Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Thurs. July 20, 2017
25 Border Patrol Agents Assaulted in June
File Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
by BOB PRICE
Criminal aliens assaulted Border Patrol agents 25 times in the month of June, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials reported. Since the beginning of this fiscal year, 583 have faced violence.
Assaults on Border Patrol agents continue at an alarming rate. Year-to-date numbers for Fiscal Year 2017 show an 84 percent increase over the first eight months of the previous year. The report comes at a time where the number of CBP officers being assaulted dropped dramatically over the prior year. Attacks on CBP officers assigned to the Office of Field Operations fell by 31 percent (29 assaults) while Air and Marine Operations officers went down by 47 percent (8 assaults).
On June 10, Breitbart Texas reported on a particularly disturbing assault where an off-duty agent was found along a roadway with serious injuries to his head, chest, and hands. That agent is assigned to the Deming, New Mexico, station in the El Paso Sector.
While the agent appeared to have been kidnapped from his home and brutally assaulted, investigators believe the assault is “related to the agent’s employment as a law enforcement officer.” CBP officials initially avoided mentioning the kidnapping aspect of the case, Breitbart Texas reported. Breitbart Texas learned the FBI suspected Sergio Ivan Quinonez-Venegas, an illegal alien previously deported three times, to be behind the kidnapping.
North Korea Issued This Chilling Threat To Donald Trump
North Korea’s rogue nuclear weapons program is a global flash point.
War could break out at any moment.
With the crisis escalating, North Korea issued their most direct threat to Donald Trump.
Since taking office, Trump has made dealing with North Korea’s nuclear weapons program his top foreign policy priority.
America has stepped up missile defense tests and Trump has declared the Obama policy of strategic patience over.
North Korea responded with an article in their state run newspaper declaring that if Trump took military action it would be the “worst disaster in history.”
The Daily Star reports:
“NOW STATE-OWNED NORTH KOREAN NEWSPAPER RODONG SINMUN HAS TAKEN ANOTHER POP AT THE “WAR-THIRSTY” US AS TENSIONS CONTINUE TO ESCALATE.
AN ARTICLE POSTED ON ITS WEBSITE TODAY READ: “THE US INTENTION OF STRIKING AT THE DPRK IS A VERY FOOLISH ACT OF PRECIPITATING ITS SELF-RUIN.
“THE ARMY AND PEOPLE OF THE DPRK ARE FULLY READY TO COUNTER ANY MILITARY OPTION CHOSEN BY THE US.
“IF A WAR BREAKS OUT IN KOREA OWING TO THE US UNPARDONABLE ACT, THE EMPIRE OF AMERICA WILL MEET A SHAMEFUL END.
“IF THE US WANTS TO ESCAPE THE WORST DISASTER IN ITS HISTORY, IT SHOULD BEHAVE ITSELF, CLEARLY AWARE OF THE STRATEGIC POSITION OF JUCHE KOREA, THOUGH BELATEDLY.”
This threat came on the heels of North Korea successfully testing an intercontinental ballistic missile.
U.S. officials estimated the weapon could strike targets as far away as Alaska.
In the wake of this test, South Korea has proposed direct military talks with North Korea.
These would be the meeting of high level officials involving the two countries since 2015.
The BBC reports:
“SOUTH KOREA HAS PROPOSED HOLDING MILITARY TALKS WITH THE NORTH, AFTER WEEKS OF HEIGHTENED TENSION FOLLOWING PYONGYANG’S LONG-RANGE MISSILE TEST.
IF THEY WERE TO GO AHEAD, THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST HIGH-LEVEL TALKS SINCE 2015.
A SENIOR OFFICIAL SAID TALKS SHOULD AIM TO STOP “ALL HOSTILE ACTIVITIES THAT RAISE MILITARY TENSION” AT THE FORTIFIED BORDER BETWEEN THE KOREAS.
SOUTH KOREA’S PRESIDENT MOON JAE-IN HAS LONG SIGNALLED HE WANTS CLOSER ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NORTH.
NORTH KOREA HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE SOUTH’S PROPOSAL YET.
IN A RECENT SPEECH IN BERLIN, MR MOON SAID DIALOGUE WITH THE NORTH WAS MORE PRESSING THAN EVER AND CALLED FOR A PEACE TREATY TO BE SIGNED.
HE SAID SUCH DIALOGUE WAS CRUCIAL FOR THOSE WHO SEEK THE END OF PYONGYANG’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME.”
While South Korea is proposing more talks, Trump has signaled he will not wait forever to take.
Dating an Abortionist ‘Can Be Cool,’ Claims Writer of WaPo Column
Opinion peddler has gone so far as to tattoo a coat hanger on her arm in response to the presidential election
by Leah Jessen
Plenty of pro-life conservatives would beg to differ with an incredibly crass and pompous assertion, but dating an abortionist can now be considered “cool,” as suggested in a recent Washington Post editorial.
“An unexpected side effect of the 2016 election is that many people have become vocal about their support for reproductive rights. Suddenly, dating an abortion provider can be cool, a way to proclaim one’s liberal street cred,” Colleen Krajewski, an abortion provider, wrote in a controversial opinion piece published July 10 in The Washington Post.
The gynecologist lamented her personal struggles and the negative feedback she has received as one who performs abortions.
"There's always a reaction. Every man I have ever dated — no matter how liberal or open-minded he professes to be — has flinched, looked away, or gone silent when I first tell him what I do," Krajewski wrote.
The doctor strained to mention the tattoo she has on her right forearm: The image of a coat hanger is accompanied by the words, "Never again." She said she got the tattoo one month after the election of President Donald Trump.
Krajewski is an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a medical adviser at Bedsider, an online birth-control support network. Her article was entitled "I used to be quiet about the fact that I perform abortions. Now I'm upfront."
"In the past, I've tried every strategy: Burying references in my online dating profile; waiting until the third date to talk about the specifics of my work; carefully dropping the word 'abortion' in conversation and watching for a reaction ... From now on, unless I was in long sleeves, everyone I met would see my tattoo the moment we shook hands — at the office, at parties, in the supermarket, on first dates."
Time to pause and reflect on what such an article — and the prominent publication of it — says about today's culture. For starters, it appears to try to glamorize an industry that has claimed the lives of millions of innocent babies, harming many woman psychologically and emotionally in the process for years to come.
But more than that, the piece tries to demonize the very human and natural negative reaction to the idea of abortion in the first place.
This is not the first time this writer has aired her views. In 2014, Krajewski wrote in a blog post for the Huffington Post: "It is my privilege to provide comprehensive reproductive health care … It is my place to empower [a woman] to make a decision that's in line with her priorities."
Not all women's "priorities" and values are the same — not by a long shot. While Krajewski may see her job as "empowering" women, she also should not use her job or her political stance to lure women into having abortions.
Instead, Krajewski's controversial assertions should empower more men and women to speak out about the value and importance of life. While plenty do speak out, of course, no one should feel tentative or shy about disapproving of a brutal procedure that takes a human life. What if all pro-lifers were more "up front," as this woman claims to be, and did not remain quiet about their views on abortion?
The clear media influence that plays into today's cultural attitudes about abortion is especially striking. The Associated Press, which puts out a widely read and followed style guide for publications, recently announced new guidelines for terms associated with abortion and life. In addition to instructing journalists and writers to use the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life," the AP Stylebook also advises journalists to avoid using the term "abortionist."
“An unexpected side effect of the 2016 election is that many people have become vocal about their support for reproductive rights. Suddenly, dating an abortion provider can be cool, a way to proclaim one’s liberal street cred,” Colleen Krajewski, an abortion provider, wrote in a controversial opinion piece published July 10 in The Washington Post.
The gynecologist lamented her personal struggles and the negative feedback she has received as one who performs abortions.
"There's always a reaction. Every man I have ever dated — no matter how liberal or open-minded he professes to be — has flinched, looked away, or gone silent when I first tell him what I do," Krajewski wrote.
The doctor strained to mention the tattoo she has on her right forearm: The image of a coat hanger is accompanied by the words, "Never again." She said she got the tattoo one month after the election of President Donald Trump.
Krajewski is an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a medical adviser at Bedsider, an online birth-control support network. Her article was entitled "I used to be quiet about the fact that I perform abortions. Now I'm upfront."
