Archive for Liberal Ignorance
Course you don’t.
The strong public support for the Massachusetts health care law has not wavered, despite the well-publicized troubles of the state’s new health insurance website, a new poll has found.
Sixty-three percent of adults said they support the law, which is intended to ensure that almost everyone has health insurance — the same percentage as in a similar survey conducted in 2011.
But get this:
Fewer than half the people questioned in the latest survey knew anything about the difficulties with the state’s health insurance website after it was retooled to comply with the federal Affordable Care Act, starting last October. The site often was down, and when it worked, consumers could not determine their eligibility for government-subsidized coverage and experienced other problems, forcing some to go without coverage temporarily and use paper workarounds.
Of course we like the law—we know nothing about it! It works, we love it. It sucks, we love it. We just love it. It’s ours and we love it.
Except it’s not our law. We had a law, called RomneyCare (love it or loathe it), but ObamaCare came along and kicked sand in its face. And everyone knows what a morsel of excrement that was.
But so what?
Ann Hurd is among the supporters, despite her firsthand experience with the balky website when she applied for health insurance in December.
“You weren’t able to get through to anything,” said Hurd, a poll respondent who agreed to answer follow-up questions from a reporter. “You’re just stuck there. You try like a week or two later and they get you to the next step. Then you were stuck there.”
Eventually, Hurd was able to learn the premium prices, which approached $500 a month, more than she said she could afford from her pay as a baker. Hurd, 39, of North Attleborough, joined the shrinking group of Massachusetts residents who are uninsured.
But still, she approves of the law. “I support it,” she said. “I don’t support the price.”
A law that was shoved down our throats (or up another orifice) to cover everybody ends up not covering Baker-Americans—and they’re cool with that! Unbelievable!
Aggie and I were talking the other day about the group-think mentality of this place. They listen to NPR and take the New York Times (two of the more propagandistic organs to exist since Joseph Goebbels left the business) and fancy themselves informed. Aggie suggested we start conversations at social events with “I was listening to NPR today, and…”, but instead of actually citing the taxpayer-financed drivel, switch to what Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage said. See how long the mindlessly-nodding heads continue to nod. I would try another tack. “I heard on NPR today that if you drink your own urine, your butt will get smaller.” “I read in the New York Times that Angela Merkel has a mole the shape of a groundhog on her left breast.” “Frontline had a program about how alien DNA means we’re de-evolving into pus in the next million years.”
If we were only dangerous to ourselves, maybe we could be ignored. But we’re like the Taliban. No matter how far removed we are from you, we can make your lives miserable.
Before we get to the story, compare that map to the results of the 2012 election. Note the correlation:
Anyhow, enough from me.
Thumbtack, in partnership with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, has released the results from the third annual Thumbtack.com Small Business Friendliness Survey. The study, drawing upon data from over 12,000 small business owners, provides new insights into state and local business environments across the nation.
“Creating a business climate that is welcoming to small, dynamic businesses is more important than ever, but rarely does anyone ask small business owners themselves about what makes for a pro-entrepreneur environment,” says Jon Lieber, Chief Economist of Thumbtack. “Thousands of small business owners across the country told us that the keys to a pro-growth environment are ease of compliance with tax and regulatory systems and helpful training programs.”
Some of the survey’s key findings include:
Utah, Idaho, Texas, Virginia and Louisiana gave their states the highest rating for friendliness to small business. Small businesses in Colorado Springs, Boise and Houston gave their cities the highest ratings.
In contrast, small business owners gave California, Rhode Island and Illinois an “F,” while Connecticut and New Jersey both earned a “D” grade. Sacramento, Providence and Buffalo were the survey’s worst-performing cities as rated by their small business owners.
Small businesses in Texas, Utah and Idaho have rated their states in the top five every year this survey has run, while California and Rhode Island have been rated in the bottom five every year.
