just wanted to make sure you caught this tidbit...

Republicans’ use of “grooming” rhetoric comes as one of their own, former state House Speaker Lee Chatfield, is under investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting his future sister-in-law starting when she was a minor.

Clips from NBC NEWS: The sister-in-law of a former, high-ranking Republican leader in Michigan accused the lawmaker of sexually assaulting her for years when she was an underaged teen, officials said Monday.

Lee Chatfield, 33, who served as speaker of the state House of Representatives in 2019 and 2020, denies any criminal wrongdoing and instead admits to extramarital — but consensual — sex with the accuser, defense attorney Mary Chartier said. (he claims the affair began after his wife's sister turned of age)

“He destroyed me, and has controlled my life since I was 15-16, the past 10-11 years,” she told the non-profit news outfit.

a couple of items didn't list that add more 'ickiness' to the mix.
link to the story: https://tinyurl.com/7zpw94z7

any wonder the Right thinks someone is after their kids - their own Party members are!

IMAX projection. 1000%

Also, that Epoch times site guy... and the company


I'm not wasting more time on your nonsense than I have to

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR I WILL MAKE THE BET - THROW DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT Ya' FUCKING SELL-YOUR-OWN-COUNTRY-OUT-FASCIST-WANNABE
+buuuurp+ ooo sorry about that, just came out, anyway.

im not wasting my time digging because idk it's like at what point do you tell a person who is suffering from a mental illness that you're not taking them seriously anymore?


+pats your head+




nevertheless, from a glancing of the sources cited on the wiki, there's an...odd? story behind this site?

-------------\
Introducing|>>>>>>>>>>>> The Epoch Times! The news source that is so honest we have no fucking clue where they get their money from...except probably china...probably.
-------------/

"The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by John Tang and other Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[26] Tang was a graduate student in Georgia at the time; he began the newspaper in his basement.[21] The founders said they were responding to censorship inside China and a lack of international understanding about the Chinese government's repression of Falun Gong.[27][28] In May 2000, the paper was first published in the Chinese language in New York, with the web launch in August 2000.[29]

According to NBC News, "little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times," and it is loosely organized into several regional tax free non-profits, under the umbrella of the Epoch Media Group, together with New Tang Dynasty Television.[18][21]

The newspaper's revenue has increased rapidly in recent years, from $3.8 million in 2016 to $8.1 million in 2017 (with spending of $7.2 million) and $12.4 million in 2018.[36] Tax documents of the Epoch Media Group indicated that between 2012 and 2016, the group received $900,000 from a principal at Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund led by the conservative political donor Robert Mercer.[37] Chris Kitze, a former NBC executive and creator of the fake news website Before It's News who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund, joined the paper's board as vice president in 2017.[36]

A 2020 report in The New York Times called The Epoch Times' recent wealth "something of a mystery." Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News who produced a documentary with NTD, said "I’d give them a number" on a project budget and "they'd come back and say, 'We’re good for that number.'" Former employees say they were told The Epoch Times is financed by subscriptions, ads and donations from wealthy Falun Gong practitioners.[21]

If anyone wants a transcript of both GW Bush and Obama's eulogy, NBC News has them for you to read through.

Obama: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/barack-obama/read-full-text-barack-obama-s-speech-john-mccain-s-n905721
GWBush: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-full-text-george-w-bush-s-speech-john-mccain-n905726

Meanwhile, Ayman Mohyeldin, who was on site at the beach and provided splendid reporting, has been pulled by NBC News for having committed an act of journalism.

*fixed with the embed from the official NBC News website.

Edward Snowden NBC News Full Interview has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

It only seems amateurish because it's not supposed to be taken seriously. This "exclusive" isn't a big deal since you can go anywhere and find much more in depth interviews, or simply the product of his leaks which is what's really important. I don't really care what Snowden has to say, but NBC news does because that's what they're trying to do.

If you make it about the person, it's easy to turn around, it's easy to dismiss this one guy. If he ever slips up, looks stupid or something whatever he did and the people that support what he did can be ignored easily.

So this is all about a distraction. Act like this "exclusive" is a big fat hairy deal, and only bring up useless everything, nothing of value or substance really.

Let's look at the News websites right now. CNN first.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/edward-snowden-interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

This about how he sees himself, so it's about ego, do you see yourself as a patriot. The title is immediately meant to draw a line, who agrees who doesn't, read the article with your feelings. Next NBC themselves.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/nsa-officials-snowden-emailed-question-not-concern-n118011

First NSA disputing his claims, people calling him naive and basically presenting no evidence just like the NSA hasn't. Then Kerry and some other guy saying he doesn't have to stay in Russia, that it's not the US's fault for him being there. Completely absurd bullshit, and no one would be allowed to take Snowdens side in these talkbacks. It's useless. On to Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/29/kerry-tells-snowden-to-man-up-and-come-home/

Focussing on Kerry acting like a tough idiot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/29/glenn-greenwald-new-book-no-place-to-hide-tells-how-nsa-spies-on-us/

And a surprisingly decent opinion piece on Glenn Greenwald from Judge Napolitano.

Your video, Edward Snowden NBC NEWS FULL INTERVIEW, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Microsoft put people in quite a pickle when they admitted that all their products, Windows first and foremost, have easier backdoor access than the Kardashians.

Let's say a government agency is employing Windows as their standard OS. Let's say they are legally bound to protect the data they work with, within reasonable limits. Now, if said OS is widely known to be inherently insecure, would that make all of them liable for negligence if they renew any licenses, much less acquire new ones?

Anyways, still looking for an English news source for a specific talk at the Black Hat conference in Vegas. Matthew Cole, a fella working for NBC News, outlined how all the CIA spooks involved in the kidnapping of Abu Omar in Italy were identified by... telephone metadata.

Even the professionals cannot beat the fucking machine, so what does that say about the ordinary citizen. Those blokes were caught because they messed up, but still...

"Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin with news that the National Security Agency has obtained access to the central servers of nine major Internet companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo! and Facebook. The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the top secret program on Thursday, codenamed PRISM, after they obtained several slides from a 41-page training presentation for senior intelligence analysts. It explains how PRISM allows them to access emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, documents and connection logs that allow them to track a person or trace their connections to others. One slide lists the companies by name and the date when each provider began participating over the past six years. But an Apple spokesperson said it had "never heard" of PRISM and added, quote, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order," they said. Other companies had similar responses.

Well, for more, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, columnist, attorney, and blogger for The Guardian, where he broke his story in—that was headlined "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal." This comes after he revealed Wednesday in another exclusive story that the "NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers." According to a new report in The Wall Street Journal, the scope of the NSA phone monitoring includes customers of all three major phone networks—Verizon, AT&T and Sprint—as well as records from Internet service providers and purchase information from credit card providers. Glenn Greenwald is also author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. He’s joining us now via Democracy—video stream.

Glenn, welcome back to Democracy Now! Lay out this latest exclusive that you have just reported in The Guardian.

GLENN GREENWALD: There are top-secret NSA documents that very excitingly describe—excitedly describe, boast about even, how they have created this new program called the PRISM program that actually has been in existence since 2007, that enables them direct access into the servers of all of the major Internet companies which people around the world, hundreds of millions, use to communicate with one another. You mentioned all of those—all those names. And what makes it so extraordinary is that in 2008 the Congress enacted a new law that essentially said that except for conversations involving American citizens talking to one another on U.S. soil, the NSA no longer needs a warrant to grab, eavesdrop on, intercept whatever communications they want. And at the time, when those of us who said that the NSA would be able to obtain whatever they want and abuse that power, the argument was made, "Oh, no, don’t worry. There’s a great check on this. They have to go to the phone companies and go to the Internet companies and ask for whatever it is they want. And that will be a check." And what this program allows is for them, either because the companies have given over access to their servers, as the NSA claims, or apparently the NSA has simply seized it, as the companies now claim—the NSA is able to go in—anyone at a monitor in an NSA facility can go in at any time and either read messages that are stored in Facebook or in real time surveil conversations and chats that take place on Skype and Gmail and all other forms of communication. It’s an incredibly invasive system of surveillance worldwide that has zero checks of any kind.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, there is a chart prepared by the NSA in the top-secret document you obtained that shows the breadth of the data it’s able to obtain—email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, Skype chats, file transfers, social networking details. Talk about what this chart reveals.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the crucial thing to realize is that hundreds of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions—in fact, billions of people around the world essentially rely on the Internet exclusively to communicate with one another. Very few people use landline phones for much of anything. So when you talk about things like online chats and social media messages and emails, what you’re really talking about is the full extent of human communication. And what the objective of the National Security Agency is, as the stories that we’ve revealed thus far demonstrate and as the stories we’re about to reveal into the future will continue to demonstrate—the objective of the NSA and the U.S. government is nothing less than destroying all remnants of privacy. They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another, things that we say to one another, things we do with one another, places we go, the behavior in which we engage, that they know about it, that they can watch it, and they can store it, and they can access it at any time. And that’s what this program is about. And they’re very explicit about the fact that since most communications are now coming through these Internet companies, it is vital, in their eyes, for them to have full and unfettered access to it. And they do.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, as you reported, the PRISM program—not to be confused with prison, the PRISM program—is run with the assistance of the companies that participate, including Facebook and Apple, but all of those who responded to a Guardian request for comment denied knowledge of any of the program. This is what Google said, quote: "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege [that] we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, first of all, after our story was published, and The Washington Post published more or less simultaneously a similar story, several news outlets, including NBC News, confirmed with government officials that they in fact have exactly the access to the data that we describe. The director of national intelligence confirmed to The New York Times, by name, that the program we identify and the capabilities that we described actually exist. So, you have a situation where somebody seems to be lying. The NSA claims that these companies voluntarily allow them the access; the companies say that they never did.

This is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to have out in the open. What exactly is the government doing in how it spies on us and how it reads our emails and how it intercepts our chats? Let’s have that discussion out in the open. To the extent that these companies and the NSA have a conflict and can’t get their story straight, let them have that conflict resolved in front of us. And then we, as citizens, instead of having this massive surveillance apparatus built completely secretly and in the dark without us knowing anything that’s going on, we can then be informed about what kinds of surveillance the government is engaged in and have a reasoned debate about whether that’s the kind of world in which we want to live.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, on Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein told reporters in the Senate gallery that the government’s top-secret court order to obtain phone records on millions of Americans is, quote, "lawful."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business record section of the PATRIOT Act, therefore it is lawful.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Dianne Feinstein. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, the fact that something is lawful doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous or tyrannical or wrong. You can enact laws that endorse tyrannical behavior. And there’s no question, if you look at what the government has done, from the PATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act, that’s exactly what the war on terror has been about.

But I would just defer to two senators who are her colleagues, who are named Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. They have—are good Democrats. They have spent two years now running around trying to get people to listen to them as they’ve been saying, "Look, what the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so radical and so distorted and warped that Americans will be stunned to learn" — that’s their words — "what is being done in the name of these legal theories, these secret legal theories, in terms of the powers the Obama administration has claimed for itself in how it can spy on Americans."

When the PATRIOT Act was enacted—and you can go back and look at the debates, as I’ve done this week—nobody thought, even opponents of the PATRIOT Act, that it would ever be used to enable the government to gather up everybody’s telephone records and communication records without regard to whether they’ve done anything wrong. The idea of the PATRIOT Act was that when the government suspects somebody of being involved in terrorism or serious crimes, the standard of proof is lowered for them to be able to get these documents. But the idea that the PATRIOT Act enables bulk collection, mass collection of the records of hundreds of millions of Americans, so that the government can store that and know what it is that we’re doing at all times, even when there’s no reason to believe that we’ve done anything wrong, that is ludicrous, and Democratic senators are the ones saying that it has nothing to do with that law.

AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Glenn, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he stood by what he told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when he said that the National Security Agency does "not wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans. Let’s go to that exchange.

SEN. RON WYDEN: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

JAMES CLAPPER: No, sir.

SEN. RON WYDEN: It does not?

JAMES CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the questioning of the head of the national intelligence, James Clapper, by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: OK. So, we know that to be a lie, not a misleading statement, not something that was sort of parsed in a way that really was a little bit deceitful, but an outright lie. They collect—they collect data and records about the communications activities and other behavioral activities of millions of Americans all the time. That’s what that program is that we exposed on Wednesday. They go to the FISA court every three months, and they get an order compelling telephone companies to turn over the records, that he just denied they collect, with regard to the conversations of every single American who uses these companies to communicate with one another. The same is true for what they’re doing on the Internet with the PRISM program. The same is true for what the NSA does in all sorts of ways.

