Unequal Justice?

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about Jussie Smollett, who recently claimed to have been attacked in Chicago by Trump supporters. (Trump supporters in Chicago?) Smollett was facing 48 years behind bars on 16 felony charges for allegedly lying about the attack. The Bond Proffer is included in the article and makes for very interesting reading.

Evidence points to the fact that the attack was staged and that two of Smollett’s fellow actors were paid (by check) to help stage the attack.

The article states:

The charges against Jussie Smollett have been sensationally dropped and a judge has sealed the case after the actor agreed to pay $10,000 in bond forfeiture. 

The Empire actor appeared in Chicago on Tuesday for an emergency hearing after his lawyers announced the news in a statement.  

Smollett, 36, was facing up to 48 years behind bars on 16 felony counts of filing a false police report.   

On Tuesday, the charges were dropped after Smollett agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bond. 

It remains unclear what prompted the decision but the Cook County’s State’s Attorney’s office said it was due in part to Smollett’s ‘volunteer service in the community.’  

I don’t mean to be cynical here, but this does not increase my faith in justice in Chicago.

I am not sure any purpose would have been served by sending Smollett to jail for 48 years. However, I wonder if Joe Sixpack would have gotten the same treatment. It is interesting to me that the judge has sealed the case after the $10,000 payment.

The Lesson Of History

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the legislative battle currently waging regarding abortion.

The article reports:

A Democratic senator blocked on Monday night the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which would have ensured children who survived abortions were given medical care.

Unfortunately, this shouldn’t be a complete shock. In the years since Roe v. Wade, our culture has continued its downward trend to supporting death, not life.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and came on the heels of comments last week from Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia insinuating that he supports infanticide in some instances.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., objected to the bill, arguing that the legislation is unnecessary, and thus preventing the bill from receiving unanimous consent.

The article cites an interesting contrast:

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., pointed out that the Senate unanimously confirmed legislation congratulating New England Patriots on winning the Super Bowl but, sadly, couldn’t unify on behalf of a resolution condemning infanticide.

Freshman Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., called upon American citizens to speak out against infanticide and added that he was surprised to encounter pro-infanticide sentiment so soon in his tenure.

Braun is right to be horrified by the situation and he is right to ask citizens to speak out.

That is a sad commentary on the relevancy of the Senate.

The article continues:

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by implicitly categorizing an unborn baby as the “personalty” (a legal term referring to one’s private property). Thus, ironically, merely a few years after America’s affirmation of the Civil Rights movement, the Supreme Court majority in Roe declared that there was, after all, an entire class of human beings—unborn babies—for whom there would be no guarantee of justice and equality.

Regrettably, left-leaning jurists such as Justice John Paul Stevens supported the perverse logic of Roe by arguing that an unborn baby does not become a human being until the moment of birth.

But such an argument is deeply incoherent; a being’s nature is not determined by its location.

Furthermore, as Valparaiso University law professor Richard Stith argued 20 years ago, the incoherence of this progressive argument—that the moment of birth is a “bright line” at which an infant becomes a human being—may very well lead to the embrace of infanticide.

In other words, since medical science makes clear that there is very little difference between a baby the day before birth and the day after birth, Stith speculated that progressive thought leaders would increasingly argue for the legalization of post-birth abortion.

And that is exactly what has happened in ensuing years.

The article concludes:

Since the Netherlands legalized euthanasia nearly 20 years ago, doctors have taken the lives of thousands of elderly citizens annually. In the Netherlands’ culture of death, it is therefore not surprising that thousands of citizens carry cards prohibiting doctors from euthanizing them, and some elderly citizens express fear about going in for basic medical care because of the possibility of euthanasia.

Recently, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail reported that a Dutch family had to hold down their mother, as she fought against being euthanized by her doctor. The patient, who was not named in the reports, suffered from dementia and had reportedly told medical officials that she wished to be euthanized when “the time was right.”

And yet, even though she reportedly said “I don’t want to die” several times in the days leading up to the killing, the doctor, who was also not named, determined that the time was right, slipped a sedative into her coffee to relax her, and then tried to administer the lethal injection. The patient awoke and resisted the doctor, causing the physician to ask the family for help in holding down the patient down while he finished her off, per the reports.

Northam’s support for infanticide and Murray’s objection to anti-infanticide legislation should not be viewed as insignificant. However, they should likewise not be seen as entirely surprising.

Anti-life legislation is arguably the most consistent consequence of the culture of death enshrined in our legal code since Roe v. Wade. Northam and Murray represent a powerful movement to stay true to the ethic undergirding pro-abortion activism, and they are gaining support day by day.

