Tag Archives: MSNBC

There Are Those In America Who Work Against Free Speech

Posted on by

It isn’t news to anyone paying attention that there are people in America who are working against free speech. Up until the advent of talk radio, the mainstream media, which at that time was slightly left of center and is now seriously left of center, held a monopoly on the news. Americans saw what the mainstream media wanted them to see and heard opinions the mainstream media wanted them to hear. That changed with the advent and popularity of talk radio. The political left has been attempting to regain its monopoly ever since. The political left has maintained its monopoly of thought on almost all college campuses (which is troubling for the future of America), but they have failed to gain a foothold in the marketplace of talk radio and alternative news.

Yesterday World Net Daily posted an article about some information recently discovered by email hackers.

The article reports:

Among the 2,500 documents hacked from Soros’ Open Society Foundation are documents in which Soros’ Open Society Foundation boasts of funding a minority activist campaign against advertisers that succeeded in ousting Glenn Beck from Fox News and Pat Buchanan from MSNBC.

In a memorandum dated March 27, 2012, Bill Vandenberg, the head of Soros’ Democracy Fund, discusses a two-year grant to support the Color of Change, an online organizing group described within the document as the largest online political activist group representing African-American issues.

…Eric Boehlert, reporting in Media Matters – another Soros-funded, leftist organization – wrote on April 7, 2011, in the wake of Beck’s firing, that Color of Change “was advertising,” while neglecting to report that Soros either funded the advertiser boycott campaign or participated in funding Color of Change through his Open Society Foundation.

Another hacked Soros document, a memo from Diana Morris to the U.S. Programs Board of the Open Society Foundation, dated Jan. 30, 2012, makes clear the two-year grant discussed in Vandenberg’s memo cited above was an extension of a pre-existing funding commitment.

“It is important to recognize U.S. Programs’ primary role of granting money to other organizations,” Morris wrote.

“While we undertake our own communications and advocacy efforts, we also invest in others to advance open society in the United States. Some grantees, such as the Center or American Progress, Media Matters, and Color of Change, to name a few, are sophisticate communications machines, while other grantees scarcely engage in any communications efforts,” Morris continued. “There was broad agreement in the working group that it is important to strengthen grantee communications efforts.”

The article goes on to explain the details of the campaign to get Glenn Beck off of the air. This is disturbing. It is an assault on free speech. Worse than that, it is an assault on free speech funded by a foreign citizen with an agenda to tear down America. It would behoove all of us to remember that George Soros made his millions by collapsing currencies.
Because of media bias, which includes not reporting stories that don’t fit the required agenda, the low-information voter in America is either a person who is too busy to pay attention to what is actually happening around him or a person who depends on the mainstream media for his news. A number of months ago, I was talking with some people who are considerably better educated that I am who depend on The New York Times for their news. I shared two stories with them that they were totally unaware of. Unless voters learn to do their own research, we will continue to live in a country run by an elite political class making laws for the rest of us that they choose not to follow. That is not the future I want for America.

This Might Be Part Of The Problem

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a statement made by Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC‘s “Morning Joe.”

Senator McCaskill stated, “Part of the problem is that our framers were a little maniacal in that if you look at other democracies around the world, when one party wins the congressional branch, they take the executive branch. Not in our country.”

The Senator might want to take a look at the statement of James Madison in Federalist Papers, No. 47, p. 301. He states, “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tryanny.” The separation of powers did not mean that the branches always had to work together, the separation was to provide checks and balances on each branch from the other branches. It wasn’t maniacal–it was brilliant in its understanding of human nature.

The article further reports:

The senator, who has endorsed fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, said that if “Donald Trump would bother to read the Constitution he would understand that that means there is a special obligation to try to unite.”

“Hey listen, I think the Founding Fathers were geniuses. And that’s why I’m somebody who likes to preach the gospel of compromise. That’s what they wanted. They wanted us to compromise.”

They didn’t want us to compromise–they wanted us to follow the Constitution and limit the power of government. We have not done a very good job of either!

This Is Important

Posted on by

As previously stated, I am not a Trump supporter. However, I understand the anger of the people supporting him and the hope they have that he will change the culture of Washington. He has an appeal that easily crosses party lines. Aol News reported one example of that yesterday.

