Wednesday, May 23, 2012

RANDOM SHOTS! Liberal Media Bias, Obama related to Elvis and Wild Bill Hickok, and More!


Liberal Bias just keeps going and going!

There is no end to the different ways that the Liberal Media, Newspapers, Television, Hollywood, can demonstrate their complete lack of conscience.

This time the ultra-Liberal Washington Post is attacking s Mitt Romney Over 1800s Mormon Massacre. That's right, they are literally trying to link something that happened over 150 years ago to Mitt Romney and his faith today.

That would be the equivalent of linking Barack Obama to the African Chiefs in a Kenyan village who sold his own people as Slaves to the Europeans slave-traders and Muslims sheiks who would buy them.

Connecting Romney to a Mormon Massacre in 1857 is like connecting Obama to the African tribes at war with one another traded their prisoners of war for goods with the Europeans. This was also done with Arabs and had been for many centuries. And yes, whites were slaves too.

But that doesn't seem to bother those who want the so-called Fairness Doctrine to apply to Conservatives but not themselves.

On article lately explained that it has become a recognized double standard for the liberal news media to go to extraordinary lengths to bring out the worst in Republicans, while Democratic indiscretions are often overlooked or covered up.

When a story broke that there were Rev Jeremiah Wright audio tapes of him admitting that he may have been offered a bribe by an Obama associate to stay quiet until after the 2008 election - the liberal media shut it down immediately.

The opposite took place when a new article about Mitt Romney "allegedly" giving an "alleged" haircut to an "alleged" someone who "may have been" an "alleged" homosexual nearly fifty years ago - the liberal news took off with the story.

Now that it has become obvious that the Washington Post is not content to go back 50 years to find some sort of "dirt" on Romney - now, yes, they're not stopping with just his own lifetime to attack him.

How about digging up dirt on Romney from his involvement in a Massacre that took place in 1857?

No kidding, they are so desperate that they are actually trying to link Mitt Romney to something that happened before his grandfather was born.

Sure, as everyone can see it's an attack on Romney, but it's more of an attack on Mormons specifically.

So ask yourself, does this fit any Journalism Code of Ethics of any sort.

The reason I say "of any sort" is because that while various existing Journalism Codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of - truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

Ask yourself if "objectivity, impartiality, fairness" exist in the following Washington Post story which sets out to do nothing but attack Mitt Romney over his faith?

In an article titled "Mitt Romney’s Faith Tangles With a Quirk of Arkansas History," the ultra-left Washington Post writes:

On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train…“The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.” [Emphasis added]

The Post then concedes that, when polled, the majority of Republicans say Mitt Romney’s faith is not a reason either to either support or oppose him, before continuing:

In northwestern Arkansas, at least two monuments commemorate the massacre, including a towering wooden cross erected just six years ago. On it is carved a biblical saying: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord.”

“It’s an emotional thing for us,” said Phil Bolinger, president of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation. “When you come of age, when you mature, things to do with your own blood kin becomes more important and you become passionate about it.”

In conclusion, to draw as much of a distinction between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as possible, presumably, the Post writes:

In another quirk of history, both of the main presidential candidates have ties to this region. Parley Pratt, an ancestor of Romney’s and an esteemed figure in the Mormon Church, was murdered in Arkansas shortly before the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Historians have speculated that anger over this killing may have played a part in the massacre.

And in a cemetery nearby is buried Nathaniel Bunch, an ancestor of Obama’s, according to local genealogists, who say Bunch was a contemporary of the wagon train emigrants. [Emphasis added]

So essentially, while Barack Obama is being called "the first gay president" because he endorsed gay marriage, "the first Amish president" because he doesn’t like Twitter, the first Socialist president because he prefers Socialism and Communism over Democracy, the first racist president because according to his own book he identifies himself with a black hatred for white Americans, then the liberal media is trying to say that Mitt Romney is to be associated with murderers - or even terrorists if you caught the "first 9/11" reference above who lived roughly two hundred years ago.

But that OK, you see it's really too bad for the liberal news media like the Post because almost no one is reading their paper or listening to what they have to say these days.

They have made it very plain to people that they are no objective in the least bit these days. They openly support one candidate over the other, they openly endorse the liberal Socialist ideology, they have essentially said that they don't give a damn who knows where they stand - they are not impartial and they see no reason to be ashamed of that.

They are foolishly going about doing this because those in control of the liberal newspapers and liberal television news organizations like NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are very open about their own liberal political persuasion - and they see no reason to hide the fact that have an agenda.

The thing that those in charge really don't understand? Well, it's America. Most folks in America are brought up to understand that things have rules to ensure fairness to ensure that the powerful don't step over the line.

The liberal bosses in the news media don't understand that most people out there can see through their attempt to attack a Republican candidate for president, even when it means making the stretch to connect a man with something that happened over 150 yers ago.

Liberals don't seem to understand Americans at all really. And the heads of the liberal media doesn't seem to understand is that Americans are brought up understanding that there are "the rules of the game." Americans understand that in every game, baseball, football, tennis, poker, there are the rules of the game.

And even if there are no rules, Americans know the difference between right and wrong.

maybe that why Americans hate cheaters, those who break the rules to win, those who will do anything to screw the next guy to win.

In baseball, most fans know that allowing someone to essentially spear a catcher is ridiculous. Yes, there are no rules against it - but that doesn't make it right.

Last year, I watched such an event. It was when the San Francisco Giants played the Florida Marlins.

With one out in the top of the 12th, Emilio Bonifacio put a fly ball into right field. Marlins runner Scott Cousins collided into Giants catcher Buster Posey. Posey was on his knees and his legs bent awkwardly, resulting in torn ankle ligaments and a broken fibula.

Brian Posey, who was trying to make the tag on a throw from Schierholtz. Posey couldn't corral the ball as Cousins bowled him over. Posey anchored himself by planting his left knee, causing him to awkwardly turn his ankle underneath him as Cousins plowed into him.

Posey remained on the ground for several minutes before being helped off the field by athletic trainers, putting no weight on his left leg. Manager Bruce Bochy, a former catcher, indicated that the sight sickened him.

"As a catcher, you know what it's like," Bochy said. "You don't like it, either, believe me. When you're trying to catch a ball, you're the only guy who players can run into. When I see him laying there, it's not a good feeling for me, or certainly not for him or his teammates or anybody."

While Brian Posey withered on the ground in pain from torn ankle ligaments and a broken fibula, Scott Cousins got up and walked away mostly unscathed.

I'm sure there were others who watched what happened, and like me just couldn't believe that someone would do something like that even though it wasn't against the rules.

Maybe that's way we have rules? Maybe that's why we have referees and umpires and policemen and judges and laws? Maybe it's the fact that most Americans respect the rules of the game?

By digging up dirt on on candidate while giving another a pass goes against the whole concept of right and wrong, of fair and not, and reeks of favoritism and dishonestly. It tells me that I can never trust that person to do something right and good when I know in my heart that they are not above doing the wrong thing - just because there's no rule that says they shouldn't.

I would never put it pass some ball players to spear a catcher, most write it off to playing "hard" and trying to beat the other guy. Even if its wrong to do it, it's within the rules. Yes, it might not be against the rules - but everyone can see it's wrong. Americans are not blind as to what's right and wrong.

In the past at least Journalists wore the mask of being impartial. They were gave the appearance of being sort of like the referee, the umpire, or the judge dressed impartially to take no side. But that seems so long ago, today they take sides as a matter of standard operating procedure.

And yes, that is wrong because today they are no different than the old Soviet Union's state run newspaper Pravda that would simply print what they were told by the Communist Party. Today in America, other than FOX News, most news organization simply report what they are told to by the Democrat Party.

That's how I see the Journalists in America today. They have no conscience, and they're very open about their bias and their political affiliations, their favoritisms. It's because of that that I can't believe what they report these days.

They are not to be trusted because even though there is no law against what they are doing, it is wrong to do it and pretend that you're not.

I find it interesting that The Society of Professional Journalists which is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty has a preamble that states:

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."

So why can't the liberal media adhere to even those modest standards? It's because today's media is corrupt and refuses to adhere to any standard of ethics. It appears to me that today's liberal media sees ethics as a hindrance to their serving the Democrat Party and the liberal Socialist ideology. 


Slave Trade Shackles
 Still No Apology From Africans For Selling Others Africans As Slaves

Back in 2009, the Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria had written to African tribal chiefs saying, "We cannot continue to blame the white men, yet Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."

Traditional African rulers whose ancestors collaborated with European and Arab slave traders should follow Britain and the United States by publicly saying sorry, according to Human Rights Organisations.

Their appeal for an apology reopened a sensitive debate over the part that African chiefs played in helping to capture their fellow Africans and sell them into bondage as part of the slave trade during the time.

The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has argued that the ancestors of the Chiefs had helped to raid and kidnap defenseless communities and traded them to Europeans and Muslims. They should now apologize to "put a final seal to the history of slave trade", it said.

"In view of the fact that the Americans and Europe have accepted the cruelty of their roles and have forcefully apologised, it would be logical, reasonable and humbling if African traditional rulers ... [can] accept blame and formally apologise to the descendants of the victims of their collaborative and exploitative slave trade."

African Blacks Were Themselves Slave-Traders. African Blacks Sold Their Own People Into Slavery By The Millions

Estimates vary that between 10 Million and 28 Million Africans were sold into Slavery by other Africans between 1450 and the early 19th century.

More than a million are believed to have died in transit across the so-called "middle passage" of the Atlantic due to inhumane conditions aboard slave ships and the brutal crushing of any resistance.

Shehu Sani, head of the congress, said it was calling for traditional rulers to apologise now because they were seeking inclusion in a forthcoming constitutional amendment in Nigeria.

"We felt that for them to have the moral standing to be part of our constitutional arrangement there are some historical issues for them to address," he told the BBC World Service. "One part of which is the involvement of their institutions in the slave trade."

He said that on behalf of the buyers of slaves, the ancestors of the traditional rulers "raided communities and kidnapped people, shipping them away across the Sahara or across the Atlantic".

Many slaves captured inland in Africa died on the long journey to the coast.

The non-government organisation Africa Human Right Heritage, based in Accra, Ghana, supports the campaign for an apology. Baffour Anning, its chief executive, said: "I certainly agree with the Nigeria Civil Rights Congress that the traditional leaders should render an apology for their role in the inhuman slavery administration." He said it would accord with the UN's position on human rights.

But the issue was not a high priority for most African citizens, according to Bonsu. "In my experience it's mainly the African diaspora who want an apology. People aren't milling around Lagos or Accra moaning about why Chiefs don't apologise. They are more concerned about the everyday and why they still have bad governance."

Fred Swaniker, the founder of the African Leadership Academy, said: "I'm not sure whether an apology is needed, but it would be worth looking at and acknowledging the role Africa did play in the slave trade. Someone had to find the slaves and bring them before the Europeans."

The shameful history of some traditional leaders remains an awkward subject on which many politicians prefer to maintain silence.

One exception was in 1998 when Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, told an audience that included Bill Clinton, "African Chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."

And by the way, that was in 2009, no apology has yet come in!


It's true, Obama is related to Elvis, Wild Bill Hickok, Charles Goodnight, and even George W. Bush!

Some of Obama's more famous distant  relations are interesting considering his genealogical relationship Elvis and others.

According to genealogists, listed on Wikipedia's Family of Barack Obama.

Per that website: "Barack Obama's distant cousins include the multitude of descendants of his maternal ancestors from all along the early-American Atlantic seaboard as well as paternal, Kenyan relations belonging to the Luo tribe, many descending from a 17th century ancestor named Owiny.

For example, George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. president, is the eleventh cousin of Barack Obama.

But Obama's family tree doesn't stop there!