This unashamed movement to undermine the sanctity of human life must be resisted, not only by Congress but by the citizens of our great nation. If the United States Congress can unify to support a football team, then surely they can unify to defeat any movement that threatens the sanctity of human life.

The generation that first made it legal to kill their children will be the first generation to be killed by their children.

The Real Numbers On Illegal Aliens

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about the number of illegal immigrants currently living in America.

The article reports:

A new study has found that the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States is more than double what was previously estimated. 

Two Yale professors and an instructor at MIT Sloan School of Management conducted the extensive research and found that there are 22.1million illegal immigrants in the country. 

The widely estimated number is thought to be around 11.3million, but researchers Edward Kaplan, Jonathan Feinstein and Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi claim that is way off.

‘Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,’ said Kaplan, a professor of operations research at Yale School of Management. 

The article includes the following graph:

The article further states:

According to Yale Insights, the researchers also found the greatest growth of undocumented immigrants occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s. They also said the population size has been relatively stable since 2008. 

‘The trajectory is the same. We see the same patterns happening, but they’re just understating the actual number of people who have made it here,’ said Fazel‐Zarandi, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and formerly a postdoctoral associate and lecturer in operations at the Yale School of Management.

‘They are capturing part of this population, but not the whole population,’ he added. 

All three researchers said they did not conduct the study with a political agenda, but know their findings will get ‘pulled and tugged in many ways’. 

There are a number of ways to deal with this problem. Part of the reason it has not been dealt with is the fact that both Republicans and Democrats see a benefit to those illegal aliens remaining here. The Democrats see them as a potential future voting bloc, and the Republicans see them as cheap labor for their major corporate donors. Because of that, there is no incentive to close the border and figure out who is here. A porous border is a security risk, and the border needs to be tightly controlled.

This Is Not The Path To Peace

The Daily Wire is reporting today that the South African Parliament has voted to seize all land owned by white farmers.

The article reports:

On Tuesday in South Africa, a shocking vote in the National Assembly ruled that white South African farmers will be removed from their land. The vote, prompted by a motion brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema, was not even close; 241 legislators voted for it with only 83 voting against it. Malema told his supporters in 2016 he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people — at least for now.”

…As The Daily Mail noted, “A 2017 South African government audit found white people owned 72 percent of farmland.”

The vote will be considered by the Constitutional Review Committee which must report back to Parliament by August 30.

South Africa has had a history of racial problems. It also has a Marxist history and possible tendencies toward repressive government. Taking the land from white farmers without compensating them is only going to increase the racial divide. It is a revenge move rather than an effort to solve the problem. I really don’t know much about the geography of South Africa, but might there be a way to equitably divide the land between black and white farmers while compensating people if you take part of their land?

This Is Not A Culture Western Civilization Wants To Import

As the refugees stream into western countries, we need to think about the implications of this influx of Muslims. Most of the refugees are Muslim, for whatever reason America and Europe do not seem to be reaching out to the Christians. Accepting refugees is the humanitarian thing to do, but there are some things we need to consider. One of these things is the willingness (or unwillingness) of the refugees to adapt to western culture. There is no problem with their keeping their religion if they choose, but the refugees need to know what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that shows what happens when Muslims bring their culture into the west and continue with those practices that are not acceptable in western culture.

The article reports:

A Muslim man has confessed to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death with his bare hands after learning from police she had been caught shoplifting condoms to have sex with her forbidden boyfriend.

Asadullah Khan and his wife Shazia then dressed dead daughter Lareeb, a dental technician, in her clothes.

They then wheeled her in a wheelchair from their high-rise apartment to the family car, drove to a secluded embankment in their home city of Darmstadt in Germany, and tipped the corpse down it.

Under Sharia Law this conduct is acceptable. In western countries this is not acceptable behavior. This is one example of why Sharia Law should never be accepted in America.

No Parent Who Reads This Will Be Surprised By It!

Yesterday’s U.K. Daily Mail reported that since Michelle Obama has overhauled the school lunch program, more than 1 million students have stopped buying school lunches. This has happened despite the fact that the number of students who receive free, taxpayer-subsidized lunches has risen sharply.

The article reports:

The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency inside the federal government, told members of Congress in a little-noticed January 28 report that participation in the school lunch program declined by 1,086,000 in that one year, the biggest drop on record.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to revise its school lunch standards to bring them in line with a new set of nutrition requirements.

The first lady rolled out the law’s final regulations in January 2012 with a presentation linked to her ‘Let’s Move!‘ children’s health initiative. Changes took effect that fall. In the ensuing nine months, 33 states cited ‘challenges with palatability – food that tasted good to students’ as one reason sales tumbled.

