Hillary Clinton: No Limits on Abortion, Not Even In the Ninth Month of Pregnancy

She claims that all late term abortions are done due to "medical necessity" -- but that's not true. Ask Kermit Gosnell's clients, who came seeking perfectly elective abortions. They were simply women who waited until the last possible day to make a decision. Had that last possible day been earlier, they would have made it earlier.

This is such an obvious point I'm not surprised at all the media has failed to make it. The media's job is to conceal facts, not publicize them.

On the Planned Parenthood videos, Hillary does what the whole left has decided is their collective alibi -- she claims the videos are "misleading" and deceptively edited, but fails to say in what way they are so.

Certainly the Planned Parenthood personnel are discussing selling specific body parts and negotiating price. What is "misleading" here?

The tactic is has two phases. First, someone claims a very ticky-tack or speculative claim of how someone could possibly have been misled by some silly thing. For example, they're claiming that including the footage of a 20 week (or thereabouts) fetus on the table while the whistleblower is talking about harvesting a still-living fetus' organs is "misleading," because that's not video of the actual fetus she's talking about. It's footage of a different fetus.

They're pretending that the public is not aware of the idea of "B Roll," which are images not necessarily taken for the report a news station is given, but rolled with the audio narration to give a visual of what the thing generally looks like.

If this is "misleading," I call upon the entire news media to end this "misleading" practice, which they do literally every single report. For example, a report of fighting in Syria will often be packaged with video not of that reported-on fighting but with previous fighting.

So that's step one: Raise some ticky-tack, bullshit claim of the video being misleading.

Step two is now for people like Hillary to perform: They now claim the video is "misleading," without noting the extremely technical and tiny reasons for the objection (reasons the public would reject as irrelevant, were those reasons presented to them), and they cast their claim of the videos being "misleading" as general and global and total.

Step one: someone somewhere writes a silly little Vox piece objecting to the videos on very techincal and very ticky-tack grounds; step two: the avatars of the progressive party now proclaim the videos have been "debunked" as misleading.

Importantly, people like Hillary never offer the grounds upon which they make this claim: For if they did, the public would see immediately that their grounds are ridiculous.

Compare to the left's and the media's (BIRM) dismissal of James O'Keefe's ACORN videos -- on the grounds that obviously inserted-for-comedic-purposes video of O'Keefe dressed ludicrously as a pimp in interstitial material somehow made the unedited videos of ACORN staffers "misleading," because, supposedly, viewers might think... I don't know. That he dressed like Superfly?

What could that matter?



Carly Fiorina is especially being battered by these "misleading' claims horseshit, because she gave such a riveting accounting of the videos, daring people to watch them.

Well, the media is very insistent that you not do that. That's why they tend not to run the tapes when they claim they're misleading -- the public would see the media's claims are bullshit.

Well, Fiorina's PAC is running them in their response to these bullshit claims.

CONTENT WARNING -- contains the upsetting footage the media doesn't want you to see.