Tag Archives: Fox news
Down on your luck? Need some cash? Considering hitting the streets to beg? Well, after you’ve donned an appropriate outfit – ripped, soiled, and smelling like it hasn’t been washed in months – you’d better make sure to drop by city hall to get a free permit to panhandle. Don’t forget to bring your photo ID, because you’ll need that, too!
No, this isn’t a joke. Middle Township in New Jersey is going to require paperwork for “aggressive panhandlers.” Now, if you’re not planning on being aggressive, apparently you can still panhandle on the streets, without fear of being picked up by the police, or getting fined. It’s up to the police to determine exactly which is “aggressive” and “non-aggressive” in this situation.
Needless to say, this new law is at least a little confusing to residents – probably to panhandlers as well. If a panhandler is being too aggressive, it would be assumed that would at least merit a charge of disorderly conduct, if not some form of assault. That means the police already have the ability to put a stop to “aggressive panhandling” on the streets, and didn’t really need a new law, or the attached permit paperwork to accomplish ensuring the safety of the public-at-large. But this is New Jersey – bastion of liberal politicking, and over-regulation, right?
CNN really isn’t having a very good week, thanks to the government shutdown and the opening of the ObamaCare insurance exchange websites. While the headlines have been full of unintended consequences of both of these events, from WWII veterans “storming” the monument to their service, to complaints about glitches on the ObamaCare websites, CNN has been forced into a corner over both of these stories.
Normally the network is extremely friendly to the Obama administration, so when the news is full of situations that are less-than-flattering for the president and Democrats, that spells trouble for CNN. Third quarter ratings put CNN between Fox News and MSNBC, but it’s not an enviable situation, given that MSNBC has been struggling to keep even a small share of viewers interested in viewing a 24/7 cable news source. Beyond the ratings issue, there is the news of the day dogging the network.
The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol went after CNN’s Piers Morgan and Mark Lamont Hill over the government shutdown. Liberals have been trying to maintain that the shutdown is purely the fault of “Tea Party radicals” in the GOP, however those claims are going at least a little flat in the face of the fact that the GOP has been repeatedly making new offers and legislation to resolve the issues, and offering to sit down Democrats to negotiate a resolution. The primary bone of contention is ObamaCare, which the GOP is determined to halt, or at least slow down severely. And the ObamaCare system itself seems to be conspiring against liberal politicians and media like CNN in that battle. Attempts to access the ObamaCare website on-air at CNN and MSNBC failed, leaving anchors with no choice but to give up trying. But maybe those anchors should be happy they failed – McAfee, the internet security giant, issued a warning about potential phishing scams on the government websites. Their glitches make them a prime target for hackers, in the opinion of McAfee’s vice president, Gary Davis. All in all, it’s not a good week for CNN.
Libertarian Fox News contributor Michelle Fields. Photo author unknown.
Fox News’ Latino website has recently published an opinion piece by libertarian FNC contributor Michelle Fields, who therein attacks conservative columnist Ann Coulter for pointing out the inconvenient truth about amnesty’s consequences and the majority of Latino immigrants. Fields believes Ann Coulter’s written remarks are xenophobic and based only on stereotypes.
Essentially, Fields’ claims, and her attacks on Coulter, can be summed up as follows:
Claim #1: Latinos are not a bunch of government dependents, but mostly a community of hardworking taxpayers, and they do not support Big Government or liberal/socialist ideologies. They share many beliefs with Republicans, such as faith and belief in hard work, and could very well vote GOP. Thus, the GOP is to blame for its failure to win over Latinos.
Claim #2: Amnesty will not kill the GOP.
Claim #3: Rejecting “immigration reform” because it could harm the GOP is unpatriotic and unjust.
All of her claims, without exception, are dead wrong. I’ll show you why.
