Juan Williams is a bit of a conundrum; he makes ridiculous left-wing arguments that make you want to scream but he somehow maintains a characteristic of likability and gets along quite well with those whom he disagrees with. At some point, one would think he would wake up and free himself from the grips of left-wing ideology. Perhaps the best case in point was when he was fired by NPR for expressing an opinion about how he felt with sharing a plane with passengers that consisted of men in Muslim garb.
That leads to this very interesting interview between Williams and Ginni Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas). As I watched Williams in this interview, I found myself asking one simple question:
How is it that you can have this perspective and yet still be liberal?
For some reason, Juan has identified and acknowledged the groupthink dynamic in the liberal media while not seeing the corresponding flaws in all of liberalism's premises. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason groupthink exists is because liberalism can't exist without it.
One interesting takeaway from the interview happens at the beginning when Williams makes an Archie Bunker reference, admitting that he used to believe that character represented conservatives. As an example of Williams not connecting one more dot, the man who created Archie Bunker's character (Norman Lear) is a hardcore liberal, which makes Bunker a caricature (not just a character) of the right, created with left-wing bias and preconceptions.
It would seem that Williams isn't far from an awakening. Then again, I thought the same thing after he was fired by NPR.
"...If I was insensitive to the families, I offer them my condolences, but.." - Marc LaMont Hill on the O'Reilly Factor 2/14/13
The reason Columbia professor Marc LaMont Hill appeared on the O'Reilly Factor was because of his comments during a panel discussion on CNN a day earlier. During that discussion, Hill seemed to heap praise on cop killer, Christopher Dorner while making reference to Django Unchained and calling the comparison 'exciting'.
First, check out the short clip of Hill on CNN that led to his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor:
A day later, Hill appeared on O'Reilly's show. The host was right to confront Hill and didn't go easy on him but he did miss a huge opportunity to expose Hill for who the Columbia professor really is. While Dorner murdered several people, he was also a cop killer. Hill knows another cop killer quite well. In fact, quite well. His name is Mumia Abu Jamal, sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing police officer Daniel Faulkner.
In 2009, Hill allowed Jamal to write a weekly column for the former's website and introduced the cop killer thusly, via NewsReal:
I am thrilled to announce that Mumia Abu-Jamal has joined the Barbershop as a weekly contributor!! His column, Live From Death Row, will appear every Wednesday starting next week.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the world's most celebrated journalists, freedom fighters, and political prisoners. Since his early days in Philadelphia, Mumia was an active member of the Black freedom sruggle. From his award-winning journalism to his involvement with the Black Panther Party, Mumia has devoted his life to Black liberation. Wrongfully incarcerated since 1981 for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia has continued to place a spotlight on various forms of injustice around the globe through his numerous columns, commentaries, and books. Mumia has generated international support for his own case, which has been one of the most glaring and repugnant reflections of the criminal (in)justice system.
So, in 2009, while giving a cop killer a weekly platform, Hill referred to that cop killer as a 'political prisoner' and was 'thrilled to make the announcement'.
In 2011, Hill and Jamal co-wrote a book entitled the Classroom and the Cell, which consists of very comfortable and agreeable exchanges between the two men. In fact, Hill likely found it 'exciting' to publish the book.
You can watch the interview between O'Reilly and Hill below but once again, when presented with an opportunity to expose a creature of the left for what he truly is, folks like O'Reilly take a pass. Are we to believe he didn't know about Hill's collaborative work with Mumia Abu Jamal? Considering that Hill used to be a Fox News Contributor who made regular appearances on O'Reilly's show, that's hard to believe. Even if it were plausible, it's an indictment of the Fox News host's research team. It's also false to call it irrelevant; it's extremely relevant because it makes the case against Hill that the professor is trying to prevent from being made.
The likely answer is that O'Reilly just didn't want to go there, a dynamic not all that dissimilar from Mitt Romney not wanting to call Obama a 'socialist'.
It is quite clear that Colin Powell views the world most through a racial lens. On Meet the Press, he defended his two votes for Barack Obama and claimed that there is a 'dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the (Republican) Party', saying it has lurched too far to the right. He then shockingly said that the Party's move to the right is why the Republicans lost the election.
Lost on him is the fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing president in U.S. history and the Republican Party's nominee for president in 2012 was a moderate. Yet, Powell says he is still a Republican and that he's a 'moderate'.
Apparently, Powell is willing to overlook Obama's countless affiliations with some very intolerant people.
Moreover, following Powell's logic, the Tea Party is more intolerant than Occupy Wall Street, which has a website devoted to glorifying its high number of arrests.
He's either lying or so blinded by race that he's afflicted with an extreme case of denial.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is perhaps most infamous for his stated fear that the island of Guam could become so populated that it might tip over and "capsize". During the race-baiting circus in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Johnson said that Martin was shot for "WWB in a GC" (Walking while black in a gated community).
Johnson's latest foray into the absurd involves a bit of a confession. You see, in addition to finding the "N" word offensive, Johnson apologized for using the "M" word.
What's the "M" word you might ask?
"Midget". The only reason we know is because Hank let it slip. Does that mean he should resign?
There is a question I am dying to ask this guy:
How many midgets M-words would it take on the island of Guam to cause it to capsize?
It's got to be more than "normal" people, right?
We always knew this would have staying power, didn't we?
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.
An unbelievably ridiculous narrative is being pushed that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being targeted by old white guys because she is black and female. Forget the fact that she gave the American people false information five times on September 16th. That's not relevant. The Morning Joe panel is the latest place where you can find this egregious argument.
At the November 14th press conference, Barack Obama reacted strongly to a question about Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her demonstrably false talking points on five September 16th talk shows. In response, Barack Obama urged the Senators to go after him instead of Rice while saying she had nothing to do with Benghazi (the logical follow-up question to that wasn't asked) and that the White House sent her onto those talk shows.
Frankly, McCain and Graham should take Obama up on this offer for a few reasons. First, according to CBS, these CIA talking points were altered prior not just to Susan Rice uttering them on September 16th but before Jay Carney seemed to make the same case on September 14th, that the Benghazi attack was a result of the anti-Muhammad video. Second, as the official mouthpiece for Obama, going after Carney would equate to doing exactly what Obama suggested those two old, white, male Senators should do - go after Obama. Third, by going after Carney instead of Rice, Graham and McCain cannot be accused of attacking him over his race or his sex; he's as white and male as they are.
Then again, perhaps Rice was traipsed out to all of those shows for a moment such as this - the race and gender cards. Her making demonstrably false statements is irrelevant, apparently.
This is great. Joy Reid appeared on Hardball with the now certifiable Chris Matthews and said that Republicans like Sarah Palin and John Sununu are appealing to 'Archie Bunker crowd'.
I wonder if Joy Reid knows that Archie Bunker was a character created by the extremely liberal Norman Lear. So if she has a problem with the furthering of racism, perhaps she should pick up the phone and talk to the guy who invented Archie.
Second, if you want to talk about characters from All in the Family that shouldn't be emulated, Ms. Reid should start with Meathead, Archie's son-in-law. Archie didn't like her daughter's husband but allowed the freeloader to live with him because of his daughter.
Besides, Archie had some extremely good moments:
Here's another instance in which Archie was right and Meathead should have been kicked out:
This video from CNN, circa October of 2008. This news report takes on added significance in light of the video posted at the Daily Caller of Obama on June 5, 2007. Of course, while going off-script at Hampton University, Obama chastised the Federal government for its double standard on the Stafford Act, which requires local governments to pay $1 for every $10 paid by the Feds during times of emergency.
Obama cited 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew as instances in which the Feds waived the 10% requirement of local governments. He then alleged that when it came to Hurricane Katrina, the Feds demanded that 10% be paid.
That leads to the CNN report below. Not only did then Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden vote to fund the now infamous 'Bridge to nowhere' in Alaska but they voted against re-directing that money to New Orleans where it would be used to repair a bridge damaged by Katrina.
Well, that didn't take long. After the Daily Caller released the 2007 video of Barack Obama's racially charged speech in Virginia, we have another one from 2002 surface. This is Obama at an MLK memorial service inside a church.
This video was billed as a bombshell that was released on Hannity's television show on October 2nd. It is from a June 5, 2007 speech that Barack Obama gave to a predominantly black audience that consisted of black ministers. Also in attendance was none other than Rev. Jeremiah Wright. At various points, Obama went off script. When he did, the unmasked community organizer was on full display.
In yet another instance of media bias, the transcript of the speech released by the media at the time only consisted of the prepared remarks, which equated to about one-fourth of the entire speech. No mention was made of Obama's off-script statements, which were quite incendiary. Now, the entire speech has been made available.
