What’s Behind College-Educated, Suburban Women Flipping To Democrats

• 2018

What’s Behind College-Educated, Suburban Women Flipping To Democrats

These women who reside in wealthy suburbs are an odd group. Sometimes they vote on the economy, but their loyalty to the pocketbook only goes so far.

NOVEMBER 7, 2018 By D.C. McAllister

Suburbs in Northern Virginia, New York, and New Jersey, among others across the nation, swung for the Democrats in the midterms, securing their control of the House. College-educated white women in these areas are being credited for the win, giving credence to the women’s movements that have dominated the headlines for the past two years. But this is only part of the story.

These women who reside in wealthy suburbs are an odd group. Sometimes they vote on the economy, but their loyalty to the pocketbook only goes so far. If they think their equality is threatened or health care won’t be available to everyone, they’ll abandon the economy in a heartbeat.

In the 2018 midterms, exit polling showed that voters’ main concern was health care—a whopping 40 percent. Immigration came in second at 23 percent, followed by the economy at 21 percent. Given the Republicans’ goal to whittle away at Obamacare and the notion that this will leave people without coverage or access to health care, it’s not surprising that these women weren’t inspired by the economy to keep the Republican agenda going.

Another issue that affects how many women vote is fear of inequality. For two years, activist groups and politicians beat the drum that the Republicans are threatening women’s rights. New Supreme Court justices could mean overturning Roe v. Wade. Free birth control might end with changes in health care. The Me Too movement created an environment of fear that men are predators, especially those in the Republican Party.

The rhetoric of Trump as sexual deviant in chief filled the pages of women’s magazines. Protests, pussy hats, celebrities wailing about the dehumanization of women even as they objectified themselves rained down on female voters, enlivening their allegiance to equality, even when it’s not actually being threatened.

These two issues, along with hatred of Trump, drove these women to vote blue. They despise Trump, and they always have. They voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, 51 percent to Trump’s 45 percent. Some were Never-Trumper Republicans going for other candidates. They are, at the core, elitist. They didn’t like him then, and they don’t like him now.

Their feelings about Trump negated any objective judgment of his job performance or recognition that his policies and programs have benefited them greatly, including a strong economy and greater security for our nation. Emotionalism won the day.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won this group over Obama by six points because they had catapulted the economy to the top of their concerns. Many college-educated wealthy white women weren’t swayed by the war on women narrative at that time, nor were they concerned about health care as much, although it was still high on the list. They weren’t too worried; after all, Romney had instituted government health subsidies in Massachusetts.

Romney also soothed their elitist sensibilities. He was dignified. Their feelings could take a back seat to objective concerns because those fires weren’t stoked effectively enough to deter them. This wasn’t true for all women at that time. Some were swayed by the “binders full of women” attack, but not all.

This changed both in 2016 when they supported Clinton and even more significantly in 2018 when they flooded the polls to usher in a Democratic House majority. As reported by Ronald Brownstein just before the midterms, “Over two-thirds of college-educated white women, an unprecedented number, said they planned to vote Democratic for Congress, according to figures provided by CNN polling director Jennifer Agiesta.”

But they weren’t the only ones. College-educated suburban white men who were also offended by Trump’s behavior showed up to kick out Republicans. “Just over half of college-educated white men preferred Democrats in the survey,” Brownstein wrote. “That represents a sharp swing from their usual congressional voting behavior: Democrats haven’t won even 40% percent of college-educated white men in any congressional election since 2008, according to exit polls.”

This combination of elitist voters who can go Republican under some circumstances but will vote Democratic if they’re offended or worried about inequities made a difference in key suburbs.

Additionally, some of the congressional districts that had previously been favorable to Republicans because they were mostly rural—a stronghold for Trump—were redrawn to include wealthy suburbs, shifting the vote Democratic. As reported by USA Today, a fifth of the districts now under control of the Democrats had been redrawn in Pennsylvania.

The changes weren’t trivial: Democrats increased their share of the vote by an average of 20 percent in the districts they flipped in the Keystone State. The biggest change came in the 5th congressional district, a sprawling, mostly rural district in central Pennsylvania. Democrats won an anemic 33 percent there in 2016. In 2018, with the new boundaries in place, they won over 65 percent of the vote.