Firstly, while I don’t want to generalize, and while not all Latinos are government dependents, the vast majority of them are. The typical Latino family in the US is led by a single mother. If she works, her income is so low she doesn’t pay any income taxes and receives the Earned Income Tax Credit – effectively a subsidy from US taxpayers. If she doesn’t work, she receives various forms of welfare, including 99 weeks of free unemployment compensation.
For food, mom gets food stamps and other aid, while her kids get 2-3 free meals at school every day.
Her kids are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and can receive student loans, college aid, and in-state tuition rates.
For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare. (Latinos have the lowest insurance rate of any demographic group in the country.)
Why would those people vote for a party (the GOP) that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and reduce the government programs they do live off?
Wouldn’t self-interest dictate voting for a party that will let them continue receiving all the current giveaways from Uncle Sam, and perhaps give them even more?
Most Hispanics in America today are born out of wedlock to teen mothers. Hispanics are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock to a teen mother, to do poorly in school, to drop out of high school, to be unemployed and on welfare, to commit crime, and to go to prison. (Of course, the former social ills lead to the latter – children born out of wedlock, especially to teen mothers, have their lives screwed up at the start, if you pardon my language.)
Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Hispanics overwhelmingly supports Big Government. According to very recent polling by Pew Hispanic Polling, the Kaiser Foundation, and others:
- An overwhelming 75% of Latinos prefer “a bigger government with more services” to “a smaller government with fewer services”; in other words, 75% of Latinos believe the federal government isn’t big enough! Among first generation Hispanic immigrants, 81% believe so, as do 72% of second-generation and 58% of third-generation Hispanics.
- 55% of Latinos want more government spending as a way of stimulating the economy; only 31% say taxes should be cut.
- Latinos also support Obamacare, the one government program all Republicans agree should be repealed immediately (and would be if they controlled the Senate and the White House). In fact, “Latinos are among the biggest backers of Obamacare.”
While this is the first time I agree with Rachel Maddow on anything, Maddow was nonetheless absolutely right to note that:
“There’s no great mystery here. Latino have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, and strongly believe public access to affordable care should be a basic societal guarantee.
In other words, most Latinos believe the exact opposite of most Republicans. The GOP wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety; Latino voters want it protected. Republicans want to gut Medicare and Medicaid; Latinos see both programs as critical.
“This is going to hurt Republicans,” Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm, told Levey. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”
Since the 2012 election, we’ve heard repeatedly from Republicans that Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP and, if the party could only use more effective language, Latino voters would gravitate to the conservative party. And yet, the evidence to the contrary is increasingly overwhelming.”
Or, as the LA Times has noted:
“As Republican leaders try to woo Latino voters with a new openness to legal status for the nation’s illegal immigrants, the party remains at odds with America’s fastest-growing ethnic community on another key issue: healthcare.”
According to other polling by Pew Hispanic Research and others, Latinos aren’t any more conservative on social issues, either. In fact, they support gay marriage and abortion by wider margins than anyone else except Jewish Americans, women, and youngsters (themselves also traditional Democratic electorates).
For example, a June 19th, 2013 poll by Pew found that 52% of all Hispanics, including 54% of Catholic Hispanics, 57% of “native-born” Hispanics, and 59% of those Hispanics for whom English is their first language, support gay marriage legalization. Among ethnic groups, only Jewish Americans support the legality of gay marriage and abortion by wider margins.
So Ann Coulter was absolutely right, and Michelle Fields was dead wrong, about Hispanics’ political views: the vast majority of them ARE strident liberals, ARE dependent on the federal government from cradle to grave, and DO support Big Government. Those are not stereotypes. Those are facts.
And Republicans can’t woo these people. You can’t convert a Big Government liberal to free-market conservatism anymore than you can convince an Islamist to forego jihad.
The GOP cannot win the Hispanic vote unless it becomes the second party of Big Government and social liberalism. But that would defeat the party’s purpose, and the Dems will always outdo Republicans in the “handing out taxpayers’ dollars” game.
But remaining (or making the GOP again) the party of limited constitutional government means foregoing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. That is a fact. Latinos love Big Government.
Miss Fields claims that the Latino vote is winnable for the GOP. But that is impossible for the above reasons. And all election results show that.
In fact, in 1984, while the general American populace voted for Ronald Reagan in even greater numbers than in 1980, Hispanics voted for Walter Mondale in even greater numbers than they had for Jimmy Carter: 61% for Mondale versus “only” 56% for Carter.
In other words, Latinos missed the Carter Administration so badly that they voted for Walter Mondale, an advocate of the “nuclear freeze” and tax hikes, in even greater numbers than they had for Carter!
Ronald Reagan won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and only 37% in 1984.
But Republicans passed, and he signed, amnesty in 1986. Didn’t Latinos reward Republicans for amnesty thereafter?
Actually, no, they didn’t. Just two years later, they voted for Dukakis in even greater numbers (69%) than for Mondale (61%) and Carter (56%)! George H. W. Bush won only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.
But he made it easier to immigrate to the US, created the Diversity Visa Lottery, and eliminated the English language test on the naturalization exam. Didn’t that earn him the Hispanic vote?
No, it didn’t. He won only 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 – even less than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 and 71% in 1996.
But didn’t George W. Bush show Republicans can win the Hispanic vote?
No, he didn’t. He won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and only 40% (not the 44% Miss Fields claims) in 2004. Even then, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore (62%) and John Kerry (58%).
Even America’s loudest advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, John McCain, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008; Latinos backed Obama then by 67%.
But most outrageously, four years later, Latinos thought Obama deserved a second term, and they voted for him in 2012 in numbers even greater than in 2008 (71% vs 67%). This is consistent with their entire history of overwhelmingly backing stridently liberal presidential candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. They’ve never met a strident liberal they didn’t love.
(Source: Pew Hispanic polling.)
And now, very recent polling shows that if Joe Biden was the Democratic and Marco Rubio the Republican nominee, Biden would handily beat Rubio – a leading advocate of amnesty and a Hispanic himself – 60% to 26%, i.e. Rubio would receive even less of the Hispanic vote than the strongly anti-amnesty Mitt Romney, despite being a Hispanic himself!
The Latino vote is utterly unwinnable for the GOP. Therefore, it is in the Party’s and the Country’s interest to halt further immigration (from all countries of the world, not just Latin American ones) and to ensure that the illegals already in America are deported.
Ann Coulter is also absolutely right to point out, and Michelle Fields dead wrong to deny, that amnesty will kill the GOP.
Just look at Miss Fields’ home state of California to see what would happen to the GOP.
Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – from Latin American countries (mostly Mexico) has turned California into such a liberal state that NO Republican can be elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long, it gave America such great Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S.I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.
But now, California is such a liberal state that the Dems have the governorship and supermajorities in both houses of the state legislatures, allowing them to raise taxes anytime without limits. In 2010, Californians chose Babsy Boxer and Governor Moonbeam over two bright conservative women – Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman – one of them pro-life, the other pro-choice, and rejected a proposal to suspend California’s cap-and-tax scheme until the state unemployment rate shrinks.
Last year, Californians gave the Dems a supermajority in the State Senate.
Similar stories are repeated throughout the country. New Mexico, like California, is lost forever. Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.
When Texas goes, America goes.
As Ann Coulter rightly points out, if amnesty is passed, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no going back. Look again at the Hispanic voting patterns of the last 33 years to see what electorate America would have. An electorate 71% of which thought Barack Obama had done a good job and deserved a second term. An electorate 61% of which missed the Carter Administration so badly that it voted for its vice president. An electorate 69% of which voted for Michael Dukakis.
But it would actually be much worse than that: as Sarah Palin points out, amnesty would be a heinous betrayal of working-class Americans, who would see their jobs stolen by illegal immigrants.
