“This Is Triggering”: UNC Student Attacks Pro-Life Students On Videotape

We have seen a litany of attacks on conservative and pro-life students on college campuses in the last couple of years. Even professors have joined in such attacks, including one who pleaded guilty to assault and was supported by other faculty members and even honored at other schools. The most recent example is an attack on a member of the pro-life group Created Equal at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. The attack was caught on video (below) and student Jillian Ward, 19, was charged.

On the video, Ward gave the same defense that we heard in other cases — that she was “triggered” by the pro-life displays. The group showed pictures of aborted children. Ward is shown walking up and asking them, “Did y’all put these up?” When Austin Beigel says that he did, she immediately punched him in the face and then repeatedly around the stomach.

Ward is heard screaming “F***ing terrible person. You’re a terrible person. You — this is not okay. This is not okay. This is not okay. Shut the f**k up right now. This is wrong. This is triggering. You’re not an innocent human being. You’re a terrible person.”

After years of some academics and administrators telling students that they should be protected from “triggering” views and microaggressive conduct, it is not surprising that some like Ward would believe they have license to act in this way.

Some faculty have shown students that they have a right to silence others or even attack those with opposing views. One incident occurred at the California State University where assistant professor of public health professor Greg Thatcher is shown on a videotape wiping out the pro-life statements written in chalk by members of Fresno State Students for Life.  The university is now being sued over the incident.

The incident also raises troubling memories of  the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women.  She was convicted and sentenced for the crime.  Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. To make matters worse, Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, not only issued a statement that seemed to blame the victims but practically defended Miller-Young’s conduct. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech.  Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.

This video shows a similar sense of entitlement and immunity in striking out at those with opposing views. Presumably, Ward will be expelled from UNC but that is far from certain. It did not happen with Miller-Young at UC-Santa Barbara as a faculty member who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life advocates.

387 thoughts on ““This Is Triggering”: UNC Student Attacks Pro-Life Students On Videotape”

  1. Unless cases like this go to court, every time, the Left’s use of violence to suppress dissent will just accelerate. It gets results and in this case the assailant got a summons, wasn’t handcuffed, and was free to assault again. Jillian Ward lives what P.J. O’Rourke calls the “wiffle ball life” in which there are no bad consequences for bad acts.

    The Democratic party, while accusing its opponents of coddling right-wing extremists, has never condemned antifa or acts of left-wing violence by lone actors like Jillian Ward.

    Prominent figures such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said “so be it” to “collateral damage” for “those who don’t share our views”. Rep. Maxine Waters issued a call for physical confrontation of Trump administration officals.

    It’s unreasonable to expect violent extremism on one side to go unanswered by the other side. If the Democrats won’t control its own extremists and repudiate antifa, they will bear responsibility for a civil war which may not end well for them.

  2. Obama White House Tracked FOIA Request For Hillary Emails That Was Improperly Denied
    6:32 PM 05/12/2019 | US

    Emails released to Judicial Watch show for the first time that the Obama White House kept tabs on a FOIA request for information on Hillary Clinton’s emails that was improperly rejected by the State Department.

    The State Department claimed in May 2013 in response to the FOIA request that no responsive records existed. The agency’s internal watchdog later determined that denial to be ‘inaccurate and incomplete’ since Clinton used a personal email account to conduct State Department business.

    “These documents suggest the Obama White House knew about the Clinton email lies being told to the public at least as early as December 2012,” says Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

    Continued: https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/12/obama-white-house-hillary-clinton-emails-foia/?utm_medium=email

  3. Democrats are for violence: killing babies, assaulting /inflicting bodily harm on women praying the rosary outside an abortion mill and celebrating the killing of Jews by Nazis because Dems are Nazis….all of them


    Rashida Tlaib: Holocaust gives her ‘kind of a calming feeling’

    House Republican leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to “take action” against Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Sunday after Tlaib said that thinking about the Holocaust gave her “kind of a calming feeling.”

    Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to be elected to Congress, made the comments while discussing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians during an appearance on the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”

    “There’s always kind of a calming feeling, I tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports,” Tlaib said on the podcast’s most recent episode, published Friday. “And, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And, I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways, but they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.”

    “There is no justification for the twisted and disgusting comments made by Rashida Tlaib just days after the annual Day of Holocaust Remembrance,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement. “More than six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust; there is nothing ‘calming’ about that fact.

    “Unfortunately, this is far from the first display of heinous anti-Semitic comments coming from Democrat House members this year, and it’s clear this is now the norm for their caucus,” Scalise added. “It’s long past time for Speaker Pelosi to take swift action and make it clear that these vile comments have no place in Congress.”

    House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said Tlaib’s comments were “sickening” and called on Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., “to finally take action against Representative Tlaib and other members of the Democratic caucus who are spreading vile anti-Semitism.”

    A spokesman for Tlaib did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    “All of us, regardless of party, must stand as Americans against the evil of anti-Semitism,” added Cheney, the third-ranking Republican member of the House. “If the Democratic leadership continues to stand by in silence, they are enabling the spread of evil. History teaches us that anti-Semitism begins with words and becomes something far worse. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer must act now.”

    Tlaib, along with Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has become a lightning rod for critics who have accused her of promoting anti-Semitic activists and rhetoric. Last month, the Zionist Organization of America called for the Democrats to expel Tlaib and pull her committee assignments over her “anti-Israel record” and her alleged association with “terrorists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.”


  4. “The Cross of Honor for the German Mother”: Three-Tiered Medal for Mothers with Four or More Children (1938)

    To increase the birthrate, the Nazi regime ran a non-stop propaganda campaign that glorified starting a family and having children. One manifestation of the Nazi “cult of the mother” was the “Cross of Honor for the German Mother” (also known as the “Mother Cross”), which the NSDAP awarded in Hitler’s name to mothers with four or more children. The Mother Cross was first awarded on Mother’s Day in 1939; that year alone about 3 million women qualified for the honor, which was supposed to be awarded only to “genetically fit,” politically reliable, and socially worthy German mothers. The crosses were awarded according to the number of children a woman had: bronze (level three) for four to five children, silver (level two) for six to seven children, and gold (level one) for eight or more children. Award recipients were chosen on the recommendation of either the Nazi party or government officials (the mayor, for example). A number of financial privileges were connected with this honor, including preferential service when shopping. (The receipt of a Mother Cross, however, was not tantamount to permanent recognition. For instance, it could be revoked if a mother ceased to be “worthy”: if she neglected her children, cheated on her husband, or exhibited problematic behavior. ) Additional honors were awarded for other “exceptional birth performances.” For example, Hitler himself served as godfather to the tenth child in any family.


  5. “The Left’s war on children is by no means restricted to the project of maximizing the scope of opportunity to surgically dismember them prior to birth, preferably at public expense. From radical feminists to radical environmentalists to academics and such mainstream figures such as Bill Nye, the word has come down: Children are not the future, but the future’s enemies.”
    – Kevin Williamson

    The Case for Being Born

    Why are pro-abortion activists such as Brian Sims so angry? Because they abhor the alternative.

