Right to Life of Michigan has created “Who’s That Senator?” – Episode 1.
It’s not a game! Senator Stabenow’s votes put innocent lives in jeopardy!
Please share with friends and family members.
Right to Life of Michigan has created “Who’s That Senator?” – Episode 1.
It’s not a game! Senator Stabenow’s votes put innocent lives in jeopardy!
Please share with friends and family members.
Michigan Nurses For Life
Saturday, October 7, 2017 – 8:00 AM – 12:30 PM
St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital
Franco Auditorium, 44405 Woodward Ave., Pontiac, Michigan 48341
Presented by Michigan Nurses for Life in cooperation with Educational Center for Life.
THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME!
“The purpose of Michigan Nurses for Life is
The purpose and objectives of this half-day conference will increase the participant’s knowledge of the history, legal status and current implementation of physician assisted suicide in the U.S., the role of conscience rights for nurses and health care workers and the importance of having a durable power of attorney for health care (DPOA_H).”
Nancy Valko, RN. Nancy is an Advanced Legal Nurse Consultant and has over forty years of nursing experience. She has served on medical ethics committees, appeared on many radio and TV shows and has written on these topics.
Jason Negri, JD. Assistant Director of the Patients Rights Council, speaks nationally on the practical and ethical aspects of end-of-life issues and provides training to those seeking to improve their ability to effectively communicate these issues.
8:00 AM – Registration/Breakfast
8:30 AM – Welcome
8:45 – 10:00 AM – “Death, Doctors and Dilemmas” – Nancy Valko
10:00 AM – Break
10:15 AM 11:30 AM – “Advanced Directives: Protecting Yourself and Your Loved Ones” – Jason Negri
1130 AM – Break
11:45 AM – 12:30 PM – Speakers: Questions & Answers
12:30 PM – Closing Remarks/Evaluations
Remit your name, address, City, State, Zip, Phone, and e-mail to:
Michigan Nurses for Life, 1637 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite G, Troy, Michigan 48084 (248) 816-8489 or register online at endoflifedecisions.eventbrite.com or make check payable to Michigan Nurses for Life. MUST REGISTER BY September 29, 2017!
Nurses: $25.00 – General Public $20.00 – Students $15.00. Includes Information Packet & Continental Breakfast. A Certificate of Attendance for 3.25 hours will be awarded to nurses.
Twitter’s ad suppression “was about the entirety of our message, from ultrasound images of life in the womb to criticism of abortion facilities.”
What absolutely blows my mind is knowing how much fraud takes place at Planned Parenthood, and yet, they still receive millions in federal funding.
WWF-funded park guards attacked this Baka woman’s village and assaulted her with pepper-spray. Photo: Survival International.
September 5, 2017 (Repost of Survival International Article by Stephen Corry)- please feel free to share)
Survival International has today abandoned trying to get a resolution to our formal complaint that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is violating international standards about corporate responsibility, and is reverting to using public pressure to try and stop the abuses.
Survival made the complaint in February 2016, in an attempt to stop the conservation giant from contributing to the mistreatment of tribal peoples, and it was admitted under the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) process in Switzerland, where WWF is headquartered. Surprisingly, this is the first time that an NGO has been seen as subject to the same guidelines as other multinational corporations. This is a great leap forward for those who think non-profits must also be held accountable for any negative consequences of their work.
The complaint detailed Survival’s allegations that WWF was party to the theft and control of the lands of Baka “Pygmies” in Cameroon, and that the Baka were suffering catastrophic levels of abuse as a result. We said that WWF had made no attempt either to apply its own policy on indigenous peoples, or to abide by the OECD guidelines, which are designed to prevent human rights abuses arising from corporate activities.
The guidelines are recommendations to multinationals which stress the duty to “avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts.” Multinationals must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and cannot hide behind a government’s failure to uphold human rights. Simply abiding by local legislation is no yardstick for anyone claiming a moral position: That’s what underpins the whole concept of human rights, and is why international laws and conventions are necessary.
Although WWF’s own policy requires that the organization ensure proper consent has been given to projects on indigenous peoples’ lands, and construct systems to handle problems, Survival believes that WWF has done neither.
Survival’s complaint was, firstly, that WWF had made no attempt to consult the Baka when it partnered with the Cameroon government to carve up the tribespeople’s forests into trophy hunting zones and national parks. The Baka were kicked out, and even now WWF won’t consult them over how these areas are managed. Secondly, we pointed out that WWF funds park guards who regularly assault, and sometimes torture and kill, Baka.
Tribespeople are victimized both when they dare to re-enter their land to hunt or gather food or medicinal plants, as well as when they’re outside park boundaries. The notion that this reign of terror aids wildlife protection is nonsense: Some WWF-funded guards are themselves poachers and the Baka have shown themselves better conservationists than WWF anyway.
Survival highlighted WWF’s violations of both its own 1996 policy and the OECD guidelines, but WWF responded that the guidelines did not apply in its case, and brushed off responsibility for failing to ensure Baka agreement to what happened to their land.
During the toing and froing over the complaint, the Swiss agency tried to stop Survival campaigning against WWF, and said it may be forced to halt the process if we continued (we did). But finally a mediation was agreed between the two organizations for June 6-7, 2017, in government offices in Bern.
Survival did wonder whether Switzerland, a country priding itself on never taking sides, was likely to arrive at any criticism of WWF. The latter is an important organization with a global turnover of three-quarters of a billion dollars (its U.S. chief executive is paid double the salary of the American president, and the international office alone has an income of nearly two hundred million Swiss Francs). Therefore, in an attempt to extract something helpful to tribal peoples, we reduced our several requests to just one: WWF must establish a high-level unit to ensure indigenous peoples’ consent to work on their land, foresee problems, and investigate and act on abuses. In other words, it should have an office to ensure compliance with its own policy.
The Bern mediation took place over two days of grapple and struggle in Switzerland’s largely intact medieval capital, famous for its sunken bear pits. The details are confidential, but nothing new was said. WWF repeated that the OECD complaint process should not be invoked for its work, and asserted that none of the Baka’s allegations were proven. It said it already had a complaint mechanism, so there was no need for the new office that Survival was calling for.
In reality, Survival has first-hand testimony, including from within WWF, confirming that our allegations are the tip of an iceberg which WWF has known about since at least 2001. The conservation giant even commissioned an independent report into the matter but when its findings confirmed the abuse its existence was denied.
WWF treats its policy on indigenous peoples as merely aspirational, despite the fact that it has existed for over twenty of WWF’s 56-year existence. It claims it is trying to do better and admits no wrongdoing.
Following the struggle in Bern, the next step was to see if a “joint outcome” could be agreed. Despite the best efforts of an accomplished mediator, this proved more tortuous. WWF sought to include justifications of its position, while rejecting Survival’s objections. The grappling continued for two months before grinding to a halt over one point: Would WWF accept that the Baka must agree to how the conservation zones on their land were managed in the future? Although this is no more than its own policy and the OECD guidelines require, WWF refused.
It’s not surprising. Although conservation organizations are supposed to ensure that the “free, prior and informed consent” of those whose lands they want to control has been obtained, this never actually happens. It’s what they fear. They know that being bound by such consent would take power out of their hands and give it to local people, who’ve been conserving these lands for generations. In spite of much dissimulation, Western conservationists in Africa know that requiring local consent will erode their control over huge areas and vast budgets.
Any confidentiality around the OECD process is obviously trumped by our duty to tell tribal peoples about policies which look great on paper but which threaten their future. They would clearly be wise to demand fair, explicit and binding written agreements – with time and advice to consider carefully – before accepting any conservation projects.
Coincidentally, at exactly the same time as this back and forth, Survival met with a company we’ve been campaigning against for years. We’ve supported India’s Dongria Kondh in preventing Vedanta plc from mining bauxite on their land. Now, following years of scrutiny and opposition, Vedanta claims it has bowed to change: It agreed that the mine could not go ahead without Dongria Kondh consent, which it accepted was not forthcoming.
It had abandoned the mine because the local people didn’t want it and, of course, because they could call on vociferous and organized national and international support to make their feelings heard. The contrast with WWF’s position couldn’t be starker. Some mining companies now accept the idea they cannot operate without the agreement of the local people; most conservation NGOs still don’t, they just pretend to.
Both the mining and conservation industries have a long history of stealing land, particularly in Africa, and if one thinks the latter might be justified because the land is subsequently “conserved,” then consider that both are in fact destructive. Both smash the local people who have often been protecting the land, and, through conservation’s commercial partnerships with loggers, both destroy large areas of the environment too.
The parallel can be taken further: Both industries tolerate or support armed groups to further their interests. In the case of the proposed bauxite extraction, these were called “goons,” and operated with police collusion. They intimidated and physically assaulted those who opposed mining. The conservationists’ goons are the park guards. They operate in collusion with the authorities, and also threaten and assault people.
If supporters of conservation are shocked by the comparison, and by the fact that some mining companies now occupy a higher moral ground than many conservation organizations, then they should be. The idea that you must ensure that local people have given their free, prior and informed consent to any planned project on their land is seeping through to a mining industry under pressure to change (with some notable exceptions). That’s just not happening in the big conservation organizations.
During the months of trying to thrash out a mutually agreed text to complete the OECD process, Survival tried the different WWF complaint mechanisms. We raised incidents of guards abusing Baka, and a new national park (Messok Dja in Congo) proposed without even telling the tribal people. At the time of writing, not a single complaint has received a substantive response. The best we’re told is that WWF will look into some of them. Even if the Baka didn’t fear reprisals, which they do, they would find it impossible to use any of these supposed complaint mechanisms.
Anyway, we are now exiting the bear pit with the conclusion that WWF has no intention of seeking, leave alone securing, the proper consent of those whose lands it colludes with governments in stealing. It has no intention of facing the fact that its own indigenous peoples policy isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on: It’s just public relations fluff used to rebuff criticism.
WWF is also incapable of controlling the forces it funds and unleashes on the hapless tribal people who have seen their land stolen, and it seems unwilling or unable to try. It continues to partner with destructive industries, such as logging. It continues to be responsible for guards employed to protect safari-hunting areas, where rich, invariably white, people (including a WWF trustee) hunt elephants, at the same time as poor tribespeople are beaten and abused for trying to feed their families. It continues to perpetrate its version of “fortress conservation” which, we believe, will lead to the destruction of conservation itself.
The OECD complaints process has proven incapable of stopping this. A cynic might think those charged with adjudicating OECD violations will be relieved: Governments don’t want complaints about flagship NGOs which they themselves fund. The conservation behemoths are accustomed to being fêted as progressives in America and Europe – the fact that they’re hated and feared in much of rural Africa must be kept out of sight.
Encouraged by a growing movement of concerned environmentalists, Survival has decided to revert to other mechanisms to get WWF to abide by the law and its own policy, to stop its abuse of tribal people, and to start working for the environment instead of against it. We have no illusions about how strongly the conservation industry will fight back. If this struggle were easy, it would have been won decades ago. Inept conservation has become one of the principal problems faced by tribal people today and has destroyed the lives of millions; it’s also laying the basis for its own destruction and great environmental damage. This is a struggle whose time has come and which should be engaging those who care about the environment and human rights.
Wealthy conservation organizations must start asking local people whether they want outside help to protect their own lands, and offering their resources only where they’re wanted. The power structure must be inverted. That would be a win-win for both the environment as well as the people. The losers though would be conservationists, unwilling to give up their own power and money, and justifying their reign with the claim that they know best, in spite of all the evidence that they really, really don’t.
 The Swiss government agency responsible for examining the complaint, SECO (which had itself funded WWF), delayed examination for several months because it believed WWF’s false claim that the matter was being resolved.
 In both cases, they can include individuals from the societies they oppress.
 WWF itself seemed confused about which ones were for what.
 WWF described one mechanism as available to anyone to voice complaints, including anonymously. However, our first call to the relevant number was met with the curt reply that it was for WWF employees only (something which the organization had specifically refuted). We were told that WWF would be “unlikely” to take the complaint further. (A more recent call was heard and we were told it would be passed on – so that’s a small step!)
(Ultrasound of 14 week old baby saved from abortion)
“At the abortion clinic! Good morning everybody! This weekend there was a very young woman who turned away from abortion. She’s only 19 years old and she has a 3 year old boy. She has finished high school but we need to help her continue her education and also provide her with a car. Mr. Miller spoke to her and her mother before they went into the abortion clinic, they decided to still go inside and even as she was already in a gown, continue to think and speak to her mother about everything that Mr. Miller had told them. Thank God she walked out of that place. her baby is 14 weeks old in the womb.
We need help. Someone had donated us a car just a couple of weeks ago and we were going to give this car to another family but this other family has four children and this car is too small for them so it would be better to give this car to this mother and if possible give the bigger family a van instead. Many times we have had to purchase cars to help the women because transportation is very important for them in Detroit, but we basically have almost no money and we cannot buy a car at this point. Know that the babies of these mothers that we help would be dead today if it wasn’t because of all the support from everybody that comes together to help us offer this help to the women at the door of the abortion clinics . We are all volunteers and we are a 501 (c)3 non profit. We need support please help us. Invite us over to your parish so other people know about us so more people could contribute as well. Pray for us pray for all of these mothers and their babies.
The picture that I enclosed in this posting is the picture of the ultrasound that Beverly Bellomo Dixon and team took at the ICU Saturday after this young woman left the abortion clinic. The mother texted it to me so happy that she didn’t kill her baby! She said ” the baby is weaving” sure he is!
If you have a van that you can donate or know someone please let us know. God bless you!”
PLEASE TAKE TIME TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE GOVERNOR TO STOP THIS INSANITY!
Flip-Flop on Church and State
East Central University, facing complaint, agrees to remove religious symbols from chapel. But after criticism, institution halts the removal.
By Scott Jaschik – July 3, 2017
“East Central University — a public institution in Ada, Okla. — has found itself immersed in a fight over separation of church and state. Last week, after receiving a complaint from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the university agreed to remove various religious symbols on permanent display in a chapel on campus. But then the university faced strong criticism from politicians and religious leaders in Oklahoma and reversed course. The university has stopped plans to remove the religious symbols, pending a further review of the issues.
“While it is legal for a public university to have a space that can be used by students for religious worship so long as that space is not dedicated solely to that purpose, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to display religious iconography on government property,” said the letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State to the university. “Please remove or cover the religious displays and items.”
Specifically, the letter cites the display of a Latin Cross and other crosses that are on permanent display in a way that the letter said “communicate[s] religious endorsement to members of the public by displaying religious items or messages.” The letter cited numerous court decisions about such displays.
Initially, the university said it would respond by removing the crosses. But then religious leaders started to speak out, saying it was fine for a public university to display crosses.
Randall Christy, founder of the Gospel Station Network, told The Tulsa World, “It’s time for Christian people to take a stand for our history and heritage. The idea that the cross excludes people is not true — it’s the opposite. The cross represents that all are welcome, that people of all walks of life are loved by God.”
On Friday, the university announced it was reversing course. “We moved too quickly,” said a statement from Katricia Pierson, the university’s president. “We regret not taking time to pause and thoughtfully consider the request and the results of our actions on all of the students, faculty and community members who we serve … This requires a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to the request. That will be our next step.”
Via email, Ian Smith, a lawyer for Americans United, said, “The university has said that they will be taking a closer look and thinking about things. That’s fine — we gave them 30 days to respond, and the letter only went out on the 20th. Ultimately, though, we expect that they will make the same decision since the law is definitively on our side.“
A spokesman for the organization said many public colleges have chapels in which various student religious groups put up crosses and other religious objects during religious services or events. Americans United has no objections to such displays, the spokesman said.”
“It is time for patriots to mobilize and fight back. Appeasement is not the answer.
First, contact the university’s president and politely voice your opinion. Second, contact Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and urge him to fight back against this godless scourge. And finally, the university’s alumni should immediately halt all funding. If they remove the cross from the chapel – we should remove “In God we Trust” from their bank account.”
Mark your calendar to join Right to Life of Michigan for a teleseminar announcing a new initiative to address abortions in the city of Detroit! The teleseminar is Wednesday, August 30, at 10:30 a.m.
RLM President, Barbara Listing, and Administrative Associate for Multicultural Outreach, Tina Teifer, will introduce the new initiative and provide you with details. This new initiative is the first step to increase our focus on the persistently high abortion rates in Detroit – 40 percent of reported abortions on Michigan residents happen in just Wayne County.
A press release announcing the initiative will go out after the end of the teleseminar, meaning you will be the first to hear the announcement! Conference Director, Natalie Collins, will also join us to give a brief preview of our Conference on September 21 in Kalamazoo.
The teleseminar will last about 30 minutes. It’s open to all prolife people, so feel free to share this information with.
There are two ways for you to listen in:
Use your phone and call (425) 440-5010; PIN Code: 662744#
Or, listen via the Internet: https://iTeleseminar.com/100930818
We are looking forward to speaking with you Wednesday, August 30, at 10:30 a.m.!
(Republished article from the Tawas Editorial page)
“This is getting nationwide attention. Where Is Tawas City , MI ?
Actually, it is on Lake Huron and has a population of Just over 2,000!! Go figure.
A Small MICHIGAN NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL…..Short and to the point…”
Kudos to Ken Huber for keeping it simple but speaking the truth!
According to Mental Health Daily (as well as many other medical sources), “It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been done developing in the mid to late teens. Then along came some evidence to suggest that development may last until at least age 20.” These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s. – Average consensus is approximately 25 years of age.
At what age is the brain fully developed?
“Although brain development is subject to significant individual variation, most experts suggest that the brain is fully developed by age 25. For some people, brain development may be complete prior to age 25, while for others it may end after age 25. The mid-20s or “25” is just an average age given as checkpoint for when the brain has likely become mature. It may seem logical that those aged 18 to 25 are completely mature, the brain still is maturing – specifically the area known as the “prefrontal cortex.” Changes occurring between ages 18 and 25 are essentially a continued process of brain development that started during puberty. When you’re 18, you’re roughly halfway through the entire stage of development. The prefrontal cortex doesn’t have nearly the functional capacity at age 18 as it does at 25.
What does the prefrontal cortex do?
There are a variety of functions for which the prefrontal cortex is responsible. Although significant development of the prefrontal region occurs during adolescence, experts argue that it continues until (at least) our mid 20s.
As I watch the news I’ve noticed that the “rule” rather than the “exception” are young people in their teens and/or early twenties that seem to be creating most of the havoc at protests and anti-protest movements, or even being active in the terrorist activities, not just in this country but abroad. So many of these young people, who still do not have the advantage of a mature brain, have been indoctrinated (brainwashed) into certain belief systems by parents, teachers, leaders, friends, false information via professors, social media, biased news sources, and government officials, who have no excuse other than ideology and their love of power and money, at their core. Leaders of countries who take advantage of the young while they themselves sit back, away from physical harm, and reap the rewards of gaining more power and/or money, at the expense of the lives of the young and other innocent victims as they encourage them to burn, loot, look toward destruction as a solution, engage in hateful rhetoric, or wrap a bomb around their waist.
Someone this week asked the question “What causes extremism?” In my humble opinion, I just stated the reasons. Oh yes, I’ve heard that “poverty” causes crime, and when it comes to terrorists, that we just need to love and hug them (according to the naive Hollywood attention grabbers who want to get another five minutes of fame), and the typical explanation that they are on the “right” instead of the “left”, or visa versa, of the political isle, but I strongly disagree with all these excuses because that is what they are – excuses! I’ve been to third world countries that know poverty worst than anything experienced in our country or abroad and their poverty only proved to me that poverty does not cause crime because the crime rates are very low except for recently with the rise of extremism caused by various anarchist groups.
We’ve all heard the phrase “leading the sheep to water”, but isn’t it the same thing when mature adults lead our young, whose brains haven’t even matured yet, into a life of chaos, crime, and murder?