Planned Parenthood Board Member Works in Office of D.A. Who Prosecuted Pro-Life Investigator

PPHOUSTON, Texas — A member of the board of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast works in the office of the district attorney who pursued the prosecution of a pro-life investigator before a grand jury, while the abortion giant went free.

David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) was indicted on Monday by a grand jury in Houston on a felony charge of “tampering with a governmental record” for creating a fake driver’s license in conducting his undercover investigation, as well as a misdemeanor count related to the purchasing of human tissue.

Daleiden, 27, had posed as a representative of a fetal tissue procurement company in order to engage in discussions with Planned Parenthood officials as a potential buyer of bodily organs. He recorded the interactions, conducted at various locations across the country, as part of his “human capital” investigative series that was released in July.

Sandra Merritt, 62, was also charged with tampering with a governmental record for likewise printing the license, which was used to obtain access to Planned Parenthood gathering in Houston.

While Daleiden and Merritt were charged for seeking to buy fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood was not charged for agreeing to obtain compensation for the body parts of aborted babies, nor outlining that it had been doing so with other scientific companies nationwide. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards announced after several of the videos were released that the organization would cease accepting compensation for fetal organs following outrage over the matter.

“The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” Daleiden said in a statement.

“We respect the processes of the Harris County district attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well,” he noted. “Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see.”

  • Connect with Christian News

There have also been concerns following the discovery that a prosecutor in the Harris County district attorney’s Division of Criminal Family Law also serves as a director on the board of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

According to reports, Lauren Reeder told District Attorney Devon Anderson earlier this year about her work with the abortion giant in order to be “transparent.” However, she also said that she didn’t see a conflict of interest in the situation.

“I don’t think there’s any conflict in my dual roles in two separate organizations,” Reeder told reporters.

Anderson said that Reeder would not be involved with the case.

“She will not be involved in any manner in this investigation,” she told the Houston Chronicle. “If at any time in the future, reliable and credible information is brought to my attention that would question our ability to continue to perform a fair, thorough and independent investigation of this matter due to her board membership, I will revisit the issue of seeking the appointment of an independent prosecutor and act accordingly.”

Some still find the situation to be ironic.

“Daleiden is being charged with the very crime he was exposing? Seriously?” writes Tim Brown with Freedom Outpost. “He can play the part, just like police do when they engage in drug busts, but have only the intention of exposing the crime and yet, he is the one charged with what these devils are engaged in?”

“Why are the company executives shown in the videos not also being indicted for being willing to make the sale? If it’s wrong to make a purchase of baby parts, surely it is wrong to be selling them,” he said. “The double standard of the DA’s office is right out in the open for all to see! This is an injustice!”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • gizmo23

    Creating a fake ID is a serious crime. I have never heard of a journalist doing that. No matter your feelings about abortion this sounds like fraud and certainly would be a crime
    So what if a person in the office has a vested interest, they don’t appear to be part of the case.

    • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

      Yes, and the Federal Gruberment is so vigorously pursuing all those “serious” illegal alien offenders, walking around with falsified ID, amirite?!?! Sliding-scale, or ‘targeted’ enforcement is worse than no enforcement, whatsoever. “….they don’t appear to be part of the case” – who knows that? They’re in that DA’s office, have a vested interest, and are fully human, and apparently, ‘Progressive’ – if the ends justify the means, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

        I have no idea whatsoever about the existence of false identification in the hands of foreigners in this country. However, a grand jury is not the government and it is a grand jury that handed down an indictment for altering a government document.

        -A fake DL is actually less serious than what he did. He has an altered California driver’s license identifying him as David Daoud Sarkis.

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          “….a grand jury is not the government” – so on what authority are they convened? I suppose they’re practically the equivalent of a militia?? No, then they are, functionally, part of the bureaucracy. They do not simply represent themselves, and they do not act, merely on their own behalf. Fake, falsified, “altered” (ooooooh, scary!!!), counterfeit, whatever; degrees of difference are not tantamount to justification, for what’s actually taking place here.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I literally have no idea what you’re talking about, in any of your posts. Can you try again in English, please?

          • acontraryview

            “Fake, falsified, “altered” (ooooooh, scary!!!), counterfeit, whatever; degrees of difference are not tantamount to justification, for what’s actually taking place here.”

            Who suggested it was justification and what is it you believe is “actually taking place here” that is a violation of the law?

        • Orwellian_Dilemma

          He’s so dangerous because he’s getting between an organ trafficking operation that funds Democrat political campaigns and a lucrative source of income.

          • rick

            Wow…I guess if this guy is so upset about the fake ID he must be ready to send Hillary to the gallows………….and why aren’t we charging Eric Holder with arms trafficking over Fast & Furious?

      • gizmo23

        So the bottom line is other people do wrong so it’s OK if I do wrong.
        There could be 100 people in that da office, everyone has a vested interest in something. They would never be able to prosecute a case.

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          ……Tom. DeLay. This isn’t exactly occurring in a ‘vacuum’.

          • gizmo23

            Delay was scum

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            So, for those whom you would emotionally and arbitrarily deem to be ‘unworthy’ , the integrity of the process/system is far less important, than ensuring their penal persecution ~ gotcha! 👍

          • gizmo23

            Delay was still a scum

        • rick

          Not at all, I’m sure you agree that in our Justice system we let the punishment fit the crime….possession of a fake ID that was not used in the commission of a crime……sounds like a $25 fine to me…

          NOW…..let’s talk about Hillary’s email server….and Eric Holder’s “Fast & Furious……”

          • gizmo23

            Forging a government document and using it to hide your identity is a felony. Trying getting caught trying to board a plane with one

      • acontraryview

        Please cite a case that has come before a grand jury that involved falsified IDs for illegal aliens that the issue of the false IDs was not pursued.

        They didn’t pursue Daleiden for falsification of IDs. That fact came up during the grand jury hearing. Should they have just ignored it? Should they have said; Well, yes, he did falsify an ID in violation of the law, but a lot of people have false IDs, so we aren’t going to worry about that”.

        Seriously?

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          Seriously, you must really like ‘ham sandwiches’! Whether a case ever reaches a grand jury, is not any actual reflection, of the sum total of criminal offenses. I’m really more concerned w/ the evidence presented to the grand jury, and perhaps Ms. Anderson’s history of exonerating Karpen.

