“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (John Adams)
CONFIRMED: Left Wing Plant at Houston Pro-Zimmerman Rally Is Far Left Activist
Reply
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 12:04 AM
Guest Post by Kristinn Taylor
LEFTIST PLANT INFILTRATES HOUSTON PRO-ZIMMERMAN RALLY–
Liberal Media runs with it
A photo from the Houston pro-Zimmerman counter-rally of the NBPP anti-Zimmerman rally picked up by the AP shows a woman holding a sign that read, “Racist & Proud.”
(New York Daily News – AP)
That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side.
The Houston Chronicle identified her as Renee Vaughan:
One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”
Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.
The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.
Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.
Renee even has her photo linked to a far left environmental website.
Here are two photos of Renee Vaughan side-by-side:
Here’s another shot of Renee at a leadership event for community organizing.
She’s standing up front in the wild dress.
It looks like Renee Vaughan was definitely a racist leftist plant at the Houston rally.
This is how the left operates, folks. This time they got busted.
UPDATE: Thanks to reader Karadion – here is a photo of Renee Vaughan with the same sunglasses she wore while holding the racist sign at the pro-Zimmerman rally.
Yup. They’re the same sunglasses.
UPDATE: Brandon Darby interviewed Renee Vaughan at the rally. She told him her sign means that “there are people here who are racist and apparently think that’s OK. I’m not one of them. I’m being sarcastic.”
Do not identify my former colleague as my former colleague!
Democrats who accused Republicans of being anti-women during last year’s campaign are strangely silent now that one of their own — San Diego Mayor Bob Filner — is accused of groping and sexually assaulting women.
“Don’t identify him as my former colleague,” an agitated House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly said Thursday night when asked about the claims against Filner.
Pelosi worked alongside Filner for 10 years in Congress. The two were founding members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Filner was a loyal foot soldier for the House leader, having spent 20 years in Congress. On Friday, however, Pelosi said, “What goes on in San Diego is up to the people of San Diego. I’m not here to make any judgments.”
Aside
1.1 million Brazilians murdered in 30 years
Published July 18, 2013
-
People demonstrate against violence at Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro on October 24, 2009. More than one million people were murdered in Brazil between 1980 and 2011, making it the world’s seventh most violent country, a survey showed Thursday. (AFP/File)
BRASILIA, Brazil (AFP) – More than one million people were murdered in Brazil between 1980 and 2011, making it the world’s seventh most violent country, a survey showed Thursday.
During the period, homicides soared 132 percent to claim 1,145,208 lives, from a rate of 11.5 murders for 100,000 inhabitants in 1980 to 27 per 100,000 in 2011, according to the Map of Violence report,
Among those aged between 14 and 25, homicides skyrocketed 326 percent to reach 53 per 100,000 inhabitants, said the study published by the Latin American Studies Center (Cebela).
In 2011, Brazil, now home to 194 million people, recorded 51,198 homicides, ranked seventh among the world’s most violent nations after El Salvador, the US Virgin Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia and Guatemala.
From 2007, the study highlighted a resumption of a surge in violence after a drop in the previous decade, attributed mainly to public disarmament policies.
The survey showed that violence in Brazil, once concentrated in major metropolitan areas such as Sao Paulo and Rio, has spread nationwide over the past 10 years to the hinterland of most states, especially in the north, a trend that coincides with the expansion of new economic hubs.
In Maceio, capital of northeastern Alagoas state, homicide rates reached 111 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011 (288 among the young), 10 times higher than in Sao Paulo.
The study also showed most murder victims are men (women represent only eight percent of the total) and blacks (the number among them surged 30.6 percent to 35,297 in 2011 compared with a 26 percent fall among whites to 13,895 that same year.
Some 77 percent of young people murdered were Afro-Brazilians in a country where nearly 52 percent of the population is of African descent.
Some 206,000 homicides were recorded in the country between 2008 and 2011.
“This magnitude cannot be attributed to the continental size of Brazil,” the study warned, pointing out that among the world’s most populous countries, only Mexico comes close to Brazil with 22 homicides for 100,000 inhabitants.
The figures are one for 100,000 in China, 3.4 in India, 5.3 in the United States and 12.2 in Nigeria.
The authors of the study blamed impunity (only five to eight percent of crimes are solved in Brazil compared with 80 percent in France) and insufficient efforts to combat a prevailing culture of violence.
And contary to a popular belief in recent years, most murders in the country are not linked to organized crime and drug trafficking but are perpetrated for trivial or impulsive reasons, they said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/18/11-million-brazilians-murdered-in-30-years/#ixzz2ZRZhIpAA
Everything You Wanted to Know About the Egypt Problem that the Media or Politicians Won’t Tell You
Michael Youssef | Jul 14, 2013 
That’s a lofty title, but bear with me. I know the country—not just through being Egyptian, but through empirical and academic knowledge as well.
The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, an elementary school teacher. The organization’s stated aim was to overthrow British Imperialism and establish an Islamic state in Egypt—a state that would eventually encompass the Arab world. Although the British have since departed, the remaining goal has never changed.
The Muslim Brotherhood initially cooperated with the “free officers” of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which overthrew King Farouk and eventually the British. But from that moment on, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Army switched from cooperation to rivalry. It was a matter of “who will swallow whom.” President Gamal Abdel Nasser imprisoned most of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, tortured others, and put some to death.
Many years later, Hosni Mubarak, the third successor to Nasser, came to power. Mubarak, head of the Egyptian Air Force during the 1973 war with Israel, took over in 1981 after an Egyptian Islamic Jihadist assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat.
In dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak implemented what could be called a “bait and switch.” Sometimes he arrested their leaders (including recent president Mohammed Morsi). Other times he allowed them to occupy up to 25 percent of the seats in the Egyptian parliament—all along knowing that he couldn’t trust their deadly ideology.
But in January 2011, when the young college-educated masses took to the streets in Cairo, Alexandria, and other cities, the Muslim Brotherhood had to figure out how to respond. At first they stayed on the sidelines, fearing that if those “democracy ideologues” failed, then the Mubarak regime would come after them. But after the secularly-educated young adults succeeded (after paying a heavy price) in ousting Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood then jumped on the bandwagon, claiming the revolution as their own.
And who was there to encourage the Muslim Brotherhood? None other than the American administration.
The rule of the Egyptian Army during the sixteen months following Mubarak’s departure turned out to be a disastrous experience for Egyptians. So under pressure from the American administration, they then conducted a so-called “free and fair election.”
There is reason for my cynicism in describing the election that way. You will never learn from the Western media what my friends in Egypt experienced during that “election”.
The contest was between a former head of the Air Force, General Shafik (also a one-time prime minister under Mubarak) and a third-choice Brotherhood candidate named Mohammed Morsi. During the election, thugs took over many of the polling stations, particularly in Upper Egypt. They told Christians that if they wanted to live, they better not go inside and vote. Incidentally, they did the same thing during the referendum on the new constitution, which the Islamists concocted as a prelude to Sharia.
People who can do simple math will discover that less than 15 percent of the population voted “yes” on that referendum. But that’s not the entire story.
According to documents discovered after the recent June 30th Revolution, Morsi actually lost the election by more than 200,000 votes. But the American ambassador in Cairo, Anne Patterson, who was carrying the wishes of her bosses in Washington, pressured the military counsel (English Translation) to declare Morsi the winner. The reason? To avoid bloodshed.
That is the nub of it all.
Ever since September 11th, American politicians on both sides of the aisle have developed this narrative that says: “we should fight Islam with Islam.” Meaning: “If Islamists are allowed to rule and are allowed to taste the nectar of power for which they have longed for decades, they will turn away from terrorism. Let the Islamists rule, and we all shall live in peace.”
Well now we know how that American experiment turned out.
Twelve months of Islamist rule have proved to Egypt’s vast Muslim population that the misguided policy of naïve American politicians has only kicked the can of terrorism down the road.
Immediately after taking office, Morsi began replacing moderate Muslim professionals within the government with Brotherhood cronies with no knowledge of how to govern.
During the ensuing twelve months, the economy tanked, poverty rose to an all-time high, and the Brotherhood’s business brokers took all incoming foreign money—whether for business or aid—and distributed most of it among themselves. They then passed on a few crumbs to their followers, some of whom are still demonstrating against the popular uprising and the removal of their sugar daddy. One Egyptian news anchor claimed that Morsi’s net worth had risen from nothing before the election, to nearly 2 billion Egyptian pounds today.
No wonder that 30 million people—mostly Muslims (many of whom voted for Morsi in an effort to reject the Mubarak dictatorship)—took to the streets. They realized that they had just replaced a beneficent dictator with a far worse fascist one.
Of course, now the Muslim Brotherhood is promising a reign of terror to include killings and suicide bombings. So much for avoiding bloodshed.
To add insult to injury, Morsi would not allow the police or the court to prosecute known Jihadists in the country. And to top it all off, when 3000 Jihadists from Afghanistan and Libya made their home base in the Sinai Desert, he told the Egyptian Army not to interfere with them in spite of the repeated attacks and killings of Egyptian soldiers by these foreign Jihadists.
But I have no doubt that the people of goodwill in Egypt will prevail. They have learned that freedom and Islamist rule cannot co-exist. Something that the Western media and the U.S. government would be wise to finally figure out for themselves.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent: How the Press Prosecuted Zimmerman While Stoking Racial Tensions
As we await the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, the Florida man who claims to have shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin in self-defense, this seems the perfect time to reflect on the media’s cynical and dishonest role in turning a local crime into a national obsession.
As you will see below, by hook and crook, the mainstream media did everything in its still-potent power to not only push for the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman (the police originally chose not to charge him) but also to gin up racial tensions where none needed to exist.
It all started with the anchor of a major television network (Al Sharpton) inserting himself in the story to spread division and hate; it continued straight through to the closing days of the trial when another major news network, desperate to keep a fabricated racial narrative alive, propagated the portrayal of Zimmerman as part of a racial group that doesn’t exist — the “white Hispanic.”
In-between, there has been an astonishing amount of malicious fraud and lies, all in an effort to serve a president, stir racial hatred, and influence the justice system.
February 26, 2012 – George Zimmerman Shoots and Kills Trayvon Martin
Zimmerman claims self-defense. After an investigation, the police agree and decide not to press charges.
March 8, 2012 – The AP Falsely Describes Zimmerman as “White”
The story of the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin demanding Zimmerman be arrested first achieves national attention on March 8 when CBS This Morning runs a report.
Later that same day, the Associated Press throws the first log on the racial fire by inaccurately describing Zimmerman as white.
March 13, 2012 – NBC’s Al Sharpton Uses MSNBC Platform to Stoke Phony Racial Narrative
Breitbart editor-in-chief Joel Pollak:
Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”
Earlier that same day, Sharpton’s National Action Network released a statement calling for…
…a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police[.]”
The story about Zimmerman’s use of racial language was false.
March 13, 2012 – ABC News Reporter Claims Trayvon Shot Because “He Was Black”
About ten days before Al Sharpton and President Obama would launch the Zimmerman story into the stratosphere, Matt Gutman, an ABC News correspondent based in Miami, Florida, was already (and without a shred of evidence) laying the track for a racial narrative.
Gutman covered the case for the network, and his Twitter feed at the time was full of falsehoods, innuendo, and irresponsible speculation. In one tweet, Gutman came right out and claimed Trayvon was shot “bc [because] he was black.”
Gutman would also recklessly accuse Zimmerman of “stalking” and shooting down Trayvon.
March 19, 2012 – CBS News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Is White
A small detail that the Obama administration and the media apparently missed was that the white versus black racial narrative they were preparing to invest so much into was missing just one thing: a white person.
Proof of this is that CBS News falsely claimed Zimmerman was white about a week before the story exploded.
In their venomous zeal, the media and Democrats likely assumed that someone with the last name Zimmerman had to be white. But they were wrong, as Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Never ones to back off a good narrative, rather than use this revelation to tamp down tensions or correct their reporting, the media simply made up out of whole cloth a new racial category: the “white Hispanic.”
March 22, 2012 – Zimmerman Described as a “White Hispanic” by The New York Times
Just in the nick of time, before the story was engineered to explode the very next day with the Sharpton rally, The New York Times put its stamp of approval on the term “white Hispanic.”
March 21, 2012 – CNN Falsely Accuses Zimmerman of Saying “F**king Coon”
Knowing full well the phony racial storm brewing around the Zimmerman case was about to have gasoline thrown on it the next day, CNN went to extraordinary lengths to claim Zimmerman had uttered the racial slur “coon” when he had not.
This has to be watched to be believed.
CNN wouldn’t officially retract their defamation until April 5th, long after it was too late.
March 22, 2012 – NBC’s Al Sharpton Goes to Florida
Though the police had investigated the shooting and saw no reason to charge George Zimmerman, in March of 2012, President Obama’s reelection chances looked dim. He would need the crucial swing state of Florida to win another four years, and nothing brings out the Democrat vote like a good old racial bonfire.
With the help of thousands of dollars from Obama’s Justice Department, it was then that Rev. Al Sharpton (anchor of MSNBC’s Politics Nation) held his incendiary rally:
At the protest, Sharpton was flanked by Martin’s parents. “Trayvon could have been any one of our sons,” he said. “Trayvon could have been any one of us.”
He continued:
“We are tired of going to jail for nothing and others going home for something. Zimmerman should have been arrested that night … you cannot defend yourself against a pack of Skittles and iced tea. Don’t talk to us like we’re stupid! Don’t talk to us like we’re ignorant! We love our children like you love yours. Lock him up!”
Sharpton said that he would stay on the case.
“We cannot allow a legal precedent to be established in this city that tells us it is legal for a man to kill us, tell any story he wants, and walks out with the murder weapon,” he said.
March 23, 2012 – President Obama Repeats Sharpton’s Talking Point
The day after Sharpton held his rally and said, “Trayvon could have been any one of our sons,” President Obama made huge news when he stepped before the cameras, demanded action in the Zimmerman case, and famously said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”
In just two days, a network news anchor and an American president had blasted the Zimmerman case into the nation’s top story and did so based on a racial narrative without a shred of evidence to support it. Almost every other major news outlet would now commit every journalistic sin imaginable to fabricate evidence.
March 24, 2012 – Reuters Describes Zimmerman as a “White Hispanic”
To keep the white versus black narrative alive, Reuters jumps on the ridiculous “white Hispanic” bandwagon.
Many others would follow.
March 27, 2012 – NBC News Edits 911 Audio to Make Zimmerman Look Racist
On the storied Today Show, NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
When the truth is that the unedited audio actually 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.
After the fraudulent editing was discovered by the New Media (first by Breitbart News), former NBC News president Steve Capus would claim that the edit was “a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.”
Eventually, several NBC producers would be fired (without being named), and Zimmerman would file a lawsuit against NBC; it remains unresolved.
March 28, 2012 – ABC News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Wasn’t Injured Night of Shooting
The day after NBC News released its falsified 911 bombshell, ABC News released a phony, hyped-up story of its own. Using grainy surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the shooting, ABC News claimed, “A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman.”
Obviously, if true, this would go a long way towards proving Zimmerman was not in fear of his life the night of the shooting and had lied about being beaten up.
The only problem is that the ABC News story was not true — not even close. The network didn’t bother to enhance the video before breaking the news. Had they, Zimmerman’s bloody head would have been quite apparent.
It would take four days for ABC to retract its falsehood.
March 28, 2012 – Boston Globe Falsely Describes Zimmerman as White
By late March it was widely known that George Zimmerman was Hispanic. This did not stop the Boston Globe from using its pages to describe him as “a white neighborhood watch captain.”
This error has never been corrected.
March 29, 2012 – NBC’s Chris Matthews Contradicts Guest to Claim Zimmerman Not Injured
By the next day, ABC’s false story about Zimmerman not being injured had already gone viral. However, some were already doing the job ABC apparently didn’t want to do: enhancing the video. A guest on MSNBC’s Hardball told the show’s host, Chris Matthews, that his enhancement did show bruises on the back of Zimmerman’s head. MSNBC even broadcast the enhancement, which clearly showed cuts and bruising.
Regardless, during the same show, Matthews stridently claimed:
George Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon Martin after Trayvon broke his nose and repeatedly slammed the back of his head into a concrete sidewalk, but newly released video tape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station–we’re looking at it there–appears to show no evidence of a broken nose or obvious wounds to the back of Zimmerman’s head.
Late March, 2012 – Zimmerman’s “Black Friend” Vilified by Media
Even though Zimmerman is Hispanic and there was no evidence of any racial motivation behind his actions, the media’s racial-hysteria was, at this point, in full bloom. To try and tamp things down, Joe Oliver, a black reporter who had worked with CNN and an Orlando television station, started doing the national media interview rounds to speak on behalf of his friend, George Zimmerman.
The counterattack in the media (CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, among others) was exceptionally vicious, personal, and effective.
Oliver went away.
