No trust? Microsoft to count Iowa votes

(THE HILL) — Microsoft volunteered to provide the technology to help tally up the results of Iowa’s caucus, free of charge. Now it will be put to the test Monday night.

The contests in both parties are expected to go down to the wire. And the spotlight will be on precinct officials who have been trained on a new Microsoft app, which is meant to cut down on human error and speed up the reporting process.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in Iowa have expressed strong confidence in Microsoft, dismissing late suspicion of corporate influence from the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) early last week.

Party officials have said no errors have been spotted in caucus dry runs. But the Sanders campaign has created its own backup reporting system, as has the Hillary Clinton campaign.

from WND http://ift.tt/1POpYTI
via IFTTT

Christian mega-author: Trump ‘absolute catastrophe’ as president

Christian author Joel Rosenberg in front of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was liberated 71 years ago on Jan. 27, 1944, by the Soviet army.

Christian author Joel Rosenberg in front of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, which was liberated 72 years ago on Jan. 27, 1944, by the Soviet army.

A best-selling Christian author known for his high-level government contacts inside Israel says most of the candidates running for president, including the front-runners of both major parties, are ill-prepared to deal with the threat of what he calls “apocalyptic Islam.”

Joel C. Rosenberg, author of the popular “Last Jihad” series and “Epicenter” among many other novels and non-fiction books, says Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do not have the skill set needed to deal with Iran’s mullahs or the growing threat of the Islamic State.

“I would say there are probably three candidates right now who are particularly strong on this issue,” said Rosenberg, whose latest novel, “The First Hostage,” centers on a plot by Islamic terrorists to kidnap the U.S. president. “The person that’s been speaking and working on these issues for the longest is former Sen. Rick Santorum. He wrote the original sanctions on Iran. He’s very experienced.”

Given that Santorum “doesn’t seem to have traction” with voters, Rosenberg said the next tier of candidates he sees as most prepared to deal with the Islamic threat are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

“I’ve been impressed by Sen. Marco Rubio. I’ve met with him to talk about these issues in Iowa, and then he’s asked me to send him various fact sheets and backup and he has been speaking about ‘apocalyptic Islam’ in debates, in speeches, so he’s embraced that language, not because I persuaded him but we did talk about some of the nuances, and he’s served on the Senate foreign-relations committee as well as the intelligence committee.”

Aside from his writing career, Rosenberg is founder of the Joshua Fund, which seeks to mobilize Christians to “bless Israel and her neighbors in the name of Jesus.”

Rubio adopts ‘apocalyptic’ language

Rosenberg spoke with WND Thursday, just hours before the GOP debate. During the debate Rubio again spoke of “apocalyptic Islam,” saying ISIS has an end-times vision that involves provoking Western powers into a “World War III” scenario in Dabiq, Syria.

Cruz also has impressed Rosenberg.

“He has spoken a little bit about apocalyptic Islam. I’ve met him several times. I’ve spent more time with his father than him,” he said. “But I’ve met with some of his colleagues and advisers, so I feel confident that he understands the threat.”

“I would put those three in a different category, of people who get it and have demonstrated to me that they’re serious about neutralizing the threat of Iran and ISIS.”

Rosenberg says “radical Islam” is a threat in itself and includes groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that work to implement Shariah law in various parts of the world.

But within radical Islam is another group of Muslims that believes in “apocalyptic Islam,” he said, and this includes the Islamic State, also called ISIS.

“All devout Muslims, whether Sunni or Shiite, believe in the coming of their so-called Mahdi in the last days, that he will establish a global Islamic caliphate in the last days and they believe in a final judgment,” Rosenberg told WND. “But that doesn’t mean all Muslims believe in committing genocide.”

“What is unique about Iran and ISIS is they believe in a genocidal eschatology, that you believe you must slaughter thousands or millions to accomplish your religious objectives, and this is stated openly by both those regimes,” he said. “I produce fact sheets on both so people can examine for themselves what we’re talking about because this stuff sounds crazy, and it can be hard to grasp without looking at the data. The problem is the candidates are not looking at the data.”

This billboard showing the Imam the Muslim Jesus behind Imam Mahdi graces the Vali-Asr Square in Tehran. It was completed in late 2014.

This billboard showing the Muslim Jesus behind Imam Mahdi graces the Vali-Asr Square in Tehran. It was completed in late 2014.

Rosenberg, 48, is author of 10 fiction and five non-fiction books about Islam, the Middle East and Bible prophecy. His novels have sold more than 3 million copies.

Born in Rochester, New York, to a Jewish father and gentile mother, Rosenberg now makes his home in Israel with his wife and family.

A major theme of his books is that to misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it.

“On Dec. 7, 1941, we were blindsided by an imperial Japan,” he told WND. “On Sept. 11, 2001, we were blindsided by al-Qaida.”

On the Democratic side, Rosenberg sees no evidence that the party’s leaders are interested in even having an honest debate about the true nature of “radical” or “apocalyptic” Islam.

“Secretary Clinton fully supports President Obama’s approach toward Iran and the Islamic State. I’ve seen no daylight between Clinton and Obama,” he said. “In fact, Secretary Clinton fully supports the Iran nuclear deal.”

Flirting with evil

Rosenberg said his novels, though fiction, are heavily researched and based on insights he’s gleaned from many political, intelligence and religious leaders.

“I was sitting and having breakfast recently with former CIA Director James Woolsey, who of course worked under (Mrs. Clinton’s) husband and he said something to me I found interesting. He said if you read through the Iran deal, as an arms control agreement it’s not that bad, if it were made with Denmark, or some other rational, normal government,” he said. “But when you make the deal with an Iranian regime that is calling for the annihilation of the U.S. and Israel and is driven by an apocalyptic, end-times, theology, the deal is not only dangerous but insane.

“That’s what Obama has done and that’s what Clinton supports,” he said.

Is it too late for America? Joel Rosenberg investigates in his book, “Implosion: Can America Recover from its Economic and Spiritual Challenges in time?”

A what about Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist running against Hillary Clinton in the primaries?

“Mr. Sanders goes even further, saying we should normalize relations with Iran,” Rosenberg said. “Clearly the two leading Democrats running for president and the current president have no idea how dangerous Iran is and so they’re making bad decisions,” he said.

Not impressed by Trump

In doling out report cards for the GOP presidential candidates, Rosenberg seems to save his most stinging rebuke for Trump.

By describing Obama’s Iran nuclear deal as a badly negotiated “contract,” Trump misses the point, according to Rosenberg. This is not to be treated as a real estate deal, he said, but something where lives hang in the balance.

“The leading candidate in the GOP has no clue. He would be an absolute catastrophe as president,” Rosenberg says. “He said he would not rip up the deal with Iran. He says it’s a contract. First of all it’s not a contract. Our government has not signed it and Congress has not approved it. This is like a gentleman’s agreement between our president and the government of Iran. So he doesn’t understand just how dangerous it is.”

Rosenberg said Trump’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy has leaked out in some of his comments.

“Mr. Trump says he would kill not only the terrorists but their families. So this is a war crime. Mr. Trump is proposing war crimes as a solution, as a foreign policy,” he said. “This is insane. And yet many conservatives and many evangelicals are supporting Mr. Trump.

“So on the topic of foreign policy and the Islamic state we have a president who doesn’t understand the nature of the threat and we have two front runners who are not prepared to do anything to neutralize that threat.”

Rosenberg said he believes the vast majority of Muslims are not violent by nature.

“About 90 percent of the Islamic world does not subscribe to violent jihad,” he said. “About 7 to 10 percent support violent jihad. Now radical Islam, their objective is to attack us, whereas apocalyptic Islam wants to annihilate us. Radical Islam wants to use violence to drive the infidel out of their part of the world.

“Apocalyptic Islam isn’t simply trying to attack us on their soil but all over because it wants to establish an Islamic caliphate all over the globe.”

He said there’s no way to stop apocalyptic Islam without destroying the entire movement. Limited strikes being doled out by the Obama administration are like pinpricks – they can be annoying or even painful but will only help the apocalyptic leaders of ISIS to expand their appeal and their worldwide recruitment efforts.

“It’s not going to work because, the more you retreat, they’re coming to the next genocidal group to expand their kingdom,” Rosenberg said.

He sees “apocalyptic Islam” is a subset within “radical Islam.”

