Debunking Benghazi... Because The Right Just Can't Let It Go

On September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans -- U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods -- were killed in the attack. The attack came during the 2012 Presidential campaign and the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, wasted no time in blaming President Obama for "sympathizing with the attackers." This was the initial push and the crazy train which followed has never slowed down.

In examining the claims made by the Benghazi conspiracy theorists, we can see a pattern. Blame must always lie at either President Obama's feet or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's feet. Or both. And facts must never, EVER get in the way. What follows is an examination of the claims that have been made. Hang on to your hats, folks -- the crazy train is leaving the station. Thankfully, we can get off at the final stop.

Claim: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

The audio feed of the attack was being monitored in real time in Washington by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb. 10 security cameras' feeds delayed 20 days.

Claim: A "stand-down" order was given.

The CIA denied that any stand-down orders had ever been given, no additional evidence has ever emerged suggesting such orders were given, and reinforcements actually arrived from Tripoli in time for the second attack on the CIA facility. On 1 November 2012, U.S. intelligence officials released an account stating the CIA had in fact rushed security operatives to the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi within half an hour of the start of the attack

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood:

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," [Youngblood] said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades." [FoxNews.com, 10/26/12]

Claim: Available assets were not deployed.

All available assets in the area went into action when the compound fell under attack. The CIA base, which was about a mile away, prepares a rescue squad from their Global Response Staff. The February 17 Brigade, the Libyan intelligence service and other local militias were called. None responded. The six-man squad headed out on their own. A senior intelligence official says that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the team members were chomping at the bit to leave without backup.

Claim: Warplanes in the area could have been sent.

The Department of Defense had no armed drones or manned aircraft prepared for combat readily available and nearby on September 11th. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), AC
130 ground attack gunships, or other similar planes were not in the vicinity, according to SoD Panetta. The Committee requested, and received, the locations of every AC-130 in the military's inventory at the time of the attack. USAF F-16s, while closer (in Italy) were configured for training and were not combat ready. NATO allies also had no fighting planes ready to go, so none of them could respond for us. General Ham (see below) said that he personally "dismissed the prospect" of requesting an alert status for the F-16s in Italy, as he didn't think he'd need them.

Claim: Ambassador Stevens was dragged through the streets and beaten to death. 

According to the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014:

"Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation."

Stevens was in a safe room inside the compound and suffered from smoke inhalation. Two other reports --  the Accountability Review Board and the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- concluded the same.

The Associated Press spoke to the doctor who treated him and CNN spoke to some Libyans who found Stevens inside the compound. CNN obtained a video of those Libyans rescuing Stevens. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham repeated this previously debunked myth as recently as May 4, 2014.

Claim: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks. 

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.

29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false

Claim: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

Adm. Gaouette had been relieved of his command not for any reason connected to the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, but because a complaint about his "unprofessional demeanor" had been filed against him by the USS John C. Stennis' commanding officer, Capt. Ronald Reis. A subsequent Navy investigation reprimanded Gaouette for repeatedly violating U.S. Navy policy by making and sending offensive comments and e-mail messages. Investigation details can be found here.

Claim: Susan Rice was sent on Sunday shows to lie. 

Rice made clear during her appearances that her comments were based on "our current best assessment" that the Libya attack was not premeditated, acknowledged that the perpetrators were "extremists," and said that future investigations and analyses by intelligence services "will tell us with certainty what transpired." suggestion that the attack was linked to an anti-Islam video that had embroiled the Middle East came from talking points generated by the CIA.

Claim: Obama never called it "terrorism."

This is a bit of semantics gymnastics on both the part of the President and of those who say that he "sympathized" with the attackers.
Rose Garden Address, 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act." 

Also at a campaign event in Las Vegas later that night:

"To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." 

and in Golden, CO 

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world..." 

He repeated these remarks in an interview for 60 Minutes soon afterwards. So, while he did not say the words, "terrorist attack," he did call the act terrorism.

Claim: Hillary Clinton never took any responsibility for the attack.

"I take responsibility, I'm the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family...It's painful, absolutely painful." [The Wall Street Journal, 10/16/12]

Claim: The State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe and no one acted. 

While it is true that a number of requests for additional staffing were sent to the State department, laying the blame for them not being answered at Clinton's feet is disingenuous. There were, according to the House Republican's report, two cable and two email message that indicated the requests were received (March-July, 2012). In them, diplomats requested more security but officials replied that they preferred to train Libyan staff. But were these "signed by Hillary Clinton?"

The communications center at the State Department puts the secretary’s name on all telegrams and posts. Whoever is SoS at the time has their name on everything so, when Clinton was in charge, her "signature" was on all communications. But that doesn’t mean she signed them, just that her name was printed at the bottom of them. The claim that she saw them because she signed them is false. 

Messages to the State department are still referred to as "telegrams" even though they are emails (old habits die hard). They are always addressed:  To "SECSTATE" in "WASHDC." There are about 1.4 million cables every year that are addressed this way. Clinton’s name or title on these millions of messages doesn’t mean that she personally knew of their contents. In the case of Benghazi security, she testified under oath that she didn’t.

"They are all addressed to me. They do not all come to me. They are reported through the bureaucracy. I was not aware of that going on (requests from Libya). It was not brought to my attention, but obviously it’s something we’re fixing and intend to put into place protocols and systems to make sure it doesn’t happen again."

In reality however, Benghazi was only one of nearly 300 areas which were a concern.  In the six months leading to the attack, there were approximately 281 threats to diplomats, embassies, diplomatic facilities, consulates, etc worldwide. But there were no specific indications that Benghazi was in any more danger than any of the other facilities.

Claim: Military assets in the area were deliberately moved to 1) demonstrate that Al Qaeda was in control and 2) we had made a correct choice to intervene the way we did in Libya. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz made this claim on Fox News on May 6, 2013, saying that there were people who were "willing to risk their lives" to ride into action but they were told to "stand down." As with most claims made on Fox, this one sounds good but is false. The people Chaffetz is referring to are the team in Triploi, headed by Gregory Hicks. Hicks testified before the State Department review board that the people they hoped to rescue were already dead when the team he had prepared was ready to go. Another team (7 security personnel) had left for Benghazi and arrived at 5:00 am at the CIA annex, long after the deaths at the consulate (see timeline). Hicks sent a second team in a C-130 transport plane from Tripoli to secure the Benghazi airport for the evacuation of those remaining. A Defense Department drone was in place as the first group was evacuated. Hicks testified that a Lt. Col. Gibsoan was "furious" that the C-130 was going to Benghazi because it was not authorized. Hicks sent the plane anyway. Nobody was ever told to stand down.

Claim: Hillary Clinton issued a press release at 10 p.m. EST, talking about a video when there was no evidence this was caused by a video. 

From Clinton's press release that night:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 

She did not assert that it was the sole, or even any, reason.

Claim: The Obama Administration purposely blamed the attacks on the anti-Muslim video in order to avoid admitting that this was a pre-planned attack.

There was much confusion in the days following the attack, as evidenced by various statements. While it is entirely possible that the Administration was purposely going with the politically expedient explanation of a sporadic reaction to a video, there is ample evidence that the Intelligence Community itself was confused over which of these were correct. 

Claim: Hillary Clinton faked her fall to avoid having to testify at the Senate hearing.

Clinton, who was 65 at the time, had been suffering from a stomach virus and had to cancel a trip to Morocco and the Persian Gulf. Philippe Reines, a State Department spokesman, said Clinton became dehydrated because of the virus and fainted, sustaining the concussion. He said she was been under the care of doctors.

Politico reported on December 18 that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters that Bolton's suggestion is "completely untrue." Nulan added that Bolton and others who have questioned Clinton's illness "are people who don't know what they're talking about. "It's really unfortunate that in times like this people make wild speculation based on no information," she said.

Claim: Hillary Clinton said, “What difference does it make?”

This is an out-of-context misquote that Benghaziacs still use. Actual quote: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Here's the full quote from the video of Clinton's testimony:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again..."

In other words, we lost four Americans because of this so, instead of trying to fit things into talking points, let's figure out exactly what went wrong and why. That way we can prevent it from happening again. Pretty simple concept. It's a shame that some are more interested in making Clinton sound uncaring than in making sure we don't have another similar attack.

Claim: Nobody was ever fired over the attack.

This is true. But, like most things concerning Benghazi, is not telling the whole story. The State department's review board, in December of 2012, removed four State department officials from their posts pending further review. That Accountability Review Board concluded, in August of 2013, that "no employee breached their duty or should be fired." The four were not found blameless but were reassigned, according to protocol. So, while nobody was "fired," four officials were disciplined and reassigned.

Claim: The U.S. was "the last flag flying" in Benghazi.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"... although some countries and international organizations had reduced their presence in Benghazi, the United States maintained a diplomatic presence there similar to the UN, the European Union, and other Western countries such as Italy, France, Turkey, and Malta."

Putting all of this information into context, here is the Timeline:

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.

3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.”

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack. “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.”

About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”  http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours."

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.

About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time."

About 10:00 p.m (EST): Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement

Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”  Later, she delivers a speech at the State Department.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

Personally, I think much of the GOP obsession with Benghazi boils down to a couple of things:
1) They hate Obama and Hillary so much that they think that hatred is all the "proof" they need of wrongdoing.
2) This is what they would do if the situation were reversed. How can I say this? It's what they did after 9/11 -- covering up, passing the buck, evading blame. So, if they think this way, they cannot fathom anyone else not doing the same. When one is constantly lied to -- by one's own party and Fox News, its PR arm -- then one believes that everyone is lying to them. This creates paranoia, which is the compost for conspiracy theories.

If the right were sincere in its desire to "find answers," then they would ignore these debunked myths. As they often tell others: "Get over it." But not for those who also believe this same old nonsense. They are perfectly willing to turn their noses up at previous investigations because those didn't bring them the "answers" they want. But was it really worth the millions it cost the taxpayers to fund this dog and pony show? I don't think so. I agree with Hillary Clinton: at this point, what difference does it make (what she actually said)? We take what we've learned and make sure that our other embassies and consulates are safe. Nothing we do now can ever bring back those four Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi. We've discovered, to the best of our ability, why we lost them.

The families of Ambassador Stevens and Officer Sean Smith have asked that we stop. We know what we need to know. Everything else is just partisan politics.

Sources:
Explainer: A Year Of Benghazi Myths 

Declassified Benghazi Transcripts Debunk Fox's Favorite Myths 

Maddow Blog: Benghazi conspiracy theorists come unglued

State Department Background Briefing on Libya

State Department Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya

Senate Select Committee report, Jan. 15, 2014

State Dept. Accountability Review Board Report 

It Begins: House Republicans Vote To Turn Apache Ancestral Lands Over To Mining Company

Last week, the House voted to keep the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) going strong. But they added a provision that has nothing to do with Defense. Included in this re-upping of the NDAA is a provision that gives 2,400 acres of Apache ancestral lands to a mining company. We saw this coming but it's a gut punch nevertheless.

The sneaky provision was added by the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. It would transfer Apache lands in the Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, an Australian-English mining company. And guess who was the driving force behind this provision? Arizona's own Sen. John McCain. I wonder what his cut is?

The tribal leaders happened to be in Washington, D.C. for a White House Tribal Nations conference. In this case, irony is definitely not fun. Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache tribe had this to say:

“Since time immemorial people have gone there. That’s part of our ancestral homeland. We’ve had dancers in that area forever – sunrise dancers – and coming-of-age ceremonies for our young girls that become women. They’ll seal that off. They’ll seal us off from the acorn grounds, and the medicinal plants in the area, and our prayer areas.”

Republicans have been trying for years to take away this land and rape it of its minerals. Democrats have always been able to help the tribe block the land grab. But now, with a majority in both the House and the Senate, this theft is very likely.

If you haven't seen what copper mining can do to the environment, you need to read the EPA's study about radioactive minerals associated with copper mining. The tailings concentrate uranium, thorium and radium. In situ leaching can distribute these into the groundwater. What copper mining does to the environment is ugly and dangerous.

But you know this means nothing to Republicans when it comes to coddling their favorite corporations. So what if the Apache lose a sacred place? Money is what the Republicans worship.

The Apache blood in my veins (about 1/16) is running red-hot at this degradation even being considered on ancestral lands. Haven't we had enough of Manifest Destiny? Hasn't the American Indian been robbed enough already? Why is money more important than ancestral rites and religion?

This NDAA bill now goes to the Senate. Yes, the Democrats may be able to block it. For now. But you can bet it will be attached to another bill once the GOP takes over the Senate (sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little). There is a petition you can sign to tell the White House to stop this evil theft. Please take a moment to sign it.  Aheeiyeh.

H/T: Last Real Indians  

What is A Patriot?

The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo--the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. --Bill Moyers

 

We've been hearing the word, "Patriot," thrown around quite a lot lately. But, as with many words, its real meaning has been twisted to suit a political agenda. Those who do this remind me of Vizzini in The Princess Bride; they keep using that word but it does not mean what they think it means. They've adapted many words to their purpose, words like "socialism," "Marxism" and "communism." Ask them for specific examples of these words and they come up blank. Because they don't know what those words really mean.

So it is with "patriot." Oh, they think they know what it means but their definition is colored by their own biases. They call people like the GOP Reps who fled Oregon, and the armed thugs who came to their sides, patriots. Patrick Henry would've laughed in their faces and George Washington would have arrested the whole lot. The right-wing is full of scofflaws with no real love of country in their hearts, no real allegiance to anything but their ideology. They are not patriots, they are chauvinists. And certain current inhabitants of Washington, D.C. are leading the bunch.

What is a real patriot, then? I have made the following list with a firm basis in the Constitution and U.S. law. Admittedly, it is colored by my own beliefs but those are not without historical precedent.

A real Patriot --

• knows that the Founding Fathers created a representative democracy, allowing for the people to elect officials to levy taxes and make laws and regulations on their behalf.
• understands the rule of law and why it can only be challenged in a court of law. They accept the duty of serving on a jury and try to fulfill that duty, not treat it like a bother.
• understands that the 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th century, long before the age of automatic weapons and takes this into account. That the right to bear arms does not mean every American has a license to own an arsenal of military-grade weapons. Respects the opinion of those who question the intent of the Founders in regards to this Amendment. Can engage in discussion about this without calling one another names or disrespecting each other. Understands that the 2nd Amendment does not supersede other rights of their fellow Americans.
• does not threaten to raise arms against the federal government simply because their candidate did not win an election. Or because they dislike the person who did win. Or because they disagree with that person. A Patriot accepts election results unless there is solid evidence not to.
• does not engage in threats against elected officials because they disagree or dislike them. See points one and two.
• does not make spurious charges against officials in an attempt to disgrace or unseat them. 
• understands that elections can't be nullified on a whim. That, while they may disagree with the outcome, their fellow Americans have rightfully and legally exercised their voting rights. A Patriot understands that we change things by voting, peaceful assembly, free speech and petitioning the government and that Congress holds the sole responsibility of trying any President for impeachment. 
• does not try to void or strip away the votes of fellow Americans. A Patriot knows that voting is one of our most sacred rights and duties. That it should be exercised at every opportunity and that all Americans should be encouraged to do the same.
• does not call their fellow Americans un-American simply because they belong to a different political party or ideology. A Patriot can debate civilly without resorting to such tactics.
• understands that the taxes they pay are vital to keeping America running. That the monies collected go to national defense, infrastructure, education, public safety, safety net programs and everything that makes it possible for us to function as a modern society. A Patriot knows that we don't always get to choose where our tax money goes, which is why we elect people to spend it as we see fit. 
• knows that ALL Americans are protected by the Constitution and understands that race, gender, religion or sexual orientation do not nullify this protection. That their disapproval of another American is not grounds to strip them of these rights and protections.
• understands that America is not a Christian nation. That laws are not to be made based on that religion's -- or any religion's -- beliefs and/or dogma. A Patriot understands that the Founding Fathers believed that the separation of church and state is implicit in the 1st Amendment.
• accepts the proven history of America, with all its beauty and ugliness. Does not attempt to revise that history to fit their ideology, faith or beliefs.
• does not say: "My country, right or wrong" but, rather: "My country; when it is wrong I will work to change that." This is what makes Americans exceptional, not chauvanistic belligerance, arrogance and blind allegiance.
• knows that money does not make one American better or worse than any other. That corporations are not people and should not be placed above actual people in the eyes of the law. Nor should they carry more electoral weight than the people. A Patriot knows that America's real strength lies in its people. 
• understands that our fellow Americans sometimes need help, through no fault of their own. A Patriot does not disparage them or look down on them or begrudge them the aid our government can temporarily provide. A Patriot, conversely, does not defraud the government or commit crimes to obtain federal aid.
• does not automatically agree with everything put forward by their political party, ideology, group or spokesperson. A Patriot carefully gathers information from objective sources, considers all of it and then decides. They can think for themselves and do so.
• believes that the system of check and balances can work only when all branches of government work in the interests of the American people, That, when one branch betrays that trust, this is grounds for losing their offices.
• knows about the Constitution and other important American documents. That these are the basis of our government and part of our history. That every American should know about them and have a basic understanding of what they say.
• understands that America is a diverse country. That it is composed of many different cultures, races, faiths and beliefs. That we need to respect and honor these differences that make America strong.
• understands that America is not perfect but loves it so much that they want it to be.

I realize that everyone may not agree with every point, but hope that disagreement is not based on ideology. This country was not built on ideology, it was built on the idea that every American is equal. That we are all free to pursue happiness as we see it, as long as that pursuit does not violate the rights of others. We should all be the caretakers of each others rights for, if they can be stripped from someone else, they can just as easily be stripped from you. We are all the guardians of this gift given to us by the Founders. It is a precious gift. Let's not destroy it.

When the whole nation is roaring patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart. -Ralph Waldo Emerson,

This Is What Can Happen When A Promise Is Kept

Stefan Savic was born in Bosnia 14 years ago with a horrible facial deformity. But, thanks to a UN Peacekeeper who was stationed in his town, he now has a new face and a bright future.

14-year-old Stefan Savic was born in Bosnia with a horrible facial deformity. Thanks to a UN Peacekeeper, he now has a new face and a bright future. He needs one more surgery before he’s done. Photo: Courtesy Wayne Ingram via FacingtheWorld.Net

Wayne Ingram, a former Staff Sergeant with the British 9th/12th Royal Lancers, was on duty in Eastern Europe in 2004 when he met then-4-year-old Stefan. Stefan’s congenital condition, Tessier facial cleft, caused his eyes to be set too wide, crushed his skull and he did not have a proper nose. Ingram, a father of two, was so moved by the boy’s difficulty that he promised Stefan that he would receive the surgeries necessary to repair the condition.

“I was on a routine patrol in Bosnia when I was introduced to his father and went to meet Stefan. The condition had been left untreated and had grown between Stefan’s eyes, crushing his skull, forcing his eyes apart to the point he couldn’t see what was ahead of him. But aside from the facial deformities he was just a normal, playful little boy. He was confident and cheeky, climbing all over me as we played football in the yard. He was too young then to be self-aware. But his facial cleft was blocking his airways and without medical attention, could kill him. I had two young sons myself at the time and there was no way I could stand back and do nothing. I knew in an instant I had to do everything I could to help.” (source)

Ingram was true to his word. Through a fund-raising drive that encompassed both Bosnia and the United Kingdom, he was able to raise £85,000 — $143,879 –and Stefan was brought to London in 2003 for his first operation. It took 12 hours to build a nose and close the rift in his face, bringing his eyes closer together. Another surgery was scheduled for 10 years down the road.

Flash forward a decade and Ingram, who had remained in touch with Stefan and his family, got busy raising funds again. With the help of generous donors, one of which called herself “the kind granny,” Ingram raised another $34,000. The surgeon waived his fees (as he had a decade ago) and Stefan came to London for his second surgery. This time, Stefan’s nose was reconstructed. Not only did this make his face more aesthetically pleasing but, most importantly, it let Stefan breathe easier. Stefan will need more surgery and orthodontics, but he is well on his way to having no effects left from his deformity.

Ingram was inspired to become a paramedic because of Stefan. He is moved by the boy’s quiet dignity and by the way he has borne both the deformity and the surgeries to correct it. For his part, Stefan called this series of operations “the best thing that ever happened to me.” Wayne Ingram feels the same: both lives have been changed for the better because of a promise kept.

You can help with the funding of surgeries for Stefan and other children like him. Facing The World provides these kind of surgeries to children in developing countries who are born with Tessier and related cleft syndromes. Visit their web page at facingtheworld.net.

h/t http://aattp.org/

This Is Why You Don't Want To Play The Dozens With Jon Stewart And The Daily Show

Jon Stewart did a report on Sean Hannity’s support of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on Monday’s edition of The Daily Show. Little did he know that he started a feud that is now in its fourth day. The report on Monday called Hannity out on his hypocrisy, demonstrating — with video proof — that Hannity is selective about his support of the law:

“Apparently Sean Hannity thinks laws are served buffet-style in that you can pick and choose the ones that you like best. The ones that you don’t like, you don’t have to abide. Well that’s not going to sit well with Fox’s immigration/healthcare law expert pundit, a Mr… Sean Hannity!” (from the video)

 Here’s a link to the video of “Apocalypse Cow."

That report didn’t sit too well with Mr. Hannity, either. On his Tuesday night show, Sean decided to strike back. Calling Stewart “a comedic hack” and declaring The Daily Show “apologists for the Obama administration,” Hannity chose not to simply ignore the TDS segment. Against all common sense, Hannity went to make the claim that Stewart was “obsessed” with him and insisted that TDS writers were “struggling.”

Hannity also wondered what Stewart’s “true feelings” on the Bundy situation were. Did he watch the same video we did? Isn’t it clear what Stewart thinks of Bundy and his ridiculous claims? Pretty sure it does. He also brought up Bill Ayers — using that name is one of the symptoms of Teabagger Tourette’s — and Cat Stevens, who appeared at Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity. Stevens, who was at the event to sing “Peace Train,” is a convert to Islam who supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

It’s possible that Stewart and the TDS staff could have let that go. But Hannity just had to get one more dig in:

“They just can’t give their viewers the facts. They have to spin the story.”

