"Dr. Gosnell & Obama's Heart of Stone"

Thank you Alan Keyes for saying this better than I could:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/dr-gosnell-and-obamas-heart-of-stone/

The black-hearted liberal media covering up this story - is on display for all to see, once and for all time. Personally, I don't do facebook or twitter, but understand that this topic is red hot all acros twitter. The CPUSA media is meeting up with reality, thanks to the internet.

No votes yet

You post a link to World Net Daily, an organization notorious for posting outright lies. Oh, you want proof?

This is from that article: "As reported by factcheck.org (a site not notorious for its willingness to clarify facts detrimental to Obama), “His stated reasons for opposing ‘born-alive’ bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.”"

Really? That's not what I heard him say. As a matter of fact, I'm sure his lawyer has told him NOT to make statements. Could it be that factcheck (the bogus one) just pulled that out of their you know what? Or maybe you didn't know. factcheck.org is one of those sources that use a name similar to a legitimate source in hopes that people will get it confused with the real thing. In this case the reliable source is Factchecker, a website by the Washington Post. And while we're there, The Washington Times is another fringe group trying to impinge on the good names of The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Do you really think all abortion clinics are like this one? Sorry to disappoint you, but this is exactly the reason we need free-choice clinics for women and The Affordable Health Care Act. These poor women were forced to use this hell-hole because they couldn't afford a legitimate clinic. And if the choice for women is taken away, ALL women will be forced to look for clinics like this one. Oh wait, there's always the rusty hangers or hungry rat on a string. That's what it was like before Roe vs. Wade; or maybe you choose not to remember that part.

The Washington Times is a legitimate newspaper in the DC area. Hence the Washington part of their name. "Times" is a common moniker for newspapers. The first to bear the name is The Times, a British newspaper. It's over 200 years old. So by your logic they are actually copying them.

MikeyA

The Washington Times isn't a legitimate paper anywhere.

Why do people post "facts" they appear to pull out of their a**?

"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church."

And Fox News is "fair & balanced". At least according to the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. Now where have I heard that name before..........oh that's right. There were those silly ethic violations in England including hacking a dead girl's voice mail; all in the name of selling garbage to the gullible.

Nothing you wrote or quoted shows my comment as false or misleading. Yours was this second post is as well.

You were wrong and now realize you are wrong and are now posting about Fox News to deflect from you being wrong.

Why don't you educate yourself instead of posting from a partisan bias and attempting to spread untruths.

MikeyA

All you are doing now is attacking legitimate news sources and it says more about you than it does them.

What's sad is you were actually right about WND which is why I was silent about them.

MikeyA

The WashingtonTimes used to be owned and operated by the Cult out of South Korea and hasn’t made money since its creation. It’s exists basically because of right wing welfare. Today they have a “hard hitting” article talking about Donald Trump, linking the Boston Bomber to Obamacare and an article by disgraced former FBI agent John Guandolo talking about more Muslim terrorism. The same Guandolo who thinks that CIA chief nominee John Brennan is a secret Muslim and Saudi plant. They have a laundry list of crazy articles every week. Just because they include a sports page, doesn’t make them legitimate.

They are really no different than the Blade. Most of the criticisms you levy at them can be used in reference to the local rag, the sole exception is they are owned by a religious organization. But being owned by a religious organization or religious person does not disqualify a newspaper from being legitimate. The CS Monitor is one example of a very newspaper highly recognized by both sides of the political aisle for it's reporting and it was started by the founder of a religious organization and run by a committee from that religious organization.

There are many I know in the DC area who rely on the Washington Times for it's coverage. Again, people from both sides of the political aisle. The Times did such a good job in the early 00's in their local reporting that the WP was losing readership for that instance and specifically ran a targeted a marketing campaign about local reporting.

MikeyA

Alan Keyes, a real American nut job.

During the 1992 election, Keyes attracted controversy when he took a $8,463/month salary from his campaign fund.
I guess nobody told Alan that was a no-no. Claiming to be such an expert on American law, you'd think he would have known better.

On November 14, 2008, Keyes filed a lawsuit—naming as defendants California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen, President-elect Barack Obama, Vice President-elect Joe Biden, and California's 55 Democratic elector]—challenging Obama's eligibility for the U.S. Presidency. The suit requested that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
I wonder who won that lawsuit.

Following the inauguration, Keyes claimed President Obama had not been constitutionally inaugurated, refused to call him president, and called him a "usurper" and a "radical communist". Keyes also claimed that President Obama's Birth Certificate had been forged and he was not qualified to be president.
DING-DING-DING-DING....Birther alert.

In the Iowa caucuses, Keyes did not appear on any of the election totals. Keyes stated that many of the caucus locations he visited did not list him as a choice. His campaign CEO, Stephen Stone blamed much of this on the media and on Keyes's decision to enter the race late. Stone explained that the media would not acknowledge Keyes' candidacy, making it difficult to run an effective campaign.
Does he know that he has to get his name on the ballot, not the media?

This guy is how the late night talk shows make money on their joke dialogs.

dumped into the toilet and the baby swam and tried to climb out of the toilet bowl ?!

Only liberals can act and feel this way about what they say is a "woman's choice", a "woman's rights", just a simple medical procedure.
They are deluded by that sort of thinking.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.