Benghazi and why it still matters

As I have talked about in another post, recently American troops in Niger were ambushed during the course of their mission in that country and four soldiers were killed.  The left has, of course, wasted no time in trying to use these men as political props just like they always do, most notably in the furor stirred up by partisan clown and utter embarrassment Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida regarding the phone call to a soldier’s family.  The call was nothing but respectful but that doesn’t stop Li’l Miss Rodeo from conjuring up a scenario wherein the President of the United States had nothing better to do than call a grieving widow and insult her, nor does it stop millions of lockstep leftists from believing Wilson’s sick fairy tale.  But among the reprehensible comments being slung around about what is a tragic but not surprising aspect of military service is the statement by Ms. Wilson that the Niger ambush “is Trump’s Benghazi.”  Of course leftist idiots spent years following the Benghazi attack holding up other terrorist attacks that happened under Republican presidents as if they were making some kind of sensible comparison between the two.

They weren’t.  They still aren’t.  And here’s why.

What the left is desperate to conceal and minimize about Benghazi is not the fact that four Americans (three servicemen and one ambassador) were killed there.  As they often do, the left mixes a little bit of truth in with their much bigger lie to give it something solid to stand on, and that’s what they are doing when they compare Benghazi to, say, Beirut, or now when they try to compare Niger to Benghazi.  They do this in part because dead soldiers are a tragedy that resonates with normal American people, so the argument has legs.  In fairness that’s why we point to the four men who died at the compound in Benghazi as well and then go from there to the details.  But the scandal of Benghazi is not simply about American lives lost.  It’s about why they were lost and what the President did about it.

As is common knowledge at this point, on September 11, 2012, in the home stretch of the presidential race and on the eleventh anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, the American complex in Benghazi Libya came under attack by heavily-armed local extremists.  The siege of the compound lasted over eight hours during which time a handful of soldiers and security bravely held off the attackers and protected the ambassador while waiting for help that never came.  Rapid response units nearby were ready to roll out and come to the rescue but were told to stand down (and yes, the order was given).  Some of the men who perished did so when they were killed by mortar fire from emplacements that they were targeting with laser guidance systems in the vain hope that help was moments away.  After the battle was over, the consulate compound was left unsecured and wide-open for days.

While Americans were dying in Libya, looking to the skies for help that was not coming, Whatshisname was on his way to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas and Secretary of State Pantsuit was nowhere to be found.  Even after the debacle of the attack, they could have stopped the bleeding by acknowledging something remotely resembling the truth, admitting that they underestimated the attackers or thought the reinforcements would arrive too late or anything really, but what Whatshisname and Dr. Pantsuit did (and sent their drone Susan Rice to the Sunday morning shows to repeat over and over again) was claim that the attack happened…because of an internet video on YouTube.  They blamed a crappy movie that nobody watched for this “spontaneous” protest on the other side of the planet, and as the bodies of the soldiers who died came home Dr. Pantsuit sternly promised their families that they would “get the person who made that awful video.”

Now, this video thing is more important than it might sound.  I’ll remind you that at this point we were less than two months away from the Presidential election, and at this point Whatshisname had been running on the myth that he had killed Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda died with him, and that militant Islam was on the run in the Middle East all thanks to his “smart diplomacy.”  The reality of course was that Whatshisname gave up all the ground and progress won under George W. Bush and Dr. Pantsuit ignored the pleas and warnings from Moammar Qaddafi that if she took him out, the radicals would take his place.  But as she quite sickeningly laughed about later, “We came, we saw, he died.”  They had to deflect the cause of this attack onto something.  So rather than blame militant Islamists and accept responsibility for letting them get out of control, they tried (and they repeated this lie almost as much as “if you like your plan you can keep your plan”) to blame the attack on Islamophobia.  The maker of the video, who did have probation conditions that forbade him from using the internet for some reason, was arrested and imprisoned for violation of his probation, and Whatshisname’s administration brushed off their lapels and tried to call the matter settled.