    Sims, a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania state legislature, filmed himself berating an old woman and a few children who were praying outside of an abortion clinic in Philadelphia — a city that, as the home town of that ghastly butcher Kermit Gosnell, knows something about the horror of abortion. Sims even went so far as to share photos of the children on social media with requests that his followers help him “dox” them, meaning to track down private information about them for the purpose of harassment.

    Children, these were.

    And that is what this is really all about.

    The Left’s war on children is by no means restricted to the project of maximizing the scope of opportunity to surgically dismember them prior to birth, preferably at public expense. From radical feminists to radical environmentalists to academics and such mainstream figures such as Bill Nye, the word has come down: Children are not the future, but the future’s enemies.

    An interesting fact about our political discourse is that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich is still a part of it, commanding some attention in spite of his having been spectacularly wrong about every single major claim of his long public career. Erhlich has been delivering homilies on overpopulation since before I was born. Population Bomb, published in 1968, garnered a great deal of attention (and brisk sales!) for its claims that overpopulation made it inevitable that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation in the 1970s. He was awfully sure of himself, as progressives so often are — “science says!” and all that — writing: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

    What happened, of course, was the opposite. Extreme poverty worldwide has been reduced by more than half in the past few decades; to the extent that famine exists at all in the world today, it exists almost exclusively as a political phenomenon, the product of failed states rather than failed crops.

    But the cult of overpopulation takes no notice of the facts. Abortion advocates such as Representative Sims habitually present their case in Malthusian terms: He demanded of the elderly woman he was bullying whether she herself would provide for the material needs of the unwanted children who were being chopped to bits and stuffed into medical-waste containers inside the Planned Parenthood facility. Never mind, for the moment, the fact that there are far more American families looking to adopt children than there are abortions performed or children eligible to be adopted — the imbalance is so great that Americans go all over the world looking for children to adopt — and just consider the implicit argument there on its own merits, which is this: “If we think that there might be some inconvenience involved in seeing to the needs of these children, then it would be better to put them to death.”

    But this line of argument does not end with the unwanted children who are killed by abortionists. Figures such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) have suggested that having children may be immoral, and many of her progressive allies have gone much further than that. Utilizing the familiar “Science says!” rhetorical formulation, Travis Rieder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics insisted that people should forgo having children because of the impact those children might have on climate change. “Science proves kids are bad for Earth,” NBC headlined the essay, “Morality suggests we stop having them.” Writing in the New York Times under the headline “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?” Clemson philosophy professor Todd May concludes that the disappearance of Homo sapiens “might just be a good thing.” The cultivated folksiness of the expression adds a special horror to the display of moral illiteracy. (And ordinary illiteracy: He writes that “nature itself is hardly a Valhalla of peace and harmony,” apparently unaware of the martial character of Valhalla or that the heroes there spent their time preparing for the great climactic battle of Ragnarök.) Professor May asks:

    How much suffering and death of nonhuman life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences and so forth? Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals.

    Unless . . .

    Chelsea Follett, writing at Human Progress, briefly taxonomizes the partisans of “anti-natalism,” the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (“vehement,” they pronounce it; at least the end of the human race would spare us these dopey acronyms), etc. “Some anti-natalists are not content with promoting the voluntary reduction of birth rates,” she writes, “and would prefer to hurry the process along with government intervention. Various prominent environmentalists, from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to science popularizer and entertainer Bill Nye, support the introduction of special taxes or other state-imposed penalties for having ‘too many’ children. In 2015, Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book advocating a ‘one-child’ policy, like the one China abandoned. . . . Even after that policy’s collapse, she maintains it was ‘a good thing.’”

    One of the fundamental differences in our public life is between those who see human beings as liabilities — as mouths to be fed and souls to be policed — and those of us who see human beings as assets. The economist Julian Simon ran the numbers and made the case for human beings as assets. His “Simon Abundance Index” measures the availability of resources relative to population and finds that with more people there are more resources. The Malthusians always forget to count the most dynamic and productive of all human resources: humanity.

    One might be forgiven for seeing something providential in Representative Sims’s decision to attack a woman praying the Rosary, which points us toward a radically different understanding of childbirth and motherhood and fatherhood, one in which human beings participate in the creative work of the universe. It seems that none of Herod’s men ever thought to demand of Joseph or the Magi: “Are you going to pay for feeding that child? Huh? Huh?” It was understood. One need not be a Christian, or even religious, to grasp the moral philosophy illustrated there — or to be repulsed by the grotesque and vicious alternative to it personified by Representative Sims et al.


  6. David, the definition of the word weenie is: ” A person, especially a man, who is regarded as being weak and ineffectual.”

  7. Early on a Sunday morning and there are nine posts from Diane on the same aging thread. Pro-tip to the assisted living center: just dose her with tranquilizers. That way you don’t have to listen to her rattle on and neither does anyone else.

    1. You are under reporting my tally again. It should be at least eleven. Also, you missed a cameo disappearance by the ghost of Dr. David B. Benson.

      1. Late4Dinner says: May 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM

        “Also, you missed a cameo disappearance by the ghost of Dr. David B. Benson.”

        And again tonight.


    2. Who would bother counting — or caring. Oh, the absurdity…

      Scroll, baby, scroll.

      1. Maybe Absurd is “triggered” by that hag cluttering up these threads first thing every morning.

        1. Maybe you’re triggered by someone with whom you can’t keep up — that person you refer to as “that hag.”

          You apparently have too much time on your hands… — idle hands, apparently, which brings us around to the devil’s workshop.

          1. As long as you’re impressed with her endless drivel, that makes it all worthwhile.

                1. You must not read the early AM comments.
                  You mention some having too much time on their hands when I post a short comments here, and then turn around and ignore the regular AM hours-long shifts put in daily by your idol.
                  As her lead Troll Groupie, maybe it’s understandable that you’re enthralled by her columns .
                  And maybe lose track of time enthralled by disjointed verbiage she unleashere daily.
                  I forgot about her Number One Groupie when I wrote the initial comment.
                  Your loyalty and consistency as a loyal flunkie are commendable.

                  1. And more drivel brought to you by Tom Nash who has a rather unhealthy obsession with L4D.

                    1. I dislike little bugs too, Anonymous Groupie. That does not mean I’m obsessed with them.
                      In the future, I’ll try to keep your delicate sensitivities in mind whenever I make a comment about your idol.

                    2. Anonymous is criticizing anonymous and the anonymous accusations are anonymously flying all over the place.

                    1. You are correct about the anonymous accusations and the numbers of those using the name “anonymous” here.
                      I haven’t been able to sign in, so I figured another set of comments posted by one additional anonymous wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference.
                      Besides that, even the anonymous groupie figured out who “this anonymous” was. So there was no real need to keep signing my name to these “anonymous” comments, if even she could figure it out.

                    2. ” little bugs” was supposed to be “litterbugs”. As someone else noted above, these comment threads tend to be littered by the same person virtually every early morning.

