“…The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. StemExpress is a Placerville, California-based company that provides human tissue, blood and other specimens to researchers. Planned Parenthood is one of the company’s providers of fetal tissue…”
“Saying they have enough supplies to last for days, Greenpeace protesters rappelled off the St. Johns Bridge over the Willamette River early Wednesday in an effort to block a Shell Oil Arctic icebreaker from leaving Portland…”
Had the subjects of the videos been cigarette or oil executives, what are the odds the L.A. Superior Court would have even considered a motion for a temporary restraining order?!?
Utterly unconscionable doesn’t begin to describe Planned Parenthood’s vile and wretched trafficking in the bodies of the unborn. Yet, as Rush Limbaugh so eloquently noted:
“…how in the world can you get teary-eyed and misty-eyed and sad over Cecil and, at the same time, participate in burying what’s happening at Planned Parenthood?“
Easy…provided you’re a Progressive devoid of any shredof compassion, moral compass or common decency…not to mention common sense.
Fact is, we’re all sinners, saved only by the grace of God through his Son Jesus Christ; but when it comes to the proponents of Planned Parenthood’s wholesale slaughter of innocents, as the ghost of Jacob Marley observed to Scrooge…
…’tis indeed a ponderous chain they’re forging.
Next up, here’s a real shocker from Rick Richman writing at Commentary Magazine:
The Iran Deal is Not Verifiable NoworLater
With 51 days left in the period for Congressional consideration of the Iran deal, the respected Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has released a report on “Verification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” which concludes there are weaknesses that “must be remediated or compensated for if the agreement is to be verifiable,” and that “without stringent long-term limits on Iran’s sensitive nuclear programs … these verification conditions … are unlikely to be sufficient.” ISIS concludes that – if the remediation or compensation occurs – the verification provisions will likely be adequate during the first 10-15 years of the agreement, “but will be inadequate afterwards if Iran implements its plan to expand its centrifuge program and possibly start a reprocessing program.” In other words, the agreement as it stands is unverifiable without additional steps; and after it sunsets, the verification provisions will be inadequate.
Here is what the ISIS reports concludes regarding the 24-day period for inspection of suspicious Iranian sites:
What could Iran potentially hide or disguise in a 24-day time period? At ISIS, over the years, we have conducted several assessments on countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Iraq which have all cheated on their safeguards obligations. We have assessed the types and quantities of uranium releases from gas centrifuge plants as part of official safeguards studies and evaluated many cases where environmental sampling was used to uncover undeclared activities or failed to do so. Based on this work, we assess that Iran could likely move and disguise many small scale nuclear and nuclear-weapon-related activities.
Secretary of State Kerry said recently that “anytime, anywhere” inspections were “not on the table” in the negotiations with Iran, and that he had “never heard the term in the four years that we were negotiating.” According to Kerry, “There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn’t any nation in the world, none that has an anytime, anywhere.” But that position is flatly contradicted by the ISIS report:
[S]mall-scale activities matter and this is one of the key reasons why inspectors want prompt, or anytime, anywhere access. Inspectors had this type of access in Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s. South Africa provided the IAEA anywhere, anytime access “within reason,” which was explained to one of the authors of this report as a request only to not ask to go to a site in the middle of the night. In practice, the IAEA could get access to any South African facility soon after the request.
Back in April, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said the international community would have “anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access.” Now, it turns out the secretary of statenever heard of it, never raised it, doesn’t even know it exists.
“…Some commentators have attributed Obama’s many foreign policy disasters to incompetence. But he has been politically savvy enough to repeatedly outmaneuver his opponents in America. (Which, with THIS clueless crew…
…ain’t sayin’ a whole lot!)
For example, the Constitution makes it necessary for the president to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to make any treaty valid. Yet he has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress (Thank YOU, Bob Corker!) into a position where it will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty.
If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.”
Not only are the nation’s best interests not his top priority, he’s antithetically opposed to very concept of America. In other words…
“…The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.
But we’re living in a different time right now, and young women have absolutely no memory of Bill Clinton. It’s like ancient history for them; there’s no reservoir of accumulated good will. And the actual facts of the matter are that Bill Clinton was a serial abuser of working-class women–he had exploited that power differential even in Arkansas. And then in the case of Monica Lewinsky–I mean, the failure on the part of Gloria Steinem and company to protect her was an absolute disgrace in feminist history!What bigger power differential could there be than between the president of the United States and this poor innocent girl? Not only an intern but clearly a girl who had a kind of pleading, open look to her–somebody who was looking for a father figure…”
Yeah…but he supported…
…baby killers.