But they weren’t fooling anyone who wasn’t willing to be fooled and they knew it.  Details came out about Benghazi and its aftermath that raised questions that remain unanswered to this day, about why the militants attacked there, about what was going on in that consulate, about why it took so long to secure the compound after the attack.  We may never know the answers because the press and the Democrat-controlled State Department covered everything up and lied about it all until people got bored.  As the fall campaigns came to a close, Mitt Romney delivered a knockout performance in the first presidential debate that had even Whatshisname’s devotees afraid that their idol was going down.  In the second debate, normally timid and reserved Romney hit Whatshisname with an unexpected haymaker about the Benghazi incident which by any rights should have had Whatshisname on the ropes, except that moderator Democratic tag-team partner Candy Crowley jumped in with incorrect information and set Romney back on his heels, allowing Whatshisname to recover.  Fraud was so blatantly rampant in that election that it’s questionable whether Crowley’s save made any difference but the narrative was boosted and the issue taken off the table.  Benghazi was downplayed as a witch hunt or an exaggeration or both until people got bored.

The scandal of Benghazi is not now nor has it ever been the deaths of the four men there.  Those deaths are tragic and those men are heroes, but to paraphrase President Trump, they knew what they signed up for.  What they did NOT sign up for was to be abandoned and sacrificed to prop up a political myth for the benefit of Whatshisname.  They did not volunteer to defend their country only to have their country make excuses for the animals who murdered them and go after an American citizen as a scapegoat.  They were ALLOWED to die in order to protect a secret we still haven’t uncovered.  For God’s sake, the survivors were put under strict gag orders and threatened into silence.  Yes, it’s possible that the ultimate explanation will be simple dereliction of duty, incompetence in the White House and State Department, and a desperate effort to keep a campaign catchphrase alive long enough to get over the finish line (with the help of a few hundred thousand fraudulent votes of course).  If that’s the case then the scandal is that the last administration got caught with its pants down and its foreign policy was shown to be a disaster, and they had no problem lying their backsides off to try to cover for their stupidity.  Nobody did that in Beirut, nobody’s doing that in Niger, despite what opportunists and jackasses like Frederica Wilson and John McCain are trying to claim.

I’m going to close out here with Bill Whittle’s video about Benghazi from 3 years ago.  I maintain that we will never know what was really going on there and much like Dr. Pantsuit’s email scandal, the real question is what were they trying to keep hidden, what is the real scandal that the scandalously incompetent response to the attack has so far successfully kept buried?  To put it as simply as I can, Benghazi is not about the loss of four men, but it is about the lies and the failures and God knows what else that the last administration was willing to leave those brave men to die over.  They laid down their lives for their country only to be sacrificed and abandoned for a political narrative.  That’s the core of the outrage over Benghazi.  That’s what makes it different.

As promised, Bill Whittle:

Advertisements

With eyes wide open

Once more the offense-seeking fake news is taking advantage of something President Trump said to try to gin up a scandal, and it’s really just another attempt to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.  The President remarked in regard to one of the soldiers who died in an ambush in Niger that “he went into it with his eyes open.”  For some reason, this is being blasted as “disrespectful” and “insensitive.”

There’s no gentle way to say this: bull f**king s**t.  This was an acknowledgement that these soldiers go into service knowing that they are putting their lives on the line and a respectful nod to the risks they take, willingly and intelligently.  In no way was it “eh, kid brought it on himself.”  The President was plainly honoring the decision this young man and his comrades made to take on the burden of protecting American interests while at the same time noting that such awareness didn’t ease the pain of losing him.

I don’t care what some grandstanding Democratic ghoul can claim or some family members come forth and say when they likely didn’t like President Trump in the first place, President Trump’s comments were nothing but respectful.  You people want to stand on the grave of your own loved one to take a swipe at the President, that’s on your heads.  That’s beyond contemptible.

I got your back, bro

Just wanted to take a moment to point out something important about troll fighting.  When you’re on a comment board and you see a friend and colleague engaging with an ignorant hate-filled leftist troll, do ’em a solid and at least throw some upvotes their way.  It’s fine if you don’t feel like engaging with the retard and in fact it’s often best if you can ladder responses off of one comeback–some of these jerks actually do get paid by how many conservatives they’re able to aggravate into replying to their drivel.  Be aware of that.  Tag-teaming a troll (or outright ganging up on them) both neutralizes this and can be a hell of a lot of fun.

And never forget, when you’re “arguing” with a troll, you won before you ever engaged because you were right in the first place.  So just toy with them as you see fit.  But it helps boost your allies’ morale when they see others joining in the action and assisting with the pointing and laughing.  This is incidentally why these trolls will usually hit you on threads that are a few days or even weeks old, it’s less likely that anyone will come by to watch you destroy them, much less cheer you on.  The idea is to make you feel alone and isolated while they mock you.  Don’t fall for it.  Know their tactics so you can react and respond appropriately.

To everyone who has upvoted me or chimed in with me when I’ve gone a few rounds with these repulsive morons, I appreciate your support and I do my best to provide backup whenever I can.  Taking out this trash can be a thankless pursuit and it’s always nice to see when I’m not the only one on the battlefield.

It’s not as if they know what’s in the rest of the Constitution anyway

Recently there has been a lot of noise made over the provision in the 25th Amendment, which established a procedure for removal of a President should he become mentally ill (i.e. crazy) in office and refuse to step down.  While this seems like one of those things that ought to flash up over Twitter and maybe even make the news once or twice before being shot down like a B-1 over Dresden, the leftists who like to make the Constitution up as they go seem to think this has some potential.  They’ve been on this tangent for more than three months now and they’re not letting it go, to the point where it is gaining on the whole “Russian collusion” nonsense story.

Look people, I can possibly entertain the idea that President Trump has said some things that are embellished, not completely true, or are otherwise what you could call “lies.”  Some people call him a compulsive liar and that’s utterly bogus as well as laughable coming from people who supported Dr. Pantsuit after “I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia” and “I totally won the Democratic primary fair and square” and “Benghazi was about an internet video” and “I won the popular vote–pay no attention to the fact that I got four million more votes than my party did” and on and on for days.  It does matter what you’re “lying” about–“I had the biggest inauguration crowd ever” isn’t even in the same sports league, let alone ballpark, as “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” or “this deal prevents Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons” or “hands up don’t shoot.”  You’ll notice that the inauguration crowd line is the one the “Trump’s a liar” babies come back to time and time again.  I don’t think President Trump incorrectly bragging about his inaugural crowd size wrecked the economy, put nukes in the hands of jihadists, or threw gasoline on racial strife.

But putting the “lying” issue aside (because it’s really a bad joke), the 25th is specifically about “unfitness.”  Which has been more or less correctly read as “crazy.”  I have been asking this for months now–just what exactly has the President done that can be considered “crazy?”  In my not-so-humble opinion the last administration was fruitier than a nutcake and did so many things that just defy not only logic and good sense but sanity as well, and they did it in the name of undermining American power and exceptionalism, but nobody even suggested deploying the 25th Amendment any more than anyone seriously talked impeachment even though either one would have been appropriate.  Hell, these retards have been acting like they’re the Hardy Boys discovering a previously unexplored part of the Constitution that just might mean they can get rid of President Trump, but the only people who think he’s crazy are the crazies who were ready to elect Dr. Pantsuit.

Seriously, these people just look silly when they think they understand the Constitution.  President Trump is not crazy any more than President Reagan had dementia in office like the left claimed.  If you ask me and millions of other Americans, he’s the most sane president we’ve had in a generation.

President Trump goes it alone

After months of waiting for the supposed Republican majority in the House and (particularly) the Senate to get off their collective behinds, stop kowtowing to the Democrats, and actually repeal the Unaffordable Don’t-Care Act like they said they wanted to for years, President Trump has been left with little or no other alternative than to act as unilaterally as the powers of the President alone will allow.  And lo and behold, the last president did enough that he was not technically allowed to do (so say federal courts, no less) that it appears that President Trump may have been able to deal a deathblow to the beast singlehandedly.

I’m going to link back to two posts I made back in July, The Cruz Amendment and Skinny will do, and one from all the way back in March, Un-wrecking the train.  As I said back then, much as I am and have always been in favor of status quo ante repeal, it’s a plain fact that either the Cruz Amendment or the “skinny” repeal would have gotten the job done.  I have said for a long time that the three most important things to do to destroy this monstrosity are to get rid of the mandates, get rid of the subsidies, and reintroduce real choice and competition to the insurance market.  These unilateral actions by the President cannot do things like allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (at least I don’t think they can) and he cannot simply repeal the mandate by himself either.  However, by allowing insurance companies to sell “less comprehensive” plans (translation: cheaper plans that cover what the buyer wants to cover) and charge reduced premiums based on that reduced coverage, that injects a huge dose of competition back into a system that desperately needs it.  You still technically have a mandate to buy insurance but with this modification it comes more in line with auto insurance–you can choose to pay for full coverage or you can choose to get bare-bones liability only.  This is HUGE.  It’s also essentially what the Cruz Amendment was.

