(H/T ConservativeVideos.com and Alfonzo Rachel)

Photo courtesy WikiCommons

It’s been more than four years since the Left began demonizing Sarah Palin, criticizing everything from her hair to her speech patterns. After losing the election we were told by the Main Stream Media that ordinary citizen Sarah was: no longer an important part of the Tea Party, not accepted by the Republican Party; that she was not relevant.

And yet, the Left, particularly the biased media, keep Mrs. Palin in the news. They love to headline the Palin family and criticize every word she says.

It makes no sense. If Sarah Palin is really irrelevant why do they keep talking about her? Why, today, is the Huffington Post and other Leftist news sites top story the amount of money per spoken word that Palin made as a contributor to FOX News?

HuffPo: Sarah Palin’s time at Fox News is over, and so is her $1 million-per-year salary. Now, a university study has chronicled just exactly how much the former vice presidential candidate was making when she did each interview on the network.

The University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier tallied up all of the words Palin uttered during her three years on Fox News, and divided them by the $3 million she racked up over that time. His conclusion:

A Smart Politics review of the more than 150 FOX broadcasts in which Sarah Palin appeared as a paid commentator from 2010 through 2012 finds that she spoke 189,221 words on air during this span, for an average pay rate of $15.85 per word.

Has any other irrelevant news analyst had his words counted and attached a dollar per word figure? Has any other irrelevant celebrity had her slang words counted? Because when something is irrelevant it is no longer of interest to others. When someone is irrelevant after using up that 15 minutes of fame and returning to general anonymity.

Or, in the eyes of the media, is Sarah Palin still relevant?

The Associated Press image of white America.

Tuesday I spent almost an hour waiting in line with a bunch of racists. Previously I would have described the experience as I waiting in line to vote, but thanks to the Associated Press, I now know different.

A recent AP poll on racial attitudes proves conclusively that should Obama lose the election, journalists will blame his defeat on white Republican racists.

According AP, “Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.” (emphasis added). How’s that for white America being bad to the bone?

The survey also confirms the vast majority of mainstream journalists still suffer from chronic liberal guilt, a pre–existing malady Obamacare will actively promote.

The Thought Police at AP explained, “The Associated Press polls were designed to dig into one of the most sensitive subjects in American Politics: racial attitudes and their effect on how people will vote in an election in which the nation’s first black president could be re–elected.

Overall the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, [Obama could lose] an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti–black attitudes…”

The Obama defeat story practically writes itself, particularly when Monday’s Rasmussen Reports tracking poll has the race at 49 Romney and 48 Obama.

The AP survey was not conducted over the phone. Instead the respondents were invited to complete the questionnaire on a computer because: “Studies have shown people are more willing to reveal potentially unpopular attitudes on a computer than in questioning by a live interviewer.” They certainly watch a lot more porn and use bad language online, so why not express unpopular attitudes, too.

But since AP researchers know white supremacists are devious and will try to mislead earnest scientists by doing something like electing a black president; they also tested “implicit” racism by means of an “affect misattribution” test. They claim this is accurate because social scientists say so.

What they don’t tell you is the research sample is often composed of a handful of university graduate students that need the credit for participating or simply need the money. The test is taken in an artificial environment where the subjects know they are being tested (see Heisenberg Effect for details). Then ‘mirabile dictu’ the test confirms what the “scientists” already knew.

The “affect misattribution” test —America Found Guilty — involves flashing photos of people of different races (ugly, fierce, plain, beautiful, the number of variables beggars description) for a nanosecond or two. Followed by a neutral image — in this case a Chinese character — and asking whether the logo for egg foo young is a pleasant or unpleasant symbol.

In an earlier time this technique was called “subliminal advertising” and it was found unpersuasive when used to try to convince movie goers to buy more Coke; but AP is convinced this technique will root out those who still think Rodney King should have gotten his behind kicked.

As David Moore points out, when you apply the same AP “methodology” to black subjects, you find 43 percent of the blacks express “anti–black sentiments.” While 30 percent of the whites express “anti–white” sentiments (no word on whether this group was composed of journalists or Democrats).

Maybe it’s just me, but I would question the accuracy of a survey that purports to reveal hidden white Republican racism, when it also “reveals” 43 percent of the black sample doesn’t like blacks either. Unless they are self–hating black Republicans.

Even if you ignore the voodoo part of the test the normal questions only confirm AP’s stereotype of white Republican racists.

To goad survey takers into being explicitly racist, the questioners ask if they agree, “Other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors,” “it’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder…” and “blacks who receive money from welfare could get along without it if they tried” to name but a few.

By my count the only one they left out was “Jackie Robinson was a credit to his race.”

As for the special condemnation of Republicans, you simply have to take AP’s word for it, since readers are denied access to the crosstabs.

