ACLU Lawyer Calls Obama “Judge, Jury, Executioner” Over Drone Attacks

A recently leaked Department of Justice “White Paper” gives the President of the United States and those he designates – “high government officials” – the authority to take the life of any American citizen, even if there is no proof that the citizen in question is involved in nefarious activities.

John Brennan, the Obama administration’s pick to replace Leon Panetta as the next CIA Director, has found his nomination put on hold by Senator Rand Paul after refusing to answer Paul’s question in front of the Senate sub-committee regarding the use of drones to attack American citizens domestically, again without ever having been charged with a crime in a court of law. Senator Paul calls the idea “appalling.”

In this episode of “The Truth Is Viral”, Nate Wessler, a lawyer with the ACLU’s National Security Project, echoes Senator Paul’s sentiments in this exclusive interview in which he calls Obama and the members of his administration “Judge, jury, and executioner.” That is a strong statement of condemnation coming from the historically ultra-liberal ACLU.

****CALL TO ACTION INFO****
WBKB PHONE: (989) 356-3434
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/WBKBTV
TWITTER: @WBKB11
YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/user/wbkbtv
(Please remember to call only once as they are logging all numbers with CallerID)

****READ DEATH/RAPE THREATS  BELOW****

TTiV Forum thread: Twitter Followers Of Rapper “The Game” Threaten TTiV Host And His Wife With Murder And Rape

 

SOURCE: Bob Powell/The Truth Is Viral

The Media: Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 1)

Obama Media Sleeping Dog Lie SC The Media: Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 1)

The majority of Americans don’t believe that the mainstream media reports accurately and fairly. Polls also show that distrust of today’s media is at a record high. It is important to understand where their loyalty lies; and by their reporting, it’s extremely easy to see that the elite media has an anti-Christian, secular-progressive worldview. Pay attention to how they report the news, especially when it comes to religion, politics, and social issues.

Does the media monitor the power of the United States government, regardless of whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House? Do they report on subjects such as abortion or same-sex marriage with no bias, and do they treat conservatives differently than they do liberals? Do they omit certain stories if the facts don’t support their narrative? Most of us already know the answers to these questions.

We’re going to examine the growing March for Life movement and look at the actual numbers, but let’s first look at a few basic Principles of Journalism:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to tell the truth

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Has the media reported in detail on the hundreds of executive orders President Obama has signed – more than any other president – in just his first four years in office? He recently signed 23 executive orders on gun control alone. Today, however, we’re talking about life.

Approximately 83% of Americans feel abortion should have some restrictions placed on it by law, but only 3% of media elites do. Translation: the media often believe or support the exact opposite of the majority of citizens to whom they report the news. The president’s abortion views are extreme. On last year’s Roe V. Wade anniversary, Obama said he intends to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

According to Life Site News, the 2012 March for Life was estimated at around 400,000 participants, likely putting this year’s event at the half million mark. At what other time in America do a half a million people rally for the same cause every single year?  The event was promoted and shared by many on social media through blogs, photos, status updates, and tweets; but the major media outlets either downplayed the story or ignored it altogether.

Instead, they preferred to report on Beyoncé lip-syncing the National Anthem, a college football player with an imaginary girlfriend, Hollywood liberals handing out more awards, gun control, and the First Lady’s new hairstyle. Instead of holding State Department officials accountable for the Benghazi assassination scandal, the media chose to swoon over Hillary Clinton, even though her testimony was calculated, masterfully evasive, and uninformative.

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong. According to one Gallup poll, 61% say abortion should be illegal. Next to preaching the gospel/free speech, this is the most important Christian battle in the public arena. We rarely hear much about abortion in the news media.

As a general rule of thumb, esti­mated numbers at pro-abortion marches are doubled or multiplied while numbers at pro-life events – if mentioned at all – are cut in half, minimized, or ignored. This is interesting, given that the pro-life movement is much larger than the civil rights movement ever was.

The culture war in America often intensifies whenever liberals feel outnumbered or threatened. Remember Chick-Fil-A Day last summer? The battle for life is no different.

One of the biggest battlefields in the country is the media. Think about this for a minute: you can search the Internet for, watch on television, or read about nearly everything imaginable under the sun. However, isn’t it peculiar and suspicious that it can be extremely difficult to find detailed, factual information on the truth about abortion?

We’re talking about one of the most common, frequent ‘medical procedures’ in America. Try finding helpful, biological, and medical specifics about exactly how abortion is performed as well as any possible cautions, repercussions, and side effects. Last week, I wrote about the anguish of abortion, including verifiable symptoms a woman may experience as well as many cases that resulted in death.

Celebrated and sold as choice, freedom, privacy, and rights, abortion has been covered up by the mainstream media or re-framed as a fight for birth control. Sadly, the message to kids and young single adults is sex without consequences. What a disservice, especially to women who’ve gone through the grief, guilt, or regret of their decision.

The new normal where journalism is concerned is if a story doesn’t fit their narrative and their politics, the mainstream media with their anti-biblical worldview simply refuse to report the honest facts to citizens they’re supposedly informing. Rather than telling people about problems in America that affect us, they ARE part of the problem in America.

The media has too much power: power to influence people, affect public opinion, and sway elections – and they do. Know the truth, share information, and help change culture.

If you’re concerned like I am about the lack of truth in journalism today, know what news outlets you can trust and share those sources with others. Talk to friends, write, blog, email, and, most importantly, pray for this nation! We should be asking God to open people’s eyes to what’s really happening in this country. Maybe He will still have mercy on America.

Limbaugh Scorches ‘Sick And Depraved’ MSNBC

Rush Limbaugh rightfully characterizes MSNBC’s singular focus as racism.

Whatever Happened To Real Journalism?

NBC SC Whatever Happened To Real Journalism?

NBC News once rigged a Ford F-150 to explode to back  up a story they were doing on the “alleged” defects of gas tanks on Ford trucks. When the scam was revealed, NBC had to hastily apologize and face some pretty stiff consequences. CBS’s legendary newsman, Dan Rather, tried to find something with which to smear former President George W. Bush, and he thought he had found it: documents and a “witness” claiming Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was bogus. When the documents and the witness were revealed as fakes, Rather lost his job at CBS.

NBC  apparently didn’t learn their lesson because when Trayvon Martin, a 17 yr old black kid, was shot and killed by Neighborhood Watch Captain George Zimmerman, NBC edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman was stalking Martin simply because he was black. I saw another example of NBC’s “creative editing” when they altered a Romney sound bite to make him seem “out of touch” with everyday Americans. NBC had to apologize again. Friday morning, ABC did a report on the tragic shooting in Colorado that resulted in 12 dead and over 50 injured. Brian Ross, a seasoned newsman, added a line in his report that James Holmes, the 24 yr. old shooter, had ties to the Tea Party. In other words, the insinuation was that a radical, gun loving Tea Partier had committed a massacre. One could see the Progressives salivating over the prospect of stricter gun laws to kill the Second Amendment.

Problem was, Ross had carelessly mistaken a 52 yr old, James Holmes, who is a Tea Party member, with a deranged 24 yr. old Ph.D student who did the shooting. ABC and Ross were forced to publicly apologize. The story of the Colorado massacre isn’t focusing on the fact that this young man is mentally ill, thinking he was the “Joker” from the “Batman” franchise. The story is now focusing on the “super capacity magazine” that was attached to the semi-automatic rifle that he was carrying.

It’s kind of funny that Obama and Attorney General Holder think it’s acceptable to stonewall Congress about the murderous “Fast & Furious”operation that resulted in the death of one Federal Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans? Is it acceptable that the so-called “professional” journalists chose to IGNORE this story because it just might implicate their “golden boy” in a plot that was originally intended to set up a major clampdown on gun ownership in America?

Remember Jason Blair of the infamous “New York Times” plagiarism scandal? They vetted him thoroughly, didn’t they? There have been several “high profile” stories that involved “journalists” who were composing phoney stories (remember, you have to go to school to learn that stuff!) Yeah, right! How about the way “reporters” went after Sheriff Joe Arpiao? These clowns weren’t interested in finding the truth about Obama’s eligibility to be President, just in protecting Obama by deriding the Sheriff and his investigators.

The sad truth is that the Progressive agenda and political correctness have destroyed the integrity, morality, and honesty that once belonged to our press corp. Now a majority of the press has become nothing more than cheerleaders and propagandists for the PROGRESSIVES.

Instead of  the who, what ,when, where, and why of traditionalism, reporters’ efforts are now being directed toward being the Proletarian Guard for Obama and his SOCIALIST agenda (in spite of what Bill O’Reilly thinks). Even Fox News’ Factor Master does one heck of a dance around calling a spade a spade when it comes to Obama. Come on Bill, “a left leaning anti-capitalist?” China practices a form of capitalism, but they are still COMMUNISTS!

Unbiased reporting to the majority of journalists is now an unknown virtue. Honesty is something that is only necessary when a screaming scandal perpetrated on rumors will suffice. Why vet your sources if they happen to agree with your point of view?  Why give the public a “fair and balanced” approach (which one network that I watch does) to the news when the public are nothing more than “useful idiots” to help the Progressive agenda advance. Is that where the term “sheeple” came from?

Ronald Reagan had it right when he said”trust, but verify!” When you hear a story, be very cautious before making a judgement. If it disappears within a couple of days, then it could be for the following reasons:

1 It wasn’t true to begin with;

2 It didn’t serve the purposes of the Progressive agenda; or

3 It was damaging to their policies or its’ representative. (If you want some really good examples of this, watch MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, or even the unrighteous “Reverend” Al Sharpton if you want to see what I mean.)

Horace Greeley would have had a stroke if he knew what had happened to “all the news that’s fit to print!”, and he’s dead! I wonder if Greeley would have considered it ethical to release state secrets to try to embarrass a President who wasn’t one of them? Makes you wonder! Adeiu!

The Colorado Shooting And The Crowdsourced Future Of News

Liberal Media SC The Colorado shooting and the crowdsourced future of news

Only a few days ago, we were writing about how users of Twitter and Reddit used those networks to tell a compelling story about a mass shooting in Toronto, and now the same phenomenon is playing out in real-time during another horrific incident: a shooting at a movie theater in Colorado that has killed at least a dozen people and wounded more than 50. Although local TV news channels and CNN have been all over the story since it broke late Thursday night, some of the best fact-based information gathering has been taking place on Reddit and via curation tools like Storify. In each of these events, we can see how a new form of journalism — one that blends traditional reporting and crowdsourced reports — is taking shape.

As media writer Andrew Beaujon at the Poynter Institute notes, Reddit quickly became the go-to spot for comprehensive information about the shooting and its aftermath. Although other sites put up Storify collections of tweets from individuals who were at the scene — including one of the victims — as a way of tracking how the news spread, the community of users at Reddit went a step further: they collaborated in real time to produce a continuously updated timeline of the event, complete with links to where they obtained the information. That kind of collaboration is something many cash-strapped newsrooms simply no longer have the resources to produce (Buzzfeed has an interview with the 18-year-old Reddit userwho created most of the timeline).

Eyewitness reports, crowdsourced timelines, Q&As

But Reddit hosted more than just the timeline: while other mainstream media outlets spoke to people who were near the incident (many of whom added little in the way of useful detail) Reddit had several submissions from members of the community who were actually in the theater when the shooting started — and because of the way Reddit functions, commenters were able to interact with those eyewitnesses in a way that wouldn’t have been possible in any other format except a staged conversation on a TV talk show. Not only that, but one person involved in the incident actually posted photos of their wounds to the site. As one commenter noted:

“How cool is it we can ask a guy a question over the internet about an event that happened less than 8 hours ago firsthand? Reporters couldn’t get on a plane and find someone that quickly. The future is now.”

Read more at Gigaom.com. Matthew Ingram.

Photo credit: wstera2 (Creative Commons)

What We’ve Come To Expect: Media Bias In Alaska

Alaska Map SC 300x242 What we’ve come to expect: media bias in Alaska

In what conservative Alaskans have come to expect from our state’s LSM, these outlets failed to report the most salient point of the “Offer to Enter Judgment” requested by the borough and its former Mayor Jim Whitaker, which is that it is a judgment in Miller’s favor. This is the exact final judgment that Miller would have received if he had won a jury verdict in this case, plus whatever dollar amount the jury would have awarded.

Some Alaska media outlets have published variations of the theme that Joe Miller and the Fairbanks North Star Borough and its former mayor Jim Whitaker entered into a settlement agreement, or “offer of compromise” that allowed the borough to simply pay $5,000 and avoid any statement of liability. The Anchorage Daily News entitled its story, “Joe Miller Accepts Offer of Lawsuit Compromise,” the Alaska Dispatch, “Joe Miller settles lawsuit with Fairbanks borough,” and the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, “Joe Miller, who claimed damages of more than $160000, settles for $5000 and declares victory.”

Read More at joemiller.us.

Drugs, The Media, And Barry Obama

King Obama SC Drugs, the Media, and Barry Obama

It was big news when President Clinton said he “never inhaled.” People laughed at the absurdity of the statement. Everybody knew he inhaled. His denial was done with a wink and a nod. I suspect that a lot of you who are reading this article also inhaled.

A younger Barack Obama wrote a good deal about his drug experimentation in his 1995 book Dreams From My Father. As you read the excerpt below, ask yourself this question: If this had been written by a Republican presidential candidate, what do you think the liberal media reaction would have been? There’s a further question: Why wasn’t the story part of the vetting process when Barack Obama was running for President? The media knew like they knew about JFK’s sexual exploits and Martin Luther King’s plagiarism. Why is Mitt Romney’s one-time hair-cutting story of 50 years ago so important and not Obama’s cocaine use?

“I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow [cocaine] when you could afford it. Not smack [heroin], though — Mickey, my potential initiator, had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that. Said he could do it blindfolded, but he was shaking like a faulty engine when he said it…

“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed; the final fatal role of the would-be black man. Except the highs hadn’t been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind. Something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.

“I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in a white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids… You just might be bored or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.

“And if the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism. That’s how it seemed to me then, anyway.”

Read more at Godfather Politics. By Gary De Mar.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Talk About Breaking News: New York Times Isn’t Liberal, Washington Post Not Biased

New York Times SC Talk About Breaking News: New York Times Isnt Liberal, Washington Post Not Biased

 

Recent weeks have seen ombudsmen at both the New York Times and the Washington Post defend their respective newspapers from charges of journalistic bias and a deep-seated, enduring slant to the political left. Defined as “trusted [intermediaries] between…an organization and some…external constituency,” it is the job of  New York Times ombudsman Arthur Brisbane and the Post’s Patrick Pexton to represent “the broad scope of constituent interests” by seeking to present readers with facts and straightforward, impartial reporting.

Of course, anyone with a sense of humor—or any sense at all—will get a real kick out of claims of straightforward and impartial reporting by the Times or the Post. But that is exactly what these embattled colleagues have done in their attempts to defend recent articles responsible for more than the usual show of outrage from the reading public.

On May 10th, the Post printed a story of Mitt Romney’s 1965 involvement in forcibly cutting the hair of fellow Cranbrook student John Lauber. According to the very lengthy article, Romney and a number of friends threw Lauber to the ground and submitted him to a cruel and “vicious hack job.” Of course, Lauber also turned out to be gay. A remarkable coincidence of timing considering Obama’s sudden act of “coming out” in support of gay marriage. As the Post tells it though, these things “… just happened to coincide…”

However, as PJ Media points out, “…the story directly quoted a dead man; it claimed things about him that, being dead, he is in no position to affirm or refute; it mischaracterized the opinion of one of its core witnesses; and the family of the dead man (Lauber) says the story is factually inaccurate.”

The Post’s Pexton responds to such criticism from conservative web sites and large numbers of readers with: “The Mitt Romney bullying story holds up to scrutiny,” even as he defends as quite innocent timing clearly designed to assist the President.

The New York Times’ unintentional foray into slapstick involves the newspaper’s April 21st laugher “A Hard Look at the President.” Not only has Pinch’s family publication never come close to doing what the title suggests; Ombudsman Arthur Brisbane actually hopes to reassure readers skeptical of the Time’s intentions by stating “The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers—these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey responds to this extraordinary statement beautifully, with “One can imagine Lucy telling Charlie Brown much the same thing right before pulling the football away for the 50th year in a row.”

It is hardly a secret that the New York Times and Washington Post literally act as willing and dutiful publicity arms of the Democrat Party and the Obama Regime. What is interesting is the sudden concern exhibited by these publications  about the way in which they are viewed by their readers. Expressed public outrage has done little to stir corporate ombudsmen from decades of smug slumber in the past. So why now? Is it possible that these important media allies of the President realize that their guy is in desperate trouble and must therefore respond to and deny any potentially harmful accusations of bias and intrigue?

It might be very instructive to see if it becomes commonplace for the media to defend its journalistic integrity over the coming months.

Photo credit: niallkennedy (Creative Commons)

If The Old Media Were Still Relevant…

Supported By Media Obama Knocked Out SC If The Old Media Were Still Relevant...

With Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, now all but assured the GOP’s nomination for the Presidency, the left has spent no time at all doing what they do best.  What they do best is distract.  With the nation teetering on the brink of disaster, an economy that has not produced any net jobs since the President won election, a bloated government spending trillions of dollars more than it brings in and liberalism basically crushing the American dream, the left is interested in is whether or not they can make Mr. Romney look substantially worse than the failure currently residing in the White House.

Kicking off their assault on Mitt Romney, this week the left dug deep into Romney’s past to dredge up recollections that he once picked on, call it bullied, a fellow student.  And if that was not bad enough, add to the meme the slap in the face that the fellow student may have been gay.  Seriously?  That’s the narrative that is supposed to make Mitt Romney into Satan himself and so toxic that no one would ever dare vote for him?  Forget the fact that the family of this former “victim” of Mitt Romney is dead and there appears to be no one in the family who can corroborate the claim.

Ok, I get it.  The President’s record is so horrid that this is the tactic his minions have to adopt.  But they are no doubt upset at how quickly their political opponents turned the issue around on them.  Breitbart’s Big Journalism website, for example, quickly flipped the issue around and produced evidence by the President’s own hand that he once shoved a girlbecause he was sick of being taunted about how he was her boyfriend.  Yes, the future President assaulted a girl, I repeat, a girl, because he was afraid of getting cooties?

Read more at Canada Free Press. By J.J. Jackson.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

MSNBC Panel Promotes New Obama Campaign Slogan

Obama’s cheerleaders in the liberal media are at it again. If NBC is short for the National Barack Channel, I guess MSNBC is short for the Mega Strong National Barack Channel.