  8. People who protest at these clinics are terrorists. It’s that simple. I don’t give a crap if it’s against your religion or not. If you are yelling and screaming at people going to a medical clinic, you deserve be in jail. Or better yet, dead. How would you like it if you screamed at before you went to in to a doctors office? How about I scream in your face that you don’t deserve that surgery, and face the consequences because god wills it, and you should just deal with it.

    1. People who protest at these clinics are terrorists.

      We live at a time when people fancy fifteen-decades-the-rosary is ‘terrorism’. Idocracy is Now.

    2. emw, those people outside the clinics are evangelicals who think men should have the last word on all decisions regarding their wives, daughter and girlfriends. Because, as everyone knows, the Bible proclaims that men should have that right.

      1. Peter The Coward says a bunch of cr-p. He thinks males are toxic. He’s a weenie.

      2. Evangelicals aren’t known for meditating on the rosary, Peter.

        MBITRW, people have all manner of regimes in their household. And, no one cursorily familiar with everyday evangelicalism is going to tell you that patriarchal authority is something clergymen are inclined to emphasize. You might just get the Cats in the Cradle sermon on Father’s Day.

        1. “… no one cursorily familiar with everyday evangelicalism is going to tell you that patriarchal authority is something clergymen are inclined to emphasize. You might just get the Cats in the Cradle sermon on Father’s Day.”

          Well, come to think of it, I do see Peter as the “Little Boy Blue* [or] the Man in the Moon.”

          *For those unfamiliar:

          Little Boy Blue, come blow your horn,
          The sheep’s in the meadow, the cow’s in the corn.
          Where is that boy who looks after the sheep?
          He’s under a haystack, fast asleep.
          Will you wake him? Oh no, not I,
          For if I do, he’ll surely cry.


    3. Another violent leftist who tells people that they should be dead.What is it with leftists that either lie or wish others dead?

    4. Emw:
      No emw they are not terrorists. They are constitutionally protected protestors. You don’t get your own definitions to words to spew about. Repeat after me: Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist now rotting in Hell who was all about sending Westerners to His version of Hell; Abortion clinic protestors are folks trying to keep Western folks from going to Hell according to their beliefs.

      You might notice a difference there.

  9. In the marketplace of ideas the best always rise to the top, regardless of their source, eventually. Those who resort to violence have lost the debate regardless of the merit of their position. This is what we have come to with people being “triggered”, claiming “microaggressions”, etc. They’ve become tinfoil hat wearing comic book characters undeserving of being heard. Grow up. I’m sorry but had this woman assaulted me I would’ve slapped some sense into her, literally. She will do this to the wrong person and consequences will be horrendous. Now, her name and face will be remembered everywhere because she lacked the decency and restraint to have a civil discussion. Good luck getting a job. Too many Universities in humanities sanction and approve this behavior in their effort to advance an agenda and fill young people’s heads with garbage. You don’t see STEM or Law Students acting like this. To clarify: I support a woman’s access to birth control and abortion.

      1. Self-defense (“slapping her silly) as described by Jimmy Page, is neither common law assault nor battery and would not result in charges or would be summarily dismissed if the cop placing the bogus charge had the sensibilities of anonymous.

        1. In this case, there was obviously no need to complicate the situation with an unnecessary response. It doesn’t appear that there was any need to “defend.” Fortunately, the young men involved in this incident were obviously better (and possibly wiser) men than either you or Jimmy Page.

            1. Definitely not “mindless error” as you’d like to believe.


              Real life is more complicated, but feel free to stand your ground on this one, oh god of thunder.

              As I said, the young men involved took the most prudent course. This case should be duked-out in court (or in a plea deal), where it belongs, and not on the commons.

              The young woman needs to suffer some significant and serious consequences for her actions. It’s just a bad course of action to go around punching people — or “slapping them silly” as the good lawyer would advise.

              Again, it speaks to the good judgment of those on the receiving end that they didn’t strike back — good judgment that Mespo, the personal injury attorney, would seem to lack.

              1. anonymous:

                Real life is more complicated, but feel free to stand your ground on this one, oh god of thunder.
                Not really or maybe only for the perpetually perplexed. Jimmy Page said “I’m sorry but had this woman assaulted me I would’ve slapped some sense into her, literally.”

                That’s an obvious conditional response to a presumed battery which the law permits to defend yourself. It’s based on a reasonable assessment of the imminent threat (swinging fist by one ugly chic), is proportional to the initial attack and attacker (note a slap not a punch), designed to prevent future attack and made in the immediate proximity and at the same time as the first offending attack. Retreat, even if required, (it isn’t, North Carolina is a “stand your ground” state) isn’t feasible given the swiftness of the unprovoked battery and the continued aggressiveness thereafter by the perp. Plus it’s damn satisfying. It meets all criteria of YOUR citation and then some.

                It’s better when you read what you cite instead of just being hoisted on it. Also better to stay anonymous; then we won’t laugh when we meet you on the street.

                1. Laugh all you want, thunder-god, but it’s more complicated and you know it — even in a “stand your ground” state. The young man who didn’t fight back (in this case) almost certainly saved himself some time, money and grief by remaining calm and not striking back.

                  “…swinging fist by one ugly chic” – mespo-the-beautiful

                  You’re one heck of a guy.

                    1. From the link posted above:

                      “As you can see, self-defense law is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.

                      “Is the Threat Imminent?

                      “Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.”


                      (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

                      Clearly, “hitting back” wasn’t necessary in this case and kudos to the guys who handled the situation so well.

                      But the more fussin’ and fightin’ there is, the more business there is for guys like you.

    1. Jimmy Page,
      From the looks of this young woman, it seems wildly improbable that she herself will ever need access to either birth control or abortion.

  10. Clueless Conservatives Wonder, “What Happened To Civility?”

    In the course of abortion debates, the so-called ‘pro-lifers’ think it’s perfectly acceptable to call liberals “baby killers”. Then, when said liberals respond in kind, ‘pro-lifers’ wonder how how civility broke down so fast.

    1. “‘pro-lifers’ think it’s perfectly acceptable to call liberals “baby killers”.”

      Your words speak for themselves. You are a baby killer.

    2. The Spitting Image – Wikipedia


      The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (1998) is a book by Vietnam veteran and Sociology professor Jerry Lembcke. The book is an analysis of the widely believed, but historically inaccurate, urban legend that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by antiwar protesters upon …. He further suggests the “baby-killer” and “murderer” components of the myth …

    3. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      At the time he wrote The Spitting Image, Lembcke had not found a single substantiated media report to support the now common claims of spitting. He theorizes that the reported “spitting on soldiers” scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt “spat upon” by an American society tired of the war; an image which was then used to discredit future antiwar activism and serve political interests. He suggests that the manufactured images of pro-war antipathy against antiwar protesters also helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke asserts that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by antiwar protesters were largely conjured, noting that not even one case could be reliably documented. He further suggests the “baby-killer” and “murderer” components of the myth may have been reinforced, in part, by the common chants by protesters aimed at President Lyndon Baines Johnson, like “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”

    4. Yeah, liberals — like our UNC harpy — are known as tolerant souls who only respond when attacked. Show us where that happened here, Little Boy Blue.

