It was for this WaPo article…

that the term “bullshit” was coined.

Meanwhile, from deep inside Fortress Bullshit, the MSM fires back with grotesque claims that Gosnell is a local crime and not a national story and that those who are pointing out their grotesque malfeasance are anti-semites (the last refuge of the desperate demagogue).

Two words: Trayvon Martin.  These people are not helpless.  They are engaged in a coordinated and wilful coverup and they got caught with their pants down and exposed by the new media.  Now they are fighting back with lies.  And new media is continuing to expose the lies.  Utterly filthy lies.

  • http://www.liturgicalenvirons.com Steven J Schloeder, PhD AIA

    Weirdly, googlefight between “Trayvon Martin” vs “Kermit Gosnell” (without or without quotes) comes out in favor of Gosnell…. I don’t get it.

    http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Trayvon+Martin&word2=Kermit+Gosnell
    http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Trayvon+Martin%22&word2=%22Kermit+Gosnell%22

  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    The trouble with this is that in order to fight, indeed to define, the enemy, one has to descend to their level. It is right and proper to define this kind of thing as bullshit, but it nonetheless vulgarizes our language and embitters our attitude. We are, as Mary Renault put it, “fighting the base with base weapons”. But if we don’t throw their mendacity in their face with all possible force, if we don’t make it clear to them that what they are doing is in every way unacceptable and disgraceful, if, in short, we treat it as deserving of peaceful debate instead of the scorn and rejection of any decent person, then we have simply failed to understand what kind of thing it is.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    A local story? Are there local stories nowadays? I see stories about things that are so small in scope from around the world I assumed local story didn’t mean what it used to mean. Just a few days ago I saw a story about a clerk who chased away an armed robber with a bat. Nice story. Go clerk. But I saw it across the major networks, including CNN. Several times. I figure if they can cover things like that on national news, there is no longer the same notion of local stories that there used to be.

  • Beccolina

    Kim Kardasian’s pregnancy weight gain makes headlines, but Gosnell is ‘local news’. *insert eye roll here* At the very least, you think they would be happy to paint him as a psychopathic serial killer whose existence insults the “real, benevolent” abortionists who really care about women and their money–er, health. Not even the potential for sensationalism can break the barriers, I guess.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    Comment on another blog (Daily Telegaph):

    A little lesson in logic for the pro-abortionists:

    - A baby is a living human being;

    - We know of nothing in nature where a dead thing spontaneously becomes a living thing;

    - Therefore a ‘fetus’ must be a living thing from the moment of conception;

    - Furthermore, we know of nothing in nature where one species spontaneously turns into another;

    - Therefore a ‘fetus’ must be a human being;

    - Therefore a ‘fetus’ is a live human being from the moment of its conception;

    - Therefore abortion is…..

  • Dustin

    Trayvon Martin’s story actually didn’t go national until weeks after he was shot. Like this case, independent media and bloggers had to shout without ceasing before the national press would pick it up. When crime victims are poor and non-white, don’t expect the MSM to care until someone forces them to.

    • Beccolina

      So when can we expect Mr. President to stand up and say, “The victims of Kermit Gosnell could have been my daughters or grandchildren.”? Once the tragic, ugly event of Trayvon’s murder was noticed, the racial part is what drove it to become such news.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      Actually, Trayvon Martin went national the next day. I saw the story first on CNN the day after it happened. It was on most internet sites by the end of the first day. It was then a ‘new gun law leads to shooting’ framework. As that angle became fuzzier, it turned to a racism story. Within days, protests began to pick up and within a week, full blown protests were igniting across Florida, and the story was getting round the clock coverage. In fact, the entire Martin story became a media frenzy precisely because Martin was non-white and Zimmerman was white. It bounced back and forth between ‘racist hate crime’ and ‘result of gun law’, but as evidence piled up suggesting it may not have been either, the story gradually faded. Plus, many of the protests were because people wanted him arrested, he was arrested, that also ended it.

      • LaVallette

        “In fact, the entire Martin story became a media frenzy precisely because Martin was non-white and Zimmerman was white”.

        Zimmerman is not white: neither by the color of his skin nor his ancestry. His normal “racial” discription (and my stomack turns when I have to write that that phrase) normally would be Hispanic. If Zimmerman is white so is Obama. However he was made to be “white” by the MSM for the deliberate purpose of making the story a racist “hate crime” and thus bringing in the Federal/nationwide concern. Deliberately stirring racist tensions in the process? Of course, that is the purpose..

  • LaVallette

    I posted this at Christopher Johnson’s MCJ

    “In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill made clear where his theoretical thinking lay:

    “For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights.”

    “http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/04/16/gosnell-case-huffpost-host-says-left-made-a-decision-to-not-cover-trial/

    These are the same people who rightly excoriated the Catholic Church leadership for the dereliction of their moral obligation, on the basis of:

    “For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us in the Church hierarchy and positions of leadership have made a decision not to to bring out the problem into the open because we worry that it’ll compromise the reputation of the Church”.

    Who have joined the ranks of the hypocrits now !?!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X