The suburban slaughter in the midterms, therefore, can be attributed to three things: motivated college-educated white women who put their fears about women’s issues and health care over economic and national security; both college-educated white women and men who are personally offended by Trump’s personality and rhetoric; and redrawing of district lines to include these groups to curb Republican advantages.

It’s uncertain if Trump can do anything to attract these voters. Probably not. That ship has likely sailed. The best he can do is shore up his base for the next election. The rest of us—conservative women in particular, who don’t vote by feelings and unfounded fears—need to step up. It falls on our shoulders to educate our suburban sisters about the role of government in their lives, the dangers of government-run health care, and the lies of feminism regarding “inequalities” in America.

Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.

Photo Pxhere.com / CC0

2018 2018 Midterms feminism Midterms suburban women womenwomen voters

Think national, vote local

By Bob Livingston

Ninety-nine percent of the people who go into politics in Washington go into politics for politics' sake. They want a job for life. It takes someone dedicated to personal liberty and small government to go to Washington and lobby that their own job should be less important, and that their power should be reduced. Most go to the District of Corruption to have their power increased and their prestige increased, and even the most well-intentioned usually get sucked into the vacuum of politics. Ron Paul once told an audience, "When young people come to me in my office and say 'I understand what's going on, and I want to be a congressman,' I say 'Don't set that as your goal.' You don't want to be in politics for the sake of politics. Always have the goal of not saying 'What do I have to do to please the majority who wants more government and vote that way?' but to use [politics] as a tool to influence people to believe precisely in the principle of property rights and very limited government." National politics has become a Kabuki theater battle between parties. Instead of representing the interests of the voters and upholding the Constitution, politicians appear to battle over partisan issues while both sides grow government and take away our liberties. When it comes down to it, American politics is not Republican versus Democrats. It's government versus the people. I'm not one for flag worship, but I was very sympathetic toward the "tea" in the Tea Party's adopted name which is an acronym for "taxed enough already." But the Tea Party movement was quickly co-opted by opportunistic Republicans, and the anger of Americans at restricted freedoms has been turned on other Americans rather than the government at which it should be rightfully directed. Even the most well-intentioned liberty lover is usually consumed and turned over to the dark side once he gets to Washington. Should you get elected to office and decide that you are going to fight for liberty, to have any power you must get a seat on a committee or become its chairman. To do so, you must build coalitions and "play ball" with the people already in power. It's then that it becomes no longer about representing your home state citizens. You have to raise money for the party, millions and millions of dollars, and even more money to keep your seat every two years. Then you have to bow to the party's leadership. In doing so, with every ounce of energy you have spent raising money for the party and keeping your seat and bowing and scraping before the likes of Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan, you lose sight of the goal of reforming government, or arguing for freedom and limited government, and you become a pawn of the Deep State instead. Now you are bought and paid for by big government. We've reached a point where I don't feel that voting does any good in national politics. Remember that it's important to the actors in, and plans of, the Deep State that you vote. That alone should give you pause. Lew Rockwell likes to say, "Voting is the sacrament of the state religion." They want you to participate in increasing their power. Today, voting means you accede to more and bigger government. You are vilified and looked down on for not voting. Witness the rise of the "I voted" buttons you will see everywhere on Election Day. Oh how they want to make our country like the socialist utopia where voter participation is 100 percent! The opposite of the yellow star during WWI. Those who don't wear an "I voted" sticker are supposed to feel ashamed. I am not telling you not to vote. If you feel there is a candidate in your area that you want to support, then you should indeed vote. As I mentioned here, conservative voters should concentrate on finding candidates for state and local elections who will uphold the Constitution and are willing to take a bold stand for state's rights and against federal tyranny. If you feel you must take on national issues, remember that McConnell and his CINOs (conservatives in name only) want you to think they will put "strict constitutionalists" on the federal bench. Is now-Justice Brett Kavanaguh one of those? Not only did Kavanaugh help write the unconstitutional and privacy-killing Patriot Act, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that he is in fact a constitutionalist, despite every right-leaning media outlet telling you that it's so. This is why you must concentrate on electing people you feel will push for term limits and the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments which would end the unconstitutional income tax system and necessarily end the Federal Reserve, and restore selection of senators to the states where the Founders intended (no, elected office isn't a job, and "experience" and "qualifications" don't enter into the equation. These weren't meant to be long-term positions). A return to sound money and republicanism is what will save the nation. Yet, you should be aware of what most votes at the national level mean these days. For example, no one can become president of the U.S. without the approval of the Council on Foreign Relations... not even Donald Trump. The CFR and globalist banksters like Goldman Sachs and the world's central banks control America's and the world's political processes. These "Third Way" proponents have chosen their candidates to be manifestations of an organized and militant religion that is at total war with Christianity and liberty. The goal of this religion is to amalgamate humanity into a proxy for "social justice" and "democracy," a euphemism for tyranny over and oppression of the American people. Individuality and choice must be destroyed to make each of us a permanent vassal of the state. The state builds its political power on deception and false pretense finally leaving the people with no inner imperative to question or oppose the New Order. We can't oppose them by choosing from among them. If you vote, choose wisely.

