MSNBC Spins Town Hall Gun-Toters as Racism

The news media just keeps getting more and more fun everyday, doesn't it? On August 18th, MSNBC news reporters did a segment on gun-toting protesters and their attendance at town hall meetings, specifically the one lead by President Obama in Phoenix, AZ last week. One particular gentleman that seemed to be the focus of the broadcast reportedly arrived at the President's town hall, with an AR-15 semi-automatic assualt rife slung over his shoulder, and a pistol on his hip. Now, if this were a commentary on the relationship between people bringing weapons with them to town hall meetings and the general feeling of civil unrest in our country right now, that would have been an interesting factoid about the gentlemen with the guns.

However, MSNBC didn't go that route. Far from it. The anchorwoman goes on to state, "...there are questions as to whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist." The camera then cuts to a clip of the torso of a gentleman in a white button-down long sleeve shirt, with aforementioned firearms on his person. And the discussion continues, "There is tremendous anger in this country about government...anger about a black person being president. You know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that." Now, that's a serious accusation, lobbing this man into a racist hate group because he is carrying a firearm.

Ok, so we have white angry people showing up to town hall meetings with guns, to intimidate our President? Or is it black people in general, that these gun owners hate? Which is it, MSNBC? They made it clear, in this report, that the gun issue here was about race. Angry white people carrying guns because we have a black president. I think we're beginning to wear a hole clean through the ol' race card because it's being played so much in this administration. Oh but it doesn't stop there. The reporter went on to say, "I'm not gonna be surprised if we see somebody get a chance and take a chance to really try to hurt him [President Obama], and it's up to the Secret Service to make sure it doesn't become history. 'Cause there's so much anger in the country about him, and about government." God forbid. Why would you even breathe that thought on a news broadcast?

And the icing on the cake, ladies and gentleman. Interestingly enough, CNN reported on the same town hall meeting, but they actually interviewed the man with the AR-15, who scandalously admitted the gun was loaded (Of course it was loaded. Why would you bring a gun anywhere that wasn't loaded? That makes about as much sense as having a car but not putting any gas in it.) And guess what folks? That angry racist loaded-semi-automatic-assault-rifle-carrying man.... was, in fact, a black man. MSNBC cropped his head out of the pictures during their broadcast, so all you could see was his white shirt and his guns. You can view the contrasting videos side by side and see for yourself:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caught-dishonestly-editing-town-hall-gun-footage/

Was this just sloppiness on the part of MSNBC or intentionally manipulated to perpetuate an agenda? You make the call. Either way, it's unacceptable. And to add insult to injury, not only did they misreport on the man's race but they overtly accused pro-gun town hall participants of being racist. If FOX news were responsible for a gaff of this magnitude, you would see it broadcast on every channel at every hour for a week straight.


So perhaps, just perhaps, the anger at these town hall meetings is not a right-wing conspiracy orchestrated by the GOP, but reflecting some genuine outrage at our government, our elected officials, and the media's spin on the whole thing. I believe the unrest is a truly American attempt to fight back. And the unrest we see at these town halls gives me hope, that not every American is complacent and comfortable and disinterested. I would also like to add that the man was not breaking the law, he had a concealed carry permit in the state and had every right to carry those weapons wherever he wanted to, including to a town hall meeting where Our President was speaking. That's what the second amendment is. It's a right... to bear arms. And he was bearing them. I might add, if this trend of government expansion continues, and the Fed gets its sticky fingers into all sects of American life, and the rest of our nation wakes up and decides it wants to put the brakes on this whole "let the government take care of me" attitude, the socio-economic ball may just be rolling too fast at that point. And it's only going to be the armed Americans who are going to be able to protect themselves and their families. That's why the second amendment exists. To constitutionally protect the American people from its own government, which I remind you, is most definitely armed.

"...and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Hardback Thieves

One of my favorite places, literally in the world, is the bookstore. I'm home there. I love to be surrounded by the works of my heroes, by the texts of budding authors, and ultimately by a massive amount of information at my disposal. I am always in awe of how much I don't know in a bookstore and my appetite is whetted to learn new things. That being said, my love of the bookstore comes from my profound respect for authors and their craft. To build a world out of words, to construct whole human beings with histories and scars, to paint sceneries and smells out of diction alone, and invest your readers into the fate of a character that is so real- they move in the struggle of the protagonist as if it were their own. So I find nothing more completely outrageous than people having the audacity to publish works that rip off the genius of true authors.

