Our Weasel of the Week!!

The Watcher’s Council

Once again, It’s time to present this week’s statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all particularly slimy and despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner…the envelope please…

Baby Killer And Spare Parts Wheeler N’ Dealer, Planned Parenthood’s Dr Mary Gatter!!

Don Surber : Dr. Mary Gatter — the Josef Mengele of abortion — a soulless plague upon the land, making light of aborting babies and selling their parts. Mustela abortionist. Pray for her.t

Ah, the good Dr. Gatter. Watching the video of her in action, dickering on prices and than demurring from making a final deal, you know, ‘until we see what others are getting’ and realizing that your tax dollars are funding this is a unique sensation. We truly are becoming the abettors of Moloch, and moving towards damnation. And why not? After all, we elected (and re-elected, apparently) a president who fought tooth and nail against legislation that would have mandated physicians like Dr. Gatter to provide medical care to babies that survived an abortion rather than simply allowing the unwanted arrivals to die from neglect.

When indecency leads, the weak follow, because it’s convenient.

I personally would pray more for America than for the likes of Dr. Gatter, but perhaps that’s just me. To legally allow a 20-week-old healthy child with a fully developed nervous system to feel the pain of being ripped from the womb as its limbs are crushed when there is no health issue involved but simply convenience – and profit – is bad enough, but to force everyone to subsidize it..that’s in a whole different category.

At present, The Center for Medical Progress, the group that released the video of Dr. Gatter has been subjected to lawfare.

They’ve been hit with a lawsuit by a company called StemExpress who profits from the traffic with Planned Parenthood in body parts, and a temporary restraining order was issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court preventing them from releasing any more videos until a hearing is held on August 19th.

The Center for Medical Progress’s leader David Daleiden,told FOX News’s Sean Hannity that there are twelve investigative videos in all:

“Planned Parenthood is getting increasingly desperate to distract from the issue of how they sell the body parts of the babies that they abort,” Daleiden explained. “So, they’re going to be making increasingly outlandish claims about myself, personal attacks against me and really outrageous, fictitious statements about The Center for Medical Progress, in order to avoid addressing that real issue.”

Dr. Gatter is not here with us tonight of course. Her Weasel will be shipped to her offices…as soon as the blood red paint I spattered it with dries.

Well, there it is.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

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

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

Posted in American Culture, Planned Parenthood, Politics, Watchers Council, Writing | Leave a comment

The Neo-Darwinist Probability Problem


By: Brent Parrish

Lately, I haven’t been posting much because I’ve had my head buried in a lot of research. Following the recent release of the undercover footage exposing senior officials of Planned Parenthood peddling the human body parts of aborted babies, I decided to delve deeper into the history of Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. My research led me to Sanger’s close connections with the American eugenics movement in the early 20th Century; which led me to the “father of eugenics,” Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin; which led me to taking a closer look at Darwin’s theory of evolution itself. My article (work in progress) on the history of Planned Parenthood and its founder started to turn into two separate theses: one concerning Planned Parenthood and the eugenics movement, the other concerning Darwinism itself.

Placing Darwin’s theories in a critical light is considered anathema by many, particularly in academia. It’s just “settled science,” we are told. And, quite frankly, I never really got that worked up by Darwin’s evolutionary theory. But as I started to delve deeper and deeper into the subject of evolutionary theory, I was surprised to learn that there are some very real scientific problems with some of Darwin’s theories concerning the origin of species, and how life has evolved on the planet earth.

Over recent years, there has been a quite a bit of heated debate between the so-called “Intelligent Design” (ID) crowd and evolutionist votaries.  From my understanding, I was under the impression ID proponents were simply advocating the teaching of biblical “creationism,” as described in the Book of Genesis. But what I’ve discovered is that there are a number of highly respected and credentialed scientists who have raised some serious concerns and highlighted some major problems with some of Darwin’s theories.

Charles Darwin posited that all animal life was derived from a single ancestor–namely, a single-cell organism that over time evolved into more advanced life forms and different species via the mechanism of natural selection. Darwin’s theory states the all species were derived from just one unicellular organism; and that species, given enough time, will eventually morph into new species (i.e. transmutation). For example, over millions of years, a bear might eventually evolve into a whale.

The only illustration that appears in Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species (1859) is the "Tree of Life."

The one and only illustration in Charles Darwin’s book the Origin of Species (1859) is the “Tree of Life.”

