Statistically, the polling of “zero” for Mitt Romney doesn’t even make any sense. Even if only one black person, say, Thomas Sowell, planned on voting for Mitt Romney, the statistic should be represented as <1%.

Apparently the poll “was conducted of 1,000 registered voters (300 reached by cell phone) from Aug. 16-20, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.” Did the “professionals” at NBC/WSJ even leave their own office buildings to conduct this poll? Who on earth were they polling? The White House Press Corps? The results of this poll say a lot more about NBC and WSJ then they do about Black voters. It’s one thing to take the poll, it’s quite another to publish it. NBC should have scrapped that garbage the second they got the results. As much time as the talking heads at MSNBC spend degrading Black conservatives, they OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER! Even just one view of my viral video response to their own Touré would be enough to prove that poll is complete bunk.

Sonnie Johnson, Alfonzo Rachel, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams…these are just a few Black Americans who support Romney. They are the more well-known names but there are thousands of us, too many to mention here. Most aren’t even political pundits. Many are folks who voted for Obama in ’08 and have been disappointed with his leadership or turned off by his public statements on issues that are important to the Black community, like illegal immigration and gay marriage; and one need not even look very hard to find these people!

Is there any more question as to the reliability/integrity of the mainstream media?

Tune in tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Hey girl, don’t miss it!

Kyle Becker is a frequent OTNN talk radio commentator.

NBC’s Jeff Rossen

In the Hellish aftermath of the Colorado Movie Theater shooting, NBC News trots out an anti-gun investigation story it aired back in February to bolster its anti-Second Amendment stance.

On Monday, the Today show re-aired a story by investigative reporter Jeff Rossen, which happened to be the premier story of Rossen Reports on Today which originally aired Feb. 9 of this year. In the story, Rossen and his staff hire security experts to buy guns online to show how easy it is to obtain weapons without a proper background check.

Rossen and company went online to find online private gun sellers and made meetings with them in parking lots of popular shopping malls. This husband and wife team go and meet the sellers and negotiate for the guns. The buyer announces that he couldn’t pass a background check, but the sales go through anyway, no paperwork, no hassle. Then Jeff and the camera crew pounce and attempt to interview the individuals who sold the guns. Some of them talk, others don’t.

Rossen proudly remarks that they turn the guns over to law enforcement to have them destroyed.
While the Today Show and Rossen Reports show a significant loophole in gun sales law in many states, I believe it is irresponsible to try to connect this loophole with what happened in Aurora, Colorado. Below you can see the whole show on You Tube.

It is legal in many states that require a background check at the gun store to forego such a check when a sale is done by a private seller online. That is a problem and is easy to fix. I believe that if you are required to get a background check at the store, you should get a back ground check before you buy online from a private seller, and that seller should get a misdemeanor for knowingly selling a gun without that check.

It would be easy to do the check. In Minnesota, my home state, gun stores fill out a form for the buyer and immediately call a number with local law enforcement to ensure that the buyer is not on a list prohibiting the sale. The buyer must present his permit to buy a handgun, although no such permit is necessary to buy a rifle. The call takes about a minute and the seller gets instant approval or denial, which he can annotate on the form. The buyer can go home with his gun the same day if he meets the approval process.

It’s just that easy. But that’s not what happened apparently with the Colorado “Joker” shooter. James Holmes wasn’t on any kind of a list. He had no recorded history of mental illness and no prior legal offenses that would have prohibited him from buying a gun. And Holmes didn’t buy his guns online, he bought them at gun stores where he filled out the paperwork. He bought his ammo and body armor online, which is legal. The NBC story rehash doesn’t address any of these issues, it just airs the original story.

NBC doesn’t bother to say anything about the illegality of fashioning one’s home into a booby-trapped nightmare. I’m pretty sure rigging your house to explode is illegal, but the law didn’t affect Holmes’s decision making process at all. In fact gun laws only affect the law abiding, not those who knowingly choose to break the laws. But NBC never makes that distinction.