The newest wave of thievery is the vampire rage created by Stephanie Meyer's Twilight. Now, walking into the store, you are bombarded with books about vampires. A few years ago, it was The Da Vinci Code ripoffs everywhere. Books about cracking the code, breaking down the mystery, exposing the truth! (Everyone failed to notice the word "novel" on the cover, I guess) And I'm not fan of Dan Brown and his mass manipulation of Catholicism and its history, but the line of people who jumped on board to cash in on his writing was never ending. And it's not ethical.

And here comes the real atrocity. If I had a nickel for every book I've stumbled upon that rips off Jane Austen, I would be a rich woman. To her credit, almost every modern love story in existence has borrowed the romantic plot line of Pride and Prejudice. But I'm talking about overtly blatant robbery. Books with titles like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or "Mr. Darcy's Lover/ Letter to Elizabeth/ Daughters" Mr. Darcy Presents his Bride, are authored by looters. There is no simpler way to put it. These people and the companies that publish them are nothing short of thieves, can't come up with their own art, so they piggyback off the success of someone else to pay homage to the almighty dollar. And not only that, but they bastardize the genius of the original work. How dare you, random name-not-worth-mentioning-author, have the gall to brazenly pick up where a timeless classic left off and continue those characters and that story in your barely C+ writing style.

It's really outrageous. And it does seem that there are bigger fires worth putting out in this world, but understand that I love these works. I respect the authors of truly great works. They have significantly impacted my life and helped shape me into the woman I am today. I have no time for sensationalism, in literature or otherwise. So yes, this is me- angry about books.

Free money AND a new car?! Sign me up!

I was reading an article today by Dick Morris on the Cash for Clunkers program. I'm sure everyone has seen the commercials on TV for their local car dealerships, urging you to come trade in your "clunker" for up to $4,500 in government money towards the purchase of a new car. Cash for Clunkers is one of the programs created to spend some of that $787 Billion that was supposed to be saving the world. Originally, the program had $2 Billion dollars worth of taxpayer dollars behind it, which we promptly blew through in four days. So the government dumped another $2 Billion into the program, and we're back in business. But are we?

Cash for Clunkers seems great, right? Who doesn't want "free money? Money in exchange a rusty old '82 Silverado pickup? And to boot... we get to get rid of all those gas guzzling rattle-traps and get some new, sleek, fuel-efficient, eco-friendly, "green is the new black" cars on the road. This program seemingly does it all; gives money to people for junk, stimulates the auto industry, sells cars that save the earth, etc. etc. etc. Now, I know what you're thinking. "You're such a cynic, Briana." But bear with me, here.

Eco-friendly. Where are all of these hundreds and thousands of "clunkers" going? To a trash heap somewhere. ::gasp:: We've made trash. And a lot of it, all at once. Instead of hundreds and thousands of these cars making their way off the road over years time, they're all being retired together. And what energy, electricity, power and resources are being expended to make all of these new cars? Now I'm not a big proponent of people driving ridiculous four-mile-to-the-gallon Hummers, or single people shlepping around in Suburbans (although those people have a right to own and drive whatever car they so desire) but I don't know that we're really saving the earth from gobs of unnecessary pollution by speeding up the process, and getting these old cars off the road. What are we going to do with all of this garbage?

The cake topper on all of this is the facts about the cars being traded in and purchased through this program. All ten of the top ten car models being traded in, with Cash for Clunkers, are American cars. All ten. And consequently, six out of the top ten cars being purchased (and four out of the top five!) are foreign. Now it would be a violation of the World Trade Organization rules to skew a policy to favor domestically manufactured products, and I am not suggesting that, but this is not stimulating any economy except Japan's! This is not creating jobs, it's just making a lot of money for the few dealerships who are willing to sign up and wait with their hand out, for their government checks. This is why government getting its sticky fingers all over the free market doesn't work, because there are unintentional consequences all over the place. This Cash for Clunkers program proves, in the words of Mr. Morris, "that Barack Obama is the best president Japan has ever had."

(according to the Department of Transportation)

Top 10 Trade-Ins

1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

Top 10 Purchased Cars

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyndai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Heckling on Healthcare Unpatriotic?

With all of the debate about healthcare reform recently, there have been many very interesting reports on almost all major news networks about civil unrest, protestors (I'm sorry, I mean "tea baggers") who are "heckling" their Senators and Congressmen to vote down this Administration's Healthcare Reform Bill. I think it can be agreed across the board that the issue of healthcare has created a very passionate response from both liberals and conservatives. Some people believe that nationalized healthcare is a human rights issue, that everyone should be able to get the same healthcare that our military and government employees enjoy. Another common concern is that the rising cost of healthcare is making it unaffordable for Americans across the board. And although I believe this is true and unfortunate, I also believe that the proposed solution by liberals, to nationalize healthcare, would be the final nail in the coffin of this great nation's capitalistic system.

As it stands right now, entitlement programs, liked Medicare and Social Security, make up 25% of our Federal Budget. That means one quarter of what our government spends every year, including what is spent on National Defense (i.e.. the wars, and our military), is going to fund these entitlement programs. Once people get on these programs, it is almost impossible to get them off. So Obama's healthcare proposal would add approximately 50 million more Americans to this already oppressive burden. It would literally cripple our nation. Not to mention, let's take a look at how efficiently our government is able to run any business or organization. How bout the Post Office? Not exactly flourishing. And anyone who has been in the DMV in the last five years, knows what a significantly less stressful experience that is, since it's been privatized and no longer run by the government. I used to spend countless hours of my day in the DMV, waiting to be herded through the disorganization of 12 different lines for different paperwork and literally borderline chaos, just so I could renew my driver's license. And we want our Government to run our healthcare? I think it's telling that people all over the world don't save their nickels and dimes to have open brain surgery in... France. They come here. Because we have the best doctor's and nurses in the world. Because they're competitive with each other. Because we're capitalists. Let me tell you what Universal Healthcare would look like, if you were a Canadian, for example, or an Italian. Your healthcare plan looks like this: Don't get sick.

Because everyone will be "covered," any surgeries, or procedures will be given on a basis of need in relation to your age. So if you're 70, and you need a hysterectomy, you're not going to get it. Because there is always going to be a 30-year-old woman who needs a hysterectomy, and she is more productive and has a longer life expectancy than you do at 70. So it's more worthwhile for the government to spend the money for that procedure on her, than on you. Sad story for you, huh? But they won't actually deny you. You'll just be on a wait list indefinitely.

Also, what is the incentive for people to spend a ton of time and money on an education to become a physician, if they are going to make the same money as a state-salaried teacher? Sure, I like to hope that majority of the doctors in this country go into medicine because they genuinely want to help people, but I'm sure they want to make a decent living as well. And I don't blame them. If we're paying Jennifer Aniston eight million dollars per movie, I think the doctor that will save her life in the event of a catastrophic accident should get some loose change too. But now imagine you're a physician, and you have a never ending line of people in your office to see you, as socialized medicine would dictate. You're going to make money based on how many patients you see in a day. So you're going to try to pump out as many office visits as you physically can. Which makes me question, what kind of quality care are we going to be getting from our doctors? It's not fair to them, to have to practice medicine this way, nor is it to the patients.

Everyone has heard our President say that if you have health insurance that you like, you can keep it. But what you don't hear is the reality that it's not up to you. Sure you can try to keep it, but what he doesn't tell you is that the premiums for your employer are going to skyrocket to help pay for all of the Americans now getting health insurance who don't have an employer to subsidize their costs. So majority of employers are going to drop their full-time employees from their insurance, because this burden is going to significantly cut into their ability (and right) to make money for their business. Obama's solution to that problem? Create law that wouldn't allow those businesses to drop their employees' coverage. Ok, but then majority of those businesses won't survive. They'll go out of business completely, or move overseas, where they can be more productive and make more money. We will lose those businesses, and in turn jobs, not to mention health insurance. If it weren't so dire, it would almost laughable.

I agree that the healthcare system right now is flawed, and in a lot of ways ineffective, but the proposed solution will cause a domino effect of catastrophe that will be irreparable.

This is why people are protesting. Americans are very angry, for a number of reasons. It seems like there is a hand out for everyone except people who work hard, invest their money and pay their ever-increasing taxes. The people who are the backbone of this country are getting the rug pulled out from under them time and time again, because of some agenda of some suit in Washington. This is not some staged uprising from the GOP. This is not right-wing conspiracy, are you kidding me? We're angry. People want to be heard, and the only power we have is to make it very clear to the officials we've elected, that they are not voicing the opinion of the people they promised to represent, and we are not taking it lying down anymore.

And now the media is telling us that protesting is unpatriotic. That it's heckling. That is a Republican scare tactic. I find it very interesting that protesting was not unpatriotic when it was Prop 8 being voted down, that caused outrage. The media didn't use the word "unpatriotic" when people were furious at the injustice of "George Bush's War." But we all know the news doesn't fairly represent both parties agendas in America. Maybe the media is condemning the people with hoarse voices and painted signs right now, but we're Americans. Stand up. Fight. Be heard. That's what we do in this country. So if you're angry, be angry. If you're pleased with the actions of this Administration, make your voice heard in consent. But do something, do not just sit by with indifference and let the world change around you. Because one of these days, you're going to wake up and this country is going to be drastically different. And you're going to say, "How did this happen? How did we get here? But I didn't know!" And your rights are going to be different. Your government is going to be different. Our laws, our taxes, our lives as citizens of the United States of America are going to be drastically different. For all of the people in this world, citizens of other countries, who don't have the right to their own voice, who don't have the freedom to paint signs, to mock their President, to disagree- it is your responsibility to stand up. And fight back.

CNN Objective?

I was watching an interview on Julie Menin's 'Give and Take' with CNN's prime time news journalist, Campbell Brown, today. During the interview she patted both herself and her network on the back for being, "the only one still doing Journalism." Campbell, who used to work for NBC, is relatively new to CNN with her show, "No Bias, No Bull." During the course of the interview, she states, "Fox has made a choice to go in one direction, MSNBC has made a choice to go in the other direction... I mean, there are a lot of people who want to be in an eco-chamber, and want their views validated. And you see that, with Fox and MSNBC, they have an automatic punching bag, if you will." Okay, so Ms. Brown is going to claim that CNN is the only network doing fair and balanced Journalism. She expresses her disappointment at the lack of competition in legitimate news broadcasting today. That's a pretty hefty claim to make and it deserves a bit of carcass picking. Okay let's look at Fox first.

Liberals, for the most part, don't watch Fox. As a conservative, I hear continual groans and see eyes roll as soon as I bring up anything about Fox news. But the reality is, I don't limit myself only to Fox. I enjoy it, yes. I enjoy hearing intelligent debate about the issues that matter. I enjoy hearing people like Megyn Kelly debate with democrats like Alan Colmes and Juan Davis. In a world that's gone so far left the pendulum may have broken, I still enjoy hearing my views validated from time to time. I also find Hannity entertaining, and Glenn Beck dares to report on things you wouldn't hear anywhere else. But even in reference to the blatant stark often-confrontational opinions of Hannity and Beck, I think the little digs I hear everyday about the GOP and its members on non-news related shows, like The View and David Letterman, in the grand scheme of things Hannity and Beck balance things out a bit.

But I also watch CNN, because I wouldn't respect my own viewpoint anymore than someone who gets their news solely from Larry King if I limited myself to Fox. I would argue, however, that liberals who attack Fox news regularly, haven't watched very much news on the network. With the exception of the prime time talk radio shows (like Hannity and Beck) the majority of Fox news reporting is decidedly fair and balanced. When a hot new political issue arises, there are almost always both Democrat and Republican commentators on the show, engaging in thoughtful if sometimes heated debate with each other. Whenever you hear criticism of Fox news, one of the first names you hear is Bill O'Reilly, who over the years has painted himself as a squawking ring-wing bully, synonymous with names like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. But I don't know if old age has mellowed old Billy out a bit or if he's just gotten a lot out of his system over all these years, but his show is now one of the most fair talk radio shows on television today, and I believe his ratings are a testament to that. Mr. O'Reilly doesn't hesitate to criticize conservatives, nor does he hold back praise for our president or his administration where it's due. I think his interviews with Obama during the campaign were very straightforward and fair. He didn't ask loaded questions, he didn't attack or bully. But he also didn't give him a free ride, asking him questions about what it feels like to be a celebrity or his pick for the NBA playoffs.