We are going to do a story, coming up very shortly, about the scope of the NSA’s spying activities domestically, and I think it’s going to shock a lot of people, because the NSA likes to portray itself as interested only in foreign intelligence gathering and only in targeting people who they believe are guilty of terrorism, and yet the opposite is true. It is a massive surveillance state of exactly the kind that the Church Committee warned was being constructed 35 years ago. And we intend to make all those facts available so people can see just how vast it is and how false those kind of statements are.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein. Speaking on MSNBC, she said the leak should be investigated and that the U.S. has a, quote, "culture of leaks."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: There is nothing new in this program. The fact of the matter is that this was a routine three-month approval, under seal, that was leaked.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Should it be—should the leak be investigated?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I think so. I mean, I think we have become a culture of leaks now.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Dianne Feinstein, being questioned by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Glenn Greenwald, your final response to this? And sum up your findings. They’re talking about you, Glenn.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think Dianne Feinstein may be the most Orwellian political official in Washington. It is hard to imagine having a government more secretive than the United States. Virtually everything that government does, of any significance, is conducted behind an extreme wall of secrecy. The very few leaks that we’ve had over the last decade are basically the only ways that we’ve had to learn what our government is doing.

But look, what she’s doing is simply channeling the way that Washington likes to threaten the people over whom they exercise power, which is, if you expose what it is that we’re doing, if you inform your fellow citizens about all the things that we’re doing in the dark, we will destroy you. This is what their spate of prosecutions of whistleblowers have been about. It’s what trying to threaten journalists, to criminalize what they do, is about. It’s to create a climate of fear so that nobody will bring accountability to them.

It’s not going to work. I think it’s starting to backfire, because it shows their true character and exactly why they can’t be trusted to operate with power in secret. And we’re certainly not going to be deterred by it in any way. The people who are going to be investigated are not the people reporting on this, but are people like Dianne Feinstein and her friends in the National Security Agency, who need investigation and transparency for all the things that they’ve been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we want to thank you for being with us. Is this threat of you being investigated going to deter you in any way, as you continue to do these exclusives, these exposés?

GLENN GREENWALD: No, it’s actually going to embolden me to pursue these stories even more aggressively.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, I want to thank you for being with us, columnist and blogger for The Guardian newspaper. We’ll link to your exposés on our website, "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal", as well as "NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily"." - Democracy Now!

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

Proving my original point and showing this Sift to be a complete pile of bologna...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/

CBS video suddenly, miraculously, AMAZINGLY "discovers" the injuries. Hmmm - well, the 911 tape proves there was racism...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news-to-probe-misleading-edit-/

Cue up the Price is Right "Loser Horn"...

But again - I'm not saying anything about what Zimmerman or Martin were or weren't doing. I repeat - again - let the investigation take place at its own pace. Stop letting the obvious efforts of the professional race industry turn you into brainless parrots. Stop being sheeple for the blatant agendas of different groups trying to advance thier 'version' of events into the public. Ignore the whole mess and let the courts take care of things - the way its supposed to be.

Last word - the news media has proven itself to be wholly untrustworthy on this story. CBS omitting video detail that they KNEW they had? NBC deliberately editing the tape to make it sound like it was Zimmerman doing profiling? I hope the so-called "intellectual" left is starting to realize just how mentally bankrupt thier media is.

>> ^gwiz665:

In violation of NBC news' guidelines which MSNBC is exempt from. This is just posturing by boss Phil Griffin who wants to show who's boss and maybe win goodwill from the other side.


Except Griffin isn't part of doing anything yet, and won't be for another 6mo. This is all old NBC guys, no giant fox/republican conspiracy to be had. Sorry to burst your bubble.

In violation of NBC news' guidelines which MSNBC is exempt from. This is just posturing by boss Phil Griffin who wants to show who's boss and maybe win goodwill from the other side.

Speculation from the medias finest.
But last night, an NBC News correspondent reported that Pentagon officials are certain Bergdahl is not a deserter. Miklaszewski(nbc pentagon corespondent) also said the officials are "quite outraged" about the comments made by the Fox analyst, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters because they could be used to harm Bergdahl.