Is the White House and mainstream media promoting the slogan “Stop Snitchin’”?

About a year ago, the hip hop world and the black community were placed under media scrutiny following the shooting death of rapper Busta Rhymes bodyguard, Jermaine Williams. What fueled this story to national (and internatioal) attention was the reluctance from Busta Rhymes and other eye witnesses to cooperate with police in identifying the shooter, even though they saw it first hand. CNN’s Anderson Cooper dedicated his show to uncovering what is commonly known as the “Stop Snitchin’” campaign within urban communities. This slogan, “Stop Snitchin’”, is also seen in t-shirts, posters, and hip hop videos targetted at inner city youth.

So what is it exactly? What does it mean? And how does the White House or mainstream media promote it?

Simply put, “Stop Snitchin’” means you don’t tell on the person who commits a crime. Now that might sound jarring, and there are many reasons why that slogan might be promoted (ie: loyalty, police corruption, fear, “values”, etc.) but it is a reality for some people. They know not to speak out, and they don’t.

As mentioned, the media was highly critical of this. From Katie Couric of CBS to Anderson Cooper of CNN and others, MSM was in agreement on one fundamental principle: not telling on a criminal or criminal act is a BAD thing.

This is why the reaction to Scott McClellan’s latest book is so…odd, especially from the media. On channel after channel, you hear reporters, pundits, and former White House employees criticizing Scott over a book that many of them have yet to read. They’ve tried to discredit him as an opportunist cashing at the expense of those who gave him his career. They’ve bashed him for coming out now with his book rather than earlier in his career. They’ve questioned his integrity for saying differing (and even contradictory) things when in the White House, and even pondered whether someone put him up to this. Some even said that the GOP is trying to make an “example” out of him, to send a “message” to those who might consider doing something similar.

So what exactly did McClellan do? Simply put: he told about deceitful and potentially criminal behavior from his former colleagues. So he “snitched”. He “snitched” on the Iraq War, and how deceit and propaganda was used to “sell” it to the American public. He “snitched” on Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, thus placing her in danger. He “snitched” on the White House’s failed response to Katrina. And he “snitched” on conversations that might suggest that George Bush used crack cocaine.

According to the way the media covered “snitching” in regards to the shooting of a hip hop bodyguard (as a GOOD thing), one could only hope and expect for them to cover the UNNECESSARY slaughter of 4000 Americans and the injuries of thousands more in a similar way. Maybe they’d send out there cameras to the White House and drill them over these charges? Maybe they’d speculate about impeachment, encourage public outrage, and investigate whether criminal charges should and will be brought up. Maybe they’d run a special on Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, who seem to be involved in almost every Bush White House scandal there’s been. The least they could do is commend Scott McClellan for his bravery, his patriotism and commitment to the truth, and for his insistence now on best serving the American people.

But no. That’s not what they’re talking about. Instead, they themselves have picked up the “Stop Snitching” sign, put on a “stop snitching” t-shirt, and are sending a clear message to any other potential witnesses to Washington corruption (especially those within the Bush White House). And their message is “STOP SNITCHIN’”

——————————————————————————————————————————————

EDIT: They’re even treating responses from Karl Rove and others accused as legitimate. They aren’t going after them strongly, they are going after and accusing Scott McClellan.

Watch how Katie Couric and CNN go after Camron for supporting stop snitchin’, when it concerns local crime (ie: 1 person getting shot)

Camron interview^^^

now watch how Katie Couric is not going after the White House and questioning them, but is interrogating Scott McClellan. In other words, they are going strong after him FOR “snitching” about a WAR (4000 people getting shot & killed, plus thousands more injured).

Hmm….

She prays him dead

This is a powerful and moving commentary. It’s a must hear. For those that can’t get Youtube, here is an mp3 file.

STORE Updated!

Our store link here has been updated!  Click here for a preview of items or here for a direct link.

How mainstream media in the US became corrupt. The origins of FOX News

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kGZdtRoozE

Fascinating and insightful video. Whoever wins the Presidency should bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Ronald Reagan so foolishly and selfishly eliminated. It’s a real shame that this subject didn’t come up in the debates, but then again, guess who runs the debates? MAINSTREAM MEDIA!! Thank God for PBS, CSPAN, and the Internet! As citizens of the US, we must not tolerate this garbage. We have a right to know what goes on in our country, and (as ABC so profoundly showed in their “debate” with Obama and Hillary) MSM needs to be reformed badly. Please help make this topic viral. I will continue to post more on this subject as I find out about it.

