Saturday Morning Videos: MSM Embargo on Gosnell Case Beginning to Crack April 13, 2013Matthew Cochrane
Just a day after Wikipedia considered deleting Kermit Gosnell’s page due to lack of national attention (yes, that is the lamest excuse ever – Wikipedia sports a page for every mundane D-List celebrity and cancelled television show) there are signs the story is beginning to break into the national consciousness. Last night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper both aired long segments reviewing the grisly details of the Philadelphia abortionist’s case:
Excuses for not covering this shocking trial are getting lamer and lamer. For instance, Washington Post reporter Sarah Kliff claimed she couldn’t be bothered with a mere “local crime story”. Patheos’ M.Z. Hemingway responds with scathing criticism:
So when a private foundation privately decides to stop giving money to the country’s largest abortion provider, that is somehow a policy issue deserving of three dozen breathless hits. When a yahoo political candidate says something stupid about rape, that is a policy issue of such import that we got another three dozen hits about it from this reporter. It was so important that journalists found it fitting to ask every pro-lifer in their path to discuss it. And when someone says something mean to a birth control activist, that’s good for months of puffy profiles.
But gosh darn it, can you think of any policy implications to this, uh, “local crime” story? And that’s all it is. Just like a bunch of other local stories theWashington Postalso refuses to cover — local crimes such as the killing of Trayvon Martin and the killing of Matthew Shepard and the killing of students at an elementary school in Connecticut. Did theWashington Posteven think of covering those local crime stories? No! Oh wait, they did? Like, all the time? Hmm. That’s weird. But did they cover them in terms of policy implications? Asking politicians for their views and such? Oh they did that, too? Hmm. So weird. Oh, andSarah Kliff herselfwrote one of those stories? Well, gosh, I’m so confused.
If the media won’t do their job, we need to shame them. It appears to be working. Let’s keep it up.
Are All Options on the Table? Then Let's Nuke North Korea April 12, 2013Matthew Cochrane
Why not just nuke North Korea? I don’t mean to ask such a serious question flippantly, but doesn’t that seem like the best option at this point? A few points: First, we now know North Korea has nuclear weapon capabilities thanks to an errantly-released top secret Pentagon report:
The analysis, disclosed Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill, says the Pentagon's intelligence wing has "moderate confidence" that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles but that the weapon was unreliable.
The revelation was significant, because it has not been previously reported or believed that the country had the ability to miniaturize and deliver a nuclear weapon.
Second, North Korea is now threatening Tokyo, one of the world’s economic powerhouses and a long-standing U.S. ally, with nuclear attack:
In a commentary carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the communist country lashed out at Tokyo's standing orders to destroy any missile heading toward Japan, threatening such actions will result in a nuclear attack against the island nation.
If Japan executes its threat to shoot down any North Korean missile, such a “provocative” intervention would see Tokyo — an enormous conurbation of 30 million people — “consumed in nuclear flames”, KCNA warned.
“Japan is always in the cross-hairs of our revolutionary army and if Japan makes a slightest move, the spark of war will touch Japan first,” the report added.
I believe a few quick thought exercises can be helpful here. Let’s consider what would happen if North Korea did successfully carry out a nuclear attack on Tokyo (or Seoul or Guam et al)? At that point, a war would be unavoidable and we would probably carry out a nuclear attack on Pyongyang anyway. The human loss in Japan would be incalculable but, if one wants solely to think of national interests, our economy here at home would be absolutely savaged. How many car factories producing Japanese cars exist across the U.S.? How many electronic companies would be gone forever? The economic toll on our country would be unspeakable. Plus, there would be a huge power vacuum in Asia that would almost certainly be filled by even more Chinese influence and power.
On the other hand, what would be the costs of a nuclear attack on North Korea? First and foremost, North Korea would be relegated to a desolate wasteland for years to come. Which is to say it would almost be exactly like it is now.
Second, there would be huge waves of refugees which would need to be cared for. This would be an enormous cost but I have a sneaking suspicion we could convince Japan and South Korea to bear much of this cost (if we got them to agree to it beforehand in exchange for us taking these crazy lunatics out for them).
Third, we would then have a shining example of what we do when countries cross us on getting nuclear weapons and start acting all crazy. The ramifications would be felt around the world. Iran and the Middle East would all of sudden want to play nice.
I just don’t see too much downside to any of this. Yes, innocent life would be lost in North Korea. However, I hold to the Jacksonian view of war, which basically means it’s better to fight wars as intensely and ferociously as possible with the understanding this type of fighting will end a war sooner thus saving more lives in the long run. I think a strong case could be made that dropping a few well-placed nuclear bombs on North Korea now would do just that: Save more innocent lives in the long run.
Finally, we haven’t even mentioned the possibility of an attack on U.S. soil. Whether it’s Hawaii, Guam or the west coast of the U.S. mainland, the possibility exists.
We have to remember North Korea is a country run by a mad and bloodthirsty dictator with nuclear weapon capabilities. This mad dictator is currently threatening peaceful and civilized countries with these weapons. It’s time to shut him up…forever. History shows the world has regretted not heeding the threats of mad dictators in the past.
Of course, if you prefer, we could just rely on the diplomatic acumen and savvy of John Kerry. A comforting thought, eh?
More Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror: "Fetuses and blood all over the place"; Update 1: Abortion Lobby Groups Prevent Clinic Regulation April 12, 2013Matthew Cochrane
More and more shocking testimony is being heard in Kermit Gosnell’s case. For those who don’t know, Gosnell is the baby butcher abortionist in Philadelphia who is on trial for eight counts of murder, seven of which are for babies that were brutally murdered after they were born.
This is rough stuff but it’s absolutely imperative for the pro-life community to expose the dark secrets of the abortion industry and show it for what it really is:
A Delaware woman who worked for Kermit Gosnell testified Tuesday that she was called back to a room at his abortion clinic in Philadelphia where the bodies of aborted babies were kept on a shelf to hear one screaming amid the bodies of aborted babies kept on a shelf.
Sherry West said she was loyal to Gosnell, the doctor facing multiple counts of murder for allegedly killing children after they were delivered alive at his clinic during abortion procedures. The 53-year-old Bear resident testified that the incident of the screaming baby “really freaked me out.”
When Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore pressed for specifics about the incident, West struggled to answer, clearly uncomfortable with the memory.
“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West said, telling the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge and jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at the Women's Medical Society clinic.
Like a little alien? Uh, no, that was an innocent baby screaming during his/her first and last few moments of life while being murdered by an abortionist psychopath and his morally complicit staff. More testimony from another worker:
A second Delaware woman, who worked at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic, testified today that it was “standard procedure” to snip the necks of any babies that were delivered by patients before the abortion due to labor-inducing drugs.
And Lynda Williams, 44, of Wilmington, said Gosnell taught her how to flip the body of the baby over and snip its neck with a pair of scissors to ensure “fetal demise.”
Williams also testified that she followed Gosnell’s orders one time, when Gosnell was away either running, swimming or working at a clinic in Delaware, and took a baby that was delivered in a toilet and snipped its neck.
“It jumped, the arm,” she said, showing the jury by raising her arm.
What’s even creepier? Williams’ moral reasoning for carrying out the act:
“I only do what I’m told to do,” she told the jury. “What I was told to do was snip their neck.”
Exact same excuse the German military personnel used when called to account for their actions during the Holocaust. “I was only doing what I was told.”
USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers, herself a liberal and pro-choice, is amazed at the lack of media coverage given to the event:
It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnellbegan March 18,there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.
A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is whenWall Street Journalcolumnist Peggy Noonanhijacked a segmentonMeet the Pressmeant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.
TheWashington Posthas not published original reporting on this during the trial andThe New York Timessaw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.
Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerableNBC Nightly News'Brian Williamsintoned,"A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn't make the cut.
Sadly, the lack of media coverage of this grisly and horrific trial is hardly surprising to most conservatives. Why would the media want to cover a trial that threatens to expose the dark and dirty secrets of the abortion industry. It was not for nothing that the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called these types of procedures “infanticide”.
It’s also important to remember it was just last week when a Planned Parenthood official was arguing for these exact same procedures to be legalized and ultimately left up to the baby’s mother. I guess no compassion for the crying baby on the shelf can be found in that organization.
Update: Of course, the only coverage this trial is getting comes from Fox. All of the opinions expressed on this panel are excellent. Kirsten Powers, a gain a pro-choice liberal, wonders why no one’s asking about how abortion lobby groups have routinely kept abortion clinics from being regulated. Jonah Goldberg notes Obama’s position on the Born Alive Act while in the Illinois legislature basically means he’s okay with everything that went on in this clinic. Krauthammer states this shines a startlingly revealing light on the nature of late term abortions.
Another comment on Krauthammer’s take: He believes the details of this case would bring near unanimity on opinion of late term abortions and some sensible regulations into place. Of course, this would eventually butt up against the rights granted in Roe v. Wade, which is considered sacrosanct by liberals. Ultimately, this is probably why the media will never cover this trial. That and embarrassingly reveals Obama’s radical position on this matter which, again, would basically mean he was okay with everything that went on in this shop of horrors.
Yesterday an alert reader sent me a link to this new MSNBC spot by talk show hostess Melissa Harris-Perry.
Yes, she actually says, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.” That she says this on a slickly-produced TV ad and not caught on an undercover camera while she was talking freely in the underground liberal HQ is even more telling.
Not once during rehearsal or shooting or post-production did this little homily raise the eyebrows of anyone involved at MSNBC. Not once did a producer or program director say, “You know, I have kids and I don’t know if saying they belong to the common collective is the message we want to be sending.” That’s because this sentiment is a commonly-held belief on the Left. Heck, Hillary’s bestseller, It Takes a Village, was based around this principle. The Left believes everything begins and ends with the government, including your own children.
As the ultimate private institution, the family is a stubborn obstacle to the great collective effort. Insofar as people invest in their own families, they are holding out on the state and unacceptably privileging their own kids over the children of others. These parents are selfish, small-minded, and backward. “Once it’s everybody’s responsibility,” Harris-Perry said of child-rearing, “and not just the households, then we start making better investments.”
This impulse toward the state as über-parent is based on a profound fallacy and a profound truth. The fallacy is that anyone can care about someone else’s children as much as his own. The former Texas Republican senator Phil Gramm liked to illustrate the hollowness of professions to the contrary with a story. He told a woman, “My educational policies are based on the fact that I care more about my children than you do.” She said, “No, you don’t.” Gramm replied, “Okay: What are their names?”
The truth is that parents are one of society’s most incorrigible sources of inequality. If you have two of them who stay married and are invested in your upbringing, you have hit life’s lottery. You will reap untold benefits denied to children who aren’t so lucky. That the family is so essential to the well-being of children has to be a constant source of frustration to the egalitarian statist, a reminder of the limits of his power.
Lowry also appeared on Fox News to talk about the MSNBC spot:
As Lowry says, the ad “stops you cold.” It is frightening to think what changes will occur in our social institutions over the next generation now that the Left is in power.