Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Trump: Bannon has 'lost his mind'

   
Autoplay: On | Off
President Trump on Wednesday ripped former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon for his incendiary criticism of the president and his family published in a new book. 
 
In a blistering statement issued by the White House, Trump said Bannon has "lost his mind" and claimed he had “no influence” within the West Wing.
 
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,” Trump said. “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.”
 
 
Trump sought to undercut the veracity of comments attributed to Bannon, once one of Trump's closest aides, that appear in the forthcoming book by Michael Wolff "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."
 
"Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books," Trump said. 
 
"Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was," the president added.  
 
Earlier Wednesday, excerpts from the book leaked that quoted Bannon describing a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between a Russian lawyer and Trump’s son and son-in-law as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.”
 
"They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV," Bannon predicted, referring to the president’s eldest son. 
The book, which purports to draw on more than 200 interviews, is full of explosive claims about Trump, his family and his staff that painted a picture of a campaign and administration wracked by chaos and infighting. 
 
Bannon, who was ousted from the White House last August, is quoted frequently as a central figure in the campaign and the administration.
 
The president’s statement came as a part of a full-court press by the White House against the book. 
 
“This book is filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who have no access or influence with the White House,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a subsequent statement. “Participating in a book that can only be described as trashy tabloid fiction exposes their sad, desperate attempts at relevancy.”
 
Stephanie Grisham, the communications director for Melania Trump, denied vivid claims in Wolffs’ book that the first lady was cried tears of sadness after Trump’s election victory.
 
“The book is clearly going to be sold in the bargain fiction section,” said Grisham. “Mrs. Trump supported her husband's decision to run for president and in fact, encouraged him to do so. She was confident he would win and was very happy when he did.”
 
 
   
LOAD COMMENTS (1,337)

Mother With Rare Cancer Who Lost Her Eye Delivers Healthy Cancer-Free Twins

 NATIONAL   DAVE ANDRUSKO   JAN 2, 2018   |   6:19PM    WASHINGTON, DC
In a whirlwind of medical activity, Jessica Boesmiller had an eye removed just three weeks after a November diagnosis of a rare ocular cancer and then gave birth less than a month later to cancer-free twins—a boy, Mason Dare, and a girl, Piper Marie.
Mrs. Boesmiller, the 37-year-old the Healthy Living Director at the Lake Norman YMCA, delivered her babies days before Christmas, and told the Daily Mail “she and her husband, a North Carolina firefighter, were relieved when tests confirmed the babies’ placentas had not been infected.”
Now the family, which includes two older sons, 7 and 9, is “waiting for the results of a CT scan and MRI to determine if the cancer has spread to other parts of her body,” according to the Daily Mail’s Kayla Brantley
As Brantley explained, ocular melanoma is a rare life-threatening form of cancer, “killing half of those diagnosed, especially when it spreads to the liver.”
Jessica and Mark’s decision to remove the eye on November 30 ensured the least amount of harm to the babies, whereas radiation would be an alternative.
A c-section was scheduled for the week before Christmas and an MRI and CT scan to determine the spread of the cancer and its stage was put off until a week after delivery.
When she experience blurry vision in one eye, Mrs. Boesmiller, who was 32 weeks pregnant at the time, thought it could be due to being in her eighth month.
“I expected to walk in there needing contacts, and I walked out of there with a diagnosis of OM,” Jessica told the Herald Citizen. Her eye was removed at Duke University Medical Center and she wears an eye patch. Mrs. Boesmiller will get fitted for a prosthetic eye within the next few months.
If the cancer has spread, Brantley explained, “Jessica will work with doctors to assess the stage of the cancer and plan our treatment which will likely consist of radiation therapy. ‘If it’s somewhere else, we’ll start another path of getting rid of that one,’ she said.”
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Writing December 28 on their Facebook page, Jessica said
Bliss. That is what each moment spent with these twins, my boys, and my husband feel like.
Blessed Joy and thankfulness. That is what I felt when I found out the twins’ placentas were negative for melanoma. Let me write that again. Twins are negative for this evilness that is called cancer.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Gallup 2017 Polling Data Found Only 29% of Americans Want Abortion Legal for Any Circumstance

