Dec 10, 2019 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
LibertyUnderFire warned in June 2018, “If Big Tech can control the information flow then they can also influence the outcome of the midterms and even future presidential elections should they succumb to a collective political view.” Big Tech is defined as Internet giants, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube. They have. New evidence shows them poised to influence the 2020 presidential election potentially shifting 15 million votes to their favored candidate without leaving a paper trail.
So says Robert Epstein, Ph. D, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavior Research and Technology, probably Americas leading authority on Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs, having published widely in the area since 1981. What makes him especially credible is that he is left on the political spectrum, a Democrat, and a “published supporter” of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why did he testify before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 16, 2019, revealing this threat to our national security, likely to hurt his own political party? He explained, “I value my country and democracy more than I value any party or candidate.”
He offered three disturbing findings from his extensive research. First, “in 2016 Google’s search algorithms likely impacted undecided voters in a way that shifted at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton, whom I supported. I know this because I preserved more than 13,000 election related searches prior to election day and Google’s search results were significantly biased in favor of Secretary Clinton. I know the number of votes had sifted because I conducted dozens of controlled experiments that measure how opinions shift when search results are biased.”
Dr. Epstein continued, “I call this shift SEME, the (Search Engine Manipulation Effect) which I first published in the proceedings of the National Council of Sciences in 2015. Biased search results can easily produce shifts in the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80% in some demographic groups because people blindly trust high ranking search results over lower ones. SEME is an especially dangerous form of influence because it is, in effect, subliminal. It also leaves no paper trail for authorities to trace. It’s an example of a short lived or esemeral experience. That’s a phrase you’ll find in internal emails that have leaked recently from Google. I now am studying seven such manipulations like SEME and, unlike Billboards, or those Russian placed adds, these manipulations are invisible and non-competitive. They’re controlled entirely by Big Tech companies and there is no way to counteract them.”
Second, “on election day in 2018, the Go Vote reminder that Google displayed on its home page gave one political party at least 800,000 more votes than it gave the other party. That reminder was not a public service, it was a vote manipulation.”
Third “in the week leading up to the 2018 election bias in Google search results may have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes, spread across many races, to the candidates of one political party. This number is based on bias in data captured by my 2018 monitoring system which preserved more than 47,000 election related searched conducted by a diverse group of American voters.”
Dr. Epstein shared how Go Vote, just one of several Big Tech’s subliminal messaging techniques, was used in the 2010 and 2018 elections. Google published the results of its 2010 election interference in 2012. “It had 60 million Facebook users involved. They sent out a Go Vote reminder and they got something like 360,000 more people to get off their sofas and go vote, who otherwise, would have stayed home.” The Go Vote technique was not used in 2016 because these companies were over confident that Hillary would win without it. But it was used again in the 2018 election. “We have lots of data to support that….” Epstein estimates that had Mark Zuckerberg used this technique in 2016 it would have given Hillary Clinton an additional 450,000 votes.
Although Go Vote was not used in 2016 other messaging techniques were, resulting in a manipulative range of “2.6 million rock bottom” and possibly up to 10.4 million votes moved in favor of Hillary Clinton. The fact that Hillary Clinton with Big Tech election interference did not overwhelm Trump, documents how fearful voters were of her.
Dr. Epstein warns that “in 2020 you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out. And the messages that they are using are invincible, they are subliminal. They are more powerful than most any effects I have ever seen in the behavioral sciences and I have been in the behavior sciences for almost 40 years.” Adding later, that they are likely to be aggressive in the other subliminal techniques as well, naming “the search engine manipulation effects, the search suggestion effects, the answer broad effects, [and] a number of others. They control these and no one can counteract them. These are not competitive. These are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.”
Given Big Tech’s election interference in three past elections and the refinement of additional subliminal techniques giving them the power to shift 15 million votes to a favored party, it is easy to see who will chose future presidents without our knowing votes were shifted. Outside retaining elections to persuade us that we participated, elections would become meaningless.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 3, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one has been more outspoken against globalism than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the antithesis of their plans for world government. This is the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists now praise Trump’s USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades-old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe, first economically, then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 USMCA rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with USMCA? It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…” Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018).
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our Republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism except his USMC Agreement—everything else he has done demonstrates otherwise. He has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he called “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own. And in time will be linked with the Rockefeller’s and George Soros as having helped bring about world government.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 26, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” applied in practice more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above quote. The result, “share the wealth,” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.
William Bradford, Plymouth colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the 102 Pilgrim Mayflower passengers and the financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1, 1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…”
During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who worked.
The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. Half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed by the contract. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The contract, Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….”
In other words, socialism made strong men lazy. Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by night and day….” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger.
The “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Harvests were not bountiful in that year nor the next. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.
After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end….”
The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor … could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not.
In other words, the free market (capitalism) is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor.
Secure property rights are the key to prosperity for all who wish to work. When this right is threatened by confiscatory taxation or outright confiscation of property, or by excessive government rules and regulations governing such, whether planned as in a contract enforced by the government at Plymouth, or gradual as in our day, work and production slow and can eventually stop. The answer for them was to extract socialism immediately from their midst, as it is for us today as well. May we have the wisdom to do so?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (Ibid).
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children to have them. Worse, the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 4, 2019 | Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Last January 2019, Americans were stunned when they heard Virginia Lt. Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.) ex-physician casually infer infanticide after a botched abortion. After birth, he said, “the infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” Until that moment few thought abortion could degenerate to infanticide.
But infanticide is back on the front lines in the weeks-long trial of pro-life journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). They are charged with filming casual conversations of Planned Parenthood practicers in the Summer of 2015, without their permission, regarding the selling of aborted body parts. In it the desire to have the baby born with a heart beating is preferred. The two face 15 felony counts which, if convicted, could result in up to ten years in prison. Sadly, this story is mostly ignored by the national presses but LibertyUnderFire views it as a giant sign of national moral decay when a population is willing to accept infanticide at all. Many believe the wrong people are on trial.
Daleiden and Merritt argue that “California’s penal code, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, excludes any conversation that can be reasonably overheard or recorded.” (Brandon Showalter, “Daleiden hearing: Planned Parenthood staffer admits to supplying aborted body parts to broker,” Sept. 5, 2019) They also site Section 633.5 which “allows the covert taping of confidential information when collecting evidence of violent crimes.” To them abortion is a violent crime to the one being killed, more especially, babies with heartbeats outside the womb.
When fetuses are known to be for sale, measures are taken to preserve them in the best sellable condition possible. In one audio clip an “abortion consultant is heard saying that abortionists will dilate the cervix to get an intact baby if they know a researcher wants a whole body.” Another “shows a former medical director for Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles flippantly talking about prices of fetal remains while sipping wine and joking about wanting a ‘Lamborghini.’ She also spoke about adjusting abortion procedure technique to make it less ‘crunchy,’ therefore keeping baby body parts better intact” (Deborah Bunting, “Abortionist Testifies That Babies Likely Born Alive in Abortion to Harvest Their Body Parts for Sale,” Sept. 20, 2019).
But the most damning testimony came from Dr. Forrest Smith, an obstetrician gynecologist, admitting having performed at least 50,000 abortions over 25 years of practice. Called by the defense as an expert on the subject, he said that “not only did Daleiden’s and Merritt’s now-famous videos expose the gruesome truth about the abortion industry’s trade in fetal body parts, but that things are even worse than they knew.”
Smith told the San Francisco court that “it is almost certain that some of the abortionists featured in the undercover videos deliberately altered abortion procedures in a way that both led to the birth of living babies with beating hearts, and put women at risk. The goal in these cases would be to obtain fresher, more intact organs.” Adding: “There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births.”
One reason for such certainty was that the safest normal way to abort was to get in and out as quickly as possible. Changing procedures is risky to the mother. Normally one uses digoxin to stop the babies heart before abortion as that defines death. “The baby’s heart will continue to beat for six-and-a-half to seven minutes.” Most abortionists want to ensure that the baby is fully dead before extraction. Intentionally failing to use digoxin signals that they want the baby born live. Another is the over use of misoprostol which shortens delivery from three days to one by the enlargement of the cervix. This apparently is what Planned Parenthood was doing which is sometimes referred to as fetus falling or fetus expulsion—this often live.
Smith testified that “the proper standard of care for babies born alive during an abortion was to institute promptly all resuscitative care.” Adding, “If this was not done, the fetus dies by neglect.”
Dr. Therese Deisher, confirmed Smith’s testimony. “They want those babies coming out with beating hearts,” she said, adding that Smith’s testimony made it “very clear that this is intentional” (“Abortionist testifies at Daleiden hearing: ‘No question…some of these fetuses were live births,’” Sept. 18, 2019). Fetus expulsion is the easiest way to get a whole body intact and alive.
Why the importance of a beating heart to researchers? “The babies’ hearts have to be harvested while still beating … as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in ‘contracture,’ the heart’s cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.” Institutions receiving beating hearts, like Stanford University, must immediately place them on a Langendorff perfusion machine to insure their continued beating ((Stephen Wynne, “Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors,” Oct. 11, 2019).
The trial is expected to continue through mid-November and the issue is not getting the coverage a “civilized” nation deserves. One thing is clear. Infanticide for profit, now more common place than imagined, would never have been tolerated by any generation in American history prior to our own.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