Planned Parenthood Says It Puts Women First. This Missouri Clinic Proves Otherwise.

Monica Burke   The Daily Signal

Planned Parenthood claims to put women first, yet the atrocious health code violations found at a Missouri clinic earlier this month suggest otherwise.

The abortion giant was campaigning against newly proposed regulations on Missouri abortion clinics when state inspectors discovered a clinic in Columbia, Missouri, was already in violation of existing state regulations.

The clinic’s license was due to expire in October, so in anticipation, the state health department made its routine inspection of the facility in August. In that inspection, the department discovered disgusting and dangerous health violations such as moldy equipment and bodily fluid on recently used equipment.

The state informed Planned Parenthood of these health violations and expected the organization to correct them immediately.

Not only did the clinic fail to do so, it continued operating for over a month without correcting the violations.

When the state visited the clinic again on Sept. 26, 2018, they discoveredadditional violations. They found “bloody single-use plastic tubing attached to the machine’s glass suction canister that was never disposed of after the last abortion procedure on Sept. 21,” along with machines covered in mold and bodily fluid. The department also found rusty machines and exam room tables with chipped paint, making them impossible to sanitize.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time state officials have discovered intolerable conditions inside an abortion facility.

In 2013, Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of multiple counts of murder and involuntary manslaughter after authorities uncovered the disgusting conditions of his Philadelphia abortion facility in 2010. The gruesome detailsare the subject of a new film, “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer.”

>>> Podcast: ‘Gosnell’ Filmmaker Shares Why This Story Had to Be Told

After the unsanitary conditions of Gosnell’s clinic became public knowledge, abortion advocates claimed that he was a perfect example of why “women should have easier access to abortion so that they don’t have to seek care from an unqualified provider.”

It appears that Planned Parenthood never got the memo.

The Columbia Planned Parenthood was found operating under filthy conditions a mere eight years after the FBI discovered the harrowing conditions of Gosnell’s clinic. An dunfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.

Planned Parenthood found itself in hot water after authorities discovered similar conditions at its St. Louis location. This clinic was cited in 2009, 2013, 2015, and 2016 for highly unsanitary conditions and unsafe practices, totaling 210 health code violations in 39 different classes.

The violations included allowing two untrained employees to assist with surgical procedures, reusing single-dose medication vials for multiple patients, and failing to provide infection control training to staff.

Even where Planned Parenthood meets basic state-mandated requirements, they are providing fewer and fewer services to fewer and fewer women.

From 2015 to 2016, they provided fewer cancer screenings, breast examinations, HPV vaccinations, and prevention services to 100,000 fewer women at fewer locations than they did the year prior. From 2016 to 2017, prenatal services dipped too, down to 7,762 from 9,419 in 2015-2016.

By contrast, community health centers, which provide health care to women without entangling themselves in the abortion industry, outnumber Planned Parenthood locations 20 to 1. They also serve eight times more individuals that Planned Parenthood

However, one procedure for Planned Parenthood is on the rise: They performed several thousand more abortions in 2015-2016 than in the previous year: an uptick from 323,999 to 328,348. And the subsequent year they performed another 321,384 abortions, while only providing 3,889 adoption referrals, according to their own report.