Edit: Looks like Obama is looking to improve this. Check out this link.

UPDATE!  Below is an article from PBS about the history of the Fairness Doctrine.  And here is the link to it.

History of the Fairness Doctrine

You may remember hearing about Sinclair Broadcast Group in October 2004. They attracted attention from other media outlets when they announced plans to air STOLEN HONOR, described by some as an “anti-Kerry documentary.” Ultimately, the documentary was not aired, as critics called for balance from Sinclair by way of programming that showed the other side of the story, calling on a principle called the “fairness doctrine.” While this doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it hasn’t faded from public discourse. What is the history behind this doctrine?

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, called for stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. (Learn about the history of televised presidential debates.) The idea was to ensure even-handedness in a time when available frequencies were limited. This federal law did not apply to news programs, interviews, and documentaries. During the 1940s, stations were prevented by the FCC’s “Mayflower Doctrine” from editorializing, but by the end of the decade, the ban had softened to allow editorializing only if other points of view were also aired to balance those of the station.

In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as “public trustees” and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.

Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group’s character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.

By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.

As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed.

Efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine have come up again and again before Congress, but no bill has yet been passed. Read a conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter about her latest effort, The MEDIA Act.

For further research, visit our FCC and media deregulation resources.

Clinton’s comment: The dumbest thing ever said in American politics

From her own home state of New York, NY Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin writes:

SICK. Disgusting. And yet revealing. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama.

It could happen, but what definitely has happened is that Clinton has killed her own chances of being vice president. She doesn’t deserve to be elected dog catcher anywhere now.

Her shocking comment to a South Dakota newspaper might qualify as the dumbest thing ever said in American politics.

Even in giving Sen. Hillary Clinton every possible benefit of the doubt, her comment on Friday was at best reckless and her parallels historically inaccurate. In mentioning her husband, Bill Clinton, MSNBC’s own Tim Russert said today on Meet the Press that mathematically, Bill already had the nomination locked up in April. Back then the Clintons knew math, and hailed Russert as a “mathematical genius”. Thus Bill was not, as Hillary suggests, fighting for every delegate way in to June. He was coasting on the confidence that he had earned the nomination, something Hillary is currently trying to deny Obama.

Her next comment sealed her fate. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out. This comment must be carefully analyzed because as outrageous and infuriating as it is, there are some that do not see a problem with it.

Historically, Bobby Kennedy got into the race only six weeks prior to his assassination in June, a significantly shorter time span than the length of this election, which has been going on for a year and five months. So there can be no comparison between this election and the murder of Robert Kennedy in regards to “long Presidential campaigns”. Presidential Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, cited this fact today on Meet the Press. Also, Kennedy was not in the lead when he was killed. He was running far enough behind Hubert Humphrey that many historians believe he would have lost even if he hadn’t been shot. Humphrey had almost a 200 delegate lead over Robert Kennedy. Therefore, any suggestions that some how the murder of RFK brought new life to another candidate in that election (as disgusting as that sounds) is also historically inaccurate. Yet the Clinton camp has been hoping for weeks now that something horrible, something cataclysmic would happen to the Obama campaign. Ironically, in wishing for such things, Hillary Clinton brought upon herself that very fate.

There are those that like to ignore the comparisons of Obama to RFK in Hillary’s comment, claiming that she wasn’t talking about the Illinois Senator. Now that we’ve already shown that whatever point she was trying to make fails in light of history, we will examine if the claims that she was drawing parallels between Obama and RFK are unfounded.

Robert Kennedy was a charismatic Democratic Presidential candidate with broad appeal. He campaigned in the ghettos and barrios of large cities, where he was mobbed by enthusiastic supporters. Sound familiar? He was also young (he died at age 42) and very popular amongst African Americans. It was Bobby Kennedy who spoke out to a crowd of largely African Americans immediately following Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination. His words of sympathy and calls for understanding helped settle some of the urges to riot in that city. Barack Obama is only 4 years older than Kennedy was when he passed (Obama is 46). He too is known for his charisma, broad appeal, and vision. He is also the first viable African American Presidential candidate in the history of the United States of America. Until now, 2008, every President and every Vice President in the history of the US has been a white male. In fact, all but three viable candidates and every Republican candidate (I am excluding Alan Keyes as viable) in this election has been a white male. So, yes, African Americans are enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s candidacy, and so are many other Americans. He has drawn record crowds full of people who have never taken an interest in politics. (75,000 in Oregon!)

So there are similarities between Obama and RFK, which makes Hillary’s comment utterly stomach turning. Why would murder be on her mind? And even if it was, as it is for many that lived through the assassinations of MLK, JFK, and RFK, what in heaven’s name would possess her to voice it publicly on tape and on camera? Barack Obama had to have secret service protection early on in this election. In fact, he’s had it earlier than any other candidate ever has. Early last year, the KKK made death threats against Barack Obama, serious enough to where authorities and his campaign were notified.

Hillary’s comment follows on the heels of Mike Huckabee’s stupid joke before the NRA, about Obama ducking from a gun. And her non-apology-to-Obama apology was a mere rambling about how the illness of Ted Kennedy led her to reminisce on the murder of Robert Kennedy! People, that is extremely disturbing. When a friend of yours gets sick, it shouldn’t lead you to thoughts about the death of their slaughtered sibling. Honestly, what on earth was she thinking?

For those that cite RFK’s son’s remarks to diminish Hillary’s self-imposed fire storm, I will remind you that he is and was a Hillary supporter. I think many, including the Obama camp, want to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and save her from accusations of having evil desires. But even if her colossal blunder was not motivated by darkness, it then only shows an extreme naivety and lack of common sense and decency that is shocking nonetheless. And no, being “tired” is no excuse. After all, she’s “ready at 3am”.

12 reasons why Hillary’s assassination remark is a BIG DEAL

Yesterday Hillary Clinton brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Here are 12 reasons why this IS a BIG DEAL!

1. She’s a LAWYER! She is supposed to be good with words. As one person put it “EVERY word is thought out in advance and she is completely aware of the ramifications of the words she uses.” The word “assassinated” is NEVER TO BE USED by a candidate in a US election. Everyone knows that.

2. She claims to have “experience” to be President “from day one”. This kind of NAIVE and INSENSITIVE and DIVISIVE and MORBID remark should not come from a candidate with great “experience”. She knows Obama is a black man and she knows our nation’s history, and she knows Ted Kennedy has recently had health problems. Her “experience” should have let her know that this statement was inappropriate. It didn’t.

3. She said something like this back January and again in March to Time Magazine.

From MSNBC article: In fact, the specter of assassination was first raised in this campaign on January 8, when a Clinton introducer, a retired teacher from New Hampshire, brought it up before Clinton spoke. “If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader. He gave us a lot of hope,” the retired teacher said. “But he was assassinated, and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all of his work and got both the Republicans and Democrats to pass those measures.”

Another MSNBC article: She has said much the same thing before. In a March interview with Time magazine, she said: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”

4. Her assassination remarks follow closely behind Mike Huckabee’s “aiming a gun at Obama” joke just a few days ago. Everyone heard the fall out over that. Hillary should have known to avoid that subject entirely. Again, she has “experience” to know better.

5. The KKK has already made threats on Obama’s life. Whether people like to admit it or not, there are racist lunatics and maniacs out there. The hateful murderers of MLK, JFK, and RFK seem like they existed long long ago, but the reality is people like that are still around and they don’t need any form of encouragement. Mark Shields reported that Obama had to be placed under secret service earlier than any other candidate in American History. So, yes, the threats are real and serious.

6. KY and WV voters (and some PA and OH voters) said race was an issue in their decision and they will not vote for Obama in the fall. As seen in many Youtube videos, ignorance and racism are still prevalent in America.

7. A CNN contributer said Hillary should make a statement rejecting votes based on racism. She didn’t. John Edwards did. During a debate he told everyone that he doesn’t want votes from sexist or racist people. So why hasn’t Hillary? What kind of potential President or Vice President wouldn’t want to reject and denounce this behavior?

8. Hillary said Obama was having problems winning “hard working voters”, that is “white voters”. As one reporter pointed out, even Nixon didn’t say “white” when using his “Southern strategy”. She did this after her MLK/LBJ controversial remarks, after Bill’s “fairy tale” and “Jesse Jackson” remarks, after her “as far as I know” response to smears that Obama is a Muslim, and after blasting Obama with attack ads in PA about his “bitter” comments (a gaffe which he made as an effort to excuse rural voters from accusations of racism). Fueling racial tensions in this country is not what we need from the next President (or Vice President). We’re trying to move beyond that.

