The Order of Rights Movie

Read more and donate here…

Abortion violates our Constitutional Right to Life! Help us to speak for those who have no voice!

There have been successful crowdfunding campaigns to make films glorifying abortion. Our campaign needs help and support to make a film glorifying life. We will show how the baby does have a “Right to Life” as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Please join us with a donation to help make this courtroom drama which offers truth, hope, mercy and healing!

Film Synopsis

“The Order of Rights” is a Pro-Life film that is in pre-production. The story centers around Emma Stein, a pregnant single girl who has been advised by her mother to have an abortion. Despite the objection of the child’s father, Ethan Carpenter, and his promise to help her, she decides to go ahead with the procedure. When Ethan and his family file a lawsuit on behalf of the child’s right to life, the drama escalates as Emma’s mother, Kerri, contacts a friend in the Associated Press. Before long, the case is mired in media frenzy.

The court has to decide whether the child in Emma’s womb is a person or not, and if so, if it is endowed with the unalienable rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The title, “The Order of Rights” refers to the order in which the categories of rights are deliberately listed in the document: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

The film is also a conversion story of a young woman who was brought up in a secular/humanistic household. The script does not portray the family as evil however. In fact, they are decent people who believe strongly in human rights according to their code. The film, in a sense, treats them with respect. It honors them in the same way that Paul honored the men of Athens in the book of Acts 17:16-34. The purpose is not to vilify but to respectfully confront the ignorance of truth.

The young man in the story was raised in a Christian household, has been a scholar/athlete, and has always been a model of Christian virtue. He has to come to grips with his own frailty and pride, as he struggles to accept the forgiveness of Christ, and just as importantly, to forgive himself- and to move forward despite his fall.

The end has a twist, as it takes what appears to be utter defeat and failure, and transforms it into much deeper victory of personal conversion.


The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 03/06/15

The Watcher’s Council

Jon McNaughton on Obama’s Foreign Policy…

With thanks to Moonbattery, NoisyRoom would like to add to the Weasel festivities this week:

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. – George Orwell’s 1984

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind. – Jim Morrison of The Doors

The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. – Malcolm X


This week’s winning essay, The Noisy Room’sNet Neutrality: “Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand”, takes apart the Obama dominated FCC’s plans to ‘regulate’ the Internet and turn it into something unrecognizable. Here’s a slice:

We keep hearing, from the saviors in Washington, DC, how government regulation is the answer and how “evil monopolies” (created, incidentally, by other government regulations) are responsible for all our trials and tribulations and the “fundamental unfairness” of the Internet as she is currently wrote.

Obligatory movie quote:

“No. No government. I know those people. Absolutely not.” – Col. Ira Kane

Yeah, it’s a movie. It’s also absolutely right.

The founder of Broadcast.com, Mark Cuban, has recently been vociferous in his opposition to so-called “Net Neutrality” with his most recent public appearance on the subject in an interview where he breaks it down. His effort to “plain-language” the argument notwithstanding, and frankly, it’s a subject that should not be oversimplified, he laid out the unintended consequences dominoes and how this “everything is equal” push plays out in terms of common services.

Now, you might want to shrug Mark Cuban off as “some rich guy who owns a sports team” and clearly that’s being done a lot, but don’t forget how he got rich: he pioneered live broadcasting over the Internet. He’s not some political hack, evil cable company exec, or mushy thinking me-too “fairness uber alles” flag waver. He is, for once, someone who knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Net Neutrality, like so many political labels, is a “fair sounding” name that hides the actual motives and consequences of the real world implementations we will experience after the seemingly inevitable adoption of this latest government overreach.

It won’t be fair. It won’t be optimum. And the right answer will never even be mentioned, never mind entertained: deregulate the cable and broadband space to eliminate the protected monopolies.

The broadband space needs more competition, not less; needs less regulation, not more. Companies like Google laying fiber? Cox, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast suddenly no longer have a free pass.

Otherwise? The cynical and dystopian view?

One of the unavoidable dominoes will be broad censorship. Once the deprioritization of broadcast packets leads to the epic traffic jam that will reduce the Web’s US speeds to worse than those found in Europe, the government of the day will, once again, have to “save us” from this “unforseen” outcome and their clever plan will include limiting who can “legitimately” have bandwidth preferences, since clearly “legitimate” news outlets need to bypass the buffering jams that will afflict TV signalling and once dot-gov starts adjudicating who’s a “real” news or other “essential” service, licensing will naturally follow, and then “standards” of what is “acceptable” traffic.

At which point, whichever political party is in power at that time will have the distinct advantage of licensing whomever they deem to be more politically correct in their eyes. “Neutrality” on the ‘Net? Yeah, not so much.

We’re in the hands of fools and corrupt bureaucrats. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission held a faux meeting on open Internet rules and access to broadband Internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai made a statement before the FCC vote to take unprecedented control over the internet with a secret plan. Yes, secret. Secret as in no exposure to the public or Congress prior to its enactment. What follows is the transcript of his comments – in echoes of Obamacare, this had to pass before we could know what was in it. Except, they are still keeping it under wraps. It must be very, very bad indeed.

From Breitbart:

“The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through ‘an unusual secretive effort inside the White House.’ Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a parallel version of the FCC. Their work led to the president’s announcement in November of his plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report says blindsided the FCC and swept aside months of work by Chairman Wheeler toward a compromise. Now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say, ‘We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in D.C that the only thing that could stop FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. Congratulations. what the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials.

“But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process altogether. They were being played for fools. And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan, and ‘asked’ the FCC to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in, in recent days, to make last-minute filings, registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet, the American people, to this day, have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.

“Especially given the unique importance of the internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I ask for the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Chairman did the same. According to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public. Still, the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so the American people can find out what’s in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.

“We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now. The backers of the president’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.

“These aren’t my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn’t understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it. but the American people clearly do. The proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I’m optimistic we’ll look back on today’s vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that’s served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, But I do believe its days are numbered. For all of those reasons, I dissent.”

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Jim DeMint in the Daily Signal with If Not Now … When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything? submitted by Ask Marion. As the man who, along with Sarah Palin, was pretty much responsible for the victory in the 2010 midterms that resurrected the GOP from the grave, De Mint is definitely in a position to look at the Republicans in Congress today and wonder if they stand for anything.

After lying to their supporters again in 2014 about ow they would dismantle President Obama’s radical agenda and being rewarded with majorities in both houses of Congress, they’ve reneged on everything they said they would do at election time. Can they ever be trusted again? Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


Is Moscow Behind Isis?

By: JR Nyquist
New Zeal

From JRNyquist.com


Marius Laurinavicius is a senior analyst at the Eastern Europe Studies Center in Vilnius, Lithuania. His work deserves special notice. Last month he wrote a piece titled, Putin’s Russia. Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to [the] Islamic State? Suspicious facts about the Wahhabi (Islamist) revival movement of the Soviet Union are here set down. We are given key insights into the relationship between the Islamic State and the KGB/GRU, including its strategic objectives. Here we find a brainchild of the KGB, modeled on the fake anti-Communist movements of other times and places. As in the 1920s with Operation Trust, the 1970s through the 1990s saw the creation of KGB-controlled anti-Soviet front organizations, from Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia to Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

Creating false opposition movements in Russia is an old game. It should be expected that Moscow would create one or more KGB-controlled Islamic fronts. These have proven especially useful to Moscow, especially with regard to the Chechen alibi back in 1999 and in Syria today.

According to Laurinavicius, the Islamic State is part of Moscow’s plan. He quotes at length from a 4 June 2013 Radio Liberty interview with Akhmed Khalidovich Zakayev, a former Chechen prime minister. Here we learn about dead Islamist leaders (Dokka Umarov) returning to life, double agents and complex provocations. We learn about KGB-controlled Islamists showing up in Syria under the flag of the Islamic State. One may ask what this means. Zakayev’s puts Moscow’s strategy into perspective with the following question: “Can you imagine what position the Western leaders, who made the decision to lift the arms embargo for the [Assad] opposition, will be put in?” Suddenly, very bad terrorists appear in Syria, effectively undercutting the West’s opposition to Assad’s Russian-backed regime.

Zakayev’s interviewer, supposing this to be a paranoid conspiracy theory, asked incredulously if Dokka Umarov was really connected with Russia’s special services. Zakayev answered: “We have said so many times. In 2007 Umarov declared war on America, Great Britain and Israel. Before this statement, Dokka was on the radar of Russia’s special services, but was released by some miracle…. Umarov is fully under the command of the Russian special services.”

As Laurinavicius explains in his article, Umarov did not emerge as the apparent leader of ISIS in Syria. But Omar al-Shishani (a.k.a., Tarkhan Batirashvili) was the man of the hour, and al-Shishani’s admits he came to Syria under Umarov’s command. Laurinavicius also clarifies al-Shishani’s background. The man was not a simple Georgian soldier fighting the Russians, but a terrorist agent provocateur who was actually helping the Russians to justify their annexation of Abkhazia. According to al-Shishani/Batirashvili’s Orthodox Christian father, Tarkhan did not go to Syria because of religion. He simply wanted to make money.

Laurinavicius’s previous article, Putin’s Russia. Why it is worth[while] to reconsider links between [the] Kremlin and international terrorism, also provides important information.

Like the moon, Russia has a face that everyone sees and a dark side we cannot see. Today this face is not Communist. It pretends to be conservative, perhaps nationalist and even pro-Christian. Meanwhile, Russia’s dark side is not seen. The country’s ruling principles are denied. They remain dark and hidden from view. We are left to infer them from a few choice facts.

If we want to understand the nuclear blackmail that is now unfolding in Europe, or the political sabotage and terrorism that has been ongoing since the beginning of the century, then we must look to the dark side of Russia. There we will find the answers.


Media Cheerleading for Obamacare Victory at Supreme Court

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

While the media continue to spin the King v. Burwell case as an existential threat to President Obama’s signature health care legislation, we at Accuracy in Media continue to expose how flawed those supposed “reforms” have been. Yet the media blindly and obstinately defend Obamacare as an administration success. A recent Washington Post editorial even suggests that the Supreme Court, which heard arguments for this case on March 4, should avoid tearing “apart a law that has slowly but surely found its footing.”

The idea that Obamacare—a job-killing law that is unaffordable and unworkable, coupled with more than 20,000 pages of added regulations causing perverse effects on the marketplace—has “surely found its footing” is part of a false narrative created jointly by pro-administration advocates and a media willing to justify the burdensome restrictions this has placed on the American people.

Now, we are being actively sold another false bill of goods: that the dispute over subsidies, and whether state or federal exchanges should be used for subsidies, threatens the many Americans who signed up for coverage under Obamacare. “Don’t be bamboozled by talk of disaster,” writes Betsy McCaughey for the New York Post. “Senate Republican leaders indicated on Monday that they’ll be ready to provide financial assistance to ‘help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period.’”

Yet Slate’s Eric Posner writes that “If the plaintiffs win, then most low-income people will drop out of the market because they cannot afford insurance without the subsidies.” In addition, Posner continues, “Only the sickest people will stay in, which will cause insurance companies to raise prices for everyone, causing more people to drop out and potentially throwing the insurance market into a spiral of death.”

Also, the media keep repeating that these six words, “an exchange established by the state,” were somehow thrown into the bill by mistake, or that it really meant something else. Except, according to Michael Carvin, attorney for the plaintiffs, the health care law contains “words limiting subsidies to ‘an exchange established by the state’ … 11 times,” reports NPR.

On March 4 Paul Kane devoted an entire Washington Post article to the idea that “Congress can sometimes be sloppy.” “If that’s the case, how did Congress end up writing such an ambiguous provision?” he asks. “And why hasn’t anyone on Capitol Hill fixed it?”

While D.C. politics are currently too fractious to fix this patently flawed law, “Losing in court will force the president to finally negotiate changes to his expensive, unworkable health law,” argues McCaughey. If the plaintiffs succeed, “Suddenly, the politically impossible—compromise on ObamaCare—will become politically inevitable.”

In fact, the law has already been altered on numerous occasions. While the standard line has been that the Republicans in the House have tried to repeal Obamacare more than 40 times, it has actually been altered at least 47 times, according to The Galen Institute. Of those, at least 28 were changes “that President Obama has made unilaterally, 17 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.”