It is not news to any parent that an unsupervised child is not going to eat food he does not like. If Mrs. Obama truly wanted to end childhood obesity, she might begin with food processors who infuse everything we eat with additives and high fructose corn syrup. Going back to more natural food with less additives and bringing recess, tag, and dodge ball back to our schools might be a more successful approach.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Confuse Optics With Facts

Often, the best reporting on events in America comes from the British papers. Today’s U.K. Daily Mail is an example of that fact.

An article in the U.K. Daily Mail today reports that only three of the thirteen people standing behind President Obama during his speech yesterday had actually enrolled in ObamaCare. That’s interesting since they were standing there to show their support of ObamaCare.

The article explains who the people in the photo-op were:

They include the state of Delaware‘s first Obamacare insurance participant – and, so far, its only one – along with a Tennessee woman who enrolled less than a day before the press event, and a Washington, D.C. man that the Obama White House has used on two previous occasions to symbolize the administration’s policy positions.

The other ten included small business owners, twenty-somethings enrolled in their parents’ health insurance plans, a pharmacist, and both self-employed and part-time workers.

The article further reports:

The federal government’s most optimistic numbers, released unceremoniously over the weekend, suggest that fewer than 500,000 Americans have created online Obamacare accounts, the first step toward obtaining coverage in a healthcare exchange.

Published numbers of actual enrollees, including figures MailOnline obtained from employees who crunch those numbers for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, indicate a far lower total.

The Department of Health and Human Services has said it will only make the actual enrollment totals public once each month, beginning in mid-November.

I don’t mean to be cynical here, but I wonder if a glitch in the system will prevent the enrollment totals from being made public for a while.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Assume That Scientists Always Get Things Right

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story yesterday with two amazing pictures:

global cooling

As much as I love the idea of global warming, the pictures seem to indicate that it is just not happening. I would like to point out that in the past we have had cycles of both global warming and global cooling. These cycles occurred long before the industrial revolution and were not related to anyone’s carbon footprint.

The article reports:

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

The article concludes:

‘The IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

 Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

The bottom line here is that we simply don’t understand the earth’s climate cycles. We know they exist, but we don’t know how they work or if human activity impacts them. I am in favor of clean water and clean air, but I am not in favor of crippling economic growth for faulty science. We need to learn balance, and we need to realize that much of the panic we have heard regarding global warming has to do with the desire on the part of some world leaders to transfer wealth from successful free countries into the hands of third-world tyrants. The route to economic success for any third-world country has to include freedom for its people. If there is no incentive, there will be no economic growth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disturbing News From London

CNN reported today on an attack on a man whose attackers assumed was a British soldier in London. The attackers first ran over the victim with their car and then hacked him to death.

The U. K. Daily Mail reports:

Throughout the frenzied attack they shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – then demanded horrified witnesses film them as they ranted over the  crumpled body.

The two black men in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.

I am purposely not including a link to the U. K. Daily Mail article because of the graphic nature of the article. This blog is rated G. A bystander with a gun might have been able to save the life of the victim, but Britain does not allow civilians to own guns.

People with little regard for the lives of others come in all sizes, shapes, and religious beliefs, but the fact that they were shouting “Allah Akbar” gives us a clue as to their motive. There is, unfortunately, a percentage of the Muslim population that takes the Koran seriously when it says “kill the infidel wherever you may find him.” Until Muslims who do not believe that are willing to denounce those who do, we can expect to see more of what happened in London today.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Smart Gun Laws And Dumb Criminals

On Thursday, the U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about an armed house invasion in Texas that did not go the way the robbers had planned. Three armed men broke into a home and attacked the man who lived there, pushing him into a closet. What they didn’t know is that they pushed him into the closet where he stores his gun. The man they locked in the closet shares the home with his parents. After waiting a while, he took his gun and went downstairs, assuming the robbers had gone. Unfortunately (for the robber), one of the criminals was still in the house. The robber was shot in the shoulder and the leg. There have been other recent robberies in the neighborhood. This incident might cause the robbers to think twice.

The article reports:

Craig Gaddis, who told the paper that he owns several handguns, said he and his neighbors are certain that the home invasions are related.

‘What happened today is exactly what guns are supposed to do – to protect your home and defend your life and your family,’ Gaddis said.

Police say the homeowner who shot the burglary suspect will not be face charges.

Texas has a self-defense law based on the ‘castle doctrine.’ The legislation has a ‘stand your ground’ clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat.

This story illustrates one of many reasons law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns.

Enhanced by Zemanta