Filed under: Health Care, Democrat Corruption, Law, Bureaucracy, Crime | Tags: Have You Seen the Videos?, Minority Leader Pelosi, What Planned Parenthood Does
The U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) chimed in on the debate over defunding Planned Parenthood, about as expected. And her response is really quite revealing in a way.She questioned the truthfulness of the videos that show Planned Parenthood employees discussing the harvesting and sale of fetal organs, but admitted that she had not watched any of the videos.
“I don’t stipulate that these videos are real, and the fact is that the [fetal tissue] research that is being criticized … [is] being supported,” Pelosi said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper.
“I also know that some of it is not real and you can create any reality that you want,” she said, while admitting that she has not seen the videos, and has only read news reports about them.
This is the so-called information age, but as far as I can tell, schools do not have coursework in how to manage the flow of information. How do you tell what is real? How do you check? And how do you tell who is telling the truth?
A quick search showed that 1) only 6% rate news Media as very trustworthy, and (2) most voters still get their news from television and consider the news reported by the media trustworthy. 56% of all voters regard the news reported by the media as at least somewhat trustworthy according to Rasmussen.
Gallup said that 44% of Americans have a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in the Mass Media. 55% have not very much confidence or none at all. Note that two different sources are reporting the same news differently.
I have found that most Democrats get their news from Democratic sources, and rely on Democratic talking points to avoid delving deeper into an issue. I have been astonished at Hillary Clinton’s complete dependence on Democratic talking points for her campaign. I had assumed that someone running for the presidency with the experience of being Secretary of State and a senator would have studied long and deeply about how to improve governmental operations.
Polls in general show that Americans support the ability to have an abortion. Attacks on the callousness of Planned Parenthood are usually interpreted as attacks on omen’s right to choose. No one is questioning that right, but there are an awful lot of choices poorly made before one gets to the need for an abortion — like a poor choice in who to go out with, how much to drink, whether to go to his apartment, and so on and on. Planned Parenthood is not a health care facility. Their business model is abortions, and there is not a single mammogram machine in the whole organization.
The question is whether taxpayers should be forced to support the operations of Planned Parenthood, if they have deep ethical objections to cutting up aborted fetuses and selling the parts. Stem cell research has largely turned to using a patient’s own stem cells. It is a crime to sell aborted baby parts for profit using federal funds.
The Federalist has published “A Quick and Easy Guide to the Planned Parenthood Videos” The picture is of Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood chief executive, who has just testified before Congress.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, The Constitution, Freedom, Democrat Corruption, Law, The United States, Immigration | Tags: Diversity, Who Do You Want for a Neighbor, Prejudice
In this worldwide poll, people were asked to choose which, if any, groups of people they would not want as neighbors. (Click to enlarge) Kind of a test of prejudice or diversity. The nations of the Anglosphere, with some additions from South America, are the least likely to object to having people of another race or religion as neighbors. (I guess they didn’t ask in the grey areas)
So much for Democrats propaganda about diversity and inclusion, which they use constantly to tell people of other races in this country that 1. The Democrats are very inclusive, and care about diversity, and thus thus they care about people of other races. 2. They have found that by dividing the electorate up into voting groups they can direct specific messages of how prejudiced the Republicans are to those specific groups, and gain votes.
This is why Obama is attempting to get so many illegals into the country and offer them amnesty, and why he wants to import so many refugees. Republicans will reliably object, because we are a nation of laws and Republicans want the laws obeyed.
As far as I can tell, Republicans don’t spend a lot of time worrying about race simply because they don’t think a different race is a big deal. They, for the most part, actually do judge a person on their character, not the color of their skin. When they object to illegal aliens, it is not because of their race or ethnicity, but because of the illegal part.
Filed under: History, Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Law, National Security, The United States | Tags: President Barack Obama, Presidential Ambitions, The Six Day War
From the Associated Press:
JERUSALEM: Seeking to sell his nuclear deal with Iran to a skeptical Israeli public, President Barack Obama has repeatedly declared his deep affection for the Jewish state. But the feelings do not appear to be mutual.
Wide swaths of the Israeli public, particularly supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have little trust in the American leader, considering him naive and even hostile. One recent poll showed less than a tenth considered him “pro-Israel.”
Such misgivings bode poorly for Obama as he tries to repair ties with Israel in the final year of his presidency, and they would certainly complicate any renewed effort at brokering peace between Israel and its neighbors – once a major Obama ambition.