The friendliness of professional licensing requirements was the most important regulatory issue in determining a state’s overall friendliness to small businesses. Closely following licensing requirements was the ease of filing taxes.
Once again, tax rates was a less important factor than the ease of regulatory compliance in determining the overall friendliness score of a jurisdiction. Two-thirds of respondents said they paid their “fair share” of taxes – that is, they felt like they were neither under-paying nor over-paying.
Despite what business-bashers like Barack Obama bloviate, owners of small businesses don’t bitch about taxes. It’s the red tape and the power-mad whims of the bureaucrats (if I may paraphrase) that drive them crazy. That’s why places like California are bleeding jobs to places like Texas. And why the country as a whole still hasn’t recovered from a recession (however Great it was) that ended five years ago. (If I may extrapolate.)
Every so often, I search the web for news of some of my favorite topics: Detroit’s bankruptcy; Mexican drug cartels; National Health Service atrocities; Chinese coal mining disasters, etc. I am rarely disappointed.
Another favorite theme is gun violence in Chicago. I am sorry to report that, again, I am not disappointed:
At least 29 people have been shot across Chicago this weekend, four of them fatally, officials said.
There are details aplenty at the link, if you’re interested. Don’t know why you would be; you didn’t know the victims.
Yesterday, GunsSaveLives.com published a story about a mass shooting in Chicago. They reported that on Monday night, six people were shot in the Windy City at a laundromat. They included teenagers, and according to the Chicago Tribune, all are on the road to recovery.
The coverage raised the question of how six people could be shot and wounded in a single incident in the United States and get minimal press. It was uncanny, to say the least. A man walked up to a laundromat in Chicago and pulled the trigger an estimated 19 times, according to witnesses. How was this not all over the news?
There were over 80 documented shootings in Chicago in this timeframe [between the UCSB shooting and June 4, the date of this story]. These include fatalities, botched robberies, and gangland killings.
Why is this information not causing a firestorm among politicians and the media? Why has this information not been brought to the attention of the public? Where is the outrage?
One might well wonder:
There are three very possible answers to this question, and they are not mutually exclusive.
The first is that Chicago is the seat and the base of the Democratic political machine in the United States. It is the bastion of state controlled, tax-burdened, socialist capital which helps choose the nation’s Democratic leaders. Chicago is the throne of the Empire of the Donkey.
Chicago is also home, until recently, of the most stringent gun laws in the country. There was no ownership of handguns, there was no concealed carry, and there was no way for law-abiding people to protect themselves except to call the police. That is how the Democrats want it, and Chicago is where they had it.
The changes to allow law abiding Chicagoans to arm themselves have not yet taken full effect, and it will be interesting to watch the changes in the city once they do. Chicago cannot and will not accept these changes wholeheartedly. The city which represents the Democratic idea of industrial socialism and state monopoly of force will never fully respect or abide such a fundamental right as of citizens to arm themselves.
Second, Chicago already has tough gun laws. How can these crimes happen if those guns are illegal? The reaction of the media and the liberal politicians is for the most part to plug their ears and sing loud gibberish whenever a gun rights advocate brings up Chicago. They do not want to hear that their unarmed citizens are at risk; it is inconceivable. The shooter in the laundromat incident fired 19 shots; anything holding 19 shots is illegal in Chicago. Criminals do not seem to care about the restrictions placed upon them by the government, but they do seem to take advantage of them.
Lastly, Chicago is the city where Barack Obama himself helped craft the gun laws which are choking the ability of law-abiding citizens there to defend themselves. It was his policies, and it was his efforts that helped keep Chicagoans disarmed in the face of rising violent crime. According to a piece by Brietbart.com, Obama himself declared that the type of laws Chicago had were the type of laws he wanted to pass on a national level. Magazine bans, “assault rifle bans,” background checks and licensing already exist in Chicago, just as they do for the most part in California where the Isla Vista shootings took place. Bringing attention to the gun violence in Chicago potentially hurts Obama, and that is something the liberal media cannot let happen.
I would also add that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators and victims of Chicago’s epidemic of gun violence are black. This is an inconvenient and profoundly sad truth.
HELP US – WE’RE DYING!
And while you’re at it, we also need to hear from you about all the ways you’re working around the clock to keep more innocent people from being killed in Chicago.
Seven killed, 23 hurt over the last weekend? Eleven more shot on Monday?
These are headlines we expect out of Syria, not The Windy City.
Seriously, what will it take for our country to recognize that there is an all-out war being waged on its soil?
Someone white dying? Nope, Sandy Hook took care of that and WE STILL ARE NO WHERE.
Too many of our men simply aren’t there for them, and every day we see evidence of this: they’re abandoning their kids, dropping out of school, going (or returning) to prison and falling victim to violent crimes at the hands of one another in cities like Chicago and states like Louisiana.
I believe that if we fix the men we fix the kids, male and female.
If we fix the men we fix the household.
If we fix the household we fix the community.
We in the white mainstream, liberal or conservative, may be discomfited by this straight talk. But if we are to have these long-awaited “conversations on race” (20 years overdue), are we to silence voices that live on the front lines, as it were?
The facts are that despite Chicago’s strict gun laws (Fox Butterfield, is that you?), gun crimes are proliferating, and black people are suffering the consequences, unto death. What do we plan to do about it? Besides nothing, that is.
About three weeks ago, CNN helpfully provided an outraged world with advice on how to #bringbackourgirls:
#BringBackOurGirls has now been tweeted more than a million times across the world, as global outrage over the kidnap of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls grows.
There are many ways to help girls, like those kidnapped in Nigeria, who face persecution, violence, poverty and other barriers to education.
They link to several no-doubt worthy charities that seek to educate and emancipate girls in third-world anuses around the world. Not one of those charities, however, is equipped to actually bring back the girls.
Scores of residents in four villages in the northeastern Borno state of Nigeria, near the border with Cameroon, were killed Tuesday in Boko Haram raids, a lawmaker and residents said.
They said hundreds of homes were destroyed.
Heavily armed gunmen dressed as soldiers in all-terrain vehicles and on motorcycles attacked Goshe, Attagara, Agapalwa and Aganjara villages in Gwoza district, shooting residents and burning homes.
Villagers fled into neighboring Cameroon to escape the onslaughts, said Peter Biye, a lawmaker from the area who serves in the Nigerian lower parliament.
“We are still trying to compile a toll of the dead as people on the ground are still counting the number of casualties,” said Biye.
We’ve got 80 troops and a drone or two over there looking for the girls. But that’s nothing compared to what we’re prepared to do.
Boko Haram, meet Barack Hussein:
Training like Rocky Balboa for his own rumble in the Nigerian jungle.
If there’s one reason why this blog hasn’t taken off and become as widely read as Drudge or PuffHo (there are many reasons, alas), it is because we never blink or flinch at the nature of the world. In Iran, Gaza, China, Russia, Venezuela, Brussels, Washington, DC, we describe the undiluted evil we see, no matter how it sickens us. Most people don’t want to talk about it (even if their self-imposed ignorance doesn’t stop them from forming hardened opinions).
Most people are basically good. But it doesn’t take many despicable scumbags to make the rest of us miserable. The question, as ever, is what we’re prepared to do about it. Eighteen at Andrews AFB seems about the best we can muster.
Judging by the Forbes 400 list, the richest people in America have been getting richer very quickly. In 1982, the first year of the list, there were only 13 billionaires on it. A net worth of $75 million was enough to earn a spot. The 2013 list has nothing but billionaires, with $1.3 billion as the cutoff. Sixty-one American billionaires aren’t rich enough to make the list.
