Jon Stewart Hammers Fox News For Blurred News/Commentary Line

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes

Fox News Is No More … Make Way For Fox Commentary

Close your eyes and imagine picking up your newspaper and not being able to distinguish between the “hard” news content and the content on the editorial page. Now, open your eyes and (if you can stomach it) watch Fox News. The commentators and anchors are mostly the same – right wingers lying about being fair and balanced.

Check out this Media Matters for America clip to see how Fox News nutjob Glenn Beck hands the baton of bias off to fake anchor Chris Wallace, of Fox News Sunday.

Rep. Rob Andrews Calls Out Fox News For Bias … Anchor Whines

Rep. Rob Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, called out Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett and Fox News for its bias. Jarrett, following in that Fox News tradition, joined forces with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (a Republican from Tennessee) to essentially advance right-wing talking points and double team Andrews late in the segment as they shouted him down repeatedly as he attempted to make a point. Andrew called out the biased host as he mockingly asked for Fox News to adhere to its phony “fair and balanced” slogan.

Jarrett loses his composure and pouts like a kindergartener.

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/fox-news-anchor-yells-at_n_333501.html

President Obama’s Administration Walks A Tightrope In Justifiable Criticism Of Fox News

President Barack Obama certainly walks a fine line as his administration criticizes Fox News for being the right-wing news organization that clearly it is these days. Frankly, it’s a shame that more liberals do not have the guts to call out Fox News for its far-right commentary and it’s right-wing news (greatly influenced by its far-right commentary). Anita Dunn, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and others from the Obama Administration have made their views about Fox News clear and I find it difficult to disagree with much of what we’ve heard from that trio. But, while the criticism is justifiable, the administration has to be careful not to come across as denying Fox News reasonable access (the kinds of access granted to other networks (this excludes interviews). The administration must be fair to the media in terms of certain kinds of access yet still be up front and honest about its criticisms of Fox News for functioning as Republican operatives.

I thought of this again as I read a column by Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, who is a legendary figure in the industry:

Surely President Barack Obama and his advisers don’t really think that their feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network’s viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap reveals about Team Obama, which seems to be more comfortable with campaigning than governing.

I’m not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama’s 2004 come-together speech about how we’re “not red states or blues states” but “the United States of America” and asking where is Obama’s promise now?

I see what Clarence is saying … I really do. But this criticism of Fox News, in my opinion, has nothing to do with ratings. Fox News has high ratings and will continue to have high ratings because it has cornered the market on far-right nuts who believe in moronic conspiracies of the mainstream media ( which is in their minds every news outlet but Fox) being out to get them. As far as Clarence’s point about Sean Hannity, he lacks much credibility and is only a factor in society as an entertainer of far-right conservatives. His program lacks any real value as far as news is concerned and is akin to watching an hour of professional wrestling (though Hannity is not that entertaining).

More from Page:

I don’t agree with Hannity on much. He’s only a tad more serious-minded as a news clown, in my grumpy view, than his colleague Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity’s right on this one.

Sure, it is disingenuous for right-wing pundits to accuse Obama of dividing the country, considering the five-star job they have done in turning us against each other. But if Obama is being judged by a different standard of civility, it is a standard he set for himself. He promised to bridge Washington’s culture wars, not fire them up.

Sure, President Obama did promise to bridge the gap, but doesn’t Fox News also profess to being fair and balanced? At least President Obama has legitimately attempted to bridge the gap while Fox News now essentially is suffering from a full-blown case of O.J. Simpson Syndrome (telling a lie so often you begin to believe it is true).

The adminstration should continue to expose the clear 24/7 bias of Fox News (including on the air, on its Web site and on its blog site The Fox Nation), but not to the point of being distracted too much from the real important and real issues our nation faces.

Clarence Page’s column is hopeful, but no amount of reaching out is going to persuade Fox News to become anything close to fair and balanced.

Limbaugh Refers To President Obama As ‘Boy’ … A Term Historically Used To Degrade Black Men

Whether you use the word “nigger” or you use the term “boy” the meaning is generally the same (even though one of the aforementioned clearly holds far more negative power). Rush Limbaugh has been in the news frequently with his racial (some would say racist) attacks on President Obama. If not racist, Limbaugh clearly is using racial politics to turn the United States of America into his vision for the future … the Divided States of America (a nation that is divided along racial lines).

In his latest effort at racial antagonism, Limbaugh now has taken to referring to President Obama as “boy” which is a historical term used by whites to degrade black men (a usage that dates back to slavery days).

I realize that some historically ignorant people will think I am flying off the handle. To those people I say this: Check out the history.

From Media Matters for America:

Limbaugh calls Obama “this little boy, this little man-child president.” While discussing what he characterized as Obama’s “attacks” on Fox News and “ambush” of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Limbaugh said: “People are finally standing up to this little boy, this little man-child president, whose primary — I think his primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure.” [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/27/09]

This is not an accidental use by Limbaugh. This is a far-right nut who has a long and dubious history of racial politics aimed at diminishing blacks in the eyes of his highly conservative audience. Is the word “boy” itself racist like the term “nigger” is considered to be? The answer is this: not necessarily. It all depends on the context and the user.

Here is another example from Media Matters of Limbaugh using the word “boy” to demean President Obama:

Limbaugh: “[T]he little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid.” Referring to Senate Democrats’ plan to block funding for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center until a decision was made about where to put the detainees, Limbaugh stated: “I tell ya, this is cover for Obama, ’cause the little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid, and he’s got to be covered for it now.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/20/09]

Again, this is no accident. This is an orchestrated effort by Rush Limbaugh to portray Barack Obama in a negative light by casting him as a black man using a term that, in this context, has racial overtones (negative racial overtones). Once again, Rush Limbaugh uses race to divide and, once again conservatives are silent as their leader further insults and degrades people of color.

