'Choice' Words for Obama's Hypocrisy
At nearly six weeks, the Gosnell trial has something in common with its unborn victims: it has a heartbeat now, and not just in the conservative press. The story is pulsing through the mainstream media, as alive as it's ever been in the two years since Kermit Gosnell's indictment. For once, the bloodcurdling accounts--so otherworldly that Snopes had to separate it from urban legend--are receiving the attention the pro-abortion press never wanted to give it.
Of course, now that the media has been shamed into doing its job, a handful of reporters can't help but try to spread the blame around. Taking its cues from Gosnell apologists like NARAL, outlets like Slate, The Atlantic, and Huffington Post have the audacity to condemn pro-lifers for the clinic's barbarism. If women were forced to go to Gosnell, they claim, then they were "driven there by fear of anti-abortion protestors outside Planned Parenthood facilities." Others insist that conservatives are exploiting the crimes "to further reduce access to safe, legal abortion," which, if you've read the Delaware news, is a far cry from what Planned Parenthood has been offering.
In Gosnell's torture chamber, the urine-stained hallways are nothing compared to his method for disposing bodies. During one of the most nauseating accounts yet, Gosnell's janitor told the court that he threatened to quit because "he refused to pull any more flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing." "He told the jury toilets backed up one to two times a week," and he was forced to open the pipes and see "fetal parts such as babies' arms come spilling out." He testified that he "scooped up body parts with a shovel and put them in a bag that was taken to the rat-infested basement," where a cat roamed the clinic, using plants as its litter box.
As one staffer described it, the dirty bathrooms were a central part of the abortion process. "If... a baby was about to come out," she said, "I would take the woman to the bathroom. They would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet." When these tiny victims weren't "precipitated" like sewage, the aborted children were stored in makeshift coffins like "cherry limeade containers" in the refrigerator.
Despite all of this, despite even the spine-chilling stories of newborn babies crying out in pain during their execution, the media still insists on calling the born-alive sufferers "fetuses." To them, admits the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger, a baby butcher gets in the way of their preferred narrative, which is alerting people to "every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights." If a serial killer doesn't prick the press's collective conscience, maybe his cruelty toward women will. Karnamaya Mongar's family tried to tell their daughters' story in court through tears. Karnamaya wasn't there to testify herself, because she was left to die in Gosnell's filthy clinic recliner after an overdose of Demerol. Paramedics raced to the scene--but they couldn't get cut through the padlocked back door fast enough to save her.
This is the war on women. A profit-driven abortion industry, so focused on making a buck that they can't be bothered to clean rusty equipment, wipe down bloody operating tables, appropriately sedate patients, or monitor mutilated women. Even President Obama, who never let the facts get in the way of premature statements before, says he "cannot take a position on an ongoing trial."
That's interesting, Ken Blackwell writes, since he had no trouble doing so during his friend's arrest in Boston or the Treyvon Martin case. Obviously, his crusade for women's safety is as contrived as his selective concern for kids. Where is the man who insisted nothing else matters "if we don't come together to protect our most precious resource: our children"?
Kudos to the congressional members who ARE speaking out. Reps. Marsha Blackburn(R-Tenn.) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) spearheaded a letter signed by 70 of their colleagues chastising the major networks for ignoring this important story. Members continue to go down to the House floor as well to make it clear that this gruesome case is no anomaly.
Marriage: Not Just the Right Position, But the Winning One!
If Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) thought bucking his party and endorsing same-sex "marriage" would endear him to the masses, he's got another thing coming. Redefining marriage may be all the rage now, but that's no match for the real rage of voters later. Asked in a new Harper Poll (sponsored by the Conservative Intelligence Briefing) if they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who "changes his position and comes out in support of gay marriage," the vast majority (47%) said they would be less likely--a 13-point lead over those who said they would be more likely (34%). Sixty-six percent of Republicans would feel similarly betrayed and hinted that they would take their frustrations out on Sen. Kirk and Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) at the voting booth. Independents (52%) were also turned off by candidates who flip-flop on the issue, saying they too would be less likely to support them when it mattered.
While the media buzzes about a culture shift, Harper--like many survey houses--understands that public opinion depends on how you frame the question. When 2,375 Americans were asked, "Do you support or oppose a measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman," 60% supported it. The number was even higher (65%) in states where same-sex "marriage" isn't legal. In states where marriage was redefined, the division couldn't be greater: 45% opposed and 45% in favor. The bottom line? Chasing fads is fine in fashion, but bad in politics--especially if you're a Republican.
The Southern Poverty Fear Factor
When local Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse was killed in Texas earlier this year, chances are the story would have been a blip in the national media. That all changed in late January, when the Southern Poverty Law Center published a lengthy article trying to link Hasse's death to the reprehensible Aryan Brotherhood. Without a single shred of evidence, SPLC's Mark Potok paraded around familiar talk shows, including Chris Matthews's, and blamed white supremacists for the Kaufman County official's death.
Almost immediately, reporters latched on to the storyline, treating SPLC's conjecture as fact. While the media and Texasofficials were following up on Potok's "lead," District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife, Cynthia, were murdered. Turns out, it was a "local vendetta," not any organization or ideology, that motivated all three killings. The wife of former Justice of the Peace Eric Williams, who had a "history" with McLelland and Hasse, was finally charged in the shootings today, and prosecutors are building a case against her husband. McLelland himself tried to tell investigators who shot Hasse, but they seemed too preoccupied with the SPLC's theory to listen.
"The pieces might have fallen into place earlier," writes R.S. McCain, "Mark Haase's murder might have been solved, and Williams arrested before McLelland was killed--if law enforcement hadn't wasted time chasing the 'white supremacist' wild goose..." PJ Media exposed the SPLC's role in mishandling the case earlier this week. It would appear that SPLC's incompetence (and Potok's desperate attempt to stay relevant) may have helped to misdirect an entire investigation--which, if handled appropriately, may have spared two people's lives.
If SPLC's link to domestic terrorism in federal court hasn't persuaded people, and the damning exposé in The Weekly Standard ("King of Fearmongers") didn't drive it home, then surely, this incident serves to highlight how reckless SPLC is and why no government agencies should be relying on its tainted information. Once again, the facts only seem to get in the way of SPLC's ultimate goal: stoking fears to raise money.