Bill Maher on Friday actually used the Trayvon Martin issue to attack Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn).
In his HBO Real Time opening monologue, the host said of Congressman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) wearing a hoodie on the House floor, "Too scary? Have you ever looked into Michele Bachmann's eyes?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Filling in for Matt Lauer on Friday's NBC Today, co-host Hoda Kotb made a bizarre proclamation about race relations in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting: "Skittles obviously has become really kind of a symbol in the whole Trayvon Martin case. A symbol of racial injustice. You see people holding up the bags of Skittles in their hands and it clearly means something." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Kotb made the comment to advertising executive Donny Deutsch during a segment about how the candy maker should deal with new attention to the brand caused by the fact that Martin happened to have a bag of Skittles on him when he was shot. Surprisingly, Deutsch was actually the voice of reason in the exchange: "If you're Skittles point of view, you put your head down and you wait for it to go away."
After being criticized, MSNBC.com restored the proper context but never posted a retraction, correction notice, or an apology for doing so. Originally, the story quoted from Zimmerman's call to 9-1-1 and edited the text to say the following: "'This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,' Zimmerman told a police dispatcher from his car."
Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson believes America has become more racist since Barack Obama was elected president, and that groups like the Tea Party have surfaced through that racism. Tyson's interview by CNN's Piers Morgan aired on Thursday night's Piers Morgan Tonight.
Tyson professed that "there's a great possibility" that America has become more racist since Obama's election, and when asked to clarify he affirmed "a hundred percent, yes." [Video below the break.]
Formerly relevant comedian Roseanne Barr has become the second leftist entertainment celebrity to threaten the family of George Zimmerman, the accused shooter in the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin by posting the home address of his parents on Twitter.
While she quickly deleted her tweet after an onslaught of criticism by her 110,000+ followers, Barr continued to defend her action, stating that it "was good to let ppl know that no one can hide anymore." She also threatened to repeat the malicious tweet later: "If Zimmerman isn’t arrested I’ll rt his address again." She added, "maybe go 2 his house myself."
As of this writing, Barr has still refused to say that she had done something wrong by posting the address.
After years of denying he was trying to pursue a hard-left audience, MSNBC president Phil Griffin is now shamelessly trying to justify his actions in continuing to employ infamous race-baiter and tax cheat Al Sharpton, host of the cable network's Politics Daily program. The latest controversy for Sharpton involves his dual involvement in covering the case of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin on television while at the same time, away from the anchor desk, acting as a belligerent advocate of arresting Martin's killer, George Zimmerman.
Sharpton's conflict of interest, which he barely bothers to disclose to viewers, doesn't bother Griffin; he proudly told AP television reporter David Bauder that he "didn't hire Al to become a neutered kind of news presenter."
A few days ago, left-wing director Spike Lee, who has 248,000+ followers on Twitter, retweeted an item bearing what was supposed to be the address of George Zimmerman, the man who claims to have shot Miami teen Trayvon Martin in self defense a month ago in Sanford, Florida. But the address was incorrect and the occupants of the residence are an elderly couple who bear no relation to Zimmerman. As a result of Lee's retweet, they've received hate mail and, fearing for their safety, have fled their home.
Yet when it came her turn to report the development today, MSNBC's Chris Jansing did her level best to spin the news in such a way as to absolve Lee -- who directed some of the network's Lean Forward promo spots -- of any culpability for putting the couple in jeopardy. Here's the relevant transcript. Video follows the page break (MP3 audio here):
CNN's Howard Kurtz was astonished that MSNBC has allowed Al Sharpton to be both an activist and a news anchor in covering the Trayvon Martin shooting. Near the beginning of his 11 a.m. Sunday show Reliable Sources, Kurtz maintained that Sharpton should have had to choose between activism and journalism in that case.
Kurtz asked "how on earth can Al Sharpton go there, and be an activist and stand with the parents and he asked people to contribute money and he went to the Justice Department with the parents of Trayvon Martin....And then he does his show and then he speaks at the rally again?" [Video below the break. Audio here.]
Less than two weeks after his suspension for previous intemperate tweets was lifted, CNN's Roland Martin was engaging in personally insulting "mis-tweetment" again this afternoon with PJ Media's David Steinberg.
In a series of tweets at around 5 p.m. tonight seen after the jump, Steinberg criticized Martin for spending so much time on the press's Trayvon Martin obsession -- where one person tragically died -- while ignoring the impact and meaning of the documents leaked by an unnamed Department of Justice official relating to the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" scandal -- as a result of which "at least 300 Mexicans, plus at least two American law enforcement agents" have been killed. Martin's responses were immature, insulting, condescending -- and all too typical of a press corps which, now that it is seeing poll results it doesn't like, has in certain cases taken to calling voters stupid.
Piers Morgan is astonished at Newt Gingrich's outrage over Robert DeNiro's knock on GOP white First Ladies – but it's a slim chance the liberal CNN host would be trying to calm the tempest if Michelle Obama were the butt of a celebrity joke.
