Outrage: Two white reporters attacked by Blacks; their editor hides

This story is outrageous on so many levels. Two newspaper reporters - one male and one female - for the Virginian-Pilot were assaulted and beaten when they got out of their car after it had been hit with a brick three weeks ago. Despite what appears to be an obvious hate crime - or at least racially motivated - virtually no one wants to touch the story, not even the editor of the paper, Denis Finley.

I said "virtually" because fortunately, Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Watters are willing to cover it. In the news report below, Watters actually confronts Finley, whose responses are quite lame. At one point, Finley makes the claim that he doesn't know that the attack was a hate crime or the result of a black mob. O'Reilly is incredulous at this because, as he points out, it's a newspaper's job to find these things out.

The police appear to have mishandled this case as well, so much so that the assault victims are pressing charges against them. The Attorney General for Virginia - Ken Cuccinelli - has publicly stated he will not intervene or call for the release of the 911 recordings. Cuccinelli, as some might remember, is one of the state Attorneys General who has been at the tip of the spear with respect to the Obamacare lawsuits across the country.

He's also running for Governor of Virginia in 2013.

Via Fox Nation:



**UPDATE** I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Finley:

Sir, If there's even a modicum of truth to the story that appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night, you are both unwilling to stand by your own reporters AND unwilling to doggedly pursue the truth about what happened to them. 

Those things are at the very core of an editor's responsibility. It makes one wonder why you're in the journalism business at all. It'd be like someone with acrophobia choosing to be an airline pilot. 

Do what's right, Denis. Conquer your fear of flying or get off the plane.

I received the following response:

It was totally mischaracterized, Mr. Barrack.  Not even close.

I appreciate your note.

Denis Finley

That prompted me to hit "reply" and send this:

Denis,

Five black males attacked YOUR non-black employees and you call it a "street altercation" instead of a "black mob."

Instead of an "assault," you call it a "fight." If it was a fight, were either of your reporters cited by police? If not, why was a black teen the only one arrested? Isn't that a racially biased act on the part of the police if it was a "fight" and not an "assault"?

Perhaps you should report it that way (if it's the truth).

Instead of saying your reporter was "attacked," you say she was "involved."

Instead of saying your reporters were "assaulted by several blacks," you refer to them as a "handful of people" who were "involved in the fight."

Then you say, "there's no way for me to know if it was racially motivated." What have you done to determine that? Would you say the same thing if five white males attacked a black couple?

With all due respect, you might see O'Reilly's story as a "mischaracterization" but your answers to Mr. Watters' questions appear to be those of someone who is rationalizing uncomfortable truths.

Just curious, are you pro-life, pro-infanticide or.... pro-choice?

This is what I got back from that:

Thanks for the note.

Yes, I know she was attacked.  I don't know right now if the attack was racial.  Every time a black person attacks a white person or a white person attacks a black it is not necessarily racial.  I can't report assumptions.

If we determine it was racially motivated, we will report that.

Thank you.
Denis Finley

I have a note into Mr. Finley, asking him what the reporters said about their attackers? Did the assailants say anything that might help us find out if is was racially motivated?

**UPDATE** Mr. Finley has responded that his paper asked both reporters if the assailants said anything racial. According to him, they said there was "nothing racial" and that "no epithets or slurs were spoken." When I asked him if he told Jesse Watters that, he said:

I told him (Watters) a lot of things that were left out.

He then said:

I did not watch, but I asked those who did if he included that I said I have been critical of the rush to judgment in the Trayvon Martin case, yet I am being asked to do the same thing in this case. Apparently, he did not.

I also said that in hindsight I think we could have done a story, but (and this was cut off), it would have been very short and inside our local section, which I doubt would have appeased our critics, although I don't want to assume.

Will keep you posted...

France elects Socialist President, circles the drain

There are certain truths that should be self-evident. Things like 2+2=4 and Socialism never works, for example. Don't tell that to the French, though. They've just elected a far left socialist named Francois Hollande, who apparently won, in part, by appealing to the ignorance of an economic truth that should be self-evident. A majority of France's populace got tired of austerity measures so they believed a man who promised to spend more of what the country doesn't have - money.

Via BBC:

Mr Hollande - the first Socialist to win the French presidency since Francois Mitterrand in the 1980s - gave his victory speech in his stronghold of Tulle in central France.

He said he was "proud to have been capable of giving people hope again".

He said he would push ahead with his pledge to refocus EU fiscal efforts from austerity to "growth".


"Europe is watching us, austerity can no longer be the only option," he said.

After his speech in Tulle, Mr Hollande headed to Brive airport on his way to Paris to address supporters at Place de la Bastille. His voice hoarse, he spoke of his pride at taking over the mantle of the presidency 31 years almost to the day since Socialist predecessor Francois Mitterrand was elected.

Imagine being maxed out on all of your credit cards and on the verge of bankruptcy. You go to see a credit counselor, who proceeds to put you on a painful but necessary path that will bring you out of debt. A year goes by and that painful path is wearing on you. Along comes a loan shark who says he can make everything better.

France just listened to that guy.

h/t Drudge

Anti-Gun Group's reaction to Fast and Furious makes the case that the operation was about Gun Control

It's quite obvious that ideology trumps race when it comes to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' (CHC) apparent disinterest in getting to the truth about Fast and Furious, which is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of hispanics. Now, there appears to be a new twist on what else ideology trumps - the truth.

The reaction of the leader of an anti-gun group has actually decided to all but deny that Fast and Furious guns were used in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. In so doing, Ladd Everitt actually and unwittingly makes the case that the entire operation itself was about gun control.

Via the Daily Caller:

A spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a left-wing anti-gun group based in Washington, D.C., told The Daily Caller his organization doesn’t believe firearms trafficked to Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious have killed hundreds of civilians in that country. That those guns have been used often to kill Mexicans is a position articulated by both Attorney General Eric Holder and Mexican authorities.

Coalition spokesman Ladd Everitt argued that there was no evidence for The Daily Caller to report that “[t]here are hundreds of Mexican citizens who were murdered with weapons the Obama administration gave to cartels through Fast and Furious and two American law enforcement officers — Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata — were killed with Fast and Furious guns.”

Everitt argued that he didn’t think there is “actual trace and ballistics evidence to prove that conclusively.”

And when TheDC presented Everitt with video of Holder’s own admission that the death toll from Fast and Furious weapons will likely increase, he scoffed.

During an exchange with Texas Republican Rep. Ted Poe before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 8, Holder was asked if he would agree that “more people are going to die” because of Fast and Furious. “Unfortunately I think that’s probably true,” Holder admitted in his testimony.

But Everitt, an anti-gun advocate, attacked Holder’s statement to Congress as “purely speculative.”

Uh, yeah, the guy with probably the most to lose over Operation Fast and Furious - Eric Holder - concedes that guns from the operation have been used in countless murders and Everitt basically accuses the Attorney General of lying.

If Everitt is right, doesn't it mean that Holder perjured himself?