Social Media Scraping, Mandates and Other Atrocities of the State

So AI companies are ‘scraping’ your social media accounts WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL to make files of who you are with facial recognition. Yeah, yeah….you’re not a criminal so no harm, no foul. Really. There is no proof that your private information isn’t in the hands of an entity that will misuse it. And by ‘misuse it’ I mean illegally. There is pretty much no way you can force the AI companies to stop using this ‘information’ or erasing your file. What can you do about it? NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING.

It’s kind of like when someone on Facebook takes your profile photo and basic public info on your page and makes a new one pretending TO BE YOU. It’s happened to most of us. Before you go further, go tighten up your FB account.

And my personal favorite, laws passed that were PROVEN to be Constitutional, struck down by lofty agenda driven judges as NOT Constitutional. WHAT???? Case in point, the prolife “heartbeat bill” that has passed in a myriad of states, including mine. I TESTIFIED FOR IT SIX TIMES. This law would save at least 96% of all unborn persons that would have been aborted under the current laws. It took ten years to finally be signed into law. We had a constitutional attorney PROVE it was constitutional. PROVED IT. But still, struck down as unconstitutional. What can you do about it? NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING.

So then, what about other matters that we know are infringements on our civil liberties like mask mandates? This ‘pandemic’ has PROVEN our civil liberties will not be enforced. The state Constitution does not say the Governor can make laws. But here we are, still under ILLEGAL mandates. INTERPOSE, says the new patriot movements. And they are correct, we should. Nothing changes, the governors are still allowed to illegally force you to give up your freedoms. You’ll be arrested, canceled, lose your business. But, THE HELL YOU SAY!!! I’M AN AMERICAN, A PATRIOT!!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!!!! But no one will enforce the Constitution, even Biden said that “no amendment is absolute”. I would love to test that with Roe v. Wade.

On paper, actually a 245 year old parchment that freed us from tyranny, you would be correct, you have rights. But do you? No. Because judges, et al, hold your freedom in the palms of their hands and there is not one thing you can do about it. They have the same information we all do about the law and infringement of it. Talking heads – elected officials – can’t do anything because even when it’s been proven to be either Constitutional or unconstitutional, JUDGES YOU DID NOT ELECT OR APPOINT WILL STOP IT and can make YOU pay the petitioner’s legal fees. Happens with prolife laws all the time. Can you imagine if England paid the U.S. for the Revolutionary War?

Another consideration that prolifers have to deal with from time to time is abolitionists. They say to only back political candidates that will abolish abortion. Okay. That would be great, we all want that. But my dear abolitionist friends cannot tell me how that can actually happen with the way the legal system and government is set up. AT ALL. No plan, no glory. We seldom see them interpose, or rescue. Again, no plan, no glory, no opinion.

My dear Patriot, stop acting like you can stop any of this. You cannot. Interposition only stops what is currently happening on a very small scale. What stopped this crap nearly 250 years ago was not elections or committees or protests. IT WAS WAR. So please stop. I do enjoy learning more about our government from people WITHOUT A PLAN TO FIX IT. Most of us, if not all, are being watched by AI using social media to keep track of all of us. To them, everyone is an enemy of the State, we are guilty until proven innocent.

An election was stolen, there is enormous physical proof it was, but do you see anyone sweeping the White House of it’s offenders and putting them in prison? At all?

MAYBE IT’S TIME TO GET REVOLUTIONARY.

The False side of Freakonomics, or The Economic Abortion Query

Economics. It seems like such a safe subject, right? Think of the television commercials that look at the ‘cause and effect’ of being Phil Shifley – they show how the most unforeseen outcome can be the answer to a scenario; but Occam’s razor is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the answer is the most obvious [most sense or path of least resistance]. Essentially, unless the math doesn’t jive, it’s conjecture. The math of this abortion equation does NOT jive….how can this have possibly been calculated when ‘cause and effect’ cannot be totally determined. Incidentally, cause and effect are philosophical, not statistical.

The abortion economic question is this: Was abortion the answer to lower criminal activity BECAUSE of their mother’s present economic and social status?

The author of ‘Freakonomics’ wrote: “The very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives…….Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.”

Also know that the author commented that having a swimming pool in your back yard makes your child more likely to die than not having a pool. I might agree to that, and add that having a way to harm a child close at hand, whether it is a swimming pool or an abortion practitioner, to be a very BAD DECISION and can result in a child’s death. Further, the child can be taught to stay away from the pool, a fence with a locked gate can be installed, BUT an abortion is something a child does not accidentally fall into and drown. A choice was made FOR the child to die because of his/her economic status, and now the scenario of the swimming pool is safe from the child’s certain drowning death. To be clear, most poverty stricken families do not have swimming pools to be concerned about. Their argument is perverse and invalid, even offensive.

