The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
The latest pro-abortion science-denying
by Minister Michael Brown
.
Trade and Pipelines: Trump's First Economic Actions
By Lewis Morris: President Donald Trump signed two significant executive orders this week — one taking America out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, and the other removing the ban on construction of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines. Both orders reverse decrees issued by Barack liar-nObama and serve to show that Trump has set about fulfilling campaign promise to boost the American economy.
The order to take America out of the TPP doesn't come as a surprise, given that Trump had promised repeatedly to do so before the election. Indeed, his opposition likely helped him win the Rust Belt.
The TPP deal, which was negotiated behind closed doors by the liar-nObama White House and 11 other Pacific rim countries, would have created a trade block larger than the European Union. Democrats and their union constituents, however, generally oppose free trade. And Republicans didn't trust liar-nObama to negotiate in a way that would protect America's interests or workers.
Now, in a rare moment of solidarity, many American union leaders voiced their support for the Republican president's actions. "With this decision, the president has taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies that have cost working Americans millions of good paying jobs," declared Teamsters president James Hoffa.
Trump has promised to renegotiate bilateral trade deals and hold each country accountable. He has also suggested that he's looking to renegotiate NAFTA, though he hasn't quite pledged to scrap that deal altogether. In any event, NAFTA would be far more difficult for Trump to undo unilaterally as it's a long-standing treaty backed up by Congress.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding Trump's move to scrap TPP. It can't be denied that the agreement had some shady underpinnings, like much of the work done during the liar-nObama years. It was never put before Congress for formal review and passage, and liar-nObama gave few details about what was in the deal, encouraging Americans to simply trust that he had our best interests at heart. We all know how that turned out.
But by withdrawing from the TPP, Trump must guard against sliding into protectionism. Protectionist trade policies can be notoriously bad for American consumers because they tend to raise the price of goods. Such policies might keep jobs from drifting overseas, but the total cost of keeping those jobs in the U.S. rises significantly when you factor in the rise in consumer prices.
This negative impact on the economy can be prevented if the U.S. pursues free trade policies with other countries — particularly if we enter bilateral trade deals that are beneficial to American jobs.
Speaking of American jobs, Trump's executive order Tuesday to restart the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines will certainly be beneficial and move us toward a sounder energy policy.
liar-nObama waffled on Keystone for years, wanting to placate the unions who wanted it but finally giving in to his ecofascist base and shutting down the project. He did so citing the alleged detrimental impact that Keystone would have on the environment, even though State Department studies he asked for proved that the pipeline would be safe. He likewise ended the Dakota Access project after Native American groups engaged in a vocal and widely televised protest because the pipeline would have crossed their land.
Trump says he wants the pipelines to be built with U.S. steel, so he will be looking to renegotiate terms with TransCanada, the Canadian group that is working on the Keystone project.
Both pipelines will increase domestic oil production and move America toward a more independent and self-sustaining energy policy, something that was not of concern during the administration of Trump's predecessor.
In both cases, though with mixed results likely to ensue, Trump is doing what he considers best to put America first. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Women’s March Organizer Linda Sarsour
Under Fire for Radical Islamist-Terrorist Ties
by William F. Jasper
{thenewamerican.com} ~ The day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Linda Sarsour ascended the global stage at the Women’s March on Washington. Although not as famous as other speakers — Madonna, Michael Moore, Gloria Steinem, Ashley Judd, Angela Davis, Van Jones — she is proving to be equally controversial... Sarsour a co-chair of the march, is a “Muslim feminist” and well-known Soros-funded activist in New York City, where she is executive director of the Arab American Association of New York (AAANY) and a director of the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC), a radical migrant-refugee “rights” organization. She is also, say critics, connected to jihadi terrorists, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS, and she is a self-proclaimed advocate of Sharia law for America. Whereas Madonna talked about blowing up the Trump White House and Ashley Judd's vulgar rant charged Donald Trump with misogyny, violence, slavery and racism, Linda Sarsour is uncomfortably close to terrorists who actually blow things and people up, and an ideology that promotes misogyny, violence, slavery, and racism...
.