Many regard this as a serious problem, seeing the development of a plutocracy dominating the American economy through the sheer power of its wealth. The French economist Thomas Piketty, in his new book “Capital in the 21st Century,” calls for an 80% tax on incomes over $250,000 and a 2% annual tax on net worth in order to prevent an excessive concentration of wealth.
That is a monumentally bad idea.
The great growth of fortunes in recent decades is not a sinister development. Instead it is simply the inevitable result of an extraordinary technological innovation, the microprocessor, which Intel brought to market in 1971. Seven of the 10 largest fortunes in America today were built on this technology, as have been countless smaller ones. These new fortunes unavoidably result in wealth being more concentrated at the top.
But no one is poorer because Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, et al., are so much richer.
The last line bears repeating:
But no one is poorer because Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, et al., are so much richer.
The author reminds us that previous technological leaps forward—the clipper ship, the steam engine, the railroad, oil and steel—have produced their own stinkin’ rich. We lambasted them too (Robber Barons), but, monopolies aside, who was harmed by those achievements? Doesn’t the history of capitalism, warts and all, declare it the the winner and still champion of all economic systems? A show of hands, please: how many would wish no ships, trains, steam, oil, or steel because some Rockefeller or Carnegie got rich off them? Go back to the horse and buggy if you wish, but it is human nature to try to improve the buggy or breed a better horse, and to get rich doing so.
Just as the railroad, the most important secondary technology of the steam engine, produced many new fortunes, the Internet is producing enormous numbers of them, from the likes of Amazon, Facebook and Twitter. When Twitter went public last November, it created about 1,600 newly minted millionaires.
Any attempt to tax away new fortunes in the name of preventing inequality is certain to have adverse effects on further technology creation and niche exploitation by entrepreneurs—and harm job creation as a result. The reason is one of the laws of economics: Potential reward must equal the risk or the risk won’t be taken.
And the risks in any new technology are very real in the highly competitive game that is capitalism. In 1903, 57 automobile companies opened for business in this country, hoping to exploit the new technology. Only the Ford Motor Co.survived the Darwinian struggle to succeed. As Henry Ford’s fortune grew to dazzling levels, some might have decried it, but they also should have rejoiced as he made the automobile affordable for everyman.
And the fact that Henry Ford was a vile antisemite is beside the point!
Everyone benefits when someone gets unimaginably rich, and not just from their inventions or innovations. The names Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie—and Gates, Ellison, and Zuckerberg—are now associated as much with philanthropy as they are with capitalism.
But that’s my point: there is no difference. Even more than the church (an example of concentrated wealth that makes capitalism look like Leon Trotsky), capitalism is philanthropy. Regulate it, sure, but to eliminate it negates human nature and will lead to famines and wars like you’ve never seen.
Blogger Susan Crockford reports on Polar Bear Science that she received an email on May 22 from Dag Vongraven, chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group [PBSG], that an upcoming report on worldwide polar bear population would contain a footnote that some polar bear populations are simply best-guess estimates.
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000,” the footnote reads.
“It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated.”
The note goes on to say here are no “abundance estimates” for bears in the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and Russia.
Which is about the size of Rhode Island, right?
“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
Why should that stop anyone? Don’t you know how science works?
“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004?s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”
I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.
To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said: “We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977)
1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.
9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.
10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.
11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts.
In the parts I omitted, he says there is good science in the report. This is not among that good science:
Why measure the temperature? Why count the polar bears? We have models that do that!
Oops, wrong kind of model—but do you think she’d do any worse?
[T]he IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.
In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined.
The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”
No [bleep]! Who wants to traipse around the North Pole counting polar bears? (Count the number of legs and divide by four.) I’d rather roll on a polar bear rug with my climate model above.
Traitor Obama (if we are to believe half the Bergdahl story) is running hell for leather into the Global Warming fracas. May he wind up looking like the carcass in the picture, top (politically speaking, of course).
Aggie quoted Caroline Glick just a couple of posts down, but allow me to quote her again—if only because she agrees with me:
Consider first Francis’s behavior at the security barrier.
Reasonable people disagree about the contribution the security fence makes to the security of Israelis. But no one can reasonably doubt that it was built to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorist murderers. And Francis ought to know this. Francis’s decision to hold a photo-op at the security barrier was an act of extreme hostility against Israel and the Jewish people.
As the former Cardinal of Buenos Aires, Francis may have heard of the November 2002 massacre at Kibbutz Metzer. Metzer was founded by Argentine communists in the 1950s. Metzer is located 500 meters from the 1949 armistice lines which made it an obvious beneficiary of the security fence. But true to its radical roots, in 2002 members of the kibbutz waged a public campaign against the planned route of the security fence. They feared that it would, in the words of Metzer member Danny Dovrat, “ignite hostility and create problems” with the kibbutz’s Palestinian neighbors.
Thanks to that concern, on the night of November 10, 2002, a gunman from the “moderate” US- and EU-supported Fatah terror organization faced no physical obstacle when he entered the kibbutz. Once there he killed two people on the street and then entered the home of Revital Ohayon and executed Revital and her two sons, Matan, 5, and Noam, 4 years old.
Fatah praised the attack on its website and pledged to conduct more assaults on “Zionist colonizers,” and promised to continue “targeting their children as well.”
Had he actually cared about the cause of peace and non-violence he claims to champion, Francis might have averred from stopping at the barrier, recognizing that doing so would defile the memory of the Ohayons and of hundreds of other Israeli Jewish families who were destroyed by Palestinian bloodlust and anti-Semitic depravity.
Instead, Francis “spontaneously” got out of his popemobile, walked over to a section of the barrier, and reverentially touched it and kissed it as if it were the Wailing Wall.
The graffiti on the section of the barrier Francis stopped at reinforced his anti-Semitic position. One of the slogans called for the embrace of the BDS campaign.
We said much the same thing two days ago. We hoped—prayed, even—that Pope Francis was blessing the wall—man’s wall, not to be confused with God’s Wall, where he also prayed—for its immeasurable contributions to peace and life. That’s us all over: charitable even to a fault.
Glick has plenty more to say, but consider this:
During his visit Monday to Jerusalem, Francis embraced the Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhammed Hussein. Departing from his scripted remarks which called for the pope to refer to the mufti and his associates as “dear friends,” Francis called them his “dear brothers.”
Hussein has been condemned by the US and the EU for his calls for the annihilation of Jews in the name of Islam.
In 2012, Hussein said it was the destiny of Muslims to kill Jews, who he claims are subhuman beasts and “the enemies of Allah.” He has also praised suicide bombers and said their souls “tell us to follow in their path.”
Francis didn’t condemn him.
Why should he? The Mufti was just carrying on long-standing policy.
Three syllables…first syllable sounds like…empty, nothing, hollow—hollow!
I think Francis’s hostility toward Israel stems not from millennia-long Catholic enmity toward Jews—though that is the fertile soil from which it grows. No, his particular poisonous line of thinking stems from Leftism. Look at his anti-capitalist screed, consider his background in Liberation Theology.
We took issue with His Holiness over capitalism, as we do with all anti-capitalists. Capitalism is not immoral, but amoral. But in its amorality, capitalism is the greatest creator of wealth outside of an Obama stimulus package. Other than Obamaphones and food stamps, capitalism has lifted the most people out of poverty.
We will disagree—and condemn—Pope Francis here too. I don’t believe he shares the medieval Catholic view of Jews with horns siphoning off the blood of gentile children for their flatbreads. But his association with the Arab occupiers of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is willfully ignorant. But that’s us being charitable again.
Israelis and Jews around the world need to be aware of what is happening. Francis is leading the Catholic Church in a distressingly anti-Jewish direction.
Trick question: they’ve outlawed light bulbs!
And nuclear power plants.
