With Darwin Day, February 12, approaching, it’s good to report that the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list currently tops a thousand names of PhD scientists who publicly declare their skepticism in the face of absolutist claims for evolutionary theory. The key word there is “publicly.”
February 12 is Charles Darwin’s birthday…The Dissent statement represents a splash of cold water on the great man. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The signers hold professorships or doctorates from Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Berkeley, MIT, UCLA, the University of Pennsylvania, and many other prominent institutions. . .
What’s significant about the Dissent from Darwinism list is not so much the names and the institutions listed there but what they tell you about the many Darwin skeptics in the science world who wouldn’t dare sign. Scientists know the career costs that would come from publicly challenging evolutionary theory. Discovery Institute and its sister research lab, Biologic Institute, have welcomed refugees who were chased out of top spots in the research world. Douglas Axe, Günter Bechly, and Richard Sternberg are well known to Evolution News readers. Check out the Free Science website for other stories. . .
The signers of the Dissent list have all risked their careers or reputations in signing. Such is the power of groupthink. The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that “the scientists” are all in agreement and only “poets,” “lawyers,” and other “daft rubes” doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it. (Read more from “1000+ Top Scientists Challenge the Massive Fraud of Evolution” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/man-3579185_960_720.jpg539960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-05 19:26:322019-02-09 20:09:331000+ Top Scientists Challenge the Massive Fraud of Evolution
Prosecutors in Kansas are considering appealing the sentencing decision of a judge who called two minor girls the “aggressor” in a sex-abuse case involving a 67-year-old man.
Leavenworth County District Judge Michael Gibbens made the comments during a Dec. 4 sentencing hearing for Raymond Soden, who had been convicted of contacting one of the girls on the internet and offering to pay for sex acts. . .
“I do find that the victims in this case, in particular, were more an aggressor than a participant in the criminal conduct,” Gibbens said, according to a transcript of the hearing released by the Leavenworth County court. “They were certainly selling things monetarily that it’s against the law for even an adult to sell.” (Read more from “Kansas Judge Said Minors in Sex-Abuse Case Were ‘Aggressor'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/working-on-a-laptop-14933938350om.jpg12801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-05 19:23:292019-02-05 19:20:54Kansas Judge Said Minors in Sex-Abuse Case Were ‘Aggressor’
By Daily Wire. During Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Trump is expected to announce a plan to end the spread of HIV by 2030.
POLITICO reported that four individuals “with knowledge of the planned remarks” said that Trump plans to address the HIV epidemic, though the speech is still not finalized.
“Under Trump’s HIV strategy, health officials would spend the first five years focusing on communities across roughly 20 states where the most HIV infections occur,” POLITICO reports. “The ultimate goal is to stop new infections over a 10-year period, said two officials, with some parallels to how the Trump administration is targeting the opioid epidemic.”
One of the biggest influencers of Trump’s decision is reportedly AIDS researcher Robert Redfield, who became the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March of last year. . .
Carl E. Schmid II, the deputy executive director of the AIDS institute, reportedly welcomed the plan and called it “very bold,” and said it “could be one of his [Trump’s] greatest achievements.” (Read more from “Trump to Announce Plan Stop HIV Transmission in U.S. At State of the Union” HERE)
_________________________________________
Trump’s State of the Union Pledge: Ending HIV Transmissions by 2030
By Politico. President Donald Trump plans to use Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to promise an end to the HIV epidemic in America, four individuals with knowledge of the planned remarks told POLITICO.
Under Trump’s 10-year strategy, health officials would target the U.S. communities with the most HIV infections and work to reduce transmissions by 2030. The strategy has been championed by top health officials, including HHS Secretary Alex Azar and CDC Director Robert Redfield.
While Trump’s plans for the address remain fluid — and one official cautioned that the speech is not finalized — HHS has pressed the White House to ensure the HIV strategy is highlighted on Tuesday night, said two individuals. The agency is also planning a broader rollout this week.
An HHS spokesperson referred questions to the White House. A White House spokesperson declined to comment. (Read more from “Trump’s State of the Union Pledge: Ending HIV Transmissions by 2030” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/hiv-1903373_960_720.jpg541960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-05 18:55:552019-02-05 18:54:47Trump to Announce Plan Stop HIV Transmission in U.S. At State of the Union
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., kept his word Monday evening, coming to the Senate floor and giving all 100 U.S. senators the opportunity to condemn infanticide. The opportunity was declined by Senate Democrats.
Sasse asked for unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would protect infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures by requiring doctors to provide medical care to those — I must stress this — born-alive infants. Without these protections, an infant who survives an abortion procedure may be left to die on the table in a state like New York, where late-term abortion up to the point of delivery is now legal if an abortionist says it is necessary to “protect the mother’s health” or that the fetus is not “viable.”