Sanctuary Democrats Killed His Son, Daughter-In-Law Pandering For Fraudulent Votes
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The segment on Fox Business channel starts out with statements by two of the worst offenders, commie Bill de Blasio of New York and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago... Both claim they’re keeping their cities as havens of illegality for the benefit of their citizens, regardless of their “documentation.” Baloney mayors. Pandering Democrats created a flow of illegals into this country in order to steal elections. Their opposition to Mr. Trump’s war on sanctuary cities is not an issue of humanitarianism or keeping foreign families together to any extent beyond the degree to which they can be used to keep their lawless grip on power or to expand it. They destroyed the integrity of the voting booth by defeating voter ID laws and they will now fight intensely for the ability to use that corrupted system to commandeer more illicit power. If and when it results in the deaths of innocent Americans, as it did in this case, that’s just a price you’re willing for others to pay so that you can advance your agenda. Keeping families intact isn’t important if they’re Americans. It doesn’t matter to self-serving Democrat Party agitators that they’re destroying the lives of millions of Americans through illegal immigration, many through the death of a loved one. The self-centered, heartless bastards couldn’t care less...
.
Congress to Block liar-nObama’s Secret Gun Ban?!
by AWR Hawkins
{breitbart.com} ~ Congress plans to take up legislation next week that is designed to block Barack liar-nObama’s gun ban for Social Security recipients who require help with their finances... On July 18, 2015, Breitbart News reported the liar-nObama administration was fashioning what was then a secretive gun ban for Social Security recipients who needed help with their finances. The Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would be sweeping. They reported that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons — from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease” — and would put the Second Amendment rights of such recipients in jeopardy. On January 5, 2016, liar-nObama incorporated the ban into his executive gun controls. A White House preview of those controls explained that the Social Security Administration (SSA) was busy finalizing rules for how and when to enforce the ban:... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/25/congress-acting-block-obamas-social-security-gun-ban/
.1,960 refugees enter U.S. on Trump's watch
by Leo Hohmann
{wnd.com} ~ Since Donald Trump’s first full day in the White House on Jan. 21, the U.S. has imported nearly 2,000 refugees from around the world, with about half coming from Muslim-dominated countries... The expected executive orders to halt all resettlements of refugees for four months while the administration searches for a better system of vetting was originally said to be coming Thursday, but it now appears that was premature. Friday may be the day. Some sources say it could be put off until Saturday. For every day the administration fails to act, hundreds more refugees arrive from the Third World... http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/1960-refugees-enter-u-s-on-trumps-watch/
.'Germany dishonoring the memory
of the murdered Six Million'
by David Rosenberg
{israelnationalnews.com} ~ The government of Germany is providing financial backing to a radical anti-Israel non-governmental organization working to promote the view that the establishment of the Jewish state was a “disaster”... Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday, activists from the Im Tirtzu organization released a new report documenting foreign aid for “Zochrot”, a far-left NGO working to “decolonize” Israel. A tireless promoter of anti-Zionism, Zochrot advocates for a “right of return” for descendants of Arabs who left Israel during the 1948 War of Independence...This is so sad that Jews are being attacked from the being of time and then into the future.
..
The latest pro-abortion science-denying
by Minister Michael Brown
{wnd.com} ~ There is a reason why many women contemplating abortion decide not to abort when they see an ultrasound of their baby. There is no denying the humanity of this tiny creature, which is anything but a clump of cells.
As the baby grows in the womb and is seen by ultrasound imaging, it’s common to hear parents exclaim, “Look at those little hands! Look at that adorable nose, it looks like Grandpa’s nose, doesn’t it?! And look – it’s a girl! or, it’s a boy!)
How amazing it is to see the ultrasound of your baby, especially when it’s your first child. Not surprisingly, both of our daughters, now in their late 30s, had the identical reaction when they saw the ultrasounds of their first babies: How could anyone abort their child?
It is for good reason that pro-abortion legislators fight against laws that would require abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the baby prior to the decision to abort. They know it would be bad for business plus, they argue, it adds to the inconvenience of the mother wanting to dispose of the contents of her womb.
It is hard to deny the personhood of the fetus when you see an ultrasound, which is why, during last year’s Super Bowl, Dorito’s incurred the wrath of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League when it aired an innocent, lighthearted, commercial featuring a very pregnant woman, her husband and an ultrasound of their baby. According to NARAL, Dorito’s had committed the cardinal sin of “humanizing fetuses.” Oh, the very thought of it!
But there is something even worse than that Dorito’s ad. According to a bizarre article in The Atlantic, pro-life groups are being devious and deceptive when they use ultrasounds to convince women that their babies are human. How low will these pro-lifers go?
The article, written by Moira Weigel and posted Tuesday, was originally titled “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person” with the subtitle, “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” Its current title is, “How the Ultrasound Became Political.” The subtitle remains the same.
