Thankfully, in this case, other than the Saudi man that was questioned on the day of the bombing, there hasn’t really been a mass misreporting of a supposedly guilty party. While it might be nice to think that the media learned a lesson in Connecticut, the more likely reason for this is that there simply hasn’t been a great deal of information being leaked by law enforcement this time around. Maybe they were the ones that learned?

Regardless, there have been little rumblings about the potential involvement of the hacker collective Anonymous. That in itself isn’t surprising, given their track history of injecting themselves into various headlines (think the Steubenville rape story, for example.) And how could the Guy Fawkes wearing, voice modulating crew resist the opportunity to release yet another veiled-threat video?

And what about the folks that were supposedly blaming Anonymous in the first place? Were they bloggers, or press, or what? Well, it seems we’ve got a fledgling group – Your Rights Vigilante – out there that appears to be casting itself as a vigilante anti-Anonymous group. As if the hackers weren’t disturbing enough, now we’ll have to keep an eye on yet another group like it.

In case anyone’s wondering, that’s how conspiracy theories are born, bred, and sent around the internet to fuel a myriad of insane blog posts. As for this vigilante group, perhaps they won’t manage to get a decent following (which would be a good thing), or if they do, the whole “war against Anonymous” thing will play out in at least an amusing fashion. As for the public in general, it can only be hoped that they view this like putting a couple cobras in a pen together – let them fight it out, see which one survives, and then let the mongoose in to turn the victor into dinner.

It’s  dangerous for vulnerable women to carry guns, especially if there are rapists in the vicinity!  Frightened women might prevent rapes from happening by shooting rapists, and then where will society be!

Women only need rape whistles to fight off rapists!

The above statement is not hyperbole, it’s the ludicrous thinking of the Left, who claim to champion women’s rights but do not want women protecting themselves against violent attackers, who, more often than not, don’t stop at rape but end the violent crime with bloodshed.

If however, you survive rape and have the nerve to complain that a gun would have stopped your attacker—had you been allowed to carry it on the college campus you attend— you will be attacked in a war against women by leftists who disgustingly assume the ONLY rights women should have to protect  their bodies must be limited ONLY to birth control and abortion.

Case in point: Gun-owning Colorado college student Amanda Collins was raped on the Colorado college campus she attends because the university has a “Gun Free Zone” policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms. Miss Collins’ gun was locked in her car when she was violently assaulted.  When the discussion of rape on campus was brought to a debate at the Colorado Legislature, Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar had the audacity to tell American women:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses, this is true. And universities have been faced with that situation for a long time, that’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles, because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at.

In that case, rape whistles are nothing more than Christmas bells for violent criminals: Every time you hear a rape whistle, another rapist gets his way!

As to Amanda Collins, she had a very good idea of whom she would be shooting: A rapist!

Rape whistles and call boxes did not save Amanda Collins from rape. Had Collins been allowed to carry her locked-in-a-car firearm on campus, she certainly would have had all odds in her favor to ward off the violent attack she must live with for the rest of her life.

Salazar went on to tell women:

And you [women with guns] don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or you feel like someone’s been following you around, or that you feel like you’re in trouble, or when you may actually not be, but you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody…

In other words, women do not have rights to assume that a strange man following them is a rapist or murderer. Also, we women are idiots whenever we claim we are being followed by a stranger or stalked by a crazy ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.

Ladies, it’s simply our over-active female minds telling us violent men exist and seek to physically harm women despite overwhelming rape statistics.

We over-sensitive women should follow Ebony’s  Zerlina Maxwell’s  advice–train rapist to stop raping:

I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there…If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.

Give me a break! The best way to train rapists not to rape is women with firearms.

Of course we women have no right to pull guns on strange men following us, demanding they get the hell away when trying to grab us and push us into cars or drag us into a dark allies to rape us and possibly end that violent crime with murder. No, we must ask thugs: “Would you please hold off your attack for one moment while I retrieve my rape whistle from my purse?”

Perhaps we women should ask the rapist/murder to hold our purses while we retrieve the cell phone to dial 9-11. Hey, I’m sure some rapists are happy to accommodate before the violent act.

As to Salazar’s bogus claims about gun safety, economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime  John Lott writes that U.S. states with conceal and carry laws have had

[L]arge drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

Leftists could care less about facts; they are more concerned with distorting the truth in order to protect violent criminals against victims.

What is disgusting about this entire women and guns debate is Democrats are the instigators of the “War on Women.” Democrats insist women are not treated equally, they insist women are victims of a male-dominated society, yet Democrats do not want women fighting off violent men.

More proof: A female Democrat further violated Amanda Collins by claiming her gun never would have stopped the rapist and she is better off for having her firearm locked in her car.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins, a skilled martial artist who could not overpower the large brute with her physical skills that:

Statistics are not on your side even if you had had a gun…And chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly uses it against you

A shocked Collins responded to the female legislator saying:

Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying a gun, he wouldn’t have known that I had my weapon. I know without a doubt in my mind, at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.

Progressives scream “War on Women” when it comes to birth control not being doled out freely to every woman, yet these government programers don’t want women owning guns, shooting rapists and would-be murderers, and preventing crimes against women.

Rapists have waged war on women for thousands of years, but American Leftists are in fact defending rapists when they tell women that guns won’t protect women, rape whistles will.

Hudak and Salazar’s heartless answers are typical of the anti-gun fascists. I’m surprised they didn’t tell Miss Collins the best thing we women can do is to make sure we receive free birth control, that way if we are raped, we won’t get pregnant after rapists physically and mentally ravage our lives.

When:  7pm on the West Coast / 10pm on the East Coast

Where: BlogTalkRadio.com

Indiana GOP Candidate for US Senate Richard Mourdock

.

Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate who ousted longtime incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar in the primaries, made a startling statement during a candidate debate Tuesday night during a question about abortion.

.

.

This post will be updated as this story develops.

__

YouTube Description:

Muslim male rapes a 2 year old Christian Pakistani girl because her father refused to convert to Islam

Do you believe these people?  I wonder what they have in store for November 17th?

Nearly nine months later Hasselbeck took the opportunity of Maher’s appearance to confront him about his “joke” and scold him for such a distasteful display.  Of course Maher met her protests with the appropriate N.O.W-approved amount of condescension and dismissal.  He old Hasselbeck it was a “joke” , that he is a “comedian” and it was “funny”. Basically, get over it!  Today on my local L.A. morning news entertainment reporter Sam Rubin  accused Hasselbeck of being overly sensitive and ridiculed her for carrying this issue for over nine months.  He suggested she was shrill and  humorless for still being concerned about the comment after all this time.

Whatever one may think of the timing, Hasselbeck has a point and it should be taken seriously by women and everyone who loves women.  I concur with the sentiment that comedians say offensive things and should be excluded from certain standards of decency when they are performing.  However, Maher is not a comedian.  Maher is a political commentator who tries to be “funny”.  He cloaks himself in the mantle of comedy to avoid criticism.  But let’s be honest, Bill.  You are not a comedian anymore than I am a journalist.  We can both claim those labels to protect ourselves to some extent, but in the end we have to admit that what we do is political opinion.  You made a rape “joke”…and that’s what it was – a RAPE joke. The “funny” was in the idea that perhaps we could send Hasselback over to Egypt to be treated as Logan had, and let us not forget Logan was gang raped, raped by foreign objects, beaten and left for dead.

Maybe Hasselbeck should have been able to let that go.  Maybe she would have done better to chalk it up to typical liberal double standards and move on with her life.  But maybe Hasselbeck was truly offended by the comment, as a woman.  Perhaps she has been waiting for an opportunity to confront Maher personally about his horrible comments and this was her first chance, nine months later.  She is a young mother and wife and it does not seem unreasonable that she would take offense to a “comedian” making a “joke” about her possible rape and beating.  For goodness sake, director Bret Ratner was forced to quit  the Oscars for using the word “fag” in his latest movie, but a woman upset about rape jokes is just being unreasonable?  I don’t accept that.  I applaud Hasselback for taking the opportunity to stand up for herself, even if the timing was off.  Her larger and more important point was that if you put yourself out there as a public figure in the political sphere (entertainment, government or otherwise) then you should be accountable for the things you say.  This is a standard the liberal media set up long ago.  They accuse Republicans and conservatives as being humorless and stuffy and yet disparage every righty “joke” and “satire” as irresponsible, disturbing and uncalled for.  Its been years and fascist liberals everywhere still bring up Rush’s  Barack the Magic Negro  (first written by a  liberal BLACK L.A. Times writer).   As far as I’m concerned Hasselback was only playing by the rules Bill Maher and those of his ilk set up.  Its too late to change those rules.  We conservatives have taken the high road for too long now and it has cost us ownership of pop culture, and maybe even our country as we know it. However, we can play by the rules that have been set up.  Hasselbeck did just that.  Would I have said what she said differently?  Yes, but I refuse to ridicule the woman for standing up for herself.  Rape is almost the worst thing one human being can do to another.  It encompasses so many forms of evil, so much hatred.  Its purpose is to humiliate and de-humanize.  Perhaps Maher’s “joke” would have been more acceptable in a stand up routine at a comedy club, but as political commentator (and that’s all you are Bill, so quit frontin’!) it was cruel, partisan and completely sexist.  It’s no surprise that a man who dates strippers and girls that comfortably go by the name “Superhead” is a chauvinistic pig, but why should  a woman who calls him out on that be labeled a whiner?  I’m no fan of “The View”, or even Hasselback, but she deserves a bit more respect for jumping on the opportunity to confront sexism when she sees it.  So what if its nine months later?  There is no statute of limitations on ignorant fake comedians.

