Apr 29 2013
James Willis makes some points about the Gosnell baby-killer case, what it means regarding media coverage, and our general attitudes towards that coverage.
Kermit Gosnell is not a particularly attractive man, nor has he any celebrity status. His patients, otherwise known as victims, were mostly young, poor black women or girls whose names have never been mentioned on Entertainment Tonight. We don’t know if any of his youngest victims would have looked like Barack Obama. Gosnell didn’t use an AR-15 to kill these children, he just used scissors.
Although the trial has finally gotten some media attention, the lack of coverage has gotten perhaps more air time than the trial itself. Perhaps I am wrong about the trial being ignored because of a lack of glamour; I suppose it is entirely possible that the media doesn’t want to cover it because they don’t want to bring negative attention to the abortion industry. To be honest, while both factors are probably involved, the latter is most likely the driving force.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of discussion, that the left held the abortion industry in the same level of contempt as they do the gun industry. By now coverage of the trial would be wall-to-wall, with after action reports coming at the end of each day to recap the day’s events and to speculate on the next moves by both the defense and the prosecution. We would have seen leaked photos of the jars containing the severed feet of the infants murdered at Gosnell’s butcher shop, kept like trophies, and of the cat food containers used to store the remains of the dead babies.
There is much more, and it’s all worth reading here, and pondering. Exactly how depraved have we become that we can tolerate this in our society? That we allow people into our homes via the television who support the abortion culture, and actually find them to be trustworthy guides to the news and our society? That we elect politicians who will block every attempt to save the unborn? That we pretend that our concern for the poor (expressed as support for the left) somehow trumps our concern for killed babies?
It seems to me that too many Christians want so much to be “civil” or “nonjudgmental” or “relevant” or just “cool” that they are willing to abide almost anything in the name of some kind of “peace” with the left.
As I said here, on the occasion of Obama’s address at Notre Dame, our willingness to submerge our beliefs and moral assessment for the sake of some kind of cultural relevance, to be “bridge-builders” and “peace-makers,” is essentially a denial that there is evil in the world, evil that we must resist, evil that we must not simply tolerate for the sake of civility and getting along with the powers that be.
Aug 19 2012
Randy Weaver moved his family to northern Idaho in the 1980s to escape what he saw as a corrupt world. Over time, federal agents began investigating the Army veteran for possible ties to white supremacist and anti-government groups. Weaver was eventually suspected of selling a government informant two illegal sawed-off shotguns. To avoid arrest, Weaver holed up on his land. On Aug. 21, 1992, a team of U.S. marshals scouting the forest to find suitable places to ambush and arrest Weaver came across his friend, Kevin Harris, and Weaver’s 14-year-old son Samuel in the woods. A gunfight broke out. Samuel Weaver and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan were killed. The next day, an FBI sniper shot and wounded Randy Weaver. As Weaver, Harris and Sara ran back toward the house, the sniper fired a second bullet, which passed through Vicki Weaver’s head and wounded Harris in the chest. During the siege, Sara Weaver crawled around her mother’s blanket-covered body to get food and water for the survivors, including the infant, until the family surrendered on Aug. 31, 1992. Harris and Randy Weaver were arrested, and Weaver’s daughters went to live with their mother’s family in Iowa. Randy Weaver was acquitted of the most serious charges and Harris was acquitted of all charges. The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death lawsuit. The federal government awarded Randy Weaver a $100,000 settlement and his three daughters $1 million each in 1995.
The main thrust of the story is that one of the daughters of the slain woman has “forgiven” the government killers of her mother. I’m all for forgiveness, of course.
One wonders, though:
Did those killers ever ASK for forgiveness?
Did they keep their jobs?
Did they ever serve time for pre-meditated murder under the color of authority?
Here’s a very basic fact: if Randy Weaver was the person they thought he was when they shot him and killed his wife, the “authorities” who murdered his wife would not now be alive, would they? After all, Mr. Weaver has had all the time he needed to plot any revenge, and carry it out, that he could possibly have needed.
This is one of the darkest of several very dark spots in the Clinton administration, with Janet Reno at the helm of Justice at the time, and Clinton, of course, claiming he didn’t know anything about it.
Just to be clear: today (and for that matter, all through the Clinton administration), the inner cities of America are/were rife with constant sales/possession of illegally sold and owned firearms. These aren’t firearms in the possession of people who are situated remotely and simply wish to be left alone. They are firearms in the hands of criminals, drug dealers and their employees, gansters of several stripes, illegals of all kinds, you name it. These firearms are constantly used to commit crimes, including murder, which is why Chicago and Detroit are more dangerous places to live than Baghdad or Kabul.
What would be the reaction, do you suppose, if the FBI planted snipers on the rooftops of tenements in Chicago, and waited for known criminals to appear, and simply shot them… and then their wives (if they had any…)?
Let’s put it another way: if something like this was done in inner-city Chicago 20 years ago, there would be a national commemoration of it, national introspection about how out of control our government and authorities were, etc.
But unless you were an adult in 1992, who read newspapers, there’s an excellent chance that you have never heard of the FBI murdering civilians at Ruby Ridge. Why do you think that is?
Jul 20 2012
An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.
ABC should put this in BOLD PRINT at the top of every story it runs online for the next week, as well as the first thing said at the beginning of every news broadcast for the next week. And ABC should send the innocent man whom they defamed a lot of money. That might represent an honest apology.
In the meantime, it’s clear that the media is always looking for a way to tie mass murder to conservatives if possible, but is strangely silent about other ideological connections when it’s an Islamic killer shouting about Allah as he pulls the trigger.
Why does Brian Ross still have a job? This is inexcusable.
Jul 09 2012
Here is a story about the death of a beautiful, intelligent young woman, a high school student, herself an immigrant, due to the incredible incompetence and immoral laxity of our federal and state governments at simply enforcing US law.
Jul 07 2012
Undeterred by independent fact-checkers that have debunked the thrust of their claims, the Obama campaign is redoubling attacks on Mitt Romney as an “outsourcer” in a new TV ad airing in eight battleground states. The 30-second spot — titled “The Problem” — claims Romney condoned the Chinese “taking our jobs and taking a lot of our future.”
The Romney campaign called the latest ad a continuation of “desperate lies,” citing reports by several independent fact-checkers that have discredited the suggestion that Romney himself had a direct role in relocating U.S. jobs overseas. “We found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas,” FactCheck.org concluded in a report last month. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler also concluded that while Bain-owned companies may have engaged in outsourcing, Romney’s ties to the practice are tenuous.
I know I should be thrilled that Yahoo News is actually telling the truth about Obama…. for once.
The thing is, this is hardly “man-bites-dog” news. It’s more like in the line of reporting that water is wet.
But kudos, for once, to Yahoo and ABC, the source of the story.
Mar 26 2012
From Jake Tapper:
At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.
A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”
Translation: After Obama is re-elected, he will not be restrained by any concern for what the American people actually think…. about much of anything. He will try to do all the things he’s held back on so far, out of concern for the election. Since he hasn’t held back all that much on many issues, I think that means we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
In the meantime, how much play and followup will this story get in the major media? About as much as Obama’s other incendiary comments have gotten, i.e., not much. The major media know their duty when they see it, and it’s to get their man re-elected.
Mar 24 2012
MSNBC sinks to new low, starring Karen Finney.
This isn’t even “opinion journalism.” It’s just idiotic. By the way, the “30″ she mentions in this abbreviated clip is probably the 30 states that have or are making some kind of “stand your ground” law protecting people who defend themselves from criminal prosecution.
I don’t know the facts of the case in question. The shooter may indeed simply be a murderer and not a person acting in self-defense. I have no interest in defending his actions if that’s the case.
But this conflation of conservatives protecting their constitutional rights with guilt for murder is not even risible…. it’s just complete, total hate speech, funded and disseminated by MSNBC, the hate speech network.
Next Page »