Weigel’s article, which was marred by embarrassing errors as pointed out by Alexandra DeSanctison the National Review, not to mention being marred by bizarre claims, denied the reality and significance of fetal heartbeats as early as five or six weeks old, downplayed the evidence of ultrasounds and claimed that – gasp! – the pro-life movement was yet another example of patriarchal overreach. Yes, the science of “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Those dastardly, duplicitous males! They are at it once again.
For good reason Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote that, “Moira Weigel took a sledgehammer to basic science and then did her best to vacuum its brains out before anyone could figure out what just happened.” The title of his article was as accurate as it was snarky: “Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy.”
Further underscoring the absurdity of Weigel’s article was this tweet from Denise Russell, which Davis reproduced: “Before ultrasounds, a woman had to wait until delivery to find out if she was getting a puppy, a goat, or a human.” How did we forget that?
Responding to the Republican-led effort to pass the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would prohibit doctors from aborting a baby if a heartbeat was detected in the words of its sponsor, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected”, Weigel asks, “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”
Her answer to these questions can be summed up, respectively, in three words, “Nothing” and “It doesn’t.”
Forget the fact that doctors check the baby’s heartbeat during each pre-natal visit, since this is an indicator of health, or the fact that they carefully monitor the baby’s heartbeat during delivery to be sure the child is OK. And forget the fact that doctors look for a pulse to see if someone is still living or the fact that a person is declared dead when his or her heart stops beating for good.
No. When it comes to abortion, all those facts conveniently disappear, and the heartbeat of that tiny pre-born child is of no significance at all. Indeed, Weigel opines, “Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a ‘fetus’ until nine weeks into pregnancy.” I must be getting old, but somehow, I don’t recall my wife, Nancy, saying to me decades ago, “Honey, I just got the test results back and I have a rapidly dividing cell mass inside of me!”
But it is not just fetal heartbeats that have no meaning for Weigel. Ultrasounds also have no meaning for her since … well, since she’s doesn’t believe they should. If you think I’m exaggerating, read her article. She notes that posting pictures of ultrasounds on social media has “heightened the social reality of the unborn,” as if this was somehow a bad, misleading thing.
And she points to an American couple who “posted a video of their sonogram fast-forwarded so that their fetus appeared to be clapping in time as they sang, ‘When You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands.'” The implication is that because the video was sped up, giving the false impression that the baby was clapping to the beat, that the more basic impression was also false, namely that there was a little human being in that mother’s womb who was putting its two little hands together. Pretty good for a clump of cells and a mass of tissue!
Although Weigel cites those who claim that pregnant women who see their ultrasounds are less likely to abort, she disputes these claims, pointing to a “2014 study published by the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which drew on the medical records of nearly 16,000 women seeking abortions” and “found that viewing an ultrasound had a negligible impact on whether they decided to proceed.”
Other studies I have read have come to very different conclusions and a pro-life ministry that offers ultrasounds to women considering abortion has also seen tremendous results. But I doubt that all the studies in the world would convince Weigel right now, since her objections seem to be based on ideology more than science. As observed by Alexandra DeSanctis, “The reason that progressives such as Weigel denounce ultrasound technology is … because they want to continue denying the humanity of the unborn child, a humanity that is undeniable whether or not the mother wants the child.”
Yes, “Pro-life activists and parents who want to keep their unborn children will acknowledge this humanity. We all know it. Abortionists know it. Mothers aborting their babies know it. Planned Parenthood executives know it. Perhaps many are able to dull their consciences and convince themselves that it’s ‘just a clump of cells.’ But deep down, they must know. We all do. And that’s why the left has to work so hard to deny it.”
And the harder the left works to deny the humanity of the unborn child, the more it exposes its moral and scientific bankruptcy. In that regard, Weigel’s article does a great service to the pro-life cause, and for that, we should be glad. Truth is sweeping away the lies.
As the baby grows in the womb and is seen by ultrasound imaging, it’s common to hear parents exclaim, “Look at those little hands! Look at that adorable nose, it looks like Grandpa’s nose, doesn’t it?! And look – it’s a girl! or, it’s a boy!)
How amazing it is to see the ultrasound of your baby, especially when it’s your first child. Not surprisingly, both of our daughters, now in their late 30s, had the identical reaction when they saw the ultrasounds of their first babies: How could anyone abort their child?
It is for good reason that pro-abortion legislators fight against laws that would require abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the baby prior to the decision to abort. They know it would be bad for business plus, they argue, it adds to the inconvenience of the mother wanting to dispose of the contents of her womb.
It is hard to deny the personhood of the fetus when you see an ultrasound, which is why, during last year’s Super Bowl, Dorito’s incurred the wrath of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League when it aired an innocent, lighthearted, commercial featuring a very pregnant woman, her husband and an ultrasound of their baby. According to NARAL, Dorito’s had committed the cardinal sin of “humanizing fetuses.” Oh, the very thought of it!
But there is something even worse than that Dorito’s ad. According to a bizarre article in The Atlantic, pro-life groups are being devious and deceptive when they use ultrasounds to convince women that their babies are human. How low will these pro-lifers go?
The article, written by Moira Weigel and posted Tuesday, was originally titled “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person” with the subtitle, “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” Its current title is, “How the Ultrasound Became Political.” The subtitle remains the same.
Weigel’s article, which was marred by embarrassing errors as pointed out by Alexandra DeSanctison the National Review, not to mention being marred by bizarre claims, denied the reality and significance of fetal heartbeats as early as five or six weeks old, downplayed the evidence of ultrasounds and claimed that – gasp! – the pro-life movement was yet another example of patriarchal overreach. Yes, the science of “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Those dastardly, duplicitous males! They are at it once again.
For good reason Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote that, “Moira Weigel took a sledgehammer to basic science and then did her best to vacuum its brains out before anyone could figure out what just happened.” The title of his article was as accurate as it was snarky: “Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy.”
Further underscoring the absurdity of Weigel’s article was this tweet from Denise Russell, which Davis reproduced: “Before ultrasounds, a woman had to wait until delivery to find out if she was getting a puppy, a goat, or a human.” How did we forget that?
Responding to the Republican-led effort to pass the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would prohibit doctors from aborting a baby if a heartbeat was detected in the words of its sponsor, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected”, Weigel asks, “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”
Her answer to these questions can be summed up, respectively, in three words, “Nothing” and “It doesn’t.”
Forget the fact that doctors check the baby’s heartbeat during each pre-natal visit, since this is an indicator of health, or the fact that they carefully monitor the baby’s heartbeat during delivery to be sure the child is OK. And forget the fact that doctors look for a pulse to see if someone is still living or the fact that a person is declared dead when his or her heart stops beating for good.
No. When it comes to abortion, all those facts conveniently disappear, and the heartbeat of that tiny pre-born child is of no significance at all. Indeed, Weigel opines, “Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a ‘fetus’ until nine weeks into pregnancy.” I must be getting old, but somehow, I don’t recall my wife, Nancy, saying to me decades ago, “Honey, I just got the test results back and I have a rapidly dividing cell mass inside of me!”
But it is not just fetal heartbeats that have no meaning for Weigel. Ultrasounds also have no meaning for her since … well, since she’s doesn’t believe they should. If you think I’m exaggerating, read her article. She notes that posting pictures of ultrasounds on social media has “heightened the social reality of the unborn,” as if this was somehow a bad, misleading thing.
And she points to an American couple who “posted a video of their sonogram fast-forwarded so that their fetus appeared to be clapping in time as they sang, ‘When You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands.'” The implication is that because the video was sped up, giving the false impression that the baby was clapping to the beat, that the more basic impression was also false, namely that there was a little human being in that mother’s womb who was putting its two little hands together. Pretty good for a clump of cells and a mass of tissue!
Although Weigel cites those who claim that pregnant women who see their ultrasounds are less likely to abort, she disputes these claims, pointing to a “2014 study published by the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which drew on the medical records of nearly 16,000 women seeking abortions” and “found that viewing an ultrasound had a negligible impact on whether they decided to proceed.”
Other studies I have read have come to very different conclusions and a pro-life ministry that offers ultrasounds to women considering abortion has also seen tremendous results. But I doubt that all the studies in the world would convince Weigel right now, since her objections seem to be based on ideology more than science. As observed by Alexandra DeSanctis, “The reason that progressives such as Weigel denounce ultrasound technology is … because they want to continue denying the humanity of the unborn child, a humanity that is undeniable whether or not the mother wants the child.”
Yes, “Pro-life activists and parents who want to keep their unborn children will acknowledge this humanity. We all know it. Abortionists know it. Mothers aborting their babies know it. Planned Parenthood executives know it. Perhaps many are able to dull their consciences and convince themselves that it’s ‘just a clump of cells.’ But deep down, they must know. We all do. And that’s why the left has to work so hard to deny it.”
And the harder the left works to deny the humanity of the unborn child, the more it exposes its moral and scientific bankruptcy. In that regard, Weigel’s article does a great service to the pro-life cause, and for that, we should be glad. Truth is sweeping away the lies.
Comments