This week, we've had to watch a string of liberals appropriate the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. to push the Left's agenda of the moment. Sadly, one of the most egregious offenders is Martin Luther King III, who penned an extremely disappointing op-ed for the Washington Post. We're supposed to think that if Dr. King were alive today, his top priorities would be repealing Stand Your Ground laws and pushing for a ban on assault weapons. Here's why:
The date of the ’63 march, Aug. 28, was chosen to commemorate the eighth anniversary of the brutal slaying of 14-year-old Emmett Till. The ensuing outcry helped to awaken a new era of protest against racial injustice. A half-century later, however, African American youth still have good reason to fear racially motivated violence.
When an unarmed 17-year-old walking home with Skittles can be brutally slain by an armed man — a man who had been told by police to leave the boy alone — and that man is acquitted of all charges, something is very wrong. The so-called “stand your ground” and “stop-and-frisk” laws that have been enacted in various states in recent years disproportionately abuse people of color.
These ill-considered laws are a serious threat to the freedom and safety of all Americans. The appalling racial injustice inherent in the Trayvon Martin tragedy reminds us that there is still much to do.
You know what I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr. doing in his mighty history-changing speeches? Lying.
I hope he'd be appalled by this sort of lazy B.S. pouring from his son, and properly nauseated by this dreary effort to link Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till. I think he's also encourage a healthier degree of respect for verdicts handed down in a fair court of law. And he might have a word to say about how many people of color have been saved by Stand Your Ground laws, which - for the umpteenth time - had nothing to do with George Zimmerman's legal defense.
The U.K.'s Daily Mail has finally removed an article proven false by an exclusive interview with Breitbart News from their website, although no statement was provided to readers to inform them that the story had been based on a falsehood.
The Daily Mail had continued to run a debunked story claiming a George Zimmerman supporter was carrying a sign saying "We're Racist & Proud!" during a Houston counter-protest, despite being informed three days previously via email that the source for the article, a New York Daily News report, had been retracted. There was also a substantial outcry over the inaccuracy of the story from social media, the blogosphere, and U.S. media sources.
The hoax came after after the New Black Panther Party held a march for Trayvon Martin on July 21, 2013 that resulted in a counter-demonstration. A woman on the pro-Trayvon side of the clearly separated and distinguishable protests held a sign that read: “We're Racist & Proud!”
The Houston Chronicle then reported on a picture of her holding the sign in an unclear manner, which the New York Daily News' Philip Caulfield then distorted the ambiguous Houston Chronicle piece and turned the woman with the sign into “a Zimmerman supporter.” The New York Daily News immediately retracted their claim once they were made aware that Breitbart News had video evidence that the woman was actually a left-of-center Trayvon Martin supporter.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail took the false segment of the New York Daily News report and then based an entire article off of the narrative of the “racist” sign. While the incorrect information in New York Daily News article represented a small section of their larger article on the protest, the Daily Mail based an entire article and its headline on the fallacy.
Breitbart News wrote to the Daily Mail but did not receive a response after three days.
This is the claim the publication continued to make available to their readers until today:
Around 80 people gathered on a street in Houston's River Oaks area, some carrying American flags and shouting support for stand-your-ground self-defense laws. Members of this group held signs that read: "We're racist and proud."
The link to the Daily Mail article now takes readers to a page that states, "Sorry... The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available."
The Pakistani Taliban sent a letter to 16-year old Malala Yousafzai explaining why they are right and she is wrong in the aftermath of their failed assassination of the outspoken young woman.
According to The Telegraph, the letter to Yousafzai was written by Adnan Rasheed--a senior member in the Pakistani branch of the Taliban. The letter is a response to Yousafzai's July 12 U.N. speech calling attention to women's education and her desires for world peace.
Yousafzai has made a name for herself by campaigning for expanded educational opportunities for women in Islamic countries and around the world; the Pakistani Taliban, conversely, has a made a name for itself by trying to silence to her--permanently.