"In the past, I've tried every strategy: Burying references in my online dating profile; waiting until the third date to talk about the specifics of my work; carefully dropping the word 'abortion' in conversation and watching for a reaction ... From now on, unless I was in long sleeves, everyone I met would see my tattoo the moment we shook hands — at the office, at parties, in the supermarket, on first dates."
Time to pause and reflect on what such an article — and the prominent publication of it — says about today's culture. For starters, it appears to try to glamorize an industry that has claimed the lives of millions of innocent babies, harming many woman psychologically and emotionally in the process for years to come.
But more than that, the piece tries to demonize the very human and natural negative reaction to the idea of abortion in the first place.
This is not the first time this writer has aired her views. In 2014, Krajewski wrote in a blog post for the Huffington Post: "It is my privilege to provide comprehensive reproductive health care … It is my place to empower [a woman] to make a decision that's in line with her priorities."
Not all women's "priorities" and values are the same — not by a long shot. While Krajewski may see her job as "empowering" women, she also should not use her job or her political stance to lure women into having abortions.
Instead, Krajewski's controversial assertions should empower more men and women to speak out about the value and importance of life. While plenty do speak out, of course, no one should feel tentative or shy about disapproving of a brutal procedure that takes a human life. What if all pro-lifers were more "up front," as this woman claims to be, and did not remain quiet about their views on abortion?
The clear media influence that plays into today's cultural attitudes about abortion is especially striking. The Associated Press, which puts out a widely read and followed style guide for publications, recently announced new guidelines for terms associated with abortion and life. In addition to instructing journalists and writers to use the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life," the AP Stylebook also advises journalists to avoid using the term "abortionist."
US Doctor Discovers Lib-Destroying Thing When He Evaluates Charlie Gard
BY TIFFANI GREY
Charlie Gard is a name that has stirred up heated debates among public figures, Twitter users, liberals and conservatives.
The case of nearly 1-year-old Charlie Gard came to international attention when the Great Ormond Street Hospital filed a case in UK courts to have the infant’s ventilator turned off. Everyone came to know the little boy’s name who has a debilitating disease known as mitochondrial depletion syndrome.
Now, a U.S. doctor has announced that infant Charlie may have a “small but significant” chance for recovery. The American medical specialist made the determination after performing a brain scan on Charlie in London.
“Dr. Michio Hirano of Columbia University Medical Center, who specializes in rare genetic diseases, believes that the chance of treatment being successful are between 11 to 56 percent and he hopes to improve muscular strength,” Fox News reported.
According to Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, Charlie’s condition came to light after an 8-week check up. Charlie was born healthy but his condition soon deteriorated. Since being 8-weeks old, Charlie has been in the hospital and UK experts have said there is no chance for the infant’s survival.
After a rigorous Go Fund Me campaign that Charlie’s parents set up raising over 1.3 million pounds, Charlie now has the ability to be treated in America to test out a new treatment that could help improve his well-being.
Sadly, after losing numerous appeals with the UK courts, the chance that his parents can take Charlie to the United States is still up in the air.
Dr. Hirano reportedly examined Charlie for five hours, along with another MD from the Pope’s hospital in Rome, and discovered that Charlie may benefit from the experimental treatment. In a press conference, Gard’s family representative stated…
“Today, Charlie’s case has moved from the chances of this ground-breaking therapy working from being as close to zero, as to make no difference to, according to the expert evidence that’s been heard in court, to a small but significant chance.”
While Charlie’s parents are ecstatic with the chance of their son’s survival, it is unfortunately no longer in their hands. After suffering through numerous appeals to reverse the hospital’s decision to take Charlie off of his ventilator, the judge stayed the decision for a few days to allow the family to have proper time to say goodbye.
Now with the new development from Dr. Hirano, the parents anxiously await the judge’s decision on whether or not Charlie will be permitted to travel to the U.S. for this new treatment.
“A transcript of the meeting will be handed to Mr Justice Francis, who will decide next Tuesday – ten days before Charlie’s first birthday – whether he should be allowed to try the therapy or should have his life support withdrawn so he ‘dies with dignity,'” the Daily Mail reported.
Liberals have taken the side of the UK hospital and the leftist European courts — no surprises there.
We want them to act in a humane way...which they haven't. Fighting for the death of an innocent child i$ barbari$m.
