Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

by Ed Condon


Washington D.C., Dec 21, 2018 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.

Kathleen Blomquist, spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, told CNA that the senators’ questions echoed the kind of anti-Catholicism seen in previous generations of American history.

“Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” Blomquist told CNA

“We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

President Trump nominated Buescher to serve on the U.S. District Court on Nov. 3. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Buescher’s nomination Nov. 28, sending written questions to him on Dec. 5. 

The Knights of Columbus is active in 17 countries worldwide. In 2017, members carried out more than 75 million hours of volunteer work and raised more than $185 million for charitable purposes. Successive popes, including Pope Francis, have praisied the group for their charitable work and the manner in which they articulate Catholic faith and values.

In her questions to the nominee, Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined.

Responding to the senator’s questions, Buescher confirmed that he has been a member of the Knights since he was 18 years old, noting that his membership “has involved participation in charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”

“I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18,” he wrote in response.

Harris raised a statement from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who said that abortion constituted “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with Anderson.

Buescher said he was not responsible for drafting statements or policies made by the Knights and that, as a federal judge, he would consider himself bound by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

“I did not draft this language. If confirmed, I would be bound by precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and would not be guided by statements made by others,” Buescher told the senator.

Blomquist told CNA that asking a judicial nominee to defend his membership of a major Catholic charitable organization is disturbing.

“We believe that membership in the Knights of Columbus, which helps everyday men put their Catholic faith into action, is worthy of commendation and not something a nominee for public office should be asked to defend," she said.

In 2014, Buescher ran as a candidate in the Republican primary election for Nebraska attorney general. During that campaign he described himself as “avidly pro-life” and said that opposition to abortion was part of his “moral fabric.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the nominee’s previously outspoken opposition to abortion and asked “why should a litigant in your courtroom expect to get a fair hearing from an impartial judge in a case involving abortion rights?”

Buescher responded that “as a candidate for Nebraska Attorney General in 2014, I did what candidates for any major state or federal office do, which is to take political positions on a variety of issues of the day.” 

“However, there is a difference between taking political positions as a candidate for elective office and serving as a federal judge. I believe a judge’s role and obligation is to apply the law without regard to any personal beliefs regarding the law,” Buescher wrote.

“If confirmed, I will faithfully apply all United States Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent on all issues, including Roe v. Wade."

Buescher also fielded questions from senators about Trump administration policy on Title X funding for clinics providing abortions and referrals, as well as on the application of anti-discrimination law to questions related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

The nominee underscored that, as a judge, it was not for him to advance personal or political opinions but to make fair and impartial rulings based on the law and judicial precedent. 

If confirmed by the Senate, Buescher will fill the vacancy left by Judge Laurie Smith Camp, who assumed senior status - a kind of judicial semi-retirement - on Dec. 1.

This story has been updated.






EPA restores common sense to overaggressive water regulations

by Tim Huelskamp and James Taylor


The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday it is rolling back some of the excessive, and possibly illegal, water regulations imposed by the Obama administration. EPA’s announcement is a welcome relief for homeowners and property owners impacted by overly aggressive EPA officials.

As a federal executive agency, EPA can only enforce laws that have been passed by Congress. While EPA has some rule making authority, it cannot make up laws of its own and then decide to enforce them. This is a very important check against a dictatorial presidency or executive branch. Regarding water regulations, Congress, via the Clean Water Act, has given the executive branch authority to regulate only those bodies of water that are “navigable waters of the United States.”

EPA has always asserted a broad definition for navigable waters. Dating back to the 1980s, EPA has asserted it can regulate smaller, streams and tributaries that cannot be navigated but that flow into navigable waters. EPA has also asserted it can regulate wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters.

The Obama administration attempted in 2015 to further expand the definition of navigable waters to include such entities as isolated ponds, dormant stream beds that are dry most of the year, and minor depressions in the land that hold water only in the immediate aftermath of significant rainfall.

The consequences of the 2015 regulatory overreach can, and have been, devastating. Overly aggressive EPA officials tell farmers they cannot manage or cultivate farmlands that hold isolated puddles merely a few days of the year. Homeowners are told they cannot landscape or fill in nuisance depressions in their property that hold water briefly after a heavy rain. Federal bureaucrats have stripped homeowners and families of practical ownership rights to property they have purchased and managed for generations. Property owners who defy the EPA and other federal bureaucrats face steep penalties and fines.

