Aborted babies incinerated to heat British hospitals

March 24, 2014
"The new god of medicine?"

“The new god of medicine?”

Just horrifying:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

It didn’t happen in every UK hospital –one was appalled to learn another had been shipping its fetal remains to the first hospital to be burned– but that something like this could happen at all is nauseating. And not just for the callous treatment of human remains, like a fiery version of Soylent Green, but the miserable treatment of the parents, too. Remember, an abortion may be performed for medical necessity, not just to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Shouldn’t the parents in at least these cases be treated with more respect and empathy?

There have been a number of horror stories coming out of the UK National Health Service involving poor care or downright abusive treatment of patients and their families, almost all of them traceable in their origin to the dynamics of a government-run healthcare system. Oxford bioethicists have even argued in favor of post-natal abortion (1), on the grounds that a newborn isn’t capable yet of attributing value to its own existence, and thus can’t feel the loss of it.

And now this, the new fires of Moloch.

Footnote:
(1) What most of us in the real world would call “infanticide” and “murder.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Obamacare fraud: enrollee count as legitimate as Chicago voter rolls

November 12, 2013
tarot card magician fraud trickster

“Trickery”

Seriously, if Amazon had done something like this, the Department of Justice and the SEC would be on their backs faster than you could say “indictment:”

The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submited a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

“In the data that will be released this week, ‘enrollment’ will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

The disparity in the numbers is likely to further inflame the political fight over the Affordable Care Act. Each side could choose a number to make the case that the health law is making progress or failing miserably.

What Ezra Klein, the article’s author and an administration apologist, Sarah Kliff, the Post article’s author, isn’t saying is that the administration’s “methodology” is nothing more than obfuscation, a con meant to create a “he said, she said” game that distracts from Obamacare’s indisputably miserable enrollment numbers.

This is as if Amazon had counted every item placed in a wish list or shopping cart as an “item sold,” even if the purchase were never completed. Investors seeing the government’s explanation buried in the footnotes of a quarterly report would rightly scream for the directors’ heads. It is rank fraud meant to make a failure look less bad (there’s no way they can make it look good), though it isn’t surprising coming from the White House that brought us “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

The willingness of the Obama administration to deceive the American people is just breathtaking. It really is “Chicago on the Potomac.”

UPDATE: For some reason, I had it stuck in my mind that Ezra Klein wrote the article. Now corrected.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Napolitano’s DHS: another sex-discrimination lawsuit filed

August 13, 2012

Following up on this item, I think we’re starting to see a pattern:

A second employee at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is suing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano over claims his career was curtailed due to anti-male bias at the agency, The Post has learned.

Jason Mount alleges in court papers that he was denied 43 promotions because he’s a white male and that he took a lower-grade job because of “how serious the discrimination and retaliation had become.”

Mount, 37, filed suit on July 31, about two months after ICE official James Hayes Jr. sued Napolitano for $3 million for allegedly pushing him out of a top job in Washington, DC, to make way for Dora Schriro, later named New York City’s jails commissioner.

(…)

His DC federal court filing details dozens of incidents in which he was allegedly passed over for promotions despite being fully qualified.

The litany of allegations include Mount’s September 2010 application to fill an assistant-special-agent-in-charge, or ASAC, post with Homeland Security Investigations in Boston.

Despite receiving “a rating of 100 percent on the knowledge, skills and abilities rating factors for the position,” Mount says, he was never contacted “to take part in an interview or further selection activities.”

Instead, court papers say the job went to a woman who was one step lower than Mount on the federal civil-service pay scale.

In addition, the woman, Linda Hunt, hadn’t completed an 18-month tour of duty at HSI headquarters in Washington, which “is required to be considered for an ASAC position,” the suit says.

Because of “the severe and pervasive retaliation and discrimination,” Mount says, he “essentially committed career suicide” in December 2011 and asked for a reassignment, “stating that he would be willing to accept a downgrade” in rank and pay.

Once could be a disgruntled employee just looking for payback; twice makes that less likely and starts to indicate a pattern. What lends credibility to Mount’s claims, in my opinion, is his refusal and that of his attorney to talk to the press about the suit. Usually, I’d expect people making bogus claims to go find their nearest Gloria Allred clone and call a press conference, hoping to win in the court of public opinion and persuade the other side to settle out of court (or at least get TV appearances and a book deal), knowing their case is weak on the merits. This, on other hand, has the look of someone who wants to go before a jury.

