Quantcast


Last updated: April 18. 2013 11:06PM - 1071 Views

Story Tools:

Font Size:

Social Media:

Where’s media scrutiny on abortion industry?


U.S. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey recently told House colleagues that if abortion butcher Dr. Kermit Gosnell (on trial for murdering newborns) “… walked into a nursery and shot seven infants using an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.”


Instead, Gosnell snipped the spinal cords of seven fully delivered babies at his Philadelphia abortion clinic and there is media silence.


The Gosnell trial should be making headlines because it is a tragedy every bit as horrible as the Newtown massacre. The story, though, is eclipsed by the debate over expanding background checks at gun shows, which will do nothing to stop school shootings.


Smith’s point hits the mark. What’s the difference between killing a child with a scissors or a gun? The outcome is the same so why isn’t the media coverage?


Smith rightly denounces the decades-long cover up by the liberal media of the brutality and violence of the abortion industry. Gosnell trial testimony is horrific, including infant be-headings, severed baby feet in jars, babies screaming after being delivered alive, unsanitary conditions and bloodstained equipment. It was truly a house or horrors.


As the trial unfolds, there is more shocking media silence regarding similar unsanitary and dangerous conditions at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wilmington. One nurse at the clinic called it “meat market style of assembly-line abortions” that left blood draining on operating tables as patients were rushed in and out of the clinic.


Since January 4 five patients at the clinic have been rushed to emergency rooms following botched abortions. That clinic is now temporarily closed, pending investigation.


The mainstream media blackout of these stories is shameful.


Ken Skuba

Sugarloaf

Bias against fossil fuel evident in newspaper


In just a few short days, The Times Leader has managed to show its bias for nonviable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.), while disregarding the viable energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas).


Sunday, April 7, on the front page: “Northeast drilling threatens forests, wildlife”; Monday, April 8, editorial page: “Increased drilling has little effect… on prices at the pump”; Wednesday, April 10, editorial page: “State’s frackers get another break”.


This op-ed in The Times Leader from the York Daily Record was not meant to educate, but to imply and further the propaganda of the environmental wackos that frackers are getting all the tax breaks and that wind and solar power get no tax dollars and need more. To the contrary, wind and solar get a large portion of their budget from tax dollars.


On the Thursday, April 11 editorial page: “Renewable sources gaining power.” This headline is misleading because there has been an increase in our tax dollars given to alternative energy companies under this administration, so naturally an increase in our hard earned money wasted on these companies will result in data that is skewed toward making these companies look better.


Without the increase in tax dollars, or any tax dollars for that matter, alternative energy companies would not survive. Let wind and solar companies compete on the free market without government subsidies and there would be no wind and solar companies left.


Giving tax dollars to these alternative energy companies is akin to flushing those dollars down the commode. Need examples? Solyndra has filed bankruptcy and it cost us taxpayers at least 600 million dollars.


Fisker Automotive, the all-electric car company, cost taxpayers at least 200 million dollars as they just laid off 75 percent of their workforce and are in the process of filing for bankruptcy. These companies are just two of the dozens of examples of alternative energy related companies that have failed and in effect wasted our tax dollars.


If more tax dollars or more tax breaks should go anywhere, it is to companies that are bringing viable sources of energy to the market-oil, coal, natural gas companies. It is these companies that produce proven, sustainable and relatively inexpensive efficient sources of energy.


To address the op ed about increased drilling for oil (April 8) — of course if we drill more, we have more opportunity to find and extract oil.


Supply and demand dictates if there is more oil on the market, in a true free market, the cost of a barrel of oil will decrease.


This Obama administration, however, has never been a fan of oil, period. The price of a gallon of gasoline has more than doubled since Obama took office. Remember, Obama was only angry at how fast the price of gas rose during an interview with a reporter, not the fact that it rose. He would rather it move to five dollars a gallon more slowly.


Finally, to all of you naysayers who bash coal, oil and natural gas. Those of you who plug in your electric go kart; the electricity used to recharge your car is most likely generated by coal power. Natural gas prices have never been lower due to supply — thanks to fracking — and it the most efficient and inexpensive way to heat a home right after, you guessed it – coal.


As far as oil is concerned, can any of the enviro wackos out there research and write in to this paper and tell me how many passenger aircraft can generate enough thrust to fly without the use oil? Let me save you the trouble — none!


Oil, coal, and natural gas are the most reliable energy sources of the past, present, and future.


Rob Sitkowski

Wyoming

Nothing reserved in about county guard


The other day I went to the Luzerne County Courthouse to help a friend research some information. Upon pulling into the back parking lot, and seeing that all the handicap spaces were occupied, I parked on the lot near the guard shack, seeing absolutely no “reserved” signs on the strip of spots to the right/forward of the guard shack, nor are there any lines painted on the ground or anything that says “reserved”.


Before I even got out of my car, an older, and grumpy, guard came out railing to me that those spots are “reserved”.


I told him I was sorry and was unaware because there were no signs stating that where I parked were “reserved” and that I would move my car.


He also came physically a little too close to me for my comfort, I felt rather uncomfortable and somewhat intimidated by his posturing so close to me.


Still, he rambled and railed at me that the spots were reserved and “didn’t I see the sign” posted at the beginning of the drive-way entrance way? “No, I did not,” I responded.


He was not nice about the situation at all.


He even stated that they would have any car not supposed to be there towed, which gives me pause about all the LAG Towing investigations going on in the city. Towed for parking in a spot not clearly marked “reserved”?


Perhaps the courthouse should eke out some tax dollars for some “reserved parking” signs in the back of the court house, so the next hapless and unknowing citizen who mistakenly parks in the guards “reserved zone” will not have to hear the guard rambling on and on and get threatened to have your vehicle towed.


I read in the paper where the county was trying to improve it’s image what with the Kids For Cash scandal and all.


Well, they should start by also telling the court house parking lot guards to act in a more civil manner to the taxpaying courthouse visitors. I did not deserve his verbal abuse!


Kevin Ryan

Wilkes-Barre


Comments
comments powered by Disqus



Featured Businesses


Poll



Info Minute



Gas Prices

Wilkes-Barre Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com