No law will prevent a criminal with mass murder on his mind from committing his crime, but an armed citizen like the 71-year old in the Florida Internet Cafe with his legal conceal carry handgun might prove all that is necessary to prevent a potentially awful crime like the one that happened in Aurora.

Let’s remember that this guy had body armor. A small caliber handgun would be worthless against that, but the gunman gave up without a fight, even though the cops had nothing to defeat his armor. The mere presences of a gun in the hands of a cop or a law abiding citizen is enough to defeat a coward. But continually in American, guns are banned in certain establishments making “defenseless zones” pop up all over the country.

Kyle Becker, a frequent contributor to ConservativeDailyNews.com pointed out in his column last week that the left is consumed with using tragedy like this to push on with their assault on legal gun owners. Becker writes:

“In the wake of the tragic mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, some on the political left have used the occasion to further their assault on citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms. The charge is being led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who apparently believes that a disarmed populace is a safe populace.

“But safe from whom?

“The right to defend oneself and one’s property is inalienable and indisputable. However, the left is taking pot shots at Americans’ gun rights by claiming that gun control or even outright bans are necessary for our own safety.”

Absolutely right Becker!

Kyle’s article cites another great article by Tracy Price, an airline pilot, who wrote a piece for the Washington Times on gun free zones, or what he called, “defenseless zones”. In that article, Price points out all of the incidents in recent history where gun free zones were the sites of awful gun atrocities committed by crazy people who were unafraid of breaking established gun laws and bans.

In the wrap up of his article, Price poignantly writes,

“There is nothing more tragic than laws intended to make us feel safer, when in reality they do just the opposite, especially when it is our children and our brightest college students who pay the final price for our failed policies.

I would recommend you read both the Becker and Price articles again here.

The left will use any crisis to advance an agenda, and have no problem obfuscating the facts to do so. We know that. But, the facts speak for themselves. Crime statistics show that states that allow citizens to legally carry weapons have lower crime rates. But that fact doesn’t fit the Leftist agenda, so forget about it. Just focus on the awful tragedy and reflect on how easy it was for Holmes to get his guns, the Left would say.
I’ve had enough of the Left’s hypocrisy! How about you? I like the Rossen story, but it doesn’t address the real issue. In a society that teaches it’s kids that they are worthless animals evolved from the primordial soup instead of created,  unique crafted spiritual beings with a purpose, fully accountable to their Maker, then we deserve the awful world we live in and all laws, except the law of nature, are null and void.

Rossen has a tab on his website where he asked for tips for future shows. I have a suggestion! I think he should investigate Eric Holder’s Justice Department and Fast and Furious. Just a thought.

This article is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Anomalous Media, LCC, ConservativeDailyNews.com their staff or contributors.

UPDATE: Enjoy the replay of 7/22 show here.

Boxer responded in kind stating  Chuck, “if that was the case we would never pass a civil rights law. We would never pass any laws protecting people and protecting consumers. You have to see that when the Republicans bring up trial lawyers, it’s a way to distract from the fact that they’re doing the bidding of the wealthiest few, who are employers, who just want to pocket that money.”

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

In actual fact, trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party and to say they don’t want anything in return is gross naïveté.  Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon wrote today, June,7, 2012, that:

In 2008, lawyers and law firms donated more than $230 million to federal political candidates and committees, 76 percent of which went to Democrats.

The industry gave $43.2 million to President Obama in 2008 and was his top source of campaign donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The industry is also the number one source of political donations for 48 of the 53 members of the Senate Democratic caucus over the course of their careers. In total, lawyers and law firms have contributed more than $132 million to Senate Democrats—all of whom supported the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.), and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are the only Democratic caucus members for whom lawyers are not the top source of political donations. Lawyers are the second-highest contributors to all of those senators except for Sanders.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), who has been one of the most aggressive critics of Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, has received more than $5.4 million from lawyers and law firms over the course of her career. A number of those firms specialize in the very sort of lucrative class action lawsuits likely to proliferate under the measure.

Yeah…this move isn’t political in the slightest.

(h/t Washington Free Beacon/Andrew Stiles/ Kyle Becker)