NARAL sickos lie, lie, and lie again!

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Boy, the left are getting desperate! I heard CNN (Clinton News Network) is actually going to run this ad! What a joke!



THE ABORTION CROWD GOES NUTS
By Michelle Malkin · August 10, 2005 08:31 AM
In Opinion Journal this morning, Manuel Miranda nails loony NARAL for its inexcusable attack ad against SCOTUS nominee John Roberts:

The ladies who gave Plato's "noble lie" new uses in the hearings of Clarence Thomas are at it again. NARAL is using the image of the abortion clinic bombing by Eric Rudolph to suggest that Judge Roberts would excuse such violence--even though NARAL's leaders have admitted to the press that Judge Roberts has condemned clinic violence. Indeed, the Washington Post reported last week that in 1986, when he was an assistant in the White House counsel's office, Mr. Roberts wrote a memo recommending against a presidential pardon for abortion-clinic bombers. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," Roberts wrote. In fact, the 1993 case whose name NARAL shows in its ad, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, had nothing to do with Eric Rudolph or violence against abortion clinics. As a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, Mr. Roberts filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1871, enacted to protect blacks from the Ku Klux Klan, did not prohibit peaceful pro-life demonstrators from standing outside of abortion clinics. The high court agreed 6-3, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter among the majority.

It is important to point out such a distortion as this for what it is: a lie. Yet my initial reaction was not the same as other conservatives who went on defense. Rather, it was something like this: Do it again, harder, harder--and bring your friends. Having extremist groups spend big money to win over liberal GOP senators is a no-lose proposition, especially when they have to tell lies to do so.


These people will stop at nothing to smear the most unassailable of conservatives. They wouldn't know the truth if it drove over them with 18 wheels.

John Hinderaker at Power Line has more:

Roberts didn't "support violent fringe groups" or a "convicted clinic bomber." He supported the federal government's position on a specific question of law--correctly, as the Court found. NARAL's reference to a "convicted clinic bomber" is especially outrageous. The Bray case had nothing to do with a bombing by Eric Rudolph or anyone else, and Rudolph attacked the Birmingham clinic--the bombing that is referred to in the NARAL ad--eight years after Roberts wrote the brief on the Section 1985(3) issues. For NARAL to suggest that John Roberts has ever done anything to support violence against abortion clinics (or anything else) is so far outside the bounds of civilized debate that one can hope that, even in today's far-gone Democratic Party, sane voices will be raised to denounce NARAL's advertising campaign.


Don't count on it.

Factcheck's analysis of the NARAL ad is here. Ed Whelan at Bench Memos has been tracking. Drudge on CNN's reported decision to run the ad here.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood published a sick snuff cartoon--removed from its website yesterday after conservative bloggers blew the whistle--targeting pro-life opponents. Get all the background from Dawn Eden and LifeNews.

Sick. But don't expect an apology. Being unhinged means never having to say you're sorry.

Update: Beltway Blogroll looks at lefty bloggers unhappy with NARAL for a different reason.
 
Factcheck.org found it to be false also but that doesn't deter the left. Remember Rathergate! How the left DEMANDED that Bush answer the charges, even though the charges were made up.

The guys that support the left's position on this board have decided it seems to take a vacation. I guess it's not fun trying to support people like this on the left. First they had to put up with their own liberal Supreme Court justices taking away property rights and now they have to deal with the media outright fabricating lies to soil a good person. Deeper and deeper into the abyss...........................
 
MonsterMark said:
Factcheck.org found it to be false also but that doesn't deter the left. Remember Rathergate! How the left DEMANDED that Bush answer the charges, even though the charges were made up.

The guys that support the left's position on this board have decided it seems to take a vacation. I guess it's not fun trying to support people like this on the left. First they had to put up with their own liberal Supreme Court justices taking away property rights and now they have to deal with the media outright fabricating lies to soil a good person. Deeper and deeper into the

abyss...........................

Democrate = malcontent

n.
  1. A chronically dissatisfied person.
  2. One who rebels against the established system: “immature malcontents who have long since sold out to conformity” (John M. Wilson).
 