DeNiro, speaking at an Obama fundraiser, had joked that after seeing the wives of the Republican candidates, America wouldn't be ready for a "white" First Lady. Newt Gingrich denounced the joke as "inexcusable," and then Morgan decided to pounce on that "hideously politically correct overreaction" to "poor old" Robert DeNiro's joke on his Thursday night show. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
On Tuesday, Alicia Powe of NewsBusters' sister site MRCTV.org asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) about her having described Republican efforts in various states for voter ID laws as "Jim Crow"-like measures. Schultz, who frequently appears on cable news networks in her capacity as Democratic National Committee chairwoman denied that.
But alas, video never lies and we have proof that, well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is, having told TVOne's Roland Martin back in June 2011 that Republicans want to "literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." A very charitable explanation is that it's possible Rep. Wasserman Schultz just has a spotty memory. At any rate, you can watch the video in the embed below and judge for yourself:
On Thursday's CBS Evening News, Elaine Quijano touted a charge from Pennsylvania Democrats that the new voter I.D. law there "targets poor and elderly voters." Quijano also spotlighted that, according to unnamed "Pennsylvania court officials," there were no cases of "voters convicted of fraud in the last five years." However, in late 2010, the AP reported on a credible allegation of voter fraud in the state.
Anchor Scott Pelley introduced the correspondent's report by trumpeting how "Pennsylvania has just enacted one of the toughest voter I.D. laws in the country. It will require voters to provide a photo I.D. at the polls this November. Republicans say it's about preventing voter fraud. Democrats say the real target is the poor."
Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have a "disposition of anti-immigrant," sounded CNN guest and liberal Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill on Friday's Starting Point.
"[W]hen I hear Rick Santorum talking, when I hear Mitt Romney talk, I hear a disposition of anti-immigrant. I hear a language of English as the language of imperialism and global dominance," Lamont Hill said. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
When the Virginia General Assembly was debating a new voter ID law, the Washington Post did its level best to paint the measure as a vote suppressing measure that was akin to "Jim Crow" laws. The Post's editorial board also weighed in by charging that making the voter ID laws stricter was evidence of "institutional racism" in state government.
But now that the debate is over and the bill is likely to be signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), the Post's Richmond correspondents Laura Vozzella and Anita Kumar today admitted that, well, the legislation is fairly lax compared with stricter legislation that absolutely requires photo IDs in other states:
Count comedian Chris Rock as yet another liberal who can't bear to take not just criticism but even an innocent question about his beliefs.
Under light questioning from conservative author Jason Mattera, Rock turned what was a regular friendly interaction with a fellow Brooklynite into a physical assault on a female camera operator when Mattera tried to get him to briefly explain remarks that he had made that the Tea Party movement was "insanely racist." Video below the break.
In her syndicated column today (at NewsBusters; at her home blog), Michelle Malkin runs down how CNN news anchor Soledad O'Brien has an affinity for the work of the late Harvard Professor Derrick Bell, particularly his "critical race theory" (CRT) that she has to this point not disclosed to her CNN viewers.
O'Brien also had a guest professor on her program who told the audience that CRT has nothing to do with, in Michelle's words, "bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government." Trouble is, the professor has written that CRT “highlight(s) the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” As Michelle wrote: "Oops." An NB tipster noted that O'Brien's O'Babbling should not have surprised anyone given her supportive reaction, noted at the time at Media Bistro, to a particularly odd and pathetic speech (transcript here) the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (y'know, the guy whose inflammatory, anti-American sermons Barack Obama never heard despite almost two decades as a TUCC member) gave at an NAACP dinner in Detroit on April 26, 2008 (internal link was in original):
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien isn’t used to criticism. In the world of media elites, she’s a beloved figure and an award-winning news anchor. But last week, she revealed her true, decidedly non-neutral colors. And she’s not happy about the hoi polloi questioning her hallowed journalistic objectivity.
Last Thursday, O’Brien interviewed Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief of the late Andrew Breitbart’s online empire. Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com released a 1991 video of Barack Obama (then a 30-year-old law student) at a Harvard rally embracing radical racialist Derrick Bell and his push for more aggressive race-based hiring at Harvard. Bell is a proponent of critical race theory (CRT), which posits that America remains a hopelessly racist country dominated by Jews and white supremacists.
Last week, CNN's Soledad O'Brien got into a heated debate with Breitbart.com's Joel Pollak over his story tying then-law student Barack Obama to radical professor Derrick Bell. O'Brien insisted that neither Bell nor his critical race theory was radical, and then hosted an Emory Law professor on Monday to debunk Pollak's story.
The CNN host has clearly expressed her support for Professor Bell but has failed to answer for bizarre statements and writings of his that exude radicalism. She simply teed up a professor of critical race theory (CRT) to explain how normal it actually is. [Video below the break.]