Currently, the Health and Human Services Secretary has signaled that the administration “does not have a backup plan to help those who could lose their insurance,” according to US News and World Report.

On Wednesday, the same day King v. Burwell was being argued at the Supreme Court, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell introduced the subject, saying, “At issue is whether states that rely on the federal health care exchange can provide subsidies to make it more affordable. If the court rules against the White House, eight million people could lose their coverage and premiums for millions more would skyrocket, making the plan basically unsustainable.”

Mitchell’s “facts” are highly dubious. Eight million people could lose their coverage? This appears to be based on a RAND study which estimates, “that 8 million people would become uninsured, and many others would see their health premiums spike,” according to US News and World Report.

The administration claims that 11.4 million people are signed up for private health care under Obamacare, which they claim proves that Obamacare is “working,” and a success.

But Avik Roy, who has been writing about this for Forbes, pointed out that “once you unravel the spin, what the latest numbers show is that the pace of enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges has slowed down by more than half. If previous trends hold, Obamacare exchanges have enrolled roughly 5 million previously uninsured individuals: a far cry from 11.4 million.”

And what about the 40 million uninsured we were told about during the dishonest selling of Obamacare? This month marks five years since the so-called Affordable Care Act became law.

While pundits argue over the success of Obamacare, and whether those six words—“an exchange established by the state”—were a mistake, or should be disregarded because they supposedly contradict the overall intent of the law, the decision should come down to this: It’s not just the plain-language meaning of the law, which is very clear. The law wouldn’t have passed without including that language. It was not a mistake, or a drafting error. Then-Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska called it a “deal breaker,” according to Politico in 2010, two months before it became law.

In other words, without that incentive for the states to set up exchanges, he wouldn’t vote for it. The evidence is clear, as laid out in this American Spectator article, no longer available on their website.

And don’t forget Jonathan Gruber. He was one of the architects of Obamacare, and a close adviser to President Obama. He received millions of taxpayer dollars, from various states and the federal government. Gruber is the person who said that passing Obamacare depended “on the stupidity of the American voter,” and that it was “written in a tortured way” in order to deceive the voters about all the taxes they would have to pay. Regarding the subsidies being paid only to state exchanges, Gruber said that was “to squeeze the states to do it [to set up exchanges].”

One must ask also whether a family of four earning more than $90,000 per year should actually be subsidized by the government, or whether this is just a hook to get more and more people receiving government aid, and tie them to the political party most generously doling out these “discounts.” In this case, that would be the Democratic Party.

Mortimer Zuckerman, writing for The Wall Street Journal has also connected employers’ preference for part-time over full-time employees to the perverse effects of this law.

Betsy McCaughey is one of the few members of the media focusing on the positive outcomes that could result from plaintiffs winning this case—instead of claiming that disaster will strike. She argues these include benefits such as “relief for about 250,000 businesses” and “a system that lets people buy the health plans they want and work the hours they want.”

These potential benefits can only be understood in the light of the actual provisions of the law. If states agreed to establish exchanges, receiving in exchange subsidies for those signing up, “with the subsidies come something very important: the taxes and the penalties under the employer mandate penalty. So when 37 states decided not to set up exchanges, the administration tried to fix it with a rule, through the IRS, that subsidies would be issued in all 50 states, plus the employer mandate penalty,” asserted Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney General on Fox’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. He is one of the attorneys general fighting to limit the damage from Obamacare.

Many pundits read into Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s remarks during oral arguments that a ruling against the White House position would result in states being effectively coerced into setting up exchanges, invoking a federalism argument. This was a hopeful sign to those wanting to see Obamacare survive. But Attorney General Pruitt pointed out in a Wall Street Journal column that states “are not children who must be protected by the federal government from making choices.” He said that when Oklahoma chose not to set up a state exchange, the state “knew the consequences of its decision but was not coerced into cooperating with implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” and still wouldn’t be.

Obamacare, except in a very few cases, has been an unmitigated disaster—no matter how Obama, the Democrats and the media try to sell it otherwise.