Attention CNN! It’s not McDonald’s fault that Safiyyah Cotton chose to have a baby out of wedlock. Plus, here’s a rare news article that actually mentions the concept of personal responsibility.
In this seven minute video, CNN talks about a single mother who is struggling to raise her child on the small salary that she earns at McDonald’s.
As is always the case with news articles from the mainstream media about struggling single mothers trying to raise their children, the article says absolutely nothing about the baby’s father.
The article doesn’t say that the father has a responsibility to provide for the baby that he chose to create.
The article doesn’t say that the mother has a responsibility to choose a responsible mate to make her baby with.
The article doesn’t say that if they got married, they would only have to pay rent for one apartment instead of two, and so things would be a lot easier.
The article doesn’t say anything about the mother ever having made any attempt to acquire better education and job skills as a way to get a bigger salary.
By comparison, this news article by Inside Edition fully understands the concept of personal responsibility. The article is called “Mom Cries On Dock As Cruise Ship Leaves With Her Kids Still On Board,” and includes the following brilliant quote, the kind of quote that is completely missing in the CNN article about the McDonald’s worker:
Travel expert Mark Murphy told IE: “It is the woman’s fault for not getting back on time. It is not the cruise ship’s fault. It is not the captain’s fault. It is not the cruise line’s fault. Everybody knows the posted time to get back and that ship is on a schedule, it is going to go.”
I absolutely love that quote. I praise Mr. Murphy for saying it. And I praise Inside Edition for including it in the article.
CNN, and all the other mainstream news organizations that write about struggling single mothers without ever mentioning the children’s fathers, should learn a lesson from Inside Edition about how to write a proper news story.
Dashcam video proves that journalism professor was lying when she said police stopped her for “walking while black”
I’d like to think that a journalism professor would be very much interested in telling the truth, and very much against lying.
However, that’s not always the case.
In October 2015, professor Dorothy Bland, the dean of the Frank W. and Sue Mayborn School of Journalism and the director for the Frank W. Mayborn Graduate Institute of Journalism at the University of North Texas, wrote this column for the Dallas Morning News, where she claimed that the police had stopped her for “walking while black.”
However, a dashcam recording (shown below) proved that the police stopped her because she had been walking in the street, in the same direction of traffic, and blocking traffic, all while wearing earbuds, even though there were sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The police expressed concern for her safety.
Since blocking traffic is a misdemeanor, they asked for her ID.
Since she was wearing a hoodie, long sleeves, and long pants, and the police approached her from behind, the police could not have known her race before they stopped her.
Corinth Police Chief Debra Walthall said the police in the video handled the situation so well that she would start using the video to train police about the importance of using their dashcams.
Please keep in mind that professor Bland is a journalism professor. She teaches journalism students, who then go on to become journalists, news writers, and news reporters. How many hundreds, or even thousands, of these journalists, news writers, and news reporters have been brainwashed by professor Bland’s insistence on seeing racism in situations where there actually is no racism? And then, how many thousands, or even millions, of readers and viewers of these journalists, news writers, and news reporters will go on to unknowingly and falsely believe that racism exists in situations where it actually does not exist?
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry criticized the New York Times because it actually had the nerve to publish a photograph of a person that it wrote an article about
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry criticized the New York Times because it actually had the nerve to publish a photograph of a person that it wrote an article about.
Can you imagine such an atrocity? A newspaper actually published a photograph to accompany one of its articles!
Has the New York Times no shame?
Harris-Perry: By Showing Malik in Hijab, NYT Suggesting ‘This Is What Terrorism Looks Like’
December 5, 2015
They would have used a photo of her in an NRA cap, but none was available . . . Man, it’s getting hard to navigate the nuanced shoals of political correctness. Now, even the ineffably sensitive New York Times has run afoul of the rules, as propounded by Melissa Harris-Perry. On her MSNBC show today, Harris-Perry griped that the Gray Lady had run a photo of Islamic terrorist killer Tafsheen Malik wearing a hijab. As per H-P, the Times was sending a message that “this is what terrorism looks like.”
Damn those anti-Muslim bigots of the New York Times! But seriously, what was the poor paper supposed to do? Should the Times have photoshopped the hijab off Malik? Harris-Perry might have complained that the paper was suggesting there was something offensive about the garment. Sometimes you just can’t win with the PC crowd.
I didn’t know until just now.
New Orleans playground shooting suspect has long rap sheet
November 27, 2015
New Orleans police were hunting Friday (Nov. 27) for Joseph “Moe” Allen, 32, the first suspect to be named in the Bunny Friend Park shooting that injured 17 people. And they are pleading for people who were at the Upper 9th Ward playground to come forward with information.