“Quite a few of the Republican candidates do understand this generally,” he said. “But the two Cubans (Cruz and Rubio) and certainly Santorum above all, have really demonstrated to me they know what they are talking about.”

Rubio’s mistake

Rosenberg said Rubio made a mistake by sponsoring the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill in 2013.

“He was approaching immigration purely as a domestic policy and that was I think a mistake,” he said. “His membership in the Gang of Eight, as he’s repented of that, he’s used that to justify why he was wrong before.”

Of the three frontrunners on the GOP side, Rosenberg believes Trump is the least prepared to deal with the Islamic threat. (Photo: Twitter)

Of the three frontrunners on the GOP side, Rosenberg believes Trump is  least prepared to deal with the Islamic threat. (Photo: Twitter)

Rosenberg then returned to criticizing Trump as “having absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.”

“He’s talking about killing women and children, and he won’t rip up the Iran deal. I’m just Identifying people who are showing good judgment on these issues and I’m disturbed that the frontrunner has shown none,” Rosenberg said. “He has spoken highly of Vladimir Putin. And yet you have a big chunk of the Republican Party and evangelicals who are drawn to him and aren’t working their way through the issues. There is nobody in the party worse than Mr. Trump on foreign policy and national security issues. I’m convinced he would be an unmitigated disaster.”

Surprised by Trump’s evangelical support

Rosenberg said he is most surprised by Trump’s ability to garner support from evangelicals.

“Generally I think the conservatives and evangelicals, they see him as strong, and as tough, but they perhaps are not paying close attention to the fact that he’s wrong and ill-informed and irrational on foreign policy,” he said. “He is not rooted in the basic principles of American liberty and security. When asked where does he get his foreign policy advice from, he said he gets it from the Sunday-morning TV shows. I meet with CIA directors, prime ministers and foreign ministers – and I’m a novelist. I think the standard ought to be a little higher for the frontrunner of the Republican nomination for president.”

In contrast to many other conservative pundits, who see Trump as unstoppable in his drive to win the GOP nomination, Rosenberg said he expects Trump to lose some traction as the primaries unfold.

“I suspect Trump is going to hit some speed bumps and we’ll watch an emerging race between Cruz and Rubio,” he said.

Here are Rosenberg’s opinions on some of the other GOP candidates:

Rand Paul: Like Trump, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has said he would not rip up the deal with Iran. Rosenberg is not a fan of Paul’s “isolationist’ worldview.

“Rand Paul would be horrible. He has a set of principles that are isolationist that I don’t agree with but he isn’t getting traction,” Rosenberg said.

Ben Carson: “I believe Dr. Carson is a genius as a surgeon and a complete novice when it comes to foreign policy and national security. The stakes and the risks we face as American people are too great to entrust to a novice. The oval office is not a place for on-the-job training. The role of Commander in chief is not for the uninitiated. And to put it in the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing is foolishness, especially when there are people who do know and have displayed good judgment.”

Jeb Bush: The former Florida governor, like Trump, Paul and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, has said he would not immediately tear up the deal with Iran.

“I like him. I think he’s a good man. I think he has a solid world view on some of these issues but he has not shown strength as a commanding leader, he’s sinking in the polls and is running ads to attack his own protégé (Rubio) so I don’t think he’s a real factor.”

Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee: “I believe Huckabee and Christie have, generally, a reasonably sound understanding of radical Islam, but the three I mentioned, as I watched them they are talking with a level of detail that strikes me as different and deeper and better prepared.”

Donald Trump: “He doesn’t listen to anybody. He’s unaccountable. He’s a billionaire who would go to the White House not believing he has to talk to anybody, listen to anybody,” Rosenberg said. “I would never have thought to create a candidate in a novel as unqualified and as dangerous as Donald J. Trump. He is a fictional character who would have never dawned on me. I think he is dangerous and the American people deserve better.”

from WND http://ift.tt/1POnIvN
via IFTTT

Pro-Obamacare legal expert admits president broke law

 

obama-shrug

A University of Michigan law professor who has written  commentaries and opinion pieces in major publications from the Los Angeles Times to the New York Times in praise of Obamacare now admits the president broke the law in his implementation of a requirement that citizens buy government-ordained health insurance plans or be fined.

