August 1, 2015

Obama’s Fast & Furious debacle helped arm the Garland, Texas jihadist … [Darleen Click]

Heck of a job, Barry!

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.

What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter. […]

In May, Soofi and his roommate, Elton Simpson, burst upon the site of a Garland cartoon convention that was offering a prize for the best depiction of the prophet Muhammad, something offensive to many Muslims. Dressed in body armor and armed with three pistols, three rifles and 1,500 rounds of ammunition, the pair wounded a security officer before they were killed by local police. […]

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

Officials at the Justice Department and the FBI declined to answer questions about whether the 9-millimeter pistol was one of the guns used in the Garland attack or seized at Soofi’s apartment.

I’m sure the investigation is ongoing and is expected to last until sometime in January 2017.

Posted by Darleen @ 11:17am
12 comments | Trackback

July 31, 2015

“The Hunters” [Darleen Click]


Michael Ramirez is on fire.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:17pm
43 comments | Trackback

July 31, 2015

#PlannedParenthood — even worse than you thought [Darleen Click]


Somehow I don’t think Leftist pro-aborts would ever tolerate this kind of behavior directed toward newborn puppies and kittens, and yet …

[D]oes Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get away with this? Do their patients—the women who apparently choose to donate the “fetal tissue”—know what’s going on in explicit terms?

Federal law prohibits partial-birth abortion, a gruesome procedure in which an unborn baby is intentionally turned to the breech position to ensure that delivery of the body happens before delivery of the head. Once the baby’s head is stuck in the birth canal, the abortionist punctures the skull, evacuates the contents, and the baby is dead.

There’s a good reason this practice is banned—it’s barbaric. Many Americans may not know that the term “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical one but a legal one. And, according to Planned Parenthood doctor Deborah Nucatola, some abortion providers don’t consider it with any seriousness. In her own words, “It’s not a medical term, it doesn’t exist in reality.” What?

It’s clear Nucatola thinks the law is irrelevant—or, as she says, up for “interpretation.” She explains how abortion providers get around the law by injecting a fatal quantity of digoxin, a cardiotoxic drug, into the baby’s heart before dismembering or delivering it. In Nucatola’s words, using the slang for digoxin, they “dig.” […]

She explains: “Providers who use digoxin use it for one of two reasons. There’s a group of people who just use it so they have no risk of violating the Federal Abortion Ban. Because if you induce a demise before the procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a ‘live’—whatever the federal government calls it. Partial-birth abortion.” […]

So, if you “dig,” you’re guaranteed a dead baby and a successful abortion without having to worry about the law. Moreover, you’ll find that a baby that has already died from a heart attack is apparently “softer” and easier to pull apart with metal instruments.

I wonder how candid Nucatola is with her patients about this process. […]

In the second video, we find out explicitly from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter that abortions performed with feticides aren’t viable for fetal-tissue donation. If digoxin is used, it renders the fetal stem cells unusable. (See the footage and the transcript.) Knowing this, Nucatola’s graphic explanation of how to “crush” unborn babies to maximize organ retrieval requires a clarifier. These babies are being strategically maneuvered, crushed, and dismembered under ultrasound guidance—while still alive.

This poses an ethical question. Do the women consenting to fetal-tissue donation understand what’s happening during the procedure? Do they know that their babies are alive at the start of the butchering?

Posted by Darleen @ 1:34pm
17 comments | Trackback

July 31, 2015

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge [Darleen Click]

The inspiration …


A story …

“First right,” Jan waved the brochure, “This way, Stan!”

He reluctantly trailed behind her. They’d scrimped and saved for this vacation. Bragging rights would last for years, yet on the shuttle Jan talked of little else but this exhibit.

The room opened out, the ceiling soaring overhead, an honor guard at the far side window. As they approached Stan looked through the soldiers.

The suit with bones, the skull exposed in the helmet, then a hologram of a smiling face, cycling over and over.

“The Armstrongs got fucked,” Stan thought, “when they agreed to the interment of Neil at DisneyLuna.”


Now, your turn.

Posted by Darleen @ 12:30am
12 comments | Trackback

July 30, 2015

Cecil the lion was not “murdered” [Darleen Click]

Animals can be killed, but the term “murder” is specific to human beings.

ISIS commits mass murder in the most horrendous ways possible. Ethnic cleansing of ancient Christian communities and the destruction of antiquities by ISIS goes unabated. Planned Parenthood is as a fetal organ factory where the technicians pick their way through babies, cracking skulls and jokes, and top officials haggling over pricing.

And the Left is bored, indifferent, incurious or, feeling one of its sacraments exposed, suppressing the information by any means necessary.

Yet when a lion is hunted and killed, the hunter is not only denounced, but threatened with death.

Whatever one’s feelings about hunting, use of the word “murder” is not only inappropriate but alarming enough that anyone who uses it much be directly challenged.

Anthropomorphizing animals does not raise their status, it lowers human beings and blurs the distinction between animals and humans.

I understand why the Left does it. It makes it easier to posit policies that define individuals by their utility, their usefulness to The Group.

This must be stopped.

Posted by Darleen @ 1:30pm
37 comments | Trackback

July 29, 2015

Campus Rape Epidemic — how conveniently the Settled Science™ dovetails with Left Feminist anti-male rhetoric [Darleen Click]

“The problem with David Lisak’s serial predator theory of campus sexual assault.”

David Lisak’s serial predator theory of campus rape has made him a celebrity. Once a virtually unknown associate professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, his work is now cited by White House officials and reporters for major newspapers. […]

Much of the urgency around the topic of sexual assault on college campuses traces back to Lisak’s repeated claim that campus offenders are violent sociopaths who use “sophisticated strategies to groom” their targets and “terrify and coerce their victims into submission.” Lisak asserts that 90 percent of campus rapes are committed by serial offenders who average six rapes each. He has said that “every report should be viewed and treated as an opportunity to identify a serial rapist.”

Yet for all the attention paid to David Lisak, the problematic paper on which his fame rests has been left largely unscrutinized. And as it turns out, the paper relies on survey data not collected by Lisak, with no direct connection to campus sexual assault. […]

In March, when I pointed to the differences between the men in Lisak’s paper and the student population on which his popular campus presentations focus, Lisak responded: “Are you asking if there are comprehensive studies about sexual offenders on traditional college campuses? No, there aren’t.” Yet this is exactly how Lisak’s work has been treated.

Even the serial nature of the assaults reported in Lisak’s paper is speculation, since he did not distinguish between multiple offenses committed against multiple victims and multiple offenses committed against one victim. In fact, when asked about the high number of assaults by individuals who allegedly remained “undetected” by law enforcement, Lisak stated that “a number of these cases were domestic violence,” i.e., ongoing abuse in intimate partnerships, including marriages.

This is an important revelation. Even a single rape is abhorrent. Even one woman, victimized multiple times, endures trauma. But campus training and government policy, citing Lisak, are being built around presumptions of serial, predatory behavior from most campus rapists, a fact not established in the data and potentially contradicted by Lisak’s own characterization of the men included in his paper.

The high rate of other forms of violence reported by the men in Lisak’s paper further suggests they are an atypical group. Of the 120 subjects Lisak classified as rapists, 46 further admitted to battery of an adult, 13 to physical abuse of a child, 21 to sexual abuse of a child, and 70—more than half the group—to other forms of criminal violence. By itself, the nearly 20 percent who had sexually abused a child should signal that this is not a group from whom it is reasonable to generalize findings to a college campus.

Yet in spite of the peripheral relationship between his research and college campuses, Lisak has called for draconian action against students accused of sexual assault: “These men,” he has said of “undetected rapists” and “serial sexual predators…cannot be reached or educated. They must be identified and removed from our communities.”

Posted by Darleen @ 8:52am
22 comments | Trackback

July 28, 2015

Dear Senator Harry Reid, keep digging [Darleen Click]

What an indecent, mendouchious twatwaffle …

Posted by Darleen @ 10:19pm
23 comments | Trackback

July 28, 2015

The dark side of the abortion aftermarket [Darleen Click]

I have no idea how the Planned Parenthood abortion advocates, ever more hysterical in their condemnation of the first two videos, can ever get a handle on how to spin this one (very graphic video at link)

In a new video just released by the Center for Medical Progress, a former clinical worker at StemExpress described her job of identifying pregnant women “who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest fetal body parts after their abortions.”

Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist, said she “unsuspectingly took as job as a ‘procurement technician’” at the fetal tissue company StemExpress, which was allegedly the primary buyer of fetal body parts from Planned Parenthood.

She said she fainted on her first day on the job when she was asked to dissect a “freshly aborted” baby.

Concerning Planned Parenthood’s repeated denials that they make any money from the exchange of body parts for cash, something that would be illegal under federal law, O’Donnell said, “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”

The new video also shows undercover footage of Dr. Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, who operates abortion clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.