The transmutational process of one species evolving into another species would occur in small, gradual changes, requiring millions of years, according to Darwin. In his seminal work, the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin claimed that the fossil record should reveal numerous examples of what he called “transitional forms”—meaning, the fossil record should show through successive geologic time periods innumerable examples of animal species slowing evolving and changing into new species. For example, if reptiles had evolved into birds, then there should be numerous examples of half-reptile, half-bird species, with half-complete organs and appendages. Yet no fossils remains have ever been uncovered to conclusively support “transitional forms.”

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? … But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1st ed.), p. 172

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed … Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.”

Charles Darwin. Origin of Species (1st ed.), p. 179

It should be noted, lest I be accused of “quote mining,” that the context of the above quotes from Chapter VI is Darwin believed the geologic record was incomplete at the time when he wrote the Origin of Species. But I can’t help but wonder if Darwin were alive today whether he would be rather disappointed over the fact that the fossil record has still not produced his hoped for plethora of “transitional forms.”

Another major tenet of Darwin’s evolutionary theory is that all of these gradual changesmeaning, species mutating into new species over vast stretches of timeoccur solely through unguided and naturalistic processes. Organic life is merely the result of materialistic mechanisms, of randomness and chance, that can all be explained by the law of probabilities, considering the immensity and complexity of the known universe. There is no intervening hand of some omnipotent Higher Power (a.k.a. God) guiding the creation of life on earth, according to Darwinian theory.

One thing that is not really in dispute is natural selection. This can be proven through observation, such as with domestic breeding. For example, if there were a group of sheep with very long wool, and another group with very little wool, and a period of unusually cold winters ensued, the sheep with the long wool would mostly likely survive, while the sheep with little wool would die out. The problem comes when evolutionists claim the mechanism of natural selection has the evolutionary power to create new species. Granted, domestic breeding can lead to new varieties of a particular species; but there is no evidence that natural selection is responsible for creating entirely new species.

Credit: Prof. Denis Noble,

Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk

When it was clear that the mechanism of natural selection had no evolutionary power, evolutionists had to make a fundamental change in the theory.  In addition to the concept of natural selection, they added a second mechanism called mutation—small, incremental alterations or distortions in the DNA, mostly as the result of external effects like radiation or chemical actions (such as poisons). This is where we arrive at the notion of the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), a gene-centered theory of evolution and natural selection popularized by Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene (1976). Richard Dawkins is probably one of the most prominent frontmen for neo-Darwinism.

Through the small, gradual accumulation of random genetic mutations, neo-Darwinists believe new species will evolve over time, all from a single ancestor. There are some profound problems that arise with the claim genetic mutation is the primary mechanism responsible for the creation of new species via the evolutionary process. Mutations typically produce degeneration of the genome, leading to a loss of information or function, not the other way around.  While some mutations may have a beneficial effectsuch as human resistance to malaria or antibiotic resistance in bacteriait still results in a loss of information or function in the genome.

Now, listen to Richard Dawkins’ response (or lack thereof) when questioned on how mutation or evolutionary process can increase the information in the genome:

It should be said that Richard Dawkins is no rube. To assume so would be a big mistake, in my opinion. He is a brilliant writer and studied zoology at Oxford. Personally speaking, my biggest issues with Dawkins concern his dogged insistence that there is no God, and that neo-Darwinism is “settled science.” Personally, I find Dawkins’ “religious” devotion to neo-Darwinian theory based more on philosophical presuppositions, as opposed to empirical data. Dawkins is also the author of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) and The God Delusion (2006)which, to me, read more like evangelistic tracts for atheism, rather than books on empirical science. But I digress.

One thing that consistently rears its ugly head when it comes to the debate on neo-Darwinism is the demonization by the evolutionist coterie of anyone, regardless of their credentials and expertise, who would dare question their neo-Darwinian beliefs. Respected biologist and physiologist, Prof. Denis Noble, has dared to challenge the “modern synthesis.”  But, without fail, the disciples of neo-Darwinism sputter in indignation that Noble would have the temerity to question their postulations.  But, remember, it’s “settled science” (cough).

It should be noted that Denis Noble does not eschew the evolutionary process, nor Darwin.

Prof. Noble writes at his website:

The relevant part of the IUPS2013 lecture [see below] starts at 7 minutes with the phrase “It is important to ask the question what we mean by random” followed at 7:18 by “rather by whether the changes are functionally relevant” before quoting the paragraph from the article shown above. The article and the lecture could not be clearer. See also Randomness and Function.

It is remarkable how often the same unthinking criticism of the article and the lecture turn up on blog websites. What this shows is that the writers have not taken the time to read the article or listen carefully to the video lectures. Having missed the target on this matter, the same bloggers usually go on to the further false accusation that I claim to have disproved “the theory of evolution”. Anyone who reads the article or watches the videos would find that laughable, so why do they do it? For some strange reason defenders of neo-Darwinism on blogs seem to think that anyone who questions neo-Darwinism is questioning the existence of evolution. The article clearly states:

“In some respects, my article returns to a more nuanced, less dogmatic view of evolutionary theory (see also Müller, 2007; Mesoudi et al. 2013), which is much more in keeping with the spirit of Darwin’s own ideas than is the Neo-Darwinist view.”

Denis Noble simply does not subscribe to the prevailing opinion among many evolutionists that random, gradual mutations of genomes cause all proteins to evolve.  Something is enabling the system to reorganize the genome, according to Noble. This is sometimes referred to as the “Informational Hierarchy Problem.” Genes (i.e. DNA) can only build proteins. They do not instruct proteins how to assemble themselves into more complex and advanced structuresfor example, architecture within cells, and cell types into tissue types, and tissues into organs, and organs into body plans. Much of this organizational work, according to Noble, is done by epigenetic (cf. nongenetic influences on gene expression) sources of information. The transmission of genetic information is not simply unidirectional (“bottom-up”), but rather multi-directional.


Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk



Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk


Genetic and epigenetic interactions might better be described as  “biological networks,” Noble points out, as opposed to a hierarchical tree structure like Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”

“I know one approach that will fail, which is to start with genes, make proteins from them and try to build things bottom-up.”

Sydney Brenner (2001)


Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk



Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk


James A. Shapiro documents numerous examples from empirical studies of the non-random nature of the genome, whereby whole domains have shifted around in the course of evolution. There are “hotspots” in the genome, i.e., large regions of reorganization.


The illustration denotes “hotspots” (marked by red stars), from yeast to human genomes, where large domains have reorganized.
(Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk)

The big question that should worry neo-Darwinists, according to Denis Noble, is whether some of the non-randomness is functional. In other words, can the functional state of the organism influence the DNA? Noble goes on to point that membranes and water are  absolutely essential to life but their detailed properties are not coded for within genes. Life is a system of processes. And to reduce it simply to the genome is to the make the mistake that the genome is the program of life. To use a metaphor: DNA isn’t a “program,” but rather a “database”a catalog of proteins to be passed down from one generation to the next. In the process of interpreting it, each life develops itself; and is, of course, unique.

There’s another important reason why this is the case. We don’t only inherit our DNA; we inherit the whole of the fertilized egg cell, Noble points out. What is emerging from many studies, according to Noble, is that effects that are not transmitted simply through DNA do go down through the generationsand by various mechanisms, in addition to the genetic mechanism.

Understanding biological processes by taking the genome and imagining we could second-guess billions of years of evolution by somehow mathematically reconstructing bottom-up the human from the genome is an exercise in futility, Denis Noble warns. Contrary to what is reported in popular media, there is not just one gene for one particular function. Genes have to “cooperate” in order to produce any type of physiological function.

In order to drive the point home, Prof. Noble has used what is known as the “wheat and chessboard problem” in his lectures (see video above) to vividly illustrate the preposterous difficulties that arise in order to do double-knockouts if one wanted to systematically work through the whole genome to reveal its functions. (A gene knockout is a genetic technique in which one or more of an organism’s genes are made inoperative in order to try and reveal its function).

To paraphrase Denis Noble’s story: There once was a powerful Chinese emperor whose life had been saved in battle by one of his brave warriors. Such was the emperor’s gratitude for the man who saved his life, he invited him to his palace and told him to look around. The emperor offered to give him anything he wished.  The man asked for a chessboard. The emperor agreed and ordered his palace guards to bring out his finest chessboard. When the palace guards returned with it, the man took the chessboard and placed it on the ground. He then reached into his pocket and pulled out 15 grains of rice. He placed one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second square, four grains on the third, and eight grains on the fourth.


Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk

The emperor was puzzled as to why the man would be using grains of rice as chess pieces; so he ordered his guards to bring out some of his most elegant chess pieces. But the man told the emperor that he was just a poor farmer and didn’t really have any use for a finely-crafted chessboard and exquisite chess pieces. The man asked the emperor if he could continue to place the rice grains on the squares, in the same manner, continuing the series, until all the squares were filled.  At which point, the emperor could keep the chessboard and he would keep all of the rice. So, the emperor agreed and ordered his guards to bring out a 200 kg bag of rice from the palace stores.

As the guards started to assist in placing the rice grains on the chess board, they soon discovered that the squares were not big enough to contain the rice grains. So they began to pile the rice grains next to the chessboard, marking which square they belonged to. By the time they reached the eighth square on the second row, the number of rice grains exceeded 30,000. By the third row, they are at three million and the whole of the 200 kg bag had disappeared. So the emperor said, “Oh well, just grab another dozen bags of rice.”

By square 36, all the rice in the palace was gone. Even if they had tens of thousands of bags of rice, it would not have been enough. Worse still, by square 50, all the rice in China would not suffice. And by square 64, the amount of rice required would be enough to cover the entire surface of the earth knee-deep in rice. The man then said to the emperor, “Even you, the most powerful man in the world, do not understand the full nature of the world.”

I knew where Prof. Noble was going with this story because I had dealt with similar examples in some of my early computer science courses dealing with time complexity and the dangers of exponential growth in recursive computer algorithms. In the chessboard example, there is a doubling of the amount in each successive square. In mathematics, this is known as Power of Two.  It can be expressed as follows: 20 = 1, 21 = 2, 22 = 4, 23 = 8, 24 = 16, … and so on.

Being the geek that I am, I was curious just how large of a number we’re talking about when we get to square 64. So I wrote a little function (see here) using JavaScript that dynamically builds an HTML table and fills all 64 table cells with “Power of Two” values. I discovered that by the time I reached the 54th exponent (square 55), I started to see rounded numbers for the last nine values, since the JavaScript scripting language can only handle 53-bit integers. It was necessary to “hardcode” the last nine calculations for precision’s sake.

I drew 4 columns and 16 rows (instead of 8 rows and 8 columns like a real chessboard) in order to get the table to fit on a webpage.

Here’s the result:


The 64th square contains 263 grains of rice. In other words: 9 quintillion, 223 quadrillion, 372 trillion, 36 billion, 854 million, 775 thousand, 808 imaginary grains of rice. The total sum for all grains in the 64 squares? 18 quintillion, 446 quadrillion, 744 trillion, 73 billion, 709 million, 551 thousand, 615! 

Now, you might be thinking: “Okay, great … but what does this have to do with anything?” When we look at the genome, we don’t just have 64 squares, like our chessboard example. According to Prof. Noble, We have 25,000 “squares” (the current estimate of the number of genes in the human genome).

Remember, there is not just one gene for one particular function, as some would have you believe. Denis Noble uses a calculation to illustrate more realistic assumptions about the number of genes in each function. But, for simplicity’s sake, let’s just assume that each biological function or “process” depends on only two genes. Noble calls this “absurd, but still instructive.”


Credit: Prof. Denis Noble, musicoflife.co.uk


Even calculating for only two genes per function, we start to get a ridiculously huge value (e.g. 10289). With more realistic assumptions about the number of genes in each function (say 100 genes per function), the figures are incomprehensible. If we try and consider any possible combination, we get an unfathomably large number: 1072403. Remember, that’s a 10 followed by 72,402 zeroes! A veritable combinatorial explosion.


Representation of the timeline of the universe over 13.7 billion years, and the expansion in the universe that followed. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team.

To try and put such inconceivable numbers into some kind of perspective, we can start with the universe. It is estimated that the size of the known, observable universe is roughly 93 billion light years in either direction. Light traveling at a speed of 186,282 miles per second takes 93 billion years to go from one end of the universe to the other. It is estimated there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the universein other words, between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms.

“There wouldn’t be enough material in the whole universe for nature to have tried out all the possible interactions over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process.  We are not going to understand biological processes by taking the genome and imagining we could second-guess the billions of years of evolution by somehow mathematically reconstructing bottom-up the human from the genome,” according to Denis Noble.

Now, it should be duly noted that I am certainly no expert in biology or physiology. But the sort of mind-boggling mathematical figures cited here should give anyone, with even a modicum of mathematical aptitude, pause. These sort of numbers are disturbing, to say the least. And they suggest, at least to me, that something is very wrong, here. On the other hand, they may seem quite acceptable when one is trying to attribute the development and astonishing complexity of life to mere random chance and unguided processesif given enough time.

“Darwinian theory lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematical physics. And mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. We don’t even know what a species is. Einstein preferred to leave ‘elegance’ to his tailor. Evolution is a slippery word. Minor changes in species happen. But Darwin didn’t write a book called ‘How Existing Species Change Over Time.’ He wrote a book called the ‘Origin of Species.’ Darwin purported to show how this same process leads to new species—in fact, every species. The evidence for such a grand claim is totally lacking. How did life begin? Darwin didn’t know. Darwinism, strictly defined, starts after the origin of life and deals with only living things. Darwin’s theory doesn’t begin until you have the first single-cell organism.”

David Berlinski, quote from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

“[T]he application of mathematics to natural phenomena is the aim of all science, because the laws of phenomena should always be mathematical.”

Claude Bernard, Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale (1865)

In the course of researching this article, I stumbled upon the video below. The subject matter concerns what is referred to as the “fine-tuning” of the universe. Granted, whoever produced the video obviously has a “pro-design” bias. But the reason I’m including it here is it features none other than Richard Dawkins in a couple of clips; including an interesting conversation with Steven Weinberg, an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate, discussing yet more “disturbing” numbers.

What Dawkins refers to as “tricks” has to do with universal constants. There are around 20 universal constantsvalues or numbers that do not change. Constants control all the laws of physics. These numbers control all the ways energy interactions occur, and all the ways interaction between energy and space-time occur.

Some examples of universal constants include the speed of light (c); the Hubble constant (H), the unit of measurement used to describe the expansion of the universe; Planck’s constant (h), the quantum of action in quantum mechanics; weak force constant, which causes radioactivity and particle decay; strong force constant (a.k.a. coupling constant), which binds protons together in the nucleus of an atom; gravity, the constant involved in the calculation(s) of gravitational force between two bodies; and the electromagnetic constants, i.e., mass of a proton, mass of an electron, and electromagnetic charge.

So what does the “fine-tuning of the universe” mean? It means that if any of these universal constants were to vary even slightly our universe would be inhospitable to any form of life.

Here are a some examples (numbers provided by Fr. Dr. Richard Spitzer) of what could happen if one were to “fiddle with the knobs” of the universe, so to speak.

If you take just the weak force and the gravitational constant, and you vary them by just  10-50 +/- (that’s a decimal point followed by 49 zeros and a one), the universe would either be continuously exploding for the past 13.7 billion years (very bad for life forms), or the universe would’ve collapsed into a black hole where the entire mass density of the universe is collapsed into 10-32 (that’s a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and a one) centimeter pointcrushed forever (also very bad for life forms).

If you take the strong force coupling constant and increase its value by just two percent,  there would be no hydrogen (i.e. no nuclear fuel, no water, etc.). Make it just two percent lower and there’s no element heavier than hydrogen. If you vary the gravitational and electromagnetic force constants, or the mass of the proton compared to the mass of the electron, just 10-39 +/- (that’s a decimal point followed by 38 zeros and a one), every star in the universe would either be a blue giant or a red dwarf. Everything is either incinerated or frozen.

The multiverse theoryor some sort of super-symmetry that can provide a Theory of Everything (TOE)is the only thing that can provide a naturalistic explanation in order to avert a design for the universe. It is just too finely-tuned. This is why Dawkins, et al., are so disturbed by the notion of “fine-tuning,” referring to it as some sort of “trickery.” The untestable multiverse theory requires having to postulate trillions and trillions of universes just to explain onea violation of Occam’s Razor, which states, “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”

Perhaps I’m wrong. But it appears to me that to support the mind-boggling figures that result from attributing the creation of life and the universe to mere random chance requires spreading out the statistical probabilities into other universestrillions and trillions of them; otherwise, it just doesn’t hold up mathematically.

Richard Dawkins and the neo-Darwinist cabal seem so beholden to the Anthropic Principle—meaning, “the philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it”—that it has metastasized into a severe and malignant form of confirmation bias. Anything that would dare threaten or counter their deeply held beliefs can simply be ignored as sheer lunacy—if not heresy. More often than not, the evolutionists offer up metaphysical and philosophical explanations as gospel truth, as opposed to explanations based firmly in empirical science. The neo-Darwinists view the the world in terms of measurement. And only the things they can measure exist. So things that are not measurable cannot have being.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

—Richard Feynman

But hey! … what do I know?

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, Education, elitism, First Amendment, History, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Islam, Judaism, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Religion, Science, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pieces in Our Time Edition

The Watcher’s Council


Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton of The Noisy Room hit the airwaves last week, as a guest of the Denise Simon Show on Radio One and The Mike Hewitt Show on Newstalk 1090…awesome! Terresa’s segment starts at about 32:10.

This week, The People’s Cube, Maggie’s Notebook, Simply Jews and Seraphic Secret earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

Posted in American Culture, Politics, Watchers Council, Writing | Leave a comment

Third Planned Parenthood Video Released: ‘Huge Trafficking of Fetal Tissues’ from Aborted Babies

A third video has been released exposing Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling human body parts from aborted babies.

Via Washington Examiner (hat tip: Weasel Zippers):

A third Planned Parenthood video was released Tuesday morning that features a whistleblower who says her biomedical company would compensate Planned Parenthood clinics for fetal organs based on their condition and quality after being extracted from an abortion.

Holly O’Donnell is a former technician for California-based Stem Express, a company that contracts with abortion clinics for the tissue.

“The more valuable the tissue the more money you get, so if you can somehow procure a brain or a heart you’re going to get more money than just umbilical cord,” O’Donnell says in the video. “So I guess that’s incentive to try and get the hard stuff because they get more money.”

The footage shows medical professionals picking through trays of aborted fetal tissue for legs and other recognizable body parts. O’Donnell says that when she was asked to participate, she fainted. She also names Cate Dyer, the president and founder of Stem Express, saying Dyer makes “a lot of money.”

Keep reading…

Reportedly, there’s even a “menu” displaying various body parts for sale.


Planned Parenthood’s CEO, Cecile Richards, has adamantly denied PP makes money from the sale of human baby body parts.


Posted in Abortion, Active Measures, American Culture, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Operant Conditioning, Planned Parenthood, Politics, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged | Leave a comment

Maafa 21: Eugenics, Genocide and Planned Parenthood


[Starts at 5:30 min.]

By: Brent Parrish

Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is a carefully reasoned, well-produced and well-researched exposé of the abortion industry and its roots in the eugenics movement. “Maafa” is a Swahili word which means “terrible tragedy.” This hard-hitting documentary explores the sordid roots of the American eugenics movement and associated organizations like Planned Parenthood from the black perspective.

I’m telling you, if you’re a cheerleader for the right or the left, you might as well throw your poms-poms away right now. While the Democrats have certainly sold their souls to the abortion industry, Republicans don’t escape unscathed, either. When it comes to the fetid history of abortion and eugenics in America, villains exist on both sides of the aisle. But, without a doubt, it is the Democratic Party that has made abortion one of its “sacred cows.”

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966), is often lauded and praised by so-called “progressives” as a hero of the feminist movement. Planned Parenthood (PP) has gone out of its way to try and bury and re-contextualize Margaret Sanger’s connections to the American Eugenics movement.  The reality is Sanger maintained close contact and worked directly with many hardcore eugenicists throughout her lifetime. As a matter of fact, Margaret Sanger remained on the roster of the American Eugenics Society until 1956.

(Screencap credit: Maafa21.com)

(Screencap credit: Maafa21.com)

I highly recommend watching this documentary, especially in light of the recent scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood, and its haggling over the human body parts of aborted babies. This is information and history that needs to be spread far and wide. My hat is off to the producers and researchers of the Maafa 21 documentary.

(I am in the process of writing an article on this subject matter that will draw heavily from the Maafa 21 documentary, as well as numerous other sources. So, stay tuned.)

Posted in Abortion, Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Christianity, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Israel, Judaism, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Planned Parenthood, Politics, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Religion, Sacrifice, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ted Cruz: Mitch McConnell Lied

On the Senate floor, Senator Ted Cruz called out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for lying to him, fellow Republicans and the American people. McConnell struck a deal with liberal Democrats and big-government lobbyists to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

I’m so damn sick of these duplicitous SOBs. The fish rots from the head.