  11. Pregnancies And Deliveries Are Not Risk Free

    Black Women Are Vulnerable To Substandard Care

    Yet Republicans Claim To Be ‘Pro-Life’ While Sabotaging Obamacare

    Medicine continues to advance on many fronts, yet basic health care fails hundreds of women a year who die during or after pregnancy, especially women of color. Black mothers die at a rate that’s 3.3 times greater than whites, and Native American or Alaskan Native women die at a rate 2.5 times greater than whites, according to a report out this week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Yet, the report concluded, roughly 3 in 5 pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. The racial disparity in maternal death rates is a dramatic argument for prevention efforts that address diverse populations, says Dr. Wanda Barfield, director of the Division of Reproductive Health and assistant surgeon general in the U.S. Public Health Service.

    About 700 women died each year from complications of pregnancy in the U.S. between 2011 and 2015, either while pregnant or up to a year after delivery.

    The CDC’s principal deputy director, Dr. Anne Schuchat, notes that every death reflects a web of lost opportunities including lack of access to health care, missed or delayed diagnoses, and failures by doctors or nurses to recognize warning signs.

    “Big-picture, system-related changes are needed,” Schuchat said in a press briefing. She noted the process won’t be easy and could require remaking systems that have been in place for years.

    The CDC says health care providers need to help patients better manage chronic conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy. More than a third of pregnancy-related deaths were due to cardiovascular conditions, according to the CDC report.

    Edited from: “Why Racial Gaps In Maternal Mortality Persist”

    Today’s NPR

    1. Black Women Are Vulnerable To Substandard Care

      Yet Democrats Claim To Be ‘Pro-Life’ While Passing Obamacare

      Which Has Injured Injured Middle Class Families

      Obamacare did nothing to improve Medicaid and in fact likely made it worse. A higher percentage of blacks are on Medicare than most.


         Coverage gains for nonelderly adults (ages 18 to 64) were broadly shared among
        racial and ethnic groups.

        o The uninsured rate among Black non-Hispanics dropped by 11.8 percentage
        points (a 52.7 percent decline) from 22.4 to 10.6 percent; corresponding to
        about 3 million Black nonelderly adults gaining coverage.

        o The uninsured rate among Hispanics dropped by 11.3 percentage points (a
        27.0 percent decline) from 41.8 to 30.5 percent, corresponding to about 4
        million Hispanic nonelderly adults gaining coverage.

        o The uninsured rate among White non-Hispanics dropped by 7.3 percentage
        points (a 50.7 percent decline) from 14.3 to 7.0 percent, corresponding to
        about 8.9 million White nonelderly adults gaining coverage…..


        1. Facts don’t matter, Anon. Somehow we’re supposed to believe Alan’s tripe that the ‘middle class was injured by Obamacare’. And notice that Alan presents no statistics to back that up. Because in the right-wing media bubble that’s simply accepted as a fact.

          1. Peter, I’m sure you must be wrong about that Allan is very big on backing up arguments with proof and stats. Just ask him.

            1. I have done so and Karen has done so. Anon runs away and pretends. Go back to mama or get a nipple to suck on.

              1. Yet another highly refined comment brought to you by Smith’s astigmatic blog maintainance project.

                  1. You have no idea how many comments Smith deletes or blocks. Or do you? Because you’re under Smith’s protection, too. Aren’t you? So you don’t have to fight your own battles, either. Do you?

                    1. We seem to be getting a heck of a lot of your comments so if you say you have written more I just can’t figure out how many hours there are in your day.

                      Haven’t you noticed that Mespo’s comments are generally on target and meaningful? If someone is actually intentionally blocking comments why would they block on target and meaningful comments?

                    2. Someone is rather arbitrarily deleting comments.

                      Once a cop, always a cop? (If the shoe fits.)

                    3. “Once a cop, always a cop? (If the shoe fits.)”

                      That was said in a derogatory manner by the brainless wonder of the blog, anonymmous. I wonder who this idiot thinks will come to save her worthless life when she dials 911 in an emergency?

                    4. “I wonder who this idiot thinks will come to save her worthless life when she dials 911 in an emergency?”
                      Al Sharpton?

                    5. Allaninny said: “That was said in a derogatory manner by the brainless wonder of the blog, anonymmous. I wonder who this idiot thinks will come to save her worthless life when she dials 911 in an emergency?”

                      One of the good ones, I hope — and there are many fine cops. The good ones need to keep cleaning house, though:


                      (What’s happening here is the arbitrary application of Jonathan’s civility rules.)

                1. Diane, as I just stated to David sometimes uncivil behavior is demanded by the incivility shown. In the case above Anon intentionally lied. Karen replied to him multiple times on the same subject and he keeps pretending those replies never existed. That is insulting and uncivil.

                2. L4D, I just noticed this. A time lapse of more than 13 hours. Who knows what may have happened. Perhaps something I wrote ‘triggered’ a conservative? It happens on these blogs.

                  1. Conservatives can’t tie their own shoe-laces without triggering themselves.

                    And don’t ever tie their shoe laces for them, neither.

                    1. And don’t ever tie their shoe laces for them, neither.

                      Darren, rid us of these cocaine driven troll addicts who are very messy in their drug induced behaviors.

                    2. And there you have it. Johanna is so indignant that anyone would tell anyone else never to tie a conservative’s shoe laces for that conservative, that she demands the service of a functionary to remove the offending commoner from the Land-Lady’s Manor.

          2. Peter, you too run away from discussion. That is typical of baby killers. In the past I have presented both statistics and studies but you run away. Anytime you want to debate healthcare I am ready. You depend on the race card while letting minorites die. You are a fool and act as a subhuman individual. Your mother should not be proud.

            1. Alan, you have never presented any statistics that were meaningful in any way. You’re just a nasty old man who thinks he has a perfect right to be abusive.

              1. Peter, you are a liar. I presented studies and papers to document what I said.

                However, you right now have the chance to debate healthcare and if you debate instead of using talking points and someone else’s opinion I’ll debate as well and provide plenty of peer reviewed data not by your so called journalists but by world experts.

                You can now run away or repeat yourself on and on and on.

                    1. The Anonymous who corrects himself is . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

                      OMG. I forgot how to play hangman. I’ll start with T in the first blank space.

              2. Let’s see what Smith does about L4D telling Allan, “Yo Mama!”

                1. That reminds me
                  …..Happy Squatters Day to L4B and the rest of her coven. (There’s no place to sign in)-Tom

        2. Anon, you have repeated yourself over and over again. When Karen provided you with about a dozen well written responses you ran away. You are a coward. and you are wrong in your overall interpretation.

          health insurance is not healthcare.

            1. You can look as easily as I can. She posted three separate ones in a recent thread. She has done this before. I did it before. Each and every time you ran away only to lie later that you didn’t see it or not comment at all.

              That is what cowards and liars do. Not calling you either of those two things rather telling you how they act.

              1. Alan, shut up with the coward crap. You think you’re a war hero, or something??

                Karen has never presented an argument from any mainstream source. Her daily rants a pure right-wing media and nothing more.

                1. “shut up with the coward crap. You think you’re a war hero, or something??”

                  I don’t consider myself any type of war hero but I know a coward when I see one. You are a coward.

                  Karen has presented legitimate problems with the ACA over and over again. You have quoted tertiary sources without knowing what they mean.

                  Peter, you are a sick ideologue as well as a baby killer. I am waiting for you to take up the issue of healthcare so we can see who knows what and who just has a big mouth with a lot of talking points.

                  1. Alan, you’d better tell poor Whites throughout the south and midwest that ACA is awful. Because Republican pollsters last fall discovered that Obamacare is very popular when not known as Obamacare.

                    And I honestly don’t know what is your ‘waiting for’. It seems like that’s some moronic debating strategy for Trumpers; to keep insisting that they’re ‘waiting for an answer’. It sounds smart to stupid people.

                    1. The ACA is popular unless one is raped by the premiums or needs to receive good care. It is in a death spiral so soon it will be dead under its own weight.

                      If people knew that their health premiums could in general be half of what they are today and that the out of pocket costs and deductibles would be less as well they wouldn’t be so happy with this failed program.

                      Do you understand the concept of risk?
                      Do you know what happens when the cost of one person’s risk is shifted to another person?

    1. Darren has not enabled commenting on his two articles today.
      Perhaps this is a new model for the blog and I think I would prefer that to present embarrassment the Left have created on here. The David Brock trolls embody the description John Podesta stated about David Brock several years ago and it isn’t fair to Darren to monitor these batsheet crazies.

      Go with the flow. I look forward to JT’s articles sans comments by the trolls

      Happy Saturday

    2. DSS, that occasionally happens. I think it is a glitch in the program and after you post you have to add something to the posting to make it new and perhaps add a character to the name or temporarily change the email address. That is what I have had to do numerous times. Presently, the program has stopped the save feature from memorizing my name and address forcing me to type everything in each time I post. Fortuantely my name is short so it is only a minor problem except my icon doesn’t show up without an address.

      Try using your Desperately Seeking Susan and I’ll bet it works.

    3. TIAx666 is stumped: “No clue why they keep banning me.”

      AI. It’s working.

  12. Trump Wants To Evict 55,000 Children From Public Housing

    But We’re Supposed To Believe He ‘Cares’ About The Unborn

    Tens of thousands of poor children — all of them American citizens or legal residents — could lose their housing under a new rule proposed Friday by the Trump administration.

    The rule is intended to prevent people who are in the country illegally from receiving federal housing aid, which the administration argues should go to help only legal residents or citizens.

    But the proposal targets 25,000 families that now receive such aid because they are of “mixed” status, which means that at least one member of the family is undocumented while the others are citizens or legal residents. These families now pay higher rents to account for their mixed status.

    An impact analysis by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which proposed the rule, acknowledges that the change could have a devastating impact. It says that 108,000 people would be affected. About 70% of them are citizens or legal residents and three-quarters of those — 55,000 — are children.

    Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, called the proposal cruel. “The cruelty of it is really breathtaking and it would do real harm to kids and to families and for what?” Yentel notes that HUD’s unusually frank analysis concludes that there would be few benefits from the change for other low-income families waiting for aid.

    The analysis, prepared by career staff, says the agency assumes that some of the affected families would split up because the ineligible family member would be asked to leave so the rest of the family could still receive aid. But it says most of the families would likely move out of their subsidized homes.

    “HUD expects that fear of the family being separated would lead to prompt evacuation by most mixed households, whether that fear is justified,” says the agency.

    It admits that not all families would leave freely. The agency estimates it would have to spend between 3 million and 4 million dollars on eviction costs, “for those households that required more rigorous enforcement of the regulation.”

    Edited from: “Proposed Rule Would Evict 55,000 Children From Subsidized Housing”

    Today’s NPR

    1. You mean we’re all duty bound to advocate dismembering children in vitro if we say it’s not a public function to provide rental housing to Hondurans who sneaked across the border (At least if they managed to cadge a baby daddy from Laredo)?

      1. Tabby, neither you nor any Trumper honestly cares about children. The anti-abortion movement has been a pretentious joke for 40-something years.

        1. “Tabby, neither you nor any Trumper honestly cares about children. ”

          Peter, statements like that do not promote civility or intellectual discussion. You have just told me I don’t care about children which is an absolute lie. There is nothing I have done in my life that doesn’t demonstrate my desire to stand up for children. People that say things like that should be referred to as pieces of sh !t.

          The leftist mindset that follows the dictum of the far left doesn’t stand for family except where poltics is concerned and family is the basis for the caring of children.

          You need to retract that statement that infers that I do not care about children in a manner that has no ifs ands or buts.

          1. Peter, statements like that do not promote civility or intellectual discussion

            Peter et al are batsheet crazy, to paraphrase John Podesta re: David Brock. So they are predictable. What is baffling to me, and frankly a red flag, is why you, Kurtz, Olly and others engage these attention seeking whhhos.

            You can expect Communists to act like Communists. Ditto for John Podesta’s declared STDs, e.g. PH. Anon, L4D, etc

            1. Estovir, you’re a documented idiot who looks for communists under his bed each night.

              No one will hire you as a troll so you function as a free-lancer who only embarrasses his presumed conservative allies.

            2. Estovir, same reason you do. Sometimes I consider not posting at all and that would make good sense, but I need mental excercise and this is the only place I can excercise with idiots. Elsewhere the excercise has considerable intellect attached.

              1. Now that’s a hoot Allan. (Try one of those other sites. You won’t last.)

                Maybe you could do an adult remedial ed course. Start with your spelling.

                1. Apparently you have tried such sites and now learned that you aren’t good for much of anything except as a spell checker. So far I haven’t seen you say anything that demonstrates intelligence.

          2. Alan, my Retraction Manager is Helen Wait.

            If you want a retraction, submit your request to Helen Wait.

        2. I care enough about them to want them to not be killed by perverted gynecologists. When you’ve reached that exalted plain of moral understanding, you can discuss the more granular features of how the older generation should treat the younger.

          As always, the primary responsibility for providing for the young lies with parents and proximate relatives.

          More impersonal forms of common provision exist within particular societies carrying with them some minima of homogeneity. Common provision is drawn from what you produce collectively. Also, if everyone is your brother, no one is.

          There is no ready way to incorporate Honduras into the circle of common provision without creating a peck of trouble for yourself. If you want to see what happens when you attempt to incorporate incompatible elements within the circle of common provision, look at the evolution of the political and social economy of America’s insular dependencies. Or, as Milton Friedman put it, “You can have a welfare state or you can have open borders. Not both”.

          What Honduras needs to do, as a society, is to improve its productivity. There are certain facilitating things we might do, but, ultimately, no one can pee for you. The best we can do otherwise is provide help when they have an acute problem such as a natural disaster. Help with acute problems is delimited in time.

