Instead, the news seems to back what legal responsible gun advocates have been saying for years.

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. 

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision. 

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets . . . .” 

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.” 

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. 

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. 

Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent. 

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 “Heller” decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country. 

It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington’s size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall. 

The article has the links and even more stats that are sure to drive a nail into the “more legal guns = more crime” lie that the media and their gun-grabbing allies in DC would love you to buy into. It just isn’t true no matter how many times it’s repeated.

Source

Did you catch what was missing?

If you didn’t, you didn’t watch the video.  If you did, you’ll realize that this wasn’t a puff piece on the CWA and unions done by the unions, it aired as news on CNN.  Apparently no one could be found to give this story the opposing side of how unions harm the general public and stifle businesses.  Whether you agree with it or not, that is an opposing view, and one that this entire 3:29 video is completely lacking in.

How do you call yourself a news organization when you can publish an entire video with your badge on it that has not one lick of criticism, or even critical thinking, about the topic at hand?  In the course of that video we heard as much union propaganda as could be shoved down one’s throat and yet we heard next to no criticism of unions or the policies they tend to employ.  We even learned that the solution to a disparity in income and unemployment in certain communities were to employ more union labor!

It’s embarrassing that this appeared as “news” on a “news network.”  I would have no problem if the CWA or the other unions mentioned in this piece put this out as a pep talk for people.  I have a real problem that a supposed news organization, one that calls itself the gold-standard in cable news, could put this out there with a straight face.

It’s a joke, plain and simple.

As Breitbart notes about this interview:

No questions about unemployment, the budget, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the deficit, Medicare, health care, terrorism, Iran, Syria, Israel, Greece or gas prices.

When does the President, or even more obviously, the Vice President start getting lines of questioning like this?

Insanity, right?

Not to US Weekly. They had no problem at all running it without the slightest bit of verification. The scariest part is that the article says it was during a radio interview; wouldn’t it have been a good idea to get clips? Sean Hannity posts his entire show online and it’s on replay throughout the day around the country. It wouldn’t have been hard to verify.

Nope, they wanted this to be true because it makes Sarah Palin out to be a dumb out of touch racist.

It fit the template.

So they ran with it.

Without verifying it.

I long for the days of Bush Derangement Syndrome because Palin Derangement Syndrome is waaaaaaaay scarier.

My favorite part?  At the end where Lee points out that the people the study calls misinformed are actually more informed than the people tallying the study.

It amazes me how easily this was digested and regurgitated by idiots.  Of course, the people that regurgitated it did so because they believed the conclusion before reading the study anyway.

It’s called confirmation bias, people.  Look it up.

Pretty much.

To quote John Stewart, “Stop making me defend Sarah Palin!”

Only near the end of her report did Jarvis acknowledge that there was still a long way to go before GM came anywhere near paying back taxpayers: “Right now today, the stock debuts, like I said, at $33 a share, but it’s significant because it has to continue to climb in order to make back all of our investment. In fact, we have to basically get $44 a share for every share of General Motors in order to get back that entire $50 billion investment.”

It turns out that Jarvis may have actually been low-balling the amount of money per share needed for American taxpayers to break even. An article for The New York Times ‘Dealbook’ blog declared: “To break even, the Treasury Department will need to sell its remaining 500 million shares at an average price of $53 each in the months and years to come.” In fact, in an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Wednesday, the former head of the U.S. Automotive Task Force, Steve Rattner, explained that, “The government may lose $5 billion to $7 billion on its rescue of the auto industry.”

And that’s $5bn-$7bn if they sell at $53 a share. In other words, if buyers of the stock buy it ignoring the fact that the US Government is holding a buttload of shares and needs to dump them to get its investment back, and the stock climbs to almost double what it’s worth, we’ll only lose about $6bn.

I don’t know how these people keep a straight face.

Source

In September, two months before the election, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer prize winning columnist at the Washington Post, ran a column under the headline, “The spoiled-brat American electorate.”   This is how it began: “According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that if you listen to liberal journalists the voters are always angry and stupid when they’re tossing Democrats out.  But they’re high-minded and caring when they’re giving Republicans the heave-ho.

You may recall that in 2006 and 2008 when Democrats took over both Houses of Congress, it was those high-minded, caring “soccer moms,” looking out for the welfare of their families, who went to the polls to vote for Democrats.  They were never described as “angry” or “irrational” or “throwing a temper tantrum” — even though they were cleaning house just as the voters did yesterday.

So let’s review:  As far as liberal journalists are concerned, when the American people vote for Democrats it’s because they’re full of hope and want positive change and care about their little kiddies.  And when they vote for Republicans, it’s because they’re angry, stupid and irrational.

Nothing I could possibly add to that.

Source

The following voice mail message was inadvertently left on the cell phone of Joe Miller campaign spokesperson Randy DeSoto.

The voices are believed to be those of the news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussing creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.

The following is a transcript of a call recorded after CBS Alaska affiliate KTVA called Joe Miller’s Senate campaign spokesperson. The call failed to disconnect properly. It was later authenticated by McDermott, who sent a text to Randy DeSoto stating, “Damn iPhone… I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry.”

Well, seeing as he admitted it, what was said?

Yep. Not a case of media bias. Must be in my mind. I’m imagining that we just heard a CBS affiliate plotting to discredit a campaign and accusing attendees of being child molesters.

Unbelievable.

At least they can’t deny it now that it’s been caught on tape.

Anyway, here’s his opening monologue…

Bravo!

How quaint.  I guess Nina would’ve been fired if Jesse Helms were a Muslim.

Or something.

By now if you are a political junkie you know that the Queen of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas, was heard to voice the anti-Semitic sentiment that all the Jews in Israel should “go back to Germany and Poland,” where they came from. So far, the tepid response from the oh, so racially sensitive left and the Old Media has been nothing short of breathtaking.

But this lack of interest in a racist comment by a high profile member of the media isn’t de rigueur. One must only recall the firestorm that radio/TV guy Don Imus kicked up back in 2007 when he called some African-American basketball players ”nappy-headed ho’s.” Imus was immediately excoriated and forced off the air.

Thomas, however, is being treated with a total lack of concern by the same overly race-conscious media that destroyed Imus. One would think that racism is racism no matter who says it or toward which race, creed, religion or people the evil sentiment is directed. If standing against racism was the goal, one would think that the left and its Old Media buddies would be just as incensed at Helen Thomas wishing a new Holocaust upon the Jews as they were over Don Imus’s using a racial slur against some black basketball players.

But thus far, Helen Thomas is being given a pass while Imus was at the top of the most shrill news coverage starting only hours after he made his on air comment and lasting for at least a week of condemnation.

That’s because Don Imus was a white guy going after black people. Helen Thomas is a known and unapologetic liberal and you will never see the vultures in the media eat one of their own. If you’re gonna argue with me on this one, fine, but you’d better have a damn good explanation as to how Thomas’ remarks have faced, to put it lightly, yawns.

Source

Was she bummed that it came really close to causing hundreds of deaths? Nope.

Was she bummed that were it not for pure dumb luck things would’ve gotten ugly? Nope.

She was bummed that the perpetrator was a Muslim.

Contessa Brewer: I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Hutaree militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.

That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. Obviously this guy did.

And we’re supposed to believe she’s objective.

Of course, Contessa Brewer is the same genius who postulated that Arizona’s immigration law made it illegal to be there illegally. Thank God she’s on it, right?

Well done, Dana.

So I’m not quite sure how this falls into the new mantra of “we need more civility.” I guess it doesn’t because these are Reid supporters and, as we all know, if that loudmouthed schmuck did beat up Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart probably deserved it.

I love how the civility patrol is nowhere to be found on this stuff.

The latest meme going around the media at the direction of their CEO (ie: the White House) is that the Republicans have no plan to reform health care and have not made a plan public. Without skipping a beat, this went from a Democrat talking point to a media sensation as every single sycophantic media douchebag parroted the line, “Where’s your plan?”

Well, guys, if you had bothered to look, you would’ve found it.

Because it’s been linked for an entire week.

Where?

How about the White House’s website?

Now surely you’ve heard of the White House. That’s where your hero, the Great One^tm lives. Surely you know him, also. He’s the one that’s started this campaign of “they don’t have a plan.”

Anyway, here’s how the White House website has appeared for a week.

Don’t believe my screenshot? Fine. Go look for yourself.

I found all that in about 20 seconds of searching. Somehow with all their staffers, MSNBC, CNN, the AP & Reuters missed it.

Of course it’s easy to miss what you don’t want to find.

The interesting number, of course, isn’t Democrats vs. Republicans; it’s independents, of which I count myself amongst.

via Newsbusters