Thursday, October 17, 2019, 7:29 pm | Randy Thomasson
These are your California pro-life heroes. They’ve exposed the murderous crimes of Planned Parenthood, and the Liberal Left has hauled them into a kangaroo court.
Center for Medical Progress (CMP) defendants David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, on trial in federal civil court along with co-defenants Troy Newman and Albin Rhomberg
Right is wrong and wrong is right in the San Francisco federal court of an Obama fundraiser and judge, William Orrick, who served on the board of an organization that houses a Planned Parenthood clinic. And the judge’s wife? She “liked” a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Facebook post that criticized CMP as “a sham organization run by extremists.” What’s more, in 2015, “Mrs. Orrick ‘pinkified’ her Facebook page and added ‘I stand with Planned Parenthood’ as a Facebook profile picture overlay.”
True to form, Judge Orrick has tried to hide the felony crimes of Planned Parenthood, which, beyond killing little human beings in the womb and after birth, is selling baby body parts, a blatant violation of federal law. In 2017, Orrick fined David Daleiden $195,000 for publicly releasing the final videos exposing the awful truth. And in this month’s trial, with rare exception, Orrick has forbade showing the jury videos of Planned Parenthood representatives describing money for baby body parts.
But this wall of deception is cracking. Because the rules of evidence mean that Planned Parenthood’s claim of “damage” (illegal recording, trespass, etc.) can be cross-examined. So at this point, the judge has had to permit two Center for Medical Progress videos to be shown to the jury. One on October 11, and another on October 16.
The latest video is the most shattering to Planned Parenthood’s credibility. The nearly 5-minute video showed Planned Parenthood’s top abortionist Deborah Nucatola “speaking on video about liver, lungs, hearts, muscle, and calvarium (baby heads) that were harvested from the bodies of aborted babies.” Reportedly stunning the jurors and causing tears to flow down faces, this revelation could actually lead to the jury rejecting the abortion giant’s claim of unfair play by the investigative journalists of the Center for Medical Progress.
Here are the 3 big wins for truth in court so far:
1. On October 11, Planned Parenthood abortionist Leslie Drummond-Hay claimed on the witness stand that nobody could hear her conversation with David Daleiden (posting as a baby body parts buyer) and that he brought up the matter of money; however, once the hidden video clip was played in court, the abortionist had to admit that others could hear them and that she had been first to bring up the topic of money.
2. On October 15, despite Judge William Orrick generally prohibiting the jury from seeing CMP’s undercover videos, Mary Gatter, “medical director” for Planned Parenthood abortion centers in Los Angeles and Pasadena, opened her mouth to bring out much-needed evidence. On the witness stand while being questioned by Planned Parenthood’s attorney, Gatter surprised both sides by opining about the “good parts and …. the worst parts of the conversation” that were depicted in the video. That allowed a pro-life attorney to quiz Gatter about what she said on the video. Under cross-examination, she admitted saying “I wanted a Lamborghini” and agreed it was in the context was discussing the price she would be paid for “fetal parts.”
3. On October 16, Deborah Nucatola, former medical director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who said “she performs an average of 200 per month, testified in court that she prefers to use the [euphemistic] term ‘tissue donation’ instead of ‘selling baby body parts for a profit’ … and Nucatola also described how ‘she was upset about the release of the videos, and again sobbed when relating how she and her family were ‘damaged’ by them.”
Yet then a pro-life attorney read from Nucatola’s earlier statements under oath at a disposition, where, “in deposition, Nucatola said that the release of the videos was ‘no big deal’ that ‘did not damage me’ … in addition, she had made sworn statements such as, ‘I did nothing wrong,’ ‘I don’t care if these videos are released.’ ‘There is nothing wrong with what I said.’” The video confirmed the cross-examination, destroying Nucatola’s credibility.
Do you agree with me that, under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, this case should have been thrown out of court at the get-go? Because remember, investigative journalism is protected under “freedom of the press,” right along with “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion.”
Back in the 1990s, I remember how aggressive liberal reporters, with their hand recorders and video cameras, showed up unannounced at the pro-family organization where I used to work. But not once did I consider filing a lawsuit (but I did suggest increasing security, primarily by hardening our front door), because I knew about constitutional freedom of the press.
Ultimately, the outcome in the San Francisco courtroom is either going to permit the First Amendment or further destroy it, and will either hide the criminal behavior of Planned Parenthood or expose it.
