Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I wonder if you hold Moore's documentaries to the same standards you hold this one to. I suspect both use file tape for illustration

Yankee Clipper

This is as honest of a response that I can find and I think it sums up the issue and stays explains what is really true about the videos of PP.


http://www.floppingaces.net/most-wanted/no-the-planned-parenthood-videos-have-not-been-deceptively-edited/comment-page-1/

No, The Planned Parenthood Videos Have Not Been ‘Deceptively Edited’

By Curt 78 Comments Fri, Aug, 28th, 2015 865 views
1
SHARES
Facebook
Twitter

Matt Walsh:

Good news, abortion fans! Turns out the hours and hours and hours of footage showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of baby limbs and organs can officially be discounted and dismissed. According to a report sent to Congress yesterday, the videos are “heavily edited” and “inaccurate.”

Whew! Finally, we can revert back to completely ignoring the continued holocaust of helpless, innocent children. What a relief! All this selling dead baby stuff was really giving my conscience a workout. I guess I can return it to the shelf and get back to the business of displaying utter disdain and disregard for basic human decency.

Or maybe not.

Despite the claim, reported as fact, that the videos are “totally manipulated” and “altered,” making them essentially worthless as evidence, the truth remains exactly the same. Planned Parenthood sells dead baby parts. This is a fact, and it has not been even remotely debunked.

Someone should inform the media about this, by the way. They demonstrated no interest in Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of dead baby parts up until now, but since an analysis has supposedly “disproved” the claim, suddenly the whole issue seems relevant to them. The Center For Medical Progress has been releasing footage for two months, but it wasn’t front page news until a report declared it “deceptive.” The media acknowledged the revelations for long enough to categorically dismiss them. Now, we’re supposed to just move on.

Unfortunately for the abortion industry and its disciples in mass media, I actually took the radical step of reading the entire report myself. I encourage you to check it out. Americans should probably learn to investigate information for themselves rather than relying on the Huffington Post and CNN to give them the cliff notes.

On that front, my own independent analysis of the independent analysis came to vastly difference conclusions.

Here are my findings:

1. No matter what — even if the videos used computer animation and special effects and the Planned Parenthood officials were actually Tom Cruise wearing realistic masks like in “Mission Impossible” — we still know that Planned Parenthood kills over 300,000 human beings a year. That’s established. Nobody denies it. The defunding of Planned Parenthood should still proceed, even if this all turns out to be an elaborate and morbid Broadway production, because no civilized country should fund the murder of human beings. Period.

Now, stop and think about this for a second: abortion enthusiasts are tripping over themselves to paint these videos as “false,” because they can’t bring themselves to accept that their beloved Planned Parenthood would sell human limbs and organs. Yet, these same brainwashed sycophants eagerly accept, and in fact applaud, the fact that Planned Parenthood kills children to begin with. This is like defending Jeffrey Dahmer by passionately insisting that the reports of cannibalism were falsified. Even if they were, he still, uh, like, murdered 17 people, didn’t he? Cannibalism would make his crimes more dramatic, I suppose, but either way, he’s a damned serial killer. So is Planned Parenthood.

2. I want everyone reading this right now to please remember one thing for as long as you live: Planned Parenthood can never be trusted. Ever. Under any circumstance. They are liars to their core. Filthy, murderous liars. They lie about everything. Of course they do. Again, they kill human beings, what do you expect? Planned Parenthood lies when it says “3 percent of its business is abortion.” It lies when it says it does mammograms. It lies to women. It lies to everyone. It lies all the time, in every situation. When raped teenage girls come in for abortions, it lies by not reporting the abuse to authorities. It keeps women in the dark. It lives in the dark. It thrives on lies. And lies. And lies. And lies.

This is a relevant point because the “independent analysts” who inspected the videos were hired by Planned Parenthood. They were not, in fact, independent at all. They were working for, and being paid by, the very organization being investigated. On top of it all, the report comes to us courtesy of a company called Fusion GPS, which is a deeply partisan opposition research firm tied to the Democrat Party.

Surely, none of us are stupid enough to think there was every any chance Planned Parenthood would hire liberal partisan “analysts” who’d potentially come back and say, “Yep, Planned Parenthood broke the law!” The outcome was predetermined. This report, which is now being disseminated as gospel by an ethically bankrupt media, is the result of Planned Parenthood investigating itself. Surprise! Planned Parenthood says Planned Parenthood is entirely innocent of wrongdoing (except for murdering the equivalent of the population of Delaware every year — that part is true, but never mind). Is that really supposed to settle the issue?

3. As for the report itself, like I said, read it. Please read it. Lord, it’s laughable. I really want you to read it so you understand just how thoroughly, profoundly, irreparably dishonest the abortion industry is about everything, and how beholden our nation’s “reporters” are to it. Then again, maybe these water-carrying media members are just angling to the be the latest recipients of the trophies Planned Parenthood hands out to the most cooperative and obedient journalists.

Here’s the deal: not only does Planned Parenthood’s report fail to disprove CPM’s findings, it actually verifies them. In the first couple of paragraphs, the report admits, and I quote, “this analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” Alright. So there you go. The end, folks. Why are we still talking about this?

It says it did find “cuts and skips” but qualifies that “many of the edits likely removed irrelevant content.” Well, obviously. This was a months-long undercover investigation compiling thousands of hours of tape. Would it make any sense for them to put out a YouTube video with 180,000 minutes of uncut footage? I don’t even think YouTube allows videos that long, and in any case, nobody would watch it. It’s hard to get anyone to sit still for something more than 30 seconds long. A minute is pushing it. Two minutes might as well be the director’s cut of “Gone With The Wind.”

As it happens, they did release extended versions of each condensed video, which means they went vastly above and beyond what most undercover journalists would do. Naturally, no matter what, there are going to be substantial gaps of time where nobody is saying anything and nothing is happening. They took that out, just as anyone making any video for any reason would. Why are we pretending this is somehow suspicious? Is this the first time we’ve encountered the concept of “making a video”? Almost every video you see anywhere on the internet or TV is edited. Only now, because Planned Parenthood is being called to task, do we feign shock at the fact. “Wait, there’s a four minute gap where someone leaves to go to the bathroom? WHY DIDN’T YOU INCLUDE THAT PART? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?”

The point is, the whole “the videos were edited!” thing is incredibly disingenuous, and this report only underscores that point. They took hours and hours and hours of video and gave us a long and a short edition to inspect. The question is whether the footage they did provide is substantively manipulated. On that score, Planned Parenthood itself admits it wasn’t.

4. The report does detail some “deceptive” edits, however. For instance:

“Fusion GPS consulted with an experienced reality and documentary television producer, Scott Goldie, for an expert opinion of the editing techniques used in the short videos. Mr.Goldie identifies the use of ominous music, replays, color manipulation, “scratch” effects, strategic display of frame counters and timestamps, all chosen to create “gotcha” moments.”

This is what we’re dealing with. Planned Parenthood sent an analysis to Congress which purports to vindicate it because a reality TV producer noticed background music. Yes, and also everyone else noticed it. I’m not sure why they had to drag in someone from Hollywood to tell us about it, but so be it. There was music at the beginning and end, and replays in the middle to highlight some particularly damning pieces of film. These edits are obvious and absolutely irrelevant. To even include them in the report is at once embarrassing and hilarious.

The report also spends a considerable amount of time contradicting two tiny, immaterial portions of transcript from one of the videos. It states that Fusion GPS didn’t find “any evidence of audio manipulation,” and says again later that it never found anything indicating that audio was “inserted or manipulated,” but it does take issue with CPM’s interpretation of two supposedly “unintelligible” bits of dialogue.

In one of the videos, a Planned Parenthood staff member refers to a murdered unborn child as a “baby,” and in another part, a lab tech looks down at the mangled corpse of a dead baby, laughs, and remarks, “another boy!”

Here is Planned Parenthood’s smoking gun. Out of 10 pages, the analysis spends the most time here, which should tell you something. They can’t defend themselves against the substance of the accusations — that they sell organs and limbs for profit and alter their procedures to preserve specimens — so they dedicate paragraph upon paragraph to refuting the most trivial aspects.

Even there, they can’t disprove anything. Nothing. Nothing is disproved anywhere in the report, even the things that don’t make a difference anyway. Instead, they tell us their forensic analysts and Hollywood producers couldn’t verify that “it’s a baby” and “another boy” were actually said. Maybe they said “hey there lady” and “I want a toy” or “call me maybe” and “I’d like some soy (sauce).” Maybe they said a million other things, or maybe they said precisely what it sounds like they said.

It’s of no consequence.

Alicia Loc: NYC

***************
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/check-your-source-planned-parenthood-president-humiliates-congressman/

I hope this video will do the job.

Alicia Loc: NYC

***************
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/check-your-source-planned-parenthood-president-humiliates-congressman/

I hope this video will do the job.

Alicia Loc: NYC

******************
Thank you for your story. It is true that a lie very often sounds louder in the ears of some than the truth will. You proved this to be true. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: ;)

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Your Flopping Ace author.

Born in 1967 in Walnut Creek, CA I enlisted into the Marine Corps at the age of 18 in 1986. I went into a communication MOS and was stationed in 29 Palms, Camp Pendleton, and spent my last year in Okinawa. I discharged in 1990 and joined the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in 1991 (after undergoing a 11 month hiring process) and have been with the department ever since then.

A political junkie since my early days in High School I still have vivid memories arguing with my liberal mother over Reagan, and even though I was too young to vote in 1984 I actively campaigned for Reagan by placing signs and stickers where ever I could.

I supported President Bush 110%, and the War on Terror, and actively work to expose the ongoing liberal bias in our MSM.

DanceTherapist Loc: NYC, now Oakland, Ca

:lol: :roll: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :shock: :?: :idea: :-P :mrgreen: :hunf:

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

A left wing propaganda outfit will do the job for those who are already indoctrinated to left wing ideology - some of us don't fit that bill

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

How correct you are. It's all about what a person is fed, the mother's milk so to speak. I share with my conservative friends the following story which also shows us our responsibility:

Once up on a time in America, it happened that after the grain crops had been harvested and stored, it was discovered that all the grain was poison. Anyone who ate it went insane. The President, Ronald Reagan, and his advisers immediately took counsel as to what should be done. Clearly, not enough food was available from other sources to sustain the population. There was no choice but to eat the grain. "Very well," the president said, "let us feed the grain. But at the same time we must feed some of the people on a different diet so that there will always be among us some who remember that we are insane, and will remind us." They never revealed the calamity of the poisoned grain to the Democrats who grew fat on poisoned grain while conservatives, never living off the fat of the land, remained lean and sane. And while we continually tell the Progressives (who eventually killed off the Democrats) that they're are crazy, they continue to crave more and more poison. Yet we must remain constant and vigilant in telling them just how crazy they are. Perhaps in November of 2016 we'll put them on a new healthy diet.

moldyoldy

Actually reagan sold our grain to russia and made the price of bread in america sky rocket.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Ah ha! I knew that posting would get the crazies to reply. Congratulations moldyone, you're the very first. Next?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Ah ha! I knew that posting would get the crazies to reply. Congratulations moldyone, you're the very first. Next?

moldyoldy

I post facts, you post fantasy.






BY LOU CANNON
Posted: August 11, 1986


WASHINGTON — One of President Reagan's favorite dictums, delivered in little lectures to his Cabinet and advisers, is that presidential decisions should be based on sound policy rather than politics. "I don't want any of you ever asking me to do something for political reasons," aides have quoted Reagan as telling them with a straight face.

By the usual political standards, Reagan does pretty well when measured by his test. His support for the Nicaraguan rebels and his opposition to South African sanctions, to name two issues, are based on convictions rather than polls. Even Reagan's adversaries recognize that he usually is a man of principle.



But election-year politics have a way of overcoming principles, and Reagan is not immune. Because Republican senators scared him into thinking that GOP control of the Senate is at stake, Reagan jettisoned policy for politics in ignoring the recommendations of his national security community by selling subsidized wheat to the Soviet Union.

Ironically, Reagan's largess to the nation he once called "the evil empire" comes at a time when the Soviet system is particularly vulnerable to economic pressure. The president knows this. The world collapse of oil prices has reduced revenues for the Soviets, and their perennially troubled agricultural economy is coming up short once again.

Only a few days after he agreed to sell four million tons of wheat to the Soviets at a subsidy of $13 a ton, the president was arguing that years of massive arms spending had made the Soviet Union an "economic basket case." Reagan suggested that a combination of Soviet economic conditions and concerns about his "Star Wars" missile-defense system have led Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to the realization that an agreement reducing the superpowers' nuclear arsenals would be mutually beneficial.

Why then relieve the economic pressure on the Soviets at a critical time? Why infuriate Canada and Australia and create the conditions for what Secretary of State George P. Shultz calls "a subsidy war"? The answers to these questions are buried in farm-state political concerns, not in Reagan's catechism on the right way to reach presidential decisions.

"When you ask the senators from the farm states what their top three problems are, they reply agriculture, agriculture and agriculture," said a White House aide after the decision. Political surveys in these states do not necessarily support the view that the Soviet wheat sale will keep the Senate in Republican hands, but the fears expressed by Majority Leader Robert J. Dole, R-Kan., were enough to convince Reagan to ignore Shultz and his own best instincts.

White House spokesmen tried to justify Reagan's retreat from principle by observing that he had opposed President Jimmy Carter's grain embargo against the Soviets in 1980, and lifted it in 1981. What they do not say is that Reagan's original decision to oppose the embargo was taken for crass political reasons.

After Carter imposed the grain embargo in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Reagan's inclination was to support it. But he was then involved in a hard-fought battle for the Republican presidential nomination. George Bush, his principal opponent in the Iowa caucuses, had come out against the embargo.

At a strategy session in Los Angeles early in January 1980, Reagan advisers stressed the importance of grain exports to Iowa farmers. Reagan at first resisted their point, then agreed to oppose the embargo. He lost Iowa anyway, one of his few defeats that year.

Bad decisions often lead to other bad decisions. As president, Reagan overrode the objections of his first secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., and lifted the embargo - on the political grounds that he had promised to do so during the campaign.

No doubt, as Shultz said, the Soviets are "chortling" that they pay less for American food than Americans do. No doubt they are confirmed in their ideological view that the profit motive they claim to despise has the power to prevail over U.S. national interest.

The Soviets may indeed be an "economic basket case," as Reagan claimed. What he should have added is that he stands ready to fill the Soviet basket with cheap wheat paid for by American taxpayers.

Reaganism of the Week: When the President announced his anti-drug program last Monday, he was asked if he intended to take the issue away from First Lady Nancy Reagan. "Do I look like an idiot?" the President replied.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor - didn't realize that until now - with you offering the idea that Reagan's policies led to increased inflation is just too funny for words - Thanks for that

CarolSeer2016

Moldy, I really think you spout the prevailing liberal "opinions", not because you have thought about them and feel they are worthwhile, but only because that is what the intellectual "elite" tell you is worth thinking.