That’s 83 abortions for every one adoption referral.

Despite plenty of rhetoric to the contrary, Planned Parenthood does not put the needs of women first, as their declining outreach and continued health care violations attest. Abortion remains Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.

These most recent health violations at Planned Parenthood in Columbia remind us that if we want quality health care for women, we must look at the abortion industry in the hard light of day.

Why Every Tesla on the Road Today Is Already Obsolete

Why Every Tesla on the Road Today Is Already Obsolete By Alex Koyfman Bombs in the mail... Dow down another 600 points... Michael Moore publicly proclaiming that Donald Trump is outsmarting everyone... With all these stories making headlines in the span of 24 hours, one could be forgiven for thinking the sky is falling.  Unless one is a Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) shareholder, that is, in which case yesterday was just about the best day ever.  In what must have been a shock to fans and detractors alike, the electric carmaker announced earnings of $2.90 per share, flying in the face of analysts' expectations of a $0.19 loss.  After-hours trading immediately responded, sending shares up as much as 11%.  Musk haters were left scratching their heads, while his fans, who have stuck by him through every globally televised joint puff, every stutter-ridden public address, and every loopy promotional stunt, were running to the bathroom to clean themselves up. As a neutral observer of Tesla, I have to say I'm both impressed and hopeful that this success continues because, let's face it, this country could use a world-beating automotive brand.  Which makes it all the more difficult for me to say this: Within the next few years, Tesla will need to redesign its electric motors, which will mean substantial retooling in its fabrication plants and very likely a substantial redesign of all of its models.  And because this redesign will be based on technology Tesla does not own, not only will Tesla have to spend billions modernizing the heart of every vehicle it produces, but it will also have to either pay billions in royalties to the company that does own the technology or buy the company outright.  Wait... What? You read that right. Tesla's electric motors are all hopelessly out of date and effectively obsolete. But this isn't a problem that's localized to Tesla products.  Just about every electric motor in the world today suffers from the same design failure that plagued the very first electric motors, built way back in the first half of the 19th century.  Every single electric motor, from the tiny one that makes your phone vibrate all the way up to the giant, 40,000-horsepower monsters that propel seagoing vessels, has the same defect.  The problem relates to efficiency and is actually fairly easy to explain. Electric motors are built to function at a single, optimal speed, measured in revolutions per minute.  Any deviation from that set speed and the amount of energy going into the motor no longer produces the same amount of mechanical motion.  Think of it as a bicycle with just one gear: It only really works well under a very limited range of external conditions.  The same holds true for electric generators, which are really nothing more than electric motors operating in reverse. Instead of putting charge in to get the shaft to spin, you apply an external force to spin the shaft, and charge is produced.  With today's generators, spinning that shaft at a specific speed is necessary to take maximum advantage of the production capacity. Go too fast or too slow, and you're wasting your effort.  The amount of wasted effort this creates globally is staggering, because our reliance on electric motors and electric generators is even more staggering.  It's the Most Important Mechanism Known to Man. Period.  More than half of the energy mankind produces is consumed by some form of electric motor. That energy, in dollar terms, is worth more than $3 trillion — which surpasses the annual GDP of the UK.  On the flip side, the numbers are even more dramatic, as 99% of the energy we produce comes from electric generators.  Every coal-powered plant, every nuclear plant, every hydroelectric dam, and every wind turbine employs these generators and therefore wastes billions of dollars per year running them at speeds it cannot control, or resorts to big, heavy, energy-sapping gearing mechanisms to achieve the ideal spin rate.  Like I said earlier, this is a problem that's been with the electric motor since literally the first one ever created, back in the 1820s.  It took nearly 200 years for the flaw to get ironed out, but today, for the first time ever, we have a solution.  The company that made this discovery has on its hands an innovation worth tens of billions, but because it's a tech startup, nobody even knows its name... Not yet, anyway.  Well, almost nobody. Thanks to some recently sealed collaboration agreements with some mid-sized North American partners, the first products incorporating this revolutionary patent are already finding their way into the market in the form of retrofitted wind turbines and high-speed train motors. The results have been extremely impressive, which means fairly soon, you're going to start seeing major companies falling in line as well. The Biggest Names in the Business Are Watching Closely I'm talking about the likes of General Electric (NYSE: GE), Honeywell (NYSE: HON), Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), and yes, Tesla itself.  There is simply no way around it. Just think about it: If your business literally revolved around electric motors and generators and you suddenly got the opportunity to get 6%, 8%, even 10% more bang for your buck, while enhancing service life and substantially decreasing maintenance costs, wouldn't you do it?  In all likelihood, you wouldn't even have a choice, because if you didn't do it, your competitor would, and sooner or later, you'd be out of business.  The company behind all of this is small, but it's already well on the road to flipping the industry upside down.  Today, its market cap is well below $50 million. A few years from now, if things continue down the path they're on today, it could be 200 times as big.  When I learned all of this just a few weeks back, it took about half an hour for all of the implications to sink in.  And then I got to doing more research on what the company does and what it could mean.  If you want to read more about this, click here. Within that link you'll get the rest of the story, including the company's name and ticker symbol (yes, it's publicly traded).

Alabama Supreme Court Rules Unborn Baby is a Person in 2017

•  
 
•  
 
•  

• #religious liberty
• #Catholic Church
• #Anne Graham Lotz
• #prolife
• #Israel

Veronica Neffinger | Editor, ChristianHeadlines.com | Tuesday, January 3, 2017

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a woman who claims her doctor caused her to have a miscarriage by administering an abortion-inducing drug can proceed.

Kimberly Stinnett’s usual doctor was reportedly out the day of her appointment. Karla Kennedy, the doctor who was filling in that day, believed that Stinnett had an ectopic pregnancy since she had had one previously. Thus, Kennedy decided to administer methotrexate, a drug that, as the court noted, is “intended to cause the end of the pregnancy.”

However, when Stinnett’s usual doctor, William Huggins, examined her pregnancy via ultrasound, he found that Stinnett did not have an ectopic pregnancy after all, but instead had a normal intrauterine pregnancy. He said that Stinnett’s pregnancy was now doomed to fail, however, quite possibly from the methotrexate.

A few weeks later, as predicted, Stinnett suffered a miscarriage. She then took her case against Kennedy to court, alleging that the doctor had unnecessarily ended a viable pregnancy.

The initial court dismissed the case, but when Stinnett appealed her case to the Alabama Supreme Court, it was ruled that her case stands and must be heard in the lower court.

The court’s decision to allow Stinnett’s case to proceed has significant implications for the pro-life movement since they based their decision on the belief that Kennedy had possibly contributed to a homicide--meaning that Stinnett’s unborn baby was a person and not simply a fetus.

“The use of the viability standard established in Roe [Roe v. Wade] is incoherent as it relates to wrongful-death law because, among other reasons, life begins at the moment of conception. The fact that life begins at conception is beyond refutation,” wrote Judge Thomas Parker.

“Members of the judicial branch of Alabama should do all within their power to dutifully ensure that the laws of Alabama are applied equally to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, both born and unborn,” Parker added.

Photo courtesy: Thinkstockphotos.com

Publication date: January 3, 2017

Hear the Pro-choice groups were so worried about Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court and it is a judge in Alabama who is opening up the can of worms regarding Roe vs. Wade.

Shocker! Court rules unborn baby 'a person'

Affirms death penalty for murder convict after blasting Roe as 'patently illogical'

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that an unborn baby is a “person” under the law, and, consequently, the death of that person can be punished with execution.

Further, in a special concurrence, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that created a “right” to abortion.

“I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,” he said. “I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.”

Parker affirmed the Alabama court’s rationale that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”

He asserted Roe v. Wade is “without historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child’s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.”

“This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law … and common law of the states,” Parker said.

He noted the Alabama court’s opinion stated the “obvious truth that unborn children are people and thus entitled to the full protection of the law” in its decision to reject Jessie Phillips’ arguments “that the unborn child he murdered, Baby Doe, was not a ‘person’ under Alabama law.”

In the case, Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a “person.”

The fault in the Roe decision was cited by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion.

He said the justices didn’t have the scientific evidence to determine if an unborn baby is a person, but “personhood” is the foundation of the case.

Blackmun wrote: “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The Alabama ruling is not the only one to point out to the U.S. Supreme Court that Roe was wrongly decided.

In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Alabama law banning the gruesome, second-trimester abortion procedure in which limbs are removed from a baby’s body in the womb.

At the time, Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in his opinion that he was bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent to rule against the state, writing that “dismemberment” is the best description of the procedure, which clinically is known as dilation and extraction.

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he wrote, calling the high court’s history of abortion rulings an “aberration” of constitutional law.

And Judge Joel Dubina wrote separately to express his agreement with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in Gonzales v. Carhart in which Thomas wrote, “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence,” including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, “has no basis in the Constitution.”

“The problem I have, as noted in the Chief Judge’s opinion, is that I am not on the Supreme Court, and as a federal appellate judge, I am bound by my oath to follow all of the Supreme Court’s precedents, whether I agree with them or not,” Dubina wrote.

The opinion had no use for the politically correct language of “choice” and “women’s rights.”

“This case involves a method of abortion that is clinically referred to as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). Or dismemberment abortion, as the state less clinically calls it. That name is more accurate because the method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was until then a living unborn child,” he wrote.

And a year ago, eight members of the Alabama Supreme Court revived a wrongful death claim against a physician even though the life that was lost was that of a “pre-viable” unborn child.

That ruling set the state in direct conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Alabama judges at the time criticized the Roe decision’s “incoherent standard” of viability.

The newest opinion notes that Alabama law states an unborn child is a person under the state’s intentional murder statute.

According to Liberty Counsel, “Justice Parker wrote separately to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the country protect the rights of unborn children. This, Justice Parker said, contrasts with ‘the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.'”

In his opinion, Parker called on the Supreme Court to act: “It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection and allow the states to recognize and defend the inalienable right to life possessed by every unborn child, even when that right must trump the ‘right’ of a woman to obtain an abortion.”

He said that by ensuring broad legal protections for unborn children, including under Alabama’s capital murder statutes, “we affirm once again that unborn children are persons with value and dignity equal to that of all persons.”

“There is a growing chorus of voices urging the Supreme Court to overrule its abortion decisions,” said Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver. “The Supreme Court has created a constitutional aberration and caused incalculable harm by its abortion decisions. In 1992, Justice Kennedy voted with the majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, and then flipped his vote 30 days before the opinion was released to uphold Roe. It is time to correct course and overrule this horrible chapter in American and Supreme Court history.”

He continued: “We applaud Justice Tom Parker in calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and once again protect precious children, women, and families. Abortion is simply a euphemism created by activists to soften what it really is: the murder of innocent unborn children.

“We must stop this human genocide. We must demand that the Supreme Court undo the horrendous ruling and make the womb a safe place again in America. As we hear about the horrible descriptions of the dismemberment of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, every breathing person naturally shutters. Yet, every day in America, helpless, preborn children are dismembered while they are still alive. We too must shutter at this horrible act and stop it.”

Parker is currently an associate justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and is running for the position of chief justice. Parker won the primary election on June 5, 2018.

In his new concurrence, Parker said a “person is a person, regardless of age, physical development, or location.”

“Baby Doe had just as much a right to life as did [mother] Eric Phillips. … Phillips was sentenced to death for the murder of two persons; Erica and Baby Doe were equally persons.”

He added: “In spite of voluminous state laws recognizing that the lives of unborn children are increasingly entitled to full legal protection, the isolated Roe exception stubbornly endures. … Some liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court adamantly defend the isolated Roe exception. I have written extensively explaining why the Roe exception lacks legal foundation and is patently illogical.”

The ruling, he said, “stands as an indictment against the United States Supreme Court.”

The only way it can continue, he said, is if the U.S. Supreme Court justices “insist, against all scientific evidence and reason, that unborn children are not human.”

They're bidding for what?!!!