Despite the crowds at the park when the gunfire erupted Sunday evening, no one there had sent videos to police, Mayor Mitch Landrieu said. “And everyone knows there are lots,” he said.
“We need videos. We need photos. We need people to come forward,” police Superintendent Michael Harrison said.
Two groups of people turned their guns on each other, and police found as many as 70 bullet casings just the next morning. No shooters other than Allen have been identified by police.
“This is just the first shoe to drop,” Landrieu said. “We are going to do everything we can to make sure all the other shoes drop as well.”
The mayor warned that anyone harboring Allen also will be prosecuted. “All of us are going to work around the clock,” Harrison promised.
Allen, 32, faces 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office records show he is a convicted felon with a rap sheet dating from 2002. It includes home invasion, carjacking, illegal carrying of weapon and possession of cocaine and heroin.
At a Friday afternooon news conference, officials sidestepped several questions, including whether they had identified the musical group that was said to be recording a video at the park at the time of the shooting and whether Allen belonged to the gang family that includes the father of murdered 5-year-old Briana Allen.
However, Harrison did say Allen has ties to more than one group. Sheriff’s Office records show Allen was arrested in 2002 with Travis Scott, who recently pleaded guilty to a federal racketeering charge as the ringleader of the FnD gang, named for Frenchmen and Derbigny streets.
Harrison said all but one or two of the Bunny Friend Park victims were in “fair to good condition,” and no one’s wounds were life-threatening. “We are so glad that it wasn’t worse,” he said.
Snopes falsely says, “The Obama administration didn’t sue on behalf of Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol.”
In May 2013, the EEOC reported:
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs
Afterward, snopes reported:
The Obama administration didn’t sue on behalf of Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol.
The Brown Daily Herald, the newspaper of Ivy League college Brown University, recently apologized to Malia Obama for reports that she had been drinking alcohol while visiting their campus. The newspaper wrote:
Editorial: Sorry, Malia Obama
Both articles feature several tweets from Brown students excited about Malia’s visit. Some of the tweets include photographs of her that were clearly taken when she was not looking. Many of them mention her presence at a party, where she was seen taking shots and playing beer pong.
The newspaper apologized.
But it did not issue a correction.
Did the newspaper apologize for lying, or for telling the truth?
Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy states:
“All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”
Emails prove that the Obama administration pressured CBS News to stop airing reports by Sharyl Attkisson
On October 3, 2011, CBS News aired a story by Sharyl Attkisson which showed that Attorney General Eric Holder had lied under oath regarding Fast and Furious. Here is that report:
On October 4, 2011, Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, wrote the following in an email to White House Deputy Press Sectary Eric Schultz:
“I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”
“Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”
Extreme media bias: CNN reporter says she was “shocked” to find out there were black witnesses whose testimony backed Darren Wilson
On November 25, 2014, CNN reporter Ashleigh Banfield said:
“I was shocked at the corroborative witnesses that backed Officer Wilson’s story. I didn’t know there was as many as there were and I didn’t know they were African-American.”
For crying out loud – she is a reporter at cable’s first all news network! If she didn’t know this until now, how could the general population have known it?
No wonder why so many people think Michael Brown was “murdered.”
This proves that the mainstream media has failed to do its job in covering this news story.
Wikipedia’s article Presidency of Barack Obama has a section called “Transparency.” The section contains various claims by Obama about how supposedly transparent his administration is.
A crazy person who lives in my apartment building added some examples of Obama’s non-transparency to the section. However, the Obama supporters at Wikipedia erased them, and banned the account of the person who had added them.
MSNBC just published this article titled “Obama keeps promise to young men of color.”
The article states:
President Obama is expected to launch his most focused efforts to address the dire prospects of young men of color this week, a demographic far too often swept into cycles of poverty and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Obama will unveil details of a new initiative called “My Brother’s Keeper” on Thursday, which will draw on partnerships with foundations and businesses to target young men of color across the country with a range of opportunities and strategies to help bolster their lives.
The article includes the following poll:
The poll asks the following question, and includes the following three options as an answer:
What are your expectations for Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative?
It will make a difference.
Its success will depend on young men’s initiative.
All of those options are either positive or neutral.
There is no option for people who think that Obama’s proposal won’t do any good, or who think that it will cause more harm than good.
PolitiFact repeatedly changed its rating of Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance, based on how many Presidential elections he still had left
PolitiFact is a left wing organization that rates the truthfulness of statements made by politicians. Regarding Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance, PolitiFact has given out three different ratings.
In October 2008, when Obama still had two Presidential elections coming up, PolitiFact rated his statement as “true.”
In June 2012, when Obama only had one more Presidential election coming up, PolitiFact rated his statement as “half true.”
In December 2013, when Obama could no longer run for President ever again, PolitiFact rated his statement as “lie of the year.”
In all three of these cases, PolitiFact was rating the exact same statement. So why did they keep changing their rating? The best explanation that I can think of is that as Obama had fewer and fewer Presidential elections coming up, they were willing to be more and more accurate in their ratings. So only when he was no longer able to run for President again, were they finally willing to admit the truth about his statement.
On October 15, 2013, I posted Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems
On November 6, 2013, I followed that up with Wikipedia’s Obamacare article continues to be a heavily biased and censored puff piece
Now, on November 30, 2013, I am writing part 3 of this series.
On October 15, 2013, I wrote this blog entry, titled “Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems.”
Well it is now November 6, 2013, and I am writing this new blog entry on the same subject.
As of November 6, 2013, more than a month after the Obamacare website went online, wikipedia’s Obamacare article still includes absolutely zero content on the problems of the Obamacare website, Obama’s false promise that people could keep their insurance, or the rate shock that people felt when they saw their new, higher premiums.
I’m glad that that Bush article is there. That was a notable lie that Bush told, and it deserves its own wikipedia article. The fact that wikipedia won’t allow any mention at all of Obama’s broken promise about letting people keep their insurance is a sad reflection of the bias that exists at wikipedia.
Mainstream media waited until after 2012 election to report on Obama’s July 2010 admission that Obamacare would cause people to lose their insurance
On October 28, 2013, NBC News reported:
Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
So the Obama administration admitted in July 2010 that Obamacare would cause people to lose their insurance.
But the mainstream media waited until after the 2012 election to report this information.
Of course to anyone who understands logic, it was obvious that Obamacare would cause people to lose their insurance. Obamacare requires all policies to cover pre-existing conditions, maternity care, treatment for heroin addiction, and several other specific things. Any policy that does not already cover these things is rendered illegal by Obamacare, so of course such policies would be canceled as a result of Obamacare. That’s just simple logic.
By waiting until after the 2012 election to report on something that the Obama administration admitted in July 2010, the mainstream media has revealed its pro-Obama bias.
Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems
Wikipedia’s Obamacare article ignores almost every single criticism of Obamacare that has been reported on by the news, and of the few that it does mention, it severely understates the problem. Some of these criticisms did get added to the article, but they were deleted.
So, some crazy person suggested, on the article’s talk page, that a few specific criticisms be added to the article, such as the healthcare.gov website not working, the large number of employers who have switched to a 29 hour work week (the article mentions, but severely understates, this problem), Obama’s broken promise of letting people keep their insurance, Obamacare “rate shock,” the politicians and unions who supported Obamacare but requested and obtained waivers for themselves, and a few other things. And this person posted links to reliable sources for all of them.
Not only were these suggestions deleted from the talk page, but the user who posted these suggestions was banned.
As a result, wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is about the promises of Obamacare, instead of the actual real world results of Obamacare.
Of course this violates wikipedia’s policy of requiring articles to be true and accurate and unbiased, but hey, wikipedia is controlled by Obama supporters – all the conservatives and libertarians who who tried to balance out the various Obama articles with reliably sourced criticism have been banned from wikipedia for doing so.
Yahoo! News recently published this article on acne.
The article shows this picture of a model – who does not have any acne:
By comparison, this picture, from medicinenet.com, is of a real person who has real cystic acne:
Mainstream media refuses to report on prosecutor’s witness who said Trayvon Martin was “grounding and pounding” George Zimmerman
This is from four days ago, but it’s the first that I’ve heard of it.
As far as I can tell, the mainstream media has chosen to avoid reporting this.
On June 28, 2013, Breitbart reported:
On Friday, in testimony devastating to the prosecution’s case against George Zimmerman in his murder trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, prosecution witness John Good stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him mixed martial arts style – Good used the term “ground and pound” — before Zimmerman shot him. According to Good, he thought Zimmerman was shouting help as Martin beat him. “That’s what it looked like,” he stated. “It looked like there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown.”
The prosecution struggled to downplay the testimony of its own witness, at one point objecting to a written record from Good being admitted into evidence. The prosecution’s case seems to be that Zimmerman stalked Martin for racial reasons, “evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,” initiated a confrontation to that end, but somehow allowed Martin to gain the upper position in a physical fight and shouted “help!” repeatedly before shooting him.
