Sunday, February 22, 2009

the real racism in this country exists on the left...

and the attorney general is just the latest to prove this correct. while the vast majority of the united states lives in a post racial world, race baiting people like holder thrive on pulling the country backwards to suit their aims. it's time to hold people like this accountable -

maybe calling us a nation of cowards (when it comes to race) is true, however. if we were not cowards, we would speak openly about the things that really hurt the black community - black on black violence, astronomical illegitimacy rates, social mocking of education, celebration of misogyny and lack of accountability.. we would talk about those openly. but we do not. maybe holder has a point.

No Place Nowadays for Eric Holder’s ‘Nation of Cowards’ Rant

Latter-day Pharisees like the attorney general presume to lecture us about race while doing nothing to address real problems affecting ordinary Americans.

“Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.”

– Eric Holder

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones …”

– Matthew 23:27

She is a woman of impressive personal dignity, down to earth and friendly, yet unmistakably one of those natural aristocrats who expects to be respected. The daughter of a prominent businessman in her north Georgia hometown, she went to college in Atlanta where she met her husband. He became a lawyer and an influential political leader — he is now a superior court judge — and she remains active in civic organizations in her retirement.

For the organizers of the Atlanta Olympic Committee, Marilyn Arrington was clearly a woman whose assistance should be solicited. And when her Olympic duties brought her back to her hometown in 1996, my editor at the Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune sent me out to interview the lady. The assignment was an honor, and I was eager to accomplish it well, given both the importance of the subject and the fact that our publisher was keeping a keen eye on our Olympic coverage.

So I interviewed her, and soon discovered that this eminent lady had been one of the foot soldiers of the civil rights revolution. Her father had been the local agent for Atlanta Life Insurance, which made him a de facto leader of Rome’s black business community. And when, as a Clark College undergraduate, she joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and began participating in sit-in protests against segregation in Atlanta — well, this caused some consternation with her father.

Mrs. Arrington’s father was part of an informal group of civic leaders who met regularly in Rome. These men, black and white, were part of a community effort to ensure that whatever the outcome of the struggle then underway, no damage would be done to the peace and prosperity of their town. In an era of extreme tension, this was a difficult task — history books now are studded with the names of towns where such efforts failed, or were never undertaken — and the young Clark student’s activism made her father’s labors all the more difficult.

How would it look, after all, if she were arrested among the protesters at the all-white lunch counters in Atlanta? His daughter, a “troublemaker”? This would be a disastrous revelation, considering the prevailing mood in her north Georgia hometown. And so an agreement was reached between father and daughter: When the police showed up, she would leave when asked, leaving others to be arrested in the ritual of civil disobedience. This was acceptable to her SNCC comrades, who assigned her to what she described more than three decades later as the “go squad.” By design, sit-in demonstrators would be divided into two groups — most on the “go squad,” who would obey the police order to leave, and a relative few on the “stay squad,” pledged to leave only in handcuffs.

This go/stay division was part of the careful orchestration of the sit-in protests that I’d never heard described before, and it occurred to me — as Mrs. Arrington told her story with my tape recorder rolling — that her position with the Olympic committee was far from being her greatest claim to historic distinction. Memories of that 1996 interview came to mind Wednesday, after Attorney General Eric Holder denounced America as “a nation of cowards,” afraid to talk about race.

With so many problems afflicting America today, especially with the economy in crisis, what purpose was served by Holder’s remarks? Trillions of dollars in asset value were wiped out by the collapse of the housing “bubble” and the ripple effects of that collapse have shaken financial institutions worldwide to their very foundations. It hardly seems a convenient moment for an angry racial harangue from the nation’s chief law enforcement official.

Particularly odd was that Holder chose to deliver his lecture in the middle of Black History Month, when America’s school children are annually immersed in the subject of race. Originally conceived by pioneering scholar Carter G. Woodson as a means of inspiring black youth by celebrating the accomplishments of overlooked achievers, in recent decades Black History Month has been hijacked by those who view the story of African-Americans not as one of hard-earned progress, but of perpetual victimhood and permanent grievance.

Most Americans over age 30 have little idea how the teaching of history has been perverted by the damaging attitudes Shelby Steele examined in his 2007 bestseller, White Guilt. And because history has been hijacked by grievance mongers and guilt-trippers, most Americans under age 30 have absolutely no idea of what a triumphant tale our nation has to tell, including stories like the one told by the distinguished lady from the Olympic committee.

