Seen at Jon Rappoport’s blog, an interview with the doctor who performed the abortion (so you can’t get more definitive and authoritative than that).

“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”

“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”

Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”

“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”

[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]

[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]

Hacking: “In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”

“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:

“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”

If you’ve read or heard that the baby they used was a miscarriage or some such thing, and that we may as well benefit from the cell lines, then you’ve been lied to.

The baby was alive, it was infanticide, and a team of technicians was standing by to slice open the un-anaesthetized baby for purposes of experimentation.

There is more on this from a courageous interview of Biologist Pamela Acker.  Here is the interview.

If you’re the sort of person who would rather read it, this is a link of the transcript.

Again, you were lied to.  Don’t be so surprised.  Virtually everything you’ve ever been told by your government [and their ministers of propaganda, the media] is a lie.

Seen in the comments at David’s WoG.

‘The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia,” ‘

Ah, no!

What it says is that RKBA shall not be infringed.

In a prefatory clause it indicates ONE of the reasons why that must be true.

https://www.mic.com/articles/24210/gun-control-myth-the-second-amendment-makes-clear-guns-aren-t-just-for-the-military

Wishing it were otherwise, and trying to use SCOTUS lack of rulings on RKBA issues to make that wish come true, does not make it true.

What is rarely discussed by outfits such as Vox, is that for much of the Second Amendment’s existence, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not under ceaseless attack, so there was no reason for SCOTUS to get involved.

But that is not in alignment of Vox’s version of the truth.

But as noted leftist and anti gun Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.  This.  This.  And a thousand times yes.

I’ve pointed out before that firearms ownership was ubiquitous in the states.  The colonists had a RKBA because God granted it.  This is an axiomatic irreducible.  It is the predicate upon which everything else is based.  Without this presupposition, the second amendment makes no sense.

The framers needed only one reason to tell the FedGov to stay out of their business, and this was their main one.  The second amendment is not a treatise on the RKBA.  The second amendment is the states telling the FedGov not to interfere with the militia.  The militia brought their own armaments.

Thus, God gave the right to own firearms for hunting and feeding the family, just like he gave men the right to use rocks and spears and bow and arrow to do the same in ancient history.  If you want firearms for this purpose, God protects that right.  It is assumed in the second amendment, which doesn’t speak to hunting.

If you want cannon to protect your ship’s cargo, God gave you that right in the Holy Writ.  The second amendment doesn’t speak to cannon aboard ships of trade because it doesn’t have to.  It is assumed.

If you want to give your son a rifle to carry with him to school like the founders did for hunting and plinking and learning to be a man, that’s within your rights too, because God says so.

If you are 90 years old and unable to form with the militia but want a machine gun to defend your home, that’s within your rights too because God says so.

If you want firearms for 3-gun competition because you enjoy it, that’s within your rights because God says so, totally apart from forming with the militia.

Rights and duties are granted and given by the Almighty, the sovereign maker of the universe.  The second amendment is the states telling the FedGov to back off ever trying to regulate said rights because what’s at risk is the capability overthrow tyranny.

That’s all the founders had to say.  The second amendment is about tyranny.  Not hunting, not competition, not self defense, not pleasure plinking.  Those things are assumed, presupposed, and irreducible.  They are the basis for everything else – because God says so.

I’ve been rehearsing the history and battles of the war of independence, from the battle of Trenton (without which moral would have sunk to a deadly and possibly irrecoverable level for the continental army without so much as a single victory during the entire enlistment of the first round of soldiers), to the battles with Cornwallis in the South, to Yorktown.

One professor gives Lafayette a little too much credit by claiming that without Lafayette, victory in the war of independence would not have occurred.  I disagree.

Cornwallis suffered from an insurgency in South and North Carolina at the hands of men who knew the terrain, were accustomed to living there, and knew how to fight a superior force.  Fire and retreat, fire and maneuver, shoot from behind trees and disappear, shoot the British leading the patrols and bleed them of troops and morale, and so on.  If Cornwallis had stayed in the swamps and near the river valleys of South Carolina (e.g., the Pee Dee), Francis Marion’s insurgents would have eventually bled the army dry.  Then of course there was the American victory at Cowpens.  You can add to that the victory by American fighters aged 14-17 at King’s Mountain (the “Overmountain Men”), in which Cornwallis’ strategy of using loyalist troops to win was smashed to pieces.

