Duke Lacrosse Accuser Crystal Mangum Charged With Murder

Boy has this chick come back to bite the lamestream media in the ass:

It was a tiny item in the New York Times -- a brief at the bottom of page B14 of Tuesday's sports section, under Lacrosse: “Crystal Mangum, who falsely accused three Duke players of raping her in 2006, was charged with murder in the death of her boyfriend.” The man died two weeks after Mangum stabbed him, and Mangum has now been charged with murder.


The Times may prefer to forget that name, but it was far more interested in Crystal Mangum back in 2006. More than any other media outlet, the Times trumpeted her rape accusations against three Duke lacrosse players, accusations that quickly fell apart in a mass of contradictions and shifting stories.


Yet even as the case fell apart and other liberal media outlets were backing away, the Times issued a now-notorious, error-riddled 5,000-word lead story by Duff Wilson on August 25, 2006, concluding that there was enough evidence against the players for Michael Nifong, the soon-to-be-disgraced-and-jailed local prosecutor, to bring the case to trial:


By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.


Perhaps most atrocious was former columnist Selena Roberts, who made a habit of slurring the innocent Duke lacrosse players. Even after the players had been all but formally cleared of the sexual assault, she continued to blame white privilege: “Don't mess with Duke, though. To shine a light on its integrity has been treated by the irrational mighty as a threat to white privilege. Feel free to excoriate the African-American basketball stars and football behemoths for the misdeeds of all athletes, but lay off the lacrosse pipeline to Wall Street, excuse the khaki-pants crowd of SAT wonder kids.”

via politikditto.com

it is very hard for men to protect themselves from women whose testimony is full of contradictions. the media and liberal judges don't do a thing when a woman commits perjury.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

An Open Letter to Harvey Weinstein

On the same day that a family of five were being murdered in their home in Israel, Harvey Weinstein ran a self-congratulatory promotional piece for his company's terrorist propaganda flick, Miral. The photos stand out. The fat smirking face of Harvey Weinstein contrasted with the sleeping baby, the smiling little boys and the earnest couple who were their parents. They are all dead, and a Harvey Weinstein lives on to smirk another day. So it is with perpetrators and victims. The innocent children and the fat ugly men who profit from trafficking in the narrative of their killers.

Harvey Weinstein denounces Peter King and urges him to go watch Miral. But perhaps it is Harvey Weinstein who should drive to a small town lost in the Samarian Mountains and retrace the steps of the murderers in the name of the nationalistic mythology that movies like Miral glamorize. To fit himself through the living room window where the two terrorists entered, moving quietly in the dark, not seeing the six year old boy sleeping peacefully on the couch. That six year old boy who survived because like so many other little boys during the Holocaust, the men who were coming to murder him went right past him without seeing him. The six year old boy who was being orphaned around the same time that Harvey Weinstein and his PR people were conferring on a final draft for their Miral puff piece.
Come along Harvey, into the bedroom where a father and his three month old daughter, Hadas, were fast asleep. It can be hard to get a 3 month old baby to fall asleep. Her father must had quite a time of it that night. Babies may not have language, but they do have fears. They are afraid of the strange new world they were born into. And they need parents to comfort them and assure them that everything will be alright. That they are loved and protected. When Rabbi Fogel finally got his little baby daughter to sleep, she must have felt safe with her father there. The man who would have taught her about life. Who would have done his best to protect her. And the man whose throat was slashed in his sleep along with his child's.
Tell me Harvey, do you know what goes through a three month old baby's mind when her throat is being slashed? You can't make a movie about it and you wouldn't it if you could. Movies are complex stories. The characters change and grow. They become someone else. A three month old baby having her throat cut will never become anyone else. She is fixed in that moment of horror and pain. Dying without knowing why. Only that her parents couldn't protect her. If you were going to make a movie about this scene, it would be about the killers. You would show their past and explain their actions. Surely an Israeli soldier stepped on their toe once or blew up their house. Stretch it out over two hours and you can justify anything. Even the knife being drawn across Hadas' throat. That is the magic of cinema. But to three month old Hadas, there is no context. The movie of her life ended the night you were hard at work promoting yours.
Continue reading at the Sultan of Knish, AKA Daniel Greenfield

via middleeastpapers.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

I'm starting to think that the college #Gaza and #BDS crowd needs a #Playboy Bunny, #HelenThomas ain't working

Helen Thomas to Playboy: Let Me Clarify:
Jews Control White House,
Congress, Financial Markets

...as being just as ugly inside as she is on the outside:

Of course I don't condone any violence against anyone. But who wouldn't fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation. Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes – by Israelis – and into refugee camps."