We’ll see. It could be bogus, but my gut feeling is that this is a case of smoke indicating fire. Yet another reason to elect a new administration that can bring some adult supervision to the DHS “animal house.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Your DHS professionals in action: maturity is a relative thing

August 10, 2012

It’s nice to see that the women’s movement in this country, at least on the Left, has come so far that they now feel free to subject their male colleagues to the same frat-house disdain and abuse they and their forebears endured:

Janet Napolitano-run Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs, federal discrimination lawsuit charges

A blistering federal discrimination suit accuses agency honcho Janet Napolitano of turning the department into a female-run “frat house” where male staffers were banished to the bathrooms and routinely humiliated.

James Hayes Jr., who now is New York’s top Homeland Security cop, claims Napolitano filled top spots in Washington, D.C., with two of her gal pals who were bent on tormenting male employees.

The suit identified them as Dora Schriro, who is now running the city Department of Correction, and Suzanne Barr, the chief of staff for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Soon after Schriro and Barr were hired in January 2009, male staffers were treated like lapdogs, Hayes claims.

Barr “moved the entire contents of the offices of three employees, including name plates, computers and telephones, to the men’s bathroom at ICE headquarters,” the suit says.

Barr also stole a male staffer’s BlackBerry and fired off a message to his female supervisor indicating that he “had a crush on [her] and fantasized about her,” Hayes claims.

Sometimes, Barr took a more direct approach. In one case, she called a male colleague in his hotel room and screamed at him using sexually humiliating language, the suit says.

Hayes claims that after he reported the abuse to the Equal Employment Opportunity office, Napolitano launched a series of misconduct investigations against him.

And this is the mindset of people charged with the solemn responsibility of protecting us from another 9/11.

I feel more secure, don’t you?

Now, of course, we don’t know the truth of Mr. Hayes’ claims; he could just be an embittered ex-employee who’s just making stuff up for some reason. But it rings true. For some reason, and to put it bluntly, many on the Left lack maturity. Whether it’s vandalizing the White House or excusing people who poop on police cars – and now, it seems, workplace sexual harassment– time and again Our Betters on the Left (all bow) seem to think it’s okay for them to do things they would denounce as crimes against nature, were they committed by Republicans.

That’s not to say Republicans and conservatives don’t have their problem children, too. (John Ensign, anyone? Larry Craig?) But we, at least, usually police our own and send the offenders away. That’s because conservatives recognize that this behavior is juvenile, wrong, and unworthy of someone granted the public trust and the dignity of office.

For many on the Left, that seems to be a feature, not a bug.

via izzysroses

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Trayvon Third NBC employee fired for doctoring 911 tapes

May 4, 2012

Via PJMedia’s “The Tatler” blog, yet more evidence of the corruption of the mainstream media:

TV Newser reports that a third NBC employee has been fired for dishonestly editing George Zimmerman’s 911 call. The fired employee’s name is Lilia Luciano. The edit that she created is, if anything, even more deceptive than the NBC edit that stirred racial angles in the story of Trayvon Martin’s fatal shooting, and which has resulted in the firing of two other NBC employees.

“In a story for the “Today” show on March 20, Luciano used part of the George Zimmerman 911 call in which an entire phrase (italicized below) was taken from a later part of the conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.”

But here is how Zimmerman’s conversation with the 911 dispatcher actually went:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.”

Luciano’s firing makes three employees fired for dishonest edits in this story at NBC; Lilia Luciano, who joined NBC from Univision 18 months ago; Jeff Burnside, the reporter and environmental activist at NBC’s Miami owned-and-operated affiliate; and another producer at NBC whom the network has not named. Their edits consistently played up race as the driving motive in George Zimmerman’s actions.

This looks like what’s called “noble cause corruption.” Assuming these “journalists” weren’t just out to gin up the most shocking story they could to boost their network’s ratings and their own careers, then it’s reasonable to speculate that they committed these crimes against ethics and trashed their own integrity because they felt they were serving a higher purpose — perhaps “fighting racism” or “the Right-wing,” or pursuing some vague, ego-stroking sense of “justice.”

Whatever.

What these fools really accomplished, however, was to do harm on two levels: first, they further degraded the already terrible reputation of the major news networks — why should anyone have a shred of trust in NBC’s news offerings after this, if they still did?

Even more important, however, is the harm done to the judicial process by these agenda-journalists.  Both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, victim and accused, deserve justice: a fair hearing, an impartial jury, and, if need be, punishment for one and justice for the other. But how is that supposed to happen when NBC and other MSM outlets spread fantasies that can only have the effect of winding up the mob?

I’m not a fan of Sean Hannity, but he was spot on in 2008 when he said that journalism was dead. And the exposure of Ms. Luciano’s misdeeds is yet another baring of its rotted face.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sentenced to death for being old

April 8, 2012

Your ObamaCare health consultant

One of the ways socialized medicine controls cost is to ration care, denying treatment when it’s determined not to be “cost-effective.” Particularly vulnerable are the elderly, who tend to need medical services the most but, according to some people (1) with with connections to the president, really haven’t got much time left, anyway, so care given to them would be better-directed toward those with more to contribute to society.

If you want to see how that works out in practice, just look to the UK, where they’ve had socialized medicine under the NHS since the 1940s.

God help you if you grow old, there:

When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.

Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.

His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.

Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed — and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team.

‘You could call his recovery amazing,’ says Michele, 51. ‘It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.’

There’s much more to read in the article, the thrust of which is about age discrimination. It’s estimated that around 14,000 elderly Britons die because they are denied the care they need because their NHS doctor has decided they’re too old to undergo the therapy. And yet, as the case of Mr. Warden and others show, advances in geriatric medicine and surgery have greatly increased the chances of such treatment succeeding.

Left unspoken in the article is the origin of this discrimination against the elderly: the bureaucratic pressure to cut costs that in turn leads to decisions on who’s worth the expense of treating — and who isn’t.

In other words, “death panels.” And yet they called Sarah Palin an idiot and even told her to “leave the room.”

Seems to me she just looked across the Atlantic and saw the future.

via Peter Robinson at Ricochet

Footnote:
(1) Bioethicists, again. These people are starting to scare me.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Is it just me, or are Global-Warming cultists kind of scary?

March 19, 2012

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

You see, to save the Earth and propitiate Gaea, we must re-engineer humanity itself!

Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?

Liao (1): Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people—for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.

And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.

Yes, to fight dangerous man-caused climate change (a problem that does not exist), we must all become Keebler Elves.

And that ain’t all, folks! Mr. Liao also discusses creating medicines to make us allergic to red meat, so we won’t… “produce as much methane.”

It’s to save the Earth, you see. And, naturally, this will require world government! Lead, of course, by our intellectual betters, who will still get to fly around to conferences in big CO2-belching jets.

Just lie back and think of Gaea. It will all be over, soon.

via WUWT, where you can read other jaw-dropping highlights.

Footnote:
(1) Dr. Liao is a professor of Philosophy and Bioethics at New York University.  If that rings a bell, it’s because we’ve encountered bioethicists before. I’m beginning to think their use of the word “ethics” is particularly Orwellian.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The ethics of infanticide: not just vile, but evil

March 6, 2012

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two former Oxford ethicists argue that killing a newborn babe is no different from aborting a fetus, because the infant isn’t really a person yet:

[The authors] argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Hey, if the infant isn’t a person because they can’t attribute value to their own existence and feel loss if that existence is deprived, why stop there? How about the elderly suffering from senile dementia or Alzheimer’s? Surely they’ve lost the capability of attributing value to their existence, so they’re not people by these standards, right? Might as well let their relatives (or the State) snuff them when they become an “unbearable burden.” And what about severely disabled adults, too? I mean, gee, we’d save society all that money in Medicaid support for group homes. After all, they’re not really people.

Anyone else getting a “Wannsee Conference” vibe (1), or wonder if the authors’ offices didn’t contain idols to Moloch?

Call me “old-fashioned” and “unenlightened,” ignorant of sophisticated ethics, but I have this crazy belief that the right to live is a natural right preexisting Human laws and ethics. It is only to be taken away under the most restricted circumstances, such as in a “just war” or by law after a fair trial as the only way to enact justice after a horrible crime.

Not simply because you might regard the baby as a “burden.”

And what kind of sociopathic lack of empathy does it imply to go through such intellectual gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that the infant is no longer a person? When does it become a person? When it first smiles? Its first steps? Its first words, when it finally has a chance to say “please don’t kill me?”

“Ethics.” Yeah, these really are some ethics, aren’t they? They’re the fascist ethics of a state that denies the inherent worth of the individual and, when that individual becomes a “burden,” can decide he or she is no longer “really a person” and can thus be disposed of at will.

Like rubbish.

