Last week’s announcement that Saudi Arabia — easily one of the world’s most brutally repressive regimes — was chosen to head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel provoked indignation around the world. That reaction was triggered for obvious reasons. Not only has Saudi Arabia executed more than 100 people already this year, mostly by beheading (a rate of 1 execution every two days), and not only is it serially flogging dissidents, but it is reaching new levels of tyrannical depravity as it is about to behead and then crucify the 21-year-old son of a prominent regime critic, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted at the age of 17 of engaging in demonstrations against the government.
Most of the world may be horrified at the selection of Saudi Arabia to head a key U.N. human rights panel, but the U.S. State Department most certainly is not. Quite the contrary: its officials seem quite pleased about the news. – The Intercept, Sept. 23, 2015
To the so-called neoconservative advocates of “realistic” foreign policy, Israel can do no wrong and Iran can do no right. What do they think about Saudi Arabia? Mostly they pretend it doesn’t exist. This saves them from having to explain how Saudi Arabia is a key ally but Islamic State is a mortal enemy, even though much of their behavior is identical.
Minority House leader Nancy Pelosi’s latest shill for Planned Parenthood’s abortion industry, in the face of illegal baby organ harvesting and trafficking allegations, came suddenly when asked by a reporter if she regards a baby with a liver and a heart as a “human being.”
“In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?” a reporter for CNS News asked Pelosi at a press conference today.
After squirming, the Democrat leader, who was apparently unfamiliar with the reporter, answers she would not be taking “ideological questions,” and states the fact that she has five children meant she somehow “know[s] more about this subject than you.”
Pelosi responded: “Why don’t you take your ideological questions–I don’t, I don’t have—”
CNSNews.com asked: “If it’s not a human being, what species is it?”
Pelosi said: “No, listen, I want to say something to you. I don’t know who you are and you’re welcome to be here, freedom of this press. I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old. I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect.”
CNSNews.com asked: “So it’s not a human being, then?”
Pelosi said: “And I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here.”
During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday, Pelosi admitted she had never seen any of the undercover Planned Parenthood sting videos, but nevertheless toed the progressive liberal Democrat line in defending the organization when asked how she reconciles Pope Francis’ pro-life stance with her own pro-abortion views.
While all unnecessary deaths are a tragedy, the mainstream media is predictably leaping on the campus shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, falsely portraying America as an out-of-control shooting gallery where no one is safe as long as guns are legal.
SHOOTER TAKEN OUT BY MEN WITH GUNS: Reportedly, 13 people have been killed in the campus shooting. Those deaths are tragic, to be clear, but many of them could have been directly prevented if Oregon allowed 21-year-olds who pass a background check and criminal history check to carry concealed firearms on campus… as has just been legalized across Texas. The Sheriff of Roseburg, Oregon, in fact, has just confirmed that the shooter was killed by men with guns, proving yet again that “good guys” with guns are capable of stopping “bad guys” with guns. (Concealed carry means “first responders” are citizens who are already on the scene when the shooting starts, ready to defend life and halt the active shooter.)
Umpqua Community College was specifically chosen by the shooter because it is a “gun-free” zone where no one is likely to shoot back, said former US Marshal Art Roderick. “[The gunman] probably knew that the facility was a gun free facility, [which is] an easy target for these kinds of coward individuals. They know they’re not going to get any response unless they happen to run into security or a campus police officer.”
Preliminary information is that on the morning of Thursday, October 1, a shooter at the Umpqua Community College murdered at least 10 people, and more than 20 others were wounded, several seriously. The shooter reportedly died in a shootout with police.
It’s known that the school is a “gun free zone,” with this posted on the college’s website:
Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.
Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.
Brandishing weapons is prohibited.
Misuse of personal defensive weapons — e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton “planted” its concerns in an interview conducted by CBS’s 60 Minutes with Julian Assange, according to an e-mail sent by her assistant secretary of state for public affairs.
“Madame Secretary, a very quick update. I just received confirmation from 60 Minutes that a piece on Julian Assange will air Sunday night. He will be the only person featured. We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to “balance” the piece. 60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview. We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program.”
Liberals have succeeded in demonizing ideas and words they disagree with and led our culture into steep decline as a result, but author Jack Cashill says we now have a successful strategy for pushing back against stifling political correctness.
Cashill is the author of “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism Exposed.” He says the goal of this ongoing effort is clear and horrifying.
“The bottom line of all of these groups, and they all work under the umbrella of anti-hate and anti-racism, is to subvert traditional Judeo-Christian America,” said Cashill.
Referring to the speech police as neo-Puritans, Cashill says the very people stifling expression under the premise of tolerance make the Puritans moderate by comparison.
Criminal justice reform is a contentious political issue, but there’s one point on which pretty much everyone agrees: America’s prison population is way too high. It’s possible that a decline has already begun, with the number of state and federal inmates dropping for three years straight starting in 2010, from an all-time high of 1.62 million in 2009 to about 1.57 million in 2012. But change has been slow: Even if the downward trend continues, which is far from guaranteed, it could take almost 90 years for the country’s prison population to get down to where it was in 1980 unless the rate of decline speeds up significantly.
What can be done to make the population drop faster? Many reformers, operating under the assumption that mass incarceration is first and foremost the result of the war on drugs, have focused on making drug laws less punitive and getting rid of draconian sentencing laws that require judges to impose impossibly harsh punishments on people who have committed relatively minor crimes. But according to John Pfaff, a professor at Fordham Law School, neither of those efforts will make a significant dent in the problem, because they are based on a false understanding of why the prison boom happened in the first place.* Having analyzed statistics on who goes to prison, why, and for how long, Pfaff has emerged with a new and provocative account of how the problem of mass incarceration came to be. – Slate, Feb. 6, 2015
U.S. prisons are stuffed to the rafters, often with non-violent offenders. By all kinds of measures, we incarcerate far more people than most of the world. Why?
The standard assumption blames aggressive drug law enforcement and mandatory sentencing laws. New research from Fordham Law School suggests a different answer. The War on Drugs is a big factor, but not the only factor.
Supporters of Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton evidently aren’t too familiar with her proposed fiscal policies.
But that didn’t keep them from pledging their loyalty to her during a recent Jimmy Kimmel skit, in which several self-proclaimed Hillary supporters praised her plan to eliminate the estate tax, eliminate the alternative minimum tax and eliminate taxes for those who make less than $25k a year.
Has the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” initiative, which started following the 9/11 attacks, created a nation of spies? Yes, say a growing number of Americans and others who have been caught up in it.
A recent case in point involves an illegal immigrant in Texas. As reported by the Houston Press, Blanca Borrego and her two daughters were sitting in the waiting area of the Northeast Healthcare clinic in Atascocita for some two hours. The woman had not been in to see her gynecologist in a year, when the doctor discovered a cyst in her abdomen that had been causing her pain.
When she arrived at the clinic, the staff had asked her for an ID because they needed to update her file as she filled out some paperwork. She had overstayed her original visa some 12 years ago, so Borrego handed the staff a fake driver’s license. Then she settled in to wait to be called.
Her eldest daughter told the Houston Press that the wait was taking so long that her mother nearly gave up and was about to leave, but the staff finally called her back into an exam room.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards answered questions before a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on September 29, as congressional efforts to end taxpayer funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider continue.
Planned Parenthood has come under increased scrutiny since the release of a video made by the Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit organization, that captured Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, disclosing that her organization regularly sells body parts of babies who have been aborted. The awareness raised by that video created increased support in Congress to cut off federal funding for the abortion giant.
U.S. News reported on September 29 that the hearing marked the first time Richards has appeared before Congress since the release of the highly publicized videos. That report noted that many of the questions posed to Richards by Republican committee members sought to determine whether Planned Parenthood profits from abortions. Richards stated that abortions make up 3 percent of the organization’s services, and said she would provide committee members with information about profits from abortions later on, because she didn’t have the information readily available.
“No federal funds pay for abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else, except in the very limited circumstances allowed by law,” U.S. News reported, quoting from the opening statement of Richards. “These are when the woman has been raped, has been the victim of incest or when her life is endangered,” she said.