Rasheed used the letter to accuse Yousafzai of "pushing U.N. propaganda"; he criticized the Westernized education system he believes she represents. He wrote that such an "education system that has no place in Islam." He even dismissed the attempted assassination of Yousafzai by asking if "there would have been such an outcry if she had been injured in a U.S. drone strike."
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.
Now that the trial to determine whether or not he was guilty of a malicious murder is over, George Zimmerman's lawyers are stepping up their lawsuit against NBC News for airing edited audio that allegedly made their client look like a racist.
Last December, Zimmerman filed the lawsuit against NBC for airing what many outlets described as deceptively edited audio on the March 27 broadcast of the Today show.
On the morning show, NBC spliced together two lines spoken by Zimmerman as he talked to a 911 operator to report Trayvon Martin as a suspicious character wandering his neighborhood.
On the NBC version of the call, Zimmerman is heard to say: "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
This makes Zimmerman seem to find Martin suspicious because of his race. However, the full audio showed Zimmerman described the teen's behavior as "up to no good," and he did not mention race until asked about it by a dispatcher.
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.
Breitbart News first reported the edit, leading to an outcry from conservative media and even criticism fro progressive news outlet Mother Jones. Then-NBC News President Steve Capus called the edit "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call" in April of 2012. Almost a year later, Capus left the company.
In December, Zimmerman's lawyers said that NBC created a "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 the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made."
The lawsuit was help up pending the outcome of the murder trial. Now that a Florida jury has decided that Zimmerman is not guilty of all charges, the neighborhood watcher is surging ahead with his lawsuit against the network.
The Washington Post reports that Zimmerman lawyer James Beasley is ready to go forward against NBC—and as soon as possible, at that.
"This verdict of not guilty is just that, and shows that at least this jury didn’t believe that George was a racist, profiling, or anything that the press accused George of being," Beasley said. "That probably doesn’t get you that much but it’s simply time for us to start the case and hold accountable anyone who was irresponsible in their journalism."
On Friday, conservative author and thinker David Horowitz penned a piece suggesting that conservatives have jumped the gun on their defense of George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin:
It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin’s death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin’s death.
Horowitz continues by stating that Zimmerman was not credible based on his statements that he did not have money for bail, and that he did not know about the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. Horowitz finds Zimmerman’s interview with Sean Hannity “most disturbing” thanks to Zimmerman’s statement that he wouldn’t do anything differently if he could change that night.
Horowitz concludes: “The Stand Your Ground Law should be rewritten to apply only to home invasions since then it is clear that the intruder is the aggressor and the response is self-defense. Second, Neighborhood Watch guards should not be permitted to conceal and carry.”
On June 21 Bill Maher spoke with female Saudi Arabian film maker Haifaa al Mansour about how the rules guarding freedom of speech and expression are becoming narrower instead of broader in countries where the Arab Spring took place.
Said Maher: "The Arab Spring kind of turned in to the Arab Winter."
As The Daily Caller noted, Maher made clear he was not criticizing people with those comments. However, he did say he was "criticizing a belief system that turns people into something they wish they wouldn't be."
Yet Maher said "American Muslims and liberals" just can't get that into their heads.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, Maher said:
Mecca is the capital of the country. And they routinely put people to death ... the religious capital, and it's equivalent to like the Vatican, right--with Catholicism. And, if at the Vatican, they were putting people to death for homosexuality and apostasy and, you know, adultery ... I feel there would be a big outcry. I feel that liberals would be upset about that.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins
A new CNN poll released Monday generated a lot of attention on the dramatic drop in President Obama's approval ratings. The top-line approval numbers were not the most troubling news for the White House, however. Obama now polls much worse than President Bush did on handling government surveillance and protecting civil liberties.