President Obama believed firmly that one of the great triumphs of his administration would be brokering a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. He thought that all he had to do was make Israel withdraw to their borders before the 1967 Six Day War. Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Israel was taken by surprise. Egypt swept deep into the Sinai Peninsula and Syria struggled to throw Israeli troops our of the Golan Heights. It was a huge victory for the Israelis. a cease-fire went into effect on October 25, 1973.
Obama’s missteps date to his earliest days in office, and the Cairo speech, which demonstrated his naivety and unfamiliarity with the Middle East. He doesn’t understand how the Mideast functions and therefore doesn’t understand the dangers Israel faces. But the biggest issue is the Iran Deal. Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, and any other jihadist group firing missiles into Israel. Iran buys and supplies the missiles. Mr. Obama’s views might alter if Washington DC was under daily missile attack from Pennsylvania or Maryland.
President Obama might also reflect on Iran’s drive to obtain intercontinental ballistic missiles. They have no need for ICBMs to eliminate Israel. I don’t think Obama’s professions of “deep affections” for the nation of Israel are going to impress much of anybody. A recent Pew survey of 40 countries indicates that confidence in Obama has slipped from 71 percent to 40 percent.
For his part, Obama has acknowledged feeling hurt. In an address to American Jewish leaders last month, Obama underscored his deep commitment to Israel’s security and likened the debate over the Iran deal to a dispute within the family.
“I would suggest that, in terms of the tone of this debate, everybody keep in mind that we’re all pro-Israel,” he said. “And we have to make sure that we don’t impugn people’s motives.”
The astounding thing is that 40 percent of Israelis still have some confidence in Obama.
Filed under: Politics, Foreign Policy, Economy, Military, Terrorism, Democrat Corruption, Law, National Security, China, Intelligence, Crime | Tags: President Obama, Cyber Attacks on US, Ft. Meade Maryland
Chinese government hackers have reportedly stolen commercial data from many U.S. companies, and personal data about many American government employees — including those with security clearances, plus private data from Americans’ health-care companies. Obama has done little or nothing to stop this coast-to-coast raiding of Americans’ property, but has instead worked elsewhere to boost the Democratic party’s political power.
In the Pacific, China’s government is building new island-bases in internationally disputed waters, while Obama focuses his foreign-policy efforts on completing his nukes-and-cash sellout to the deepening alliance of Iran and Russia.
Surely by now, we must have teams working in each government department to harden off their computer files to prevent hacking?The State Department’s lack of control (or concern) over the Secretary of State’s use of a personal computer might argue that there is something more to be desired.
The Daily Mail (UK) just published ( July 15) this “secret” NSA map of cyber attacks from Chinese hackers over the past five years. (Click to enlarge). Did the Daily Mail hack NSA to get their “secret map?”
Silicon Valley is the most attacked. Seattle has Boeing and Microsoft, but I can’t imagine what that one lonely dot on the NW coast is. Iron Springs Resort? The Office of Personnel Management hack got 22.1 million people’s Social Security records, everyone who has ever applied for a government job, and their personal references. The IRS hack in May gave them over 100,000 tax records.
President Obama is not taking this lying down. He refused to stay at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel during the U.N. General Assembly this month. (A Chinese conglomerate now owns the hotel.) And he’s really talking tough in a visit to Ft. Meade, speaking about Chinese cyber attacks.
We’ve made very clear to the Chinese that there are certain practices that they’re engaging in that we know are emanating from China and are not acceptable,” Obama said in an appearance at Ft. Meade. “And we can choose to make this an area of competition – which I guarantee you we’ll win if we have to – or, alternatively, we can come to an agreement in which we say, this isn’t helping anybody. Let’s instead try to have some basic rules of the road in terms of how we operate.”
China is really getting the ultimate threat in the Obama arsenal: “These practices are not acceptable.” That should get their attention.
“We hope that the U.S. stops its groundless attacks against China, start dialogue based on a foundation of mutual respect, and jointly build a cyberspace that is peaceful, secure, open and cooperative,” said a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman. “Maintaining cybersecurity should be a point of cooperation rather than a source of friction between both China and the United States.”
ADDENDUM: During the President’s trip to Alaska, Chinese warships which had been exercising with the Russians in the Arctic traveled 3,000 miles out of their way to broach the 12 mile territorial limits just, by coincidence, when the President was on a 3 day visit to Alaska, and of course they knew his schedule because they had hacked the White House computers.
Violating another nation’s territorial limits just isn’t done, unless it is meant as a provocation. The U.S, brushed it off as unimportant.
Filed under: Freedom, Intelligence, Iran, Islam, Israel, Law, Middle East, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Great Americans, The Iran Deal, Vice President Cheney
Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at an event at AEI on September 8, a passionate speech about the nuclear deal with Iran and why it is a complete catastrophe. It’s a long speech, but worth every minute. Mr. Cheney explains clearly why it is such a very, very bad deal.
As for me, I was convinced that we were doomed when I learned that President Obama believes that Iran would never actually use a nuclear weapon. If he actually believes that, no wonder he has been such a complete doormat.
He believes that he can turn the problems of the Middle East over to Iran to solve, and get America out of the region entirely. Iran’s quest for intercontinental ballistic missiles does not concern Mr. Obama who envisions himself making a triumphant trip to Tehran to shake the Supreme Leader’s hand.
The Supreme Leader may not be able to bring himself to sign the deal at all, since he hates Americans so much. Shake hands? Not a chance.
The speech is about 35 minute long, followed by a question and answer period.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Foreign Policy, History, Intelligence, Iran, Law, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Catastrophe, Iran's Dictator, The Iran Deal
Obama seems to be feeling victorious. He has got the number of Democrats necessary to cancel Congress’ ability to override his veto of their efforts to derail his Iran deal. He envisions a triumphant trip to Tehran to shake the hand of the Supreme Leader and essentially turn the Middle East over to the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s tender mercies. Some triumph!
The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei probably cannot bring himself to sign any agreement anyway, and he certainly would not shake the hated hand of an American. He said on Friday that there would be no deal unless the U.S. lifts sanctions immediately.
“If the sanctions are not going to be removed, then there will be no deal,” the “Supreme Leader” told Iran’s Assembly of Experts, in remarks broadcast on state-television.
“We insisted (since the beginning of the negotiations) that sanctions ought to be lifted, not suspended,” Iran’s dictator added, before threatening to triple uranium enrichment if the United States did not succumb to his demands.
Two thirds of the Senate oppose the Iran Deal. The American people oppose the ‘agreement by a 2–1 margin. This absurd situation is possible because the president refused to submit the Iran deal as a treaty for the Senate to ratify, as the Constitution requires. Ratification would have required a two-thirds vote, and Mr. Obama has not persuaded much of anyone that this agreement is in the national security interests of the United States. Sixty-four percent believe that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have misled the American people.
President Obama has insisted on bowing to the Iranian dictator, for unknown reasons, despite the fact that Iran is in a very difficult spot. The sanctions are pressing heavily. Iran’s break-even price for oil is $151. per barrel, and Brent crude is well under $50 — which I think means that they can’t sell their oil. And we politely become a doormat.
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who also served as head of the CIA, said on Friday that “the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East.” He added “Let’s face it, given the situation in the Middle East, empowering Iran in any way seems like a dangerous gamble.” The deal, he says, is motivated by a fear of war, not sound strategy.
Panetta advocated several steps: •The deal should be enforced harshly. •The U.S. must keep a strong military presence in the region. •The U .S. should expand its intelligence capabilities. •The U.S. should build ties with regional allies. Obama is opposed to all of these. The arguments are for someone with a spine.
From the American Enterprise Institute: “Iran’s interpretation of the nuclear deal is not an easy sell.” Read the whole thing.
Filed under: Economy, Law, National Security, Latin America, Immigration, Regulation, Mexico, Bureaucracy | Tags: Vehicle - Pedestrian - Double Layer, Only 36 Miles, Over $17 Million per Mile
According to the Washington Examiner, only 36 miles of effective double-layer fencing has been erected along the U.S.– Mexico border.
Sixty-six percent or 1,300 miles have no fencing. This is despite repeated congressional demands, and a congressional bank account of $2,5 billion. Congress has asked for 700 miles of fencing.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says that different types of fencing has been put up along the border, the cost so far is $7.1 million per mile.
— 1,300 miles have no fencing (66.5%)
— 299.8 miles have vehicle fence (15.3%)
— 316.6 miles of pedestrian fence (16.2%)
— 36.3 miles of double-layer fencing (.02%)
— The current total for primary fencing to be 352.9 miles. 316.6 single layer plus 36.3 miles of double layer = 352.9 miles of primary fencing.
What’s more, no fencing is currently being erected on the empty 1,300 miles.
A Senate official said that the 2006 Secure Fence Act required 700 miles of double-layer fencing because Border Patrol members said double layer works best. Reports indicated that illegal immigrants can easily scale single fences.
Donald Trump is not going to build a great big wall, and Mexico is certainly not going to pay for it. That’s just braggadocio. But an accurate count of what we have, how much it costs and what is being done may be useful. Checking in with what other countries are doing may be more useful as would details of what works and what doesn’t.