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:

John Boehner fighting conservatives more than Obama, and the counter-intuitive Grover Norquist dilemma

This mess between the Republican establishment and conservatives may just be incredibly simple to understand on one hand and incredibly complicated on the other. First, the simple part. House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy) has clearly decided that it is best to do battle with their own party than to fight the agenda of the most radical president in the history of the Republic. One day after the election, Boehner all but rolled over with an admission that increased 'revenues' (taxes) would be on the table before he ever engaged in any negotiations.

Obama exploited that extremely poor decision by leaving Boehner twisting in the wind before he would do anything.

Three weeks later, Boehner was stripped down to his political skivvies when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an insane proposal that included a request for the House to cede its power of the purse by raising the debt ceiling to infinity. Time for Boehner to play hardball, right? Time to marshal both the conservative and establishment wings of his party against the Democrats, right? After all, talk about a slap in the face right?

Not so much. After Boehner admitted to being 'flabbergasted' by Geithner's proposal, he proceeded to drive a bigger wedge between the Republican establishment and the conservative wings of the party by booting legitimate fiscal conservatives off the budget committee.

Via Breitbart:

Effective next Congress, leadership pulled Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert off committees from which they could exert conservative pressure on fiscal matters. Amash and Huelskamp were pulled from the Budget Committee and Schweikert from the Financial Services Committee.

Time for a metaphor. I have two dogs and there is definitely an alpha and a beta. If I remotely bother that alpha while it is eating, it will not snap at me; it will snap at the beta, who has done nothing wrong. Boehner is the dog that is eating and instead of going after the source of his problems, he is choosing to use the psychological defense mechanism known as displacement. Since he feels inferior to Obama and either can't or won't fight, he lashes out at those who are weaker in stature than he is. Let's face it. Obama has been playing Boehner like a fiddle since winning the election.

Now, since Boehner's appearance on Fox News Sunday to say he was 'flabbergasted' at Geithner's proposal, he has again played right into Obama's hands, agreeing to tax increases that will total the same amount of the 2009 stimulus package that began the Tea Party movement, albeit over ten years.

Via Red State:

On the same day John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy punished fiscal conservatives for standing up for their convictions, they sold out their own convictions by agreeing to raise taxes by $800 billion. They intend to seem reasonable to the press in negotiations with the White House. They’re going through an elaborate kabuki dance, but they’ll get blamed nonetheless.

There are three significant differences between the $800 billion stimulus package of 2009 and $800 billion in increased taxes in 2012. The first difference is that in 2009, it was put on Americans' credit tab and in 2012, it's coming straight out of their wallets. Second, in 2009, it was a lump sum taken from the future at once. In 2012, it's coming right out of Americans' pockets in annual installments over ten years. Third, in 2009, Republicans overwhelmingly opposed bilking taxpayers for $800 billion at once. In 2012, when Boehner has the power of the purse, he supports it soaking them for the same amount, incrementally over ten years.

That leads me to a recent article by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, in which he singled out two Republican establishment consultants (Steve Schmidt and Mike Murphy) as being quite similar to Boehner when it comes to catering to big government:

Schmidt and Murphy are the political Quislings of conservatism.

Say what? Say who?

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician. In April of 1940, when the Nazis were invading Norway, instead of leading a resistance movement Quisling launched a Nazi-backed coup against his own people. As the Nazis settled in to occupy Norway Quisling settled in to live the life of luxury as Norway's "Minister President" -- and avidly assisted as a participant in what is known to history as "the Final Solution."

His betrayal of his own people was so stark that within days of Quisling's assumption of power the Times of London wrote an editorial saying of those who cooperated in betraying their own country that there were "Quislings everywhere."

John Boehner is coming precariously close to a legacy on par with that of a Quisling.

Ok, that's the simple part I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The more complex aspect to all of this is one that is rarely talked about and involves a man at the center of this debate; his name is Grover Norquist. On the surface, it would seem that he is an ally of the conservative wing in this debate. In reality, his ties to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated individuals should caused him to be jettisoned from the debate entirely. Conservatives should distance themselves from Norquist and his group, Americans for Tax Reform, as quickly as possible and this is not a matter of compartmentalizing Norquist's alleged good qualities while rejecting suspect ones.

In fact, one of the three conservatives whom Boehner booted from the Budget committee has expressed his continued solidarity with Norquist's anti-tax pledge, via Breitbart:

Earlier on Monday in an interview with Breitbart News, Huelskamp again reaffirmed his support for the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) anti-tax pledge. He’s encouraging his colleagues in the House to come out publicly against potential tax increases and asking citizens across the country to help.

As Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer points out, people like Huelskamp are supporting the wrong person for the right reasons. Spencer says the following in his piece entitled Grover Must Go:

...for fear of crossing Norquist and losing his favor, Republicans for years have been turning a blind eye to all his ties to shady Muslim individuals and groups. If they signed his tax pledge, they were effectively pledging also not to make trouble about the access and influence he was facilitating for people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus was removed the only possible effective counterweight to the Democrats’ active collaboration with Islamic supremacists.

And...

I offer, as an alternative to Norquist’s toxic cocktail of No Taxes Plus Collaboration with Islamic Supremacists, a genuinely pro-freedom tax pledge. Call it the Robert Spencer Tax Pledge. Here it is: “I solemnly pledge to oppose new tax increases, to work to cut existing tax rates, and to oppose Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in our government and the concomitant dismantling of our resistance to the jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

Norquist's ties to Islamists and Islamist causes are well documented and quite extensive. He is also at the center of an epic and internecine battle between two factions of the Republican Party - Establishment and conservative.

Uber-stealth jihad?