What's inhumane abt recognising that a life has run its natural course? Happens in hospitals every day. http://ift.tt/2vks8D4 … #CharlieGard
I feel terrible for the parents of #CharlieGard but they should be allowing him some peace now. The #LooseWomen debate is making me rage.
Sincerely hope judge today rules in favour of proper #evidence to give #CharlieGard some dignity & does not pander to media hype. Poor boy.
However, President Donald Trump added to the conversation earlier this month, tweeting his support for Charlie. “If we can help little #CharlieGard as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, then we would be delighted to do so,” he said.
If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.
10:00 AM - 3 Jul 2017
According to The Telegraph, Francis is adamant that he will not be swayed by tweets no matter who they come from, telling the courts, “I have to decide this case not on the basis of tweets but on the basis of clear evidence,” adding, “I understand parents will grasp at any possibility of hope.”
As they should. It is their right as parents to hold onto hope for their son and utilize every means necessary to save his life.
We are praying for Charlie.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you think Charlie’s parents should be free to take him to the United States for this new treatment.
Al Gore Slams Trump, Climate Crisis ‘By Far the Most Serious Challenge We Face’
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty
Former Vice President Al Gore attacked President Donald Trump, accusing him of “tearing down America’s standing in the world” by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.
“The climate crisis is by far the most serious challenge we face,” Gore said Monday morning on NBC’s Today Show.
“We’ve never had a president who’s deliberately made decisions the effect of which is to tear down America’s standing in the world, starting with his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,” Gore said.
Gore got himself into hot water with black activists last week when he compared the fight against global warming to the emancipation of black slaves.
The fight against global warming is one of humanity’s great moral causes, Gore told participants in the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Thursday, alongside “the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and women’s rights, the civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.”
In an online statement, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network blasted Gore for the comparison, saying that he “gives climate change activists unearned moral credibility” by associating these important moral movements of history with a crusade “grounded in questionable data.”
Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper said that Gore’s climate alarmism stands to hurt black Americans most of all.
“Study after study demonstrate that the radical climate policies advocated by Al Gore, Jr. will hurt blacks and the poor most,” Cooper said. “Just as segregation and interracial marriage bans were purported to be for the good of all while clearly done to generate political support, today’s climate alarmism is pushed solely to get the support of a small group of so-called eco-warriors at the expense of blacks.”
Gore’s elevation of global warming to “the most serious challenge we face,” above international terrorism, job security, healthcare reform, immigration or abortion does not ring true to most Americans, according to a recent Bloomberg poll.
Asked “which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?” only ten percent of U.S. citizens thought that climate change was the most pressing, while the other 90 percent identified other concerns they felt should be top priorities, such as healthcare, terrorism, immigration, jobs and taxes.
During his meeting with the G7 nations in Taormina, Sicily, last May, President Trump shifted discussions away from climate change to what he declared to be the most critical issue facing the world, namely Islamic terrorism.
Just days before, the President European addressed 55 world leaders from Arab and other Muslim-majority nations in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In that speech, Trump called for unity in pursuing “the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history’s great test—to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism.”
Back in the U.S., President Trump gave a speech in the Rose Garden after deciding to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. The Climate Accord, Trump stated, “is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”
The agreement would have left American workers and taxpayers to “absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production,” he said.
“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country,” he said.
US Doctor Discovers Lib-Destroying Thing When He Evaluates Charlie Gard
BY TIFFANI GREY
Charlie Gard is a name that has stirred up heated debates among public figures, Twitter users, liberals and conservatives.
The case of nearly 1-year-old Charlie Gard came to international attention when the Great Ormond Street Hospital filed a case in UK courts to have the infant’s ventilator turned off. Everyone came to know the little boy’s name who has a debilitating disease known as mitochondrial depletion syndrome.
Now, a U.S. doctor has announced that infant Charlie may have a “small but significant” chance for recovery. The American medical specialist made the determination after performing a brain scan on Charlie in London.
“Dr. Michio Hirano of Columbia University Medical Center, who specializes in rare genetic diseases, believes that the chance of treatment being successful are between 11 to 56 percent and he hopes to improve muscular strength,” Fox News reported.
According to Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, Charlie’s condition came to light after an 8-week check up. Charlie was born healthy but his condition soon deteriorated. Since being 8-weeks old, Charlie has been in the hospital and UK experts have said there is no chance for the infant’s survival.