          • acontraryview

            “Seriously, you must really like ‘ham sandwiches’! ”

            I do enjoy a good ham sandwich. How about you?

            “Whether a case ever reaches a grand jury, is not any actual reflection, of the sum total of criminal offenses.”

            Nor did I suggest it was. How is the reality that others commit crimes but the escape the scrutiny of a grand jury investigation relevant to the findings of the grand jury investigation in this case? I’ll ask again: Regarding the evidence brought up in this case, should they have just ignored it? Should they have said; Well, yes, he did falsify an ID in violation of the law, but a lot of people have false IDs, so we aren’t going to worry about that”.

            “I’m really more concerned w/ the evidence presented to the grand jury”

            That information is available. The evidence they presented was that the people involved had manufactured government issued IDs that were fake. That is a violation of the law. What additional evidence do you need?

            “and perhaps Ms. Anderson’s history of exonerating Karpen.”

            Yes, when individuals are found to have not violated the law, they are exonerated. Are you against that? How is that relevant to the known fact that fake government issued IDs were produced in violation of the law?

    • Josey

      so is the selling of baby parts!

      • gizmo23

        So why doesn’t the state or feds charge them with a crime?

        • afchief

          Because we have a completely lawless government now. And Obamadinajad is PP’s biggest cheerleader.

          • gizmo23

            So the conservatives are gutless and weak. So why vote for them?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Gizmo, there you go again. Because the conservatives lack courage, it is OK for liberals to commit atrocities?!? You need a simple lesson in logic, my friend.

          • gizmo23

            Why vote for them if you don’t trust or like them

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, I DO trust some of them – the conservative minority in the GOP. And, in fact, on the issue of abortion, the voting records of the two parties are 99.9% black and white. So, I can be almost certain that a GOP-er will vote against Big Abortion interests and equally certain that a Democrat will vote FOR Big Abortion. Voting for Democrats in this age would be like a slavery abolitionist voting Democrat in the 1800’s.

            So, the REAL question is this: why do you continue to be an apologist for those on the wrong side of the deaths of 60 million human beings, and how can you vote for the Abortion Party (formerly the Slavery Party)?!? What will you say to your Maker when you give an account?

          • gizmo23

            I’m pro life

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I know you keep saying that, but you spend all of your time arguing against pro-lifers and the only political party that votes pro-life. (I agree that they are not doing enough.) Your actions are not matching your words. I apologize for being so brusque, but I just do not see it.

          • StanW

            His is much like Valri’s argument that she is not pro-abortion, as she rails against everyone who is pro-life and defends abortion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Some people define “pro-LIFE” as “pro-I get the LIFE I want no matter how many innocent babies have to die.” But, I do not know that to be true about Gizmo in particular.

          • StanW

            We can only base it on his words here. And they do not lend themselves to a pro-life position.

            Gizmo, you are welcome to prove me wrong. Valri was not able to do that for herself.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not sure, but I think that Valri got banned. I hope not, because we had a good conversation going recently. Seriously.

          • afchief

            I see these trolls all the time. They are here to disrupt. Some are paid.

            The consequence of being a liberal is idiocy.

          • gizmo23

            I just believe the pro life political movement does nothing and hasn’t done anything to stop women from having abortions. They have had 40 years to be effective isn’t time to try something else.
            At the present time I just see them as money/political power players. The GOP/ conservative movement wants to keep the cash cow and votes flowing. If abortion was stopped so would the cash, votes, and power. The pro life politicans have reliable source of funds and votes as long as it remains legal

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “They have had 40 years to be effective isn’t time to try something else.”

            Absolutely! I want a Pro-Life Party that is single issue to abolish abortion, just like the GOP was when it was formed to abolish slavery. Is that what you had in mind?

            I thought you were suggesting voting Democrat?!?

          • gizmo23

            The mating of conservative Christians and the GOP has been a disaster for the Christian side. Farwell, Dobson, Robertson, Perkins and others have only alienated a lot of good people with their overt political pandering. IMO

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It was not liberals who ended slavery – it was hard core evangelical Christians, including Wesleyans, when that term actually meant something:

            “Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality–racial, class, gender–was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African–the non-European, generally–as beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from ‘superstitious religion’. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.” — non-Christian historian Robert Kenny

          • gizmo23

            Wasn’t the South highly Christian also? Is it not still today? The fight to end slavery split churches in the Civil War as much as the rest of society.
            The anti slavery people were considered the liberals and radicals of the day.
            My great great grandfather was a Lieutenant in of Confederacy from S Carolina. He owned at least 1 slave and ended up starting a church in Tennessee. I would say many slave owners were devout Christians as were many founding fathers. Just part of American history

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You don’t get to rewrite history, Gizmo, just to make yourself feel better. Liberals believed they had the right to own slaves, because it was their “choice,” black people were not fully humans or persons, and they did not care much for hard-core evangelical Christians shoving our religion down their throats. Sound familiar?

            (See quote above.)

          • gizmo23

            You are way off. You can’t go back and compare times using today’s language and politics. They didn’t even use the terms liberal and conservative then.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s a “yes!”

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Why do you say that? It doesn’t sound like a “yes” to me.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Not only that, it wasn’t that long ago – perhaps the 1960s – when it was the democrats whom the Christian right sided with.

          • afchief

            No, he is right on and you are WAY off (as usual)

            The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.

            The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America’s leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

            I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

            John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

            The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

            The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13

            There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:

            I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

            Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

            Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

            Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

            Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

            Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

            Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] – Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

            Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

            Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19

            My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

            When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21

            Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king’s perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:

            He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

            Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

            A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.. 23

            The Founders took action against slavery.

            The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

            Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25

            As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:

            When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master’s heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

            The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.

            Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

            The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.

            Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.

            While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:

            Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,…courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

            The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29

            Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=120

          • gizmo23

            Too stupid to write your own posts?

          • afchief

            What? Does the truth offend? It always does!!!! Especially with liberals since truth is the enemy of liberals.

          • Bob Johnson

            and a disaster for fiscal conservatives.

          • acontraryview

            “Absolutely! I want a Pro-Life Party that is single issue to abolish abortion”

            Do you not realize that there is no party has the ability to abolish abortion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Exactly. Which is why I am calling for one. Unless, you are so delusional as to believe that SCOTUS makes “the law of the land.” You can be forgiven for such a view, given their behavior of the past 40 years or so.

          • acontraryview

            “Which is why I am calling for one.”

            Call all you care to, but the call will not be answered. The question of whether abortion in the US will remain legal is a settled one.

            “Unless, you are so delusional as to believe that SCOTUS makes “the law of the land.””

            The phrase “law of the land” does not refer to any particular law. Rather, it refers to something being legal in all states. Since Roe v Wade, laws that forbid abortion under any circumstances have been ruled to be unenforceable. The ability of a woman to have an abortion, within certain bounds, is thus “the law of the land”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The question of whether abortion in the US will remain legal is a settled one.”

            “The question of whether slavery in the US will remain legal is a settled one.” — ACV’s plantation owner ancestor, circa 1850’s.

            You are in “good” company, for a degenerate anyway.

          • Ann Morgan

            The question of whether every last precious widdle embryo and/or newborn will survive at all costs is definitely a settled one. There is no species on the planet, including our own, that can or will try to make sure that every last precious embryo and/or infant survives at all costs, regardless of the circumstances of the embryo/infant, mother, or older siblings. Evolution will not allow. over the long term, attempts to sacrifice the fit for the ‘sob sob sob vulnerable’. Eliminate abortion, and you WILL get infanticide, no matter how sad you are or how cute a fetus is.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Annie, are you stalking me over here too? Is it because you are old, cold, and lonely, because you realize you would have made an excellent slaver, or because that video I made you watch is still showing up in your nightmares?

          • BobRumba

            I’d be all for such a party existing too, only because I think you’d lose and lose badly. A strongly-held opinion does not mean a popular one. Certainly in this case that’s true.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, indeed. Abolishing slavery was not popular either at one time. Fortunately, your side lost.

            Welcome back, Muffin. 🙂

          • BobRumba

            Thanks, Val. Good luck with your party.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I miss the old Val, BR. You know, the Val who stalked us and called us hateful names while claiming she was rooting out hate and intolerance. 🙂

          • BobRumba

            Sorry, I have been busy looking at your profile and all the other people you are fighting tooth and nail with. Tsk, tsk. So many pro aborts. You must be exhausted.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            In the case of Val, it is one pro-abort with about 20 different multiple personalities. But, you already know that, Muffin. 🙂

          • BobRumba

            Wow, she must be busy, constantly logging off and on again to spend valuable time talking to an important man like you. Heather? Is that Valri too? And Ann? Gizmo? acontraryview? Wow, so many people. To think that they are all one person busily logging off and on all day long.

          • Ben_Gonsalves

            Wow, busy lady, isn’t she? Constantly logging off and on all day long just to keep up with an important man like yourself.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            @Val-troll pro-abort fundie3.

          • Ben_Gonsalves

            Your delusion, your rules.

          • Ben_Gonsalves

            What will your reaction be when such a party gets no support because of its draconian views?

          • acontraryview

            As California governor Reagan signed into law a liberalization of abortion that led to an explosion of abortions in the nation’s largest state.

            Ted Cruz: I’m a Reagan Republican

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m sorry. What does your heavily cherry-picked Reagan Derangement Syndrome (RDS) have to do with my comment?

            And why do you support the killing of 60 million human beings in America alone?

            Your argument appears to be:

            If the GOP does not do enough to end abortion, we depraved ones get to continue our baby killing.

            Your RDS is exceeded only by your poor “logic.”

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            What on earth is Reagan Derangement Syndrome, and why would that post be symptomatic of it?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “What on earth is Reagan Derangement Syndrome”

            If you don’t know what it is, that’s because you have it. 🙂

            “why would that post be symptomatic of it?”

            See above. I’m not your psychologist and you cannot afford my rates anyway. 🙂

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            “If you don’t know what it is, that’s because you have it.”

            Well, I am not going to argue with impeccable logic like that.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Who is going to develop a “derangement” over a dead man who hasn’t been relevant in decades?

          • acontraryview

            “What does your heavily cherry-picked Reagan Derangement Syndrome (RDS) have to do with my comment?”

            I didn’t cherry-pick. I merely cited some of Reagan’s actions that are contrary to the romanticized view many conservatives hold of Reagan. You said: “Well, I DO trust some of them – the conservative minority in the GOP.” Cruz is by far the most conservative of the GOP candidates for President. Cruz has cited Reagan as an example of the type of Republican he is. Therefore, my comments about some of the actions Reagan took are relevant to your comment. If a Republican today were touting the actions I cited that Reagan took, many conservatives would be labeling him a “RINO”, would they not? Or are you too blinded by your Faulty Attempt at Reagan Truth Syndrome (FARTS), to see that?

            “And why do you support the killing of 60 million human beings in America alone?”

            I don’t.

            “Your argument appears to be:

            If the GOP does not do enough to end abortion, we depraved ones get to continue our baby killing.”

            Please cite what I said that would cause you to reach that conclusion.

            Your FARTS is exceeded only by your poor “logic”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I didn’t cherry-pick. I merely cited some of Reagan’s actions”

            You cherry-picked by your own words right there. Self-refuting, much?

            “Cruz is by far the most conservative of the GOP candidates for President. Cruz has cited Reagan as an example of the type of Republican he is. Therefore, my comments about some of the actions Reagan took ”

            Exactly – thank you: “SOME of the actions Reagan took.” Why should I argue with you when you do such a fine job yourself? 🙂

            “”And why do you support the killing of 60 million human beings in America alone?”

            I don’t.”

            Oh really? “Pro-Life,” are you? 🙂

            “Please cite what I said that would cause you to reach that conclusion.”

            I’m sorry. I thought that you actually realized you were commenting on an article about abortion. You may now go back to sleep. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            “You cherry-picked by your own words right there. ”

            Talk about cherry-picking. Using only part of what I said to make a point is disingenuous. I picked positions and actions Reagan took which were contrary to the views of many conservatives. If you feel that I cherry-picked those and there are MORE instances of Reagan taking positions that are contrary to the views of many conservatives, please feel free to cite those.