They're bidding for what?! By Jason Stutman Less than a month from today, the world will witness a modern David versus Goliath story play out. On November 14th, David Beyerle, a communications engineer at Penn State University's IT department, will go toe to toe with a long list of major internet service providers (ISPs). The ticket includes some of the most powerful carriers on the planet, namely Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T. If you’re hoping for blood, you won’t find any in this fight. The battle will be overseen by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in an orderly fashion. No fists will be thrown and no stones will be flung. Nonetheless, it will be a fierce and hard-fought bout. The prize won’t be anything you can touch or hold in your hands, yet it will be incredibly valuable to those who wish to wield it. Largely ignored by the mainstream media, the battle for something known as "millimeter waves" is one where investors will want a front-row seat. Millimeter Waves: What Are They, and Why Are They So Valuable? Millimeter waves, I have to admit, aren’t exactly a sexy topic. Most people have probably never even heard of millimeter waves before, but there’s a reason multibillion-dollar conglomerates are lining up to bid for them in a series of highly anticipated government auctions. There’s a reason even underdogs like David Beyerle are hoping for a moonshot to get their hands on them... Occupying the spectrum of frequencies between 24 GHz and 28 GHz, millimeter waves are much like any other form of wireless communication we’re already familiar with. Radio, cellular, and satellite all operate within specific ranges of wavelengths and frequencies. Sending information through thin air may seem like magic to some, but the technology is based entirely in physics. Imperceptible to the human eye, electromagnetic waves of all shapes and sizes are constantly flowing through (or bouncing off) you at any given moment. These waves all carry a set of physical properties that determine how they can be used for human benefit (or even harm). Frequency, wavelength, and photon energy ultimately determine what are known as propagation characteristics, or the way waves move through the atmosphere. Again, this isn’t exactly enthralling information, but it absolutely matters. The point is that data doesn’t just travel through empty air; it rides physical waves, which are ultimately finite in supply. This is why local television and radio broadcasters have unique “channel” assignments. Designating channels to specific broadcasters allows for multiple routes of communication without interference. If we didn’t divvy up these channels, wireless communication would be as effective as a two-way highway with no lanes and no median. Hence the upcoming FCC auction for millimeter wave, a spectrum that will be crucial in the next generation of mobile communication, or 5G. The Very Foundation of 5G Without digging too deep into the details, millimeter waves operate within a range of relatively short wavelengths and high frequencies. This combination makes them incredibly effective at sending large amounts of data (high bandwidth) through the air to many different devices at once. Now, high bandwidth on its own, of course, isn’t anything new. Infrared and optical wavelengths, in fact, can support higher data rates than millimeter waves can. These shorter wavelengths, however, are easily disrupted by the atmosphere. All it takes is a little bit of rain or fog to disrupt the signal, hence the use of optical fiber to prevent any interference. Millimeter waves, though, are much more durable in the air. Not quite as durable as radio waves, mind you, but enough to get the job done. In short, millimeter waves exist at the perfect intersection between distance and bandwidth. In the balancing act of the electromagnetic spectrum, they are essential to increasing the capacity of wireless communication as far as we need it today. Needless to say, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile have incredible incentive to control parts of the millimeter spectrum. Barring an act of God on behalf of David Beyerle, they’ll easily outbid the remaining competition when the FCC auctions kick off on November 14th.Why This All Matters to You The millimeter wave spectrum may hold incredible value for ISPs, but it isn’t enough on its own. At the end of the day, these ISPs need access points to send and receive those signals. Because millimeter waves can only travel so far, mobile carriers and their infrastructure partners have to tighten the net, so to speak. Instead of enormous cell towers every 20 miles or so, “small cell” towers are being deployed across the U.S. (and soon the entire world) in order to make full use of that millimeter spectrum. In 2019 you’re going to start seeing these small cells popping up all over the place, if you haven’t already. They’ll be deployed on city sidewalks (perhaps disguised as lamp posts to conform to specific regulations), atop parking garages, and elsewhere. All told, North American enterprises are expected to deploy a total of 400,000 small cells by the end of 2018, up from 292,000 in 2017. By 2020, that number is forecast to reach 552,000 small cells per year. By 2025, the number is expected to reach 849,000. Needless to say this is going to be an explosive trend for the next half-decade and then some. For investors, it’s a potential gold mine, as the companies behind these small cell deployments have yet to reach the attention of the masses. Frankly, we don’t expect that to last much longer, as 5G is less than a year away from becoming truly mainstream, so there’s a sense of urgency here I cannot stress enough. My best is advice is to locate the top 5G stocks ASAP. You don't want to wait on this opportunity.