FOX's Megyn Kelly Crushes MSNBC's Rachel Maddow In The Ratings

Megyn Kelly's FOX debut as the networks' prime time newscaster pitted her against MSNBC's top rated show, poster girl Rachel Maddow, in that time slot.

Last Tuesday, the day after its debut, “The Kelly File” doubled its audience, crushing “The Rachel Maddow Show,” in the ratings competition.

In fact, Kelly's ratings were so good, MSNBC chief Phil Griffin made a major stink, whining that Kelly's ratings were 'impossible'.

So Neilson conducted an investigation into the ratings for Kelly's show...and found them to be totally accurate.

I can't imagine why there was even a question. Aside from MSNBC's dubious content, just look at the two newscasters. Who would you rather watch read the news? Whose voice would you rather listen to?

FOX has always beaten MSNBC in the ratings anyway, simply because it is relatively fair and balanced and includes diverse points of view as opposed to the biased, Pravda-like regime touting echo chamber you get at MSNBC.

Maddow audience will likely continue to shrink as it narrows down to an audience composed of the True Believers, but that's about it.

Ted Cruz Destroys Obama Shill Candy Crowley On CNN

This is a superb lesson in how to handle a Leftist, partisan journalist in an interview when she tries at every opportunity to apply the old Alinsky rule of personalizing the target, in this case Ted Cruz.
You refuse to play that game, you don't allow them to make up their own 'facts', you hit back with real facts, and you turn the Alinsky rule right back on them to expose their bias. And you do it with a smile.

Well done, Senator!

I'd be very surprised if she had him back.

An Alternative Headline

The Soros funded Raw Story has a piece out   (h/t Memeorandum) on a story about an appearance by GOP  Rep. Justin Amash on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday show on ABC. It's headlined, "ABC News panel laughs out loud after GOP rep. says Obamacare delay is a ‘favor’ to Obama":



As usual, it's not a 'news panel', but one conservative versus 4 Democrat Lefties, counting the host, a devout Democrat who used to be one of President Clinton's spin doctors.

What Amash said that caused such merriment among the panel and the host is that since President Obama has delayed the employer mandates on ObamaCare (illegally, I might add), the Republicans, who hold a strong majority in the House would be doing him a favor by delaying the massively unpopular bill for everyone.

Here's my alternative headline for this story: "Biased News Host And Panel Show Lack Of Professionalism In Reaction To GOP Guest."

It's gotten so bad that they're not even bothering to pretend to be objective any more.

Obama Admin Leaks Tell Assad Bombing Details In Advance - ' Brief And Limited'

 

This is literally unbelievable,

The Obama Administration has apparently leaked the details of its planned 'action' against Syria.

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

Our men and women are going into harm's way and our ever clueless president and his minions have leaked the details to the press of where, when and how.

The Syrians don't even have to have spies. Any interested party with an internet connection now knows exactly what's coming. They even have a decent idea of what the targets are likely to be...so they have had ample  time to move anything they want to into safe locations and arrange anti-missile coverage and some nice, properly locked in anti-aircraft fire for any of our planes that participate.

The linked WSJ article makes the point that this could be deliberate disinformation, but I personally doubt it, based on the tsunami of leaks for political purposes that have come from this president and his administration in the past.

Both White House press secretary Jay Carney and State Department spokesperson Marie Harf have publicly announced that President Obama's goal is not regime change. And leaking the details has ensured that no real damage to Assad's military assets is going to occur.

So what exactly are we trying to accomplish here, besides more pumping up of President Obama's already overinflated ego as a foreign policy 'genius' and a useful political distraction from the scandals his administration is neck deep in? Oh yes....and to cover for his flapping his mouth about 'red lines'. Just like the doubling down in Afghanistan, we're spending U.S. blood and treasure to back up ill-conceived nonsense  rhetoric spouted by this president.

