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:

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

Video: Jay Leno more interested in Benghazi than media

Time for Jay Leno and Brian Williams to switch jobs? After all, they're both at NBC so the paperwork shouldn't be all that cumbersome.

Via MediaIte:

The Power of the Press: Local Reporter causes Obama Benghazi trouble

The mainstream media has just been handed a teachable moment. Back on October 26th, a reporter named Kyle Clarke at NBC 9 in Denver had an interview with Barack Obama and asked him three rather pointed questions about Benghazi while Brian Williams was relaxing in the time share he has somewhere inside Obama's... uh, never mind.

Anyway, though Clarke didn't really get any of his questions answered by Obama, the president's responses have captured the attention of the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon.

Via Armed Services Committee:

October 29, 2012
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I noted with interest your interview with Kyle Clark on October 26th, in which you stated, in reference to whether or not any requests for help from U.S. personnel under attack in Benghazi were denied, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” (Emphasis added.) Although this response did not specifically answer the reporter’s question, your first directive would appear to involve potential actions by the U.S. military. Since you personally provided this directive, I have a series of additional questions that I am confident you can answer in advance of the conclusion of any formal investigation.

There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, could you please clarify:

•To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies – verbally or in writing?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?
• Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so, could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Members of the Committee on Armed Services are keenly concerned that any breakdown in communication that may have occurred not be repeated. Given your stated interest in transparency and sharing all relevant information with the American people and the families of our fallen, I am hopeful you can promptly address these questions.

Respectfully,

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Chairman

Here is a real journalist, Kyle Clarke, in the interview that prompted this letter from McKeon:



Here is a pathetic example of a man masquerading as a journalist, Brian Williams, bowing to Obama in 2009:



Time to start a campaign to have Brian Williams and Kyle Clarke switch jobs. No, wait. Clarke should get Williams' job and Williams should be a gopher at NBC 9 (no disrespect to gophers intended).

h/t GWP