It is more than a little odd that the story with the earlier headline (“Cache of evidence in shooting, still huge gaps”) is still present. The headline grossly mischaracterizes the nature of the publicly released data. The same story with a different and more accurate headline (“Amid evidence cache in Martin case, questions nag”) is also still there. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen at AP, especially not for over 24 hours (the time stamps on the two stories are both late Friday afternoon). Graphics with the two examples follow the jump.

Here’s the earlier version, (with the URL “http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT”):

Now the later version (with the URL “http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT”):

This link at the Kansas City Star has a time stamp (3:48 CT, 2:48 ET) with the “huge gaps” headline which is just less than two hours earlier than the AP’s national site.

So why are two otherwise identical stories with different headlines still present at the wire service’s national site? My theory: By changing the URL of the second story, AP made the old story with the distortion-driven headline less likely to be replaced at subscribing outlets on Friday evening, meaning that that a lot more print editions probably carried the “Huge Gaps” headline in their Saturday editions than would have been the case if the wire service had done what it usually does, which is to revise stories, make no change to their URLs, and effectively flush older versions down the memory hole.

The “huge gaps” headline’s continued existence is pretty convenient for those who desperately want to keep portraying Trayvon Martin as an innocent, harmless victim while continuing to fan racial animosities. Based on what they have seen during the past week or so, many who are closely following the case, including well-known lawyer Alan Dershowitz, believe that the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman should be dropped

If there’s a better explanation for what AP has done, I’d like to see it.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

But enough on Warren. What the world really needs to see is Barack Obama’s recipe for Bow Wow Chow.

… I quickly calculated that the woman’s cake was eight times more expensive than the kind I make at home to celebrate birthdays.

… I wondered how we arrived at this point as a nation. I also felt like a chump.

The vast majority of Americans—Democrat, Republican or independent—will readily help someone who cannot make ends meet in a bad economy. Americans want a hungry child to be fed. I know this because in no other country do people donate more to charities. Americans will go far beyond what our taxes already pay for to help the less fortunate. We have been blessed with overabundance in this land, and we are a very generous people.

But over the last four decades, our government has quietly done away with almost all of the restrictions once placed on food assistance. SNAP cards (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) can be used to purchase practically anything with the exception of liquor and cigarettes. These cards are also openly and illegally sold for cash, which allows the recipient to buy anything they want, including cigarettes and liquor.

Food assistance is helping many families keep their heads above water when they would otherwise not get by, and many of these families watch every dime. But the system also allows people to flagrantly disregard the program’s original purpose.

We should feel like chumps. As a nation, we’re going broke in no small part because of the fact that we’re being played — and the government effort to stop it is completely inadequate.

__________________________________________

Published: May 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM PDT

Action News is continuing to cover a story we have been following for you since the very beginning. It’s been three months since 5-year-old Luke Durst fell from his family’s second floor window in Kennewick.

He was severely injured, but has made an incredible recovery. And on Wednesday, he said thank you to the fire and EMS crews who saved his life.

As he arrived at the Richland Fire Station at Keene and Gage, he showed virtually no signs of the massive injury he received just three months ago.

“He went from not walking, not talking, not swallowing,” says Luke’s father Matt Durst. “And now he’s great. You can’t even tell, just by looking at him.”

But the first responders recall the last time they saw Luke, when he was clinging to life.

“The screen was pushed out, and the little boy was unconscious. We knew it was bad right away,” says Bob Grubenhoff.

They remember working hard to save the little boy’s life. But they credit Luke’s remarkable and speedy recovery to one thing.

“We’re here for God,” says Cory Henson. “We do His work. And we have the right angels in the right place with us. And He’s got a bigger plan for Luke, definitely.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

The question I asked at the post was: “This must all be some kind of misunderstanding …. right? Note at the very bottom of the story that it is purportedly from the Associated Press.”

Well, as carried at Infowars John Charlton shows that it is from AP, and has other pertinent questions, the most of important of which is:

“Just when did Obama begin to publically (sic) claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”

The answer appears to be “sometime in 2007.”

CEOs lose their jobs when they have been found to have fibbed about substantive matters on their resumes. Just sayin’.

Of course, the truthfulness of many of the “Did you know?” items  leaves much to be desired, perhaps none moreso that one concerning Ronald Reagan’s tax policies and positions, as an Investor’s Business Daily editorial observed Thursday evening:

Obama Lies About Reagan Endorsing Buffett Rule

The president’s narcissistic self-insertion into official presidential biographies would have us believe the Great Communicator would agree with the Great Teleprompter Reader on taxes. Well, there he goes again.

Not willing to wait until his visage is enshrined next to actor and donor George Clooney on Mt. Rushmore, President Obama’s helpers have notoriously inserted their fearless leader into the official White House biographies of virtually every former president back to Calvin Coolidge, except for Gerald Ford.

The White House defended the practice of appending presidential biographies by saying it is common Web practice to provide links to ease navigation and increase traffic. [*] What we have here is an Orwellian rewriting of history akin to the fictional Winston Smith doing it on a daily basis for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel “1984.”

Inserted into the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan was this lie: “In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.”

As Reagan’s son Michael told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly recently, “Ronald Reagan was talking about lowering the effective tax rate on every working American. At the same time he was talking about closing the loopholes for all those tax deductions. That’s what he was talking about. He wasn’t talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. He was talking about lowering everybody’s taxes. And for Barack Obama to once again just take this out of context, and try to play the Ronald Reagan card, to try to get people to support his positions, is just a bold-faced lie.”

Indeed it is. Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people — which are Obama’s priorities — Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all.

As Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has pointed out, what Reagan actually said in that June 1985 speech was, “We want to cut taxes, not opportunity. … By lowering everyone’s tax rates all the way up the income scale, each of us will have a greater incentive to climb higher, to excel, to help America grow.”

Economic guru and IBD contributor Larry Kudlow notes that Reagan, who lowered the cap-gains tax from 28% to 20% in his first term, actually wanted to cut it to 17.5% in his second. By slashing the top income-tax rate from 70% to 28%, Reagan unleashed our entrepreneurs and risk-takers, allowing them to create an unprecedented economic boom.

President Obama and his Buffett Rule would take us in a completely opposite direction. By increasing taxes on the wealthy, you discourage wealth creation.

If Obama indeed doesn’t get reelected, cleaning up after him is going to be an arduous task on many levels.

__________________________________________

May 15, 2012 / 11:03 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Canada’s 15th annual National March for Life has broken attendance records by a dramatic margin, due in part to rising youth participation in the country’s pro-life movement.

“It’s been growing every year by thousands. Last year we had 15,000, and this year we had 19,500,” Campaign Life Coalition National Coordinator Mary Ellen Douglas told CNA on May 14.

“It is a significant increase,” she said, noting that the pro-life movement was “constantly growing” in Canada. The May 10 march to Parliament Hill was part of a three-day event in Ottawa, which also included a candlelight vigil, prayer services and Masses, banquets and a youth conference.

Local marches also took place in at least four other provinces, protesting the 1969 legislative act that made abortion legal in Canada as well as the 1988 decision that left the country with no abortion restrictions.

“Over 60 percent of the people who attended the march were under 30,” Douglas said. “It was alive with young people, with lots of enthusiasm, and with other people who are long-term veterans.”

In addition to the remarks delivered by pro-life and religious leaders, 17 members of Parliament also addressed the crowd. Population Research Institute President Steve Mosher, a prominent opponent of China’s one-child policy, gave an address at the Rose Dinner on Thursday evening.

On that same evening, an 800-strong crowd attended the youth banquet with an address by Reformed Presbyterian minister Reverend Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. A day-long youth conference followed on Friday.

“It’s getting the attention of the media, who are shocked by the numbers,” Douglas observed. “Even though they try to diminish them all the time, they notice. They know that we’re there in force.”

Douglas, a 40-year veteran of the movement, said the timing of this year’s march was “providential,” coinciding with a motion in Parliament by Conservative MP Steven Woodworth.

“This motion is calling on Parliament to bring together science and the law – because the law of Canada says you’re not a human being until you’re fully emerged from the womb.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

At the Washington Times, it is:

President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House’s rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama’s budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Not if you’re writing for the Associated Press.

There, Andrew Taylor demoted the unanimous rejection of Obama’s budget to his report’s fourth paragraph, and preceded it with the supposedly more important earth-shattering news that the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected Republican budget proposals (also note the ant-Tea Party snark):

Senate Democrats reject House GOP budget plan

Democrats controlling the Senate rejected for the second year in a row Wednesday a budget plan passed by House Republicans.

The 58-41 vote against the GOP budget came after a daylong debate in which Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to trillion-dollar deficits, and Republicans in turn attacked Democrats for not offering a budget at all.

Republicans launched the debate, which was aimed less at successfully passing a bill than highlighting the failure of Senate Democrats to deal with a budget deficit expected to top $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year.

The Senate rejected five separate budget plans, including one based on President Barack Obama’s February budget and offered by Republicans to embarrass Democrats and the White House. It failed on a 99-0 vote. Three GOP senators elected in 2010 with tea party support also offered plans in a competition to see whose budget could cut government the most.

And of course, Taylor never mentioned the House’s also-unanimous rejection of Obama’s budget in March.

That why I call AP the Administration’s Press.