Video: Chris Rock says Mormons thought blacks "the Devil" until 1978

During an appearance on Jimmy Fallon's late show, Chris Rock said that Mormons "believed black people were the devil until 1978." While Romney's followers assume their roles as candidate defenders and party loyalists, many don't seem to realize the potential powder keg this stuff can be. The truth is that Mormonism has quite a racist history that didn't end until well after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

In fact, if Mormons of today are to believe that Brigham Young was a prophet who spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they must themselves be racist as well. Otherwise, they have to renounce Young as a prophet. The truth is simple. Brigham Young espoused racist views.

Chris Rock certainly embellished for comedic effect but this is going to be a real problem for the Romney campaign. Having to explain these things away is Romney's achilles heal and the mainstream media knows it. A common refrain from these outlets is that Romney refuses to talk about his faith.

Folks like Rock are simply chipping away at the wall until Romney will have to address these issues.

Via NewsBusters:

Senate Republicans to Obama: You're Lying or New York Times is Lying; which is it?

Senate Republicans have decided to swing at the slow, high-hanging softball that Barack Obama and the New York Times gave them yesterday. It's laughably obvious that when Obama said he found it "offensive" to suggest that his White House leaked national security secrets to the New York Times, someone was lying because the Times article referred to "three dozen" former and current White House employees who provided them the information.

Via the Weekly Standard:

President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House. "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive," President Obama said.

But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.

"It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.

For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.

"If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process  'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."

Perhaps the biggest indicator that it is Obama who is lying is that the Managing Editor for the New York Times actually threw his own paper under the bus to a competitor - POLITICO:

“I can’t believe anybody who says these are leaks,” Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet told POLITICO. “Read those stories. They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting.”

Obama appeared to point to those comments Friday when he stated: “The writers of these articles have all stated unequivocally that [the information] didn’t come from this White House.”

Isn't it obvious what's going on? The New York Times told the truth then, in the article about where it got its information; Obama is lying about the White House not being a source; and the New York Times is lying now to run interference for Obama.

So to answer the Senate Republican Policy Committee's question about who's lying, the answer is "both."

Obama in 2012 and Holder 2011: Use of the term "Offensive" indicates Lying

As I watched Barack Obama tell the White House Press Corps. (pronounced "corpse") that he found it "offensive" for anyone to suggest that his White House was responsible for leaking national security secrets to the New York Times, I remembered Attorney General Eric Holder using the same term when pressed by Rep. Darrell Issa last year at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. In both instances, both men (Obama and Holder) appeared to be lying their faces off.

There are countless lies to chronicle from both Barack Obama and Eric Holder but let's focus on one each. First, Obama is a liar when it comes to his denial that he was a member of the Socialist "New Party." Eric Holder is a liar when it comes to his May 3, 2011 testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee at which he said he'd learned about Fast and Furious for the first time "a few weeks" earlier. He later had to admit that he learned about the operation in February, more than a couple of months earlier.

Given that Obama lied about his membership in the "New Party" as well as the way he did it, with a vehement denial and smear of the person who levied the charge, the prospect that Obama is lying about anything, especially when he does so vehemently, should be on the table. After all, he lied about not being a socialist party member simply because it was politically expedient in an election year.

Now, to the videos. The first one is from today's press conference. Watch it all if you have time but fast forward to the 2:30 mark if you don't. This is where Obama suffers a bout of righteous indignation and tells the world that...

"...the notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive; it's wrong and people need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how people around me here approach this office..."

Be sure to continue on to the Holder video after viewing this one...



Now, at this House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011 Rep. Darrell Issa grilled Holder about operation Fast and Furious. During this exchange, Issa made it clear to Holder that Congress wasn't interested in looking at the straw purchasers who placed guns in the hands of drug cartels; he was looking at the leadership in Holder's Justice Department. Here is part of Holder's response (6:40 mark):

"...I'm going to take great exception to what you just said. The notion that somehow or other this Justice Department is responsible for those deaths that you mentioned, that assertion is offensive."

In light of what we now know, Holder is no longer making such an argument. Issa has copies of wiretap applications in his possession that prove Holder's being offended is unwarranted, righteous indignation (see Obama above).



To wrap this all up, consider that the New York Times article from last week specifically cited more than 30 White House sources when writing about much of the sensitive national security information in question.

Via Hot Air:

The Times claimed to have spoken to three dozen current or former advisors about Obama’s role in the process. Hard for me to believe that all of them were eager to talk, but between quiet encouragement from the White House and/or the “here’s what I already know” rap from the reporter, they probably ended up feeling obliged.

Hot Air goes on to cite a POLITICO story that quotes NYT's managing editor as saying the White House had nothing to do with leaking the information. Ok, this necessarily means that either the authors of the May 29th New York Times article lied or the paper's Managing Editor is lying.

Don't you find it offensive that the New York Times, Eric Holder and Barack Obama are all liars?