And another thing Americans ought to consider. We're attacking a sovereign nation, something that will justifiably be considered an act of war by Assad and Syria. Do a little research for yourself about Syria's long time use of terrorism as a weapon of politics and war in Lebanon and elsewhere. Read a bit about Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of Iran and Syria and some of the attacks they've accomplished all over the globe. Terrorism expert Stephen Emerson ( who based on his track record alone ought to be taken seriously)  has documented that there are Hezbollah cells right here in America.

Right now, Basher Assad, having been reassured by our president that the coming attacks are just political kabuki is in Tehran, talking to his Iranian allies, with whom Syria has a strong mutual defense treaty.

Among other things, do you have any doubt they're not talking about retaliation?

Wag the dog, indeed. Especially when any violent blowback is only going to affect the 'little people', who really don't count anyway, at least in this president's calculations.

The Media Covers For Another Obama Gaffe

Same stuff, different day as the Dinosaur media covers up for Obama again.

Here's what the president said on Jay Leno:

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

None of those ports are on the Gulf Coast..they are all on the Atlantic Ocean.

Guess how the shameless shills at the AP reported it?

"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs," Obama said.

Maybe the president was thinking these places are located someplace else in the 57 states he thinks we have.

Can you imagine how this would have been headlines if Sarah Palin had said it?

Al-Qaeda Attacks? But Obama Said They Were On The Run!!

 

"Osama bin-Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is on the run." - Barack Obama's stump speech, 2012.

Last Friday, a story surfaced about a great deal of al-Qaeda chatter about a specific threat  of a  'coming attack.'

Note that word, 'specific'. In this context, it means you have real knowledge of what, where, and who.

In response, the Obama Administration closed 21  US embassies throughout the Muslim world. Originally, this was supposed to be for one day, but it's been extended for a full week.

According to my sources, there was some evidence of  an actual order from the head of al-Qaeda, Ayman Zawahiri to none other than Nasir al Wuhayshi, head of AQAP ( al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) to carry out an attack...with no other specifics released.

For the past two years the American people been told that al-Qaeda had been defeated. Those of you whom read this site and are members of Joshua's Army know different, of course and that if anything, this president and his clueless national security team have strengthened al-Qaeda and its various affiliates, but al-Qaeda's demise has been the proud boast of this president for some time. So if this is true. why risk embarrassment for the administration and the president by making something like this public now, and possibly burning a valuable intel source?

All you need to do is look at what else is happening right now.

As more and more revelations come out about the extent of the NSA's warrant-less spying, surveillance and data mining , the more questions are being asked and the more resistance to this is stiffening.And the Benghazi scandal has resurfaced, with a scoop by none other than CNN committing actual journalism by reporting that there were dozens of CIA operatives on the ground the night, and that they have not only been made to sign hardline non-disclosure agreements but have been prevented from testifying in front of Congress and that some have even been given new identities and hiden around the country to keep the American people from finding out what some of us knew all along - that this was an attempted  gunrunning operation that went wrong, collecting  Libyan arms from the local al-Qaeda affiliates that were  pilfered out of Khaddaffi's armories thanks to our president's clueless intervention there to ship to the Syrian rebels.

And its now been leaked that CNN is distancing itself from its own scoop after being threatened with loss of access to the White House.

Does this suggest anything to you? Like the Obama regime's time honored tactic of  'look, a squirrel' to take the spotlight off something even more potentially embarrassing and politically hazardous?

Either way, this is absolutely disgraceful. If there actually was intel about a specific attack, the White House had absolutely no business making it public and possibly burning an intel source.That's basic strategy. There was no need whatsoever to do so just to distract the American public from the swamp of political scandals this president and his administration are mired in.

If there wasn't one and this is a fabrication or merely some  chatter with no specifics, it's even worse. When nothing happens, it promotes a false sense of security that could lead to a lot more American  blood being spilled when a real warning is issued, either publicly or clandestinely to our embassies and assets.

Reince Priebus, The RNC And The Rage Of Sheep

 

Breitbart has the story about some letters Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee sent to NBC and CNN about their recently announced decisions to produce bio-pic films celebrating the life of Hillary Clinton:

The RNC sees the odd programing move as an in-kind contribution to Clinton's presumed campaign for President in 2016. As a result, the party will formally bar Republicans from partnering with the networks on any primary or Presidential debates in 2016.

Priebus wrote to CNN:

I find CNN’s actions disturbing and disappointing. Your credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign.

And to NBC:

I find this disturbing and disappointing. NBC cannot purport to be a neutral party in American politics, and the credibility of NBC News, already damaged by the partisanship of MSNBC, will be further undermined by the actions of NBC Universal executives who have taken it upon themselves to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign.

Wooo..gutsy!!

Not.

The implication here is that if CNN and NBC decide to can the planned full-length Hillary infomercials, the Republican candidates will show up like the docile sheep they always are and participate in forums where the 'moderator' is not only rooting for the other team but has an active record of assisting them when it counts.

Why bother? Why participate in an exercise where the goal is to picture whomever the GOP picks as its nominee in a bad light on national TV and provide ammunition to get whomever the Democrats pick elected? This garbage not only goes on in presidential debates but in debates between prospective GOP candidates. Remember this one?

The only actual debate that was truly moderated in a proper way during the last election was the first presidential debate by Bob Scheifer of CBS, an obvious Obama fan and Democrat sympathizer who was still just professional enough to keep his personal views out of it and let the two candidates go at it. And he caught hell from the Left for doing it.

Here's what a really gutsy and effective stance would look like.Imagine what would happen if Priebus were to say that because of obvious bias exhibited in the last election cycle, Republican candidates would no longer participate in any debates 'moderated' by talking heads from ABC, CNN or NBC?

Instead of that, imagine the effect of insisting on Lincoln-Douglas style presidential debates. Two candidates go at it head to head with no moderator, just a timekeeper.

Now that would be a debate worth seeing..no biased moderators, no sifted 'questions' supposedly from the audience, just a battle of ideas.

Oh, I can hear the ceremonial whine of the RINOs even now...'but they won't like us! They'll hate us!'

Guess what...they already feel that way.

Robert Zimmerman Absolutely Destroys Piers Morgan In Interview

Robert Zimmerman, George Zimmerman's very articulate brother takes on the odious Piers Morgan on CNN and makes him look like the idiot he is....well worth watching.

Mexican Prostitute Takes Journalism Course

 

That's the headline, an AFP story about how a Mexican charity gives journalism training to prostitutes.

My reaction? An excellent idea. Given the state of 'journalism' today, being a prostitute amounts to resume' worthy on-the-job experience.

MSNBC and the rest of the ObamaMedia ought to jump on this.

More Unreported Anti-Israel Media Bias-Palestinian Terrorists Use Journalists as Human Shields

Here's an interesting video that shows how hypocritical and morally delinquent a lot of the media coverage concerning Israelis.

Here we see terrorists actually throwing firebombs at IDF soldiers while hiding behind journalists and using their bodies as human shields. The brave Palestinian fighters are clearly hiding behind the journalists.

If the Israelis had done anything like this, there would be scramming headlines worldwide. Since it's the Arabs, not a single peep.

Part of the reason can be deduced from listening to the soundtrack.You can hear the 'journalists' egging on the terrorists with cries of 'one more, one more in English, exhorting them to throw yet another firebomb.Because these scum want a still shot or an exciting video for their media bosses' evening news shows or late editions, they are encouraging the Palestinians to throw potentially lethal firebombs at the Israelis until they get what they want. They do not care that they are aiding and abetting th e4killing of Israelis. They are no longer 'journalists' but provocateurs taking sides, secure in the knowledge that they're dealing with a civilized people who won't treat them like the enemy they are.

This is anti-semitism pure and simple.

Needless to say, if the IDF had done the natural thing and fired on this position, they'd be vilified as 'murderers' who 'don't respect journalists' by these same people.

( h/t, Camera)

BBC Drops Word 'Antisemitism' As Too Long, But Keep 'Islamophobia'

Ah, the dear old Beeb, the keeper of the flame when it comes to Brit Jew hatred, Islamist appeasement and multi-culti!

 

Labour Peer Lord Ahmed was recently suspended from the House of Lords after a slew of anti-semitic remarks about how a 'Jewish conspiracy' was responsible for getting him jailed for sending text messages right before he was involved in a fatal car accident that was judged to be his fault. He also claimed that the judge who sentenced him was handpicked by 'the Jews.'

Of course, he made those remarks during a TV interview in Urdu during an interview back on his home turf in Pakistan...where he figured no one was listening and it would go over well with the audience.

This is not the first time Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim member of the House of Lords has given vent to his antisemitism, but these remarks were bad enough that the Labour Party suspended him from the House of Lords.

The BBC recently ran a story about this, but one reader noticed something interesting about it and e-mailed the Beeb to find out why the word anti-semitism is replaced in the headlines with 'Jewish claims':

BBC: Thanks for your email and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We try and stick as closely as possible to the words used, so, in this case we used ‘Jewish claims’ in the short space available for headlines to summarise his comments.

READER: Thanks for your reply, but with all due respect that is utter nonsense. ‘Jewish claims’ 13 characters. ‘Antisemitism’ 12 characters. Plus one look at the space available in the headline within the URL will tell you that there is/was PLENTY of space to report factually.

Of course, the term 'Jewish claims' likewise makes it seem that it some Jews accusing Lord Ahmed that led to his suspension...in essence, a continuation of Lord Ahmaed's Jewish Conspiracy Theory!

Another interesting point. Antisemitism (Brit style) is apparently too long to fit into a headline, yet a quick search of the BBC reveals that 'Islamophobia', also 12 characters is used all over the Beeb's headlines in every conceivable way.The term 'Muslim Claims' has never been used, as far as my search could determine.

Interesting how that works out.

MSNBC: "Eric Holder Is The Moses of Our Time"

MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson called Attorney General Eric Holder “the Moses of our time” Wednesday on “Martin Bashir”:  


 MARTIN BASHIR: Professor, we heard Mr. Sensenbrenner say the attorney general should stop down. Congressman Bob Goodlatte is also calling for resignation. Of course, he did that two years ago over fast and furious. Is this actually going to lead to something, do you think, or more of the same, more continuous calls for the attorney general to step down?   

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I think the attorney general should step down to off of that plateau where he resides on high principle and whip some head. But he shouldn’t give up his office. What he should understand is that he is the chief law giver of the United States so to speak. He’s the Moses of our time and at least for this administration. [...]

Now, if Jews were like Muslims, I'd be calling for a fatwa on both of them for insulting my religion and for blasphemy. As it is, I'll just note the despicable anti-semitism involved and move on. This coflating Moses with a corrupt ideologue who perjured himself and has done nothing but lie and engage in racism throughout his tenure shows you exactly how insane the Left has become. In fact, it appears he even lied to a judge when he was judge-shopping in order to get a warrant:



Right and wrong, legal and illegal, holy and unholy simply have no meaning for these people any more. It's all about the Agenda, and in Dyson's case, racist solidarity über alles.

CNN Finally Admits Hamas Kills Its Own And Deliberately Targets Israeli Civilians

Another red letter day in journalism (sarcasm/off).

This CNN report not only admits that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields, but that it fires missiles indiscriminately at Israeli civilians.

It even admits at the end of the video that a 4-year-old child whose death Hamas originally blamed on Israel was actually killed by Hamas in a 'work accident'.

Needless to say, they 'balance' that by interviewing some creep from the extremely biased NGO Human Rights Watch...who of course sees no difference between Hamas' simply firing rockets and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and Israel's attempts to minimize civilian casualties and the collateral damage that inevitably occurs when Hamas or Islamic jihad use civilians as human shields and deliberately fire missiles and hide terrorists in civilian areas.

Racism, Hypocrisy and Cowardice In One Nasty Package

The Slate's David Sirota made a small wave for himself yesterday with a piece he wrote on how much he hoped the Marathon Bombers would be white:

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.

Yes, those 'white dudes' have certainly killed a lot more Americans than jihadis, according to Sirota. So if the bombers turn out to be whitey, let's make sure we demonize that group too, to make up for that awful White Privilege.

That's why Sirota obviously hopes the bombers were White Tea Party Republicans, because it would be a political assist to the Left's agenda. He's actively calling for the Tea Party and its adherents to be demonized. The horror of hoping that one of your own countrymen murdered a bunch of his fellow citizens as opposed to a radicalized foreigner escapes this tool totally.

Now that its obvious that the Boston Marathon bombing was jihad, here's what he tweeted today:



Muslim jihadis setting off bombs in our cities? We have to make sure we don't dare do anything like profiling at airports or being more careful about whom we issue visas to. But if it had been the Great White Terrorist, he would have been perfectly happy to use it to destroy the Second Amendment, demonize the Tea Party and advance the Left's agenda - yes, to use his own words, predicate our reaction to terrorism based on the demography of the terrorists.

As long as it's you know, the right one.

The worst enemy is always the one inside the gates.

Speech Lessons for the Lapdog Media!!

As SooperMexican says, he's here to help.

Heh!

Unmourned, Unloved and Politically Inconvenient

"First MOLOCH, horrid King besmear'd with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears,
Though, for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud,
Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire
To his grim Idol - John Milton,Paradise Lost

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved. - Rashi, 12th century commentary on Jeremiah 7:31

There was in the city of the Carthaginians a bronze image of Cronus (Moloch) extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.- Diodorus Siculus,Bibliotheca historica 49 BC

In ancient times, there was a god worshiped in the Middle East called Ba'al, Moloch, Milkh, or Tophet among other names among the Canaanites,Phoenicians and Carthaginians whose attributes were similar to those of the Roman Saturn or the Greek Cronos. Its rites included the murder of children by tossing them into the fire built within or next to the idol.

In Leviticus 20:2-5, G-d enjoined the Jews never to give any of their seed as a sacrifice to Molokh, and that anyone who did would surely die because "I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him."


There's a trial going on in Philadelphia today in Philadelphia that merits notice in this context.



Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran an abortion clinic in the city and is accused of a number of horrendous crimes, according to the Grand Jury report:

"This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors."

"The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels - and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths."

He's been charged with 7 counts of first degree murder.

The illegal part of what Dr. Gosnell did is worthy of reflecting on.

According to his former clinic staff, at least 100 living babies were murdered moments after Dr. Gosnell (or in some cases, his unlicensed assistants) ripped them out of the womb.Pennsylvania law forbids abortion in most cases after 24 weeks (the end of the second trimester). His standard method of killing the children was snipping the spinal cords, what one of his assistants described as 'a virtual beheading.' Dr. Gosnell frequently used drugs to induce labor so as to deliver the babies faster and make the killing process easier. One of his assistants in testimony described 'fetuses and blood flying around everywhere.'

Dr. Gosnell has also been charged with the murder of a 41-year-old Virginia woman who died from an overdose of anesthetic drugs, possibly administered by another unlicensed 'doctor'.

Several women patients were badly injured, according to the report. One was left simply lying there after her cervix and colon were torn in the process of trying to pull a baby out of her womb so it could be 'dealt with'. Another, only 18 years old, was not given proper care after her uterus was punctured and had to undergo a hysterectomy. Others actually contracted venereal diseases, painful infections and other complications because of the unsanitary conditions, where rusty and outdated machines, dirty, unsterilized instruments and filthy surroundings.

When the police finally got around to investigating Dr. Gosnell's clinic because of a tip he was illegally 'proscribing' drugs, they found fetal remains "stored throughout the clinic - in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers."

So what Dr. Gosnell is being charged with, actually, is performing late term abortions (illegal in Pennsylvania but not in a number of states), keeping a sloppy and unsanitary shop, allowing unauthorized and unlicensed personnel to perform procedures and administer drugs and the injuries and at least one murder that resulted from that.

Had he worked for, say, Planned Parenthood in a clean, up-to-date environment with licensed assistants in a state like California that allows abortion on demand for any reason no matter how far along the pregnancy is, he would have been doing essentially the same thing without any problems.

What Dr. Gosnell was doing to babies is not that much different than other doctors when it comes to late term abortions. They are merely more skillful and using better equipment.

The usual process is to puncture the baby's skull and use a hose to suction out the brains and collapse the skull so it can be pulled out of the womb.

Two questions immediately come to mind for most people hearing about this for the first time.

This carnage went on literally for years. Didn't anyone complain to the authorities?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. The Departments of Health for both the City of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania had received reports of what was going on in Dr. Gosnell's infanticide factory. Even after one of Dr. Gosnell's own employees quit and went to the state board and filed a formal complaint on what was going on, nothing was done.

When Dr. Gosnell applied for membership in the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion practitioners because of the referrals that were possible, an inspector visited the clinic and turned him down - but made no report to the authorities on what she found there.

In the end, it wasn't the murder of babies or injuries to women that got Dr. Gosnell closed down, but a tip to the police that he was illegally proscribing drugs. Even then, he was allowed his freedom for a number of weeks, which gave him time to destroy most of his records.

Why?

And once this became a news story, why did the dinosaur media refuse to cover it? Under the classic journalism formula of 'if it bleeds, it leads' this should have been a major news story on the alphabet networks, the New York Times,the Washington Post, every major outlet you can think of. Why did they ignore it?

The picture below, courtesy of Breitbart is a photo of the empty 'reserved media section' at the Gosnell trial last week.

 

After the conservative blogosphere began hammering on this and Kirsten Powers, a Democrat and self professed liberal who works for FOX voiced outrage over the media's ignoring the Gosnell trial in a column that went viral, the Dinosaur media reluctantly began covering the story, with the Washington Post belatedly admitting that they perhaps 'should have covered this earlier' and finally assigning a reporter to the trial.

There are a number of reasons why the Pennsylvania authorities were reluctant to investigate Dr. Gosnell, and why the media steered clear of this story, and they're connected.

The dinosaur media, as even Dave Weigel of Slate admits, "are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I've caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense. There is a bubble."

These same, overwhelmingly Leftist journalists are generally rabidly anti-Second Amendment. So a one off situation where a mentally ill malcontent murders his mother, steals her guns and is somehow let into a school supposedly under lock down procedures tomurder others is a headline story, a cause celebre' and a trigger for massive legislation whereas a Philadelphia doctor who murdered hundreds is something to be ignored. It's all about the agenda and what serves it.

The same thing applies to a bureaucracy in a state that has a strong 'pro-choice' lobby. They're reluctant to be seen shutting down an abortion facility unless the abuses are so blatantly obvious they can't be ignored.

Another aspect of the Gosnell case that merited it being studiously ignored by the media (and I've yet to see it mentioned anywhere) is its connection with President Obama.This president has a clear record as a vigorous advocate of denying babies who survive an abortion medical care. His stance on the matter was more radical than even NARAL's. and the proper name for this is infanticide. Isn't that  pretty much what Dr. Gosnell is accused of, murdering viable, fully formed babies outside the womb?

Even worse from the standpoint of the media and abortion-on-demand advocates, Planned Parenthood, whose primary source for their multi-million dollar income according to their own budget is abortion and the Federal funds that cover it seem to agree with that, as this snippet makes clear.

I actually feel for this woman. She appears to know that what she's defending is morally wrong, but also knows that as a Planned Parenthood spokesperson she's being paid to advocate for it. And her discomfort is obvious.



Now that this story is in the public eye, abortion on demand advocates are attempting to spin it by saying that Dr. Gosnell's little shop of horrors is what women will be facing if abortion is criminalized.But the fact remains this was a legally licensed abortion clinic in good standing, no one is talking about criminalizing abortion per se and that what we're talking about here is something very different. Again, had Dr, Gosnell been working for Planned Parenthood in a state that allows abortion later than 24 weeks in a clean shop with licensed assistants, nothing would be said.

What's bothering a lot of people whether they admit it or not is what this says about our culture.

At Dr. Gosnell's trial one of his 'assistants', Adrienne Moton sobbed as she recalled snipping the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, just as Dr. Gosnell had instructed her.

One of the babies who was murdered was so developed and healthy - the 'nurse' estimated his age at 30 weeks - that Dr. Gosnell joked that that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop.


On another occasion, she testified that she killed a baby delivered into a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors. Asked if she knew that was wrong, she replied, “At first I didn’t.”

For thirty years, our culture has been instructed to think of children in the womb no matter how advanced in gestation as mere blobs of tissue rather than viable, living human beings. Is it any wonder that at first Adrienne Moton had no second thoughts, no qualms about what she was doing, that she had to think about it for awhile?

At this point, we get to the ultimate issue.

And it's not enough to mouth a slogan like "I'm a liberal and pro choice."

Is a six-month-old child in the womb not a person with a right to life? Obviously in some cases, say, where the mother's life is in danger, there's a different priority.

But if we have a healthy mother and a healthy child in the womb conceived through consensual sex who is a viable baby, if a six-month old child in the womb with a fully developed nervous system and able to feel pain when they're ripped from the womb and beheaded is 'not a person', if that child's choices should be arbitrarily taken away for someone else's convenience, then that is neither liberal nor pro-choice if we look at a dictionary and see what those words actually mean.

Dr. Gosnell made a choice, to run an abattoir disguised as an abortion clinic. So did the women who went to his clinic. These women could have made the choice to procure a legal abortion anytime up to 24 weeks, and if they were poor the State of Pennsylvania would have paid for it. They chose not to. Or they could have chosen to allow the child to live, and put him up for adoption to a loving family.Again,they made the choice not to.

The choice they made instead involved taking away the choice of a defenseless human being who wanted very much to live. Do people whom call themselves 'pro-choice' support that choice? Are we as a culture at a point where we support that choice?

If the answer's yes, than we are no better than than the worshipers of Moloch, hurling children into the flames. And we will deserve no better than to ultimately share their fate.

GOP Rep's Gay Son "CNN and MSNBC canceled my interviews when I refused to bash my dad"

Matt J. Salmon is a Republican congressman from Arizona, a social conservative who opposes same sex marriage - and the father of a gay son, Matt R. Salmon, a former president of Arizona Log Cabin Republicans.

So of course, Piers Morgan and Larry O'Donnell's bookers hit on him for interviews, figuring they could get the son to trash his father for some easy ratings.

But once they found out that Matt R. loves and respects his dad and refused to attack his father on the air, they quickly decided not to have him on.Apparently they didn't do their research. Because here's what Matt Salmon the congressman and his son had to say about the matter:

Matt J. Salmon defended his father against criticism from those within the LGBT community whom he describes as “incredibly intolerant.” He said the congressman received “a lot of hateful comments” on his Facebook page after the interview aired.

“People seem to be trying so hard to analyze where it’s coming from, but really he was quite straight-forward,” Matt R. Salmon said. “My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me. He’s very much there for me as one of my closest friends. I think that was obvious in everything that he had to say.”

He further discussed his father’s position on marriage.

“He doesn’t see it as not allowing his son to be with the person he loves because he knows that regardless of where marriage is, I’m going to be with the person that I love,” he said. “Whether I can legally marry in Arizona or not, it’s not going to change that fact and my father knows that and he accepts my desire to be with the man that I love. As far as it goes with marriage for him it’s a matter of what marriage means to him — to him marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with the way he views a person’s relationship, and that’s the thing that I think is hard for people to understand.”

It is hard for some people to understand...but it shouldn't be.

Joe Biden On Domestic Abuse: "This Isn't Your Garden Variety Slap Across the Face’

Remember, this is the sitting vice president of the United States, clearly implying that a slap across the face to wifey is not domestic abuse, just business as usual!

I wonder if Jill Biden has learned her 'place' with the aid of this kind of 'discipline'? Does the vice president laugh and giggle when he administers it,like he did in the vice presidential debate with Paul Ryan? Is anyone going to have the stones to ask the vice president what he meant by that?

And no, I'm not exaggerating one bit.

You know that if Dick Cheney had said something like this, it would have been headlines. It would be the Story Of The Day. Maybe of the week.

What was that again about a GOP war on women? Where's the press? Where's NOW? Or do they give this sort of nonsense a pass if somebody has a 'D" after their name?

Update: Well, whaddya know? Apparently I and the National Review both got punked on this one.

Vice President Biden included a phrase that was edited out in the above video, saying: "These are tell-tale signs to say this isn’t your garden-variety slap across the face which is totally unacceptable in and of itself."

Obviously, as the late Gilda Radner would have said, that's very different. I'm actually very glad to be wrong on this one, feeling as I do about 'men' hitting women.My apologies to the Veep and to anyone else who was upset by this.

Soccer Dad: "How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Sequester"

My pal David Gerstman, AKA Soccer Dad has a new gig blogging at the esteemed site Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, and his opening salvo there is out today. Here's a slice:


A recent Washington Post editorial, The blame game over sequestration concludes:

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama seems content to warn of dire cutbacks in everything from naval operations to firefighters and to accuse the GOP of risking them to protect the wealthy. The Republicans denounce the sequester as Mr. Obama’s brainchild (though they accepted it as part of a 2011 budget deal) and say they won’t vote for any more tax increases. Both sides are obviously playing a political blame game, which must give way to serious bargaining soon — or the country will be the loser.

Yesterday Washington Post op-ed columnist Ruth Marcus wrote Republicans rewrite history on the sequester:

The tax debate is now closed,” House Speaker John Boehner proclaimed in The Wall Street Journal.

But why? The deal that Boehner asserts closed the tax debate involved less revenue than the $800 billion he was willing to ante up as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations in 2011. It involved less revenue than the $1 trillion he was offering last December in the cliff talks. By way of comparison, the original Simpson-Bowles plan called for more than $2 trillion in new revenue.
…
The Republican argument — we gave on taxes, now it’s time for spending cuts — also ignores the full history of spending cuts. The debt-ceiling deal — the one that created the supercommittee and sequester — also locked in $917 billion in spending cuts.

There’s one little detail that both accounts leave out. A previous deal was reached in 2011. Earlier this week John Boehner wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue—50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.

It was a disappointing decision by the president, but with just days until a breach of the debt limit, a solution was still required—and fast. I immediately got together with Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to forge a bipartisan congressional plan. It would be called the Budget Control Act.

The plan called for immediate caps on discretionary spending (to save $917 billion) and the creation of a special House-Senate “super committee” to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings. The deal also included a simple but powerful mechanism to ensure that the committee met its deficit-reduction target: If it didn’t, the debt limit would not be increased again in a few months.

Boehner added that sequestration was more or less forced onto Congress by the President as part of a mechanism to avoid another debt ceiling fight prior to his re-election campaign. What’s important here is that it was the President who scuttled an earlier deal. Neither the Washington Post nor Ruth Marcus acknowledge this. Boehner isn’t making this up.

Read the rest here.

One Hand Washes The Other - Obama Aides Land Big Media Jobs

 

The Obama Media is already starting to reward the president's campaign aides with well paid sinecures as 'journalists'.

NBC is hiring the president's chief consigliere David Axelrod as a "senior political strategist." Needless to say, he'll be a regular on NBC and MSNBC. Earlier in the month, former White House spokeshole Robert Gibbs also got a cushy job at MSNBC.

At least they're not on the taxpayer's dime any more.

Democrat activist and Obama campaign staffer Hilary Rosen, who among other things attacked Ann Romney, saying that she "never worked a day in her life" is the latest edition to the Washington Post, where she'll co-write the Insider's column with Ed Rogers, a mainstream 'Republican strategist' and member of the consultant class whose chief claim to fame is a two year stint in the President George HW Bush White House and a position on George W. Bush's '04 campaign staff.

I can guarantee you that there will be a lot more of these hires.

What better way to perpetuate the never-ending Obama campaign than to get some of its chief practitioners on the air early and often?