Every February, America’s children are taught about the fire hoses and police dogs turned upon anti-segregation protesters in Birmingham, Alabama, but no one ever seems to point out that such incidents were the exception rather than the rule, even during the height of the struggle over civil rights in the South. The comparatively peaceful end of Jim Crow in Atlanta and other communities, made possible by cooperative efforts of responsible leaders both black and white — of this, our nation’s children have been taught nothing at all for the past 20 years.

However painful our history has been and whatever our problems of race relations today, our children deserve better than to be deluded by the narratives of guilt and grievance that have come to dominate the teaching of American history. No other nation on earth has done more to advance the cause of liberty and justice, and yet — so far as our children learn during Black History Month — America is nothing but chains and whips and Bull Connor’s police dogs.

What happened? This question has long troubled me. Just a kindergartner during the watershed year of 1964, when passage of the Civil Rights Act wrote the obituary of Jim Crow, I grew up in a time of comparative racial tranquility in the South. No “incidents” disturbed my youth attending the recently integrated schools of Douglas County, Ga., nor did any racial conflict mar my years at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University.

By the 1990s, however, one could scarcely ignore the signs of deteriorating race relations in America. The 1987 Tawana Brawley controversy and the 1991 Crown Heights riots in New York; the 1991 Rodney King beating and the 1992 riots in Los Angeles; the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995 — you could turn on CNN any night and watch racial anger unleashed with hideous consequences.

What went wrong? I put this question to Mrs. Arrington that afternoon in 1996. Our interview had ended; the tape recorder had been put away. This was not a reporter’s question, but rather an earnest hope that someone who had served as a soldier in the civil right revolution might offer insight into the causes of the apparent backsliding. Expecting her to identify a recent source of these woes, I was surprised by her answer.

“It seems to me it was around 1965 or ‘66, when Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown and that crowd came in,” she said, referring to militants who captured the leadership of SNCC. “They kicked the white people out of the movement and started talking about ‘black power’ — everything was ‘whitey this’ and ‘whitey that.’ … It was never the same after that.”

While Mrs. Arrington was the first to share that historical perspective with me, she was not the last. Over the years, many others who were active in civil rights during that era — including conservative author David Horowitz — have related similar stories. Tragically, because the black-power militants of the late 1960s allied themselves with white radicals who subsequently burrowed into academia to begin their “long march through the institutions,” it is their “whitey this, whitey that” guilt-and-grievance narrative that now dominates what young Americans are taught about our nation’s racial past and present.

Drugs, crime, educational failure, rampant illegitimacy — the real problems affecting millions of black people today — are not the issues the attorney general refers to when he denounces America as a “nation of cowards.” But these issues loom large for Judge Marvin Arrington every day in his Atlanta courtroom, as he faces a sad parade of young black criminals who shun honest opportunity and instead prey upon their own community.

Ideas have consequences, Richard Weaver once famously observed, and the tragedy enveloping so much of black America today might well be viewed as a consequence of the wrong turn that Marilyn Arrington described.

Stokely Carmichael changed his name to Kwame Toure in tribute to two notorious African dictators, and died in 1998 after bizarrely claiming that his fatal prostate cancer was the result of an FBI plot against him. H. Rap Brown changed his name to Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, and ended his career as a “community organizer” by shooting to death a black sheriff’s deputy in 2000. Such are the villainous examples emulated by the violent young criminals who pass through Marvin Arrington’s courtroom.

Our latter-day Pharisees presume to lecture us about race while doing nothing to address real problems affecting ordinary Americans. Like the corrupt leaders of Israel whom Jesus condemned two millennia ago, these Pharisees expect to be praised and admired for displaying their hypocritical self-righteousness as they stand in judgment over a nation they mislead and betray.

Woe unto them and woe unto the nation that follows such wicked leadership.

Monday, February 16, 2009

obama's rhetoric is the real catastrophe

one of the best pieces i have read on the topic.. unfortunately, this bill has passed and the future is sealed. if we make it to the 2010 elections as a democracy, we'll see the dems voted out in droves. presuming they don't cook the election - a la Minnesota.

Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s.

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Monday, February 9, 2009

so much 'cooler' than bush

President Barack Obama waves and learns the door on Marine One is much shorter than he is, and bumps his head as he leaves for a trip to Andrews Air Force Base, Md. (ap)

Saturday, February 7, 2009

The Stimulus Tragedy

unfortunately, it appears as if the stimulus package is set to pass - throwing away a large amount of money on pet programs of the left. obama is showing that he understands only the economics taught in academia and has no understanding of reality. his soaring rhetoric is backed by a hollow understanding of how things work. if, and by if, i mean when, this bill passes - get ready to see inflation that will make the carter years look like a booming economy. this is the result of what happens when people prefer having their ears tickled rather than dealing in reality.

The Stimulus Tragedy

President Obama has started to play the "catastrophe" card to sell his economic stimulus plan, using yesterday's terrible January jobs report to predict doom unless Congress acts. No doubt he'll get his way, but the tragedy of this first great effort of the Obama Presidency is what a lost opportunity it is.

Everyone agrees that some kind of fiscal stimulus might help the economy, and that running budget deficits is appropriate in a recession. The stage was thus set for the popular President to forge a bipartisan consensus that combined ideas from both parties. A major cut in the corporate tax favored by Republicans could have been added to Democratic public works spending for a quick political triumph that might have done at least some economic good.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done.

Speaking to a House Democratic retreat on Thursday night, Mr. Obama took on those critics. "So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"

So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it. He has to know that it matters what the government spends the money on, as well as how it is financed. A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP.

But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Some Democrats claim these transfer payments are stimulating because they go mainly to poor people, who immediately spend the money. Tax cuts for business or for incomes across the board won't work, they add, because those tax cuts go disproportionately to "the rich," who will save the money. But a saved $1 doesn't vanish from the economy, unless it is stuffed into a mattress. It enters the financial system, where it is lent to others; or it is invested in the stock market as capital for businesses; or it is invested in entirely new businesses, which are the real drivers of job creation and prosperity.

At the current moment, amid a capital strike, the latter is the kind of fiscal stimulus we really need. Yet there is virtually none of it in the bills now moving through Congress. Senate moderates may succeed in cutting $100 billion or so in spending from the bill, which is political window dressing. Even they aren't talking about adding the kind of tax cuts that would really help the economy now.

We should add how different this is from the 1980s or even the 1960s. Democrats added business tax cuts to the Reagan package of 1981, while Jack Kennedy's chief economist (Walter Heller) promoted marginal rate tax cuts on stimulus grounds in the 1960s. Yet Mr. Obama, on Thursday, dismissed any such tax cuts as "the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." That's rhetoric for a campaign, not for a President hoping to rally bipartisan support.

The biggest gamble with this stimulus is what it means if the economy doesn't recover. Monetary policy is already as stimulative as it can safely get, and the Obama Administration is set to announce its big financial fix on Monday. Stocks rallied Friday on expectations of the latter, despite the job loss report, with big bank stocks leading the way. If done right, this will help reduce risk aversion and gradually restore financial confidence.

We hope it does, because the size and waste of the stimulus means we won't have much ammunition left. The spending will take the U.S. budget deficit up to some 12% of GDP, about double the peak of the 1980s and into uncharted territory. The tragedy of the Obama stimulus is that we are getting so little for all that money.

obama mythology could use some stimulus...

Mark Steyn is genius - and this column proves it. classic Steyn humor

Mark Steyn: Obama mythology could use some stimulus

Far from walking on water, president seems all at sea.

In The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne tried to break it gently to us:

"No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water."

Yeah, sure, no previousoccupant of the White House has been able to walk on water – your Eisenhowers and Roosevelts, your Chester Arthurs and Grover Clevelands and whatnot. But Barack didn't run as just another of those squaresville losers. He was gonna heal the planet and lower the oceans. So, even if he couldn't walk on water, he should at least be able to paddle in it. "He is a community organizer like Jesus was," said Susan Sarandon, "and now we're a community, and he can organize us."