If Campbell Brown is going to claim that CNN is the only network still doing Journalism, then I would like to look at the word choice of some commentary that made me scratch my head on CNN.com today. CNN State Department Producer, Elise Labott, wrote an article entitled, "Analysis: Clinton to North Korea- A matter of respect." This is one of many articles on the subject that give a partisan representation of current events.The article praises Clinton's continuation of diplomacy that began during his administration in the 90's, "That's what Bill Clinton's visit gave North Korea; a level of respect the North Korean state so desperately craves but rarely gets." Wait... what?!

First of all, what respect does Kim Jung iI deserve? A power crazed amoral dictator who oppresses his own people by denying them simple rights that we Americans enjoy every day. So let me get this straight. This crazy lunatic man, set the terms for the release of these two American Journalists and the great nation of The United States of America acquiesced. His requirements were as follows: He wanted a formal apology from the White House, and also a high-profile intermediary to come to North Korea and collect the journalists. Excuse my pessimism but dare I ask the question, at what cost? I'm sorry but the day those women were taken into custody by the North Koreans, OUR PRESIDENT should have handled it quickly and decisively, because he is the leader of the free world. Instead, we lolly-gagged and waited, nervous to agitate the already tumultuous Kim Jung iI- and waited for him to set the terms of their release. Very strong. Very American of us. I think our forefathers are rolling over in their graves. Again, anyone who watches the news knows that the media slammed George Bush for refusing to negotiate with North Korea. Former Vice President Dick Cheney was quoted for saying, "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." I know this is terribly arrogant and ballsy of me, but I agree Mr. Cheney! Instead, we have a Secretary of State who was willing to apologize to North Korea for our journalists "trespassing," and then present Bill Clinton for a perfect photo-op so the North Korean media can portray Kim Jung iI as a benevolent peace-loving ever-forgiving leader to his starving, abused, uneducated oppressed people. Fair and balanced, people?

Why isn't anyone asking the question, why has North Korea launched a series of long range test missiles, capable of reaching Hawaii, including seven test missiles on July 4 in defiance of our Independence Day? I'm sorry but Hawaii is a little too close for comfort for me. This guy is out of control. I guarantee you, those missiles would not have been launched if George W. were still in office. Because he wouldn't have hesitated one moment to put North Korea in its place. The man certainly had his share of mishaps, as all Presidents do, but he was a force to be reckoned with, and world leaders didn't test his threats. The UN has tried countless times to negotiate with North Korea and it continues to breach agreements, violate UN sanctions and jeopardize the safety of the entire world. Just this summer, Kim Jung iI vowed to destroy the United States and any other nation who interferes with his ability to procure nuclear weapons. We're negotiating with this man? It's a matter of respect, Ms. Labott? The President of North Korea doesn't deserve anything except to be taken out of power, so the people of North Korea can live as free human beings with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, like the rest of the free world. We now live in a nation where the bad behavior of heartless dictators is rewarded, in the name of diplomacy? Yet, you hear none of these questions raised on CNN. Bravo, Obama. Hats off. You've awed us again with your wisdom! Is it possible, that instead of this being heralded as a victory for the US, the rest of the world is laughing at us?

As a conservative, I do not limit myself to only watching, listening to, or reading conservative news. But I pay attention to what's going on, and I pay attention to patterns and history and what has worked and failed in our nation's government. I try to absorb a little of everything to broaden my point of view, and continually question both sides of an issue to more soundly shape my ideas. So, as young Americans, I urge you to do the same. Read between the lines whenever you are listening to a news broadcast. Pay attention to the word choice of the anchors and the headlines. Listen for the subtleties. If you're only getting your news from Jon Stewart or Rolling Stone magazine, or even only CNN or NBC, (and you know who you are) I urge you to fine tune your listening skills and notice the language that is used to manipulate your absorption of the facts. It's entirely too fragile of a time in our nation's history to allow ourselves to be herded into one ideology or the other, and the media is entirely too powerful a force to trust it to be fair.