Examiner:

How much is too much? Politico broke the Cain sexual harassment story last Sunday night, launching organization wide coverage filling up a full week of heavy coverage on their scoop.

Since the scandal broke, the political reporting juggernaut has published at least 90 online stories on further developments and public reaction to the story.

That’s 90 stories in less than a week.

By contrast,  according to a good faith count using Politico’s own search engine….

…there have been exactly two stories with the words “Rielle Hunter” in them not only during the time it mattered, the Year of our Lord 2008, but still months after John Edwards dropped out of the race.

…there were only 16 stories about Jeremiah Wright the week that bombshell dropped, and more than a few were favorable to Obama.

…there have been fewer than 40 total stories about Fast and Furious since that story broke months ago.

…there have been only 65 stories about Solyndra over the last six weeks.

…and there have been fewer than 30 stories surrounding anything involving the New Black Panther Party.

Need I go on? Must I make the gun smoke a little more?

I see a lot of people, even on our own side, defending Politico’s reporting of the Cain story. Well, that’s arguable to say the least, but can we all come together and at least agree that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime? Unnamed sources hurling unknown allegations from over a decade ago and Politico launches the story as though it’s “Watergate Two: The Reckoning” and does so quite intentionally on a Sunday night during a week when Cain has a number of high-profile appearances scheduled.

This isn’t delivering the news. This is a hit job, and the whole of the MSM is on board. And the hit job only doubled down a few minutes ago when one of Cain’s accusers refused to come forward and identify herself or even reveal the details behind her charges through her lawyer. Filled with arrogance and a complete disregard for truth, as a response Politico and others spun that refusal to talk through the JournoList Machine and declared it “confirmation” and the “breaking of silence.”  What were have here is a full-blown feeding frenzy using a nothingburger for chum and yet through all the blood, ripped flesh and sharp teeth one fact remains: 90 stories later and we have no idea what Herman Cain was accused of.  Nationals Review’s Jim Geraghty is factually correct with this headline: ”With No Specifics to the Accusations, Herman Cain Wins This Fight,” but I’m afraid that Professor Jacobson might be correct when it comes to the reality:

Nice job Politico.  You had second- and third-hand information from which you spun a tail of Herman Cain as an aggressor, you never even spoke to the original source, and now all we ever will know is your spin.

I don’t know if Cain is guilty of what he’s accused of. Hell, I don’t even know what he’s been accused of other than making a few women uncomfortable and what Politico themselves described as gestures of “a non-sexual nature.” What I do know are the facts I see above, and they all point to a coordinated attempt to take out another one of our candidates with an unprecedented media assault.

We need to remember that only the corrupt MSM can win Obama’s re-election, an that’s exactly what they intend to do. He’s a failed President with almost no chance unless his Media Palace Guards can take our candidates out one by one — and already Politico’s working on a new narrative smear against Rick Perry.

Politico and their MSM counterparts treat us like political enemies. Unless we want four more years of Obama, I suggest we return the favor.

- New Video Suggests Media Matters Ignored Facts In Attempt to Smear Breitbart, Cover Up Pigford Fraud

This morning, Big Government posted video from an event at the National Press Club at which Faya Rose Touré (formerly Rose Sanders), an attorney from the $2.7 billion Pigford “black farmers” discrimination settlement, revealed major flaws in the claims process. Her statements support previous reporting by Big Government and Big Journalism–reporting which Media Matters ruthlessly and wrongly attacked as false.

The newly released video confirms much of what Pigford’s critics have been saying, destroying previous attempts by George Soros’s Big Labor-funded minions at Media Matters to hide the truth.

From Breitbart media’s earliest reporting on the Pigford settlement, Media Matters began recklessly hurling accusations of racism, and lying about Andrew Breitbart and others’ writing about the issue, while discounting facts now shown to be correct.

In hindsight, that appears to have been an orchestrated effort to suppress the truth behind Pigford and potentially keep the scandal from surfacing in mainstream media outlets.

It is an effort that has failed.

- Did Media Matters Collude With DOJ On Black Panther Story?

When news broke of alleged voter intimidation involving the New Black Panthers Party in the 2008 election, Media Matters for America (MMfA) launched a relentless push back against the charges, resulting in almost 8,000 MMfA site specific Google hits in which MMfA attacked virtually anyone who attempted to report on the controversy, while elevating any reporting that minimized it, or the Department of Justice’s decision to drop the case.

Meanwhile, a former MMfA Director of External Affairs, Xochitl Hinojosa, who had actually joined the Department of Justice in July of 2009 as a Public Affairs Specialist, took an active role in pushing back against the story from witin DOJ.

