While this video is uploaded to critique (well) Piers Morgan, it in no way should be seen as endorsement by me of Alex Jones. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) I think he is a nut and deal with him and many conspiracy theories on my “C-O-N Debunker Page.” Okay, on to some stats in text form via The National Review:
When it comes to the question of violent crime, the British are fairly smug. Why? Because, well, there’s less of it in Britain than in America. Bunch of cowboys over there, right?
—————–
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.
—————–
According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.
The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.
Breitbart writes about Larry Kings comments about Piers:
For those who remember, Larry King was more about being a conduit for the guests to entertain and enlighten viewers. His idea, perhaps an old fashioned TV ideal, was to make the show less about Larry King and more about the guests his viewers tuned in to watch.
King was old school in that way. We never learned much about the life or personal opinions of Jack Parr or Johnny Carson when they were hosting the Tonight Show, either. Those two icons let the guests speak and made their shows about the entertainment. For the most part, Larry King modeled himself on that classic version of the TV interview show.
“I never gave opinions,” King said of his own CNN show. “Piers gives his opinions. The show is a lot about him as much as the guests… He’s so different from me,” King lamented.
King also worried over the state of TV today, saying, “It’s not the quality that counts anymore. It’s how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be.”
(Via Media’ite) Fox’s “The Five” retaliates against Gawker’s making public the addresses of all gun owners in NY by giving out the phone number of Gawkers founder, Nick Denton, which is (for now):
What would be nice is for someone to post online his home address. Greg Gutfeld makes the point that Gawker writes positively about pedophilia, but negatively about legal gun-owners. (Pedophilia is one of the traumas in children’s lives that drive many to homosexuality, and many in the community want to normalize this somewhat in order to validate their not dealing with this traumatic event in their lives. This, they feel, normalizes them into culture, or is some form of validation)
I will continue to post information here on this topic (addresses and haunts Nick Denton and friends like to hang at), including on Nick’s boyfriend, Derrence Washington. His FaceBook is found here for those wishing to see if he will field questions about Nick’s actions: http://www.facebook.com/derrence
Derrence lives in New York:
Again, I will update this post as I find info. I assume these Texas residence are Derrence’s family since he himself is a Houston, Texas native. Here are a few family members Face-Book profiles:
What is interesting is that many of his family members have studied criminal justice, and I would bet own firearms. I feel bad as well for making public these people — many are fellow believers (at least a cursory look would tell me that. As you know, anyone can “say” they are Christian). At any rate, one should keep all the people in New York who are now known by criminals to not own guns, those who are in law enforcement (D.A.’s, policemen and women, judges, special crime units [gang units], and the like) whom criminals know their home addresses… as well as Nick and Derrence’s friends and family in prayer. Pray for their safety and well being. Why do I say that, because any address is easy to find once you have a name and city. I and my family can likewise go for some pleading of the precious blood of the lamb.
Some info on Voncile Washington-Durio, her phone number is 1-832-483-9575 — dial *67 before you dial the number to make your phone or cell phone show up as private. She lives or did live here:
the number, again, Voncile’s phone number can be seen here on a contact list at a kids sport team contact list. She is also a barber who’s barber license number is 08122012. She also performs public notaries for those needing her services:
Voncile Washington Durio is a certified public notary located in Houston, TX Voncile Washington Durio is located at 7206 Frostview Ln. Voncile Washington Durio can be contacted at on FindNotary or by their phone number or email address listed above.
Coulter explains her line of thinking and brought up women who have had abortions:
Why can’t we get a record of women who have had abortions? They get money from Planned Parenthood, they get money from Medicare, from Medicaid. Much of this is…they’re tax subsidies. I think, you know, mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.
I do not know what the purpose of publishing gun ownership was? But, I do know that a robber may want to add this info to his “casing” of a neighborhood. In other words, this paper may have endangered the lives of the non-gun owners in this area. Dumb. Via Gateway Pundit:
On Sunday, liberal New York newspaper The Journal News published the names and addresses of legal permit holders in two counties online and in print. (Full Map HERE):
Both NBC and CBS covered the outrage Thursday morning over a New York newspaper publishing the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two counties. ABC made no mention of the controversy, however.
“A suburban New York City newspaper is in the middle of a big controversy this morning after it put up online the names and addresses of everyone with a gun permit,” reported CBS This Morning co-host Jeff Glor. “Call it a battle between the First and Second Amendments,” said NBC News correspondent Katy Tur on the Today show.
Both the Today show and CBS This Morning aired full segments on the controversy. CBS even interviewed a Syracuse University journalism professor and a former NYPD deputy commissioner about the story, and both frowned upon the paper’s decision to publish the details.
“In this case, I think that the newspaper has gone a little bit too far in terms of publishing information that actually stigmatizes people,” Syracuse professor Hub Brown told CBS. “I think it’s a bit disingenuous of the Journal News to say that they were just giving information out here. They were taking a position on guns.”
Former NYPD Commissioner John Miller offered the law enforcement perspective. “Well the police chiefs look at this and say, look, 40 percent of the people who are holding these gun permits are either active or retired law enforcement. And these are people who have put people in jail for a long time, these are people who could be targets,” he said.
Can someone say LAWSUITS!?
Huffington Post has this excellent blurb about another aspect these “journolists” (activists) actions may have caused:
Blogger Christopher Fountain retaliated against a New York newspaper, which recently published the addresses of local gun owners, by publishing the addresses and phone numbers of the newspaper’s staff.
The Journal News published the names and addresses of legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties. The paper has been criticized for allegedly putting people in danger.
On Monday, Fountain began publishing the names, addresses and contact information of the newspaper’s publisher and editor, and staff members who worked on the gun owners’ map. Readers came up with information for other staff members, and Fountain listed those employees as well.
The blogger explained why he did it, speaking on CNN Thursday. “Somehow, [The Journal News was] conflating legal gun owners with some crazed, tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together,” he alleged. “And I was offended by that and I wondered how they’d like it if their addresses were published.”
Journal News publisher Janet Hanson has defended the newspaper’s gun map, saying that the information was “important” in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.
Fountain disagreed on Thursday, and argued that she could have published the number of gun permits in the counties instead. “But the fact that they put the addresses — I’ve received emails from abused women who were under protective order and in hiding, and they’re terribly afraid that now their names and addresses are all over the Internet and accessible through that map,” he said.
These self-serving whores of the 1% love guns and violence as long as they can line their pockets. Hey these hypocritical as______ “probably” voted for and support Obama…how many kids has he killed with his toy drones and foreign policy? When you elect leaders that commit mass murder, don’t be surprised when the citizens follow suit.
These f_____ can stand on their soapboxes all they want…just as long as they wrap an extension cord around their necks and jump.
F___ You:
Jamie Foxx, Jason Bateman, Paul Rudd, Beyonce Knowles, Amy Poehler, Jeremy Renner, Amanda Pete, Jon Hamm, Carla Gugino, Jessica Alba, Reese Witherspoon, Rashida Jones, Will Ferrell, Sarah Silverman, Aziz Ansari, John Legend, Olivia Munn, Kathryn Hahn, Julianne Moore, Busy Phillips, Jennifer Garner, John Slattery, Nick Offermann, Chris Rock, Cameron Diaz, Courtney Cox, Christina Applegate, Zooey Deschanel, Steve Carrell, Adam Scott, Ellen Degeneres, Mark Ruffalo, Kate Hudson, Peter Dinklage, Jennifer Aniston, Elizabeth Banks, Max Greenfeld,Gwyneth Paltrow, Conan Obrien, Aubrey Plaza, Debra Messing, Megan Mullaly, Jennifer Westfeldt, Selena Gomez, Michelle Williams, Chris Paul, Victor Cruz
Rev CL Bryant, creator of the hit film “Runaway Slave” discusses election results and the dependency culture in the black community. Mayor Reed forgets that “Runaway Slave” opened in as #2 film in HIS Atlanta market at the end of July 2012.
The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.
Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.
This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascist organization.
Israel, meanwhile, is one the world’s most humane states, not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.
Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible — Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas violence, the Hamas “military commander” as he was known among Palestinians.
The next day, three more Israelis were killed by rockets.
Then Hamas targeted Tel Aviv, Israel’s most densely populated region, and Israel shelled Hamas rocket launching sites.
In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.
How has the New York Times reported this?
On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.
What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.
The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers, virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.
If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.
This is the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media’s approach. The Los Angeles Times headline on the same day was: “Israel and Gaza veering down familiar, bitter path,”
Same presentation: two scorpions fighting in a bottle.
Breitbart has this great story on the BBC lying, cheating, and stealing emotions:
A BBC reporter helped spread a photo of a child supposedly injured by an Israeli attack on Gaza. In reality, the photo is three weeks old and was taken in Syria.
The photo of a wounded Syrian child was posted here on October 28th. Early Monday morning, a Palestinian journalist named Hazem Balousha tweeted the photo with the misleading description “Pain in #Gaza.” It was retweeted more than 90 times, including by BBC Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison. Donnison added the word “Heartbreaking” and sent it to his 8,000 followers.
After the error was pointed out, Donnison apologized, saying, “A photo I retweeted from another journo yesterday showing children injured was NOT in Gaza as I said but apparently from Syria. Apologies.” The original tweet by Mr. Balousha appears to have been deleted.
BBC has already been caught once in the past week running fake footage of supposedly injured Gazans. In an incident noted last Thursday, a man is shown being carried by a group of men. He appears to be wounded. But moments later, the same man can be seen walking around — apparently nothing wrong with him.
CNN and the AP also ran an image of a 4-year-old killed in the conflict, strongly implying he died in an Israeli airstrike. However, Israel carried out no strikes the day the child died. According to the those who examined the site, the blast that killed the little boy was the result of a “Palestinian rocket,” not an Israeli bomb.
HotAir talks about the recent question GQ Magazine asks Marco Rubio a question I have never heard asked of a Democrat:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
What would you do if in the middle of a job interview someone asked you, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Not wanting to look a fool, chances are that you’d give an answer as banal and evasive as this, “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” That’s what Marco Rubio offered when asked the age of the Earth in a recent GQ interview – and it’s a clever person’s way of saying, “I don’t have a clue, dude. Can we move on?”
But you can bet your last Obamadollar that the dreaded rationalists in the liberal press won’t move on. They’ll interpret Rubio’s innocuous answer to translate as “I think the Earth probably began in 1922 – but Jesus put fossils in the ground to keep us guessing.” They’ll take this as further evidence that all conservative Christians are Creationists and Young Earthers – and they’ll try to embarrass ordinary Americans out of voting for them by playing an intellectual snobbery card that is as cruel as it is inaccurate. The inference is this: every time you vote for a religious conservative, a witch gets burned.
A few questions. First, why did GQ ask this question, and would they ask a Democrat the same thing? It always seems to be Republicans that the mainstream media fires these curious, pointless salvos at. Sarah Palin calls them “gotcha” questions – and she’s more than familiar with ’em.
Second, does not knowing an answer to a science question bar someone from running for office? If that’s the case, pick up the phone to your local Democratic Senator and ask them the chemical symbol for sulphuric acid. If they get it wrong, demand a recall.
More importantly, if it’s okay for Barack Obama to say that abortion is “above my paygrade” and refuse to offer a guess as to when life begins, why is it not okay for Rubio to dodge a bullet when asked a question about the origins of the Earth? Considering that the question posed to Obama back in the 2008 election had serious moral consequences and Rubio’s does not, I can’t understand why Obama’s evasion is heralded as a victory for common sense but Rubio’s is treated like a declaration of war on science. The hysteria and hypocrisy are tiring at best….
Again, this question is never asked of Democrats even though a large percentage believes in creation ex nihilo:
Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.
Today, BBC News tweeted that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel. Jerusalem, of course, is the capital of Israel. But, mirroring the Obama administration’s hesitance to declare Israel’s capital Jerusalem, the BBC instead tweeted:
Breitbart continues:
The BBC, which is massively anti-Israel in its coverage, has repeatedly refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. During the Olympics, the BBC refused to list Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, drawing a caustic response from the Israeli government.
CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama’s behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss–and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election–perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
Fox News’ Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:
These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?
Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.