          And while were at it, Peter, it’s quite gratuitous to be subsidizing goods and services which are frequently replenished and whose consumption is sensitive to considerations of taste and amenity. Other than emergency shelters put up by disaster relief officials and some institutional housing, the amount of rental housing owned by public agencies and authorities is properly nil. Again, except for emergency relief (and the feeding of populations in institutional housing like garrisons and prisons), the proper quantum of public expenditure on nutritional provision and subsidy is $0. Ditto utility bills. If you’re concerned about people’s standard of living, tax rebates matching earned income and income transfers for select clientele will do. They’ll spend their money the way which improves their utility per their lights. The police and the courts will deal with the troublesome alcoholics and drug addicts among them.

          1. Honduras is a major provider and thoroughfare of drugs to the US, and as such it’s crime and murder rate have increased exponentially. As both a practical and moral matter, we should be joining in efforts to improve life in this country and others in Central America.

            1. Latin American countries in general have elevated crime rates, Anon. The only exceptions are on the Southern Cone of South America.

              There is no ‘moral matter’ here. No one generates street crime in Latin American countries but Latin Americans themselves. And regimes in public order have discrete boundaries, with wild variations in risk factors over modest distances. That’s true in Central America and it’s true in the Caribbean as well, drug trade or no drug trade.

              We can certainly provide technical assistance to Honduras in improving public order therein. That’s a courtesy, not something they can demand as a right.

              I gather at Correct-the-Record they told you to try look squirrel diversions. Stashing illegals from Honduras in housing projects in San Antonio does bupkis for public order in Tegucigalpa.

              1. You don’t agree with me that due to our nation’s illegal drug market we have a moral responsibility to try and mitigate the violence visited upon innocent Hondurans by the gangs and drug lords organized around that market, but you don’t address the practical reasons we should make this attempt. I point you to the success of a similar policy in Columbia, formerly a disaster of violence much like its neighbors, but now a largely stabilized and peaceful country.

                1. we should legalize drugs more here, just pot across the board, federally, and Democrat candidate for POTUS Tulsi Gabbard has introduced such a bill

                  i am not a dope smoker and I think they are stupid and generally the more they smoke the lazier and more socially useless they get. however that is already a big number so why not let it go and then at least we can take that market away from the mexican organized crime. Capitalize it and maybe Philip Morris can make some money on it. i don’t smoke but I own some of that, and its spinoffs, a fantastic stock over the decades. I want to dip my beak, legally!

                  honduras is a scheisshole, why can’t it be a wonderful little country like its neighbor Costa Rica? Oh, it’s America’s fault, you said already, of course! I have heard various opinions from different people from Central America bout this and mostly it was stuff we aren’t supposed to say about “demographics” here in the land of the free. Best not to repeat.

                  1. “we should legalize drugs more here,”

                    Kurtz are you saying we should support their habits or them when they get into trouble? Do you wish entitlement funding to go to drug addicts?

                    I understand the rationals behind the legalization of drugs but what about the unintended consequences? What do you propose to do about them?

                  2. Kurtz, CR has a growing violence problem due to drug trafficking.


                    A coherent policy to deal with our illegal immigration problem on the southern border would include working with the countries where they come from to help alleviate conditions in the barrios. The NYTs recently published an in depth article on these conditions.


                    1. Still nothing about stopping the violence killing young minorities in Democratically controlled cities.

                      We hear a new line of talk (talk, talk) from Anon who previously claimed there was no crisis at the border. Should we listen to one that was so ill informed in the past?

                    2. Allan correctly points out the crisis Trump has helped created at the southern border and his failure to address it in an intelligent way. However:

                      “Trump administration officials say an increase in Central American families and minors seeking asylum has brought the immigration system to the “breaking point.” The 66,450 migrants arrested crossing the southwestern border in February — a rate of more than 2,300 per day — was more than almost any month in the last decade.

                      Yet illegal crossings remain at historical lows overall. In fiscal 2018, which ended Sept. 30, U.S. agents arrested 396,579 people at the U.S.-Mexico border. From the 1980s into the mid-2000s, that number routinely surpassed 1 million, hitting a high of more than 1.6 million arrests in 2000….”


                    3. “Allan correctly points out the crisis Trump has helped created at the southern border and his failure to address it”

                      You didn’t even recognize a crisis when it started and neither did the LA Times. The fault is on the left and some on the right. Together they find defeating Trump in the next election more important than the safety and economic well being of our citizens.

                      It will take awhile for the LA Times to catch up with what is happening and based on all the wrong things Anon has told us we can bet he will never catch up.

                    4. Mespo, see my post above and link. Yes, there is a growing crisis that our president has yet to effectively deal with, but in recent historical terms – the last 2 decades – it not much of one.

          2. DSS, I think Peter’s great aspiration was to go to medical school and become a baby killer. He certain wasn’t smart enough to get in so now he advocates for others to do the baby killing for him.

          3. “… but, ultimately, no one can pee for you.”
            In context, pithy, true and “ultimately” hilarious. Suzanne wants to know why I’m laughing so hard.

            1. So everyone has an exclusive right to the use of his or her own bladder. You could donate one of your kidneys to someone else. But you can’t sell one of your kidneys to anyone. At least not here in The United States, you can’t. So one of your kidneys is alienable. But, if you alienate one of your kidneys, the other one becomes inalienable–except in death. Meanwhile, your bladder remains inalienable until surgically removed due to . . . cancer, most likely.

              How’s that incubator technology coming along? You do realize (don’t you) that once mechanical incubators are perfected, the breeding, raising and herding of livestock animals for meat will become technologically obsolescent. And we wouldn’t even need sheep to grow transgenic kidneys for transplantation anymore, either.

    2. PH:

      Great compassion for everyone except the American citizens you expect to pay for the ambitions of illegals. If I had my way, I’d start 1000 buses running tomorrow from every major US city to Mexico and points South filled with illegals and returning stone empty for another run. You and the rest of the hegemonic Left need to quit obligating us for your passions. Elsewise you might excite some passions in response that you neither expect nor can control.

      1. The cost of manufacturing that 1000 buses would be on par with what Obama spent on Solyndra. It could employ a lot of Americans and end the illegal situation.

        Good idea.

        1. Allan:

          Typical bus costs about $375,000.00 and holds 60 passengers plus a driver or two. That’s 60,000 illegals per run southward. That’s about 367 round trips per bus to get us rid of 22 million at a cost of $375,000,000 plus driver’s salaries of say 2000 drivers being paid around $50,000 per year $100,000,000.00. Throw in around another $50,000,000 for security and fuel and insurance. We spend net about $116 billion per year on this horde so I think it’s a good investment.

          1. Mespo, you are using a disputed figure from an advocacy group.

            “…Alex Nowrasteh, a senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said the highest figure he had seen came from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors restricting immigration. It has said undocumented immigrants cost the country at least $116 billion per year.

            The Cato Institute disputes that figure, which Mr. Nowrasteh said did not take into account the economic benefits of undocumented immigrants. He and others have questioned the group’s methodology.