April 1, 2012 – The New York Times Maliciously Edits Zimmerman’s 911 Call
Although the NBC News malicious edit of Zimmerman’s 911 call broadcast on the Today Show had already been loudly and publicly debunked, days later the New York Times did the same thing on its front page.
By rearranging the words of the call, the Times falsely made it look as though Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon as black:
Here is the 911 call transcript:
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.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
And here is what the Times reported:
“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood,” Mr. Zimmerman said to start the conversation with the dispatcher. “And there’s a real suspicious guy.”
This guy seemed to be up to no good; like he was on drugs or something; in a gray hoodie. Asked to describe him further, he said, “He looks black.”
The print edition of the story was even worse than the online edition.
April 9, 2012 – PBS Anchor Gwen Ifill Describes Zimmerman as “White”
Desperate to keep a non-existent racial narrative alive, during a broadcast of the PBS Newshour Gwen Ifill falsely stated:
Martin, who was black, was on his way to a convenience store in a mostly white gated community when George Zimmerman, who is white, shot and killed him after a disputed altercation.
Note Ifill’s reporting of Zimmerman’s gated community. The condos in Zimmerman’s neighborhood sell for about $120,000.
April 11, 2012 – George Zimmerman Is Arrested, Charged with Second Degree Murder
After the arrest, and as the trial date neared the following year, NBC would allow Al Sharpton to turn his primetime MSNBC show into a platform dedicated to convicting Zimmerman.
CNN would continue to refer to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” and broadcast all of Zimmerman’s personal information, including his social security number, address, and telephone number.
13 Jul 2013
The Internet has been the greatest boon for freedom of speech since the invention of the printing press.
REAL AMERICA
Today’s patriots are counter-revolutionaries
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis says New Media saved America from progressive demise
It may come as a surprise to many people, but America is in the midst of a revolution.
It’s not the revolution you might think. Patriots are not fighting enemies in the street. The Minutemen are not assembling in the green, ready to defend against redcoats.
No, it isn’t the patriots who are fighting a revolution. It’s the progressives who have been fomenting the revolt. And, until recently, they were winning.
Quite simply, they are fighting a revolution against the Constitution.
Think about it. The progressives object to just about everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Small government, strong gun rights, individual freedom, states’ rights, no unwarranted search or seizure, no quartering law enforcement officers in one’s private home … all these constitutionally guaranteed rights have been under fire by people who don’t like and don’t want the liberties set forth in the founding documents.
So, many decades ago, they decided to slowly but inexorably disassemble our nation’s foundation.
This revolution went unchallenged because it was so gradual as to be almost unnoticed. Old people who knew the real history of America’s beginnings died off, and young people were never educated about their birthright. The progressive media cherry-picked or created news stories to show the “evils” of free-market capitalism and individual liberty, and the despicable nature of moral constraint. This constant erosion of decency bore fruit.
Smugly, the progressives didn’t think anything could challenge their agenda. After all, they had control of the schools, the political machine and the press. What could possibly go wrong? A few more unchallenged years and that pesky Second Amendment would be neutered, and after that every other amendment would fall by the wayside for lack of defense. Then the march toward Marxism would be complete.
It would have been a bloodless coup … except for one thing.
The Internet.
The Internet has been the greatest boon for freedom of speech since the invention of the printing press.
In the past, nearly all official news was channeled through the mainstream media. Citizens were captive to whatever progressive slant newspapers and television stations chose to impart. It got to the point where most people were held hostage to the liberal opinion because there were few effective avenues to combat the propaganda the mainstream media fed us. The unholy alliance of liberal media and progressive government continued its easy march toward totalitarian victory.
Their agenda continues today. We are told to spy on our neighbors and rat on our customers. We are told that abortion is holy and firearms are wicked. We are told that free-market capitalism is unfair and spreading one’s wealth should be mandatory. We are told that good is evil and evil is good.
Until recently, if a patriot disagreed with the direction this country was heading, if he stubbornly and bitterly insisted on clinging to his guns and Bible, he was told he was alone in his subversive ideas and should sit down and shut up. Before the Internet, he had few options to prove he wasn’t alone.
But no more.
With the advent of the conservative talk radio and later the World Wide Web, suddenly patriots discovered they weren’t alone. The classic “divide and conquer” strategy wasn’t working any more. The progressive revolution began to be challenged by people who have carefully studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights and know what those documents say and mean. The counter-revolution began to gain traction.
Thanks to these new communication methods, it became easier for these patriots to talk back and forth, pulling together news websites and blogs and chat rooms and forums and other resources that bypassed the mainstream media. A New Media was born based on truth and freedom.
And oooooooh, this New Media has got the old progressive media’s collective panties in a twist. How dare someone challenge their absolute monopoly?
Unable to close this Pandora’s box and desperate for damage control lest they lose their momentum, the statist revolutionaries ratcheted up their frantic campaign of derision, mockery and ridicule against those who challenge their agenda. Anyone who reports the truth of the matter is derided as a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon steeped in conspiracy theories and is probably a domestic terrorist to boot. What it comes down to is, “How dare you people get your news from anything except a government-approved source?”
But thanks to the New Media, this old tried-but-true tool of progressive warfare is, for the first time, failing. The New Media is the only reason we’re hearing about things the government would just as soon keep quiet, such as racial violence, domestic surveillance, retail spying, federal coworker spying, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, public school atrocities and curricula, Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing on the NSA and endless other unconstitutional baloney the progressive agenda is shoving down our throats. Do you honestly believe the mainstream media would willingly have reported that that Justice Department deliberately fomented protests demanding George Zimmerman’s arrest if the New Media hadn’t spilled the beans?
We are dealing with one of the most lawless times in American history; not by citizens, but by our own government, which has abandoned any pretense of constitutional restraints or following the Rule of Law. These are not the actions of a constitutional republic; these are the actions of a dictatorship-in-the-making. And few people would be the wiser if the New Media hadn’t been there to inform.
This gives me hope for the future of our nation. If it weren’t for the New Media, the second American revolution would be over and done, and we’d all be walking around with metaphorical barcodes on our foreheads as slaves of the State.
The war hasn’t been won. The Internet as we know it may not last. A year ago, President Obama “quietly signed his name to an Executive Order … allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.” The progressive revolutionaries still have the upper hand.
But until it becomes censored by the government, the Internet and the New Media will continue to encourage, support and unify millions of patriots who stand vigilant against the doom of America.
The counter-revolutionaries are beginning to fight back.
Aside
Tampons, bottles urine and feces removed from protesters as Texas senate gathers to vote on measure to toughen up abortion laws
The Texas Senate has given its initial approval for sweeping abortion restrictions late on Friday, sending them to Republican Governor Rick Perry to sign into law after weeks of protests and rallies that drew thousands of people to the Capitol and made the state the focus of the national abortion debate.
Republicans used their large majority in the Texas Legislature to pass the Bill nearly three weeks after a filibuster by Democratic Senator Wendy Davis and an outburst by abortion-rights activists in the Senate gallery disrupted a deadline vote on June 25.
As protesters came to the Capitol building in Austin on Friday, bottles of urine and feces, and even tampons were confiscated by state troopers as they tried to prevent anything from disrupting the debate.
GALLUP: FOX NEWS AMERICA’S TOP NEWS OUTLETA new
Aside
GALLUP: FOX NEWS AMERICA’S TOP NEWS OUTLET
A new Gallup poll released Monday might help to explain why the left and their allies in the mainstream media have trained so much fire on a small (but powerful) dinghy in an ocean of left-wing media: Fox News is America’s top outlet for news. According to the pollster, 8% of those polled get their news from Fox; second place is CNN with 7%.
Every other specific news outlet (ABC, MSNBC, The New York Times, NPR, etc.) ranked no higher than 1%.
Overall, 55% of Americans cite television as their main source of news, while the Internet comes in second with 21%. Print media and radio come in third and fourth with 9% and 6% respectively. When singled out, newspapers tie with radio at 6%.
It should come as no surprise that Fox News leads the pack. Other than being brilliantly produced, previous studies prove that Fox News is not even close to as ideological as its mainstream media critics want you to believe. Moreover, during the recent terror attack in Boston, Fox News was ranked as the “most believable” source of television news and a recent Pew poll showed that more Democrats watch Fox News than its cable news competitors.
Though there is no study to back this up, from my own observations, Fox topping today’s Gallup poll isn’t at all surprising. Politics aside, Fox offers something that no other cable or broadcast news outlet does: diversity.
The news you see on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. is all pretty much the same because all of those outlets think alike and push the same left-wing narratives. But if you want to know everything that is going on in the world, you have to watch Fox News, an outlet that relishes straying off that Narrative Plantation.
as Wayne Sees It 
