{"id":34187,"date":"2015-12-03T20:04:16","date_gmt":"2015-12-04T01:04:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=34187"},"modified":"2015-12-03T20:04:24","modified_gmt":"2015-12-04T01:04:24","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-wednesday-december-2nd-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=34187","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015…but before we begin, consider our Quote of the Day above. \u00a0This isn’t a spoof; a sitting President of the United States, with his hand on the trigger of America’s nuclear deterrent and some 414 days left in office, actually said<\/em><\/span>\u00a0it. \u00a0Not only is this absolute ass’s assertion demonstrably false, it beggars belief he would utter it<\/em><\/span>. \u00a0As a wag once observed, and the following all-too-accurate satire from the great Stilton Jarlsberg reinforces, this<\/em><\/span> is some of that sh*t…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Barackalypse<\/a><\/p>\n

…you just can’t<\/em><\/span> make up!<\/b><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/b><\/p>\n

First up, since we’re on the subject of Dimocratic derangement, courtesy of NRO<\/em>‘s Morning Jolt<\/em>, Jim Geraghty highlights the insipid hypocrisy of Progressives as he details…<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

The On-Again, Off-Again Arguments about \u2018Dangerous Rhetoric\u2019 Leading to Violence<\/b><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\"image001\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

Let me get this straight. In the eyes of the Left<\/em><\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Criticism of Planned Parenthood means something like the shooting in Colorado \u201cwas bound to happen<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u201c…<\/span>but chants where people describe police as \u201cpigs\u201d and call for them to be \u201cfried like bacon\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span> don\u2019t<\/i> lead to attacks on police.<\/span><\/p>\n

When an event by Pamela Geller is targeted by an Islamist shooter, it is \u201cnot really about free speech; it [is] an exercise in bigotry and hatred<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u201d and the attempt to kill her means she has \u201cachieved her provocative goal\u201d…<\/span>while at the same time, investigators contend we may never know what motivated<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span> a 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga\u2019s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July.<\/span><\/p>\n

A shooting by a diagnosed schizophrenic, who believed that grammar was part of a vast, government-directed mind control effort,<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span> is characterized by the Southern Poverty law Center as having views that are the \u201challmark of the far right and the militia movement<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u201d…<\/span>while the shooter who opened fire in the lobby of the Family Research Council in downtown Washington in 2012, who planned to target the Traditional Values Coalition next<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>, does not spur any need for a broader discussion or societal lessons about the demonization of political opponents.<\/span><\/p>\n

A California killer, who was treated by multiple therapists and already had police checking on him after posting disturbing YouTube videos,<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span> is a reflection of \u201csexist society<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u201d…<\/span>but there\u2019s little reason to ask whether the Oregon shooter\u2019s decision to target Christians<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span> reflects a broader, societal hostility to Christians, or whether it reflects his personal allegiance to demons<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

When white supremacist Dylann Roof commits an act of mass murder in an African-American church, <\/i>Salon declares<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/em>, \u201cWhite America is complicit\u201d and the Washington Post <\/i>runs a column declaring, \u201c99 percent of southern whites will never go into a church, sit down with people and then massacre them. But that 99 percent is responsible for the one who does\u201d…<\/span>but the Roanoke shooter\u2019s endless sense of grievance and perceptions of racism and homophobia in all of his coworkers<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span> represents him and him alone . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

Do I have all that right?\u00a0(Yes!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span> And does that make sense<\/em> to anyone<\/em><\/span>?\u00a0(About as much as Barry’s belief in mahimahi swimming up the streets of Miami!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Wouldn\u2019t Occam\u2019s Razor suggest that those already driven by a desire or compulsion to kill other people are going to do so, and will merely latch on to whatever \u201creason,\u201d justification, or excuse is at hand or is most convenient? Isn\u2019t it ridiculous to expect sane people to watch what they say and restrict what thoughts they express in order to prevent a rampage by someone with an inherently illogical, literally unreasonable, not-sane thinking process?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t \u201cdon\u2019t say what you think, because it might set off a crazy person\u201d the most insidious form of censorship, because none of us can really know what prompts a crazy person to go on a violent rampage?<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Which makes it the perfect catch-all for Progressives preoccupied with prohibiting any<\/em><\/span> form of fact-based debate, a format in which they know they cannot possibly<\/em><\/span> prevail.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, James Taranto poses…<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Rhetorical Question<\/span><\/h1>\n

Why conciliate Muslims but antagonize pro-lifers?<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"gmc13713220151130033500\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Well, that <\/em>was predictable. \u201cAbortion rights advocates say the connection is clear<\/em><\/span>,\u201d reports the Washington Post:\u00a0(Yeah…and The Obamao says because of anthropogenic global warming, at high tide fish swim down the streets of Miami; doesn’t make it so!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Over the summer, a little-known antiabortion group called the Center for Medical Progress released a series of covertly filmed videos purporting to show that Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue, or \u201cbaby parts,\u201d as abortion foes refer to it, for research. The century-old nonprofit agency has denied wrongdoing, and state and congressional investigations have so far failed to produce proof supporting the allegations.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nevertheless, the casual and sometimes graphic conversations about abortion procedures captured on the videos have provided fodder for conservatives on Capitol Hill, in governor\u2019s mansions and on the presidential campaign trail to seek to strip the organization of government funding<\/span>.<\/span> The efforts have led to sometimes passionate commentary on the part of conservatives and Republicans against abortion and sharply critical of Planned Parenthood, striking a tone that abortion rights advocates say created an atmosphere that put clinic workers and patients at risk<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: On Friday a man started shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> By the time the suspect, Robert Dear, was in custody, he had allegedly killed a policeman and two civilians.<\/p>\n

…We\u2019ve<\/a><\/strong> heard this before<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>. And at least this time there is evidence, albeit far from conclusive, of a political motive: An anonymous \u201csenior law enforcement official\u201d tells the New York Times \u201cthat after Mr. Dear was arrested, he had said \u2018no more baby parts\u2019 in a rambling interview with the authorities<\/span><\/em>.\u201d But also<\/em><\/span>: \u201cThe official said that Mr. Dear \u2018said a lot of things<\/span>\u2019 during his interview, making it difficult for the authorities to pinpoint a specific motivation<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

National Review\u2019s Jim Geraghty notes that the left is rather selective in blaming political rhetoric for acts of violence\u2014for example, insisting there is no connection between Black Lives Matter protesters\u2019 foul antipolice rhetoric and actual attacks on cops. On the other hand, Colorado Springs isn\u2019t the first time the left has blamed a terroristic act on a video<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"t_1369_0\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But there\u2019s an additional problem with the video-made-him-do-it theory of the case. The CMP videos, at least the parts of them we\u2019ve seen, can\u2019t be called \u201chate speech\u201d by any stretch<\/span><\/em>. They are not<\/span> harsh denunciations of Planned Parenthood; they are expos\u00e9s<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> The words and actions that horrify abortion foes\u2014as well as decent people with more permissive views on abortion\u2014are uttered and described by current and former Planned Parenthood employees and business associates<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We were struck by the contrast between the left\u2019s responses to the Paris and Colorado Springs attacks. The former<\/span> <\/em>brought out a display of empathy toward Muslims<\/span><\/em>; the latter<\/em>, of antipathy toward pro-life Americans<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton: \u201cMuslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.\u201d It would be at least as true to say that pro-life Americans are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism\u2014but instead Mrs. Clinton responded to Colorado Springs with this false choice: \u201cWe should be supporting Planned Parenthood\u2014not attacking it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that\u2019s been coming out of here during the course of this debate [over accepting Syrian refugees],\u201d President Obama said Nov.\u00a017. \u201cISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why wouldn\u2019t a similar logic apply to the demonization of pro-life Americans in the aftermath of Colorado Springs? That\u2019s not a rhetorical question: The logic doesn\u2019t apply because the attacks were very different. The ones in Paris were carried out by an organization that unmistakably has religious motives and political goals. By all accounts the Colorado Springs killer was a lone nut.<\/span> There is no antiabortion terrorist organization to which to recruit anyone<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever the merits of his refugee policy, the president is right to reject \u201cthe idea that there is a war between Islam and the West,\u201d although it would be fatuous to deny that that is how Islamic supremacists see the matter. To judge by the reactions to Colorado Springs, though, many on the left really do regard Americans who oppose abortion<\/em><\/span>\u2014almost all of whom do so peaceably<\/em>\u2014as their enemy<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Which makes one wonder…seriously<\/em><\/span> wonder…whether the American Left is playing for the home team; a disturbing possibility we’d never have considered seven years ago, but which now seems more certain every day…and which this next item from NRO<\/em>‘s <\/b>Fred Fleitz only serves to support:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won\u2019t Admit It<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Jihadi-Lives-Matter\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…Clinton\u2019s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents \u2014 including many authorities of Islam \u2014 believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.<\/p>\n

…President Obama\u2019s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups \u2014 including the Muslim Brotherhood \u2014 is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization.<\/span>\u00a0(Insofar as he’s actually interested<\/em><\/span> in protecting<\/em> this country!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Clinton\u2019s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama\u2019s erroneous view and that her reference to an \u201cideological movement of radical jihadism\u201d is as meaningless as \u201cviolent extremism,\u201d the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"obama-lied\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Clinton\u2019s statement, \u201cI don\u2019t think we\u2019re at war with all Muslims. I think we\u2019re at war with jihadists,\u201d is similar to President Obama\u2019s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false<\/em><\/span> argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world\u2019s Muslims<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama\u2019s \u201c99.9 percent\u201d claim.<\/strong> <\/span>Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:<\/p>\n

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent<\/span> have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent<\/span>. Thirteen percent<\/span> have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span>…<\/em>“<\/p>\n

To paraphrase the late, great Samuel Clemons, there’s lies, damned lies…and then there’s Liberals and their statistics!<\/b><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, courtesy of the WSJ<\/em>, Douglas Feith identifies an obvious answer to a Syrian refugee “crisis” which is now costing some $64,000 per capita relocation…and heaven only knows how large a carbon footprint:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

An Obvious, Unused Home For Refugees<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

The Arabian Peninsula\u2019s oil-rich nations are oddly absent in talks about where those fleeing Syria can go<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"ATT00001\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ten thousand Syrian refugees should be brought to the U.S., President Obama says, because that\u2019s \u201cwho we are.\u201d Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessor, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, have used similar language to explain America\u2019s obligation. More than half of the nation\u2019s state governors have objected. On Nov. 20, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted, in effect, to block the administration\u2019s resettlement plan on security grounds.<\/p>\n

While the debate rages in the U.S., and as Europe struggles to cope with refugees streaming north, too little attention has been directed to the region where the refugees could best start life anew<\/em><\/span>: the Arabian Peninsula and its Arabic-speaking oil-rich countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Approximately 4.3 million Syrian civil-war refugees are now in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt, and registered with the United Nations. Vast camps attest to the refuge these countries have provided even though they struggle without the oil wealth of their neighbors<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"BN-LM466_dougfe_J_20151130123505\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The contrast is apparently becoming embarrassing.<\/strong><\/span> Saudi Arabia, through its Washington, D.C., embassy website, makes the astonishing claim that it has taken in 2.5 million Syrians since the civil war began in 2011. The U.A.E. ambassador insists that his country has admitted 100,000. Not all Syrian refugees are U.N.-registered, but if those claims were true, U.N. officials would publicly thank Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. for their help in this humanitarian crisis.<\/span> That hasn\u2019t happened<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Arab world\u2019s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria\u2019s refugees,\u201d the Washington Post reported in early September.<\/strong><\/span> Around that time Michael Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard\u2019s Kennedy School of Government, wrote in the New York Times: \u201cHow many Syrian refugees have the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia taken in? Zero. Many of them have been funneling arms into Syria for years, and what have they done to give new homes to the four million people trying to flee? Nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the West, some of the opposition to accepting the refugees has been racist. But it isn\u2019t bigoted to question the wisdom of trying to incorporate hundreds of thousands\u2014and perhaps several million\u2014refugees in the West when a more humane alternative exists<\/strong>…”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Not to mention far less expensive…and infinitely more logical!<\/strong><\/p>\n

And in the\u00a0Environmental Moment, even NBC<\/em> had to note the overabundance of hot air The Great Divider produced in Paris:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Obama Ignores ‘Wrap-It-Up’ Beeps, Talks and Talks at Climate Summit<\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"APTOPIX<\/a><\/p>\n

“Hey, what’s hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 and millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars between friends I’m unwilling to aid in the fight against non-Islamic global terror?!?”<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

President Barack Obama was met with what appeared to be the U.N.’s version of the Oscars’ “wrap-it-up” music Monday after he significantly overran his allotted time to speak at a global climate change summit.\u00a0Obama was one of 147 world leaders given a three-minute slot at the COP21 conference to outline their vision for the future of the planet.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>The president of the free world, however, had other ideas.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

More than eight and a half minutes into Obama’s address \u2014 and with no sign he was stopping soon \u2014 three beeps sounded across the auditorium, clearly audible to everyone present and watching on TV.\u00a0Organizers did not respond to NBC News’ requests for comment on the beeps, but the punctuating sounds appeared to be the conference’s not-so-subtle attempt to get Obama to wrap it up.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our responsibility in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it<\/em><\/span>,” Obama told the summit.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The beeps continued every 30 seconds, but the president plowed on.\u00a0“One of the enemies that we’ll be fighting at this conference is cynicism, the notion we can’t do anything about climate change,” he continued, seemingly undeterred by the regular interruptions over his speech.<\/p>\n

He called for the talks to work toward “a world that is worthy of our children” and also took time to pay tribute to the victims of this month’s Paris attacks.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

After 11 minutes, whoever was manning the “beep” button had clearly given up, and no more prompts were heard until Obama ended his epic discourse just shy of 14 minutes.\u00a0By the time he was done, he had spoken for nearly the length of time set aside for four world leaders.<\/span> If all 147 speakers had taken as long as Obama, their combined addresses would have lasted more than 33 hours.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And it was not as if he went off on a tangent in the heat of the moment; his prepared remarks released by the White House ran to more than 1,700 words<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Then there’s this truly must-read<\/em><\/span> missive from Politico<\/em>‘s European edition. \u00a0And remember before you read it, Politico sides decidedly with Progressives!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

The more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0*<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

* Which we guess makes us<\/span><\/em> happy as hell!!!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"GettyImages-459376778-snow-640x480\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Other than than the imminent period of global cooling?!?<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

“…But the more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be about the plan for Paris. With so much political capital and so many legacies staked to achieving an \u201cagreement\u201d \u2014 any agreement \u2014 negotiators have opted to pursue one worth less than\u2026well, certainly less than the cost of a two-week summit in a glamorous European capital<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Climate talks are complex and opaque, operating with their own language and process, so it\u2019s important to cut through the terminology and look at what is actually under discussion. Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming.<\/span> That image bears little resemblance to reality<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all<\/em><\/span>. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take.<\/span><\/strong> The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century<\/em><\/span>, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an \u201cIntended Nationally Determined Contribution\u201d (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond that, it\u2019s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics<\/span>, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong> <\/span>Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined \u201cbusiness-as-usual\u201d trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an \u201cimprovement\u201d from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected\u201cany obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 \u2014 and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

As the WSJ observes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Mr. Obama isn\u2019t negotiating a treaty<\/em><\/span>, because that would require two-thirds Senate ratification that he will never obtain.<\/span> Thus he can make any \u201cpolitical agreement\u201d finance promise he likes<\/em><\/span>. But no one outside the West Wing believes Congress will earmark a dollar for windmills in Guangzhou and dikes in the Maldives<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span>“<\/p>\n

All of which makes any agreement coming out of Paris the Environazi-equivalent of the Iran nuclear sham<\/a><\/em><\/span>. \u00a0Or, to put it another way, when it comes to anything<\/em><\/span> uttered by The Obamao, it’s safe to assume…<\/b><\/p>\n