Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Planned Parenthood Only Uses Ultrasounds for Abortions
Young women have the right to view their ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood - as long as they're planning on having an abortion.
hold on...
That is what Live Action discovered in its latest investigation of the supposed "women's health" organization. The pro-life group has released a new video entitled "Ultrasounds for Killing, Not Care, at Planned Parenthood," to reveal that ultrasounds are only available for one kind of service.
The Live Action investigators asked 68 Planned Parenthood facilities if they could provide ultrasounds simply to make sure their babies are healthy, but only three said they could help. Here are just a few of the excuses the young women received.
“No, we don’t do any ultrasounds for prenatal care. We do them when we’re doing abortions, but not for any other reason.” – Council Bluffs, IA, Planned Parenthood“No. Nope. Not – not something we offer. Well, we do have to do an ultrasound with an abortion, but we don’t offer them for – we can’t do anything to make sure that the pregnancy’s fine.” – St. Louis, MO, Planned Parenthood“We only do ultrasounds if you are terminating.” – Corning, NY, Planned Parenthood
Live Action President Lila Rose knew exactly why Planned Parenthood, which performs over 300,000 abortions a year, is not a fan of ultrasounds.
“One would think a corporation that constantly touts its care for women, uses ‘parenthood’ in its name, and has ultrasound machines would want to ensure healthy pregnancies by allowing women to access ultrasounds to monitor the development of their babies,” she said. “But showing a woman an ultrasound image would reveal the beating heart as well as moving arms and kicking legs, destroying the ‘clump of cells’ myth Planned Parenthood perpetuates to try to make abortion easier to accept.”
NY Punk Chuck Schumer Thinks He's Relevant
Wow what an idiot.
NY Senator Chuck Shumer made it clear on Monday night that the acting Attorney General should defy the executive orders of the President of the United States and "stand up" to the White House.Firing of Sally Yates underscores how impt it is to have an Attorney General who'll stand up to the WhiteHouse when they violate the law.— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 31, 2017
President Donald J. Trump actually fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates hours after she penned a letter announcing that the Department of Justice would not defend his executive order on immigration.
Yates had expressed doubts over the order's legality her, on the other hand her temporary successor disagrees.
In Epic Move Trump Fires Acting AG Sabotur, Yates
President Donald J. Trump, rightfully I might add, has fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates hours after she penned a letter announcing that the Department of Justice would not defend his executive order on immigration.
Yates as a true Liberal saboteur, had expressed doubts over the order's legality.
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” she wrote in a letter.
“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”
I imagine that when Trump found out about this, he pretty much told her the following:
Boom - Your Fired!
In the interim, U.S. Attorney Dana Boente replaced Yates (via Politico):
President Donald Trump fired the nation's acting attorney general Monday night after she refused to defend an executive order he issued last week restricting immigration in the name of national security.In an act of high political drama just ten days after taking office, Trump replaced Obama administration appointee Sally Yates with the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, Va., Dana Boente.The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel," a White House statement said. "Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration."
She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 31, 2017
It was an entirely improper standard to apply. "I don't know, so we won't defend it" has never been DOJ's standard for declining to defend.— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 31, 2017
Fired Sally Yates letter devoid of legal argument. Reeks of moral preening, grandstanding. pic.twitter.com/J7RdnRrzxs— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 31, 2017
Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser with the Trump White House, told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that Ms. Yates was removed because she wasn't upholding the president's executive order, which means she wasn't defending the country or the Constitution. Her replacement will be someone who will enforce the law. U.S. Attorney Dana Boente was sworn in as the new acting attorney general at 9 P.M.
Additionally, according to CNN's Evan Perez, Miller was Senate confirmed, meaning that he can exercise the full power of the office.
Stephen Miller: “It was a betrayal of her office and [Sally Yates] is being replaced with somebody who will enforce the laws of the U.S.” pic.twitter.com/C1aNrfsLuV— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
40 Israeli Socialists Protest Trumps Executive Order, And it Makes the #FakeNews!
th
e
MSM has been hyping a tiny protest outside of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv against President Donald Trump’s temporary halt on refugees while the government revamps its flawed security screening process -
Despite the fact that the protests only attracted a crowd of about 40, imagine that...
Its called #FAKENEWS!!!
Here are some of the screaming headlines about the miniscule protest:
L.A. Times: “Protesters in Tel Aviv compare Trump immigration order to Israeli refugee policies.”
Jerusalem Post: “Israelis protest Trump travel ban, citing history of Jewish refugees.”
I24 News: “Protesters ‘fight back’ against US, Israel’s refugee and immigration policies.”
Times of Israel: “At Tel Aviv protest, activists hear echoes of Israeli policy in Trump’s refugee ban.”
The L. A. Times article was also picked up by Yahoo! News.
Despite the headlines, the articles themselves could not hide the small size of the protest, prompting questions as to why the news media would find the gathering newsworthy in the first place...
The L.A. Times conceded the crowd consisted of “several dozen demonstrators.” The Times of Israel put the number at “some 40 protesters.” The Jerusalem Post also cited about forty demonstrators.
The turnout is particularly disappointing for Tel Aviv, a city known for its ability to mobilize massive numbers of left-wing protesters.
As you all know, Trump’s executive order halts visas for 90 days for “immigrants and non-immigrants” from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq.
The order further suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days, indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering and lowered the ceiling to 50,000 for refugees allowed to enter the U.S. during Fiscal Year 2017.
When you look at whats going on in Europe you start to realize this Executive Order been a long time coming. Nevertheless, leave it to the leftists across the globe - even in Israel - to keep pushing their socialist agenda down all freedom loving peoples throat...
Chutzpa! Now acting Attorney General Sally Yates Wont Defend #TravelBan
Imagine the Chutzpa!
Sally Yates, second-in-command to former president Barack Obama’s justice departments Loretta Lynch, and now acting Attorney General until Jeff Sessions or another appointee is confirmed, ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend President Trump’s temporary immigration ban!Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend challenges to President Trump’s immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world, declaring in a memo Monday she is not convinced the order is lawful.Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure the department’s position is both “legally defensible” and “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful,” Yates wrote. She wrote that “for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”
You can read the rest of the story here.
Pribus Agrees: Other Countries Need to be Added to the #TravelBan List.
Yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the right thing, when he told “Meet the Press” that the Trump administration will not apologize for keeping America safe.
Later in the interview Priebus added a rather interesting tidbit, that is, the current refugee ban from seven Muslim nations may not be enough and “perhaps” other countries need to be added to the list.
This is very important, as we know for a fact that Saudi Arbia and Qatar host and sponsor terror groups on an almost consistent basis - and most certainly should be added to the temporary ban as well.
Think Progress reported:
Check out the clip:Despite facing public backlash and legal challenges, the Trump administration appears to be doubling down on its recent immigration ban. The president’s top advisors are now floating the idea that it doesn’t go far enough and and say the administration is considering expanding the ban to include more countries.White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told NBC reporter Chuck Todd on Sunday that the ban could be expanded in the future to include countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt.Reince Preibus: “We are concerned about the issue, Chuck, and that’s why we put the seven countries initially into the executive order that were identified previously by Congress, by both the House and the Senate and the Obama administration as being the seven most watched countries in regard to harboring terrorists. But you bring up a good point. Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward.”
Of course, while there is truth to what Pribus is saying, it should be noted that the reason Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others were not added to the codified list in congress, was simply because the US is rather dependent on oil from those as well as well as other countries from the region. To put it in simple terms, by adding those countries - and other OPEC countries to the list for that matter - to a terror harboring list, OPEC will use its current market standing to cause major spikes in oil prices across the country - pretty much leveling any support the order potentially might have - people often think with their pockets before their safety.
Of course, I believe this can be easily solved by premoting and utilizing creative energy solutions including safe off shore drilling and fracking - both potential solutions already mentioned by President Trump during the campaign trail.
The return of the 'special relationship' between the US and UK
By John Bolton
January 30, 2017 in the Boston Globe
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s just-completed visit to Philadelphia and Washington came at a critical time for both her country and the United States, and particularly for the one-week old Trump administration. Rarely in peacetime have two national leaders faced a more consequential opportunity to redirect, dramatically and swiftly, the course of international affairs.
The prospects here lie at the core of the alliance structures America has created since 1945 to protect its vital global interests. Strong and lasting alliances are not merely transactional. They do not rest on accounting examinations of recent debits and credits. Instead, they rest on profoundly important shared values and interests, foundations that endure transitory political and economic bumps in the relationship. This is how the US-UK “special relationship” was built over the years since it was forged in World War II.
May and Trump made it clear in their public remarks that they intend to rejuvenate the “special relationship,” in both economic and political affairs. That does not mean they will necessarily agree on everything, exemplified by their likely conflicting views on sanctions imposed on Russia for its military adventurism across international borders in Ukraine. Nonetheless, a newly independent Britain and a new Trump administration have far more uniting than dividing them.
May’s government is currently undertaking the unprecedented task of unwinding itself from the cumbersome, bureaucratic and regulatory morass of the European Union. The Brexit decision, made last June 23 in a referendum, confounded trans-Atlantic business and political elites, who could not imagine that the desire for mere self-government could overcome the secular theology reflected in their conception of Europe’s “ever closer union.” May herself opposed Brexit, but now leads a government whose place in history will be determined by whether it succeeds or fails in exiting the EU on terms advantageous to Britain.
In America, Trump’s victory upended decades of belief in multilateral trade deals essentially for their own sake. The new president has said he believes in free trade, insisting correctly that true free trade is not reflected in the dirigiste, “managed trade” provisions that characterize so many so-called free trade agreements. Perhaps even more importantly, Trump has said emphatically that he will follow a revolutionary principle in administering trade treaties: He will expect the other parties to adhere to their obligations, and will not conceal or ignore their violations.
The potential for a dramatically different trade and investment agreement between America and Britain, despite obvious risks and difficulties, should be the highest and most immediate priority. Both countries can shed layers of stifling government regulations in the process, and London and New York could sustain and enhance their reputations as the financial capitals of the world, while competitors in Europe and Asia lag behind.
US businesses could reach UK markets all but closed-off for decades because of high EU external barriers to trade. In short order, Canada could join this new bilateral trade relationship, with other non-EU nations in Europe coming on board in due course. Not only would the prospect of a US-UK agreement strengthen London’s hand in the exit negotiations with Brussels, it would encourage nations remaining within the EU to demand that the lords of Brussels wake up to what is happening in the wider world.
Politically, with Britain freeing itself from the EU’s common foreign and defense policy, it will resume its role as a full leader of NATO. For far too long, NATO’s European members (with some notable exceptions) have simply not adequately attended to threats to international peace and security. Sustained, disciplined thinking on global threats like nuclear proliferation and international terrorism, and threats on the Continent itself from a belligerent Kremlin, has been lacking, also for far too long.
As Britain once again demonstrates a broader perspective, the possibility of making NATO a global organization, as suggested by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar, can receive careful attention. Admitting Australia, Singapore, Japan and Israel, to name just a few, could contribute significantly to international stability if they thought NATO capable of resuming a vibrant existence.
Especially in Europe, there is misplaced concern that Trump will work actively for the collapse of the EU. He doesn’t have to; the Europeans themselves are doing quite a job of demonstrating the EU’s manifold internal problems. The new White House should simply cease propping up the EU’s mercantilist, anti-democratic, inward-looking proclivities, and nature will take its course.
And although May and Trump appear to differ on the Russia sanctions issue, this is neither new nor unusual in US-UK relations. Tony Blair was accused in Britain of being George W. Bush’s poodle during the second Iraq war, a charge that was unfair and untrue from the outset. Neither Theresa May nor Donald Trump are anyone’s poodles, and a new special relationship will be the stronger for it.
John R. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was the US ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
NPR Attacks Trump's Victory - Once Again We Fight Back.
As is widely known, over half-billion dollars in taxpayer money is given to National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) each year.
Of course, that did not stop National Public Radio today from published a piece on President Trump’s assertions that are “exaggerated or just flat out false.” - talk about partisanship from a federally funded entity...
Check out the whole article here: http://tinyurl.com/jfxflrm
We've rounded up some of the White House's assertions made this week that are exaggerated or just flat out false: npr.org/2017/01/29/512…
In the meantime, let me point out out one facet of the NPR's misconstrued reporting, constituting #FakeNews
Trump on his 2016 victory
"No, no, you have to understand, I had a tremendous victory, one of the great victories ever. In terms of counties, I think the most ever or just about the most ever. When you look at a map it's all red." Trump to ABC, Jan. 25
THE [NPR] FACTS: Trump did have an overwhelming victory, county-wise. But Trump still lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes. And his electoral college victory ranked 46th out of 58 presidential elections.
The Real Facts: having a overwhelming county victory is a great victory - when you win 30 out of 50 states, and 2,623 counties, to Clinton’s 20 states or 489 counties. its called a mandate, its that simple... Claiming that Trump lost the popular vote, when the majority of the surplus comes from New York City and Los Angeles and several other coastal cities - can not be called "popular" by any logical stretch of the imagination - look at this map and ask yourself should the majority of America be controlled by the two fringes of our nation - at least I do not think so...
This is just on example where the left misconstrue facts so they can continue to propagate and force feed their progressive liberal agenda on the rest of us freedom loving Americans...
Sorry, not gonna happen.
Sorry, not gonna happen.
#EttingerReport: Israeli Arabs – Integration Rather Than Deprivation
|
|
Friday, January 27, 2017
Californian’s Are Pushing For Calexit - Good Riddance
Proponents of a constitutional amendment looking for California’s secession from the United States have begun collecting voter signatures to qualify for the 2018 ballot.
Obviously this is a result of having a state full of people who just cannot accept Donald J. Trump as president and apparently have until July 25, to collect 585,407 valid voter signatures to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.
Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment seeking California’s secession from the U.S. can begin collecting voter signatures to qualify for the 2018 ballot, the secretary of state’s office said Thursday.The so-called Calexit movement emerged within days of the upset presidential victory of Republican Donald Trump, who lost California by nearly 4.3 million votes. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that nearly one in three Californians support the state leaving the U.S.Proponents have until July 25 to collect 585,407 valid voter signatures to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.The proposed measure would strike language from the California Constitution defining the state as “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”
If it passed, there would be a statewide special election in March 2019 to ask voters if they want California to become an independent country...
While it can be argued that this would be a catastrophic as Claifornia is almost 15 percent of the US economy, one can argue that with several tariffs, apple and google - and most of silicone valley for that matter - will move to NY or some other blue state rather quickly...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)