The uproar over the firing of Juan Williams by NPR continues as more people from both sides of the political spectrum weigh in, in favor of the pundit. While there are extreme views on both sides, the common theme is that NPR was looking for a reason to fire Williams and this was the opening. Other people at NPR had made inflammatory statements in the past and they still work there so this cannot be the sole reason he was dismissed.

Williams was fired about 36 hours after his statements on the FOX News channel and came after pressure from the Muslim group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) which started a campaign to address the issue. CAIR is a group that claims to be for American Islamic relations but has been tied to terrorist organizations and generally works to impose Muslim views on America. Since it is unlikely anyone from NPR knew what Williams said (how many of them watch FOX) the pressure from CAIR was more than likely what drew attention to it and caused the dismissal. CAIR’s initial response was:

‘NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats,’ CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said. Daily Mail UK

This might come as a shock to Nihad Awad but Muslims are viewed as a security threat as are all other people who choose to fly. Everyone MUST go through security at the airport and be screened because we are all viewed as a security threat.

One would think that we are no longer viewed as threats once we are screened but this is not the case. People and their possessions are subject to search at any time once past the security checkpoint. There have been too many incidents of attempted terrorist attacks on aircraft by people who successfully made it through security to believe that once people have been screened, we are safe.

Since a huge number of those attempted attacks have been by Muslims it is not unjustified or bigoted for Muslims in full garb (which announces they are Muslims) to be viewed as a security threat.

If little old blue haired ladies were attempting or threatening to blow up planes on a regular basis then Juan Williams would be apprehensive when he saw little old blue haired ladies on his flight.

The difference is, he would not be fired for expressing that feeling and the rest of the liberal echo chamber would agree with him.

How many acts of violence have Tea Party members initiated? None, but they are viewed as dangerous by the left wing in this country and they are routinely disparaged. No one has been fired for calling them names, saying they were dangerous or calling them radical.

But let someone express how he feels with regard to the people from whom most of the terrorists have come and he is fired.

So Nihad Awad orchestrated a campaign to get Williams fired and NPR complied because it helped with what they and George Soros wanted anyway.

But none of this takes away from the fact that Williams was correct in what he said and that what he said was not bigoted. It just helped Soros push his agenda and it allowed CAIR to claim victim status once again.

All of us who fly are considered security threats and that includes the Muslims who are up in arms at the very insinuation.

I think this incident will cause the government to cut funding to NPR. But what about donations? Do you think they will go up or down? Williams might get the last laugh…

And those who travel by air will still maintain vigilance when flying especially on planes with Muslims in full garb.

Related:
LA Times
NPR
Politico

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The playbook for the left is to scream racism and to scream it loud and often. The left has no other game. Its policies have failed, it has pushed an agenda on the American people that is different than that on which they campaigned and that a majority in this country opposes. That does not bother them but now that the elections are rapidly approaching they need a tactic, a diversion. And they havoe found it.

We know that the people on the JournoList had a plan to pick a target conservative and call him racist. In true Alinsky fashion, select the target, isolate the target and attack the target. We also know that screaming racism, including NAALCP resolutions about racism, are nothing more than lies designed to stir up minorities.

Mary Frances Berry admitted that the tactic was to call the TEA Party members racist even though there is NO EVIDENCE that they are any more racist than anyone else. And she said the tactic is working.

So it should come as no surprise that Howard Dean is screaming racism. He is calling the Republican party racist and he is saying that FOX News is racist for spreading lies about Shirley Sherrod. Dean is totally ignoring the fact that FOX did not air the video or discuss the story on TV until well after Sherrod was fired and that the website did not post the video until after Sherrod was fired. FOX News claims the video was not up at its website until after Sherrod was fired.

I have seen the website from the day in question and the video was up but my friend Adam explained how that could happen. News websites update frequently and sometimes the same story is updated several times. FOX posted the story about the video but did not, according to them, post the video until after Sherrod was fired. No one can prove it was up before then (and Adam explained how it could be up now and dated then) so we will take FOX at its word.

The thing that is important to note is that Dean never once stopped to consider the facts in the matter. He dismissed the truth about FOX NOT discussing the story until after Sherrod was fired. His comeback was that it was going to be on Glenn Beck. Dean has absolutely no way of knowing if that was going to be on Beck or not. And even if it was (it was not as Beck did not mention it on TV) what difference could it possibly make? If Barack Obama fired Shirley Sherrod because he was worried that the story was going to be on Glenn Beck’s program then there is a real issue at the White House.

The fear of Beck tells me that Beck has been getting most things he discusses correct and it bothers the regime. They have never called to refute anything that Beck has said. They have never corrected anything he has said and they spend much of their time saying FOX is not real news and no one should pay attention to the network or fear mongers like Beck.

If Beck is of no concern then why worry about whether a story was going to be on his show? Because he is right as he was this time. He did not mention it until the next day and he took Sherrod’s side in the issue. He discussed it on his radio program but I have not heard the entire clip so I do not know what was said. In any event, the White House was worried about Beck’s TV program. Sherrod confirmed that and so did Howard Dean.

Here is the real issue. Howard Dean is using the game plan that was spelled out by JournoList and Mary Frances Berry. He is calling the Republicans and FOX News racist because they are trying to get that accusation to stick. They want to keep saying it until people believe it. They are lying about racism for political gain. Before it was the NAALCP and now it is a failed candidate named Howard Dean.

The Democrats can be counted on for three reflexive actions. Number one they will reflexively blame George W. Bush for all the ills in the world. Number two, they will cry racism no matter what and they will continue to scream it. They do this not because it is some rampant problem but because they think hurling false accusations is proper even with something as sensitive as racism. And three, they will all reflexively blame FOX News Channel for the bad things in the world even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

And of course, we can always count on Howard Dean to have a stupid moment.

YEEEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA…

Source:
Politico

Never surrender, never submit.

The Alinksy radicals in the White House have worked hard to marginalize FOX News. The Whote House picked a fight with FOX and declared it was not a real news organization. In a piece at Salon, former Obama economic adviser Robert Reich wrote:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side. Big Journalism

The problem with this statement is that FOX News did not exist in 1994.

The radicals will do and say anything to marginalize those seen as the enemy to their agenda. But FOX has the last laugh:

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES., JAN., 26, 2010

FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,581,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,196,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,133,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,624,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,415,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,187,000
CNNHN BEHAR 949,000
CNNHN GRACE 914,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 818,000
CNN KING 796,000
MSNBC MADDOW 726,000

That, as they say, is a good old fashioned ass whoopin’

…as opposed to leftist and unhinged

This says it all:

• FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,526,000
• FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,474,000
• FOXNEWS BECK 2,009,000
• FOXNEWS BAIER 1,871,000
• FOXNEWS GRETA 1,834,000
• FOXNEWS SHEP 1,787,000
• MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,298,000
• MSNBC MADDOW 1,029,000
• CNNHN GRACE 915,000
• CNN COOPER 852,000

Well, it’s coming, there’s going to be a new sheriff in town, and he’s going to want to regulate the Internet in such a way as to ostensibly “protect the public interest”, but in reality, find a way to suck money from the interactions of the internet , whether it’s chat rooms, blogs, or internet commerce. Everything will become regulated, and because it will be regulated, it will also be monitored for threats, for content, and for bias (against the regulators, of course).

I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to be prescient, but with Barama taxing the snot out of everything else, including the 95% he said would get a tax break, it stands to reason that the internet, which has remained like the wild west, relatively free, would fall under his money grubbing scrutiny sooner rather than later. How else does he think he can fund his health care, and begin to muzzle criticism of his policies?

The FCC will soon have a 3-2 Democrat majority.  It’s no secret that two of the Democrats serving on the FCC favor restoring balance to talk radio – in other words, they would move conservatives out and balance them with liberals.  They call it balance and diversity, but whenever government regulates free speech, it is censorship.  Whenever government proscribes a certain amount of speech, it is speech control.  John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave. 

