Friday, November 21, 2008

Pro Life Manna


From http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/11/not_bush_3_but.php


 


 


 


Not "Bush 3", But "Clinton 3"


By Annie B. on November 21, 2008 6:26 AM | 1 Comment


ShareThis




  1. Hillary, Secretary of State
  2. Gregory B. Craig, President Bill Clinton's impeachment lawyer, now White House counsel (Obama's chief lawyer).
  3. Rahm Emanuel, former senior Clinton White House veteran, now Obama's White House chief of staff.
  4. Mona Sutphen, former special assistant to Bill Clinton's National-Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, now Obama deputy chief of staff. (You remember--and for Democrats who knew, have conveniently forgotten) Sandy Berger? He was the one who stole state secrets he wasn't allowed access to and then lied about it, then pleaded guilty and avoided jail time (naturally!) by paying a piddling $50,000 fine and was disallowed access to state secrets from his conviction in 2005 till, oh, look at that, 2008, this year? He'll probably get some kind of Obama-payback job very soon, even if not directly in the White House, in exchange for not writing his tell-all book about the whole affair.
  5. Ron Klain, top aide to Clinton's Vice President Al Gore, now Vice President-elect Joe Biden's chief of staff.
  6. Eric Holder, "former deputy attorney general from 1997 to the end of President Bill Clinton's administration", likely Obama attorney general.
  7. And then there's "one of President-elect Barack Obama's closest foreign-policy advisers", Susan Rice:
    "Spencer Ackerman of the left-liberal Washington Independent profiles Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration...
    'Her record was not without its blemishes. According to human-rights expert Samantha Power's study of the U.S. reaction to genocide, "A Problem From Hell," Rice didn't distinguish herself in the Clinton administration's lax response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As an Africa expert on the NSC, she shocked an interagency conference call by interjecting domestic politics into the discussion of the administration's policy options.
    "If we use the word 'genocide,' " Rice allegedly asked her colleagues, "and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" . . .
    'About Rwanda, Rice later told Power, "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required," which might explain Rice's passion about Darfur.
    "Over at the left-liberal American Prospect, Adam Serwer comments: 'Obviously not Dr. Rice's proudest moment, but I think it speaks well of her that she is able to learn from her mistakes.'"



______________________________________________


 


From http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/11/hoaxsterleaker.php



Hoaxster/"Leaker" of "Palin not knowing Africa is a continent" isn't even a real person


By Annie B. on November 21, 2008 7:04 AM | No Comments


ShareThis



"[F]or allegedly not knowing [that Africa is a continent], Sarah Palin got pilloried. Only as the New York Times reports, the story turned out to be a hoax. Or at least part of it did:
'It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

"Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Mr. Shuster said.


'Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow--the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy--is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.


'And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.
...
'An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network's misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. "It had not been vetted," he said. "It should not have made air."'



[MY NOTE: Wow, and that's exactly what they accuse us pajamamedia bloggers of doing, isn't it?]


"We tracked down the Web site of the Harding Institute, which describes the organization as "a Washington-area think-tank in the truest sense of the words"--i.e., a place where people think about getting tanked. The Associated Press, though is careful to keep score on just what is a hoax and what isn't:


'The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin--not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.'
"Because, after all, there are 6.6 billion people in the world, and just because Eisenstadt isn't the source doesn't mean one of the other 6,599,999,999 isn't."


David Shuster and all of MSNBC, all the above-mentioned other news outlets, and bloggers at the New Republic, Los Angeles Times and Huffington Post, were all fooled and many of them were even forewarned that Eisenstadt wasn't a real person, numerous times, yet they all were duped and ran the "story."


So far, no one has found any "real" Martin Eisenstadt. Never mind one who was a McCain adviser.


Ladies and gentlemen, behold: your beloved news media at its "best." And yes, I include Fox News in that too as they were just as duped.


When will the liberals ever start questioning what they get on the TV and print news? When will they ever start reading deeper and on both sides, seeking truth?


What will it take? An atom bomb?



Categories:




 


 


______________________________


 


 


http://www.jimfeeney.org/pro-life.html


 


_______________________


 


 



___________________



PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT: Part III
"Prolifers don't care about women, and they don't care about babies once they're born.
"



PRO-LIFE ANSWER:
It is "abortion providers" who do not provide support for women choosing anything but abortion.


When you hear abortion providers talk about the help they offer women, ask them: "If a fifteen-year-old girl comes into your clinic with no money, no one to help her, no home to go to, and no desire to have an abortion, what services does your facility provide for her?" The answer is always the same---none. Abortion advocates don't offer help. They offer abortion, and then only to those who can pay their price.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)