http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-infanticide-exclusion/

==THE INFANTICIDE EXCLUSION

2019-04-09BY KEN BERWITZ1 COMMENT

“Congratulations” to Virginia Governor ralph northam.==

Media may have given him a free pass on his advocacy for infanticide, but if he doesn’t give a damn whether human babies die, at least he cares about whether animals do.

From an article on the WAVY – Norfolk website:

If you’re charged with abusing an animal in Virginia, it will now be a felony.

Gov. Ralph Northam signed a bill that was dubbed “Tommie’s Law”, which ups the penalty from a misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony. The crime now carries a punishment of one to five years in prison.

The new law closes a loophole that allowed the perpetrator to only be charged with a misdemeanor if the animal survived the abuse, animal rights advocates say.

Am I troubled by northam signing this legislation? Nope. I’m glad he did.

My problem is not with his stated view on an animal that survives abuse, but on a baby that survives an abortion attempt (and, yes, it does happen):

The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.

In other words, northam’s vision is that, if the baby is born alive, – out of the womb and into the world – the woman who tried unsuccessfully to kill it in her womb would decide, along with her physician, whether to just leave it there to die anyway.

josef mengele could have said the same thing in the same words. But, hey, northam does care about animals, doesn’t he? What a guy.

It doesn’t get more depraved than this.

==HILLARY’S $84 MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN-MONEY LAUNDERING SCANDAL…AND MEDIA’S BURIAL

2019-04-08BY KEN BERWITZADD==

Did the Hillary Clinton campaign launder, then use, $84 million dollars in illegal campaign contributions during Ms. Clinton’s 2016 presidential election bid?

If you read Margot Cleveland’s article at thefederalist.com, it would be hard not to think that is a very real likelihood.

Here are its first three paragraphs:

The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.

Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

Reading on, we find that Dan Backer wrote about this well over a year ago – December 26, 2017 to be exact – and mainstream media, ever-faithful to Queen Hillary, gave it a collective burial at don’t-see.

Would these same media have buried the story if the alleged money-laundering were by Trump and his people?

Before you answer, think about two years of breathless reporting on “collusion” – which not only turns out to have been BS all along, but almost certainly wouldn’t have been illegal even if it were true (have you ever seen any of this bunch quote the laws Trump would have broken if he got dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian? You haven’t have you?)

Margot Cleveland gives us a lengthy, chapter-and-verse explanation of the laws governing campaign funding and how Hillary Clinton & Co. apparently broke them early and often.

You might agree or disagree with Ms. Cleveland’s conclusions. But is there any doubt that it is a newsworthy story? Very newsworthy?

So where, other than her article, will you be seeing any mention of it? On the network news? In the major dailies?

Well, I just googled “Hillary Clinton $84 million money laundering” and looked at the first three pages. The one and only reference I can find from any major media venue is a Washington Post article from December 27, 2017, by Democrat partisan David Weigel, which – at the end – grudgingly concedes there might be something to look at.

But, you might say, why are you so quick to attack media for burying Ms. Cleveland’s article? Can’t you be fair and give them at least a few days, maybe even a week or more, to research this court filing and provide their own version of the story?

In answer: please note that Margot Cleveland’s article, the one we are talking about here, was not published Today. Or yesterday. Or last week.

It was published on April 24, 2018. A full year ago.

But not to worry: our media are fiercely neutral when it comes to politics in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Just ask them.