The article states:

Former Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb, whose centrist campaign folded not long after the first primary debate, said Friday he won’t vote for party front-runner Hillary Clinton – and is open to giving Republican favorite Donald Trump his vote instead.

“No, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton,” said Webb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, when asked on MSNBC‘s “Morning Joe” if he could support her. When it comes to Trump, he added, “I’m not sure yet. I don’t know who I’m gonna vote for.”

Though he served with her in the Senate, “it’s nothing personal about Hillary Clinton,” Webb told hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist. A vote for Clinton, he said, is a vote for the status quo, while a vote for Trump is a vote to blow up a gridlocked, dysfunctional system of government.

The above statement is a reflection of the feelings of many people. The reason I don’t support Trump is that I am skeptical of his ability to change the climate in Washington. I fear that people are projecting on him whatever they want him to be, much like what happened with President Obama. I am skeptical, but I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee. Hillary Clinton and her husband belong in jail–not in the White House.

It Makes A Good Talking Point, But It Isn’t True

Posted on by

On Thursday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the impact of the Dodd-Frank regulations on the banking industry. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have hailed Dodd-Frank as the solution to the problems that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. Unfortunately, if Dodd-Frank is the solution, they have misunderstood the problem.

The article reports:

In their recent debate on MSNBC, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders bashed Wall Street and the banks, blaming them for the financial meltdown and subsequent record-slow economic recovery.

Sanders, a socialist, called Wall Street and the banks “criminal” and “corrupt” and implied that he would jail CEOs at big financial companies for their “illegal activity.”

And Clinton issued a literal threat: “You know, we now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up the banks.” Doubling down, she said that she now wants the same power over investment banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies and others.

Blaming banks and Wall Street might have populist appeal, but it’s false. In his definitive analysis of the financial crisis, “Hidden In Plain Sight,” Peter Wallison, who served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, showed that it was the systematic weakening of mortgage lending standards under the U.S. government’s own housing policies that led to the meltdown — and to the phony call by Democrats to go after Wall Street and the banks.

The editorial includes a chart showing the number of regulations that were imposed on banks as a result of Dodd-Frank:

EDIT3_banks2_021216

The article reports the result of Dodd-Frank:

Banking consultant Eric Grover of Intrepid Ventures recently wrote in The American Banker, “Under Dodd-Frank, new bank formation has essentially ceased.” The data are shocking: From 2011 to 2014, just one new commercial bank and no new savings banks were chartered. In the 15 years before Dodd-Frank, an average of 140 new commercial banks and 15 new savings banks were chartered each year. While small banks are going out of business at a record rate due to regulatory costs, big banks with over $50 billion in assets are now “too big to fail.”

The American economy does better when the government stays out of our business–not when the government over-regulates things.

Bias?

Posted on by

Sometimes bias in the media is not illustrated by how a story is reported but rather if a story is reported. Real Clear Politics posted an article yesterday illustrating this fact.

The article tells the story of the spiking of an important story:

That is exactly what the national media have done to an important story about the White House’s intimate working relationship with MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, who helped craft the Affordable Care Act. You may remember Gruber from his infamous videotapes, the ones in which he called the American public too stupid to understand the law. He added their stupidity was helpful to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in passing the law.

…They vaguely remembered somebody named Gruber or Goober or something but, fortunately, he played only a marginal role in health care. Thanks for asking. Next question?

Now, this may surprise you, but it turns out the White House knew Gruber very well and knew he played a crucial role in the health care bill. The White House simply decided to lie about it. Perhaps they agree with Gruber’s judgment about your intelligence.

How do we know about Gruber’s role? Not because the White House released any documents, not because the media dug into it, but because the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, got MIT to turn over the relevant emails. There were 20,000 pages of emails back-and-forth between Gruber and the White House in the crucial months when the bill was being crafted and passed.

Amazing. The Wall Street Journal reported the story. I believe Fox News also reported it. Otherwise the major media has been totally silent on the issue. As far as the average American voter is concerned, President Obama and his cronies were perfectly honest in their descriptions of the role MIT professor Jonathan Gruber played in the development and selling of ObamaCare.

The article also points out what happened with the role of Jonathan Gruber was mentioned on a morning news show:

What happened on Morning Joe was fascinating. One of the hosts, Mika Brzezinski, called attention to the Journal story. Her co-host, former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough, followed up. Turning to Mark Halperin, who is the co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics and a former senior reporter at Time, Scarborough asked if the story was inconsistent with White House statements. “I owe my Republican sources an apology,” Halperin said, “because they kept telling me he [Gruber] was hugely involved, and the White House played it down.”

Then Scarborough asked the money question: “Did the White House lie about that?”

“I think they were not fully forthcoming.”

That answer did not come from a White House official or a Democratic operative. It came from a big-time reporter. And not just any reporter. It came from a reporter to whom the White House had deliberately lied in background briefings. Does he call them out? Nope. He spins for them.

If a voter is depending on the major media for his news, he will, because of this sort of bias, be a low-information voter. We have reached a point where a voter who reads The New York Times, at one time one of the most respected newspapers in the nation, will be a low-information voter. That is truly sad.

The Outrageous Claim Of The Day

Posted on by

The following statement made on MSNBC (and reported at Hot Air) gets my award for the Outrageous Claim of the Day:

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

I am supposed to believe that there is only one man in all of America who can educate the American public on how to deal with ebola? Wow. Just for the record, the fact that Dr. Murthy’s nomination did not go through was not the fault of either the NRA or the Republicans (two favorite targets of blame on MSNBC). Conservative Democrats opposed the nomination because of Dr. Murthy’s stand on gun control (which he considers a health issue). The NRA opposed the nomination because the Doctor did not support the rights of Americans outlined in the Second Amendment. However, the Congressmen who voted are responsible for their vote–not the NRA.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

Murthy is a vigilant spokesman for the idea that guns are a health issue, and doctors should be asking patients if they have weapons in their homes. (Not to mention potentially collecting that information and passing it along.) This is very much along the same lines as finding out who enjoys hang gliding or lives in tall apartment buildings. The problem with this sort of muddled thinking is that it confuses the topics of disease and injury. We want to reduce the incidence of illness among Americans and education can play in important role in that mission. But injuries are a different category, and gun injuries in particular have nothing to do with communicable health hazards.

Murthy is a willing volunteer in a somewhat obscure column of the army trying to limit the Second Amendment rights of Americans. We don’t need him taking a seat in the Cabinet. And in the meantime, the White House can surely find someone else with a medical degree to talk about Ebola.

I wonder if people who get all of their news at MSNBC actually believe what the network is saying.

Who Do Your Children Belong To?

Posted on by

The Heritage Foundation posted an article today pointing out that because parents are become more aware of what the program is, many states are renaming the Common Core program in order to sneak it past the parents. The curriculum is unacceptable to parents for a variety of reasons.

The article reports:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative, as it is officially known, began in earnest in early 2009. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers drafted the standards, but the effort quickly became a Washington-centric one. To induce states to adopt the standards, the federal government:

  • Offered more than $4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants.
  • Directly financed the two national testing consortia developing the assessments to test whether students learn according to the standards.
  • Have offered waivers to states from the onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind in exchange for common standards adoption.
  • Have created a technical review panel for the tests housed at the U.S. Department of Education.

Parents recognize that Common Core national standards and tests will require them to relinquish one of their most powerful tools to effect school improvement: control of academic content, standards, and testing through their state and local policymakers. Parents recognize that Common Core takes their seats at the table, further removing them from the decision-making process in favor of decisions being centrally made by national organizations and Washington bureaucrats.

The last thing this country needs is Washington bureaucrats messing up children’s education.

The article quotes a very troubling statement:

“The children belong to all of us,” former Massachusetts Education Secretary Paul Reville recently stated. Likewise, according to MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” Wrong.

Part of the problem with the education our children are currently receiving is that  the involvement of parents in our schools has decreased greatly because of the need for two wage earners in families. Common Core will totally freeze parents out of all decision processes concerning educational standards for their children–these will now be standards set by the federal government that have no room for individuality.

Common Core needs to be replaced by a plan that allows states and communities to set educational standards that fit their communities. In education, one size does not fit all.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Anatomy Of A Smear

Posted on by

Before “bridgegate,” Chris Christie was beating Hillary Clinton in preliminary presidential polling. Considering the political history of the Clintons in dealing with their opponents, there was no way that was going to be allowed to stand. Just for the record, I would like to repeat that I do not support Chris Christie for President. My three choices are Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Perry, none of which at this time has a realistic chance for the nomination because the Republican establishment would never support them.

The first attack on Governor Christie was about the closing of the traffic lanes in Fort Lee. I will get to that later. After that attack, the Democrat Mayor Dawn Zimmer of Hoboken claimed that Christie’s administration threatened to withhold Sandy relief funding if she didn’t approve a building development project favored by the governor. The media went wild. Now they had him–he was bullying this poor innocent mayor–and bullying right now is the worst crime anyone can commit. Well, things are not always what they appear to be.

Guy Benson at Townhall.com did some research. He discovered that the Journal entry she claims to have made was undated and unverifiable. To add to the story, an attorney who represented a client in an unrelated case has stepped forward to point out that Mayor Zimmer testified that she does not keep a record or journal of conversations on city business. She said so in a sworn deposition taken last July, then again at trial.

The article further reports:

David Mello is the only shred of independent corroboration in this case — in support of Zimmer, that is. He is described by MSNBC as a Zimmer loyalist, and openly admits that he was adamantly opposed to Christie’s re-election. Why he waited for several days after this story broke to remember his conversation with Zimmer is unclear, but a core question remains: Why didn’t he, a hardcore Christie opponent, report the alleged corruption scheme to authorities or the voting public when he first learned of the issue?

…The initial MSNBC article that went viral several weekends ago left a strong impression that the city of Hoboken, which was 80 percent flooded after Sandy, had been denied virtually bereft of all relief aid, save for an insignificant pittance. In truth, the city has been approved for roughly $70 million in direct relief and reconstruction aid from the federal and New Jersey governments. Christie’s office says Hoboken is set to receive even more, pending federal approval. Zimmer’s chief complaint was about “hazard mitigation” funds. She says she requested more than $100 million in that specific type of aid, but only received approximately $350,000. Her original ask was unrealistic in the extreme. The pot of money Christie’s administration had to distribute for this purpose was about $300 million — total, for the entire state.

…Mayor Zimmer fingered two separate Christie officials, who she says delivered corrupt, quid pro quo threats on behalf of the administration. One was the Lieutenant Governor, who strongly denies it, and the other is a man named Richard Constable. Zimmer says Constable confronted her on the set of a television show, on which they both served as panelists. The network has no record of their supposed conversation, and another panelist who sat directly next to Zimmer has explicitly refused to back up her version of events. Matt Doherty is the Democratic mayor of Belmar, New Jersey. He says he remembers no such conversation ever taking place, and went out of his way to praise Christie’s professionalism and responsiveness after the storm hit.

There is also the fact that the story changed after it was first reported. Originally Mayor Zimmer had claimed that he governor’s anti-Hoboken retaliation was rooted in her decision not to endorse his re-election bid. This, of course, was considered to be another example of the kind of bullying that closed the traffic lanes. Later Mayor Zimmer claimed she was threatened because she did not support a building project. Even later, Mayor Zimmer explicitly told CNN that Hoboken had not endured any form of retaliation from Christie’s office. All three stories happened in the same week.

Later, Mayor Zimmer was praising Governor Christie for the great job he has done. It just doesn’t add up.

So what about the lane closings? Yesterday a lawyer for the former official, David Wildstein, stated that Mr. Wildstein has evidence that Chris Christie knew about the lane closings beforehand. David Wildstein is a high school friend of Mr. Christie’s who was appointed with the governor’s blessing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the bridge. The lawyer has not revealed what the evidence is, and an article at Townhall.com includes a tweet from Josh Barro that asks the question, “If Wildstein has evidence the governor knew about the lane closures, why didn’t he turn it over in response to the NJ Leg subpoena?” Good question.

Hot Air posted an article about the ‘new evidence’ that included the following:

Wildstein’s got two possible reasons to lie. One, obviously, is revenge on Christie. Wildstein resigned in early December, no doubt under pressure from the governor’s office. Maybe he has an axe to grind now, if only because he assumed Christie would go to bat for an old friend like him. The other reason is immunity: He’s spent the last two weeks whispering to people that he’s willing to talk if he’s spared the threat of prosecution. The U.S. Attorney hasn’t taken the bait yet. This is an obvious pot-sweetener.

Stay tuned. All is not what it appears to be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rewriting Recent History When Convenient

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about a recent chyron on MSNBC. Just in case you are not a news junkie, the chyron is the group of words at the bottom on the screen that either gives the latest headlines or adds to the discussion taking place on the screen. In this case, the chyron read, “GOP flubs Obamacare launch.” Wow. I wasn’t even aware that the GOP were the ones who had launched ObamaCare. The real GOP flub in the launch of ObamaCare was allowing it to go forward with a broken website and exemptions for Congress and big business and not for average Americans, but that wasn’t a flub–that was just the make-up of Congress.

Mr. Morrissey comments:

Ironically, the entire segment demonstrates why the chyron would be inaccurate in any context — and why the tactical retreat on the shutdown might turn out to be a strategic victory for Republicans in the long run.  Without the breathless minute-by-minute updates from Capitol Hill on the shutdown, the biggest national story and shared experience is the disastrous ObamaCare rollout, which is so bad and so big that even MSNBC can’t ignore it.

Stay tuned. I’m sure there is more to come. I want to see if MSNBC and their cohorts can successfully convince the American public that the Republicans are actually responsible for the botched roll-out of ObamaCare. If they can, we are in more trouble than I thought.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Scenes In The Student Loan Battle

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial about the current debate over student loan interest rates.

Today the Senate voted on student-loan subsidies. The news just reported that an attempt to roll back the interest rate increase has failed a procedural hurdle. One proposal suggests that the interest rate on the loans be tied to the 10-year Treasury rate. The advantage of this idea is that the taxpayers do not have to guarantee the lower rate to borrowers while the cost of the loans to the government goes up.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated taxpayer losses on student loans to be $95 billion over the next ten years. Remember that the government takeover of student loans was part of ObamaCare. (see rightwinggranny.com)

The article in the Wall Street Journal reports:

Liberals apologize for the price hikes imposed by their friends in the faculty lounge by pretending that universities are starved for revenue. Rep. Frank Pallone (D., N.J.) claimed on MSNBC on Saturday that “the federal government is not making the investment in higher education.” Perhaps he’s forgotten that annual Pell grant spending of $34 billion has roughly doubled in the Obama era, or that Uncle Sugar now originates more than $100 billion in annual loans.

In October 2011, I wrote in rightwinggranny.com:

The article also points out that under the proposed changes, the government would be entirely responsible for college loans. Students would borrow directly from the government and pay the government back. What happens when students default? The taxpayers pick up the tab. Aside from the fact that the benefits to the students of this program are minuscule, we need less government in all aspects of our lives–not more.

In a New York Post article quoted in the above article, John Podhoretz wrote:

One federal study found that between 1982 and 2007, tuition costs rose 432 percent while family income rose only 147 percent.

As taxpayers, we are subsidizing inflationary spending on the part of higher education. There is no incentive to cut costs if you know that the money will keep pouring in and that the government will enable the students to afford the rising tuition. Until parents refuse to pay the rising tuition at some of the prestige schools, we will continue to have this problem.

The Harvard University website reports:

The complete budget at Harvard College (exclusive of transportation) for 2012-2013 is $57,950. Tuition – $37,576; Room and Board – $13,630; College Facilities Fees (for use of library and other University facilities including the Health Services) – $3,290; Minimum for extras (books, clothing, dues, recreation, etc.) – $3,454.

In some parts of America, you can buy a house for that amount.

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama And Israel

Posted on by

YouTube has posted an 18 minute video American voters should watch before they vote. This is the video:

YouTube describes the video as follows:

A new, 18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008. Yet as her connection to Israel has grown, and she has learned more about the President’s policies across the Middle East and towards Israel in particular, Irina has come to realize that “when the chips are down,” the President may not “have Israel’s back” as he says.

The short film features:

Exclusive interviews with leading journalists and politicians in Israel
(Bloomberg, London Times, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Mainstream news reports (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, etc.),

Clips from longtime Democratic supporters including: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Enhanced by Zemanta

A New Low In Media Reporting

Posted on by

The Blaze posted two videos on Thursday of a Romney-Ryan rally in Ohio. The first video was played by MSNBC host Martin Bashir to illustrate his point that Paul Ryan was overshadowing Mitt Romney in the presidential campaign. A similar video had been played on “Morning Joe” the day before. I am not posting that video, if you would like to see it, follow the link to “The Blaze” above.