Nicholas Bagley’s new stance grabbed the attention of Case Western Reserve University professor Jonathan Adler.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, he pointed out that there’s nothing new about claims that “the Obama administration has repeatedly flouted legal requirements or acted outside the scope of its delegated authority when implementing Obamacare.”

But it’s significant when an ardent Obamacare advocate admits it.

“It is more notable when a prominent defender of the Obama administration acknowledges that the administration has colored outside the lines, and not always with good justification,” Adler wrote. “So those interested in the Affordable Care Act and the administrative law should give Nicholas Bagley’s new paper on ‘Legal Limits and the Implementation of the Affordable Care Act’ a careful read. The paper’s still in draft form – and in my view bends over backward to provide the most charitable read of the administration’s actions – but still concludes that the administration has violated the law repeatedly in implementing the ACA, even if not quite as often as some administration critics have claimed.”

Bagley wrote: “On occasion … the administration has strayed beyond legal limits. Two episodes raise especially serious legal concerns: the administrative delays and the decision to finance cost-sharing reductions out of an appropriation governing tax refunds. In both cases, Republican recalcitrance threatened to undermine the president’s signal achievement. And in both cases, the president appears to have broken the law.”

Regarding the multiple delays announced by Obama during the Obamacare implementation, he wrote, “The delays are … bald efforts to avoid unwanted consequence associated with full implementation of the ACA.”

Here’s the help you’ll need to prepare your household for the realities of living under a centralized health-care system — order Dr. Lee Hieb’s “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare”

He pointed out that Obama made “public announcements of its nonenforcement policies” to “encourage the regulated community to disregard provisions of the ACA.”

Bagley explained that the administration announced numerous delays for various requirements of the law.

“They were conscious decisions to put off the dates on which congressional statutes directed at private actors took effect.”

He noted that even the Obama administrations Office of Legal Counsel had warned the president that he could not “in the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

On the issue of cost-sharing subsidies – the additional federal subsidies for those making less than 250 percent of the poverty level – he emphasized they are “essential” to Obamacare.

“Without them, health plans would have to bear the full costs of the cost-sharing reductions that they’re required to make – an estimated $167 billion over 10 years,” he said.

“But there’s a problem,” he continued. “Although the ACA directs the Treasury Secretary to issue cost-sharing payments, it’s black-letter law that ‘a direction to pay without a designation of the source of the funds is not an appropriation.’”

And while Obama asked for the money, Congress refused.

“The administration then quietly determined that it did not need an annual appropriation. It instead concluded [the law] already appropriates the money to pay both premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions.”

The Obama administration argues that the law was set up as a permanent and ongoing appropriation.

However, Bagley noted, a law “may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury … only if the law specifically states than an appropriation is made.”

“Nothing in the ACA specifically appropriates money for cost-sharing reductions,” Bagley wrote.

In fact, he said, a court case brought by the U.S. House likely will be decided early this year that “could raise a legal cloud over the ACA in the middle of a presidential election.”

Bagley noted that “in the face of committed resistance from a Republican-controlled Congress that wishes to undermine the ACA … the administration may have felt that it had little choice but to find an appropriation where non exists.”

It is, however, a “troubling precedent” for the future, he said.

Further, Bagley warned, “Eventually, too, the courts will lose patience with a presidential practice of dressing up lawbreaking in the garb of law.”

While he noted that Obama followed the law many times in his pursuit of Obamacare, “it’s hard for me to shake the fear that we are entering an era marked by the relentless chipping away at the rule of law.”

“I don’t want to seem alarmist: for now, such chipping away is modest. But it appears poised to become a durable feature of American governance, with consequences I can’t begin to anticipate. … It seems to me that the rule of law is a terrible thing to waste.”

Adler noted: “The Obama administration has repeatedly flouted legal requirements or acted outside the scope of its delegated authority when implementing Obamacare. I’ve argued as much in numerous blog posts, congressional testimony and in a chapter on what I call the ‘Ad Hoc Implementation of Obamacare’ in a new book, ‘Liberty’s Nemesis: The Unchecked Expansion of the State.’”

He said: “It seems to me the administration has strayed from the ACA’s text law when and where it thinks it’s difficult for critics to obtain judicial review, though other explanations are possible, too. In any event, the paper helps further a discussion about the appropriateness of what some consider administrative ‘self-help.’ This is not the first administration to take liberties with a statute when Congress refused to cooperate (see, e.g., what the Bush administration did with the Clean Air Act), and it won’t be the last.

“A real question is whether the Obama administration’s actions with regard to the ACA are an augur of what is to come in the future,” Adler said.

Here’s the help you’ll need to prepare your household for the realities of living under a centralized health-care system — order Dr. Lee Hieb’s “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare”

 

from WND http://ift.tt/1KQdzHA
via IFTTT

What Sanders’ socialist plan will do to your medical care

By Jane M. Orient, M.D., of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

There is one thing that supporters and detractors of Bernie Sanders might agree on: He seems to be honest about his convictions. He is an avowed socialist, instead of pretending to believe in a role for private insurance. Unlike Barack Obama, his answer to the question “Do you get to keep your insurance plan?” is plainly no. There won’t be any more insurance plans. Everyone will be on Medicare.

Other questions are tougher. Do you get to keep your doctor? That depends on what you mean by your doctor. You might be seeing the same person, in the same office. But he won’t be paid by you, and under Medicare “alternative” payment methodologies, he won’t be paid for what he does for you. He might, in fact, be paid for not doing things for you, to meet the savings goals of the New Generation Accountable Care Organization (affectionately known as New Gen ACO) in which you will be automatically enrolled.

You shouldn’t judge a politician by his looks, but people often do. Sanders looks like Grandpa – kind and benign. The face of Medicare, however, is Acting CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt. If you were Central Casting, you would probably cast him in a role like the one he has had in real life: a Goldman Sachs banker and CEO for a UnitedHealth Group subsidiary. Such people get their positions through ruthless dedication to the corporate bottom line. What does Sanders think of him?

Medicare is today’s single payer for the elderly and disabled. All the money is funneled through government, though it is first taken from hundreds of millions of taxpayers and disbursed through private contractors called carriers. Would Sanders replace that with a purely governmental entity like the VA, the single payer for veterans? In the VA, it is government bureaucrats who delay and deny care instead of corporate bureaucrats.

Veterans can go outside the system if they like, and pay privately. Medicare beneficiaries cannot, unless they see a physician who is opted out or disenrolled or excluded. What does Sanders plan to do about your liberty to use your own property to pay for goods or services to enhance or extend your own life? Doesn’t he, like Hillary Clinton, plan to “take things away from you, for your own good”? And does that include, like in Canada, your right to private care? It sounds as though it does. The additional $28 trillion in federal spending for his plan is supposed to replace insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payment. With the Sanders tax increases, the money available for discretionary spending will be much less, but if you do have any savings, would you be allowed to spend it on medical care? Or would that be unfair to the people waiting in long lines?

And there’s the $28 trillion question for Sanders: Where does the money come from? Even if we could squeeze every last dollar out of billionaires and transform all their wealth into medical care for the masses, we don’t have 28,000 billionaires – or 28,000,000 millionaires.

And what will Sanders do about the more-than-$40 trillion in promises Medicare has already made without provision for the revenue to pay for them? What does he imagine will happen when he adds on the demands of the entire rest of the population, and removes any brakes on utilization like copays and deductibles?

Incremental socialism is already bringing the system to the point of collapse. Hawaii is proposing a response to the fact that 30 percent of physicians are already refusing to work under Medicare: forcing physicians to accept Medicare patients or lose their license. Will Sanders try to conscript physicians?

What will he do about the worsening shortages of essential drugs? One hospital reportedly told physicians there would be no morphine until the end of March. Will Sanders nationalize the pharmaceutical industry? Would that help, or make things worse?

Insurance is voluntary. Socialism is force. How much force will Sanders use to take what remains of your doctors’ liberty – and yours? He needs to tell us that, as well what he intends to use to pay for it.

from WND http://ift.tt/1PJUQi0
via IFTTT

What march? Media ignore 15,000 people

Talk about media arrogance. Instead of taking professional responsibility seriously, mainstream media – and even “less-stream media” – now only cover events and report stories that comport with their own political point of view.

There was a time when citizens could look at print media – newspapers and magazines – and watch and listen to electronic media – television and radio – and know what was happening in the world around them.