After a rigorous Go Fund Me campaign that Charlie’s parents set up raising over 1.3 million pounds, Charlie now has the ability to be treated in America to test out a new treatment that could help improve his well-being.
Sadly, after losing numerous appeals with the UK courts, the chance that his parents can take Charlie to the United States is still up in the air.
Dr. Hirano reportedly examined Charlie for five hours, along with another MD from the Pope’s hospital in Rome, and discovered that Charlie may benefit from the experimental treatment. In a press conference, Gard’s family representative stated…
“Today, Charlie’s case has moved from the chances of this ground-breaking therapy working from being as close to zero, as to make no difference to, according to the expert evidence that’s been heard in court, to a small but significant chance.”
While Charlie’s parents are ecstatic with the chance of their son’s survival, it is unfortunately no longer in their hands. After suffering through numerous appeals to reverse the hospital’s decision to take Charlie off of his ventilator, the judge stayed the decision for a few days to allow the family to have proper time to say goodbye.
Now with the new development from Dr. Hirano, the parents anxiously await the judge’s decision on whether or not Charlie will be permitted to travel to the U.S. for this new treatment.
“A transcript of the meeting will be handed to Mr Justice Francis, who will decide next Tuesday – ten days before Charlie’s first birthday – whether he should be allowed to try the therapy or should have his life support withdrawn so he ‘dies with dignity,'” the Daily Mail reported.
Liberals have taken the side of the UK hospital and the leftist European courts — no surprises there.
Pope Francis Was Blindsided By This Shocking Development
Pope Francis has not made many allies since he was elected to lead the Vatican.
He’s imposed controversial changes to church doctrine and alienated those who believe in traditional values.
Now he just suffered a shocking setback.
Pope Benedict XVI was Francis’ predecessor.
He was the first Pope to retire from the position in 600 years.
And while he has largely stayed silent on the affairs of his successor, that just changed.
Pope Benedict XVI attended the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner.
There, he delivered remarks many saw as a criticism of Pope Francis.
Life Site News reports:
“POPE BENEDICT XVI SENT A SOBERING MESSAGE AT THE FUNERAL OF CARDINAL JOACHIM MEISNER TODAY, SAYING HE WAS MOVED AT THE DUBIA CARDINAL’S ABILITY TO “LIVE OUT OF A DEEP CONVICTION THAT THE LORD DOES NOT ABANDON HIS CHURCH, EVEN WHEN THE BOAT HAS TAKEN ON SO MUCH WATER AS TO BE ON THE VERGE OF CAPSIZING.”
THE CHURCH “STANDS IN PARTICULARLY PRESSING NEED OF CONVINCING SHEPHERDS WHO CAN RESIST THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE AND WHO LIVE AND THINK THE FAITH WITH DETERMINATION,” POPE BENEDICT SAID IN A MESSAGE READ BY ARCHBISHOP GEORG GÄNSWEIN, HIS PERSONAL SECRETARY AND HEAD OF THE PAPAL HOUSEHOLD. BECAUSE OF THIS “PRESSING NEED,” MEISNER “FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO LEAVE HIS POST.”
“WHAT MOVED ME ALL THE MORE WAS THAT, IN THIS LAST PERIOD OF HIS LIFE, HE LEARNED TO LET GO AND TO LIVE OUT OF A DEEP CONVICTION THAT THE LORD DOES NOT ABANDON HIS CHURCH, EVEN WHEN THE BOAT HAS TAKEN ON SO MUCH WATER AS TO BE ON THE VERGE OF CAPSIZING,” THE POPE EMERITUS CONCLUDED.
MEISNER, WHO WAS 83, WAS ONE OF THE FOUR CARDINALS WHO SENT POPE FRANCIS A DUBIA, CONSISTING OF FIVE QUESTIONS, ASKING IF AMORIS LAETITIA IS ALIGNED WITH CATHOLIC MORALITY. HE DIED STILL AWAITING THE POPE’S RESPONSE. ALTHOUGH POPE FRANCIS HASN’T ANSWERED THE DUBIA, HE HAS GIVEN HIS APPROVAL TO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONTROVERSIAL EXHORTATION THAT SAY THOSE LIVING IN ADULTEROUS UNIONS MAY RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION.”
Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration that the Catholic Church was on the verge of capsizing shocked observers around the world.
In addition to allowing individuals in adulterous relationships to receive communion, Pope Francis generated outrage when he sided with the doctors who wanted to pull 5 year-old Charlie Gard off life support.
In a statement, the Vatican cited the need to “understand” the “complex situation”.
But Catholics were outraged that Pope Francis would sell out on the Church’s position of protecting human life in order to try and accommodate the modern world.
Francis later reversed his position, however, the damage was already done.
Critics argue that Francis is moving away from being a Holy leader and transitioning into becoming a left-wing political activist.
He has repeatedly attacked nationalist movements, defended open borders, and urged Donald Trump to stay in Barack Obama’s Paris global warming agreement.
But he has never been called out on this level before.
The previous Pope saying the Church is taking on water due to current leadership is unprecedented.
And it shows that Pope Francis – despite his position – may not be successful in trying to undermine traditional religious beliefs.
Cosmo: Why You Shouldn’t Have Gender Reveal Parties
Well, this is hilarious. Cosmopolitan is now telling parents to stop having “gender reveal” parties for their babies… because it hurts transgendered people. See the themes of the parties (like “Bows versus Badges” or ‘Tutus or Touchdowns”) always reinforce gender stereotypes… and some of these babies might grow up to be transgendered.
If parents have gender reveal parties, then it contributes to anti-transgender hate.
Yes, really! But you’ve got to read this to believe it:
I cannot stomach the latest fad of the knocked-up set: gender-reveal parties. The It’s A Boy/It’s A Girl fetes have been an economic boon to stationary companies and party supply stores nationwide; a search for “gender reveal” on Etsy yields 46,711 results. One former supervisor of a high-end bakery in Champaign, Illinois, told me she received queries about gender-reveal cakes once or twice a week. But despite the popularity, the ritual is a lot like a rousing game of Pin-The-Umbilical-Cord-On-The-Newborn: cutesy in theory, taxing in practice. At a time when work, family obligations and, you know, the dismantling of patriarchal social structures are stretching us all thinner than Anne Hathaway in Les Miserables, why are we focusing our energies on yet another afternoon of baby bagatelle? Laugh as we throw sperm confetti at mom-to-be! Eat from this bassinet-shaped fruit tray! Cast your vote for the sex of our fetus!
All this builds suspense for That Magical Moment when the future parents jointly cut into fondant cake, gasping at the surprising sight of pink or blue filling. Or pink or blue balloons are released from an artisanally hewn box. Or a rifle is fired at explosives packed with pink or blue chalk. Because nothing speaks to the miracle of life better than target practice, amirite?
But my discomfort with the gender-reveal party goes beyond my standard objection to fanfare surrounding gestational markers—which is primarily that, because we don’t celebrate non-pregnancy-related milestones with the same enthusiasm, we’re reinforcing the archaic notion that a woman’s value rests squarely in her ability to grow tiny humans. The issue with gender-reveal parties in particular is: Aren’t they potentially damaging to said tiny humans?
Of course, this is so stupid…. Liberals need to stop shaming people for doing normal things.
Congress Gives Baby Charlie Gard Legal Resident Status In Attempt To Save His Life
Facebook By BEN SHAPIRO @benshapiroIn a move designed to free him from the strictures of the British justice system, eleven-month-old Charlie Gard, who suffers from a severe disorder that has caused British courts to say that his parents must let him die, has now been granted legal permanent resident status in the United States. Gard is now blind, deaf, and unable to move.
According to Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Congress just passed an amendment that “grants permanent resident status to #CharlieGard and family so Charlie can get the medical treatment he needs.”
The British claim that no matter his passport, they won’t let him leave; a judge said last Friday that the family would be breaking the law if they spirited Charlie out of the country without his permission, explaining, “It would be entirely wrong for him to be transferred without my being involved.” The hospital won’t even allow the Gard parents to remove Charlie from the hospital so he can die at home.
The move by Congress to help Gard is overdue; nearly three weeks ago, I wrote in this space that Congress should move to help Gard by naturalizing him. It may not help — the British system may be more concerned with forcing Gard’s parents to let the baby “die with dignity.” But good for Congress for at least attempting to change the math here.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/07/httpift_19.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment