Planned Parenthood, China and Reproductive Slavery

Media have been ablaze with hopeful reports that forced abortion and the “gendercide” of baby girls will now be ended in China. In fact, little has changed, except that instead of forcing Chinese families to have just one child, now that country’s totalitarian government will force them to have no more than two. This decision did not reflect any recognition by the Chinese Communist Party that parents have any right to control the size of their families, nor that women must be freed from forced abortions, much less that human life is sacred. Far from it. The Chinese generals and technocrats simply crunched the numbers and decided that they need more cannon and factory fodder to fuel that country’s expansion, so they issued a single order that a billion people must follow.

Human rights activists such as Stephen Mosher and Reggie Littlejohn have documented in heart-rending detail the results of the “one-child” policy adopted in 1980 by a Communist government terrified of “overpopulation” that might lead to its loss of absolute control over Chinese society. (That same government, just nine years later, would roll over student protesters with tanks in Tiananmen Square, to keep its iron grip on power.) A Chinese Communist official boasted that this policy had cut Chinese population growth by 400 million people, as of 2011. In a secretive dictatorship such as China, it is impossible to know how many of these casualties were the result of forced abortions.

A climate of fear and coercion has dominated Chinese family life for a generation, as informers and spies hunt down women with “illegal” pregnancies, and families desperate for at least one son to support them have resorted to sex selection abortion on a massive scale. According to Lifenews, in China, “more than 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. This has created a bachelor society of men who will be unable to marry and has given rise to more crime, sex trafficking, prostitution, and other problems.” China has the highest female suicide rate on earth.

As Congressman Chris Smith told Lifenews, China’s policy, which will remain in place for women after their second birth,

is unlike any other in the world in that it requires all women to obtain a birth permit before becoming pregnant and children of unwed mothers are subjected to abortions. And it monitors the reproductive cycles of all women of childbearing age through a system of mandatory, regular, and crudely invasive physical check-ups. …

“The brave pregnant woman who refuses to give in is usually detained and beaten – or, if she goes into hiding, her relatives are detained and beaten. Families that succeed in hiding an ‘out-of-plan’ pregnancy are punished with fines up to ten times the average annual income,” he explained.

In fact, however, Rep. Smith is missing something. China’s policy is not unprecedented. It is simply the implementation of a plan that was floated back in 1934. In America. By a female “progressive.” Her name was Margaret Sanger. In the depths of the Great Depression, the eugenics-obsessed elitist and libertine Sanger took advantage of the newfound hope which voters had placed in the New Deal’s big, federal agencies to propose that the U.S. government impose a centralized, coercive plan of government control over childbearing.

As Sanger wrote in “America Needs a Code for Babies”:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. …

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood. …

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth. …

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

China followed Sanger’s plan to the letter — with the direct involvement of the Chinese branch of her own organization, Planned Parenthood, which helped to enforce the policy on the ground, shaking down peasants for crippling fines to punish “illegal” births. Since China’s mode of family planning has true-blue American roots, perhaps we shouldn’t be shocked when U.S. academics such as Sarah Conley of Bowdoin College defend China’s genocidal policy, and argue that it ought to prevail worldwide.

Are We Images of God, or Termites?

This isn’t a national question. It’s an anthropological question. There are two radically different ways to view human beings:

As creatures born to families, enfolded in communities but fundamentally free, conscious, responsible reflections of the holy image of God.

As hive insects, like termites, hatched into rigidly ruled colonies — whose work, life, and breeding are controlled by the queen (or elite) at the top, which alone understands what is best for the swarm of mindless workers and drones.
The first is the classical Christian picture of man, which came to fruition in the wake of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when the full implications of our freedom and moral equality as sons of God made themselves most powerfully felt: Representative government flowered across the West, movements grew to abolish serfdom and slavery, and free economies unleashed the vast inventive power and productivity of ordinary people. The outcome? In dozens of countries the average lifespans increased by decades, and populations expanded, as famine and punishing scarcity became the exceptions, not the rule. For the first time, most parents could be sure they might feed their families, and fewer and fewer infants were carried off by disease.

The second view is that of elitists, who are deeply pessimistic about the dignity, worth, and capacity of most of the human race. Except for a chosen few (selected by race, ideology, or wealth), the vast majority of human beings are stumbling, self-harming serfs, whose lives need controlling by the select few who know better. This vision of human life found its full expression in totalitarian movements of the twentieth century, whose roots lay in nineteenth century pseudo-sciences such as racism, eugenics, and Marxist economics.

Today’s elitists, like yesterday’s, treat the Christian view with contempt, as a crude relic of the past that enables the clueless masses to follow their blind instincts. Lately we have learned that some psychologists are trying to label religious instruction of the young as a form of child abuse that could lead to loss of custody by parents, while other scientists are calling religious belief a form of mental illness that can be cured (we’re not making this up) by “treating” believers’ brains with magnets. Such methods may be what is needed to solve the profound ecological problems posed by the masses’ right to vote, which worries the richest man on earth, Bill Gates.

In fact, it is only the ancient Judeo-Christian picture of human rights that can protect us from modern and post-modern pseudo-science, and defend the rights of women to bear their own children and raise their own families — without the bloody-handed interference of distant men in white coats or military uniforms who conceive of themselves as members of some higher and wiser species, with the right to spay and neuter whomever they choose. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood, China and Reproductive Slavery” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The State of Religious Liberty

Tuesday, voters in the overwhelmingly Democrat city of Houston struck down an ordinance granting men the right to enter female bathrooms. Despite being outspent steeply by proponents of the ordinance, this egregious super-right for a newly protected class was defeated 61-38% with high turnout.

Sadly, Tuesday was an aberration in the long march towards the creation of extra rights for protected classes because the courts and the bureaucracies have completely disenfranchised the voters from deciding societal questions.

Everyone remembers Kim Davis being thrown into jail for upholding Kentucky law and merely abstaining from serving a concept that never existed at the time of our Constitution and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. We are all aware of the numerous stories of individuals who have been fined for not servicing homosexual marriages with their private property and businesses– all while asserting religious convictions – convictions that are undeniably “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.”

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recognized the “religious freedom” rights of Muslims to coerce their will on private companies. They litigated a case before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleging that Star Transport, a trucking company, discriminated against two Muslim truck drivers by firing them for refusing to deliver truckloads of beer, citing their religious objections to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The judge awarded the two truck drivers $250,000.

Consider for a moment what has happened to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

The Gifford family in New York and the Klines in Oregon were unable to assert religious objections to performing a service with their own private property and private businesses to service homosexual marriages. They were fined for not engaging in involuntary servitude against their religious convictions, thereby violating their religious liberty, private property rights, and pursuit of happiness and commerce.

Yet, a Muslim is able to compel his religious objections on another private company in a way that completely undermines the job description of a truck driver, thereby violating the property rights of the private business.

This is not complicated. There are three common scenarios where religious objections come into play:

When the business owner asserts religious objections with his own property

When a government employee asserts religious objections in performing a service in the public realm

When an employee of a private business asserts religious objections against someone else’s private property

True equality expressed in the Declaration guaranteeing everyone the right to protection against harm of their life, liberty, or property, would dictate that everyone has the right to exercise their religious beliefs with their own property (#1) but nobody has the right to use their religious objections to infringe upon other people’s property rights and demand private employment (#3). Obtaining employment from an employer is a privilege, not a right. Madison was one of the most passionate believers in religious conscience, which he referred to as “the most sacred of all property,” yet he made it clear that it must only be honored “in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace.”

In the case of a government employee (#2), the tradition of our country has always been to accommodate as many religious needs to those citizens seeking employment with the federal government, assuming those beliefs don’t place an undue burden on the performance of the job.

Now let’s apply this equation to some recent examples.

In the case of Kim Davis, not only was she asserting the belief that existed in the country since its founding, she was following the law of the State of Kentucky that had never been re-written in light of the Court’s lawless decision.

In the case of the Kline and Gifford families, they were asserting their religious convictions, deeply rooted in history and tradition, to protect their own property from servicing something that is completely new – the antithesis of a fundamental right.

And finally, in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, they were forcing a private business to accommodate their burdensome objection – not delivering beer – which is not rooted in our history and tradition.

Alas, the EEOC and the courts have turned the concept of equality and fundamental rights upside down, inside out.

On the other hand, there is a degree of consistency to their agenda. They have created protected classes that are afforded super rights and privileges. Clearly, they have exhibited a biased treatment towards Muslims, gays, non-whites, and under the current leadership of the EEOC – transgendered individuals.

Governments were created to guard the unalienable rights of all citizens equally without favoring any class. The problem with concocting super rights for favored classes is that it invariably infringes upon the unalienable rights of all citizens. Nobody explained this concept more sagaciously than John Quincy Adams in a letter to a German official in his capacity as Secretary of State under James Monroe. “This is a land, not of privileges, but of equal rights. Privileges are granted by European sovereigns to particular classes of individuals, for purposes of general policy; but the general impression here is that privileges granted to one denomination of people, can very seldom be discriminated from erosions of the rights of others.” [emphasis added]

With affirmative action, the homosexual religious coercion, minority super rights, and the pursuit of politically motivated and subjective equal outcomes – all examples of privileges – the “erosions” of those self-evident, unalienable rights are in full swing. Our entrepreneurs, the backbone of our free economy, are under constant fear of lawsuits over hiring and firing and often have to accommodate absurd behavior or tolerate disturbances that defy common sense in order to pay homage to the pagan alter of political correctness – the altar that has sacrificed the only true expression of equality embedded in the Declaration.

During the debate over the 14th Amendment, Rep. John F. Farnsworth (R-IL) noted that everything in what would become Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was taken straight from the 5th Amendment and inspired by the Declaration. He observed that the only new language, “the equal protection of the laws,” was not new at all to the original Constitution but indeed the “very foundation of a Republican government.” “How can a subject “have and enjoy equal rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ without ‘equal protection of the laws’?” asked Farnsworth.

Indeed, now that the original Constitution and it reaffirmation in the 14th Amendment have been bastardized for the purpose of creating special privileges and protected classes, we are painfully aware of how the lack of equal protection has abridged the most unalienable rights of all citizens. (For more from the author of “The State of Religious Liberty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mother Says She Is Taking Legal Action Against Vaccine for ‘Disabling Daughter’

A mother who claims her daughter suffered “horrendous adverse effects” after receiving the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer has brought legal proceedings.

Fiona Kirby, Kilbeggan, Co Westmeath, is a member of a parents support group, REGRET (Reaction and Effects of Gardasil Resulting in Extreme Trauma), for those who claim their teenage girls became ill after getting the vaccine.

Ms Kirby, a nurse, is seeking a High Court order for the withdrawal of the license given for the Gardasil HPV vaccine, currently being offered to the parents of 11-16 year old girls as a possible cervical cancer preventative.

An order restraining the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), which monitors health products in Ireland, proceeding with use of Gardasil in any vaccine programme is also sought.

The vaccine has been offered to teenage girls in Ireland since May 2010 as part of the schools vaccination programme and is recommended by the World Health Organsiation. (Read more from “Mother Says She Is Taking Legal Action Against Vaccine for ‘Disabling Daughter'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Veterans Are Not Applying for Discharge Status Upgrades, Pentagon Blamed

Very few veterans take advantage of a Pentagon policy designed to make it easier for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to upgrade their discharge status and become eligible to apply for veterans’ benefits, according to a Yale Law Clinic report.

At a news conference Monday, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., veterans, and Yale law students, blamed the Department of Defense for not adequately publicizing the policy to veterans with less than honorable discharges. Since new guidelines were announced last year, just 201 of tens of thousands of eligible veterans applied for a PTSD-related service upgrade, according to the report. Blumenthal called the statistic “a staggering, outrageous fact.”

“Veterans on the streets of New Haven or Connecticut or the rest of the country have no idea about this,” Blumenthal said. “It takes a vigorous and rigorous effort, which the DOD committed to and they have failed,” he added.

Sundiata Sidibe, a student in the law school’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic, called the number of applicants “miniscule.” In previous years, an average of 39 veterans applied annually for status upgrades in connection with PTSD, the report states.

Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had asked the Pentagon to give the committee a progress report by August 2015 on its efforts to inform veterans about the policy. A report was never submitted, he said. (Read more from “Veterans Are Not Applying for Discharge Status Upgrades, Pentagon Blamed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Stoned to Death for Adultery

The men surround the woman as she stands in a hole dug into the stony ground, only her head pokes above the surface. Then they begin to pick up rocks and hurl them at her again and again from close range.

The barbaric killing took place in a Taliban-controlled village in central Afghanistan last week, according to the provincial governor. Video of it, apparently filmed on a cell phone, has circulated on social media.

The 19-year-old woman, identified as Rokhshana, had been forced to marry against her will and recently fled with another man, said Seema Joyenda, the governor of Ghor province. The couple were caught after two days, and the Taliban leader of the village ordered that Rokhshana be stoned to death for adultery, Joyenda said.

The killing underlines the widespread problem of violence against women in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the brutal killing of a 27-year-old woman by a mob in Kabul, the capital, stirred outrage both inside the country and around the globe . . .

Joyenda, one of two female governors in Afghanistan, said she cried as she watched the video of Rokhshana’s killing. (Read more from “Woman Stoned to Death for Adultery” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Than a Decade Later, Missing Alabama Boy Found in Ohio

A child who was reported missing in Alabama 13 years ago has been found safe and unharmed in Cleveland, Ohio, authorities say.

Julian Hernandez was in the legal custody of his mother when he disappeared on August 28, 2002. He was 5 then.

It was suspected that his father, Bobby Hernandez, took him as part of a noncustodial parental abduction, according to the Vestavia Hills Police Department, just south of Birmingham . . .

The missing child they were able to locate and positively identify is now 18. Julian’s mother and family were notified of his recovery.

Bobby Hernandez was arrested Monday in the abduction. The court records from Cuyahoga County in Ohio did not specify exact charges against him. CNN reached out to attorney Ralph DeFranco’s office for further comment Wednesday night but did not immediately receive a response. (Read more from “More Than a Decade Later, Missing Alabama Boy Found in Ohio” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Creepy Ways Local Law Enforcement Is Watching You

Did you RSVP to any Halloween parties on Facebook? Maybe tweeted about your plans? Posted an Instagram of your costume? These days, when you’re reading tweets or looking at your friends’ photos, you might be joined by cops . . .

Once you get in your car, get ready to be tracked. Law enforcement agencies all over the country use ALPRs (automated license plate readers) to track drivers’ locations and activities. ALPRs are cameras — mounted on police cars or placed in stationary locations like light poles — that detect when a car passes, capture a picture of that car and record its license plate number. Accumulated location data creates a history of drivers’ movements that can provide private and intimate details on people’s lives, like where they work, where they live, where they worship, where they go throughout their day and whom they associate with. Law enforcement agencies like the New York Police Department have used ALPRs in exactly this way, trying to map out the entire Arab and Muslim community of New York and Newark. The Los Angeles Police Department and the LA County Sheriff’s Department scan 3 million plates every week . . .

Speaking of driving, do you go through any tolls on your commute? Many cities have switched to electronic tolls, either via an RFID chip in your car or via an account tied to your license plate number. In 2013, we noted that the San Francisco Bay Area had switched to all electronic tolls, making it functionally impossible to cross the Golden Gate Bridge without authorities knowing about it. And the Bay Area isn’t alone; other major urban areas like New York and even some states, like Washington, have moved to all (or nearly all) electronic tolling . . .

You may escape tracking by not driving and by purchasing a transit ticket in cash, but you’ll still be captured by ubiquitous surveillance cameras. In many U.S. cities, there are now surveillance cameras on every block. In San Francisco, you could appear on security cameras dozens of times in one day. In New York, “[t]he NYPD can tap into roughly 6,000 street cameras, two-thirds of which are privately owned. There are another 7,000 in public housing and more than 4,000 in the city’s subway stations” . . .

You’ve probably noticed that Facebook recognizes your friends and you in your photos. A mask might not be enough, though: Facial recognition technology has gotten so good that Facebook can even recognize the back of your head. (Read more from “Creepy Ways Local Law Enforcement Is Watching You” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Burns Obama’s Debate Critique; Meanwhile, All of Obama’s ‘Achievements’ Are Failing

Trump Shrugs off Obama’s Debate Critique: ‘He Can’t Handle the Country’

By Jeremy Diamond. Donald Trump dismissed Tuesday President Barack Obama’s mocking of the the GOP presidential candidates’ criticism of the CNBC moderators in the last debate.

Trump, whose campaign decided to continue dealing directly with the TV networks rather than forming a united front with other presidential campaigns, said he “doesn’t care too much” about the debate format, instead knocking Obama’s handling of the country.

“They’ve been hitting me one way or the other. I just want to have the debates. I like the debates. They can ask tough questions. … I just want to answer the questions and be done with it, frankly,” Trump said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Of Obama’s criticism, Trump added, “He can’t handle the country. He’s doing a terrible job running the country.”

Obama ripped into the GOP’s field of 2016 hopefuls on Monday night, noting that while they’ve knocked him for being “weak” on the international stage, “it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators.” (Read more from “Donald Trump Burns Obama’s Debate Critique: ‘He Can’t Handle the Country'” HERE)

_________________________________

All of Obama’s ‘Achievements’ Are Failing

By Jennifer Rubin. President Obama’s biggest domestic “accomplishment,” Obamacare, and his biggest foreign policy objective, extracting the United States from the Middle East and redesigning our alliances (Iran in, Israel out), are now Exhibits A and B in the argument for jettisoning the Democrats from the White House. At the very least these issues, combined with a lackluster economy, suggest Hillary Clinton will have trouble running for a “third Obama term.”

On the Obamacare front, CBS News reports, “Sign-up season started Sunday for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, now in year 3. Premiums are going up an average of 7.5 percent, but they could be much higher depending on where you live.” It is not hard to see that if this keeps up we are headed for the infamous “death spiral,” as Sally Pipes, a health-care expert and critic of Obamacare explains . . .

If the domestic scene looks less than attractive for Democrats, the foreign policy front is abysmal. The president’s latest, cynical move to send just 50 Special Operations forces to Syria — but not into combat! — encapsulates the absence of a coherent strategy that will leave the region bloodier, less stable and more violent than when Obama took office.

His latest move on Syria has unsurprisingly been poorly received. Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute writes:

The situation is now beyond dire and all anyone can do is offer first steps that might start to drive it in a more positive direction. But any such steps must begin from the understanding of what this conflict is really about and who must actually resolve it: the Sunni Arabs and the non-Assad Alawite community. Those are the groups that will have to decide to put down their weapons and work out a mutually-acceptable deal. Defeating ISIS will still be hard in that context, but at least it might be both feasible and meaningful.

(Read more from “All of Obama’s ‘Achievements’ Are Failing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Force High School Girls to Undress Next to ‘Confused’ NAKED BOYS

On Monday, the federal government declared itself fit for the madhouse by mandating that a Chicago high school allow a full biological male into the girls’ locker room for all purposes, including nudity. This biological male, the feds determined, was different because he thinks he is a female.

The feds have ruled that the presence of a twig-and-berries in the girls’ locker room has been mandated by Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Yes, ladies and gents and non-cisgenders: it turns out that the battle against sexism enshrined in the ill-written Title IX was actually intended to force underage young women to look at the penises and testicles of mentally ill boys . . .

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights spent almost two years checking out the Township High School District 211 because of the transgender “girl.” He filed a complaint with the feds in 2013 after the school refused “unrestricted access” to the girls’ locker room. The district eventually agreed to allow the boy into the girls’ room so long as he used a privacy curtain while disrobing.

That wasn’t good enough. The feds determined that this still constituted discrimination. Why? As John Knight, director of the alphabet-soup LGBT and AIDS Project at the ACLU, stated, this was “blatant discrimination.” He explained (well, we think it’s a he, unless he identifies differently today):

It’s not voluntary; it’s mandatory for her. It’s one thing to say to all the girls, “You can choose if you want some extra privacy,” but it’s another thing to say, “You, and you alone, must use them.” That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as a girl.

(Read more from “Feds Force High School Girls to Undress Next to ‘Confused’ NAKED BOYS” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

COVER-UP: ‘Gay’ Rape in Military Is Completely Underreported by Pentagon

Far more military men are being raped by other men and experience other sexual traumas than is reported by the Pentagon because of the stigma attached to such assaults, says a new study released Tuesday by the American Psychological Association.

“Rates of military sexual trauma among men who served in the military may be as much as 15 times higher than has been previously reported, largely because of barriers associated with stigma, beliefs in myths about male rape, and feelings of helplessness,” the APA said in releasing findings published in its periodical Psychological Services.

Comparing the new study’s numbers and the Pentagon’s survey results produced some shocking statistics.

The Rand Corp., which conducted the most recent Pentagon sexual assault survey in 2014, found that about 12,000 men reported being assaulted. Sexual assault in the military is defined as unwanted sexual contact, including rape and other assaults or the attempt to commit those acts.

Extrapolating the study’s estimates of up to 15 times greater than the Pentagon’s count, it would mean that as many as 180,000 men are assaulted in one year and, of those, 57,750 are “penetrative” attacks. (Read more from “‘Gay’ Rape in Military Is Completely Underreported by Pentagon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.