Citizen lawsuits have been moderately successful challenging the Obama administration’s overreach. Courts have blocked enforcement of the Obama administration’s 2015 regulations in 28 states. Still, homeowners and landowners in the remaining 22 states remain subject to the oppressive 2015 regulations. The issue has been a likely candidate for eventual Supreme Court review, but in the meantime, people remain subject to the unfair policy.

The Trump EPA is thankfully proposing to restore common sense to EPA regulatory authority. The agency proposes to walk back the Obama administration’s asserted authority to regulate stream beds and land depressions that are usually dry. EPA will no longer regulate wetlands unless they are “physically and meaningfully connected” to waters under EPA jurisdiction. EPA will also eliminate subjective criteria for determining whether land or water features qualify under navigable waters jurisdiction, granting individuals more certainty about how they can use their property. These corrections are long overdue, and represent another example of President Trump keeping campaign promises to reduce environmental and regulatory overreach.

Environmental activists are sounding an alarm about potential environmental harms, but their arguments are weak. EPA will still regulate all navigable waters, as well as meaningful permanent and intermittent tributaries to navigable waters. Also, very importantly, all 50 states have their own environmental laws and regulations, allowing regulation above and beyond navigable waters as defined by EPA. For normally dry streambeds, isolated depressions that only occasionally hold water, and other land features that the Obama administration sought to regulate, regulations will once again come from state and local governments that are more responsive and accountable to the people and communities being regulated.

EPA’s proposed rule will continue to provide strong environmental protection for the waterways Congress authorized EPA to regulate. At the same time, the proposed rule will roll back executive branch overreach and protect the rights of homeowners and landowners.


Real education

 
This is pure education with the political correctness stripped from it. Islam, the religion of peace.  A history of Islam and a window into our future.

What future do the people with open arms welcoming the Muslim influx face? 
                

The great Christmas night raid

by W. Thomas Smith, Jr

 

Continental Army General George Washington's celebrated Crossing of the Delaware has been dubbed in some military circles,  America's first special operation. Though there were certainly many small-unit actions, raids, and Ranger operations during the Colonial Wars and there was a special Marine landing in Nassau in the early months of the American Revolution, no special mission by America's first army has been more heralded than that which took place on Christmas night exactly 230 years ago.

Certainly the mission had all the components of a modern special operation (though without all the modern battlefield technologies we take for granted in the 21st century): "A secret expedition is how John Greenwood, a soldier with the 15th Massachusetts, described it, as quoted in Bruce Chadwick's The First American Army.

If nothing else, all the elements for potential disaster were with Washington and his men as they crossed the Delaware River from the icy Pennsylvania shoreline to the equally frozen banks of New Jersey, followed by an eight-mile march to the objective the town of Trenton.

The river, swollen and swift moving, was full of wide, thick sheets of solid ice. And unlike the romanticized portrayal of the operation in the famous painting by Emanuel Leutze (the one with Washington standing in his dramatic, martial pose; his determined face turned toward the far side of the river), the actual crossing was made in the dead of night, in a gale-like wind and a blinding sleet and snowstorm. Odds are, Washington would have been hunkered down in one of the 66-ft-long wooden boats, draped in his cloak, stoically enduring the bitter cold with his soldiers, some of whom were rowing or poling the boats against the ice and the current.


WASHINGTON'S STRATEGIC CONCERNS


The decision for the crossing and the subsequent raid on Trenton was based on Washington's belief that he had to do something. Otherwise, as he penned in a private letter,the game will be pretty near up.

To the easily disheartened and the cut-and-runners, it might have seemed "the game" was indeed already 'up'. After all, many of Washington's Continental Army were wounded, sick, and demoralized. Recent losses to the British had been severe. Desertion numbers were rising, and enlistment terms were almost up. Reinforcements were poorly trained and ill-equipped. Ammunition was in short supply. The soldiers were not properly outfitted for extreme winter conditions: Clothing was spare. Many men were in rags, some naked, according to Washington' own account. Most had broken shoes or no shoes at all.


THE PLAN


The mission itself, though a huge gamble, was tactically simple.  Washington, personally leading a force of just under 2,500 men, would cross the river undetected, march toward Trenton, and attack the enemy garrisoned in the town at dawn.

 Two of Washington's other commanders, Generals John Cadwalader and James Ewing, were also directed to cross: Cadwalader's force was to cross and attack a second garrison near Bordentown. Ewing's force was to cross and block the enemy's escape at Trenton. Both commanders, discouraged by the weather and the river, aborted their own operations. But according to Maurice Matloff's American Military History (the U.S. Army's official history), Driven by Washington's indomitable will, the main force did cross as planned.

 Speed of movement, surprise, maneuver, violence of action, and the plan's simplicity were all key. And fortunately, the elements all came together.

The factors in Washington's favor were clear: The weather was so bad that no one believed the Continentals would attempt a river crossing followed by a forced march, much less at night. The Continentals were numerically and perceived to be qualitatively inferior to the British Army. The Hessians, mercenaries allied to the British and who were garrisoned in Trenton, had a battlefield reputation that far exceeded their actual combat prowess. And no one believed the weary Americans would want to attempt anything with anyone on Christmas.

 

THE CROSSING


Hours before kickoff, Washington had his officers read to the men excerpts of Thomas Paine's The American Crisis, a portion of which reads:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.”

By 4:00 p.m. the force was gathered at McKonkey's Ferry, the launching point for the mission. The watchword, “Victory or death,” was given. When darkness set in, the men climbed into the boats and began easing out into the black river.

Back and forth throughout the night and into the wee hours of the 26th, the boat crews ferried the little army, a few horses, and 18 cannon across the Delaware. The crossing was complete by 4 a.m., but two hours behind schedule, and the temperatures were plummeting. At least two men, exhausted and falling asleep in the snow, froze to death.

 

ATTACKING TRENTON

 

The next obstacle was the march toward Trenton in blinding snow, sleet, even hail; and on bloody frostbitten feet. Keep going men, keep up with your officers, Washington, now on horseback, urged as he rode alongside his advancing infantry.

Just before 8:00 a.m., the advance elements of the American army were spotted on the outskirts of town by a Hessian lieutenant. But by the time he was able to sound the alarm, all hell was breaking loose. Americans were rushing into Trenton with fixed bayonets. The Hessians , some still in their underwear, and nearly all with hangovers from too much Christmas Day celebrating, were attempting to form ranks, but were quickly overrun. Many fled in a panic. Hundreds surrendered. Those who resisted were shot down or run through with the bayonet. The Hessian commander, Col. Johann Rall, was desperately trying to rally his men. But he was shot from his horse, and died later that day.

One of Washington's junior officers, Lieutenant James Monroe was leading a charge against a Hessian position in the town, when he took a musket ball in the chest and collapsed. Amazingly he survived, and would ultimately become the fifth president of the United States.

The fighting lasted about an hour. Four Americans had been killed and ten-times as many Hessians lay dead in the snow. Some 900 enemy prisoners were rounded up, along with weapons, ammunition, and other desperately needed stores. And Washington's victorious army was soon marching back along the river road to the waiting boats and the return crossing.

 

WHAT IT MEANT FOR AMERICA

 

Days later when many enlistments were up, Washington ordered his commanders to form ranks. He then rode out before the troops, and appealed to their sense of duty as well as the criticality of their fight:

"My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than could be reasonably expected, but your country is at stake. The present is emphatically the crisis which is to decide our destiny. " Indeed it was in December of 1776, just as it is in December of 2018.

Washington held his little army together. Many of the continentals renewed their enlistments. They then capitalized on their Trenton victory with wins over the British at Trenton (the second go around) on January 2, and Princeton on January 3.

The initial Delaware crossing and the raid on Trenton was the bold, high-risk shot-in-the-arm the nearly disintegrated American army needed in late 1776. The fighting was far from over, and there would be many setbacks for the Americans before the Treaty of Paris was signed formally ending the war in 1783. But the great Christmas night raid in 1776 would forever serve as a model of how a special operation or a conventional mission, for that matter might be successfully conducted. There are never any guarantees for success on the battlefield; but with a little initiative and a handful of good Americans, the dynamics of war can be altered in a single night. {Not to mention the providential hand of the Almighty - ED}


 

W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor and co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pirates. Be the first to read W. Thomas Smith Jr's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!

{A 2015 article updated from the Webnode site and republished here in honor of God,and remembrance of the marvelous victory he provided for America to be an independent self governing nation. .- ED}





Brig. Gen.: Trump’s Right, Ex-Communist Brennan Is Threat, Needed to Be Stripped


There was a great outcry among Democrats and their liberal media allies on Wednesday when it was announced that President Donald Trump had revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan, who now works as a paid analyst for NBC and MSNBC, has been a harsh critic of the president and has even accused him of committing “treason” against America. That’s an ironic accusation, given the strong suspicion that Brennan was thoroughly involved in what appears to be a “treasonous” scheme by the Obama administration to spy on, undermine and ultimately overthrow the Trump campaign-turned-presidency.

Nevertheless, while the left wails about Brennan’s loss of a security clearance — which has absolutely nothing to do with his “freedom of speech,” and only affects his freedom to leak classified materials — there are plenty who support the move that strips Brennan of his access to sensitive information.

The Independent Journal Review noted that one individual who supported the move was author and retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, who explained why Brennan was a “clear and present danger” who never should have been granted a security clearance to begin with.

“I think it’s the right move by the president. Communist John Brennan never should’ve had a security clearance,” Tata stated on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.

Co-host Brian Kilmeade interjected that Brennan had admitted in the past that he voted for a Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election.

“And he supported that way of life,” Tata stated. “And the president made the right decision in revoking his security clearance.”

But Tata wasn’t just talking about Brennan’s politics from decades ago.

“You look at what he did in his official capacity … he oversaw the Iran deal and all of the intelligence, he manipulated (Islamic State group) intelligence for President Obama, he was part of the Russian hacking, he was standing down the cyber team to allow the Russia hacking in 2016,” Tata said.

“He had a secret meeting in March of 2016 with Russia. He flew to Moscow, and so there is a lot of evidence here. He met with Harry Reid and gave him parts of the unverified, Clinton paid-for dossier,” he continued.

Kilmeade interjected again to point out that Reid had stated the impression he received along with the dossier was “go and announce this,” implying that Brennan had utilized Reid to get the unverified dossier out into the public domain.

“And then he spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying. And question 29 on the security clearance form says ‘have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government’ — all you gotta do is look at Brennan’s tweets and he supports the removal of this president, and right there that’s enough evidence to get rid of his clearance,” Tata declared.

IJR reported that Tata added, “I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation.”

The general made a rather compelling case for why Brennan should have been stripped of his security clearance, a case echoed by the official White House statement read by press secretary Sarah Sanders about the matter, in which she stated that Brennan “has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

While Brennan’s loss of security clearance may indeed be “unprecdented,” as the media made abundantly clear in their lamentations, that is true only insofar as he appears to be the first former CIA director to have involved himself in an equally “unprecedented” conspiracy to undermine and overthrow a duly elected president.

As was also made clear by the White House on Wednesday, Brennan may be the first high-level former Obama official to be stripped of his security clearance, but he likely won’t be the last.

Sanders included a list of other Obama administration officials who still retain security clearances, but whose credentials are “under review.”

That means they’re also at risk of being stripped of their clearances soon. And good riddance, truth be told. It’s about time.


Judges Shut Down Professors’ Attack on the Second Amendment

By Kara Pendleton


An effort to stop Texans from legally carrying handguns on university campuses has failed. What some would call a twisted interpretation of the Constitution by three University of Texas at Austin professors was soundly shut down Thursday by a panel of three federal judges.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges determined the professors’ claim that the campus carry law infringes upon their First, Second and 14th Amendment rights was invalid.

The claims made by the professors in their lawsuit filed two years ago may leave some people scratching their heads. The reason may be found in a review of the facts. The full ruling of the judges may be viewed online. Here is the basic breakdown, one amendment at a time:

How does campus carry infringe upon the First Amendment? According to professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, students and professors might be too afraid to discuss controversial topics in the classroom when someone in the room might be armed without their knowledge.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit said, according to The Texas Tribune.

The appeals court panel affirmed the dismissal of all claims by a district court judge. In the matter of the First Amendment, the district court judge had ruled that the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by self-censoring her speech based on what she alleges to be a reasonable probability that concealed-carry license holders will intimidate professors and students in the classroom.”