She was secretly videotaped in the Planned Parenthood pathology lab, where babies are taken after being aborted. She also talks about making money for body parts: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

Posted by Darleen @ 2:03pm
25 comments | Trackback

July 28, 2015

Obama: “‘I’m a Pretty Good President’ And If I Ran For a Third Term, I Could Win.” [Darleen Click]

“If you like your 22nd Amendment, you can keep your 22nd Amendment”

Posted by Darleen @ 1:46pm
17 comments | Trackback

July 27, 2015

“On Hating the Jews” [Darleen Click]

In the Wall Street Journal in December 2003, Natan Sharansky, a Jewish refusenik who was a political prisoner under the old Soviet regime, wrote this about “the longest hatred”.

Over the millennia, anti-Semitism has infected a multitude of peoples, religions and civilizations, in the process inflicting a host of terrors on its Jewish victims. But while there is no disputing the impressive reach of the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little agreement about its cause or causes.

Indeed, finding a single cause would seem too daunting a task–the incidence of anti-Semitism is too frequent, the time span too broad, the locales too numerous, the circumstances too varied. No doubt that is why some scholars have come to regard every outbreak as essentially unique, denying that a straight line can be drawn from the anti-Semitism of the ancient world to that of today. Whether it is the attack on the Jews of Alexandria in the year 38 or the ones that took place 200 years earlier in ancient Jerusalem, whether it is the Dreyfus affair in 1890s France or Kristallnacht in late-1930s Germany–each incident is seen as the outcome of a distinctive mix of political, social, economic, cultural and religious forces that preclude the possibility of a deeper or recurring cause. […]

Shocked by the visceral anti-Semitism he witnessed at the Dreyfus trial in supposedly enlightened France, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, became convinced that the primary cause of anti-Semitism was the anomalous condition of the Jews: a people without a polity of its own. In his seminal work, “The Jewish State” (1896), published two years after the trial, Herzl envisioned the creation of such a Jewish polity and predicted that a mass emigration to it of European Jews would spell the end of anti-Semitism.

Although his seemingly utopian political treatise would turn out to be one of the 20th century’s most prescient books, on this point history has not been kind to Herzl; no one would seriously argue today that anti-Semitism came to a halt with the founding of the state of Israel. To the contrary, this particular illusion has come full circle: while Herzl and most Zionists after him believed that the emergence of a Jewish state would end anti-Semitism, an increasing number of people today, including some Jews, are convinced that anti-Semitism will end only with the disappearance of the Jewish state.

I remembered this important article of Sharansky’s as I read his latest writing on Obama’s Iran debacle deal …

As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.

In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.

Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.

Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens. […]

The Republican administration in the White House objected furiously. It also claimed that by improving relations with Moscow it would be better able to protect us personally and to ensure that some Jews could emigrate each year. […]

Now all that was needed for the amendment to become law was enough principled congressional Republicans willing to take a stand against their own party in the White House. It was a Republican senator from New York, Jacob Javits, who, spurred by a sense of responsibility for the Jewish future, helped put together the bipartisan group that ensured passage.

Later, when Javits traveled to Moscow as part of a delegation of U.S. senators, he met with a group of Jewish refuseniks and asked us whether the policy of linkage truly helped our cause. Although we knew that we were speaking directly into KGB listening devices, all 14 of us confirmed that Jackson’s amendment was our only hope. […]

The amendment made the principle of linkage the backbone of the free world’s relations with the USSR. The decaying Soviet economy could not support an arms race or maintain tolerable conditions without credit and support from the United States. By conditioning this assistance on the opening of the USSR’s gates, the United States would not only help free millions of Soviet Jews as well as hundreds of millions of others but also pave the way for the regime’s eventual collapse.

Today, an American president has once again sought to achieve stability by removing sanctions against a brutal dictatorship without demanding that the latter change its behavior. And once again, a group of outspoken Jews — no longer a small group of dissidents in Moscow but leaders of the state of Israel, from the governing coalition and the opposition alike — are sounding an alarm. Of course, we are reluctant to criticize our ally and to so vigorously oppose an agreement that purports to promote peace. But we know that we are again at a historic crossroads, and that the United States can either appease a criminal regime — one that supports global terror, relentlessly threatens to eliminate Israel and executes more political prisoners than any other per capita — or stand firm in demanding change in its behavior.

He is right. He articulates exactly what must be said in Congress to strike down this deal as written. This deal that the brain-trust of Obama & Kerry merely say “Trust us” while the terrorist-supporting Islamists of Iran continue to preach Death to America! Death to Israel!.

And as a postscript (and a warning) if ever there is yet another indication of the rise of anti-Semitism even in America is to peruse the comments to Sharansky’s article.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:16pm
25 comments | Trackback

← Older posts