The Virginia Shooting
This morning, WDBJ journalists Alison Parker and Adam Ward were tragically murdered on live TV by a disgruntled former co-worker. Their bodies were barely cold when President Obama, viahis mouthpiece White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, did the dully predictable thing by trotting out the tattered timeworn liberal response to every high profile shooting: A call for stricter gun control based on gun violence "becoming all too common in America." (emphasis mine)
But that claim is flatly false. In reality, gun violence is becoming much less common. The rate of gun homicides in this country is roughly half what it was in 1993, and the rate of violent but non-homicidal gun crimes is roughly one-fourth what it was then. This is true despite the fact that the rate of gun ownership is much higher than it was in 1993. Many thanks to Charles C.W. Cooke, my favorite British Import Millennial, for quickly bringing up these facts along with links to the relevant sources.
And, need I bring up that, contrary to left wing gospel, there is no correlation between gun laws and gun violence? Compared to the world as a whole, the United States does have fairly lenient gun laws and a higher than average murder rate -- but then again, Russia and South Africa have much stricter gun laws and much higher murder rates, while Israel and Switzerland have much more lenient gun laws and much lower murder rates.
But why bother? For leftists, facts are not important, their dogma is, and in their minds that dogma is impervious to facts and reason. Exactly like they always say about conservatives and religion. Interesting, is it not?
About Hillary's emails
This morning, WDBJ journalists Alison Parker and Adam Ward were tragically murdered on live TV by a disgruntled former co-worker. Their bodies were barely cold when President Obama, via
But that claim is flatly false. In reality, gun violence is becoming much less common. The rate of gun homicides in this country is roughly half what it was in 1993, and the rate of violent but non-homicidal gun crimes is roughly one-fourth what it was then. This is true despite the fact that the rate of gun ownership is much higher than it was in 1993. Many thanks to Charles C.W. Cooke, my favorite British Import Millennial, for quickly bringing up these facts along with links to the relevant sources.
And, need I bring up that, contrary to left wing gospel, there is no correlation between gun laws and gun violence? Compared to the world as a whole, the United States does have fairly lenient gun laws and a higher than average murder rate -- but then again, Russia and South Africa have much stricter gun laws and much higher murder rates, while Israel and Switzerland have much more lenient gun laws and much lower murder rates.
But why bother? For leftists, facts are not important, their dogma is, and in their minds that dogma is impervious to facts and reason. Exactly like they always say about conservatives and religion. Interesting, is it not?
About Hillary's emails
I'm just gonna throw this out there. In what attorneys refer to as "pertinent part," federal law specifically states the following:
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same... shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." (emphases mine)
The specific law is U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071. Go here to read its full text.
Contrast
I do believe Hillary will reap what she has sown with her emails. I believe the weight of this scandal is so heavy it will snap the hair and cause the sword of Damocles to fall on her. I believe that finally, in this case, a Clinton will not be able to escape consequences... But you never know, especially given the Clintons' Houdini-like history, so while the hair is continuing to hold back the sword, it makes sense to contrast Hillary's situation with that of Marine Corps Major Jason Brezler.
In 2010, when Brezler was serving in Afghanistan, he received information indicating that an Afghan police chief with the Star Wars-sounding name of Sarwar Jan had ties to the Taliban and was raping young boys. Brezler acted on the information and Jan was removed from his position.
Fast forward to 2012, when Brezler was stateside and taking grad school classes in Oklahoma. He received an email from Marines in Afghanistan stating that Jan had reappeared and been granted access to Marine Forward Operating Base Delhi. The email's subject line read: "IMPORTANT: SARWAR JAN IS BACK!!!"
Feeling compelled to protect people, he responded with a warning and attached a document that contained information about Jan. According to his attorney: "When the Marines in Afghanistan wrote back saying that some of that information might have been classified, (he) immediately turned himself in."
Long story short: Less than two weeks later, a 15-year-old boy who worked for Jan walked into the base's gym with a gun and murdered three Marines who were working out.
Nobody doubts that Brezler did what he did with the intent of protecting people. Many people believe that what he did would have saved lives if the base commanders had heeded his warning. In the words of Greg Buckley, Sr., whose son was among the murdered: "I would have my boy with me today."
For his troubles, Major Brezler was recommended for removal from the Marine Corps for mishandling classified material, and today is at risk of being discharged "less than honorably."
By contrast, Hillary did what she did not to protect others, but to protect herself, and in the process she likely endangered the safety of untold numbers of people in multiple nations. But today she is running for president with more than $44 million in cash on hand between her campaign and PACs.
Planned Parenthood
The third post in my three-part series about Planned Parenthood will be coming soon, but in the meantime, another video was released yesterday by the Center for Medical Progress. Featuring Cate Dyer, the CEO of procurement company StemExpress, it can be viewed here.
In the video, Dyer says StemExpress gets "a lot" of "intact" specimens from Planned Parenthood and posits that profits are being made in the trafficking of baby body parts. Like I said in my August 12th post, such trafficking for profit is a federal crime.
At the 2:31 mark Dyer says "if you had intact cases, which we've done a lot" ... At 4:57, she is asked "what would keep your lab happy?" and replies "another 50 livers a week" ... At 5:40, the person posing as a buyer says "it has to be financially beneficial for you," to which Dyer replies "and both of us, for sure" ... Starting at 6:10, Dyer initiates an exchange regarding clinics that provide the body parts, in which she affirms "I don't see" that there are any for whom "it hasn't been profitable" to "do all this work."
Regarding her comment that StemExpress has "done a lot" with "intact cases," two things that CMP states are worth noting: 1) "Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant"; and 2) "'Case' is the clinical term for an individual abortion." As I have said before, according to both state and federal law a born-alive infant is supposed to receive the same protections and rights as any other human.
To be sure, on some issues this video is more ambiguous than earlier ones. CMP says it shows Dyer "admitting the company gets 'a lot' of intact fetuses," but I would not be so fast to make that claim, because I think there is a legitimate question whether she was referring to babies or livers when she talked of "intact specimens" and "intact cases."
Nonetheless, there is still that allusion to profitable (i.e., illegal) selling of parts; there is more than ample evidence to justify investigating whether the "intact" comments refer to intact (i.e., probably born-alive) babies; there is the question of just which clinics StemExpress has possibly illegal arrangements with, since Dyer says they are working with "almost like triple digit number of clinics"; and there is plenty of evidence of desensitization (callousness?) to human life, as evidenced by jokes about times when StemExpress has shipped decapitated baby heads.
To be sure, on some issues this video is more ambiguous than earlier ones. CMP says it shows Dyer "admitting the company gets 'a lot' of intact fetuses," but I would not be so fast to make that claim, because I think there is a legitimate question whether she was referring to babies or livers when she talked of "intact specimens" and "intact cases."
Nonetheless, there is still that allusion to profitable (i.e., illegal) selling of parts; there is more than ample evidence to justify investigating whether the "intact" comments refer to intact (i.e., probably born-alive) babies; there is the question of just which clinics StemExpress has possibly illegal arrangements with, since Dyer says they are working with "almost like triple digit number of clinics"; and there is plenty of evidence of desensitization (callousness?) to human life, as evidenced by jokes about times when StemExpress has shipped decapitated baby heads.
Maybe I should stop calling these videos "about Planned Parenthood" and start referring to them as "about StemExpress and Planned Parenthood." Dirty hands are dirty hands regardless of the arms to which they attach, and the abortion business is the dirtiest on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment