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

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

1.) CAIR is being sued for fraud.
2.) Hillary's bizarre response to question about Benghazi
3.) Why John Boehner will cave over fiscal cliff (he always does)
4.) Chris Matthews has on-air "burping problem"
5.) Much more...

Video: Did Hillary out-do Bill's 'meaning of is, is' Gaffe over Benghazi?

The following is the definition of hypothetical:

(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

When it comes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's appearances on five separate talk shows to give the demonstrably false White House talking points, it's not hypothetical; it's fact. It's also factual to say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not do those interviews. Since we're talking about two factual events of the past, asking a question about why Rice did appear on those talk shows instead of Hillary is not about engaging in a hypothetical.

It's about wanting to know why one decision was made instead of an alternate decision.

Yet, when Hillary was asked why Rice and not her, she actually avoided the question by saying she wouldn't engage in a hypothetical.

Pay attention at the :37 mark for this gem that might just make her husband Bill blush.

"I'm not going to answer any hypothetical questions about what could have happened but didn't happen." - Hillary Clinton on why Susan Rice did the talk shows instead of her.

If she was referring to a point in the future, that's one thing but she's referring to what did and did not happen in the past as 'hypothetical'.

Via CNS News:



Perhaps another reason why Hillary buttoned her lips on this subject is that the answer has to do with racism. After all, she reportedly prefers John Kerry to Susan Rice for Secretary of State.