That’s not to say there weren’t left- and right-leaning media, but there were enough of each so people could pick and choose and get the facts.

Now? Forget it. The mainstream is liberal-left, through and through, and the total number of outlets gets smaller ever year.

The result? Any semblance of truth and balance is gone.

The best and latest example is the annual Walk for Life.

It’s an annual walk through major cities by pro-life people – simply to show solidarity with the idea that abortion kills babies and needs to be stopped.

The marches are peaceful and powerful in their message, which includes invited speakers on the issue and those who have been there and regret it.

They have also had speakers who are living examples of what are called “botched abortions” – in other words, abortions that didn’t kill the child.

Yes, there are survivors of abortions and, yes, the system regards their being alive as a mistake.

There were marches this year in Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities across the country – despite the snow and rain.

The San Francisco Walk for Life West Coast on Jan. 23 was in its 12th year. Estimates are that more than 15,000 people participated – locals as well as those from neighboring cities and states.

As with all the walks, the purpose was, and is, to call attention to opposition to abortion – a killing machine, run primarily by Planned Parenthood, that takes the lives over a million unborn children annually.
In San Francisco, the heart of liberal politics, being anti-abortion/prolife is considered one of the worst sins. Anyone with beliefs like that is worthy of being ignored – and that’s exactly what print media did.

The local newspapers totally ignored the story.

Imagine: More than 15,000 people, peacefully walking through downtown at mid-day and not one word of media coverage!

As far as the press was concerned, it didn’t happen.

Over the years, I covered the walk on my radio program and interviewed co-founder Eva Muntean and many of their guest speakers.

I was never able to attend because of my job, but I knew many people who did. They said they were impressed with the peacefulness of the event, with the number of young people participating – men and women – and with the assistance of the San Francisco police keeping disruptive dissenters from causing problems.

I also know many of those walkers were members in good standing of Catholic parishes in the Bay Area – parishes where the pastors didn’t allow any publicity for the march, didn’t speak of the event, and who never, ever mentioned the dreaded word “abortion.”

In my opinion, those men in collars are chickens. They’re cowards and disgusting representatives of a faith that puts the sanctity of life above all. Yet they ignore that.

When I first began reporting on the walk, I was pleased to be part of informing the public of what was to take place and why. What I didn’t realize at first was that the entrenched liberal media in the San Francisco Bay area would virtually ignore the event. If they deigned to mention it at all, it was only if protestors caused a commotion.

It was the same this year, even though it was a drizzly day. Speakers included a Nigerian pro-life activist, Obianuju Ekeocha, who wants to end international financial aid tied to abortion; pro-life pastor Clenard Childress; Latin pro-life entertainer Emmanuel; and David Daleiden, whose undercover video and interviews with Planned Parenthood officials confirmed they’re more than willing to harvest and sell aborted baby parts.

You’d think having such newsmakers in town would attract reporters.

But, no. Newspapers ignored them. Not one word printed.

What kind of journalism is that?

I must admit that if the papers wonder why their circulation is falling, this is one reason. They ignore real news because it doesn’t fit their political template.

I finally canceled my San Francisco Chronicle subscription after 20-plus years because there was virtually nothing worthwhile in it.

I still get the Contra Costa Times but am close to canceling. The first section usually consists of four pages and the second section, virtually the same. Take out classifieds, legal notices, comics, self-help columns and full-page medical ads, and there’s nothing left.

Not even enough pages to wrap fish.

But what about the issue of the Walk for Life?

Remember, one of the speakers was the man behind the video expose that proved Planned Parenthood makes a living killing, dismembering and selling human baby parts.

Local media ignored that but a week later, when a Texas court indicted him, they covered that.

Imagine, indicted for exposing that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts (which is illegal) and Planned Parenthood – the seller – got off scot-free.

So far.

If there’s any justice, it’ll get shut down, defunded and the ghouls running the place will be behind bars. It has blood on its hands and should rot in hell and be tormented by the innocent souls of the children it killed.

I’d like to see the headlines on that!

Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.

Media wishing to interview Barbara Simpson, please contact media@wnd.com.

jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 99) {} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [99, 1]) } );

from WND http://ift.tt/1SuUO2A
via IFTTT