I’m with Walter Russell Mead: while I firmly believe as a federalist that the abortion question in America should be decided on a state-by-state basis until a consensus is reached, if this idea ever gains currency in the US, sign me up for a right-to-life amendment to the US Constitution.

RELATED: This isn’t the first time the ugly idea of “post-natal abortion” has arisen. Read about the Groningen Protocol, which was a recent proposal to allow doctors in the Netherlands to “terminate” the life of a severely disabled child up to the age of 12, with the final decision resting with the doctors, not the parents. And killing your non-person infant after birth is really just one step past aborting fetuses on the basis of gender. Both Hot Air and Power Line were outraged at the JME article. I’m surprised it didn’t get more coverage in the blogosphere.

PS: The linked Telegraph article mentioned that the authors of the JME piece had received death threats for their article. This is as wrong and as vile as their argument itself, as well as being criminal. It is an affront to free speech and academic liberty. The way to fight evil ideas is with counter-argument, not with intimidation and threats of physical harm.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, at the risk of being accused of “Godwinning,” I went there. These kind of depersonalizing ethics aren’t all that far from the Final Solution.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Shocker: MSM fakes information in “mutant shark” story to promote climate-alarmist agenda

January 5, 2012

I knew it! I just had a feeling there was something funny going on here!

Remember the story about hybrid sharks I posted about the other day? I mocked it for it’s use of weasel words to scare the reader and push a climate-alarmist, pro-AGW agenda. The story was cited by several news outlets under different bylines (I quoted the original AFP report by writer Amy Coopes), but a Business Insider story by Dina Spector carried (for a while) an even more lurid headline:

“The World’s First Hybrid Shark Is Another Scary Sign That Global Warming Is Real”

At Watt’s Up With That, a commenter wrote directly the researcher cited in the articles, Jess Morgan, to ask her if she really said anything about shark hybridization being possibly related to global warming/climate change. Here’s her answer:

Quote not correct – I have now stated numerous times that it is extremely unlikely that climate change caused the hybridization event – however, the hybrid-Australian blacktips are now being seen further south of their known range (Australain blacktips have a tropical distribution) in cooler waters suggesting that the hybrids may have a wider temperature tolerance than their parents (ie the hybrids may be better adapted to handle changing water temperatures). That long statement is being condensed and printed as your quote below.

(Emphasis in the WUWT post)

Well, well, well. As Arte Johnson might have said, “verrry interesting… but shtinky!” Whether Spector or Coopes or someone else was the original source, and whether the misrepresentation of Morgan’s words was deliberate or unintentionally born of a do-gooder’s enthusiasm, what might have been an interesting bit of scientific reportage was transformed into street-corner preaching for the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, agenda journalism of the worst sort.

It’s a prima-facie example of what Professor Bob Carter has called “noble cause corruption,” the perversion of of scientific (and other) ethics in the service of some cause or vested interest, rather than empirical truth:

Such corruption arises from the belief of a vested interest, or powerful person or group, in the moral righteousness of their cause. For example, a police officer may apprehend a person committing a crime and, stuck with a lack of incriminating evidence, proceed to manufacture it. For many social mores, of which “stopping global warming” and “saving the Great Barrier Reef” are two iconic Australian examples, it has become a common practice for evidence to be manipulated in dishonest ways, under the justification of helping to achieve a worthy end. After all, who wouldn’t want to help to “save the Great Barrier Reef”?

And this is yet another example that journalists are no more immune than cops or scientists — or anyone. It also serves as a healthy reminder to us all to read critically and, when possible, do like the commenter at WUWT and go straight to the source when something catches our eye, rather than relying on authority.

Be sure to read the whole post at WUWT. At the end, you’ll see Business Insider was forced by all the embarrassing questions to change both its headline and article text.

PS: As of this writing, AFP/Yahoo has not corrected the text of the article I originally quoted. Also, be sure to check out Bob Carter’s excellent critique of the “science” behind the theory of dangerous man-caused climate change, “Climate: The Counter-Consensus.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Biden: the gaffer who keeps on gaffing

August 23, 2011

So, our vice-president is in China. While there, you would think our nation’s second-highest constitutional officer would do his best to represent American values to our biggest creditors China’s rulers with wit, intelligence, and grace.

But then you would remember this is Joe Biden we’re talking about.

And when it comes to the Chinese national policy of once child per family, with its forced abortions, near genocide of female infants, and forced sterilization, Joe fully understands:

D’oh! 

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review quotes Speaker John Boehner to blast Biden’s… well, Biden’s moral stupidity:

“It’s disappointing that Vice President Biden did not mention the severe women’s rights atrocities that are committed in the name of the One Child Policy — forced abortion, involuntary sterilization, and gendercide,” Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, says. “China’s One Child Policy causes more violence to women and girls than any other official policy on earth. To merely mention the economic consequences is to turn a blind eye to the terrible human suffering caused by forced abortion. Chinese women are literally dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables and forced to abort.”

KJL also mentions in passing the demographic bomb that will set off an economic disaster for China: briefly, China’s one child policy means that fewer and fewer workers will be available to support an increasingly aging and huge population, and it’s going to hit soon, by 2039, in some estimates. It is also a danger to their military, and thus China’s global ambitions. By any measure, China’s one-child policy is a self-inflicted slow-motion national disaster.

But Joe fully understands.

LINKS: My blog-buddy ST has a spot-on post with several good links of its own.

AFTERTHOUGHT: This is the guy Obama picked to lend “gravitas” to his administration? In that case, I’d hate to have seen what his idea of “buffoonery” was.


National Public Radio, or National Money-laundering Radio?

March 10, 2011

When James O’Keefe released his sting video of NPR executives trashing conservatives, Republicans, and Jews while currying favor with what they though were potential donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group, he promised a follow up. I had a feeling he wasn’t just blowing smoke; a slow drip of explosive revelations is the style he honed while working under Andrew Breitbart.

But I never thought it would be this good. Offering to hide the source of a donation from the IRS?

In case you don’t want to watch the whole thing, here’s the key portion, via The Daily Caller:

New video released Thursday afternoon indicates National Public Radio intended to accept a $5 million donation from fictitious Muslim Brotherhood front group Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust – and that the publicly funded radio network might have helped MEAC make the donation anonymously to protect it from a federal government audit.

When a man posing as Ibrahim Kasaam asked, “It sounded like you were saying NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?” NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, Betsy Liley, responded, “I think that is the case, especially if you are anonymous. I can inquire about that.” According to conservative James O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas organization conducted the NPR sting organization, the man posing as Kasaam made two follow-up phone calls to Liley after their lunch.

Liley said a $5 million donation would amount to about “10 years of support.”

Kasaam follows up by asking: “The fact that NPR is not only a tax-exempt organization, but also receives direct contributions from the government — does that invite some sort of government oversight or government examination of contributions, et cetera?”

Liley answered: “They have audited our programs at times and, I think, as part of that, they can look at our audited financials. If you are concerned in any way about that, that’s one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor. And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that.

Emphasis added.

Liley goes on to say the same anonymous-donor protection was afforded to universities and other donors, but, come on! There’s a difference between taking money from, say, Notre Dame and covering up a gift from a self-admitted front for the Ikhwan. You know, the organization whose motto is:

“Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish.”

But, don’t worry; NPR will make sure no one in the government knows the money came from the same group that founded Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist organization by the Department of State.

Forget cutting their funding — NPR will be lucky if the FBI doesn’t show up with search warrants.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


How corrupt is the Congressional Black Caucus?

November 16, 2010

I asked that question a few months ago. Now we have another fact with which to build answer. Actually, we have 11 facts, as the Democrat-dominated House Ethics Committee found Congressman Charles Rangel (D-Corruption) guilty on 11 of 13 counts against him:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, announced the decision late Tuesday morning following an abbreviated public trial of the 20-term lawmaker and nearly six hours of deliberations.

“We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law,” Lofgren said. “We believe we have accomplished that mission.”

The full ethics panel will now convene a sanctions hearing to recommend a punishment. Serious sanctions — including formal reprimand, censure or expulsion — require a vote on the House floor. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a reprimand, which Rangel refused to agree to in July, or a censure would need just a simple majority. The ethics panel could also impose a fine and diminish some of Rangel’s privileges.

While Rangel richly deserves expulsion, don’t expect that to happen. The Democrats would almost certainly never toss out one of their own (Especially one who knows where a lot of bodies are buried), and the CBC would have an absolute fit; Rangel is a co-founder of the Caucus and one of the longest-serving African Americans in the House. And with (soon to be ex-)Speaker Pelosi needing their votes to remain as minority leader (and she already has trouble on that flank)… No, there’s no way Charlie gets shown the door. Most likely is a reprimand and perhaps the permanent loss of his committee chairmanship seniority.

If Rangel is smart, he’ll take his medicine now, before the Republicans gain control of the House.

As for the corruption of the CBC, I suspect the long-overdue clean up will be starting soon.

EDIT: Made the change above since, with the election, Charlie’s post as Chairman is gone for good.

UPDATE: From David Freddoso, word that Charlie is in denial.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Well, kiss off those Electoral College votes

November 11, 2010

A couple of days ago, I linked to news that the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General had concluded that the White House had (deliberately, in my opinion) altered a report by a panel of scientists on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to support the imposition of a moratorium on all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico:

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

Bear in mind that Carol Browner is at least closely affiliated with the Socialist International and has served as a member of their panel on its Commission for a Sustainable World Society. As recently as 2008, she participated in their international Congress. Killing, or at least heavily regulating oil drilling in favor of Green (and Green Statist*) energy programs be high on her agenda, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Browner saw this report as a chance to advance the cause.

Well, those edits may well have cost her boss the Electoral College votes of the Gulf Coast, because, in the wake of this revelation, people there are mad. Really mad:

Gulf State lawmakers are accusing the Obama administration of putting politics above science after a government watchdog said Interior Department officials misled the public by altering a report to suggest that a group of outside scientists supported a blanket ban on deepwater drilling.

The administration maintains that the flap is the result of rushed editing and nothing more. However, members of Congress from the Gulf region, already incensed over what they described as a heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all reaction to the BP oil spill, are crying foul.

“This was not an accident at all. It was a deliberate attempt to use the prestige of the scientists to support their political decision,” said Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of several Republicans who this summer requested an investigation into the moratorium by the Interior Department’s inspector general.

Mr. Cassidy, who said the IG’s conclusions will come as “bitter news” to about 12,000 workers who lost their jobs because of the moratorium, noted that the administration ignored later arguments by five of the panel’s seven scientists in favor of targeted inspections over a blanket ban – something he said violated Mr. Obama’s vow to let science, and not politics, guide his policies.

As Jim Geraghty said, all Obama promises come with expiration dates. Obviously, this needs to be added to the list.

Meanwhile, how do you think those 12,000 workers who lost their jobs -or their families, friends, and the people at the businesses they used to buy from- will feel when the Hope and Change roadshow comes calling in 2012, knowing that their livelihoods were sacrificed on Socialism’s green altar?

Yeah. Me, too.

*It’s not for nothing that, in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, many Reds clothed themselves in Green. Environmentalism is an open door to state control of everything.

Via Lucianne.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Thank goodness Obama has cleaned up the White House

November 9, 2010

He and his team would never cook an official report to get what they want. Not like those naaasssttyyy BushChimpHitler* goons.  Never.

via Patrick Ruffini

*(For the record, I don’t believe the Bush White House tampered with the intel leading up to the Iraq invasion. There’s a big difference between being wrong and being dishonest. And even then they weren’t as wrong as assumed.)


Whose foreign money, Mr. President?

October 19, 2010

Last week, the President called out the US Chamber of Commerce for allegedly using foreign donations to buy add time for Republican candidates and to attack anti-business Democrats. At the time, I noted with contempt our Head of State’s blatant hypocrisy.

Writing at the Washington Post, Marc Thiessen points out, rather than opening a line of attack against the Republicans, the President may instead have open a political Pandora’s Box, full of woe for him and his allies:

The U.S. Chamber says it receives about $100,000 from its affiliates abroad (out of an operating budget of about $200 million), none of it used for political campaigns. Compare that to one of the largest labor unions in America, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is spending lavishly to elect Democrats. The SEIU claims 100,000 members in Canada. According to SEIU’s 2008 constitution, dues include $7.65 per month per member that must be sent to the SEIU International in the United States. This means that the SEIU takes in nearly $9.2 million per year from foreign nationals — almost 100 times the amount the Chamber receives from its affiliates abroad.

Is any foreign money being used to fund the SEIU’s anti-Republican campaign efforts? According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Service Employees International Union, one of the nation’s fastest-growing labor unions, acknowledges that it can’t be certain that foreign nationals haven’t contributed to its $44 million political budget to support pro-labor Democrats.” The SEIU is not the only union that takes in money from foreign members. According to the Canadian Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers has 280,000 Canadian members; the United Food and Commercial Workers has more than 245,000; the Teamsters has more than 108,000; the Laborers’ International Union of North America has more than 68,000; and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has more than 57,000. How much do these foreign union members send to the United States? If the constitutions of their unions are anything like SEIU’s, it could be tens of millions of dollars. Is any of that money being used to help elect Democrats this November?