Following the absurdity of Freakonomics is, well, absurd. The likelihood of a child born in poverty becoming a criminal is the same as any person born, regardless of the child’s circumstances. Was abortion the answer to lower criminal activity BECAUSE of their mother’s present economic and social status? Some would assume that to be true. The truth is that most moms are much more concerned about their own poverty FIRST. The author of Freakonomics did not consider the truth of the situation, who actually aborts, and why.

QUESTION: Who here is responsible for how they were conceived? A compelling thought, a reasonable consideration. 

Of course I have a problem with this scenario using abortion to kill would-be criminals, and particularly with the author of Freakonomics, because IF his so-called research is correct, then every third-world child would never live outside the womb because they will always be in poverty, malnourished and ill. Billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates uses population control to decide who gets to be born in developing countries because of the unborn child’s circumstances and his/her parent’s economic status. Again, who here is responsible for how they were conceived? 

Even if there is just one parent, a child’s life can have meaning and true purpose. A parent’s job is to bring up a child to be a good friend, parent, spouse, worker, and citizen. Cause and effect makes for interesting conversation but should NEVER determine the outcome of life and death for anyone that cannot testify on their own behalf. 

Podcast: 12 Assumptions of Fetal Cell Line Vaccines, or Gestational Morality

Facebook is taking down the article, of course. Thanks in advance for listening!

Fetal Tissue Vaccines: 12 Faulty Assumptions

We saw this article this morning and we wanted to expound on these 12 items. First, we know there is aborted fetal tissue [dead aborted children] in the research/ development and testing of vaccines. Even the media and big tech can’t deny that fact. But the failure of thought about this is obvious: Dead babies in your vaccines don’t matter when you have been coerced by the media and government, forcing your hand to decide between life or death, of a virus that has a 99% survival rate. So shame on anyone that justifies getting jabbed with a vaccine that uses dead kids FOR ANY REASON.

All footnotes and citations for the original article can be found here. Also note that these covid vaccines are FREE. That alone should scare you to death.

So here are the 12 faulty assumptions, justifications, of fetal tissue use in vaccines, our comments italicized:

1. “Only a few babies were used.”

While each individual cell line contains the cells of just one baby, many aborted babies are used in the process of creating a cell line. For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that there were 76 aborted babies used in just one vaccine study. Furthermore, with cell line WI-25 we know that it was the 25th specimen from the 19th baby. The two cell strains used by Covid vaccines are named HEK293 and PERC6. The name HEK 293 stands for a Human Embryonic Kidney from the 293rd experiment — we can be confident that more babies preceded the final baby used for HEK293.

It is clear that assumptions are exactly that, assumptions with nothing to back it up. Clearly, we need to do our due diligence for ourselves, our children, our elderly.

2. “The babies were of a very early gestation.”

Most of the babies whose tissue formed the basis of the different vaccine cell lines, were over 3 months when aborted. For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that all of the 76 unborn babies used in the study were 3 months or older. At 3 months, a baby is fully formed: “she has begun swallowing and kicking… facial muscles are getting a workout as her tiny features form one expression after another…”

It wouldn’t matter if the aborted child was a few weeks or not. A baby is a baby, is a BABY, IS A BABY at any gestation. Why does it make a difference to vaxxers? To justify using dead, aborted children, of course.

Parties to a murder cannot ethically donate the body of their victim to research. Thus it follows that no meaningful consent exists. (Though the mothers involved are often, to varying extents, victims themselves.)

A dead child cannot give consent to use their body for research like born people can. So let’s do the math. The masses believe that these aborted persons were killed in the 60’s and/or 70’s. NO ONE was asked if they wanted to donate their dead child to research. An abortive mom may have been asked to donate after Planned Parenthood was CAUGHT SELLING ABORTED BABY PARTS FOR PROFIT.

4. “The baby was dead when the tissue was taken.”

With fetal tissue research, cell death renders the tissue unfit for purpose: tissues and organs must be harvested “within 5 minutes” and at times this occurs while the baby’s heart is still beating — this was also revealed during a Planned Parenthood court deposition. Thus, harvesting the organs can be a type of torture beyond the normal abortion procedure. Though we have no definitive proof live harvesting occurred specifically in the making of vaccine cell lines, since it is “no rare event”, there are legitimate grounds for concern.

True, there is no “rare event”. Also note that these children are used for embryonic stem cell research at major universities all over the country as well as big pharma. Using FRESH fetal tissue is much like organ donation; a person cannot be DEAD when their organs are harvested for transplant.

5. “Some were from miscarriages.”

“The requirements for ‘freshness’ of many human foetal tissues” mean it is extremely unlikely any were from miscarriages. “To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used…”

See comment on #4.

6. “Using a dead body is distinct from abortion.”

Some imagine that those involved in creating the cell lines have nothing to do with the abortion itself. However, in advance of the abortion of a fetus whose tissue will be used for research, there are a number of steps that take place. These include obtaining consent, conducting genetic screening, selecting the abortion method and other steps for optimal harvesting — all of which impact the abortionist’s conduct, creating considerable interplay with the agent seeking human material, who thus “becomes to some extent an accessory”. A parallel to Saul at Stephen’s stoning exists — Saul didn’t throw a stone, but as a consenting bystander he was not without moral guilt. In cases of live tissue extraction, research is still more directly connected to murder.

Again, using the Planned Parenthood’s harvesting FRESH aborted children for PROFIT case, it was noted in some of the undercover videos that the abortionist had to abort in a different way to procure these parts for sale, which is ILLEGAL.

7. “No one now profits from the abortion.”

Companies who developed the cell lines continue to be rewarded by their use, including in vaccines. Thus direct benefit accrues to agents complicit in the original murder.

Literally EVERYONE, but the dead child, profits from abortion. Abortion is a business with lobbyists and salespeople.

8. “Vaccines don’t contain the child’s actual cells.”

Vaccines produced in cell lines contain fragments of the child’s DNA — one study even found “a complete individual genome” of the aborted child. The divided cells the vaccine was grown in would have been the child’s as she grew.

Yes, you will have another person’s DNA in your body. And that person was murdered for your vaccine.

9. “No extra abortions are necessary.”

Despite claims to the contrary, normal cell strains “are in fact ‘mortal’”, bound by the “Hayflick Limit” of about 50 cell divisions. Since HEK293 becomes cancerous after time, it will need replacing — just as other early cell strains did. The use of vaccines eventually creates a need for further abortions to replace depleting stocks.

IT IS UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT A SINGLE ABORTION IN THE 60’S OR 70’S FEEDS BIG PHARMA FOR ALL VACCINE RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING.

10. “The abortions were from decades ago.”

Though most abortions for vaccines were from before the 80’s, time cannot make murder moral. Moreover, a new Chinese cell line, WALVAX-2 was created in 2015, and as already explained, more lines will be necessary.

Again, it is unreasonable to even think that no more aborted persons are used in the continuing pursuit of toxic vaccines.

11. “No further babies are suffering as a result.”

While fetal tissue vaccines are widely accepted, general fetal harvesting is legitimised and impossible to ban — so it has grown instead, leading to many more babies suffering. For example, in 1982 a container of 16,500 fetuses was found at the US home of a former laboratory owner. In 2003, the Dutch company behind HEK293 sought aborted babies as far afield as New Zealand and Australia. Journal articles discuss “the fetal tissue economy” in Britain. In 2019, 2,200 fetuses were found at an abortionists home and the court depositions of Planned Parenthood staff showed harvesting continues at scale.

An unborn person suffers pain during their abortion death. It has been proven in ultrasounds that babies retreat from the abortion instruments. Wouldn’t you suffer if your were dismembered while alive? Babies feel pain. Period.

12. “The ‘greater good’ outweighs concerns.”

To acquiesce with evil against an innocent unwilling victim for the sake of communal blessing enters dark waters — all historic child sacrifice is based on this premise. “However, it may then be argued that these baby body parts would otherwise be wasted, thrown away. But not only does this justify abortion, but it is pure utilitarianism, that says pretty well anything is justified as long as the end is (potentially) good. In good medical science the end does not justify the means.”

Could not agree more. We know too many people who are getting the covid vax for the “greater good”, virtue signaling for others to see. Don’t buy it. They aren’t getting jabbed FOR YOU. And if they say that, simply say NO THANK YOU and why.

Our Conclusion

The moral implications and Christian implications far outweigh the secular truths that aborted humans are just as human as YOU ARE and deserved a life full of love and days. Abortion is evil enough, but using their dead bodies for any reason is unacceptable and despicable.

Podcast: 5 Things the Pandemic Taught us, The 14 Day Lockdown Anniversary

FAILURE OF ABORTION: A Five Part Series to Forgive, Restore and Heal After Abortion | Part Two The Public Prolifer

Today, we continue with the series with Part 2: Failure in Right Decisions. How many bad decisions – choices – does it take to get women to the abortion mill? That answer is different for everyone.  The failure of abortion is always the child was killed. But what about the mom? Can she be healed? Forgiven? YES. Stay tuned for the five part series including: 1. Failure in Right Relationships 2. Failure in Right Decisions 3. Failure in the System/Government 4. Failure in the Church 5. Failure in Forgiveness From the front lines of the abortion wars, Rev. KH discusses all things prolife, anti-abortion, Christian and conservative. A changed mind is a terrible thing to waste. keeplifelegal.com Failure of Abortion Series facebook.com/keeplifelegal
  1. FAILURE OF ABORTION: A Five Part Series to Forgive, Restore and Heal After Abortion | Part Two
  2. FAILURE OF ABORTION: A Five Part Series to Forgive, Restore and Heal After Abortion | Part One
  3. FAILURE OF ABORTION: A Five Part Series to Forgive, Restore and Heal After Abortion | Introduction
  4. Atheist Day Explained by an EX-Atheist, Part Two
  5. 12 Assumptions of Fetal Cell Line Vaccines & Research, or Gestational Morality