Truly, the greatest crime in America is the American genocide of 61 million pre-born babies. Because Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., they’re the the biggest criminals in America. And in the last few decades, Planned Parenthood has added to their crimes by selling baby body parts, in clear violation of federal law.
Everybody who supports what’s good and right ought to support the creative, investigative journalism of the Center for Medical Congress. These pro-life investigators shouldn’t be punished, they should be rewarded!
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
Monday, September 16, 2019, 10:10 am | Randy Thomasson
You’ve got to feel for the mothers and fathers of vaccine-injured children in California. Their God-given parental right to protect their children from harm is being murdered off by the ruling Democrats in Sacramento.
Because under the Democrats’ SB 276 and SB 714 — both signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2019 — no child who has ALREADY BEEN INJURED BY A VACCINE can be exempted by a loving, pro-family, pro-health, pro-reality pediatrician. No, the State will decide instead of doctors, and the aggressively pro-vaccine Big Government will issue very few exemptions.
This lack of compassion from the Democrat politicians means, to exempt your already-vaccine-injured child or genetically-vulnerable siblings of your child from future vaccines that threaten their health, you have only 3 possible paths when January 1, 2020 rolls around:
1. If you already have a medical exemption (or get one by December 31, 2019 from an understanding pediatrician) for your 7th-grade-and-above children enrolled in government-run schools, your children will never be forced to be injected with vaccines before they graduate.
2. Homeschool, because California homeschoolers are totally exempt from any forced vaccinations, whether from the Democrats’ SB 276 and SB 714 in 2019 or from the Democrat’s SB 277 in 2015.
3. Move to one of the 45 U.S. states that permit philosophical or religious exemptions to childhood vaccines.
When Susan Lawson of Colorado hears parents declaring, unequivocally, that everyone should vaccinate their children because it’s perfectly safe, she says it feels “like a punch in the gut.” That’s because she’s seen another side of the story: Her daughter Julia, now 9, was left with permanent brain damage — an injury acknowledged by a federal court payout — after receiving her MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella) shot when she was a year old. Parents of Vaccine-Injured Children Speak Out: ‘The Guilt Is Huge’ (Yahoo News, February 17, 2015)
When you see national companies promoting “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” or “LGBTIQ” or “LGBTIQA+” “Pride” — and hijacking Creator God’s rainbow in the process — you should question it and put it to the test.
Because no one should be proud to trample what’s good, right, and true; or lead astray vulnerablechildren; or harm people’s health; or unfairly discriminate against your God-given rights.
And it’s categorically unkind to do bad to others, by pushing what’s bad for a person, bad for children and families, and bad for our culture, nation, and world. To be kind is to give God’s goodness to others, with standards that emanate from the Bible. But pushing bad consequences upon people is always bad, no matter the deceptive or delusional smiles of the pushers.
Therefore, Starbucks, Target, and other national or local businesses pushing “LGBTQ Pride” are being unkind and spreading false information, which is neither something they should be proud of, nor should it motivate you to spend your dollars at their establishments.
Q: Are homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality true or false? A: They are false.
Both science and the Word of God agree there’s no such thing as a “gay gene” — no biological basis to “LGBTIQ” whatsoever. It’s a delusional lie of the establishment to claim there’s any kind of sexual intercourse beyond man-woman sexual intercourse, or to claim there’s more than the two sexes of male and female. For they just don’t exist.
Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, on his search for the “gay gene”: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find … I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Source: Interview with Simon LeVay, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover Magazine, March 1994
American Psychological Association backtracks on claim of “gay gene”: A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.
The new statement says:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”
“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.” Source: ‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes, WND.com, May 12, 2009
And transsexuality? This is even more of a delusion, because using medical instruments to cut off healthy body parts, which you can’t get back, is obviously not natural. See SaveCalifornia.com’s Science of the Sexes.
Conclusion: Homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality have no biological basis, so no one can legitimately claim they were “born that way” or “God made me this way” or they’re “being true” to themselves by engaging in these contrived identities and harmful behaviors. The vast bulk of evidence is that homosexuality, and transsexuality are caused by childhood traumas, which many homosexuals and transsexuals freely admit happened in their pasts. In addition, the continual adding of new behaviors is nonsensical.