And speaking of frauds:
Jon Stewart Secretly Met with Obama, Worked ‘In Concert’ with White House
“The host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show Jon Stewart secretly met with President Barack Obama at the White House on at least two occasions, which were followed with on-air attacks on Obama’s political enemies.
Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn wrote his paper’s farewell to Stewart, who is set to retire from The Daily Show next Thursday. He notes that Stewart had an enormous effect on national politics, but sometimes “that effect took the form of either prodding, or working in concert with, the Obama administration.”…”
Stewart’s subterfuge brings to mind one of our favorite lines from The Sting:
And Jon, you’re as gutless as they come.
Turning from the gutless to the gauche, the WSJ‘s Dan Henninger places The Donald in the proper venue:
“…Like Harold Hill, Donald Trump believes he can say anything and get away with it.
He said Mexico has an inferior culture, and later claimed that he’d win the Hispanic vote. What he said about John McCain should have barred him from public life, but the Donald’s enthusiasts said it was no big deal.
On the “Hannity” show Monday night he attacked Scott Walker—for not raising taxes. “I looked into Wisconsin,” Mr. Trump said. “Their roads are a disaster, they don’t want to spend any money on roads because he doesn’t want to raise taxes.” He accused the Wisconsin governor of being “divisive, because everyone there is fighting with each other.”
So the Donald would have raised taxes on the people of Wisconsin, and he thinks the Republican governor who defeated the public unions and survived a recall election is “divisive.” No matter. The people of River City are desperate to believe, and so the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” is leading in the national polls.
Is anything going on here other than clinical egomania?…”
This from a man whose judgement we trust…unlike The Donald’s!!! To those out there who still view Trump as a legitimate candidate, sorry…you’ve been had!
As Best of the Web reports:
“Donald Trump is not shy about stating his strengths as a candidate,” observes Susan Jones of CNSNews.com:
So when Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren asked him, “What’s your weakness?” on Tuesday night, Trump responded this way:
“Some people think I’m not a nice person, and I actually am. I love people. You know I’m a nice person. But some people think, maybe it’s the ‘you’re fired’ and ‘The Apprentice.’ Who knows? But some people think I’m not a nice person.
“But you know what I tell somebody that said that, that really wants me to win. He said, Mr. Trump, can you be nicer?
“I said, look, I don’t think this election is going to be won by a nice person. I think people want competence for a change. We need compet—we need really, really, smart, competent people. And if we don’t get that kind of leader and leadership in particular at the level of the president, this country is in big trouble.”
According to Trump, (1) he is a nice person, and (2) a nice person is not going to win the election. It follows logically that Trump does not believe he is going to win the election.Some good news for a change.
On the Lighter Side…
Then there’s this classic from Fielding Cocke:
Finally, we’ll call it a month with another example of Progressive prevarication, as recounted by James Taranto and Best of the Web:
Other Than That, the Story Was Accurate
“My next guests: Dan Rather and Jon Stewart!”
In a Los Angeles Times blog post in May, cartoonist Ted Rall “described an incident in which he was stopped for jaywalking” in 2001, Nicholas Goldberg, the Times’s editorial page editor, recounts. “Rall said he was thrown up against a wall, handcuffed and roughed up by an LAPD motorcycle policeman who also threw his driver’s license into the sewer.Rall also wrote that dozens of onlookers shouted in protest at the officer’s conduct.”
Goldberg explains the post did not withstand fact-checking:
Since then, the Los Angeles Police Department has provided records about the incident, including a complaint Rall filed at the time. An audiotape of the encounter recorded by the police officer does not back up Rall’s assertions; it gives no indication that there was physical violence of any sort by the policeman or that Rall’s license was thrown into the sewer or that he was handcuffed. Nor is there any evidence on the recording of a crowd of shouting onlookers.
In Rall’s initial complaint to the LAPD, he describes the incident without mentioning any physical violence or handcuffing but says that the police officer was “belligerent and hostile” and that he threw Rall’s license into the “gutter.” The tape depicts a polite interaction.
In addition, Rall wrote in his blog post that the LAPD dismissed his complaint without ever contacting him. Department records show that internal affairs investigators made repeated attempts to contact Rall, without success.
Asked to explain these inconsistencies, Rall said he stands by his blog post.
“Holy, “The story was fake, but accurate”, Batman!”
As to why he didn’t mention any physical abuse in his letter to the LAPD in 2001, Rall said he didn’t want to make an enemy of the department, in part because he hosted a local radio talk show at the time. After listening to the tape, Rall noted that it was of poor quality and contained inaudible segments.
Goldberg now says “the piece should not have been published” and Rall’s work will no longer appear in the Times.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.