The bogus Left’s “unarmed” narrative exposed

Katie Pavlich lays bare the manner in which the gun control cultists bastardize the term unarmed. You should read it all, here is bit to taste

Back in 2012, we heard about a similar case with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot dead by George Zimmerman after an altercation in a crime plagued Florida neighborhood. According to a police report, Zimmerman returned to his SUV after a phone call with police about a suspicious person in the neighborhood. When he returned, Martin allegedly approached him from behind, punched him in the nose when Zimmerman turned around, got him on the ground and started pounding his head into the concrete, an action that can quickly result in death due to brain injury. Zimmerman thought he was going to die and shot Martin in self-defense.

Eyewitnesses corroborated Zimmerman’s story and a jury came to the same unanimous conclusion, acquitting him of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges. A separate medical report showed Zimmerman sustained serious injuries from Martin including a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head.

In extensive media coverage, both of these young men are referred to over and over again as “unarmed” teenagers. The way the media uses the term “unarmed” implies there was no altercation that resulted in a fatal shooting. What the media fails to explain or recognize is that “unarmed” people, in these cases two men who weren’t carrying firearms, don’t have to be “armed” in order to cause serious damage to a person’s life or harm to those around them. 

This brought to mind a story I read a few weeks ago in the Dallas Morning News Metro section, It told of two “unarmed” men shot to death by Dallas police over the previous weekend. But, upon reading the article, I found that both men had knives, which they refused to drop, and one charged at police. So, apparently, the only way a criminal can be armed is to have a gun. This is what the Left does, they lie, and misuse words to sell those lies. Clearly someone with a knife is not unarmed are they? And clearly charging at a police officer with a knife in hand is a perfect way to get shot. People get that, unless they are sold the whole “unarmed” pack of lies!

*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: Helping The Pro-Obama Media Learn From The Past


.

.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: Ferguson And The Real Race War


.

.

Ed Schultz, as clueless as ever

Sargeant Schultz simply cannot understand why the “middle” of America rejects Obamaunism. RAAAAAACISTS!

MSNBC host Ed Schultz just can’t understand why all the proles in Middle America don’t like Obama after all of the awesome things he’s given them.

“Why is it in the middle of the country that President Obama has a problem?” he asked North Dakota radio host Joel Heitkamp on his show Tuesday. To no one’s surprise, he immediately added, “Is it race?”

“Look at the job numbers, look at the healthcare, look at the positive things that have happened, we came out of the greatest recession: Why doesn’t that play in the middle of the country?”

Is Ed really that stupid? I know, silly question

Predictably, Leftist Media Ignores Obama’s 60 Minutes Ratings Collapse – Down 69% In One Week

Media Ignores Obama’s 60 Minutes Ratings Collapse; Down 69% In A Week – Gateway Pundit

.

.
The sympathetic news media is avoiding mentioning his name, instead they are blaming the lack of a football intro for the massive collapse in ratings Sunday night for President Barack Obama’s appearance on CBS’ 60 Minutes. Americans turned away from watching Obama even though he was being interviewed about the nation’s new war on ISIS.

For example, Deadline Hollywood didn’t even mention Obama’s 60 Minutes interview when reporting on the drop in viewers.

“With no football lead-in, CBS’ Sunday lineup fell from last week. As expected, the drop was steepest at 7 PM, with 60 Minutes (1.1) off by 69% from last Sunday, when it directly followed the game.”

Also, Variety avoided mentioning Obama on 60 Minutes.

“At CBS, “60 Minutes” (1.1/4 in 18-49, 9.2 million viewers overall) dropped off sharply from last week when it had the end of the Denver-Seattle football game as a lead-in, and was also down about 20% from last year.”

The Los Angeles Times likewise did not name Obama.

“”60 Minutes” didn’t fare as well. With a rating of 1.1 in the key demo, the show was down 69% from last week’s season premiere. About 9.1 million people tuned in.”

Neither did Broadcasting and Cable:

“Newsmagazine 60 Minutes drew a 1.1, down sharply from last week, when it received a big lead-in from football overruns”

TV by the Numbers:

“On CBS, 60 Minutes scored a 1.1, down 69 percent from last week’ s NFL boosted 3.5 adults 18-49 rating.”

The Wrap:

“CBS took fourth place in ratings with a 1.3/4 and third in total viewers with 10.7 million. “60 Minutes” at 7 posted a 1.1/4 with 9.2 million total viewers, while the freshman drama “Madam Secretary” the following hour dropped off 30 percent from last week’s series premiere, posting a 1.4/4 with 12.7 million total viewers.”

Last week CBS sent out a press release bragging on 60 Minutes’ ratings, as reported by the Futon Critic.

There appears to be no reports of 60 Minutes bragging about the ratings for Obama’s 60 Minutes show.

A gold star goes to Hal Boedeker at the Orlando Sentinel for apparently being the only reporter to mentioned Obama in reporting on 60 Minutes’ ratings however he did not mention the huge ratings drop.

“And “60 Minutes” had 9.2 million for an interview with President Barack Obama.”

Change Obama to Bush and one can imagine how the media would have been reporting the 60 Minutes ratings collapse: Americans Tune out Bush as He Drags U.S. in Another War.

.

.

Do you have to be a knuckle-dragging moron to write for a New Jersey editorial board?

Apparently so. In this piece written by the New Jersey Editorial Board, the Collectivist writers call for the “only solution” to “gun violence”

Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won’t end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you’ll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide.

Note the scary statistic they use. Is it accurate, likely not, and if it is it is likely “cooked”. Note, they do not mention how you are more likely to be murdered you are, or even where. What if you have a gun at home but are stabbed, or beaten to death? That is not important, the gun still is to blame. The facts are not important to them. What IS important is that they can use this “scary stat”, that they probably got from some gun control group, and that they probably did not fact check, to demonize guns.

But let’s not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don’t have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates.

They don’t directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven’t overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That’s what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.

Ah yes, lets give the government the power to go door to door and take people’s guns away, that has worked SO WELL throughout history hasn’t it? And never mind that legally owned firearms stop hundreds of thousands of crimes annually. But the real stupidity, and absurdity comes at the end of this piece.

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.

Did they actually write that with straight faces. Are they actually telling us that MANDATORY gun buybacks will show us all how worrying about gun confiscation is silly? Perhaps they ought to buy a dictionary and have someone read the definition of MANDATORY to them? The government forcing you to surrender your guns is gun confiscation, yes, even if they pay you for those weapons. Again, that word MANDATORY is the key here. What these buffoons are calling for is disarming the people. Are they really that stupid? Or, are they just after taking the teeth out of our liberty? Bob Owens answers brilliantly

Almost entirely collectivist in nature, citizen control groups do not trust the individual, and instead trust the hive mind of government. They desire to end the Second Amendment because as an unknown soul correctly noted, “Firearms are liberty’s teeth.” An armed citizenry compliments an honest government and provides it with additional security, while it denies a corrupt government the monopoly of force needed to impose tyranny. One must wonder, then, why they take such interest in disarming the law-abiding citizenry when they know that criminals will not disarm.

The honest answer is that they are not looking to reduce crime.

They’re looking to reduce resistance.

As Professor R.J. Rummel noted in an introduction to his work , “…the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.”

Those who would strip individual liberties from you do so with the belief that they are stripping those power from you and transferring that power to themselves.

These citizen control cultists aren’t remotely non-violent.

They simply want to ensure that when they turn violent and use the forces of government against the people as has happened so often, so recently , that you have no way of stopping them.

You can either be a citizen, or a subject.

Choose wisely.

 

Holder’s DOJ Coordinated With Left-Wing Extremists At Media Matters To Attack Breitbart Reporter

Department Of Justice, Media Matters Coordinate To Attack Reporter – Daily Caller

.

.
Since when does the Department of Justice coordinate with an obviously liberal media organization to go after a conservative reporter? It’s official: At least since 2011.

In email exchanges obtained by The Daily Caller in two separate FOIA requests, a coordinated effort to slam Breitbart News reporter Matthew Boyle emerged. To be sure, Boyle is not a reporter who is beloved by other reporters and he’s been critiqued on any number of matters that include his youthful chipmunk cheeks, his previously questionable Twitter avatar and his TV skills. But his beat was DOJ and Eric Holder and shouldn’t a reporter be commended for going after an enterprising story or two on his beat?

Even Slate‘s Dave Weigel agreed with that sentiment. “I see Media Matters giving Holder a huzzah for calling the Caller out,” he wrote in November 2011. “But calling it out for what? Are news organizations not allowed to enterprise stories by asking people whether they think someone should resign? News organizations do this all the time. The Caller’s ‘sin’ seems to be doing it with no back-up from the rest of the press.”

And yet, all this media scheming from the Department of Justice.

As revealed in the FOIA docs, Media Matters Deputy Research Director Matt Gertz sent a post concerning the NRA’s growing contributions to Holder’s critics to DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, Holder’s top press flack who resigned in March, 2013. She replied, “Thanks, you know boyle has been doing robo calls to top members right? This is campaign mounted by daily caller. He has called 60 offices and gotten to 8 last week.” Gertz replied, “Yeah, that was what my original piece on the story was about.”

At the time of the exchange, Boyle worked for The Daily Caller.

Years later in February, 2013, Boyle wrote a story for Breitbart News about Schmaler’s “colluding” with “far left wing” Media Matters to attack him, lawmakers and other members of the media. Funny enough, Boyle attempted to seek comment from Schmaler on why she resigned. He wrote, “Schmaler has not answered when asked by Breitbart News whether her resignation has anything to do with the coming hearings on DOJ collusion with groups like Media Matters.”

Weirdly, it takes two years (or longer) for DOJ to respond to FOIA requests.

Further perplexing: TheDC FOIA’d the Justice Department for all mentions of Matthew Boyle in agency communications. The specific request was ”All records relating to and about Matthew Boyle.” Carmen Mallon, chief of staff for DOJ, replied in a formal letter saying that no such records existed despite the above exchange between Schmaler and Gertz.

“For your information, neither this Office nor any of these senior leadership offices of the Department typically maintain records on individuals,” she wrote. “As such, this office would not maintain the type of records you are seeking.

“However, in an effort to be of assistance, please be advised that a search has been conducted of the electronic database of the Departmental Executive Secretariat, which is the official records repository for the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General, and no records subject to FOIA were located. A search has also been conducted in the Office of Information Policy and no records subject to the FOIA were located.”

Gee, thanks Carmen. Except that the records concerning DOJ and Boyle were maintained, located and sent.

Please be advised. If you’re the DOJ and want to get some bad press out there on a reporter who may or may not be a thorn in your side, Media Matters is on speed dial.

DOJ-Media Matters Coordination

.

.

.

.

.