Bill O'Reilly Catches Al Sharpton In Another Deceptive Video Edit: 'They Don't Come Lower'

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly kicked off his show Monday night clarifying his statements from last week about Nelson Mandela being a great man, but also a communist. In particular, O’Reilly took on MSNBC hosts Al Sharpton and Karen Finney for what he called a gross distortion of his words.

O’Reilly said it should be honestly acknowledged Mandela has “Marxist leanings,” but wasn’t exactly that surprised that Sharpton, a “dishonest purveyor of information,” would distort what he said. He hit Sharpton for taking his comments out of context, and took on Finney for accusing O’Reilly of not actually going to the neighborhood of Soweto. O’Reilly showed a picture of him in Soweto and demanded Finney apologize.

But he didn’t hold his breath for the “flat-out deceivers” of MSNBC, charging that the network is too “afraid” of Sharpton to discipline him when he does stuff like this. O’Reilly argued he only brought up Mandela’s ideology to make the point that you need to honor good people “even when you disagree with their philosophy” and you shouldn’t allow people like Sharpton to “exploit situations for their own gain.”

RELATED:  SNL Knocks Incoherent Al Sharpton

Barneys' 'Racism' Threatens Jay-Z's Street Cred

Townhall.com:

"World War II Vets Under Attack by Blacks." Can you imagine such a headline in The New York Times -- or anywhere else, except perhaps some in underground racist tract? But for the second time in three months, an 80-plus-year-old WWII veteran was murdered by black suspects. 

In Washington, 88-year-old Delbert Belton, who fought and took a bullet to the leg at the Battle of Okinawa, was beaten to death by two black teen suspects. The motive? Police describe the killing as a random attack. 

In Mississippi, 87-year-old Lawrence E. Thornton, a WWII vet who served as a Navy fireman on a minesweeper, was beaten to death by four black suspects. The motive was robbery. Even if the vets were racially targeted -- and there is no evidence that they were -- it would be absurd to say that white World War II vets "are under attack" by "black people" because of the bad behavior of some individuals who happen to be black. 

Yet this is the reasoning the Rev. Jesse Jackson applied following the black teen's death in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Jackson, angry when he heard the news of Martin's death, said, "Blacks are under attack." 

This brings us to the accusation of "blatant prejudice and discrimination" by the upscale department store, Barneys New York. In February, plainclothes NYPD cops stopped a black woman and falsely accused her of credit card fraud after she bought a $2,500 Celine handbag. The shopper filed a "notice of claim," announcing her intention to sue. And in April, a black shopper used a debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt. He, too, was falsely accused of fraud. 

Now things get even more interesting. 

Rapper and hip-hop mogul Jay-Z had entered into a deal with Barneys. A Jay-Z curated, limited-edition collection of designer clothes and accessories rolls out this holiday season, with part of the proceeds going to charity. A hyper left-wing organization called Color of Change put out an "open letter" appealing to Jay-Z. Another group, Change.org, set up an online petition that calls on Jay-Z to denounce Barneys' "blatant prejudice and discrimination." Some Jay-Z fans now call him a "sell-out" and "Uncle Tom" for giving cover to a racist institution for money. Through his website, Jay-Z said that before he reacted with "emotion," he wanted to get the "facts." Enter the Rev. Al Sharpton, who never lets "facts" get between him and a race card. 

Sharpton, of course, shot to fame by falsely accusing a white man of raping a black teenager; was in the middle of the Crown Heights riots ("If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house"); once called the black mayor of New York an "N-word whore"; and spoke of whites moving into Harlem as "interlopers" and Jews as "diamond merchants." He steps in to calm the waters?! 

"Some people want to make this about Jay-Z," Sharpton told reporters, "No, this is about Barneys first." 

He demanded Barneys "bring the data" to prove that when expensive purchases are made, the store investigates white and minority shoppers equally. Barneys, warned Sharpton, better gather the information quickly and not use the busy holiday season as an excuse. "We'll march all the way down to your store," said Sharpton. "I'll serve turkey right on the corner." 

For race hustlers and the eternally aggrieved, Barneys did not unfairly treat a handful of shoppers. No, it's an institutional problem. Anecdotes equal evidence. The election and reelection of President Barack Obama has not stopped so-called "civil rights leaders" from treating America like it's still the back-of-the-bus '50s. For those who argue racism remains a deep and persistent problem, consider this. 

Attorney Johnnie Cochran argued that the LAPD had it out for O.J. Simpson because, according to Cochran, Simpson broke the final taboo by marrying a blond, blue-eyed white woman. 

A few years ago, "Desperate Housewives" ran a sex-themed promo during Monday Night Football. It featured blond actress Nicollette Sheridan and prominent football wide-receiver Terrell Owens. Clad only in a white towel, Sheridan teased and flirted with Owens. The Federal Communications Commission claimed it received 50,000 complaint letters -- a tiny amount compared to total viewership. But a Freedom of Information request discovered that, in fact, the FCC received fewer than 2,000 letters, with less than 100 -- or less than 5 percent of that total -- saying anything about race. 

Let's do the numbers. Out of 17,000,000 viewers, 2,000 bothered to write. Of that, only 100 complained about the promo being racially offensive. That comes to about 5 percent of the .01 percent that wrote -- or a little over .0005 percent of viewers.

Now the discriminated Barneys' customers have already sought legal counsel. Barneys has announced an investigation. Without waiting for the results, Barneys' CEO issued an apology. To ensure that the store keeps its "commitment to fairness and equality" and "zero tolerance for any form of discrimination," Barneys has retained a respected "civil rights expert."

Just tell us it isn't Sharpton.

RELATED: Black customers claim discrimination by Barneys New York, police

Ted Cruz Tells Trayvon’s Mother Why Stand Your Ground Laws Can’t Possibly Be ‘Racist’

Mediaite.com:

Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmermanin early 2012, appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday for a hearing regarding the controversial “Stand Your Ground” laws. When it came time for Sen.Ted Cruz (R-TX) to speak at the hearing, he informed the still-grieving mother that Stand Your Ground laws actually benefit African-Americans as much as, if not more than, they do whites.

Cruz began by offering his condolences for Fulton’s loss, but quickly moved on to defend the trial by jury process that found Zimmerman not guilty of murder. He also noted, correctly, that the “subject of this hearing, the Stand Your Ground laws, was not a defense that Mr. Zimmerman raised. So this entire hearing–the topic of this hearing–is not the issue on which that trial turned.” 

Though Zimmerman’s defense team did not end up using Stand Your Ground, it did come out during the trial that Zimmerman was likely aware of the law’s protections when he shot Martin. “We know that some in our political process have a desire to exploit that tragic, violent incident for agendas that have nothing to do with that young man who lost his life,” Cruz continued. “We have seen efforts to undermine the verdict of the jury and, more broadly, to inflame racial tensions that I think are sad and irresponsible.”  

Then, Cruz got to one of his primary points, which concerned that effect of Stand Your Ground laws on African-American communities. He rejected the notion, put forward earlier in the hearing that “no one could reasonably believe that Stand Your Ground laws protect those in the African-American communities who are victims of violent crimes.” 

He found that idea particularly remarkable since “a great many African-Americans find themselves victims of violent crime and have asserted this defense to defend themselves, defend their families, defend their children.”  

Cruz also cited the fact that “in 2004 a state senator in Illinois by the name of Barack Obama co-sponsored an expansion of Illinois’ law providing civil immunity for those who use justifiable force to defend themselves” as evidence that similar laws could not possibly be racially biased. “The notion that stand your ground laws are some form of veiled racism may be a convenient political attack,” he said, “but it is not borne out by the facts remotely.”   

RELATED:  Trayvon Martin’s Mother Responds to Ted Cruz’s Stand Your Ground Remarks

Harlem Pastors Join Forces To Oust Al Sharpton

Tired of powerful ambulance-chaser, hypocrite, fraudster, criminal, sellout, serial liar, white liberal agenda advocate, racial huckster, Obamabot, MSNBC host and "gay rights" supporter Al Sharpton garnering all the local attention from the mainstream press, while ignoring the real plights plaguing the black community, some Harlem pastors have come together to speak truth to "Reverend" Al Sharpton's ignorane and end his long run as 'Speaker of the Black Community':

Four pastors lobbying for change in the Harlem community of Manhattan, N.Y., have gone on the warpath with civil rights leader and religious minister the Rev. Al Sharpton and have invited more than 100 churches to join them in dethroning him from his political seat for his failure to lead on local issues.

"While (Sharpton) is jet-setting around the country, people are going to our churches saying they don't have money to eat," Pastor Johnnie Green, 51, of Mount Neboh Baptist Church on Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard told the New York Daily News. "People need somebody to fight for them."

As a result of the situation, Greene and several other pastors in the community have banded together to create a coalition of black ministers called Speak Out Say It Loud, which seeks to build a united African American power base with citywide influence.

The coalition, which includes Carl Washington of New Mount Zion Baptist Church on W. 140th Street, Kris Erskine of Bethany Baptist Church on W. 153rd Street and Patrick Young of First Baptist Church of East Elmhurst, Queens, will be pushing their gospel of rebellion at a rally slated for Oct. 24, according to a Facebook event page.

"We are the church and our voice shall be heard to the benefit of our community. Join more than 100 pastors and congregations assembling at the Mount Neboh Baptist Church to Speak Out about the deplorable conditions of our community and the injustice against our people. The church is still the church and with God we have miraculous power," read the announcement on the page.

The ministers, who expect about 1,500 people to show up for the event, said Sharpton is nothing more than a personality who has been spending more time promoting his new book, The Rejected Stone and his show on MSNBC.

"Sharpton isn't a community organizer. He's a personality," Raymond Blanchette, head bishop of the United Churches for Kingdom Building told the New York Daily News.

But the seasoned political minister charged that there was no need for a fight: "We need to attack the issues, not each other," Sharpton told the News. "If you want to be the big guy, be the big guy, be that. Don't act like I'm not doing anything local. I am."

"I run a civil rights organization," Sharpton added. "They're not going to do what I do. ... I don't run a church organization."

RELATED:  During Heated Interview, Sharpton Explodes on GOP Rep. Over Shutdown: ‘You’re in Denial!’

Cornel West Calls Al Sharpton A ‘Bonafide House Negro of the Obama Plantation’

Heh heh. Conservatives should always remember to give Dr. West and Tavis Smiley the credit they deserve for standing up to the bullies on the professional Left and daring to publicly criticize Barack Obama's Godless, pro-gay agenda:

Public intellectual Cornel West tore into this week’s speeches surrounding the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s “I Have a Dream” speech as lacking in “truth,” blasting speakers like President Obama and Rev. Al Sharpton as having given a “sanitized” verison of Dr. King’s vision.

“Brother Martin himself, I think, would’ve been turning over in his grave,” West said of the event. “[King would have wanted] people to talk about Wall Street criminality, he wants people to talk about war crimes, or drones dropping bombs on innocent people,” he asserted.

“Instead,” he lamented, “we saw the coronation of the bonafide house negro of the Barack Obama plantation, our dear brother Al Sharpton.” West then declared that Sharpton’s decline was “supported by [MSNBC analyst] Michael Dyson and others who’ve prostituted themselves in a very ugly and vicious way.” 

West and his co-host Tavis Smiley both lamented that black leadership has become “so sold-out” so as not to have the courage to be a “bull in the china shop,” break rank, and talk about “racism, poverty, and militarism” at an otherwise “bought-out” event.

This is not the first time West has referred to Sharpton as being “on the Obama plantation.” The radio host made the same claim in July when he felt Sharpton did not advocate hard enough for a Department of Justice “civil rights” prosecution against the recently-acquitted George Zimmerman.

RELATED:  Rush Limbaugh: Liberals Turning Dr. King Into ‘Billboard,’ ‘Advertisement’ for Their Agenda

Where’s the Outrage From Al Sharpton, Barack Obama and Liberal Celebrities on Chris Lane?

Considering the horrid circumstances along with the alleged reason they did it, I think it's a fair question:

On Wednesday morning, the Fox and Friends crew asked where Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and President Barack Obama were regarding the shooting of Chris Lane—the Australian ballplayer who was gunned down in Oklahoma recently by three teens where were “bored”—as “every time there’s something like this that happens, they always weigh in.”

“Right now, we’re going to go to a live shot of Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton,” Brian Kilmeade said, and then staged-freezed for a shot that never appeared. 

“Oh, wait, we don’t have it,” said guest host Anna Kooiman. “Why don’t we have it? Because they haven’t come forward and said anything. Are they going to? Will they? And should they?”

“We heard a lot from them during the Trayvon Martin situation,” Steve Doocy said. “Allen West has tweeted, quote, ‘We were bored and decided to kill somebody. Three black teens shoot white jogger. Who will President of the United States identify with this time?’ Excellent point. I wonder when celebrities are going to put on ‘I Am Chris Lane’ t-shirts?”

“Like Jamie Foxx?” Kilmeade offered.

“You think that stuff is going to happen?” Doocy asked. “Or is there once again, as we have talked about many times, a double standard regarding things like this?”

RELATED:  If Barack Obama Had a Son, Would He Look Like Chris Lane?

1987 Rape-Hoaxer Tawana Brawley Finally Ordered To Pay Up For Lying

Led by notorious race-baiters Al Sharpton, C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox, Tawana Brawley, a young and loose, black teenager being raised by a single parent in the suburbs of New York City, made national headlines when she was a found in a garbage bag covered with feces and accused at least three white men of abducting and sexually assaulting her. One of the three men Brawley accused of raping her was Steven Pagones, at the time a married assistant district attorney.

Of course, like files to honey, the liberal media and celebrities like Bill Cosby jumped all over Brawley and Shapton's story with the NYTimes (which doesn't give a damn about everyday, black-on-black crime) at the forefront--all the while spoon-feeding and stoking tension in an urban community that white liberals desperately need for votes.

Later, a subsequent investigation would find Brawley's story to be a fabrication, a tale concocted to cover up her late-night escapades and fear of beatings from her stepfather, a man who had fatally shot his ex-wife. And while Brawley would get her life together and later become a nurse (Sharpton would move on to more scandals and now hosts his own show on the far-Left news channel MSNBC), after he was falsely accused of rape, Pagones' life would never be the same as he lost both his wife and his job.

However, in 1998, Pagones did win a defamation suit against Brawley (who still has never publicly admitted to her lie), which has grown to $431,492 with interest due to Brawley's lack of payments. That is, until this year when a Virginia court ordered Brawley's employer, The Laurels of Bon Air nursing home in Richmond, to garnish her wages:

A black woman who set off a racial firestorm after claiming she was raped by a gang of white law enforcement officials in 1987 has begun making defamation payments to a man she falsely accused.

Tawana Brawley was 15 when she reported being raped in New York. A grand jury concluded Brawley's story was a hoax.

The New York Post reports (http://bit.ly/14USZiy) Brawley has paid just over $3,700 to former county prosecutor Steven Pagones. Pagones won a claim against her and her advisers, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, after he was named as an attacker.

Brawley was initially ordered to pay $190,000 but now owes more than $400,000 with interest.
She now lives in Virginia and works as a nurse. Her parents have insisted Brawley's claim of being raped was true.

RELATED: Pay-up time for Brawley: '87 rape-hoaxer finally shells out for slander

CNN’s Don Lemon Backs Up Bill O’Reilly: ‘He Doesn’t Go Far Enough’ In Criticizing Black Culture

Shocker:

Bill O’Reilly’s remarks on race last week drew heavy criticism from Chris Hayes, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, Larry Wilmore, and more, but one unlikely person is agreeing with him: CNN host Don Lemon.

Lemon addressed the wounds inflicted by black males onto their community on his “No Talking Points” segment Saturday afternoon, saying he was able to bring this up now that the George Zimmerman trial had concluded. Before the verdict, right wing media had consistently asked why the “liberal media” was fixating on Trayvon Martin while ignoring rampant black-on-black violence, a “deflection,” in Lemon’s words, from the injustices of the Martin shooting. But now that Zimmerman had been acquitted, it was time “for some tough love on the subject.”

Lemon played a clip of O’Reilly stating, “The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African American family…Raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that. Again, it is a personal decision.” 

“Bill’s got a point,” Lemon said. “In fact, he’s got more than a point…In my estimation, he doesn’t go far enough.”

Lemon then listed five essential reforms black men need to make in their lives in order to improve themselves and their communities: hike up their pants, remove the n-word from their vocabulary, take care of their communities, finish high school, and lower the rate of children born out of wedlock.

“More than 72% of children in the African Americans are born out of wedlock,” Lemon said. “Studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues.”

“Please, pay attention to and think about what has been presented in recent history as aceptable behavior,” Lemon finished. “Pay close attention to the hip hop and rap culture that many of you embrace, a culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned, thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich—just not you. And it’s not going to.”

“That said, though, the political right is not off the hook.” Lemon played a clip of Kirsten Powers remarking on how convenient it was the conservative media only cares about black violence when they can use it to “stick it to the black community.”

RELATED: O’Reilly To Geraldo: ‘I Don’t Care’ If Black People Feel Like I’m ‘Stereotyping’ Them

Joe Scarborough Blasts Conservative Media: Don’t ‘Antagonize’ Black Voters ‘Just Because You Hate Al Sharpton’

He's right. Some conservatives do not believe in compromise, much less have a 'gray area'. These people are extremists and they exist on both the Left and the Right. While the Left has far more extremists than does the Right, both sides hurt their cause due to their blatant self-righteousness (i.e. ignorance) refuses to allow them to admit to being wrong, even when the facts stare at them in the face. Granted, in the case of George Zimmerman, conservatives who believe his trial was race-motivated and nothing but another attempt by white liberals to play the race card, do have a point. And sure, there are many conservatives who believe that no matter hard they try, they will never win over black Americans, esp. those who knowingly choose 'victimhood' and government aide over hard work, family values and education. Hence their hate/anger at the race-baiters on the Left. But still, a little empathy here, at least, for two parents who lost their child:

You know it’s bad when you’re looking back fondly on Richard Nixon’s share of the minority vote.

That was Joe Scarborough’s point when he linked the conservative press’ coverage of the Trayvon Martin story to the GOP’s inability to break into double-digits with African American voters. 

“Why is it that Republicans, certain elements of our party, seem to go out of their way to inflame minority voters?” Scarborough asked his panel Tuesday morning. “I know I can count on conservative outlets to have a one-sided view, and to talk about how a dead boy had it coming, and he was on marijuana, he was on pot, he was this, he was that…I would like in my lifetime for the Republican Party to get more than six percent of the African American vote.”

“It wasn’t always this way,” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said. “Republicans used to get a huge chunk of African American vote. Now they don’t.”

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele argued that the possible gains in minority votes were so slim, whatever the reason, that the GOP had little incentive to chase them. “Can we put on the table getting more than six percent is not going to happen in the next four years?” Steele said. “Even if those same voices you’re alluding to, Joe, had come out and were reasonable in their response as opposed to extreme in their response in some cases, there’s still a heck of a lot more that needs to be done than just saying something nice or politically correct in the Trayvon Martin case.”

Both Steele and Robinson agreed that stereotypes were in play, but Robinson made the point that with a conservative electorate growing whiter and whiter with each demographic shift, conservative outlets had even more reason to tailor coverage to racially-specific expectations.

“I have a suggestion: just because Al Sharpton is doing something and you hate Al Sharpton, doesn’t mean you help your party or your cause by going in the complete opposite direction,” Scarborough said. “Maybe sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Maybe sometimes conservative outlets should sit back and not purposefully antagonize African Americans.”

Steele argued that the spin was spun on both sides. “It’s easier to fall into the stereotype and continue to project that than to actually sit back and recognize the reality that racism is still a sinister part of the culture and environment that African Americans, and quite frankly a lot of Americans, still have to live in,” Steele said. “It’s easier to project outward that that just doesn’t exist, because ‘I’m not that way, therefore anyone who brings this up must somehow be trying to stoke these flames, et cetera.’ I think it happens on both the right and left. I watched, as you did, to my great frustration, some on our network as well as other networks, stoke the flames in different directions, raising up images of the past with no linkage at all to the case.”

RELATED:  Jimmy Carter Agrees With Zimmerman Verdict: ‘Jury Made The Right Decision’

Ann Coulter Shreds George Zimmerman Coverage: Media Wants To Show Racist U.S. Is ‘Trying To Rape And Murder Black People’

Mediaite.com:

Ann Coulter sat down with Sean Hannity tonight lambasting the way the mainstream media has been covering the George Zimmerman murder trial since if began mere weeks ago. Both of them agreed that the media proclaimed Zimmerman guilty long before the trial began and overplayed the racial angle, while Coulter compared this case to the Duke Lacrosse rape case from a few years ago, saying that the media’s trying to tell the public here that “racist America is out trying to rape and murder black people.”

Coulter proclaimed that liberals always “gin up the racial demagoguery” in cases like this, and doubted anyone would have cared about the trial if the races were reversed. She compared the Zimmerman trial to the Duke Lacrosse case that was also hyped up in the media to explain why this particular case is getting so much attention.

“They need their fake cause of how racist America is out trying to rape and murder black people.”

She also found it ludicrous that a lot of the media coverage seems to assume that Zimmerman has to prove “he did not engage in racial profiling,” because it’s not a crime to do so, and added that Trayvon Martin never even needed to lift a finger for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger.

Hannity added it bothers him that it looks like the prosecution started out by overcharging and are only now putting out lower charges with the hope that the jury “cuts the difference.”

RELATED: Geraldo: Al Sharpton And ‘Race Politics’ Forced Florida To Pursue ‘Weak’ Case Against Zimmerman

Former Al Sharpton Linchpin Tawana Brawley Still Refuses To Pay For Rape Lie

While the liberal media continues to cover for all of MSNBC host Al Sharpton's great sins of the past, conservatives can well recall one of his greatest trespasses. That of adviser and mentor to Tawana Brawley, the young, black woman who falsely accused a group of white men of abducting and then raping her back in 1987. The case brought national media attention and racial tension to the New York City's tri-state area. But after a grand jury refused to indict the men, including Steven Pagones, then a prosecutor with the Dutchess County’s District Attorney’s Office, Pagones later filed and won a slander lawsuit against Brawley, Sharpton and her attorneys, C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox. Brawley, now a registered nurse living in Virginia, owes Pagones $431,492 after she lost a defamation lawsuit more than a decade ago and yet, she still refuses to pay a dime to a man whose life she basically ruined:

A disbarred lawyer for a black New York teen who falsely accused six white men of rape in 1987, says her wages shouldn't be garnished to pay a defamation award. 

Tawana Brawley's former lawyer, Alton Maddox, said in a letter to state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that Steven Pagones, a former prosecutor who won a defamation suit in 1997 after Brawley falsely claimed he was one of the men who attacked her in 1987, should not get money from garnishing Brawley's wages from her nursing job, the New York Post reported Sunday.

"New York and Virginia have conspired to deprive her of property without due process of law," Maddox's letter, which he posted on his Web site, reads. Brawley, who now goes by the name Tawana Vacenia Thompson Gutierrez, works at a licensed nurse at a nursing home in Virginia.

"The things he's saying on his Web site are outright lies. It's ludicrous," said Pagones. 

Pagones got a court order in January to collect on his defamation award.

Brawley was ordered in 1997 to pay $190,000 at 9 percent interest annually. She hadn't paid any of it before the garnishment order, and her bill currently amounts to $431,492, the Post reported. 

Brawley's wages from her employment as a licensed nurse in a nursing home are being garnished at $150 per week, but Pagones still has not gotten any of it as the money is being held in escrow, giving Brawley an opportunity to file an appeal, the Post reported.

