Video: Sports Writer quoted by Bob Costas outed as a Racist

Not sure how I missed this but the letter written to Bill O'Reilly by Fox Sports writer Jason Whitlock in response to a request to be interviewed on O'Reilly's show was nothing short of over-the-top racist. Whitlock is the same guy whom Bob Costas quoted after the Jovan Belcher murder / suicide that found the NBC sportscaster in hot water almost two weeks ago.

In the days after Costas' elevation of Whitlock on a national stage, he went on Whitlock's radio show and didn't do himself any favors.

The good news? One of the consequences of Bob Costas' decision to line up with Whitlock on national television over a second amendment issue following a high profile case is that Whitlock is being exposed for the racist he is. The bad news (for Costas) is that aligning with Whitlock on any issue - especially one as controversial as the Belcher case and gun control - is a poor reflection on Costas.

If you haven't seen this, it's a must-watch.

Via the Daily Caller:

Video: Costas hits rock bottom, continues digging

Aside from the red flag of finding a sympathetic ear in Lawrence O'Donnell being an indicator of Bob Costas' liberal bonafides, the NBC sports commentator continues to rip the mask off. Again, Costas' desire to further explain his position demonstrates that he knows this is a big deal and that he made a mistake (despite his attempt to say the problem was messaging).

What's interesting is that the more Costas attempts to explain what he meant, the clearer it becomes that he meant exactly what pro-Second amendment advocates thought he meant.

Bob, please, just keep talking.

Via Washington Examiner:

Audio: Bob Costas doubles down on anti-Second Amendment 'commentary'

I truly do not know where to begin in reacting to this interview between NBC's Bob Costas and Fox Sports' writer Jason Whitlock (the guy whose column Costas quoted on Sunday Night Football). For starters, Costas is unapologetic and has only one regret - that he didn't have enough time to explain his position (is it me, or was that the same argument we heard from the Obama administration about why Obamacare wasn't popular?). That Costas felt compelled to come out publicly to respond to the backlash speaks for itself; it means it got to him at some level, regardless of how he attempts to dismiss it.

Anyway, some memorable moments from his interview with Whitlock...

1.) Early on, Costas is asked about whether it was appropriate for him to inject himself into the gun control debate on Sunday Night Football. Of course, Costas says that's an 'easy one' and that, yes, it was appropriate because it involved an NFL player.

Bob, you could have done a commentary about the incident without polarizing your audience. The appropriateness of talking about a murder / suicide involving an NFL player did not have to involve an anti-second amendment 'commentary'.

2.) Costas then attacks those who had a problem with his 'commentary' by saying if people disagree with something that's written, they consider it a 'screed' and if they disagree with something that's said, it's considered a 'rant'. I will therefore refer to Costas' anti-Second amendment lecture as a 'commentary'.

3.) At the 1:55 mark, Costas attempts to marginalize those who were critical of him by referring to them all as 'the gun lobby folks'. People who disagree with him are part of the 'gun lobby'. Bob, how come they can't just be 'pro-Second Amendment folks'? Nice choice of words when describing people who disagree with you, huh? (see #2)

4.) At around the 4:00 mark, Costas attempts to compare what he did this past Sunday with what he did at the Olympics, making a reference to the 1972 Munich tragedy. What he doesn't do here is draw the more accurate comparison, which would be taking a political position in which he sides with either Israel or the Palestinians in the larger conflict. For example, did he say anything about how if Hamas had no rockets, Israelis wouldn't be killed or if Islam was banned, there'd be less killings? Nice try, Bob but way off.

5.) Whitlock then asks Bob a leading question about knowing that the comments would be controversial and implies in his question that because Bob has a big platform, it's courageous to speak his mind on controversial topics. I find this point of view quite interesting because the left doesn't seem to have that opinion about right wing commentators. Rush Limbaugh was thrown off ESPN for saying something that was rather innocuous compared to what Costas said.