Yes, she really compares terrorists blowing up an ice cream parlor filled with kids to Americans fighting in the Pacific in World War II.
And that's only a tiny part of this interview that exposes Thomas as a thoroughly despicable human being, and those who defend her as being hypocrites of the highest order.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

....and  please don't send these fat college girls to Gaza.
They will only get fatter.

Veteran reporter Helen Thomas turned up in Playboy magazine this month (fully clothed, don’t worry) as part of her ongoing anti-Semitic publicity tour.
The former “dean” of the White House Press Corps sat down for an interview (link is to the Sun Herald’s summary) about her recent controversy. First she weighed in on the aftermath of her remarks about Israel last May (“I went into self-imposed house arrest”) and her views on the situation in the Palestinian territories (“the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way”). But then the interview took an uglier turn.
“Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone,” said Thomas, when asked about Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis. “But who wouldn’t fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation.”
Thomas also took a shot at Holocaust-remembrance programs, insisting that Jews exploited the memory in order to persecute Palestinians. “There’s nothing wrong with remembering [the Holocaust], but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault,” said Thomas, adding, “Do the Jews ever look at themselves? Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate.”
And in case there’s anyone out there who’s still unsure about Thomas’s true feelings toward the Jewish people, she clarified them later in the interview.
“[The Jews are] using their power, and they have power in every direction,” she said. “Power over the White House, power over Congress. … Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood.  Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control.”
Thomas then looked at the interviewer and asked, “You don’t deny that. You’re Jewish, aren’t you?”
The 90-year-old reporter’s worldview, in fact, seems to be clouded with an obsession over who is a Jew. When asked about her views on Congress, Thomas simply listed off the names of Jewish lawmakers and intoned that they would be anti-Arab. “Do you think [Chuck] Schumer and [Rep. Ileana Ros-] Lehtinen — whatever her name is — in Florida are going to be pro-Arab?” she asked. “No. But they’re going to be very influential. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republicans, do you think he’s going to be for the Arabs? Hell no! I’m telling you, you cannot get 330 votes in Congress for anything that’s pro-Arab. Nothing.”
Thomas’s comments are indicative of an extremely disturbed and damaged person. But even as she shoots off textbook anti-Semitic canards, she vigorously denies that she’s anti-Jewish.
“I think they’re wonderful people,” she says of the Jews. “They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist.”
Not everyone who calls himself an anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. But there are many, many anti-Semites, like Thomas, who hide behind the façade of anti-Zionism. And the fact that she was able to do this while in the spotlight for so many years makes one worry for the state of the media.

via commentarymagazine.com

Reuters handles public relations for Palestinians

A statement released by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades took responsibility for the killings, describing the slaughter of the Fogel family as a "natural response" to "Israeli crimes." The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is part of Fatah which is run by Palestinian Authority President Abbas. In other words it was an official act of the Palestinian Authority.

In an appalling example of bias and selective reporting known in propaganda studies as card stacking, Reuters correspondent Dan Williams rushes in to provide PR for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas as he feigns horror at the slaughter of a Jewish family over the weekend:

(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday the killing of a Jewish settler couple and three of their children was "inhuman," telling Israel he was determined to help catch those responsible.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had complained that Abbas's administration insufficiently condemned the attack and even encouraged such bloodshed through "incitement" in official Palestinian forums.
"This was inhuman and immoral. We deplore this incident, without a doubt. It is an abomination," Abbas told Israel Radio.
"I can't imagine a four-month-old child murdered," he said, speaking in Arabic. "Children, of all things ... Any person who has a sense of humanity would be pained and driven to tears by such sights."

