Washington mudslide

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. At least 14 people have died in a mudslide in Washington state. Many more are still missing.

From Seattle/CBSLocal “The search for survivors of a deadly Washington state mudslide grew Monday to include scores of people who were still unaccounted for as the death toll from the wall of trees, rocks and debris that swept through a rural community rose to at least 14.

In the struggle to find loved ones, family members and neighbors used chain saws and their bare hands to dig through wreckage that was tangled by the mud into broken piles.

Authorities said they were looking for more than 100 people who had not been heard from since the disaster about 55 miles northeast of Seattle. They predicted that the number of missing would decline as more people are found safe. But the startling initial length of the list added to the anxieties two days after a mile-wide layer of soft earth crashed onto a cluster of homes at the bottom of a river valley.”

_______________________________________

2. The failed results of this administration’s “smart” diplomacy. Failed state, failed diplomacy. We should never have gotten involved.

From HotAir “An anniversary passed this week that went almost completely unremarked — and for good reason. March 17th marked the three-year anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop the Moammar Qaddafi regime from attacking rebel-held Benghazi and Ajdabiya, and the three-year anniversary on the 19th of the NATO war on Libya. French, British, and American planes began bombarding the Qaddafi regime, an air war that would continue for months — while Barack Obama refused to request Congressional approval for it. Later, Obama would claim that Libya represented the smart model of Western intervention.

If so, why did these anniversaries pass unremarked? The Associated Press report on the status of Libya today gives a very good answer, although it is not written as such. Libya has become a failed state, where the government’s writ doesn’t run outside of its capital, and not even everywhere within that. Not only is it a dangerous place, but it is a danger to the surrounding nations in north Africa too:

Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking. The arms free-for-all fuels not only Libya’s instability but also stokes conflicts around the region as guns are smuggled through the country’s wide-open borders to militants fighting in insurgencies and wars stretching from Syria to West Africa.

The lack of control is at times stunning. Last month, militia fighters stole a planeload of weapons sent by Russia for Libya’s military when it stopped to refuel at Tripoli International Airport on route to a base in the south. The fighters surrounded the plane on the tarmac and looted the shipment of automatic weapons and ammunition, Hashim Bishr, an official with a Tripoli security body under the Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press.”

And as the author notes later, the Obama admin relied on the same type of groups for security in Benghazi, and in Egypt as well.

__________________________________________

3. Democrats are now using the tactic of disparaging military service to help win elections. Rather cowardly, not to mention ungrateful of them, if you ask me.

Also from HotAir “In case you were wondering precisely how desperate Senate Democrats are getting as they watch the poll numbers shift and the pages of the calendar fall away toward November, the answer would appear to be, “a lot.” You can argue the relative merits of policy and legislation all day long and nobody will bat an eye, but who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to criticize your opponent for serving their country in the military? Well, two examples come to mind from recent weeks. The first was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) going after Tom Cotton.

There’s a disgusting pattern emerging of Democrats attacking Republican candidates’ records of service to the nation. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) recently complained that Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), his general election opponent, has a “sense of entitlement” because of his military service.

“There’s a lot of people in the Senate that didn’t serve in the military,” Pryor, who never served and is the son of a politician, told NBC News. “I think it’s part of this sense of entitlement that he gives off is that almost as like ‘I served my country, therefore elect me to the Senate.’ That’s not how it works in Arkansas.”

A “sense of entitlement” for mentioning your service record? That takes some serious chutzpah. It had the Morning Joe crew shaking their heads in disbelief.”

___________________________________________

4. Remember the old days when college campuses were the place to engage in debate, and all points of view were heard and considered, that whole free exchange of ideas thing?

Yeah, good times….. Nowadays you might get assaulted by a professor for not towing the liberal line.

From TheCollegeFix “The University of California-Santa Barbara professor who allegedly assaulted a pro-life student on campus has been charged with criminal battery.

The College Fix reported on March 12 that department of feminist studies professor Mireille Miller-Young, whose research emphasis is black studies, pornography, and sex work, had been caught on camera assaulting a 16-year-old student, Thrin Short.

Miller-Young led a small mob that approached a group of pro-life demonstrators who were holding signs. The mob chanted “tear down the sign.” Miller-Young then grabbed one of the signs and stormed off with it, eventually engaging in a physical altercation with 16-year-old Short, one of the pro-life demonstrators, when Short tried to retrieve the stolen sign.

The confrontation took place in the university’s designated “free speech area.”

The irony is strong with this one….

__________________________________________

5. The DoJ is trying to convince the Supreme Court that preventing an embryo in the womb from implanting is not abortion.

From CNSNews “The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion–n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.

It is in the context of this case, that the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother’s womb is not an abortion.”

__________________________________________

6. This one is just disgusting. Talk about inhumane.

From TheTelegraph/UK “The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.”

_________________________________

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.

I also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?

Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.

As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99