- Following New Black Panthers Story, Media Matters Circles Wagons for Obama

This Media Matters post is bizarre, even more than usual for the organization. Is Mr. Maloy upset because Mr. Breitbart again exposed the Chosen One’s radical connections? Are he and MMfA that desperate to play defense for the President that they have to attack the number of words in Mr. McCarthy’s article? Again, how is MMfA tax exempt? When will they balance this coverage with, say, some fact-checking on a story about a rock painted over nearly thirty years ago?

- Would MMFA Give A GOP Candidate The Same Benefit Of The Doubt?

According to Mr. Gertz since the Panthers arrived that day to support Obama and follow him around this doesn’t prove a connection between them. This is coming from the same organization that, despite having no proof, likes to run reports blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Mr. Gertz also thinks that just because Obama was there with the Panthers and spoke from the same podium doesn’t mean he is associated with them. Yet when a few nut jobs show up at a tea party the ENTIRE tea party is then judged by those few people, regardless whether or not the said nut jobs were plants.

But wait! The photo of Obama & the Panthers actually shows Obama several feet ahead of them so he obviously doesn’t have anything to do with them. Hmm, if Bush was photographed several feet ahead of a few KKK members that would absolve him right?

At the same press conference, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and the Nation of Islam (NOI) joined in a barrage of racist, antisemitic, and homophobic rhetoric that went unreported by the mainstream media, though the event took place within their very own clubhouse.

The newly released video confirms much of what Pigford’s critics have been saying, destroying previous attempts by George Soros’s Big Labor-funded minions at Media Matters to hide the truth.

From Breitbart media’s earliest reporting on the Pigford settlement, Media Matters began recklessly hurling accusations of racism, and lying about Andrew Breitbart and others’ writing about the issue, while discounting facts now shown to be correct.

In hindsight, that appears to have been an orchestrated effort to suppress the truth behind Pigford and potentially keep the scandal from surfacing in mainstream media outlets.

It is an effort that has failed.

For example, Media Matters tried to dispel any link between Pigford and the New Black Panther Party (“Race-baiting confluence: On Breitbart site, Adams links Pigford to New Black Panthers“).

In fact, as confirmed in video here, the NBPP has linked itself to the Pigford scandal. Any mainstream journalist can now verify that fact, assuming they are interested in accurately reporting an event held within their own press club.

Other early Media Matters attacks attempted to blame Breitbart media and Rush Limbaugh for injecting the concept of “reparations” into the Pigford scandal:

Conservative Media Scream “Reparations” in USDA Discrimination Case (December 06, 2010)

Rush mocks unemployment benefits: “Just plug them in there on that Pigford lawsuit … and give ‘em reparations” (December 08, 2010)

In fact, neither Andrew Breitbart nor Rush Limbaugh injected the concept of “reparations” into the now newly reignited Pigford scandal, as Media Matters falsely portrayed.

Newly released video documents that the concept of “reparations” was invoked by would-be perpetrators of fraud; the scheme was even pitched in black churches across the South.

What Big Government and other sites were trying to do was report the truth. Meanwhile, Media Matters embarked on a slash-and-burn style propaganda effort to silence the reports and perhaps dissuade other journalists from picking up on the story.

That’s not journalism–it’s intimidation, attempted character assassination, and suppression of potentially significant reports of government fraud.  And as those who have followed the story know, that fraud could easily damage legitimate claims by black farmers fully deserving of due compensation to right past wrongs.

Media matters previously has claimed Breitbart and Big Government’s reporting was thinly sourced and disguised to cover it up.  However, as new videos clearly document (as will others in our possession), there were and are ample sources for legitimate charges of fraud. Some of those sources include Pigford proponents themselves.

Not only is the fraud no longer in doubt, nor a secret, but it also could, in fact, have been news developed within the confines of the National Press Club, had any members of the press elected to report it.

The basis of Media Matters’ various assaults on Breitbart media for reporting the Pigford scandal has consisted of nothing more than charges of race-baiting, racism, and shoddy journalism. What is now clear is that our reporting on Pigford was driven by reasonable suspicions based upon facts, documents, and interviews, while the attacks coming this way from Media Matters were sheer slash-and-burn propaganda, full of smears and distortions having nothing whatsoever to do with exposing the truth.

Media Matters’ Simon Maloy

Mr. Maloy is so excited to “debunk” McCarthy, he engages in the common Media Matters tactic of presenting only snippets of the article he’s critiquing, going so far as to say “I’ll reproduce just the first paragraph of McCarthy’s post, because it’s really all you need” (he later goes on to quote other parts of the article). To stoop to limiting the information presented to his readers, either out of fear that they may read it in its entirety and (gasp!) think for themselves or out of a juvenile need to deprive National Review of traffic, betrays incredible insecurity behind his snide partisan vitriol. Mr. Maloy either knows better or he is lying, saying anything he can to make Andrew Breitbart look bad and distract the media from the story’s implications for Obama’s reelection campaign.

Maloy desperately clings to the objection that the purpose of the Selma march somehow mollifies Breitbart and McCarthy’s main point — that then-candidate Obama was mingling with The New Black Panther Party, doing nothing to distance himself from its radical, violence-inciting leaders. To develop McCarthy’s thought further, if both Rick Perry and the KKK both showed up to a bake sale to benefit children with cancer, that wouldn’t excuse the Republican presidential candidate sharing a podium with the racist group.

Maloy continues by hyperventilating that Mr. McCarthy would dare count Malik Zulu Shabazz as part of Obama’s “Panther entourage.” Last time I checked, Shabazz was a prominent figure in The New Black Panther Party, and while thousands attended the march, not many of those thousands spoke at the podium which both Shabazz and Obama used that day. For Gertz and Maloy to say one can’t associate Obama with the New Black Panther Party unless one counts the several thousand other attendees is the height of irony, as this is coming from the same organization that associates the entire tea party with planted crazies!

It is suspicious a “Malik Shabazz” appeared on the White House visitors’ log. Mr. Maloy thinks he’s smart by saying the White House identified Shabazz as a false positive. However, due to MMfA’s other predictable tactic of presuming a hyperlink to a tangential White House FAQ web page puts any and all questions to rest, Maloy ends up providing no “proof” to corroborate the White House’s denials. If you can find this proof in his maze of links (mostly back to … you guessed it, MMfA), please let me know. Unlike MMfA, I’ll admit when I’m wrong.

Mr. Maloy talks about Obama being several feet ahead of the Panthers while exiting the event, thus no one can possibly conclude they are together. So long as there’s a buffer of two or three rows between one person and another, they have obviously never, ever met each other. I’ll be glad to apply Mr. Maloy’s standard the next time he tries to associate people at Tea Party events with extremists or plants.

Finally, Maloy mocks Mr. McCarthy’s piece for including less than 400 words, as though that’s some sort of big deal. I encourage Mr. Maloy to read more articles in The Corner section of National Review Online because all the articles are very short. Did he consider that maybe, just maybe, there is a word limit to posts in that section?

This Media Matters post is bizarre, even more than usual for the organization. Is Mr. Maloy upset because Mr. Breitbart again exposed the Chosen One’s radical connections? Are he and MMfA that desperate to play defense for the President that they have to attack the number of words in Mr. McCarthy’s article? Again, how is MMfA tax exempt? When will they balance this coverage with, say, some fact-checking on a story about a rock painted over nearly thirty years ago? They won’t, because they are partisan to the core, and anyone with two eyes can see through their mission statement’s claims to the opposite.

What ensued was a grotesque display of racism, antisemitism, and homophobia. And not a single member of the mainstream media was on hand to report what happened.

The event was opened by Malik Zulu Shabazz, Chairman of the New Black Panther Party, a militant hate group that supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and sent armed thugs to intimidate voters at several polling places in 2008 and 2010. (On Monday, Andrew Breitbart revealed that Obama and other Democrats shared a podium with Shabazz and the New Black Panthers at a march in Selma, AL in March 2007.)

Shabazz would go on to express frustration that President Obama had not delivered as expected in the face of opposition. While making the otherwise valid point that black people should be able to criticize a black president, he complained that Obama had abandoned blacks for gays:

While Troy Davis was being executed, President Obama was focused on promoting the gay rights agenda as he prepares for an election.

Gary Grant, the President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, said that Obama had failed to deliver on his promises to black farmers because he and his family were surrounded by white people:

I have mixed emotions about President Obama, you know. I think Dr. Ridgely [Muhammad, Minister of Agriculture of the Nation of Islam, seated on Grant’s right] probably has defined it best. He said: “Now, look. The man is black. His wife is black. His children are black. They are being–heʼs being guarded by white folk. Sheʼs being guarded by white folk. The children are being guarded by whitefolk. And then he went out and bought a black dog,” you know.

Muhammad provided an even more colorful and bizarre description of the white racism at work–to the delight of his fellow panelists, who laughed and encouraged him:

What we have got to understand is that we are at war. These people are about completely destroying us. Let me give you my real radical stuff right quick, OK? Excuse me. [Laughter, encouragement: “Let ʻem have it.”] White people–white people are recessive. White people define themselves as pure white. Therefore, any drop of anybody elseʼs blood in them destroys them. So the only way they can stay white is to destroy everything else, or at least push you away from them so you cannot get to them. So the power of the black sperm is so powerful that they gonna always control you or kill you if they wanna stay white in their own mind. What makes a white folk, person the devil is not his skin color, but his desire to keep his skin color white, which the only way he can do it is to destroy everything black, because black is the dominant, and they are recessive. So everything they do–they look at these figures, they know by 2046 they are going to be the minority. So what you think they gonna do? They gonna leave this country for us to take over and run it? No–they’re selling off every piece of it. They’re selling off bridges. They’re selling off highways. They’re selling off government buildings. They’ll sell this whole country off to foreigners…so when we take over thereʼs nothing we’re gonna have control over except that we are going to have to tax the people to pay the money back to the international bankers. So we have to take our struggle beyond the issue of just the black farmers….This is a Third World country.

Faya Rose Toure (formerly Rose Sanders), class counsel in Pigford, added:

The Jews would not tolerate people putting Jewish farmers out of business without an outcry.

Toure’s reference to Jews evoked an antisemitic comment from the audience by Imam Akbar, Minister of Justice for the New Black Panther Party, who claimed that Jews had opposed the new memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because they wanted the Holocaust museum to be more prominent. He added:

Some of them are in the business, and as you see from the killing of Troy Davis, of killing Muslims and killing blacks, and we want to put them out of business as a network and an organization.

A few minutes later, Muhammad weighed in again, blaming Jews for the financial crisis:

One more thing about the preachers…Wells Fargo used the black preachers to convince black people to go to subprime loans….Then they foreclosed on them and they used that for the excuse for the economic crisis, when in fact the Jews set that up from the very get-go, because they were planning to take the country down anyway. They want to set us up–black folk–as the reason why the country failed.

Not once in the entire press conference–which lasted over two hours–did any of the panelists or audience members raise a single objection to any of the remarks above.

And not one journalist has reported on the proceedings, even though they involve parties to a $2.7 billion settlement with the federal government, even though the Pigford press conference was staged inside the mainstream media’s own private clubhouse.

Now imagine it’s 2003 and the photos have been made public.  Do you think an organization like Media Matters For America would give George Bush the benefit of the doubt? Do you think The New York Times or the evening news would brush it aside? If this was any GOP politician do you think this would be ignored? Absolutely not!

But of course MMFA immediately jumps to President Obama’s defense and makes every excuse for him. So far we haven’t heard anything from the MSM about the photos published at Big Government showing candidate Obama with the New Black Panther hate group.

Matt Gertz at Media Matters For America will say anything to make Andrew Breitbart look like a paranoid crazy man. Unfortunately for Mr. Gertz he only makes himself look like a partisan individual because someone dared to expose his messiah’s radical roots and connections.

According to Mr. Gertz since the Panthers arrived that day to support Obama and follow him around this doesn’t prove a connection between them. This is coming from the same organization that, despite having no proof, likes to run reports blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Mr. Gertz also thinks that just because Obama was there with the Panthers and spoke from the same podium doesn’t mean he is associated with them. Yet when a few nut jobs show up at a tea party the ENTIRE tea party is then judged by those few people, regardless whether or not the said nut jobs were plants.

But wait! The photo of Obama & the Panthers actually shows Obama several feet ahead of them so he obviously doesn’t have anything to do with them. Hmm, if Bush was photographed several feet ahead of a few KKK members that would absolve him right? Yeah, I doubt that.

Mr. Gertz adds, “Looks a little different in context, doesn’t it?” No it doesn’t Mr. Gertz. Actually both pictures look the same.

I searched “Obama New Black Panther Party” and see no results featuring the MSM. I search “Rick Perry Rock” and I see results from ABC News, Washington Post, New York Times, Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, and CNN. Why to the MSM is a presidential candidate’s father COVERING UP A RACIAL SLUR BECAUSE IT WAS OFFENSIVE more important than proof of President Obama’s radical connections?

For instance:

“At Rick Perry’s Texas Hunting Spot, Camp’s Old Racially Charged Name Lingered.“

That was the wildly dishonest headline on the front page of Sunday’s Washington Post and you can bet your sweet life it’s taken on a life of its own from there (which, of course, was the game plan). According to Google, there are now over 1100 related articles already online. Worse still, some media outlets have already entered phase two of this coordinated attempt to permanently take Perry out with a follow-up narrative best represented by Politico’s Ben Smith:

The story isn’t disqualifying, or all that damning. It’s distracting. And it is the latest in a series of distractions that make the key players at this stage in a primary campaign — governors, big donors — more open to Romney’s arguments that the party should unite around him, pivot to confront Obama, and avoid an endless primary, because who knows what’s going to fall out of Perry’s bag next.

Well, golly gee, thanks so much for policing your profession, Ben. You’re a real profile in courage spinning an obvious front page in-kind contribution to the Obama 2012 campaign into the damning narrative of “poor, beleaguered Perry — how will he ever get elected.”

