Dems blast Fox host for 'crack pipe' comments about Rep. Waters

link

The Fox News commentator who said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) should "step away from the crack pipe" referring to remarks she made about House Republican leaders said his comments were a joke. But the Los Angeles County Democratic Party didn't find it very funny.
Rep. Waters, a Democrat representing parts of Los Angeles, was a topic of conversation on Thursday's edition of the Fox News morning newscast "Fox and Friends," because of a speech in which she called House Republic leadership "demons."
That riled up commentator Eric Bolling. "Congresswoman, you saw what happened to Whitney Houston," he said. "Step away from the crack pipe, step away from the Xanax, step away from the Lorazepam, because it's going to get you in trouble."
The show's hosts were caught by surprise and gasped. After the show returned from a commercial break, Bolling said it was a joke. "I just want to say I was kidding about the crack pipe," he said. "Just kidding."
Eric C. Bauman, chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party, called for the network to remove Bolling, condemning his remarks as, at best, "insensitive and inappropriate" and a "horribly offensive characterization of a longtime member of Congress."
"At worst," he said in a statement, "Bolling's comment oozes racism, which serves to discredit a strong African American woman by perpetrating racial stereotypes. Regardless of whether this remark was deliberate or offhand -- it was irresponsible, despicable and reprehensible."

Obama Looks Like A "Skinny, Ghetto Crackhead" Says Fox News Contributor

link

Brent Bozell Thursday night on Fox News said President Barack Obama looks like “a skinny, ghetto crackhead.” Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center, a conservative activist organization that parades as a think tank and media watchdog.
Talking Points Memo reports:

A Fox News guest on Thursday said that “you might want to say” President Obama looks like “a skinny, ghetto crackhead.”
Brent Bozell, of the conservative Media Research Center, appeared on Fox Thursday night, where guest host Mark Steyn showed a clip of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews saying that Newt Gingrich “looks like a car bomber.”
…
“How long do you think Sean Hannity’s show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead?” Bozell wondered. “Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does.”

Notice how Bozell cowardly ensconces his racist attack against Obama in “you might want to say” language so he can say, “Well, I didn’t say that.”
Bozell has a long resume when it comes to ultra-​right wing conservative groups. Wikipedia notes,

Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is an American conservative writer and activist. Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter. In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.

The Catholic League is Bill Donohue’s pedophile priest-​supporting organization.
In yet another well-​researched article, Media Matters adds:

Fox News’ animosity toward President Obama, three years into his presidency, is by now well-​known. This is the network that routinely calls Obama a socialist, accuses him of being involved in all sorts of conspiratorial plots, and claims that he hates America. But, as witnessed Thursday on Hannity, Fox’s attacks have taken an increasingly racially charged tone: Brent Bozell, who runs the factuallychallenged outfit of conservative misinformation known as the Media Research Center, likened Obama to “a skinny, ghetto crackhead.”
…
A few months ago, Fox’s Eric Bolling came under fire for his racially charged criticisms of Obama, including his claims that Obama was “chugging 40’s in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO” (which he latertried to amend), and that Obama was hosting “hoodlum[s] in the hizzouse” when he welcomed Gabon President Ali Bongo Ondimba and rapper Common to the White House.
…
Since April of this year when Obama announced he would be running for reelection, attacks haveranged from false claims about the president’s place of birth and religion to claiming Obama has “black nationalist sympathies.” Fox’s Monica Crowley, for example, derided Obama as a “committed wealth redistributionist” for the apparent benefit of African-​Americans.
But this is nothing new. Fox News and its personalities have a long history of aggressive race-​baiting and racially charged commentary. Moreover, Fox News’ news-​aggregation website, Fox Nation, has ahabit of prominently featuring race-​baiting headlines and content in an apparent effort to attract and encourage racist commenters. One memorable headline read: “Obama’s Hip-​Hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs.”

WUSA 9 and Foxnews tries to stir up anti-asian racism by reporting a non news story

WUSA 9  a local TV station in Washington DC try to stir up anti-asian and anti-Japanese sentiment by reporting a non news story about a school attended by Obama's Daughters serving Asian and Japanese food.
  Manny Fantis a reporter tried to claim this is insensitive on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour by the former Imperial Japanese Army in 1941


Fox news also Join the hate mongering


As proof that there's no excuse too flimsy for hate mongering against President Obama - especially if it has a connotation of being un-American - those "patriots" at Fox Nation have dug up this whine: The cafeteria at President Obama's daughters' school served - gasp! - Japanese food on Pearl Harbor Day. As it turns out, the actual meal was more Chinese than Japanese: teriaki chicken, fried rice, and fortune cookies. (H/T Barbara S.)
But, hey, why let a little detail like the difference between Chinese and Japanese get in the way of a good smear? Fox News' Todd Starnes, the author of the column Fox Nation based its post on, called his piece, Sushi on Pearl Harbor Day? thereby blithely ignoring his own reporting that indicated otherwise. Fox Nation likewise misleadingly put photos of sushi as the focal point of its post.
Starnes also suggested that the school itself planned the meal in some kind of secret solidarity with our enemies from 70 years ago - who happen to be our allies now. Starnes wrote,

The school told the Washington Post that their Pearl Harbor Day menu was completely coincidental. Anyone else buying that?

Of course, Starnes had no information that it wasn't coincidental. By the way, did Starnes drive to work today in a Toyota? Did he watch anything on a Panasonic Blu-Ray player? Listen to any Sony music?
Or is it just food that counts?
Starnes concluded with:

The President’s children may be feasting on Japanese food today but as for me — I’ll be eating an all American cheeseburger and maybe a slice of apple pie.

Apparently, that's all there is to his brand of patriotism.

Pat Buchanan continues to preach racism. MSNBC still refuses to fire him

source

Pat Buchanan: Minorities Aren't "Bad For The Country," But...

October 18, 2011 3:31 pm ET by Solange Uwimana

Pat Buchanan doesn't think "minorities are bad for the country." At least that's what he claimed last night on Fox News. In an interview with Sean Hannity to discuss his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Buchanan expanded on part of the book's premise, that America is "disintegrating" because "white America is an endangered species." Though he claimed that minorities aren't "bad for the country," the America of 2041 Buchanan sketched is one that is bankrupt economically, confounded by crime and lawlessness, and where English is a second language.
Here is Buchanan trying to explain the main points in the chapter of his book titled, "The End of White America":

HANNITY: I want you to explain it in your words 'cause I think people will interpret it, Pat -- is that, oh, so white America's going, so that means the end of America? Are you saying that minorities are bad for the country.
BUCHANAN: No, not at all. No, not at all. But the title is taken from the title of an article, cover article in Atlantic Magazine, exactly, "The End Of White America." What does it mean -- and the fellow wrote it about what does it mean for the culture? And so, I looked at it from what does it mean for the United States of America when white Americans in 2041 become a minority in the country along with Asians-American minority, African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans. And you try to envisualize what's going to happen. And America's gonna look very much like California right now. And what does that mean?
California is bankrupt. It's bond rating is the lowest of any place. Los Angeles, half the people there don't speak English as -- in their own homes -- 5 million people. And you've got all the problems of crimes. You've got a black-brown war among the underclass, as one sheriff described it, in the prisons and in the gangs. And people are leaving California. And it's the old tax consumers are coming in.
Now, these are not bad or evil people. Even the ones who are illegal. They're coming to work, many of them. They're coming for a better life. But the truth is they are bankrupting the state of California because of that divide you mentioned between taxpayers and tax consumers. And what happens when all of America is like that, when every American city is like LA?

Buchanan added: "What California is today, America is in 2041 if we don't change course."



How else would one interpret those words if not: "[M]inorities are bad for the country" unless there are more white people?
Indeed, Buchanan goes even further later in the discussion, complaining:

BUCHANAN: Republicans can't win California today. It's not because the people are evil, but they are Democratic. They depend on government. They believe in government, and they vote for the party of government. When Texas goes the same way -- and whites are a minority in Texas -- when it becomes predominantly overwhelmingly Hispanic, it is going to become predominantly Democratic. That's the end of the Republican Party.

Buchanan concluded by suggesting "a moratorium on immigration." There's no clearer indication of what Buchanan thinks of minorities and immigrants than his remarks to Sean Hannity.
Buchanan has a long history of bigotry. He has been warning that America will become "a Third World country" since at least 1990 when he warned about the "Euro-Americans ... who founded the United States" becoming the minority.
And his call to end all immigration is something Buchanan has been calling for, for years, as well. In his 2006 book, State of Emergency, for example, Buchanan wrote:

• "This [immigration] is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." [p. 5]

• "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [p. 6]

• "The first imperative is an immediate moratorium on all immigration, such as the one we imposed from 1924 to 1965. ... But even with a moratorium, success is not assured." [p. 250-251]

During the Fox News discussion, Buchanan said he named "The End of White America" chapter of his book after an Atlantic Magazine article. But the author of the Atlantic article of the same name arrived at a conclusion that was the exact opposite of Buchanan's. In the January/February 2009 issue of the magazine, Vassar College English professor Hua Hsu wrote:

This vision of the aggrieved white man lost in a world that no longer values him was given its most vivid expression in the 1993 film Falling Down. Michael Douglas plays Bill Foster, a downsized defense worker with a buzz cut and a pocket protector who rampages through a Los Angeles overrun by greedy Korean shop-owners and Hispanic gangsters, railing against the eclipse of the America he used to know. (The film came out just eight years before California became the nation's first majority-minority state.) Falling Down ends with a soulful police officer apprehending Foster on the Santa Monica Pier, at which point the middle-class vigilante asks, almost innocently: "I'm the bad guy?"
BUT THIS IS a nightmare vision. Of course most of America's Bill Fosters aren't the bad guys--just as civilization is not, in the words of Tom Buchanan, "going to pieces" and America is not, in the phrasing of Pat Buchanan, going "Third World." The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White Man's Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

Hsu concluded:

[W]e aspire to be post-racial, but we still live within the structures of privilege, injustice, and racial categorization that we inherited from an older order. We can talk about defining ourselves by lifestyle rather than skin color, but our lifestyle choices are still racially coded. We know, more or less, that race is a fiction that often does more harm than good, and yet it is something we cling to without fully understanding why -- as a social and legal fact, a vague sense of belonging and place that we make solid through culture and speech.
But maybe this is merely how it used to be -- maybe this is already an outdated way of looking at things. "You have a lot of young adults going into a more diverse world," Carter remarks. For the young Americans born in the 1980s and 1990s, culture is something to be taken apart and remade in their own image. "We came along in a generation that didn't have to follow that path of race," he goes on. "We saw something different." This moment was not the end of white America; it was not the end of anything. It was a bridge, and we crossed it.

source

Pat Buchanan: Blacks Have Lost The American Identity They Had During Segregation

October 19, 2011 6:11 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

During a radio appearance promoting his book, MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan argued that blacks and whites were more unified during the 1950s than they are today. Buchanan argued that "what we had then, which was a sense of cultural and social one-ness, we were a people, that I think that is what's being lost." Buchanan added that while blacks considered themselves Americans first and foremost during the era of segregation, today they're using "hyphenated terms" like "African-American" to describe themselves.
Buchanan's remark came yesterday on the radio program of Mark Davis. Davis asked Buchanan to expand on his theory that, in Davis' words, "black Americans of 1960 were more woven into the fabric of the America of that time than many of today's black Americans are woven into the America of this time."
Buchanan replied that during the 1950s, blacks and whites "all had a common religion, we all worshiped the same God, we all went to schools where American literature was taught, the English language was our language, we all rooted for the same teams, we read the same newspapers, we listened to the same music. We were a people then. We were all Americans. Now I'm not saying segregation was good. But what I was saying, that did not prevent us from being one people."
Buchanan then said that blacks today have lost the American identity they had in the 1950s:

BUCHANAN: If you'd ask those black folks that are traveling abroad, "Who are you," "I am an American." That was their first identity in my judgment at that time. Clearly they were African-Americans, but we didn't use hyphenated terms in those days. And so I think what we had then, which was a sense of cultural and social one-ness, we were a people, that I think that is what's being lost. Across the divide now, people are calling names, they're not communicating, and I think it's really a tragedy and it could be a disaster for this country.

Buchanan painted a similar picture of the 1940s and 1950s in his 1988 book Right From The Beginning. In his chapter "Then and Now: A Tale of Two Cities," Buchanan wrote of his upbringing in segregated Washington D.C.: 

Any resemblance between this cosmopolitan capital and the sleepy Southern city where we grew up is coincidental. Segregation was a way of life in postwar Washington, but, unlike parts of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which were little slices of Mississippi, Washington never belonged to the "mean South." The only genuine "racist" I ever knew was the father of a grammar-school classmate, a red-faced, black-haired Irishman  who kept a rack of rifles and shotguns in his dining room, and talked incessantly of "the niggers." His wife and kids, however, were the nicest of people, polar opposites.
Over the years, I have come to agree with a friend that "racism is an obsessive preoccupation with the subject of race. The racist sees everything in life, education and politics, from the standpoint of race. His viewpoint on everything is pervaded by his obsession." By that definition, racism is as prevalent in black America today as in white America. In the late 1940s and early '50s, however, race was never a preoccupation with us; we rarely thought about it.
There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "Negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds, and churches; and we had ours. Neither community could have been called rich.
We had no right to vote, when I was growing up, no elections. We were governed by three "commissioners," appointed by the President, and governed well. One of them, Walter Tobriner, was my father's good friend; he didn't need a limousine, but drove to work in his own car. The white public schools were run by one appointed commissioner, the black schools by another. And the schools ran well; the best of them were the equal of the Catholic schools.
[...]
In the 1950s, there were no food stamps or Medicaid payments or rent supplements. The relief agencies were the churches. But no one starved; no "homeless" froze to death, and no shake-down artist extorted millions out of the White House by threatening to starve himself to death; and everyone worked. Black teenage unemployment was 9 percent in 1948, today, it runs between 35 and 50 percent.
In 1950, the same bus that was jammed with white-collar workers in their snap-brim hats coming south from Kensington to Chevy Chase Circle, to catch the L-4 downtown, carried the "maids," the black cleaning ladies, back out to Kensington to work all day in the houses the white men had left an hour before. When it snowed, the kids at Blessed Sacrament would gather at the circle and barrage the "Boston Blackie" with snow balls as it rolled by, heading north out the two-lane road that was Connecticut Avenue. The white driver was always more outraged than his passengers, who laughed at the diversion from the day's drudgery provided by the little white boys.
Now the cleaning ladies in the affluent suburbs of Washington are Korean and Mexican and Salvadorean, and tens of thousands of Washington's black women and their children are second- and third-generation welfare clients. Supposedly, they are better off.

Buchanan, who just released his new book Suicide Of A Superpower, has a long history of bigotry and hostility toward minorities.
From the October 18 edition of WPAB's The Mark Davis Show:

DAVIS: There's a statement you made maybe three or four books back that I've quoted so much, so often, always with credit, because it makes people's eyebrows go way up, but they need to pause and understand it, and that is that the African-Americans, the black Americans of pre-Civil Rights Act America -- I mean, yes, it, was a country that had colored water fountains, and nobody is looking to go back to that, but the black Americans of 1960 were more woven into the fabric of the America of that time than many of today's black Americans are woven into the America of this time. What do you make of that?
BUCHANAN: You know, that's -- let me tell you, I grew up in Washington, D.C. I was in high school when Brown vs. The Board Of Education came down and I remember before it came down we had one black player on our football team, a Catholic team, and public high schools wouldn't play us. And we had to go up to Pennsylvania on these back roads and find teams that would play our school.
But you are right. In the 1950s, for example, Washington, D.C., was a segregated town. It wasn't Birmingham, Alabama, but it was segregated, clear and simple. But we all had a common religion, we all worshiped the same god, we all went to schools where American literature was taught, the English language was our language, we all rooted for the same teams, we read the same newspapers, we listened to the same music. We were a people then. We were all Americans.
Now I'm not saying segregation was good. But what I was saying, that did not prevent us from being one people. If you'd ask those black folks that are traveling abroad, "Who are you?" "I am an American." That was their first identity in my judgment at that time. Clearly they were African-Americans, but we didn't use hyphenated terms in those days. And so I think that what we had then, which was a sense of cultural and social one-ness, we were a people, that I think that is what is being lost. Across the divide now, people are calling names, they're not communicating, and I think it's really a tragedy and it could be a disaster for this country.

Hannity Uses Tavis Smiley To Advance An Anti-Black Agenda

source

I’m going to assume that Tavis Smiley was just ignorant of Sean Hannity’s long history of documented bigotry and not consciously helping to advance his anti-black agenda during their interview last night (9/12/11) on the Hannity show. The interview purported to be about Obama’s problems with African Americans but sure enough, Hannity was soon prodding Smiley to denounce the Congressional Black Caucus’ recent comments about the Tea Party – which any regular Hannity viewer knows he has framed with deliberate racial antagonism. Hannity also pretended that, unlike Democrats, he only criticizes President Obama “on substance.” That was such a whopper, I’m surprised Hannity’s nose didn’t start growing right on the spot.
Smiley was evidently there with a goal of promoting his PBS special about the special problems facing black boys in our education system. But Hannity covered up his lack of interest in the issue by playing a brief clip from the special and saying, “Before we get to that which I think we’re going to agree on, so let’s start with the point at which we disagree. I think Barack Obama’s failed as president.”
As a graphic saying, “LOSING THE BASE?” appeared on the screen, Smiley explained his somewhat conflicted feelings about Obama.
(That was in Part 1 of the interview.)
In Part 2, below, Hannity zeroed in on his target, the Congressional Black Caucus.
Hannity said:

I felt the rhetoric got insane during the Bush years. I try and criticize the president on substance. I have a philosophical different vision…

Whoa, let’s stop right there. Hannity tries to criticize the president on substance? Dude, I don’t know what you try to do but what you actually do is character assassination extraordinaire. Hannity has impugned Obama’s patriotism (and pretended otherwise), hyped Donald Trump’s phony birtherism (even after Fox News reporter Shepard Smith had discredited it), gave a friendly platform for Trump to suggest Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book, and is fixated on painting Obama as a white-hating, black radical. But maybe that’s what passes for “substance” to Hannity.
He continued, “Here’s the deal. When you see Jimmy Hoffa call tea party members 'sons of bitches,' and ‘we’re at war with them,’ or Maxine Waters saying that they can go straight to hell or Andre Carson saying that tea party members, conservatives in this country want black people hanging from trees, I take personal offense at that. (Obama) lectured the country on civility. (Obama’s) been missing in action and totally silent and the answer is, ‘We’re not gonna be the speech police now.’ But when it came to Sarah Palin, they were the speech police. Hypocritical?”
Hannity seems to have been referring to Palin’s use of a map of America with rifle targets on it, plus her “Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!” tweet. But the big difference is that Palin was talking about being an aggressor (i.e. shooting) whereas Carson was talking about being a victim (i.e. lynched).
What Hannity also forgot to mention is that he used the Congressional Black Caucus’ remarks as an excuse to mount racial attacks on them and the White House.
Sadly, Smiley seemed to know nothing about Hannity’s history of palling around with a white supremacist, of serving on an advisory board of an organization run by a guy who thinks “most blacks” in Tennessee are racists, or how he has jumped to defend just about every white person accused of racism – among other items in his long, disturbing record on race.
Instead, Smiley fell right into Hannity’s clutches by agreeing with him. “Yes, on both sides… This for me is across the board,” Smiley said. He added that he was “so moved” when the country “came together in a unified way” after the Giffords shooting. “We’re not a civil enough society.”
I couldn’t agree more with Smiley about the need for civility and he has every right to criticize Carson, Waters, et al. But I don’t think he understood how he was being used as a pawn in Hannity’s political calculations.
Hannity continued, suggesting that Obama should have a “Sister Souljah” moment and disingenuously asked if Obama wouldn’t “benefit politically” from telling the Congressional Black Caucus to stop using their “incendiary language.”
Fortunately, Smiley did point out that Democrats are not the only ones using such language.
But if anyone thinks that Hannity and Fox News would do anything other than exploit a Sister Souljah moment against Obama, the CBC and probably both, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’m sure you’d love to buy.

Hannity’s Michael Meyers: Genuine Civil Rights Advocate, or House Negro?

source

"Uncle Tom" is one of the milder names Michael Meyers, Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, was called after saying that President Obama “has ghetto behavior” ( Hannity, 9/5/11). While his remark elicited epithets such as “house negro” and “handkerchief-head” from disgusted African-Americans posting on Facebook, Meyers’ fellow Hannity guests, Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour and Dr.Junk-Food-Is-good-For-You- but-Obamacare-Will-Kill-You Marc Siegal, never even blinked at Meyers’ incongruous insult to the President. With video.


The context for Meyers’ remarks was yet another Faux-outrage discussion of the so-called “violent rhetoric” used by Teamster president James Hoffa in his speech on Monday. In case you’ve only just awoken from your Labor Day beer-and-barbecue coma, Hoffa’s exhortation to get out and vote – “Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back & keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these sons of bitches out” – was edited by Fox News and other rightwing outlets to omit the voting reference and make it seem like a call for physical violence. The fact that Fox News was called on it, and even broadcast the offending phrase in context at the start of their discussion (transcript), made no difference to Hannity’s hang-‘em-high panel. They were out for blood.
Of course, the blood they were really after was President Obama’s - this time, for not rushing out to condemn Hoffa's remarks - and what better way to "legitimize" their Republican/Tea Party anti-Obama propaganda than to trot out a Real Live Black Person to criticize our dark-skinned President?
“This President has ghetto behavior, it is crass,” said Meyers. “He lacks grace, he lacks gravitas, and he lacks class. And it’s so ironic that a person that lacks such class would engage in class warfare rhetoric.” Is it really appropriate for a civil rights advocate to use “ghetto” as a slur under any circumstances – let alone when referring to the President of the Unites States?
It’s not unheard of for one black person to call another “ghetto”, and the word isn’t limited to black targets. While there’s a lot of disagreement about exactly what it means, we can assume from the context that Meyers was identifying “ghetto” with, as he said, lacking grace, gravitas, and class, and being crass.
Meyers is well qualified to talk about the ghetto. According to his bio, he was born in Harlem and “knows first-hand the ghetto experience which, as he puts it, ‘contributes to the defeat of the human spirit; the only way to end the ghetto is to get out of it.’ Fair enough. But people with high standards and values also live in ghettos, and not always by choice but by birth and/or socioeconomic factors beyond their immediate control. Coming from the director of a civil rights group, who grew up in Harlem during one of its worst periods, he ought to know better than to use that word as an insult. It comes across as a slur on some of the people on whose behalf he is, presumably, working.
Or is he? Meyers’ attitudes are confusing. On the one hand his bio and his work shows that he has both formal and street cred as a civil rights advocate; but a closer reading reveals a history of alliances with forces who have an interest in disenfranchising the very people he is supposed to represent, such as the right-wing Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which battles supposed liberal bias on-campus, and the ironically named, anti- affirmative action (and anti- Obama) Center for Equal Opportunity.
The board of Meyers’ NYCRC includes regular Fox contributor Juan Williams - and one Tamar Jacoby, who, according to this article, is “a director of the uber-conservative, racial psuedo-science, neo-conservative, Manhattan Institute which is linked to the righting corporate lobby group, American Legislative Exchange Council.
But ALEC isn't just any old lobby group. According to Sourcewatch’s ALEC Exposed,

Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit huge corporations. Through ALEC, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.

These associations might go some way towards explaining why Meyers allows Hannity, who pals around with racists, to use him to launch attacks on black people and play the race card by accusing others of playing the race card.
Is Michael Myers' New York Civil Rights Coalition a genuine agent for social justice - or is it actually a front through which Meyers does the dirty work for his corporate Massas in the guise of "helping" victims of civil rights violations? This a possibility that deserves closer scrutiny (a starting point might be to investigate what motivated, and resulted, from the 1991 and 1995 "restructuring" of the NYCRC at Meyers' hands, taking it from a coalition of groups to an association of individuals). It would certainly explain why Meyers seems so eager to throw traditional civil rights groups and leaders, to say nothing of President Obama, under the bus.
Civil rights advocate, or house negro? We’ll let a famous resident of Harlem, the late, great Malcolm X, help you decide:

For Second Week In A Row On Hannity, Malkin Launches A Racial Attack

source

One week after using the flash mobs as a vehicle to attack African Americans, Michelle Malkin was back on Hannity, this time using what FoxNews.com called the “liberals’ assault” on the Tea Party to attack African Americans again. This time, Malkin accused the Congressional Black Caucus of "joining hands" with immigrant activisits in order to "amnestize them and turn them into Democratic voters."

With her customary contempt, Malkin sneered about Rep. Maxine Waters’ “demagoguery” and “vitriol” before accusing her of “trying to get the gander up of the black community to distract from her own ethical problems.”

Only on Fox News would someone like Malkin – who last week complained that it might be too late to counteract “festering aggrievement in the inner cities” – be consulted for “insights” into minority communities. But this is just the kind of racial perspective Hannity has implicitly endorsed – without exposing his own neck.

With faux sympathy, Malkin accused Waters of "pandering to a lot of unemployed, dissatisfied people." As if the constant fear mongering and hate mongering on Fox does not.

But then Malkin trotted out an explicitly racial attack, by accusing Waters of "joining hands with people who would rather see black Americans dependent and collecting food stamps and more unemployment benefits. I mean, that’s the ‘jobs program’ of the Congressional Black Caucus and that will be unveiled after Labor Day by President Obama and then also of joining hands with the open borders alliance… These are people who …want to recruit more illegal aliens so they can amnestize them and turn them into Democratic voters.”

Another fascinating insight into black America, care of Michelle Malkin!

After that, the discussion moved on for Hannity to whine again about how conservatives would never be able to get away with calling President Obama “unpatriotic.” If you’re not already doubled over with laughter at such a lie, check out my post citing just some of Hannity’s hilarious hypocrisy on the subject here.

Naturally, Malkin – who scorned the “aggrievement” of minorities the last time she was on Hannity – checked right into the GOP: Special Victims Unit along with the poor, persecuted host.

Fox Nation Patriot Wishes The Chinese Had Stomped The Black Georgetown Basketball Players “To Death”

source



Fox Nation claims to be a community of patriots “committed to the core principles of tolerance (and) civil discourse.” But as we’ve proven repeatedly – when we pointed out how readers want President Obama assassinated and the racist glee over the Williams’ sisters loss at Wimbledon, e.g. – the site has proven to be anything but. The latest example of “love” for country and “tolerance” is the shocking bigotry shown and hatred toward the American basketball team from Georgetown University. In the comments linked to a post about the brawl that broke out between Georgetown and a Chinese basketball team, at least one Fox Nation reader wished the Chinese had stomped the Americans to death. Why? As one “patriot” asked, "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE if BLK people really believed they are AMERICANS FIRST???" As another put it, “The majority of blacks are rude, overbearing and evil no matter where they go in the world.”

Michelle Malkin Uses Flash Mobs As An Excuse To Attack African Americans

source

The Hannity show had a discussion about flash mobs Wednesday night (8/17/11). But instead of booking a guest with any real expertise in or insight into youth violence, inner city violence or even racial violence, Hannity trotted out Michelle Malkin. She used the segment to launch a shocking, full-scale attack on African Americans - with bonus swipes at President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, unions and more. It was clear her animosity was nothing new. Sean Hannity said nothing to challenge her hideous invective. If any black person said such things about whites on Fox, he or she would be crucified. Or, should I say, "electronically lynched?"

Hannity began by fear mongering. “Fear is escalating across the country as flash mobs are on the rise in recent weeks.”

After noting that flash mobs had “an instant organizing tool,” (presumably social networking and other technology), Malkin, with her trademark sour sanctimony, added,

I think the other thing that stands out of course is something that the liberal media elite doesn’t want to talk about. And that is the explicit racial factor that’s going on in many of these cases. Now, yes, we had (African American) Mayor Nutter call out some of these young black students and youth that have been involved in some of these but you don’t for the most part hear minority leaders – and we certainly haven’t heard anything from President Obama, who’s shown willingness to talk about racial issues – remember the beer summit? But he has said nothing about this when it involves minority young people who are explicitly going after whites, Asians – not just on the streets but in our schools.

Hannity sat silently, then played a clip of Nutter telling African Americans (to enthusiastic applause) to pull the hoodies down, “pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

“Amen, it’s about time,” Malkin said. But that was really just a segue for her next racial attack:

But I wonder, and I think many people do who have observed this festering aggrievement in the inner cities, whether it’s too late. Now we have had some role models in the black community, particularly Bill Cosby, who has been sending that ‘pull your pants up and get your act together’ message for a long time but there have been too many in the minority community, too many in the Congressional Black Caucus, for example, Maxine Waters types who are excusers and rationalizers and who have turned the perpetrators into the victims. I mean, it’s this whole welfare state mentality where people’s violent acts have been excused.

As Hannity brought up violence in Europe – suggesting that a “mindset of entitlement” was to blame here and there, Malkin used that as a springboard to spread her scorn to everyone else she disagrees with.

…The same sort of ACORN, community organizer mentality, the issuing of intimidation manuals by groups like the SEIU, for example, are of a piece. Because what they do is condone the kind of barbaric behavior we’ve seen from some of these activists showing up at the private homes of corporate executives, for example, and the kind of rhetoric that never gets condemned by the civility police.

… And I think the stoking of that kind of entitlement certainly is the road to barbarism that we’ve seen in Greece and Europe and yeah, I mean, it’s not just a matter of predicting that it will come here, we’ve seen it happen.

Feel free to contact Michelle Malkin at writemalkin@gmail.com and suggest that she make sure her children pay for their own education, buy their own clothes and food – and heck, maybe they ought to learn to cook it, too – because she certainly won’t want to start them on the “road to barbarism” through some sense of entitlement.

More on Michelle Malkin who earn a living by preaching white supremacy in order to "fit in"

How Fox News Uses Hip-Hop to Create Race Panics

news article



You Maaad!—How Fox News Uses Hip-Hop to Create Race Panics

Nov. 12, 2003, was a momentous day for hip-hop. For the first time ever, a rapper sat down with Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly for what the host snidely introduced as an “intelligent conversation.”

The rapper: Cam’ron, the same guy who made purple mink coats and “no homo” fashionable.

The topic: Is gangsta rap hurting America’s children?

Cam’ron’s first words: “Pimpin’ and bitches.”

To be fair, Cam’ron was merely quoting O’Reilly, who was paraphrasing Cam’ron. The entire interview lasted all of 12 minutes, without a single conclusion drawn about whether gangsta rap had in fact hurt any of America’s children. Instead, the lasting element from the conversation was a soundbite that can still be heard in high school hallways across the nation. “You maaad!” the rapper teased O’Reilly.

With Fox News’ parent company News Corp now facing conspiracy and bribery charges in the UK, and broader race-baiting accusations at home, O’Reilly’s questions about media and morality might have been better directed at Rupert Murdoch. But the show marked an important milestone for Fox News: The discovery of a brand new “track” for the taudry practice of tapping into America’s deeply held assumptions about and fears of black people. This new ploy transformed mild think-about-our-kids rants into direct allegations of hip-hop’s role in perpetuating American racism and terrorist sentiment. Over the years, we’ve seen rappers—particularly black male rappers—from throughout the genre’s political spectrum interrogated for the content of their lyrics, their relationships with President Obama, and (in a most meta development) their sentiments about Fox News itself.

In the most recent episode, we saw something very similar to Cam’ron’s 2003 appearance—except this time it was Lupe Fiasco sitting in O’Reilly’s hot seat. And it was in fact Fiasco who was calling Obama a terrorist and criticizing his policies, leaving O’Reilly to defend the president.

This debate came shortly after Fox News created an uproar over rapper Common’s appearance at a White House poetry night, calling to attention the favorite Fox theme of fretting over a given rapper’s relationship with Obama—something to which Jay-Z, Ludacris, and Young Jeezy have all been subjected.


So if Fox is mad when a rapper affiliates with Obama, and Fox is mad when a rapper criticizes Obama, what is Fox really mad about? Is Fox’s beef with hip-hop just another form of coded language used to indirectly criticize the black community? Or is there something still more cynical behind the network’s insistence on framing hip-hop as a culture of ho-slapping wall taggers, despite the fact that it has become an enterprise of business-owning White House guests?

Even Bad News Is Good News

Beyond Fox’s vendetta with Obama, its outlandish race-baiting, and even its staunch conservatism, is one top priority: ratings. But what happens when a network has developed a rigid narrative against one of the most globally influential departments of pop culture? To simply ignore hip-hop would counter Fox’s steadfast public image of being in tune with the common American. Yet to embrace it would be counter to the reactionary brand Fox News has built. So how do you ride and strangle a horse at the same time? In Fox’s case, you simply pick a fight.

Jay-Z, Nas, Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, and Lil Wayne are among pop music’s crème de la crème today. To imagine them all on a show’s lineup is enough for Carson Daly to envy. Yet Fox has managed to play these artists’ music, promote segments about them, and even have guest appearances from them without paying a single booking fee. Fox’s perverse-yet-genius method of riling rappers up until they feel tempted or obligated to make an appearance on the network has allowed for a unique balance of ushering top celebrities through the network’s rotating door while letting viewers wag their fingers at them. In the end, Fox’s narrative is intact, its core following is satisfied, and its opponents can’t resist making their show clips go viral (albeit through YouTube dislikes).

But the network isn’t the only one playing the game. Over the years Fox has provided hip-hop artists a platform to reach viewers who never paid them any mind before. For some, it’s an opportunity to promote an album—as demonstrated by Cam’ron’s plug for “Purple Haze” during his closing statement with O’Reilly. For someone like Lupe, it’s a chance to prove himself for hip-hop by demonstrating the intelligence and eloquence that earns a “Lupe OWNs O’Reilly” viral video title. Even an artist like Common—who remained intentionally aloof and declined to make an appearance on the network—benefits from having his name sloshed in the mouth of a public figure like Sean Hannity.

In more recent years, Fox’s confrontations with rappers have increasingly been initiated by the artists themselves. Jay-Z, Nas, and Lupe Fiasco have all seen their latest album releases make headlines when talking heads at Fox got hot and bothered about being called out. Nas’ track “Sly Fox”—a response to the network’s racket over his controversial album title “Nigger”—was in all regards a traditional-style diss record, but the impact was much wider. Where a traditional battle track against another emcee might have earned you a spot on your local radio station, rappers have quickly learned that gunning for Fox will earn you much larger media hits.

Yvette Travillian of the Future of Music Coalition says that O’Reilly’s response to Lupe’s anti-Obama riff hints at this relationship becoming even more complex. “It appears that Fox/O’Reilly gets off from hearing a rapper publicly diss someone they are expected to support,” explains Travillian. “I think they figure since Obama is black, and Lupe Fiasco is black and a rapper, then naturally, he will support anything Obama says or does.”

But with O’Reilly going out of his way to praise Obama in order to oppose the rapper, one has to wonder just who Fox is fighting for, and why.

Protect the (White) Children

Watching Fox News cover hip-hop is like…well, it’s like listening to Sean Hannity rap—“decontextualization” doesn’t begin to describe the gear-grinding sound of Hannity attempting Common lyrics. But forget the offensive handling of a decidedly black vernacular, or the reduction of a career spanning nearly two decades into three bars, or even the transformation of a Gap-commercial rapping, “Just Wright” acting, PETA-endorsing vegan like Common into a militant cop killer.

What is most disturbing about Fox News’s developing coverage of hip hop is the subtle narrative staked at the end of each segment. The backdrop for every accusation made against someone from the hip-hop community is a story about moral virtue and an overwhelming concern for young listeners. Over the years we’ve seen rap icons transform from niche muses to household names, and their following looks more and more like the children of the white suburban demographic to which Fox caters. Hip-hop has become a convenient and likely resonant enemy for that audience.

“Hip-hop allows Fox News to play the race and the youth card at the same time,” explains Jeff Chang, author of the book “Can’t Stop Won’t Stop.” “These pseudo-controversies are modeled on the same narratives that have been used since the late 1980s.”

Truly, the demonizing of rap (or black youth culture in general) is nothing new. The aggregate of Fox’s strained relationship with people in the hip-hop community, however, is a growing narrative about upstanding moral character that is increasingly difficult to challenge. For the Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s of talk TV, the argument seems to go: I am a white person against using the N-word, and calling women the B-word.

Fundamentally, I can’t be against that. I am unequivocally for white people who markedly distance themselves from racism and misogyny. The danger, beyond inappropriately vilifying rappers who actively use the N-word, is continuing to outline a protracted culture war that relegates hip-hop specifically and black culture more broadly to bad-guy status.

Protest Outside of Murdoch Home Calls For End to FOX News Race-Baiting

news article



Demonstrators had plenty to protest yesterday in front of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch’s Manhattan home. Amid revelations of the UK’s News of the World phone hacking scandal, activists led by ColorofChange.org showed up at the media mogul’s front door to call for an end to FOX News’ flagrant race-baiting, as well as a Congressional investigation of Murdoch’s conglomerate News Corp.

Around 40 protesters and many more members of the press attended the 12:30 p.m. rally on 5th Avenue. After a speech from Rashad Robinson, where the Executive Director of ColorofChange.org* explained that for his organization and their allies, “It’s not just about the wiretapping, but it’s about the agenda, the ugly agenda that is focused on driving Americans apart.”

The protesters, holding signs that read “Rupert Murdoch Profits From FOX News Racism” and “Race Baiting, Phone Hacking, Anything For Profit,” then attempted to deliver a ream of paper with 110,000 signatures of citizens demanding that Eric Bolling, the FOX News host who claimed Obama chose to chug “forties” in Ireland instead of tend to tornado victims in Missouri and that the President has been hosting “hoodlum[s] in the hizzouse,” be fired. When the petition was brought to the doorman of Murdoch’s building near Central Park, he said that the building was “not accepting packages.”

Rashad Robinson explained to the crowd and cameras, “Rupert Murdoch is showing once again that he does not want to hear our voice.”

When reached for a statement, News Corp had “no comment.”

While delivery of the petition might not have been a success, calls for a closer look at News Corp practices by the federal government have been heard. Just today Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would launch an investigation into whether or not News Corp has violated United States laws. An undisclosed source told CNN, “We’ll be looking at anyone acting for or on behalf of News Corp., from the top down to janitors.”