Leftists Exploit Gun Tragedy. . . As Usual

With the Aurora shooting a couples days removed now and emotions cooling, let’s talk rationally about the issue of guns. As usual, the left has hopped on this tragedy in full exploitation mode. They’ve blamed everything from guns to the Tea Party. They are, as always, wrong. Let’s discuss.

As with Gabby Giffords, the left immediately jumped out and pointed their twisted fingers at the Tea Party. This charge was led by ABC News who decided the shooter had to belong to the Tea Party because they found a Tea Party member with a similar name. Naturally, they never bothered to investigate before smearing the Tea Party. Eventually, they were forced to retract this, but not before every other new outlet repeated the slander. Those outlets never withdrew their reports.

Meanwhile, the usual pack of leftist celebrities took to the airwaves to whine that this proves we need gun control. Roger Ebert even whined that this proved that concealed carry laws don’t work because no one in the crowd had a gun. Think about that. In Roger’s mind concealed carry means that someone in every crowd must be carrying a gun even when the theater and law forbid it. What a twisted turd he has become.

In any event, none of this is working. Almost no one on Capitol Hill has called for gun control laws. To the contrary they are running like scared rabbits. Why? Because polls show the public’s support for gun rights at an all-time high. Indeed, an October 2011 Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans would not support gun bans. This was the highest level in 50 years. Incidentally, the same poll showed 68% approval for the evil NRA.

So why doesn’t the public fall for the blathering of the moronic celebrities and professional tragedy exploiters? Easy, it’s common sense.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, gun tragedies are incredibly rare. The United States has 2.5 million deaths annually, but only 12,000 of those are related to guns (0.4% of all deaths) – many of these are shootings by police. This places gun deaths 43rd on the list of causes of death in the United States, well behind diseases, cancers, suicides, diarrhea related deaths, unintentional injuries, measles, falls, drownings, poisonings, fires, asthma and road accidents.

And mass shootings of the type in Aurora are even more rare. For example, in the last 10 years, there have been only seven shooting sprees at schools in the US that resulted in three or more deaths. Moreover, Europe has a comparable mass murder rate, despite its strict gun control laws. Europe saw six such mass murders in the same period, and the European ones had a higher body count. China too has seen a spree of stabbings at schools that have resulted in a vastly higher number of deaths than American shootings. So this problem the celebrity left is whining about simply about doesn’t exist, and people realize that.

Secondly, guns don’t kill people. There are 250 million guns in the United States. If guns “caused” crimes as the left claims, then there would 250 million murders a year. Even if only one in ten people fell under the evil spell of these guns, we would still be dealing with 25 million murders a year. Heck, even one percent means 2.5 million murders. Yet only 12,000 people are killed annually in the United States by guns. That works out to less than 0.004% of guns being used to kill someone. . . 40 out of every million guns in the country. Guns do not cause crime.

We know this from Switzerland too. Everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun, yet gun crime is virtually nonexistent. It’s so low they don’t even bother keeping official statistics on gun crime. It is, in fact, lower than the gun crime rate in Japan, which absolutely bans guns. Switzerland ranks as the fourth safest country in the world and its violent crime rate is 1/100th that of Britain, where guns are banned.

Moreover, there is strong evidence that guns actually prevent crime. When Britain banned private gun ownership in 1996, crime rates skyrocketed. According to American Enterprise Institute economist John Lott, an examination of information released by the British Home Office showed that the violent crime rate rose 69% following the gun ban (with murders increasing 54%). Interestingly, in the five years prior to the ban, such crimes had been falling consistently.

A county by county examination by Lott of crime rates in the United States, found that right-to-carry states experienced (on average) lower rates of violent crime (27% lower), murder (32% lower), robbery (45% lower) and aggravated assault (20% lower) than states with more restrictive gun laws. Other studies conducted at Vanderbilt University, SUNY Binghamton, Claremont-McKenna College, George Mason University, and the College of William and Mary, have supported Lott’s findings.

So Ebert’s attempt to prove that concealed laws don’t worry through a bad analogy is proven ludicrous by comparison to these statistics.

The truth is the world is full of nuts. And if they want to find a way to kill people, they will find a way. It is better to let decent people arm themselves so they can defend themselves than it is to disarm the very people who would help, leaving everyone at the mercy of the crazies. It’s interesting that our left thinks this way. Why do you supposed they don’t want you being able to defend yourself?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

God Loves Criminals, Satan Doesn’t (Quasi-Open Thread, Vent Away Folks)

According to a new study, people who believe in Heaven commit more crimes than people who don’t. But people who believe in Hell commit fewer crimes than nonbelievers. Interestingly, this proves conservatism right. Read on. . .

This study was done by two professors at the University of Oregon and the University of Kansas. They studied data collected by the World and European Values Surveys conducted between 1981 and 2007 from 67 countries. This included 143,197 respondents.

After standardizing the crime rates in each country, the study authors came to the conclusion that people with a professed belief in Heaven and Hell had different crime rates. Specifically, they found that those who believe in Hell committed fewer crimes than average people, but those who believe in “a loving God” committed more crimes than average people.

So what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that liberals misunderstand human nature. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed by education, i.e. encouraging people to be better. But if that were true, then this study would have turned out differently. Think about it. This study isolated true believers from the rest of the population. Those people, presumably, are most susceptible to changing their behavior based on encouragement/ education because they believe that God has told them the way, and they believe he is offering them a reward for acting appropriately. Yet, not only did they not prove to be more law abiding, they actually proved to be more likely to commit crimes. That is the exact opposite of what liberal beliefs would predict. And if God can’t make true believers change their minds, then what chance does the government have changing minds?

Now look at the other group. This was the group which feared punishment. Through their belief in Hell, they were presented with the idea that if they did not behave, they would be punished. This resulted in a decrease in crimes. This is what conservatives have long advocated -- that human nature cannot be changed, but it can be controlled by providing negative consequences for misbehavior.

Putting this together tells us that it is hopeless to try to change human nature, but that human nature can be controlled. However, the only incentive which will result in such control is fear of punishment -- offering a reward will actually have the opposite effect. This flies in the face of liberalism, which claims that punishment is not effective, that only rewards can change behavior, and that human nature can be changed but, contradictorily, people are powerless to control their impulses.

As for why offering a reward would have the opposite effect, I suspect that anyone offering a reward is seen as unlikely to punish you. Indeed, if God will forgive you, then you really don’t need to worry about changing, do you? It’s the same way with the government. When a legal system only wants to reform you, it sends out the message that there is no longer any need to fear punishment and you can live as you wish. Ditto with an over-indulgent parent spoiling a child or a permissive boss losing control of the company. When there is no fear of a negative consequence, people take advantage of that.

So what all of this tells us is that liberalism reads human nature wrong in all areas (soft on crime, consequence free handouts, the elimination of shame, permissive child rearing), and not only will liberal policies fail, but they will make things worse by sending the wrong message.

But then, you knew that already.

OT: We're on ObamaCare and Holder contempt watch today. We highly recommend that everyone get some Tea and Birthday cake (Happy Birthdays T-Rav and tryanmax) and wait for the good news! And if tea isn't your thing, then prepare a Commentarama-tini! Bev will provide the recipes.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Not All Speech Should Be Protected

I love the internet. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, it’s let me sell a book, and it’s let me meet all of you. That’s pretty darn cool. But the internet does have a downside. Specifically, it lets the most hateful turds do their best to intimidate those they don’t like. We need a law, dammit!! Actually, we don’t.

It really is undeniable that the internet can be a problem, particularly when it comes to “hate speech.” Indeed, some corners of the internet are a seething cauldron of hate and idiocy. But here’s the thing, we don’t need laws to stop hate or idiocy. For one thing, hate and idiocy don’t actually harm us. Sticks and stones, my friends. So why do we need more laws to stop things that don’t really harm us? Isn’t that just using the power of government to force your pet peeves on people?

Not to mention, letting people speak their minds and expose their twisted views is an incredibly useful tool for discovering who you shouldn’t trust. Would you rather know that the normal looking guy in the bowtie thinks Jews are evil creatures, or would you rather only know that he smiles a lot?

Equally problematic is the idea of how we define hate. One person’s hate is another person’s truth. So whose opinion is right, and where will the government draw the line? Moreover, how do you keep the hypersensitive from getting their views imposed through the government? They are the most likely to make such an attempt after all. Do we really trust that the government won’t start declaring things like Christianity “hate speech” merely because it argues that certain acts are immoral? Many liberals already make that argument.

Let’s face it, there are very strong reasons to allow hate speech and there really aren’t any valid ones which justify banning it except that some people don't like it.

But there is another angle to this. Sometimes people hide behind the First Amendment to do more than just spew hate and stupidity. Indeed, they cross over that line and advocate violence. Now that, is a real problem.

And that brings me to Jesse Morton, the founder of a militant Muslim website “Revolution Muslim.” Jesse just got sentenced to 11.5 years for making threats against the creators of South Park because of their episode featuring Mohammed in a bear suit. He also admitted to conspiring to solicit the murder of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, who drew Mohammed as part of a protest against the intimidation of Danish cartoonists.

Jesse’s conviction is exactly how “hate” speech needs to be curtailed. Rather than trying to ban people from spewing idiotic opinions, we should only punish those cross the line into advocating illegality. Jesse made threats and conspired to make threats involving the injury or murder of other individuals. That is not some nebulous hateful opinion, it is in fact a crime, and has always has been recognized as such since the foundations of our justice system were laid. When he crossed the line from giving opinion to soliciting crimes, he needed to be punished.

In fact, the same thing needs to be done to the army of idiots who are taking to Twitter to issue their own death threats. If you tweet that you will kill someone or rape them or their children, that is a threat and you should be locked up, whether your target is a public figure or not. If you ask someone to kill someone else, then you have solicited murder. If you suggest that it would please you if someone died or was raped, or you simply hope they are killed or raped, that is solicitation. Those are crimes.

The internet is indeed out of control, but it’s not the handful of lunatics whining about racial purity or how everyone else is evil that are the problem. The problem is this group of supposedly normal people who now think it’s acceptable to make threats or solicit crimes against political opponents they don’t like. It’s time these people got rounded up and sent to jail, just like Jesse Morton, so that people stop doing this. If something isn’t done soon, this will spin out of control, if it hasn’t already.

Thoughts?

P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama’s “Week From Hell” Coming Up

Everybody’s had one of those weeks, where everything goes wrong. Obama is about to experience a big one! Indeed, this week will likely be the week which will define his Presidency as a total failure in the history book. And it starts with ObamaCare.

Obama bet his entire Presidency on ObamaCare, and that’s going down in flames this week. Yep. Sometime this week, the Supreme Court will finally issue its decision. We’ve discussed that a lot, including the likely outcomes (LINK), but any way you slice it, this will end poorly for Obama. At the very least, the individual mandate will be struck down. But more likely, the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law. Either result, however, will be seen by the public as a complete reversal of ObamaCare, and with it, a complete undoing of his entire term in office.

My biggest concern here is if only the mandate gets struck down. That could kill the momentum for a repeal of the entire bill, which is what is truly needed. Indeed, the individual mandate is the least harmful of the provisions. The rest of the bill raises taxes, hands out favors, reshapes how hospitals function, limits the way doctors can arrange their businesses, slashes Medicare, subsidizes some people’s healthcare, imposes requirements on insurers, and forces states to create these massive insurance exchanges which will never go away. That is the real heart of ObamaCare and that’s what needs to be eliminated. On the plus side, once people think ObamaCare is gone, it will be hard to stop the Republicans from repealing the rest. On the downside, once the pressure is released, Washington tends to return to rest and let things stay as they are. Let’s hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and kills the whole bill.

But ObamaCare is just the beginning. This week the Supreme Court will also uphold Arizona’s law to let its police enforce the nation’s immigration laws. If immigration truly is THE issue for Hispanics, and this bill is as bad as the left claims, then Hispanic won’t be too happy that Obama proved impotent on this issue.

More importantly, as more and more states pass these laws, the ability of the Democrats to ignore the illegal immigration problem by sabotaging ICE efforts in Washington will vanish. Instead, the states will start taking care of these issues, with a likely first round resulting in a demographic shift as illegals flee to welcoming states like California. . . which can’t afford them.

On Thursday, Obama’s lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, will find himself held in contempt of Congress for lying and withholding documents from Congress related to his “Fast and Furious” program which resulted in thousands of weapons being given to drug cartels in Mexico. Interestingly, even the left is mocking Obama’s claim that Holder has the right to withhold the requested documents under Executive Privilege. Apparently, young Barack Obama once said Bush’s identical claims were illegal.

On Friday, Obama’s latest effort at a stimulus bill, a $109 billion highway bill, will probably fail in the House. So much for spreading around a little bribe money before the election.

Finally, student loan rates will double unless action is taken by June 30, and the House Republicans don’t seem all that interested in stopping this. This will upset yet another key Obama demographic, students. This one might pass, but we’ll see. But it won’t help the mood on college campuses that Obama let this happen.

That’s a big week for Obama and from the looks of it, it’s all going to go wrong. :)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Martin Case? What Martin Case?

The Trayvon Martin case really exposed the liberal media as race-hate hustlers. Not to mention it showed their bias. But now that the facts of the case are going against their desires, they are all but ignoring it. Fortunately, it looks like the public has ignored the MSM all along.

Right out of the gates, the media tried to turn this into a racial controversy. First, we had the NBC producer who maliciously edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, when the call actually proved that Zimmerman didn’t raise the issue of race and wasn’t even sure Martin was black. The MSM also tried to turn Zimmerman into a white guy so he would fit the racist narrative by calling him “white Hispanic” when his real ancestry apparently makes him “black Hispanic.” They also ignored all the charity work he did for a local black church. And to show that the only reason they covered this issue was race, consider what Alfonzo Rachel pointed out (about 1:05), that the media has ignored a succession of other Trayvons who were gunned down because they were all killed by blacks.

Once they had their narrative, the MSM set about trying to spin everything to fit that. For example, they ran with biased photos, using an old mugshot of Zimmerman to make him look like a thug while using a childhood photo of Martin to make him look like an innocent child. They kept using these photos even weeks after being criticized for the practice and long after more reputable places like conservative blogs were using better alternatives. They even shamelessly attacked the Daily Caller for “bias” for printing the nasty things Martin said on his Twitter account.

The reporting was skewed too. For example, they reported at face value that Martin had Skittles in one hand and a phone in the other, even though there is no witness who ever said that -- his girlfriend said that to the cops, but she wasn’t there to know.

After that, they kept trying to shoot down Zimmerman’s claims, like his claim that he had been attacked and injured. At first, the MSM just said they saw no evidence of injury. But how could they. . . they hadn’t looked? Then ABC released a grainy video and the media jumped on that as proof: “we don’t see any injuries!” Soon they were pronouncing him guilty because clearly he had lied about being attacked, right? Well, no. A week later, ABC enhanced the video. Now it showed significant injuries and the media actually attacked the practice of enhancing videos. Nobody bothered to read the witnesses statements or check Zimmerman’s medical records. Interestingly, Zimmerman’s lawyer has released his medical records, which show significant injuries, but the media didn’t repudiate their prior attacks. To the contrary, they all but ignored the records. An honest media wouldn’t have done any of this.

Now the blood tests have come back on Martin, and as expected, he had marijuana in his system. Yet, almost no one in the MSM reported this. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Also, not one single reporter has pointed out that this fits with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin appeared stoned and was walking around aimlessly.

Now the case is pretty much being ignored since it hasn’t turned out like the MSM hoped. Although, some reporters are still trying. This weekend, for example, ABC attempted to deflect the public’s attention from the marijuana evidence. In this article, ABC ostensibly went through the witness statements. Only, they weren’t quite fair in how they did it. For example, the first couple pages of the article were “witnesses” saying things like “I do honestly feel that he intended for this kid to die,” and “I think the kid was running for help.” These would be damning statements if the person actually witnessed anything, but she hadn’t. These comments came from a woman who first saw Zimmerman after he had killed Martin and was standing over the body. So why repeat this speculation or describe her as a witness? This woman also said that Zimmerman told her to “call the police.” And to make sure the narrative continues, the reporter editorializes and describes this request as “curt,” as if that somehow proves something.

Another witness discussed in the article approached Zimmerman after the cops showed up and was asked by Zimmerman to call Zimmerman’s wife and let her know he was being taken into custody. According to the man, Zimmerman made this request “like it was nothing.” In other words, this “witness” was offended that Zimmerman didn’t act upset enough for his taste. In fact, he notes that Zimmerman didn’t act like: “I can’t believe I just shot someone.” So what? Again, this man witnessed nothing and his speculation that Zimmerman wasn’t shocked enough is utter horsesh*t and shouldn’t have been reported. Yet, the reporter leads off the article with this.

What this reporter has done is a despicable attempt to lynch Zimmerman by presenting as fact the speculation of people who saw nothing. This is deceitful advocacy. And so you know, none of the statements above will be admissible at court because witnesses can only speak to facts they witnessed, not opinions they formed.

So what really happened? Well, way near the bottom of the article, long after most people will have stopped reading, the reporter finally comes to the only person to actually witness something. This man said that he heard a commotion coming from the walk behind his residence. He looked out and witnessed a black male wearing a dark-colored hoodie on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He further stated that the black male was mounted on Zimmerman and “throwing punches MMA style” as the man on the ground yelled out for help.

Case closed. Self-defense.

On the positive side, the public seems to get it, even if the media doesn’t. Rasmussen asked people what they thought of the case. 40% thought Zimmerman acted in self-defense (up from 15%). 24% thought it was murder (down from 33%). These are good numbers. This means that only two in ten are going against the evidence of the case and buying into the media spin. Double that number have seen through the media spin. It also means that 34% of the public has kept enough of an open mind to change their opinions in light of new evidence and another four in ten have yet to form an opinion -- the way it should be.

So while the MSM is in the tank and is trying desperately to spin this case into a race war, the public clearly ain’t buying it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sexy Currency

Let’s talk about sex. Whoo hoo! Yep, sex, sex, sex. It turns out Obama’s gay marriage stance isn’t going down too well. It’s now ok to look at kiddie porn in New York, so long as you don’t own it. And Canada is about to issue a pornographic $20 bill. Oh, yeah.

Issue One: Gay Rage. Yesterday, Obama came out of the closet on behalf of something he’s always believed in deeply but previously refused to support for no reason whatsoever except that he wasn’t evolved enough to act on his beliefs until Joe Biden evolved him: gay marriage. Yep. Now gay marriage will be the law of the land. Oh, wait. . . there’s some fine print here. Hmm. Has Obama lied again?

Indeed he has. Right after Obama decided to declare his support for gay marriage, people with brains (i.e. conservative) began to snicker that Obama was trying to mislead his supporters. By last night, his supporters had caught on. In a rather nasty article, Gawker noted that Obama’s promise was all smoke and mirrors. Observe:

“It seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?”

Oh, the irony of accusing Obama of supporting modern segregation. I love it when liberals get all self-righteous on each other. Perhaps they can now call him an Uncle Tom like they do to Clarence Thomas?

In any event, the tone of the article is downright rude, like when they called Obama’s state’s rights evasion: “a half-assed, cowardly cop-out.” And I suspect the tone will only get worse over the coming weeks because one thing the gay lobby is not is civil. The fun is just beginning and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time with his campaign struggling to find its footing.

Issue Two: I Own What? In 2009, Professor James D. Kent of Marist College in New York was convicted of promoting a sexual performance of a child and possession of child pornography, i.e. kiddie porn. But part of his conviction was just overturned. Why? Because the evidence was found in his web browser’s cache, which stores everything you’ve looked at, and he argued that he was not even aware his browser had a cache, so he can’t possibly have knowingly possessed the porn.

New York’s appellate level court agreed that images found in a cache are not proof of possession. Kent’s conviction still stands for the 13,000 images of 8-9 year old girls in lingerie which he had on his harddrive, but apparently those in the browser don’t count as him having “dominion and control over the images.” Now, on the one hand, I can understand that a browser may capture an inadvertent image. I’ve been re-directed to all kinds of places I never wanted to be and those images get into the cache, and it shouldn’t be a crime to have a couple such images stumble their way onto your computer. But give me a break, there is no doubt he was out there looking for this stuff and was just too stupid to clean out his cache. What this ruling does is essentially make is legal to look at kiddie porn in New York so long as you don’t save it to your harddrive. That’s like saying it should be illegal to possess heroin, but it’s not illegal to shoot up on it so long as you use somebody else’s stash.

Issue Three: Porno Dollars. Finally, Canada, i.e. Northern Maine, will be issuing a new $20 dollar bill in November, and it isn’t going over too well. That’s largely because they picked a stupid design. Apparently, a focus group which looked at the bill thought it was “too pornographic” because it contains three naked women clinging to the 9/11 Twin Towers (in America). Here’s the bill, eh:

Interestingly, the structure is not the 9/11 Twin Towers, it is a memorial called the Vimy Memorial, a wartime memorial honoring thousands of Canadian servicemen and which symbolizes the unity between France and Canada. And the topless chicks are known as the Chorus, and they represent Justice and Peace, Truth and Knowledge, Hope, Charity, Honor and Faith. Here is a photo of the memorial.

Personally, I think the bill is uglier than a sewer of Pelosi. Plus, I’m wondering why no one was offended by the swamp monster wearing the tee-shirt with the old lady on it? But I won’t laugh too hard at our neighbors from the Moose Realm because I’m sure our next dollar won’t be much better. In fact, here’s a sneak peek. . .

At least it’s not a damn coin.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Trayvon Martin Case Exposed Media

We often talk about liberal media bias. But if you want an example of media bias and the kinds of negative effects that can result from media bias, look no further than NBC’s actions in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. NBC turned an innocuous quote on its head and caused a national race riot. Now NBC is investigating itself, and I’m sure we’ll all rest easier.

When NBC first reported on the Trayvon Martin shooting, they obtained a copy of the 911 call Zimmerman made before the shooting. Here is what NBC played on the air:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

This is a huge part of the reason the race lobby got into this case. They heard this and assumed that Zimmerman was a racist. Indeed, this quote could easily be read as Zimmerman stating that he thought the fact Martin was black was proof enough that Martin was up to no good.

Add in the report (still completely unconfirmed by ANY witness) that Martin was holding a drink in one hand and a bag of Skittles in the other, and the photo of Martin as a seemingly innocent child, the parents whining how he was a good boy who never hurt anyone, and NBC and the other networks using an old Zimmerman mugshot from a DUI which makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, and you’ve got a report which set the stage to make Zimmerman look like a predator who went after Martin because he was black.

But here’s the thing. The quote NBC gave above is deceitfully edited. Here’s the actual conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: Ok, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Notice several facts. First, Zimmerman gives actual reasons why Martin’s BEHAVIOR is suspicious. If Martin is just headed to a relative’s or girlfriend’s house as his supporters claim, why is he just wandering around in the rain? Further, Zimmerman notes that Martin looks like he’s on drugs, a look which would itself warrant calling the police for Martin’s own safety if nothing else. I have not heard about a toxicology done on Martin’s body, but it would be interesting to know what drugs were in his system, if any(. . . see what I did there NBC?), as they may well explain aggressive behavior and may well put the lie to the idea of the innocent kid going to 7-11. . . in the rain.

Next, notice that Zimmerman not only does not raise the issue of race. Instead, the dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman what Martin’s race is, which is the first time it come up. Further, Zimmerman isn’t even certain what Martin’s race is. Notice that he does not say Martin “IS” black, he says Martin “LOOKS” black, as if there is some doubt. Moreover, if you actually listen to the tape, you will hear uncertainty in Zimmerman’s voice. He is not asserting, “oh heck, yeah, he looks black all right,” he is saying “looks” in the sense of “hmm, I’m not sure, but he appears to be black?”

So here you have a guy who gives a valid description of the type of behavior the police would use to stop and question ANY individual without reference to race, and who does not seem to know for certain what the other person’s race is, nor does he appear to care until he is asked. Yet, NBC edited this quote to make it sound like Zimmerman targeted Martin because Zimmerman thought he was black.

Why would NBC do this? Because that is how leftists think. They WANTED to see a race-based crime here and so they read the above transcript and they pulled out the words which confirmed their prejudice, whether that accurately conveyed reality or not. This is also why they keep using outdated photos of Martin to make him seem innocent -- because they want him to be. Here, by the way, is the photo Martin himself used for his Twitter Account “No Limit Nigger”:

That’s also why they keep using an outdated mugshot of Zimmerman when more recent, less inflammatory images are available, why they don’t report on things like Martin’s record or Zimmerman’s background working with black churches, and why they keep trying to call Zimmerman “white”: because that is what they WANT him to be. Why? Because the leftist media seeks to inflame racial tensions because it helps their cause to keep Americans divided into tribes. In fact, if Zimmerman had shot a white kid, you can bet it would be considered racist to keep using Zimmerman’s mugshot. And if a German-American had shot Zimmerman, you can bet that the “white” Zimmerman would suddenly be described as “Hispanic.”

The fact NBC has done what they’ve done here and no one noticed until Fox News called them on it, is evidence that NBC cannot be considered an unbiased or trustworthy source of news. They are an agenda-driven propaganda machine and they have no qualms about exploiting tragedies or inventing scapegoats for imagined racial crimes.

Interestingly, liberal bloggers have taken up the issue of “bias.” But of course, it won’t surprise you that the bias they see comes from places like The Daily Caller, which is not a news service like NBC and does not pretend to be unbiased, and which does not have national reach like NBC. Moreover, the supposed bias of which they are accused is pointing out Martin’s own words and deeds which contradict the leftist fantasy narrative. Imagine that. Once again, it is “racist” to quote something bad a minority has said, just like it was racist to repeat Obama’s own words (LINK.

The left has no credibility.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Occupy Animal Farm

Meanwhile, in fantasy land, the OWS (bowel) movement continues its inexorable march toward Animal Farm. We’ve got oppressive government, crime waves, deaths, and ironies galore! Come one come all, unless you’re homeless or a Jew. . . or you don't want to be raped.

Occupy Rape

Zuccotti Park, the Mecca of OWS, has turned into a gathering of predators. Apparently, the west end of the park has become so dangerous that people are warned not to go there anymore. This has included assault, drug dealing, drug use, and rape. Naturally, the idiot protesters are claiming this is all the doing of the police. Said one protester:

“We are convinced the rise in crime is being partly manufactured by the authorities. A lot of people who have ended up in the park have said that the police told them: ‘Take it to Zuccotti.’”

Snicker snicker. I wish that were true, but I’m not on drugs, so I know better.

Rape, by the way, is becoming an epidemic. In the past few weeks, there have been a series of rapes and attempted rapes at OWS camps all over the country. In Zuccotti park, it’s gotten so bad that OWS females have banded together and created female-only sleeping tents under the theory that there’s “safety in numbers.” Interestingly, the OWS gangs have discouraged the victims from calling the police and are actually threatening protesters who do contact the police. Check out this odd quote from an OWS woman: “We don’t tell anyone. We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

And how have they handled it? So far, they’ve formed a police force that shines flashlights in the faces of rapists and then yells at them to leave with the chant (and no, I’m not kidding): “Pervert! Pervert! Get the f–k out!”

Call me crazy, but I don’t think the drummers are getting value for their taxes.

So let’s think about this for a moment. First, they are allowing OWS females to become rape victims because they're doing nothing to stop the rapists or keep them from repeating. Secondly, they've done nothing to reform the rapists, which is something leftists always claim is society's responsibility. Apparently not. Third, since when has it been acceptable in liberal circles to accuse someone of being a “pervert?” And since when has it been acceptable to just chase criminals away to another jurisdiction? Try chasing ours to Mexico and see what liberals say. Finally, the rape industry, which tells us there are ten rapes for every reported rape, chastises society for discouraging the reporting of rape. Yet these same people are telling these women not to report their rapes because they fear the publicity will make OWS look bad.

But at least they’re sympathetic to these young women, right? Uh, no. Scoffed one male OWS protester: “Sexual harassment gets called rape, and it’s not.” Interesting. So women make false rape allegations and sexual harassment isn’t a big deal then?

Anyhoo, Zuccotti Park isn’t the only free-fire zone when it comes to sexual predators. Rapes have been reported at: OWS Cleveland, Baltimore, Boston, Glasgow, Lawrence Kansas, and Ottawa. In Dallas, an OWS protester sexually assaulted a child. In Seattle, an OWS protester exposed himself to children. In Portland, a sex offender has registered OWS as his home. In Denver, a protester groped a TV journalist. In Kansas, they sexually assaulted a reporter. In Manchester New Hampshire, a woman pimped out her teen.

Other incidents of note, excluding the thousands of arrests, property damage, and using children as human shields, include two overdose deaths in Vancouver, a murder at OWS Oklahoma City, a knife fight at OWS Austin, Neo-Nazis in OWS Phoenix, etc. And of course, there is massive anti-Semitism throughout the movement.

Some Are More Equal Than Others

Finally, there is yet another irony that just has to be pointed out. You may recall, this “leaderless” group of anti-fascists has formed a General Assembly, right? (Plus the police force, the taxes, the rules, etc.). Well, the brown-shirts have taken over.

First, a small group of them formed a new politburo, called the Spokes Council. This group, apparently numbering around six, is locate at Zuccotti Park and have seized control of all the money the OWS movement has gathered. . . and they don’t want to share with the others or the other OWS sites. When other OWS dissenters objected or tried to find out details about this Council or what they were doing with the $500k, they found themselves silenced. Not only has the council ordered that they be ignored, but they’ve been drown out by the zombie crowds.

This Council also imposed rules on the General Assembly which allow 1.27% of the protesters to overrule the other 98%. They have made it impossible for anyone who isn’t in Zuccotti Park to have a voice in their “government” and they apparently meet in secret.

I guess Kumbaya has been replaced with Zuccotti Űber Alles.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mayor Nutter and Flash Mobs - From Joyful Silliness to Disgracefully Sinister

When flash mobs first came on the scene a few years ago, they were meant to be seemingly spontaneous moments like one of the first in Grand Central Station in 2008. With the used of social networking sites and cellphone text messaging, they've been staged in malls during Christmas to sing the "Hallelujah Chorus" and public squares around the country to perform dances that look just like something out of a movie musical. Even Oprah was the "victim" of one of the biggest and most fabulous flash mob events staged during an outdoor performance by the Black Eyed Peas. All that was needed is a large group of willing participants, a cellphone, lots of surruptitious rehearsals, and the reward could be that 15 minutes of fame on YouTube and smiles from the crowd. Just plain joyful silliness.

But what started out as just plain joyful silliness has now turned into something more sinister. By using the same social networking sites and cellphone text messaging, others are staging spontaneous thefts, robberies, beatings, and even attempted murder. In Wisconsin, Washington DC, and other places around the country, fast food joints, department stores, convenience stores, and state fair goers have been robbed, punched, kicked, and worse for no other reason than the perpetrators could. And, most interestingly, when reports appear in the news, they fail to report that most if not all of the perpetrators are black teens. [I know, not very P.C. of me to notice].

In response to the recent this recent turn which has hit Philadelphia particularly hard, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter made a very honest speech [see below] at the Mount Carmel Baptist church in last Sunday. This was right before he gave another official speech announcing that the city will imposed a 9pm curfew for anyone under 18 years old that will include increasing fines to parents of children repeatedly caught out after the new curfew. I know it’s a long speech, but it needs to be read in its entirety. It is strongly worded and, sadly, the kind of speech that only a black community leader can make, but rarely do. Needless to say, the usual suspects in the black community – Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangel, James Clyburn, heck, even President Obama - have remained uncharacteristically silent by not showing either support or resounding rebuke. Just the {{sound of crickets}}.

Well, that's not entirely true. There was one response from Annette John-Hall, a black columnist at the Inquirer published on philly.com. In her rebuke, she complains “that Nutter expressed in no uncertain terms the sentiment that so often shackles black people - that the unlawful actions of a few smear everyone else. Something whites never have to fear.” Ah, yes "shackles black people". You know, Ms. John-Hall, it "shackles" us all when we deny that there is a problem. The first step to recovery is recognizing there is a problem and the problem is people who continue to "shackle black people" in the chains of ignorance and continuing to justify random violence. I am not sure where Ms. John-Hall grew up, but in the community where I grew up (overwhelmingly white), we had a code of behavior that we had to uphold or fear disgracing our family. So, Ms. John-Hall you are just plain wrong.

I applaud Mayor Nutter for recognizing there is a problem and the problem is adults who are allowing kids, ANY kids whether black, white, asian, hispanic, martian or whatever, to run amok like feral animals and excusing their behavior because of [fill in the blank]. Enough is enough.

Mayor Nutter's speech in its entirety:

Now I must say first: two things. One: Some of you may know that 30 Americans died overseas, an elite unit of our military. Whether you agree with our foreign policy or not, I certainly ask that you would pray for the men and women who risk their lives each and every day to make sure that we can enjoy the freedoms, as Americans, that some of us seem to take for granted. They’re serving their country. Other people make the decision about what they do and where they go, but they’re doing their job. And unfortunately, one of those 30 is the son of a Philadelphia police officer. So I would ask that you would keep all of them, but especially that Philadelphia family that’s been affected, in your hearts.

Now, I’m gonna say some things this morning that I know, from time to time, many of you think but may not say. It will not be PC, but I told Reverend Campbell that I will recognize that I’m in church and I’m in his pulpit, so I will certainly be respectful. On the other hand there are some words that we know that are also found in the Bible, and I may use a few of those. Pastor mentioned that we’ve had some incidents in Philadelphia, the most recent of which was the Friday before last, 20, 30 kids running around Center City, and it’s happened in other parts of Philadelphia as well. A 16-, a 17-, a 19-year-old, and yes, an 11-year-old. And while I may have been out of my office, I was not out of communication. And I sent a message to Police Commissioner Ramsey first thing that morning, as soon as I heard that report, read that report, that we have to do something, and we put our team together that day, to start working on some things, and so I want to share my thoughts.

The first is, this nonsense must stop. It must stop. If you want to act like a butthead, your butt is going to get locked up. And if you want to act like an idiot, move, move out of this city. We don’t want you here anymore. First, I want to apologize. I want to apologize to all the good, hard-working, caring people here in this city, and especially our good young people, here in Philadelphia. But I have to tell you this morning, that I am forced by the stupid, ignorant, dumb actions of a few, that we will announce tomorrow actions that we will take that, unfortunately, will affect many here in our city.

Parents, get your act together. Get it together. Get it together right now. You need to get hold of your kids before we have to. Parents who neglect their children, who don’t know where they are, who don’t know what they’re doing, who don’t know who they’re hanging out with, you’re gonna find yourselves spending some quality time with your kids, in jail, together. Together.

Now this stupid behavior requires a strong response. But I can assure you that we are not just going to be responding. We’re going to be much more proactive in our activities, and we’re going to try our best to anticipate some of these senseless, teenage, insane acts that we’ve been seeing over the past few months.

Parents, mothers, and fathers. Now I happen to know that raising children is kind of tough. I’ve got two kids, one of whom is a teenager right now. If you need help, we have help for you. The department of human services, community behavioral health, and many other social-service agencies. Do not be afraid, do not be ashamed, to reach out and ask for help, counsel, guidance, or support. But you need to get the help now, before it’s too late for the help to help you. Get some help.

Fathers, fathers. Fathers have a particularly important role to play. Not more important than mothers, but just as important. You know you’re not a father just because you have a kid, or two, or three. That doesn’t make you a father. A father is a person who’s around, participating in a child’s life. He’s a teacher who helps to guide and shape and mold that young person, someone for that young person to talk to, to share with, their ups and their downs, their fears and their concerns. A father has to provide a structure to a young boy, on how to become a good man. A good man. A father also has to be a good role model, and help a young girl be a strong woman.

Now let me just say this, if you’re not doing those things, if you’re just hanging out out there, maybe you’re sending a check or bringing some cash by, that’s not being a father. You’re just a human ATM. You’re just an ATM. And if you’re not providing the guidance, and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor. You’re just a sperm donor. You’re what the girls call out in the street: “That’s my baby-daddy. That’s my baby-daddy.” That’s not good enough. Don’t be that. Don’t be that. You can do better than that.

And you know something, that’s part of the problem in our community. Let me speak plain. That’s part of the problem in the black community. And many other communities. But a particular problem in the black communities, we have too many men making too many babies that they don’t want to take care of and then we end up dealing with your children. We’re not running a big babysitting service. We’re running a big government and a great city. Take care of your children. All of them. All of them.

You know, you’re sitting around with your jaws tight, oh she got two, three other guys around; well, if you were doing what you were supposed to be doing she wouldn’t be with those two or three guys in the first place because you would be there, taking care of all of your children. Now, you are around for the sex. Now be around for the parenting. Be around for the parenting. Because let me tell you something — the immaculate conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia. So, every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. You need to be around now. There ain’t no immaculate conception happening up in here.

Parents, you need to step up, before we have to step to you. Now tomorrow, at twelve noon on Dilworth Plaza, we’ll be making a series of announcements. Got a ton of folks involved in this effort. It’s not a one-time thing, it’s not a summertime thing. I heard a child say “Amen.” Some of them smarter than some of these adults running around here. Tomorrow we’re going to announce a series of steps and actions that will be taken. Some will be positive, and some you won’t like. Unfortunately, that’s the way it goes. But some of the more positive things we’re looking at is programs and services and activities at our rec centers, other supports we may be able to provide, we’re going to get our social-service agencies involved, but also the D.A. will be more involved, and the courts will be more involved. We took a whole lot of stuff, a couple years back, and by the way, every one of those libraries is open. Tell your children: Get a book. Read a book. Learn something. Schools open September 6, on Tuesday, the day after Labor Day. Spend the next month reading. I’d like to try that for a change.

And whatever you do, just stay out of trouble. Think for yourself. Don’t do stupid stuff. Now, some of you know, I grew up nine blocks from here, 5519 Larchwood Avenue. I’m gonna be West Philly, no matter where I live, no matter what I do, for the rest of my life. But before I ever heard of the Philadelphia Code or the Pennsylvania Code or any other code, I was very familiar with the Basil and Catalina Code. That was the code of my parents. Now, I have to tell you. When I heard this particular report, and we’ve had other instances, but it is inconceivable to me, inconceivable to me, that in my teenage years, that I would be out somewhere, let alone downtown, at nine o’clock at night. Impossible for me to fathom. Because my mother said: “Boy, I know you have a watch. But if the watch stops working, if you forget to wind it, if the battery breaks, there’s only one thing you need to do. Look up. When that light goes on, have your butt on the steps. I don’t care whether it’s Eastern Standard Time, Daylight Savings Time, Pacific Time, Mid-Atlantic Time, North Pole time. When that light goes on, have your butt on the steps. Don’t let me have to look for you.” Now, that’s what she said. It was really easy. Real simple. And you know, I know a lot has happened in the 40 years since I was an early teen. I know that some things have changed. But now there are a few things that don’t — or shouldn’t — change. Respect other people. Keep your hands to yourself. Don’t touch what doesn’t belong to you, or what you didn’t earn. Keep your butt in the house, or on the steps, until you’re told otherwise. And mind your manners. Now, my parents made it very clear that these were their rules, and that as long as I lived in their house, that was it. See, because I didn’t own anything in that house, and I had a job, and I bought stuff with my own money, but when I crossed that threshold, it was theirs. That room — we’re letting you sleep in that room. This air conditioning — we let you have some of that air conditioning. That heat that I paid for, we let you have some of that heat. Those clothes on your back, I bought those clothes. I brought you in here, I’ll take you out of here. So let’s be very clear about the rules. Now, when you get old enough, and you move out, then you can do what you want to do. But as long as you’re living in this house, you do what I tell you to do. And that’s the way it was.

Well, that’s the way it needs to be.

Now, parents, please talk to your children. Talk to them today after service, talk to them tonight, talk to them tomorrow, because things are going to change. This is some serious stuff. This is not a joke, this is not a game, we’re not funning. Curfew is going to be enforced. Other things are going to happen. And they need to understand that there are serious consequences to aggressive, violent, idiotic, stupid behavior — not only for the teen, but also for the parents and the guardians. Everybody is going to be held accountable in this one. We’re taking these steps for the safety of all of our citizens, and our teenagers. And out teenagers. We want to make sure that they don’t either do something that’s going to get them in trouble, or be somewhere where they may get hurt. This is about all of us. It’s about everybody. And so let me say it again. The bottom line: This nonsense must stop. Right now. Right now.

And lastly, to our teenagers, you know, young people always talk about “Well, I gotta get respect.” You get respect when you give respect. That’s how you get respect. And I believe in my heart and in my soul that 99 percent of the young people here in this city of Philadelphia are good and have good intentions in their heart. So I don’t want anyone to think that we’ve got thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and untold numbers of bad young people running round, because we don’t. We have some really great young people in this city. They go to school. They try to get good grades, they try to graduate and go on with their lives. They participate in sports, art, music, poetry, cultural services. They’re out tutoring. Some of them have jobs and are working. Some are taking care of their siblings, parents, and even grandparents. Unfortunately, there’s a few — could be a hundred, could be a couple hundred, could be a thousand (that’s still less than 1 percent) — but there’s some really bad ones. And, unfortunately, they engage in violent behavior. They’re lawless, they act with ignorance, they don’t care about anybody else, and their behavior is outrageous.

Well, we’re not going to tolerate that. We won’t tolerate it, and we’re not going to excuse it, because there is no excuse for it. Sense and nonsense cannot exist in the same place, in the same city, in the same world, and is not going to happen here in Philadelphia. You can’t have both at the same time. Can’t have both. And so, this behavior could have actually resulted in even more injuries, or worse. They could have killed somebody. Oh, then they’d really be in a world of trouble. Then all the sudden, they’d be crying: I want my mom, I need my dad, I need somebody. No, it’s too late then. No, no, we’re past that. It’s too late. It’s too late. You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers, and quite honestly you’ve damaged your own race. You damaged your own race. So, to our young people. If you want black folks, if you want white folks, Latinos, Asians, or anybody else to respect you, and not be afraid when they see you walking down the street, then leave the innocent people who are walking down the street, minding their own damn business, leave them alone. Stop it. Cut it out. We’ve had enough of this nonsense going on. We’ve had enough. Some of them should be ashamed of their behavior. And some of them have made shame on our race. I’m speaking plainly. I’m telling you what’s on my heart. It’s a disgrace, what’s going on. Not one of these victims, not one, did anything to any one of those young people. They weren’t bothering them, they didn’t say anything to them, they were minding their business, some were out enjoying themselves, some were just coming from work, they didn’t do one thing. And then all of the sudden, for the cowards that some of them are, in the crowd, thought they were anonymous, jumped up and started beating on people, assaulting them, in the streets of this city.

Well you know, now, if that was one of their friends, if that was their brother, if that was their sister, their moms, their grandmoms, somebody, they’d say, “Oh, that ain’t right, that’s wrong.” Well, it’s wrong when you do it too. It’s wrong when you do it too. And so if you want to be aggressive, we’re going to be aggressive. And let me just share this with you: We got the biggest, baddest gang in town — a committed group of citizens and a committed government and we’re working together and we’re not going to have this nonsense anymore. And lastly let me say, some of those young folks are lucky. They’re lucky that one of those citizens didn’t jump up and start whipping their butt, which, clearly, they did not have enough of when they were young themselves. They’re lucky they didn’t get themselves beat up with this nonsense. So, let me close. We want a safe city. We will not tolerate ignorant, stupid, out-of-control behavior. It hurts our citizens, damages property, and besmirches our reputation as a great city. And so to all of our young people, but a particular message to our young African-American boys and girls, let me say this:

If you want all of us — black, white, or any other color — if you want us to respect you, if you want us to look at you in a different way, if you want us not to be afraid to walk down the same side of the street with you, if you want folks not to jump out of the elevator when you get on, if you want folks to stop following you around in stores when you’re out shopping, if you want somebody to offer you a job or an internship somewhere, if you don’t want folks to be looking in or trying to go in a different direction when they see two or twenty of you coming down the street, then stop acting like idiots and fools, out in the streets of the city of Philadelphia. Just cut it out. And another thing. Take those doggone hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody. Buy a belt. Buy a belt. Nobody wants to see your underwear. Comb your hair. And get some grooming skills. Comb your hair. Running round here with your hair all over the place. Learn some manners. Keep your butt in school, graduate from high school, go on to college so you can go and make something of yourself and be a good citizen, here in this city. And why don’t you work on extending your English vocabulary. Extend your English vocabulary beyond the few curse words that you know, some other grunts and grumbles and other things that none of us can understand what you’re saying. And if you go to look for a job, don’t go blame it on the white folks, or anybody else. If you walk in somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arm, on your face, on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you. They don’t hire you because you look like you’re crazy. That’s why they’re not hiring you.

So, you do those things, and act like you got some sense, and you’d be surprised what opportunities will open up to you. That’s what was on my mind. That’s all I’ve got to say.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Death Of Fox News??

Never let a crisis go to waste, especially somebody else’s crisis. That seems to be the motto of this administration. The latest example involves the implosion of News Corp.’s News of the World. Indeed, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to use this to remove Rupert Murdoch from the helm of News Corp. and thereby, they hope, get FOX News under liberal control. Here’s what you need to know.

The scandal began when it was revealed that reporters at the 168 year old British tabloid News of the World had been hacking into phone accounts of famous celebrities and politicians to find dirt. This violates multiple British laws.

Things recently hit fever pitch when it was learned that the News of the World had bribed police for information AND had hacked into the phones of 9/11 victims and into the phone of a murdered British teenager (Milly Dowler). The outrage that followed forced the paper to close and led to the resignation of the latest editor, Rebekah Brooks, and of Les Hinton, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, who was an editor of the News of the World during part of the period in question -- there is no evidence of wrongdoing at the Journal. This weekend, Brooks was arrested and London's police chief resigned.

The scandal reaches Rupert Murdoch because Murdoch acquired the News of the World in 1969 and made it part of his News Corp. empire. That empire includes the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, among others. These are largely conservative organizations and, thus, the Democrats hate them with the passion of a 1,000 low-carbon suns. And with this scandal, the Democrats see a chance to attack their favorite bogeymen. Indeed, they are hoping to parlay the News of the World scandal into an attack on Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch himself, who they hope to dislodge from the ownership of these organizations.

To that end, Eric Holder has announced that the Obama-controlled Department of Justice intends to investigate whether the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post were engaged in similar hacking. Can you say... fishing expedition? He also claims he will investigate whether 9/11 victims’ phones were hacked. Keep in mind, by the way, this is the same Justice Department that routinely turns a blind eye to any and all crimes committed by leftist groups or this administration.

Other Democrats are jumping in as well. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to demand that “Murdoch come clear.” A group of leftist “journalists” has launched a similar effort. John Podesta, the president of the Centre for American Progress, a leftist crackhouse, claims: “This is not one rogue editor. This is an empire that was built on a set of journalistic ethics that’s beginning to explode and unravel. They were routinely bribing public officials.” Of course, he has no evidence. But then, if anyone should know about bribery and a lack of ethics it would be Podesta, who helped Obama transition to the White House.

This is standard liberal crappola, and mainly it’s just liberals playing with themselves. But there is reason for concern.

The SEC (also under Obama’s control) could attack News Corp. for its subsidiary engaging in bribery of the British police, which would violate foreign bribery laws, specifically the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. A violation of the FCPA might require Murdoch to resign or even give up his ownership.

Also, under federal law, holders of television and radio licenses have to undergo character tests to show that they are fit to be media owners. If the SEC (or the Justice Department) finds a violation of the FCPA, the FCC (also under Obama’s control) could deny Murdoch his television and radio licenses, which would again result in him surrendering control.

At this point there is no evidence that Murdoch did anything wrong and he is doing all the right things. They closed the paper that had clearly spun out of control. The editors directly responsible, whether they had knowledge or not, have resigned. And his papers have issued a public apology. The committee that monitors The Wall Street Journal has already said they have no evidence of wrongdoing at the Journal or at Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company (which is owned by News Corp.). And it’s unlikely Fox was involved because, frankly, they’ve never reported anything that didn’t come over the wire.

But doing the right thing does not insulate you from an aggressively partisan government. So expect Team Obama to pull out all the stops to use the power of government to shut down the one part of the MSM that isn’t in the tank for them.

This could get interesting.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Agenda Behind The Gun Scandal

Project Gunrunner, Operation Fast and Furious, “Gunwalker.” Take your pick for the name of the federal project which has become a major Obama administration scandal. We previously discussed the scandal itself here and here. The operation was almost Kafkaesque in its planning, implementation, and results.

But now we are beginning to see hints that it may have been equally Machiavellian. Purported to be a sting operation to trace guns to the Mexican cartel bosses, it may have been a stealth gun-control initiative flowing from the White House and its allies in Congress.

The operation was so insane and so deadly that many people began to question why the federal government would involve itself in law-breaking and gun-trafficking at all. We may have gotten the answer yesterday. On Friday, July 15, a group of Congressmen and a Fish and Game official held a press conference to announce a new initiative: “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act.” So far, we know that Operation Fast and Furious involved agents from ATF, DOJ, FBI, DEA and even the IRS putting serious weaponry into the hands of cartel-members. If the proposed act were to pass, those are the same agencies which would be charged with enforcing the act.

At least one wag has suggested that the proposed act be retitled “the Eddie Espinoza Act” in honor of the Democratic mayor of Columbus, New Mexico, who has been convicted of trafficking guns to the Mexican drug cartels. The act is sponsored by Rep Carolyn B. Mahoney (D-New York), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Maryland) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York). The mission statement reads: “This act establishes a dedicated firearms trafficking statute to empower law enforcement to keep high-powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels.” I’ll leave the irony of that statement to our readers.