9. Obama is the father of 2 young girls. What kind of animal would in anyway suggest or float the idea of him being assassinated?

And what kind of role model is she being to little girls everywhere who are looking at her and how she is running her campaign?

10. She didn’t even bother to apologize to Obama when she made her “apology”

11. She said she didn’t think there was racism much involved in this election, even while she whined over tons of overt sexism. I guess she did not read or hear of this Washington Post article.

12. Her “being tired” excuse doesn’t fly anymore, especially since she’s a tough, Rocky-like “fighter” who is “ready at 3am”.

I’m sure there are more reasons why this is a big deal, like “it’s unPresidential” or against American values or something, but I listed 12 to get people to think before they just start dismissing “gaffes” like this.

EDIT: These reasons aren’t in any particular order as far as significance is concerned.

UPDATE! The comparison didn’t even make sense, because Robert F. Kennedy wasn’t even in the lead when he was assassinated, he was in 2nd place. According to the 1968 Democratic election:

At the moment of RFK’s death, the delegate totals were:

• Hubert Humphrey 561
• Robert F. Kennedy 393
• Eugene McCarthy 258

UPDATE!Now FOX News has jumped in on the action. Here’s the link.

Thanks to Hillary and Huckabee have more assassination jokes are popping up. This would be REASON 13. The domino (or ripple) effect. Hillary and Huckabee got the ball rolling, now we can only hope and pray that evil racist lunatics don’t grant this lady’s wishes.

Trouble for Mike Huckabee: makes assasination joke about Obama

Mike Huckabee joked about Obama being shot at today.  But is this a rare occurrence, or is it part of a pattern that has largely gone unnoticed and unchecked by mainstream media?

Many have viewed Republican governor and former GOP candidate,  Mike Huckabee, as a nice “Christian” pastor with a witty sense of humor.  He has schmoozed  the press repeatedly, and told tales of “eating squirrel” in college to bring chuckles and gain appeal.  However, there is a darker, less talked about side to Mike Huckabee that many in the mainstream media have yet to fully explore.   It first peaked  my interest when he defended the Confederate Flag in South Carolina.   And then again, while hunting for quail and killed two on camera, Huckabee joked harshly that voters would suffer the same fate if they failed to vote for him.  Huckabee did sort of defend Rev. Wright when snippets of Wright were first blasted on every news channel for days, but even in that statement he noted how angry he would be if placed in Wrights position.  Huckabee later threw Wright under the bus after Wrights appearance before the National Press Club.

Below are some trouble videos and information concerning Mike Huckabee, including his most recent joke about Barack Obama getting shot at.  While Mike has apologized for the comments, trouble remains in what would urge him to meke them in the first place about the first viable black candidate for President.

May 16, 2008 Mike Huckabee jokes about someone shooting at Barack Obama, the first viable black candidate for President in the history of the United States of America. After hearing a loud crash behind him while speaking at an NRA (National Rifles Association) Convention, Mike Huckabee said “That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.” (video directly below)

Mike Huckabee has had ties to white supremacists groups in the past.  One of the largest groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens, invited him to speak at their annual conference in 1993.  He accepted and gave a speech that was “extremely well received by the audience.”  Click here for more on that story.

Jan 17, 2008    Mike Huckabee defends the Confederate flag amongst blue collar white voters in South Carolina. He said if someone from the outside came into his state and told him what to do with his flag, he’d tell them what they can do with the pole.   Mike Huckabee is a Christian pastor.

Jan 17, 2008 Pro-Confederate Flag groups feel comfortable running ads for Mike Huckabee against Romney and McCain. This video directly below shows 2 of those ads that ran for Huckabee in Southern States.

Was Wright right? Did the US Government really create AIDS?

Watch this video! It’s very informative.

Here is an article on the subject that is also worth reading. Below is a piece from that article

During the seven decades of the Cold War, the American power elite was much more interested in a genocide of “communists”, of whatever color, wherever they might be found. Many weapons which might further this purpose were researched, including, apparently, an HIV-like virus. Consider this: On June 9, 1969, Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, testified before Congress:

Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. [Hearings before the House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, "Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970."]

Whether the United States actually developed such a microorganism and what it did with it has not been reported.