But as I write this at 12:47 AM, the mainstream media won’t have to blame racists for defeating Obama, because he was re–elected. Instead results of this poll will simply be saved for some time in the future when reporters need to explain Republican motivation for opposing that nice President Obama, assuming it ever happens.

You will be held accountable. You can take that to the bank.

The hacks and con artists who daily get behind their microphones and computer monitors and churn out the most absurd, smirk-inducing confabulations on behalf of a lying, thieving, race-baiting sorry excuse of a party are about to have the sh*t-eating grins wiped off their faces.

Americans aren’t buying your BS anymore. Expect that trend to continue for… well, from now on.

Public trust in news media is tanking. More Americans are turning to social media to escape the paid propagandists’ web of lies. 58% get political information from the Internet and 53% will “fact check” politicians’ claims. And now, after it has become apparent that we are being lied to on a daily basis, Americans are organizing to ring the death knell for the paleomedia and their extinct journalistic standards of ethics.

Rage Against the Media (RATM) is a group organized by Dr. Karen Siegumund. CDN’s own Kira Davis and comedian-sage Evan Sayet participated in the RATM rally out at CBS studios in Los Angeles on October 20th.

The following is Dr. Siegemund’s message to Americans, republished with permission:

Rage Against the Media has almost 2500 members, each of whom realizes the blatant bias of the mainstream media and is horrified at the damage that it does. The group was born out of anger at the media’s handling of the murders in Benghazi, and as time goes on since this past Sept 11, the media’s refusal to address those events and the lies out of the White House has become even more blatant. The media recognizes that it was they who made the rise of this freshman senator from Illinois possible – it must be terrifying to them to realize that by investigating and reporting on the events in Benghazi and the subsequent WH cover-up, that they could bring him down. Even as the media engages in their delaying tactics, however, RATM is fighting against them in a few ways.

We have joined forces with many other groups out there in calling all MSM outlets: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, and various newspapers, as well as the White House, in order to apply as much collective pressure as possible to tell the truth.

But we have also taken a different tack. RAGE AGAINST THE MEDIA is a group of activists with two basic purposes

First, to let the MSM know, as Andrew Breitbart said, “WE ARE WATCHING YOU.”

But we also want to be visible in our protests.   All Americans are hurt by this bias – the damage cuts across political boundaries. But too many are unaware that the media they turn to at 6 in the evening, after a long day at work, has already decided on the narrative they chose to tell us – a narrative that protects the president.

So RATM is visible in our activism: we had one inaugural protest in Los Angeles, which drew far more support than one would expect! And we plan many more nationwide. But we also are active on the MSM face book pages. This has the advantage of alerting the media that we are paying attention, but also of making others on their page aware of the bias, and more specifically right now, the cover-up of the events in Benghazi.

By staging coordinated “Facebook Flashmobs”  -  a term coined by Kyle Becker – where we take on each media site for a specified amount of time, we are able to apply an army of voices in protest against the site, even as we inform their audience of what is being hidden.

By posting, en masse, articles about the Benghazi cover-up written by other, non-MSM sources, we can get out the truth about Benghazi even as we shine a light on the media’s complicity in protecting the President.

By working together, we can have considerable impact, and RATM gives each frustrated individual a vehicle for being heard, for being part of an effort that can be effective. Each voice becomes part of a larger chorus that says: We will not tolerate your lies, your bias, your cover-up. When we say, together, “Americans deserve the truth”, we stand a better chance of having them take notice.

Dr. Siegemund, this American is with you. Bloggers, citizen journalists and concerned Americans, it is time to organize to expose this media cabal that runs cover for the liars and thieves in our government. And we need to not only call the left-wing, corporate media out for their disinformation, we need to shine the light of truth to alert our fellow citizens that our country is being stolen from us, right under many Americans’ noses.

Join Rage Against the Media now.

jamesomalley (CC)

CNN stepped up and questioned Obama’s second-term plan yesterday. Of course, the item in question begged for it, since it was just a fancy re-hashing of all the old Obama plans that haven’t worked. Not to be outdone, NBC’s Brian Williams managed to point out the lackluster numbers of crowds showing up for Obama events. Surprisingly, Williams even implied it might have something to do with the economy not doing as well as people would like.

From the print world, the Des Moines Register got the last laugh after the dust-up over an “off-the-record” interview with Obama. They gave the President the proverbial raspberries by putting his grumpy face picture on the front page next to a smiling Romney. Who said print journalism was dead?

Finally, CBS’s “60 Minutes” came clean about some deleted footage that shows the White House had lied about Benghazi. Of course it’s Twitchy.com and Breitbart.com pointing out these misadventures in journalism, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are happening. For those that were questioning whether or not the attack on Benghazi would make a difference in this election, this might be a major indication that it has. It at least threw a healthy glass of ice water on those lovers – the MSM and Obama.

DonkeyHotey (CC)

While examples of this abound, the focus here will be on the mainstream media hijacking the narrative to place this administration in a good light, and it will include a true opinion piece – not something that’s being schlepped as real news. The Fix from the Washington Post passed along a lovely example of this wonderland mentality that really doesn’t have a firm grasp on reality. Now, to be fair, this item was probably started before the events in the Middle East, and just maybe, Chris Cillizza might change his tune a little bit once the actual political fallout from these events come home to roost, so to speak. But, as of this morning, his contention is that Mitt Romney is panicking, and he dutifully offered some comments from some Republicans on this. Of course, it should go without saying that the Romney camp should examine this article for some of the finer points, and maybe make some minor adjustments accordingly. There are some worthwhile points made in this article. However, they are definitely overshadowed by Cillizza’s regurgitating of the Obama camp narrative that has been permeating the mainstream media.

Like the assertion that Romney made a mistake by calling the Obama administration on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo tweeting apologies to Muslims before, during, and after the attack there. It’s been observed, repeatedly, that if it was a Republican in the White House (George W. Bush, for example), the press would have been all over him for this. That is absolutely true. But where is the press now? Well, they’re buying the quasi-retraction from the Obama administration, and focusing on Romney, calling him an alarmist, or worse. Or they’re complaining about him breaking the 9/11 promise, and talking politics – but please don’t mention that the Obama camp was active from point one, fundraising, soliciting for volunteers, sending out surrogates, and sniping against the Romney camp on Twitter. But, back to the utter failure of the media, where were the questions on that Obama retraction? If that statement was “unauthorized”, who’s really in charge? Or was this statement merely an extension of an already established position of this administration? Either way, what Romney did or didn’t say isn’t the story here. The story is in that Embassy and in this administration.

And to keep things even here, even the right-wing media missed this one. Sure, it might feel good to say that someone in the Obama administration deserves to be fired, but that doesn’t change the fact that the real story lies somewhere much higher than that one staffer. Again, where are the questions about who is really in charge here? On one hand it’s said that this president is leading from behind, a perfect example of this falls in the laps of the conservative media, and all they can come up with is that a relatively low-level diplomatic corps employee deserves to get canned? Talk about a lost opportunity!

But, back to Cillizza’s wishful musings. Other than giving the Romney camp a mini-roadmap for fixing some issues in their campaign, what does this piece say? Given the number of words devoted to the whole Libya issue, it wouldn’t be out of the question to suggest that the administration doesn’t want anyone focusing on what’s actually happening now, when it comes to a response to the incident. After reading, and re-reading Romney’s statement, the only problem is this:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion.

There is no doubt that is Romney’s opinion on the matter, however it is unlikely that the Obama administration agrees. Romney should have avoided talking about reaction by the government at all, since he’s not in a position to cause any action himself at this time. As it is, Marines apparently will not be permitted to use live ammo in Egypt, and while there are ships going to the region, it is unclear if there are any plans of action by the U.S. military. That in itself should be making headlines nationwide, but given the mainstream media’s love affair with Obama, that’s unlikely. Another item that should be getting the attention of journalists is the fact that Obama yet again walked away from taking questions from the press. Romney didn’t, but instead of being happy with the opportunity to get questions answered, the mainstream media found it necessary to conspire against him. Or so they thought, because it could easily be argued that Romney handled the questions very well, especially considering the fact that the journalists were ganging up on him. It was particularly heartening to hear his refusal to even consider hypothetical questions, and if his replies to their questions this time are any indication, it is fair to guess that the mainstream media will be crying regularly that he refuses to answer anything on national security, except in a very broad sense. Also, don’t expect any of the journalists to point out that Romney might have learned not to do that from Obama himself. They do try to forget his campaign promises of 2008 on Afghanistan and Gitmo, after all.

So, instead of having journalists and the press act as watchdogs over the government, we are left with the “Obama Administration State Media.” And that is the death of journalism in this nation. When journalists stop questioning our leaders meaningfully, and start acting as little more than mouthpieces for politicians, it is no longer a free press. It is no different than the state-controlled media in regions like the Middle East. Perhaps we all need to mull over the sad irony of that.

Dear MoveOn member,

We all woke up to the tragic news of the killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of many more at a late-night screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado.

Reports indicate that the disturbed individual who committed this horrifying act had a bulletproof vest, used some kind of gas canister, and had multiple guns when he opened fire in the crowded theater.1 A three-month-old is among the injured.2

We are immeasurably sad for those who lost their lives, those wounded, and their families—and for all those who experienced the horror of those terrible moments. Let our thoughts and prayers go out to them today.

We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. They’ve started a petition in SignOn.org to demand action on ending gun violence.

Sadly, it often takes moments like these to bring politicians to their senses about guns. And while signing a petition seems so inadequate in the face of what happened last night, it’s important to do what we can. Today that means taking a small step toward preventing this kind of tragedy from happening again.

Sign the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition to our leaders: “Join me in standing with the victims and families of the Aurora, Colorado shooting and pledge to end gun violence.”

The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.3

And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.

It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.4

Let our anger today help give them the courage to act tomorrow.

Sign the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition to our leaders: “Join me in standing with the victims and families of the Aurora, Colorado shooting and pledge to end gun violence.”

The strength and support we draw from our friends, families, and communities are never more important than on days like today.

Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Robin, Ryan, Elena, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. “Gunman turns movie into surreal horror: ‘This is real,’” CNN, July 20, 2012

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277858&id=46725-10103528-3wr0qGx&t=3

2. “Gunman turns Batman screening into real-life ‘horror film,’” CNN, July 20, 2012

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277863&id=46725-10103528-3wr0qGx&t=4

3. “Background Checks,” Mayors Against Illegal Guns, accessed July 20, 2012

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277860&id=46725-10103528-3wr0qGx&t=6

4. “Poll: Majority Of Americans, Including Gun Owners, Support Tougher Restrictions,” The Huffington Post, January 18, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277861&id=46725-10103528-3wr0qGx&t=7

I’ve quoted the email in its entirety above, primarily because there is more than enough nonsense over misquotes and out-of-context statements. Of course this was entirely predictable, because the left simply never understands the problem isn’t lack of gun control. We can say until we’re blue in the face that these laws are meaningless to criminals and crazy people – if these individuals really want guns, they will get them one way or another, no matter what the laws are.

Contrary to what the left might like to make people think, the above is true – police do not tend to prevent crime. They occasionally do, but for the most part, they respond after the fact. And an armed citizenry remains the best defense against attacks. Today, it’s from the enemy within – criminals – as opposed to the potential invaders the Founders had in mind. While it’s logistically unlikely that any armed citizen could have prevented the massacre in Aurora, that does not help to make the case against creating more gun laws in response to this tragedy. The fact remains that the man who committed this act would have gotten the weapons he wanted regardless what the laws were.

As you can see above, the insane logic of the left knows no bounds. Of course, if the man in Colorado hadn’t been white, perhaps the Muslim card wouldn’t have been played in this way. The implication is that he was one of those “gun-clinging angry white men from the right wing.” That’s not a surprising assumption, since it had already been made by ABC’s Brian Ross. It was irresponsible, but probably irresistible for Ross. Talk about giving his left-wing bosses an issue on a platter! Wouldn’t it have been grand if the shooter had been a member of the Tea Party? It’s what left-wing media wet dreams are made of. But the truth may very well turn out to be a nightmare for them, if the rumors about the shooter being involved with the Occupy Movement turn out to be true. Now, that came from a private investigator as opposed to a journalist. Time will hopefully tell whether or not that one is accurate.

The fact is that right now, we do not enforce the current gun laws we have. Adding more laws will not change the situation. They will just end up being more words on the books that we don’t have the personnel or money in law enforcement to enforce in the first place. It might make people feel safer, or satisfied to make tougher gun laws, but that will end when the next tragedy comes along. I’ve avoided saying the name of the shooter in Aurora for a reason. He did this to get notoriety, and I refuse to give it to him. The vast majority of crazy people that don’t end up killing themselves after mass murder want the attention of the masses. You want a law that will have any hope of deterring their actions? Try stomping a little bit on the First Amendment, and forbid the press from giving mass murderers air time, kilobytes, and ink. Don’t give them what they want, and maybe – just maybe – they won’t do it. Of course, we’re dealing with insanity here, so it’s anyone’s guess what they’ll actually do anyway. But don’t give in to the liberal delusion that gun laws will save us from the crazies. They won’t. Sure, concealed carry couldn’t have helped in Aurora, unless someone happened to have a laser sight on their weapon – even that’s unlikely, though. But, there will come a time when the attack won’t be in the pitch black of a movie theater with hundreds of innocent people that could get hit by mistake. If the law-abiding citizens don’t have guns, they can’t stop that next crazy person. After all, gun laws don’t apply to criminals and crazies. So, just remember the following:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77479.html

How is it possible that Kyle Cheney is getting paid to spell bind readers with such gems as: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid waste Friday to all those rumors about the fate of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court”? Yet the article contains no information about Ginsburg making such a claim?

Cheney continues Pravda’s collective non-information/misinformation campaign by saying: “Although she offered no insight into the tightly held decisions of her colleagues, Ginsburg did indicate that many of the court’s decisions over the next two weeks — which are also expected to include an FCC indecency ruling — might be close.”