Read the rest for an… “interesting” discussion of how a good deal of the SEIU’s political funds may also come from illegal aliens.

Democrats have been screaming for an investigation of the Chamber of Commerce and its dirty, dirty FOREIGN!!* money (for which they have absolutely no evidence), so I bet they’ll be happy as can be when the House Republicans** next year initiate investigations into the sources of their union allies’ cash.

And SEIU and the others will be wishing the President had kept his big mouth shut.

*Amusing, isn’t it? The enlightened party playing the Xenophobia Card.

**I suppose there’s a miniscule chance of the Democrats retaining the House, but, honestly, betting on boxcars at the craps table would be a safer bet.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Down the Pajamas Media memory hole? UPDATED

September 8, 2010

Each morning, I receive an email from Pajamas Media listing the featured articles of the day. Yesterday was no exception, and among the articles listed was one by Jamie Glazov, a frequent PJM contributor and editor of the hard-Right FrontPage Magazine. The article, an interview with Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, was titled “The Disastrous Consequences of Muslim Inbreeding.”

Here’s a screen-cap from the email to show the article existed:

The other articles, by the way, are still on the site. The reason I cannot link to Glazov’s piece directly is that it’s… gone. As of yesterday afternoon, when I went back to read it more thoroughly, it had vanished. No search on the PJM site, Google, or even the Internet Wayback Machine can find it, only some obscure references to it. It’s disappeared as completely as Judge Crater.

The question is, why?

Certainly the topic was controversial: the article dealt with the genetic and social consequences of cousin-marriage, marriage within a clan. It’s permitted in several parts of the world (for instance, several US states), but the practice appears especially common among families from the area of Pakistan, leading to a surge in birth defects among that population. One can expect that the article would draw criticism and accusations of bigotry or “Islamophobia,” regardless of its intrinsic merit.

But that’s not the point of this post; I only skimmed the article, and I’m not qualified to speak on its worth. What bothers me is the disappearance of the article itself. I’ve been a great fan of PJM (and its sister-site, PJTV) since the day it first went live. It is one of my regular stops on the Internet and I frequently cite its articles. I think it has been a great alternative media source for news and opinion from a generally Center-Right perspective, and it has been a loud advocate for accountability and transparency from the established mainstream media, something that’s desperately needed.

Thus, when an article gets erased like a non-person in a Stalin-era Kremlin photo, with no word of explanation and the only evidence for its existence being the odd gaps in the record, I get… concerned. Perhaps there was good reason to retract it; I can think of several, but I won’t speculate. I do, however, believe it’s important for the principles of accountability and transparency that they themselves have championed that Pajamas Media post an explanation of why they retracted “The Disastrous Consequences of Muslim Inbreeding.”

So, what happened, guys?

NOTE: An email request for an explanation has been sent through the PJM contact site. I’ll update when and if I receive a reply.

UPDATE: I received a reply to my query to PJM soon after sending  it. To summarize, the article was pulled at the author’s request and PJM is waiting for a clarification. They promise a full explanation regardless of whether the article is reposted. My thanks for the quick reply.

UPDATE II: A PJM rep added the following clarification:  “It was decided by the interviewer and intervieweee that it was important to buffer certain aspects with more evidence and research, which the author does have — and that will be able to be more effectively presented in the very near future.”


Econ 101: the perils of Moral Hazard

August 8, 2010

I’ve occasionally posted videos from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, an ally or affiliate of the libertarian Cato Institute, that touch on aspects of economics and why government intervention in the free market often causes more problems than it solves. In this offering, the speaker discusses “moral hazard,” in which government interventions provide incentives for people to engage in irresponsible behavior:

What I like about this series is that it teaches economics by focusing on human behavior, rather than abstruse formulae and obscure jargon, and I recommend taking the time to watch them all.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Don’t you have to have some ethics, in the first place?

August 3, 2010

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Corruptocrat) has demanded an ethics trial in the House.

I should think a coroner’s inquest would be more appropriate.


Connections and collusion? – updated

July 22, 2010

When I first started reading the Journolist revelations, my thought was “these guys are jackasses and propagandists of the worst sort, but I don’t see a direct influence on policy here.”

Now that’s entered the realm of possibility:

Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joseph Biden, served in 2008 as an economic adviser to the Obama campaign. At the same time, he was a member of JournoList, the controversial progressive email list.