Meanwhile, Secrecy around TPP trade deal fuels suspicions and worries …



Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bill of Rights, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, National Debt, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Politics, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In Defense of Name-Calling

By: Brent Parrish

Following the release of the undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood peddling the body parts of unborn babies to the highest bidder, I started to look deeper into the origins of  Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. My research led to Sanger’s connections with the American eugenic’s movement, which then led to my revisiting the longstanding controversy surrounding Darwin’s theory of evolution—since the “father of eugenics,” Sir Francis Galton, was the cousin of Charles Darwin.

I’ve spent the past several days heavily researching the history of eugenics and its Darwinian roots, and the ongoing debate between neo-Darwinists and the “Intelligent Design” (ID) crowd. Whether the origin of life is the result of intelligent design, or merely the result of chance and naturalistic forces, the controversy does not neatly boil down to an either-or debate of religion versus science. There are valid scientific questions that pose significant challenges for the proponents of neo-Darwinism—for example, genetics, the origin of biological information, transitional forms, mutations, irreducible complexity, the “Cambrian explosion,” etc.  Furthermore, the history of eugenics and its relationship to evolutionary theory poses profound ethical questions as well. (I’ll be exploring all this and more in an upcoming article.)

David Berlinski’s heterodox views on neo-Darwinism has certainly ruffled the orthodox feathers of more than a few evolutionists—such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for example. But Berlinski could hardly be described as an “evangelical” or “fundamentalist-creationist.” He describes himself as a “secular Jew.” It should be noted, moreover, that Berlinski is no intellectual lightweight.

David Berlinski attended Columbia College and received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. He later became a fellow of the Faculty of Mathematics and a Post Doctoral Fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, English, and other subjects, at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia, Universite De Paris at Jussieu, University at Puget Sound, University of Santa Clara, San Jose State University, San Francisco University, Baruch College, City College of New York (and those are just the ones I know about).

He has been a fellow at both the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He is the author of works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as the author of A Tour of Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, Newton’s Gift, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, Black Mischief, The Devil’s Delusion, and other books.

I must admit, I’ve always been a fan of contrarians like Berlinski, but not just for contrarianism’s sake alone.  At a time when such ignoble, servile and obsequious phrases like “trigger warning,” “microaggression” and “political correctness” have so contemptuously infiltrated the modern lexicon,  the one who is willing to slough off such repellent constraints on discourse and debate is to be lauded, if you ask me.

In the above video, David Berlinski laments the country is awash in “all too much civility,” especially on important issues. He asks if one could write on pressing matters in a manner reminiscent of such notable journalists and critics like H.L. Mencken or Robert Ingersoll, as was the case back in the 1920s and 1930s.  Mencken and Ingersoll did not shy away from confronting controversial subjects. Now, we’ve lost something in this country because we have become afraid of controversy, afraid of polemics. And that’s not a healthy thing, Berlinski repines.

But it was Berlinki’s views on so-called “name-calling” that I really thought were worthy of further consideration and contemplation. So much so, I took the trouble of transcribing his comments on the subject, here. (The relevant comments start at around the 32:30 min. mark.)

David Berlinski on “name-calling”:

“It’s invigorating. The question whether name-calling is evidence of an imaginative paucity is hardly a fair question to put to me because I revel in the name-calling. And when I don’t have an argument, I tend to abuse my opponents just as easily as they tend to abuse me. Again, I don’t think too much should be made of that. There is a pattern. It’s not a scientific pattern; it’s a pattern of human affairs. When people who haven’t been criticized in a long time, they react with a great deal of indignation when they’re criticized for the first time. That’s human nature.

“I mean, put yourself in the position of a Daniel Dennett or a Richard Dawkins, who are used to being the regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy and for the first time in their lives someone says, ‘Hey, you guys are simply not credible!’ Of course they’re going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, or resort to objurgations. That’s only normal. If I remarked Daniel Dennett had his last idea in 1936, and it was under prenatal influences, what’s wrong with that? It just sharpens the debate. It puts a lot of emotional emphasis on the debate. And it forces people to come up something better. That’s the real point of name-calling. It forces people to come up with something better.

“There are other factors at work: decline in the standards of vituperation. America used to be a country rich in insults. It really did. And we lose something in literary or intellectual culture when that’s no longer accessible. You get a guy like Daniel Dennett—whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his—masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian theory, staring at the camera, and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water? It’s incredible to me. Richard Dawkins is accepted as a great intellect—and a fine prose stylist, too. His prose resembles a string of sponges strung together on a washline…. Should be said … should be said. This isn’t a question of hatred. It’s the question of the effective expression of indignation. There’s no reason a democratic society has to be afraid of that. Go after the guys!