This debate is one of the hottest topics on radio today and with the White House declaration of war on Rush Limbaugh there is almost a fever pitch in Washington by Democrats to take back the airwaves because they think conservatives dominate talk radio and Fox News.  That’s true.  But, we don’t dominate the rest of the media which includes hundreds of NPR stations, the liberal network Air America, dozens of cable news and public affairs channels, dozens of magazines, 1400 newspapers, and tens of thousands of Internet sites. 

On any given day, Americans can get any point of view anywhere which makes the argument for control of American airwaves moot, at best.  Yet, the debate is moving ahead and Democrats are carefully writing language for regulation of our broadcast media.  It is personal for them.  They want to control it all and they want to eliminate conservative views from the media. Big Hollywood

This will of course, include the media known as the Internet- where Barama’s most vociferous critics reside, as well as many of his most ardent supporters. It’s a constant give and take on the blog sites, but how much tamer will it be when the regulators come in and write their rules for this free speech media? How much will this cost to send information or opinion out into the ether?

As it stands right now, the spirited discussion can sometimes get out of hand and off topic, but I know I would rather have that than to be told what to do or say, or how many words I was allotted. This will change, and not for the better if  Skinny B and his Chicago posse get their way.

With Democratic majorities in Congress and a liberal Democratic administration we can blunt the political influence of media conglomerates and the Right. That is why the Republicans and their corporate media sponsors want to destroy Net Neutrality. They know from their experience with talk radio and the creation of Fox News that corporate absorption of the Internet and ending net neutrality would be a propaganda coup.

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation’s political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch’s empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel’s monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Huffington Post

Yep- this is just a start on the Brave, New World of the Liberal- speak. Note that they say that the “fairness doctrine”, or as they speak of it,”Net Neutrality”, in their minds, is being threatened by the big, bad Murdoch and his Fox News, and ownership of the New York Post- because these entities say things Liberals don’t like.  It doesn’t matter that these things are true, they are unpleasant for these lotus- eating libs, and they must be regulated for more “attractive fare” Lovely.

What I find funny is that the author of this article in the Huffington Post, Jim Palermo, feels as though ALL the media is like Fox News- how absurd. a five minute viewing on virtually any other channel would reveal the liberal bias of those networks, but that’s not enough for Skinny B- no, he wants it all, and no criticism of his teleprompter either. Perhaps that is what is behind the creation of his little OTV station. State- run Television- oh boy, doesn’t that send a tingle up YOUR leg?

Liberals are so consumed with (still) trashing any possible revival of the Bush name and all associated with it, that they are almost cross-eyed , like a cat that was dunked in cold water. Any possible network, whether it be radio, TV, or Internet, will be controlled by these people through these laws, so as to silence dissent from any quarter.

But what happens when the libs begin to dissent? As they will- they are so quarrelsome that when there are no voices from the right left to be heard, they will turn on themselves in a remarkable display of backbiting.

That is, if Barama allows them to.

It is no secret that the Lame Stream Media are uber leftists who despise the right. With the exception of Fox News, the balance are so far left they hold up the walls. The liberal media are far from objective and when Obama became the front runner they abandoned all pretense of impartiality and went to bat for the man. They ignored stories, helped him push his lies and they spun any story that needed spinning. Rush Limbaugh calls them stenographers for the Obama administration.

The LSM are great supporters of the right to protest so long as the protest is a leftist group and funded by George Soros. Then it is a worthy cause and must get attention. The gay marriage issue in California received all kinds of media attention when the gays threw sissy fits and held protests because they did not get their way. The LSM could not wait to tell us how unfair it all was. In fact, any time a gay issue results in a protest the LSM is there.

Let pro abortion advocates protest about some worry about losing the right to murder unborn children and the LSM slobbers all over themselves covering the issue. Let some murderer come close to his execution time and liberals protest to keep from frying the guy. Those protests get plenty of news coverage and the LSM is all on the side of the murderer.

Let the right wing organize a grass roots effort to protest something and the LSM either ignores it or insults it. The LSM this week have had a great time bashing the tea parties that took place around the country as hundreds of thousands of people protested government spending and tax increases. The LSM kept using the term tea bagging and had fun with all the sexual innuendo. For those who do not know, tea bagging is a vulgar sexual term. Keith Olberdouche had fun with it as did others. One in particular was the homosexual Anderson Cooper who exclaimed it was hard to talk when you are tea bagging. He should know considering that he plays tea cup to Obama’s Mr. Lipton. However, Cooper seems to be able to speak while servicing the Resident.

The most childish report came from David Shuster who gave an account more fitting for Saturday Night Live than MSNBC though it might be close since one is a comedy and the other a joke. Here is what Shuster passed off as news (it would be helpful if you know the definition of tea bagging before you read this):

DAVID SHUSTER, HOST: For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It‘s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending-spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama‘s tax rates-which will be lower for most of them-and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That‘s teabagging in a nut shell.

Taking its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax in it had not been voted on by their own duly-elected representatives-that‘s exactly the opposite, of course, of today‘s taxes, known in some quarters as taxation with representation.

But as “New York Times” columnist, Paul Krugman, points out today, this time, the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists. As well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped.

Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network‘s executive committee. Neil‘s online bio says he joined the network in July of 1996, three months before the FOX News Channel went on the air.

Cavuto, defending his network‘s proportion of teabagging said, quote, “We are going to be right in middle of these teabaggers, because at FOX, we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March.

Can we roll that footage, the FOX News coverage of the Million Man March backing in October of ‘95?

Of course, the Million Man March occurred, as NewsHounds.org points out, almost a year before FOX News was on the air.

We can only speculate why widespread teabagging made Cavuto think of the Million Man March, unless he got them confused with Dick Armey. And in Cavuto‘s defense, if you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you‘re going to need a Dick Armey. News Busters

This is the contempt that the LSM has for the right in America. They insult us and they are disparaging toward us. They have lost any hint of objectivity. Can you imagine them treating anti war protesters like this? Imagine how they would have reacted if Cindy Sheehan and her band of rag tag morons had been treated this way by Fox.

Do you suppose you would ever hear the LSM treat Code Pink this way?

Of course not. They only have a dislike for the right and they will attack us any chance they get.

However, the good news is that MSNBC has a small audience. Nearly every show on Fox beats EVERY show at MSNBC in the ratings department and often single Fox shows beat all the MSNBC shows COMBINED. There is a reason that people do not watch morons like Olberdouche and Shuster and that is beacuse they are pathetic pukes who should be beaten with a bat. As a disclaimer, I am not inciting anyone to actually do that. I am only stating that they should be beaten, not that anyone actually do it. God knows we don’t want the LSM crying about hate speech.

But, if anyone beat them with bats I would not cry about it and I would certainly understand why.

It isn’t bad enough that Shuster has all the sexual references but he also lies. He claims that the people now protesting Obama did not say anything when Bush spent all that money.

First of all Bush did not spend the money and neither did Obama. The Constitution only allows Congress to spend it. Second of all, we did complain about the out of control spending during the time the Republicans were in charge. I will also point out that the tea parties (I have not heard the word tea bagging used by anyone but the media and a few morons who comment here) were not aimed at Obama. They were largely a right wing effort but there were a number of Democrats involved. These were aimed at government, both parties. These were a sign that we have had enough of all the spending and that the idea of our grandchildren paying the debt is appalling to us. And I will add that no matter what the tax rates were in the past raising taxes during a recession is stupid and will result in worse financial problems.

But, if Shuster wants to get picky, Obama has created a deficit that is many times larger than the one Bush left after 8 years and Obama has done that in 3 months. Obama is sending more than any president in history.

We have had enough and we are not going to take much more of this and we will continue to resist and to protest. As for the LSM, no one expects them to be objective. However, they might think twice about what they will say before venturing out into the crowds where they will have no protection. Though I know the people on the right are well behaved when they protest, you might have to watch for the right wing extremists. You never have to worry about left wing extremist groups at these protests. They prefer to fly planes into buildings.

We never have to worry about Olberdouche and Shuster because they are a couple of limp wristed bed wetters who would never go out where it might be dangerous. They are a couple of cowards. As for Anderson Cooper, he is a puss as well. The only place you will see him is covering protests against doing away with glory holes is San Francisco.

I am rather surprised that the likes of Shuster and the others knew what tea bagging was. They are liberals and liberals are like a batter with an 0-3 count.

No balls.

This is cross posted from Ms. Underestimated. Her heartfelt reaction to Brit Hume’s retirement includes a great video of the tribute.

I watched this through tear-streaked cheeks. This man is one class act. He lead Fox News “Special Report” nightly at 6PM for the evening news. Brit always had a wry, witty smile and quip, and he was such a gentle man. He’s not physically gone, but his presence at 6pm will be sorely missed.

What a moving tribute to him that his staff put together, not to mention the inclusion of his long-time co-worker from ABC, Charlie Gibson.

Like I said… one class act. Brit, you will be missed by all. Tony is also wishing you well, and you know it. I’m glad you’re sticking around for commentary, so we can wean ourselves off of you in your retirement.

And don’t forget… Brit promised, in his retirement, to concentrate on the “3 Gs: Golf, God & Grandkids.” And not in that particular order. What a great man.

Thanks Ms. M for sharing.

The right has been waiting for Barack Obama to screw up during his whirlwind campaign tour overseas and his campaign has been holding its breath hoping that he makes it through without a major gaffe. He has made a few but they have been largely ignored by the media. However, it looks like a gaffe that cannot be ignored came when Obama announced that he was changing his plans and would not be visiting wounded soldiers in Germany. There is one thing a person who wants to be president should never do and that is dis the troops. Soldiers expect their leaders to keep their word so this does not sit well for the guy who wants to lead them. This is the lame excuse for the dis:

During his trip as part of the CODEL to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Obama visited the combat support hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad and had a number of other visits with the troops. For the second part of his trip, the senator wanted to visit the men and women at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice. The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign. Weekly Standard Blog

First of all, it is never a bad thing to visit the troops regardless of who is paying for the trip. Second of all, was only this part of the trip paid for by the campaign? If not then how does he explain visiting troops in the war zone and at the Combat Support Hospital? Also, if Obama is campaigning in America and decides he wants to visit with the troops at Walter Reed, will he not go because his campaign is footing the bill? This is an extremely poor excuse for not visiting the troops because he can go there and visit without campaigning.

Now don’t get me wrong, the troops are probably relieved they do not have to tolerate this snob who has no idea what military service is. However, it is an honor to meet a member of Congress and if he says he is going to visit, he should. Personally, if I were a patient I would tell the staff that he is, under no circumstances, to be allowed in my room. I would let them know if he visited me it would be embarrassing for him and the hospital. I imagine most of the troops felt he was just using them as a campaign prop anyway (even if he did not actively campaign) and are happy he is not coming but one thing they hate is when people break their word. Obama does a lot of that (like lying about what committee he is on and how he voted).

Earlier this year Obama said that he needed to gain the trust of the troops. Breaking his word is not a real good way to do that. At the time he probably felt he needed their votes but since his Democratic buddies in Congress have worked to keep the military vote from counting, Obama probably does not feel he needs to be bothered with them again. Perhaps it is because the troops watch Fox News. There is no chance in hell that Obama will get the military vote. If he gets 10% he will be lucky.

A possible explanation:

NRO reports that Obama changed plans at the last minute when a campaign staffer was informed he would be denied access. Congressional staffers may accompany but there are rules about campaign visits and what rules they must follow. Obama lacked the guts to leave the staffer behind and go visit the troops. Is this the kind of leadership he wants to show the troops? This also begs the question, did this staffer (or any others) accompany him to his visits with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

My suggestion to my military comrades out there, if offered the opportunity to meet with the guy, just decline. Better yet, say you will and then cancel at the last minute. If they force you to visit with him, bring a basketball. He likes when soldiers hand him one and the media instantly drools when he makes a shot outside the paint. That should provide lots of entertainment.

Barack Obama is not fit to lead the fine men and women who serve in our armed forces. Let’s see to it that he never gets the chance.

UPDATE 1:
Blackfive has a post about how Obama actually treated the troops. It is very enlightening.

UPDATE 2:
The Obama sent out an email soliciting donations. The email was about his speech in Berlin, you know, the one that was not a political speech. Anyone with brains knew what that speech was (why would his campaign pay for that part of the trip if it were not for the political campaign) and they are trying to make money off it. Jake Tapper has the story including the Obama camp’s attempt to say that this was not a solicitation for money (despite the big DONATE button that leads to a donation page).

Barack Obama’s website takes issue with the Fox and Friends morning show and the fact that they spent a great deal of time discussing the use of the phrase “typical white person” which Obama used to describe his grandmother. Chris Wallace was on air to promote his Sunday show and took the time to say he disagreed with the attention that Fox and Friends had shown with regard to this one item. The campaign wrote on its site:

We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage of Senator Obama.

Senator Obama gave the speech he did on Tuesday because he believes that Americans are ready for a thoughtful, mature discussion about race, and are hungry to move past media-generated controversies that distract from the struggles they face in their everyday lives.

If Fox News wants to play clips of the same offensive sound bites every day from now until November, that’s their right, but that type of coverage does a disservice to their viewers and to a nation that is facing serious challenges that merit thoughtful and honest reporting.

As I stated before, Obama has a lot of issues with Fox News but when the story about Pastor Wright was in full swing Obama went on Fox to discuss the issue. He knows that he will need white voters to win the general election and some of them will have to be conservatives, the audience that Fox has. So Obama had no problem with using Fox to his advantage. Now that the network airs Obama’s statements and discusses them, he again has issues with the network.

There is nothing wrong with discussing what Obama said. He made a racist remark about white people whether he intended to or not. Many white people have lost jobs and careers because of a statement that was not intended to be racist but was perceived that way. Race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton see to it that the black sensitivities are known to all even when they are promoting lies to advance their agendas.

Suppose for a moment if someone had asked Hillary Clinton what she thought about Pastor Wright’s statements and she replied with; “well, he is a typical black guy so he is going to feel that way.”

Anyone who thinks that a statement like that would go unchallenged is living in a fantasy world. The race baiters would be screaming bloody murder and demanding that Hillary apologize and abandon her presidential aspirations. Obama makes a racist statement, intended or not, and then cries foul when he is taken to task for it. To Obama this is a media generated controversy. The media did not tell Wright what to say and the media did not make a typical white (or black) remark. Wright and Obama are the ones who are solely responsible for the statements and the controversy associated with them. Obama can try to deflect the blame but the blame for what he said rests on his shoulders.

Read more

Others:
Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Beauty Stop, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, , The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Democrats have not been very Fox friendly in that they have refused to participate in any debates sponsored by the network. Only Democrats in the throes of death or trying to recover from some gaff have made any appearances on the Fox network. Barack Obama froze out all Fox reporters for a report that the network aired in January 2007 about Obama attending a madrassa. The story said Obama attended an extremist madrassa and he took offense because it put him in the Muslim league, a place he started in with his daddy. In any event, Obama did not want anything to do with Fox News and the balance of the Democrats decided that they did not want to debate on Fox opting for more liberal friendly networks like MSNBC or CNN. It should be noted that Republicans have not refused to debate on any network. Which party is afraid?

Interestingly, it appears as if Fox News now serves a purpose to the new Messiah of the Democratic Party. Obama refused to appear there since very early last year and he has refused to allow Fox reporters to interview him but now he is having a bit of trouble because of his racist pig pastor and where does he turn to try to straighten this out? Why Fox News of course. The story of the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright has spread around like wild fire. He hates America, is Afro-centric, blames whites for all the woes in the black community and he called on God to damn this nation. Obama has been going to this church for 20 years, Wright married Obama and Michelle and Obama baptized their children and that means that Obama is part of the church and its beliefs. Obama has never repudiated those beliefs before other than to say he did not agree with a few remarks made by Wright. Now that the tapes of Wright have gotten attention people are not happy with his Islamofascist like hatred for America and his racist remarks about whites.

Read more…

Others:
Stop the ACLU | The Amboy Times | Blog-o-Fascists | Church and State | Right Wing News

Sources:
Breitbart (Fox interview)
CBS
ABC
Washington Post