Check out the Media Matters for America research on Rush Limbaugh’s rather dubious history of racially insensitive to racist remarks: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160044

Bill O'Reilly, With His History Of Racially Insensitive Comments, Hypocritically Attacks Rep. Alay Grayson

Fox News right-wing talk show host Bill O’Reilly has a history of making racially insensitive comments (particularly ones directed toward black people). O’Reilly has joined fellow right-wing pundits in attacking Rep. Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, who is an outspoken critic of Republicans. To be fair, Rep. Grayson has rightfully come under fire for a series of comments during which he referred to Linda Robertson, who is an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street whore” as reported by POLITICO. Rep. Grayson has rightfully been smacked around for that one very poor statement and issued the following apology:

“I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke,” Grayson said in an emailed statement. “I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”

In the emailed statement, Grayson gave further context to the comment, saying it was made “last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize.”

It’s good that he apologized because those kinds of comments are inappropriate.

Now, enter Bill O’Reilly, who has a history of racially insensitive comments, sexist comments and more … with a list of excuses (for such comments) that is at least as long.

Sexist example (O’Reilly’s attack on Helen Thomas and even sexist comment in reference to Sarah Palin, who he clearly likes):

Racism example (a video posted by Dr. Boyce Watkins with excellent notes):

O’Reilly’s right-wing rally energizer Griff Jenkins, again disguised as a legitimate reporter, to attempt to ambush Rep. Grayson, who maintained his cool and instructed Jenkins to request an interview formally (several times). But, quite frankly, Democrats should avoid Fox News until the network cleans up its act and lives up to its now phony billing as being a “fair and balanced” outlet for news.

From Media Matters for America:

O’REILLY: Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they’ve had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don’t think there’s a black American who hasn’t had a personal insult that they’ve had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don’t think there’s one in the country. So you’ve got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] “You call me that, I’m gonna be more successful.” OK, it depends on the personality.

So it’s there. It’s there, and I think it’s getting better. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They’re getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They’re just trying to figure it out: “Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.”

You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he’s made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia’s, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.

And I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that’s really what this society’s all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference. There’s no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment — people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you’re gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin.

[...]

O’REILLY: No, no, I mean, I like that soul food. I had the meatloaf special. I had coconut shrimp. I had the iced tea. It was great.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me just tell you, the one thing I would say is this. And we’re talking about the kids who still like this gangsta rap, this vile poison that I think is absolutely, you know, literally a corruption of culture. I think that what you’ve got to take into account that it’s still a majority white audience — young, white people who think they’re into rebelling against their parents who buy this stuff and think it’s just a kick. You know, it’s just a way of expressing their anti-authoritarianism.

O’REILLY: But it’s a different — it’s a different dynamic, though.

WILLIAMS: Exactly right –

O’REILLY: Because the young, white kids don’t have to struggle out of the ghetto.

WILLIAMS: Right, and also, I think they can have that as one phase of their lives.

O’REILLY: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: I think too many of the black kids take it as, “Oh, that’s what it means to be authentically black. That’s how you make money. That’s how you become rich and famous and get on TV and get music videos.” And you either get the boys or the girls. The girls think they have to, you know, be half-naked and spinning around like they’re on meth in order to get any attention. It really corrupts people, and I think it adds, Bill, to some serious sociological problems, like the high out-of-wedlock birth rate because of this hypersexual imagery that then the kids adapt to some kind of reality. I mean, it’s inauthentic. It’s not in keeping with great black traditions of struggle and excellence, from Willie Mays to Aretha Franklin, but even in terms of academics, you know, going back to people like Charles Drew or Ben Carson here, the neurosurgeon at [Johns] Hopkins [University]. That stuff, all of a sudden, is pushed aside. That’s treated as, “You’re a nerd, you’re acting white,” if you try to be excellent and black.

O’REILLY: You know, and I went to the concert by Anita Baker at Radio City Music Hall, and the crowd was 50/50, black/white, and the blacks were well-dressed. And she came out — Anita Baker came out on the stage and said, “Look, this is a show for the family. We’re not gonna have any profanity here. We’re not gonna do any rapping here.” The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn’t know, particularly people who don’t have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.

WILLIAMS: Oh, and it’s just so awful. It’s just so awful because, I mean, it’s literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story –

O’REILLY: That’s right. That’s right. There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.”

WILLIAMS: Please –

O’REILLY: You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.

There is an example of O’Reilly perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people as being unsophisticated, rude, profane and uncivilized while portraying whites as being docile, having fun, civilized and cordial.

The point is that when Bill O’Reilly makes nasty, racist, racially insensitive, sexist or other controversial-type statements, he has a hundred excuses and brings people like Fox News analyst apologist Juan Williams (posing as a Democrat) on to apologize for him. O’Reilly asserts he is being smeared and taken out of context. When non-Republicans, like Alan Grayson make a statement in very poor taste and offensive, O’Reilly hammers the person repeatedly (even after an apology) and refuses to accept any context.

That’s what you get from “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly.

Warren Ballentine Tells Juan Williams To ‘Go Back To The Porch’

Warren Ballentine, on The O’Reilly Factor, tells Fox News contributor and fake Democrat Juan Williams he can “go back to the porch.”

Obviously, that is not a kind statement and it will be interesting to see how people read between the lines to interpret what Ballentine meant when he said that to Williams, who is dishonestly portrayed as a liberal.

Another interesting comment, while in the debate with Williams in this clip, comes from Ballentine when he says “it is racial to real black people.”

Juan earned his money for O’Reilly.

Fox News Blurs Line Between Opinion And News With Its Far-Right Bias

Fox News has, as I have pointed out countless times on this blog, has blurred the line between news and its right-wing opinion with its coverage. Since the historic election of President Obama, a Democrat, Fox News has gone head first off the deep end of fairness in its leaning to the far right of the political mainstream. While the network tries to portray people as not being able to distinguish between its far-right opinion shows and its right-wing news coverage, the two have become indistinguishable and more so since the presidential election of 2008 that swept Barack Obama in as president and Joe Biden in as vice president.

Cleverly, these right-wing talking points pop up on right-wing shoes hosted by Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and then find themselves on so-called news shows hosted by Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, Bill Hemmer, Megyn Kelly and others.

As Eric Burns of Media Matters for America is right … (Fox News) has morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation.

