Megyn Kelly Compares Herself to Vladimir Putin

[Birds of a feather...glass ceiling climbers at any cost?]

[Any difference from Hillary?..jury is still out on this one!]


[What difference does it make? You be the judge..I am just the messenger]

by:Gary DeMar 
Megyn Kelly has responded to criticisms that her question of the GOP candidates in the debate last Thursday were silly, agenda-oriented, and possibly designed to take out Donald Trump. What the other Republican candidates wouldn’t do, Fox was trying to do. 
Here is Megyn Kelly’s response to the criticism:

“We were trying to drill down to most vulnerable areas and give them a chance to explain them and also give the audience a chance to see how they would handle that. So the job is to actually get past the talking points and go to the place where they might be most vulnerable with the Republican primary voters or conversely the place they may be most vulnerable in a general election and then give them the chance to knock that ball back to us. . . If you can’t get past me, how are you gonna handle Vladimir Putin?” 

Putin would not be asking such questions. The new establishment sycophants at Fox should have asked the GOP candidates some of the questions that, on the international level, would have something to do with a powerful world leader like Putin.
If you're going to make the Putin analogy, then ask Putin-like questions. Are we to think that Putin would have asked this Megyn Kelly question?:

“Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like, ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ slobs, and disgusting animals.” 

The topics that got Trump to the GOP debate stage were his comments on illegal immigration and crime and the United States diminished place in the world. But Kelly knew that if she had asked him questions related to these issues, Trump would have had the crowd on its feet.
Mark Levin said it best:

"This is about dumbing down the debate, turning it into a spectacle to promote Megyn Kelly, the moderators hogging limited time that should have been available to the candidates, flawed opposition research in one case taken completely out of context, etc. This was not to be the Fox debate but the first REPUBLICAN PARTY sanctioned debate." 

Kelly asked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker this question on his strict abortion stance: “Would you really let a mother die, rather than having an abortion?”
Let’s see if anyone will ask a Democrat candidate a question like this:
“Are you willing to allow more than one million unborn babies be killed every year in order to save the relatively few dangerous birth pregnancies that might require a procedure where an unborn baby might die?” How would I have answered Megyn Kelly’s abortion question? Here are some things to keep in mind in formulating an answer. 

First, how many of these life-threatening pregnancies take place in the United States that required an abortion? It’s less than one percent, certainly no number near 1.2 million. “Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. . .”
In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child."
I suspect that these statistics have not changed much over the years.
Second, why wasn’t there a question about the Planned Parenthood videos and how as President would each of the candidates deal with the half-billion dollars in tax-payer funding for the pro-abortion organization?
Third, when there is a pregnant woman, there are two patients. A doctor does not kill one to save the other. A doctor does his or her best to save both patients.

Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged:

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”1

That was in 1967. Since then medical procedures have gotten better that there are very few instances where a woman's life is in danger that an abortion would be absolutely necessary. Check out this list of answers to some abortion myths reading.
When Dr. Ben Carson was called on to separate conjoined twins, he didn’t kill one to save the other.

1. Alan F. Guttmacher, “Abortion—Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, 1967). [↩]