I know that liberals hate Brietbart and will say that it’s lying, so here is a video of the testimony:
That witness was called by the prosecution, not by the defense. I’m no legal expert, but that seems like a really odd thing for a prosecutor to do.
Today is July 2, 2013, and even though that testimony occurred four days ago, I have been unable to find any references to it in any mainstream news sources.
Of course this is the same mainstream media which keeps publishing pictures of Martin from when he was 12 instead of from when he was 17, and the same mainstream media which edited the 911 recording to falsely make it look like Zimmerman was a racist.
After a school security camera showed Martin acting suspiciously, a search of his backpack showed that it contained 12 pieces of jewelry, including silver wedding rings, and earrings with diamonds. The backpack also had a screwdriver, which is often used as a tool by burglars. Martin said that the jewelry belonged to a friend, but refused to say who that friend was.
Why would a teenage boy bring a backpack full of silver wedding rings and diamond earrings to school? Do Martin’s millions of defenders really think that he was not a burglar?
The fact that Martin was in possession of stolen jewelry at school is perfectly in line with Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting suspiciously. And there had been quite a few burglaries in the area recently.
Also on the 911 call, Zimmerman had said that Martin was acting as if he was on drugs. Martin’s autopsy showed that there was THC in his system. And while other parts of marijuana can stay in the system for weeks after it’s smoked, the THC only stays in the person’s system for a few hours. Therefore, Martin was indeed high when Zimmerman saw him.
And how does President Obama respond to all of this?
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
The Associated Press is now claiming that the IRS targeted liberal groups. The article begins:
Democrats are unhappy that newly revealed Internal Revenue Service documents show the agency screened for progressive groups seeking tax-exempt status, not just the tea party organizations for which the IRS was already under fire.
Democrats also want to know why the Treasury Department inspector general who investigated IRS targeting of conservative groups didn’t mention that terms like “Progressives” and “Healthcare legislation” were on the same lists agency workers used to find applications to review closely.
“The Inspector General seriously erred in not making clear in both the audit report and his testimony on this matter that ‘Tea Party’ and ‘Progressives’ were included” in the lists IRS workers used to screen applications, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., wrote Monday in a memo his aides distributed. Levin is the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Despite continuing for an additional 22 paragraphs, the article does not name even one liberal group that was allegedly targeted. The article does not cite even one specific example of a liberal group being treated badly by the IRS. The article does not quote even one person from one liberal group claiming to have been treated unfairly.
Poet Maya Angelou shoots gun at home intruder. Barack Obama thinks she should be in jail because of it.
Checking both google and google news, I did not see this reported on by any of the mainstream media, other than Time magazine. No New York Times, Washington Post, or Associated Press articles. No CBS, NBC, or CNN coverage.
No wonder why some on the political left hate Fox News, which did report it.
For News reports:
Poet Maya Angelou Blasts Gun at Home Intruder
Obama supporter and famous poet Maya Angelou was asked by Time Magazine if she had ever fired a gun in her life.
Her answer was surprising — “Of course!” Angelou then recounted a time in which she fired upon a home intruder.
TIME: Your mother — she was your protector. She often carried a gun, she seemed to be very fond of guns. Did you inherit your mother’s fondness for guns?
MAYA ANGELOU: Well, I do like to have guns around, I don’t like to carry them. But I like — if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.
TIME: Have you ever fired a weapon?
ANGELOU: Of course!
TIME: At a person?
ANGELOU: I’ve fired it period, not at a person I hope!
I was in my house in North Carolina. It was fall. I heard someone walking on the leaves. And somebody actually turned the knob. So I said, “Stand four feet back because I’m going to shoot now!” Boom! Boom! The police came by and said, “Ms. Angelou, the shots came from inside the house.” I said, “Well, I don’t know how that happened.”
When Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from murderers and rapists.
Barack Obama thinks that Maya Angelou should be in jail because she used a gun to protect herself, in her own home, from an intruder who could have been planning to rape and murder her.
“Journalist” David Gregory refuses to call out Obama’s lie that he “cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011”
On “Meet the Press” on December 30, 2012, President Obama said:
“I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011”
In reality, CNS News reports:
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not cut by $1 trillion in 2011. In fact, in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. That was an increase of $147 billion.
I’m not sure which is worse – the fact that Obama would tell such a huge and easily provable lie – or the fact that a “journalist” on national television chose not to point out that Obama was way, way, way wrong.
A complete transcript of the “interview” can be read here.