' of two terror-linked families is nothing short of Islamist propaganda , an attempt to normalize extremist behavior and vilify American justice .
It is a complete fiction , and one that ignores the anti-Semitism and criminal exploits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be expected from CAIR , a terrorist-supporting front group that serves as a clearinghouse for hardline Islamist principles .
Hesham Shehab is the Chicago Counter-Islamist Grid research fellow at the Middle East Forum .
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker .
It is published here with permission from the author .

Thanks to a complex public relations strategy, Islamist organizations have succeeded in gradually recasting American Islamists as celebrated humanitarians and social reformers.
March 6, 2020 (American Thinker) — Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders recently appointed Fairfax County school board member Abrar Omeish as the co-chair of his Virginia campaign. As with another recently elected Virginia politician, state delegate Ibraheem Samirah, Ms. Omeish has been associated with controversial Islamist organizations and hails from a terror-linked jihadist family.
It was not long ago that the political establishment considered such theocratic beliefs beyond the pale. Yet, thanks to a complex public relations strategy, one that appropriates the language of civil rights and victimhood politics, Islamist organizations have succeeded in gradually recasting American Islamists as celebrated humanitarians and social reformers.
On February 4, the Chicago Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Chicago) continued this rebranding project by circulating a newsletter glorifying the achievements of two terror-linked families: the Omeishes and Samirahs. The message encouraged the public to attend CAIR-Chicago's 16th annual banquet, where Ms. Omeish and Del. Samirah appeared on a panel to discuss their experiences as young Muslim politicians.
Ironically, CAIR-Chicago titled its newsletter “Two Families: An American Muslim Saga” and described how the two Virginia politicians overcame the “destroyed reputations” and “Islamophobic smears” of their Hamas-linked fathers — Dr. Sabri Samirah and Dr. Esam Omeish — and made it to public office.
CAIR, a self-styled Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, survived a “saga” of its own in 2008, when it was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest terrorism finance trial. On appeal, a federal judge ruled that there was “ample evidence” linking CAIR to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
CAIR-Chicago's Facebook posts promoting the event claimed that the Omeish and Samirah sagas are “multigenerational stories … of our community's challenges and victories in the last few years.” The Islamist group bragged that, through 12 years of activism and networking, Islamic organizations “have built strong alliances and learned from the work of other minorities.”
Abrar Omeish is the daughter of Dr. Esam Omeish, who resigned from his position on a Virginia state immigration commission in 2007, after former Virginia governor Tim Kaine became aware of a 2000 video where Omeish glorified violent jihad, telling Muslims in Washington, D.C. “that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In the same speech, Omeish accused Israel of genocide against Palestinians and arguing that the “Israeli agenda” controls Congress.
Dr. Omeish maintained “close ties” to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which has fundraised for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In addition, a Libyan parliamentary committee included Dr. Omeish on a list of 75 “terrorists” for his affiliation with the Revolutionary Shura Council (RSC), an Islamist opposition group affiliated with al-Qaeda.
In the case of Abrar Omeish, like many other Islamist families, the apple did not fall far from the tree.
While Dr. Omeish formerly headed the Muslim American Society (MAS), his daughter was president of the Muslim Students Association at Yale University. Both organizations are known to be façades for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
In 2014, Ms. Omeish led a campaign to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born American feminist who was a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Somalia and now advocates for women's and children's rights.
The second family featured in CAIR-Chicago's “American Muslim Saga,” the Samirahs, was represented by Del. Ibraheem Samirah and his father, Dr. Sabri Samirah. While the Virginia lawmaker appeared beside Ms. Omeish on the banquet panel, his father currently resides in Jordan after he was banned from entering the U.S. for ten years.
In its newsletter, CAIR-Chicago explained the elder Samirah's absence: “All it took back then was an undisclosed 'security threat' label by the federal government to smear and banish Dr. Sabri for an entire decade from re-entry back to his adopted homeland.”
In fact, Dr. Samirah was a senior leader of a now-defunct Hamas network in the U.S. called the “Palestine Committee” and also was chairman of the Palestine Committee's main propaganda arm, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The IAP issued Hamas press releases and published the Hamas charter, which called for Israel's destruction and the murder of Jews, and held events that featured senior Hamas leaders as speakers.
In 1994, Dr. Samirah hosted the “Jerusalem Festival” in Chicago, where thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians live. Addressing the audience, Dr. Samirah referred to Chicago as “the Muslim capital of America” and gave tribute to “the martyrs who gave their blood for Palestine.”
Even worse, the elder Samirah once led a youth retreat where children were recorded singing Arabic songs praising Hamas founder Ahmed Yasin and glorifying armed struggle against Jews, chanting: “With daggers in our hands we burst forth to strike … our enemies.”
As with the Omeish family, the younger Samirah has carried his father's legacy of religious extremism.
Delegate Samirah inherited his father's penchant for anti-Semitism and was involved with campus activism as a member of Students for Justice in Palestine, a key proponent of the global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign. In an August 3, 2014 Facebook post, the future Virginia state legislator agreed that “funding Israel is like 'Sending money to the KKK.'”
There can be no doubt that Del. Samirah will seek to uphold the political objectives of his father, who remarked in 2014, “We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine. Long live Palestine.” A year later, Samirah Jr. lionized his father in a Facebook post, calling him a “role model” and admitting, “I would not have dedicated myself to the Palestinian human rights' [sic] cause without him.”
With Islamist politicians holding local and federal office, and many others running in the 2020 elections, Islamist organizations such as CAIR feel confident in their ability to infiltrate the American political system and implement a theocratic agenda. But part of the rise of the Islamist political class includes an acute historical revisionism, one that necessitates turning perpetrators into victims and terrorists into freedom fighters.
CAIR-Chicago's “American Muslim Saga” of two terror-linked families is nothing short of Islamist propaganda, an attempt to normalize extremist behavior and vilify American justice. It is a complete fiction, and one that ignores the anti-Semitism and criminal exploits of its misbegotten protagonists. Such villain-worshiping can only be expected from CAIR, a terrorist-supporting front group that serves as a clearinghouse for hardline Islamist principles.
Hesham Shehab is the Chicago Counter-Islamist Grid research fellow at the Middle East Forum.
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker. It is published here with permission from the author.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Feminists disappointed as UN cancels huge women’s conference due to coronavirus

NEW YORK , March 6 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — Countries rejected a recommendation by the UN Secretary to hold a “ scaled down ” UN Commission on the Status of Women this year due to the novel coronavirus , COVID-19 .
With some fearing a modified conference would lead to unequal participation between countries and regions , they decided to postpone it indefinitely instead .
Following frenzied discussions on the global outbreak , the annual CSW was set to take place at UN headquarters in New York from the 9th to the 20th of March in a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and limit travel to New York from capitals , UN Secretary-General António Guterres proposed shortening the conference and cutting all non-official events last Friday .
It seemed like a done deal early Monday morning .
When UN member states met to discuss Guterres ’ proposal later that morning they all agreed that extreme circumstances called for extreme measures .
Then they came up with an even more drastic solution : not to have the bulk of the conference at all in March .
On Monday , UN member states tentatively agreed that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 9 instead of the annual two-week conference .
The single-day meeting will adopt a political declaration and any other resolutions of the commission .
Other parts of the commission ’ s work , including the general discussion , interactive panels with ministers and experts , and all side events , would be postponed until further notice , in the hopes that some suitable time is found at a later date once the virus is contained .
Delegates from South Africa , Ecuador , and Fiji all expressed distress that the differing responses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to “ unequal ” attendance .
They were not happy about the prospect of a conference that would disadvantage developing countries .
“ We would not like to see our delegation not coming following the Secretary General ’ s recommendations and finding that other delegations do come , ” said the Ambassador from Ecuador .
They expressed similar fears about the participation of non-governmental organizations .
“ I am troubled .
My heart is heavy , ” said the Ambassador of South Africa .
“ You said all side events will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are allowing those non-governmental organizations based here in NY to participate in the general discussion .
That is discrimination .
It can not be condoned , ” he said .
Few countries expressed a preference for a scaled-back version of the conference ; among them were the United States , Brazil , and Russia .
“ It is better to have a scaled-down Commission on the Status of Women than no Commission on the Status of Women at all , ” said a delegate from Brazil .
As a result of the discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March at all , not even the scaled-down version proposed by the UN Secretary General .
The cancellation of the two-week-long conference on the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing was especially distressing to feminists who had been planning ahead for this event for months and even years .
“ No Commission on the Status of Women should occur without civil society organizations , ” said Houry Geudelekian , the Chair of NGO-CSW .
Geudelekian said they had received over fifty-thousand emails from feminists asking them “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The CSW was expected to draw up to 12,000 women at UN headquarters this year Geudelekian pointed out .

Following frenzied discussions on the global outbreak, the annual Commission on the Status of Women was canceled, nullifying months or even years of prep work from feminist groups.
PRAYER PLEDGE: VP Pence is right. We need prayer to fight coronavirus, not political antics Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, March 6, 2020 (C-Fam) — Countries rejected a recommendation by the UN Secretary to hold a “scaled down” UN Commission on the Status of Women this year due to the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. With some fearing a modified conference would lead to unequal participation between countries and regions, they decided to postpone it indefinitely instead.
Following frenzied discussions on the global outbreak, the annual CSW was set to take place at UN headquarters in New York from the 9th to the 20th of March in a “scaled down format.” To reduce exposure and limit travel to New York from capitals, UN Secretary-General António Guterres proposed shortening the conference and cutting all non-official events last Friday. It seemed like a done deal early Monday morning.
When UN member states met to discuss Guterres’ proposal later that morning they all agreed that extreme circumstances called for extreme measures. Then they came up with an even more drastic solution: not to have the bulk of the conference at all in March.
On Monday, UN member states tentatively agreed that there would only be a procedural meeting on March 9 instead of the annual two-week conference. The single-day meeting will adopt a political declaration and any other resolutions of the commission. Other parts of the commission’s work, including the general discussion, interactive panels with ministers and experts, and all side events, would be postponed until further notice, in the hopes that some suitable time is found at a later date once the virus is contained.
Delegates from South Africa, Ecuador, and Fiji all expressed distress that the differing responses to the virus from different states might lead to “unequal” attendance. They were not happy about the prospect of a conference that would disadvantage developing countries.
“We would not like to see our delegation not coming following the Secretary General’s recommendations and finding that other delegations do come,” said the Ambassador from Ecuador.
They expressed similar fears about the participation of non-governmental organizations.
“I am troubled. My heart is heavy,” said the Ambassador of South Africa. “You said all side events will be cancelled. But then you said you are allowing those non-governmental organizations based here in NY to participate in the general discussion. That is discrimination. It cannot be condoned,” he said.
Few countries expressed a preference for a scaled-back version of the conference; among them were the United States, Brazil, and Russia.
“It is better to have a scaled-down Commission on the Status of Women than no Commission on the Status of Women at all,” said a delegate from Brazil.
As a result of the discussion, there will be no CSW in March at all, not even the scaled-down version proposed by the UN Secretary General.
The cancellation of the two-week-long conference on the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing was especially distressing to feminists who had been planning ahead for this event for months and even years.
“No Commission on the Status of Women should occur without civil society organizations,” said Houry Geudelekian, the Chair of NGO-CSW.
Geudelekian said they had received over fifty-thousand emails from feminists asking them “not to have a CSW without them.”
The CSW was expected to draw up to 12,000 women at UN headquarters this year Geudelekian pointed out.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Big Tech will likely decide outcome of Nov. election, no matter what Republicans do

March 6 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — If you could transport yourself back to the Middle Ages and tell people that living things too small to see can cause disease , they 'd think you were crazy .
Seeing is believing , and , quite often , not seeing is not believing .
Tragically , this phenomenon is also operative with the virus in our political system called Big Tech bias , which is unseen by most and with no paper trail , killing Republican electoral chances and remaking our nation .
What if I told you Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's impeachment ?
What about the credible expert who warns that Big Tech can shift up to 15 million votes in November ?
Note here that over the last eight elections and 32 years , no president has won by more than 9.5 million votes .
Shifting 15 million is easily enough to turn most any modern election .
And what if it can be said with certitude that Big Tech will win numerous races for Democrats this fall ?
Do I have your attention yet ?
Are you skeptical ?
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way you have n't heard before .
Conservatives understand vote fraud — a subject I 've reported on for years — and are wary of it .
But after studying Big Tech manipulation , I can tell you that vote fraud is small potatoes in comparison .
The aforementioned expert , Dr. Robert Epstein , a Democrat-favoring liberal who is the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology , has warned for years that `` Big Tech companies now have unprecedented power to sway elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1961 farewell address , he warned not only about the rise of a military-industrial complex , '' Epstein recently wrote ; `` he also warned about the rise of a 'technological elite ' who could someday control our country without us knowing . ''
`` That day has come , '' he laments .
I know what you may be thinking : `` No tech nerd can change my vote . ''
Heck , I hear all the time from conservatives who wo n't even use Facebook or Twitter .
But it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about me .
We 'll vote our passions regardless .
It 's about swaying undecided voters — and a majority of Americans now get a good percentage of their news from Big Tech .
Roughly speaking , approximately 35 percent of the electorate will vote Democrat and 35 percent Republican regardless .
It 's the 30 percent in between who 'll `` decide '' the election .
Capturing a majority of them will likely win you the day .
Now , these are people who , like so many others , often make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm party allegiances and choose who they perceive is the best candidate .
So if you alter their perception , you alter their vote .
This is what Big Tech does .
By exposing voters to just the right news at just the right time , Big Tech manipulates opinion .
This is nothing new .
Conservatives used to complain pre-internet/cable news/talk radio of how the mainstream media — which then had a monopoly over information flow — shaped public opinion .
The difference is that with Big Tech collecting information on tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devise algorithms perfectly suited to the manipulation effort .
It also can better effect an illusion of impartiality ( Google just delivers what you search for , right ?
Yeah ... ) .
How effective is this ?
`` As Epstein 's previous studies have shown , this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters , who often assume that their [ Google ] search results are unbiased , '' reported Breitbart last year .
In fact , Epstein found that Google bias alone assuredly won the Democrats seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this bias `` could have influenced 4.6 million undecided voters to support Democrat candidates , '' Breitbart also relates — and this is a low-end estimate .
Moreover , this calculation does n't even factor in Facebook , Twitter , and other tech giants .
In other words , it 's entirely conceivable that Big Tech could have won the House for the Democrats .
If this is so , it also means that the tech leviathans are responsible for Trump 's impeachment and the stymieing of his agenda , phenomena possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's gavel .
Worse still , Epstein reports that if the whole of Big Tech favors the same candidate , it can shift up to 15 million votes in November .
I mentioned earlier how significant this figure is , and it 's why Epstein wrote last month that Trump ca n't win `` [ n ] o matter which weak candidate the Democrats ultimately nominate . ''
I myself would n't be so sure ; then again , maybe Epstein knows something I do n't .
The suspicious may suggest that Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dishearten Trump-supporters .
Forget that .
I 'm certain that Epstein is a straight shooter who 's genuinely concerned about a dystopia-delivering tech oligarchy .
Also know that he has his own conspiracy theory — and an understandable reason to entertain it .
Last year brought Epstein fame — he 's considered a Google `` whistleblower '' and testified before Congress in June — and also tragedy : his wife was killed in a fatal car crash late December .
A few weeks later , he tweeted the following : Epstein now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he 's `` NOT suicidal . ''
I 'm fairly confident that his wife 's tragedy was just an accident , but what I 'm completely sure of is no conspiracy theory : Big Tech will win the Democrats millions of votes in November .
While President Trump emphasized last year when asked about tech power that he `` won '' in 2016 , the point is this : it 's possible that more than Hillary Clinton 's entire three-million popular vote advantage was attributable to Big Tech meddling ( not to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech might have handed the Democrats their puerile `` she won ! ''
talking point .
Furthermore , what you can bet on in November is that however well the GOP does , it would have done better if not for Big Tech meddling .
For instance , if Trump wins by two million votes , he would otherwise perhaps have won by 10 or 15 million .
If the Democrats retain the House , they otherwise might have lost it .
If they flip the Senate , the Republicans otherwise might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't give you precise numbers ( and it does n't really matter ) ; that 's Epstein 's domain .
But this is a bit like illegal migration : it 's hard to accurately measure something so shadowy — it 's not hard to know that it threatens your civilization .
Big Tech censorship is nothing new , and I and millions of other traditionalists have long been victimized by it .
But the tech leviathans , not wanting a 2016 repeat and smelling blood , are now putting the hammer ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russians , are the ones literally hacking our republic .
As Epstein warned when testifying before Congress , `` democracy as originally conceived can not survive Big Tech as currently empowered . ''
It most certainly can not — and we ignore these warnings at our own peril .
Contact Selwyn Duke , follow him on Gab ( preferably ) or Twitter , or log on to SelwynDuke.com .
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker .
It is published here with permission from the author .

By exposing voters to just the right news at just the right time, Big Tech manipulates opinion. This could mean a 15-million-vote swing.
March 6, 2020 (American Thinker) — If you could transport yourself back to the Middle Ages and tell people that living things too small to see can cause disease, they'd think you were crazy. Seeing is believing, and, quite often, not seeing is not believing. Tragically, this phenomenon is also operative with the virus in our political system called Big Tech bias, which is unseen by most and with no paper trail, killing Republican electoral chances and remaking our nation.
What if I told you Big Tech could have been responsible for President Trump's impeachment? What about the credible expert who warns that Big Tech can shift up to 15 million votes in November? Note here that over the last eight elections and 32 years, no president has won by more than 9.5 million votes. Shifting 15 million is easily enough to turn most any modern election.
And what if it can be said with certitude that Big Tech will win numerous races for Democrats this fall? Do I have your attention yet? Are you skeptical? Well, I'm going to explain this in a way you haven't heard before.
Conservatives understand vote fraud — a subject I've reported on for years — and are wary of it. But after studying Big Tech manipulation, I can tell you that vote fraud is small potatoes in comparison.
The aforementioned expert, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Democrat-favoring liberal who is the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, has warned for years that “Big Tech companies now have unprecedented power to sway elections.”
“In President Eisenhower's famous 1961 farewell address, he warned not only about the rise of a military-industrial complex,” Epstein recently wrote; “he also warned about the rise of a 'technological elite' who could someday control our country without us knowing.”
“That day has come,” he laments.
I know what you may be thinking: “No tech nerd can change my vote.” Heck, I hear all the time from conservatives who won't even use Facebook or Twitter. But it's not about you. It's not about me. We'll vote our passions regardless. It's about swaying undecided voters — and a majority of Americans now get a good percentage of their news from Big Tech.
Roughly speaking, approximately 35 percent of the electorate will vote Democrat and 35 percent Republican regardless. It's the 30 percent in between who'll “decide” the election. Capturing a majority of them will likely win you the day.
Now, these are people who, like so many others, often make emotion-based voting decisions. They have no firm party allegiances and choose who they perceive is the best candidate. So if you alter their perception, you alter their vote. This is what Big Tech does.
By exposing voters to just the right news at just the right time, Big Tech manipulates opinion. This is nothing new. Conservatives used to complain pre-internet/cable news/talk radio of how the mainstream media — which then had a monopoly over information flow — shaped public opinion. The difference is that with Big Tech collecting information on tens of millions of users, it can devise algorithms perfectly suited to the manipulation effort. It also can better effect an illusion of impartiality (Google just delivers what you search for, right? Yeah…).
How effective is this? “As Epstein's previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their [Google] search results are unbiased,” reported Breitbart last year.
In fact, Epstein found that Google bias alone assuredly won the Democrats seats in the 2018 midterms. He determined that this bias “could have influenced 4.6 million undecided voters to support Democrat candidates,” Breitbart also relates — and this is a low-end estimate. Moreover, this calculation doesn't even factor in Facebook, Twitter, and other tech giants.
In other words, it's entirely conceivable that Big Tech could have won the House for the Democrats. If this is so, it also means that the tech leviathans are responsible for Trump's impeachment and the stymieing of his agenda, phenomena possible only because Nancy Pelosi holds the speaker's gavel.
Worse still, Epstein reports that if the whole of Big Tech favors the same candidate, it can shift up to 15 million votes in November. I mentioned earlier how significant this figure is, and it's why Epstein wrote last month that Trump can't win “[n]o matter which weak candidate the Democrats ultimately nominate.” I myself wouldn't be so sure; then again, maybe Epstein knows something I don't.
The suspicious may suggest that Epstein is a manipulator himself who's trying to dishearten Trump-supporters. Forget that. I'm certain that Epstein is a straight shooter who's genuinely concerned about a dystopia-delivering tech oligarchy. Also know that he has his own conspiracy theory — and an understandable reason to entertain it.
Last year brought Epstein fame — he's considered a Google “whistleblower” and testified before Congress in June — and also tragedy: his wife was killed in a fatal car crash late December. A few weeks later, he tweeted the following:
Last year, after I briefed a group of state AGs about #Google's power to rig elections, one of them said, “I think you're going to die in an accident in a few months.” A few months later, my beautiful wife #Misti died a violent death. Makes you wonder. https://t.co/D2lw4e7QPI pic.twitter.com/c7zT1nn4K0 — Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) January 20, 2020
Epstein now emphasizes in his anti–Big Tech writings that he's “NOT suicidal.”
I'm fairly confident that his wife's tragedy was just an accident, but what I'm completely sure of is no conspiracy theory: Big Tech will win the Democrats millions of votes in November.
While President Trump emphasized last year when asked about tech power that he “won” in 2016, the point is this: it's possible that more than Hillary Clinton's entire three-million popular vote advantage was attributable to Big Tech meddling (not to mention vote fraud). Thus, Big Tech might have handed the Democrats their puerile “she won!” talking point.
Furthermore, what you can bet on in November is that however well the GOP does, it would have done better if not for Big Tech meddling. For instance, if Trump wins by two million votes, he would otherwise perhaps have won by 10 or 15 million. If the Democrats retain the House, they otherwise might have lost it. If they flip the Senate, the Republicans otherwise might have held it.
No, I can't give you precise numbers (and it doesn't really matter); that's Epstein's domain. But this is a bit like illegal migration: it's hard to accurately measure something so shadowy — it's not hard to know that it threatens your civilization.
Big Tech censorship is nothing new, and I and millions of other traditionalists have long been victimized by it. But the tech leviathans, not wanting a 2016 repeat and smelling blood, are now putting the hammer (and sickle) down. They, not the Russians, are the ones literally hacking our republic.
As Epstein warned when testifying before Congress, “democracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.” It most certainly cannot — and we ignore these warnings at our own peril.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker. It is published here with permission from the author.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--New law forces Belgium pro-life doctors to refer patients wanting to die for euthanasia

March 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The lower Chamber of the Belgian federal Parliament has approved several measures in favor of increased access to euthanasia , which has been legal in the country since 2002 .
On Thursday evening , a large majority of Chamber members – 97 votes for , 35 abstentions and three against – decided to curb the right of conscientious objection for doctors and other health professionals who are unwilling to kill their patients .
By an amendment presented by the Belgian Socialist Party and Open-VLD , adopted by the Chamber , conscientious objection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other medical facilities as such , obliging even Catholic hospitals to allow euthanasia to take place within their walls .
The new law also gives unlimited validity to advance directives or “ living wills ” asking for euthanasia to be applied under certain circumstances in case of mental incapacity .
Provisions for revising the euthanasia law were introduced by Barbara Creemers , the “ Green ” party member of Parliament who insisted that the need to renew advance directives every five years placed an “ unnecessary administrative burden on the patient.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaration should remain valid , unless the parties concerned have second thoughts .
Then it can always be rescinded , ” she argued .
However , amendments creating a right for patients to include a five-year clause in their advance directives were rejected , showing that the liberty and autonomy the euthanasia law purports to uphold are not as absolute as they are made out to be .
The European Institute for Bioethics ( EIB ) , based in Brussels , commented : “ The risk – which the initial law of 2002 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that advance directives dating back several decades , whose very existence has been forgotten by the patient , will be somehow implemented when that person is no longer capable of expressing his or her will.
” If the objective of the new law was to make it easier to eliminate unconscious or severely demented patients considered to be a burden on society , an important step in that direction was taken .
According to statistics collected in 2018 , the existing advance directives of 30,000 Belgians now alive have expired .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance directives five years previously did not trouble to renew them .
“ This means doctors will not be able to meet their wishes if they land in an irreversible coma .
Our law will put an end to that situation , ” argued Creemers .
She did not take into consideration the fact that an unknown proportion of these citizens perhaps did n't actually want to renew their directives .
The infringement of the right to conscientious objection in the revised law is no less worrisome .
For individual doctors and healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created .
When individually opposed to euthanasia for reasons of conscience , but also when opposed for medical reasons to a particular euthanasia request , these health professionals will be obliged to cooperate materially by providing a lethal shot .
As soon as the law comes into effect , they will be required to give their patient the address “ of a center or an association specializing in euthanasia rights.
” The explanatory statement of the law identifies only two such centers : the Association pour le droit de mourir dans la dignité @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to die with dignity ) , and LEIF ( LevensEinde InformatieForum , or Information forum on end of life ) , both actively involved in pro-euthanasia campaigning .
According to the EIB , both ADMD and LEIF want “ euthanasia rights ” to be extended to the demented and even to people who are simply “ tired of living.
” The Belgian Socialist party obtained the approval of an amendment that will oblige doctors to inform their patients of their decision not to provide euthanasia , either for conscientious or medical reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ euthanasia request formulated by the patient .
The obligation to give information to the patient or to the patient ’ s person of trust about institutions specializing in euthanasia rights will then take immediate effect .
In a note published in Dutch by the EIB , its president , Philippe Ballaux , and research officer Léopold Vanbellingen underscored that the new provisions regarding individual conscientious objection contradict doctors ’ “ freedom of conscience , ” as the Belgian Council of State itself has made clear .
This official organ of the Belgian Federation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ facilitate the implementation of euthanasia.
” Restrictions to the conscientious objection rights of healthcare institutions , introduced by the Belgian Socialist Party , also violate their specific rights , remarked Ballaux and Vanbellingen .
Under the new law , no provision within hospitals , hospices and healthcare institutions will legally be able to prevent a doctor from giving euthanasia .
It will indeed no longer be possible to give preference to other ways of accompanying a patient toward death , such as palliative care .
EIB regretted that doctors , nurses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to choose to work in a hospice or healthcare institution where the rule is that dying patients must be accompanied and not rushed into death .
The provision also contradicts the “ principle of pluralism ” in the Belgian healthcare system and the “ liberty of association.
” Another document published by EIB noted that in 2002 , discussions leading to the euthanasia law had made clear that “ institutions have the right to forbid the implementation of euthanasia within their walls.
” Having been adopted by the Chamber in plenary formation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promulgated by the King of Belgium in order to enter into effect .
Before that happens , it may be transmitted to the Constitutional court in order to verify its constitutionality .

Conscientious objection for healthcare professionals will be eliminated and Catholic hospitals will be forced to permit assisted suicide.
March 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The lower Chamber of the Belgian federal Parliament has approved several measures in favor of increased access to euthanasia, which has been legal in the country since 2002.
On Thursday evening, a large majority of Chamber members – 97 votes for, 35 abstentions and three against – decided to curb the right of conscientious objection for doctors and other health professionals who are unwilling to kill their patients.
By an amendment presented by the Belgian Socialist Party and Open-VLD, adopted by the Chamber, conscientious objection will also be refused to hospitals and other medical facilities as such, obliging even Catholic hospitals to allow euthanasia to take place within their walls.
The new law also gives unlimited validity to advance directives or “living wills” asking for euthanasia to be applied under certain circumstances in case of mental incapacity.
Provisions for revising the euthanasia law were introduced by Barbara Creemers, the “Green” party member of Parliament who insisted that the need to renew advance directives every five years placed an “unnecessary administrative burden on the patient.”
“Once they have been made, the declaration should remain valid, unless the parties concerned have second thoughts. Then it can always be rescinded,” she argued.
However, amendments creating a right for patients to include a five-year clause in their advance directives were rejected, showing that the liberty and autonomy the euthanasia law purports to uphold are not as absolute as they are made out to be.
The European Institute for Bioethics (EIB), based in Brussels, commented: “The risk – which the initial law of 2002 was precisely seeking to avoid – is now that advance directives dating back several decades, whose very existence has been forgotten by the patient, will be somehow implemented when that person is no longer capable of expressing his or her will.”
If the objective of the new law was to make it easier to eliminate unconscious or severely demented patients considered to be a burden on society, an important step in that direction was taken.
According to statistics collected in 2018, the existing advance directives of 30,000 Belgians now alive have expired. In 2019, 7.156 Belgians who had made advance directives five years previously did not trouble to renew them.
“This means doctors will not be able to meet their wishes if they land in an irreversible coma. Our law will put an end to that situation,” argued Creemers. She did not take into consideration the fact that an unknown proportion of these citizens perhaps didn't actually want to renew their directives.
The infringement of the right to conscientious objection in the revised law is no less worrisome.
For individual doctors and healthcare providers, a new obligation is being created. When individually opposed to euthanasia for reasons of conscience, but also when opposed for medical reasons to a particular euthanasia request, these health professionals will be obliged to cooperate materially by providing a lethal shot. As soon as the law comes into effect, they will be required to give their patient the address “of a center or an association specializing in euthanasia rights.”
The explanatory statement of the law identifies only two such centers: the Association pour le droit de mourir dans la dignité (ADMD, or Society for the right to die with dignity), and LEIF (LevensEinde InformatieForum, or Information forum on end of life), both actively involved in pro-euthanasia campaigning. According to the EIB, both ADMD and LEIF want “euthanasia rights” to be extended to the demented and even to people who are simply “tired of living.”
The Belgian Socialist party obtained the approval of an amendment that will oblige doctors to inform their patients of their decision not to provide euthanasia, either for conscientious or medical reasons, within seven days of the first euthanasia request formulated by the patient. The obligation to give information to the patient or to the patient’s person of trust about institutions specializing in euthanasia rights will then take immediate effect.
In a note published in Dutch by the EIB, its president, Philippe Ballaux, and research officer Léopold Vanbellingen underscored that the new provisions regarding individual conscientious objection contradict doctors’ “freedom of conscience,” as the Belgian Council of State itself has made clear. This official organ of the Belgian Federation remarked that doctors would thus become obliged to “facilitate the implementation of euthanasia.”
Restrictions to the conscientious objection rights of healthcare institutions, introduced by the Belgian Socialist Party, also violate their specific rights, remarked Ballaux and Vanbellingen. Under the new law, no provision within hospitals, hospices and healthcare institutions will legally be able to prevent a doctor from giving euthanasia. It will indeed no longer be possible to give preference to other ways of accompanying a patient toward death, such as palliative care.
EIB regretted that doctors, nurses and other caregivers will no longer be able to choose to work in a hospice or healthcare institution where the rule is that dying patients must be accompanied and not rushed into death. The provision also contradicts the “principle of pluralism” in the Belgian healthcare system and the “liberty of association.”
Another document published by EIB noted that in 2002, discussions leading to the euthanasia law had made clear that “institutions have the right to forbid the implementation of euthanasia within their walls.”
Having been adopted by the Chamber in plenary formation, the new law must now be promulgated by the King of Belgium in order to enter into effect. Before that happens, it may be transmitted to the Constitutional court in order to verify its constitutionality.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Peter MacKay is pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, can’t be trusted: top pro-life leader

TORONTO , March 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Pro-lifers should not be fooled by any overtures from Peter MacKay in his run for leadership of the Conservative Party , warns Canada ’ s national pro-life and pro-family political lobbying group .
“ He can ’ t be trusted , ” says Jeff Gunnarson , national president of Campaign Life Coalition .
“ He ’ s as red Tory as they come , and he ’ s a pro-abort .
He was the first to pander to the LGBT activists by promising to march in the Pride parade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the list goes on.
” An M.P .
for Nova Scotia for 18 years , MacKay held several top-level portfolios in Stephen Harper ’ s government and is one of eight contenders vying to replace Andrew Scheer , whose resignation announcement in December triggered the leadership race .
MacKay infamously opined shortly after the election that the Conservatives lost because the media and the Liberals dogged Scheer with questions about abortion and LGBT issues , which MacKay said no voter wanted to talk about .
“ That was thrust on the agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scheer ’ s neck like a stinking albatross , quite frankly , ” MacKay said in October .
“ And he wasn ’ t able to deftly deal with those issues when the opportunities arose.
” On Friday , MacKay sought to distance himself from his “ stinking albatross ” remark , after Alberta premier Jason Kenney referenced it his endorsement of Ontario M.P .
Erin O ’ Toole .
“ I regret the way people have interpreted it , how it was torqued , ” MacKay said during a campaign stop in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported the Canadian Press .
“ But I think as Conservatives if we want to win , we ’ ve got to be honest with ourselves .
We have to address some of the shortcomings that Canadians saw in our campaign the last time , and we have to be a little bit more forward-looking and optimistic , and putting things in the window that people can vote for , not just against.
” In what could be seen as a nod to social conservatives , last month , MacKay tweeted the letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging the Liberals to include conscience rights in their euthanasia expansion bill .
The Supreme Court has ruled that doctors have the right , as he euphemistically put it , “ to assist a patient to die , ” wrote MacKay .
But MacKay deserves little credit , considering his record and known views , says Gunnarson .
“ Thank you very much , that ’ s nice of you , but are you going to pull euthanasia back ?
” he pointed out .
“ We ’ re still allowing killing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything about that.
” MacKay also suggested he would allow back-benchers to bring forward private members ’ bills on abortion , telling CBC ’ s Vassy Kapelos that “ under Westminster tradition , ” individual M.P.s “ are permitted to bring forward those bills.
” “ However , I would never lead a party or a government that would advocate for restricting access or ever bringing back any changes to the law as it pertains to access , ” he added .
This could be MacKay “ trying to give the perception that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social conservative sense to him , but he ’ s doesn ’ t , ” said Gunnarson .
“ Without the leader of the party and the cabinet , pro-life legislation will not pass , ” he pointed out .
Moreover , “ if we ’ re considered a ‘ stinking albatross , ’ I don ’ t have any hopes that he ’ s not going to interfere with nominations and any attempt to bring forward pro-life policy , ” he added .
“ If MacKay is elected leader , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the conservative movement as we know it .
Bad all over , and pro-life ?
Forget it .
We ’ ll get nothing.
” Of the eight candidates who have met the first deadline and been allowed to run , Campaign Life is backing Leslyn Lewis , Jim Karahalios , and Derek Sloan .
The party ’ s leadership race committee disqualified outspoken social conservative Richard Décarie for unspecified reasons , and he is now endorsing Sloan , a rookie Ontario M.P .
Candidates must submit a further 2,000 signatures and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay in the race , which ends June 27 , when the leader will be announced at a party convention in Toronto .
Campaign Life Coalition is urging pro-life advocates to purchase a Conservative Party membership by the April 17 deadline to be eligible to vote in the race .

'If MacKay is elected leader, it would be the fall of the Conservative Party and the conservative movement as we know it.'
TORONTO, March 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-lifers should not be fooled by any overtures from Peter MacKay in his run for leadership of the Conservative Party, warns Canada’s national pro-life and pro-family political lobbying group.
“He can’t be trusted,” says Jeff Gunnarson, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.
“He’s as red Tory as they come, and he’s a pro-abort. He was the first to pander to the LGBT activists by promising to march in the Pride parade, his voting record as MP was brutal and the list goes on.”
An M.P. for Nova Scotia for 18 years, MacKay held several top-level portfolios in Stephen Harper’s government and is one of eight contenders vying to replace Andrew Scheer, whose resignation announcement in December triggered the leadership race.
MacKay infamously opined shortly after the election that the Conservatives lost because the media and the Liberals dogged Scheer with questions about abortion and LGBT issues, which MacKay said no voter wanted to talk about.
“That was thrust on the agenda and [it] hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross, quite frankly,” MacKay said in October. “And he wasn’t able to deftly deal with those issues when the opportunities arose.”
On Friday, MacKay sought to distance himself from his “stinking albatross” remark, after Alberta premier Jason Kenney referenced it his endorsement of Ontario M.P. Erin O’Toole.
“I regret the way people have interpreted it, how it was torqued,” MacKay said during a campaign stop in Scheer’s hometown of Regina, reported the Canadian Press.
“But I think as Conservatives if we want to win, we’ve got to be honest with ourselves. We have to address some of the shortcomings that Canadians saw in our campaign the last time, and we have to be a little bit more forward-looking and optimistic, and putting things in the window that people can vote for, not just against.”
In what could be seen as a nod to social conservatives, last month, MacKay tweeted the letter he sent to justice minister David Lametti urging the Liberals to include conscience rights in their euthanasia expansion bill.
Conscience rights for medical practitioners and health care providers matter. Please see my letter to the Attorney General. pic.twitter.com/6rx2bbvieY — Peter MacKay (@PeterMacKay) February 10, 2020
The Supreme Court has ruled that doctors have the right to refuse — as he euphemistically put it — “to assist a patient to die,” wrote MacKay.
But MacKay deserves little credit, considering his record and known views, says Gunnarson.
“Thank you very much, that’s nice of you, but are you going to pull euthanasia back?” he pointed out. “We’re still allowing killing. He’s not going to do anything about that.”
MacKay also suggested he would allow back-benchers to bring forward private members’ bills on abortion, telling CBC’s Vassy Kapelos that “under Westminster tradition,” individual M.P.s “are permitted to bring forward those bills.”
“However, I would never lead a party or a government that would advocate for restricting access or ever bringing back any changes to the law as it pertains to access,” he added.
This could be MacKay “trying to give the perception that he’s got some sort of social conservative sense to him, but he’s doesn’t,” said Gunnarson.
“Without the leader of the party and the cabinet, pro-life legislation will not pass,” he pointed out.
Moreover, “if we’re considered a ‘stinking albatross,’ I don’t have any hopes that he’s not going to interfere with nominations and any attempt to bring forward pro-life policy,” he added.
“If MacKay is elected leader, it would be the fall of the Conservative Party and the conservative movement as we know it. Bad all over, and pro-life? Forget it. We’ll get nothing.”
Of the eight candidates who have met the first deadline and been allowed to run, Campaign Life is backing Leslyn Lewis, Jim Karahalios, and Derek Sloan.
The party’s leadership race committee disqualified outspoken social conservative Richard Décarie for unspecified reasons, and he is now endorsing Sloan, a rookie Ontario M.P.
Candidates must submit a further 2,000 signatures and the balance of $300,000 by March 25 to stay in the race, which ends June 27, when the leader will be announced at a party convention in Toronto.
Campaign Life Coalition is urging pro-life advocates to purchase a Conservative Party membership by the April 17 deadline to be eligible to vote in the race.
Correction, March 9, 2020 08:31 EDT: A previous version of this article mischaracterized Peter MacKay’s take a Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide. LifeSite regrets the error.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Is abortion really ‘between a woman and her doctor’?

March 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A familiar and over-used talking point for those who advocate for legal abortion is that the decision whether or not to have one should belong to “ a woman and her doctor.
” These words suggest that there is in fact a doctor-patient relationship in the first place , which implies that the doctor has the woman ’ s best interests at heart and knows her and her medical history well enough to recommend a medically indicated course of treatment .
This , however , is not the case in the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortions in this country take place in free-standing abortion clinics that began popping up the day after Roe v. Wade .
At one time there were more than 2,176 of these killing centers as doctors decided to cash in on this new and lucrative method of reproductive exploitation .
Now there are just 714 but they are still responsible for ending the lives of just under a million children a year .
While it ’ s a stretch to call some of these abortionists “ doctors ” and even more of a stretch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is no exaggeration to say none of them have relationships with their patients .
Some may perform two or more abortions on the same woman , but that ’ s a dangerous liaison and nothing more .
Women from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and Operation Outcry told the stories of their own abortions during a pro-life rally in front of the Supreme Court this week .
Many shared strikingly similar reactions to their abortions , which is remarkable when you consider the different circumstances that led them to that choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the many testimonies was that this “ woman and her doctor ” notion is a lie .
“ I gave three abortionists money to take care of my problem , ” Rebecca Porter testified .
“ I never had a doctor-patient relationship with any of them .
It was strictly a financial transaction.
” The nature of this fictitious doctor-patient relationship is at the heart of one of the questions the Supreme Court is grappling with in the Louisiana case , June Medical Services LLC vs. Russo .
The justices also have agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortionists challenge laws on behalf of their patients .
Abortionists do not push back against these laws for the benefit of women with whom they have long-standing relationships ; the challenges are brought in their own self-interest .
During oral arguments , Justice Samuel Alito said : “ A party should not be able to [ sue ] ostensibly to protect the rights of other people ” if that party has interests that are at odds with the people whose rights it claims to be protecting .
The record in this case and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have the best interests of their clients at heart .
They deceive them , subject them to unsafe and unsanitary conditions , fail to properly monitor their condition or follow up on emergencies , and engage in a whole range of other objectionable behaviors which , unfortunately , have become the norm of America ’ s abortion industry rather than the exception .
Allan Parker of The Justice Foundation was inside the courtroom for oral arguments .
He stopped to talk to me on his way out , and he posed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who profits from poor care , ” he said , “ be able to set aside health and safety regulations ?
” Another key aspect of the case is the provision of Louisiana ’ s law requiring physicians in the state to have admitting privileges in hospitals near their killing centers .
In a recent op-ed , Dr. Christina Francis , chairman of the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists , explained why admitting privileges are so important : A doctor with admitting privileges , on the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient ’ s care .
“ Admitting privileges won ’ t save babies , ” a woman named Ashley from Louisiana testified during Tuesday ’ s pro-life rally .
“ But it might save the lives of women.
” The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will ponder these questions for the next several months .
Let ’ s pray that their answer will be about what ’ s best for women , rather than what ’ s most lucrative for abortion profiteers .
Father Frank Pavone is the National Director of @ @ @ @

March 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A familiar and over-used talking point for those who advocate for legal abortion is that the decision whether or not to have one should belong to “a woman and her doctor.”
These words suggest that there is in fact a doctor-patient relationship in the first place, which implies that the doctor has the woman’s best interests at heart and knows her and her medical history well enough to recommend a medically indicated course of treatment.
This, however, is not the case in the context of abortion.
The vast majority of abortions in this country take place in free-standing abortion clinics that began popping up the day after Roe v. Wade. At one time there were more than 2,176 of these killing centers as doctors decided to cash in on this new and lucrative method of reproductive exploitation. Now there are just 714 but they are still responsible for ending the lives of just under a million children a year.
While it’s a stretch to call some of these abortionists “doctors” and even more of a stretch to call abortion “medicine,” it is no exaggeration to say none of them have relationships with their patients. Some may perform two or more abortions on the same woman, but that’s a dangerous liaison and nothing more.
Women from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and Operation Outcry told the stories of their own abortions during a pro-life rally in front of the Supreme Court this week. Many shared strikingly similar reactions to their abortions, which is remarkable when you consider the different circumstances that led them to that choice.
One point that kept surfacing throughout the many testimonies was that this “woman and her doctor” notion is a lie.
“I gave three abortionists money to take care of my problem,” Rebecca Porter testified. “I never had a doctor-patient relationship with any of them. It was strictly a financial transaction.”
The nature of this fictitious doctor-patient relationship is at the heart of one of the questions the Supreme Court is grappling with in the Louisiana case, June Medical Services LLC vs. Russo.
The justices also have agreed to review a legal standard that lets abortionists challenge laws on behalf of their patients. Abortionists do not push back against these laws for the benefit of women with whom they have long-standing relationships; the challenges are brought in their own self-interest.
During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito said: “A party should not be able to [sue] ostensibly to protect the rights of other people” if that party has interests that are at odds with the people whose rights it claims to be protecting.
The record in this case and across the country demonstrates that abortionists do not have the best interests of their clients at heart. They deceive them, subject them to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, fail to properly monitor their condition or follow up on emergencies, and engage in a whole range of other objectionable behaviors which, unfortunately, have become the norm of America’s abortion industry rather than the exception.
Allan Parker of The Justice Foundation was inside the courtroom for oral arguments. He stopped to talk to me on his way out, and he posed a profound question.
“Why should someone who profits from poor care,” he said, “be able to set aside health and safety regulations?”
Another key aspect of the case is the provision of Louisiana’s law requiring physicians in the state to have admitting privileges in hospitals near their killing centers.
In a recent op-ed, Dr. Christina Francis, chairman of the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, explained why admitting privileges are so important:
“When a woman is brought into the hospital experiencing post-abortive complications, she is likely to see a doctor like me—an OB-GYN hospitalist—with whom she has no previous relationship. Rarely do patients arrive with a medical file; often there hasn’t been so much as a phone call from the clinic. By the time I see a patient, she has typically wasted precious time—hours in some cases—filling out forms and navigating the emergency room.”
A doctor with admitting privileges, on the other hand, would be able to fast-track that patient’s care.
“Admitting privileges won’t save babies,” a woman named Ashley from Louisiana testified during Tuesday’s pro-life rally. “But it might save the lives of women.”
The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will ponder these questions for the next several months. Let’s pray that their answer will be about what’s best for women, rather than what’s most lucrative for abortion profiteers.
Father Frank Pavone is the National Director of Priests for Life.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Climate change generated collapse of US intellectual standards in science

March 6 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — Each year , approximately $ 25 billion is wasted paying for so-called renewable energy , overwhelmingly wind and solar .
This is the excess cost of the renewable energy versus what it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity in existing fossil fuel plants .
Because many states have accelerating legal quotas for renewable energy , called renewable portfolio laws , the money wasted each year will approximately double in the next 10 years to $ 50 billion each year .
If the states fail to come to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another doubling by 2040 to $ 100 billion per year is likely .
In the state of Nevada , for example , the increasing cost of electricity will likely be equivalent to a 4 % state income tax by 2030 .
The renewable energy industry has powerful sources of support for its program to make money by fooling the public .
There are many effective lies , repeated over and over .
Long-term contracts for wind or solar electricity at $ 25 or $ 30 per megawatt-hour are touted as proving that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' fossil fuel electricity .
A close examination of the cost of renewable electricity , either wind or solar , shows that the real cost of this electricity is not $ 25 per megawatt-hour , but around $ 80 per megawatt-hour .
The difference is the federal and state subsidies .
A good chunk of those federal subsidies are set to go away by 2022 .
Then there is the matter of replacing fossil fuel electricity .
Wind or solar electricity displaces some fossil fuel electricity , but neither ever replaces the plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fossil fuel plants are throttled back when the wind or solar is generating electricity .
But sometimes wind and solar are asleep .
At those times , the fossil fuel plants have to power the grid without any help from the wind or solar plants .
Nothing is replaced by building wind or solar plants .
A dual system is created with dependable fossil fuel plants supplemented by erratically operating wind or solar plants .
When fossil fuel plants are replaced , they are replaced by newer fossil fuel plants .
Often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that introducing renewable electricity in the USA will reduce CO2 emissions and thus save the world from a global warming catastrophe makes no sense because most CO2 emissions , by a wide margin , are coming from other countries , especially China and India .
Further , U.S. emissions are declining due to energy conservation and switching from coal to natural gas .
Emissions in Asia are skyrocketing .
If the U.S. fans of wind and solar really believed in the coming climate catastrophe , they would be worrying about what China and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. electric utility industry is doing .
The real believers in the climate catastrophe , if they are also numerically literate , point out that nuclear electricity is the only serious road to reducing CO2 emissions .
Some of these climate alarmists are James Hansen ; Michael Shellenberger ; Stewart Brand ; and , before he ran for president , Michael Bloomberg .
For a lengthy list of prominent persons supporting nuclear to prevent climate change , look here .
The environmental organizations have a problem with nuclear in that it was their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and '80s .
It 's hard for them to reverse their position and face the reality that nuclear is the only way to really reduce emissions at reasonable cost .
My own opinion , based on considerable study , is that global warming , now called climate change , is something between science fiction and a hoax .
The side-effect of the alleged catastrophe is turning obscure academics , in obscure disciplines , into rock stars .
Predicting a catastrophe is a really good method of getting attention .
The temptation to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonanza is irresistible .
On the other hand , if a scientist refuses to go along , he is seen as killing the goose that lays golden eggs , and he may well be purged .
Openly global warming–skeptical scientists are vastly outnumbered by those who are closeted .
The only economic benefit of wind or solar energy is a reduction in fuel consumption in the existing fossil fuel plants .
The marginal cost of fuel in a natural gas generating plant is around $ 15 per megawatt-hour .
Wind or solar electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 per megawatt-hour .
The $ 65 difference has to be made up by a subsidy from someone , in practice the taxpayers or the consumers of electricity .
Because the renewable portfolio laws mandate increasing use of renewable electricity , if the federal subsidies go away , the price of electricity will increase .
The saddest thing about the response to the renewable energy scandal , or the global warming hoax , is that the people and institutions that know better lack the courage to speak up .
Or , in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scandal for their own profit .
The international oil companies have vast financial resources .
They employ thousands of scientists .
It is not in their stockholders ' financial interest to be made into villains supposedly trying to destroy the Earth via global warming .
At one time , before the eco-left gained huge political influence , the oil companies were open skeptics .
In 1997 , Exxon 's CEO , Lee Raymond , himself a Ph.D. , made a speech clearly pointing out the scientific weaknesses in the predictions of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other oil companies are careful not to criticize global warming , and they constantly publish propaganda concerning their attempts to reduce CO2 emissions .
Of course , their product , oil , is one of the main sources of CO2 emissions .
If they dared to be openly critical of global warming theory , or if they made donations to skeptical organizations , they could expect serious political attacks .
These companies with vast wealth and knowledge have been intimidated into keeping quiet .
They also give what is , in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that push global warming alarmism — for example , the American Geophysical Union .
It may be too much to expect that companies whose purpose is to make money will take a principled stand , even if only to protect their long-term interests .
These companies also build solar and wind generating facilities .
But due to government subsidies and policies , these projects may actually be profitable for the developer .
It 's the public that is screwed .
Members of the academic and scientific communities who write about global warming , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they might say something that sounds skeptical .
It is difficult to do good scientific work if you are afraid of countering the dominant conventional wisdom .
The few public skeptics are ornery types with good pensions or fat bank accounts .
They are usually depicted as being slightly daffy or as being in the pay of oil companies .
The oil companies probably would be hesitant to issue a gas credit card to these skeptics , much less actually hire one for any reason .
These public skeptics are the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is reason for optimism .
The danger of global warming ranks low in the public mind .
If Trump is re-elected , there is a good chance that the fake science will be faced with greater skepticism .
The federal subsidies for renewable energy could be entirely eliminated .
But if Trump is defeated , all the prospective Democrat candidates are fully loony-tunes on the subject of global warming and renewable energy .
Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy : A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coalition .
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker .
It is published here with permission from the author .

March 6, 2020 (American Thinker) — Each year, approximately $25 billion is wasted paying for so-called renewable energy, overwhelmingly wind and solar. This is the excess cost of the renewable energy versus what it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity in existing fossil fuel plants. Because many states have accelerating legal quotas for renewable energy, called renewable portfolio laws, the money wasted each year will approximately double in the next 10 years to $50 billion each year. If the states fail to come to their senses and continue to pursue these laws, another doubling by 2040 to $100 billion per year is likely. In the state of Nevada, for example, the increasing cost of electricity will likely be equivalent to a 4% state income tax by 2030.
The renewable energy industry has powerful sources of support for its program to make money by fooling the public. There are many effective lies, repeated over and over. Long-term contracts for wind or solar electricity at $25 or $30 per megawatt-hour are touted as proving that renewable electricity is replacing “more expensive” fossil fuel electricity. A close examination of the cost of renewable electricity, either wind or solar, shows that the real cost of this electricity is not $25 per megawatt-hour, but around $80 per megawatt-hour. The difference is the federal and state subsidies. A good chunk of those federal subsidies are set to go away by 2022.
Then there is the matter of replacing fossil fuel electricity. Wind or solar electricity displaces some fossil fuel electricity, but neither ever replaces the plants used to generate fossil fuel electricity. The fossil fuel plants are throttled back when the wind or solar is generating electricity. But sometimes wind and solar are asleep. At those times, the fossil fuel plants have to power the grid without any help from the wind or solar plants. Nothing is replaced by building wind or solar plants. A dual system is created with dependable fossil fuel plants supplemented by erratically operating wind or solar plants. When fossil fuel plants are replaced, they are replaced by newer fossil fuel plants. Often natural gas replaces coal.
The idea that introducing renewable electricity in the USA will reduce CO2 emissions and thus save the world from a global warming catastrophe makes no sense because most CO2 emissions, by a wide margin, are coming from other countries, especially China and India. Further, U.S. emissions are declining due to energy conservation and switching from coal to natural gas. Emissions in Asia are skyrocketing. If the U.S. fans of wind and solar really believed in the coming climate catastrophe, they would be worrying about what China and India are doing, not what the U.S. electric utility industry is doing.
The real believers in the climate catastrophe, if they are also numerically literate, point out that nuclear electricity is the only serious road to reducing CO2 emissions. Some of these climate alarmists are James Hansen; Michael Shellenberger; Stewart Brand; and, before he ran for president, Michael Bloomberg. For a lengthy list of prominent persons supporting nuclear to prevent climate change, look here. The environmental organizations have a problem with nuclear in that it was their fundraising scare catastrophe back in the '70s and '80s. It's hard for them to reverse their position and face the reality that nuclear is the only way to really reduce emissions at reasonable cost.
My own opinion, based on considerable study, is that global warming, now called climate change, is something between science fiction and a hoax. The side-effect of the alleged catastrophe is turning obscure academics, in obscure disciplines, into rock stars. Predicting a catastrophe is a really good method of getting attention. The temptation to cut scientific corners to get in on the bonanza is irresistible. On the other hand, if a scientist refuses to go along, he is seen as killing the goose that lays golden eggs, and he may well be purged. Openly global warming–skeptical scientists are vastly outnumbered by those who are closeted.
The only economic benefit of wind or solar energy is a reduction in fuel consumption in the existing fossil fuel plants. The marginal cost of fuel in a natural gas generating plant is around $15 per megawatt-hour. Wind or solar electricity costs, without subsidies, about $80 per megawatt-hour. The $65 difference has to be made up by a subsidy from someone, in practice the taxpayers or the consumers of electricity. Because the renewable portfolio laws mandate increasing use of renewable electricity, if the federal subsidies go away, the price of electricity will increase.
The saddest thing about the response to the renewable energy scandal, or the global warming hoax, is that the people and institutions that know better lack the courage to speak up. Or, in some cases, they even join perpetrators of the scandal for their own profit.
The international oil companies have vast financial resources. They employ thousands of scientists. It is not in their stockholders' financial interest to be made into villains supposedly trying to destroy the Earth via global warming. At one time, before the eco-left gained huge political influence, the oil companies were open skeptics. In 1997, Exxon's CEO, Lee Raymond, himself a Ph.D., made a speech clearly pointing out the scientific weaknesses in the predictions of a global warming catastrophe. But now Exxon and other oil companies are careful not to criticize global warming, and they constantly publish propaganda concerning their attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.
Of course, their product, oil, is one of the main sources of CO2 emissions. If they dared to be openly critical of global warming theory, or if they made donations to skeptical organizations, they could expect serious political attacks. These companies with vast wealth and knowledge have been intimidated into keeping quiet. They also give what is, in my opinion, protection money to various organizations that push global warming alarmism — for example, the American Geophysical Union. It may be too much to expect that companies whose purpose is to make money will take a principled stand, even if only to protect their long-term interests. These companies also build solar and wind generating facilities. But due to government subsidies and policies, these projects may actually be profitable for the developer. It's the public that is screwed.
Members of the academic and scientific communities who write about global warming, or renewable energy, cower in fear that they might say something that sounds skeptical. It is difficult to do good scientific work if you are afraid of countering the dominant conventional wisdom. The few public skeptics are ornery types with good pensions or fat bank accounts. They are usually depicted as being slightly daffy or as being in the pay of oil companies. The oil companies probably would be hesitant to issue a gas credit card to these skeptics, much less actually hire one for any reason. These public skeptics are the real scientists. The other are charlatans.
There is reason for optimism. The danger of global warming ranks low in the public mind. If Trump is re-elected, there is a good chance that the fake science will be faced with greater skepticism. The federal subsidies for renewable energy could be entirely eliminated. But if Trump is defeated, all the prospective Democrat candidates are fully loony-tunes on the subject of global warming and renewable energy.
Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy. He is a member of the CO2 Coalition.
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker. It is published here with permission from the author.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-07--Russia scrubs openly gay character from Disney kids’ film ‘Onward’

MOSCOW , Russia , March 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― The LGBT identity of a controversial character in Disney ’ s new film Onward has been removed for Russian audiences .
According to Russian online film magazine Kinopoisk.ru ( i.e .
“ Cinesearch ” ) , “ Disney and Pixar have presented ( in their film ) a new LGBT-character , an officer of local police , a cyclops named Specter .
Her orientation is mentioned in a short line of dialogue in the scene where she stops two main protagonists , brothers Ian and Barley , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of magic , they disguise themselves as the centaur Bronco , who is Specter ’ s police buddy and their mother ’ s boyfriend , with whom she ( Specter ) discusses her relationship with her girlfriend and daughter , ” the article continues .
“ According to the reports of the viewers who have already watched the cartoon , in the Russian dubbed version , the more neutral word ‘ partner ’ appeared here , not specifying the sex of the character being discussed.
” Cinesearch suggested that this was how Disney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with its distribution in the relatively socially conservative country .
It reported that it contacted Russian Disney to confirm , but a spokesperson declined to answer .
Onward , which has just been released in the United States , is Disney ’ s first animated movie with an openly homosexual character .
Officer Specter was voiced by Lena Waithe , who identifies with her same-sex attraction .
LifeSiteNews and other pro-family advocates have called on parents to boycott the film , and LifeSiteNews ’ petition has received more than 53,000 signatures since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parent company of Marvel Studios , which is in the middle of producing a movie starring an “ LGBT superhero.
” It tested the waters by introducing a minor LGBT character in its last blockbusting superhero film , Avengers : Endgame .
According to Cinesearch , this was also altered in the Russian version .
In the original version , the reference to the LGBT character , played by director Joe Russo , going on a same-sex “ date ” was changed to one about a “ dinner , causing no questions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Russian forbidding the dissemination of LGBT propaganda to children and teenagers .
However , LGBT references and scenes have also been removed from American films for adults before they opened in Russia .
Last year , the Russian distributor for the Elton John biopic Rocketman cut a “ gay male sex ” scene along with a caption near the end of the movie about the singers raising children with his same-sex partner .
The UK ’ s Guardian reported that the distributor had edited the film to comply with “ local laws.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ told LifeSiteNews via social media that even though the 18+ age restriction already limited the movie to adults , the homosexual sex scenes were likely cut to give the distributors `` the opportunity to widen the potential audience . ''
Kotlyar added that the average Russian is just not that interested in seeing homosexual sex onscreen .
Russian distributors change American films in other ways to reflect Russian tastes .
Cinesearch reported that the nationality of the villain of The Secret Life of Pets 2 was changed in the Russian version .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named Sergei , who spoke with a heavy Eastern European accent .
In the Russian version , the villain is named Serge , and he speaks Russian with a French accent .
Cinesearch also described how references to Soviet dictator Joseph Stain were removed from the 2019 Hellboy movie .

PETITION: Boycott Disney's new kids' film 'Onward' for pushing LGBT agenda Sign the petition here.
MOSCOW, Russia, March 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― The LGBT identity of a controversial character in Disney’s new film Onward has been removed for Russian audiences.
According to Russian online film magazine Kinopoisk.ru (i.e. “Cinesearch”), “Disney and Pixar have presented (in their film) a new LGBT-character, an officer of local police, a cyclops named Specter. Her orientation is mentioned in a short line of dialogue in the scene where she stops two main protagonists, brothers Ian and Barley, for traffic violations.”
“With the help of magic, they disguise themselves as the centaur Bronco, who is Specter’s police buddy and their mother’s boyfriend, with whom she (Specter) discusses her relationship with her girlfriend and daughter,” the article continues.
“According to the reports of the viewers who have already watched the cartoon, in the Russian dubbed version, the more neutral word ‘partner’ appeared here, not specifying the sex of the character being discussed.”
Cinesearch suggested that this was how Disney’s Russian office managed to avoid problems with its distribution in the relatively socially conservative country. It reported that it contacted Russian Disney to confirm, but a spokesperson declined to answer.
Onward, which has just been released in the United States, is Disney’s first animated movie with an openly homosexual character. Officer Specter was voiced by Lena Waithe, who identifies with her same-sex attraction. LifeSiteNews and other pro-family advocates have called on parents to boycott the film, and LifeSiteNews’ petition has received more than 53,000 signatures since it was posted.
Disney is the parent company of Marvel Studios, which is in the middle of producing a movie starring an “LGBT superhero.” It tested the waters by introducing a minor LGBT character in its last blockbusting superhero film, Avengers: Endgame.
According to Cinesearch, this was also altered in the Russian version. In the original version, the reference to the LGBT character, played by director Joe Russo, going on a same-sex “date” was changed to one about a “dinner, causing no questions,” Cinesearch wrote.
There are laws in Russian forbidding the dissemination of LGBT propaganda to children and teenagers. However, LGBT references and scenes have also been removed from American films for adults before they opened in Russia. Last year, the Russian distributor for the Elton John biopic Rocketman cut a “gay male sex” scene along with a caption near the end of the movie about the singers raising children with his same-sex partner.
The UK’s Guardian reported that the distributor had edited the film to comply with “local laws.” However, Russian lawyer Ilya Kotlyar told LifeSiteNews via social media that even though the 18+ age restriction already limited the movie to adults, the homosexual sex scenes were likely cut to give the distributors “the opportunity to widen the potential audience.” Kotlyar added that the average Russian is just not that interested in seeing homosexual sex onscreen.
Russian distributors change American films in other ways to reflect Russian tastes. Cinesearch reported that the nationality of the villain of The Secret Life of Pets 2 was changed in the Russian version. The original film depicted a cruel circus director named Sergei, who spoke with a heavy Eastern European accent. In the Russian version, the villain is named Serge, and he speaks Russian with a French accent. Cinesearch also described how references to Soviet dictator Joseph Stain were removed from the 2019 Hellboy movie.
Share