            “There’s no basis to any of those numbers about the fiscal cost,” he said. “The president’s numbers are even twice as bad.”…”


            A National Academy of Sciences study from 2016 found an overall benefit to the economy from immigration.

            “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration finds that the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. First-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. This report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.”


            1. NYSlimes doesn’t know much of anything (makes good reading for Anon). How do they make their calculations when they don’t even know how many illegals exist in the country and when illegals use false names and addresses for expensive services such as healthcare?

              There is a difference between those coming in legally and illegally so one cannot assume illegal immigrants will produce the same as illegal immigrants even if one wants to read so much bull that doesn’t account for all the variables.

              1. Of course the NYTs article Allan attacks is quoting the Cato Institute and the other link is to a National Academy of Sciences study.

                As to taxes and benefits:

                “How Much do Undocumented Workers Pay in Taxes?
                The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.

                Do Undocumented Immigrants Collect Benefits?
                Undocumented immigrants are eligible for very few federal benefits (Table 1). One notable tax benefit that they have traditionally been eligible for is the Child Tax Credit, a partially refundable credit designed to support low-income families based on their dependent children. A report from the Treasury Department estimated that undocumented immigrants received $4.2 billion in refundable child tax credits in 2010, or roughly one-eighth of the total paid.

                However, last year’s tax law changed eligibility requirements by making the refundable portion of the child tax credit only available to filers whose dependents have valid Social Security numbers, therefore rendering ITIN filers with undocumented children unable to claim the CTC for those dependents.


                1. Anon, learn the English language. Bi-partisan doesn’t mean unbiased. On immigration the Kochs stand with the Democrats as far as open borders is concerned and so do many Republicans.

                  Eligible means legally entitled. One has to laugh at you when you just quote things without understanding what they say. Let’s take the words illegal immigrants. That means they are not eligible to be in our country yet they are.

                  Learn what variables are. If you count only the variables you wish to count you get the results you want.

                  Take note how you can quote but not interpret what is being said. Who do you think is paying the bill for illegals that are hospitalized. Who is paying the bill when illegals are arrested or incarcerated. Who is paying to educate their children? Who is paying for the food and housing when the illegal can’t afford it?

                  Speaking to you is like speaking to one that has never educated himself on the subject and just picks out opinion pieces that suit his needs.

          2. Mespo, we won’t have enough facilities to fulfill a one time additional order at that size and we have to recognize that we will be driving to Central America, a slow drive. Therefore I suggest we build a smaller number of buses and only take them to the border and outsource the delivery to the home country to the Mexican government. That will make them cash happy and they can use less expensive Mexican buses built there while employing Mexican citizens.

              1. Good question Mespo, but with 60 seats there are 60 laps and 60 above seat compartments not including all the compartments below. They won’t be carrying much baggage to store.

                I actually feel sorry for them (so I appologize for the above comments) but I worry about America and recognize if their government is that bad based on the numbers trying to move north they could have rebelled and created a better government. We should not be a safety valve protecting the elites running the nation that treats their poor people so badly.

                1. The violence which many who seek asylum here are running from is not from “elites running the nation” but from drug gangs feeding the habits of US citizens.

                  1. Anon:
                    “The violence which many who seek asylum here are running from is not from “elites running the nation” but from drug gangs feeding the habits of US citizens.”
                    It’s their country; they can fix it. We aren’t the world’s bank, policeman, physician, shrink or daddy. As for the drug markets, they span the globe. We had the same thing in the 20-30s with the Liquor Cartels. Didn’t notice a mass exodus to Mexico because of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

                    1. Like absurd, you don’t agree that we have a moral responsibility toward the innocent men, women, and children in these countries overrun with gangs serving the needs of US citizens. However, as a practical matter, and in our self interest, how can someone argue that helping address this problem is not a legitimate and likely fruitful avenue for progress. Columbia was previously in a similar situation and was helped by our involvement in solving it. Your objections seem more routed in an emotional reaction than a logical one.

                      As to the St Valentines Day Massacre, I never heard my parents or grandparents comment on facing daily danger from Al Capone or any bootleggers. The situation in Honduras for example bears absolutely no resemblance to that era in America. I urge you to read this article to get a flavor of life there now.


                    2. Anon:
                      “Like absurd, you don’t agree that we have a moral responsibility toward the innocent men, women, and children in these countries overrun with gangs serving the needs of US citizens.”
                      On what basis does the US government have a “moral obligation” toward anyone other than its citizens? It is a trust set up for the express benefit of the American people. Anything else is a violation of that trust. Certainly we can help the downtrodden out of charity but not moral obligation. That charitable sentiment should never serve to harm the interests of the country. Have an earthquake, we’ll send you water. Have a dictator we’ll serve as the example of how to fight oppression but we’re not your “safety valve” haven as Allan pointed out.

                    3. Mespo, we can argue about the moral dimension of the problem and I have clearly described our part in the crisis that exists in several Central American countries. However, you are avoiding the practical arguments for our involvement which require no admission of responsibility and can be justified as pure self interest.

                    4. “However, as a practical matter, and in our self interest, how can someone argue that helping address this problem is not a legitimate and likely fruitful avenue for progress. Columbia was previously in a similar situation and was helped by our involvement in solving it.”

                      The only practical argument from your perspective is that mass immigration destabilizes the countries subjected to its woes and thus we should try to stop it before it reaches our shores. I have no idea how you define “progress’ but the basics are clear — we do our best to keep Guatemalans in Guatemala, Nicaraguans in Nicaragua and so on … The problem is we have no control over those nations besides trade sanctions or troop deployment. Given the corruption, the first doesn’t work and the second one is unpalatable. That means we have little influence over dirt-poor farmers streaming north in search of jobs — not a country, just jobs. The best way to handle this issue is strong border defenses and a massive tax on the $120 Billion in remittances. I’D say 50% would bring us $60 Billion a year to build a wall, bus lots of them back and pay for their incarceration. Once the financial incentive is gone those jobs go to Americans at higher wages. That’s a practical solution for you.

                    5. Mespo, we have other means to influence these countries which the Columbia experience demonstrates can work.

                      “Since the establishment of the War on Drugs, the United States and European countries have provided financial, logistical, tactical and military aid to the government of Colombia in order to implement plans to combat the illegal drug trade. The most notable of these programs has been the Plan Colombia which also intended to combat organizations, such as the FARC guerrillas, who have controlled many coca-growing regions in Colombia over the past decades.

                      Despite Colombia having the dubious distinction of being the world leading producer of coca for many years[16] those plans, slowly but surely, diminished the drug produced, to the extent that in 2010 the country reduced cocaine production by 60%, relative to the peak in 2000. In that same year, Peru surpassed Colombia as the main producer of coca leaves in the world.[17] The level of drug related violence was halved in the last 10 years, when the country moved from being the most violent country in the world to have a homicide rate that is inferior to the one registered in countries like Honduras, Jamaica, ”


                      Additionally, along with jobs, fear is a major motivator of these asylum seekers. As to their motives, do we know our ancestors who risked much to come here had purer motives than jobs and fear? Some probably, some probably not, but here we are and doing well.