This is damning stuff for a a man who ran on a platform of healing in 2008.
It appears that Eric Holder's account of an incident he was involved in at Columbia University has taken an interesting turn that, if true, should have precluded him from climbing the Government latter in the Department of Justice.
As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.
Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed — and if so, with what sort of weapon.
Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”
Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.
While Holder has acknowledged being part of this and other protests, the notion that he participated in an 'armed' takeover should have precluded him from passing a background check - known as a Form 86.
Perhaps this excerpt from the DC might help to explain why he might have passed one:
Though then-Dean Carl Hovde declared the occupation of the Naval ROTC office illegal and said it violated university policy, the college declined to prosecute any of the students involved. This decision may have been made to avoid a repeat of violent Columbia campus confrontations between police and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968.
The ROTC headquarters was ultimately renamed the Malcolm X lounge as the SAAS organization demanded. It later became a hang-out spot for another future U.S. leader, Barack Obama, according to David Maraniss’ best-selling ”Barack Obama: The Story.”
There's no way of knowing how things would have turned out differently had Dean Hovde decided to prosecute the case but if the takeover was 'armed', Holder's life likely would have taken a drastically different turn.
We also see, once again, that the path of least resistance is rarely the advised course of action.
Paul Ryan's speech was full of fire, passion, and multiple instances in which he held Barack Obama for his record. He also made fun of the music on Mitt Romney's iPod (he likened it to elevator music). In short, much of what Sarah Palin brought to the convention in 2008, Ryan brought in 2012. That's the biggest reason the mainstream media socialists disapproved.
The morning after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Condoleezza Rice said that "As an African American," she was "especially proud" that he was elected. She also referred to Obama as "inspirational" and said she was "certain that he will continue to be". What is striking today was her apparent inability then to see who Barack Obama truly was. So many of us knew it and Condi came across as incapable of seeing it. If she truly understood how destructive Obama would be, it's hard to imagine her coming across as this happy. Again, that goes to judgment.
Some of this should be excused as diplomatic statesmanship but, nonetheless, Condi Rice is on record as being totally wrong about Obama. She also appeared to be a bit too gleeful; it seems to communicate a certain degree of willful blindness because of the historical significance of Obama's election. Toward the end of this clip, Rice actually says that Obama's election was a huge step forward relative to race relations in America.
Uh, not so much.
This clip should immediately remove Rice from consideration as a possible running mate for Romney.
Yesterday, Bob Beckel told Mitt Romney who the Republican nominee should select as his running mate but he didn't do it in so many words; he did so in how he reacted to the words of Allen West. After Eric Bolling played a clip of Allen West comparing out of control entitlements to modern day "slavery", Beckel went off in a case of 'thou doth protest too much'.
Just like in 2008, the left will always object most emphatically to those whom they fear the most. The left didn't fear John McCain because they knew he'd play nice and that they could take advantage of it. They DID fear Sarah Palin, which is why she was attacked like no other vice presidential candidate in U.S. history.
Calling Allen West a 'blowhard' and telling him to 'shut up' demonstrates that Beckel views the retired Lt. Col. in much the same way that he views Sarah Palin.
The Congressional Black Caucus, led by a registered socialist, Emanuel Cleaver, is planning to stage a walkout during the House vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.
The move comes less than 24 hours before the House plans to vote for the first time in history to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt of Congress for not complying with a congressional subpoena. Holder is the first black attorney general in U.S. history.
The walkout is reminiscent of a similar move made by Republicans in 2008 during a Democratic-led vote on whether to hold two senior staffers in President George W. Bush’s administration in contempt of Congress.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — then the minority leader — led the walkout with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) following closely behind him. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is the sponsor of the contempt resolution against Holder.
The reference to the walkout in 2008 was not based on race and it did not involve the murder of one Border Patrol Agent (Brian Terry) as well as hundreds of dead Mexican nationals on the OTHER side of the border. It involved holding Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton in contempt for withholding documents relative to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration. If you want to make the argument that the documents should have been turned over, fine (I'd probably agree with you). If you want to make the argument that the Republicans shouldn't have walked out, fine. If you want to dismiss the fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 out of 94 total U.S. Attorneys all at once and without consequence, fine.
The contempt citation for Eric Holder is rooted in a demand for documents related to a confirmed lie to Congress on February 4, 2011 when a letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said that the ATF does not allow gun-walking. Ten months later, the DOJ withdrew the letter, an admission that it was false.