“Might be close”? That is the basis for claiming to have a statement from Ginsburg that “laid waste” to “all those rumors” about the pending health care decision?

Seriously, is this what earns “reporters” a paycheck nowadays?

“Reporting” Ginsburg’s “revelation” that Supreme Court rulings on highly controversial cases in the coming weeks “might be close” is “reporting” “news” as cutting edge and unpredictable as each day beginning with a sunrise.

By intentionally including a reference to the pending health care ruling in a faux headline, yet including zero content in the article revealing any such information clearly demonstrates the impotence of today’s “mainstream media”. That this story reports “sharp disagreement” exists between members of the Supreme Court is as fresh and as newsworthy as: dog bites mailman.

The real, clear, political divide between traditional, patriotic Americans and their “progressive” adversaries the makeup of the Supreme Court currently reflects is the story. One that is not told.

The philosophical division between Constitutionally protective Americans and “progressive” assailants of America’s Republic is as distinct as is the temperature difference between earth’s equator and its two poles.

On the one hand there is the Tea Party, a spontaneous grassroots movement which clearly expresses a strong, unified desire to restore the United States to it’s Constitutional roots. A platform calling to reduce the size, scope, power and cost of government, and to reinstate the traditional American values of self reliance, individual liberty and a return to truly representative government. The Tea Party was hugely influential in the 2010 mid-term elections, when “progressive” Democrats were denied retention of unbridled, unchecked power. The Tea Party remains influential in the 2012 campaign to remove “progressives” from Congress, the Senate and the White House.

On the other hand there is Occupy. A handful of people who disagreed with the existence of income disparity were quickly co-opted by Communist aligned big labor unions thugs in an astro-turf copycat attempt to counter the voice of America’s no longer Silent Majority. This artificial movement rapidly discredited itself through illegal occupancy and destruction of public and private property, and by descending into disparate, disorganized messaging that contributed as much to America’s political discourse as a screen door does to the functioning of a submarine. Unlike the peaceful, respectful approach taken by the Tea Party, Occupy’s attempts to gain public support disintegrated into violence, arrests and criminal charges.

Why is Cheney wasting people’s time “reporting” on unremarkable utterances of a Supreme Court Justice who, while on a recent trip overseas, made public statements that disrespected the United States Constitution? Why is Ginsburg, whose views are considered seditious by many patriotic, Constitution loving Americans, painted in such a fawning light?

This is non-news presented to readers by a biased media source.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/biased-media-reports-non-news/

Audio experts are working around the clock to find more Zimmerman racism hidden in the 9–1–1 tapes. Maybe if they play them backward...

Good news for Neighborhood Watch celebrity, George Zimmerman. The Associated Press reports that in 23 years only 2,000 people have been exonerated after being wrongly convicted of a serious felony.

Each year there are nearly one million felony convictions, over 10,000 times more than the 90 innocent defendants wrongly convicted. The findings are particularly encouraging for Zimmerman as he faces criminal prosecution for second–degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and simultaneously a trial–by–media for the same offense.

The miscarriage of justice rate compares very favorably with the hospital medical error rate of 18 percent, where presumably the doctor doesn’t have any animus toward the customer, as opposed to prosecutors who do.

And public opinion is starting to come around. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey found 40 percent think Zimmerman acted in self–defense.

This finding is in sharp contrast to a survey of mainstream journalists that found 85 percent believe Zimmerman should already be doing time in Guantanamo.

Then when it appears justice may finally be allowed to take its course, the Washington Post uses a discredited CNN idea to attack George.

You may recall CNN reporter Gary Tuchman examined Zimmerman’s 9–1–1 call and discovered RACISM! Which is to be expected from someone with a white father. Using “one of the most sophisticated audio edit suites in the broadcast news business” CNN heard Zimmerman saying “(bleeping) coons” after technicians “enhanced” the recording.

Naturally to demonstrate even–handed news judgment, the tape was played for viewers about 300 times during the segment. As the reporter intoned, “Listen closely for “coon,” a word only bigots use. Remember it starts with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘oon.’”

Except the word wasn’t “coon.” Two weeks later, with much less fanfare, CNN re–enhances the tape and sure enough Zimmerman was saying “(bleeping) cold.”

How fortunate Zimmerman didn’t have to hide in the weeds to observe Martin. I can only imagine what the media would have done if George had muttered something about being bitten by a (bleeping) chigger.

Which brings us back to the sound–enhancing WaPo and its recording of a witness call, which FBI analysts have already termed “inconclusive.” The WaPo recycles the lie that Zimmerman ignored an order from the dispatcher. And in a nice touch, writes “…cursing under his breath, Zimmerman got out of his truck and began to follow (Martin).” But, thanks to CNN, we know Zimmerman was cursing the weather, a common activity worldwide, and not Martin.

Martin’s father heard the WaPo tape and told police the voice was not his son’s, But that was before lawyers got to him and visions of wrongful death lawsuits began dancing in his head. In contrast, the WaPo’s expert — who wouldn’t have known Trayvon if the kid had approached him at 7/11 and asked for a loan to buy Skittles — imagines Martin yelling, “I’m begging you!” “Help me!” And then, “Stop!”

Since the story was written by two females, I won’t fault them for their lack of expertise when it comes to fight dynamics. But in the real world the person who lands the first punch usually wins. Since witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him “MMA” style, it’s reasonable to assume his was the first punch.

Someone winning a fight is also not the one calling for help. The puncher is usually concentrating on pounding the punchee. Evidence shows Zimmerman’s back was wet from ground contact and he had a broken nose, two black eyes and cuts on the back of his head, so Trayvon evidently was doing a thorough job.

You can find the recording on the Post website and identifying any one element is like trying to isolate a single razzberry in a Spike Jones recording. One of the edited audio segments purports to be Martin’s “Stop!” But I’ve been in recording studios for 35 years and I hear “Help!” in both recordings, which stands to reason since Zimmerman is losing the fight.

But this is where it gets interesting. The “expert” asserts those 45 seconds aren’t Zimmerman calling for help during the fight, but Martin pleading with Zimmerman not to shoot him AFTER the fighting was over.

So by his reckoning, the fight is concluded. Zimmerman has his gun out. Martin begs for his life for almost a minute and then Zimmerman executes him in cold blood.

But lab results reveal the gunshot was so close it burned Martin’s skin. We know there was a single shot. If the entry wound is low and travels upward, it supports Zimmerman. But even without that information, if the fight was over and Martin was pleading for his life, chances are he would have been backing or running away, putting distance between himself and Zimmerman.

Common sense would dictate waiting for the evidence and using practical experience to evaluate it, but the Post, along with the majority of the media, has already found Zimmerman guilty and they want us to join them.

DonkeyHotey (CC)

News Bulletin: If you have high cheekbones, you might be Native American.  Or at least, that’s what presumptive Democratic Senate nominee Elizabeth Warren stated to justify her unproven claims of Native American ancestry.  A puzzling revelation since she had detailed many aspects of her personal life on the campaign trail.  However, the Boston Herald reported that:

Warren’s statements come as genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society were unable to back up earlier accounts that her great great great grandmother is Cherokee. While Warren’s great great great grandmother, named O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on a electronic transcript of a 1894 marriage application as Cherokee, the genealogists are unable to find the actual record or a photograhic copy of it, Society spokesman Tom Champoux said. A copy of the marriage license itself has been located, but unlike the application, it does not list Smith’s ethnicity.

So her records indicating such ancestry is hearsay at best.   However, Warren stated that “being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born…these are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl.”   Well, Ms. Warren just because you share stories of Native American ancestry; doesn’t make you one. Just like how I’m not Italian for indulging in the various stories of my family’s roots around the dinner table.

Nevertheless, Warren enrolled as a minority at law school where she hoped to meet similar people other people with real tribal roots.  She blasted Scott Brown for suggesting she used her minority status to gain employment, but if her records are shoddy and she landed jobs based on her checking that box in the application form, it’s grossly naive to say it had no impact on her career choices.  As a “minority,” (although I like to refer myself as an American) I can safely say that presenting yourself as such does reap some benefits in your college and employment search.  However, I’m 100% Korean (I look the part) and I have the papers to prove it.  However, I’m confident that up to this point, I have received every opportunity based on my work ethic (a cornerstone in the Vespa family) and diligence in whatever task that was assigned to me.  I think Ms. Warren can make such a case.  However, why she decided to go on this faux Native American route displays a false narrative fraught with political opportunism.

However, instead of owning up to it, she doubled down on the false claim.  With Elizabeth Warren’s Native American roots exposed as lacking authenticity, a real coup de grace occurred when it was discovered that her ancestors actually rounded up Native Americans in their forced relocation known as the Trail of Tears.

O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford is that her husband, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandfather, was apparently a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees from their family homes in the Southeastern United States and herded them into government-built stockades in what was then called Ross’s Landing (now Chattanooga), Tennessee—the point of origin for the horrific Trail of Tears, which began in January, 1837.

Jonathan Crawford, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford’s husband and apparently Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandfather, served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia commanded by Brigadier General R. G. Dunlap from late 1835 to late 1836. While under Dunlap’s command he was a member of Major William Lauderdale’s Battalion, and Captain Richard E. Waterhouse’s Company.

These were the troops responsible for removing Cherokee families from homes they had lived in for generations in the three states that the Cherokee Nations had considered their homelands for centuries: Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Jonathan Crawford most likely did not join the regular Army troops who “escorted” these Cherokees along the Trail of Tears. He did, however, serve once more with Major William Lauderdale’s re-formed Batallion of Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia. This group fought the Seminole Indians in Florida during the Second Seminole War.

I wonder how the mainstream media will spin this one?

Read More At Breitbart.com

If we want to truly empower our children, we are going to have to elevate the level of discourse beyond the sensationalized talking points of the nightly news. We’re going to have to educate them on the fundamental differences between the parties and candidates. We’re going to have to warn them against the ideologies that threaten prosperity in our great country. And we are going to have to teach them how to wield the power of the ballot box to protect the freedoms granted to them in the very Constitution they are learning about in school. Instead, we are talking about dogs, birthday parties and lawn boys.

And who is dictating the direction of the conversation? The mainstream media is, of course. Operating as an extension of the government-run educational system, the liberal media is but another pawn in the dumbing-down-of-our-nation’s-youth movement. Long have conservatives hammered the liberal media for dumbing down the masses, and most of us have taken to talk-radio to cure this ill. However, efforts of the media to dilute the real election messages are now obstructing the education of the very population that will be most impacted by the next President’s policies: our children.

It amounts to a well-orchestrated effort of mass distraction.

The problem is about more than just sensationalism or, as Ted Koppel said in an interview with Matt Lauer on Today recently, a result of the social media phenomenon. Koppel – a 30-year veteran of the media – didn’t want to shoulder any responsibility for the type of political conversations that are taking place today. Instead, he placed blame on Twitter, dismissing its value in the arena of public discourse by saying, “If it can be reduced to 140 characters, it has legs with the American people, and they run with it.” Even his tone toward the Twitterverse was one of repugnance, like it was only for the Simpletons of the world. Yet for those of us who predominantly follow news sources, pundits, political commentators who are considered leaders in their industry, this statement reeks of ignorance. Talk about out of touch.

Besides, can’t every issue, including the ones that really matter, be discussed in any social setting? If we teach our youth that the real issues like jobs, the economy, healthcare, and education cannot be discussed via social media with any real merit, then we are ultimately teaching them they can’t talk about things that matter in any social environment. As a result, they are reduced to talking about Lindsey Lohan’s latest public meltdown or Brangelina’s engagement. But our children have more valuable ideas and thoughts to contribute, and we must remember that they won’t always be children.

It would be great to live in a world where children could spend time in their own social environments – in the lunchroom, on the playground, on sleepovers, or maybe (GASP!) on a first date – talking about things that really matter. We want our young people to be able to carry on dignified conversations that reflect critical and independent thought, ideas that have been shaped by real education (that is, knowledge acquisition).

It’s true that media is headed in the wrong direction, but social media is far from the sole culprit. The problem we have is a government-induced, main-stream-media-supported effort to dumb down the population and to distract us, so we will lose focus on the fact that our country is falling apart under Obama’s reign. Union-loving teachers, left-wing reporters and liberal politicians (who, let’s face it, get more time on TV to push their agenda) manipulate messages in order to prey on the emotions of our children, rarely tempering these messages or images with logic or data that might provide balance.

As a result, children grow up unable to identify logical fallacies when they see them (trust me, I teach this concept in freshman composition classes), so they become adults who have been hard-wired as unable to think and reason for themselves. They can’t solve their own problems, so they become dependent on government to solve the problems for them. These moochers end up voting for Democrats exclusively, because that’s the party that will keep their entitlement checks coming. Do you see the payoff?

One can’t help but think of Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, which speaks of a future America where books are entirely forbidden and any worthwhile conversation or thought is replaced by talking “walls” in a person’s home. These walls are essentially movie theater-sized screens that surround a room, broadcasting nonstop coverage of a soap opera-esque reality TV show. The highest level of engagement one can hope for is being awarded a line of scripted dialogue in the show, which is spoken from the home, directly to the walls. There is no interaction or exchange of ideas.

If we don’t change the course of education, media, and communication in our homes, we are at risk of living out this Bradburian dystopic nightmare. As parents, we must fight vigilantly against the effort to dumb down our children, or we will fall victim to the VLWC that Mitt Romney recently spoke of. We must identify sources that don’t filter real issues or dilute them with Hollywood or sports gossip and make those informative sources daily reading for the whole family. Then, we should do what effective educators do, lead our children to reflect on the issues and discuss them – maybe over dinner or on a walk through the park (yes, a social environment). Through this exercise, we can teach them how to discuss their views freely while still being cognizant of the fact that others might disagree.

The civic education of our children isn’t the responsibility of the government – and they wouldn’t do the job correctly anyway – the duty lies with us, our children’s parents. As we head into election – and mock election season – we need to remember that even though the “votes” of our children don’t technically count yet, their informed opinions do, and that’s the first lesson we need to teach them.

Mike Wallace's star on the Walk of Fame

The journalism establishment exemplified, by the MSM (mainstream media), does not believe in American exceptionalism. That’s reserved for the rubes in flyover country. Their admiration is reserved for themselves and the lofty position the “4^th Estate” holds in contemporary society. What’s more, members do not respond positively when anyone questions this self–assessment.

An interesting tidbit buried deep in the Associated Press obituary for television journalist Mike Wallace proves this is not a recent phenomenon. Over 26 years ago Wallace and CBS were jointly sued for libel by retired Gen. William C. Westmorland after the broadcast of a documentary entitled “The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception.”

The program alleged that Westmoreland deceived President Lyndon Johnson and the American public by orchestrating a conspiracy that fraudulently underestimated the size of the North Vietnamese Army.

According to Wallace and CBS, Westmoreland arbitrarily established a maximum estimate of 300,000 NVA troops and during the infiltration prior to the Tet Offensive; he discounted the number of soldiers (estimated as high as 20,000 per month) who were coming south in preparation for the attack.

The goal was to convince the public that progress toward victory was being made and shore up support for continuation of the war.

It was a devastating portrayal of command deception at the expense of the lives of American soldiers in the field. Westmoreland sued in an effort to restore his reputation.

But that’s not the interesting part.

During his career on 60 Minutes Wallace popularized the “ambush interview” where unsuspecting targets were surprised by Wallace and his video crew. The confrontation would occur without warning. Wallace would pepper the totally unprepared victim with questions while the crew taped the interviewee’s obvious discomfort and shock.

What’s interesting is that during the libel trial Wallace found himself the target of questions and accusations regarding his work. Instead of “Mike Wallace crusading investigative journalist,” he was characterized as a liar and unscrupulous propagandist.

For the first time in his life, Wallace was subject to the same kind of unrelenting pressure, accusation and vilification to which he routinely subjected his interview subjects.

And when the kitchen got hot, Wallace couldn’t take the heat.

At the conclusion of the trial he was hospitalized for over a week with “depression.” Or in his words, bringing irony to an entirely new level, “Imagine sitting day after day in the courtroom, hearing yourself called every vile name imaginable.”

Yes, do tell.

For Wallace and the MSM, Westmoreland should not have been surprised when he was targeted. And the same went for businessmen, bankers, conservatives, Republicans and all the rest of the usually suspect bad guys. Benefit of the doubt did not exist for those outside of the media’s list of approved occupations, causes and thought processes.

When the camera’s red light came on you were guilty. But a reporter being criticized in the same way he filleted his victims was simply unheard of in 1985.

So Wallace was completely unprepared when the situation was reversed. I suppose in different circumstances Wallace could have asked Westmoreland what he did to recover his equilibrium after being called a liar on nationwide TV.

Today the MSM still believes it is an exception to the rules governing the rest of us. Recurring controversies surrounding civilian police review boards prove my point. It’s a given that reporters and editorial page writers strongly favor these kangaroo courts where individuals with zero background in law enforcement — and who are often actively hostile to the police — sit in leisurely judgment of working cops who have to make life or death decisions in fractions of seconds.

Internal police investigations are not good enough. The MSM demands an independent body to oversee law enforcement. But on the other hand when there are calls for an outside organization to evaluate bias and unfair coverage on the part of monopoly newspapers or TV stations, outsiders suddenly become unqualified to evaluate the decisions of reporters made on deadline and in fast moving circumstances. Why, it would be like asking Gen. Westmoreland to approve the news!

Journalists assure us the public doesn’t have the background or experience to sit in judgment. Instead, the media offers the “Ombudsman” who just happens to be an employee. Somehow this internal investigation passes muster, while the police internal investigation is hopelessly tainted.

The MSM knows what’s good for the public and your job is to shut up and read it. Just ask George Zimmerman if you disagree.

Ann Curry, one of the Today Show’s set of shiny teeth, said after Wallace died, “Tough questions are being asked in heaven today.” Which is certainly true, but once again Wallace won’t be the one doing the asking.

As a bit of a thought experiment, Ai logged into the radio show first, and THEN sent out a tweet asking if anyone would like to host/cohost a show right there on the spot.  Several (two) people responded, and Twitter’s @BryTupper ended up with the spot.

Bryan and Ai talked about many topics, but the least train wreck(y) ones happened to involve: The Trayvon Martin case, Barack Obama’s flexibility with Vladimir Putin, and how the media abuses our trust in order to release “breaking news” “first”.

Please enjoy Bryan and Ai’s attempt to take over the Mitchell and Ray Show.

Click Here for the iPad or iPhone version

[mp3player config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BryTupper-Calls-In.mp3]