                  2. In your imagination, only, Anon. The distribution of street drugs is a pervasive problem in the occidental world and it’s not absent in Latin America, either. Homicide rates in European countries vary, with around 1.2 per 100,000 being normal in Western Europe and perhaps 3.5 per 100,000 in Eastern Europe (outside of Russia). Russia’s the outlier, with homicide rates around 11 per 100,000. In North America, the rate is about 1 per 100,000 in Canada and 5 per 100,000 in the U.S., with the majority of incidents occurring in core city neighborhoods which encompass about 10% of the total population.

                    By contrast, 13-25 per 100,000 is normal in Latin America. That’s the interaction between institutional life and patterns of social relations derived from culture. The homicide rates you seen in El Salvador and Honduras (60-90 per 100,000) are extreme by Latin American standards.

                    People involved in organized crime (and in the violent turf wars to which organized crime is prone) are a tiny minority. (The total population of members and associates of the Siciliante Mafia in the U.S. was in 1985 fewer than 10,000). Organized crime isn’t why you have thousands of murders in every year in countries the size of El Salvador and Honduras.

                    And the problem has been present in those places for decades. It was, if anything, worse 25 years ago than it is today. You werren’t seeing caravans marching to the U.S. border in 2015 because of street crime in Honduras. Street crime in Honduras is a baseline condition of life. You see it because of political signaling.

                    And if they just wanted to get away from the crime, southern Mexico should do as a place to alight. Mexico’s violent crime problem is concentrated in the northern part of the country. But, of course, wages are better in San Antonio and Mexico doesn’t want them.

                    You don’t know much.

                    1. There is no doubt that there are other factors contributing to the extreme violence in Central America. However, it is undeniable that drug trafficking is a large part of the problem and we are the market they seek. The experience in Columbia confirms the possibility of affecting this situation positively and there may be other ideas – Kurtz advocates legalization.

                      From the CFR:

                      “What causes the violence?
                      The nature of the violence is distinct in each country, but the proliferation of gangs, narcotics trafficking, weak rule of law, and official corruption are common threads….

                      ….Criminal groups in the Northern Triangle include transnational criminal organizations, many of which are associated with Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs); domestic organized-crime groups; transnational gangs, or maras, such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and the Eighteenth Street Gang (M-18); and pandillas, or street gangs.

                      MS-13 and M-18, the region’s largest gangs, are estimated to have as many as eighty-five thousand members [PDF] in total. Both were formed in Los Angeles: M-18 in the 1960s by Mexican youth, and MS-13 in the 1980s by Salvadorans who had fled the civil war. Their presence in Central America grew in the mid-1990s following large-scale deportations from the United States of undocumented immigrants with criminal records. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates there are ten thousand MS-13 members in the United States.

                      Drug trafficking adds to the violence. U.S.-led interdiction efforts in Colombia, Mexico, and the Caribbean have pushed trafficking routes into Central America, and U.S. officials report that 90 percent of documented cocaine flows into the United States now pass through the region. DTOs sometimes partner with maras to transport and distribute narcotics, sparking turf wars. In addition to the drug trade and extortion, criminal groups in the region also profit from kidnapping for ransom and human trafficking and smuggling….”

                      On Columbia:

                      “Since the establishment of the War on Drugs, the United States and European countries have provided financial, logistical, tactical and military aid to the government of Colombia in order to implement plans to combat the illegal drug trade. The most notable of these programs has been the Plan Colombia which also intended to combat organizations, such as the FARC guerrillas, who have controlled many coca-growing regions in Colombia over the past decades.

                      Despite Colombia having the dubious distinction of being the world leading producer of coca for many years[16] those plans, slowly but surely, diminished the drug produced, to the extent that in 2010 the country reduced cocaine production by 60%, relative to the peak in 2000. In that same year, Peru surpassed Colombia as the main producer of coca leaves in the world.[17] The level of drug related violence was halved in the last 10 years, when the country moved from being the most violent country in the world to have a homicide rate that is inferior to the one registered in countries like Honduras, Jamaica, ”


                    2. His knowledge is nil. We should export people like to Anon to Honduras or better yet Venezuela. Let the Anon’s fix the problems in those countries. It will certainly benefit ours.

                    3. There is absolutely noting in that text wall you appropriated which demonstrates the point you’re trying to make. There’s a lot of organized crime in Japan, too (and very little homicide).

                      You’re just attributing their problems to your favored bogeys because you’re a self-aggrandizing twit and that’s how you roll.

                    4. Indeed, absurd makes an important point but leaves out the concern many have that Honduras may be working on a plan to attack Pearl Harbor.

                  3. Ridiculous. If anything the sale of drugs adds to the countries GDP so the country has even more money to take care of problems. Blame their leaders and if you wish to blame American citizens advocate jailing them.

                2. Allan:

                  “I actually feel sorry for them (so I appologize for the above comments) …”


                  Illegal immigration used to go under its former impolitic name — invasion. As in the Germans illegally migrated into France in 1940. Bottom line is that illegals hurt the most vulnerable Americans. As the adage goes, “you can have a welfare state or open borders but never both.” Don’t feel sorry for those who flaunt our laws in a nation that prides itself as a “Nation of Laws.” Illegals don’t assimilate, aren’t vetted and are an existential threat to any nation.

                  1. Mespo, I feel sorry for their lousy conditions but I agree with you Americans should not be paying the price. That is why I mention revolution in those countries if things are so bad. I don’t want the US being misused as a safety valve.

                    1. “Me, too but feelings rarely make good policy.”

                      Absolutely, but as you I don’t let my feelings get in the way of good policy because of the unintended consequences. Anon doesn’t bother looking at the unintended consequences but spends a lot of time virtue signaling.

                    2. We are paying he price already. That is not in question. Let’s be smart about it.

  13. The inclusive and tolerant Left shines brightly for all to see, Again! This is what you get when you take away mental health funding, they all flock to the radical left,
    Thanks Ronald and congress of the era.

  14. Year after year the Deep State Swamp has keep increasing their level of Sick/Depraved Freak show Crap like we see here the end result with the mentally insane gal @ UNC, but no, it didn’t stop there.

    As we can all see with the special guest of the Warroom, LeftO the Clown highlights a few of the stories that show us an example of just how ph’kin Nuts these lunatics really are.

    LeftO the Clown starts with wacky crap at about 23:30

    1. Sorry, I don’t watch/listen to girly man Ben Shapiro!

      1st I can’t stand trying to listen to someone like Shapiro who has no balls & sounds like I do when I close my nose with my fingers & sounds like a lil girl.

      2nd, Shapiro is a RINO phony plant in media before the 2020 election. I’d rather radio bring back Michael Savage that radio replaced with Phony Girly Man Shapiro.

      1. Not a Shapiro fan either. He thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and usually he’s not — as here. It could have been handled dozens of other ways but the least optimum was the old “don’t you know who I am” gambit. That’s what he did .

Comments are closed.