Why The Washington Times is a leading news source

Will the Rev. Sun Young Moon pull the plug on his hobby, or will the ‘venerable Washington Times continue its vigorous reporting for another day? (NOTE: Washington Times daily circulation about 83,000; Washington Post daily circulation about one million.)

This story from that paper yesterday leaped into the conservative blogsphere, where vigorous re-blogging was soon underway.

The pro-choice Obama White House requires pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of the executive mansion.

Okay. Family of three wants to tour the WH when they make their future planned visit to DC. Now if they reasonably expect that they will be a family of four by the time they arrive, and since everyone is required to be ticketed,  they are advised to apply for four tickets now and save any hassle when they get there. Let them know how many you will be.

Got it? White House policy is that everyone, no matter the age, is required to have a ticket. Four of you want to enter? That’ll be four tickets. Expecting twins before the date of the tour? Better order five tickets now. Like if you were going to Disney.


7 responses to “Why The Washington Times is a leading news source

  1. Obviously this means that the White House agrees that life begins at conception. Or at the mother’s last period. Or perhaps at the mother’s mother’s last period. Or, perhaps, at the Reverend Moon’s conception.


  2. They must be drinking some strong kool ade. go on…


  3. The Washington Times’ story was quite fair, though it was essentially itself just a reprint of the Beacon’s story. They made the same points as you did, in old-school inverted pyramid style.

    You have to admit that there’s some irony in a staunchly pro-Abortion White House counting the unborn as people. 😆

    I’m betting though that this policy goes back a long time and it’s not actually something that any Administration would actually play apart in.


    • Like I said, it’s just likie Disney or a cruise ship or anything htat requires tickets bought in advance. And of course it goes way back. Why woulnd’t it.

      So the Times story was not fair, it was stupid. It isn’t quite a ‘story’ when you report on something perfectly normal and long standing and present it as ‘an outrage’. And I don’t see hte irony at all, since the policy clearly has absolutely nothhing at all to do with pro or anti anything, except tickets required for admision. I think they’re for that.


    • They are not counting the child if it is still in utero. In stroller, backpack, arms, yes. Not inutero. Remember these are tickets for the future when there might possibly just be a baby.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s