NBC News In Hot Water Over Deceptive 911 Call

NBC News (a.k.a. the National Barack Channel) is in hot water for airing an exited recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call during the Trayvon Martin shooting.

The version NBC News aired on the "Today" show made Zimmerman sound racist and inciting racial tensions.

According to Fox News:

NBC's "Today" show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman's phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: "'This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."

But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the "suspicious person" whom Zimmerman was speaking about.

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"

"He looks black," Zimmerman said.

NBC is now conducting an "internal investigation" over the airing of the edited version. Unless the investigation turns out to be a sham, some heads should roll over this deception.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/nbc-launches-internal-probe-over-edited-11-call-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/#ixzz1qv4GhXml

UPDATE (4/7/12):   NBC News has fired the unnamed producter.  From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

The result has been some action on the part of NBC News, but nowhere near enough. But hey, if NBC prefers death by a thousand paper cuts as opposed to biting the bullet and simply doing the right thing, that's fine by me.

At first NBC News thought they could make us go away by admitting the "error." The "error," of course, being the malicious, race-baiting edit of 911 audio in order to make a private citizen, who is currently in hiding for fear of his life, look racist. 

Then NBC News thought an apology might end the growing firestorm.

Then, finally, just like a White House with something to hide about Fast and Furious, news was leaked late Friday that NBC had finally fired the producer responsible for this unpardonable act. 

To think that this biased, irresponsible, race-baiter can now freely move about the cabin and get a job anywhere in the news business, free from public scrutiny, is a cover up. 

Moreover, if NBC won’t name the producer, how in the world are we supposed to know someone has actually been fired?

Strife May Be Excuse To Keep Obama In Office Through Martial Law

Back on March 16, President Obama signed an executive order giving the White House absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.

According to Fox Nation, Obama "granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security."

This action was troubling to a great many people. And it should.

Fox Nation posted:

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President can take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well.

Jim Garrison at The Huffington Post (hardly a stronghold of conservative thought) goes even further:

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.

Isn't it interesting that this action took place during an election year in which Obama is in political trouble and is in danger of being tossed out of office?

Isn't it also interesting that we've seen an escalation of political strife that is being orchestrated by Leftist allies of Obama? The Occupy movement. The attacks on Rush Limbaugh/conservative talk radio, their sponsors and Fox News. The phony "War on Women" campaign. The thuggery involving the Trayvon Martin incident (the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head, Spike Lee's posting of an erroneous Zimmerman address, etc.). Union thuggery. The fermenting of racial strife. And so on.

All the while, the White House has not denounced any of this.

With all this going on, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Obama loses the election in November or if his pre-election poll numbers show him about to lose, he invokes this order and declares martial law to keep himself in office (Garrison feels we're already in martial law). I am not saying this will happen. But it is interesting that recent events seem to be pointing to the White House and political operatives allied with Obama.

I'm just saying. It is definitely food for thought.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/03/19/obamas-executive-order-authorizes-peacetime-martial-law#ixzz1qR4UimOa

Witness Says Trayvon Martin Was Aggressor

It appears that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in the incident with community watch officer George Zimmerman.

MyFox-Tampa Bay reports:

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

If the above is correct, Zimmerman appears to have acted in self-defense and the shooting was justified. That is, IF he had no other recourse.

There a doctrine called escalation of force used by the police, probation officers and security officers. This doctrine requires that non-lethal methods be used first, if available, and if the situation warrants it. For instance, if an officer (police or security) has pepper spray (or mace), that is used first. Then, the next degree of force is with a PR-24 or Asp baton. The last recourse is a firearm.

If Zimmerman was attacked by Martin as the witness states, he should have used pepper spray or a baton (if he had them on him) on Martin first. But if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him, and those non-lethal weapons weren't available, then Zimmerman was justified. Especially, if Martin were trying to take Zimmerman's gun.

Still, it is tragic that a 17-year-old was killed. But, it may be that he was killed in self-defense. The investigation needs to be completed before we can say for certainty.