Cornel West: Barack Obama A ‘Republican In Blackface,’ Black MSNBC Hosts Are ‘Selling Their Souls’

A renowned black liberal daring to publicly criticize The One, give Cornel West credit for having some balls:

During an interview last week with Democracy Now, author and activist Cornel West offered harsh criticism of President Barack Obama, calling him a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface” and not someone who is actually looking out for the best interests of the impoverished. The prominent social critic also lashed out at black MSNBC personalities, accusing them of “selling their souls” in support of a president who has been anything but progressive.

“I think that it’s morally obscene and spiritually profane to spend $6 billion on an election, $2 billion on a presidential election, and not have any serious discussion,” West lamented to host Amy Goodman. “Poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well, no talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people,” he continued.

He explained that the election season saw a “truncated” version of political discourse with climate change being overlooked.

West then took a stab at the president: “It’s very sad. I mean, I’m glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies,” he said.

“That’s a pretty rough assessment of President Obama,” Goodman replied.

“Oh, that’s what we have. Richard Nixon is to the left of him on health care. Richard Nixon’s to the left of him on guaranteed income,” West followed up.

Later on in the interview, West was asked to comment on black MSNBC hosts like Michael Eric Dyson, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Rev. Al Sharpton who regularly praise President Obama. He offered up a similarly harsh critique:

I love Brother Mike Dyson … but we’re living in a society where everybody is up for sale. Everything is up for sale. And he and Brother Sharpton and Sister Melissa and others, they have sold their souls for a mess of Obama pottage. And we invite them back to the black prophetic tradition after Obama leaves. But at the moment, they want insider access, and they want to tell those kind of lies. They want to turn their back to poor and working people.

He concluded by calling those MSNBC’ers “apologists” for the Obama administration despite having a rigorous background in progressive critical thought.

RELATED: Viewpoint: What’s Behind Cornel West’s Attacks on Obama

Meghan McCain Looks For Fight, Finds Many, Now Wants Sympathy?

Mediaite.com:

MSNBC contributor Meghan McCain appeared on Rev. Al Sharpton’s program on Thursday, where she said that the Republican party treats her like a “freak” and a “mutant” simply because she holds some moderate views on divisive social issues. McCain has often made herself out to be a victim of close-minded conservatives who simply reject her for her less-than-dogmatic policy preferences. But McCain forgets that she has made a career of being a contrarian – her vehicle for getting air time consists almost entirely of starting fights with Republican pundits and lawmakers. 

After Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, his daughter emerged as the most prominent figure to rise from the ashes of that defeat – with the notable exception of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. 

But in 2009, McCain emerged as a pugilistic voice when she told critics of her figure to “kiss her fat ass.” U.S. News and World Reports and Politico editorials from the time branded her “the future of the Republican party” for her pugnacity and forthrightness. At the time, it appeared as though they were on to something. 

McCain even played along with the popular conservative theme of attacking the media – as she did in a 2009 interview with Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher. McCain said that “Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings are probably rolling around in their graves at the state of today’s media.” But it was this year that McCain found her voice – which she used most frequently to attack her fellow Republicans. 

In a March 2009 column in The Daily Beast entitled “My Problem with Ann Coulter,” McCain outlined why she feels Coulter is a bad representation of the GOP:

I don’t like her demeanor. I have never been a person who was attracted to hate or negativity… Everything about her is extreme: her voice, her interview tactics, and especially the public statements she makes about liberals. Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck.

McCain had high profile feuds with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and radio host Laura Ingraham over her book (“Dirty, Sexy Politics”). In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, McCain advocated that the GOP rebrand itself as “sexy.” 

But the biggest fight between McCain and a cadre of female conservative voices came after she tweeted a picture of herself that showed a significant bust line. McCain was furious that her attention-seeking picture actually garnered attention. In 2012, she revealed that she was seeing a therapist to deal with the media’s reaction to her body – images of which she tweets regularly and showed off in a nude public service announcement (an attempt to raise skin cancer awareness – a condition her father had suffered from).

The nude PSA and the controversy surrounding her picture, what she termed “boob-gate,” garnered her some negative attention from conservative opinion makers. Glenn Beck mock-vomited when he discussed the nude PSA, for which he was rightly scolded by O’Reilly and radio host Don Imus.

But McCain then played up the controversy and her victimhood. She wrote a denunciation of Beck in her column in Daily Beast and appeared on Jay Leno’s late night program to discuss the event. “No man will ever make me a victim,” McCain told Leno. No need, she is doing it to herself. 

McCain wonders why she draws the ire of conservatives, but continues to say things that she has to know will be deemed as ire-worthy by the right. McCain has attacked Malkin, saying she went on a “manic rampage” when Malkin mocked McCain for tweeting a picture of herself with liberal activist Sandra Fluke when they met at a White House Correspondents’’ Dinner. McCain went after Greta Van Susteren for inviting actress Lindsay Lohan to the WHCD. McCain has equated herself with Ronald Reagan for holding moderate views, and said “dirty moderates like me” have no home in the party. 

But while McCain has started more than her share of fights with conservative pundits, she seems to spend the majority of her time attacking Republican office seekers and holders.

She called former Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell a “nut job” who is “out of her frickin’ mind” during her 2010 campaign. 

She went after the Republican primary process in 2012, which she called “bad for politics and bad for the Republican party.” This was an odd observation, given that she is on record saying that Republican primary voters are far too provincial even to watch premium cable programming like HBO. 

Nearly every Republican primary candidate – save for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney – has suffered McCain’s wrath. She equated Businessman Herman Cain’s rise in the GOP last October with speed dating, saying that the party had reached “the end of the date” when his poll numbers began to sink. 

She blasted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich regularly – she called his campaign a “vanity project” and called the Speaker “a hot air balloon.” She said that Gingrich’s attacks on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) during primary debates amounted to sexism. She called his wife Callista an “icy” “mistress.” When it was clear that Gingrich’s rise in the GOP was not going to end any time soon, McCain said it would be the end of the party as a political force if he won the nomination. 

Gingrich, after repeated assaults, said that McCain amounted to a “conservative thinker” by the “standards of MSNBC.”

McCain levied similar attacks on former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum who she called a “moron” and warned there would be “hysteria” if he were to take the nomination. She has said that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell presiding over a legislature which passed ultrasound laws which angered abortion rights activists made him a “toxic candidate.” 

But perhaps McCain’s longest-running feud is with Palin. McCain had said in 2009 she was “conflicted” about Palin, but that conflict soon matured into outright revulsion. 

She has said that Palin has a “tabloid attention-getting quality” that her family does not possess. She criticized her hunting abilities and called Bachmann a “thinking man’s Palin.”

McCain attacked Palin for not criticizing conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh when he used the word “retarded” with the same ferocity as she had criticized Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. McCain also criticized her for doing a reality show on TLC network, which she said was not the “most presidential behavior.” 

Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol has repeatedly defended her mother from McCain’s attacks, but Palin herself has never responded to the MSNBC commentator’s gratuitous criticism.

McCain fancies herself a victim – beset on all sides by nasty tyrants from within the GOP. She lobbies against hate and prejudice, but it is McCain who is often the bully. Let me be clear, conservatives who underestimate her intelligence do not get it. She seems to know exactly what she is doing and how to do it. By attacking conservatives, she appears to win friends on the left. But McCain never demonstrates any self-awareness about how and why conservatives would be upset with her conduct. Perhaps she should take stock of her long history of aggression towards her fellow Republicans.

MSNBC Primetime Makes Zero Mentions Of Trayvon Martin Case After Pro-Zimmerman Evidence Surfaces

Proof positive that when the story doesn't fit their radically-Leftist agenda, MSNBC just isn't interested:

In March and April, MSNBC’s primetime hosts ran with nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. They regularly suggested that the lack of national interest in the case was worthy of outrage. Last week, when an avalanche of new evidence favorable to George Zimmerman came to light, MSNBC’s primetime lineup didn’t just bury the story, they didn’t mention Martin or Zimmerman once the week that news broke according to media monitoring service TV Eyes. 

On May 15, ABC’s World News broke new information that showed a more nuanced picture of how the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin unfolded. Their documents describe Zimmerman as having received “two black eyes” as well as a “broken nose.” They also outlined how Zimmerman was offered but refused hospitalization on the night of the incident. 

MSNBC’s 8 p.m. anchor Ed Schultz led with the news that J.P. Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon would retain his chairmanship. “The big bank casino is still open and Republicans want to keep it that way,” said Schultz. 

On May 17, Prosecutor Angela Cory’s office released hundreds of pages of information that further shed light on the murky events that led to the killing of Martin. Also released on that day was footage from the 7-Eleven where Martin was last caught on tape just minutes before his altercation with Zimmerman. New photos of Zimmerman’s wounds were also released on the 17th. 

The new documents included an assessment that charges were actively considered from the beginning. “44th page of the documents released is that Christopher Serino, the lead investigator at the scene concluded that there was “probable cause” to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter,” writes Mediaite’s Jon Bershad. “ It isn’t immediately clear why this didn’t happen.”

On May 17, Schultz led with a report in the New York Times that alleged a pro-Romney group was planning to mount an advertising campaign that would link President Obama to his former reverend, Jeremiah Wright. “Mitt Romney doesn’t remember contributing to the climate of racism that simmers beneath the surface of the Republican party,” said Schultz. Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein, filling-in for 9 p.m. anchor Rachel Maddow, ran with a comparison between Republican reverence for President Ronald Reagan set against Democrat’s cautious pride in President Bill Clinton. 

Those same documents revealed that an autopsy on Martin showed that he had TCH, the psychoactive chemical found in Marijuana, in his system and Zimmerman likely had Adderall in his system. 

On MSNBC, former late night host Arsenio Hall joined Schultz who led with Romney “stirring up fears” about a new stimulus spending bill. 

Even 6 p.m. anchor Rev. Al Sharpton who had seemed to make his show a platform for Zimmerman outrage, made no mention of Martin last week, after months of daily reporting. 

The editorial decisions of MSNBC’s primetime producers would not merit this level of scrutiny but for the network hosts crusade in the months of March and April to see justice done in the Martin case. But as details about the case emerge and paint a far less definitive picture of what really happened –an even potentially sympathetic one for Zimmerman- the urgency of this story on MSNBC seems to have not just faded but evaporated. 

To be fair, MSNBC dayside did cover the story as news according to TV Eyes but considering how often and passionately their primetime hosts focused on this story, it seems either purely ideological or beyond negligent for not a single show to have mentioned this big news. 

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has said based on the new evidence that “no fair jury would find anyone guilty here of second degree murder.” Whether that is true or not, the legal system is too important and sometimes explosive for any news network to be completely depriving its audience of relevant information. Especially in this case, which MSNBC’s hosts did so much to elevate.

RELATED:  Before Trayvon Martin shooting, George Zimmerman blasted cops over beating of black man

CNN’s Howard Kurtz On Trayvon Martin: How Can MSNBC Allow Al Sharpton To Cover This?

Mediaite.com:

On CNN’s Reliable Sources today, Howard Kurtz called out MSNBC Anchor Al Sharpton for having it both ways on the Trayvon Martin story: covering it on his program, PoliticsNation, and then being a part of a rally for it in Florida, publicly calling for George Zimmerman to be arrested.


Kurtz first brought up the discrepancy in coverage between Fox News and MSNBC. Derek McGinty, anchor at WUSA9 TV, said he had to argue with people in his newsroom that it was a worthwhile story to cover because “people just want accountability.” The cops not arresting Zimmerman was their obligation under the law, but people still want someone to be held accountable for the actions that took place.


Then Kurtz turned specifically to how Sharpton has been covering the case, describing him as a “major African-American activist in this country.” Kurtz played a series of clips showing Sharpton speaking at the Trayvon Martin rally in Florida, then filming his show near the site of the rally, then speaking again at the rally, effortlessly switching between activist and TV host. Kurtz said that Sharpton was asking people to donate money to the cause, and even went down to the Justice Department with the Martins.


Lauren Ashburn struggled to figure out why Sharpton was allowed to, essentially, cover himself on his own show. She did add that Sharpton has never pretended to be a journalist, and MSNBC knew what they were getting when they hired him as a personality, but Kurtz still thought something smelled rotten at MSNBC.


“It seems to me MSNBC can say, ‘Okay, this is such an important case you can go and be an activist and you won’t do your show on the subject. Or you can do your show on the subject but don’t be standing with the parents at the rally and accompanying them to the Justice Department.’”


Eric Deggans, a media critic for the Tampa Bay Times, said he’s always been concerned with Sharpton’s role at the network, and this particular situation makes things difficult because MSNBC has an obligation to cover the story because it’s news. So having one of their hosts injecting themselves into the story is a problem. Deggans also brought up Zimmerman, and whether he could feel like he could get a fair shake from NBC News or MSNBC if he went on for interviews.

RELATED: Al Sharpton Interviews Trayvon Martin’s Father In Emotionally Gripping Segment

Andrew Breitbart Says MSNBC Solely Hired Al Sharpton To Play The Race Card

As more and more time passes Black liberals are getting to know their place in the Left wing-hierarchy. Indeed, the fact that noted, race-baiter, ambulance-chaser, scam artist, general charlatan and faux-reverend Al Sharpton now has his own show on MSNBC is further proof that even the higher-ups in the black liberal orthodoxy are more than willing to sell themselves out if it means getting an opportunity to please their white, liberal massahs on the Left. So by having a "Speaker For All Blacks" spokesman like Sharpton on to vouch for their repeated use of the race-card (thus, helping to appeal to black voters and get Barack Obama re-elected), the lily-white, liberal-dominated network that is MSNBC gets a feel of credibility by using Sharpton for a higher gain, despite the fcat that since elected POTUS Barack Obama has done nothing for Black people. Andrew Breitbart is well aware of this and was so kind to speak on it at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference.

If MSNBC Sacks Pat Buchanan, Will They Have To Answer For Al Sharpton?

Great points. Too bad they didn't mention Tawana Brawley or the people who were killed in Harlem at Freddy's Fashion Mart due to Sharpton's incendiary rhetoric:

We still don’t know what Phil Griffin and MSNBC will ultimately do in regards to the Pat Buchanan situation. What we do know is that if Buchanan is taken out permanently, there will be blow-back. And let’s start with what will likely become the focal point for those who take issue with Buchanan getting taken off permanently.


To remind everyone, here is what Phil Griffin said at the TCA concerning Buchanan.


Mr. Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.”


If that is now Griffin’s litmus test with regards to Buchanan, it will be one that people will use to examine the records of all other MSNBC contractual talent. And here’s where the trouble begins for MSNBC because if the person at MSNBC with the most baggage and history of controversial, provocative, and (some would argue) hate producing commentary at the network is Pat Buchanan, the person with the second largest amount of baggage and history of controversial, provocative, and (some would argue) hate producing commentary at the network is Al Sharpton. By using the “appropriate for national dialogue” litmus test on Buchanan, MSNBC is all but inviting the same litmus test to be applied to Sharpton. And Sharpton would fail that test just as Buchanan apparently has.


This would put MSNBC in a real quandary. If it takes Buchanan out but leaves Sharpton in place it’s opening itself up for a whole bunch of questions it really doesn’t want to answer. It will be forced to discuss how Buchanan’s controversial history is not appropriate to the point that he has to be taken off the air but Sharpton’s at times even more inflammatory rhetoric and history is. MSNBC doesn’t want to discuss that. It’s a lose-lose scenario.


The subject would next parry to how MSNBC could justify keeping Sharpton on the air if it got rid of Buchanan. Another lose-lose scenario. The conventional wisdom is Sharpton appeals to the Progressive demographic and that’s a core constituency MSNBC does not want to alienate right now because of the perceived threat from the even more leftward bent Current TV. Some would say MSNBC is paranoid about Current TV. I think the threat is vastly overstated because Current hasn’t shown that it can even do the most basic rudimentary cable programing things correctly. Look at Olbermann’s set or the network’s premature cut-out of the Iowa caucuses if you don’t believe me. And then there’s the hiring of Jennifer Granholm who isn’t exactly a progressive firebrand of the type that Olbermann and Uygur are. Given all that, plus the Al Gore backed channel’s poor distribution, one could easily argue that FBN is a bigger threat to CNBC than Current is to MSNBC.


Nonetheless, one could make the case that MSNBC has taken an irrational to the point of being paranoid defensive posture regarding being out-left-flanked by Current. I don’t think you’d see either Chris Hayes or Melissa Harris-Perry with weekend shows if MSNBC wasn’t worried about the potential of Current poaching. The fact that they’d be poached down what would amount to a Nielsen black hole is beside the point. They’d be poached.


When you are in a branding fight, facts on the ground can take a back seat to perception. Keith Olbermann first sowed the seeds of this fight by implying that MSNBC wasn’t progressive enough…that it was too much of the establishment. Cenk Uygur further drilled this thesis down by his very public falling out with the network. The perception was starting to take shape.


If MSNBC doesn’t get rid of Buchanan now, it re-enforces that perception amongst Progressives. Remember, this is a branding fight over ideology not a fight over indisputable facts. If it was a fight over facts and absolute appropriateness for the national dialogue, both Buchanan and Sharpton’s records would have to be examined side by side. MSNBC doesn’t want that because it forces the network into a position where it has to at least tacitly admit that it’s carving out an exception for Sharpton because Sharpton and his views carry Progressive street cred whereas Buchanan and his views carry Progressive street ire.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/12/11

Rick Perry Hits Mitt Romney As 'Out Of Touch' After Large Bet Offer

Obama Sizes Up GOP Frontrunners In New Interview

Left, Obama Escalate War On Banks Into Dangerous Territory

Occupy's 'Nerve Center' Staffed By Soros Activists

Pro-family Leaders Work To Stop 'Gay' Agenda In Schools

Obama Should Tell Us How He Killed Bin Laden

USA Today Ignores Anti-Religious Hatred Of Tebow

Rick Santorum Schools Candy Crowley On Obama's Appeasement

NBC Poll: Newt Gingrich Has Big Leads In SC, Fla.

Ex-Dictator Manuel Noriega Returns To Panama, Faces 60-Year Sentence

MSNBC Star Host Al Sharpton Owes IRS $2.6 Million

U.S. Proposes Unmanned Border Entry With Mexico

Bill O’Reilly Asks Dr. Marc Lamont Hill: Where Are Jackson And Sharpton On Herman Cain?

Mediaite.com:

As the Herman Cain potential sexual harassment scandal continues to unfold, Bill O’Reilly has begun to question where civil rights leaders are standing on this issue, particularly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. On his program last night, O’Reilly inquired as to was keeping them quiet, particularly since Cain had himself noted he believed race was a factor in the scrutiny. In a passionate but friendly exchange, O’Reilly challenged Dr. Marc Lamont Hill to give a non-partisan reason for their silence, to which he replied in sum that they had learned their lessons about jumping to defend people without all the facts.


“There’s nothing to jump into the game for,” Hill replied when asked why Sharpton and Jackson had not done so, as “their interest is justice, just like my interest is justice.” “I don’t think anything unjust is happening to Herman Cain,” he argued, noting that, as a presidential candidate, “he’s getting exactly what he deserves.” O’Reilly asked him to clarify, as none of the sexual harassment accusations were specific, to which Hill noted he didn’t believe the presumption of guilt was fair, but that Cain wasn’t receiving that so much as the standard media scrutiny that comes with running for President. Here the two difference. “We have a presumption of innocence in this country, and that is not in play right now,” O’Reilly argued, noting that the presumption of innocence is a cultural courtesy aside from its legal function after Hill argued that Cain wasn’t being convicted of a crime.


O’Reilly insisted that this was a political issue, however, and not a race one. “If this were a liberal politician, you can’t sit there and tell me Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder,” O’Reilly argued. As they were civil rights activists and this isn’t a civil rights issue, however, Hill contended they had no place in the matter. Neither did they then, O’Reilly replied, with Tawana Brawley or OJ Simpson. “What you’re saying is that they’ve been wrong two times,” Hill replied, “now they should be wrong again with Herman Cain.” O’Reilly replied simply, “that’s rich!”


O’Reilly gave Hill the last word after expressing his very strong disbelief in the idea that Sharpton and Jackson were acting out of a “lesson learned” from past experiences, a point Hill reiterated, adding that the media scrutiny was just for a Presidential candidate.

Al Sharpton Defends A White Man's Right To Call A Black Teenager A Coward For Not Participating In Civil Rights Movement

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Again, Herman Cain does not get a pass for allowing the condescending prick that is Lawrence O'Donnell to make him look like a buffoon when he went on his show to promote his book the other day. First, Cain looked totally unprepared which says a lot considering that everyone on the planet knows how leftwing MSNBC is (Cain couldn't of thought he was going to get a fair interview). Secondly, why any conservative would go on MSNBC to promote their book is beyond me, it's not like any of the few viewers MSNBC has would have any interest in buying a book authored by a conservative. Third, in defending O'Donnell's right to call out Cain for "sitting on the sideline" during the civil rights movement Al Sharpton loses all credibility. Not that Mr. Race-Baiting, Tawana Brawley Lying, FBI informant, "I'll Never Criticize Barack Obama" had any left. But when you consider that O'Donnell has gotten flack both the Left and conservatives for the 'distressing' racial undertones he put on display during the interview with Cain, one might think that even a total shill like Sharpton would be able to see something a little disturbing there. But instead he deflects, lies and comes off like the total hack that he is:

Lawrence O'Donnell has taken a fair amount of heat for his interview with Herman Cain this week, where the host questioned both Cain’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. Last night, O’Donnell faced a panel made of MSNBC staples Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris Perry and The Grio‘s Goldie Taylor who had a word or two to say about his performance, the strongest coming from Harris Perry, who questioned why white politicians alive at the time did not get “litmus test” questions on their positions on race at the time.


O’Donnell replayed key parts of his interview along with comments Cain made at the Values Voter Summit yesterday accusing O’Donnell of veering into absurdity, and promptly gave the floor to Sharpton, who did not consider any of O’Donnell’s questions out of line. “I don’t see where you instructed him on how to be black or anything else,” he noted, but rather, “it is Mr. Cain who has decided to call blacks brainwashed,” which opened him up to criticism on his positions on the matter. He also argued that Cain attacking the Occupy Wall Street protests made his role in the Civil Rights movement fair game: “How can you call people unamerican for assembling and protesting now and not have considered those same tactics unamerican then?”


Harris Perry was far less comfortable with O’Donnell’s interview, though she did not say anything negative about O’Donnell’s performance but, rather, how his questions reflected the place black politicians have in American society. She told O’Donnell the interview had her “squirming with discomfort” because of the potential “implication that those that did not participate were necessarily cowards,” warning that “we have to be so careful when we are not facing that imminent violence ourselves.” She noted it was only a minority that participated in protests and, furthermore, this was a non-issue for white politicians. “I can’t remember anyone ever asking a white politician who is of the same age where they were during the sit-ins,” she noted, adding that it “worried” her when white politicians did not face the same challenges to their patriotism.


On his end, O’Donnell justified his questions arguing that it was worth putting the questions on the table: “we can go into those conversations without presuming there is a right or wrong answer.” Taylor jumped in to add that had Cain not been “righteously indignant at the questions” but had explained himself in a more appropriate way, or fessed up to simply not participating without being angered by the question, he would have found his response more adequate. Sharpton also added that he felt the questions were appropriate precisely because Cain’s “brainwashed” comment had “totally discarded the fact that it was based on public policy” and the role of Democratic Party had in passing civil rights legislation.