 NATIONAL   DAVE ANDRUSKO   JAN 2, 2018   |   6:42PM    WASHINGTON, DC
As we’ve explained previously, Gallup annually conducts what it calls its “Values and Beliefs poll” which it then mines for the remainder of the year. Each subsequent post builds on the previous ones.
It’ll be a few months obviously before Gallup publishes its first interpretation for the new year. In anticipation let’s take a look back on the stories NRL News Today wrote about several of Gallup’s abortion stories in 2017 and see what they tell us. Let’s go from most recent to the oldest.
In September we published, “Moral acceptability of abortion varies widely among Protestant denominations, Gallup finds: ‘Mainline’ denominations far more accepting.” This was particularly useful in one respect– it reminded readers that there is no one “Protestant” denomination and that among the many denominations there is a vast difference on abortion
Two additional points. First, according to a different survey published by Gallup in July 2017, there are fewer Protestants that identify with a specific denomination and a growing number of “nones” who don’t have a specific religious identity at all. The fastest growing Protestant “denomination” is the non-denominational.
Barely a quarter of them (26%) find abortion morally acceptable.
Second, as noted in the quote above, this same caution must be exercised when talking about “Catholics.” Their position on the moral acceptability of abortion will vary along many grounds, most specifically how often they attend church.
On August 1, we wrote, “Another dubious interpretation of Gallup’s survey on abortion.” In that post we addressed the story, “On Abortion, Americans Discern Between Immoral and Illegal,” written by Frank Newport and Robert Bird.
The conclusion they want us to reach is that when push comes to shove pro-life people are less “consistent” than pro-abortion people.
They wrote
We combined data from the 2013-2017 surveys and found that almost half of Americans see abortion as morally wrong, with only 20% saying it should be totally illegal.
“That means that almost three in 10 Americans have the combination of attitudes that is our primary focus: viewing abortion as morally wrong but at the same time believing it should remain legal (at least in some circumstances).”
The other group holding contradictory attitudes — that abortion is morally acceptable but should be illegal — is very small (about 2%). Apparently, once Americans have decided that abortion is morally OK, there is little question in their minds that it should be legal.
What other way–more consistent with reality, in my opinion–could you interpret these numbers? That pro-abortionist are more willing to draw out the extremist “logic” of their position, something that is conspicuously absent in Newport’s and Bird’s analysis.
If abortion is morally acceptable, why would you put any limitation on when an abortion could be performed? When it comes to the unborn child, they’ve already decided that there is no there there, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
Those who take a pro-life position believe abortion is morally wrong but a portion believe there are very rare circumstances—typically when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest—when “abortion should be legal.” This is not a position they embrace; it is one to which they come very reluctantly.
But note! Pew Research found very, very different results about the public’s view of abortion’s morality.
“More than four-in-ten Americans (44%) say having an abortion is morally wrong, while 19% think it is morally acceptable and 34% say it is not a moral issue,” Michael Lipka and John Gramlich told us. (Remember Gallup said the figure is 20%.)
What explains such a huge difference? One is the question. Gallup’s is more abstract: is abortion “morally wrong ” or “morally acceptable”?
Pew asks people about whether having an abortion is morally wrong or morally acceptable? More than twice as many people say having an abortion is morally wrong as say it is morally acceptable. This question poses a reality check and people are far less likely to say it is morally acceptable to actually abort a child.
On June 2, we published, “Latest Gallup numbers very encouraging for pro-lifers.” Author Lydia Saad told us
There is no consensus among the American public for making abortion completely legal or illegal. Rather, the largest segment falls in the middle, saying it should be legal but with restrictions. …
This helps explain how the states have been able to pass a vast array of laws limiting when, where and how abortions can be performed. It also sheds light on how citizens can shift from electing a staunchly pro-choice president in Barack Obama to electing an avowed pro-life one in Donald Trump. For most Americans, the issue involves shades of gray, not black and white.
Well, yes, but…
We have long lauded Gallup for changing the way it asks a key question about abortion which gives a nuanced and far more accurate portrait of public opinion. They first ask, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
We learn 29% say “legal under any circumstances,” 18% say “illegal in all circumstances” and 50% say “legal only under certain circumstances.” That’s where most polling companies stop.
But Gallup then ask the middle group (the 50% who response “legal only under certain circumstances”) “whether those should be most circumstances or only a few, and, by nearly a 3-to-1 ratio, they choose only a few, 36% vs. 13%,” according to Saad.
“Thus, the slight majority of Americans (54%) favor curtailing abortion rights — saying abortion should be illegal or legal in only a few circumstances. Slightly fewer, 42%, want access to abortion to be unrestricted or legal in most circumstances.”
(The 54% is comprised of the 18% who say “illegal in all circumstances” and the 36% who said legal “in only a few circumstances.”) But the overarching point is that a majority of Americans do not accept the reasons 90%-95% of all abortions are performed!
Gallup is correct: that is why pro-life legislation passes and passes and passes. It is in tune with the electorate.
I look forward to Gallup’s 2018 analyses. We will analysis each iteration and tell you what the numbers actually tell us.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Irony: As Babies are Killed in Late-Term Abortions, Scientists Create Artificial Sperm to Make Babies

