Bill Clinton Dogged by Protester Reminding Voters of Rape Accusation

/0 Comments/in , /by

For yet another day, protesters reminded American voters that former President Bill Clinton stands accused of a rape that the alleged victim claims Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton helped cover up.

“Bill Clinton has harmed women!” a woman shouted Tuesday during a rally in Canton, Ohio, at which the former president spoke.

The woman got the attention of TV cameras by holding up a hand-lettered T-shirt reading “Bill Clinton a Rapist.”

“Bill Clinton is a rapist!” she yelled as she walked through the crowd, holding the shirt aloft before being taken out by security at the Ohio event.

Clinton appeared unconcerned with the protest.

“I love it when people come into my rallies, and it’s a dead giveaway when they don’t want to have a conversation because they know they’ll lose the conversation,” he said.

However, the allegation concerns somebody. At Ohio University, where Clinton spoke on Tuesday, someone used the college’s so-called free speech wall to paint a slogan reading, “Bill Clinton Rapes.”

The comment was later painted over before Clinton’s arrival later in the day.

On Wednesday, a young man being interviewed outside a Donald Trump rally near Las Vegas slipped in the phrase “Bill Clinton is a rapist” into his interview with KVVU-TV.

The uptick in actions to remind voters of Clinton’s past kicked off last Friday, when Infowars host Alex Jones kicked off the “Nationwide Campaign to Expose Clinton Sex Crimes.”

The rules of the contest, which are not being followed by those playing, require participants to wear a T-shirt adorned with Bill Clinton’s face and the word “rape.”

“Anyone that gets on national TV with the shirt clearly, for more than five seconds, gets $1,000. That means behind cameras, you name it,” Jones said Friday. “Anyone that gets it on air on national TV and gets the words out ‘Bill Clinton is a rapist,’ or things along that line, with a bullhorn — I could go to this right now, $5,000.”

On Saturday, a man wearing the shirt and chanting the slogan interrupted a Fox and Friends live broadcast in New York City.

On Monday, a man in Loveland Colo., made sure the comment was slipped into his interview with MSNBC.

The rape claim against Clinton stems from an accusation against him made in 1999 by Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton in April 1978. Clinton was never prosecuted on the charge.

Broaddrick has said that Hillary Clinton was aware of the incident and helped to cover it up. (For more from the author of “Bill Clinton Dogged by Protester Reminding Voters of Rape Accusation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Abortion Separates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, as Does the Way They Understand Their Faith

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night’s vice-presidential debate may not matter much to Americans when they vote in November for the next resident of the White House, but the two candidates starkly separated themselves from each other on the issue of abortion — and on the understanding of life their views express. GOP nominee Mike Pence’s defense of the unborn mattered to pro-lifers and to many Christians.

Abortion entered the debate in its waning moments, as moderator Elaine Quijano asked Democrat Senator Tim Kaine and Republican governor Mike Pence “about a time when you struggled to balance your personal faith and a public policy position?” (A full transcript can be found here.)

Personal Faith and Abortion

According to Kaine, who is Roman Catholic, “I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life. But I don’t believe in this nation, a First Amendment nation, where we don’t raise any religion over the other, and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be mandated for everyone.”

He said that “the hardest struggle in my faith life was the Catholic Church is against the death penalty and so am I. But I was governor of a state, and the state law said that there was a death penalty for crimes if the jury determined them to be heinous.”

Kaine, who misrepresented the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty, said, “It was very, very difficult to allow executions to go forward, but in circumstances where I didn’t feel like there was a case for clemency, I told Virginia voters I would uphold the law, and I did.”

According to Pence, who was raised Catholic but is now Evangelical, “the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that — that ancient principle that — where God says before you were formed in the womb, I knew you, and so for my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life.”

Indiana, he continued, “has also sought to make sure that we expand alternatives in health care counseling for women, non-abortion alternatives. I’m also very pleased at the fact we’re well on our way in Indiana to becoming the most pro-adoption state in America. I think if you’re going to be pro-life, you should — you should be pro-adoption.”

Pence v. Kaine

It was then that Pence attacked Clinton and Kaine on their abortion positions. Clinton has said she will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and supports partial-birth and late-term abortions. Kaine, who also supports late-term abortions, formally supports Hyde, which limits federal funding for abortions, but has said he will subordinate his beliefs to Clinton’s if they win in November.

“But what I can’t understand,” Pence said, “is with Hillary Clinton and now Senator Kaine at her side is to support a practice like partial-birth abortion. I mean, to hold to the view — and I know Senator Kaine, you hold pro-life views personally — but the very idea that a child that is almost born into the world could still have their life taken from them is just anathema to me.”

“I know you’ve historically opposed taxpayer funding of abortion,” Pence then told Kaine. “But Hillary Clinton wants to — wants to repeal the longstanding provision in the law where we said we wouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. So for me, my faith informs my life. I try and spend a little time on my knees every day. But it all for me begins with cherishing the dignity, the worth, the value of every human life.”

Kaine v. Pence (and Trump)

Kaine responded that while he and Clinton “really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm the commands of your faith,” they also believe “it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else.”

“So let’s talk about abortion and choice,” he continued. “We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that. And we don’t think that women should be punished, as Donald Trump said they should, for making the decision to have an abortion.”

Trump said in March that women who get abortions should be punished. He walked that statement back the next day after pro-life leaders hammered the comments. He supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, and has changed positions on several key abortion issues since launching his presidential bid last year. Last month he promised to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law, sign a ban on most late-term abortions and defund Planned Parenthood.

Kaine noted that Pence, who has long been praised by pro-life advocates for his desire to protect the unborn “wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. He said he wants to put it on the ash heap of history. And we have some young people in the audience who weren’t even born when Roe was decided. This is pretty important. Before Roe v. Wade, states could pass criminal laws to do just that, to punish women if they made the choice to terminate a pregnancy.”

“I think you should live your moral values,” concluded Kaine. “But the last thing, the very last thing that government should do is have laws that would punish women who make reproductive choices. And that is the fundamental difference between a Clinton-Kaine ticket and a Trump-Pence ticket that wants to punish women who make that choice.”

Pence responded that “Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that punished women who made the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy.” Pressed by Kaine on Trump’s comment, Pence said, “he’s not a polished politician like you and Hillary Clinton,” and declared, “I’m telling you what the policy of our administration would be.”

“[T]here is a choice,” he continued, “and it is a choice on life. I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with Donald Trump, who’s standing for the right to life.” He appreciated Kaine’s previous support for the Hyde Amendment, but pointed out that Clinton opposed it.

People need to understand, we can come together as a nation. We can create a culture of life. More and more young people today are embracing life because we know we are — we’re better for it. We can — like Mother Teresa said at that famous national prayer breakfast, bring the — let’s welcome the children into our world. There are so many families around the country who can’t have children. We could improve adoption so that families that can’t have children can adopt more readily those children from crisis pregnancies.

“Trust Women” Versus “Most Vulnerable” of Society

Kaine responded by turning the issue into women’s rights. “Governor, why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves? We can encourage people to support life. Of course we can. But why don’t you trust women? Why doesn’t Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves?”

That’s what we ought to be doing in public life. Living our lives of faith or motivation with enthusiasm and excitement, convincing other, dialoguing with each other about important moral issues of the day, but on fundamental issues of morality, we should let women make their own decisions.

Pence replied: “Because a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn. I believe it with all my heart. And I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with a pro-life candidate in Donald Trump.” (For more from the author of “Abortion Separates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, as Does the Way They Understand Their Faith” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s good to see that a superstar athlete like LeBron James cares about the presidential elections, but I take strong exception to his reason for endorsing Hillary Clinton, namely, his claim that she “has always been a champion for children and their futures.”

Come again?

James would have been far more accurate if he had said, “I believe that she’s a champion for children and their futures, unless those children are still in the womb, in which case she’s quite happy if they have no futures at all. In fact, she’s quite happy if they never even reach the status of children, let alone have a future. After all, it’s the mother’s choice!”

To be clear, I appreciate all that James is doing for children in his community, establishing the LeBron James Family Foundation and taking a genuine interest in improving the lives of those kids.

And you can hear his heart when he says, “I’m so proud of the more than 1,100 students in my Wheels for Education and Akron I PROMISE Network programs. We’re working on year six now, and my kids have big plans for their futures,” also claiming that, “We even have a future astrophysicist. I can’t wait to see how far these kids can go.”

Yes, “future” is the operative word, and again, my hat’s off to James for his initiatives in these areas.

And it is in this context that he endorsed Hillary: “Like my foundation, Hillary has always been a champion for children and their futures. For over 40 years, she’s been working to improve public schools, expand access to health care, support children’s hospitals, and so much more.”

Unfortunately, when you are a radical pro-abortion advocate like Hillary, when you are the best friend Planned Parenthood ever had running for president, when your policies support rather than diminish what some black leaders rightly call the “Black Genocide,” then in no way are you a champion of these children and their futures. (It could also be argued that Democratic policies are hurting inner-cities kids more than helping them, but that’s another subject entirely.)

That’s why pro-abortion advocates normally speak of a “woman’s right to choose” rather than “the mother’s right to choose.”

Once you call her the mother, the fetus is now her child, and how many would argue that the mother has the right to terminate the life of her own child?

How militant is Hillary on this?

She is so committed to the pro-abortion cause that she stated during a 2015 speech at the Women in the World Summit that, when it comes to a woman’s “right” to choose abortion, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed” — read those words carefully: “have to be changed.”

What, then, would it mean if Hillary became president?

Not only could we expect her continued, passionate advocacy for LGBT “rights” — at the expense of religious rights and freedoms — but we could also expect her passionate advocacy for so-called “reproductive rights,” once again, at the expense of religious rights and freedoms. (Isn’t it ironic that one aspect of so-called “reproductive rights” is the right to terminate the result of reproduction?)

Make no mistake about it. A vote for Hillary is a vote to wipe out a generation of children yet to be conceived and born — to wipe out their futures — and a vote to support the idea that “the unborn person does not have constitutional rights.” (How can the unborn baby be a “person” and yet have no constitutional rights?)

A vote for Hillary is also a virtual declaration of war on deeply-held, biblically-based, long-cherished, pro-life and pro-family positions. Indeed, it is a vote to declare war on conservative believers themselves, since it is our beliefs that, according to Hillary, “have to be changed.”

With all respect, then, to LeBron James, if he really cares for the lives of the poor and the underprivileged, for the lives of the inner-city kids, in particular of underprivileged black Americans kids — and I believe he really does care — he would do well to reflect on the ongoing attack on black babies in the womb.

Those babies deserve a hopeful future, and their very existence in the womb entitles them to the right to leave that womb alive rather than to leave the womb sliced up, mutilated, torn apart, poisoned, or burned (by salt). Surely a vote for a radical pro-abortion candidate is vote against, not for, those children, a vote against their futures.

And so, I pray that God would help LeBron James to see.

As a man who seems to care deeply, he could be a marvelous advocate for these precious little ones, the most vulnerable members of our society.

May he become a champion of life, beginning in the womb. (For more from the author of “LeBron James Picks the Absolute Worst Reason to Endorse Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tim Kaine Defies the Bible and Makes a Mockery of the Church

/0 Comments/in , /by

No matter how hard Democratic vice-presidential hopeful Tim Kaine tries to pass off his invented religion as “Catholic,” he will fail. That is because Kaine’s views are not actually Catholic or in any meaningful sense even Christian.