You know that Stewart and the TDS staff couldn’t let that go. They don’t need to “spin” a story; they let the story spin itself. The clips of Hannity are proof that he is being selective when it comes to Americans breaking the law. Hannity’s complaint that the clips go back several years is nonsensical. Why shouldn’t everything he said on this subject be open to review? He tapes and airs it. If he doesn’t want that to happen, he probably should find another line of work.

Which leads us to Wednesday night’s edition of The Daily Show. For the show’s “vulgar and extensive audience” (according to Hannity’s guest Kevin Williamson) the team had a real treat. Containing possibly one of the funniest jokes in the show’s history, it was truly an epic pwning.

See for yourself.


If you don’t know what “bukakke” means, Google it. But, be warned… it’s very NSFW. If you do know (and after the rest find out), perhaps you will agree upon the brilliance of that joke.
Stewart allows that, yes, he is obsessed with Hannity’s show, much as he is with…

“… antibiotic resistant super-bugs, the Pacific garbage patch or the KFC Double Down. Because I just can’t believe in this day and age, with all that we know, this shit is out there. That… humanity… that our society is still weighed down by these burdens of a seemingly more medieval time. Like your show. To see it night after night, serving up the same shit… my god, you’re the Arby’s of news.” (from the video)

The video of Hannity calling Ted Nugent a “friend of the show” after seeing Nugent’s horrible remarks about then-candidates Obama and Clinton, is particularly effective. Whereas Stewart didn’t know about Stevens and the fatwa — as most don’t — Hannity actually showed the video of Nugent. He can’t claim that he didn’t know what the man said.

Stewart calls out Hannity’s paradoxical love of America and support of Bundy (whom he calls a “USAtheist”). How can Hannity claim to love this country, its founders and Constitution yet be so partisan in his application? And George Washington, Hannity’s self-proclaimed favorite Founding Father? What would he do when “an armed group of federal government rejectionists” refused to pay their taxes? It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and the Founding Fathers made sure that the federal government could put that rebellion down legally. Just like they can do with Bundy and his camo-wearin’, gun wavin’ supporters.

All-in-all, this was one of the best skewerings in The Daily Show‘s history; absolute proof that you don’t want to play the Dozens with Jon Stewart and crew. But if Hannity wants to escalate again, he would do well to remember that TDS doesn’t air on Friday. That will give the writers 4 days in which to compose a retaliatory reply. If I were Hannity, I’d stop right here.

Michelle Malkin Hates Obama So Much That She Attacks His Aunt, Who Just Died Of Cancer. Despicable.

Displaying the ugliness in her soul, Michelle Malkin used her latest column to attack a woman who just died of cancer. The fact that she was President Obama’s aunt apparently made that okay. Malkin’s column is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and lies. But, hey, she knows her audience. And the haters likely ate this up.

Zeituni Onyango was the half-sister of Obama’s father. He mentions her in his memoir, Dreams From My Father as “Aunti Zeituni,” even though he didn’t meet her — or any of his father’s side of the family — until he was an adult. She came to the U.S. in 2000, looking for political asylum. Since then, she spent a lot of time in and out of immigration court. In 2010, she finally became a legal resident. During that time, she was fodder for right-wing conspiracy theories and disdain. She died on April 7, 2014 from breast cancer.

It took Michelle Malkin only 3 days to produce her hate-filled rant about Onyango. She must have spent half of it using a thesaurus to look up synonyms for “lazy” and “dependent.” As one would expect from the anti-immigrant Malkin (whose own parents were immigrants), the insults flew fast and thick:

Auntie Zeituni had no job skills, no special talent, no compelling reason to keep her here in America as an asset to our culture or our economy. She didn’t value the American Dream. She was a dependency nightmare. She collected $700 a month in welfare benefits and disability payments totaling $51,000. Somehow, Auntie Zeituni also drummed up money to apply for asylum and finagled her way into both federal and state public housing in Boston.

Onyango was granted asylum to this country four years ago. She, her attorneys and doctors spent five hours with Immigration Judge Leonard I. Shapiro on May 17, 2010. They must have made a convincing case, because Shapiro granted Onyango legal residency and permission to work in the U.S. Yes, she was on disability but that doesn’t automatically make her a “dependency nightmare.” In fact, she did volunteer work for several years before her illness forced her to stop. But I guess that’s not good enough for Malkin. Onyango did not “somehow” get the money for attorneys, it was provided by friends and family in Cleveland’s Kenyan community when Onyango was staying there in 2008 to escape from the hounding of the media.

Onyango also did not “finagle” her way into public housing. She spent two years in a homeless shelter before she was granted an apartment. In exchange, she volunteered as a health advocate for the Boston Housing authority. But, again, Malkin turns her nose up at mere volunteer work.

Malkin also mocks Onyango’s struggle for asylum and her ordeal in fighting deportation:

Auntie Zeituni’s illegal activity and ingratitude were rewarded time and time again. She got multiple bites at the immigration court apple, where it ain’t over till the alien wins. Despite twice being ordered to go home, the feds allowed her bogus case to be reopened. After breaking visa laws, campaign finance laws (she donated illegally to Obama three times), deportation rules and judicial orders, she was allowed to have yet another hearing.

Onyango ‘s travails are well-documented and were brought up during the 2008 campaign in an attempt to smear then-candidate Obama. As stated, Onyango came to the U.S. in 2000, requesting asylum. As she is of the Luo tribe of Kenya — a group described as under “sustained political persecution” — that is not unreasonable. Her initial request was denied and she was told to leave the country but she did not. This is not unusual. Many immigrants who have been denied asylum continue to stay. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement is aware of this but their orders are to “target suspects with criminal records before they go after simple immigration violators.” Since she was not a criminal, Onyango’s case was not terribly important. She was disabled due to back surgery and an auto-immune disorder and, since she had been issued a Social Security card in 2001, her case was not a priority.

As for the donations to her nephew’s campaign, Onyango did contribute five times, all of which amounted to a grand total of $65. When the Obama campaign were advised of this, they returned the donations. Obama did not know all the particulars of his aunt’s immigration status and spokespersons could only confirm that Onyango was, indeed, his aunt. When he was apprised of her situation, Obama said that the applicable laws should be applied no matter who the subject was. Interestingly, reporters who dug into Onyango’s private information — which included her immigration status — were in violation of privacy laws set down by the Department of Homeland Security.

In conclusion, Malkin wrote off Onyango’s life and death because she was Obama’s aunt and, consequently, the wrong color to be deserving of the largesse she was granted by America:

Auntie Zeituni’s story is a disgraceful reminder that the only thing worse than the ingrates thumbing their noses at our immigration laws are the people in power on both sides of the aisle enabling them.

The implication, of course, is that President Obama cleared the way for his aunt to stay in this country. That he not only shielded her from deportation but made sure that she was provided for. Honestly, if that were the case, Onyango surely would not have spent 2 years in a homeless shelter nor be living on less than $700 month. But logic isn’t something Malkin possesses. Not when it comes to President Obama. She, like most on the right, suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome, so facts and logic fall by the wayside. As Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter rightly observed about Malkin’s “eulogy”:

Onyango was someone’s mother, sister, aunt and friend. She had a hard life and died before her time of an awful disease only four days ago. But fuck her… she was Obama’s aunt.

Here was a woman whose husband abused her, who came to this country for protection due to political persecution and had to fight for 10 years to find relief. She had medical problems, disabilities and, finally, cancer. She was hounded by the media during the 2008 campaign and continued to be the object of scorn by those who hate her nephew even after her death. But, to Michelle Malkin, she was a scapegoat. To Malkin, Onyango was the distillation of all the immigrants who came to this country under circumstances different from her own parents (a work visa). Malkin despises anyone not like her, especially if they are darker than she is. She makes no secret that she thinks blacks are lazy and undeserving. Never mind that the majority of welfare recipients are whites in red states.

Malkin’s vile attack on Onyango should be condemned by every decent American. It was uncalled-for, racist and repugnant. But what can one expect from someone who is so full of hate? Malkin should really heed the words of Coretta Scott King: “Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated.” But then, Mrs. King was black. And we all know how Malkin feels about “those people.” What a shame.

As for me, I'm sending my condolences to the Obama family. Having lost many friends and family members to "effing cancer" (as some of my friends call it), I can sympathize with the horrible, hopeless feeling that engenders.Blessed Be and Godspeed, Auntie.

Mike Huckabee Says That He's Not A Homophobe: Why That Is Demonstrably False

Speaking at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on Tuesday, Mike Huckabee told the crowd that he’s “not homophobic.” He’s just “on the right side of the bible.”

“I’m not against anybody. I’m really not. I’m not a hater. I’m not homophobic. But … when people say, ‘Why don’t you just kind of get on the right side of history?’ I said, ‘You’ve got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it’s not my book to change.’”

Well, that’s a bit disingenuous of him: the book apparently IS his to interpret freely. There is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality, Jesus never spoke about it. You’d never know it, however, the way Huckabee and his ilk talk. Huckabee obviously forgot — or doesn’t care — that this country isn’t governed by the Bible. That’s just par for the course with him, though. Mike Huckabee has a long history of anti-gay remarks. Here are just a handful:

“Public debate today is filled with arguments that, not long ago, would have been dismissed as ridiculous and insupportable. Consider homosexuality, for instance. There have been homosexuals in every human culture. But until recently, who would have dared to suggest that the practice should be accepted on equal footing with heterosexuality, to be thought of as a personal decision and nothing more?” Character Makes a Difference, by Mike Huckabee, Jun 1, 2007

“… people are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that’ve governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that’s a serious change of culture that we don’t just make readily or hurriedly.” Meet The Press, Jan 28, 2007

”I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different…” ibid.

“I can proudly say that no one in the race supported traditional marriage more strongly than I did.. While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I was working to help pass a constitutional amendment.” Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee, Nov 18, 2008

“I would try to do the same things that I did as governor of Arkansas, where I led a constitutional amendment that was passed overwhelmingly by our voters that affirmed what marriage is. Marriage is a relationship between one man, one woman, for life.” 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate, Sep 17, 2007

“I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions. You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.” Interview, The Perspective, April, 2010

“It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.” Kids Who Kill, by Mike Huckabee, 1998

“They (the government) want to make sure that we have an institution called marriage that really does mean historically that you have a mother and a father because children need the benefit.” Fox Business’ Freedom Watch, 2/25/11

“I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes,” he said. “Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn’t work the same.” New Yorker Magazine, June 28, 2010

Huckabee initiated a Chick-Fil-A “buycott” in 2012 in support of Dan Cathy’s anti-gay views. He has been a booster of groups like the Family Research Council, whose leader, Tony Perkins, considers gay men to be sexual predators whose aim is to “recruit” children. Huckabee gave the keynote speech at a convention of Trail Life USA, the anti-gay analogue to the Boy Scouts, which promotes “pray the gay away” therapies.

As a Fox News host, Huckabee has had many anti-gay guests and fully condones remarks like this:

"Public schools can harm students by suggesting that same-sex attractions are natural and unchangeable. Research shows that youth who experience sexual confusion often do so only for a temporary period. To suggest to a student that temporary sexual confusion means the person is homosexual can be damaging and harmful. The information provided by the ‘Facts About Youth’ website is invaluable for anyone who works with children.” Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, April 7, 2010

Staver also took umbrage with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:

“Twenty percent of the state judicial appointments Napolitano made as governor were of homosexuals, reflecting her pro-homosexual agenda.” Liberty Counsel, 10/5/09 (something which is completely untrue, by the way)

Other guests…

“If you’re still having a hard time discerning what to do, here’s a helpful hint: if you find yourself on the same side as the ACLU, homosexual activists, the baby killers and the enemies of God, chances are, you’re on the wrong side.” Janet Porter, WorldNetDaily, 6/8/10

“…  he (President Obama) has such a beautiful family and he continued to advocate breaking up that family by interjecting this sort of foreign object called gay marriage. And it just doesn’t fit.” Rev. Anthony Evans, Huckabee, 2/26/11

As if this isn’t enough to contradict Huckabee’s assertion that he’s not anti-gay, there’s this little gem, which he dropped into the speech as an example of how to stand by their convictions. Even if they must do it alone:

“Because the fact is we don’t like to do things by ourselves. We really don’t. Guys like to go fishing with other men. They like to go hunting with other men. Women like to go to the restroom with other women. I don’t get that. I can tell you this much: if I ever say, ‘I have to go to the restroom’ and some guy says, ‘I’ll go with you,’ he ain’t goin’ with me. That much I know.” (source)

Huckabee certainly seems to be very defensive about another man heading to the bathroom with him. Maybe a bit too defensive. You know what they say about men who protest too much.

Radio Iowa has a recording of Huckabee’s speech, in case you want to hear for yourself.

Can we talk for a minute about the idea that allowing marriage equality is "re-defining" marriage? Because the definition of marriage has undergone many permutations, including a few perpetrated by the Christian church.

In ancient Rome, before Christianity dominated, Juno was the deity who governed marriage. As protectress of women, she regulated every aspect of marriage from the arranging of the union to the birth of the children. Her Priestesses – and only they – performed the wedding rites. The idea that a man would presume to sanctify a union was unthinkable. 

When Christianity became the predominant religion, wedding ceremonies were no longer performed at all, leaving the wedded state with no place in canon law. Marriages were performed outside the Church, literally on the steps, where a priest performed a simple blessing on the couple. And it remained that way for centuries until the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, when it was legalized and a ceremony added to the liturgy. When this occurred, folk memory said that June is the month in which weddings were most blessed. Until that time, marriage fell under the auspices of common law, meaning that the union could be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. So when people complain that marriage equality would be “redefining marriage” they have no idea what they are talking about. The Church itself did that very thing at least twice in its history.

So, this nonsense that "we can't re-define marriage" is exactly that. Marriage has been defined by every culture, in every era to be that which suited society best. In the 21st century, our society is served best by everyone being equal. Everyone should be able to marry the person they love. That should be the only prerequisite to marriage. Either the Fundamentalists will catch up with the rest of us or they will become irrelevant.

Glenn Beck's Paranoia Is Frying His Brain.

The announcement last week that 7.1 million Americans have signed up for Obamacare didn’t sit well with the right. From John Boehner’s complete disconnect to Anne Coulter’s “pants on fire” lies about her friend (for the sole purpose of discrediting the ACA), the right is frantically trying to negate the good news. But Glenn Beck apparently thinks those reactions are too subtle…

On his TV/radio show last week, Beck had a meltdown worthy of a diva ( though I’d call him more of a devo). He metaphorically stomped his feet as he fumed about how the 7.1 million figure had to have been made up. Not only that, but the “rat bastards” in the media don’t ever call the President out on his “lies.” Because we all know how much the “liberal media” hates to call Obama out on anything. Damn, Glenn, don’t you even watch your old network anymore?


To hear Glenn Beck talk, you’d think that the President had ordered all conservatives rounded up and forced medical care on them:

“This guy, you put him in a military uniform, I’m not kidding you, you put him on a balcony in a military uniform, this guy is a full-fledged dictator…. He’s a sociopath!  He’s sociopathic!”

A dictator? Oh, Glenn. Don’t you own a dictionary? Or a good history book? For someone who claims to be a historian, you sure know very little about history. Actual dictators don’t have a Congress to bully and stymie them at every turn. If President Obama was actually a dictator, you wouldn’t be on the air anymore. But, there you are, howling about how awful it is that your fellow Americans now have medical insurance. We know you’d be happier if everyone either went bankrupt or died if they were struck with catastrophic illness. What a good Christian you are.

Beck spent about an hour jabbering about President Obama and the “liberal media” and how they were conspiring to drive him crazy or something. Even the Republicans are helping! If they are all colluding to drive Glenn Beck nuts, they’ve done a good job of it. But look what they started with. No matter. Beck concluded that he would not give his enemies any more attention. Oh no, they weren’t going to have Glenn Beck to kick around anymore. He’s just not going to pay attention to them, so there!

“I am not going to waste my life! I have a right to pursue my happiness, I have a right to do what I was born to do!” He then concluded, “My state of mind is great.”

Um… okay. If you say so, Glenn. But that didn’t last long. Coming back from a break, Beck started in on how terrible it was that 7.1 million Americans now had medical insurance. How horrid that the President was responsible and how awful the media were for not pointing out the “lies.” Except they’re not lies. And that’s probably what has driven Glenn Beck over the edge.


Let’s help Glenn Beck out with a couple of definitions.... According to the dictionary, a dictator is someone who is “… exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.” Or even with it, as we’ve seen in North Korea.

There have been many dictators throughout history. Read about Vlad Tepes (Dracula, to you), Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung (or his son and grandson), Joseph Stalin or Robert Mugabe: they were dictators. These men, and others like them, killed millions of their own people, instituted onerous laws and ruled their countries with an iron fist. Under their rule, the people did not hold elections. They were subject to the whims of their “dear leaders” as those men stripped them of their human rights. Dictators hold themselves as more important than the people over which they rule. They usually live in splendor, with luxurious surroundings, and eat the finest food while their people live in squalor and go hungry. The citizens of a dictatorship have no free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion. They can’t bear arms legally. They can be arrested for anything at any time with no due process. Maybe Glenn Beck needs to do some research before slinging that word around so blithely.

As for the President being a sociopath? Well, the dictionary defines that as “a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.” That sure sounds familiar but not applied to President Obama. That actually sounds more like… well, I’m sure you can think of a few people. Perhaps even Glenn Beck, who should remember the admonition in the book he claims to follow about throwing stones.

Another Measles Outbreak Points Out The Need For Vaccinations.

It’s been almost a decade since Andrew Wakefield revealed his bogus study concluding vaccines cause autism. That study — which was the result of falsified data — has since been discredited. But not before it got the “anti-vax” movement rolling. We are now reaping what their ignorance and hysteria has sown and it’s not pretty.

The statistics on measles outbreaks reveal an alarming trend: a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last December showed the highest rates in seventeen years. This rise is directly attributable to the anti-vax movement.


Health officials in Southern California say that the current outbreak in that area is the worst in decades. So far this year, twenty-one people in Orange County have been diagnosed with measles. Seven of those were so ill that they had to be hospitalized. Neighboring Los Angeles and Riverside Counties have seen 10 and 5 cases, respectively. It’s important to understand that measles is not just a rash: it can lead to death in about 20% of cases. Pneumonia or encephalitis are two of the most serious complications of measles and both can be deadly.

Measles can be easily spread through infected fluids. That it has been so virulent in Orange County is alarming and for good reason. Orange County is the home of Disneyland. That should be enough to unnerve everyone. The sheer number of children who visit the Disney Parks and the vast array of places from which they come (and return to) is staggering. Should even one infected child visit the parks, the measles could go home with tens of thousands of other children (and adults). Considering that about 10% of parents delay or prevent their kids from being vaccinated, that’s a scary thought.


It’s not just children who need to worry. The measles vaccine wears off over time and adults who have not either had the measles as a child or been vaccinated are susceptible. This is another reason why the refusal of parents to vaccinate their children is not just a personal choice. Because vaccination rates have decreased, the “herd immunity” has decreased as well. This leaves everyone — adults and children — at risk. And not just from measles: incidents of mumps  and whooping cough (among other diseases) have also increased. It’s bad enough that kids are suffering, but adults who contract mumps can become sterile and whooping cough in adults can lead to COPD or pneumonia.

It’s not often that such a direct cause-and-effect can be pinpointed. We know, without a doubt, that not vaccinating children against measles, mumps, diphtheria, pertussis and other preventable diseases has led to an increase of cases. And for what? The so-called “study” that started the whole thing was bogus. Modern vaccines use the minimum amount of dead or weakened antigens to provide immunity, making that argument a non-starter. Thimerosal, one of their boogeymen, has never been used in MMR vaccines and has been eliminated from all but flu vaccines and even then in minute amounts. The anti-vax movement, however, refuses to accept medical science and continues to withhold vaccines from their children. Not only are they endangering their families, they are endangering all of us.

Science blogger David Gorsky has been writing about the anti-vax movement for a few years. He has researched every "study" and every "result" with a scientific eye. And his conclusions reflect my own.

"... the anti-vaccine movement is one of the most dangerous forms of pseudoscience, a form of quackery that, unlike most forms of quackery, endangers those who do not partake of it by breaking down herd immunity and paving the way for the resurgence of previously vanquished diseases. However, anti-vaccine beliefs share many other aspects with other forms of quackery, including the reliance on testimonials rather than data. Even so, although the intelligentsia (and I do use the term loosely) of the anti-vaccine movement realizes and exploits the power of anecdotes and testimonials and how human beings tend to value such stories over dry scientific data, leaders of the anti-vaccine movement realize that science is overwhelmingly against them and that testimonials alone are not adequate to counter that science in the realm of public policy and relations."

Exactly. Why otherwise intelligent people continue to believe this nonsense just boggles the mind. 

The body count laid at the anti-vaxxers’ feet so far is 1,375 since 2007. The cases of preventable illness are even higher: over 130,000 Americans have become sick from diseases that were virtually wiped out before the turn of the 21st century. The anti-vax movement relied on false data and celebrities with no medical training. And all that has caused is suffering and death.

Yes, autism is terrible. I can’t imagine having an autistic child and those who do have my awed admiration. I understand that it is comforting to have a reason for autism, a place to lay blame. However, vaccinations are not it. Modern medicine doesn’t yet know what causes autism. Let’s hope that they do discover its cause — and a way to treat or cure it — very soon. But it’s unreasonable to endanger other children and families in the meantime. This isn’t a private matter anymore, not when others are falling ill and dying from a disease like measles, which should be relegated to the dustbin of medical history. Please. Don’t let other children die because you are afraid of the bogeyman. Vaccinate your children. It’s the right thing to do.