“We’ve become very defensive, very timid. Look … the fact that we have to justify an attack on Darwinian theory is a very sad commentary on the health of American society … shouldn’t require a justification. It shouldn’t. And yet it does. Very timorous … very timorous aspect to American society right now. It’s gone to the black community. And that’s a wonderful thing. But no community in America has mastery of the contemporary language of invective insult, ergo as the black community. Trouble is, not enough of the guys in the black community are devoting their talents to attacking Darwinian theory or quantum mechanics….”

I suppose some social justice warrior (SJW) out there will find Berlinski’s comments “racist” or “problematic.” And that’s why I really like David Berlinski’s views on “name-calling.” Grow a set! If Berlinski’s comments rattle the “safe space” cages of the SJWs and the perpetually offended, I say more power to him. We need more like Berlinski, not less. Let the name-calling begin. But just do me a favor … at least put a little thought and effort into it.


Back out quiet …

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, Education, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Humor, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Islam, Judaism, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mathematics, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Philosophy, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Religion, Sarcasm, Satire, Science, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , , | 20 Comments

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results — 07/24/15

The Watcher’s Council


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

“You know, when President Reagan, who was one of my idols, granted amnesty to about three million illegal immigrants it was based on the fact that the borders would be secured. That didn’t happen.” – Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

“To be called a sovereign nation, a nation has to be able to control its own borders. It is controlling your own destiny in a way, and we don’t control our own borders.” – Tom Tancredo

There is overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Washington that we need to finally secure our borders, enforce our laws, and stop the problem of illegal immigration.”– Ted Cruz


This week’s winning essay, The Independent Sentinel’s How A Red Diaper Baby President Is Rigging Future Elections With Illegal Immigrants is another inher fine series of articles on illegal migration. This one focuses on an issue you may not have considered before. Here’s a slice:

In January, 2012, the Sentinel posted an article about why illegal immigration is more than welcomed by Democrats; even the immigration of criminal illegals, and especially families is encouraged. If drug cartels and terrorists exploit the situation, it’s not a concern because the end goal is what matters.

One obvious reason is because they will one day vote and they support Democrats by a margin of 8 to 1, but it’s not only that.

It is a fact that the U.S. Census Bureau counts illegal aliens because the law states the census “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution to count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’”

It’s interesting that a party that strongly advocates for a “living Constitution” wants to stick with this definition despite the rampant illegal immigration and the effect it has in making illegal aliens a strong political and economic power in the United States.

The decennial census, which counts all people regardless of immigration status, is used to allocate federal funds for education, housing, healthcare, transportation and other local needs. By some estimates, every person counted results in $1,000 in federal funds.

These statistics are used to apportion our 435 congressional districts. It also affects the number of Electoral College votes they are allotted.

As illegal immigration is promoted with our open borders policy and as millions take up residence in the United States, including criminals, the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives is restructured.

The Obama administration made it clear prior to the 2010 census that illegal aliens should come forward and be counted through taxpayer-funded advertisements, personal announcements, and community outreach by leftist organizations like LaRaza. Barack Obama promised they would not be deported if they reported.

Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio all lost congressional seats under the counting method after 2010.

The National Review Online reported that New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, and Illinois, all liberal states, received eight additional congressional seats in the last reapportionment, with over half of those gains coming from their sanctuary cities and counties.

They also reported that data from the Migration Policy Institute show that 3.2 million of the nation’s 11 plus million illegal aliens reside in just 19 counties that include the sanctuary cities of the deep-blue states, mostly the cities of New York, Newark, LA, Chicago, and San Francisco-Oakland.

California flipped from solid red to solid blue after their open borders policies became entrenched.

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan Knish with Millions and Millions of Mohammeds submitted by The Noisy Room. Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Bookworm Room and GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD were unable to vote this week, but neither was subject to the 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

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

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

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

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

Posted in American Culture, Politics, Watchers Council, Writing | Leave a comment

NY Democrat Slams Iran Deal: Obama ‘Unbelievable in His Chutzpah’

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Iran, Islam, Israel, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Muslim Brotherhood, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Terrorism, Theocracy, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sec. Kerry Faces Tough Questions from Congress on Iran Deal

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Sovereignty, Calumny, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Iran, Islam, Israel, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Muslim Brotherhood, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Terrorism, Theocracy, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment