When will the Press Stand Up and be the Beacon of Justice it Once Was?

Here is a story that must be told and like I have done on previous occasions I am reprising an article from USA Today in its entirety for your consumption - we, as Americans, are some of the biggest mass murderers in the worlds history killing in excess of 50 million unborn and newly born babies since the mid-70's when we decided (actually the Supreme Court decided not, "We The People") that abortion is some how a Constitutional right.  

The story below is about the murder trial going on right now that you hear nothing of in the nightly news or the newspapers or hardly anywhere for that matter.  The things that occurred in this abortion clinic are horrifying and it amazes me that people still think this is something we should be doing.  But the worst thing is these types of occurrences seem to be more of the norm then the exception.  Remember, our glorious President voted in the Illinois Legislature to allow botched abortion babies born alive to be left to die - yes, this is our President, great guy isn't he?  But the point is it occurs frequently enough that the Illinois Legislature thought it needed to pass a law allowing these newly born babies to be left to die without consequence to the doctor or clinic or hospital or anyone.  Compassionate, caring, loving? - that's what they would like you to believe.  Further to the point, where is the press on this story?  Where is the compassionate expose speaking truth to the horrors that occur daily across this country as babies are torn apart just as they are to be born or worse, born alive and then murdered?  

There is no justice anymore.  Every story today is told or not because of some agenda behind it - the press should tell all they know so the people are well informed - both the good and the bad because "truth has no agenda".  Discuss the article below with your friends, neighbors and your church.  IT NEEDS TO BE.

Philadelphia abortion clinic horror: Column
Kirsten Powers 8:49 p.m. EDT April 11, 2013


We've forgotten what belongs on Page One.   

(Photo: Yong Kim, AP) 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS: 

* Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state's 24-week limit for  abortions is the story. 

* That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable. 

* This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It is about basic human rights.

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, "described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body." One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his "snipping" technique to use on infants born alive.

Massof, who, like other witnesses, has himself pleaded guilty to serious crimes, testified "It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place." Here is the headline the Associated Press put on a story about his testimony that he saw 100 babies born and then snipped: "Staffer describes chaos at PA abortion clinic."

"Chaos" isn't really the story here. Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state's 24-week limit for abortions is the story. There is a reason the late Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this procedure infanticide.

Planned Parenthood recently claimed that the possibility of infants surviving late-term abortions was "highly unusual." The Gosnell case suggests otherwise.

Regardless of such quibbles, about whether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb — as in a routine late-term abortion — is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on page A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, "A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn't make the cut.

You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It's about basic human rights.

The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.

Kirsten Powers is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, a Fox Newspolitical analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Considering the lack of coverage, please find below a recap of some of the story’s most shocking — and important — details. In addition to allegations that Gosnell killed seven babies and one woman died on his watch, here are some of the key, must-know allegations:

1) Gosnell allegedly treated his minority clients with much less respect than his white patients. Considering that he was named, according to the AP, in more than 40 malpractice suits, the clinic head would purportedly perform abortions for caucasian women in cleaner locations (he assumed whites were more likely to complain about him).

2) In addition to the murderous allegations being waged against Gosnell, eight former employees of the clinic have pleaded guilty (some to third-degree murder) and have spoken in great lengths about the terrifying conditions at the clinic.

3) A 15-year-old girl allegedly helped facilitate abortions — including on potentially live babies — at the clinic. Ashley Baldwin, now 22, claims she worked nearly 50 hours per week. Even more shocking, she allegedly helped give women the drugs needed for the procedure — and apparently assisted throughout. Baldwin said that she saw aborted babies move on at least two occasions following abortions (in one instance, she said “the chest was moving”).

4) Gosnell purportedly used untrained and low-paid staff to conduct nearly 1,000 abortions each year. The charge for a procedure in the horrific conditions mentioned? Between $350 and several thousand, depending on how far along the pregnancy was. Prosecutors believe he made millions from the practice. Authorities claim the clinic brought in about $15,000 per day.

5) Speaking of “untrained,” prosecutors claim, according to the Gospel Coalition, that Gosnell is not certified to work in either gynecology or obstetrics.

6) In the grand jury report, the clinic was said to smell of animal urine and blood stains were on blankets and furniture inside of the office. Not surprisingly, sterilized instruments were unheard of inside the establishment. And somehow the state had failed to inspect — or even visit — the clinic since 1993.

7) In March, Adrienne Moton, a medical assistant at the clinic, provided sickening details about her alleged actions at the clinic, claiming that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies; she said that another worker — and Gosnell himself — did the same. But that’s not the worst part. Moton also claimed that she once killed a baby after it was delivered in a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors. Moton plead guilty and has been in prison since 2011.

8) Another former employee, Sherry West, shared yet another horrifying story. She claims that she was once called to the back room at the clinic, where aborted babies’ bodies were apparently kept on a shelf. Once there, West heard a live baby among the bodies cry out. The screaming child “really freaked” her out, she told the court. “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” she said, noting that she previously referred to the babies as “specimens,” because it was easier to mentally handle what was going on at the clinic.

9) Then there’s Robyn Reid’s story. She was only an 87-pound teen when she went to the clinic in 1998. Accompanied by her grandmother, she was looking for an abortion. But once she made it to the office, Reid changed her mind. But Salem-News.com writes that the doctor allegedly forced an abortion on her. ”Gosnell ripped off her clothes and restrained the girl. When she regained consciousness 12 hours later at her aunt’s home, she discovered that an abortion had been performed against her will,” the website reports.

10) “3801 Lancaster” is (warning: graphic) a documentary series that highlights the horror found at the clinic. Many of these claims, among others, are covered by the filmmakers (http://3801lancaster.com/about/).

________________________________________________________________________

“If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.” That was the challenging observation made this morning by Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, on the floor of the U.S. House.

Benghazi - UPDATE

In our effort to keep you up-to-date with events happening on Benghazi - Please find below an article by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com who spoke with Jay Carney about Benghazi - reprinted below without change, in its entirety, with our comments after:

WH: Obama Called Hillary on Night of Benghazi Attack--More Than Six Hours After It Started

February 20, 2013

---

By Fred Lucas

  

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told CNSNews.com.

That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tryone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed--and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.

“Like every president before him, he has a national security adviser and deputy national security adviser,” Carney told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”

Carney was responding to questions from CNSNews.com about who Obama communicated with on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who worked for CIA, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey. (AP)

That night, while the attacks were still unfolding, and before Woods and Doherty were killed, Secretary of State Clinton released a statement--entitled "Statement on the Attack in Bengazi"-- linking the attacks to an anti-Muslim video that had been posted on YouTube. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Over the course of a week--from Jan. 8 to Jan. 15--CNSNews.com tried to get the State Department to simply say when exactly on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, the department issued this statement. The State Department would not respond. CNSNews.com called again Tuesday to inquire what time the statement was released. The State Department again did not respond.

However, the Associated Press confirmed to CNSNews.com that at 10:58 p.m. Eastern time that night, it ran a story quoting from Clinton's statement linking the Benghazi attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Also, FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, has reported that the State Department released Clinton's statement "about 10:00 p.m."--which is when Carney tells CNSNews.com Obama phoned Clinton.

FactCheck.org also pointed out that MSNBC posted a Reuters story at 10:32 p.m. that night, which quoted Clinton's statement linking the Benghazi attacks to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

The Benghazi attacks later were determined to have nothing to do with a protest over the YouTube video--although administration officials, including the president, continued to make that inference for days after the attacks.

During her Jan. 23 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton stated she spoke with Obama the night of the attack, but did not say what time.

"I was notified of the attack shortly after 4 p.m. Over the following hours we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally,” Clinton said. Given that Clinton was notified shortly after 4:00 p.m. of the Benghazi attack, she knew it was going on for about an hour before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta notified the president.

Clinton went on to say, “So it was a constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings. I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective. Obviously, we kept talking with everyone during the night. Early in the morning on the 12th I spoke with General Dempsey, again with [National Security Adviser] Tom Donilon.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. (AP)

On Tuesday, CNSNews.com emailed White House Press Secretary Carney follow-up questions about the Obama-Clinton 10:00 p.m. telephone call on Sept. 11. “Did the president and Sec. Clinton discuss the statement she was about to issue?" CNSNews.com asked. "And did they discuss the issue of ‘inflammatory material posted on the Internet?’”

Carney did not directly answer either question. Instead, he responded,  “At about 10 pm, the President called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

CNSNews.com also asked Carney about the Senate testimony of Panetta and Dempsey: “Panetta and Dempsey said after they were finished with the 5:30 meeting--the meeting from 5 to 5:30--that they weren’t in contact with the White House.”

This photo, which was published in the Bureau of Diplomatic Securities annual report for 2011, shows then-Special Envoy Chris Stevens in Benghazi on April 11, six days after he landed there in a Greek cargo ship. The caption in the annual report says Stevens is speaking "to local media in Benghazi," and identifies the man behind and to his right as a DS officer, although it does not name him. (State Dept. photo)

Carney responded, “No. They didn’t say that. They said they hadn’t spoken with the president. The president has a National Security Advisor as has every president before him dating back many, many presidencies. He has a deputy national security adviser and remember he had already spoken with and met with in person and discussed ongoing attack in Benghazi with the secretary of defense, with the chairman of the joint chiefs. He then spoke with the secretary of state because after all, it was a diplomatic facility that was attacked and at that point, we were getting information that American lives had been lost. I think that answers your question.”

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Feb. 7, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R.-N.H.) asked Panetta: “Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?”

“No,” said Panetta.

Carney stressed that the State Department’s Accountability Review Board(ARB)--chaired by retired Admiral Mike Mullen and retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering--said, that the administration’s response was adequate.

“Let me say again, the ARB report specifically notes that the interagency cooperation that evening was ‘timely and appropriate,’” Carney said. “Maybe CNS is challenging the credibility of Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. Probably, but I don’t know.”

Carney went on to read from page 37 of the report that said, “The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans.”

VERITAS:  Just a few questions - Why does this administration keep changing its story on Benghazi?  Why aren't the American people demanding the straight truth as it is apparent to anyone who cares to read that the story has changed several times?  Why isn't the American Press, the supposed fourth leg of our free society and the peoples voice, not asking more questions and demanding the truth?  What do you think is going on or is this just a series of coincidences that no one could have avoided and the administration just isn't getting these fast paced facts correct in real time and thus must change the story as the facts evolve (sarcasm)?

You decide, its your government, its your country.

Benghazi UPDATE - 2-9-13

Well, we have heard from a lot of the players now about their role in the Benghazi incident including Clinton (Secretary of State), Panetta (Secretary of Defense), Brennan (National Security Adviser) and Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) .  Most recently we watch and heard Hillary yelling, "...what does it matter?", and Panetta telling us that the President wasn't even engaged - what's going on?  Lets talk specifically about the latest two.

First, as for Hillary (Secretary of State) we can answer her question easily, why does it "matters" - it "matters" because four lives were lost within your department and despite your hysterics and attempt to obfuscate the truth we are all watching.  It "matters" because no one listened to the Ambassador when he requested additional security multiple times the months and weeks prior to the attack. It "matters" because no one attempted to assist the Ambassador when he and his entourage were under attack - we had military assets all over the region but nothing was deployed in their defense and in fact the two ex-seals who responded from the CIA safe house down the road were told not to, to "stand down".  It "matters" because you won't tell us why he was in Benghazi, one of the worlds best known worst terrorist hot spots in the first place, hours from the main Embassy in Tripoli (he had a meeting with an official from Turkey - strange place for that).  It "matters" because you, the President, and the rest of the administration lied to the American people telling us first for two weeks that it was some stupid internet movie when you all knew it wasn't - then the President outs himself and admits during a televised political debate he knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning after we watched him speak at the U.N. some 8 or 9 days after the incident saying multiple times that this attack was because of some anti-Muslim internet video.  It "matters" because more information is coming out that we, the U.S. government, may in fact have been illegally running guns through Turkey to the terrorist fighting in Syria (the same terrorists that are own armed forces are fighting as well).  It "matters" Madam Secretary, it "matters" a lot.  

As for Mr. Panetta (Secretary of Defense), he is now telling us that the President wasn't even told of the attack on the Ambassador until they met at their regularly scheduled 5:00PM meeting - some 90 minutes after the attack began.  Now it is law, federal law in fact, that IF an American Ambassador comes under attack the President and the Secretary of State MUST be informed.  So Panetta, admits under oath, in front of the U.S. Senate, that they did not inform the President until some regularly schedule meeting? Why? We had been told for months and certainly the weeks immediately following the attack and murder of these four Americans that the President was totally engaged and knew what was occurring throughout the multiple hour event.  That story of total engagement was hammered on the American people for weeks so we knew our President cared. The President told us that he specifically issued "three directives" as soon as  he learned "what was going on". But now it is being spun at the Senate hearings by this administration that the President didn't know what was going on and as for the Secretary of State, they had no idea where she was.  Huh?  They showed us all sorts of pictures of the President in meetings as proof of his engagement in the process but now we are told by Panetta that those were just photos from the meeting and that after that the President never spoke with him and the defense department again. What? From total involvement in what was going on on the ground - remember they first came out and told us they were watching this in real time from the Situation Room - to now saying the President was not involved and basically said "you guys handle it" and went to bed.

What is going on here?  Why one story of engagement and then a switch in the story of not knowing what was going on, of non-involvement?  We know that the ship captain that delivered guns to Syrian rebels through Turkey (think here Muslim Brotherhood & Al Quida) has been found and admitted his involvement.  We know a Senator asked about why the Ambassador was in this terrorist hot spot and about gun running just prior to Hillary's diatribe, "what does that matter four Americans are dead".  We know a Senator asked Panetta if he agreed with other administration officials that maybe they should arm the Syrian rebels (a Hillary idea) - he said, "we did" (note he didn't say "I did", he distanced himself a bit by saying "we did" - "we" agreed with arming the rebels).  

So what we know from the various testimony of Clinton, Panetta, Brennan (National Security Adviser) and Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is that President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth.

We know for fact the testimony indicates there was a lot of confusion and a lack of leadership - very concerning in-of-itself.  But more important and disturbing for our consideration is the possibility that this gun running to our enemy's or something along those lines, is just the tip of an event that is so much worse that this administration, this President, feels that he would prefer to take the heat for him not being engaged in the attack and murder of a U.S. Ambassadors and three other Americans on his watch then be associated with whatever else may be lurking, ready to pop its ugly head.  Judging by the actions and conflicting statements of this administration over the last three months we know whatever it is he must have been well aware.

What do you think?