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the campus carry law did not meet the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment. The judges called that spin on the amendment “admittedly fresh” but “invalid.”

This brings us to the 14th Amendment, which is not part of the Bill of Rights, as the prior two are. This amendment deals with citizenship and the rights of American citizens:

So how on earth does a student opting to carry a means of self-defense on campus infringe upon someone else’s citizenship or rights under the 14th Amendment? Hand on tight. It’s a doozy of an explanation.

The professors claimed in their lawsuit that campus carry violated the amendment because “the university lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus.”

The federal judges shot that down as well, saying that Glass “ultimately fails to address Texas’s arguments concerning rational basis. Instead she simply argues that the prohibited concealed-carry zones are an ‘inexplicable hodge-podge.'”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision in a statement Thursday.

“The lawsuit was filed because the professors disagreed with the law, not because they had any legal substance to their claim,” Paxton said. “The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed for all Americans, including college students, and the 5th Circuit’s decision prevents that right from being stripped away by three individuals who oppose the law enacted by the Legislature.”

The case might not be over, yet. The professors can fight this ruling by asking for a “full appeals court” hearing or, within 90 days, opt to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their attorney, Renea Hicks, told The Dallas Morning News he doesn’t expect they’ll ask the appeals court to rehear their case.

“I’m doubtful that there’ll be a request for en banc review,” Hicks said. “As to asking for [Supreme Court] review, that’s something we’ll just have to discuss amongst ourselves when we all can coordinate schedules and sit down and meet.”


CNN and Other Leftist Outlets Accused of Planning to Smear Manafort Jury

by Cillian Zeal


The Paul Manafort case is now in the hands of the jury — and, if the people at CNN and other leftist news outlets have anything to do with it, that jury could be facing some serious intimidation.

According to Breitbart, CNN and six other news outlets have sued to obtain the personal details of the individuals who will judge the merits of the government’s case against the former Trump campaign manager.

Along with CNN, BuzzFeed, Politico, The New York Times, NBC and The Associated Press have filed a suit requesting the details of the jurors, including their names and home addresses.

Breitbart described the suit as “a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.”

Writing at The Federalist, Bre Payton noted that the request by CNN and other left-leaning outfits suggested there was more going on that simple journalistic pursuit of information.

“Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press,” Bre Payton noted at The Federalist.

This is doubly troubling when you take into account the fact that the judge in the case says he’s received threats due to his role in adjudicating the matter.

In rejecting the motion put forth by the news organizations, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said that he’s currently being trailed by U.S. Marshals because of the threats made against him, according to Fox News.

“I can tell you there have been (threats), Ellis said, adding that “The Marshals go where I go.”

“I don’t feel right if I release (the jurors) names,” he concluded. That would be bad enough, but CNN in particular has a long history of intimidating people that cross them. Last year, they threatened to dox an individual who created an anti-CNN .gif meme.  According to Breitbart, the network also doxxed an elderly Trump supporter who had promoted a pro-Trump event that may have been set up by Russians, leading to harassment and threatening.  And then there’s the time, as RealClear Politics reported, that the network gave out George Zimmerman’s Social Security number. We could go on and on.

With that kind of history in mind, CNN’s request to the court looks less like an act of journalists seeking information than it does the groundwork of a plan to attack the Manafort jury if it comes back with a verdict the media doesn’t like.

And then there’s the time, as RealClear Politics reported, that the network gave out George Zimmerman’s Social Security number. We could go on and on.

With that kind of history in mind, CNN’s request to the court looks less like an act of journalists seeking information than it does the groundwork of a plan to attack the Manafort jury if it comes back with a verdict the media doesn’t like.

This is an absolutely farcical request that serves no legitimate journalistic purposes. It’s doxxing, plain and simple.

These jurors don’t deserve this. CNN shouldn’t be putting their thumbs on the scales of justice.,



Complicating Conception: The Desires of Parents and the Rights of Children

A 2013 article about Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous sperm donation as the solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, the difficulties faced by donor-conceived children are just beginning...[emphasis added]

by  Christopher White

 

In the new film Delivery Man, Vince Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a man who discovers that he’s the biological father of 533 children—all conceived through his anonymous sperm donations. Now, almost two decades after his “donations” (from which he netted over $20,000), 142 of those children have filed a lawsuit against the sperm bank to reveal his identity. They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.