My Top 10 Political Films

This list was gleaned from the American Film Institute’s Top 100 Films Of All Time, an informal poll among friends and fellow movie lovers, and my own preferences. I claim no special insight or influence, I’m just a woman who loves movies and enjoys discussing and dissecting them. Here is my list of 10 of the best political films ever in no particular order:

Dr. Strangelove (1964): While this is often cited as the greatest black comedy ever made, Stanley Kubrick’s classic has a serious undertone in its satirical look at the Cold War. The story concerns General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), an off-kilter military man with an unhealthy obsession with “precious bodily fluids,” who sends a squadron of B-52 bombers to attack the Soviet Union. The Soviets react poorly, of course, threatening with a so-called “Doomsday Device.” As the U.S. president (Peter Sellers) negotiates with his Soviet counterpart, the world hangs by a thread. Sellers (who plays 3 parts, including the president and a British military officer) does a stellar turn as the title character, a mad scientist in the mold of Werner von Braun. George C. Scott is brilliant as General Buck Turgidson, who advises the POTUS with statistics about “acceptable losses,” a scary look at how some top military brass were said to have thought back then (and even still). Hilarious dialogue (“You can’t fight here! This is the war room!”) and the image of Slim Pickens’s Colonel Kong riding the bomb down to its target made this film a part of our cultural vocabulary. Many younger folks haven’t seen this because it’s in black & white (come on kids, you’re more sophisticated than that), but it should be in the library of every cinephile of any age.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939): This film appears on almost every list of this kind and with good reason. Part of that is an Oscar-nominated performance by James Stewart, highlighted by his impassioned speech before Congress. He plays Jefferson Smith, a small town hero chosen to serve as an interim senator. All gung-ho, Smith heads to Washington with optimism only to be confronted with the reality of the corruption he finds. In one of American cinema’s most iconic scenes, Smith filibusters the Senate in an attempt to reveal its corrupt nature. It is considered to be an unreal depiction of the Hill but it may not be as far off the mark as it used to be. Plus, it features one of the greatest performances of Stewart’s career. Get over the black & white cinematography and get into Jimmy Stewart’s performance.

The American President (1995): This dramedy about a widowed U.S. president and a lobbyist who fall in love shows that we love our screen presidents to be handsome and charming. Well, Hollywood is all about fantasy, right? We also love a good romance, even though the idea of the president and a lobbyist in bed together for anything other than making money to their mutual benefit is the height of fantasy. But Michael Douglas and Annette Benning make a lovely couple and it doesn’t hurt that the script by Aaron Sorkin is clever and witty. Oh, and Rob Reiner directing? Perfection.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962): The original version, thank you very much. John Frankenheimer’s tale of a former Korean War POW who was brainwashed by Communists into becoming a political assassin is a tense thriller. Brilliant performances by Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury and Frank Sinatra (yes, that Frank Sinatra!) make this a real must-see. Anyone who only knows Lansbury from her voice role as Mrs. Potts is in for a real surprise here! The plot may seem a bit outdated but replace “communist” with the political villain de jour and you’ll get it. The remake tried but just didn’t recapture the sense of menace. You will never look at a deck of cards the same way again.

All The King’s Men (1949): Adapted from Robert Penn Warren’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, this tale of Louisiana governor Hugo Long’s career is a true classic (though the names have been changed). Oscar winner Broderick Crawford is Willie Stark, a backwoods lawyer who rides a wave of populism to get into the governor’s mansion. Of course, he immediately turns his back on his ideals, becoming just another crooked politician. Once ensconced, Stark deals with enemies, becomes quite familiar with corruption and infidelity and generally goes to the dark side. Trying to help him along the way are a reporter (John Ireland) and Stark’s campaign assistant (Mercedes McCambridge). She, of course, wants Stark to leave his wife in order to marry her. Eventually, Stark’s karma comes back to bite him and he pays for his corruption even as it looks like he might escape his gloomy future. All The King’s Men was nominated for six Academy Awards and won three, including Best Picture. The film was remade in 2006 with Sean Penn playing Stark, and the less I say about that, the better. Watch the original.

The Candidate (1972): In a brilliant satire (released during Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign), Robert Redford is Bill McKay, a liberal attorney who takes on an incumbent Republican senator for his seat. Campaign operative Marvin Lucas (Peter Boyle) signs on to get McKay elected but only on the condition that McKay is allowed to speak his mind. Which he does – by preaching truth and honesty. This makes him surprisingly popular in the polls, the public loving his refreshing candor. But, as always, the candidate finds himself losing sight of his original idealism and becoming seduced by the power and the powers-that-be. The Candidate was a critical and box office hit, and earned Jeremy Lerner (a former political speechwriter) the Oscar for Best Screenplay.

Milk (2008): Sean Penn stars in the story of Harvey Milk, California’s first openly gay elected official. The film uses archival footage, working it into the narrative to provide atmosphere as it tells Milk’s story from his 40th birthday until his death. Gus van Sant does a lovely job, not trying to make Harvey Milk into anything but the human being he was and guiding Josh Brolin in a difficult part as killer Dan White. Sean Penn was awarded the Oscar for Best Actor and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black picked up a statue for his original screenplay. Every modern political activist should see this film if only to see how we can keep our humanity while fighting for that of others.

JFK (1991): New Orleans DA Jim Garrison is depicted by Kevin Costner in one of the few films I actually like him in (sorry, Costner fans). Garrison knew there was more to the Kennedy assassination than the official story and he was determined to prove it. To that end, he talks to witnesses, doggedly chasing down the story. The film chronicles his investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw, chasing various key figures in the assassination down rabbit holes into even more labyrinths. The cast is stellar, including Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Gary Oldman, Sissy Spacek, Joe Pesci and Kevin Bacon. The enjoyment of this film depends a lot on one’s own theories about the Kennedy assassination and is one of those love-it-or-hate it kind of movies. It’s obvious that I am the former (the fact that we lived in Nawlins during this time and my mother knew Garrison might bias me a little). JFK won 2 Oscars: one for cinematography and one for editing. Both Jones and director Oliver Stone were nominated but didn’t win.

All The President’s Men (1976): One of the best films about the juncture of politics and journalism, this is the tale of reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who uncovered the details of the Watergate scandal. This film is still shown to journalism students and rightly so. It tells the story very clearly and concisely, following the reporters as they “follow the money” at the direction of their informant, Deep Throat. When the real identity of Deep Throat came out in 2005, it created a brief upsurge in interest for the film in the public. But those of us who are fond of it never forgot it. The cast is brilliant, including one of my all-time favorites, Jason Robards, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee. Screenwriter William Goldman was also awarded a statue for his adapted screenplay. This one is an absolute must for any fan of politics or journalism, or both.

V For Vendetta (2005): The only film on my list to be adapted from a graphic novel, this story of a shadowy freedom fighter known only as “V” is one of the few such adaptations to succeed, in my opinion (yes, I am aware of the change of cause and it works even so). Even though we never see his face, Hugo Weaving is masterful as the mysterious V and Natalie Portman has just the right amount of vulnerability mixed with iron strength and, in actually shaving her head, showed an admirable dedication to her craft. I also loved Stephen Fry’s turn as Evey’s former boss; such an understated bit of acting. Creator Alan Moore was not happy with the film and gave all his profits to the artist who drew the graphic novel, also denying any credits for the original story. That’s really too bad because, even though it’s freedom instead of anarchy, the underlying message is the same: burn for your truth and you will catch others alight, too.

What are your favorite political films? Let us know in the comments.

Thanks to Earth Day Network (via the The Sierra Club): "This sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin is called "Politicians discussing global warming."

Why Would Someone Want To Sue The People Who Saved His Life?

Those floods last September in Colorado killed at least 8 people. First responders worked hard, risking their lives to save others and searching for the missing. An entire state was grateful. Well, not the entire state…

On September 12, Roy Ortiz of Broomfield was driving on a road near U.S. highway 287 when he saw that the road was washed out. He did try to stop but a bridge collapse made his car slide into the creek that ran parallel. Two other cars then slid on top of his car, overturning it. Ortiz was trapped inside, with rushing water all around. Lucky for him, North Metro Fire Rescue first responders were able to rescue him.

But Roy Ortiz now says that rescue personnel didn’t respond quickly enough, leaving him in the fast-moving water for 2 hours. He also complains that the road should have been closed, preventing the accident in the first place. Ortiz’s lawyer has now filed preliminary papers in a possible suit against the cities of Boulder, Broomfield, Westminster and Lafayette. Specifically named in the suit are two Boulder County sheriff’s deputies, a member of the Westminster dive team, and the Broomfield and North Metro Fire Rescue District. Well, that’s gratitude for you.

Roy Ortiz believes that God saved him. And, while it is perfectly fine for Mr. Ortiz to believe that God helped him survive as he waited for rescue, it wasn’t the deity that pulled him from his car. That was the rescuers from North Metro. And they did it as quickly as they were able. Though they are not unsympathetic to Roy Ortiz’s ordeal, they did everything they could to rescue him as quickly as possible. The spokeswoman for North Metro told the Broomfield Enterprise:

“We sympathize with what he went through,” Sara Farris said. “Given the challenging conditions, we feel our responders performed well and professionally.”

North Metro’s records indicate that they pulled Roy Ortiz from his car in a little over an hour after the 911 call was received. Ortiz was grateful that day and when he was released from the hospital the following day (as seen in the photo at the top of this story). What happened between then and now to change that?

Roy Ortiz has incurred medical bills totaling about $40,000. Well, that would certainly explain a few things. His attorney, Ed Ferszt, seems to think that he can make the parties named in the suit pay those bills. Along with another half a million in damages. Because, hey, milk it for every dime, right? Even though it’s the taxpayers who would be on the hook for any awards.

That doesn’t really look likely, though. Not according to a Denver personal injury lawyer the Enterprise spoke to. He notes that, for Roy Ortiz to win his case, he must be able to prove that the parties he’s suing showed “gross deviation from reasonable care.” That, or that they caused him to sustain a “significant or unreasonable injury.” We’re talking extreme negligence. Since Mr. Ortiz’s rescuers put their life on the line to save his, that’s unlikely. Not to mention ungrateful.
At the time of the accident, Roy Ortiz stated that, once his car had slid off the road, he first called his wife, then called 911. Can you see the problem with this? Exactly. And that will be an important point if there is any trial.

Mr. Ortiz says that his faith sustained him as he awaited rescue. I don’t doubt that for a minute. But actual men and women put their lives on the line to save his. This is no way to repay their courage and skill.  What is really awful is that Roy Ortiz has such high medical bills that he had to find a lawyer and initiate the process of filing suit against those very people. Yet more proof that our health care system is in dire need of further reform.

Pregnancy Tests In Bars... Because Preventing Pregnancy Is "Social Engineering" -- You May Now Facepalm

State Senator Pete Kelly is the co-chair of the Alaska Senate Finance Committee and he has a mission. He wants to wipe out fetal alcohol disorders in his state. A lofty goal and a good one. But his implementation needs some work.

Sen. Pete Kelly thinks that women shouldn’t drink if they are pregnant and studies back him up. But here’s how he plans to stop it: pregnancy tests in bars. That’s right. Every woman should be able to grab a pregnancy test off the counter next to the beer nuts (or in the bathroom — he’s not real clear). As Sen. Pete Kelly says:

“You grab one. Literally, you can go into the bathroom at the bar and test. So if you’re drinking, you’re out at the big birthday celebration and you’re like, ‘Gee, I wonder if I …?’ You should be able to go in the bathroom and there’s that plastic, Plexiglas bowl in there and that’s part of the public relations campaign too. Is you’re going to have some kind of card on there with a message.” (source)

Well, sure! Because what woman doesn’t want to discover she’s pregnant in the bathroom of a bar? And what about the bars — do they want a bowl of pregnancy tests hanging out next to the Budweiser sign? Sen. Kelly says that he’s given them a “heads up” and that the program will be voluntary… at first. Then it might become part of licensing. That should go over well.

But why wait until a woman may possibly be pregnant? Why not set condoms out, too? You know, preventative measures. Oh, no. Sen. Pete Kelly doesn’t like that idea!

“No. Because the thinking is a little opposite. This assumes that if you know (you are pregnant) you’ll act responsibly. Birth control is for people who don’t necessarily want to act responsibly.”  (source)

And now we come down to it. This is just one more shot in the Republican war on women. Because we poor, brainless ladies just can’t act responsibly. We need those big, strong men to show us the way. That the use of birth control actually is responsible is a fact lost on Sen. Kelly. because…

“… That’s about a level of social engineering that we don’t want to get into. All we want to do is make sure people are informed. They’ll make the right decision.” (source)

So, using birth control is “social engineering?” Sounds like Sen. Kelly is just making an excuse so he doesn’t accidentally tell the reporter from the Anchorage Daily News that he, Sen. Pete Kelly, is a misogynist.

Elsewhere in the interview, Sen. Pete Kelly talks about the “Natural Responders” part of his program. These are people — it’s assumed to be women –who will intervene in the life of any woman who may be pregnant and, possibly, drinking. These responders will operate in the community and in the high schools. How will these people be recruited? Ah, here is where we spot Sen. Kelly’s underlying assumptions:

“We’re going to find those people (with the help of the First Alaskans Institute) and then encourage them … They can become part of something and go out and start finding these people and saying, ‘Hey look, you’re drinking, you’re of child-bearing age,’ or ‘We know you’re having unprotected sex, you’ve got to stop doing that.’” (emphasis mine) (source)

And if that doesn’t work?

“… we can then guide them into the system where there are some therapeutic beds where they can stay and we can attend to them through the health and social services department while they are pregnant.” (source)

Because those Injun women just can’t leave that firewater alone. And they obviously can’t be trusted to take care of themselves, so the state will do it for them. I thought the GOP was the party that hated the “nanny state” stuff? Oh, that’s right — it’s okay when it’s something they want.

So, to sum up: Sen. Pete Kelly is against providing birth control to low-income Inuit women. But he’s perfectly okay with spending millions of dollars to make sure that they check to see if they’re pregnant before drinking. He wants to recruit an army of busybodies who will insinuate themselves into the lives of Native women. He wants to be able to put any women who object into hospitals to take care of them until they deliver. On the state’s dime.

Of course, Alaska hasn’t got on board with the Medicaid expansion. Considering that the pregnancy rates for Alaskan girls 15-17 is 25%, that might want to rethink that. The infant mortality rate among Alaska Native Indians is 8.5%, which is almost twice the rate as among white women. This, too, could be positively impacted by expanding Medicaid. But the Republicans in Alaska’s legislature would rather make their constituents suffer just to spite President Obama and his “socialist” health care.

But let’s be honest, here. Sen. Pete Kelly really doesn’t care about women. He apparently is concerned about fetal alcohol syndrome and that’s great. But his reasoning on how to deal with it is faulty, to say the least. We all know that it would be much better — and work better — if contraceptives were free and easily available. But, gosh, that would only encourage those irresponsible women to have sex. I guess Sen. Pete Kelly forgot that it takes an irresponsible man to cause a pregnancy, too.

Sen. Pete Kelly is just the latest misogynistic Republican to take a shot in the GOP war on women. Remember this, ladies, next November. We can get rid of these men by voting them out. Register, vote and tell your friends to do the same. Enough of this!