Thus we come to Miss Fields’ last claim: that rejecting “immigration reform” is unpatriotic and unjust. A patriot is one who does what is good for his country.
Amnesty – as Miss Fields herself has noted – would be very bad for the country. It would reward lawbreaking and put a huge new strain on American taxpayers. It would also turn the entire country into California. That would be disastrous for America.
Thus, by blocking amnesty, House Republicans are doing the PATRIOTIC thing. They’re doing the right thing for the Country and the Party.
To conclude, Miss Fields is dead wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Latinos ARE government dependents and DO support Big Government. Amnesty would kill the GOP, and conservatism in general, forever. And stopping it is the patriotic thing to do.
If Miss Fields is the classy young woman I believe she is, she should and will apologize to Ann Coulter. She’s certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent person and has been right on many issues. But on these, she’s flat wrong.
With the stroke of a pen, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin returns to Fox News as a contributor while liberal bombast Chris Matthews of MSNBC loses his weekend syndicated show in July. Does this spell the resurrection of the political street bona fides of Palin who has been a lightning rod for conservatives and the national Tea Party movement since its inception?
What seems clear is that Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News has reached a conclusion that the scandal beleaguered administration of President Barack Obama is fair pickings for conservatives. And what better conservative to have on your news team than Sarah Palin who has done considerable heavy lifting for the conservative movement since Obama took the oath of office as president in 2009.
This is especially critical when one considers that the upcoming mid-term elections of 2014 are rife for the political pickings in terms of governorships, the U.S. Senate and increases in the GOP House majority.
Examine the landscape of the world of politics now where the polls are pointing toward a downward slide regarding Obama’s favorability and a notable upward surge in the public’s rejection of Obama’s handling of Benghazi, the IRS attack on Tea Party organizations’ First Amendment rights and spying on journalists.
The surge in public outrage has changed dramatically since Obama’s reelection when he cobbled together a number of key state victories with Chicago style political strong arming that would make dishonored former President Richard Nixon blush. Yet, while America was having its news hijacked by a compliant mainstream media, Sarah Palin remained on the forefront using their own vehicles to communicate the cracks in Obama’s administration armor.
You remember Benghazi, the murder of four honorable Americans, including America’s Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens scandal that would not go away? The investigation by the House Republicans continued to peel back the wall of lies constructed by the White House and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice under the direction of unnamed State Department and White House officials.
Then came the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn, in December, where gun control advocates like Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to hustle the grieving American public by misdirecting them on who and what caused the tragic deaths of innocent children and school staff. It took leading conservative Second Amendment leaders, including NRA leader Wayne LaPierre’s to reveal the truth behind the lies being perpetrated against legitimate gun owners, and Sarah Palin was right there speaking out on Second Amendment rights.
So as the months passed and the lies began to unravel in terms of Benghazi with subsequent hearings on Capitol Hill and the embarrassing loss by the administration of their own Democrat backed gun control legislation in a Democrat controlled senate, Americans were waking up to the truth about Obama tendency for deception. This was a president and his practices that Palin had already warned about as she continued her work through the grassroots towns and cities across America.
It seems a bit ironic as the former 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate returns to Fox News that the chief bottle washer for liberals Chris Matthews syndicated show goes off into the sunset it.
This appears to coincide with a reenergized Tea Patriotism that has realized vindication in claiming hundreds of Tea Party groups were systematically targeted by IRS government intimidation since 2010.
It does matter whether if a father in Colorado who is battling for gun rights through his right to free speech. It does matter if a mother like Julie Mosher Prince founder of Conservatives Warriors in Lorain County, Ohio proudly states, “Conservative isn’t just a word,” there is a refreshed conservative sea change occurring. Sarah Palin continued presence and return to Fox News represents Act II of the conservative movement America is embracing. Can this be a Reagan-like redux?
Now, it is all hands on deck. While Obama’s scandal of the week continues to erode the effectiveness of the liberals to undermine American patriots who are committed to the preservation of unalienable Constitutional rights, they will not stop attacking conservatives.
With Sarah back in the saddle at Fox News, that should be good news for patriots and Tea Party members all over the nation to take the U.S. Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016.
The now infamous Ted Cruz statement on the abolition of the IRS, and introduction of a flat tax system raises at least a couple important issues. While many fiscal conservatives are undoubtedly salivating over the possibility of making this dream come true, the problem still lies in the concept of whittling down government in an environment where both sides of the aisle are arguably addicted to spending. Flat tax always seems to sound nice, but yet again, this is not necessarily something that will work if implemented. But, it’s always nice to sit back and enjoy a statement about something we all wish could come true easily.
Standing with Fox News
Across the dial reporters are speaking out about the invasion of privacy the Department of Justice perpetrated against a Fox Investigative reporter James Rosen and the Fox News Network. This news comes less than a week after the AP reported that their phone records had been seized by the DoJ.
At long last, reporters are seeing that the DoJ, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has pushed an agenda that is involved in spying and cover up. This is not new. But the realization by the left this administration is now investigating and watching journalists appears to be the final straw.
The heretofore antithesis of FNC NBC News broke the story today that Holder had, in fact, signed off on the search warrant against the FNC reporter.
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.
The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counter-terrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.
From the Washington Post a memo sent by Fox News Chief Roger Ailes:
We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its
employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.
CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, while not pointing fingers, yet, did state this week that her personal and work computers have been hacked and are under investigation.
Politico reports: “I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”
In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, “there could be some relationship between these things and what’s happened to James [Rosen],” the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.
As you watch the news clip below, be reminded that this administration was involved in leaking personal emails of General Petraeus which resulted in his resignation. In addition, AG Holder refused to accept responsibility for the Fast and Furious debacle which occurred under his watch and resulted in deaths of US agents, numerous Mexican citizens and a multitude of weapons released across the border in a botched effort to control drug smuggling.
Today’s bold headline at HuffPo loudly proclaims, “Time to Go”.
Many, especially those born post Soviet Union, don’t realize the significance when a government limits the news. A free press investigating and with the ability to tell citizens the truth is a critical part of our open society.
The Washington Post broke the story that Fox News Washington Correspondent, James Rosen, had been the subject of an inquiry into leaks out of the State Department. The original article that drew attention to Rosen was on North Korea’s nuclear testing plans in 2009, and the investigation apparently continued on from there. The presumption of the FBI was the Rosen had been acquired classified information from former State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who has been indicted as a result of the investigation.
The implication is that the Obama administration is apparently considering the possibility of leveling charges against journalists in general, in it’s relentless search for “leaks”. However, in spite of the recent information that has come out about investigations into the actions of Associated Press journalists, these may be partisan investigations. It has already been stated that the information that Rosen acquired from Kim wasn’t particularly sensitive:
John Bolton, the former undersecretary of state for disarmament, and a noted hard-liner on all matters North Korea, said the disclosures in the Rosen story about North Korean intentions were “neither particularly sensitive nor all that surprising.” It involved the kind of information that could have been gleaned from reading stories in the South Korean press at the time, he noted.
That point is made in contrast with the sensitive and theoretically “classified” information that made its way into Bob Woodward’s book, “Obama’s Wars.”
Brit Hume commented on the situation earlier today on Fox News: [Video]
The Fox News response to the government tracking Rosen’s emails and movements was as follows:
“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,” Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement. ”In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”
Read the warrant for the investigation of Rosen here:
Also, for bloggers, and anyone else interested in information to prevent attracting this sort of attention from the government, Fox News has offered a page of advice.
Thankfully, they do not live in New Jersey.
This week a similar aged youth received a .22 rifle for his birthday. His photograph was also shared with the family.
Imagine their surprise when an anonymous phone call alerted both police and Child Protective Services causing a police response to the family home.
Fortunately, the father in this incident knew his gun rights and was astute enough to get his lawyer on the phone while the police and CPS were there, leaving them with a fairly innocuous end result. But just imagine if this happened to you or me and we did not have an attorney on speed dial? Could we lose our children, even for just a day, due to an over zealous enforcement agency?
Most everyone agrees that there is much that should be done to monitor guns in the hands of children and yet this overreaction seems to indicate that there are many with a complete intolerance of guns in private homes. Perhaps it is the difference between urban and rural lifestyles or perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction to recent gun tragedies. But it also may be that the agenda of the Obama administration is to remove all guns from homes and some enforcement/protection agencies are overzealous in their desire to promote it.
Further showcasing his inability to tolerate dissension, Barack Obama recently made statement calling out media outlets often unsupportive of his leftist agenda.
He claimed Republican lawmakers would generally be open to compromising with their Democrat counterparts but are afraid they will be “punished on Fox news or by Rush Limbaugh.”
Obama made the comments in an interview that never explored the obvious liberal bias held by the overwhelming majority of news outlets.
In fact, he openly embraced what he called “more left-leaning media outlets” for their recognition “that compromise is not a dirty word.” He also suggested he and his leftist cohorts in the Democrat party are more open to “buck[ing] the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”
Plenty of media watchdog groups and conservative organizations lashed out at the president for his ill-advised verbal attack on an industry he despises.
Of course, this is far from the first time Obama has targeted a group or individual he deems unfriendly to his worldview. In fact, as author Ben Shapiro pointed out, he has taken aim at the same entities in previous remarks.”He’s d one this before,” Shapiro said, calling Obama “a bully.” He continued, saying the president is “saying the media is not liberal enough. I think he wants people who don’t like him to be quiet.”
A respected Fox News personality, Greta van Susteren, also chastised Obama’s generalization of her network.
Writing on her blog, van Susteren implied Obama is upset because he “wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies,” which she said “happens to be the media’s job.”
She also lambasted the president’s implication that Fox News featured just one viewpoint.“Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues,” she said, “but they get heat from their leadership for appearing on Fox.”
Finally, she pointed out the absurdity of Obama suggesting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is open to compromise.
“He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate floor for years to even begin a discussion,” she said. “The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started.
The Obama White House, and the president specifically, have called out Fox News on other occasions. While Obama implied the network’s viewers were “a little stubborn” in 2012, his then-spokesperson Anita Dunn described it three years earlier as “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”
Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center summed up Obama’s overarching complaint. “The media has always helped shape the political environment,” he said, “but Democrats object to the conservative media now being able to.” Noyes surmised the prevailing thought among leftists, saying, “It was so much easier for them when the big three networks and The New York Times left out the inconvenient facts.”
Imagine being locked up in a Mexico prison for a mistake. The jailed Mexican drug cartel inmates threaten your life and your family. You are put into solitary confinement sometimes getting one meal a day; sometimes none. Now imagine you have recently been treated for PTSD following a challenging time in Afghanistan.
Could you stay strong?
This is the story of Jon Hammar who crossed the border into Mexico with his grandfather’s shotgun after filling out forms, paying a fee on the US side and being assured that he could legally take the gun into the country. After months working privately with the US State Department and getting nowhere the family turned to the public. Fortunately, their pleas were heard by Fox News giant Bill O’Reilly who, along with others on FNC, brought this story to light threatening tourism and loss of US dollars to the state of Matamoras. Finally, after four months solitary confinement, Hammar was released just before Christmas.
In an exclusive interview Bill O’Reilly talks to the former Marine giving us a first glimpse of his harrowing tale.
It happens. There is a tragedy, and the press leaps into action. Reporters run about trying to pull together information on the perpetrators of whatever crime has occurred, aren’t necessarily thorough in their haste to get the scoop, and then some details turn out to be dead wrong.
Yes, this is a conservative site, and that was a Fox News clip, but it wasn’t posted here because of political leanings. It was posted because Fox News was the one network that at least hesitated throughout the day from jumping on each new theory as it came out. They did run with the false assessment that Ryan Lanza was the shooter, but only after at least CBS and someone else had done the same. And this problem of insufficient fact-checking, and desperation to beat everyone else to the punch was clearly illustrated on Facebook by Mandy Nagy (Liberty Chick) from Breitbart.com. I couldn’t have put it better when she pointed out that if the explosion of garbage on social media was the way the brother of the shooter found out about the deaths of his family members, that is despicable.
And before the dust has settled at all, and before the crime scene has even been examined in earnest by investigators, the Democrats are already marshaling their troops in their incessant battle against the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter that logic should tell them that gun laws will not prevent criminals or the criminally insane from acquiring weapons to commit crimes like this. Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush offered this in a statement today:
Lawmakers, local, state and national, can no longer be held hostage by those who are opposed to reasonable gun control laws. It is time for lawmakers to come out of hiding and to have the courage to face these issues. We must act on all fronts, social, economic, educational to answer the complex questions raised by today’s events. We must face, without shame, the issues of domestic violence and mental health that are no doubt a part of today’s events.
Perhaps the only correct part of that statement was the fact that this tragedy probably did have something to do with both domestic violence, and mental health. As for what Rush’s definition of “reasonable gun control laws” is, there is little doubt it has something to do with removing the ability for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms at all in the first place. As conservatives, we know that will lead to radically increased gun violence, not the opposite that liberals regularly claim.
But, it is not time for us to speak of politics, no matter how tempting it may be. I made the observation earlier today that at least on Twitter, conservatives were praying, while leftists were conspiring to use this tragedy for their own political agenda. While I personally don’t pray, I do prefer to be associated with those that do in this situation. This is not the time or place for politics. It is time to mourn, comfort others, and heal.
Martha McSally, the Republican candidate for Arizona’s second Congressional District (vacated by Gabby Giffords), explains in stark terms the real war on women on Greta Van Sustern’s show.
As shown in the video, McSally has already gotten her feet wet when it comes to getting legislation through Congress – after battling the Department of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld, she saw to it that our women warriors in the military are not forced to wear traditional Muslim garb when overseas and off-duty.
For the third time this week, National Syndicated Columnist and Fox News contributor, had more than harsh words about President Barack Obama’s DNC acceptance speech given Thursday evening. He called it. “one of the emptiest speeches” ever given by a presidential nominee for a major party.
“I was stunned,” he said. “This is a man who gave one of the greatest speeches of our time in 2004, and he gave one of the emptiest speeches I have ever heard on a national stage.”
Krauthammer continued to say that, as in normal Obama fashion, the speech itself was good, but there was no substance to it, concerning the actual content of the speech, which was given to thousands of delegates, politicians, and reporters at Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, N.C. We must note, that the skies were clear at the time of the Obama’s acceptance speech.
“Yes, it had cadence. And yes there were deceptions in it. That‘s not what’s striking about it,” he said. “There was nothing in it.”
He continued: “This is a man who believes that government can and should do a lot. There’s nothing in here that tells us how he is going to go from today to tomorrow. And what government is going to do, what’s he going to enact? At least Romney had a five-point plan.”
Krauthammer continued to drill Obama about how the president continues to present his personal agenda to the American people, but never has offered any real plan on how to get there.
“I have a vision of America where there is no disease and everyone has a private airplane, but unless I tell you how to get there, I’ve said nothing,” he added. “I am simply amazed — this is a guy who is the A student in the class who turns in a paper that is clearly a C.”
Also, Vice President Joe Biden delivered his speech and Krauthammer commented that Biden’s speech was “infinitely better” than the president’s. “The Obama speech I thought was flat and had no content in it. Otherwise, I loved it really.”
You can view Krauthammer’s interview here: