Jezebel, the site where self-obsessed women celebrate unprotected promiscuity, is smearing another woman’s loss of child for politics. This, in the Claire’s Boutique mindset of progressive feminism, is called “empowerment.”

Let’s get down to brass tacks: Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Personhood Pledge-signing, Griswold vs. Connecticut-opposing, Mr. Ban Abortion in All Circumstances With No Exception for the Life of the Mother, believes that the actions of his own wife should be treated as criminal. Why? Because, back in 1996, his wife had a procedure that resulted in the deliberate death of her fetus, even though it was a matter of saving her own life.

Karen Santorum’s difficult pregnancy and resultant life-saving, induced early delivery is nosecret; in a 2004 interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, her husband characterized the 1996 procedure as a harrowing but necessary. Karen, in her 19th week of pregnancy, received a risky surgery to save a pregnancy that doctors thought had little chance of survival. After the surgery, she came down with an infection, and doctors told Rick that unless the source of the infection — the fetus — was removed, his wife would die and his already-born children would be motherless. The doctor also told Santorum that his wife’s fetus would not survive outside of the womb. According to Santorum, Karen went into labor as a result of the antibiotics, and then doctors gave her a drug that further induced labor. She delivered, and unfortunately the doctors were right.

Jezebel confuses an attempt to undergo surgery to save the life of her child with procedures a woman undergoes a to end the life of her child.

The Santorums’ child was not going to live regardless, yet Karen Santorum risked her life to take the pregnancy as far as possible. Both she and her husband committed to an early delivery with hope that a miracle would occur and their child would survive. Karen Santorum wasn’t going to live to carry the baby to term and the baby, due to a defect, didn’t have much of a chance outside the womb, but there was a chance. It does happen. The Santorums chose the route that provided the biggest return for the gamble. How asinine and petty for women to politicize the loss of a child for a straw man argument. Doing all you can to prevent the loss of a child you wanted is nothing like planning the execution of a child you don’t want. Of course, I don’t expect a site operated by drunk, self-described “slut machine(s)” who talk about how they don’t report rape (but like to use it as a political issue nonetheless) to understand the elementary difference. Perhaps, like our President, the issue is “above their pay grade.”

(more…)

When the left-wing snark site Wonkette went after Governor Sarah Palin’s youngest child Trig in the worst way you could imagine, I was pretty sure the left had finally hit bottom. How do you get any lower than the ridiculing of an innocent Down Syndrome child? Well, shame on me for underestimating the left’s capacity for depravity. First Alan Colmes did it (though he later apologized), and now NBC News contributor Eugene Robinson has done it on MSNBC:

—–

The idea behind all of this is political. The left wants to toxify GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum as crazy and obviously they’re so desperate that they’ve decided to publicly ridicule both the Senator and his wife over an unimaginable tragedy — the death of a child, their newborn son Gabriel:

First it was Alan Colmes; now it is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who went on MSNBC to mock Rick Santorum​ for how he and his wife Karen dealt with the death of their son Gabriel. (A severe prenatal development led to his very early delivery, and Gabriel died two hours after his birth.)

“He’s not a little weird, it’s that he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird, um, that I think that some Republicans are gonna be off-put. Um, not everybody is going to, going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the, the, the stillborn ah, ah, child, ah, um, whose body they took home to, to kind of sleep with it, introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”

Except it’s not weird. It’s not even close to weird. In fact, medical professionals recommend doing exactly what the Santorums did:

(more…)

It only took a few days for NBC News’ newest star Al Sharpton to insult his colleagues and further undermine the already diminished journalistic credibility of MSNBC.

In an interview with The Daily Beast the controversial activist turned TV news anchor defended himself against criticism from the National Association of Black Journalists.  (emphasis mine)

“To be fair about it, the NABJ understood that if I didn’t get it, it wouldn’t have gone to a journalist,” Sharpton tells me. “It’s a moot point. There are no journalists [as hosts] after 5 p.m. on MSNBC. Everyone after 5 deals with opinions. So the argument is kind of apples and oranges.”

In an effort to defend himself from the obvious observation that there are many more qualified journalists (of any color) to fill a nightly anchor spot at MSNBC, Sharpton has inadvertently “outed” Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Ed Schultz as mere commentators voicing opinions rather than legitimate journalists presenting news as well as ideas and opinions to their audience.  For the sake of this column, let’s forget O’Donnell and Schultz for a moment because their shows do border on the brink of pot and pan banging temper tantrums, let’s just focus on Matthews and Maddow.

One has to wonder how Chris Matthews feels about his new workmate telling the world that he isn’t a journalist.  Matthews spent fifteen years writing for the San Francisco Examiner.  He’s covered politics for decades on behalf of newspapers and television news bureaus.  I bet if you asked him, he’d say he was a journalist.

And Rhodes Scholar Maddow (a title Sharpton could never dream of acquiring) also has her share of opinions on her show, but she also prides herself on her excellent team of researchers who painstakingly dig for stories and facts to present news to their viewers.  Look how she presented herself in her first “Lean Forward” ad.  Surely you can see that she considers herself a journalist obsessed with details and facts, not opinion:

(more…)

Eugene Robinson, keeping it classy and displaying the depth of his punditry:

(more…)

Working as a reporter for the election night coverage on Glenn Beck’s Insider Extreme webcast the other night, I spent five solid (and painful) hours tuned in to the cable network that uses the word Progressive so often that one expects Flo to pop in every hour with a cheerful quip about saving money on your car insurance.

