President Trump’s State Department has told the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to get along without U.S. financial support. There are people who think this is a bad idea. I’m not one of them. Neither is Reggie Littlejohn.

I met Reggie very briefly a couple of years ago, when we were speakers at a pro-life convention in New Hampshire. My job was to talk about effective use of social media. Reggie’s job was to talk about China’s coercive abortion policy. She got better billing – and deserved it. Her stories were compelling and persuasive.

She became interested in Chinese policy when as an attorney she represented a Chinese woman seeking political asylum in the United States. It was Reggie’s first exposure to the wretched effects of the One-Child Policy: forced abortion, forced sterilization, and gender imbalance as boys are more valued culturally than girls. The revelations changed her life. She later established Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an international coalition dedicated to fighting forced abortion in China.

Wherever she speaks, she points out the support China’s policies have received from UNFPA. She has called repeatedly for U.S. de-funding of the organization. She released a statement the other day when de-funding was finally announced.

“We are thrilled that the U.S. is no longer funding forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.  The blood of Chinese women and babies will no longer be on our hands. My very first press release, in 2009, was entitled ‘You Are Funding Forced Abortions in China.‘ I have consistently advocated for the defunding of UNFPA over the years…

“The UNFPA clearly supports China’s population control program, which they know is coercive. Under China’s One (now Two) Child Policy, women have been forcibly aborted up to the ninth month of pregnancy. Some of these forced abortions have been so violent that the women themselves have died, along with their full term babies. There have been brutal forced sterilizations as well, butchering women and leaving them disabled. Where was the outcry from the UNFPA? In my opinion, silence in the face of such atrocities is complicity.   Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ‘In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.’ The UNFPA’s silence in the face of decades of forced abortion has been a sword in the wombs of millions of women and babies of China. I rejoice with them that the foot of the UNFPA is finally off of their necks.”

Well done, Mr. President.

I remember listening to Reggie speak around the time China shifted to a Two-Child Policy. She was unimpressed by the change. “What matters is they’re telling people how many kids to have and they’re enforcing it with forced abortions.” She elaborated on that in a 2015 press statement about the policy shift.

“Characterizing this latest modification as ‘abandoning’ the One-Child Policy is misleading. A two-child policy will not end any of the human rights abuses caused by the One Child Policy, including forced abortion, involuntary sterilization or the sex-selective abortion of baby girls….Noticeably absent from the Chinese Communist party’s announcement is any mention of human rights. The Chinese Communist Party has not suddenly developed a conscience or grown a heart. Even though it will now allow all couples to have a second child, China has not promised to end forced abortion, forced sterilization, or forced contraception.

“…In a world laden with compassion fatigue, people are relieved to cross China’s one-child policy off of their list of things to worry about. But we cannot do that. Let us not abandon the women of China, who continue to face forced abortion, and the baby girls of China, who continue to face sex-selective abortion and abandonment. The one-child policy does not need to be modified. It needs to be abolished.”

Let’s hear UNFPA speak up for Chinese women that way. Until then, the agency can get along without U.S. taxpayer support.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

Support independent journalism by hitting Da Tip Jar for Da Tech Guy Blog.

by baldilocks

Right now, I’m re-reading Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage. More accurately, I’m reading it to its end this time—not yet reached. It’s a history of Left Wing activist/terror era of the late 1960s and the 1970s, featuring these well-known players: Students for a Democratic Society, Weather Underground, the Black Panthers (old-school version) and the Black Liberation Army. There may be other major organizational players, but I haven’t reached the point in the book where they are named.

Individual actors are also very well-known: William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, and so forth.

Without going into Leftist activism’s crimes during that era, suffice it to say that they failed to reach their short-term goals due to two things: arrogance and ineptitude—a recipe for failure which, often, has death as a side dish.

Looking back on what has happened since those days—especially with Dorhn and Ayers being the political “god”parents of former President Barack Obama—one “wonders” if the Organized Left found a more strategically effective way to destroy the American system that they repeatedly declared to be their enemy. Bombing bathrooms and playing Underground games didn’t achieve much in that direction.

But how much damage to that system has the Obama Administration done to it? After all, infiltration of an enemy target achieves far more extensive destruction than bombardment from the outside.

I suspect that this is the lesson that Weather, etc. learned from their failures 45 years ago.

So, now we are seeing the results of the lesson. The Dohrn-Ayers strategy has yielded success; they blew up National Intelligence.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on April 2017! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

First the WaPo looked for dirt on Mike Pence, and all they could come up with was that fifteen years ago – in 2002 – he said he won’t have dinner alone with any woman other than his wife.

Now BuzzFeed and Politico both are accusing SCOTUS nominee judge Neil Gorsuch of plagiarism.

Politico says,

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, according to documents provided to POLITICO.

Provided by whom?, you may ask, since they clearly state “POLITICO did not conduct a full examination of the federal judge’s writings.”

Jay Caruso notices that, in the passage that Politico posted with rainbow-colored highlights,

Politico is criticizing Gorsuch for using source material — the same source material Kuzma used — and not attributing it to Kuzma. Do you know who found the plagiarism accusation unpersuasive? Abigail Kuzma

Kuzma spells it out,

“I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the “Baby/Infant Doe” case that occurred in 1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.”

And why is that? Because Gorsuch went to Kuzma’s source – which defined,

Esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula means that the esophageal passage from the mouth to the stomach ends in a pouch, with an abnormal connection between the trachea and the esophagus.

Try changing that language without changing the definition of a medical condition.

BuzzFeed headlines, A Short Section In Neil Gorsuch’s 2006 Book Appears To Be Copied From A Law Review Article, with the following lede (emphasis added)

The section is just two paragraphs and accompanying footnotes, but it repeats language and sourcing from another work, a 1984 law review article.

The citations in question are from material published twenty years ago, and from Gorsuch’s 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, based on his Oxford dissertation.

Ed Whelan quotes,

Georgetown professor John Keown, one of the outside examiners of Gorsuch’s Oxford dissertation on which the book was based, calls the allegations of plagiarism “unsubstantiated” and praises the book as “meticulous in its citation of primary sources.” Further: “The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is very wide of the mark.”

Gorsuch was approved to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a voice vote in 2006. Now the Dems are ginning up a plagiarism smear to justify filibustering his nomination.

They would be pathetic if they were not so dishonorable.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

For me the most amazing thing about the Susan Rice story isn’t CNN using an Obama staffer as their go to guy on the story,  nor the media’s attempt to spin the story as nothing,  or President Obama playing with the “unmasking” rules to make it all possible, nor the her actions were laudable defense, the Washington Post’s tardy desire for an explanation, the possible involvement of the FBI in this farce, DeGenova’s revelations on “spreadsheets” , the fact that the White house doesn’t do investigations, CNN’s all out effort to first deny and then minimize the while thing,   or even Rice’s denials that the unmasking was improper , that is wasn’t political,

No the real revelation is best highlighted by this from Glenn Reynolds:

I TWEETED MAGGIE HABERMAN LAST NIGHT TO ASK IF IT WAS TRUE THAT SHE WAS SITTING ON THIS STORY, BUT SHE DIDN’T RESPOND

and this video via the American Thinker by Mike Cernovich

partially quoted by zero hedge:

“Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration.”

“Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vindicates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”

“I’m showing you the politics of ‘real journalism’. ‘Real journalism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”

What the revelation?  It’s apparently that the mainstream media, the media that once owned information and its decimation apparently learned nothing from the rise of Matt Drudge.

Twenty years ago Newsweek had the story of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They choose to sit on it and it instead went to Matt Drudge. It made Matt Drudge rich lead to a situation where twenty years later while Newsweek which has been sold several times for the price of a Whopper Jr, despite decades of history and being one of the most recognized names in news in the top 5000 web sites in the world (4910) and top 1700 (1679) according to Alexa in the US vs the drudgereport.com’s at 723 in the world and 156 in the US.

Even worse it’s spawned 100’s of other sites (like this one) that promote stories the MSM would like to bury or fact check the stories the media promoted that were once accepted as gospel. So unless you are talking something like the Khalidi tape of which there is only a single copy held by the LA Times (unless they’ve destroyed it by now) it is very difficult to keep a story away from anyone who has a link to the internet.

One might think that the last twenty years might have taught the media this but apparently it has not. The media hasn’t figured out that just because the liberal narrative isn’t publicly challenged in the newsroom conservatives don’t exist there. And while said conservatives at the NYT, Bloomberg or elsewhere might be silent to remain gainfully employed it doesn’t prevent them from dropping an email to a person when they see something they don’t like. As Don Surber put it:

The media has lost its power, but doesn’t realize it.

Of course there is the possibility that there is a different revelation here, one revealed by this post at Mike Cernovich’s site

Breaking his usual rule of never appearing on edited television, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich went on 60 Minutes to show a record 15 million people the power of real news. The result was 60 Minutes’ highest rated episode in almost a decade.

60 Minutes’ tops ratings for first time since 2008

 

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS’ “60 Minutes” returned this week to a familiar place it hadn’t been accustomed to visiting that much lately: first place in the prime-time television rankings.

 

The venerable newsmagazine hadn’t finished as the most-watched program of the week since November 2008, when newly elected Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down for the first TV interview since their election.

Cernovich’s appearance on 60 Minutes was a matter of great interest, with his many haters around the world expecting him to look bad in front of a record 15 million viewers.

Perhaps a lot of his enemies were watching to boost the numbers but in my mind it’s much more likely that instead of the normal niche market liberals that 60 minutes normally draws from, they instead were able to draw from the entire news consuming public, a public that might have been shocked to see a Network news anchor admit that they believed the word of the Clinton campaign without question.

If that’s the case why would a for profit organization, mired in a situation where their audience is diluted by a plethora of alternative choices , when showed the potential profit of drawing a whole new customer base choose to leave this source of revenue behind?  After all if goal as a news organization is to attract the maximum amount of viewers to generate the greatest possible profit by presenting credible news to the largest audience possible then such a choice is foolhardy and a sign that they have not learned a thing.

BUT if you goal is to advance a narrative favorable to a liberal niche of high power high power donors while be invited to the right parties etc, then it makes perfect sense as Stacy McCain and I explained six years ago…

Furthermore, consider how rich liberals are willing to act as “angels” toward their media pets. I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

As our friend Da Tech Guy points out, “profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown”:

She is part of a club, an elite . . . 
[W]hen people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”
It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great.

Yes, but what Pete overlooks is this: Being a magazine editor gave Brown enormous influence in deciding who belongs to the “in” crowd. And one hand washes the other: Does Mika Brzezinski crave favorable coverage from the Daily Beast? “Oh, let’s invite Tina Brown onto Morning Joe!”

if that the goal than do don’t care if you eschew the profits from a larger potential  audience in fact any smaller profit from liberal viewers or readers who choose to stick with you because you are unwilling to challenge their worldview is a bonus extra.


If you think it’s worthwhile to report stories that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.