Saturday, December 8, 2012

Nicole Simpson Disagrees with Bob Costas



Nicole Brown Simpson Disagrees with Bob Costas

By Steve Deace   12/8/2012

Nicole Brown Simpson Disagrees with Bob Costas 

By now, many of you reading this have already heard much opinion pro and con regarding NBC sportscaster Bob Costas’ anti-Second Amendment remarks during last Sunday night’s football game.
But just in case you missed it, Costas (using sportswriter’s Jason Whitlock column as a human shield) said: “If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” If Costas were really serious about having a conversation about our culture of death and truly did his homework on the issue, rather than rushing to politicize a tragedy, he could’ve looked very close to home to find out just how silly this entire argument is.

As a witness to the contrary I present Nicole Brown Simpson, who clearly disagrees with Costas. At least she would if she could. Unfortunately, she’s been dead for almost 20 years now because of the crazed NFL player in her life, who was also her former husband and the father of her children. He was also a former close colleague of Costas at NBC.
Most of you know him as O.J.

If Nicole Brown Simpson were here today, she could testify that the gun which former Kansas City Chief Jovon Belcher used to commit murder-suicide recently isn’t any guiltier of a crime than is the knife O.J. used to stab her to death. Both are inanimate, morally-neutral, tools. Thus, they’re each only as dangerous or useful as the person wielding them.
The same could be said of rope.

See, Eric Eucker is the tragic death in the NFL you probably haven’t heard about for two reasons. One, he was a Cleveland Browns’ groundskeeper and not a starting player for a NFL team as Belcher was. Two, he committed suicide at Browns’ headquarters by hanging himself on the same day of Belcher’s apparent murder-suicide.

The way Eucker chose to take his own life doesn’t fit the preferred narrative of Costas and others that think they know better than our Founding Fathers, who gave us a Second Amendment as both a check and balance against government tyranny and also as a means of self-defense.

But don’t just take my word for it. Costas’ NBC co-worker Ice-T said recently the right to keep and bear arms was “the last form of defense against tyranny.”

Gun control isn’t a check on what’s wrong with the human condition any more than rope control would’ve saved Eucker’s life or knife control would’ve saved Nicole Brown Simpson. When someone is hell-bent, literally, on doing harm to his self and/or others he will find a means to do so. At that point rules and regulations aren’t a deterrent, which is why we all have a God-given right to self defense.

For example, alleged Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes disregarded multiple laws and prohibitions against firearms when he shot those people in cold blood back in July. Researcher John R. Lott notes that almost every single shooting involving multiple victims in the last 50 years of American history took place in a location where firearms were already prohibited.

I’m guessing Jay Rodney Lewis, from my home state of Iowa, is glad he has a God-given right to self defense. Lewis wrongly went to jail for 112 days before a jury of his peers acquitted him on the grounds of self defense when he used his gun to defend himself against two attackers. While defending himself against these charges, which would’ve made him hero in a more sane age, Lewis lost everything and was living in his car until a local church came to his aid.

Lewis’ story is similar to that of former Auto Zone employee Devin McLean, who ought to be an American hero but instead is just another unemployed American worker during the Obama years.
McLean and his store manager were about to close the AutoZone in York County, Va. when a gunman barged into the store. McLean, a 23-year-old Air Force veteran, escaped through the side door to run to his truck for his weapon to make it a fair fight. When he returned he pointed his gun directly at the armed robber.

“I told him to freeze and to drop his weapon,” McLean told Fox News, noting the would-be perp took off instead. “I watched him run down the street. I came back inside and made sure my manager was okay and he called the police.”

Police believe this is the same criminal responsible for as many as 30 robberies in the area. Sheriff J.D. Diggs considers McLean to be a hero.

“He did a very brave thing,” the sheriff said. “He put himself in jeopardy in an attempt to make sure his friend was safe. He did a very brave thing.”

Two days after the attempted robbery Auto Zone fired McLean for violating its no firearms policy. Regardless, I’m guessing McLean’s manager, who credited McLean with saving his life, is eternally grateful that McLean put the Second Amendment ahead of his company’s flawed policy.

What these sorts of tragedies, or near tragedies, really speak to isn’t the need for more restrictions on liberty but an American culture growing increasingly dark morally and spiritually. A culture where the gory equivalent to pornography is celebrated in our movies, assassins and mob hitmen are the heroes in our video games, and we kill 4,000 of our own children every day.

Until Costas and his ilk start speaking to those deeper issues, and not just politicizing the death of others when it’s expedient to do so, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The last thing a culture of death needs is the further exploiting of the loss of life.

Steve Deace is nationally distributed each weeknight from 9-Midnight EST by the Salem Radio Network. His radio program has been featured in major media such as Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Politico, The Weekly Standard, and National Review among others. He has been a columnist for World Net Daily and the Washington Times, and is now a contributor for Town Hall.com.

Friday, December 7, 2012

GOOD NEWS FROM MICHIGAN...



This is great news.  If and when this actually becomes law, some of those “ghost towns” in Michigan will begin to thrive again. 

Lansing — The birthplace of the nation's modern-day labor movement moved closer to becoming the nation's 24th right-to-work state after bills Gov. Rick Snyder vowed to sign into law passed their first hurdles in the Republican-controlled Legislature on Thursday.

The House and Senate each passed bills on the same day they were introduced that give private and public sector workers the right to avoid paying union dues in an organized workplace. Only police officers and firefighters would be exempt.

The package can't reach final completion until at least Tuesday because of procedural rules that require a five-day layover for two of the bills before they can be voted on in the other chamber.
That gives opponents more time to lobby against the legislation, like they did Thursday starting in the early morning when word spread the bills would be introduced, to late evening when the Senate finally adjourned.

The historic legislation passed over the thunderous chanting from thousands of workers who descended on the Capitol, resulting in at least eight arrests and a temporary lockdown of the building by Michigan State Police. Democrats in both chambers staged walkouts and procedural maneuvers to stall passage while workers protested in and outside the Capitol.

The Legislature's votes make Michigan the latest focal point in a national debate over unions — pitting Republicans against Democrats, workers against employers and business interests against many in the middle class who believe right to work will roll back gains made over decades in wages, benefits and working conditions.

Thursday's actions also come a month after voters defeated a statewide referendum that would have enshrined collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, denied the November vote was a mandate for right to work.

Conservatives lauded the move.

THE KING SHUTS DOWN ANOTHER BUSINESS



 His Royal Majesty King Obama shuts down another family owned business





GEORGE ZIMMERMAN UPDATE



George Zimmerman sues NBC over Trayvon Martin reports

From The Washington Post   By Erik Wemple , Updated: December 6, 2012

Lawyers for George Zimmerman filed suit today against NBC Universal Media over a well-publicized editing error that portrayed their client in racist terms in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin on a drizzly evening in February.

“NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so to set about the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain,” states the civil complaint in its opening salvo against NBC.

(Also at The Washington Post: Can Zimmerman prevail against NBC?)
NBC’s editing of the 911 audiotape in the Martin case became a public fixation after the media-monitoring Web site NewsBusters.org noted editing oddities on a “Today” show broadcast March 27.

Here’s how NBC News portrayed the audiotape:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Zimmerman thus didn’t volunteer a racial profile of Martin; he was asked to provide it, a point that the lawsuit makes in colorful fashion: “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create illusions of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.”

The suit against NBC alleges four other instances in which NBC-produced shows aired false and defamatory versions of the same events. Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge in the case.

The botched edits, charges the suit, were far from innocent mistakes: “Defendants pounced on the Zimmerman/Martin matter because they knew this tragedy could be, with proper sensationalizing and manipulation, a racial powderkeg that would result in months, if not years, of topics for their failing news programs, particularly the plummeting ratings for their ailing “Today Show” as well as for the individual defendants to “make their mark” for reporting a [manipulated] story such as this.” Individual defendants are Lilia Luciano and Jeff Burnside, NBC employees involved in early cases of Zimmerman mis-editing.

Following a public uproar over the tape-doctoring, NBC News issued a statement on the matter saying this: “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”

Such contrition didn’t impress the Zimmerman camp. “Only after the defendants’ malicious acts were uncovered and exposed by other media outlets … did defendant NBC ‘apologize’ and terminate some of those in its employ responsible for the yellow journalism identified in this Complaint.”
Zimmerman himself never received an apology from the defendants, according to the suit.