            “Why should I argue with you when you do such a fine job yourself? :-)”

            Are you saying that the actions that Reagan took that I cited are consistent with what conservatives today support?

            I’ll ask again: If a Republican today were touting the actions I cited that Reagan took, many conservatives would be labeling him a “RINO”, would they not? Or are you too blinded by your Faulty Attempt at Reagan Truth Syndrome (FARTS), to see that?

            “Oh really? “Pro-Life,” are you? :-)”

            Being supportive of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, particularly in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the mother’s life, does not equate to my personally being supportive of abortion. I support the right of people to drink alcohol. Personally, though, I do not drink alcohol. Unlike you, I don’t have the desire to restrict the rights of others based solely upon my personal belief system.

            “I’m sorry.”

            Agreed. If you can’t explain what would cause you to reach the conclusion that you did, then you can’t. No worries. You can go back to sleep now.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            And with your rather excellent new acronym, I proclaim you the winner of the internet today.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Using only part of what I said to make a point is disingenuous.”

            Says the hypocritical self-refuting one.

            “If a Republican today were touting the actions I cited that Reagan took, many conservatives would be labeling him a “RINO”, would they not?”

            oh, sure, if your cherry-picked positions were the only ones he took, and if they were accurate, then you would be correct. Sadly, you are drinking from the kool-aid.

            “Unlike you, I don’t have the desire to restrict the rights of others based solely upon my personal belief system.”

            Strawman, which is all you ever have. The same was said about slavery, I might add. You are in “good” company.

            The “rights” of others to do what? Kill innocent human beings? Just because you do not do science and logic is no reason to support the deaths of innocents.

            The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

            2. What is located in the human womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)

            3. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

            The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 3000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that.

          • acontraryview

            “Says the hypocritical self-refuting one.”

            Please cite where I have been either hypocritical or self-refuting.

            “oh, sure, if your cherry-picked positions were the only ones he took”

            I choose the ones that are contrary to what many conservatives today state as their positions.

            “and if they were accurate, then you would be correct.”

            So you are saying that:

            Reagan did NOT As governor of California, Reagan did NOT sign “into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years?

            That during the Reagan years, the debt did NOT increase to nearly $3 trillion?

            That unemployment did NOT soar after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts?

            That Reagan did NOT grow the size of the federal government tremendously?

            That Reagan did a LOT to fight a woman’s right to choose?

            That Reagan did NOT give amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and he did NOT sign into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty?

            That Reagan did NOT veto a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act?

            That Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat did NOT play a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy?

            I’d be fascinated to know which of the points I provided is not accurate and your basis for saying they are not.

            “The same was said about slavery, ”

            Really? When did anyone say that slavery was justified because of not wanting to impose personal beliefs on others?

            “The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.”

            Viability is an important difference.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “”Says the hypocritical self-refuting one.””

            When you wrote: “Using only part of what I said to make a point is disingenuous.”

            Look, ACV, if you want to pretend that the Reagan economy was worse than the Obama economy in order to make yourself feel better about your buyer’s remorse, then, by all means do so. But, I actually lived through the Reagan years (was designing spacecraft at that time), and the labor participation rate is now at Jimmy Carter lows, the poverty rate is around LBJ levels, and the poor and minorities are much worse off than they were 7 years ago by any indicator. (I know, I work with them.)

            “When did anyone say that slavery was justified because of not wanting to impose personal beliefs on others?”

            I am not your personal research genie, ACV, but here is a relevant quote that might help you:

            “Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality–racial, class, gender–was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African–the non-European, generally–as beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from ‘superstitious religion’. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.” — non-Christian historian Robert Kenny

            Clearly, abolitionists were making their case based on the objective moral values found in evangelical Christianity. In other words, they were trying to “force their religion” on the population in order to overturn slavery and the slave trade. And, it worked. 🙂

            “Viability is an important difference.”

            Fail. Viability is directly dependent on the 4 SLED factors I provided. Try again. Oh, and viability is technology-dependent, NOT morality dependent. Are you really taking the morally repugnant position that a human being’s worth is dependent on the state of technology of the moment?!?

          • acontraryview

            “”Using only part of what I said to make a point is disingenuous.””

            How does your taking a quote of mine out of context by only using part of it show that I am hypocritical and self-refuting?

            “if you want to pretend that the Reagan economy was worse than the Obama economy”

            Please cite where I ever made comparisons between the Reagan economy and the economy under Obama.

            “But, I actually lived through the Reagan years”

            As did I.

            “I am not your personal research genie”

            If you can’t back up your claim, then you can’t. No worries.

            “but here is a relevant quote that might help you:”

            “In other words, they were trying to “force their religion” on the population in order to overturn slavery and the slave trade.”

            Since ending slavery did not require that anyone convert to Christianity nor live under the beliefs of Christianity, your conclusion that by supporting the abolition of slavery was attempting to “force their religion” on the population is a false one. Further, nothing in the quote you provided supports your assertion that slavery was justified by NOT imposing the religious beliefs of others.

            So you don’t deny the actions I cited regarding Reagan actually happened and thus, based upon your statement “then you would be correct” confirms that many conservatives today would view Reagan as a “RINO”.

            “Fail”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

            “Are you really taking the morally repugnant position that a human being’s worth is dependent on the state of technology of the moment?!?”

            No, I’m not. Nor did I say anything that would lead to that conclusion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “How does your taking a quote of mine out of context by only using part of it show that I am hypocritical and self-refuting?”

            By pointing to the fact that you cherry-picked Reagan data. So, in claiming that I cherry-picked your quote (which is false), you were hypocritical as you had just cherry-picked the Reagan years.

            Were the Reagan years THAT bad for you, ACV? I really cannot imagine someone who was an adult during those years prefer the Obama years to them.

            “Please cite where I ever made comparisons between the Reagan economy and the economy under Obama.”

            Then, other than displaying your Reagan Derangement Syndrome, what was the purpose of you cherry-picking Reagan years? To show that, because Cruz compares himself with Reagan, your strawman of Reagan is also a strawman of Cruz?!? 🙂

            “If you can’t back up your claim, then you can’t. No worries.”

            Again, your laziness does not translate into my being required to be your research genie. 🙂 And when it comes to the charge of not backing up claims, you are engaging in projection.