Bernstein’s bio at Politico, which appears not to have been updated since 2008, states: “He is an economic adviser to the Obama campaign.”

He was known to many for his regular appearances on the financial channel CNBC. His primary employer in 2008 was the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor progressive think tank, but according to his bio when appointed to the Obama-Biden Administration, he also was a member of the Panel of Economic Advisers of the Congressional Budget Office.

Reached today at the Office of the Vice President, Bernstein revealed that his position with the Obama campaign was as something called a “surrogate.” “I was not paid by the campaign,” he explained. “They would call me from time to time to represent their positions, that side of the debate.”

Asked when he left JournoList, Bernstein replied, ‘‘I think I left the list around the time I came here.” Bernstein was announced as Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to the Vice President-elect on December 8, 2008.

One question that has arisen in the last week is how closely JournoList members, not only discussed how to shape the news to advance the fortunes of Barack Obama, but coordinated with the Obama campaign. Jared Bernstein’s position as an unpaid adviser and surrogate shows that there was at least one direct link between JournoList and the Obama campaign.

Like roaches in a kitchen, there’s never just one. How many other connections were there between the Obama campaign (and now the Obama White House) and this list of progressive journalists? Was there any coordination? If so, on what and how much? Given the early attempts by the White House to coordinate propaganda “outreach efforts” with artists through the NEA, I think it’s fair to ask these questions about the members of Journolist, too. Note that while Bernstein says he left Journolist when he joined the White House, he was a member of it while an adviser to the Congressional Budget Office, and thus in a position to influence policy.

The more that comes out, the more the credibility of any journalist on that list falls to shreds.

UPDATE: At Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson reminds us of an incident at the White House involving Jared Bernstein that takes on possibly new significance in light of recent news. A summary quote:

So… An Obama campaign operative interacted on the Journolist with sympathetic media types in the run-up to the election, and then rewarded favored Journolistas with a visit to the White House.

Nothing to see here, move along.


Pravda would be proud

July 20, 2010

People on the Right have for years complained about a media establishment biased toward the Left, only to be roundly mocked as paranoid, even when some evidence shows they were right. (For example) During the 2008 campaign, it became increasingly apparent that the major media had given up objectivity and was openly pulling for the victory of then-Senator Obama. While concentrating all their powers on Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, they almost totally ignored Obama’s political background, relationships, and lack of experience.

But they weren’t just passively avoiding anything that might be critical of Obama or detrimental to his presidential bid. No, at the very least some members of a now-defunct private mailing list  for liberal and left-wing journalists and other opinion makers called “Journolist” were looking for ways to actively intimidate into silence not just conservative critics, but even more moderate liberal members of the MSM. How would they do this?

According to The Daily Caller, by smearing their opponents as racists:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

The members of Journolist weren’t about to see their champion hurled to the ground. But, rather than investigate and try to refute the allegations regarding Reverend Wright and Obama, they instead decided to attack their colleagues:

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

“I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

“And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In other words, a naked call to play the Race Card in American politics in order to stifle debate and criticism. Racism is the most vile charge one can make in our society; to accuse someone of it is to smear them for a long time, if not forever. And the discussants on Journolist were about to unleash it on their professional colleagues.

It’s fair to note that the people mentioned in the DC article formulating this strategy are almost all opinion journalists, such as Katha Pollitt at the progressive The Nation. One would expect them to try to shape the debate and defend their ideological positions, just as their counterparts at The Weekly Standard or National Review would do.

But not by character assassination and implying they were racists. And not by attacking members of the “objective press” for simply asking tough, legitimate questions.

That crosses the line not just into advocacy journalism, but propaganda of the worst sort, the kind I’d expect to see from the “journalistic organs” of a totalitarian state. Jack Reed and Walter Duranty would be proud.

The Daily Caller promises more in the days to come, and it will be interesting to see how far this rot has spread from politically-oriented opinion journalists to mainstream reporters.

I suspect it’s gone quite far.

(via Big Journalism)

LINKS: More from John Nolte, who says the playing of the race card isn’t the most shocking thing; Andrew Breitbart, who thinks the reporters at Pravda were better people; Kurt Schlichter, who talks about the MSM memory hole; Ed Morrissey, who considers the implications of this for the Left’s attempts to paint the Tea Party as racists; and William Jacobson, who says “Yes, Liberal journalists did manipulate the 2008 election.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,177 other followers