The act has very little chance of passing. So why bring it up in the first place? The most obvious reason is to draw attention away from the ever-growing scandal. How can a party that is so obviously concerned with protecting the public and empowering law enforcement possibly be charged with gun-running of its own? It’s a ploy, and a rather weak one at that. But that may not be the only reason.

Another reason, more subtle and more dangerous to the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court decisions confirming the right of individuals to own firearms is to deflect attention away from President Obama’s recent executive order requiring that multiple gun sales be reported to federal agencies (particularly ATF). The President seems untroubled by the fact that he has no constitutional authority to issue such an order, which is nothing more than another end-run around Congress.

The idea that this administration and its allies in Congress would push a program that endangers the stability of the Mexican government and puts American lives in danger has been routinely pooh-poohed by the left and the mainstream media. But there is emerging evidence that in its zeal to revivify the dying gun-control movement this administration has done exactly that. On top of the big Fast and Furious operation, it now appears that the Tampa office of the ATF allowed nearly 1,000 firearms to be smuggled to the murderous MS-13 gang headquartered in Honduras. Other similar operations are being investigated in Texas and Oklahoma.

Most recently, an e-mail from Mark R. Chait, assistant director for ATF field operations to William Newell has been made public. Newell is the special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division of the ATF. The e-mail reads: “Bill—can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same source and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a letter on long gun [rifles] multiple sales (emphasis added).” Additional e-mails seem to confirm that ATF and DOJ officials were using Fast and Furious to set the stage for the President’s executive order.

If the Issa/Grassley hearings on Operation Fast and Furious produce more hard proof of this collusion, there should be multiple criminal prosecutions. Barack Obama seems to want desperately to establish government by Presidential decree to speed up his leftist agenda and anti-gun initiatives. It is conceivable that in this case, government by fiat has already cost the lives of too many Americans. It’s time to return legislative power to Congress and true power to the people whom Obama is failing to protect. An unarmed citizenry is a vulnerable citizenry. Selling guns to murderous criminals in order to disarm American citizens is a travesty of unimaginable proportions.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Holder To Cartels: "Kill Faster"

Pictured, left to right, are the father, son and holy ghost of the unholy trinity of the Obama administration. The father (Obama) sees no reason to defend our borders by adding sufficient manpower to cover them, and the holy ghost (Clinton) ignores gross negligence and criminality south of the border while undermining legitimate constitutional governments in the same arena.

The son (Attorney General Eric Holder) is in charge of blocking any negative information about the trinity by any means necessary. Currently, the trio are facing serious charges and angry questions about Operation Fast and Furious. The operation was intended to be an ATF "sting" that facilitated the purchase of 2,000 high-powered semi-automatic weapons in the United States and allowed them to flow freely to criminal cartels in Mexico. The Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau, ATF[E?] for short, appear to have been actively involved in the transactions, usually through surrogates or in such a way as to make it easier for an unfriendly to get the weapons, transport them across the border, and get them into the hands of the vicious gangs.

The operation was so amateurish, and yet so deadly, that the ATF Director was "allowed" to resign. And now it also appears that the FBI and DEA also knew about the operation from the beginning. Among the charges are that some or all of those agencies were working directly with the purchasers/smugglers and were fully aware that the weapons would end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels.

Most of the new information comes directly from the mouth of the Acting Director of ATF, Kenneth Melson. This week, Melson voluntarily produced the information to Congressional investigators, wisely taking his own personal attorney with him rather than rely on Justice Department lawyers to protect him. For an in-depth discussion of the operation as it existed just prior to Melson's promotion and revelations, Andrew did a thorough report in June: The Next Obama Scandal. As Andrew speculated, the DOJ may very well try to make Melson the goat in this mess, but I don't think that even the slippery and devious Eric Holder can spin this one to his advantage.

Melson also told the investigators that he would have provided this information much earlier and much more fully had not the Justice Department limited and interfered with earlier requests to him from Congressional watchdogs. If true, and there is little reason to disbelieve him, then the Holder Justice Department is even more lawless than we suspected after the dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation cases. On July 5, based directly on Melson's provided information so far, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Holder informing him that they now consider Melson to be a key witness in the upcoming formal investigations and hearings.

Melson told the investigators that prior to his temporary appointment as Director, each response given by him, his counterparts, and his subordinates to Congressional inquiries first had to be submitted to the Justice Department lawyers for "editing." He made it clear that the DOJ would then submit the answers which bore little or no resemblance to the information originally provided by the agents. He described the DOJ's answers as "false denials of fact" and added that the DOJ "buried its head in the sand" over questions about how the operation went so terribly wrong.

The idea behind the operation looks good on its face. Allow and/or facilitate dangerous weapons sales so that the weapons could be traced across the border into Mexico and help identify the names and determine the locations of cartel bigwigs destined to receive the final delivery of those weapons. But it looks a lot better on paper than in reality and it sounds better in theory than it turned out in practice. It grossly overestimated the ability of the ATF to continue tracking the weapons after leaving the hands of the American sellers. It existed in a fantasy world of honest Mexican cooperation after the weapons crossed the border. It assumed that the buyers were simply low-level smugglers without considering that they might also be "players" in the cartels' murderous games.

In some cases, the smugglers were also questionable informants for various agencies, frequently funded in their purchases by taxpayer money diverted from other agencies. Many deaths and many hundreds of "missing" weapons have resulted from the ATF's overconfidence. However, with DOJ's active assistance, the previous Director had hidden most of this information from his subordinates, including Melson. If he is to be believed, Melson knew very, very little about any of these activities until one of those weapons made its way back across the border into Arizona, where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was cut down with it. Indictments of those involved in the Terry murder and those involved in the "loss" of the weapons have been delayed by the United States Attorney's Office and political attorneys in the Justice Department.

If the operation was in fact an ill-conceived and poorly-implemented "sting" that resulted in lost weapons, armed cartel members, and deaths on both sides of the border, that is bad enough and heads should roll. But when those deaths go unanswered legally, and when cartel members are now better-armed than ever, it would be a disgrace of immense proportions if the Congressional investigation proves that Holder and his department interfered in the investigation to avoid political embarrassment. Equally repulsive would be the idea that the Obama administration might try to turn the whole murderous mess into an argument for draconian regulations on gun sales.

Still, Melson's deep suspicions and logical assumptions prior to his ascension to the role of Director are not new and are well-documented. Issa and Grassley stated in the letter to Holder that "Melson provided documents months ago (most recently in April) supporting his concerns." Melson also claimed that he sent both the documents and the accompanying inquiries from Congress to the Office of then-Deputy Attorney General, James Cole. Issa and Grassley stated that the answers to their inquiries have not to this date been provided to them by anyone in the Justice Department.

The Congressional hearings are scheduled for July 13, and attorneys from both the DOJ and ATF have been invited to attend. So far, that invitation has not been accepted. But in the interim, DOJ officials have continued to attempt to limit or edit Melson's ongoing communications with Congress. The operation was a miserable failure, but the coverup is equally bad. There has been a hint from some ATF agents and Issa and Grassley that if the DOJ had provided the information requested, when requested, fully and honestly, much of the mayhem might have been avoided. That can't be proven at this point, but it's a logical assumption. The information obtained so far seems to indicate that the "higher-ups" that the sting was supposed to flush out were already known to both the ATF and the FBI.

Given an opportunity to respond to ongoing requests from Congress for a public statement, Holder continues to remain silent. But there's always the mouthpiece's mouthpiece, Press Secretary Jay Carney. When asked about the operation, Holder's silence, and Congress's questions, Carney went off on the usual DOJ-approved tangent: "Well, I think there's an investigation going on precisely to get to the bottom of this. And I can't comment further on it, because there is an investigation going on." How facile, and how convenient.

Pressed further by ABC's Jake Tapper about whether "you guys are worried about and incensed about the details which have been revealed so far," Carney interrupted to say: "Well, Jake, I think it's being investigated for a reason. And obviously it's a matter of concern and that's why there's an investigation. But it would be a mistake for me to comment further on, or to characterize further what happened or how to rate our unhappiness about it from here. So I think that I have to refer you the the Justice Department for that [emphasis added]." Good luck with that. Congress already tried, and ran into a stone wall.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Next Obama Scandal: “Gun Walking”

Operation Fast and Furious was an idiotic attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to get proof that Mexican drug cartels are buying guns from American gun shops. This reckless operation had no chance of success and it got people killed, including American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. What's more, it has all the hallmarks of being politically motivated and is likely to reach into the White House.

Starting in 2009, the ATF, part of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, got cooperative Phoenix-area gun shops to sell guns illegally to Mexicans. Rather than arrest these buyers, as they would have done in the past, the ATF instructed its agents to turn a blind eye to the sales. This has been called “gun walking” because they let these guns walk out the door. The ATF hoped the guns would be recovered from Mexican crime scenes, which they believed would let them build conspiracy cases against Mexican drug cartels. It didn’t. In fact, it couldn't because the entire concept is flawed. Consider this:

1. By telling the gun shops to knowingly sell the guns illegally, the agency itself made it possible for the guns to reach Mexico. Thus, this operation cannot stand as proof that American gun shops are selling to Mexicans because it was the ATF itself that made this possible and there is no evidence that any non-cooperating gun shops made similar sales.

2. Secondly, there’s no way to connect the drug cartels to the gun sales because the ATF didn’t keep track of the guns. In other words, even if cartel members used these guns in Mexico, there’s no way to trace the gun from the purchase to the cartel. And if the ATF's plan was just to assume the connection (something that is not permissible in a court of law) then why even bother releasing the guns?

Thus, even if the operation worked perfectly, it still could not have achieved the ATF's goals.

But more importantly, what was the cost of this stupidity? Republicans Rep. Daryl Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley just issued a 51 page report damning Operation Fast and Furious. From the start, this operation was criticized by experienced ATF agents as “reckless.” Said Grassley: “Both line agents and gun dealers who co-operated with the ATF repeatedly expressed concerns [about the operation]. . . but ATF supervisors did not heed those warnings. Instead, they told agents to follow orders because this was sanctioned from above.” And when ATF bosses were told this could result in people getting killed, they responded: “if you are going to make an omelet, you need to scramble some eggs.” In other words, they didn’t care. Apparently, they even threatened to fire or punish agents who complained.

It is unknown how many crimes these guns were used to commit because the ATF had no way to monitor what happened to the guns. But before the operation was stopped, 1,730 guns were allowed to disappear onto the black market, including hundreds of AK-47s and sniper rifles. One of those AK-47s was later used to kill Board Patrol Agent Brian Terry. And when he was killed, the ATF embarked on a cover up. William Newell, the special agent in charge of the operation, ordered the arrest of 20 of the minor gun buyers and then declared the operation a success even though nothing was ever linked to a single senior cartel member. When he was asked if the guns the ATF had let disappear were deliberately allowed to end up in the hands of criminals, he lied: “Hell no!”

So what you have here is a government agency that embarked on a policy that could not achieve the goals for which it was planned, which endangered thousands of American and Mexican lives, and which covered up the mess it created. If that’s not an argument for reining in the government, then nothing is.

Naturally, Obama has denied any knowledge of the operation and I’m sure Eric Holder will too. There is speculation that acting ATF director Kenneth Melson will be made the scapegoat here. But this is not the kind of operation that happens without higher up approval. In fact, one ATF agent has stated that this operation was cleared by the State Department, i.e. Hillary Clinton (who "coincidentally" came to the border to decry American guns right before this operation started).

To dodge this scandal, the Democrats are spinning this as the fault of the gun lobby for blocking the appointment of Obama’s choice to run the ATF -- that's the same Democrats who had a 60 seat majority but didn't confirm the guy. They also are trying to claim this started in 2006, which is true of the overall operation but not of the gun walking -- which only started in 2009 apparently after the approval of State. The ATF is trying to spin this as the result of the ATF not having enough personnel to monitor the guns, but that begs the question why they even started the operation.

In fact, why would they do this at all? The ATF says they wanted to get a better grasp on how cartels work, but that kind of knowledge is already available and this wouldn’t have helped them in any event. The real goal, in my opinion, was to create data to prove what Obama/Hillary/Holder were all arguing: that gun control is needed because American gun shops are arming Mexican drug cartels. That argument wasn’t working because everyone knows better. As I pointed out at the time, it’s silly to think Mexican cartels were buying guns from American gun shops when they have co-opted whole departments of the Mexican police and whole military units -- they could easily get better hardware out of Mexican armories. BUT. . . if American guns with serial numbers known to the ATF could suddenly be traced to a significant portion of murders in Mexico, then Obama/Clinton/Holder would have a new argument to aid them in their gun control attempts.

It strikes me this is a prime example of politicians abusing law enforcement to generate a controversy to help them score political points. People died so Team Obama could score those points. This is shameful and needs to be investigated.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Unions Are Bad

With all the union vitriol lately, I thought I would explain exactly what I despise about unions. Philosophically, I have no qualms with unions. America guarantees the freedom to associated (First Amendment) and we enforce contract rights. So if a group of employees bind together and demand a group contract and employers are willing to accept that, then so be it. The problem with unions is what they've become.

First, I have a serious problem with union protections being put into law. If employees want to bind together, I support that. But only if the employer also has the right to not contract with them. I cannot support federal law giving one side or the other the right to force their will upon the other. I do not believe in freedom for only one side.

Secondly, modern unions have long ago stopped being organizations that seek to protect “workers.” Instead, they’ve become corrupt bureaucracies whose sole purpose has become self-perpetuation. What’s more, these unions are intensely short-sighted. They really would rather see a company or industry fail and see jobs sent overseas than they would compromise in any meaningful way. That’s why clothing is no longer made in America and why American cars can’t compete.

Nor do they care about consumers or the products they make. That’s why union companies fail to innovate and their products are shoddy. As proof that unions don’t care about consumers, no matter who they are, let me present this quote from Albert Shanker, the former President of the United Federation of Teachers: “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I'll start representing the interests of school children.” That’s why our schools not only are falling behind, but cannot change.

Third, unions have become organizations of thugs. Witness the number of death threats their membership sent to Republican legislators in Wisconsin. This is unacceptable in America and the unions that encouraged these members need to be charged as racketeering organizations. Or consider that former SEIU executive Stephen Lerner was caught on tape discussing a plan to destroy banks and the stock market by trying to coordinate a “strike” on mortgage, student loans and local government debt repayment. His idea is to destabilize banks to “create the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.” Or consider the recent civil RICO lawsuit by Sodexo against the SEIU. The complaint alleges harassment of employees, threats of making false claims of wrongdoing, putting roaches into food served by Sodexo, and lying to hospital patients about Sodexo food containing bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies. These are not people who care about workers. They have become criminal enterprises that dabble in politics.

Finally, even when the unions aren’t misbehaving, their priorities are disgusting. Rather than protecting workers from abusive employers, they are protecting abusive perverts and criminals from justice. Consider what the New York Times just discovered. The Times conducted an investigation into state-run nursing homes in New York State. After examining 13,000 allegations of abuse by staff in 2009, including sexual abuse and violence against people with conditions like Down syndrome, autism and cerebral palsy, the Times found that only 5% were reported to law enforcement even though state law requires that each instance be reported.

Moreover, the Times reviewed 399 disciplinary actions take in 2008 against employees accused of serious neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse. It found that in each case, the allegations were proven true and in each case the worker had previously been disciplined at least once. And what happened to these people? In 25% of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the agency just transferred the worker to another home. The agency tried to terminate 129 of these employees, but only succeeded in firing 30 of them. The rest skated through to abuse again.

Why can’t these people be fired and their crimes reported? You guessed it: their union. The Civil Service Employees Association (their union) challenged EVERY attempt at discipline. Said union executive Ross D. Hanna:

“If they’re brought up on charges, we have an absolute duty to represent them. That’s our job. When we know the person is guilty, we try to convince the person to get out of it by resigning. But if the person decides to go forward, we have to do our best job.”

That's bull! Nowhere is there an obligation to protect someone the union knows to be guilty. And if there is, then the union is not legitimate.

This is why people have come to hate unions. They don’t care about workers and they don’t care about companies. They don’t care if companies die or jobs vanish. They don’t care about consumers or taxpayers. All they care about is redistribution of wealth in the country, bulking up their political power, and protecting the vilest creatures from getting what they deserve. How does that help anyone?

This is what’s wrong with unions. They served a purpose in the age of robber barons when workers were treated like expendable machines. But now they’ve become the robber barons themselves. It’s time for them to reform or die.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...