Liberals, who are simple creatures lacking in nuance and are in need of constant supervision, are high-fiving each other over the decision of a Texas grand jury to indict the videomakers behind a series of heartbreaking, stomach-churning exposés of shady practices at Planned Parenthood, while bringing no charges against the Benihana baby butchers.
"You see!" the liberals cheer, "this means that the videos were all lies and Planned Parenthood never did anything wrong!"
Not surprisingly (and certainly not for the first time), the anti-life Lefties couldn't be more wrong.
There are really two entirely distinct issues on the table (not that "the table" is anyplace you'd want to be inside a Planned Parenthood): what the videomakers and clinicians actually did, and how those actions are judged by the law.
The videomakers lied and forged fake identification to get their hidden cameras into Planned Parenthood, and this is against the law. And they surely knew it was against the law and took the risk anyway because sometimes that's what has to be done when authorities won't act. How many civil rights marchers, black and white, were legally arrested when trying to end segregation? Breaking the law doesn't necessarily make your cause wrong.
The videos (both edited and unedited) clearly and repeatedly showed Planned Parenthood officials and clinicians playing semantic games and using creative bookkeeping to make their sales of fetal tissue (and gross violations of ethical medical practice) have the appearance of legality. But obeying the letter of the law while circumventing its meaning doesn't necessarily make your cause right.
The videos demonstrated great wrongdoing, but because of the way they were created the videos cannot be used as evidence of a crime. And this is what the grand jury rightly decided.
Hope n' Change can't predict the eventual outcome of the legal process, but we're guessing that Planned Parenthood (which recently received millions of dollars of "desperately needed" tax money then announced they'll spend 20 million of those bucks to support Hillary Clinton's campaign) will escape real damage, while the videomakers will pay a significant price for their cause.
But conflating those purely legalistic determinations with moral guilt or innocence would be a huge mistake.
Put another way, it may be true that "if the surgical gloves don't fit, you must acquit." But that doesn't mean someone isn't getting away with murder.
AND THIS JUST OUT...
As is the case with all things Trumpish, opinion is divided on whether he's taking a principled stand against what he sees as unfair journalistic practices, is frightened of another tango with the razor-sharp Ms. Kelly, or is so filled with hubris that he's simply lost interest in winning over any remaining voters who remain undecided.
Hope n' Change can't say which explanation (or combination of explanations) is closest to the truth, but we will say that Trump has again confirmed the fact that no one can predict what he will do.
Whether or not that's a quality voters actually want in the Oval Office remains to be seen.
26 comments:
"...opinion is divided on whether he's taking a principled stand against what he sees as unfair journalistic practices, is frightened of another tango with the razor-sharp Ms. Kelly, or is so filled with hubris that he's simply lost interest in winning over any remaining voters who remain undecided."
I'd lend more credence to the last of these possibilities. Another consideration: what are the ratings for this debate likely to be, compared against those in which The Donald had been engaged?
The legacy media depend upon "grabbing eyeballs" for their revenue streams. No Trump, no eyeballs? I suspect that ratings for Fox's festival of electoral noise will sink down to those produced by the National Socialist Democrat American Party's not-EVER-ready-for-prime-time match-ups between Hitlery ("Nanna") and Tovarish Sanderskovitch ("Pop-Pop").
Mr. Putin, what do you think about a man who's afraid of Megyn Kelly?
I certainly hope that FOX has the sense to take the extra podium off the stage.
Think Scott Adams has the right take on it: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138125409321/trump-fox-news-and-megyn-kelly-explained-master
As for Megyn Kelly vs. Putin, the two cannot be more separate. Trump can blow off Megyn - she is irrelevant. But if you think Trump has not already handled Russian mob thugs in business deals in New York, you're naive (and Putin is just the same). Walk out them? Refuse to talk? If it gets the deal - sure. But once you say Trump is "afraid," you have underestimated him to his advantage.
Trump? I'll go with hubris, loads and loads of hubris. Believe the mask is starting to slip off.
The irony and hypocrisy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. Where is the feminist outrage over muslim treatment of women? Why, when almost 50% of all abortions are conducted on black babies in an organization created by self-proclaimed racist Margaret Sanger (whom HRC claims to admire), will the majority of blacks still vote for that evil-lying-corrupt women and her party that created both the KKK and Planned Genocide?
Libs can put whatever PC spin on the unplanned parenthood situation they want, but murder is murder and still a crime. More insane nit picking of the law. Why is it when a pregnant women is murdered, the perp. is quite often charged with TWO murders?
It seems to me that Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly because she is smarter than he, so he resorted to his usual name calling and childish fit. (you're mean, so I won't play)
"It seems to me that Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly because she is smarter than he...."