6.) Shortly thereafter, Costas says he could have addressed the issue on his show later in the week and given it more time, thereby having a greater ability to convey his point of view more fully. His reason for doing it on Sunday Night Football instead? The audience was much larger, which is precisely the point, Bob. You used your platform to espouse a political position that a huge portion of your football audience didn't tune in to hear.

7.) Whitlock then asks Costas if he had to 'clear' his comments with NBC management. The question is ridiculous, as is Costas' answer. Costas's response that management doesn't 'forbid' him 'from saying anything' is absurd. If Costas espoused a pro-Constitutional / second amendment view, he in all likelihood, would have been fired. He was able to say what he said because NBC management agreed with it. Right, Bob?

8.) Costas said he would be 'surprised' if NBC heard from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in any 'negative way' about his comments. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be the politically correct culture that exists in both the NFL and at NBC? Duh.

9.) Wow. At the 10:45 mark, Costas actually says that there are people who treat their guns as if they're on par with their wallets or car keys, never leaving the house without them and that when people do that, it leads to bad things far more often that it leads to good things. This is a despicable comment, in part, because the good is not seen. How many times did the mere presence of a gun prevent bad things from happening in these instances, Bob? This comment only further underscores Costas' anti-Second amendment position. Keep talking and keep digging, Bob.

10.) To the absurdity of #9, Costas wants an example of when a professional athlete, armed with a gun has done any good. That's the point, Bob. The presence of guns in the hands of responsible owners can prevent acts of violence. Such scenarios aren't generally newsworthy. I don't recall you ever commenting on them during any NFL halftime shows.

On the same day that Whitlock interviewed Costas, he told Roland Martin that the NRA is the new KKK.

Listen to as much as you can stand.

Via Daily Caller:

Disgrace: NBC's Bob Costas politicizes Jovan Belcher's murder / suicide

Let there be no doubt that Bob Costas is an apparatchik for the liberal agenda as this is certainly not the first time he has used his NBC platform to push a political position fully endorsed by radical, left-wing, anti-Constitutionalists. Some might remember that in 2007, Costas proudly announced during a Sunday night football game that the lights in the studio were turned off to:

"...kick off a week that will include more than 150 hours of programming designed to raise awareness about environmental issues."

That was ridiculous and made Costas look like the fool he is but during last night's Sunday night football game, he politicized the murder / suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs football player Jovan Belcher, who shot and killed his girlfriend, Kassandra Perkins before killing himself. Costas is doing so barely twenty-four hours after the deaths and on a national stage that generally watches football to escape politics, not engage in them.

That Costas would choose to do so smacks of the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste culture that emanates from the White House and long ago penetrated NBC like a ventriloquist's arm penetrates the back of a talking dummy. There was a time when Costas wouldn't so overtly espouse an anti-Second amendment position on national television but those days are gone.

Perhaps to escape and/or share some of the backlash he would inevitably get from pro-Constitutionalist Americans, Costas cited the words of someone else - Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports - but the implication was clear. The last words out of Costas' mouth in the segment below where about how Belcher and Perkins would "both be alive today" if Belcher didn't have a gun.

Here is the excerpt from Whitlock's piece that Costas emphasized:

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

Ah, the perspective of a mindless changeling.

First of all, taking guns out of the hands of all American citizens requires an inherent belief that the government is neither corrupt nor dangerous and never will be, that its citizens will always be treated like gold and protected as if they were children of God government. In a time when the U.S. government has grown increasingly corrupt with an insatiable desire for more and more power on par with an alcoholic's uncontrollable urge for another drink, Costas implies that if we just trust the government by getting rid of our guns, all would be right with the world.

Since Costas loves to talk about "perspective" in the clip below, I'd like to take a moment to re-phrase Whitlock's quote that Costas emoted with typical pseudo, left-wing compassion.

This would be more accurate:

What I believe is, thanks to America's founders seeing to it that its citizenry had the right to possess/own guns, millions of people are alive today.

Now, watch the apparatchik emote:



This is what can happen when people give up their guns.

h/t Sipsey Street