According to William Reitwiesner, John McCain is 22nd cousin 2 times removed. According to Ancestors of Barack Hussein Obama: 50 Generations by Lorina Boliq, Senator McCain is also Obama's 24th cousin 6 times removed.

James Butler Wild Bill Hickok is Obama's sixth cousin. That's right! According to Barack Obama's family lore (and confirmed by the New England Historic Genealogical Society), the President and Hickok are sixth cousins, six-times removed. 

Goodnight helped inspire Pulitzer Prize-winning author Larry McMurtry to create a protagonist for his novel series Lonesome Dove: Woodrow Call. In Dove's television novela, Woodrow Call's partner is Gus McCrae, portrayed by Obama's eighth cousin, twice removed, actor Robert Duvall.

It is claimed that Obama may also be distantly related to U.S. Presidents James Madison, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Civil War General Robert E. Lee, and actor Brad Pitt. 

And yes, Boliq's research additionally indicates that Elvis Presley is Obama's 21st cousin 3 times removed.

According to Chicago Sun-Times reporter Scott Fornek, another Obama progenitor, Catherine Goodnight, was the grandniece of George Goodnight, who was in turn great-grandfather of famed cattleman Charles Goodnight.

So yup, Obama supporters out there say that he's related to the famed Charles Goodnight - believe it or not!

Since actor Robert Duvall is a distant cousin with United States President Harry Truman, who is likewise a fourth cousin, four times removed, of Obama's. Then Obama is also related to Harry S. Truman .
Obama is related to include painter Georgia O'Keeffe.

And let's not forget his Irish roots. It's OK to say "roots" in this case.

Moneygall, Ireland, resident Henry Healy is Barack Obama's eighth cousin, and became known for having initiated a visit by the U.S. president in May 2011 to Healy's hometown.

So if you really want to celebrate your family history, or go out and burn some of those old family papers, it's all up to you - because you just never know - you just might be related to the worst President in United States History as well.

You just never know, it sounds like his father got around a lot!

The picture above is from July 20th, 2009, Barack Obama President Barack Obama looks at a genealogy chart in the Oval Office with (from left) Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, Joshua DuBois, Thomas S. Monson, and Dallin H. Oaks. This compilation of Obama's genealogy information was a gift of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - yes, the Mormons.


Homeland Security versus Obama Administration On Changes To Weapons Rules

U.S. Homeland Security and law-enforcement agencies have objected to Obama administration proposals to relax export restrictions on weapons now subject to strict export regulations.
The agencies, in internal memos viewed by The Wall Street Journal, warn the changes could help arm drug cartels and terrorists and make it harder for the U.S. to crack down on gun-trafficking.

The arms proposal is part of a broader overhaul of U.S. export rules sought by Obama, with the goal of helping domestic manufacturers compete in global markets, as well as improving U.S. national security by focusing controls on higher-risk items and enhancing the capabilities of allies.

Obama's policy includes bilateral free-trade agreements and a plan to reorganize government agencies that promote trade.

The proposed changes to weapons now subject to strict export regulation would cover a range of goods from firearms to drones, satellites and tanks, as well as civilian equipment with military uses. Foreign sales of all U.S.-made weapons topped $34 billion last year, according to the Pentagon. That doesn't include such restricted items as high-performance computers and electronics.

Industry officials said the relaxation of export controls could help domestic arms makers and other firms boost sales by tens of billions of dollars.


Comic Books has First Gay Wedding

Marvel X-Man Comics has its first gay wedding. Marvel's Northstar - aka Jean-Paul Beaubier - will marry his "partner" Kyle Jinadu.

Gay characters are not new in comic book story-lines. According to the news article today, the character Northstar revealed he was gay in 1992.

In 2010 the long-running Archie Comics series debuted its first openly gay character. And DC Comics, which has one gay character, has announced that one of its other marquee super heroes would soon come out of the closet.

But which DC character is "coming out"? That seems to be a big concern among today's readers of gay comic books. Who really knows when it comes to the liberal fantasy world of gay comic books!

Of course, none of this is a surprise. For many years, a lot of people have thought that many of today's comics were Gay!


Native American Women Seek Protections from Abuse

Diane Millich's ex-husband was never arrested for any of the more than 100 times he slapped, kicked or punched her before showing up at her Colorado workplace and firing a 9 mm pistol, wounding the co-worker who pushed her out of the way.

When he was finally arrested in New Mexico weeks after the shooting, he was treated as a first-time offender.

Why? Because while Millich is Native American, her ex-husband is not and all the domestic violence took place on the Southern Ute Reservation.

Believe it or not, under a 1978 Supreme Court decision, non-Indians cannot be prosecuted by tribal courts for crimes committed on tribal land.

Last July, the Justice Department recommended that Congress give tribes local authority to prosecute non-Indians in misdemeanor domestic and dating violence cases. The pending renewal of the Violence Against Women Act seemed a good chance to do that.

But the act has become entangled in election-year politics, with each party adding language on other issues that infuriates the other. Although the version the Senate passed 68-31 would follow the Justice Department recommendations and give tribes the power to prosecute non-Indians in tribal courts, the House so far has not.

The House could change its mind and add the provisions as soon as this week when it is expected to consider the bill.

The legislation grants defendants the right to counsel if they can't afford an attorney, an impartial jury that includes non-Indians and a right to appeal. Non-Indian defendants would have the same rights in tribal courts as they have in state courts, according to the Justice Department.

Millich said a change in the law certainly would have helped her deal with the abuse in her marriage, which began with slapping and pushing when she was a 24-year-old newlywed. After a year, Millich filed for divorce and sought a protective order, which her ex-husband mocked because he knew it would not be enforced.

"American Indian women do not have the same protections as non-Indian women. Federal law ... has a large gaping hole in it for abusers who are non-Indian," Millich, 49, said in a briefing for Capitol Hill staffers.

She said that tribal and county authorities routinely refused to arrest her ex-husband, whom she did not identify by name.

She told a story about how her husband called the County Sheriff himself just "to show me that no one could stop him." And yes, two Deputies came to their home and confirmed that they did not have jurisdiction to arrest him.

"I felt like I was walking on eggshells and knew inside that something terrible was going to happen ... After I fled he broke into the house, breaking windows, furniture and dishes. He cut the knuckles of his hands during the violence and smeared his blood over the walls, floor and my bedroom sheets," Millich said.

The day after destroying her home, Millich's ex-husband showed up at her Bureau of Land Management workplace with a gun. Although officials responded, he escaped and was at large for two weeks while she hid in a women's shelter, fearful he might find her, she said. Her ex-husband ultimately was offered, and took, a plea deal on an aggravated traffic offense.

"In the end, he was right in that he was above the law," she said.

A recent Census report found about 77 percent of people living on Native American and Alaska Native areas are non-Indian. About half of Native American women are married to non-Indians, according to the Justice Department.

Lisa Boothe, a spokeswoman for Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., herself a victim of domestic violence who wrote the House version of the Violence Against Women Act that excludes the tribal provisions, said laws already exist to deal with non-Indian domestic violence against native peoples that takes place on tribal land.

Although the federal government has authority to prosecute domestic violence involving non-Indians, the cases often are not priorities, said John Harte, who has been lobbying in support of the provisions on behalf of Native American tribes. He said that in 2007, the Salt River Pima, Arizona, tribal police responded to more than 400 acts of domestic violence, many involving non-tribe members.

That same year U.S. Attorneys prosecuted only 21 misdemeanor crimes on Indian lands across the country, Harte said.

I have to say that after reading this that I was very surprised that Diane Millich and other Native American women go through this. I really would have thought, that since there non-Indian husbands can't be prosecuted by the law - even on battery charges - that someone like a brother or an Uncle of some sort of group in the tribe could help protect them somehow.

I have two sisters, if either of them were to go through this sort of thing with some jerkweed - and that jerkweed thinks he would be above the law and assumed he'd get away with it - he'd definitely have to think again.

Where there is no formal law, there is still our responsibility to do right and protect those who need protection whether its ourself or our family - one way or another.

Story by Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.