At the same time Abbas was crying crocodile tears for the children who had their throats cut, his political party was officially celebrating the murder of 37 Israelis, including 13 children, with the naming of a town square after the Palestinian terrorist who led the attack.
Two years ago, Abbas personally congratulated the family of Palestinian Samir Kuntar for his release in a prisoner exchange with Israel.  Kuntar murdered three Israelis including a father and his 4-year-old daughter whose skull Kuntar had crushed with the butt of a gun.
While Williams is quick to parrot Abbas' purported sympathy for murdered children, the Reuters correspondent is oddly silent on Abbas' long record of sympathy for Palestinian child murderers.

via r-mew.blogspot.com
image via nppa.org

...and this is just Reuters. What do you thing is going on at CNN and MSNBC... or for that matter NPR?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Best Mugshot Ever!

Half-cut: David Davis, of Newhaven, Connecticut, fled a barber shop after attacking a fellow customer with scissors, police allege

via dailymail.co.uk

Stamford Connecticut. Isn't that where Jerry Springer is filmed?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Piers Morgan is Scum

before Piers Morgan was picked by CNN as Larry King's replacement, he was working as the editor of the Daily Mirror, and in that capacity he published more fake photos of UK soldiers torturing Iraqis. That got him fired from the Daily Mirror, but made him amply qualified for a high profile hosting gig at CNN, which suffers from even lower standards than the UK's trashiest tabloid. by Daniel Greenfield via docstalk.blogspot.com

How the Internet Destroyed American Politics

Politicians have realized that by lowering the barriers to political involvement they can attract people who otherwise wouldn't care. And so we have an entire class of people who are involved in politics because they think Obama's posters look cool or because they're angry that Sarah Palin's daughter almost won Dancing with the Stars. Call them the Alvin Greene vote. They don't understand a single issue, not even the dimmest populist ones, but they are emotionally involved with the image that the candidates project. They vote based on Saturday Night Live skits or what they hear on The View. Often young and dumb, for politicians they're an important target group. And they make up an increasingly large share of media consumers.

the internet has eroded the firewall between the American political process and the rest of the world. The damage that Soros and Assange have been able to do to America should be a wake-up call in that regard.

A lot of the world feels it should have a say in American elections, and 2008 was the first time they got a say. It will probably not be the last.

We don't know how much foreign money Obama received in 2008, but it's safe to say that this will continue to be a problem, and without rigid legal accountability, this will become a pattern in future elections. With every candidate soliciting online donations, it becomes all too easy for money to trickle in from abroad. Accountability may close that door part of the way, but not all the way, because too many 501c's also have an impact on the political process. As do many groups that are not directly involved in elections, but do play a part and can legally receive money from overseas. It will take hard work to insulate the American political process from foreign donations. And with the rise of foreign exchange trading and online gambling interests based overseas who work through American front companies, that may no longer be possible.

And foreign money is the least of the problem. With social media playing such a major role, foreign campaigners will become ubiquitous. The Obama campaign benefited from a social media network that was often very "international". In the age of the internet, it becomes all too easy to run phone banks out of Gaza, raise money in Moscow and have stories that shake up the campaign appear in The Guardian. When enough of the campaign is being outsourced, it becomes impossible to regulate or track who does or says what on the internet. And that means anti-American candidates for public office now have a base of support that they can rely on. It worked for Obama. But it won't end there.

The only thing that could avert this would be if such conduct were viewed as scandalous, but the media is unlikely to treat the outsourcing of a campaign as scandalous, unless it's done by a candidate they don't like. Which means punishing a politician for his politics, rather than his actions, another reminder of why the media cannot be trusted to vet candidates or do anything but act as cheerleaders for their man or woman.

The internet is international and it is internationalizing American elections. We are now told which candidate has international approval. We have campaign rallies overseas. We have money coming in from abroad and unofficial campaign volunteers operating abroad. And that is only be the beginning.

Technology has erased distance, and that means the end of all forms of isolation, privacy and integrity. It has also erased standards and barriers. It is up to us to try and create new standards in the age of the internet. If we fail to do this, then the medium will go on dictating the message.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Guardian UK and Print Media: Anti-Semitism for profit

A disturbing trend has been developing over the past few years. One in which vile anti-Semitic rhetoric can be found coursing through the comments section of articles on Israel or Jewish subjects in almost any mainstream media publication.
I first noticed the trend in the blog section of the British publication the Guardian UK. There the Guardian seems to have made it one of its main objectives to delegitimize the existence of Israel, and subsequently demonizes anybody that dares to support Israel. Its modus operandi is the application of the new anti-Semitism, which can be identified by two primary factors:

1. It projects traditional anti-Semitic tropes onto Israel (the Jew of the world), that insinuate that they magically control the media or politicians (in Israel’s case, control the American government), portray them as Nazis, or as being driven solely by greed or their hunger for money
2. The coverage and criticism of Israel is extremely disproportionate to that of other nations in similar situations or just as newsworthy for other reasons

For a separate blog post on this subject, see Israel, Europe and the New Anti-Semitism
For the most part, the Guardian was the only mainstream publication that took such bold steps to use the new anti-Semitism in mainstream blogs. It did not, however, allow its journalists to use it in regular articles, thereby being able to claim that the opinions expressed in the blog section known as Comment is Free were not necessarily their own, while still being able to promote their political agenda. The comments section of these blogs are a cesspool of barely veiled anti-Semitic sentiment. And the Guardian does little to discourage this discourse. It was so bad that a group of activists set up a monitoring website to document the anti-Semitic comments and the Guardian’s lack of actions to stop it, known as CiF Watch.
Over the course of the past two years, the phenomenon of anti-Semitic discourse in the comments sections of articles in mainstream publications has grown dramatically. All of the sudden one can find them in places like the New York Times, CNN, even the Wall Street Journal. Another location which this phenomenon has become particularly notable is the Huffington Post. It got so bad there that another activist setup a website to expose this activity in the blog The Brothers of Judea. Previously known as The Huffington Post Monitor. [Editor's note: the new site is actually called Huffington Post Monitor, not the other way around]
One of the driving questions has been why would all of these seemingly respectable mainstream publications tolerate openly anti-Semitic dialogue in their comments section. They all too often seem willing to allow it to take place unmoderated. I personally experienced this on numerous occasions in the Huffington Post. One in which the word “Zionist” was used by one of the moderators as an insult. Which is discussed in a piece I wrote titled Zionist as a Racial Slur.
There are a few theories which try to explain why respectable publications allow this dialogue to take place. One popular view has it that it has to do with profitability. It’s no secret that the international media is in crisis mode, with no small number of publications struggling for their existence. It seems that the international press has not managed to transition into a profitable online model and find it difficult to make money. The business model of online advertising works on the basis of what is known as click-through rates (CTR). The more traffic (clicks) a publication can get on their website, the more money (or advertisers) they can draw. If you can show advertisers that you have traffic, they’ll pay money to advertise on your website.
And while articles on Israel are a magnet for traffic (it’s a subject everybody seems to want to read about, otherwise the media wouldn’t write about it so much), it seems that anti-Semitic discourse is what keeps them clicking. Whether due to anti-Israel activists (including 1 billion Muslims worldwide) who delight in Israel bashing, Israelis or Jews looking to defend Israel, good peace-loving folk that have somehow been convinced that Israel is the source of all evil in the world, or just regular passers-by that have a penchant for the gruesome, much like the gapers delay that builds up after an accident on the highway. Online publications seem to have decided that it is in their interest to let this discourse take place, rarely if ever interfering. Because in the end its profitable, and they’ve experienced no backlash from this practice.
Indeed, the mainstream media is all too aware of the offensive comments, and enable this offensive, even racist dialog take place because it brings traffic.

via cifwatch.com

Stealing @Akiva

This argument goes for banks, auto companies and not just porn, music and Hollywood. If piracy is systematic then precedent legally makes theft legal. When the system fails why must the burden fall on the citizens and not large corporations? when it becomes this convoluted I won't pay:

 CriticalAnalyst: @akiva I already have it from Bit Torrent. Blu-ray is for pussies

akiva: @CriticalAnalyst And BitTorrent is for thieves.

I don't pay to watch movies. I steal from Oliver Stone's bitches @Akiva ...GUILT? LOL! the market merely cannibalized itself. they created the situation. now we all don't make a buck. Social media: are you making a profit? go weap for the starving Anorexics in Beverly Hills. Imagine the pain I'm causing those porn stars for watching free porn. THE AGONY! Hollywood is ruled by thieves. let them try to profit from live performance. music does. let them reap what they sew. I'm a person that grew up in the arts, information and media realm. I paid for schooling. did I make a profit? no ...Hollywood profits. I consider it my patriotic duty to not pay for their fare. sorry no guilt. bit torrent for me

akiva: @CriticalAnalyst You can justify it however it pleases you. I pay for what I use. View Tweet

 CriticalAnalyst: @akiva I pay for what I use too. I expect the media to pay for using me View Tweet

via search.twitter.com

Why doesn't FOX News have a competitor?

Question: if FOX News is so profitable and is America's favorite News, then why isn't there a competitor?

Answer: because the profit from NEWS doesn't come from advertising. the NEWS is public relations for internationalist corporations who profit from American weakness and growth in foreign markets and labor. MSNBC and CNN might look like commercial enterprises, but they aren't as concerned with advertising revenue as they are with brainwashing you into subservience. more debt makes your voice weak. keep on spending on those well intending social programs. by the time America figures out what is up we won't have a voice.

I believe the press is the press because it is profitable. I believe FOX is alone because it is not. the part of FOX that makes money is the tabloid part of it. the Hollywood gossip. and CNN is eating away at that with the new incarnation of Headline News and Nancy Grace. Right Wing only can profit from advertising and that is the least profitable part of a new network. NBC served as propaganda for General Electric until this was exposed and it proved unprofitable to be associated. profit in the news exists for public relations to government. Time Warner and CNN have to do business with government to lay their wires down... same with the present owners of NBC which is now Comcast. Fox has stayed away from that business plan by excelling in the Satellite programming business. it is only a matter of time before AT&T and Verizon attempt to get their own propaganda unit.

Stupid Central

Not that I ever thought he was even remotely funny. just kind of arrogant and snarky... but I never had Jon Stewart figured for a terrorist enabler. cat's out of the bag

since when did Comedy Central be Bullshit Central? I love South Park, but that show would of never allowed this. this isn't parody... this is a joke

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

score one for the Washington Times. the left doesn’t seem very liberal these days. do you think they would behave better if they were given “not for profit” status? doubtful.

I’m not convinced that any wing paper would sell, but it is the left that is more likely to bunch various unrelated and incompatible special interests together that are hostile to each other. Aggregating hatreds together for the sake of defining a power structure is not very liberal at all. There is a reason these publications don’t make money. they have for a century defined themselves through the politics of “economics” and ignored the needs of their readers. I don’t agree with their economic slant, but to me what is worse is their shallow indifference to the people they claim to represent. news more then any other industry deserves to fail. giving journalism a “not for profit” status will not help this industry become ethical and deal with it’s abuse of power. what needs to be dealt with is these organizations need to be voices of the people. vague is no longer credible. Indie voices will come online and advertising people will note this in the coming decade. right now the social media elite reflects the bully pulpit of main stream media. this is about to change radically. I believe that Obama might of been elected simple because the news was trying to keep up with the leftist fringe that was online and destroying their audience. this factor will now work in reverse. I’m willing to bet that I can run a successful publication in paper or online that caters to a niche market that could be reflected to a singular online identity. marketing people are hip to this, but advertising buyers are still confused. I’m certain that is about to change and someone is about to change the landscape through phone calls to the right clients. perhaps the biggest reason there is a slow migration to social media is the idea that advertising buyers will have to acknowledge the politics of where they put their money. guilt goes a long way. it’s much easier to pretend that you aren’t burdened by responsibility because you were advertising to the “mainstream”. this factor of guilt to the advertising buyer will dissipate when advertising marketers create buying markets where their advertisers are shielded from that responsibility of “knowing” the niche that their dollars are going into. there really never was a left and right to begin with… these constructs were guilt free marketing constructs to start with, but the right wing traditionally meant a niche market… that was it’s biggest criticism and it’s strength. you now see there are many right wings. Many Right Wings is real “Liberalism”.

Rachel Maddow MSNBC

Rachel Maddow gives a baby a digital copy of a birth certificate and a digital pacifier

http://twitdraw.com/graffiti.php?id=sl7o5d&view=1

Rachel Maddow MSNBC
Originally uploaded by simonstudionyc