The film is fictional—but it’s not far from reality. In 2011, the New York Times reported the story of one donor with 150 confirmed offspring. There have only been a handful of major studies following children who were conceived via anonymous gamete donation, yet certain key trends are emerging as they reach adulthood. Although these adult children have mixed opinions about the means in which they were conceived and the limits of such technologies, they’re almost all united in one belief:  anonymity should be removed from the equation.

[Note:  “They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.  ... for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.”

Readers of Public Discourse are already familiar with Alana S. Newman, founder of the Anonymous Us Project and, most recently, editor of Anonymous Us: A Story Collective on 3rd Party Reproduction. In this volume, Newman compiles over one hundred stories of donor-conceived individuals who, like the kids in Delivery Man, long to know their biological parents.

“While anonymity in reproduction hides the truth,” writes Newman, “anonymity in storytelling helps reveal it.” Accordingly, these stories offer a glimpse into the reality faced by many donor-conceived children. Some contributions are angry, others are conflicted. All, however, reveal a deep loss. Consider just a few of the sentiments shared within the volume:

“Who are you to deny me half of my family tree—branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told? Who are you to give away my heritage, knowing it will be replaced with something false?”

“I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its origins in animal husbandry. Worst of all, farmers kept better records of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage.”

“As a donor-conceived person, I have a sense of being part of an underclass … Having a child is a privilege not a right.”

There’s also the story of a young donor-conceived adult who was raised by a single mother.

After her mother’s early death, she’s since been desperately searching for her donor father and potential other siblings in hopes that she might have some remnants of a family to piece together.

Another young woman tells of her own struggle with infertility when she and her husband were trying to conceive. After telling her mom of their difficulties, her mom casually suggests artificial insemination—informing her for the very first time in her life that this was the means in which she was brought into the world. Countless other stories capture the experience of donor-conceived children finding out their origins after their social father is diagnosed with a major medical condition—only to be told not to worry because it won’t affect them, since they’re not actually biologically related. The grief stemming from the medical difficulties is then compounded by an unexpected family identity crisis.

The entries included in the Anonymous Us collective aren’t just limited to the testimonials from donor-conceived children. Stories from medical providers, sperm and egg donors, and parents who chose to conceive via this method fill the pages of these raw and emotional testimonials.

While some entries are an effort to justify past decisions, others speak with great candor about the regrettable outcomes of such a practice.

One Italian sperm donor reflects on the experience of his own family life and laments that the children whom he helped bring into this world won’t be able to have similar memories:

“I have only a sister, but many, many cousins … and every time I meet them and all the relatives, we love to talk about similarities in the features, the body, the way we talk and move, because this gives us a stronger sense of identity and it is beautiful to have such a 'big family' … I hope this little story can help people in learning from the mistakes of the past.”

In another entry, a former egg donor regrets the fact that she’ll never be able to meet her son or daughter, admitting that she only participated in the practice because of the lucrative financial incentives attached to selling her eggs: “I don’t even remember what I spent the money on,” she writes. “Debt, dresses, and dinners probably. I’d give you $10,000 this very second to meet my kid. Biggest oops of my life.”

In the United States, there’s an open and unregulated market for gamete donation. Unlike Canada and most European countries, which limit the number of times a man can sell his sperm and have mandatory database registries where donor children can access their biological parents' medical histories, the United States enforces no such regulations. This lack of regulation is due, in large part, to legislators’ failure to listen to the voices of donor-conceived children. “How can we as a nation make wise decisions about family structure, third-party reproduction, and gamete donation,” asks Newman, “without the participation of and insights from those who have been most directly affected by these practices?”

Just how many donor-conceived children are born each year is anyone’s guess, due to negligible tracking and regulation. At a recent conference for fertility-industry attorneys, I listened to a prominent children’s psychologist (who favors the practice of third-party reproduction) speak about the potential psychological issues donor-conceived children might face. In a moment of candor, she admitted, “We never thought about the future families. We only set out to fix the infertility.”

And this is precisely the problem with donor conception: the desires of the parents always trump the needs of the children.

The stories in the Anonymous Us Project and Delivery Man demonstrate the real suffering and loss felt by donor-conceived children. Yet, in considering the problem of infertility, we also encounter countless couples who experience great distress and grief as a result of their inability to conceive. Infertility is a deeply painful and often isolating experience for millions of couples.

The CDC estimates that 10 percent of women trying to conceive are infertile; hence the increasingly common decision to pursue assisted reproduction. This drive to have children is understandable; social science research reveals that the presence of children in a marriage leads to greater happiness, increased financial security, and a lower likelihood of divorce.

We must acknowledge the painful truth that, as infertile couples seek to remedy their suffering through third-party reproduction, they are unwittingly inflicting pain on their future children.

Eventually, those children must wrestle with the circumstances surrounding their conception. In aiming to satisfy their very natural desire for offspring, infertile couples go to great lengths to create children who are destined to experience complex crises of identity and purpose.

This transgenerational suffering precipitated by the experience of infertility is one that must be met with compassion, to be sure. Yet we must also offer a corrective that acknowledges the limits of desire and love.

Rather than supporting an inward focus on one’s own pain and loss from infertility, we ought to encourage infertile couples to give deep consideration to the suffering that children conceived from these technologies may face. Moreover, rather than privileging one’s own desire for a child as the ultimate goal, we must encourage a preemptive compassion and empathy that should motivate infertile couples to refrain from pursuing such means.

 In one of the most revealing entries of the Anonymous Us collective, a former sperm donor criticizes the industry he profited from: “I now realize I was wrong. This whole system is wrong. Please forgive me, but I am not your father, nor did I ever intend to be.” Similarly, in one of the scenes from Delivery Man, when one of the donor children discovers that Wozniak is his biological father, the son seeks to spend time with him. Annoyed by this prospect, Wozniak brushes the kid off, telling him that he has a real family to attend to.

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous egg or sperm donation as an imperfect, though still acceptable, solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.



[Note:  “They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.  ... for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.”

Indeed, their difficulties are just beginning.  We’ve been told for decades that “the” Human Genome Project (HGP) had decoded all the genes of “the” human chromosome, only to learn recently that they missed over half of them -- not to mention that there is no such thing as “the” human genome (every human being’s genome is unique), their sample was a pool of samples from people all over the world, that they admit that they only decoded the “extrons” (about 15-2-% of the total number of genes), that they skipped the “junk DNA” genes in the “intron” (about 85% of the genes), that they only decoded a nuclear chromosome -- yet the human genome is defined as all the DNA in a human cell, both nuclear and extra-nuclear, e.g., mitochondrial, etc.  So how could “the” HGP data -- which is now admitted to be erroneous -- be used as the “blueprint” for any genetic research experiments or as the source of knowing/understanding any human genes, including those that donor-conceived children are seeking?  Can’t. (See:  http://www.designntrend.com/articles/9627/20131214/never-seen-before-secret-dna-code-unusual-meaning-scientists-find.htm).

And more genes than simply those from a man’s sperm or a woman’s “egg” could be involved.  Consider, simply, the epidemic rise in the use of genetic engineering and the desire for “designer babies” (genetically designed to “prevent diseases”, even down through the generations, e.g., the recent concerns about “3-parent” embryos -- or genetically designed to produce children with certain hair and eye color, etc.), eugenics agendas of many types, etc.  Simply put, “genes” are “genes”, and will act as genes wherever they are injected;  any “foreign” genes injected into the “infertility” or “disease” pictures complicate the donor-conceived children’s future pain. 

What foreign genes?  Producing :desired” genetic traits for their children would require genetically engineering the sperm, the “eggs”, both, or the embryo resulting from fertilization.  Where do those genes come from that supposedly would express the desired traits in the children?  Usually from early human embryos reproduced by couples who already express those traits.  Those foreign genes must then be inserted into the sperm, the “egg” or the “embryo” by means of a vector -- usually a virus or a bacteria -- both of which have their own genes.  If iPS stem cells are used -- i.e., iPS cells can be coated with a tetraploid coating, and then implanted, and the iPS embryo can be allowed to develop up to the formation of germ line cells (primitive sperm and “eggs”) in the embryo, then those germ line cells are used in fertilization to reproduce a new embryo (which embryo would retain the foreign genes used during the iPS deprogramming process, as well as retain those from the tetraploid coating derived by fusing two embryos together to make the “coating”).  This technique requires foreign genes, in addition to the ones already mentioned, called “transcription factors” -- pieces of foreign genes derived from early human embryos.  Few if any records are kept concerning the various sources of these genes.  And many of these “splices” of genes are already known to cause tumors.  No one is quite sure where any of these genes land once injected;  no one knows for sure what products any of these genes make, or if all of this manipulation causes serious mutations in any of the genes involved, etc., etc.  How could donor-conceived children ever find out about any diseases they are genetically predisposed to now?   No one knows what serious diseases these genes could cause.  Very few if any serious records are kept concerning the “sources” of all these genes.  So who’s the “biological donor” now?  The man whose sperm was used and genetically modified?  The woman whose “egg” was used and genetically modified?   The embryo who was genetically modified?  The embryos from whom the “desired” foreign genes are derived that are injected into the sperm, “egg” or embryo?  The foreign genes from the viruses or bacteria vectors used?  The foreign genes that produce the transcription factors used?  The embryos fused to make the tetraploid coating, or the iPS embryo produced.  How many “biological” fathers and mothers could such donor-conceived children end up with?!

And why was the research that should be required to answer these critical questions never performed before experimenting with vulnerable infertile patients?  ...  And why are so many women (and men) infertile now?  Questions, questions, questions -- with no one giving answers. The article first appeared here. --  DNI]


Google Caught Misleading Users About Tracking Location Data

by Jack Davis


Google can always find you.

Contrary to claims Google was making to consumers, The Associated Press reported that some Google apps “automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.”

According to the AP, when a user simply opens the Maps app, that user’s location is stored.  Asking for weather updates means that a phone will note where the user was when the request was made.

But the AP also found random searches for subjects such as  “chocolate chip cookies,” or “kids science kits,” resulted in the phone tracking a user’s latitude and longitude.

Jonathan Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist, had his lab test and verify the AP’s findings. The AP reported that whether the apps were installed on iPhones of Android phones, the results were the same. Mayer said that’s a problem.

“If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Mayer said. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

The company said users are informed of what their phones are up to.

“Location History is a Google product that is entirely opt in, and users have the controls to edit, delete, or turn it off at any time,” the company said in a statement, Bloomberg News reported.

.“… we make sure Location History users know that when they disable the product, we continue to use location to improve the Google experience when they do things like perform a Google search or use Google for driving directions.”

Google needs to know where users are, one commentator said.

“They build advertising information out of data,” said Peter Lenz, the senior geospatial analyst at Dstillery, an advertising technology company. “More data for them presumably means more profit.”

After the report revealed Google’s practices, the Electronic Privacy Information Center wrote to the Federal Trade Commission saying that Google’s action “clearly violates” a 2011 settlement with the government over Google’s privacy practices, the AP reported.
12:04 PM - 15 Aug 2018
WIRED‏Verified account @WIRED

If you use Google Maps, Google is tracking you right now. Even if you turned off Location History, the search giant still tracks and stores your location. There's a way to stop it—but it takes a lot of digging. Here’s a handy step-by-step guide Here

Google also responded to the report by making a change in what it told consumers, according to a follow-up AP report

Google formerly told users that “with Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.”

Google now says, “This setting does not affect other location services on your device.” It adds that “some location data may be saved as part of your activity on other services, like Search and Maps.”

Google is owned by Alphabet Inc.

cience



Time is a River Lost that Cannot be Touched Again

by Anonymous


I love this story. Lay down what's bothering you, breathe in the fresh air and read to this story.

Time is like a river. You cannot touch the water twice, because the flow that has passed will never pass again. Enjoy every moment of life. As a bagpiper, I play many gigs. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a graveside service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper's cemetery in the Nova Scotia back country. As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost and, being a typical man, I didn't stop for directions.

I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight. There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late.

I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn't know what else to do, so I started to play.

The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends. I played like I've never played before for this homeless man. And as I played "Amazing Grace", the workers began to weep. They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished, I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head was hung low, my heart was full.

As I opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, "I never seen anything like that before, and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years."

Apparently, I'm still lost....it's a man thing.