Elsewhere at Politico, the headline went a little something like this…

“Perry’s Hunting Camp Problem.”

…without any context that frames the story in an honest way.

See what Politico’s doing here? They’re shifting the narrative in a way that allows them to still do serious damage to Perry without sullying themselves in WaPo’s ginned up filth. This is how the corrupt MSM works together to deliver the one/two punch. Punch one is a bogus story. Punch two is to paint the candidate who’s a victim of the bogus story as “under siege.”

One of the insidious ways Obama’s Media Palace Guards operate — and we’ve seen this time and again, especially with Palin and Bachmann — is to pile on and on and on until it seems as though our beleaguered candidate can’t possibly win. But why can’t our candidate possibly win? Because the Palace Guard Media relentlessly hits them with — what was the word Smith used? Oh, yeah: distractions.

Now, to those of you saying…

Whoa, wait! It’s not Politico’s job to comment on the credibility of a story. It’s their job to cover the political reality candidates face when dealing with stories.

…I’d like to thank you for falling into my trap.

On July 16, 2010, the following headline roared across Politico’s front page:

“A Conservative Dismisses Right-wing Black Panther ‘Fantasies’”

This was the title of a Politico story about the brewing Department of Justice scandal after slam-dunk charges were all but dropped against the New Black Panther Party and DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams went on the record to claim that the dropping of those charges was racially motivated.

Furthermore, a good faith search done at the time revealed that this 1200 word nothing-to see-here story was the only time Politico bothered to write about or cover a scandal that had been brewing for days. So it was quite obvious that what Politico was doing was pretty much what the Washington Post was also doing with the DOJ story. To cover for Obama they intentionally ignored a legitimate story with a legitimate whistleblower.

And do you want to know who called it a legitimate story that the Washington Post should’ve covered?

The Washington Posts’ own ombudsman.

And do you want to know who wrote Politico’s 1200 word nothing-to see here front page piece?

Ben Smith.

So now we’re going to back up some, broaden our context to the majority of the MSM, and take a look at which political figure the MSM does find worthy of creating a media narrative fury over and which ones they don’t.

Worthy of a racial media fury: a Republican presidential candidate with a father who painted over a nasty racial epithet decades ago.

Not worthy of a racial media fury: a sitting Democrat president who…

…spent 20 years in a racist church.

…called the racist Jeremiah Wright his mentor.

…shared a stage with the racist, anti-Semitic New Black Panther Party as a presidential candidate.

…also shared that stage with Malik Shabazz, the head of the New Black Panther Party.

… has yet to tell us if the Malik Shabazz who signed the White House guest book in 2009 is the same Malik Shabazz who heads the New Black Panther Party.

…appointed an Attorney General who all but dropped slam-dunk charges of voter intimidation against this very same New Black Panther Party.

Meet the New Black Panther Party:

—–

MEET the New Black Panther Party:

—–

Meet Jeremiah Wright:

—–

Meet Rick Perry’s guilt-by-association problem:

Obama’s been associated with, had relationships with, and has been endorsed by some of the most virulently divisive and outright racist figures of our time and not only does the media give him a pass, they tell us we’re the racists because we disagree with him on ObamaCare or join a Tea Party or use words like “basketball.”

Please don’t waste your time raging over the MSM’s lack of standards or their hypocrisy or their outright lies of omission and commission. Just realize that the Washington Post and Politico and all the rest are nothing more than left-wing partisans disguised as objective journalists.

Realize that this is all about 2012, getting Obama re-elected, and working as a hit squad armed with deadly narratives to take out our candidates out one by one.

Obama cannot win re-election. He’s failed almost completely as president and couldn’t create a job if you gave him a working magic wand. His only path to a second term is through a scorched-earth policy that toxifies our candidates into something unelectable.

And with the MSM as his willing lap-dog servants, that’s exactly what he intends to do.

Rick Perry’s father did the right thing and now his son is being bludgeoned as a racist over it. George Orwell wouldn’t believe what he’s seeing. But this is how far the MSM is willing to go and depths to which they will plummet.

And 2012 hasn’t even begun yet.

They say:

New Black Panthers Party fabulist J. Christian Adams is a long-time right-wing activist who began working for the U.S. Department of Justice during its notorious era of politicized hiring and now blogs for the right-wing media site Pajamas Media, often issuing false attacks on the Obama DOJ for its supposed politicization and “racial agenda.” His forthcoming book, Injustice: Exposing The Racial Agenda Of The Obama Justice Department, promises to cover similar territory.

In its attacks on Adams, Media Matters has even stooped to posting his home address and alleging that he is a Republican donor–without mentioning that he has also contributed to Democrats.

Media Matters also tries to dismiss Andrew Breitbart’s report this morning that Barack Obama spoke and marched with the New Black Panther Party while he was campaigning for president. They note that “several thousand people ‘appeared and marched’ with the New Black Panthers that day”–a point that Breitbart’s post itself made clear.

What Media Matters doesn’t want to tell you is what Adams’s book reveals: that the New Black Panthers were there to support Obama, and said so earlier that day while Obama listened and smiled; that the Panthers shadowed him, left the march with him, and raised black power salutes over his head; and that Shabazz claimed he spoke with Obama.

If there was a 4th of July event and the Ku Klux Klan were given a speaker’s slot, would any GOP candidate be stupid enough to speak there? Why, then, is it acceptable to Media Matters for Obama and other Democrats to have spoken and marched with the Panthers?

Media Matters refers to the ‘fable’ of the New Black Panther Party, but they don’t tell their readers anything at all about the New Black Panthers. In fact, they don’t seem to be critical of the New Black Panther Party in any way.

So, who is the New Black Panther Party?

I’ll do a short summary with a lot of video because, frankly, a tiny bit of research quickly brings up how awful this group is.

Let’s start with a video of Geraldo Rivera taking on New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz over his statement after 9/11 that “Brother” Osama bin Laden deserved “respect” and applause:

That’s the reality of the New Black Panther Party. The fact that MMfA chooses to shield their readers from it in order to attack J. Christian Adams–who opposes this group–is repulsive. Apparently, attacking a conservative trumps telling the truth about a racist, homophonic, antisemitic hate group.

Here are some more facts about the New Black Panther Party.

The New Black Panther Party Uses the Name “New Black Panther Party” Without the Consent of the Original Black Panther Party

The original Black Panthers have strongly disassociated themselves from the “new” version.

In an article called “There Is No New Black Panther Party: An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation” it says “the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party’s name.” The article also states that the New Black Panther Party “serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it” (my emphasis).

The Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation goes on to ask questions that Media Matters fails to ask:

The question the Foundation raises, then, is who are these people laying claim to the Party’s history and name? Are they reactionary provocateurs, who would instigate activities counterproductive to the people’s interests, causing mayhem and death? Are they entertainers, who would posture themselves before the media, and, according to numerous sources, with empty guns, to spin gold for themselves? Are they, given the history of their late-leader Khalid Muhammad, a group of anti-Semites like the very Ku Klux Klan they allegedly oppose? What is their agenda?

The New Black Panther Party Gained Initial Fame After Khalid Muhammad Became President, Subsequent to Being Forced Out of the Nation of Islam for Outrageous Racist and Antisemitic Speech

Wikipedia’s entry (reliable, in this case) on Khalid Muhammad describes him as

an African American activist who came to prominence as the National Assistant to Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (NOI). After a 1993 speech at Kean College Khalid was condemned and removed from his position in the Nation of Islam by Louis Farrakhan. He was also censured by the United States House of Representatives.

After being removed from the Nation of Islam, he served as the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party until his death in 2001. His views were considered controversial among most Americans, but his angry condemnations of white power gained him the support of many black youth.

As reported on NorthJersey.com:

Khalid Abdul Muhammad in a speech to students at Kean College in Union, New Jersey in November of 1993 called Jews, “hook-nosed, bagel-eatin’, lox-eatin’ impostors.” He attacked Catholics: “The old no-good Pope . . . somebody need to raise that dress up and see what’s really under there.” He attacked gays: “God does not name holy books after homosexuals.” And even other blacks, including Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates: “Who let this Negro out of the gate?”

Here’s part of that speech on video:

As Head of The New Black Panther Party, Khalid Muhammad Advocated Killing White People, Including Babies, ‘Cripples’ And ‘Faggots’ to Wildly Applauding Audience

Muhammad suggested giving white people an ultimatum to leave South Africa by sundown or…

We kill the women. We kill the babies, we kill the blind. We kill the cripples. We kill them all. We kill the faggot. We kill the lesbian… When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and dig up the grave and kill them a-goddamn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough.

After Muhammad’s death, Malik Zulu Shabazz became President of the New Black Panther Party, and continued Muhammad’s racist, sexist, homophobic, and antisemitic extremism.

King Samir Shabazz, the New Black Panther Party Member Who Stood Outside Polling Place, Called For “Killing Crackers”

King Samir Shabazz is a minister in the New Black Panther Party, and he really hates white people.

“You want freedom? You gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of their babies!”

If you watched the Geraldo video at top, you’ll see that Malik Zulu Shabazz has learned to play the game of,  ”If I say that something doesn’t really represent the views of the organization, I’ll sound rational and the press will leave me alone.”

However, an examination of the organization’s history reveals that King Samir is actually completely in line with the line of rhetoric originating from Khalid Muhammad.

That’s the truth about the New Black Panther Party, and the reason to be concerned that the Obama administration shut down a Department of Justice investigation into its efforts at voter intimidation.

You’ll never learn that from Media Matters for America. Ever wonder why not?

Meanwhile, a former MMfA Director of External Affairs, Xochitl Hinojosa, who had actually joined the Department of Justice in July of 2009 as a Public Affairs Specialist, took an active role in pushing back against the story from witin DOJ.

Apparently, the Justice Department is going by George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm ending:

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” “We can only take action where we have legal authority,” wrote DOJ spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa in a December 2010 e-mail to The Washington Times Water Cooler. She continues: “As stated in the website below, we are statutorily authorized to initiate suits under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, and under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

It’s not unusual for D.C. professionals to move in and out of government positions. Yet given MMfA’s acute focus on the Panthers/DOJ story, Hinojosa’s involvement with and ties to MMfA invite speculation as to what extent MMfA and DOJ might have cooperated in pushing back against a potentially explosive story for the Obama administration.

Indeed, today, MMfA is already attacking J. Christian Adams and his forthcoming book on Obama’s beleaguered Department of Justice, which has shown itself, in the Panthers case and in others, as one of the most politicized DOJ’s in modern history. (For more on new evidence linking Obama directly to the New Black Panthers, see this exclusive at Big Government today: Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party in 2007.)

Hinojosa has at times been quoted by Media Matters on a variety of stories that pertain to the DOJ.  Yet the organization does not mention that she used to work for it, nor is that information available on MMfA’s current website. This 2009 cached snapshot of the Media Matters website confirms her tenure there:

Hinojosa is also the daughter of Gilberto Hinojosa, a former Cameron County, Texas judge and current Cameron County Democratic chairman.  Aside from her time with Media Matters as Director of External Affairs, where her position oversaw outreach to Capitol Hill and to advocacy groups, Hinojosa also worked on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, as well as the Texas gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Chris Bell.  She also worked for Texas Democratic state senator Kirk Watson.

As for MMfA, few can deny that Media Matters is a collaborative clearinghouse of information to most of the left-wing media.  The coordination of “research” and talking points provided by the organization on the one hand, and left-wing commentary on the other, is deliberate and orchestrated.

We’ve seen it on numerous occasions, such as the SEIU vs. Kenneth Gladney story, or MSNBC’S Martin Bashir’s interview of Andrew Breitbart, or the multitude of stories that deliberately exclude the redemptive statement from Shirley Sherrod that Breitbart included in his 1400-word post.

There wouldn’t be so much wrong with that collaboration if MMfA’s “research” weren’t so deliberately deceptive.

The Panthers scandal began when explosive video surfaced from the 2008 elections of several members of the organization, including then-National Field Director King Samir Shabaz, stationed outside a polling place in Philadelphia with nightsticks.  That was followed by even more disturbing video of the Houston New Black Panther Party protesting with machine guns, as well as King Samir Shabaz calling for the “killing of crackers and their babies.”  The controversy prompted public outrage and demands for the DOJ to investigate what clearly appeared to be voter intimidation.

At the time, Media Matters ran numerous pieces on the scandal – not denouncing the threats of violence, but rather attacking those exposing the threats and criticizing the DOJ for not investigating them.  In fact, even as emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests revealed major contradictions with the sworn testimony of high ranking officials inside the DoJ, Media Matters continued to run interference, putting out distraction after distraction. Any mention of the Panthers even today prompts a barrage of disruptive pieces from MMfA aimed at the messenger and not at the criminal past of some of the individuals involved.

Meanwhile, there seems never to have been any acknowledgment by MMfA that the spokesperson sent to defend the actions of the DOJ and its ultimate decision not to pursue the Panthers case was once employed by Media Matters itself. That certainly raises questions about whether the Obama administration and its tax-exempt thought police have colluded directly in suppressing the truth about the New Black Panther Party.

One of the greatest media frauds in modern history, the Duke Lacrosse Hoax was once a story of violent, racially motivated gang rape by supposedly privileged white men (many were actually on significant financial aid).  Finally, here was the evidence verifying the far-left narrative of America as a deeply oppressive, racist society – evidence that had been missing, in the opinion of one Duke Professor, since the murder of Emmitt Till more than fifty years earlier.  Radical leftists throughout the campus and the nation came out of the woodwork to demand the alleged incident be used as a pretext for a comprehensive discussion on the roles of race, class, and gender in our society.