Couple that with the removal of the illegal subsidies to both insurers and “low-income” insurance buyers.  The Unaffordable Don’t-Care Act approved Cadillac plans won’t be able to soften the blow of their ridiculous rates with “subsidies” that just mean your unborn grandchildren will be paying for your birth control (ironic ain’t it?), nor will insurance companies who all love and support this dumpster fire be able to ride out the storm until (they hope) they can get rid of President Trump in 2020.  Crony socialism just got its guts ripped out.

Some folks are asking “why didn’t the President do this before?  Why did he wait until now?”  The answer is simply at this point he has no other options.  Up until just recently the hope and expectation was that the GOP majority would take advantage of budget reconciliation and their numbers and do a full-fledged repeal-and-replace, but due to a couple of senators whining about “bipartisanship” (and Rand Paul digging in for some inscrutable reason) the window of opportunity closed to get that done.  There are things that could have been and could still be done to make massive improvements as well as speed the demise of the monster, and maybe after 2018 we’ll have enough of the rotten meat cleaned out of the kitchen to make us some hamburgers, but for right now this is a hell of a good start.  Congress had their chance to fuss about the last president’s overreach and in some places they did, but not nearly enough.  They had a chance to play ball and do what their constituents told them to do and most of them tried, but enough of them didn’t.  So our quarterback just ran this one in for a touchdown.

Stuff I’m getting bored with

Gonna try to distill a few pieces of recent events news to their core elements in the hopes that we can be done with them.  I know, lots of people aren’t done rubbernecking as they pass the gruesome car wreck but I got places to be.

The Harvey Weinstein thing isn’t about Harvey Weinstein.  Every actor and actress and publicist and Hollywood ghoul creeping out now to say “hey yeah he came on to me too” is just adding themselves to the pile of people who have precisely no credibility now to whine about made-up “sexual assault.”  I don’t care what Weinstein did and never really have, and if it surprises or offends you then you really haven’t ever paid attention to the kind of people who inhabit Hollywood.  Weinstein might pull a Roman Polanski and skip the country or he might end up buried under the jail, or he might just get memoryholed and written off like he never existed, but he’s not the real news here, and the more the Hollywood left attempts to make him the scapegoat for all their hypocrisy the deeper they mire themselves in their own swamp.  So please stop breathlessly telling me who said what or who just joined Harvey’s accusers, it’s been pretty well established that everyone knew about it, and nobody did a thing because his leftist cred was in good standing.  I’ll grant that it’s amusing to watch the left’s attempts to sacrifice him on their own altar backfire, but the accompanying virtue signalling is making it all just tedious.

Roger Goodell sent out a letter to the owners of the NFL recommending that everybody stand for the national anthem.  For some reason, my friend and mentor Rush Limbaugh decided to attribute that to the pressure exerted by the President and complained that, much as President Trump is in the right, this is the start of a slippery slope that is unsettling to Rush.  I never thought I’d say this publicly, but Rush is wrong.  President Trump took no legislative or executive action to put pressure on Goodell, and the most he can be accused of doing is making a suggestion to his supporters.  There’s nothing wrong with the President doing that.  Meanwhile, if you think that Goodell bowed to pressure from President Trump then you clearly don’t remember him wailing about how he was going to explain to his wife and daughters that Dr. Pantsuit was not going to be crowned queen.  Goodell took this action for one simple reason: economics.  Butts in seats, eyes on screens.  The fans have been telling the NFL to take a hike if they’re going to take a knee and hitting them in the wallets where it really hurts.  That’s the motivation here, not Presidential pressure.

President Trump has suggested that fake news broadcasters’ licenses might not be renewed by the FCC.  First of all, I’d just as soon the FCC butted out of granting licenses altogether and just served as a traffic cop making sure no one overrides anyone else’s assigned frequency.  If the practice of granting licenses (and with it making a determination about “community good”) is Constitutional itself (which I would argue it isn’t but it’s on the books right now), then there’s not a damned thing wrong with pointing out that broadcasters who promulgate and spread deliberate lies and falsehoods while suppressing the truth are not acting in the community good and are in fact just acting as propaganda and campaign apparati for the Democratic party.  “Free speech” isn’t being impeded and neither is freedom of the press, and comparing this to something Whatshisname might have tried to do or something Billy Jeff did try to do (the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”) is a false equivalency.  The fake news dinosaur media is not just engaging in protected speech, they’re promoting outright lies.  That’s not a matter of opinion, that’s objective fact.  As long as the FCC gets to decide what’s “community good” and what isn’t, then you’re damned right that willfully spreading lies and committing deliberate slander ought to get your license to utilize public airwaves denied for renewal.

As tedious as his films

A lot of people seem to be having a lot of fun watching the Harvey Weinstein train wreck, as more and more Hollywood dwellers (big names and small) come out of the woodwork to join the chorus of piranha feasting on his bloated corpse.  What’s mindblowing to me about this is how many people are acting like it was some big earth-shaking revelation that a Hollywood liberal would do stuff like this, and an equally big revelation that other Hollywood leftists (feminists in particular) would just look the other way.

It makes me want to ask these people if they’ve ever heard of William Jefferson Clinton.  He was kind of a big deal about 25 years ago, you know.

Honestly, I’m really kind of bored and not shocked or shaken in the least by all of this.  It’s just what the left does, and I’ve explained why they are all turning on him with a hypothesis that seems more accurate with each passing day.  He’s simply lost his mojo (which in his case was apparently all financial) and now he’s worth more to his masters as a punching bag than he is as a goon.  It’s amusing watching them eat their own as well as a little reassuring–we as Republicans will take out our trash when we find it, and when we kick you out of the clubhouse we do it for things we really do believe in, not just pay lip service to and decide you’re not useful for anymore.  There’s no loyalty among the rabid left–the only reason a similar reckoning has never happened for Billy Jeff is because that would take Dr. Pantsuit and any hopes these idiots might have for Chelsea.  It’s okay, the syphilis train’s coming for him.

The lefties keep desperately trying to deflect this off onto President Trump somehow but it’s not working, anyone who isn’t beyond redemption can see that they’re not even in the same time zone.  The fact is the Weinstein thing is not really about Weinstein himself, but about the miles-long line of card-carrying pink-hat-wearing feminists who knew about his behavior and the behavior of so many others like him and did nothing.  Said nothing.  It strains all credibility to have people like Angelina Jolie and Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow come out now and claim that they could never ever have said anything before this point–for God’s sake they and others like them were way beyond Weinstein’s reach more than a decade ago.  Don’t give me this crap.  The Hollywood left is getting a spotlight shined on its collective hypocrisy and it’s burning them like sunlight on vampires, but don’t delude yourselves.  It might be fun and amusing to watch this reprehensible scumbag get spit-roasted by his onetime allies and to listen to them howl and scream and distance themselves but at the end of the day they’ll still prattle on about their “Republicans are waging a war on women” twaddle just as loudly as ever.  The dinosaur media complex will go into damage control mode just as soon as is practical (they’ve already been showing reruns of the retarded Access Hollywood tape as if it’s some sort of rebuttal) and the memoryholing of Harvey Weinstein will continue apace.  Don’t expect changes out of this.

More than that, however…Harvey Weinstein is a festering pile of scumsucking filth because he’s a leftist who promotes socialism and baby murder.  That’s why I despise the man and celebrate his downfall.  But as for his behavior, to pretend that these “abused” starlets were in any way surprised or had no agency in what took place in his private offices is as dishonest as it is insulting.  Nobody was forced to meet with him.  The fact is that every one of these pretty bubbleheads went to Hollywood to sell a commodity, and Weinstein was buying.  Anyone who has ever gone on a stage knows that there’s a very thin line between where you think your boundaries are and where they actually end up being.  A common expression is “there is no modesty in the theater” and when you get far enough into that mindset you can detach yourself far enough from the character you’re portraying that it doesn’t bother you how ridiculous you might look or how exposed you might be.  These women went to Hollywood to sell their bodies as surely as if they were walking the streets and working the corners like the thousands of girls who don’t make the cut.  It’s been said that everybody knew about this for years in Hollywood but the truth is literally everybody has known about this for decades and it should not come as a surprise to anyone.  This is the ride you sign up for.  Child actors like Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood have come out and told horror stories about what happened to them and others like them in Hollywood, but child actors can plead innocent ignorance.  Adults cannot, not if they expect to be taken seriously.  Stop pretending like you were an unwitting lamb among wolves who could not simply say no and go home to bag groceries and be a housewife.  I hate to side with Donna Karan but yeah, you kind of were “asking for it” in a business sense.  Weinstein’s responsible for his actions and so are you, and you made a deal like a competent adult, with your eyes open.  You took the benefit.  Don’t cry to me that you don’t like the terms thirty years later.

I honestly wonder how many of these untalented painted pretty girls skipped to the head of the line because they were willing to take what Weinstein and those like him offered, and pay his price, and how many better women than them went home in disappointment and/or disgrace to admit to mom and dad that they were right.  Or did they all really believe they were being judged on their “merits?”

California out-Californias itself

The California legislature has passed and Governor Moonbeam Brown has signed legislation de-criminalizing the act of engaging in sexual activity while HIV positive without disclosing that they are infected.  In other words, you can screw while you have HIV now and you don’t have to tell your partner.  It’s also no longer criminal to donate blood without disclosing you are HIV-positive.

There are no words for how heinous this is.  But of course, the left’s objective is to get as many people infected with this politically-correct disease as possible.  I remember some AIDS activist (don’t remember who) complaining that no one was going to pay any attention to the disease until straight white girls started contracting it.  I also remember plans by other AIDS activists to sneak their tainted blood into blood banks during high-demand periods like right after a disaster.  I remember a hemophiliac kid named Ryan White in the late 80s-early 90s who they succeeded in infecting and subsequently made their poster child until his death.  HIV/AIDS already soaks up a grossly disproportionate share of government research funding relative to the population who is affected by it, largely because of an equally grossly untruthful propaganda campaign in the 80s.

There are, amazingly enough, plenty of people who have no delusions about the nuthouse California’s legislature is who are dumbfounded by this action and wondering aloud just what the hell they could be thinking.  It’s simple really.  HIV is a politically correct ailment.  It primarily (like in high-90s percentages) afflicts members of a grievance group, namely, men who engage in homosexual acts with other men (statistical fact, Jack).  Because of this, contracting it in itself will make you a member of a grievance group as well.  It is apparently true that it has been brought under better control in the past couple of decades but it’s still a long and lingering death sentence.  It is literally an embodiment of irresponsibility and this new law is the most brazen effort yet to force society to say not just that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, but that it actually makes you superior.  Your feelings of embarrassment or exclusion take precedence over the right of the people around you to not be willfully exposed to your deadly disease.

Seriously, think this through.  Not even going to address the sexual partners thing, if you’re donating HIV-positive blood to a blood bank, you’re not only giving (or in some cases selling) something useless, but you’re contaminating good blood in the process.  You are literally causing there to be less usable blood by adding your infested blood to the pool.  Why the hell should anyone be allowed to do this?  The only answer is that you belong to a privileged class.  To the left, the feelings of an HIV patient (especially a typical one) are more important than the lives he will ruin or destroy by spreading his disease.  When you consider that the left has been propping up abortion for years, which is the convenience and/or feelings of the mother being more important than the horrible, brutal death of the child she has killed, this really makes a lot more sense in a sick way.

People are pointing out that the same morons pushing for this are backing confiscatory gun control, which would almost be laughable if they weren’t dead serious.  They also have the gall to blather about how “HIV is not a crime” as if anyone ever suggested that.

Between their outright defiance of federal immigration law and the insanity of their blood donation policies, the push for California’s secession might have burned out, but they’re acting like they’re their own country anyway–and they cannot be allowed to continue.  Just like allowing illegal aliens “sanctuary” will not just affect California, this act stands a very real chance of spreading a deadly contagion not just throughout their own state but the rest of the country too.  It’s gotten to the point where they either need to be stopped or they need to be excised like the cancer they are.

EDIT: I need to make a correction.  The California bill apparently does NOT completely de-criminalize knowingly exposing someone to HIV, but rather, it reduces it from a felony to a misdemeanor.  Which…really isn’t a whole hell of a lot better.  When you consider that felony battery usually means any sort of injury such as breaking the skin or chipping a tooth (nevermind actual permanent harm or broken bones), getting a misdemeanor for intentionally exposing someone to a deadly virus is indefensible.