Friday, September 2, 2016

CNN Interviews Baby-Saving Hero, Blurs ‘Trump 2016’ Shirt C’mon, there’s no media bias.

CNN Interviews Baby-Saving Hero, Blurs ‘Trump 2016’ Shirt

C’mon, there’s no media bias.

     
14860
CNN Headline News interviewed a man who rescued a baby left inside a hot car. The reaction was as expected: gratefulness for the man’s quick action. But there was just one problem. For the remote interview, the hero wore a “Trump 2016” T-shirt. There was nothing the network could do for the live shot but on a rebroadcast of the story, the editing department made sure to blur out the “offensive” message.
Here is the original CNN/HLN segment clearly showing the shirt worn by retired sheriff's deputy Steven Eckel as he explained the events of that day:
It even appears that the newscaster was visibly shaken by Eckel’s attire when she first notices (around 1:40). Her eyes dart around, and it frazzles her for a second, probably because of the lack of a trigger warning.
In the later broadcast, they avoid showing Eckel as much as possible, but when they do, his shirt is censored:
It’s no surprise that HLN would do such a thing. After all, it is CNN’s liberal little sister. But what likely bugged them more is that they'd found a Trump supporter with a real, beating, loving heart that cared about another human being. What a shocker!
Do you know what the media would never blur out besides a Hillary Clinton T-shirt? San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick's anti-cop socks he recently wore to practice:
And somehow we’re supposed to believe the media aren’t biased.
The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.

Descendants of Slaves Given Priority Admissions to Georgetown

Descendants of Slaves Given Priority Admissions to Georgetown

As atonement for profiting off of the slave trade.

     
3922
Georgetown University has begun a program to push some students to the front of the admissions line if one strict criterion is met: if they are descendants of the slaves owned by the Maryland Jesuits tied to the school.
According to GU president John DeGioia, not only will there be admissions preferences, but the school is also actively seeking the identities of these individuals to recruit them. DeGioia is also calling for all faculty and administration to prepare a formal apology for Georgetown’s profiting off of the slave trade.
From CBS News:
In 1838, two priests who served as president of the university orchestrated the sale of 272 people to pay off debts at the school. The slaves were sent from Maryland to plantations in Louisiana.
In The New York Times on Wednesday, David Collins, an associate professor of history and Georgetown’s chairman of its group on slavery and reconciliation, wrote in the opinions pages that GU is “learning from its sins:”
The history of the Jesuits in colonial Maryland beginning in 1634 has so many proud chapters — of adventurousness in the face of the unknown, of resoluteness in answer to state-sponsored religious bigotry, of creativity and generosity in response to pastoral need. But there is a darker side to that history: Racism, hypocrisy and brutality are part of it, too. Two centuries of Jesuit slaveholding and slave-trading demonstrate that. I will not let the young Jesuits take pride in and inspiration from a select set of uplifting episodes without challenging them to grapple with our history’s offenses as well.
Collins states that thanks to meticulous record keeping by the Jesuits, “We know the people’s names; when they were born, married and buried; whom they were sold with and whom they were separated from. We can trace their family connections, sometimes even to the present.”
“Those 272 biographies sting in a way a statistic of one million can’t,” he added. “This story cries out its injustice against our American tendency to distance ourselves from the ugly realities in our history.”
Until Georgetown rights its wrongs, Collins surmised, “There will be no ‘liberty and justice for all.’”

WATCH Joe Biden’s Non-Answer to Concerns Over Clinton Foundation Ethics

WATCH Joe Biden’s Non-Answer to Concerns Over Clinton Foundation Ethics

Nice job talking your way out of that one, sir.

     
2228
Vice President Joe Biden proved he’s master of the dodge Thursday when he was confronted over the ethics of the Clinton Foundation.
Surprisingly, MSNBC veered from its normal coverage to ask a potentially devastating question for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Kasie Hunt asked Biden, “Do you think Americans should be concerned at all about the ethics of the Clinton Foundation? Has the Clinton Foundation always been 100 percent ethical in your view?”
Golden Boy Biden floated like a butterfly and weaved himself far outside the target range of that question:
“Look, I think the Clinton Foundation, like all foundations, have found themselves in a position where things are changing, and I think she’s going to change and adjust to the realities of how complicated it’s all become.”
When Hunt pressed to find out if the foundation has been transparent enough in monies collected from foreign governments, Biden ended the interview saying, “Well, I think you’ll see them stop taking foreign donations.”
Thanks, Mr. Vice President. That cleared it up!
Biden also came to the defense of Clinton who has been missing in action while fundraising the last couple of weeks. Hunt questioned if it’s wise for her to be out of the public eye this close to the election. 
“Do you think she needs to be out front with the American people a little bit more?” Hunt asked.
“Oh, she is out front with the American people,” Biden said. “She’s also been doing an awful lot of events.”
Welcome to Dodge City.
The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.

Clinton Buddy Matt Lauer to Moderate First Clinton/Trump Forum Bias alert!

Clinton Buddy Matt Lauer to Moderate First Clinton/Trump Forum

Bias alert!

     
6123
Matt Lauer is listed as a “notable past member” of the Clinton Global Initiative which apparently makes him the obvious choice as an unbiased moderator for the upcoming forum featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Held in New York City on September 7, the Commander-in-Chief Forum will be hosted by NBC News, MSNBC and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.  According to The Daily Caller, the one-hour forum will center on national security, veterans issues, and all things military. It’s not a debate, as candidates will take turns back-to-back.
As is noted by the DC, the Clinton Foundation has said in the past that journalists were exempt from paying the $20,000 membership fee and would be considered “guests” rather than “members,” according to foundation officials.  
The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.

California Readies Bill Outlawing Sting Videos Against Planned Parenthood

California Readies Bill Outlawing Sting Videos Against Planned Parenthood

Nobody backs Planned Parenthood in the corner.

     
14636
It’s becoming clear in California that no one tangles with Planned Parenthood. State lawmakers are nearing final approval of a bill that would make it a crime to produce an undercover sting video against the abortion giant.
The California legislature is near final approval of a bill that would make it a crime, punishable by a jail sentence, to carry out and distribute undercover video or audio stings against Planned Parenthood and other health-care groups…
The bill was approved by the California state Senate on Wednesday and has broad support in the Assembly, which passed an earlier version and is expected to concur in several Senate amendments before sending it to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.
Punishment for breaking the law would be paying a fine, one year in jail or both for a first offense. Subsequent offenses will incur the same with higher fines added.
The law is in response to the undercover operation by Center for Medical Progress which exposed Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of fetal tissue. The undercover agents who posed as buyers were brought up on charges across multiple state investigations and before Congress. However, this bill seeks to make it a crime to record what people say in public, as noted at HotAir:
There are more problems with this legislation than you can shake a stick at. It’s already being opposed by groups as diverse as pro-life organizations, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. While it’s understandable how secret recordings can’t be used against you in a court of law unless a warrant is issued to law enforcement for a wire tap or bug, none of those rules seem to apply here. Particularly when you’re in an open setting like a restaurant, what you say in a public space might well be heard by anyone. (That’s a venue used often by CMP in their sting operation.) How is that protected under any definition of privacy?
The laws they already have on the books regarding such recordings are problematic enough, but how does California justify extra legislation which only applies to the privacy of health care organizations? Why is their speech more private and protected than anyone else’s? A stiff jail term and large fine for recording what someone says in a public space seems not only unfair, but absurd. And applying it only to Planned Parenthood takes us into the realm of dystopian science fiction.
Lawyers for Planned Parenthood stand behind the bill saying,
“After the video smear campaign last summer, we experienced a ninefold increase in violence against our providers and our health centers. With the Internet and the tremendous wildfire nature in which news can be spread now through social media, we need to have a crime against distribution by those in particular who did the illegal recording.”

ESPN Speaker Apologizes for Saying America Does Not Oppress Blacks

ESPN Speaker Apologizes for Saying America Does Not Oppress Blacks

“My eyes are wider open today than they’ve ever been as a result.”

     
3822
ESPN college football personality Paul Finebaum groveled his way through an embarrassing apology yesterday on SportsCenter in which he said he had "no right" to say that America does not oppress black people.
 
As reported by Mediaite, Finebaum initially drew fire for comments he made on his show Monday in the context of the controversy over 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting our National Anthem because America "oppresses people of color." During an interview with SEC Network analyst Marcus Spears, Finebaum had said that “This country has serious issues, but this country is not oppressing black people.” Spears, who is black, agreed.
Finebaum followed up the next day by criticizing Kaepernick again in a discussion on College Football Live:
I don’t understand where Colin is coming from in terms of this specific issue. He’s upset about the way minorities are being dealt with, in his words ‘oppressed,’ he’s talking about police brutality, sitting down during the national anthem, I don’t think he is the connector to those issues.
Apparently he took a tremendous amount of heat for stating the truth about Kaepernick's Black Lives Matter race-baiting, possibly even from his bosses, because on Wednesday, Finebaum appeared on the show SportsCenter to recant his politically unacceptable opinion publicly:
I could spend the rest of my life trying to talk my way out of it, but I can’t. I blew it. I simply did not have a good grasp of the situation. I know better. I’ve lived in this country. I see what is going on all across the country from north to south, east to west. And I have no excuse. I can’t explain why I articulated the words the way they (sic) did. But I did. And there’s a public record of it. And there’s a natural reaction. And I respect that. And all I can say is I made a terrible mistake. In trying to express a feeling that I probably — not probably — I had no right to express.
Finebaum has "no right" to express his opinion and must apologize for it, but Kaepernick is hailed by some in the sports community as a courageous civil rights leader for expressing his opinion?
He was absolutely correct and he articulated the words just fine. This country does indeed have serious race issues, but the notion that people of color are being "oppressed" is demonstrably false. We have a black President and a black Attorney General. People of color occupy positions of power at every level in every arena of society. While racism certainly exists -- among all races -- there is no systemic, organizational "oppression" of non-whites.
Finebaum added, “My eyes are wider open today than they’ve ever been as a result.” Yes, because now he knows how hard the politically correct totalitarians will come down on those who dare to speak the truth about race in this country

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *