Social Liberalism In The Midst Of A String Of Stunning Defeats

Mediaite.com:

April has not been kind to those who subscribe to the tenets of cultural and social liberalism. The advocates of progressivism in American life have suffered two defeats in recent weeks – one fight they sought but the other was unforeseen. The trial of Kermit Gosnell has forced the media and the public to ask themselves some disturbing questions about the nation’s abortion laws and the disdainful treatment of pro-life ideas and advocates by the press. Similarly, gun control advocates suffered a dramatic defeat yesterday at the hands of the country’s elected representatives. Neither of these events had to unfold in the way they did. Convinced of the righteousness of their cause, social progressives have for some time failed to engage their critics as honest brokers. Absolutist social liberals have made a virtue of dismissing their opponents as uncaring or unthinking brutes. This conceit led to some stunning defeats with as yet untold repercussions.


The revelation that the political news media had not pursued the Gosnell case in the same way it pursued other “local crime stories” which many in the press implied were indicative of a larger societal problem; the shooting of Trayvon Martin or 2012’s mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, to name some recent examples. This admission that the press had abdicated its job provoked a level of introspection in the media that is virtually unprecedented. 

Pro-choice writers issued mea culpas for their lack of coverage. Some wondered in print if they overlooked the story because of their own biases or because their social and professional circles simply are not interested in reports that ultimately lead to discomforting conclusions about some abortion practices.
“I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective — of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights,” wrote The Daily Beast columnist Megan McArdle. “The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories — if the sick-making was done by ‘our side.’” 

“There is a bubble,” acknowledged Slate columnist Dave Weigel. “Let’s just state the obvious: National political reporters are, by and large, socially liberal. We are more likely to know a gay couple than to know someone who owns an ‘assault weapon.’ We are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I’ve caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense.”

Beyond the media, the Gosnell case has transcended the filter on information which the press jealously guards and has percolated into the national consciousness. The public, largely comfortable with the notion of “safe, legal, and rare,” must now confront the idea that some abortion practices in this country may be none of the above. 

Not all in the media are willing to ask themselves the tough questions. Salon’s Irin Carmon has called into question the Democratic credentials of The Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers who so effectively shamed the media into covering the Gosnell case. She added that the Gosnell case, almost certainly an outlier, deserves as much coverage as the relatively high fatality rate for African-American women due to pregnancy. Those alleging a media cover-up of the Gosnell case “just want all reproductive freedom curtailed,” she writes.

Carmon raises valid points, but she is also shifting the terms of the debate. After failing to effectively justify the media’s silence on Gosnell last week, it is doubtful she will derail the debate about late-term abortion this week. For a nation which has been rapidly trending away from calling itself “pro-choice” over the last 20 years, the Gosnell case has focused the minds of many who would prefer not to face the gruesome realities of abortion after the first trimester. This is not evidence of a trend towards religiosity in America – data suggests the nation is turning away from organized religion. It is a trend in America towards libertarianism. The protection and preservation of an individual’s “right to life” has become a winning argument — emphasis on the word “right.” 

This defeat – and it is a defeat – for one of social liberalism’s most sacred cows is compounded this week by the failure of the Senate to pass even a modest tightening of the nation’s gun laws. After four months of campaigning on the issue of gun control by the Democratic political establishment and by their allies in the media in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Republicans and red-state Democrats joined together to kill the token modification to the background checks for gun purchasers. This development was greeted with shock by gun control proponents, but it was a foreseeable development. 

“Do we really think thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions and loss is not relevant to this debate?” President Barack Obama asked rhetorically during his post-vote berating of all of Washington D.C.

But Obama intentionally conflated reasoned opposition with cowed obedience to entrenched interests. The endlessly compassionate American people and their Congressional representatives did not cede their logic to their emotions on the issue of gun ownership, but gun control advocates steadfastly refused to accept that their opponents had a legitimate counterargument. 

Further, gun control backers refused to reconcile a discrepancy in public polling which showed some proposed new gun laws to be wildly popular in the same way that the fundamental right to own a firearm remains wildly popular. 

During the height of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, the law’s supporters dismissed the unpopularity of healthcare reform by identifying particular provisions within the bill that polled well. They said that the bill’s unpopularity would fade away as those popular provisions began to take effect. Of course, that day never came. 

In this same way, gun control advocates are fooling themselves. A backlash against those Senators who struck down new gun laws in spite of their popularity is unlikely to materialize. Gun control supporters presumed that their opponents were animated by base or disingenuous motives. In doing so, they failed to make a convincing case for their cause. 

RELATED:  The World Is Marching Toward Anarchy

South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy Eviscerates Claims That Voter ID Laws Are Racist During Hearing

Gee, asking people to have ID when they vote....that must be "RACIST!!!":

During a hearing into the constitutionality of voter identification laws enacted across the country, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tore into claims by the Department of Justice that those laws were racially discriminatory. In the space of five minutes, Gowdy knocked down the claims, one by one, that a voter ID law passed in South Carolina in 2011 discriminated against African-Americans or was dissimilar to laws the Justice Department had cleared in a variety of other states. 

Gowdy began by noting that, when the Palmetto State’s voter identification law was passed, a third of the state’s congressional delegation were African-American; former GOP Rep. Tim Scott and Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. 

He went on to say that Scott is now one of two African-American U.S. senators and the state’s governor is also of minority descent. 

“Further to same, South Carolina’s voter ID law was similar if not less restrictive than those DOJ had pre-cleared in New Hampshire, Virginia, and Georgia,” Gowdy continued. “And, moreover, South Carolina’s plan was similar, if not less restrictive, to plans approved outside of DOJ pre-clearance in states like Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana – which, incidentally, was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court – Idaho, South Dakota, and Michigan.” 

He went on to say that the law passed in South Carolina made it easier for individuals to acquire a photo ID and to cast provisional ballots.

Gowdy turned to the professor who was testifying before the committee on the discriminatory nature of voter identification laws. “There was a 1.6 percent difference in African-Americans who had accepted photo IDs – acceptable photo IDs – and white South Carolinians,” Gowdy said. “20 years ago, when I was working on voting rights cases, that was considered de minimis.” 

“Now, it costs South Carolina $3.5 million to defend that 1.6 percent difference,” Gowdy said of a legal challenge to that law which the state eventually won. He added that those who did not have identification cannot enter a federal court house, board an aircraft, or enter the chambers of Congress – all of those activities require photo identification.

“I’m sorry for the Department of Justice that they put politics ahead of the law,” Gowdy concluded. 

RELATED: MSNBC Broadcasts 19 Segments On Voter I.D. This Week, Ignores Poll Showing 74% Support For I.D. Laws

Five Decades of Lies Help Democrats Create Monolithic Black Vote

Townhall.com:

As recently as 1956, nearly 39 percent of blacks voted Republican in that year's presidential election. After the Civil War, Abe Lincoln's Republican Party easily carried the black vote -- where blacks were allowed to vote. Unwelcome in the Democratic Party, most blacks voted Republican and continued to do so through the early part of the 20th century. It wasn't until 1948, when 77 percent of the black vote went to Harry Truman, who had desegregated the military, that a majority of blacks identified themselves as Democrats. 

Yet, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. For his key role breaking the Democrats' filibuster and getting the act to pass the stalled Senate, Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, a conservative from Illinois, landed on the cover of Time magazine. President Lyndon Johnson called Dirksen "the hero of the nation." The Chicago Defender, then the country's largest black daily newspaper, applauded Dirksen's "generalship" for helping to successfully push through the bill. 

Older black voters sometimes explain they're opposed to Republicans because of the "racist" Southern strategy. But Richard Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchannan, credited with inventing the "Southern strategy," considered the Democratic Party the party of the racists. Buchanan said: "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" 

But before that, another pivotal event occurred that helped the GOP-as-racist meme. In 1960, during the presidential campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested following a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter in Atlanta. Hundreds of other protestors were released, but King was jailed on a trumped-up probation violation for failing to have a Georgia driver's license. 

King's aides reached out to then-Vice President and Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon. They also reached out to the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy called the Atlanta judge handling the case. Shortly after that call, the judge released King. Nixon, according to Harry Belafonte, a King supporter, "did nothing." Is that true? 

Nixon, it turns out, had a much closer relationship with King than did Kennedy. In the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, Calif., records show considerable handwritten notes and correspondence between Nixon and King. This includes a 1957 letter from King acknowledging their previous meetings, which thanked Nixon for his "assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality," and praised him for his "devotion to the highest mandates of the moral law." 

But in 1960, on the eve of the election, Nixon was in a tough spot. Nixon's public silence might be misconstrued as acceptance of King's arrest. On the other hand, as a candidate for his boss's job, Nixon worried about the political costs of appearing ungrateful if he chastised President Dwight Eisenhower for not taking stronger action. Eisenhower, however, was content to let the Justice Department handle the matter. 

According to historian and presidential biographer Stephen Ambrose, while Nixon made no public comments, he telephoned Attorney General William Rogers to find out if King's constitutional rights were being infringed, thus opening the door for federal involvement. Nixon, a lawyer, was concerned about the ethics of calling a judge to get him to release someone. 

Nixon, writes Ambrose, told his press secretary: "I think Dr. King is getting a bum rap. But despite my strong feelings in this respect, it would be completely improper for me or any other lawyer to call the judge. And Robert Kennedy should have known better than to do so." That Bobby Kennedy, also a lawyer, nevertheless made a phone call to the judge did not alter the issue of whether it was appropriate. In retrospect, an easy call, but not at the time. 

Two million pamphlets titled, "'No Comment' Nixon Versus a Candidate With a Heart, Senator Kennedy," were distributed in black churches. Never mind that in 1956 Nixon revealed he was an honorary member of the NAACP. Or that Nixon pushed for passage of the '57 civil rights bill in the Senate. Or that Time magazine wrote that Nixon's support for civil rights incurred the wrath of one of his segregationist opponents, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., who sarcastically called Nixon the NAACP's "most distinguished member." 

But the GOP-is-racist meme can be heard nightly on MSNB-Hee Haw and in political science and history classes all over the country. Actor Morgan Freeman calls the tea party racist. Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., tells us that the GOP wants to "literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." 

Keeping blacks ignorant of history remains crucial to this caricature of the Republican Party -- and to the monolithic Democratic black vote. Not so black and white, is it? 

RELATED:  NY Times Columnist Charles Blow Completely Wrong: GOP Didn’t Lose Black Vote, Democrats Won It

Black Conservatives In Explosive Sean Hannity "Townhall": ‘Liberals Believe They Own Black America’

Mediaite.com:

On Monday night’s Hannity show, over two dozen black conservatives participated in a townhall discussion, addressing what it is like to be a black conservative in America.

The show kicked off with Sean Hannity interviewing Dr. Ben Carson. Hannity asked Dr. Carson what kind of insults he has received since coming out publicly as a conservative. Carson noted:

Some of the words cannot be used. It’s really kind of sad. I feel more sorrowful for the people who do that, than I feel angry for them. I represent something that they just can’t quite get their heads around: ‘How can you be black and not march lock-step behind the [airquote] leaders?’ ‘How can you think for yourself?’ ‘And how can you actually have some ideals that actually make sense that don’t agree with their leaders?’ I am very hopeful that this a trend that will be broken. I’m going to continue to speak out. Of course, there is an old trick that you ostracize, you ridicule, you isolate, and you keep repeating…. I’m not sure it’s going to work quite frankly because I don’t plan on going anywhere.

On Monday night’s Hannity show, over two dozen black conservatives participated in a townhall discussion, addressing what it is like to be a black conservative in America.
The show kicked off with Sean Hannity interviewing Dr. Ben Carson. Hannity asked Dr. Carson what kind of insults he has received since coming out publicly as a conservative. Carson noted:

Some of the words cannot be used. It’s really kind of sad. I feel more sorrowful for the people who do that, than I feel angry for them. I represent something that they just can’t quite get their heads around: ‘How can you be black and not march lock-step behind the [airquote] leaders?’ ‘How can you think for yourself?’ ‘And how can you actually have some ideals that actually make sense that don’t agree with their leaders?’ I am very hopeful that this a trend that will be broken. I’m going to continue to speak out. Of course, there is an old trick that you ostracize, you ridicule, you isolate, and you keep repeating…. I’m not sure it’s going to work quite frankly because I don’t plan on going anywhere.

In a gripping moment, when Hannity asked the townhall participants how many have been “called horrible names because of [their] conservatism,” every participant’s hand shot up.

Dr. Carson noted that this demonstrates to him that “the very people who love to talk about tolerance are some of the least tolerant people there are.”

Hannity and Dr. Carson then discussed Hannity’s recent remarks that black conservatives have no freedom of speech, with Dr. Carson agreeing and expanding on Hannity’s point:

One of the founding principles of our nation is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet they are so many people who are afraid to talk. I’ve gotten so many emails and letters from people who say ‘I support you 100% but please let this remain anonymous.’ Why? Because they don’t want to have the fiery darts thrown at them.

Following the brief interview, Hannity opened up the discussion to the townhall participants, consisting of an array of black conservative ‘all-stars,’ such as Star Parker, David Webb, Ron Christie, Jesse Petterson, Kevin Jackson, Deneen Borelli, Crystal Wright, and Reginald Jones, among others.

The lively discussion ranged from the attacks and smears they face as a result of their political affiliation, to the reasons for their political beliefs, and the challenges they face. 

The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley noted the racist comments that often emerge from the Left, as well as the “double standard” applied to black conservatives: 

There’s a need on the Left to almost psycho-analyze black conservatives, put ‘em on the couch. In other words, Justice Scalia’s views on affirmative action are simply wrong but Clarence Thomas is a self-hating, self-loathing traitor to his race. There’s a double standard. And I think the reason you have that is… if you can psycho-analyze someone, de-legitimize them, you don’t have to take on their ideas… and that’s what the Left tries to do to black conservatives.

Hannity noted that each of them is a “profile in courage.”

Kevin Jackson, Executive Director of The Black Sphere, noted Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about going into the “black sections” of his town, as an example of the level of racism on the Left that is simply dismissed or allowed.

Project 21’s Reginald Jones spoke on the threat to liberals’ “ownership” of black America, stating: “What Dr. Carson and everybody in here represents is a threat to their sense of ownership. Liberals, in total, believe that they own black America….”

Radio host David Webb added that the Left requires allies of “convenience” and victims, stating: “It’s about power and control.”

The spirited discussion was emotional at times, with Deneen Borelli wiping away tears near the end of the show.

Hannity expressed plans to hold an additional townhall on this issue, prompting cheers of agreement from the participants.

RELATED: Sean Hannity Is Right: Black Conservatives Have ‘No Freedom Of Speech’

The Gang Of 8 Offers The Wrong Solution To Illegal Immigration, At Black Workers' Expense

Another affront to black Americans under a Democrat president, no less:

A bipartisan group of senators, known as the Gang of 8, has put together a framework for the immigration reform that supposedly America is waiting for.

Provisions of the agreement have been widely leaked and, from what I see, these senators should return to the drawing board.

If we are going to tackle immigration reform, there should be agreement at the outset on the objectives. In my view, there should be three. It should enhance the freedom, fairness and security of the nation. If not, why bother?

The Gang of 8 proposal makes no gains on any of these fronts. And on at least one front — fairness — it makes a bad situation even worse.

It seems to be the way of Washington these days to take issues that are huge and complex, devise comprehensive mega-reforms — too massive for any single person to read or grasp — and pass a new law that exchanges one set of problems for different and even bigger ones.

We just finished going through this with reforms of our financial services system and our health care system. Now we’re about to do the same with immigration.

It’s unrealistic to think that with one new law we can secure our border, deal with 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country, devise a new way of allowing skilled labor to enter the country, and create a strategy to employ unskilled foreign labor.

But Washington is trying to do it all. And it seems that another legislative disaster is waiting to happen.

A purported achievement of the Gang of 8 is an agreement between big business and unions regarding hiring of unskilled foreign labor.

As our nation buckles under the load of excessive government, the proposal involves giving Washington even more power and building yet another new government bureaucracy.

The plan calls for a new Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research. Why yet another new bureaucracy at a time of trillion-dollar deficits and cancelled White House tours for students?

Quotas, which can be adjusted over time and market conditions, will be set for how many visas will be permitted for unskilled foreign labor. We’ll need a new army of bureaucrats sitting in Washington to study and report on conditions of different labor markets.

The quota starts at 20,000 and can reach, over time, a ceiling of 200,000. At its peak, illegal immigration was around 500,000 people a year. So in boom times, even at full quota, we still could have illegal immigrants sneaking over the border.

Government bureaucrats not only will determine how many can be hired, but also what they can be paid. In this case, the “prevailing wage.”

Prevailing wage is a defining provision of the Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931 to keep unskilled black labor from competing with union workers — at the time uniformly white — on federally funded projects.

Prevailing wages are generally union wages, and they assure that taxpayers pay top dollar for government construction projects. Now, in the name of immigration reform, the prevailing-wage standard is brought, for the first time, to the private sector.

Which gets to the fairness issue. Employment set-asides designated for unskilled foreign workers, with wage levels determined by the government, are nothing but a stick in the eye to competing low-wage workers in the American market.

It so happens that today these would be black workers. At 13 percent, black unemployment now is almost double the national average. But according to an analysis by Remapping Debate, a project of the Anti-Discrimination Center in New York, unemployment among young black men with no high school diploma is 51.6 percent. Unemployment among all black men and women with no high school degree is 30 percent.

The Gang of 8 immigration reform proposal is a nonstarter. We must reject any reform that doesn’t make our nation freer, fairer and more secure.

RELATED:  Springtime for immigration reform?

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/8/13

Congress Aims to Reach Deals on Immigration Reform, Gun Control

'New Tradition' for Georgia Students: Their First Racially Integrated Prom

Left Celebrates the Death of Rick Warren's Son

Why Are Young Americans Supportive of Obama When His Policies Are So Bad for Them?

4 Reasons Jason Lewis Can Beat Al Franken

Judge’s ‘Morning-After’ Pill Ruling Puts Girls At Risk, Say Pro-Life Advocates

ABC Family Leads the Way in All Things Gay

Four AP Reporters Make Excuses, All Unacceptable, for Weak March Jobs Report

Huffington: Hillary Clinton ‘Obviously Running’ for President

Marriage Is What It Is 

Smiley-Face Lies and Homicide Hogwash in Dem Hellholes

Marriage is what it is

Godless, Liberal Indoctrination: MSNBC Host Krystal Ball Asks Her 4-Year-Old Daughter If She Would ‘Marry A Girl’ When She Grows Up

White liberals continue to open the gateways to hell:

On Friday, co-host of MSNBC’s The Cycle, Krystal Ball, introduced a online-only feature called “Political Playground” on her program which she said focused on marriage equality issues. In the feature, Ball asks her young daughter to reveal what she understands about marriage and asks if she would “marry a girl” when she gets older. 

In the online video, Ball asks her daughter to expound on her thoughts on marriage and asked, if she was in love with a girl, would she marry that girl. Ball’s daughter seemed well-informed about the state of same-sex marriage laws when she revealed that she could only marry a same-sex partner in the state of New York. 

“And that’s good, because you want people to marry who they’re in love with, right?” Ball asked.

“Yeah,” her daughter replied. 

Ball and her daughter agreed that other states which have not yet legalized same-sex marriage should do so.

“That’s crazy!” Ball’s daughter exclaimed when she heard that other states continue to not recognize same-sex marriages. 

RELATED:  MSNBC Now Uses 4-Year-Old Daughter of Anchor To Push For Gay Marriage

Conservative Eric Bolling Is An Idiot For Defending Mike Rice

This isn't about politics and it certainly isn't about machismo and/or any college basketball player's degree of masculinity as FOX's "The Five" co-host Eric Bolling would like you to think it's about. This is about a grown man, a professional college coach, an idiot trusted with the lives of 12 college kids (and yes, till they're 21, they are still kids) hurling vitriol, throwing a basketball at the heads of his players, using abusive language to embarrass and supposedly "motivate" them and worst of all physically assaulting his players when they mess a play up...in practice no less. Put aside the fact that there are more things in life than sports.

Bolling, in his insane defense of Mike Rice, said that "I’ve played for a lot of coaches like that. And let me tell you something: the best coaches are coaches like that.” Yet, other than maybe Bobby Knight, I can't recall any successful, college coach ever acting in a despicable fashion (mind you. Rice's record in 3 years at Rutgers was 44-51) towards his players like this. Not Coach K, Not Roy Williams. Not Jim Boeheim. None.

But then no coach has a right to put his hands on a player in a threatening manner. No parent should have to worry about their child being abused by their coach. Bottom line, Mike Rice deserved to be fired and until he gets some serious anger management therapy, he should never be allowed to coach again:

Fox’s Eric Bolling talked to Megyn Kelly this afternoon about his Wednesday remarks that the firing of Rutgers coach Mike Rice represents “the wussification of American men.”

Rice was fired by Rutgers this week after ESPN footage showed him physically disciplining his athletes while shouting homophobic slurs at them. Off the bat, Bolling clarified his earlier remarks to Kelly by noting that he does not condone the coach’s language whatsoever, but reiterated that he believes Rice should not have been fired for the pushing and shoving of players as part of disciplinary coaching.

“No question he’s a tough coach,” Bolling said. “I’ve played for a lot of coaches like that. And let me tell you something: the best coaches are coaches like that.”

After remarking that he’s received angry emails since defending Rice yesterday evening, Bolling remarked, “We are so afraid to discipline our kids. We are so afraid to tell our kids we disagree with what they are doing. Everyone gets a participation trophy. There’s no winners, there are no losers in American life anymore. We are wussifying American men and it has to stop.”

Echoing the sentiments of his colleague Sean Hannity, Bolling asked what it would be like if we told a military drill sergeant not to get in the face of his soldiers. “We’d be losing wars all over the place” if that were the case, he suggested.

When Kelly expressed her negative feelings towards Rice’s pushing and shoving of athletes who “can’t fight back,” the two went back and forth over whether it’s “degrading” and “humiliating” to be treated that way by a coach. When pressed to “draw a line” for when it becomes physically “abusive,” Bolling said throwing punches would be egregious, but grabbing and shoving by a coach is acceptable.

A former minor league baseball player, Bolling recalled the time he was intentionally hit by a pitch for disciplinary measures. “If they set the bar at ‘You can’t grab the guy’s shirt or throw a ball at his feet,’ you’d probably have to eliminate two-thirds of coaches in America,” he said.

“No racial or anti-gay slurs, and don’t hit anyone,” Bolling concluded. “I’m not for that.”

RELATED: With Mike Rice, we must draw a line

Jay Leno: Not Using Illegal Immigrant? How Bout' "Undocumented Democrat?"

Townhall.com:

Yesterday the Associated Press changed the way its writers handle illegal immigration by striking the term "illegal immigrant" from the AP Style book. The move led to some late night fodder from Jay Leno, who joked the AP will be using "undocumented Democrat" from now on.

RELATED:  Shame On The AP For Surrendering To Left-Wing Language Policing

MSNBC Race-Baiter Chris Matthews Ignores History, Says Only White People Can Be "Racist"

"Tingles" just foolishly let the whole MSNBC business plan out the bag with this one:

MSNBC Chris Matthews has a sociological lesson for conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. After playing a clip of Limbaugh identifying racial antipathy in comments made by a pastor who spoke in front of President Barack Obama, Matthews took Limbaugh to school on the definition of racism. He said that racism, by definition, is the belief that white people alone should “rule” all other races. This is a “definition” unknown to students of global racial conflict.

Rev. Luis León presided over Easter Sunday services attended by President Obama recently, and has taken fire from the right for suggesting that racial hatred lurks in the hearts of conservatives. 

During his radio show, Limbaugh agreed with a caller who suggested that León was merely following the president’s lead in accusing the right of latent racism.

“Actually, Rushbo, racism is the belief that one race – whites — should rule all others,” Matthews confidently declared. “Get your definitions straight.”

While the history of racial discrimination by whites against minorities in the United States and around the world is voluminous and ongoing, racism and racially motivated violence is by no means a phenomenon limited to white people. 

On every populated continent on earth, racially motivated discrimination is an ongoing problem: Malaysian schools discriminating against Chinese students, Indian Hindus discriminating against Muslims, Zimbabwean militias ransacking white-owned farms, Libyan rebels targeting black residents, Israeli Jews discriminating against Palestinians, et cetera. 

And these are just the presently raging across the globe, to say nothing of the tragic history of racial violence around the world. And this is purely ethnic, to say nothing of religious intolerance fueling global discord and complicating international relations. 

Matthew’s claim that white people are the sole practitioners of racism is plainly, almost proudly, ignorant. Furthermore, such a statement suggests a lack of intellectual rigor or even curiosity about the nature of global conflict. At the very least, statements like these do not serve the audience of a news program. 

RELATED:  Limbaugh Goes After Media: ‘Isn’t It Racist To Assume Obama Would Be Good At Basketball?’

Magic Johnson's Son Practices Homosexuality, Dresses Like A Woman and Dates a White Man

This is what white liberals want blacks and conservatives to accept as "the new normal"--your child performing homosexual acts on other humans and dressing in a manner normally associated with the opposite sex. Of course, Magic Johnson, notorious adulterer, former NBA star and successful businessman, comes out as "proud" that his son is behaving in this unGodly manner. Magic Johnson showed us all a long time ago that he had no moral foundation, what when he "came out" and publicly admitted to having the HIV virus after whoring himself around behind his wife Cookie's back for years during his professional playing days. Then too, Johnson would stand to lose his entire financial empire, if he were to stand up against the Godless, powerful, white, liberal lobby and actually come down against his "gay" son's immoral behavior while still loving his son from a distance. In an America that continues to lose its moral fabric as the Godless, white, social liberal agenda slowly takes over the country, that's not a risk worth taking:

Magic Johnson's 20-year-old son hit the Sunset Strip, hand in hand with his boyfriend ... and his parents couldn't be happier for their kid.

Earvin Johnson III -- aka EJ -- is one of Magic's 3 kids.  The Lakers legend tells TMZ, "Cookie and I love EJ and support him in every way."  Magic goes on, "We're very proud of him."

The feeling is mutual ... 'cause EJ told us he's been "hoping and praying" for his dad's team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, ever since Magic and his business partners took over the franchise.

He's also a huge Lakers fan ... obviously.

EJ -- who's a student at NYU -- has a close relationship with his parents. Back in August, Magic tweeted, "Thx to my son EJ for hosting me at NYU. Look forward to taking him to dinner tonight in the city."

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/1/13

No, We Are Not All Libertarians

"Rainbow Journalism" Is The New Enemy Of Children

BET Founder Slams Black Unemployment Rate

Conservatives, Christians, Fox News Bashed at Annual Taxpayer-Sponsored LGBT Youth Event

Thousands March for Marriage; Media Ignore Them

Alex Jones: 'MSNBC Is Like the Ku Klux Klan Channel' - 'Just Race, Everything Race'

Jeb Bush: Entitlement System Will Collapse If We Don’t Act Now

Judge Rules 9/11 Museum Can Include World Trade Center Cross

White House Easter Egg Roll to Feature Many Celebrities; Obama Reflects on Jesus' Sacrifice

North Korea Leader Vows Nuclear Weapons Are 'Nation's Life'

Why Dr. Ben Carson Shouldn’t Have To Apologize For His ‘Bestiality’ Remark

Mediaite.com:

On Tuesday’s Hannity show, when asked for his thoughts on gay marriage, Dr. Ben Carson stated that marriage “is between a man and a woman” and that “no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition. It’s not something that is against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”

The predictable “Dr. Ben Carson equates homosexuality with bestiality!” outrage ensued, so much so that today Dr. Carson was forced, on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, to explain:

And, you know, I think, you know, in terms of what was said on Sean Hannity’s show, that was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to say. You know, as a Christian, you know, I have a duty to love all people and that includes people who have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone. What I was basically saying, and if anybody was offended, I apologize to you. But what I was basically saying is that there is no group. I wasn’t equating those things. I don’t think they’re equal. Just, you know, if you ask me for apple and I give you an orange you would say, well that’s not an orange. And then I say, that’s a banana, that’s not an apple either. And there’s a peach, that’s not an apple, either. But it doesn’t mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. And in the same way I’m not equating those things.

But Dr. Carson should not have to explain what is simply an obvious argument illustration, much less apologize to those offended (i.e., to those lacking listening and reading comprehension skills).

While I am a conservative who supports same-sex marriage, I fully appreciate the “slippery slope” public-policy argument made by opponents who worry that redefining marriage could lead to recognition of any other number of unions – including unsavory ones. Though I do not personally envision this being the case down the road, it is certainly a valid point and one worth considering.

When making this argument (as Dr. Carson did), polygamy, or marriage to minors, or, yes, even bestiality (and marriage to one’s pets?) are often invoked as possible ‘future products of marriage’s re-definition.’ In no way, however, does it mean the individual (in this case, Dr. Carson) is equating same-sex marriage or homosexuality with any of the examples posited.

Rick Santorum was also a victim, like Dr. Carson, of this false outrage. For several years, the Left ran with a terrible (and possibly deliberate) misinterpretation of Santorum. In early 2012, when Santorum’s presidential run was soaring, particularly following the Iowa caucus, cries of “Santorum describes homosexual relations as ‘man on dog’!” or “Santorum says gay marriage could lead to bestiality!” were everywhere online (see, e.g., here). But, as it turns out, Santorum had said no such thing. The crude, inaccurate allegation stemmed from a 2003 Associated Press interview in which Santorum said this about gay marriage:

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality—
[At that point, Santorum was interrupted by the interviewer who joked that he/she was not expecting to hear a U.S. Senator use the term "man on dog."]

Much like Dr. Carson, in no way did Santorum equate homosexuality or gay marriage with bestiality. Santorum, on the contrary, was cautioning that he was not equating gay marriage with other prohibited-marriage categories such as “man on child” (individuals marrying minors) and “man on dog” (individuals marrying animals).

Basic reading comprehension and common sense did not, however, prevent the unfair smears that haunted Santorum for years.

Dr. Carson’s “slippery slope” argument will naturally be made again by traditional marriage supporters. Misquoting and misrepresenting anyone on this issue – be it Dr. Carson, Rick Santorum, anyone – is fueled by either the willfully obtuse or the agents of dishonest hackery.

So to Dr. Carson, I say: no need to issue an apology. In fact, you’re owed one.

RELATED: Dr. Ben Carson Fauxpologizes For Totally Not Comparing Gays With Child/Animal Rapists

50% of Black Male High School Dropouts are Unemployed

Trust me, Barack Obama loses no sleep over this. He's too busy uplifting his anti-God, white, liberal social agenda to give a damn about what's going on with young, black men in this country:

More than half of the black male high school dropouts in the U.S. are unemployed, according to a fascinating analysis by a news site called RemappingDebate.org.
 
The site uses U.S. Census data—the same data used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics—to create a vast snapshot of the unemployment story for hundreds of different configurations of the U.S. population. While the current 12-month average unemployment for black males between 16 and 25 without a high school diploma was 51.6 percent, the equivalent number for white males was 25.6 percent—half the number for black males.

For Hispanic males between 16 and 25 without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate was 23.3 percent—actually less than the rate for white males.

For females, the numbers are a little bit better: black female high school dropouts between 15 and 25 had an unemployment rate of 45.2 percent, compared to white female dropouts at 21.6 percent and Hispanic females at 28.8 percent.

By contrast, the unemployment rate for black male college graduates was 6.7 percent, while it was 5.9 percent for black female college graduates. For Hispanic male college graduates, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, while it was 5.8 percent for Hispanic female college graduates.

For white male college graduates, the rate was 3.6 percent, while the unemployment rate for white female college graduates was 3.8 percent.

Rush Limbaugh Goes After Bill O’Reilly For ‘Marginalizing’ Audience By Calling Gay Marriage Opponents ‘Bible Thumpers’

Can't believe O'Reilly would do such a thing, nice of Rush to call him out on it. After all there's plenty of reasons besides the Bible that one can be against "gay marriage": 1) The gay lobby are mostly made up of anti-Christian, atheists (i.e., all this "gay marriage" crap is nothing but an attack on religion) and they know full damn well that civil unions would provide gays with the same "rights" as marriage does; 2) real "marriage equality" would include polygamists and polyamorous couples, 3) every man and every woman already has a "right" to legally marry a person of the opposite sex and 4) homosexuality is a behavioral choice and thus, shouldn't be compared to race or laws that that were passed to prevent discrimination based on race or gender, natural states of being that cannot be changed.

On his radio show this afternoon, Rush Limbaugh took a swipe at Bill O’Reilly after the Fox News host and his guest said the opponents to same-sex marriage have no “compelling” argument besides “thumping the Bible.”

On The O’Reilly Factor last night, guest Megyn Kelly explained that she finds the social conservative argument against same-sex marriage to be weak, seeing no argument articulated aside from biblical beliefs.

articulated aside from biblical beliefs.
O’Reilly agreed:

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to anything but thump the Bible.

Limbaugh took issue with this, seeing it as part of the “mainstream” media’s attempt to diminish opposition to gay marriage. Calling O’Reilly “Ted Baxter” — a nickame often given to TV personalities who are seen as vain and self-delusional — Limbaugh said the Fox host “marginalized” a great portion of the network’s viewers:

“How many of you who watch Fox are ‘Bible thumpers’? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote-unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible-thumpers.”

Limbaugh then went on to connect the O’Reilly incident to Brian Williams and David Letterman similarly dismissing gay marriage opponents on NBC.

RELATED: O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Agree: Gays Have ‘More Compelling’ Argument, Opponents Just ‘Thump The Bible’

Ann Coulter Slams Rich Elite Jim Carrey on Hypocrisy of Anti-Gun Funny or Die Video

 

RELATED: Greg Gutfeld Takes To Megyn Kelly’s Show To Rail Against ‘Self-Righteous Jerk’ Jim Carrey’s Anti-Gun Video

Dr. Ben Carson Responds To Accusations Of ‘Tokenism’ By MSNBC’s Touré And Others On Fox: If You Feel That Your House of Cards Has Been Discovered and is Starting to Come Unraveled, You Become Very Desperate

Mediaite.com:

Megyn Kelly invited pediatric neurosurgeon and frequent Fox News guest Dr. Ben Carson on her show Tuesday and offered him a platform to defend himself against recent accusations by those on the left that he is no more than the Republican Party’s latest “token” minority. Without explicitly using his name, Kelly alluded to comments made by MSNBC’s Touré, who said last week that Carson was helping Republicans “assuage their guilt.”

Kelly apologized to Carson as she read off some of the names he has been called in recent weeks, like “token” and “oreo,” before landing on the quote from “a commentator on a rival network” who said Carson was benefiting from “the GOP’s version of affirmative action.”

Carson responded calmly, saying, “if you don’t have anything useful to say, you attack people. If you feel that your house of cards has been discovered and is starting to come unraveled, you become very desperate.” He added, “intelligent people tend to talk about the facts, they don’t sit around and call each other names. That’s what you can find on a third grade playground.”

Addressing the racial aspects of his detractors arguments specifically, Carson said, “they feel if you look a certain way, then you have to stay on the plantation.” He mentioned that he’s been called an “Uncle Tom” and rejected that term, not for it’s racist context, but for its inaccuracy. “Obviously they don’t know what an ‘Uncle Tom’ is,” he said. In the novel, “he was very, very subservient, kind of go along to get along type of person.” Perhaps referring to his outspoken arguments against Obamacare, he said, “obviously, that’s not what I’m doing.”

RELATED:  Touré: Ben Carson Is The GOP’s ‘Black Friend,’ Enjoying GOP’s ‘Affirmative Action’ And ‘Assuaging Their Guilt’

Barack Obama is An Antichrist

 

RELATED: Who Saw This Coming? Christian Radio Host: God ‘Guided’ History Channel To Show Obama Is Satan

Homosexual CNN Anchor Don Lemon Uses Show To Advocate For Gay Marriage

Don Lemon is an intellectually bright and good-looking black man who chooses to be physically intimate with other men. With the Supreme Court beginning to decide the Godless, morally-bankrupt issue of "gay marriage" this week, it should come as no surprise that Lemon would toss aside objective reporting and use his own show to advocate for "gay marriage":

On Monday, a debate on CNN over the issues headed to the Supreme Court this week relating to the constitutionality of prohibitions on same-sex marriage and the right of same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as straight couples exploded. Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan Anderson got into a heated and tense exchange with CNN anchor Don Lemon after he asserted that there are no laws currently on the books that make gay marriage “illegal.” Lemon resented Anderson’s assertion, calling it “absurd.”

“Just to clarify, the issue here is not legality,” Anderson began, “so, in all 50 states, there is nothing illegal about same-sex marriage.”

“Hang on,” Lemon interjected. “You said same-sex marriage is not – is not illegal?”

“When something is illegal, it’s criminal to engage in that activity,” Anderson clarified.

The two engaged in crosstalk before Lemon insisted that, as the anchor of his program, he can interrupt any guest as often as he likes. “It is illegal – gay people don’t have the same rights,” Lemon insisted. 

“It’s not illegal,” Anderson countered. “When something is illegal you can go to jail for doing it.”

The crosstalk was reignited when Anderson accused Lemon of using “the wrong terminology” to describe what is at issue before the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. 

“You can’t go to jail for committing a same-sex marriage,” Anderson added.

“Finish your point, as absurd as it is,” said Lemon, throwing up his hands.

The pair blew up again after Anderson insisted that it was gay rights activists who were attempting to redefine the definition of marriage for everyone. Anderson insisted that children fare better in life when raised in two-parent households. “Ryan, there is so much wrong in what you said that children do best when they are with their married parents,” Lemon said. “Not all married parents are good parents.”

“No one said that,” Anderson insisted. “I said children do best—“

“That’s not true,” Lemon insisted. 

RELATED: Evangelical Leader And GOP Strategist Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage’s ‘Radical Agenda’ On Fox News Sunday

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/25/13

Court Shouldn't Rewrite Law On Gay Marriage

Stockton, California Heads To Bankrupt Court

Treasonous Obama Strikes Again 

Meningitis Spreading Via 'Gay' Sex

George W. Bush's Dog Paintings Continue to Impress

More Older Americans Using Marijuana

Politico Avoids Explaining Why Republican Senators Stopped Halligan Circuit Court Nomination

More Pastors Jumping Off the Rock into the Raging Waters

5 Ways To Forfeit Your Man Card

‘Sodomy: We All Have To Pay!’ Coulter Debate On ‘Nannying’ Devolves Into Battle Over Gay Bathhouses

The County Where No One's Gay