Well, hell. And you seem to think that The Donald hasn't had to deal with opponents and critics and partners and subordinates who weren't "smarter than he"? That he'd be "afraid" of one?
Even if we accept your premise that Megyn Kelly "is smarter than he," on which assertion you've presented no supported argument.
@Tucci- I, too, suspect ratings will be down for the Trump-less debate. A lot of people will probably tune in initially to see if Fox makes a statement (either literally or by leaving an empty podium onstage) and then tune out when the actual debate moves forward.
@Joseph ET- Actually, I'm more concerned with Trump's praise of Putin for having journalists killed. Sure, he was joking - but such "jokes" can be very telling.
@Jim Irre- If they leave the empty podium, it will be a victory for Trump. It would make Fox look petulant, and give Trump's supporters (and the liberal media) an irresistibly easy opportunity to declare that an empty podium won the GOP debate.
@The Digital Hairshirt- Wow, the Scott Adams piece is brilliant. Here's a clickable link and I recommend that everyone read this analysis of the Trump "system."
And I agree with you that "fear" is not Trump's motivating principle here. I don't think it's in his makeup.
@Fish Out of Water- Thus far, we haven't really seen Trump under pressure. It will be interesting to get a read on his behavior when that pressure becomes real. I just hope it's before he wins the White House.
@Geoff King- I agree. Liberals are the first to claim cultural equivalency and non-judgementalism when it comes to Muslim countries that virtually enslave women, rape as a matter of sport, and throw people from rooftops for being gay. And they decry the violence done by guns (mostly in the hands of gang members in Democrat-controlled cities) while celebrating an organization whose motto might as well be #BlackLivesMatterToOurBottomLine.
The unifying theme may be that Liberals admire the ability to control the lives of others, whether the tools for such control are theocracy or scalpels.
@ tUCCI: I said "it SEEMS to me". This is based on observation, and my point was his childish reaction to her, and to anyone else who doesn't think he's the second coming for that matter. He ALWAYS reacts with name calling and arrogance, and apparently you've decided to emulate him.
@Judi King- The Planned Parenthood case raises interesting questions and contrasts about the difference between morality and the law. I'll be watching to see how it plays out.
Regarding Trump, I don't honestly know if Megyn Kelly is smarter. She's certainly more thoughtful and focused - but Trump's bombast is a big part of his appeal, which actually makes him smart not to change his game plan.
@Tucci- I largely agree. There are a lot of ways to define "smart," and one of them must surely be getting the desired outcome in a situation - which Trump has a long track record of doing. And I don't think Trump fears anything or anyone, but I'm a bit concerned with his attitude that he's too big to be bothered by people and issues he sees as being beneath him.
All of that being said, I'm still open to the idea that Trump may be exactly the right guy to shake things up in these crazy times. Then again, I once voted for Ross Perot. Oops.
I suppose SOME people won't watch the Fox so called "debate" because their folk hero won't be appearing. But. there are several other candidates who might actually have substantive opinions that might be worth hearing. This time the one with the biggest mouth can't be declared the "winner" without even stating his resolutions for the many problems facing our nation as in all previous "debates".
@Judi King: "He [The Donald] ALWAYS reacts with name calling and arrogance, and apparently you've decided to emulate him."
Tsk. Not that "name calling and arrogance" don't comprise a suite of tactical measures which Trump has made work to his purposes with great effectiveness, whateverinhell gives anyone to yammer about how I'm presently emulating him?
I've been treating idiots, "Liberal" fascisti, mercantilists, Keynesians and similar hateful vermin with taxonomic accuracy (can I help it if they receive such correct assessments of their character as "name calling"?) since long before Mr. Trump first sought a podium to speak on political matters.
He and I are more or less of an age. Who's to say that either of us is copying the other?
Think of it as parallel evolution in action.
Hillary said it was the video that was to blame and the guy that made it went to jail. Nobody can talk to Stephenson.
Well, Tucci.....BULLY for you. Enjoy your ego trip.
@ Stilton Jarlsberg: "...but I'm a bit concerned with [Trump's] attitude that he's too big to be bothered by people and issues he sees as being beneath him."
From what I've gathered (chiefly by way of business associates and subordinates who've attested to their experiences with him), The Donald's operating style is the antithesis of "micromanagement." There is apparently much that he's encountered over the decades that is, indeed, "beneath him," just as laying out the interior plans for a battalion firebase is "beneath" the purview of a corps commander and sterilizing the instrument tray for a routine craniotomy is "beneath" the consideration of Dr. Carson.
Is it his attitude that perturbs you? Perhaps it's simply that Trump's style in the OODA loop doesn't admit "wasted energy" in disguising competence. The professional politician projects a sort of "down-home" guise to engage average folks with the impression of a common touch.
Think of "Dubbya," who's still doing the "aw, shucks!" bit that got him elected both in Texas and to the presidency, and try to reconcile that with the fact that he trained up as an F-102 fighter jock in his younger days (to fly one of the real "widow-makers" of the Century series, a genuine pilot-killer even in peacetime operational tempo) and got himself an M.B.A. at the Harvard School of Business.
His clod-kicker public presentation is almost as phony as Obozo's "long-form birth certificate."
To the extent that The Donald has crafted himself an advantageous image, what you're seeing is what got him the winnage he's thus far earned, and there's no indication that he will - or should - change it.
The people in the clinic did not win anything by this decision. They are still wrong. The videographers lost, only because of how they gained access to the clinic. That does not change the public opinion on the right to harvest baby parts to sell for a profit. Their (the clinic and employees) perceived "win" is not a win in the eyes of John Q Public.
@Judi King- I'm going to go out on a pretty sturdy-looking limb and predict that Trump will be declared the winner of a debate he doesn't attend. Per the Scott Adams' piece referenced above, if Trump is attacked by any of the other candidates, he'll sneer at them for being weasels who only talk behind his back. The strategy is infuriating but brilliant.
@Tucci- While I don't much like Trump's name calling, I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't admit to saying the same kinds of things (and worse) in the privacy of my own home. And I believe that's part of Trump's appeal: he actually says what a lot of people are already thinking. In many ways, real political discussion has been nuanced to death and saddled with political correctness. Sometimes (but not always) declaring something to be "stupid" is dead accurate.
Regarding some things being "beneath" Trump, you make a valid point. The way an actual leader gets things done is not by having hands on every detail, but in wisely delegating assignments and holding the assignees responsible - and this is clearly a gift that Trump has.
Just to be clear, in normal circumstances I'd never willingly cast a vote for Trump except as an alternative to whatever dreck the Dems throw on the ballot. But "normal circumstances" aren't in play; there's no longer a discernible difference between the Dems and the Republicans as far as effecting policy. Substantial change is needed now, and I don't see it happening given the too-cozy relationships in Washington.
Which is why an unpredictable, unfettered dealmaker (which is not the same as simply caving to the opposition or accepting a bad compromise) may be our only hope.
@chef621- I think the people who saw the videos know the truth of the situation, but far too few people made the effort (and most media outlets completely buried the story). But to borrow an overused phrase from Barack Obama, I think the videomakers will eventually be seen as having been on the right side of history.
I hope you all check out today's "Daily Gouge". Especially the point #2 video.
Aaaargh, Stilton, why did you tell me you voted for Perot? That's what gave us the Clintons who, like cockroaches, cannot be eradicated. It also seems by your reasoning, that you are buying the Trump nonsense too. I hope not. While I really really really don't want Her Majesty as president (and will vote for Trump to prevent that, if it comes to it) I just want to wretch at the thought of listening to him and putting up with his shenanigans for the next 4 to 8 years. He is the flip side of the Obama coin. While he is shaking up the establishment, his outsized ego is insufferable and, make no mistake, he looks at EVERYTHING as it pertains to him. It may seem cool to a lot of people now, but it will get old real quick. It already has for me. Fox News has given him an overabundance of coverage, much more than the other candidates, but because Megyn Kelly was mean to his poor widdle ego, well you get it.
As to the PP videos, it was noted on Fox News yesterday, that Mike Wallace used similar fraudulent tactics in his expose journalism for 60 minutes. He, of course, was lionized for it, not indicted. But he gored the right oxes for the left. In the coverage of the Houston indictment, a number of the videos were played again and the one in particular that really got to me was the one the PP person was talking about retrieving an intact fetal cadaver. How anyone could watch that and not admit that killing of babies is going on there is a disingenuous fool.
I've never been a Megyn Kelly or Trump fan, so as far as I am concerned, it's a shame they can't both lose. I already vote against both of them by not watching them.
@Geoff King said "Where is the feminist outrage over muslim treatment of women?"
There was a brief window in the mid-90s when I recall some of the feminist alphabets bringing up the issue of "genital mutilation", but didn't so much associate it directly with Islam, but with the backwardness of the placed it was happening. (Actually, one-in-the-same) But after going all-in on denying the relevance of the Bill-Monica affair, the feminist alphabets lost all credibility as a political force with both the left and the right. On the left, they were now wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democrats, and everywhere else they were a sad joke. "Feminism" as an organized ideology retreated to the safe grounds of academia where it largely become the voice of lesbianism, trans-genderism and the rest of the non-hetrosexual alphabet. In academia, "multiculturalism" and anti-westernism is the gospel, so it's natural that in this environment, acknowledgement if Islam's dismal treatment of women is not to happen. The left has always been happy to sacrifice the well being of like-others in the name of ideological hegemony, just as they were happy to ignore the horrors that communism inflicted upon hapless citizens behind the iron curtain.
"Why, when almost 50% of all abortions are conducted on black babies in an organization created by self-proclaimed racist Margaret Sanger (whom HRC claims to admire), will the majority of blacks still vote for that evil-lying-corrupt women and her party that created both the KKK and Planned Genocide?"
This is why I've been arguing for years that if the GOP really wants to stop abortion, they should come out for it. The bullhorns of the left already proclaim that we're just a bunch of ignorant, racist rednecks and the lo-fos believe it, so what's the harm?
"Liberals are the first to claim cultural equivalency and non-judgementalism when it comes to Muslim countries that virtually enslave women, rape as a matter of sport, and throw people from rooftops for being gay. And they decry the violence done by guns (mostly in the hands of gang members in Democrat-controlled cities) while celebrating an organization whose motto might as well be #BlackLivesMatterToOurBottomLine... The unifying theme may be that Liberals admire the ability to control the lives of others, whether the tools for such control are theocracy or scalpels."
There ya got it.
"The way an actual leader gets things done is not by having hands on every detail, but in wisely delegating assignments and holding the assignees responsible - and this is clearly a gift that Trump has."
My favorite Ronald Reagan story was of his first meeting with his cabinet members. When assembled before him, he stood and said, "Gentlemen and ladies, I hate inflation, I hate taxes, and I hate Communism. Do something about it." He then left the room.
That's how a leader works.
@Judi King- The Daily Gouge is always worth reading, and I'm pleased to say its author is a good friend of mine.
@Shelly- Sorry to break the news about my Perot vote (geez, I think I voted for Carter once) but the whole point of this site is for me to be honest with everyone: even when confessing a past as an unthinking liberal (or is that redundant?). I eventually saw the error of my ways, and I'm still doing penance online.
And perhaps Trump supporters might do well to reexamine Ross Perot; a billionaire who couldn't be bought, who was fighting the "soft sucking sound" of American jobs migrating to Mexico (granted, since that time Mexico has come to the jobs), a man who wasn't tied to either party but had the business and management experience to really shake things up.
And of course, in the end his campaign was a fiasco and helped put Bill Clinton in office.
So I'm worried about another "wild card" candidate. For now, I'm trying to keep an open mind - but until Trump says specifically how he's going to deport 11 million illegals in a peaceful and orderly way, I can't take many of his claims seriously. But as I've said before, I'll crawl through burning embers to vote for him over Hillary or Bernie.
@John the Econ- As I recall that "brief window in the mid-90's," the feminists were mainly against genital mutilation (cliterectomies) because they robbed women of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure being one of the central tenets of feminism and liberalism - preferably without consequences. The actual enslavement of women was less bothersome to the feminists, and they eventually lost interest entirely.
Regarding abortion, I agree with your strategy. Have the Right endorse the procedure wholeheartedly with the stated intent of weeding out the undesirables that Sanger hoped to cull from our genome. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could adopt a "Smokey the Bear" style mascot reminding women that "Only You Can Prevent Black People" (again, Sanger's idea - not mine). Or if there are too many women, we can up the quota for female abortions. And say, why not start slicing and dicing those infants conceived by people with drug convictions, or those who have been unable to find work?
If this became policy, you'd have Liberals racing to burn down abortion clinics rather than have to admit that they've secretly shared the nightmare scenario above all along.
And what a great story about Reagan. And admittedly, I sometimes fantasize about what would happen if Trump truly redefined the role of president as assembling brilliant people, telling them the goals, and then holding them accountable as if they were working in the private sector.
Heaven help me, after 7 years of "Hope n' Change," I still have flickers of hope...
Something incredible happened this morning. The sun rose. I got out of bed, got dressed, and went to my office. And my day proceeded like thousands of others have done before it.
Why was this "incredible"? Because 10 years ago yesterday, Al Gore told the world at the premier of his critically acclaimed hit An Inconvenient Truth, that "global warming" (now known as "climate change" because there's been practically no warming over the last decade) was going to finish us off by January 27th, 2016 unless we bought lots of carbon credits and gave up fossil fuels.
And yet I'm still here and there's snow outside. And Al Gore is worth hundreds-of-millions of dollars more than I am, and he was 10 years ago.
I feel like going out to buy a new SUV.
Ya know what I like about Trump? He's not Hillery. That is all.
The only thing slightly wrong with the "babies in Heaven" picture is that they're all white. The abortion industry has been massacring black babies in great numbers. It fits right in with Margaret Sanger's genocidal vision, of course.
I think there's a typo. Isn't his name Donald T. RUMP?
Post a Comment