Burns is right on the money.

More Anita Dunn Attacks From Right-Wing Nuts With Distortions

The right-wing nuts, led by Fox News has been on the attack against White House communications director Anita Dunn due to her strongly-worded criticism of the conservative network for its obvious right-wing bias (that includes both opinion and news content that leans heavily to the right). The righties have been working hard to falsely portray her as an admirer of former Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung and now the latest is a disgraceful and sloppy attempt (a “Hail Mary” to borrow a football analogy) by Fox News to grossly mischaracterize Dunn’s comments about the campaign strategy of Team Obama during the presidential election of 2008.

Media Matters has been leading the charge to correct Fox News misinformation on this issue:

DUNN: A huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to, you know, why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was, that we — we had a huge premium both on message discipline, on people in the campaign not leaking to reporters and people in the campaign not discussing our strategy, and also on making the press cover what we were saying.

So we, you know, one of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters; we just put that out there and make them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlled it.

That is what Dunn said, but here is how Fox News mischaracterized her comments to put them in the most negative light possible (remember that this is coming from a “legitimate news organization”) in an ongoing retaliation effort:

The Obama campaign’s press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on “making” the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute “control” over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.

In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama’s highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” Dunn said, admitting that the strategy “did not always make us popular in the press.”

This is, of course, a gross and irresponsible mischaracterization of what Dunn said. Fox misleads readers into thinking that Dunn was saying that the Obama campaign controlled the media which is false and irresponsible on the part of people at Fox News.

Notice how Fox takes single words quotations and frames them based on their own right-wing bias (an effort that is even more powerful considering its ongoing vendetta against Anita Dunn).

Here is how Media Matters boiled it down:

WorldNetDaily, followed by the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, falsely claimed that during a January 12 speech, White House communications director Anita Dunn boasted about the White House’s “control” over the media. In fact, Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign’s strategy for controlling the campaign’s message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.

So, the campaign was not controlling the media, but making sure its own message was controlled and consistent. This distortion by Fox News is done purposely and, I believe, maliciously simply to attack Anita Dunn in retaliation for her strong comments about what she perceives as bias on the part of Fox News.

Fox News, of course, responds like an elementary-school child would … with attacks, lies, gossip and essentially name calling.

Check out the Media Matters research to see the depth and breadth of the lies coming from the far right in a desperate attempt to attack Anita Dunn.

Fox News Attacks White House Communications Director Anita Dunn

Fox News now is on the attack against White House communications director Anita Dunn who made some strong comments about the right-wing leaning of the conservative network. Dunn was on the money in her comments about Fox News and the network now is using its platform to smear Dunn and try to portray her as a communist or socialist by linking her to Mao, the man behind the communist movement shaping China. This is evidence that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. A true and legitimate organization does not use valuable real estate on its Web site to attack the communications director of the White House in retaliation for comments she made about the network when questioned.

This is from Fox News (using its position as a “news” organization to attack Dunn):

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett.”

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of “my favorite political philosophers.”

“Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it’s a big thing,” Bennett said on CNN. “When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she’s deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that — I mean, that is crazy.”

This article is retaliation (specifically the mention of Mao) and irresponsible journalism.

Notice how Fox tries to (like a low-life pimp) use some pundits from CNN (for its own nefarious purposes) to try and attack Dunn (and thus attack the administration and thus attack President Obama). Irresponsible Fox News is using CNN to try and legitimize its attacks on Anita Dunn>the administration>The White House>President Obama.

The White House should not stand by and take these attacks from Fox News.

This is not a risky strategy for the administration because Fox News has been all-hostile-all-the-time against the administration of President Barack Obama and because Fox News is widely viewed as the public relations firm of the Republican Party.

The Red Scare now is en vogue again.

Some of us will never learn from our history.

Karl Rove Uses The ‘Arrogant’ Argument Which Is Code For Uppity

It seems that conservative pundits are becoming increasingly upset with President Obama and perhaps seeing him as a little too uppity. That comes across as strikingly apparent as you listen to the words of former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove, who has found a nice home for himself nad his far-right perspectives at Fox News (imagine that). Here is an excerpt from Rove who goes to the “arrogant” charge against President Obama. And, as has been pointed out here and by other people, “arrogant” is code for uppity.

Check out this from Fox News:

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: “This is an administration that’s getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they’re going to come hard at you and they’re going to cut your legs off.”

“This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do,” Rove added. “That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon.”

Rove, who was silent when many who protested the war were labeled anti-American and not supporting the troops, is basically telling President Obama to know his place.

Next he will be calling him “boy” or worse.

Bigoted Justice Of The Peace Being Called Out In Louisiana For Interracial Bias

Yet again, bigotry strikes another blow against a post-racial America thanks to a Louisiana justice of the peace who refuses to marry interracial couples. It’s an appalling tale of a bigoted man acting as judge and jury for interracial couples and denying them the right to marry because of his personal and bigoted beliefs. No, this is not a story from the 1960s or 1800s. No, this is a story that is quite real and very current.

This is from a recent Associated Press story:

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in the southeastern part of the state, refused to issue a marriage license earlier this month to Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, who is black. His refusal has prompted calls for an investigation or resignation from civil and constitutional rights groups and the state’s Legislative Black Caucus.

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate.

“Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” Jindal said.

Gov. Jindal and other Louisiana politicians, including Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, have come out and issued strong statements denouncing this kind of conduct (conduct that is a throwback to a period in this nation’s history that most of us would love to forget). This is not and should not be a political issue. The ignorance through which this man speaks is nothing short of staggering when you really think about it. He acts as if he is the ultimate authority on such matters (as you will read below).

More on the background of this story from AP:

Bardwell has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if they are, refers them to another justice of the peace. Bardwell said no one had complained in the past and he doesn’t marry the couples because he’s worried about their children’s futures.

“Perhaps he’s worried the kids will grow up and be president,” said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, referring to President Barack Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas.

This does not seem to be about interracial kids.

The number of biracial children who grow up and do good things and great things is impossible to calculate.

This man, letting his personal race-related biases prompt him to discriminate against couples seeking marriage, is a pitiful relic of an era that in many ways is best forgotten and cemented in the past.

It is gratifying to see and hear politicians from both sides of the political aisle speaking out strongly against this kind of racial bigotry.

Many people thought this battle had already been fought.

From CNN:

The U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. In the unanimous decision, the court said that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.”

Here is an interesting comment from the CNN article:

“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell told the newspaper. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”

TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE: I am not racist … I have black friends.

From an earlier AP story:

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Is this a legitimate defense/justification in this man’s small mind? Is he saying because he discriminates against all interracial couples it’s OK? This is beyond ignorant.

To learn more about this disturbing story, check out one of the latest Associated Press stories:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/15/national/a124653D11.DTL&type=printable

Detroit Free Press Columnist Drew Sharp Performs Terribly On The O’Reilly Factor

Detroit Free Press columnist Drew Sharp was invited on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show (to talk about Rush Limbaugh’s publicity-stunt bid to maybe take on an ownership role with the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams) and, after little more than a few minutes, it was pretty obvious why: Sharp was completely overmatched and woefully (and stunningly) underprepared for this debate with O’Reilly. As a native Detroiter, it pained me to see how pitiful Sharp performed against O’Reilly. It was like Drew was totally unprepared for O’Reilly to defend Limbaugh as aggressively as he did (duh) and it seemed Drew could barely muster a couple of examples (in an ocean of many) of Limbaugh’s racism and use of race to divide Americans.

Consider this from The O’Reilly Sucks Blog:

The next segment was about Rush Limbaugh possibly buying the St. Louis Rams, and O’Reilly wants to know why people have a problem with it. Earth to O’Reilly, maybe because Rush Limbaugh is a massive racist, and most of the NFL players are black. You have to be deaf dumb and blind not to know why people are opposed to Limbaugh buying the Rams. O’Reilly reported that the NFL players union is opposed to it, and he had sports writer Drew Sharp on to discuss it.

Sharp said Limbaugh is a partisan who a lot of people hate because of his statements and his racism, Billy said that’s your opinion. Then O’Reilly defended Limbaugh and said his research staff can not find any racist statements made by Rush Limbaugh. And that he has the best staff in the business so if they can not find it he never said it. Then Billy played the clip of what Limbaugh said about Donovan McNabb and said that is the only thing he could find about Limbaugh. Hey O’Reilly, what about the Barack the magic negro song, that’s racist pal. O’Reilly denied Limbaugh is a racist, and said there is no evidence of it, which is just ridiculous.

And this Drew Sharp was terrible, he had nothing, he should have had the racist quotes from Limbaugh. Billy said it was not fair to disqualify Limbaugh from buying the team just because he says provocative things, as he denied all the racist statements he has made. The one or two examples Sharp used were disputed by O’Reilly, and Drew had no comeback, so he was terrible. The man was totally unprepared, and O’Reilly dominated him.

It’s hard to argue with a lot of what Steve wrote in this blog. Drew looked just plain awful and it was painful to watch O’Reilly smash him without even so much as breaking a sweat.

It was like the free breadsticks you get at some restaurants before your main course comes.

It reminds me of the old days when pro wrestling was on TV and the one guy would be standing in the ring with no music, plain tights and a jacket from deep in his closet. His opponent, the star, comes out with a flowing robe, fancy tights, a manager, a hot-looking valet, music and beats the crap out of the scrub in like three minutes (just in time for a commercial).

Drew Sharp was there to make O’Reilly look good. And, wow, did he play his role out well.

As for racist statements from Limbaugh, if O’Reilly’s research team can’t find any then that speaks volumes about how incompetent and/or biased they are (or how ignorant they are to what the word “racist” means).

Sharp’s column:
http://www.freep.com/article/20091013/COL08/91013044/1089/Column-on-Limbaugh-sparks-tiff-with-Fox-s-O-Reilly

The White House’s Anita Dunn Calls Out Fox News For Bias, But This Is Old News

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn called out Fox News for what it is: a conservative media outlet with a far-right agenda.

But, is this really anything new? This is kind of old news, but it is refreshing to see the White House call out Fox News for its right-wing bias (which extends beyond its prime-time lineup of opinionated hate).

Here are some of the comments highlighted by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post with the video to follow:

“If we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.”

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

“Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again… when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”

“[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/anita-dunn-fox-news-an-ou_n_316691.html

Good for Dunn and the White House to fight back against Fox News which is playing the role of media relations firm for the Republicans.

The right-wing bias on Fox News is not just in its evening programming with conservatives like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. It includes others masquerading as liberals (Greta Van Susteren and to a lesser extent Juan Williams) or disguising themselves as objective “reporters” or analysts (The dreadful Fox and Friends crew, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, etc.).

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/anita-dunn-fox-news-an-ou_n_316691.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham: We’re Not Going To Be A Party Of Angry White Guys

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the more mild Republicans, is coming under heat for being considered a moderate by those on the far right. Sen. Graham is fast becoming a victim of the runaway freight train of conservatism that is flat-out steamrolling everything in its path.

Here is an excerpt from The State (South Carolina):

GREENVILLE – An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.

Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn’t succeed without the political coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress.

“If you don’t like it, you can leave,” he said.

The 75-minute forum filled several sections of Furman University’s Timmons Arena and attracted demonstrators, critics with handheld cameras, shouts of “traitor” and “Sotomayor” – and a smattering of supporters.

Some did.

Here is a comment Sen. Graham later made to the angry crowd:

GRAHAM: We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys.

That did not go over well. Republicans, with these tea baggers and townhall nuts have created a monster that is spiraling out of control with anger.

See for yourself:
http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/981753.html

Great Work By Media Matters Research Team On Rush Limbaugh’s History Of Race-Bating, If Not Racist, Language

From Media Matters for America:

Limbaugh claims he is “colorblind” and “treat[s] every equally”

From the October 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I’ve had people say to me, well, I think you’ve got a blind spot. You don’t know what it’s like to have a heritage that black people [unintelligible] — oh, I most certainly do not have a blind spot, and I most certainly do understand it. I understand that all human beings have obstacles. We all have to overcome them. There’s no better place to overcome those obstacles than the United States of America. The freest country, the freest people on Earth. And what really saddens me and disappoints me to this day is that there are people who are not inspired and taught about how great they can be because they are Americans.