For 2,000 years, Christians have agreed on the sanctity of human life. Kaine’s own church teaches that abortion is always and everywhere a grave evil (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270-2275). There is absolutely no wiggle room here. Yet Tim Kaine, who campaigns as a Catholic, supports legalized abortion and touts a 100 percent rating on Planned Parenthood’s scorecard, America’s number one baby killer. He is also endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America for his 100 percent pro-abortion voting record.

The Bible is equally clear about homosexual acts, which the Catholic Church teaches are “intrinsically disordered,” “contrary to the natural law,” and “under no circumstances [to] be approved” (CCC 2357). In the same breath, the Church distinguishes between the homosexual acts and the persons with homosexual attraction. About the persons with homosexual attraction, the Church says, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (CCC 2358).

Loving God and loving our neighbor is the Great Commandment upon which “all the law and the prophets” depend (Mt. 22:36-40). The church has always taught to love the person, but hate the sin. This commandment applies to each and every one of us and to all sins under the sun “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). While we are called to love our neighbor, encouraging our neighbor to commit grave sin is the most unloving thing we can do.

Like Jesus, we must show authentic and unconditional charity to the person who is in sin while rejecting the sinful actions that threaten his soul. We must do this humbly, knowing full-well that we are miserable fellow sinners, in desperate need of God’s saving grace. Charity and truth, both attributes of God himself, work together. They’re not in tension.

Distorting Truth for Political Gain

For political gain, Tim Kaine has distorted and defied Pope Francis’ words, the Church’s teaching, and Holy Scripture itself. Kaine spoke on Sept. 10 at the high-powered LGBT Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington D.C. where he self-identified as a “devout Catholic.”

In the speech, he admitted that the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage. However, he held out to the audience the fantasy that the Church will change her 2,000-year teaching to fit the liberal zeitgeist. He then proceeded to distort Genesis 1 and Pope Francis’ comments to match his own ideology. He said that such change may occur “because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis, who surveys the entire world including mankind and [says], ‘It is very good,’” referencing Genesis 1:31. “Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge?’ And to that I want to add: Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Kaine conveniently snipped off the Scripture passages that came before and after. In Genesis, God created them “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) and commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) which is only possible within the sexual union of one man and one woman. Adam confirms that Eve is “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:23-24).

The Bible is Clear — And Kaine is Wrong

Could it be any clearer that Holy Scripture affirms that sexual relations and marriage is between one man and one woman? To see the full picture, here are just some of the Holy Scripture passages that directly speak about the grave evil of homosexual acts:

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Lev. 18:22).

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26-27).

“But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Nor can Kaine really hide behind Pope Francis’ words, which do not mean what the secular press pretends. As the pope explained his comment (“Who am I to judge?”):

If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person? … I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized. … I prefer that homosexuals come to confession, that they stay close to the Lord, and that we pray all together. … You can advise them to pray, show goodwill, show them the way, and accompany them along it.

Confession — that is where Catholics go to repent their sins and gain the grace to avoid them in future. Does that sound like a papal stamp of approval? Pope Francis is calling on us to accompany them in kindness, charity, and truth — most importantly through our own example — yet not to become complicit by praising the sins that damage them.

Truth and Charity: Not Mutually Exclusive

Correcting Kaine’s misleading statements, his own bishop, Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond, responded that “the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute. As Catholics, we believe, all humans warrant dignity and deserve love and respect, and unjust discrimination is always wrong … Marriage is the only institution uniting one man and one woman with each other and with any child from their union. Redefining marriage furthers no one’s rights, least of all those of children, who should not purposely be deprived of the right to be nurtured and loved by a mother and a father.”

Tim Kaine has no right to treat Church teachings and the Bible like a buffet in a cafeteria, picking the teachings he finds convenient.

The call of the Christian in every generation is to communicate both truth and charity. Truth without charity is a “noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1), and charity without truth is plain sentimentality. May we all live out the call to continual personal conversion, as well as the call to charity in truth and truth in charity. (For more from the author of “Tim Kaine Defies the Bible and Makes a Mockery of the Church” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old

/0 Comments/in , /by

An Ethiopian immigrant who was working as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Portland, Oregon is behind bars, charged with rape, unlawful sexual penetration and other sexual contact with patients who were 87 and 94 years old.

Around a half dozen other alleged victims came forward after the September 14 arrest of Adeladilew A. Mekonen and he is likely to face “many more charges,” the Washington County Sheriff’s Department confirmed to Breitbart News. As the online record of who is in custody in Washington County shows, the 34-year-old suspect is currently facing 18 charges.

Even more shocking: a lawsuit filed on behalf of the 87-year-old victim claims that many of the assaults could’ve been prevented had the hospital where the accused rapist worked acted after the 94-year-old victim told the hospital she had been raped back in June.

The lawsuit alleges that Providence St. Vincent Medical Center:

knew and had reason to know that Adeladilew Mekonen had abused and was likely to again sexually abuse ill and elderly female patients, including plaintiff, if he were allowed to be alone with them in their rooms, and yet defendant Providence directed and allowed Mekonen to continue to attend such female patients, including plaintiff, under such circumstances.

(Read more from “More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Americans Split Evenly on Requiring Business Owners to Serve Same-Sex Weddings

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans are closely divided on the question of being compelled to celebrate same-sex marriages, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center.

Those surveyed split evenly on whether wedding-related businesses should be required to provide services to same-sex couples, regardless of religious objections the business owners might have.

A total of 49 percent agreed, while 48 percent disagreed.

Frequency of religious attendance was one significant factor in determining respondents’ views, according to the survey published Wednesday.

Sixty-three percent of weekly churchgoers, including 88 percent of white evangelicals, said business owners should be allowed to refuse service for same-sex weddings if they had religious objections.

Among less frequent churchgoers, just 42 percent believed the same, including 34 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

Those surveyed also were divided on the issue of which public bathrooms transgender individuals should be allowed to use.

Fifty-one percent agreed that transgender people should be allowed to use the public restroom for the gender they “currently identify” as, while 46 percent said they should use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex.

On birth control, the survey found that 67 percent agreed employers with religious objections should be required to provide it in employee insurance plans.

However, Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, questioned the value of the findings.

“When there is significant difference of opinion on hot button issues, it is all the more important to protect religious freedom and religious accommodation,” Severino told The Daily Signal in an email. “But unfortunately, these polls are of limited value because the questions were subtly biased against religious liberty.”

Biased or leading questions can affect survey results drastically, he said.

The question regarding provision of wedding-related services to same-sex couples asked:

[Should] businesses that provide wedding services, such as catering or flowers … be able to refuse those services to same-sex couples if the business owner has religious objections to homosexuality?

“The religious objections aren’t to homosexuality generally,” Severino said. “Rather, the conflict is limited just to the forced celebration of same-sex unions against a person’s beliefs.”

A question regarding employer coverage of contraception was worded as follows:

If you had to choose, which comes closest to your view? Employers who have a religious objection to the use of birth control should be…

ABLE TO REFUSE to provide it in health insurance plans for their employees

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE it in health insurance plans for their employees, just as other employers are required to do?

“The question … implies that religious groups are seeking exemptions to requirements imposed on all employers, when in reality the coverage requirement does not apply to one third of all businesses and nearly 100 million people,” Severino said.

The Pew Research Center poll, taken in August and September, surveyed a randomly selected, nationally representative group of 4,538 adults. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.4 percentage points. (For more from the author of “Poll: Americans Split Evenly on Requiring Business Owners to Serve Same-Sex Weddings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Satanic Club Coming to Portland Elementary School

/0 Comments/in , /by

A satanic club will now be an option for students at a Portland, Oregon, elementary school.

On Tuesday, the Parkrose School District formally approved Satanic Portland’s petition to launch a club at Sacramento Elementary School.

The Satanic Temple has been targeting schools with Good News Clubs, which are sponsored by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, an organization whose purpose is to “evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

One of the leaders of the Satanic Temple said their program focuses “on science and rational thinking,” and will promote “benevolence and empathy for everybody.” (Read more from “Satanic Club Coming to Portland Elementary School” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Amanda Collins had never planned on becoming a Second Amendment advocate. But on Oct. 22, 2007, when she was just 22 years old, her life would change forever. “I lived through the worst fear that I had had up until that point,” Collins, who’s now a mother of three, told The Daily Signal. “What happened was that while I was a student at the University of Nevada Reno, I was brutally raped.”

At the time, Collins said she obtained her concealed carry permit, but wasn’t allowed to carry a gun on campus. Had she been carrying a firearm that day, Collins believes the outcome could have been different.

Nine years later, with Collins’ convicted rapist now sitting on death row for raping and killing another victim in Nevada, she advocates for women’s right to choose. But when Collins’ talks about “choice,” she isn’t referring to the issue of abortion. Instead, Collins is referring to the right to choose how to defend herself. (For more from the author of “She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop

/0 Comments/in , /by

When Mark Ross and his friend were pulled over for speeding early Sunday morning in Ohio, Ross expected to go to jail. There was a petty warrant for his arrest in Michigan, and his friend was driving with a suspended license.

Why were they speeding? Ross had just learned that his 15-year-old sister died in a car accident, and they were rushing to Detroit so he could be with his mother.

Ross explained this to the officer, Sgt. David Robison of Ohio State Highway Patrol.

“I broke down crying and he saw the sincerity in my cry,” Ross wrote in a Facebook post. The officer’s next move surprised him.

Instead of arresting Ross, Robison began to pray.

“He REACHES OVER AND BEGAN PRAYING OVER ME AND MY FAMILY,” Ross’s Facebook post reads.

In a later interview with InsideEdition.com, Ross said Robison’s actions were “overwhelming.”

Robison also offered to drive Ross to Detroit, Fox News reported.

Since Sunday, Ross’s Facebook post has been shared over 135,000 times. His story comes at a time when tensions between many Americans and police officers are high — in the last three months alone, the fatal shootings of black men by police officers have sparked protests, riots, and violence against law enforcement.

“Everybody knows how much I dislike Cops,” Ross wrote on Facebook, adding that he was thankful for Robison. “He gave me hope.”

According to InsideEdition.com, Ross’s family has invited Robison to attend the funeral services for his sister, and Robison plans to attend. (For more from the author of “‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jones comes to the doctor and says, “Doc, I’m suffering from cancer.” Doc says, “No problem. Got the cure right here.” Doc pulls out a gun and shoots Jones in the cranium. Doc buzzes the intercom and says, “Nurse, send in Smith.” Smith comes in and Doc says, “You’re now Jones, and you’re cured.”

This make sense?

It ought to. Because this joke relies on the same logic touted by those who have created the first “three-parent” baby. These (mad?) scientists say, in effect, that by “discarding” one sick baby and replacing it with another healthy baby, they have “cured” the first. Or they say that by preventing the birth of a potentially sick first baby, and allowing the birth of a potentially healthy second baby, they have “treated” the first.

Make sense yet? No? Then we need to understand what a “three-parent” baby is.

Making Babies

The traditional scientific formula for making a baby is one dad plus one mom, or one sperm plus one egg. After insemination, two “protonuclei” form inside the mother’s egg. One of these blobs contains the father’s DNA, and one the mother’s. Swimming around these protonuclei is the mother’s mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). A short time after, the protonuclei and mDNA mix, the egg begins to cleave and away we go. The cells split and differentiate and, if all goes well, they emerge into the world, live three score and ten or so, then die. (Birth is an intermediate step after conception in this “process”.)

Under the Mary-Shellyesque technique called pronuclear transfer, two separate babies are created using two different sperm (from the same father) and two different eggs (from two women). The female protonuclei from both eggs are removed. The donor’s female protonucleus is ash-canned but her egg is kept, into which is inserted the mother’s female protonucleus. What remains in the donor’s egg is her mDNA. Hence one life is killed (at least one, since the procedure is imperfect), and a new one created with DNA from one father and two women.

A second way of doing this, and the one making headlines, is maternal spindal transfer. Before any egg is inseminated, the nuclear DNA, but not the mDNA, from a mother’s and a donor’s eggs are removed, and the mother’s nuclear DNA is inserted into the donor’s egg, which retains the donor’s mDNA. This hybrid egg is then artificially inseminated with the father’s sperm. If the resultant embryo lives, it’s inserted into the mother and the birth progresses as usual.

There are other formulations, but all end in the same position: a fertilized egg with the father’s DNA, the mother’s nuclear DNA, and a donor’s mDNA. A “three-parent” baby. Of course, the processes described are not as “clean” as they appear: errors in holding back or transferring mDNA happen.

Since all this is iffy technology, the inseminations don’t always work. In the case of this new child, according to New Scientist five separate embryos (lives) were created, “only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later.” The others died. Not a good ratio, that.

When a “Cure” is Not a Cure

Why do this at all? Because there are some heritable diseases associated with mDNA. In this case, the mother had Leigh syndrome, “a fatal disorder that affects the developing nervous system” and which could be transmitted in her mDNA. Indeed, the mother has already had two children who had subsequently died from this disease. The parents wanted a child not susceptible to this syndrome, and so turned to these new technologies.

The doctor who led the team, John Zhang, of the New Hope Fertility Clinic in New York, did the procedure in Mexico where, he said, “there are no rules.” This lack of rules brings us back to the bitter joke we started with. In justifying his procedure, Zhang said, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.” Yet Smith replaces Jones: Smith is not Jones cured.

No lives were saved by Zhang. No lives will be saved. No lives can be saved.

What happens is that some lives are prevented, while some are ended to facilitate the birth of others. No diseases are “cured.” A cure is when a person with a disease has that disease removed. In “three-parent” child-making, a person who might get a disease is either prevented from being conceived, or conceived then killed.

The hubris of Zhang and others astonishes. Any language of “curing” or “treating” diseases or of “saving” lives here is nothing but propaganda. What these scientists are doing is pure genetic engineering with the goal of creating supposedly superior beings. They are superior in the sense that they are less likely to contract certain diseases compared with others who would be born in their place. Genetic engineering won’t stop at health. There are already discussions of designing “super-intelligent” people, or giving children a strong “predisposition to musicality“, or producing other traits chosen by fashionable parents.

The Curse of Over-Certainty

As we ponder the obvious legal and ethical difficulties of having three “parents,” which are too large to go into here, we should be appalled by these scientists’ callousness. In their eagerness to make headlines and break taboos, they never stopped to think of these children’s welfare, or that of their potential descendants.

What is the precise, biological interaction between a mother’s mDNA and her nuclear DNA? What will happen to children with engineered genes at adolescence? When they wish to have children themselves? How exactly will these hideously complex biochemical and genetic interactions play out? Answer: nobody knows. What “side effects” are thus likely to occur in “three-parent” children? Answer: nobody knows.

Is human life so predictable that we can at conception unambiguously forecast the livelihoods of these engineered children? Once it gets out, and it will, that a person has been genetically engineered, how will others view him? Answer: nobody knows.

There are only guesses, ignorance, wild hope, and a brazen willingness to experiment on real people as if they were lab rats. This isn’t playing God. God loves people. This is playing Dr. Frankenstein. (For more from the author of “Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.