Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, July 30, 2009


On Thursday morning, Glenn Beck said Barack Obama is a "racist". It didn't take long for MSNBC to go into overdrive attempting to tighten its rapidly loosening screws. Notice how they didn't have the slightest problem with a black professor calling a white cop a "racist" and decide to whip out members of the NAACP to chastise Beck.

Merriam-Webster defines "Racist" as the following:
: racial prejudice or discrimination

Based on that definition, isn't the NAACP a racist organization? As you watch these videos, ask yourself if some glass house dwellers are using sling shots.

First up, Chris Matthews fights to protect that leg tingle by speaking with former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume and Joan Walsh, who once called Dr. George Tiller a "hero". Quite the panel, Chris...

Next up is Contessa Brewer leading off the segment expressing outright apoplectic indignation at Beck's words. After catching her breath, she too quotes a statement from the NAACP right before kicking it over to Hilary Shelton, V.P. of Advocacy for the NAACP. Be sure to visit Merriam-Webster after viewing....


Remember the infamous incident at the Philadelphia polling station on election day, 2008? Three black panthers found themselves named as defendants in a civil lawsuit. Justice Department lawyers won a default judgment when the defendants failed to respond to the initial complaint.

Three black panthers dead to rights, right?

Nope, the case was dropped back in May. Outrageous but not all that surprising when you consider Eric 'we're a nation of cowards on things racial' Holder is running things over there. The decision to drop this case is SO outrageous that identifying who made it has been more than a little difficult.

But the WASHINGTON TIMES has apparently done so and it is the Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. However, there are still layers of the onion resistent to peeling.

From the Times....
While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness, department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the information was "privileged, according to congressional correspondence with the department.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.

"Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven."
Can you say, "Transparency"? Here's more...
The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns about the case or pressured the department to drop it.
As usual, "no comment" often equates to "no leg to stand on".. You mean like the NAACP inserting itself into the case before it was dropped?
Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department..
Isn't it all so interesting? I guess transparency is possible but it's not voluntarily given.

MICHELLE MALKIN has been all over this story from the beginning and I'm convinced she has contributed to getting Perrelli's name made public with her constant pressure.

As a refresher....


While the 40% Strongly DISAPPROVE number has remain unchanged, the overall index has set a new record. Obama's index is now at -12, which means that fewer people Strongly APPROVE of his performance (28%). My personal view is that the strongly disapprove numbers are more powerful than is the converse. Fewer "strongly approvers" doesn't translate into passionate engagement like growth in the "strongly disapprovers" does.



Doug Ross posts an interesting conundrum for Barack Obama courtesy of Barney Frank's convoluted speech patterns. Frank clearly had a 'Joe Biden' moment on this one. All along the way during this Healthcare debate, Amabo has been saying everyone will be able to keep their individual plan.

We all know that defies logic and common sense but as long as the Dems are singing from the same sheet of music and spewing the same lies in a United Front, their logic says that they can get enough people snookered.

Quoting Frank in an interview with Single Payer Action...
I think the best way we’re going to get single payer – the only way – is to have a public option demonstrate its strength and power.
Mr. Obama, would you care to respond to that one?

Here is a recent quote from Obama about his plan....
It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your (private) insurance if you’re happy with it.
So how do they spin this disparity? One way might be to say that when you have two chronic liars, they cancel each other out and you get the truth.

Yeah, right.

DOUG ROSS has more....

"If we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it."
- Barack Obama, November, 2007
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive