Elena Ives
The Self-Serving Hypocrisy of the Left, Suffers New Rash of Bush Derangement With Osama Defeat
Funny, isn’t it, to watch leftists in the media and politics praise President Obama for catching an enormous fish like Osama bin Laden – all the while studiously ignoring the prominent monogram on his pole and tackle: a big flashing neon-red Dubya.
Don’t get me wrong. Our current president deserves credit for not flushing the seven years of intelligence that the Bush Administration doggedly gathered while Obama and his leftist cohorts repeatedly poked them in the eyes and whacked them on the knees – I’m just wondering whether the apology will be delivered to Crawford in person or by Western Union.
You just can’t make this stuff up: An intrepid band of comic-book addled desk-jockeys at Workforce Central Florida (WCF) budgeted $73,000 in federal funds to outfit job-seekers with superhero capes so that they could vanquish “Dr. Evil Unemployment.”
Unfortunately, however, Dr. Evil Unemployment is still alive and well, because the the program to “engage” Central Florida’s unemployed, called “Cape-A-Bility,” was laughed out of existence before it even got off the ground — but not before WFC had already squandered $14,000 for 6000 capes and some 12 foot foam effigies of the cartoon villain.
Well, the chances that President Obama’s re-election campaign would spark a revival of the heady days of 2007-2008 diminished last week when Oprah Winfrey’s people made it clear that the Cult of Barack’s most ardent novitiate would be sitting this one out.
This is quite a transition from four short years ago, when Winfrey served Candidate Obama as his impassioned voice across the wilderness of daytime television – preparing the way for the “bigger than all of us” candidate like John the Baptist in Christian Loumoutin stilettos. For example, who could ever forget this over-the-top declaration in Iowa: “I am here to tell you… he is the one! He is the one!”
Apparently, Oprah herself. Because there’s a good chance that “the One” is going to get canned and evicted next year, while Winfrey sits firmly ensconced in the studios of her ratings-challenged cable empire — fingers in her ears — yammering about the break-up of Miley Cyrus’ parents and the mating habits of koala bears.
What does this mean? Well, according to anonymous sources, Oprah has decided that Obama isn’t “the One” after all – at least “the One” who can deliver the ratings she needs. So, she’s ditched the chasuble and incense and is back to hawking self-help books and relationship advice.
‘For 2012, much has changed for Oprah. She now has own cable channel called OWN that has been struggling to find an audience — she isn’t going to do anything to alienate them,’ a TV insider tells me. ‘Unlike in 2008, when a drop in ratings didn’t matter as much for the queen of TV, Oprah is now fighting every day to get people to tune into OWN.’
Just shows how fickle the faithful can be. In 2008, Obama was “the most powerful thing” Winfrey had “ever experienced.” A “transcendent” new “level of consciousness for our country,” and a “new way of being in the world” whose tongue (gag me) was “dipped in the unvarnished truth.”
But now, according to sources; it’s 2011, things have changed, and Oprah has to make a choice: On one hand, she’s got the transcendent, most-powerful, New Way of Being in the World, and on the other, the Nielsen ratings.
Of course, the decision would have been easier to make, had she backslidden and fallen away at some earlier time. After all, the seeds of doubt could have been planted as early as Inauguration Day 2009, when the newly sworn-in president failed to mount the Capitol dome and rain fiery thunderbolts upon mortality, poverty, disease, supply and demand, carbon-belching SUVs, and George Bush’s retreating motorcade.
And who can blame Oprah for avoiding an encore performance of the 2007 con job campaign, now that everyone knows Obama didn’t hold back the tides of the ocean, or prosper the nation through government power grabs and deficit spending, or magically declare all mortgages paid, all gas tanks filled, jobs for everyone, and a chicken in every pot.
Those are much more plausible reasons for Oprah to ditch someone that she had previously shouted from the rooftops was “bigger than all of us” than the crassness of ad revenues and flagging viewership numbers. After all, she wasn’t so preoccupied with ratings in 2007 when she zealously set about converting her audience into fellow catechists in “the One’s” personality cult; insisting, when questioned, that Obama’s special anointing transcended any pretense of objectivity or professional decorum:
I believed that Barack Obama’s candidacy was bigger than all of us… and that I believed that he was called, that this is about a series of providences all happening at the same time, one thing occurring, another thing occurring, and that this has been coming, has been coming, has been coming, been coming…
Coming for what? To smack her for being so besotted that she’d taken to repeating herself like a broken record?
Not anymore. Somewhere along the line, the halo has fallen off… if it ever really existed in the first place.
It sounded good on the surface, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scolded the Human Rights Council (HRC) last month for its “structural bias” against Israel. But closer examination reveals those words were nothing more than a sugarcoated shelter for the Obama administration to hide behind while once again deserting a loyal ally.
Unfortunately for them, the subterfuge didn’t go unreported. Anne Bayefsky with Eye on the U.N. provided sorely-needed context behind Clinton’s lip-service for Israel, exposing the camouflage and revealing what was really on the U.S. agenda that day: “an urgent rescue mission,” Bayefsky wrote, for Israel’s enemies at the HRC.
She [Clinton] is in Geneva to protect the administration’s investment in the U.N. human rights organization’s top body, which only six months ago welcomed Libya as a full member and only three months ago passed it through its meaningless “universal periodic review” process, touted as its number one monitoring procedure.
Interesting. When faced with video-taped evidence that Planned Parenthood (PP) has more compassion for pedophiles, child traffickers, and pimps than their victims, did President Obama damn his longstanding political inamorata with faint apologia?
Obama was quizzed about the controversy surrounding PP during an interview last Thursday.
After Live Action Films and Lila Rose exposed unethical and immoral behavior among Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation. Her group has released videos from recent sting operations in New Jersey, Virginia and New York.
President Obama was asked in an interview about Congress recently voting for Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to deny funding to Planned Parenthood and the Planned Parenthood sting. Obama called these incidents “manufactured” and distractions.
“Manufactured” I suppose, in the sense that flipping on a light at midnight in a Panama City flophouse “manufactures” cockroaches.
Nevertheless, pro-life blogger, Jill Stanek, believes Obama’s remarks signaled a new coolness in his attitude toward PP.
But Obama did nothing to reassure PP beyond that. In fact, he only distanced himself from the sex trafficking sanctuary.
Obama 1st noted that any “specific problem… should be addressed.” Slap.
But his most intriguing statement was, “I think that Planned Parenthood in the past has done good work.”
If Obama were still fully behind PP he would have said, “I think that Planned Parenthood does good work.”
But Obama did nothing to reassure PP beyond that. In fact, he only distanced himself from the sex trafficking sanctuary.
Also, on the eve of Congress’ vote to pull PP’s federal funds, Obama chose to talk about budget problems and the need to reduce spending causing Stanek to speculate: “Wouldn’t that be making the GOP’s case to defund?”
Wouldn’t it indeed? I’m having a vision of PP president, Cecile Richards, standing on a trap door in the Oval Office, as the presidential thumb hovers over a button labeled “Political Liabilities.” Could it be that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is making room for one more on Obama’s Island of Discarded Political Expedients?
Even before LiveAction’s latest videotaped exposure of Planned Parenthood’s putrescent underbelly, polls revealed that voters were unhappy about dumping $317 million into their coffers every year.
· A Quinnipiac University poll from January 2010, revealing that 67% of Americans are opposed to allowing public funds to pay for abortion through health care.
· A 2010 Zogby/O’Leary poll found that 76% of Americans said that federal funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother.
· A September 2009 International Communications Research poll asked, “If the choice were up to you, would you want your own insurance policy to include abortion,” to which 68% of respondents answered “no” and only 24% answered “yes.”
If Stanek is right, it won’t be the first time that public opinion has fractured a passionate political love affair. With the latest onslaught of grainy video proof that PP aids and shelters child sex predators, it’s not likely any more orchid corsages and invitations to the prom will be forthcoming from an administration with poll problems of its own.
Not that PP wouldn’t eagerly join the anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Gitmo, pro-single-payer, high-tax lefties already languishing under the Obama bus, if that’s what it takes to secure a second term and job security for their powerful friends in the highest pinnacles of the Executive and Judicial branches. It is a known tactic for leftist factions to collude in the dark and then scatter when their deeds are exposed to the light.