The suit doesn’t specify a dollar amount of damages that Zimmerman is seeking. “That’s
showmanship,” says James Beasley, the Philadelphia-based lawyer representing Zimmerman in the suit.

Beasley declined to comment on whether he’d already had any discussions with NBC. “I don’t want to talk about that. I can’t talk about that. But let’s just say I don’t think it’s going to get settled.”
On that question, at least, Beasley and NBC appear to agree. When asked about the complaint, NBC Universal issued this statement: “We strongly disagree with the accusations made in the complaint. There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly. We intend to vigorously defend our position in court.”

Read more: Can Zimmerman prevail against NBC?


*#*#*#*#***#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# 
NBC needs to pay dearly for what they did.

BOB COSTAS: Just another left wing idiot.



If Kasandra Perkins had owned a gun and knew how to use, maybe she would still be alive.

Here is The Gun Owners of America’s response to the well known idiot Mr. Bob Costas.


Here’s another Judge that understands the Constitution



Judge yanks anti-Christian officials' chain

Blasts attempt to subvert court order against speech restrictions in public park   

by Bob Unruh
A federal judge has scolded the city of Duluth, Minn., and clarified his order that the First Amendment cannot be ignored during a holiday festival, but he stopped short of finding city officials in contempt because he said his order was not clear enough.

The issue was whether the city is allowed to banish free speech during a holiday lights festival at a local park. The judge’s original order said the city could not restrict speech at the events that were run by the 2012-2013 contract.

The city then simply canceled the contract, wrote a new one and started restricting speech again.
U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis reined in the city’s maneuver, however.

“Defendants are hereby enjoined from interfering with or prohibiting plaintiffs and other third party speakers from engaging in protected expression, in the form of peaceful distribution of literature, display of signs and engaging in dialogue, in Bayfront Festival Park during the 2011 Tour of Lights event, the 2012 Tour of Lights event and all other future Tour of Lights events that take place during the pendency of this action, or until further order of this court,” wrote Davis in a new ruling this week.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom went to court for an emergency ruling when the city’s actions came to light. The original case was launched when the city prohibited people from talking peacefully with passers-by and handing out Christian literature.

ADF reported today “people are once again free to peacefully share their faith at the ‘Bentleyville Tour of Lights’ event.”

“The government cannot ban the First Amendment in a public park just because event officials don’t like the message that a person is sharing,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, who is co-counsel in the case with Nate Kellum of the Center for Religious Expression. “The court has done the right thing in enforcing what the original order sought to protect: the constitutionally protected freedom of citizens to engage in non-disruptive speech in a public place.”
This winter, Steve Jankowski and three friends went to the park to speak with passers-by and hand out Christian literature. Just as Jankowski’s friends began to do so, a police officer asked them to leave “even though they were conducting themselves in a non-disruptive manner,” ADF reported.
Officers then told the individuals they could only engage in their free speech activities in a designated “First Amendment zone” outside of the event area. After being told they would be arrested for trespass if they didn’t move, the men left the event.

The city argued that the agreement between the city and the non-profit Tour of Lights had changed and therefore made the court’s injunction null and void, but the court disagreed.

“Because the park is a traditional public forum, and because this year’s BTL event is free and open to the public despite the fact that the 2012 Agreement grants BTLI ‘exclusive use’ of the park, the court finds that the park has retained its public character during the 2012 BTL event,” said the court’s new order.

The judge wrote that the park is a traditional public forum, and the city cannot change that simply by saying so.

“Courts have consistently held that a private event that takes place in a traditional public forum, and is free and open to the public, does not transform the nature of the forum during such event for purposes of analyzing a First Amendment claim,” he wrote.

“The court further finds that granting exclusive use of the park to BTLI has no impact on plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”
And he said the city should have played by the rules.

“The burden was on the city to seek judicial resolution first, before taking actions into its own hands,” he wrote. And added, “If … in the future the city believes that circumstances have materially changed, the city must first seek to vacate or modify the injunction prior to violating the injunction.”
ADF had brought an “Emergency Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction and Hold Defendants in Contempt” over the conflict.

In a letter to ADF, Nathan LaCoursiere, an assistant attorney for the city, said “it is the city’s position that the previous injunction issued in this matter no longer applies.”

This COULD explain things



Was the Benghazi bungle an attempt to advance Islam?