The unedited (untampered with) clip is at the bottom of the article at “The Blaze.” Here it is:

The article also provides an eyewitness account of the events. The eyewitness account and the unedited video clearly show that the crowd was not shouting “Ryan”–they were shouting “Romney,” and Mitt Romney encouraged them to change the shout to “Romney-Ryan.”  It is very discouraging to see videotape edited to fit the picture the mainstream media is trying to paint of this presidential campaign. This altered video clearly shows the reason we need the Internet as an alternative news source.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using News Coverage To Promote A Lie

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted a story last night that shows how the media can alter the appearance of an event by what they choose to show the viewers.

During the the Republican National Convention on Tuesday, MSNBC was very selective in their coverage of the event.

The Democrats have claimed for a long time that the Republican party is “the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.”

The article reports:

If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.

There were a number of speakers at the convention that were minorities–Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American. When those people spoke, MSNBC stopped covering the convention and switched instead to their panel of commentators.

I wonder if this election would even be close if we had an honest mainstream media.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Surprisingly Good Logic From The Left

Posted on by

Mediaite posted an article yesterday on the George Zimmerman arrest. The article was an interview that occurred on MSNBC’s hardball when guest host Michel Smerconish was interviewing Professor Alan Dershowitz on the arrest of George Zimmerman. I will admit I was rather surprised at the Professor’s comments.

The article reports Professor Dershowitz’s comments:

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”

I guess I have more than one question about this entire episode. If George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after he was told not to, that was a mistake. I understand that. However, I have a few questions, “If George Zimmerman had not shot Trayvon Martin, would George Zimmerman still be alive? Would he have been beaten to death? Did he have reason to fear that that was a possibility? Does that not then make Florida’s law that says he had a right to defend himself apply?”

This is the modern equivalent of a gun battle at high noon. Regardless of who was right, someone was going to be killed that night.

 


Enhanced by Zemanta

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Posted on by
The five people who actually still watch MSNBC saw something last week that was totally obscene. On Monday the Washington Examiner reported on an MSNBC commentary on the fact that Mitt Romney gave an unemployed black woman $50. The woman approached the candidate and told him that she was unemployed and not able to pay her bills. He then reached into his wallet and gave her $50 (I have heard that he only had $50 in cash in his wallet, but I can’t confirm that).

The article at the Washington Examiner quotes the outrage at MSNBC:

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are alot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

Good grief. I am sure that anyone of us, if we actually had $50 to spare, would have done the same thing. I have a footnote to add to the story, A friend of mine has a family member who worked on one of Mitt Romney’s campaigns in Massachusetts. The family member was a very young man (first year in college maybe), and it was one of Romney’s early campaigns (possibly for Governor). The young man dressed like a college student–jeans, t-shirts, etc. There was a public event coming up in a rather formal location, and Mitt Romney noticed how the young man was dressed. Without a second thought, he handed the young man his sports coat so that he would be dressed appropriately.

Giving a person in need $50 is in character for Mitt Romney. To try to make that act of generosity a racial issue is just wrong. I know that MSNBC will not apologize for their knee-jerk conclusion that this was racist, but anyone who watches MSNBC should make a mental note that their coverage is not always fair.

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Dangers Of A Biased Media

Posted on by

It really isn’t a secret that the media wants four more years of President Barack Obama (although I can’t understand why). Before you complain that I am biased, I would like to remind you of the name of this blog. I don’t have a problem with media being on one side or the other–I just want everyone to be honest about where they stand!

Big Journalism posted a story today that should enrage every American.

The story states (and includes a video):

Yesterday, on MSNBC, left-wing journalists Chris Hayes of The Nation and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post–no strangers to Democrat-media collusion–revealed that they had been part of an off-the-record White House briefing in which it was made clear that President Barack Obama planned all along to let the temporary payroll tax holiday expire, and then blame Republicans.

The media bias impacted the negotiations–the Republicans also knew that the President was willing to let the tax cuts expire and then blame them. They also knew that because of the media bias, they would not be able to convince the American public that they were not responsible for the end of the payroll tax cut.

The article further reports:

According to Hayes, “everyone in Washington” knew that Obama wanted the payroll tax extension to fail–and yet the same journalists eagerly covered the subsequent payroll tax debate as if Republicans were the only obstacle to an extension. The result of the media’s collusion was a year-end political victory for Obama and the Democrats at the expense of House leaders, the Tea Party, and Republicans in general.

Shame on the media for not doing their job of objective reporting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense Is Not Always Welcome In The Senate

Posted on by

 Hot Air posted an article today about a comment by Senator Clair McCaskill that is causing a bit of a stir. Senator McCaskill asked, “Why don’t we give Republicans the pipeline?” I’m sure Harry Reid had a heart attack when he heard those words, but they do actually make sense.

The article reports:

Democratic Sen. McCaskill accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of using divisive rhetoric during the payroll tax cut extension debate raging in Congress this week.

“I think if I were going to critique Harry Reid this morning, I really wish we would stop with this ‘dead on arrival, not going to go there’ and begin to have language like, ‘we’re going to take a look at it and see if there’s anything that we can agree on here and over the next couple of days try to come to an agreement,” said McCaskill on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” Wednesday.

“That’s what’s really going to happen, and I don’t know why this place is so set on, you know, looking like we’re combative all the time,” she added.

I understand that one of Senator McCaskill’s reasons for making that comment may be that she is up for re-election next year; however, it is still a valid comment. It would be nice to see the Senate and the House of Representatives work together for the good of the country.

The pipeline in questions would accomplish a number of good things–it would immediately provide jobs and it would begin to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Any money that we can put into the western hemisphere instead of the Arab countries that are not our friends is money well spent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Making Of A Scandal

Posted on by

No, this is not an article about Herman Cain or Penn State–it’s an article about Solyndra.

In our electronic age, emails can be accessed and compared to exactly what people have said about anything. When the emails and the statements disagree, there is a problem. That is where we currently are in regard to Solyndra. George Kaiser, who was a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign and whose family foundation was the biggest investor in Solyndra, has stated that during his meetings with the President at the White House the subject of the stimulus loan to Solyndra never came up.

However, according to the Washington Examiner, one of Kaiser’s email stated:

BTW, a couple of weeks ago, when Ken and I were visiting with a group of Administration folks in DC who are in charge of the stimulus process (White House, not DOE) and Solyndra came up, every one of them responded simultaneously about their thorough knowledge of the Solyndra story, suggesting it was one of their prime poster children.

The Washington Examiner further concludes:

But now, with these emails, we’ve got Obama fundraisers saying false things about lobbying, and the White House passing on those false things. We’ve also got a senior energy department official pushing for this subsidy while his wife’s law firm represented Solyndra. Energy Department officials rewrote the law in order to aid Solyndra.

It doesn’t look pretty. Liberals can mock Solyndra, and MSNBC’s primetime shows can pretend it doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean no corruption happened.

This is taxpayer money that the taxpayers will never see again. It’s time that the White House and the federal government were held accountable for wasteful spending. How many other Solyndras are out there?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Race Card Getting Old ?

Posted on by
Herman Cain

Image via Wikipedia

Herman Cain is black. You might have noticed, but in case you didn’t, I would like to bring that to your attention. Now that you know, we can get back to things that are important. In a nutshell, I think that is how most Republicans (and probably Independents, and maybe some Democrats) feel about the fact that Herman Cain is black–it is obvious, but not particularly important.

However, there seems to be an element of the liberal media that is seriously hung up on the fact that not only is Herman Cain black–he is a Republican! Goodness gracious!

Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted a story about some comments made on MSNBC about Herman Cain. The article reports:

“One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” (Karen) Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded. 

The article further reports:

Liberal comedienne Janeane Garafalo told Current TV host Keith Olbermann earlier this month that Cain is popular with Republicans because it “hides the racist element” of the party. Watch that video here.

This is simply out of bounds. I probably won’t vote for Herman Cain in the Republican primary. (Actually, because I live in Massachusetts, the whole thing will probably be decided before I get to vote!) This is his first run for the presidency, and I think he needs a little more practice before he gets the nomination. He is a businessman–not experienced in the nuances of politics, and I believe that is a problem for his campaign. That said, if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him because I feel that he is quite capable of putting together an awesome group of people to run the country.

While I am ranting, I would like to say that I feel that the series of Republican debates is a mistake. It has devolved into a tag-team wrestling event that has lost its focus. If the candidates continue to pick a person of the week to target, all they will succeed in doing is provide campaign commercials for the Obama campaign. Remember, the Obama campaign is not known for its uprightness–we have to win this election by a lot so that illegal votes don’t count. It is possible that Mickey Mouse may again vote in Orlando.

Enhanced by Zemanta