Sharon Bialek, hailing from Chicago (red flag), came out Monday accusing Presidential hopeful Herman Cain of what she calls “inappropriate sexual advances” during a meeting in 1997. Bialek claims that Cain put his hand on her leg, attempted to slide it up to her nether region and then attempted to force her head toward his “crotch” with his other hand.  Cain has vehemently denied the charges.

But that’s where it ends, at least as far as Bialek and Allred…. Or does it?

Allred, at the presser, said that there will be no formal charges or complaints filed.  Bialek has stated repeatedly that she is not in it for the money; she lists her profession for the past several years as a “stay at home, single mother.”  Reports quickly circulated that she had been involved legally with David Axelrod in a proceeding in 2009 in Chicago.  As it turns out, it is true that her attorney was David Axelrod, just not the same Axelrod as the President’s senior advisor (yes, that means there are two of them; please resume work on your secret underground shelters).

Different from the accusation of harassment levied at Cain for the past two weeks from anonymous sources, this one has a face and a name.  Rather than being gummed to death, this accusation against Cain has teeth.  However, what may have been the thing that caused the biggest visceral reaction from the right was, not the client, but the lawyer.

Gloria Allred, a person who strikes fear in the hearts of ambulances around the country, probably garnered more attention at first than the fact that there was a real person, with fingerprints and everything, making an accusation against Herman Cain.  The unlikely GOP candidate turned frontrunner has survived several hard jabs since his meteoric rise to the top of the polls, but this is an unobstructed blow to the gut.  The political pundits are predicting that Cain’s campaign will crumple to the canvas, but he may very well have a secret advocate in his corner – the opposing counsel!!

It could be that the site of Gloria Allred creates such a “GERD-like” reaction in the tummy’s of conservatives, that they could respond in a way contrary to Allred hopes; especially after her jab that Cain was providing his own version of a “stimulus.”  It was good for a momentary laugh from the press, but in the long run, it could be the catalyst for a massive rallying of the troops around Cain.

It is ironic that the retaining of a high profile lawyer may actually serve as a detriment to Bialek’s cause, rather than an aid.  Bialek may want to check the contract for a money back guarantee.  Allred’s purpose is yet unclear with no further actions plan, except for a quick joyride on the media circuit.  Perhaps Allred is experiencing the “Jesse Jackson” effect – he becomes irrelevant when racism does not exist.

Allred’s track record of defending the “innocent” against the man (and I do mean that literally) apparently didn’t make a stop in Juanita Broaddrick’s town.  Broaddrick supposedly sought her counsel in 1997, claiming that sitting President Clinton had actually “raped” her back in 1978.  Perhaps her own statute of limitations is somewhere between 14 and 19 years; Allred refused to represent Broaddrick.

Time of course will write the last chapter – does this end Cain’s run for the top office in the land or does it upgrade his armor to Teflon with an increase in support?  We will know by Thanksgiving if Cain’s turkey is pardoned.

Well, it turns out that Biden’s camp is so upset about it that they’ve asked for Jason Mattera to be investigated to see if he broke any rules in capturing the Vice President off guard.  It kind of makes me think of the “pay to play” policy that this administration has been accused of, only in reverse.  You see, if you get on the Obama administration’s good side, then nice things can happen for you, but if you get on their bad side, then they (seem to) seek punishment or retribution.  This does not bode well, my friends.

Hat tip to Red State for bringing this story to my attention on Twitter. (and subsequently, their website)

What do you guys think?  Do you think the reporter had it coming?  Or is it a sign of bad things when confronting a politician can get you in trouble like this?  I know that some anchors on CNN had very harsh words for Jason Mattera “deceiving” the Vice President.  What’s your take?

Let us know in the comments below or on Facebook or on Twitter.