Frankly, the biggest problem I face in the current climate of political correctness is that I’m colorblind about it. I don’t say politically correct things about it. For example, in the Today show interview, Jamie Gangel: “Weren’t you moved by the election of the first black president?” Yeah, I was. Great historical fact, but I got over it pretty quickly, because I don’t see him as black. I see him as president of the United States, and I’m more concerned about his policies.

I love this country. I want everyone in this country to succeed. I want everyone in this country to pursue happiness. I want everyone to benefit as an American, as I have. I stand in no one’s way. I am not the one putting obstacles in people’s way. I’m the one trying to sweep them away, and in so doing, I don’t speak politically correct language, and as such, I’m accused of being insensitive. I guess my problem is I treat people as adults. I treat them as informed, I treat them as educated, and I treat them as equals. I don’t condescend to people, and I don’t run around feeling sorry for people, because that doesn’t help them. After you feel sorry for somebody, then what do you do?

It’s all up to us to make the most of the one life we are blessed to be given by God. And I cringe when I see so many lives not reaching anywhere near their potential, because others capitalize on their failure to do so. And that happens not just with racial issues; it happens with all minorities. We have assumed that we’re an unjust and unfair country. That all of the minorities, for whatever reason they are minorities, are victims of an unfair, unjust, immoral America.

And there are white people that buy into that stuff, too, because they don’t want to run around feeling guilty, and they don’t want to run around people thinking that they are racist. It’s all political correctness that has led people to thinking this. And so, when I, for example, say, I think the media has little interest in a black quarterback doing well, I mean it. Most of the sports media is politically correct liberals.

And that kind of surface stuff matters to them. I’m interested in people’s hearts and their souls, because that’s what animates us as human beings. Not our skin color. I’m colorblind. I have reached the point where everybody professes we need to go. I treat everybody equally. Nobody is — in the political arena — I don’t care. Male, female, black, white, gay, straight, bisexual. If you are opposed to the things I think are great for the country, I’m going to say so. I’m going to criticize you. Not because of whatever it is distinguishes you from me on a surface basis, but because of ideas. I’m just a lone guy here, in the arena of ideas, sharing mine. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/12/09]

Limbaugh has made numerous racially charged remarks about Obama

• “We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black.” After Obama’s inauguration, Limbaugh said during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News that “[r]acism in this country is the exclusive province of the left. We’re witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We’re being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles. Bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We’ve got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign. So I think they’ve done a great job, the media has, of covering up his deficiencies.”

• “I do believe” Obama is an “angry black guy.” Responding to accusations that he had called Obama “an angry black man,” Limbaugh said on July 27 “they’re finally hearing me — he’s an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he’s angry; I think his wife is angry. All liberals are enraged all the time anyways. They’re always mad.” Previously, Limbaugh had said that Obama is “one angry guy.”

• “[I]n Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.” On September 15, Limbaugh said: “It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect — you expect safety. But in Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, ‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on.’ And of course everybody says, ‘Oh, the white kid deserved it. He was born a racist, he’s white.’ Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses. White students destroying civility in classrooms all over America. White congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives. We can redistribute students while we redistribute their parents’ wealth. I mean, we can just redistribute everything. Just return the white students to their rightful place, their own bus, with bars on the windows and armed guards. They’re racist. They get what they deserve. Newsweek magazine told us this — post-racial America. I mean, I wonder if Obama’s going to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard.”

• “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.” On June 22, Limbaugh said, “What they don’t know is that Obama’s entire economic program is reparations. If I were [Al] Sharpton, if I’d been guest-hosting Sharpton’s show, and I got a call like that, somebody complaining, I’d say, ‘No, hey, hey, hey. Shh, shh. Let me tell you the truth here. Everything in the stimulus plan, every plan he’s got is reparations. He gonna take from the rich, he’s gonna take from the — he’s gonna give it to you. It just can’t happen overnight. Be patient.’ That’s what’s — redistribution of wealth, reparations, returning the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners, whatever you want to call it, it’s reparations.”

• Obama is “more African in his roots than he is American” and is “behaving like an African colonial despot.” After reading extensively from an American Thinker column smearing Obama, Limbaugh said on June 26 that Obama is “more African in his roots than he is American” and is “behaving like an African colonial despot.”

• Obama is “Halfrican-American.” On January 24, 2007, Limbaugh referred to Obama and actress Halle Berry as “Halfrican-American[s],” stating that “Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry.” Limbaugh then said: ” ‘As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry’s support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,’ Obama said.” Limbaugh then conceded that Obama “didn’t say it.”

• “Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.” On March 21, 2008, Limbaugh said of Obama’s handling of the controversy surrounding remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.” Limbaugh had earlier said: “[Y]ou know, opening these race wounds like this, taking us back 30, 40 years, making it look like no progress has been made — what Barack Obama has done — I’m going to say something here that might offend — or not offend — but might make some uncomfortable. But it is clear to me that there has been a major transformation in Senator Obama.”

• Sotomayor “a reverse racist” appointed by Obama, “the greatest living example of a reverse racist.” On May 26, Limbaugh said then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a “reverse racist” and that liberals are wrong to assert that “minorities cannot be racists” because Obama is the “greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he’s appointed one.” On his May 29 show, Limbaugh compared Sotomayor’s nomination to nominating David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member, and said the way to “get promoted in the Barack Obama administration” is “by hating white people.”

• Obama “wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya” and “wants to be the black FDR.” On August 24, Limbaugh said he “finally figured out why it is Obama’s pushing so hard on this health care bill.” He asserted: “He just wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya. And look, you know, economic anxiety is necessary if you want to become the next black FDR, which is — well, the black FDR. That’s what he wants. He wants to be the black FDR, the next FDR, and FDR fed off of economic anxiety.”

• Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings “Barack, The Magic Negro.” On March 19, 2007, Limbaugh highlighted a Los Angeles Times op-ed that described Obama as “running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the ‘Magic Negro’ ” — a term used by critics of pop culture to describe certain benevolent African-American characters. Limbaugh stated: “The term ‘Magic Negro’ has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008. And the term ‘Magic Negro,’ as applied to Barack Obama has been done by an LA Times columnist, David Ehrenstein.” Limbaugh later asserted: “I’m going to keep referring to him as that, because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term,” adding, “If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the ‘Magic Negro,’ there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the LA Times did it, simply because they can’t be critical of the LA Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio.” Limbaugh continued to refer to Obama as the “Magic Negro” throughout the broadcast — 27 times, to be exact — and at one point sang “Barack, the Magic Negro” to the tune of “Puff, the Magic Dragon.” Limbaugh defended his use of the song, stating, “Well, that’s what we always do here. We do parodies and satires on the idiocy and phoniness of the left.”

• “God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama”; Obama “has yet to prove he’s a citizen.” Limbaugh has also advanced the theory that Obama was not born in the United States, saying that “God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama” and that Obama “has yet to have to prove he’s a citizen. All he’d have to do is show a birth certificate.”

• Limbaugh on Gates controversy: “Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman.” On July 24, Limbaugh said Obama “all of a sudden, this guy that [moderates] elected, who they thought was all of these wonderful, perfect things, is now behaving as a community organizer and is fanning the flames of race, and is calling the police stupid. And I guarantee you those people — we’ve all been waiting to ask the question, when are the Obama voters going to wake up? Well, this incident might be — I don’t know yet, a little early to say — this incident might be the wake-up call for some of these moderates. … You know that there were a lot of people that voted for Obama out of pure guilt. Hoping that that — the election, his election would just wipe the slate clean, at least make them feel better about it. And this just destroys that. Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman when he doesn’t know the facts of the case.” Limbaugh also said on July 23 that white policemen are “under assault” “from the East Room of the White House.”

• Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he’d known they were “actually young, black Muslim teenagers.” On April 14, Limbaugh suggested the “correct” way to look at a situation in which Obama sent the military to retrieve American hostages from Somali pirates was that “if only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young, black Muslim teenagers, I’m sure he wouldn’t have given the order to shoot.”

• Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe “you can’t criticize the little black man-child.” Referring to GOP ads comparing Obama to Britney Spears during the presidential campaign, on August 20, 2008, Limbaugh said: “It’s — you know, it’s just — it’s just we can’t hit the girl. I don’t care how far feminism’s saying, you can’t hit the girl, and you can’t — you can’t criticize the little black man-child. You just can’t do it, ’cause it’s just not right, It’s not fair. He’s such a victim.” The previous day, Limbaugh had said that “it is striking how unqualified Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy.” Limbaugh went on to say, “I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them.”

Limbaugh has an extensive history of making racially charged comments

• “The government’s been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives.” On February 1, 2007, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report about a University of Chicago study that found that “a majority of young blacks feel alienated from today’s government” by asserting, “Why would that be? The government’s been taking care of them their whole lives.”

• “The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry.” On June 4, Limbaugh said, “This has been the argument the Reverend Jackson has proffered throughout my life — that it’s impossible for minorities to be racist because they don’t have any power. Well, president of the United States. We’re talking now about a Supreme Court justice. The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That’s what Obama’s about, gang. He’s angry; he’s going to cut this country down to size. He’s going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made — its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what’s going on here.”

• “[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.” On April 12, 2007, Limbaugh criticized Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson for refusing to apologize to three former members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team who were accused of rape in March 2006 — all charges were dropped on April 11, 2007 — and asserted that “minorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.” Presumably referring to the decision by CBS Radio and MSNBC to stop airing Imus in the Morning following controversial comments by host Don Imus, Limbaugh stated: “Everybody’s demanding that everybody apologize in this country for simply breathing. It’s getting to the point some people are not allowed to breathe or exhale, or make syllables.” Limbaugh went on to complain about the protests Sharpton and Jackson led condemning Imus’ remarks, saying: “They’re members of the minority. Don’t ever forget that this is the case. Minorities, victims, members of groups, are allowed to do anything to address their grievances and to get noticed, because … they’re so oppressed.”

• Limbaugh: “The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” In 2003, Limbaugh resigned from his job as an ESPN commentator after saying that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb hasn’t “been that good from the get-go” and “got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve,” because “[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” After the Eagles reached Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005, Limbaugh returned to making racial comments about McNabb, saying, “There’s no question McNabb has improved and I’m happy to see it,” but that “when the defense … was propping the Eagles up,” the media “were still giving McNabb credit — because there’s this social hope.”

• Limbaugh says “NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips.” On January 19, 2007, Limbaugh stated: “Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it.”

• Limbaugh declares basketball “the favorite sport of gangs.” Discussing the government’s attempts to curb violence, Limbaugh told a caller on October 7: “It’s not reasonable that you should understand the insanity that local and state and federal bureaucracies are doing. It’s perfectly normal and understandable that none of what they do would make sense to you. My question — OK, a 1 cent sales tax to fight gang violence. What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? Afterschool program — don’t we already have afterschool programs? Don’t we already have — what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball — I mean, we’ve done it all. We’ve taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court. We had 100,000 new cops with Clinton — we’ve done it all. And the problem still is out of control. Liberalism doesn’t work.”

• Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race. During the 2006 Democratic primaries, Limbaugh invented a racial element to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett’s departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown, asserting, “And don’t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There’s a racial component here, too.” In fact, Brown is white — a point on which Limbaugh was corrected later in the program.

• Limbaugh on Survivor series: “African-American tribe” worst swimmers, Hispanics “will do things other people won’t do.” On August 23, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that the competition in a season of CBS’ Survivor, in which contestants were reportedly divided into competing “tribes” by ethnicity, “is not going to be fair if there’s a lot of water events.” In support of this assertion, he cited a March 2, 2006, HealthDay article reporting that “young blacks — especially males — are much more likely to drown in pools than whites.” He later added that Hispanics have “probably shown the most survival tactics,” that they “have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders,” and that they can “do it without water for a long time, they don’t get apprehended, and they will do things other people won’t do.” On his September 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh claimed “[t]here can only be one reason” Survivor scrapped “segregated” competition after two episodes — “the white tribe had to be winning.”

• Limbaugh suggested Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race. After Limbaugh asserted that Colin Powell should leave the Republican Party because of his support for Obama, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “[i]t’s not up to Rush Limbaugh to decide who ought to be in the Republican Party.” Limbaugh responded on his May 18 show that all Democrats “had to do was nominate an African-American and [they've] got Colin Powell.”

• Limbaugh: Gates is an “angry racist.” On July 27, Limbaugh said Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates is an “angry racist.”

• Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an “invasive species.” Referring to an April 1, 2005, federal court ruling that prohibited shipping boats from dumping of ballast water containing “invasive species,” including some types of mollusks, into U.S. waters, Limbaugh described illegal immigrants as an “invasive species” that U.S. courts willingly permit to enter the country.

• Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans “Injuns.” Media Matters for America documented at least four separate instances of Limbaugh using this slur on his program.

• Limbaugh says Democrats’ interest in Darfur is securing black “voting bloc.” On August 21, 2007, Limbaugh claimed that Democrats “want to get us out of Iraq, but they can’t wait to get us into Darfur.” He continued: “There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It’s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they’re in trouble.” A caller responded, “The black population,” to which Limbaugh said, “Right.”

• Limbaugh says that if “feminazis” had remembered to oppose “affirmative action for black guys … they wouldn’t face the situation they face today.” On May 21, 2008, Limbaugh said that “one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there’s a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.” Limbaugh then said, “They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they — if — they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that’s — see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied — trust me on this. … [L]iberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate.” He concluded, “So, it’s just — they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn’t face the situation they face today.”

Bar Owner With Racist, Anti-Obama Sign Calls President “Half Breed”

It never ceases to amaze me the things that it seems some people will do or say to get onto television and cash in on their 15 minutes of fame. I watched a clip on a news network about this bar (The Georgia Peach Museum and Restaurant) with a truly racist sign in front of it, discussing health care and President Obama’s plan. The sign read: “Obama’s plan for health care – nigger rig it.” WTF! The owner of the restaurant is a man named Patrick Lanzo, who has declared his sign “strictly about free speech.” Then, as is customary, who goes to a variation of the “I have black friends defense” when challenged on his racism as he talks about marching for gay rights and how he used to be a member of the NAACP.

Oh, I am soooooooo impressed.

Anyway, Think Progress has a story about his this man was interviewed by Alan Colmes who gave Lanzo a platform to explain himself. Colmes challenged Lanzo for using the so-called n-word because President Obama is an “African American.” The host had to be stunned when Lanzo basically denied President Obama was an “African American” and instead referred to him as a “half breed.”

COLMES: No one’s questioning that you have the first amendment right to do it. That’s not the issue.

LANZO: You’re saying it’s not politically correct.

COLMES: It’s not a matter of being politically correct. It’s downright offensive, it’s downright insulting, it’s downright nasty and meanspirited towards a group of people who have been spending fighting for equality. Finally we get an African American president and you’re busy using the n-word to describe something he wants to do in terms of fixing health care.

LANZO: Well, see that would offend me, because I don’t look at Obama bein’ an African American. What’s wrong with him being a Black American? And he’s even a half-breed, he’s not a full black person.

COLMES: Well, again, the word half-breed is rather an insulting term.

That is a disgusting term that is demeaning and disgraceful. This guy is a low life who has more than cashed in on his 15 minutes of fame and our nation is the poorer for having known him.

Rush Limbaugh Is Too Divisive, Too Racial, Too Controversial To Be An NFL Owner

Far-right commentator Rush Limbaugh supposedly is part of a group that is attempting to by the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams franchise. Limbaugh is a polarizing figure with a long and dubious history of making racially offensive comments about minorities (most notably blacks), women, gays and others who don’t seem to fit his vision of what the United States of America is supposed to look like.

Here is a statement from the player’s association (as posted by Media Matters for America) in regard to Limbaugh’s controversial bid to become an NFL owner:

NFL Players Executive Director DeMaurice Smith on Saturday made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

In an e-mail to the union’s executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh’s bid, Smith said, “I’ve spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.”

Limbaugh and St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts are among six potential ownership groups that have discussed buying the Rams. League sources say the current sale price has ranged from $700-to-$750 million but that there did not appear to be an imminent transaction.

On Sunday, Smith briefly elaborated, “This communication is more about what we stand for than the reality of our role in any franchise sale. While it’s true the subject matter was related [to Limbaugh's bid], I do understand that the NFL does not present ownership bids to me or the NFLPA. I encourage our players to express their views.”

At least seven NFL players have publicly opposed Limbaugh’s interest in purchasing the Rams with Checketts. In Smith’s communication Saturday with his executive committee, the union leader encouraged players to speak their mind on all matters, including Limbaugh’s bid.

The Limbaugh apologists are out there (including Bill O’Reilly who lacks the guts to stand up to Rush) and coming to the controversial commentator’s defense.

Here is another statement Media Matters posted from the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, Jim Irsay:

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said this afternoon that the divisive rhetoric of prospective Rams minority owner Rush Limbaugh makes him unappealing.

“I myself couldn’t even think of voting for him,” said Irsay speaking from the NFL’s fall ownership meetings in Boston.

Asked if he’d spoken to other owners about Limbaugh’s candidacy, Irsay said, “I haven’t and I don’t think I would even go to the point of talking to Tony Dungy, Jim Caldwell, Dwight Freeney, talking to those men and seeing what their positions are. I’m very sensitive to know there are scars out there. I think as a nation we need to stop it. Our words do damage and it’s something that we don’t need. We need to get to a higher level of humanity and we have.

“I come from a different era where Marvin Gaye and John Lennon were speaking about [certain things] and we’ve been doing a slow crawl to some of the things they talked about. We don’t need to go the other way,” Irsay added. “We can’t go the other way where there isn’t forgiveness and understanding but we gotta watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage.”

It would be interesting tos ee the owners and NFL executives who would come out in support of Limbaugh or simply turn a blind eye on his part in this bid to buy the Rams.

NFL players are speaking out as well as evidenced by this New York Daily News article from which an excerpt is below:

Mathias Kiwanuka loves his former defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, but the Giants‘ defensive end says he will never play for Spagnuolo’s Rams if Rush Limbaugh purchases the team.

Kiwanuka and the Jets‘ Bart Scott made it clear Thursday that they would never play for the Rams or any team owned by the controversial conservative radio host.

“All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama’s America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting ‘right on,’” Kiwanuka told The Daily News. “I mean, I don’t want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.”

“I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there’s a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can’t respect him as a man.”

Kiwanuka is right on the money and I would encourage people to visit the New York Daily News site and read more of his words on the topic.

The NFL players must speak out and be heard so that this bigoted and hate-driven divider is not welcomed as an NFL owner.

Is Glenn Beck Comparing Fox News To Jews During The Holocaust?

Fox News extremist talk show host Glenn Beck made what appears to be a rather disturbing and troubling comparison when he seemed to compare Jews during the Holocaust to Fox News. What is the matter with this man when he seems to be comparing poor, persecuted, misunderstood Fox News to real people slaughtered duringthe Holocaust? Beck’s comments, which appear below, are disgraceful and demeaning to those who suffered through the Holocaust and to the memories of those who died.

Using scare tactics is bad enough, but bringing in the Holocaust is wrong.

BECK: When they’re done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, “first they came for the Jews, and I wasn’t Jewish.” When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they’re a — totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you.

When they’re done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they’re going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does — do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?

If you believe that, you should open up a history book, because you’ve missed the point of many brutal dictators. You missed the point on how they always start.

The man is nuts.

Beck is whining because people are speaking out strongly against the right-wing extremism coming from Fox News and the dishonesty with which it denies what is plainly obvious. Now, Beck and others at Fox News are going into full victimization mode. Fox News cries (hour after hour on the air and post after post on the Web) because it says some people can’t handle its tough brand of questioning and tough talk. Then, Fox turns around and whines when people are tough on the right-wing news outlet with questions and comments.

Democratic National Committee Statement On Right-Wing Hate Over President Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize

Here is a statement from the Democratic National Committee in response to the hate heard around the country from conservatives over President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”

Official Announcement For The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Nobel Prize:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Conservatives Are Already Crying Because President Obama Has Won Nobel Peace Prize

It’s difficult to imagine any Republicans in the Untied States of America winning a Nobel Peace Prize since so many of them appear driven by hatred for their own president.

President Barack Obama was named winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize and, yes, far-right and even moderate-right Republicans now are beginning to come out in force to whine like spoiled children in a toy store not getting their way. But, think about it, should any of us be surprised some on the right now are mobilizing to go into full attack mode on the president because he won this award for working toward increasing the peace around the world?

No one should be the least bit surprised Republicans are throwing child-like temper tantrum mode as Barack Obama has become just the third sitting U.S. president to win the award.

From Think Progress:

Obama is the third sitting U.S. President to win the award. “Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treatise of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.” (Jimmy Carter won the award after leaving the presidency, and former Vice President Al Gore won in 2007 for his work on climate change.)

President Obama has worked at worldwide diplomacy to rebuild international bridges damaged and destroyed during seven-plus years of the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. While Republicans have blasted the president for criticizing America, in reality he has been working toward peace to show people we are partners in the world and the U.S. is not the almighty dictator looking down on the rest of the world as if they are inferior.

So, while President Obama was “humbled” by this honor, it appears right wingers are outraged.

The hate, coming from Republicans, starts right at the top with the Republican National Committee which issued this hate-soaked statement:

The real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

Typical hate coming from an RNC that was asleep at the wheel when the worldwide reputation of the United States of America was going on the toilet under President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

The statement shows that the Michael Steele National Committee, excuse me … RNC, is sticking to failed tactics from a failed presidential campaign (whining about Barack Obama’s so-called star power).

But, wait, it gets better when you check out this blog post from right-wing nut Erick Erickson, of the National Review, who subtly adds what some would consider a racial element to this mix:

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news.

Translation: Here is another unqualified black person winning something that should have gone to a white person … it has to be affirmative action.

Erickson slips in the customary shots at President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton, too.

President Obama is working to bring other nations to the table of diplomacy so many in the worldwide community feel invested in the destiny of the world and not at the mercy of the U.S.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been criticized bitterly among neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who have suggested his rhetoric is naïve and his inclination to talk to America’s enemies will leave the United States vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

In its announcement of the prize, the Nobel Committee seemed to directly refute that line of thinking.

“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics,” the committee wrote. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”

Congratulations President Obama, but there is a LOT of work ahead. This is no time to rest.

Don Imus Is Back And Already Taking A Nasty Shot At President Obama

It didn’t take controversial new Fox Business Network host Don Imus long to make his first controversial statement with yet another piss-poor attempt at humor (you’d think he’d have learned something from his situation with the women’s basketball team of Rutgers a few years back). But, the I-Man is still old school, stubborn and with a distinct inability to avoid making idiotic and controversial statements. Imus hosted Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (arguably the most media-hyped presidential campaign loser in United States of America history) on his show and the two men shared a joke (one in very poor taste in light of how much conservatives whine about comments about former President George W. Bush’s involvement in 9/11). Apparently, Sen. McCain was quite amused by a joke comparing President Obama to the 9/11 attacks:

“Ha ha,” she added dryly, when I told her that Imus, in a discussion with another first-day guest, Sen. John McCain, repeated a “joke” that after 9/11 “President Obama was the second attack on America.” (McCain, on the phone, laughed more heartily.)

As Think Progress points out, Imus must have had his conscience return (if he has one) after making telling the “joke” on the air as he tried to walk back from the comment and weakly offered about the joke that it was “an idiotic thing to say.”