Just 35% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of government surveillance on citizens. 61% disapprove. This is 13 points worse than President Bush scored in the Spring of 2006, just months before the Democrats seized control of Congress. In a poll in May, 2006, 39% approved of how Bush was handling the issue, while 52% disapproved. Bush's numbers came amidst a large outcry from the left and the media criticizing his Administration's anti-terror policies. Yet, today, Obama's numbers are worse.
Also in Monday's CNN poll, 43% of Americans said the Obama Administration had "gone too far" in restricting citizens' civil liberties. In the Fall of 2006, just 39% of Americans said the same thing about Bush.
Much of Obama's first campaign for President was driven by his opposition to Bush's anti-terrorism policies and the government's surveillance activities. Not only has Obama continued these policies; in many cases he has expanded them.
Unfortunately for the White House, the American people have noticed this fact.
Abdel Bari Atwan is Editor-In-Chief of London based Al Quds Al Arabi, an Arab language daily newspaper published since 1989. He is a frequent guest on the BBC, known for making controversial, anti-Israeli statements and provoking heated exchanges with adversaries.
On his personal blog, he has criticized President Obama for daring to suggest that Palestinians must acknowledge Israel's right to exist:
We thought he’d understand the Palestinians’ suffering under Israeli occupation, their humiliation at checkpoints and the whole racist infrastructure of the Zionist state.
But we were wrong. He has broken our trust and dashed our hopes, reminding us instead of Uncle Tom (from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin) – the black servant whose subservience to his white master overcame his humanity.
Barack Hussein Obama surprised us with his speech in Jerusalem when he demanded the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state and urged the Arab states to recognize Israel. People who deny Israel’s right to exit, Obama reasoned, are like people who deny the Earth and the sky.
If an Israeli journalist called President Obama an "Uncle Tom'" because he called for Israel to recognize the Palestinian's right to their own state, there would be an outcry from the media and the political left. The journalist and the publication would be condemned. Will there be a condemnation of Mr. Atwan or will he get a pass because he is part of a politically correct protected group?
Not that bizarre utterances are anything new to this Vice President....
Life News reported:
Vice-President Joe Biden has put his foot in his mouth again, this time with regard to the controversy over his leading the American delegation to attend the installation of Pope Francis as the new Pope.
Never mind that Vice President Joe Biden has been rebuked by his own bishop over his pro-abortion views, President Barack Obama chose him to lead the delegation. That decision prompted an outcry from Catholics and pro-life non-Catholics alike because of Biden’s longstanding pro-abortion record. Some pro-life advocates have called for Biden to be prohibited from receiving communion at any ceremony for Pope Francis.
Now, Biden has said he plans to attend the celebratory Mass. He confirmed he will be attending a reception tonight with the presidential delegation to the inaugural mass with American officials based in Rome. Biden says he has to attend “or I’ll lose my soul.”
Biden’s comment came as he met at the Villa Aurelia with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to reporters on the scene.
I would submit that if he were really worried about the status of his soul, he would have a different stance on abortion, and he certainly would not support an HHS Mandate that forces religious people to violate their consciences. It's nothing less than a travesty that a supporter of a policy that infringes on the religious liberties of American Catholics would be leading the American delegation to attend the installation of our new Pope.
On Feb. 19, the Arkansas state legislature passed legislation protecting the names of concealed carry permit holders from being released under state Freedom of Information Act requests. On Feb. 22, Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mark Darr signed the bill into law.
In the time between the passage of the legislation and its being signed into law, Arkansas Business editor Gwen Moritz took advantage of her one last chance to post the names of concealed permit holders for all to see.
The outcry over the publication of the names was go great, that Arkansas Business quickly took the list down.
In its place, this was posted:
At the request of a number of licensees who were concerned that they might be targeted by criminals, Arkansas Business has voluntarily removed a link to a spreadsheet of concealed carry licensees generated by the Arkansas State Police on Friday morning before the information was exempted from the State Freedom of Information Act. However, the spreadsheet will be available by request. If you want a copy email GMoritz@ABPG.com