So how's that going? Jesus took a handful of loaves and two fish and fed 5,000 people. Barack wants to take a trillion pieces of pork and feed it to a handful of Democratic Party interest groups. Jesus picked twelve disciples. Barack seems to have gone more for one of those "Dirty Dozen" caper-movie lineups, where the mission is so perilous and so audacious that only the scuzziest lowlifes recruited from every waterfront dive have any chance of pulling it off. The ends justify the mean SOBs: "Indispensable Tim" Geithner, wanted in 12 jurisdictions for claiming his kid's summer camp as a business expense, is the only guy with the savvy to crack the code of the U.S. economy. Tom "Home, James!" Daschle is the ruthless backseat driver who can figure out how to steer the rusting gurney of U.S. health care through the corridors of power. Charles Bronson is the hardbitten psycho ex-con who can't go straight but knows how to turn around the Department of the Interior.

And, of course, there's the lovable dough-faced shnook in the front office, Robert "Fall Guy" Gibbs. He didn't do nuthin' wrong, but, when seven nominees die in a grisly shootout with a Taxable Benefit Swat Team in the alley behind the Senate, he makes the mistake of looking sweaty and shifty answering routine questions.

A president doesn't have to be able to walk on water. But he does have to choose the right crew for the ship, especially if he's planning on spending most of his time at the captain's table, schmoozing the celebrity guests with a lot of deep thoughts about "hope" and "change." Far worse than his Cabinet picks was President Obama's decision to make the "stimulus" racket the all-but-sole-priority of his first month and then outsource the project to Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Harry Reid.

Appearing on "The Rush Limbaugh Show" last week, I got a little muddled over two adjoining newspaper clippings – one on the stimulus, the other on those octuplets in California – and for a brief moment the two stories converged. Everyone's hammering that mom – she's divorced, unemployed, living in a small house with parents who have a million bucks' worth of debt, and she's already got six kids. So she has in vitro fertilization to have eight more. But isn't that exactly what the Feds have done? Last fall, they gave birth to $850 billion of bailout they couldn't afford and didn't have enough time to keep an eye on, and now, four months later, they're going to do it all over again, but this time they want trillionuplets. Barney and Nancy represent the in vitro fertilization of the federal budget. And it's the taxpayers who'll get stuck with the diapers.

Those supporters who were wary of touting Obama as the walk-on-water Messiah did their best to lower expectations by hailing him merely as the new FDR. You remember the old FDR – "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Ha! With the new New Deal, we have everything to fear. As President Obama warned Tuesday, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." If you're of those moonstruck Obammysoxers still driving around with the "HOPE, NOT FEAR" bumper stickers, please note that, due to an unfortunate proofreading error at the printing plant, certain nouns in that phrase may have become accidentally transposed.

As it happens, the best way to ensure catastrophe is to "act now." It would be nice if the world could all prance along in regimented unison like the Radio City Changettes. But, alas, the foreigners made the mistake of actually reading the "stimulus" bill, and the protectionist measures buried on page 739 subsection XII(d) ended, instantly, the Obama honeymoon overseas. The European Union has threatened a trade war. Up in Canada, provincial premiers called it "a march to insanity." Wait a minute, I thought the Obama era was meant to be the retreat from insanity, a blessed return to multilateral transnational harmony.

As longtime readers will know, I'm all in favor of flipping the bird to the global community. But at least, when Rummy was doing his shtick about "Old Europe," he did it intentionally. To cheese off the foreigners entirely accidentally before you've even had your first black-tie banquet is quite an accomplishment. Protectionism is serious business to the Continentals. Oh, to be sure, if the swaggering unilateralist Yank cowboy invades some Third World basket-case they'll seize on it as an opportunity for some cheap moral posturing. But in the end they don't much care one way or the other. Plunging the planet into global depression, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

The bloated nonstimulus and the undertaxed nominees are part of the same story. I'm with Tom Daschle: I understand why he had no desire to toss another six-figure sum into the great sucking maw of the federal Treasury. Who knows better than a senator who's voted for every tax increase to cross his desk that all this dough is entirely wasted? Tom and Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel and all the rest are right: They can do more good with the money than the United States government can. I only wish they followed the logic of their behavior and recognized that what works for them would also work for every other citizen. Instead, they insist that the sole solution to our woes is a record-setting wasteful government spending spree.

Maybe it's time for President Obama to come out and give one of his big hopey-changey speeches. It's been a few weeks now, and I kinda miss them. You know – "We are the change we've been waiting for." "We have nothing to hope for but hope itself." "Ask not what your hope can change for you, ask what you can hope for your change." Etc.

But I wonder if the old songs from last month's hit parade would play as well today. On Wednesday, Salon headlined a story on Obama: "The New Great Communicator … Isn't." Oh, dear. It's early days yet, but the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality, between the audacity of hope and the reality of pork, yawns ever wider. Right now, it's the Obama mythology that urgently needs some stimulus. Some of us never expected him to walk on water. But we didn't think he'd be all at sea taking on quite so much of it after a mere two weeks.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

the sad state of life in the united states

this is just sickening. and sad. i hope the people responsible are charged and prosecuted. terrible.

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique's case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney's homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique's attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best "misguided and incomplete" in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn't provide details.

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic's actions constitute murder.

"The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage," said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. "People all over the country are just aghast."

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York.

New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him.

She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women's Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later.

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication.

The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn't shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

"She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything."

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique's license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should prosecutors file murder charges, they'd have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

"Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual," Batey said. "And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case."

peaceful religion raping men..

the religion of peace scores a new hit with their new single:

Raping Men as a Terrorist Recruiting Tool

Fancy that! Al Qaeda does not discriminate on the basis of gender or religion. They not only kill both men and women, Muslim and infidel alike, they also recruit men and women by raping them!

Pink News, which bills itself as “Europe’s largest gay news,” outlet has just confirmed that al-Qaeda uses male rape as a tactic to recruit male human bombers in Algeria.

We have just learned about a Sunni al-Qaeda related plot in Iraq in which terrorists raped eighty Muslim girls and women, then turned them over to Samira Jassim who patiently and persistently persuaded the rape victims, (many of whom had been targeted because they were depressed or mentally ill), to cleanse their shame by blowing themselves and other Muslims up. Twenty eight women did so.

In a terrible sense, Jassim only exaggerated what is routinely and normatively done to many girls and women today in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and increasingly in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc. After all, Jassim did her Evil Stepmother maternal dirty work in a culture which fears, despises, shrouds, genitally mutilates, force-marries girls to their first cousins, and perpetrates honor killings. How different is raping them so that they may find glory through jihad? In a sense, isn’t this a quantum career leap and sacred opportunity?

I have written about the routine rape of both male and female children by older boys and men in Arab and Muslim societies many times in the past, in both books and articles. This is one factor which may account for a characteristic life-long “paranoia” and a super-vigilance about shame and honor which afflicts these cultures.

According to Pink News, an Algerian militant, Abu Ba├žir El Assimi, confirmed in the pages of The Sun that:

“The sexual act on young recruits aged between 16 to 19 was a means to urge them to commit suicide operations…that “intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.”

Apparently, a suspected 22 year-old terrorist bomber was killed in an attempted attack on a security installation in the Tizi Ouzou province of Algeria last month. The ongoing autopsy has revealed that he may have been raped. “There was a large tear in the anus of the terrorist, (as well as semen), which confirms the sexual abuse.”

We can’t say we didn’t know, that no one told us. We now know–I am telling you–that we are dealing with terrorists who engage in the human sacrifice of their own people, including their own children; who hide behind their own civilian populations whom they force into becoming their “human shields;” who use rape as a systematic weapon of war in Darfur, (I have called this “gender cleansing”), and who now use rape as a way to recruit young men and women into becoming human homicide bombers.

But as important: The life work of many ordinary civilians–say off the coast of Somalia, in the Khyber Pass between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Kandahar, or working the tunnels and alleys of Gaza, is a life in which raped/shamed boys and men spend their entire lives “working” as pirates, smugglers, petty criminals, gun-runners, kidnappers-for-ransom, traumatized, repeat rapists, and soldier-mercenaries.

This is the army America, Israel and Europe now faces. The combatants, often called “militants,” but not “terrorists” or “soldiers,” are often dressed in rags, sometimes in suits, rarely in uniforms. When captured, they will claim civilian status and deny everything.

I hope that the media can wake itself from its’ Hundred Year Spell and refuse to be fooled by fake photos or fake statistics about alleged Israeli “massacres” or “disproportionate” Israeli responses to the non-stop aggression and innate criminality of this new kind of army.

While we may wish to create a new kind of peace or even a military-diplomatic alliance with moderate Muslims who themselves are being held hostage by Islamist terrorists, America owes no apology to the Muslim world. Only America, (not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, not Egypt, etc.), shed blood for the civilian Muslims of Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Semper Fi!