Wow: Look What Happens When You Type ‘Pro-Life’ Into This Web Browser- People Are OUTRAGED

Pro-life supporters have been sadly disappointed this week. Recent news reports show that a new Google chrome extension changes the words ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-choice’ in the web browser.

An extension is a type of software in which you can add additional qualifiers to your browser in order to find specific types of articles. Additional features can be added or taken away. When ‘pro-life’ is typed into the search engine, articles pop up with the words ‘anti-choice’ in them.

There is a clear political divide among politicians and citizens who are in favor of the right to choose to have an abortion and those who are against it. Many on both sides take umbrage with the basic verbiage used throughout the conversation, whether it be pro-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, etc.

It was an anonymous pro-choice advocate who created this new browsing tool that changes the term ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-choice’. While the author is anonymous, the program was funded by the National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund.

The mission of the Institute consists of “working toward a society in which each person has the freedom to control their reproductive and sexual lives. We believe that building a strong interconnected, yet decentralized movement focused on changing policy and the public discourse on reproductive health, rights, and justice is essential to reaching our goals.” The institute is an advocate for women’s reproductive health, which includes advocating for the right to an abortion.

“We thought it was a really interesting and creative idea … we agreed with her that the language in this discussion really matters,” said Andrea Miller in a recent interview with ThinkProgress. Miller is the president of NIRH.

Miller went on to share her concern that those who identify as ‘pro-life’ are the same people who wish to restrict certain reproductive health services to women. She does not feel that the language used is a fair characterization of those policies. “The term ‘pro-life’ is inaccurate in this argument – although it is a powerful tool in the fight against women’s health rights – as it serves to demonize individuals who are pro-choice by suggesting that in their support of a woman’s right to choose what is best for her own life, they also advocate for death in some way,” she said.

A ‘pro-life’ blogger for Life News shares a different feeling. “Abortion activists are right that language is important. But by creating a tool to eliminate words that their supporters don’t like, abortion activists are exacerbating the narrow-minded thinking that they claim to be trying to end,” wrote Micaiah Bilger.

Apple Just Announced Recall On This One Item Due To Major Safety Risk

Apple customers should check the inside slot of their wall plug adapters because they could pose an electrical shock risk.

The mega tech company initiated a voluntary recall of wall plug adapters sold between 2003 and 2015 because they could break, leading to safety concerns of electrical shock.

“Customer safety is always Apple’s top priority, and we have voluntarily decided to exchange affected wall plug adapters with a new, redesigned adapter, free of charge,” the company said in a public statement on Thursday.

The two-prong AC wall plug adapters can be identified by four or five characters, or no characters, on the inside slot that attaches to the power adapter. The redesigned versions have only three characters. The company hasn’t stated how many of the products were sold, but most were sold outside the United States. They were sold in continental Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Korea for Macs, iPads and some IOS devices. They were sold in the U.S. as part of the Apple World Travel Adapter Kit. Asian countries are not included in the worldwide recall.

Company officials said customers can trade their recalled adapters for redesigned versions at an Apple store, and it will cost nothing to make the exchange. It is recommended that one make an appointment at an authorized Apply Service Provider or schedule a Genius Bar appointment. Customer support is also available to help schedule an exchange. There is also an Apple support site.

Before making an appointment, it is advised that one get the serial number off the Apple device shipped with the plug.

9-Yr-Old Wakes Up With Horrible Burn On Leg, Then Mom Finds ‘Harmless’ Item In Her Bed…

Little Olivia Retter only wanted to look at unicorns and rainbows. Instead, she will be looking at a scar the rest of her life that was caused when the glittery rainbow case of her cell phone leaked, causing a severe chemical burn on her right leg.

Olivia, 9, of Ware, Hertfordshire, UK, bought a case for her iPhone 5c at a New Look store in Cambridge. Although against her mother’s rules, Ware took the phone with her to bed. Her mother then explained what happened next.

“She woke up in the middle of the night and came into my room and said her leg was hurting – I just thought she was being silly and sent her back to bed,” said Karly Retter, 35. “Then in the morning I saw this awful burn on her leg – I was so shocked a phone case could do that. Doctors have said it is a severe chemical burn and she will be scarred for life. I can’t believe it – she will have a scar in the shape of a phone on her leg.”

Retter said she looked for cracks in the case that would have allowed the liquid within the case to leak out and burn her daughter, but found none.

“There wasn’t a safety warning or anything at all on the case itself – nothing which warns you what was inside is a chemical which can cause serious burns,” she said. “Imagine if it had leaked when Olivia was on the phone or holding it to her face – it could have gone on her face or her eyes.”

“You just don’t think something like that could happen. A lot of young girls have similar phone cases and they have no idea how dangerous they are,” said Retter, who took to Facebook to post a warning to other parents.

Please share this as much as possible this case is full of acid and if it cracks it will cause 3rd-2nd degree burns this…

Posted by Karly Retter on Friday, 8 January 2016

Retter said she contacted the dealer without receiving a response. New Look, however, issued a statement to the media saying that the case Olivia bought has been removed from stores.

h/t: The Telegraph

Google, Rape Videos, And Morality In America

Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft’s Bing are the three most influential and powerful search engines in the world. Each month, billions of people use these sites to conduct research, read the news, and to look up that perfect Thanksgiving recipe. The Internet is the greatest invention in human history; and without search engines, it would be virtually impossible to find new and important information. Although many people use these websites with the best of intentions, countless individuals also use search engines to promote horrific content much of the world never had access to in the past.

Perhaps the absolute worst material widely available today are videos of women being raped that appear across the Internet, including through the most powerful search engines. Hundreds of videos—possibly even thousands—showing women being raped, sometimes violently or in public places, are easy to find on websites such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Many of the women in the videos are young, and almost all are incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.

This isn’t a small problem. In just one hour of cataloguing, I was able to identify more than 40 unique and disturbing videos of women being sexually abused using the search terms “passed out girl abused” in Google’s “Videos” section. Those videos, which make up only a small fraction of the total number of rape videos available on Google, have been viewed a combined total of 21 million times. While I saw many videos in the search results that appeared to be staged using actors, the 40 I catalogued all claim to be real rape videos in their written descriptions; and there was no evidence in the videos themselves a reasonable person could use to support the claim that actors were used.

Videos such as these are often posted anonymously or using online aliases by criminals to user-populated pornography websites. The pornography websites ensure all of their material gets indexed by popular search engines; and within just a few short hours, rape videos are made accessible to millions of people around the world.

Not only is the decision to display these videos morally repugnant, it may be in violation of federal law. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ),Federal law prohibits the possession with intent to sell or distribute obscenity, to send, ship, or receive obscenity, to import obscenity, and to transport obscenity across state boarders for purposes of distribution.”

According to DOJ, “obscene” material has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark cases, such as Miller v. California (1973). DOJ says on its website that obscene material is, in part, “sexual conduct [presented] in a patently offensive [way]” according to “contemporary adult community standards.” There’s no denying showing videos of women being raped is “patently offensive” according to all modern societal standards, and it’s hard to understand how displaying images and videos on one’s website does not constitute “distribution.”

Regardless of whether or not search engines are breaking the law by providing millions of people with access to these horrific videos, there is no denying the severe lack of decency and poor judgment on the part of the search engines.

Since July, I’ve contacted Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft about this problem on more than one occasion; but I still have not received an official response from any of their representatives. Further, all of the videos I discovered four months ago still appear in all three sites’ search results.

If these powerful search engines do not self-regulate and act responsibly, it’s only a matter of time before federal authorities, using this and other egregious behavior as an excuse, step in and increase the government’s regulatory authority of the Internet—a notion neither I nor the search engines want.

People and businesses should generally be free to operate without stringent government controls, but no one has the right to harm others; and that’s exactly what happens when videos of women being raped are displayed online millions upon millions of times. Pornography sites, their users, and the criminals involved in the creation of these videos are ultimately the parties that deserve the most blame; but because most of the users who upload videos do so anonymously, and because many porn sites operate using servers overseas, search engines are the only ones that can offer a solution to this problem.

The American people have traditionally stood up for those people in society who are victimized; but if we continue to turn our backs on suffering women, we are all partly to blame for this tragedy. It’s time we as a nation demand Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft change their policies and act with compassion. If they don’t change, we ought to find search engines that will stand up for the rights of women everywhere.


Justin Haskins ( is editor of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill. You can follow him @TheNewRevere.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Things Are Getting Scary: Global Police, Precrime And The War On Domestic ‘Extremists’

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.

As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.

Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?

The government is going to war.


Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”

After decades spent waging costly, deadly and ineffective military campaigns overseas in pursuit of elusive ISIS and al Qaeda operatives and terror cells (including the recent “accidental” bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that left 22 patients and medical staff dead), the Obama administration has announced a campaign to focus its terror-fighting forces inwards.

Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:

As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S., new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)

The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combating terrorists who seek to destroy America.

For instance, making the case for the government’s war on domestic extremism, the Obama administration has suggested that it may require greater legal powers to combat violent attacks by lone wolves (such as “people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government views” who “communicate their hatred over the Internet and through social media”).

Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.

However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.

Similarly, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers, and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale, and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘extremist’ interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home and lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, and facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremists.”

We’re living in a scary world.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the landscape has already shifted dramatically from what it was like 10 or 20 years ago. It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the government will not save us from the chains of the police state. The UN’s Strong Cities Network program will not save us. The next occupant of the White House will not save us. For that matter, anarchy and violent revolution will not save us.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, and employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, while you’re at it, urge your local governments to nullify everything the federal government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

If this sounds anti-government or extremist, perhaps it is, in much the same way that King himself was considered anti-government and extremist. Recognizing that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King’s tactics—while nonviolent—were extreme by the standards of his day.

As King noted in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:

[A]s I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist—“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?

So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty, but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

Take a cue from King.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by