But if you want to make a global warm-monger pant in anticipation (not that you would), show him this graph:
A life-cycle footprint measures the negative impact of human activities on the environment. It’s the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide, or CO2.
Better than solar (which fries birds that fly through its concentrated beams), better than wind (which minces birds and bats), better even than burning biomass (like aborted fetuses)—better than all of them is good old clean nuclear power.
As the issue of global warming continues to capture the focus of America and the world, it is vitally important to look at the role nuclear can play in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that continue to pollute the air and damage our ecosystem.
Nuclear energy is the most “eco-efficient” of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species and air resources.
Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere by causing ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain. Nor does nuclear energy produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming.
Electricity generated by nuclear avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S. The 2,100 tons of nitrous oxide (N2O) avoided by Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is the amount of N2O, released in a year by 110,000 passenger cars.
Me, I don’t give a crap about so-called global so-called warming. It’s junk science, peddled by junkie scientists (addicted to government graft). But there are plenty of people out there who do, or claim to. Why do I have to praise the benefits of nuclear power? Where’s Bill McKibben on the issue? Why isn’t Al Gore screaming about it?
The boy can scream when he wants to!
Has anyone seen Memphis? He looks like he ate it.
In a testy exchange during a Senate hearing Thursday, a Defense Department official repeatedly told Sen. Robert Menendez that the U.S. government couldn’t say whether Nigerian forces are prepared to rescue more than 300 girls who were kidnapped in the country last month.
The situation in Nigeria, [Alice] Friend admitted earlier in her testimony, is a mess. The military there is poorly trained, poorly equipped, and so afraid of an increasingly brutal Boko Haram that its members are reluctant and perhaps incapable of taking on the terrorist organization. The military had been kept for decades at a low level of capability, Friend said, because of fears by the country’s government about a possible military coup. Those concerns are no longer an issue in Nigeria, Friend added, but the weakness of the military there remains a dangerous reality.
Even worse, perhaps, is a growing fear within the ranks of the Nigerian military of taking on Boko Haram. “They don’t have the capabilities, the training, or the [equipment] that Boko Haram does. And Boko Haram is exceptionally brutal and indiscriminate in their attacks,” Friend said. “So we are now looking at a military force that’s, quite frankly, becoming afraid to even engage.”
The Defense Department’s efforts to train Nigerian military officials have been crippled by a U.S. law passed in 1997 to combat human-rights abuses. The Nigerian military has at times responded to aggression from Boko Haram with their own human-rights violations. Because the Leahy Law, as it’s known, prevents the U.S. military from assisting any foreign military that has committed human-rights abuses, the Defense Department is having difficulty find a unit that it can legally help.
Wait, this is too rich. One dumbass appeal to emotion (#bringbackmybonnietome) is being stymied by the consequences of previous dumbass appeal to emotion (the Leahy law)—both from liberal Democrats? It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. If you listen to the human rights pantywaists, America and Israel are the greatest violators of human rights since Caligula and Genghis Khan. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
For now, the U.S. is focused on finding the kidnapped girls. Reports indicate that they may have been separated and possibly taken to neighboring Cameroon, Niger, or Chad.
Has anyone here
Seen my 300 schoolgirls?
Can you tell me where they’ve gone?
Boko seized a lot of people,
And they’ve become brides young
In Cameroon, Niger and Chad.
I say we find the plane (what plane?) before we find the girls. Anyone wanna bet?
PS: I mentioned that this whole hashtag thing was begging for parody, which had yet to appear. Oh boy, now has it ever. Here are a couple of PG-rated (the tiniest minority, I assure you):
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period,” Obama promised in 2009 in front of the American Medical Association. “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.”
“We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” Marcus Merz, CEO of Minnesota insurer PreferredOne, told The New York Times Tuesday. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the furrowed brows and quivering lower lips of all the Obama voters betrayed by the man and his ephemeral promises. You’re all so fixated on keeping your doctors, all so addicted to choice. What do you think this is, America?
Look, I don’t expect any honest confessions here. We’d just laugh in your face. But I was wondering about something else: is there some sort of hierarchy among bumper stickers? I don’t see any I [HEART] OBAMACARE bumper stickers anymore—and I sure used to. Do those of you with ELIZABETH (“for Massachusetts”) WARREN bumper stickers look down on the I’M WITH HILLARY know-nothings? Is a Warren sticker on a Prius the ultimate in liberal smugness? Is it just me, or is a Hillary on a sticker on a Ford F-150 truck the butchest thing on wheels? That thing could change it’s own flat tire!
I’m actually curious. Think of me as Dian Fossey among the apes, or Jacques Cousteau probing into the habits of the giant squid. I wish our liberal reader, Robert, was still here to let us peek into the tiny crevices of what we shall generously call a mind. He had his progressive bona fides down so perfectly, he once actually congratulated black women in New York City for the “courage” of aborting their unborn babies in genocidal numbers.
Who better to ask about the abnormal psychology of liberals than a psychopath?
If what the media publishes daily is any indicator, Americans seem fascinated with killers. We’re confronted with headlines about the likes of Oscar Pistorius, Amanda Knox and Jodi Arias. When the news is slow, Americans can change the channel to procedurals, such as “Law and Order: SVU” and “Criminal Minds.” When the procedurals lag, producers and directors come up with serial-killer-glorifying programs like “Dexter,” which just finished its eighth season last year, or the 2007 mystery thriller, “Zodiac.”
It’s strange to see Hollywood refuse to touch the story of the worst serial killer in America’s history — and to see even an independent filmmaker rebuffed in his efforts to pick up the slack.
Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted in 2013 for the murder of three newborn babies, whose spines he severed with scissors after delivery, and the deaths by gross negligence of two mothers. He was also convicted for killing 21 babies in utero — not for murder in these cases, but rather for violating Pennsylvania’s legal-abortion limit.
I see Laurence Fishburne as the evil doctor, with a variety of Hollywood b-list women as the mothers-to-be-not. What starlet would turn down a death scene? What an easy pitch: women come to see ob-gyn for “counseling”, and walk out (if they walk out) with a baggie of baby remains. They can call it “Look Who’s Stalking”.
Early this year, “FrackNation” producer Phelim McAleer turned to the website Kickstarter to crowd-fund the Gosnell movie you’ll never see out of Los Angeles. However, Mr. McAleer found out that it’s not just Hollywood avoiding this story: Kickstarter refused to green-light his project unless he censored his description of Gosnell’s crimes.
Why does a story like this — an “if it bleeds, it leads” tale, if ever there was one — cause such unique aversion, to the point where mainstream media ignore it and private companies twist themselves in rhetorical knots to keep it under wraps? Why does even the average American who enjoys “Law and Order” look away?
First, there is the extreme horror of Gosnell’s acts. It is one thing when victims can run or scream for help, as in the Ariel Castro story. Gosnell’s victims, though, had absolutely no chance; they were barely developed enough to scream. These infants were completely at the mercy of their killer, with no escape from the surgical scissors on their necks.
There are also the implications for the “pro-choice” movement. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest try to distance themselves from Gosnell. Yet Planned Parenthood is far more sympathetic to “after-birth” abortion than its press releases would have us believe. Those 21 babies killed — and denied justice through Gosnell’s conviction on a mere technicality — speak to the reality of what abortion is.
This is hard for people to deal with, and it’s understandable.
When people hear that Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors” is the result of a “choice” they’ve been taught for decades to revere, they get sick. Most Americans would rather not think about abortion, and if they do, they want something clean — not an industry that glorifies, protects and covers for Gosnells still operating across the country.
Maybe “It’s Always Runny in Philadelphia”? Title needs work, but the project should definitely be greenlighted.