Irony: As Babies are Killed in Late-Term Abortions, Scientists Create Artificial Sperm to Make Babies

 OPINION   WESLEY SMITH   JAN 2, 2018   |   11:35AM    WASHINGTON, DC
It is a profound irony that as we allow even very late term fetuses to be aborted on one hand, scientists are finding radical nature-bending ways to assist people have babies–including methods that could shatter familial norms.
Newest possibility: Artificial sperm and ova. From the Guardian story:
Speaking at the Progress Educational Trust annual conference in London this month, Azim Surani, director of germline and epigenetics research at the University of Cambridge’s Gurdon Institute, said he and colleagues had passed a significant milestone on the path to producing sperm in the laboratory.
The team is thought to be the first to have reached the halfway point on the developmental path from human stem cells to immature sperm.
The study hints that one day it may be possible to manufacture sperm and eggs from stem cells or even adult skin cells.
This could, at least in theory, permit men to become biological mothers, and with genetic engineering, women to become fathers:
Fertility clinics in Britain are currently banned from using artificial sperm or eggs to treat infertile couples. However, if scientists perfected the ability to produce germ cells in the lab – something Surani predicts is at least a decade away – regulators could face pressure to revise the law to reflect the new possibilities.
For instance, two men could potentially have a baby that was genetically related to both of them by using skin cells from one to make an egg and cells from the other to make the sperm.
Then, a woman would be hired or would volunteer to become a surrogate mother of a baby with two male biological parents.
Or, if some get their way, one of the men could have a uterus transplanted so that he could gestate and give birth via caesarean section. That has been seriously advocated by such bioethics luminaries as Joseph Fletcher.
Now, add in CRISPR gene editing, three-parent IVF techniques, and the “no limits” mentality of some in science and society, and the atomizing Brave New World possibilities become endless.
By the way, the (phony) ban mentioned in the article is typical of what we see in biotech all the time: Outlaw what can’t be done today to permit the research to be perfomed that will permit it to be done. Then, once that succeeds,, lift the ban–meaning the prohibition was really meant to give false assurance and public space to work out the technology.
This is recipe for the transhumanist dream of radical individualistic procreation, baby manufacture, and radical family restructuring. If that’s what we want–I don’t think it should be permitted, but I don’t have a monopoly on wisdom–it is what we want.
We should at least have a serious societal discussion before these things can be done, to determine–through democratic means–the breadth and scope of regulations that should govern these technologies. Otherwise, we are heading toward an anarchic procreative society.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *