Jonathan Martin is also the left-wing operative who led the campaign to bring down Herman Cain over 15 year-old allegations. This partisan campaign was so frenzied and over-the-top and outrageous that even left-wing media watchdogs said so.

And now we get another glimpse into what motivates Mr. Martin, as he launches a racial slur against Southerners on a national cable channel:

—–

Wikipedia sums it up perfectly:

Cracker, sometimes white cracker, is a pejorative term for white people.

You’ll also note that MSNBC host Chuck Todd says nothing in response to Martin’s racial slur. In fact, Todd doesn’t blink an eye.

Moreover, keep in mind that these are the same MSM leftists who have and will continue to attempt to define every effective attack against Barack Obama as “racist” or as some sort of “racial dog-whistle.” This includes FACTS, such as the record increase in the number of food stamp recipients under Obama’s failed recovery.

In this same situation, we all know what would happen to a journalist who worked hard to hold Obama accountable, and we all know what would happen had Martin used a racial slur against any group other than white southerners.

But Jonathan Martin is among the protected class of so-called journalists because he’s a fierce Palace Guard for Obama. He also chose the exact right group to launch his slur against, because this is all about politics and getting Obama reelected.

The term “cracker” creates the image of the conservative-voting Florida panhandle Obama’s MSM Palace Guards want to create. Because Obama can’t win on his failed record, the MSM intends to make sure America understands that only racists and a racist country would dare fire the first black president.

What Martin is doing here is laying the track for that narrative, which is why Chuck Todd is a-okay with this particular racial slur.

These people are awful, but they’re not dumb.

—–

HuffPo:

“He is making a mockery of the system,” Todd said. “…Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that feels like he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican.”

He cautioned the media to be “careful” about amplifying Colbert’s message, and said it should not be treated as “shtick” or satire.

“What is his real agenda here?” he said. “Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money and politics, and what’s going on? Or is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? I think if I were a Republican candidate I would be concerned about that.”

Todd concluded by saying that he “idolized” American politics and didn’t want to see people become more cynical about them.

Less than a few minutes ago, Colbert was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” being fawned over by Scarborough, his guests, and his audience. All rather nauseating.

I also disagree with Todd’s claim that Colbert is doing something noble in going after these Super PACs, but we’ll leave that debate for another day. (More on that here.)

The mistake no one should make, though, is to buy the notion that Todd is the only member of the MSM to have cracked Colbert’s code. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows what Colbert is up to. Furthermore, Colbert fully understands that his anti-GOP crusade will get him the MSM exposure he desires because the media shares his agenda.

The only difference between Todd and his colleagues (especially at NBC) is that Todd is at least somewhat troubled by what’s going on.

From Breitbart.tv:

NBC News’ Chuck Todd was caught giving an obscene gesture on live, national television this morning. It’s the latest in a series of “mistakes” that seem to continue slip by the producers of the low-rated “Morning Joe” program on MSNBC. Is it possible that the Nielsen-challenged morning show is purposely trying to get attention by allowing profanity to slip onto the air?

Always, always assume that any camera near you is rolling and any mic is hot. This, coupled with Meghan McCain, and MSNBC’s superstar Al Sharpton, means NBC is ready for National Lampoon’s Election 2012.

Mr. Gingrich would be our first president with a Ph.D. since Woodrow Wilson. Does his work as a historian tell us anything about him? Or, for that matter, anything about why, despite certain events in 1776, he considers “anticolonial” an epithet? To address these questions, a good place to start is his 1971 Tulane doctoral dissertation: “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960.”

For Pete’s sake. This is the stupidest thing the NYT has written today. Can you imagine if the NYT pored over Obama’s college thesis, or hey, even his college records, which have never been release despite repeated requests? Can you imagine the NYT going over Fast and Furious emails they way they’re rifling through Gingrich’s thesis — or devoured Sarah Palin’s emails?

- Al Jazeera opens a new bureau in Chicago.

Previously on Al Jazeera:

Why It’s Time for Rep. Peter King to Investigate Al-Jazeera
Another Al-Jazeera Journalist Suspected of Terror Ties
U.S. Officials Suspected Al-Jazeera Ties to Al-Qaeda
How Al-Jazeera Kills Americans

- Mitt’s media blowback:

Mitt Romney’s vulnerabilities as a candidate are well known, yet a seemingly new one surfaced last week: his unusual brittleness in the face of media questions.

With one prickly interview with Fox’s Bret Baier on Tuesday — in which the candidate appeared uncomfortable and even angry fielding basic questions about his record — the former Massachusetts governor set off a round of speculation about his ability to operate outside hermetically sealed campaign events, reminding his rivals and the media of the extreme lengths to which he has gone to evade the national press.

On a Fox panel that night, Juan Williams called the interview “disastrous,” Jonah Goldberg said Romney appeared “uncomfortable” and Baier said people thought Romney seemed “irritated and tense” — sentiments that were echoed across the other networks that night and in print the next morning.

For a candidate who has been in the national spotlight as long as Romney, his discomfort with Baier was telling. And it reflected a deliberate and long-standing strategy of dodging tough questions and questioners.

- Fox moving to the center?

NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower slipped a matter-of-fact WHOPPER into the top story of today’s ”First Read.” The whopper is so subtle and devious I almost missed it.

See if you can catch it:

COLUMBUS, OH — The best — and most meaningful — statewide race of 2011 wasn’t in West Virginia (where Democrats narrowly won the gubernatorial contest). Or in Louisiana (where Gov. Bobby Jindal cruised to re-election). And it won’t be in Kentucky (where Democrats are poised for a blowout gubernatorial win). Or in Mississippi (where Republicans are expected to hold the governor’s mansion). Rather, the 2011 race with the biggest political implications is taking place here in the Buckeye State, where voters two weeks from today will decide the fate of Gov. John Kasich’s (R) law curbing collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers. It will test, once again, organized labor’s strength in the Midwest (after its mixed results in Wisconsin). It will gauge Kasich’s popularity (or unpopularity). It will serve as a trial run of sorts for next year’s presidential contest in this traditional battleground state. And it’s the same fight we’ve seen across the country — about how governments balance their budgets and about the role of the government worker.

To be clear, I’m not talking about the usual-usual bias at work here, where you have leftists disguised as objective journalists gaming the system by telling us which upcoming election is “the most important” and will be a “trial run for next year’s presidential race.” Obviously, what they’re doing here is what the MSM always does — laying the groundwork to craft a narrative in advance. Their hope is that the left will prevail (in this case, that the immoral practice of collective bargaining will be saved) so they can then run around MSNBC and NBC spinning this into a victory for Obama. But like I said, that’s the usual-usual coming from the MSM these days, especially NBC and Chuck Todd.

No, what I’m talking about is ”First Read”’s attempt to memory-hole the absolute beating Big Labor took in Wisconsin with this stinking load of matter-of-fact crap:

It will test, once again, organized labor’s strength in the Midwest (after its mixed results in Wisconsin).

Let me assure you that  the results for Big Labor in Wisconsin were nothing close to ”mixed.” In a series of elections and court decisions – in a state that went for Obama by a whopping 14 points — Big Labor enjoyed a perfect rate of failure.

Here’s a list of of what “First Read” spins into “mixed results”:

• Big Labor lost both state houses and the governorship in the 2010 mid-terms.
• Big Labor lost a bruising budget battle along with their obscene collective bargaining “rights” soon after.
• Big Labor lost the battle to overturn this legislation in the courts.
• Big Labor lost their push to replace a conservative justice on the State Supreme Court.
• Big Labor lost four out of six recall elections and their bid to hand Senate control to Democrats.
• Big Labor wasted untold millions on each of these failed efforts.

That is a 100% failure rate, and yet ”First Read” describes those results as “mixed.” As we already know, though, the truth doesn’t matter to NBC News. All they’re interested in is crafting narratives that aid and abet the left, which means they will choose which elections are important and they will scrub away the inconvenient history of Wisconsin that might demoralize Big Labor’s turnout in Ohio.

Keep in mind, this sort of corrupt spin only begins on “First Read.” From there, it bleeds into everything else NBC-related. That’s the whole idea of “First Read,” to set the narratives in place before the news cycle begins.

NBC wants us to forget that Big Labor got its ass handed to them time and again in a state Obama won by 14 full points, because that’s horrible news for Their Precious One. And the sooner we forget such things, the sooner Chuck Todd can make Ohio “important” and start the Obama and Big Labor on the Rise! narrative.

Today, The Big Lie is almost always told in an offhand, matter-of-fact way. And if the guy doing the telling sports an everyman goatee, that’s all the better.

—–

During last night’s GOP debate as soon as Rick Perry called Herman Cain “brother,” I knew the MSM would jump on the race-baiting bandwagon and attempt to twist an obvious term of affection into something sinister. Some of it is just cultural ignorance on the MSM’s part. The use of “brother” is used primarily in that part of the country the MSM finds icky … the South.

Naturally, the rock-obsessed, race-baiters at the Washington Post jumped all over it:

So, just what did Perry mean when he called Cain “brother,” a term he didn’t use with anyone else on stage (in fact, Perry called Romney “sir” three times, even as Perry was being attacked and on the attack. His disdain was apparent with each “sir.”).

Was Perry channeling scholar Cornel West or even the late wrestler Randy Savage, both known for referring to everyone as brother? Or was Perry attempting a do-over of sorts on matters of race? (Remember that it was Cain and Cain alone who spoke out against the hunting camp incident, though the later backpedaled.) …

Gwen Ifill tweeted this: “Why is @GovernorPerry calling @THEHermanCain brother? Are they related? #scandal”

And speaking on MSNBC today, political analyst and strategist Karen Finney remarked that she was slightly bothered by Perry’s use of the term “brother” to refer to Cain. She later e-mailed me the phrase simply “hit my ear the wrong way.”

From the unlikeliest of sources, however, this bubbling, ridiculous, and predictable narrative might’ve just been stopped in its tracks:

Andrea Mitchell’s attempt to imply Rick Perry was being racially insensitive, for calling fellow GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain “brother,” during Tuesday’s Republican debate, was so lame even her NBC colleague Chuck Todd wasn’t buying it. Mitchell, on Wednesday’s edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, dredged up the N-Head controversy on Perry as she scolded: “If I were Rick Perry and had that sign or the, the stone that used to be on that, that property I’m not sure I would’ve gone with the ‘brother’ stuff, over and over again.”

Todd then tried to reign in his NBC colleague as he admonished: “Just very quickly on the ‘brother’ thing. That’s a Southern cultural thing,” and reminded her that their “late friend Mr. [Tim] Russert” was also fond of using that term in a friendly way, “He loved to refer to all of us as brother.” Even the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza came to Perry’s defense as he agreed with Todd and offered: “It sounded to me more like Hulk Hogan saying, ‘brother.’”

Memo to Andrea Mitchell: “Boy” would be wrong. “Brother” is just another word for “friend” among we bitter clinging inbreeders.

—–

When first asked about the issue, there were no doubt 50 better ways Herman Cain could’ve responded when presented with the non-story of an offensive word on a rock Rick Perry’s family painted over decades ago. But to his credit, Cain quickly recovered by accepting Governor Perry at his word and urged the media to move on. But if you watch the clip above, what you’ll see is that Chuck Todd, “NBC Nightly News,” and the MSM as a whole aren’t anywhere near ready to move on. Cain obviously wants to talk about jobs and all Obama’s Media Palace Guards want to talk about is how racist Rick Perry is. Bottom line: they want to get as many days as they can out of this narrative for one reason and one reason only…

To protect Obama.

Whether the MSM is burying Perry in this nonsense or badgering Herman Cain about it, what’s not happening — what’s not being talked about on the news or by the GOP candidates — is the one thing Obama’s media pals don’t want talked about, Obama’s failure as a job creator and the brewing scandals surrounding Mexican gun-running and Solyndra. So…

Distract. Distract. Distract.

The MSM intends to keep these types of  silly narratives coming for the next 15 months and they intend to keep them aimed at any potential threat to Obama’s re-election. And if you’ll notice, this distraction game-plan isn’t just trained on Perry but also Cain. As you’ll see in this news report, NBC “selectively edited” Cain’s comments to focus on the racial distraction. We have no idea what Cain might have said about unemployment or creating jobs or anything else. In other words, Cain isn’t able to get his message out.

See how this works? The corrupt MSM gins up a non-story and focuses on it to drown out our candidates’ message. Better still (for Obama), between Fast and Furious and Solyndra there are two Pulitzer-worthy stories just sitting out there — potential scandals that might reach all the way into the White House.

But that non-story about a 30 year-old rock is all the MSM is interested in, because they’re not reporters and they’re not interested in speaking truth to power and they’re not interested in  holding the powerful accountable. All they’re interested in is carrying Obama to re-election.

My first reaction:

I then proceeded along with half of the center-right on twitter to rail against the President on “his” statement.

Turns out it my instinctive reaction was correct, it was a joke.

Regardless of who said the quote, they deserve the same ire for the insensitive comment. But it makes one wonder, would this quote have gotten the play had it originally been attributed to the correct author? Chuck Todd says this was a fault of “multi-tasking” and has apologized.

Todd was discussing the riots in Afghanistan sparked by Islamist ire over the burning of a Koran by a Florida pastor. During the interview Todd and a guest stated that the Christian Bible was just a book written by men while the Koran was the “direct word of God.” The two implied that this excuses Muslims from murdering people over the book burning.

In the segment Time Magazine’s World Editor Bobby Ghosh told Chuck Todd that the riots and murders perpetrated by Muslims in Afghanistan were obviously understandable because the Koran is apparently more holy than the Christian Bible. Ghosh averred that it’s important to “keep in mind” that the Koran is “not the same as the Bible to Christians.” Why, you might ask? Why it’s because the Koran is “directly the word of God.” On the other hand, the Bible is just a book “written by men.”

Of course, Ghosh is wholly incorrect that Christians see the Bible as just some storybook “written by men.” After all, the Bible is thought of as “the word of God” by millions of Christians across the world as it has been throughout time. Ghosh’s claim that everyone just accepts the Bible as something “written by men” and easily dismissible or somehow less sacred to Christians on that basis is simply erroneous. It is also extremely offensive.

Naturally, Chuck Todd heartily agreed with Ghosh’s misstatement.

Now, certainly Christians agree that the Bible was “written by men” but there is no assumption that it is somehow less for it. After all Christians feel that these mere men were inspired directly by God. Just as the Koran is assumed to be the direct word of the Muslim’s god, Christians also believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

In fact, it is easier to make the historical case that the Bible was written by people who knew Jesus while the claim that the Koran was written by anyone that knew the Prophet Mohammad is nearly impossible to substantiate. Parts of the Bible have been determined as having been written within the life times of people that would have known Jesus personally. On the other hand, there is no proof that the Koran was written any time closer than 100 years after Mohammad’s death, long after anyone that might have known him would have been dead.

Regardless of the suppositions of historians, though, there is no legitimate way to claim that the Christian Bible is any less sacred or awe inspiring for Christians than the Koran is for Muslims. The difference is not in the writers of the books or their provenance. The difference is in their cultures. Christian reforms have brought tolerance and peace between factions of Christianity as well as between Christians and people of other beliefs while there has been no such tolerance infused into Islam.

As to the burning of the Koran by Florida Pastor Terry Jones, his entire attempt to grab an additional 15 minutes of publicity initially failed to spark any interest. After all, he perpetrated his somewhat childish book burning stunt two weeks ago (March 20) and no one noticed until some politically motivated people in Afghanistan used the incident as an excuse to riot.

Do not make the mistake that this really isn’t about religion, though. It most certainly is. This incident cannot be divorced from Islam as some sort of aberrant behavior. Unfortunately, it is just one small incident of thousands of similar outrages perpetrated in the name of Islam. This sort of crime is not separate from Islam. It is an integral part of the ideology. Too many such incidents have occurred to blow them all off as incidental.

Transcript courtesy of Mediaite

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that’s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not, it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It’s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you’re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it’s hard to understand if you’re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more, potentially much, much more inflammatory than…

TODD: Directly attacking… directly attacking God.

GHOSH:…than if you were to burn a, burn a Bible.

TODD: … Directly attacking God.

Rep. Kendrick Meek on the other hand is no Alvin Green. Meek is a well educated man, a sitting congressman and son of the congresswoman. He no doubt has the political pedigree to serve in the United States Senate. I am proud to say that he is a fellow graduate of my alma mater, Florida A&M University. Like Green, Meek earned his place as his party’s nominee. While Meek & Green may have different backgrounds they share a trait that condemns them to the bottom of their party. They are both black men who aspire to represent a constituency larger than their neighborhood. The truth is, Meek could be a congressman for the rest of his life if he decided to stay in his district. However, his senatorial aspiration could lead to his political demise.

Meek was confronted on MSNBC about dropping out of the race in order to make way for Republican turned Independent Charlie Crist. The 2010 election is looking bad for Democrats across the country. Yet no one is calling for Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold or any other white liberal candidate to move aside for an independent. Liberals only seem two single out black candidates for such maneuvers. According to the polls MSNBC sited, Meek is polling poorly among Democrats proving more racism within their party. Read liberals posts on MSNBC which further illustrates my point. Meek’s voting record is as liberal as you can get. Unlike Green, Meek is well-qualified, so it is impossible not to consider race as a factor in this situation.

Chuck Todd was doing a great impersonation of a plantation overseer as he tried to steer Meek in the direction of abandoning his campaign in order to make room for a white man to take his place. Watching Todd address Meek was like a recreation of Democrat “Bull” Connor talking down to Martin Luther King, Jr. Todd is making the assumption that a black man can’t win in Florida and that his best chance is finishing second. Perhaps the most racist part of the interview was watching Todd and co-host Savannah Guthrie blatantly ignore Meek’s attempt to focus on the issues. Guthrie asked him if he could live with himself should Rubio win.

While I am no political supporter of Meek, I do support a citizen’s decision to run for public office.  I would personally love to see Marco Rubio represent my home state of Florida in the United States Senate. The issue here is the mainstream media’s facilitation of Liberal attacks on black people that aspire to represent districts bigger than their neighborhoods. When I say “black” people, I don’t mean Obama, I mean people like me who are descendents of slaves. With stories and interviews like these, MSNBC, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media continue to let black people know that their place in the Democratic Party is at the bottom.