            “Since ending slavery did not require that anyone convert to Christianity nor live under the beliefs of Christianity”

            And curiously enough, neither does abolishing abortion. 🙂

            “No, I’m not. Nor did I say anything that would lead to that conclusion.”

            Well, then what was the purpose of bringing up “viability” then? Are you just having a bad case of brain farts and wanted to take up space? 🙂

          • acontraryview

            “By pointing to the fact that you cherry-picked Reagan data.”

            I provided a list of actions that Reagan took that if a Republican candidate supported today, would result in that candidate being labeled a RINO by many conservatives. That is not “cherry picking”.

            “So, in claiming that I cherry-picked your quote (which is false)”

            You quoted me as saying: “”I didn’t cherry-pick. I merely cited some of Reagan’s actions”

            When what I actually said was: “I merely cited some of Reagan’s actions that are contrary to the romanticized view many conservatives hold of Reagan.”

            So, yes, you did take my quote out of context.

            “Were the Reagan years THAT bad for you, ACV? ”

            No, they were not. Nor was the relative prosperity of the years the subject. The subject was that there were actions by Reagan which would cause many conservatives today to label him a RINO, which you agreed was accurate.

            “Then, other than displaying your Reagan Derangement Syndrome, what was the purpose of you cherry-picking Reagan years? To show that, because Cruz compares himself with Reagan, your strawman of Reagan is also a strawman of Cruz?!? :-)”

            So you can’t cite where I ever made comparisons between the Reagan economy and the economy under Obama. Got it. Thanks.

            What “straw man” of Reagan are you talking about? You agreed with me that many conservatives would label him a RINO.

            “Again, your laziness does not translate into my being required to be your research genie.”

            Again, if you are too lazy to back up your own point, then fine. I’m not doing research to back up a claim YOU made. It is typical for a person who can’t back up their claim to put the onus on the other person. Weak.

            “And when it comes to the charge of not backing up claims, you are engaging in projection.”

            What claim have I not backed up?

            “And curiously enough, neither does abolishing abortion.”

            Here’s the primary difference – abolishing slavery increases the rights of citizens. Abolishing abortion infringes on the rights of women. When actions are restricted based solely upon religious belief, then people are being forced to restrict their actions according to that religious belief. In other words, they are forced to operate according to those religious beliefs in regards to the prohibited activity.

            “Well, then what was the purpose of bringing up “viability” then?”

            Because it is a part of law regarding abortion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “When what I actually said was: “I merely cited some of Reagan’s actions that are contrary to the romanticized view many conservatives hold of Reagan.””

            Precisely! You cherry-picked some things Reagan did to make him look like a RINO when he was not. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

            “which would cause many conservatives today to label him a RINO, which you agreed was accurate.”

            If you had not committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. But, since you committed that, I did not agree you are accurate in any sense of the word.

            “Again, if you are too lazy to back up your own point, then fine.”

            What claim did I make when YOU committed the fallacy of hasty generalization by cherry-picking data?!? Your logic is really off today. 🙂

            “t is typical for a person who can’t back up their claim to put the onus on the other person.”

            Yes, so why are you doing so? 🙂

            “Here’s the primary difference – abolishing slavery increases the rights of citizens. Abolishing abortion infringes on the rights of women.”

            And allows millions of babies to live, thus increasing the rights of human beings. You pro-aborts ALWAYS forget about the most vulnerable – why is that?!?

            “When actions are restricted based solely upon religious belief”

            Which is why I gave you a secular proof against abortion, not a religious one. Which you did not reply to, I notice. I will take that as a concession on your part.

            “Because it is a part of law regarding abortion.”

            We are talking morality, not legality. Again, this shows why your side’s argument is so weak: it mimics those of slavers.

          • acontraryview

            “You cherry-picked some things Reagan did to make him look like a RINO when he was not.”

            You: “and if they were accurate, then you would be correct.”

            The items I listed are accurate, therefore you agree that I am correct that Reagan today would be viewed as a RINO by many conservatives, including yourself.

            “I did not agree you are accurate in any sense of the word.”

            See above.

            This was the question I asked regarding a statement you made: “When did anyone say that slavery was justified because of not wanting to impose personal beliefs on others?”

            You have been unable to answer. Rather, you have suggested that I do research to back up a claim YOU made.

            “Yes, so why are you doing so? :-)”

            What claim have I made that you are suggesting I am not providing backup for?

            “Which is why I gave you a secular proof against abortion”

            You did not provide “proof” – you provided opinion.

            “We are talking morality, not legality.”

            No, we are talking legality. Morality varies based upon one’s belief system.

            “it mimics those of slavers.”

            While I know you love making that comparison, it is not a valid one.

          • afchief

            Ted Cruz is not gutless or weak. I will vote for him.

          • gizmo23

            You just said they were all corrupt. But you never make sense

          • afchief

            The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.

            Liberalism, the disease that just keeps on giving.

          • BobRumba

            He wants a Christian theocracy. He is dangerous.

      • acontraryview

        Selling portions of aborted fetuses for profit is a crime. It is perfectly legal for abortion providers – that includes all of them, not just PP – to recoup costs of collecting and providing samples to research centers. That is why no investigation has found PP to have violated laws regarding this.

    • afchief

      Why would it be a crime to go into PP with a fake ID? What law did they violate? That they lied? Is there top secret information in there? Corporate secrets? What does PP have to hide that you would need an ID to access their human butchery factory?

      Or was that they were exposed for the godless evil things they do?

      • gizmo23

        You are the legal scholar look up the law on fraud.
        Can I look at your medical records?

        • afchief

          They did not ask to look at medical records. What kind of fraud was committed? They lied?

          • gizmo23

            To get in yes they lied

          • afchief

            Lying is against the law?

          • gizmo23

            Fraud is, and in some cases yes lying is illegal. You should know that. You are a legal expert are you not ?

          • afchief

            Then show me the law they broke.

          • gizmo23

            No You already stated you won’t believe me. You are a waste of time.
            BTW get caught trying to board a plane with a fake ID or passport. Please please do

          • afchief

            Then why are you trolling on Christian sites with you godless liberal garbage. Take it elsewhere!!!!