It would be naïve to believe Obama’s new coolness toward PP has more to do with concern for abused and exploited children than poll numbers and the 2012 election. Our president has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for the helpless and voiceless among us. He is a notorious apologist for infanticide who just weeks ago declared that Roe v Wade’s 50 million death toll “affirms a fundamental” American “principle.”
Moreover, in 2007 – when a PP endorsement was still politically valuable – Candidate Obama proclaimed an enthusiastic vision of their political collaboration and shared goals.
But this is more than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America – and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense.
What a difference a few years and a few intrepid pro-lifers can make. The enthusiasm is clearly gone when the only defense Obama can muster is a few anemic words about the “good” things in PP’s past.
Does that include your support, Mr. President?
Apparently the crack investigative journalists at Us Weekly and Time Magazine are in such a lather to post something unflattering about Sarah Palin, they can’t spare the time to make sure their sources aren’t, to put it politely, full of bull.
Yes, even after last month’s shriek-fest — in which Palin was pronounced responsible for the Tucson massacre, the Spanish Inquisition, and dandruff — media derangement has managed to achieve a new low. Now they’re simply making up their Palin hit pieces, and calling it “satire.” Gossip cop exposed the details:
This is really bad.
Us Weekly has published what it claims are comments made by Sarah Palin, in which the former vice presidential candidate blasts Christina Aguilera’s performance of the national anthem at Super Bowl XLV.
Except the over-the-top “quotes,” which Us Weekly attributes to a Monday radio interview with Sean Hannity, were actually written for a satire website.
Us Weekly scrubbed the piece from their site, but I would imagine that it was your garden-variety Palin boilerplate. Borrowing from the tone and subtext of past hit pieces, I would imagine this one probably went something like this:
Palin arrived on the Hannity set late, but she was rarin’ to go — barely giving the make-up girl time to ditch her white hood and insert her front partial before laying into Aguilera, calling her an ‘airhead diva that don’t understand something so basic about America.’
‘If I was president I would deport her to Jamaica or Arkansas or somewheres,’ Palin declared after biting the head off of a live salmon, ‘she should be kept barefoot and pregnant and chained to a cook stove where she belongs.’
US Weekly has since issued this official apology:
Oopsies…our bad!
However, Time is denying any professional or ethical breach; assuring their readers that spurious sourcing on defamatory, vicious lies is okay as long as the target is Sarah Palin it was meant as a joke.
I suppose that journalistic maxim has been inserted into the latest edition of the Associated Press stylebook, alongside a review of the five W’s.
Nevertheless, to be fair, Palin shares some of the blame here. After all, she’s a God-fearing, Republican woman who had the gall to carry five kids to term – one with special needs! If she really wanted fair treatment from the mainstream media, she’d have sided with the caribou over the oil companies and little Trig never would have seen the light of day.
If she would just learn to play along a little, it would be easier for everyone. In fact, she could probably throw actual racist hissy fits, and those Woodward and Bernstein wannabes at US Weekly and Time would have looked the other way and saved everyone a lot of embarrassment.
Don’t believe me? Well, try this: Close your eyes and imagine Palin calling Barack Obama a “clean and articulate” African American. Then-Senator Joe Biden did – removing any doubt, incidentally, that he’s a racist and an idiot. But he’s also a leftist, so the media let it go. In fact – as I’m sure Todd Palin noticed – I don’t recall even one Saturday Night Live joke about Biden “doing his daughters.”
Well, file this one under blatant historic revisionism and Christophobic hypocrisy.
It seems that Judge James DeWeese, of the County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, got caught red-handed practicing free expression without the approval of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and will pay for his insolence with an indefinite suspension of his First Amendment rights.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese violated the First Amendment when he put up a poster in his Mansfield courtroom. The appeals court upheld a 2009 district court judge’s ruling that the poster unconstitutionally endorsed particular religious views over others. The poster, designed and framed by the judge, and titled “Philosophies of Law in Conflict,” compared the “moral absolutes” of the Ten Commandments to the “moral relatives” of humanism.
That’s right. The ACLU, with the aid of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and the cooperation of a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, has once again twisted The First Amendment into a gag to stifle the freedom it was designed to safeguard.