MSNBC could have used some perkiness

Back to MSNBC’s live coverage of the midterm elections.  I’m not certain on the exact definition of torture, but I know it when I sit through five hours of it. Yes, for five truly torturous hours I was unable to tune away from NBC’s failed experiment in the news channel biz. I did persist,  making it all the way to midnight Eastern time when most of the significant races had been called.  Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Eugene Robinson were considerably less jubilant than two years ago when the 2008 elections offered a markedly different result.  This broadcast initially had the tone of a wake as all assembled knew what was coming down the pike.

Here are the Top Five things I learned while being force-fed MSNBC’s election night coverage. (more…)

Here’s one example of race hustling via liberal commentator Alicia Menendez delivered where else but MSNBC:

Another example is MSNBC’s election night panel which consisted of hosts Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews.  As you know, all of these hosts are white liberals.  Apparently MSNBC considered this slate and decided it needed some diversity, and rightfully so.  But MSNBC’s idea of diversity was adding black liberal Eugene Robinson of the Wasington Post, leaving the panel conservative (or even moderate) free.

This is quite a statement.  In 2010, MSNBC is still prioritizing diversity of skin pigmentation over diversity of thought. (more…)

Joe Scarborough is a scarcely visible light in the intellectually vacuous cavern of MSNBC liberal apparatchiks.

I made the mistake of turning on this network in prime time last night and my head almost blew off.

What stunning honesty about ones employer and the jackassery within one’s own network.  The choicest part of these two minutes is the smug, putrefied reaction of the co-host after Joe’s comment.   Looking mortified, Mika Brzezinski glares the rest of the dialogue before squeaking out a nervous laugh in the end.  Eugene Robinson laughs and retorts Joe’s rational argument with quite possibly the most obtuse, child-like avoidance in the history of punditry.

“Why do you want to take Social Security away from senior citizens?” (more…)

Eugene Robinson, the name-calling scourge of all critics of Obama who writes one of the anti-conservative columns at the Washington Post and serves the same function on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” has just provided another example of what post- — or in this case, Post- — partisanship looks like in Obama’s Washington.

According to the Post-partisan Robinson, Arizona’s embattled S.B. 1070 “amounts to a prescription for racial profiling on a scale not seen in this country since the days of Jim Crow laws in the South.”  It is “anti-Latino” and “patently unconstitutional.” Those who support it are “xenophobes” and “demagogues … who delight in turning truth, justice and the American way into political liabilities.”

It appears as though the vituperative Mr. Robinson hasn’t gotten the message — stated by pre-presidential Obama on the Rick Warren show in 2008, repeated (with increasing shrillness, as it has turned out) ad nauseum during the campaign, and just recycled on “The View” this week — that “we can disagree without being disagreeable.”

As one can clearly see, there is never any shortage of political invective in Eugene Robinson columns, but there frequently is a severe fact shortage. In the column under review (“Immigration Helps Dems Long Term,” July 30), for example, he asserted that: (more…)

Eugene Robinson, a stage four Obama apologist at the Washington Post, thinks the Republican party is “all shook up” over Joe Barton’s portrayal of the Obama-BP “meeting” as a shakedown. Strange words coming from an MSM Obama shill who himself ain’t nothing but a hound dog.

Going all in for the President— the Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned—Robinson has once again bravely chosen blind “stand by your man” allegiance over objective journalistic reason. From Robinson’s June 22 “All Shook Up for BP” column:

A group comprising roughly two-thirds of all Republicans in the House takes the position that President Obama was wrong to demand that BP set aside money to guarantee that those whose livelihoods are being ruined by the oil spill will be compensated. In other words, it’s more important to kneel at the altar of radical conservative ideology than to feel any sense of compassion for one’s fellow Americans. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how today’s GOP rolls.

This logic is twice flawed. First, in Robinson’s murky thought world, following the Bill of Rights amounts to “radical conservative ideology.” Did he miss Article VII of said Bill?  The one that states:

Nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(more…)

When otherwise intelligent writers like the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson lose their minds, one has the audacity to hope that Michele Obama and her Obesity Police will add Kool-Aid to the list of sugary drinks they’d like to ban. With his latest column about the Arizona border law, Inspector Robinson-Clouseau proves he needs only a trench-coat and a French accent to complete the portrait of the fumbling fact-tracker unable to see the clues right in front of his own alleged nose-for-news.

Like a good upstanding member of the New American Pravda, Robinson forthrightly begins by drawing his conclusion—the Arizona border law enforces “breathing while Latino”—then methodically reshaping the facts to fit his brilliant deduction. He devotes his first two paragraphs to inform us that the Arizona border is actually a safe place these days.

Apprehensions of would-be immigrants along the 2,000-mile border have dropped from a peak of 1.8 million in fiscal 2000 to 556,000 in fiscal 2009.

Assuming Clouseau’s facts are correct (no official Pravda source is cited), this is akin to your doctor telling you not to worry because your fever has dropped from 108 to 105. (more…)