Beyond that, Cornwallis suffered from mosquitos and the diseases they carry.  It has been estimated that at any time, one third of his troops were in the infirmary due to diseases or wounds suffered in battle with Marion’s forces in the bush of South Carolina.  His forces could never have won.  It would have taken a force size ten times what the British brought to have stabilized the states, and even that would have been only temporary.

Howe, in New York, was faced with having to retire to fortifications in the intemperate weather in the North, and while Washington’s army suffered in the weather, they managed to pull of a victory at Trenton.  They also managed to build an intelligence network second to none at the time, and after the battle of Trenton the continental congress sent fresh troops and logistics.

There was no hope of victory for the British.  A determined insurgency cannot be beaten.  They could only hope to prolong the war.

But then, that’s the issue isn’t it?  Lafayette was smart enough to listen to his men and he managed to learn the tactics of insurgency very quickly, employing those tactics with great success against the British.  While it may not be correct to say that the war of independence would not have been won without him, it is fair to say that it would have been prolonged and bloodier without him.

His commitment to America was laudable, and he’s even today more of an American than most Americans, and certainly more so than the vipers inside the beltway.

I keep hearing folks complain about 1911 reliability, and frankly I’m nonplussed every time I hear it.  Out of thousands and thousands of round through two 1911s, I’ve never had a single FTF/FTE.  No malfunctions of any kind, and that’s without extensive cleaning (although I do lubricate them before range trips).  Then again, these are high quality 1911s.

But I do enjoy listening to Ken Hackathorn and Bill Wilson discuss the history and engineering behind Browning’s design.  It was a gun built around the cartridge.  This is fine with me – I like the cartridge.  I always have, and I shoot it better than any other.

I haven’t tried it, but I don’t think I very much like it.  It seems to me that if you intend actually to use it, you’d better practice it a lot.

At WoG, David posts an anecdote of “nobody home” when a reader tried to renew his NRA membership.

Why, I wondered, would anyone do that?  I was reminded of the answer when I read the comments.

NRA certification as a trainer still means something and is required by a lot of ranges if you apply for work.  It also still matters on your resume / CV for folks who weren’t military.

We need to change this.  With the NRA sponsorship of gun control, their waste of membership dues, and the total corruption of the board of directors, we need another body that respects and will fight for the second amendment, as well as publish good content and develop certifications for trainers.

So, they did, but not without some weasel words to be able to deny they ever made the mandate in the first place.  This isn’t a very good look for Hornady, but at least they backed down.

For what it’s worth, as of this writing, I still haven’t gotten a response to my note to Steve Hornady.

Scared little puppies.

What should happen for things to be made right.

From Wes Rhinier.

Look folks, this is easy enough to me even without the extensive writing I have done on both the theological and medical aspects of the shot.

Anthony Fauci and his ilk knew what they were doing in spite of the fact that they’re now trying to hide the evidence.  They were sponsoring gain of function studies with awful viruses.  Let’s say it again because those words have been scrubbed by the CDC/NIH.  Gain of function.  Gain of function.  Gain of function.

I knew this a long time ago, and since I wrote about it, so did my readers.  It all began at Fort Detrick where they do biological warfare studies.  From there, the lady who managed the Wuhan Institute of Virology Laboratory coupled with a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  I still have the paper they published on my laptop.  Don’t tell me it didn’t happen.  I read the paper they co-authored.  I did this more than a year ago.

From there the work went to Harvard University, and from there the work went to Canada where the lady spirited off with the biological material to make the virus, causing the RCMP to open an investigation of her (too late, of course).  When the virus got to Wuhan, they weaponized it.

These things are not in dispute.  We all blame China for the virus, and they have their share of culpability, but this is essentially a virus created by Anthony Fauci and our tax dollars.

Don’t tell me none of this is true – I have the technical papers.  I studied the issue.  I know it’s true.  Period.  End of discussion.

Now.  Riddle me this.  Is Anthony Fauci, a known dog torturer, a reliable, trustworthy and morally upright person?

If you cannot answer that question in the affirmative, why on earth would you shoot an unknown substance into your child just because he told you to?

Found at Legal Insurrection.

This is a long read.  But if you’re interested in following the goings-on in his case, this is the longest, most detailed and best analysis I’ve found.

The case hasn’t started yet, but in effect, it has because these decisions will make or break the prosecution’s assault on Kyle.

UPDATE: Dean Weingarten has another analysis.