“Every senator will have the opportunity to stand for human dignity – to stand for the belief that, in this country, all of us are created equal,” Sasse said. “Because if that equality means anything, surely it means that infanticide is wrong. Frankly, this shouldn’t be hard.”
Sasse moved to pass this bill after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, in defense of a bill introduced in his state similar to the New York law, suggested that a mother and her physician would have a “discussion” about what to do with an infant born alive after an attempted abortion.
“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said.
Sasse said Governor Northam endorsed infanticide.
No euphemisms. No weasel-words there. Infants could kept comfortable and resuscitated. And also, baby girls could be left cold and alone to die.
Just a few years ago, the abortion lobby was really clear in its talk about hoping that abortion would be “safe and legal, but rare.” This was the slogan. Abortion would be “safe, legal, and rare.” Now we’re talking about keeping a baby comfortable while the doctors have a debate about infanticide.
That is what we’re talking about here on the floor tonight. We’re not talking about second-trimester abortion; we’re not having some big, complicated discussion about a mother’s reproductive freedom, as important as all those debates are. We’re actually talking about babies that have been born. The only debate on the floor tonight is about infanticide.
Sasse’s bill, cosponsored by 42 Senate Republicans, would require those physicians to save the life of the baby born alive. He pleaded with his Democratic colleagues, asking them not to object to his unanimous consent request.
There are only two sides of the debate on the floor tonight: You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide. That is actually what the legislation is that’s before us.
Please don’t block this legislation.
Please don’t let Governor Northam define you. Don’t let an extremist pro-abortion lobby and pledge hold you hostage. Please don’t protect infanticide.
Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington stood in objection to the bill, claiming that infanticide is already illegal and accusing the Republicans of mischaracterizing Sasse’s bill.
“We have laws against infanticide in this country. This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered, and therefore, I object,” Murray said.
Murray is wrong, of course. As Sasse noted, the New York abortion law removed the protections for infants born alive during an attempted abortion. National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis points out that only 26 states have affirmative protections for infants who survive abortions. And it’s hard to understand how Sasse and others have “mischaracterized” his bill, which is only seven pages long and not difficult to understand. The bill states that Congress finds: 1) “If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws”; and 2) “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”
Specifically, the bill Murray claims is grossly mischaracterized requires that a health care practitioner present when a child is born alive shall “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” Then it requires that health care practitioner to take the baby to a hospital for further care. The penalty for failing to follow the law would be at least five years’ imprisonment. Additionally, the intentional killing of a child born alive would be prosecuted as murder.
The bill has a mandatory reporting requirement, so people working at an abortion facility would be required to report if and when an abortionist does not work to save the life of an infant born alive. The bill also gives a mother the legal right to sue if her baby is born alive and the abortionist did not follow this law, letting the child die.
And that’s it. What exactly is Sasse mischaracterizing? His legislation protects infants born alive after attempted abortions from being left to die and clarifies that killing such an infant is murder. It’s an infanticide ban, exactly as Sasse describes.
It’s Murray and the other Democrats defending or excusing Northam’s comments and the New York abortion law who are making a gross mischaracterization. This is not hard. They are defending and excusing the murder of children born alive. By blocking the bill, Murray and the Democrats who support her protected infanticide.
Now it is time to push for a roll call vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised this would not be the last time this bill is considered.
I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of @SenSasse’s legislation to protect the rights of all newborn babies. My full statement:https://t.co/17gEZl4ghX
Speaking in support of Sasse’s bill, he said it is “harrowing” that this bill is necessary.
What could be more unanimous than this: That what medical professionals owe every single newborn American citizen, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, is attention and care — not neglect, and certainly not violence. Frankly, it’s harrowing that this legislation is even necessary. It was even more disturbing when, last week, a Democrat governor was unable to clearly and simply state that of course, these newborn babies have human rights that must be respected.
I’ve been co-sponsor of Senator Sasse’s legislation. And I hope that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle invent any reasons to block this request later today. That would make quite a disturbing statement. If they do inexplicably block Senator Sasse’s effort, I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.
Likewise, Sasse promised to continue to seek a roll call vote on in the Senate on this bill. Every member of the United States Senate should go on record to oppose infanticide. This shouldn’t be a controversial position. It’s not a philosophical or scientific debate about when life begins. This is about little babies who are clearly, visibly alive and shouldn’t be killed or left to die. This is about what we, as Americans, are willing to do to protect those little babies.
Voters ought to know where their senators stand on opposing infanticide. The Senate must vote. (For more from the author of “Democrats Block Infanticide Ban, but It’s Not Over. The Senate Must Vote” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/baby-foot-blanket-newborn-119604.jpeg28324256Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-05 18:37:102019-02-05 18:36:44Democrats Block Infanticide Ban, but It’s Not Over. The Senate Must Vote
Actor Liam Neeson shocked fans when he recounted a story about his own dalliance with prejudice and racism. Neeson said that after a close female relative revealed to him that she’d been raped by a black man, he walked around for about a week just hoping to find someone to confront…and punish. . .
You know that “honest conversation about race” Americans are always being told we need to have? I’ve never thought we were capable of having it. Truthfully, I think Neeson’s confession is the perfect place to start.
I once attended a community development conference in Chicago and on the second day they hosted a forum on “racial reconciliation.” The goal of the forum was to invite representatives of different races to participate on a panel and have a “brutally honest conversation” about race in America. The program flyer for the day warned that they would pull no punches and some people might feel uncomfortable about what they were hearing. Naturally I was in the front row, excited to see what this “honest conversation” might look like.
The panel was made up of a White woman, a Black man, a Chinese-American woman and a Latino man. The moderator began by asking each panel member what their biggest concern was about race in America. The white woman said she chose to acquiesce her time to the other members as she did not feel her voice as a white person was valid to the conversation (a sentiment I found extremely unhelpful). The two men gave their own standard “here’s what’s wrong with White people” answers, but the Chinese-American woman strayed from the PC script. . .
“At what point do we have to stop and admit that there is more to racism than just the racist? Why can’t we talk about the reasons people harbor racism in their hearts? Look at my dad. Is he wrong for judging all black people based on his own experience? Yes, and it shames me. But what about the resentment and hatred he was treated with? How did that shape his views? I want to have an honest conversation about race, but it seems to me that no one wants to really talk about the uncomfortable parts or ask the uncomfortable questions. Until we can sit and listen to the very uncomfortable things that people like my dad think, we can’t really air out our differences.”
(Read more from “Liam Neeson’s Racism Confession Is Actually the Beginning of a Very Important Conversation” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/800px-Liam_Neeson_at_2008_TIFF.jpg533800Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-04 23:59:532019-02-04 23:55:53Liam Neeson’s Racism Confession Is Actually the Beginning of a Very Important Conversation
It is ironic that the most volatile controversy in American politics—abortion—hasn’t really been a debate: it’s been more like a mystery story. The truth has been cloaked in misdirection and sugar-coated with words like choice and rights. . .
Pro-choice extremists advocate policies unheard of anywhere else in the free world—publicly financed abortion on demand, up to the moment of birth, justifiable even when the baby is a girl instead of a boy—yet they are called moderate politicians.
Let’s not beat around the bush. This cannot be explained by sympathy for “women’s reproduction rights” or the “health of the mother.” These excuses have nothing to do with the left’s barbaric support for the killing of children in America. No. It’s deliberate and calculated. They’re just lying. . .
Abortion is violence, perpetrated by the powerful against the weak and innocent, usually for a handsome profit. Every baby announcement, every sonogram image, every gender-reveal party, every baby shower, every first kick or hiccup from the womb, every tragic miscarriage, and every miraculous preemie testifies anew to what we already know: they’re babies in there, and abortion kills them dead. Abortion is legal, but it shouldn’t be, and that is the truth the pro-abortion movement must conceal and suppress at all costs.
So, after the nausea wears off, the pro-life movement should be grateful to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. This week Northam defended proposed legislation in the Virginia legislature that would, following New York’s lead, gut remaining restrictions on late-term abortions up through and, apparently, after the child’s birth. (Read more from “Ralph Northam’s Truth-Reveal Party Unmasked Abortion’s Evil” HERE)
Officials at Grand Canyon University, the largest Christian university in the United States, last week blocked conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from speaking on campus as part of an upcoming Young Americans Foundation event.
Now, the university is facing criticism after officials released a lengthy statement explaining the decision to bar Shapiro. . .
In a scathing statement Friday, YAF spokesman Spencer Brown revealed that GCU officials told students the university would not “provide a venue” for Shapiro’s upcoming speech.
School administrators reportedly also said that Shapiro’s speech style is divisive and “cut throat.” Additionally, YAF reported that GCU president Brian Mueller personally approved denying Shapiro a venue, believing the university would dodge negative media attention.
Brown said in a statement: “By caving to an unseen mob and ignoring the popularity of Shapiro among its student body, Grand Canyon University just played itself and deserves whatever negative response this brings. GCU has abandoned the sentiment of its own proclaimed values, deluded itself into acting like the liberal campuses it claims to differ from, and blindly accepted the Left’s ludicrous argument that Shapiro’s presence somehow damages students, campuses, or debate.” (Read more from “Largest U.S. Christian University Blocks Ben Shapiro From Speaking on Campus. Then Officials Release Statement.” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/39798514014_de23c44bb2_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-04 20:19:232019-02-09 19:48:17Largest U.S. Christian University Blocks Ben Shapiro From Speaking on Campus. Then Officials Release Statement.
Multiple artists were asked to perform during the coveted Super Bowl halftime show. There were quite a few who decided to turn down the gig. Their reason? They supposed Collin Kaepernick kneeling to “bring awareness” to supposed instances of police brutality and racial inequality. His actions started a political firestorm involving the National Football League. Other players began following suit and conservative football lovers who disagreed with the supposed policy brutality boycotted tuning into games.
Ultimately, Maroon 5, Big Boi of Outkast and rapper Travis Scott agreed to perform during the show. In order for Scott to agree to perform, the NFL had to agree to make a $500,000 donation to The Dream Corps, a progressive organization founded by CNN’s Van Jones. . .
[Cardi B] “My husband [Rapper Offset], he loves football. His kids play football. It’s really hard for him. … He really wants to go to the Super Bowl, but he can’t go to the Super Bowl, because he’s got to stand for something,” the rapper told the Associated Press. “You have to sacrifice that. I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But there’s a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him.” . . .
The NFL and CBS really wanted Rihanna to be next year’s performer in Atlanta,” the source explained. “They offered it to her, but she said no because of the kneeling controversy. She doesn’t agree with the NFL’s stance.” . . .
Another singer who decided not to participate was Pink. According to Entertainment Tonight, Pink decided to move on because the the negotiations were taking too long. (Read more from “These Are the Celebrities Who Refused to Perform During the Super Bowl Halftime Show” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Super_Bowl_50_halftime_show_667CA851-327B.jpg8981597Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-04 19:30:422019-02-09 19:57:14These Are the Celebrities Who Refused to Perform During the Super Bowl Halftime Show
This week, Democrats finally succumbed to the inescapable logic of abortion. They have admitted, perhaps against their better judgement, that there really is no difference between abortion and infanticide.
Between New York’s expansive new abortion legislation, a bill now before the Virginia General Assembly, and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s infamous comments about making a just-born infant “comfortable” while the mother and a physician discuss whether to snuff its life out, there can be no doubt that Democrats have acceded to the demands of their own ruthless logic on abortion.
What that logic demands is nothing less than unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth and after. There is almost nothing in these bills to limit late-term abortion. Indeed, they constitute a strenuous effort to free late-term abortion of any kind of medical justification.
The Virginia bill, for example, would change state law to allow third-trimester abortions if the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to “impair the mental or physical health of the woman”—removing the qualifiers “substantially and irremediably.”
In other words, almost any impairment—anxiety, depression, physical discomfort—is enough to justify abortion up to the point of delivery. As my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out on Twitter, is there a difference between aborting a fetus in the third trimester because it’s causing the mother emotional distress, and killing a premature infant in the NICU for the same reason? If there is a difference, what is it? Will any Democrat say?
I wish someone could explain the moral difference between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is causing the mother emotional stress & injecting poison into another baby – same age; same reason– that's in the womb?
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/27328804763_c89f89f94c_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-03 19:54:522019-02-03 20:58:01Democrats’ Inexorable Abortion Logic Has Finally Caught Up With Them
You’ve no doubt heard anecdotal evidence of Facebook users feeling better after they’ve quit the social network, but how often does that help, really? A fair amount, according to researchers. A study from New York University and Stanford showed that Facebook users were happier, more satisfied with life and slightly less likely to feel anxious, depressed or lonely. They also used other social networks less, and used Facebook less when they came back. . .
This doesn’t necessarily mean that you should rush to delete your account — as TechCrunch observed, there are some factors to consider. This is self-reported data, so there’s a chance this doesn’t represent the subjects’ complete emotional landscape. It’s unclear what would happen if the break were longer, for that matter. Also, the researchers conducted this study ahead of the 2016 US presidential election, right when political tensions were high. It might have been more enjoyable to leave Facebook simply because it helped users avoid heated debates and rhetoric. (Read more from “Delete Facebook: Study Reveals Facebook Users Are Happier After Leaving for a Month” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/102002782-facebook-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqhasgUMiR-rxiRxu9qBoVLQpcDfsC-seRM-lm2nZ7XJA.jpg7991280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-02-01 21:55:262019-02-01 21:53:39Delete Facebook: Study Reveals Facebook Users Are Happier After Leaving for a Month