I can't disagree that the ad described above is a pretty low blow. But clowns like that exist on both sides of the aisle, consider these homophobic hypocrites:

Posted on Wed, Aug. 10, 2005

Conservative group pulls support of Roberts

Irked by work on gay-rights case

By Jesse J. Holland

Associated Press


WASHINGTON – A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.

The group, Public Advocate of the United States, is one of the first conservative organizations to announce anything but support for the judge.

Eugene Delgaudio, president of the group, said that he hopes his stance will prod others.

“I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They’re just not going to act,” the 50-year-old northern Virginia man said. “But once I’ve done it, then they can’t claim that no one’s opposing Roberts. We can’t take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is.”

The stance by his group, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts. A number of liberal groups already oppose President Bush’s high court nominee.

Roberts met Tuesday with one senator who is undecided on his nomination, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who said the nominee “would not look favorably” on Congress acting to intervene in an end-of-life case like Terri Schiavo.

Wyden said Roberts told him during their hourlong meeting that Congress can prescribe standards, “but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds,” Wyden said.

Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo’s life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. The courts rejected that effort.

Delgaudio said his group had planned to send out more than 1 million pieces of direct mail for Roberts, as well as work telephones, poll and conduct petition drives.

But now, “canceling our mail campaign is the least we can do,” he said.

He said he would poll his group to see whether members want him to be neutral, spend money to oppose Roberts or reinstate support.

The Colorado gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court declared the measure unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in 1996.

Roberts’ role in the case included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.

Arguments that Roberts’ work on the case does not equal support for gay rights doesn’t wash with Delgaudio.

“Nobody’s forced to help your opponents,” he said. “I can’t believe that a senior attorney would voluntarily help somebody he doesn’t agree with. I don’t believe it. It’s not credible.”

Matthew Daly of the Associated Press contributed to this story.

How ironic how quickly some conservatives can turn tail and run so easily.
 
What does a conservative group pulling their ads have in common with a liberal group making them up?
icon8.gif
 
MonsterMark said:
What does a conservative group pulling their ads have in common with a liberal group making them up?
icon8.gif

Thank You Bryan! You beat me to it. Once again, trying to compare oranges to cucumbers. Withdrawing support isn't the same as paying for libelous, slanderous, false ads that attack and impugn somebody's character in a completely disingenuous way.

BTW, Wyden LIED about what Roberts told him about the Schiavo case. Roberts didn't comment on the case at all, but Wyden INFERRED his general comments to apply to the Schiavo case and then called it a QUOTE. He is a LIAR.
 
fossten said:
Thank You Bryan! You beat me to it. Once again, trying to compare oranges to cucumbers. Withdrawing support isn't the same as paying for libelous, slanderous, false ads that attack and impugn somebody's character in a completely disingenuous way.

[sigh] There you go again, misconstruing what I've said. I wasn't comparing the ACTs of the two groups, I was comparing the character of the two groups: Fanatical pussy extremists.

BTW, NARAL pulled their ad. :woowoo2:
 
And well they should!!! I don't think anyone was stupid enough to think the content of that ad was just moronic. It just shows to what extremes libs go to try to discredit the right. They think they are at war, but they cry unity just over their warcries so people can't hear.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
[sigh] There you go again, misconstruing what I've said. I wasn't comparing the ACTs of the two groups, I was comparing the character of the two groups: Fanatical pussy extremists.

BTW, NARAL pulled their ad. :woowoo2:

You're doing exactly what you always accuse us of doing: Anytime we make a valid point about the character of your party, you say, "Oh, yeah, well, you guys do it too!" Poor example, and doesn't detract from the egregious actions of your fringe extremist radical group.

BTW, NARAL said they only pulled their ad b/c people "misconstrued" it. Ridiculous. Impossible to misconstrue that ad.

Interesting how you used the exact same word.
 
fossten said:
You're doing exactly what you always accuse us of doing: Anytime we make a valid point about the character of your party, you say, "Oh, yeah, well, you guys do it too!" Poor example, and doesn't detract from the egregious actions of your fringe extremist radical group.

BTW, NARAL said they only pulled their ad b/c people "misconstrued" it. Ridiculous. Impossible to misconstrue that ad.

Interesting how you used the exact same word.

:sleep:

Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot, eh? :N
 

Members online

Back
Top