By the time David Graham took over as editor of the Duke Chronicle, the story was quickly becoming a story of the extraordinary bigotry of segments of the far left and their perverse willingness to exploit an obvious hoax to advance a political and cultural agenda.  The story became the willingness of the Duke Faculty and Administration to burn their own students at the stake in the advancement of, and in fear of, this same leftist narrative.

All of a sudden, none of these individuals at Duke wanted to talk about the matter anymore, least of all the administration.  It was time to put it all behind us.  Enter David Graham.

Before Graham took over, the Duke Chronicle was frequently commended for its exemplary work and ambitious reporting on the affair, especially in comparison with the atrocious work of the mainstream press.  On Graham’s watch, however, the paper consistently advanced a “move along, nothing to see here” approach.

Upon taking over as editor, one of his first acts was to shut down the Chronicle’s message board, a popular forum where students, alumni, and others flocked to discuss the lacrosse case since its inception, alleging the discussion of the lacrosse affair it hosted had become a breeding ground for racism and sexism to such an extent it could no longer be moderated.  Because the evidence no longer exists, it is impossible to evaluate any truth the claim might bear, but the message board had been up throughout the entirety of the lacrosse affair, and his predecessors saw no need to remove it.

Graham announced in an introductory column in July of 2007 that with “most of the loose ends of the case tied up, both Duke and the Chronicle are ready to move on,” a truly bizarre assertion given all the extraordinary unanswered questions.  Investigations had not yet even begun, no prosecutions of those responsible for the hoax had taken place, no apologies had been issued, and the Duke community was clearly still in turmoil as the furor over the closing of the message board would indicate.

Further, as of Graham’s writing, the Duke administration still stood firmly by its handling of the affair.  There had been no meaningful policy or personnel changes at the university.  Moreover, just months prior in one of the last publications before the school year ended, a group of students published a full page advertisement in the Chronicle demanding an apology from the 88 Duke professors who had published a “listening statement” in their own full page ad one year prior, publicly proclaiming the guilt of their students and offering racially incendiary quotes supposedly from concerned students.

With the exception of one intrepid, national-award-winning columnist, a holdover from the previous year, the Chronicle’s columnists and editorial board (over which Chronicle insiders say Graham had considerable influence, in spite of his denials) frequently declared the matter dead, over, and done in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary, and accused anyone who asserted otherwise of, well, staging political theater (sound familiar?).  The running joke among bloggers and Chronicle readers following the case was that Graham had turned the Chronicle into “moveon.duke.”

Unfortunately for Graham, his “moveon.duke” narrative was almost fatally obliterated when a series of explosive lawsuits laid out some revelations and allegations that stunned even those who had been closely following the matter (for example that Duke officials instructed Duke campus police to deliberately falsify police reports, and that Duke violated the law in an effort to get Prosecutor Nifong reelected).  That hardly stopped Graham from largely maintaining the narrative throughout the year.  Even after these developments, investigation, coverage, and in-depth analysis of this kind of corruption were never much of a priority for Graham’s Chronicle and largely non-existent.

In the very last publication of his tenure, Graham was left with no choice but to admit:

I was, however, completely wrong when I predicted that the lacrosse case was over, although I still absolutely believe that most students would like to see the case over and done with. I see now that that’s not going to happen so easily, and I’ve come to believe that the litigation process is necessary for whatever closure there will ever be for this University, its students, its professoriate and its alumni.

After burying the matter for most of a year, in his last act Graham finally acknowledged they might have missed the story… for an entire year.  However, in that same sign-off piece, Graham also committed an egregious violation of journalistic ethics that betrayed his sincerity.

In a case that spotlighted the rise of new media, one of the most significant bloggers on the Duke Lacrosse case wrote under the name “John in Carolina,” and he had good reasons to do so.  He was also the most critical of David Graham’s “moveon.duke” policy during Graham’s tenure.  In communicating with Chronicle reporters and editors, John in Carolina had revealed his identity on the promise of anonymity.  In Graham’s sign-off piece, he made a point of breaking that promise and revealing John’s identity as a way of sticking it to the blogger who had taken issue with his non-reporting.  Journalists have gone to jail to protect their sources.  David Graham gave one away to settle a personal vendetta.

After being roundly chastised for his lackadaisical first effort, to his credit, Graham went back and essentially did the Black Panther piece over again for Newsweek, this time doing some research and making some phone calls.  But the real story remains: why on earth is a renowned national magazine assigning a recent college graduate with no legal expertise to do effectively his first significant commentary on a complicated and very high profile national legal controversy?

Oh, right.

There is a lot left to investigate about J. Christian Adams’ allegations, but if Newsweek needed someone without much accumulated credibility to risk and to suppress a racial and legal news story damaging to leftist narratives before it gets started, they found the right man.