ABC News hides Michelle’s ignorance “to save time”

| February 27, 2013

You probably heard that Michelle Obama told ABC News that teenager Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down in Chicago by an automatic weapon a few weeks ago. ABC News knew that was inaccurate and edited out the line to camouflage the First Lady’s blatant ignorance of gun functions – the Chicago police admit that the girl was probably shot with a semi-automatic handgun.

Well, according to our buddy, Emily Miller at the Washington Times, ABC News is claiming that they edited the line out for brevity’s sake;

A spokesman for ABC News, Heather Riley, emailed me that, “The full story was posted to our website in advance of the interview being broadcast. The edits made to Robin’s interview with the First Lady were made solely for time.”

I read the missing words out loud, and it took me seven seconds.

The Chicago police suspect that the shooter in the teen’s death was a gang member and it’s unlikely that a scum bag like that couldn’t afford the tens of thousands of dollars and layers of bureaucracy required to get an automatic weapon.

But, that’s what the Obama Administration and ABC News gets for dragging someone into the “national discussion” on firearms control who has no business discussing a subject they don’t understand. Mrs. Obama should stick to talking about her bangs and her $9000 dress at the Oscars. Maybe get me a sandwich, too.

Category: Guns, Media

Comments (60)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NHSparky says:

    If you’re saying i got a fact wrong it is “your job” to prove that i did.

    Um, no. Kinda like court–you make the claim, you provide the evidence to support said claim. Then again, you know the logical impossibility of (dis)proving a negative, don’t ya scooter?

  2. NHSparky says:

    If i were “thin skinned” i’d never come here.

    Well, thin-skinned, thick-headed, same-same. And paralegals who don’t know how to use punctuation and capitalization? Boy, you better hope your customers in that new “startup” of yours don’t know how to read or don’t care…maybe if you’re selling texts to 14-year old girls it might not matter, but here in the real world, people kinda notice that shit and judge accordingly.

  3. Hondo says:

    NHSparky: all that’s really needed is his SAT or ACT scores. Like ASVAB scores, those have been proven to be reliably linked to IQ scores.

    He should release the others in the interest of that “transparency” he preaches, too. But I ain’t holding my breath.

  4. Hondo says:

    NHSparky: the burden of proof you describe is as I recall generally the case in civil court. In criminal court, however, Sippy would be correct.

    Discussions here are are not criminal proceedings, however, and are thus much more similar to civil court than criminal. Hence Sippy is still out to lunch.

    As usual.

  5. ChopIT says:

    @21 based on the test scores we got for the current president, his IQ puts him at the ZERO percentile…

  6. Insipid says:

    @47- If I were going to quote from the case those are pretty much the passages that I would of used. All i can say is that you’re reading the damn thing wrong. They were NOT saying that it is and it isn’t a tax at the same time. They were saying that the wording of Congress in calling it a penalty allows the court to consider the law now rather than after the tax is imposed. From your own passage:

    But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”

    So the REAL correct way to interpret it is to say that the Anti-injunction act has ONE standard and the Constitution has another standard in the determination of what is and isn’t a tax. Because the Congress called it a “Penalty” and not a “tax” the court is allowed to consider it.

    The reason why the anti-injunction act exists is because people were at one time abusing the court system in order to get out of paying taxes. They’d simply sue whenever a new tax came into being and then be able to avoid paying it- perhaps for years until it meandered its way through the courts. The anti-injunction act allows the state and feds to collect revenue while the plaintiff is suing.

    Now, just because they call it a tax, does not necessarily make it a tax. There was one case in which they DID call it a tax and for the purposes of the anti-injunction act the plaintiff was barred from suit. When it came to court they determined that the penalty was so severe and so directed that it was really a fine and not a tax, so the guys money was refunded. But because of the anit-injunction act the guy was barred from suing until after he payed. But in order for Congress to enjoy the benefits of revenue without the worry of a suit, they have to “invoke” the AIA by going through the trouble of CALLING it a tax. It can’t be used to bar suits against ALL attempts to collect revenue.