This probably won't surprise anyone, but it should be noted for the record: As of 3:45 p.m. today, almost 72 hours after the related story broke, the Associated Press has not reported on new revelations about the clear influence radical, racist professor Derrick Bell had on now-President Barack Obama 20 years ago -- so influential that Obama "routinely assigned works by Bell as required reading" in his University of Chicago law classes. The AP has also not told its subscribing outlets and news consumers about how many of its colleagues in the press withheld information on the relationship between the two during the 2008 presidential election campaign. A search on Bell's name (not in quotes) at the AP's main site returns nothing relevant, even though it has been shown that Obama told a Harvard audience that people should "[O]pen your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell."
However, there has been no shortage of coverage at the AP and elsewhere of what Mitt Romney did with his dog 29 years ago. But of course, the dog story is far more relevant to Mitt Romney's governing philosophy than Obama's love of a professor whose core life contention revolves around insurmountable white racism (/sarc). The AP's cover-up treatment of Bell has been consistent, as seen in the first three paragraphs of its brief write-up after the professor's death in October 2011 (bold is mine):
CNN let the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center brand many right-wing "patriot" groups as "extremist" and racist on Friday afternoon. CNN host Brooke Baldwin simply listened to the SPLC talking points and concernedly asked what was being done to "combat" the "paranoia" of "anti-government activism."
The SPLC had previously placed the Family Research Council alongside Klan members and neo-Nazis in a list of "hate" groups, but CNN did not question their study then. They continued to accept their liberal "expertise" on Friday, not challenging whether certain groups belonged in the "extremist" category. [Video below the break.]
Did MSNBC ever vet Al Sharpton? Seriously. Much of the talk about HBO's Game Change docu-drama is focusing on the vetting of Sarah Palin or lack thereof by the McCain campaign. Is there any minimum standard of knowledge required to have one's own show on the Lean Forward network?
Take Sharpton's mind-boggling misstatement on Morning Joe today. The Reverend Al asserted that in Alabama, "it's against the law to organize unions." Did any of the MJ crew, including Joe Scarborough, Gene Robinson and Steve Rattner, call Al out on his misrepresentation? Of course not. View the video after the jump.
When Breitbart.com's Joel Pollak went on CNN and connected then-law student Barack Obama to radical Harvard professor Derrick Bell, CNN guest Jay Thomas of Sirius radio began creepily asking Pollak if he was afraid of violence from black people, on Thursday morning's Starting Point.
During the chippy segment, host Soledad O'Brien fiercely defended Bell and insisted that Obama's previous support of him was a non-story. She accused Pollak of "misreading" Bell's critical race theory, even though the professor has clearly espoused radical views in his past, including writing a fictional account of how blacks would be sold to aliens as slaves. O'Brien also failed to disclose that she herself is an admitted admirer of Bell's. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
It wouldn't take more than a nanosecond for the establishment press and TV talking heads to rip into any white political candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- who carved out a web site devoted to "Whites for Candidate X."
About a week ago, President Obama, with his powers of incumbency in tow, decided to revive something he created back in 2007: "African-Americans for Obama." And, as seen in the Obama video which appears at the site and in what appears to be a new twist, the Obama campaign is driving a Mack through the alleged wall of separation between church and state by finding so-called "congregation captains" to maximize African-American support on his behalf. As would unfortunately be expected, the press has not covered campaign's move; A Google News search on "African Americans for Obama" (in quotes) returns only 17 results, only four of which are arguably mainstream media items.
Apparently the Washington Post's website editors have little patience for African-American ministers who pledge fidelity to the Bible over that to their usual political allies like Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).
Black History Month honors the achievements of African Americans throughout history and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, a reliance on family and faith, which allowed many African Americans to survive the horrors of Reconstruction, racial injustice and violent acts of discrimination, has become a casualty of the modern welfare state, which has contributed to the destruction of family cohesion, supplanted faith in God with faith in government and fashioned many African-Americans into a Democratic voting bloc that has not improved the lot of the impoverished among them.
While African-American history is important, the way it is most often presented through a liberal political lens skews the contributions and examples of African Americans who do not toe the liberal line. One especially sees this in the civil rights establishment's response to Justice Clarence Thomas and more recently to Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.)
During his first hour today, Rush mentioned the reaction of Peter King at Sports illustrated in King's "Monday Morning Quarterback" collection to a paragraph in the magazine's cover story on Jeremy Lin, the New York Knicks' point guard who has broken through from obscurity to phenom during the past two weeks. What King wrote is indeed an interesting giveaway of what I believe is a common but unsupportable media perspective, namely that students at and graduates of elite upper-echelon universities like those in the Ivy League are presumptively free of overt racism, because, well, they're all so enlightened.
On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, panelist John Heilemann, who writes for New York Magazine, thought it appropriate to equate the gay marriage debate in California to racial bigotry experienced by African-Americans in the 1960s.
During an interview with openly gay former Lieutenant Dan Choi, Heilemann asked former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele the following bigoted and offensive question: “Michael I’m curious about whether you think it would be okay in modern America, for there to be some states where black men could not marry white women? If local standards where that were unacceptable.” [MP3 audio here. See video below.]