          • gizmo23

            To weak to handle it?

          • afchief

            Any American who votes Democratic, is anit-american and anit-christian! Better yet, a criminal. a destroyer of America. People like you.

            The problem with people like you is that you’re so blind that you have no idea how blind you are

          • gizmo23

            So kill me in the name of free speech

          • afchief

            Move to North Korea and let us Americans live by our Constitution and in a Capitalistic society.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            You DO live in a Capitalistic society. You think Obama’s a leftie? In Canada he would be considered a hardcore conservative.

          • afchief

            Obamadinajad is a type of anti-christ.

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            Only to the deeply paranoid and/or certifiably insane.

          • afchief

            Nope! To the spiritually attuned, it is quite obvious how evil this man is.

            Here are 1,179 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.

            https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress. com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

          • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

            All from a very fair, neutral and unbiased source, I’m sure.

          • afchief

            All well documented and well sourced! First and foremost Obamadinajad is not only a chronic liar, he never ever said anything that was not a lie, especially about vital things that should have disqualified him from even being selected as a presidential candidate. I totally blame those democrats who should have vetted him and questioned him and ascertained that whatever he is presenting about himself was the real truth, and that he had nothing to hide, which of course he had a lot to hide and did hide so much about himself that I believe no one knows what is true or even close to being true. This is something that the Democratic party should be chastised for and that brought so much uncertainty if not real danger to this country and to the whole world. I believe that anyone who is voting for another Democrat for president should be denounced as a traitor because they elected a major traitor to this country, and I do not believe we are out of danger now or worse in the future.

            In a normal world this subject would not even be discussed…2+2=4

          • acontraryview

            Texas Penal Code Section 37.10 (a)(2).

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Tampering with a governmental record, in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 37.10 (a)(2).

          • afchief

            What government record did they tamper with?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know who “they” are but David Deleiden tried to present a forged driver’s license as if it were real in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 37.10 (a)(2):

            (a) A person commits an offense if he:

            (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record;

          • afchief

            How do you know he was trying to falsify a government record? Did he say he was from a government agency? A private company?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s irrelevant. He falsified a government document, an ID.

            How do I know? I don’t. I wasn’t in the grand jury. But evidence was presented to the people who were, and they found enough to issue am indictment.

          • afchief

            Yea, right!! This is just more godless liberal revenge tactics because evil was exposed.

            Nothing more!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, are you saying that he did not forge an ID?

          • afchief

            Maybe they did. But PP should be out of business and the people who are selling baby body parts should be prosecuted and put in jail, period!!!

          • tigersfan61

            And that is more serious than MURDERING babies in the womb and then selling their body parts…seriously this nation is in deep trouble…This organization desires nothing but death and then profiting from it…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I disagree with your characterization of events, but in any case, that has nothing to do with the topic here.

          • tigersfan61

            Most assuredly it DOES address the topic…all the lefties in this country are getting so bent out of shape that these people misrepresented themselves and even created a D.L. that was false, while at the same time the people that are being “targeted” are MURDERING BABIES IN THE WOMB, but hey who cares about that? And while we are at it, why not sell their body parts which IS against the law…You can’t see the forest for the trees…but that is a typical liberal position…And let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood came into existence to get BLACK women to destroy the number of BLACKS in this country by aborting their children…this is an evil organization…Period…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, I disagree that anyone is murdering babies or selling body parts.

            However, this is a discussion about the alleged bias of the DA’s office, not the relative merits of what Planned Parenthood is or may be doing. That’s a separate discussion for a separate thread at another time.

          • tigersfan61

            If you don’t understand that PP is all about murdering babies in the womb, then you either have your head in the sand or spend too much time writing these denials, sort of like the Holocaust deniers…having said that, if you believe that there is no bias within the D.A.’s office which went before this Grand Jury, then see the above comments about PP…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “You have your head in the sand” is not an argument. What evidence do you have that there is bias in the DA’s office?

          • tigersfan61

            What evidence do you have that there is not? Human nature being what it is…what do YOU know about how the legal system works? I have 15 + years experience working within the justice system…what qualifications do you have?
            Any D.A. worth his/her salt can indict a ham sandwich if they want to…amazing that a GJ investigation into the illegal activities of PP results in an indictment into the undercover operators whose sole “crime” is a fabricated license, while the monsters at PP who ARE selling body parts are YOUR sympathetic victims…The fact that a PP board member is working IN the D.A.’s OFFICE is enough evidence…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “What evidence do you have that there is not?”

            None. There is no such thing as evidence that something is not happening. That’s a logical impossibly.

            “what do YOU know about how the legal system works? I have 15 + years experience working within the justice system…what qualifications do you have?”

            A law degree, admission in 3 jursdictions, and eight years of practic experience.

            “The fact that a PP board member is working IN the D.A.’s OFFICE is enough evidence…”

            What is it evidence of?

      • acontraryview

        “Why would it be a crime to go into PP with a fake ID? ”

        It’s not a crime to go into PP with a fake ID. It is a crime to falsify a government issued ID, regardless of where you go with it.

        • tigersfan61

          And that is more serious than MURDERING babies in the womb and then selling their body parts…seriously this nation is in deep trouble…

          • acontraryview

            It’s not a question of what is “more serious” or less serious. Abortion is legal. While you may not agree with that, it IS legal and therefore not a crime. PP committed no crime.

            “seriously this nation is in deep trouble…”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • tigersfan61

            Selling body parts is not legal…

          • acontraryview

            Being reimbursed for the costs of providing aborted fetuses to research institutions is completely legal. That is what PP did which is why numerous inquiries to their actions have all concluded that they did not break the law.

          • tigersfan61

            Wow…swallow that lie if you want…does it go down well with all that sand?

          • acontraryview

            What lie are you referring to?

      • acontraryview

        “Why would it be a crime to go into PP with a fake ID?”

        Because they did not want to PP to know their true identities.

        “What law did they violate?”

        The law that states the people are not allowed to produce fake government IDs. As Gizmo pointed out: Texas Penal Code Section 37.10 (a)(2).

    • afchief

      There is NO fraud!!!

      Liberty Counsel Reveals Truth Behind Pro-Life Grand Jury Indictment

      Liberty Counsel is defending Sandra “Susan” Merritt in both the criminal indictment announced yesterday in Houston and against Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit claiming that her connection to undercover videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress, exposing Planned Parenthood’s gruesome trade in baby body parts, is a violation of the federal “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” or “RICO” statute.

      In a stunning announcement this week, a Texas grand jury indicted Susan and David Daleiden for allegedly “tampering with governmental record” “with intent to defraud and harm” Planned Parenthood. The jury was supposed to investigate Planned Parenthood but is now charging the whistleblowers. Liberty Counsel will defend Susan against both efforts to silence her.

      http://www.charismanews. com/us/54775-liberty-counsel-reveals-truth-behind-pro-life-grand-jury-indictment

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    So they’re saying that Mr Daleiden doesn’t have a calid driver’s licence, that he’s not competent to drive, and that he presented a fraudulent document to a law enforcement officials so that he would be able to continue driving, despite not having demonstrated his competence. No? Okay, so they are not saying that: but then what has the existence of a fake licence got to do with the government if that licence is not used to validate driving? As I’ve heard this story, Mr Daleiden’s driving has absolutely nothing to do with it. Why then should his driver’s licence have anything at all to do with it? Do you need a driving licence to record video now?

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      To be clear he has an altered California DL that identifies him as Robert Doaud Sarkis.

      • rick

        You’re really tore up about that fake ID!

        I guess you must be furious about Hillary and her treasonous breach of protocols Huh?

        Why don’t you circulate a petition to “indict” Eric Holder for arms trafficking across the border into Mexico………”Fast & Furious”…. you know……..AKA “Grenade walking?”

        • gizmo23

          So someone does a wrong gives you the right to also do a wrong?

          • rick

            “Do A WRONG?”……….What are you 5 years old?
            Bugger off Prog….

    • acontraryview

      “As I’ve heard this story, Mr Daleiden’s driving has absolutely nothing to do with it. Why then should his driver’s licence have anything at all to do with it?”

      ROFL

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    This individual is one of 300 lawyers in the DA’s office and has had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Next …

    • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

      Okay, nice opinion (and you’re more than welcome to it); however, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, not in that office, have verification of what role, if any, this individual played (even if some kind of ‘arms length’ of plausibility was maintained, for appearances).

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

        Actually we do because the individual disclosed the conflict to ensure no participation tin the case.

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          ……and that’s exactly what anyone would do, who wished to head-off/eliminate suspicion! (the former SoS also ‘followed all protocols’, w/ sensitive/secret information, there’s not a ‘smidgen of corruption’, @ the IRS, or in Ms. Lerner’s & Mr. Koskinen’s actions, and the Wisconsin ‘John Doe’ inquisition travesty were fully authorized by the Milwaukee County DA).

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Right, so come back to us when you have something.

        If you want to accuse Ms. Reeder of some type of malfeasance, be my guest, but you actually have to have some evidence. It is not her job to prove herself innocent.

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          We’re not in a court of law, @ the moment, Mr. ‘Cha$er’ – if something’s questionable, 1st Amendment (still) allows us point it out. 😉

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can “point it out” all you want, but it doesn’t mean anything.

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            Thankfully, it is neither you nor I, who will be the ultimate arbiter, of that.

  • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

    First, let me say that I abhor Planned Parenthood and the spirit that pervades it. Anything that stands in the way of their pursuit of such vile goals should be celebrated.

    Having said that, it raises the question of whether Christians should be engaging in any kind of unethical behavior to accomplish their goals. I think it brings shame on the Body of Christ when we are exposed as having done something shady, no matter how noble the intention. This mentality of “the ends justifying the means” is what we expect of the world, but it is very unbecoming of a Christian.

    Isn’t God with us in this fight? Does He not have enough power to accomplish His purposes? Why, then, do we feel that we must resort to trickery to accomplish His ends? “Wise as serpents, harmless as doves,” should be our standard. The world already hates us enough for things we are not guilty of. Why feed them ammunition by being anything less than above reproach?

    • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

      Exodus 1:15-21, Joshua 2:1-6, I Kings 20:38-41. Certainly not any kind of blanket justifications for self-advancement, through deceit, but also not condemning all to ultimate self-destruction ‘martyrdom’, when confronted by those in power, with clear evil intent.

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        Thanks for taking the time to consider my point. I think you are quite correct that God has allowed or even encouraged deception in the cause of Israel. But I think Jesus gave us a better way in the new Covenant. How much better would it have been if these incriminating videos had been obtained without breaking the law?

    • rick

      Which are you a fraud or an imbecile?

      He tricked demons into admitting they’re ghouls in front of the whole world, outside the ghouls reputation, he harmed no one…….how many countless lives has this saved if only for the simple fact that many women may choose life now, knowing their babies may land up butchered live and sold by the pound? How do you know this was not G_DS very intention?

      “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” – Isaiah 55:8&9

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        I generally don’t respond to vituperative personal attacks like this. I really haven’t got enough time to entertain you. But I will make an exception in your case since I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

        If you think it admirable that Christians resort to trickery to expose evil, then why stop with small deceits? If the evil is great, shouldn’t our deception be greater? And why stop at deception? Shouldn’t we infiltrate them and sabotage their operations? Perhaps we could embezzle funds to shut them down. The opportunities are endless.

        I don’t know what God’s intention is. I only know that Jesus called us to meekness. If that makes me an imbecile then I’ll be a “fool for Christ’s sake.” — 1 Cor 4:10

        • gizmo23

          Some have shot and killed people

          • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

            Reductio ad absurdum. My point exactly.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Your point about “ends justifying the means” is well-taken and a worthy point.

      Your argument that God is with us, however, sounds like an excuse to be cowardly. Please tell that to Harriet Tubman, Corrie ten Boom, and every person who saved a Jew during WWII by lying or deception. Tell it also to Dr. MLK, Jr who actually broke existing laws in order to serve His Savior.

      You can pat yourself on the back when you stand before our Lord and say “See I never lied – or not too much anyway,” but until I find out that you have some serious skin in this “game,” please forgive me for not taking you seriously. If you DO indeed have skin in the game, please accept my apologies in advance. God bless!

      • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

        Good points. I genuinely appreciate the thought you put into your reply

        I agree with the concept of resistance in the face of evil even though we are admonished to not to return evil with evil. (1 Peter 3:9) But that is a personal decision and one which I am not qualified to judge. There are no doubt times when the breaking of unjust laws is a moral imperative. But in this case they were not engaged in civil disobedience against onerous laws concerning drivers licenses so that argument doesn’t apply.

        I don’t know exactly what you mean by having “skin in the game.” I have served on the board of a crisis pregnancy center and I have picketed outside abortion providers. But I have not put myself in a position to be arrested so I suppose I don’t.

        My comment was not about how we will be judged. God forbid that I would seem to be patting myself on the back. My intent was merely to ask the general question as to whether this was the Christian way to approach this. As events have fallen out, we have reinforced the world’s distorted view of Christians being self-righteous and deceitful. And worse yet, we have managed to turn PPA into a victim!! What kind of victory is that?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yep, you have skin in the game. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

          The unjust law is not the driver’s license law, but the butchery of innocent babies and the selling of their body parts. The intent was to gain access to this information, and it appears to have been necessary to go undercover to do so. I think your general question about har far to go with that philosophy is a very worthy one. I’m just not too sure that faking a driver’s license is something I have seen a lot of beer-buying teens put into prison for 20 years for. But, your question is worthy nevertheless.

          I don’t think WE have turned PP into a victim at all – I think that a miscarriage of justice has done that – when a man gets charged for the very crime that he undercovered. I agree with you that he could have done it better, but I also think that is true in all situations, given our fallen nature.

          I just thought I detected some folks on this page pointing out the speck in CMP’s eye while ignoring the redwood forest in the eye of PP. Shame on them! Jesus had very harsh words for those types of hypocrites. I am quite certain that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a pro-abort had infiltrated a major pro-life organization, no one would be talking about the driver’s licenses they used.

          But, based on your reply, I am very thankful that you are not one of those hypocrites. God bless and keep up the great work!

          • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

            Thanks. You’ve clarified my thinking on this and yes, the subterfuge was aimed at thwarting PPA’s vile operations and the crime of falsifying a driver’s license is trivial. Elevating that to a felony is a clear over-reach. You have to wonder how they manipulated that grand jury to come up with such a bizarre indictment.

            You are correct in saying that it was the miscarriage of justice that allowed PPA to appear to be the victim, not the actions of CMP. I just wonder if it would have gone down that way if CMP had been squeaky-clean.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Again, I want to apologize for assuming you had no skin in the game, and thank you so much for the considerable skin you have put into it! I hope you will consider forgiving me – it is a very emotional issue for me.

            I agree that squeaky clean would be better. I had been reading a number of the updates as these videos were being released, and it was my understanding that they had really made all efforts possible to abide by all state laws on this. (Obviously not, if the fake ID is true, but they may have been thinking of the laws for gathering information legally, even though undercover.)

            I am just having a difficult time throwing people like the CMP folks, Lila Rose, etc under the bus because a lot of my heroes, even when I was an atheist, were these Christians who did use deception to fight against barbaric atrocities like slavery and Jew gassing, and I believe that abortion is the holocaust of our age, no less than either. To me, these folks are heroes for shining light into darkness.

            But, your original point about when it is within Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy to employ such strategies, and especially how far to go, remains a very valid and worthy one. Thanks for helping me to understand it better. God bless!

  • acontraryview

    There are over 300 lawyers in the Houston DA office. Since she had no involvement in this case, how would her being a board member have any relevance?

    • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

      …,because, as everyone is aware, attorneys are noted for their unassailable integrity. Riiiiight!! I will give them credit, for knowing exactly where the boundaries lie, though.

      • Asemodeus

        Meanwhile, back in reality, the prosecutor in question disclosed her ties to PP herself to the DA. Six months ago.

        • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

          Yes, the same DA who has direct ties to Chip Lewis, and a prior history of protecting P/P, and exonerating an abortion provider, as well as the whole Anderson/Lewis/Chandler/Hampton/Brown unsavory incestuous DA campaign finance mess. BTW, how’s Chip’s threatened ‘countersuit’ against O/R coming? 😉

          • Asemodeus

            A DA that has repeatly said she is anti choice. You have nothing.

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            I. “Have”. Reality. Who gives a care, what a politician says, when their actual behavior is completely inconsistent, w/ the stated claim.

            “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

            “I never had Chex with that ramen.”

            “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

            “If you like your health care plan…..”

            “Al Quaeda is on the run.”

            “Anyone who says Smerica’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”

          • Asemodeus

            So your literally have zero evidence and are now whining about it.

            Yawn.

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            Whining?? Nah, I’ll leave that to those, prone to claiming ‘victimhood’.

            As for “evidence,” again, this isn’t quite a formal deposition, but I do have Ms. Anderson’s actual behavioral history, so there’s that. 😕

          • Asemodeus

            People whom have no evidence tend to whine. This is you whining.

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            Umm, no it ain’t. Even if your assertion of “no evidence” had any credence, the conclusion is simply the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

          • Immitis_Veritas_Studium

            Affirming the consequent, are we? Mmm-kay.

      • acontraryview

        What is your basis for questioning the integrity of the legal team that was directly involved in this case?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Don’t expect a legal system which declares human life in its most infant stage to be expendable to seek true Justice. The legal system of the USA is corrupt and will not turn from its wicked ways. The demons promoting abortion want the innocent blood being shed to continue to flow. The Darkness continues to grow. The False Light is shining, and people are following by the millions.

    Judgement is coming.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen, Amen, Amen!

    • LePastieDeLaBourgeoisie

      No, judgement is not coming.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Stuff like is why I don’t ask law enforcement for help against the people stalking me. Christians need to realize that we’re surrounded by people who don’t know Jesus and people who only pretend to know Jesus. Both groups have rejected the Truth and embraced the Lie of this world and the pride of this life. So, when you’re truly in trouble, the perpetrators of the crime against you will get a wink and a nod, rather than having to pay you back or suffer as they have made you suffer.

    Judgement Day is the time when those who think they’ve gotten away with doing others wrong, because they secretly “put it behind them” or they were given a pass by someone they know in the system, will have to pay the price for their wickedness.

    Follow Jesus, find Peace.