    Again, different standards different results. No inconsistency in logic.

    Actually, the one who was “off his meds” was Scalia. Clearly the PPACA is Constitutional based on all 3 standards. If the commerce clause can be invoked to enforce rules at a single lunch counter in a single state (I actually visited that Woolworth and talked to the waitress who was there at the time) surely it can be invoked to control health insurance which must allow for people to use it across state lines (for practical matters, you can’t buy health insurance every time you vacation or travel to a different state!). Also if Health care does not apply to health and welfare i do not know what would.

    The ORIGINAL assessments that this case was frivolous was correct. What changed that opinion was the Courts Fox-News style grilling of the solicitor general. Like in Bush V. Gore, the court was carrying water for the SC. Rather than reporting the truth of the law- that the case was always frivolous they reported the horse race.

    Make no mistake- if Romney got elected in 2008 and this were Romneycare and not Obamacare this would be a 9-0 decision. Since Bush V. Gore, the conservatives on the SC have stopped being justices and are now just partisan hacks. Of course, if this were Romneycare no governor would of filed suit int he first place.

    As far as my prediction about it being upheld as a tax: I knew it would because there was absolutely NO WAY they could rule otherwise, regardless of what President Obama was saying. The PPACA “penalty” is not greater than the cost of insurance and by law can’t be, therefore it is not prohibitory. It’s not limited to willful violations as penalties are. The “penalty” is determined by the IRS based on income and number of dependents and is enforded by the IRS. And it generates revenue for the Federal Government. I mean, how can anyone view it as anything but a tax? The reason why Congress refused to call it that are two-fold: 1. It is a clear violation of President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making 250k and 2. The GOP has successfully turned the word tax into a four letter word.

  7. insipid says:

    Just for the fun of watching Hondo move the goal posts AGAIN I’ll comply with his earlier requests to back up what I said. So here’s the original thread in which Jonn gets it completely wrong in regards to the Obama team suing to disenfranchise voters:
    And this is what Jonn got completely wrong in the article:

    So, I guess the Democrats aren’t buying that their big push for veterans’ votes this season is going to work, so it’s back to the tried and true disenfranchisement strategy. This is not my shocked face.

    And here’s the link to the actual court case in which you can see that the suit was to allow early voting for EVERYONE and NOT to disenfranchise veterans:

    And here’s the link to that “liberal rag” Hotair that says the same thing I’m saying:

    And here’s the case in which he got it completely wrong in the case of gay veterans:

    Here’s what he wrote:

    I don’t remember the rum-runners getting forgiven for plying their illicit trade after Prohibition ended. All they had to do was keep their mouths shut about their particular sexual preference, and they couldn’t…now they get to cash in on it.
    And here’s the facts of the case as outlined in the complaint and stipulated by the defense:

    “The Air Force initiated separation proceedings against Mr. Collins after two civilian co-workers observed him exchange a kiss with his civilian boyfriend. The kiss occurred while Mr. Collins and his boyfriend were in a car stopped at an intersection ten miles off base and while Mr. Collins was off duty and out of uniform.”
    Scroll to the bottom of this page and you can read ALL the legal documents:

    Few, if any of the cases, of people getting honorably discharged but being denied separation money involved folks flaunting it, as Jonn’s original obnoxious and lazy post states. If Jonn had bothered to think for a moment he’d know this. Why would someone serve long enough to get separation pay only to blow it by not keeping their “mouth shut”. There were cases in which soldiers private e-mails were read. Some cases involved being outed by partners after break-ups. But we all know that Jonn supports SOME troops. As long as they’re the “right kind” of troops.

    Can’t wait to see how you’ll attempt to wiggle your way out of just admitting that Jonn was talking out of his ass in both cases. My guess is that you’ll tell me to find something more than the legal documents. Or you won’t accept the actual court documents cause I wasn’t doing THIS with my hands. Or you’ll say that i must prove that in EVERY case in which the settlement was paid NO ONE inadvertently mentioned their boyfriend or girlfriend in a conversation. It might be as entertaining as your defense of Woodward.