As for the Congressional Black Caucus, shouldn't it matter that 67% of its current members were registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus in 2009? If you don't include the six freshmen that were elected in 2010, that number jumps to 78%. One of those freshmen is Lt. Col. Allen West (R-FL), who joined the caucus likely for reconnaissance purposes more than anything else, suggested there are 78-81 members of Congress who are registered with Communist Party USA. Being embedded with 29 registered socialists in the CBC might serve to lend his charge some credibility.
Socialists and Communists lie. It's part of the rule book (Obama lied about not being registered with a socialist party). The Congressional Black Caucus is dominated by confirmed, registered socialists. 67% of the current 43 members were registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus in 2009. Obama's ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky believed that ends not only justify the means but failure to use any means necessary is a sin (that would be a sin against Lucifer, apparently). Check out this excerpt from his book, Rules for Radicals:
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24
Consider the real agenda behind Fast and Furious - putting guns into the hands of bad guys, who would use them to kill innocent people, which would help create the political climate for more gun control in the United States. Sounds bloody, huh?
Following Alinsky's instructions to the letter would permit the sacrifice of innocent people if your desire for gun control is strong enough and if dead bodies furthered that agenda (kinda like abortion furthers Planned Parenthood's agenda). We also know that in 2009, the Democrats - to include Obama and Hillary Clinton - pushed a false statistic that 90% of all guns used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. This has been debunked.
Back to lying communists and socialists. Of the 43 Congressional Black Caucus members who will be walking out of today's contempt vote, at least 67% of them are registered socialists.Discover the Networks has the following to say about how Socialism and Communism is related:
Marxist doctrine holds that just as society evolved from feudalism to capitalism, it will inexorably progress still further to socialism and eventually communism. Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism. That is, communism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”) is deemed a further development, or “higher stage,” of socialism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds”). Communism, in other words, is viewed as the more “perfect” of two systems that both advocate public ownership of the means of production, centralized economic planning, and the widespread redistribution of wealth.
The best possible thing one could say about socialists is that they are using a gateway drug that turns them into communists. Not holding a lawless administration accountable for a program that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people might just put any of those socialists who aren't already stealth communists, over the top.
Placing the cherry on top of a heaping pile of irony is the position of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) when it comes to Fast and Furious. Like the CBC, the CHC is dominated by Democrats; Chairman Charles A. Gonzalez is one himself.
On the day that the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress - also the same day that Obama asserted Executive Privilege - the Congressional Hispanic Caucus condemned Chairman Darrell Issa for voting in favor of contempt.
“Congress must exercise its authority responsibly and in the interest of the American people, not to score partisan political points,” said Charles Gonzalez, Hispanic Caucus Chairman, in a statement. “The Justice Department and Attorney General Holder have provided the Committee leadership with unprecedented access to the documents it requested; yet Rep. Issa refuses to be reasonable. When partisan advantage is the primary motivation, it’s really the American people who suffer,” he added.
Calling 7600 documents out of a population of 140,000 "unprecedented" is a lie; it is a bald-faced one at that. The bigger question is: Why is a caucus that is supposed to represent Hispanics, not standing with those who want to get to the bottom of a government-led operation that led to the deaths of hundreds of Hispanics?
Socialists and Communists lie. Perhaps that explains both the February 4, 2011 letter as well as the behavior of the racially based Caucuses to demands that the truth comes out.
For some reason, this 1963 short film narrated by former FBI Agent Herbert A. Philbrick comes to mind.
Let's see, for 18 months, Fast and Furious has been newsworthy. Those of us who have followed it know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it reaches to the highest levels of the Justice Department (at minimum). MSNBC - the propaganda arm of the White House - has practically ignored the story altogether. Now, as Attorney General Eric Holder is about to face contempt of Congress, Chris Matthews is all of a sudden an expert on the story and tells his viewers that it's a racially motivated witch hunt?
If we are to gauge Matthews' knowledge of Fast and Furious by how much he's covered it, he's a neophyte on the subject at best. Yet, he sees fit to imply that Holder's accusers, who have been investigating the scandal for 18 months, are racists by saying the investigation is 'ethnic' in its motivations.
The families of the hundreds of dead Mexicans who are victims of Fast and Furious should find that offensive. Were the motivations behind placing these guns in the hands of those Mexicans' killers 'ethnic' too Chris?
I don't believe Matthews is ignorant on Fast and Furious. He's just doing his job. The most well known part of this clip is Matthews saying it's his job to help Obama succeed but there's another part worth noting in the context of his charging that the motives of Issa and those who want justice in Fast and Furious are 'ethnic'. In this now infamous exchange from 2008, notice how Matthews says, 'it's the worst thing you can do in journalism is try to figure out motive'.
The liberal, race-baiting whackos over at MSNBC who seem to think that no president has been so disrespected publicly, point to Joe Wilson, Jan Brewer, and Neil Munro as proof positive that it has more to dow the color of Obama's skin than his propensity for lying about things like never belonging to a socialist political party. Well, thanks to Tom Blumer at NewsBusters, we learn from none other than one of the left's own propaganda arms - the AP in 1987 - that Ronald Reagan endured similar treatment.
Another common refrain from the left is that Munro should have waited until After Obama was done speaking before lobbing any questions the President's way. Munro's response to that argument is that Obama doesn't stick around to answer questions. That was the knock on Reagan in the AP report, which goes a step further, saying that Reagan was to blame for doing so.
Does anyone know the Heimlich maneuver? The irony I'm choking on has blocked by airways.
That all leads me to this exchange via NewsBusters on MSNBC between two race-baiters - Michael Eric Dyson and POLITICO's Joe 'Brother Joe' Williams. Note how Williams said no president has been disrespected more than Obama and then implies it's all because of racism.
The wooden Mitt Romney is benefiting from both good campaign strategists / response team and Obama campaign gaffes but he's still not inspiring enthusiasm.
Mike Allen at POLITICO writes about what Romney must do to inspire Republican voters. Conspicuously absent from Allen's piece, in which he says Republican strategists think Romney should "go big," is any mention of Fast and Furious. Interestingly, Romney's handlers seem to be very concerned about his ability to connect with Hispanic voters.
On the more practical side, Republicans worry about everything from his failure to connect at all with Hispanic voters to an unexpected drain in conservative enthusiasm if the Supreme Court kills the Obama health care plan. “Obamacare is the one permanent and potentially irreversible [effect] that Obama will have on the country, and if it is overturned, it makes the election, by default, less important,” said a conservative operative intimately involved in the campaign who has reviewed extensive polling and focus group research on the topic. “If the court overturns it, 10 million conservative activists suddenly breathe a great sigh of relief, and may not be quite as intensely active.”
On the Hispanic question, the numbers for Romney are bleak: An NBC/WSJ/Telemundo poll, released on May 23, showed Obama with a 2-to-1 lead among Hispanic voters, Obama, 61, Romney, 27.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) took his advice straight to Romney during a recent fundraising swing in New York. Cantor laid out the raw numbers: 60 percent of key independents are women, and a disproportionate number of independents are minorities. Republicans “have to be able to connect” with women and minorities, Cantor said.
Tell me again, how many Hispanics are dead today as a direct result of Fast and Furious?
Just last month, Sipsey Street's Mike Vanderboegh seemed to indicate that Speaker John Boehner may be preventing Darrell Issa from issuing the contempt citation to Eric Holder over Fast and Furious out of fear that the black Attorney General could play the race card.
Whether or not that's true remains to be seen but what IS true is that there seems to be a tepid appetite for going after Holder over an operation that is responsible for hundreds of dead Mexicans (Hispanics).
If Romney is seeking to connect with Hispanic voters, why is he not pointing to the rising number of Hispanics murdered with guns that were placed into the hands of bad guys by the Obama administration, in the name of gun control? If he were to do so, Romney would be way ahead of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), which has yet to see one member demand accountability from Holder. In fact, by doing so himself, Romney could point to the CHC while asking Hispanic voters one simple question:
"Where are the leaders of the Congressional Caucus that claims to put your agenda first?"
In fact, if Romney DOESN'T go after Holder over Fast and Furious, he risks being labeled as even more insensitive to Hispanics than initially thought. It will have meant that he is more interested in playing politics than in doing the right thing and actually benefiting from it politically. If the Republicans are not going after Holder over fear of the race card, it's the quintessential example of a 'glass is half empty' mentality. Hispanics should be playing the race card on Romney for NOT going after Holder on Fast and Furious.
So which is it, Mitt? Are you going to prove Eric Holder right or are you going to do the right thing?