No surprise that Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of AU, rejoices that our courts are packed with prodigal thought police who have conferred upon themselves a line-item veto for the Bill of Rights. Lynn is another self-appointed speech-inspector who scampers about the county in an obsessive game of whack-a-mole – swatting down each reference to our religious heritage as it inevitably emerges. It’s his patriotic duty, he assures us; because if he doesn’t vigilantly police “reconstructionists” like DeWeese, Christian fascists will run amuck, stoning sassy adolescents and banning shellfish.
In addition, Americans United pointed out on its website that DeWeese has been affiliated with Christian Reconstructionism, the most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right. Reconstructionists believe in imposing “biblical law” on America based on the legal code of the Old Testament. In addition, Americans United pointed out on its website that DeWeese has been affiliated with Christian Reconstructionism, the most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right. Reconstructionists believe in imposing “biblical law” on America based on the legal code of the Old Testament.
Maybe someone should sit Lynn down and try to calm him down with a few historical facts. The Ten Commandments have been the foundation of civil law for two millennia, and the Bible has been central to American legal and moral philosophy since the Mayflower landed. In light of that, I think it’s a safe bet that if Congress hasn’t installed a replica of the Holy of Holies in the Capitol Rotunda and started sacrificing rams by now, it’s probably not going to happen.
I suspect however, that Lynn and all his self-proclaimed — albeit Orwellian — “defenders of liberty,” already know that; and all their rabble-rousing about “theocracies” and “reconstructionists” are a means to demonize their adversaries in the eyes of the public.
I’m pretty sure that Lynn knows full well that if three appellate court justices in Ohio would suppress Judge DeWeese’s Constitutional rights, they would also muzzle most of the men who actually signed the document if given the opportunity.
It’s ridiculous for educated attorneys to declare the Ten Commandments “afoul” of a document that bears the signature of Ben Franklin, who along with Thomas Jefferson, wanted to place Moses on our national seal.
If Lynn and his buddies at the ACLU are sincere, they would be reassured to learn that a signer of the Bill of Rights, and our second president, John Adams, never tried to impose Mosaic Law upon America — even after making this statement:
If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
And so now one must wonder if anyone from the full six-member panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has the integrity to send the three activists who ruled against DeWeese to the cloakroom with a history primer and a mirror to hold up the next time they have the gall to pronounce someone, besides themselves, in violation of the First Amendment.
Global Warming alarmist, blogger, and amateur diplomat, Joe Romm, was correct when he wrote that that there is a cruel and inveterate villain inflaming passions in Egypt – hunger. Unfortunately, however, he couldn’t just leave it there. Like all good left-wing propagandists, he obeyed Rahm Emanuel’s maxim that “no crisis should go to waste,” by tarring industrious capitalists – who incidentally actually produce food — with the blame.
In fact, the way Romm characterizes it, the demonstrations in Cairo are a modern-day remake of the assault on the Bastille, with the American people in the collective role of a carbon-belching Marie Antoinette, tooling around in a fully-loaded Hummer H2 and telling hungry African children to “eat cake”
…leading political experts say the Middle East rioting is driven in part by the dramatic rise in food prices, which the agricultural experts say is driven in large part by oil prices and the extreme weather we’ve seen in the last few months. Of course, the climate science experts have been saying for a while now that the extreme weather is driven in large part by human emissions…
Read that “capitalist pig emissions” – cooking the planet, whacking the weather, and destroying crops in Africa just to enrich greedy Americans (or as Romm characterized those who questioned his logic: “anti-science, pro-pollution” “climate ostriches” and “anti-science extremist[s]”).
I wonder if Romm would call the impartial and objective temperature stats for the past decade-plus “anti-science” and “pro-pollution” too, because they’re not exactly backing him up, either. In fact the only statistic that has been spiking a fever lately is the cost of food after being goosed by trillions of President Obama’s freshly-printed money. Which, at the risk of sounding like another “climate ostrich,” might be a more plausible explanation for empty cupboards and frayed nerves in Northern Africa. That and the fact that Romm’s Chicken Little buddies have bullied policy-makers into transferring more and more of the world’s corn supply into machines instead of humans.
And yet, Romm just wants to bash capitalists:
…The question is why specifically now have the Egyptians and Tunisians rioted after decades of anti-democratic rule? Certainly one can ignore the experts and say that it is a complete coincidence that the rioting occurred as food prices hit record levels — in spite of the fact that the last time there was this kind of rioting globally food prices were at record levels, which is precisely why experts were predicting that record hide food prices would lead to riots. Now the question is, why are food prices are at record levels? Again, reality pretty much speaks for itself here. Extreme weather is a major contributing factor — and our top climate scientists say global warming has contributed.
Reality? Where? In a fantasy bizarro-world where food prices always sky-rocket a dozen years after the end of a warming trend? Or in actual bizarro-world where anti-capitalist leftists will say anything – no matter how ludicrous – to force their ruinous socialist agenda upon the rest of us?
It’s not Joe Six-Pack from Tulsa, with his gas-guzzling Dodge Ram, who came up with the brilliant idea of routing 35% of the global corn supply away from hungry tummies and into cars, just to keep the petroleum-hating gods of the gas tank from raining fire and brimstone upon the earth.
It’s busy-body environmentalist true believers – with their ever-present noses in the private business of industrious farmers – who hinder food production. Poor hapless Bubba may be guilty of noise pollution or poor dentition, but at least he didn’t turn the water off on the former bread basket in California’s Central Valley because he worships a smelt.
Hat tip to Newsbusters.
Climatequotes.com has an expose of another attempt – this time by NASA – to con Americans into relinquishing liberty and autonomy to “save the planet.” This time, however, the propaganda is aimed toward children. No surprise there. It happens all the time, and it will continue to happen as long as parents keep entrusting their kids’ pliable minds to taxpayer-funded change-agents on the Left.
This latest propaganda, a website called Climate Kids, hits impressionable tykes with all of the old, discredited global warming chestnuts that the left has wielded for over a decade to brainwash Americans into statist handcuffs.
The unprecedented-warming-since-the-beginning-of-time lie, and the American-greed-is-barbecuing-innocent-Africans-and-Asians lie, and the last-polar-bear-alive-floating-on-the-last-chunk-of-ice-in-the-arctic lie – all the little lies that come under the umbrella of the-United-States-is-the-source-of-all-the-misery-on-the-planet lie.
So little Bobby and Suzy will have a few nightmares and grieve unnecessarily for their purported lost futures… it’s what statists must do to keep them from seeing the actual looming threat — being tricked into throwing away the priceless liberty bequeathed to them at great sacrifice by their freedom-loving ancestors.
It’s difficult to peruse “Climate Kids” and not become a tad cynical. If the goal is to honestly provide facts so that inquiring children can draw their own conclusions, then — as ClimateQuotes points out – why manipulate the beginning and end points of graphics to exclude data that doesn’t support their alarmist predictions? Why point out areas where sea ice has decreased and ignore areas where it has increased? Why terrify an eight-year-old in Miami with pictures that depict Southern Florida slipping underwater if the entire Greenland ice sheet melts – and forget to mention that only minimal melting is forecasted. Why torture facts and data until they point only to one conclusion: that the only hope for survival is a sharp lurch toward statism.
It’s nothing new. This template for alarmist blackmail that has been around for more than a generation now – ruthlessly inflicted on millions of impressionable children by committed leftists trying to brainwash Americans into weakness and tyranny under the duress of faked-up threats of annihilation.
In the eighties school children were terrorized by graphic stories of nuclear holocaust, and now they are terrorized by graphic stories of climate holocaust. Being proven wrong about the nuclear freeze and disarmament by President Reagan’s wisdom and fortitude didn’t faze them a bit. They just adapted the con for the post cold-war world. And it’s the kids who never get a break: Year after year they are told to kiss their futures good-by because they’re going to freeze, drown, or burn up if America insists on clinging to liberty, strength, and autonomy.
Honestly, where’s Amnesty International when you need them?
Hat tip to USActionNews.
Virginia Ironside Touts Her “Miserable Promiscuity” as Trail Blazing for Girls Today
This popular post was first published on January 21, 2011.
Remember Virginia Ironside? The British advice guru who believes that mothers should be able to smother their “suffering” babies with pillows? Well, she’s back, with a recent piece on Mail Online, touting her youthful service as a veritable Moses on the front lines of the sexual revolution, “clearing our way through the sexual undergrowth” toward the promised land of consequence-free sexual freedom for future generations.
Because when it came to sex, we were, of course, the trailblazers for a completely new attitude, and blazing trails is always horribly uncomfortable. We were the ones with the hacksaws and dust masks, clearing our way through the sexual undergrowth, getting covered with scratches and gashes and slipping into invisible swamps. It’s the people who follow afterwards who have the easier time, sauntering along the trodden path, picking roses along the way. Young people today.
The question is, what exactly was it that Ironside and her comrades so recklessly discarded with those dust masks and hacksaws? And at what cost? Because I don’t see Ironside’s ideological progeny as she apparently does, skipping along some rose-lined path after being delivered from a thorny swamp of repression and forced ignorance. Statistics prove that instead of roses, Ironside and her comrades bequeathed a bitter legacy of exploding illegitimacy, abortion, sexually transmitted infections, divorce, sexual abuse, suicide, and crime.
And yet, Ironside touts herself as Joan of Arc, Sophie Scholl, and the Tienanmen Tank Man all rolled into one, bed-hopping like a slutty rabbit throughout the sixties in a sacrificial quest to “blaze a trail” for future generations – at least those who she doesn’t feel should have been killed in the womb or smothered with a pillow.
To be honest, I mainly remember the 60s as an endless round of miserable promiscuity, a time when often it seemed easier and, believe it or not, more polite, to sleep with a man than to chuck him out of your flat. I recall a complete stranger once slipping into bed beside me when I was staying in an all-male household in Oxford, and feeling so baffled about what the right thing was to do that I let him have sex with me; I remember being got drunk by a grossly fat tabloid newspaper journalist and taken back to a flat belonging to a friend of his to which he had a key, being subjected to what would now be described as rape, and still thinking it was my fault for accepting so much wine.
If it was such a noble sacrifice, why do I feel like I need a shower and a course of penicillin? Nevertheless, Ironside insists that such degradation was the price she had to pay in order to emancipate our daughters and grand-daughters from the oppressive misery of societal priggishness.
Virginia Ironside Touts Her “Miserable Promiscuity” as Trail Blazing for Girls Today
Remember Virginia Ironside? The British advice guru who believes that mothers should be able to smother their “suffering” babies with pillows? Well, she’s back, with a recent piece on Mail Online, touting her youthful service as a veritable Moses on the front lines of the sexual revolution, “clearing our way through the sexual undergrowth” toward the promised land of consequence-free sexual freedom for future generations.
Because when it came to sex, we were, of course, the trailblazers for a completely new attitude, and blazing trails is always horribly uncomfortable. We were the ones with the hacksaws and dust masks, clearing our way through the sexual undergrowth, getting covered with scratches and gashes and slipping into invisible swamps. It’s the people who follow afterwards who have the easier time, sauntering along the trodden path, picking roses along the way. Young people today.
The question is, what exactly was it that Ironside and her comrades so recklessly discarded with those dust masks and hacksaws? And at what cost? Because I don’t see Ironside’s ideological progeny as she apparently does, skipping along some rose-lined path after being delivered from a thorny swamp of repression and forced ignorance. Statistics prove that instead of roses, Ironside and her comrades bequeathed a bitter legacy of exploding illegitimacy, abortion, sexually transmitted infections, divorce, sexual abuse, suicide, and crime.
It is mind-boggling that even the infamous late-term abortionist, Martin Haskell, would have the gall to plant one of his bloody mills within spitting distance of a group of dedicated child healers – even sharing a driveway, parking area, and sign. And with each practice’s door – dividing the fates of Southwest Ohio’s tiniest and most helpless citizens – a Poe-esque 50 feet from the other, all this freak-show lacks is a guest appearance from Vincent Price.
Haskell, who is known as a pioneer of late-term abortion techniques, has closed his Cincinnati clinic and decided to re-open cozily close to a well-established pediatrics group in suburban Sharonville. The only hitch is that the Liberty Sharonville pediatricians aren’t exactly welcoming their new neighbor with open arms; as Steve Brinn, M.D., expressed in a letter to a Cincinnati newspaper.
‘Imagine our shock and disbelief, when we learned that an abortion clinic was opening in the building 50-feet from our front door,’ Brinn said in his letter, which was published Nov. 27. ‘Why would a clinic performing abortions be so insensitive to a group practice treating children for 31 years?
