Kudos to FrankStrategiesfor exposing the breathtaking hypocrisy of these left-wing women in Congress. Neither Congresswoman was willing to condemn Bill Maher for his offensive treatment of conservative women.
Democratic Congresswomen Sheila Jackson Leeand Jan Schakowskyrepeatedly refuse to condemn Bill Maher’s crude comments that former Gov. Sarah Palin is a “c*nt” and a “dumb twat.” They also refuse to call for President Obama’s SuperPAC to return Maher’s $1 million contribution to the President’s re-election effort.
Did you notice how amenable to an interview Shakowsky seemed when the name “Limbaugh” was first brought up? He briefly had her attention – until she saw where he was going with his questioning – then she turned tail and skedaddled.
If it takes private citizens to go out and do the media’s job for them, so be it.
The Oversight Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow at 9:30 AM entitled, “Food Stamp Fraud as a Business Model: USDA’s Struggle to Police Store Owners.” The hearing will examine the pervasiveness of fraud on the part of retailers participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as the food stamp program. Additionally, the Committee will examine steps taken by USDA to address the systemic weaknesses in fraud prevention efforts.
It will be webcast live here and more hearing information is available here.
Earlier today, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith announced on Twitter that video researcher Andrew Kaczynski had released “the mysterious Harvard/Obama/race video that the Breitbart folks have been talking about.”
Wow, I wonder how long they’ve had the video in their possession? One week? Two weeks? Four years? Gosh – It almost seems timed to steal Breitbart’s thunder – as the Bigs were set to release the video in about a week.
Are we sure Journolist hasn’t reconstituted itself?
Breitbart.com’s Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak reports that the video has been selectively edited–“either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself.”
Here’s the edited version:
The most impressive thing about that video is the fact that Obama was speaking extemporaneously – without a teleprompter.
Prof. Derrick Bell, the man Obama was lauding, is a radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright.
Derrick Bell is a professor at the New York University School of Law. Born in 1930, Bell may be considered the founder, or at least the godfather, of “Critical Race Theory,” an academic tradition in which race plays the same role as class in the Marxist paradigm. In the mid-1970s Bell was a pioneer in the field. He was not only angered by what he viewed as the slow progress of racial reform in the United States, but he also held that the gains brought about by the civil rights laws of the 1960s were being eroded in the 1970s.
Bell believed then, as he does to this day, that whites would support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status. Since Bell maintains that racial minorities are a permanently oppressed caste — and that racism is a normal, permanent aspect of American life — he reasons that equality before the law is unfair to blacks, whose moral claims are superior to those of whites. He has endorsed a journal dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness,” called Race Traitor, whose motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”
According to Professor Bell and his fellow Critical Race theorists, existing legal structures are, like American society at large, racist in their very construction. Critical Race Theory suggests that to combat this “institutional racism,” oppressed racial groups have both the right and the duty to decide for themselves, which laws are valid and are worth observing. Critical Race Theory also promotes the use of storytelling narratives in law-review articles to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience. Bell has used the technique of placing legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters extensively in his writings. While acknowledging that this “style of storytelling” is “less rigorous than the doctrine-laden, citation-heavy law review pieces,” he employs it nonetheless.
How is it that someone with such toxic views is allowed access to young minds?
A few of Professor Bell’s more notable quotes (all of them from his 1992 book Faces at the Bottom of the Well) on the subject of race include the following:
“Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color.”
“[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead . . . and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded.”
“… few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
“[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.'”
“We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
“Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
“Black people will never gain full equality in this country. … African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
“Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”
Joel Pollak and Ben Shapiro appeared on The Sean Hannity Show, this afternoon to discuss the tape.
The full tape will be released tonight on Fox News’ Hannity.
“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama’s mentor said “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” As more is uncovered about Prof. Derrick Bell and his radical views, it will become clear why Prof. Ogletree wanted this video hidden.
This is nothing more than the left-wing media attempting to get out in front of and define Breitbart’s story (though this isn’t the full story) through a controlled explosion before it’s fully told. Because what Ben Smith and the rest of Obama’s Palace Guards don’t want you to know is just who Derrick Bell, the man Barack Obama called “the Rosa Parks of legal education,” really is.
UPDATE II:
I was under the impression that the full tape would be released tonight, but it appears that Breitbart had set this up for a slow roll out. Naturally, lefties on Twitter are triumphantly calling tonight’s event a nothingburger – which is easy to do, if you’re not willing to examine the story – A future President of the United States on tape 20 years ago – raving about and embracing a radical professor who teaches a toxic form of Marxist racial theory that poisons young minds. His mentor, Harvard’s Charles Ogletree admitting that he kept the video hidden from the public in 2008, a protective instinct, we know he shares with most of the MSM – and now Ben Smith of Buzzfeed – racing to get ahead of the story with a clumsily edited video (watch again at :23 – hello?!) in order to blunt the blow of Breitbart’s roll-out.
UPDATE III:
I was still confused, but am slowly figuring it out….Ben Shapiro over at Big Governmentexplains that the footage of Obama hugging the professor was “spliced and diced by the media” in 2008 to avoid exposing just how close Obama was to Bell.
It’s what Obama’s allies did not want you to see, and what Breitbart found, and aired, last night.
And it is damaging, because Barack Obama was as close or closer to Derrick Bell than he ever was to Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn’t merely sit in the pews – or not — for Derrick Bell. He didn’t just hang out with Derrick Bell for prayers. He said:
“Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”
There’s far more coming on Derrick Bell. This is just the beginning. And this video is a smoking gun showing that Barack Obama not only associated with radicals, he was their advocate.
With that missing clip, the video is, I believe, is complete.
As I keep saying, the cynical Democrat election year ploy of labeling Republican reactions to Obama’s contraception mandate as a Republican “War on Women” is deeply disingenuous and absurd on it’s face. Half of the people who make up the Republican party are women, and (just like the men!), we don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for people’s birth control. We also think it’s a shocking violation of religious liberties for the federal government to force individuals and organizations to buy a product that violates their conscience. That is what the debate is about. It has nothing to do with women’s rights.
After 30 year old reproductive rights activist, Sandra Fluke, testified before Congress to make the case that religious institutions should pay for her contraception needs, Rush went a little overboard to draw attention to the absurdity of it all.
Since she was basically arguing that someone else should pay for her to have sex – to the tune of $1,000 a year, Rush called her a prostitute and a slut. He has since apologized for stooping to the level of discourse more typical of the left. He really should be above that.
But the left’s outrage over one radio personality’s inappropriate comments and their Stalinesque attempt to drum him off the air must be addressed. The orchestrated anti-Rush media campaign has predictably led to multiple death threats against the popular radio host.Because the unhinged left responds to dog whistles, and for the past week the the Dem Media complex has been blowing the whistle on Rush.
What is the point of the HuffPo publishing pieces like this? The only effect will be to make people complacent about the beating of women in Islam, instead of calling the Muslim community to account and demanding they act to stop this or face prosecution. Does Ariana want Muslim women to get beaten up?
They don’t care. Standing up for Muslim women won’t win them any votes. But attacking conservatives gets the left-wing base all excited.
There has been a war on women in this country, but it’s a war on conservative women as Michelle Malkin rightly notes:
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)
Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly f**kable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”
And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.
But it’s really not. It’s merely a common, left-wing past-time.
The Media Research Center has been tracking the the left’s hatred and bile for years. That DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz pretends to act shocked and dismayed over Limbaugh’s comment’s, while ignoring the more serious offenses of her allies in the media tells you all you have to know about her true motives.
What is funny is that Schultz’s disapproval came less than two months after she appeared on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” program on HBO. Unconstrained by broadcast decency codes and advertising, Maher and guests lash out at conservative women in some of the nastiest language and sexual imagery imaginable.
In September, 2011, Maher was talking about Texas Gov. Rick Perry and decided to throw in a vulgar Sarah Palin joke: “He sounded like a sixth grader who didn’t do the reading. Garbled syntax, messing up simple facts, sentences that went nowhere. Sarah Palin was watching and she said, ‘If only he was black, I’d fuck him.’”
That was actually pretty mild for Maher. In March, 2011, he called Palin a “dumb twat.” The same month, according to the Dallas Voice, at a public appearance in Texas, Maher called Palin a “cunt” and said “there’s just no other word for her.”
In October 2011, Maher said that if conservative pundit Michelle Malkin were told of how much killing President Obama had ordered without knowing anything else about him she’d “name her vibrator ‘Obama.’”
While some say Maher is a comic who says a lot of outrageous things as part of his routine, he’s a regular guest on CNN.
Beating up on Bachmann
Few conservative women seem to raise the left’s hackles more than Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. The former candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has been called “Barbie with Fangs,” and “Crazy Eyes,” and she’s been accused of being “hypnotized” and “the Mata Hari of Minnesota” by none other than Chris Matthews.
Bachmann has been a frequent target for HBO’s Maher, but also for his guests. In July, 2011, former Air America comedian Marc Maron said of Bachmann’s husband, I hope he fucks her angrily because, because that’s how I would. And I’ve thought about it. I just … It’s a political statement I’m trying to make.”
Liberal radio host Mike Malloy thrilled his dozens of audience members in May 2010 by calling Bachmann a “phony-ass broad” and a “skank.”
Rolling Stone Magazine’s Matt Taibbi penned a 5,000-word hit piece on Bachmann in June 2011. He called her a “batshit crazy” “political psychopath” with a “gigantic set of burnished titanium Terminator-testicles swinging under her skirt.”
If you Can’t Beat ‘em, Slime ‘em
Taibbi has another distinction when it comes to conservative women – back in 2009 he launched an almost unbelievably vile, hateful sexual attack on pundit Michelle Malkin.
In a Tax Day 2009 blog post, Taibbi claimed he was “really enjoying this whole teabag thing” and that “it’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming” that involved Malkin in incredibly vulgar ways.
“[T]his move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before,” he wrote. “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy, set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
In the same piece, Taibbi said of conservative author Ann Coulter “When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would fuck a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating.”
Keep reading.
A small sampling of left-wing bile was compiled for this video mash-up:
To sum up – there is no Republican war against women. Republican opposition to left-wing policies that left-wing women support does not constitute a “war” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a patently absurd, and transparently deceptive argument for the left to make.
There HAS been a war against conservative women (and conservative blacks) for some time now because we refuse to accept the left’s false narratives. And now, there is also a war against the Catholic church, which is being manifested in actual government policies.
Don’t accept the false narratives of the Democrat media complex.
Limbaugh opened his program today explaining the inside baseball of radio advertising. There is a difference between local advertisers, whose dollars do not go to Limbaugh at all, and national advertisers — like Carbonite. Media Matters — and I debatedMedia Matters’ guy Eric Bohlert yesterday on KQED in San Francisco — deliberately misleads, and knows it, since it surely understands the difference in revenue streams between local and national advertisers.
Limbaugh also announced that new national sponsors are lining up to replace those who left — and notably, that there are at least two who want back in. In fact are “begging” to do so.
MORE evidence (as if it were needed) that Democrats are not serious about improving public discourse:
Nice Deb 