Consider the latest acronym, “LGBTIQA+“, which is continually expanding into labeling more behaviors as “natural.” For if “love is love” (i.e. subjectively defined, meaning that anything one desires or wants sexually must be accepted), no one can any longer oppose “sex” with children, animals, and corpses. For if one claims one was “born” with these desires, and the public must accept these claims without a shred of evidence, opponents to these behaviors have to be labeled “prudish” or “____phobic.” Because all moral standards and scientific evidence have been discarded to society’s own peril. This is ludicrous and violates all objective standards of logic, evidence, and reason.
Q: Does homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual behavior threaten one’s health? A: Yes
The prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, Hepatitis A, B and C) are higher among homosexuals. And CDC’s own statistics show how HIV/AIDS is nearly exclusively a homosexual disease.
At least 63% and as much as 91% of HIV/AIDS infections transmitted by “male-to-male sexual contact” Approximately 1.1 million persons in the United States are living with HIV infection [1]. In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections was 47,500: of those, 63% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact, 25% to heterosexual contact, 8% to injection drug use, and 3% to male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use [2] [Note: According to this CDC report, “All the participants had at least 1 male sex partner,” including those males who “self-identified as heterosexual”] CDC, HIV Surveillance Special Report: Men Who Have Sex with Men, 20 U.S. Cities, 2011
In addition, biological men who delusionally think they’re women (the establishment calls them “transgender women) have an HIV infection rate nearly 50 times higher than other adults. Is this behavior healthy and worth promoting, or unhealthy and worth discouraging?
Homosexuals also experience higher rates of cancer and lower overall health as a cancer survivors:
Link between sexual orientation and cancer “Homosexual men were found to be 1.9 times more likely to self-report a cancer diagnosis than were heterosexual men … Although homosexual women did not have a higher incidence of cancer, these women did report lower overall health as cancer survivors compared to heterosexual women.”
Conclusion: From a straightforward health perspective, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality invite sexually transmitted diseases, as well as higher cancer rates. As a matter of public health, these sexual behaviors should be discouraged.
Q: Does the “LGBTIQ+” political agenda trample your constitutional rights? A: Yes.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, the First Amendment guarantees you freedom of religion, freedom of speech (and freedom of association, which emanates from free speech).
And pre-Constitutional rights for your enjoyment include parental rights and property rights (ownership rights, contract rights, etc.).
Yet time and time again, laws have been made and rulings handed down, that permit the homosexual/transsexual agenda to trample property and business owners, parental rights, religious freedom, and even freedom of speech and association.
But homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality aren’t in the U.S. Constitution. And where the 5th and 14th Amendments mention the important individual rights of “life, liberty, or property,” the legislative and historical records clearly show that “liberty” means protection from being imprisoned or physically restrained (think a jail cell, or house arrest, or wooden stocks) without due process of law. Therefore, “liberty” did not and does not mean the power to redefine marriage or to trample other people’s constitutional rights or to do whatever you want.
Conclusion: A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution and its legislative and historical records shows us a list of guaranteed rights for individual citizens in the U.S. states. Nowhere in the Constitution are “coupleship” rights or the “rights” of homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other behaviors. “Gay rights” and “LGBT rights” are made up and used by unconstitutional politicians and judges to squash the constitutional rights of those who cannot support the “LGBT” agenda in good conscience. Furthermore, the only ways to amend the U.S. Constitution is by a two-thirds vote of Congress and three-fifths vote of the individual States, or by a Constitutional Convention.
Q: Does homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality qualify as a “civil right” or “protected class”? A: No.
To be a “civil right,” the identifying physical characteristic of a “protected class” must be inborn (existing from birth) or an admitted handicap.
“The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.”
It’s a fact that your inborn sex chromosomes (XX female or XY male), race, and age are physical characteristics that you cannot change. And physical or mental handicaps are declared impairments and weaknesses that are unchangeable unless there is healing and recovery.
Conclusion: Because homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality neither have a biological basis nor are unchangeable (people have changed in and out of, and left behind former practices identified with “LGBTIQ,” etc.), these sexual behaviors cannot qualify as a “civil right” or a “protected class” on the same level as race, ethnicity, national origin, even physical disability. If permitted, then any behavior can eventually achieve “civil rights” status, dominating and trampling any reasonable dissent, religious value, or ownership right. This would produce a decidedly uncivilized — and very unsafe — culture.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
RSS 2.0 Feed