In “The View’s” recent interview with Herman Cain, Joy Behar made the blockbuster revelation that “the Republican Party hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country.”
Janeane Garofalo
Dang, I had it backwards all these years. Professor Behar has now debunked the nefarious GOP conspiracy to obscure the apparent true history of Jefferson Davis and the Democrat Party as valiant freedom fighters against Abraham Lincoln and the Republican enslavement of blacks and enactment of Jim Crow laws. Now I’m breathlessly awaiting the two hour “View Special Report: Republican Racists Exposed.”
Race-baiting has become cliche among the Left for at least three decades. The uglier side of that cliche is the barely masked hatred the Left reserves especially for conservative black politicians – a hatred that often appears uncomfortably close to old-time Democrat racism. Recently it has plunged some leftwingers into spittle flying, vein popping rage, while others, such as Janeane Garofalo, engage in incoherent psycho-babbling that Republicans love Herman Cain because they secretly hate black men. The Left incessantly chants how Cain is a stupid, unlearned, unserious Uncle Tom. While usually incoherent and witless, the Left’s message is consistent: Blacks are not entitled to respect if they express opinions contrary to those permitted them by the Left.
- Not to belabor a point, you may recall our recently pointing out how Nancy Pelosi re-started an old lie regarding how Rep. John Lewis was treated by a tea party crowd. Next thing you know, it’s being re-invoked on “The View.” That’s malicious and wrong but doesn’t stop them.
- Here’s yet another case. From O’Donnell and Sharpton at MSNoBodyCares, to CNN’s Candy Crowley, suddenly it’s becming legitimate to ask if Herman Cain is authentic as a black man. Which broadcast network will pick that up, I wonder?
Photo: G. Skidmore
The rationale will be, “well, this is being talked about!” No, it isn’t, or at it least wasn’t before the usual suspects began talking about it. And to what effect? To undermine Herman Cain, of course. This is how the media does the left’s dirty work. This was never talked about with regard to Obama, not to this degree. Now, why is that? That’s a rhetorical question, naturally.
- Meanwhile, not to miss a beat – where is the racism? In criticizing the left’s Wall Street protest, or at this dummy’s own network, as cited above? Obama’s numbers are so bad, they aren’t just playing the race card, they’re dealing it from the bottom of the deck!
On his MSNBC show tonight, Schultz claimed that what lies behind Republican criticism of Occupy is… racism.
- Some additional troubling questions: who is paying whom to say what and why are they so uncomfortable discussing it? Hey, wasn’t Van Jones one of Obama’s first czars? Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!
Progressive TV and radio star Thom Hartmann took time off from covering Van Jones and his “Rebuild the Dream” movement on Wednesday to briefly talk to this columnist about his relationship with the Vladimir Putin regime of Russia.
During another embarrassing incident, Van Jones refused to sign a copy of his Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) manifesto when asked to autograph it. “No thank you,” he sternly said before asking, “Who are you?,” looking at my name badge, and walking away to the next adoring crowd of Van Jones groupies. Jones, a “former” communist, is the new face of the progressive movement that is backing the “Occupation Wall Street” protests and is trying to guarantee President Obama a second term.
Convicted bank fraudster Robert Creamer, who recently set up a nationwide political consultancy to boost Democrats’ 2012 campaigns, and who wrote the Democrats’ political strategy on health care from federal prison, is promoting efforts by Democrats and the #OccuptWallStreet protestors to single out Bank of America.
In case you were wondering if “The View” views the Democrat memo, wonder no more.
“They’re at the White House, they’re all over the country. But I just think it’s very, very strange when people say ‘you know, this group is doing this, this group is doing that.’ When we’ve criticized the Tea Party when they spit on people that were going in to their work. It’s very different than putting your hand up and saying ‘you know, stop taking a ga-billion dollars and throw some of that money because cause you’re not putting any jobs out there,’” Whoopi Goldberg says on “The View.”
Presidential hopeful Herman Cain made an appearance on ABC’s The View this week and had to deflect staggering ignorance from host Joy Behar. Discussing Cain’s assertion that some blacks are “brainwashed” not to consider any conservative ideas, the very first sentence out of Behar’s mouth was “The Republican Party hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country.”
Sadly, the coffee klatch program is what passes for as “intelligent” conversation on TV these days. Behar’s blather is ignorant in a million ways and indicative of the historical illiteracy of the far left in this country.
First, of course, this county hasn’t even been a country for “many centuries.” We are only about 235 years old as a nation! Most people don’t claim two as “many,” but only as “a couple.”
Second, the Republican Party has also not been around for “many centuries in this country.” The party is only about 155 years old.
Third, when the party itself was started it was derisively called the “Black Republicans” by Behar’s beloved Democrats because it was so friendly to America’s blacks. The party was founded with a pro-black agenda, its primary goal being the abolition all blacks from slavery and assuring them civil rights. In fact, for many decades after the Civil War and on into the 1900s most black Americans were Republicans, not Democrats. The very first blacks elected to Congress ran as Republicans. Blacks being Democrats is a relatively new development in our history.
Bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra made a fleeting appearance on the Rachel Maddow show Monday night, just long enough for Maddow to assure her viewers that this too can be seen as Bush’s fault.
- The crusty jewels of Liberal media on “The View”demonstrated some of that great sensitivity for which the Left is renown, as long as it’s one of their own. I’d suggest they look in the mirror, but it might be mis-interpreted and turned into a hate crime. How many definitions of “ugly” can there be, after all?
Goldberg: I heard that, and you’re right.
Behar: What did she say?
Goldberg: I can’t repeat it, but she’s right.
Walters: Let me just say a little bit about it. What she said is, “Because he’s hefty.” But a different word.
Watch Vice President Joe Biden give the already debunked meme about a gay soldier being booed at the last GOP debate an utterly shameless second round of media attention:
—–
The lies here are of omission but lies nonetheless. Not a single “View” hen nor the Vice President of the United States bothers to make the facts of this incident clear, certainly not Biden as he all but bites his lower lip Clinton-style over how ghastly it all was.
Sarah Rumpf: The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people. …
Dana Loesch: I’ve also received a couple of emails from other debate attendees who back up Rumpf’s claim (done independent from her) that it was a couple of blockheads who decided to show their idiocy — not the audience.
That’s what those print outlets linked above aren’t telling you: the hisses and boos you heard came from the crowd who yelled at the two men.
Furthermore, Joy Behar’s follow up question, her phony and calculated indignation over the lack of condemnation from the candidates, is also a lie. Fox News’ Brett Baier (the debate moderator) is on the record stating there were only two or three people out of 5500 booing and and Sen. Rick Santorum (who was asked the question) has stated he didn’t hear the booing.
How can someone react to something they haven’t heard?
-Score one for the Paulers! If Paul’s comments on a nuclear Iran didn’t earn enough headlines, criticizing his amount of media coverage for an extended period of time definitely will. That being said, I continue to see Paul mentioned all over the news, but was/is it just not the right sort of coverage for his fans?
“I am starting to feel that there is some sort of racial thing … but damnit I am sick of this crap! Could you people get your act together? … Stop pointing the finger at single parents!”
The passage Goldberg cites:
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Was Goldberg also upset when Barack Obama noted the decline of the black two-parent household? –
“More than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children.”
– or just when she thinks a white woman said it? (Because Bachmann didn’t say it — in fact, it wasn’t even included in the original pledge she signed. Goldberg condescendingly remarked that Bachmann needs to read up on history, I reply that Goldberg should get her facts straight on this story before commenting on it.) Bachmann signed a pledge that she feels is indicative of her faith and doesn’t rewrite her principles to accommodate popularity. We’ve become the first industrialized nation to outlaw slavery, to elect a black president, but families in the black community are still suffering, a suffering often aided by the very individuals who claim to help. This is irony, not racism.
By using the term “we,” we will assume Obama is speaking to people roughly his age, 46. And by that measure, his claim is backed up by data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1960, the year before Obama was born, 22 percent of black children lived with single parents. In 1968, the number rose to 31.4 percent. By 2006, the 1960 percentage had more than doubled to 56 percent.
And the single parents are overwhelmingly women.
In 2006, 91.4 percent of single parents of black children were mothers. That figure hasn’t changed over the years. In 1960, it was a shade lower at 91 percent.
So is Obama racist for pointing out the increase of single-parent households in the black community? Is Politifact racist for publishing the statistics used to verify his quote? Is it racist to point out facts? Seriously, at what point do we stop with the sliding scale of racial offense? Noting this statistic isn’t a statement of superiority, it’s a statement of “let’s remedy this.” It’s apparently not racist to prejudge an individual and miss the actual meaning for the hysterical overreaction. That’s what I’m sick of, Ms. Goldberg.
I’ve never given much thought to Elisabeth Hasselbeck as a pundit until her remarks following the Tuscon shooting when I decided I would give less thought to her than before.
“It’s an abuse of the Second Amendment …” Said Hasselbeck of using target and crosshair symbols. Her criticism was directed towards Sarah Palin. Hasselbeck was silent on the DLC map and other Democrats’ similar graphics and actual vitriolic speech – all of which were made and used eons before the tragedy.
Sorry, but when your remarks are indistinguishable from the kooky propaganda parroted by progressives, you don’t convince folks of your “conservatism.”
When Sarah Palin recently cited the legendary C.S. Lewis and the phrase “divine inspiration” in the same sentence during a Barbara Walters interview, liberal talking heads went apoplectic. MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe thought there were a lot of things Palin could have read besides C.S. Lewis if “divine inspiration” was the goal, and The View’s Joy Behar mocked her for reading books that were (supposedly) written for children.
Such desperate and unprofessional commentary from Wolffe and Behar is undone by the fact that millions upon millions of people have read Lewis for divine inspiration throughout the years. Moreover, those reading him for such inspiration are adults, not children. (Sure, children do enjoy Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” but his eye-opening works like “Mere Christianity,” “The Great Divorce,” and “The Abolition of Man,” to name but a few, are so in depth that an adult must read them time and again to grasp everything that Lewis is saying.)
Of course, this really isn’t about whether Lewis wrote children’s books or not, nor is it about whether Palin reads such books. Rather, it is just one more attempt to prove how dumb Palin is, and thereby show the public how unfit she is for office.
The liberal talking heads want us to know that only a megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler or, even worse, an idiot like George W. Bush, would talk so openly about divinity or divine inspiration in this secular world. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews revealed as much just days after the 2008 Presidential Elections when he examined Palin’s claim that she was “putting [her] life in [her] creator’s hands” and would make a decision on a possible run in 2012 based on whether God opened the door for her or not. (more…)
The ladies of “The View” discussed National Opt Out Day, which took place on November 24th, wherein passengers boycotted the – as O’Reilly once called them – “super naked scanners” to send a message about respecting our civil liberties to the bureaucrats running TSA.
I found Whoopi Goldberg’s remarks to be typical but was shocked that conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck is willing to give up some liberty for safety.
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Because our airline bureaucracy is either too lazy or lacks the creativity to pursue the Israelification of airports (where multiple layers of security profile passengers’ behavior and where Israel airlines have an excellent safety record as a result (despite being surrounded by enemies) we’re instead subjected to dehumanizing, random, robotic checks. Instead of looking for behavior, for people, we’re looking for things.
I don’t believe that all TSA agents are unfit for the job; I think there exist solid folks out there who simply want to do their jobs and keep America safe but they’re prevented from being anything but reactionary due to enhanced and embarrassingly ridiculous security protocols which would have done nothing to prevent past terror attacks and attempts.
The terrorist attacks which heightened our airline security did not begin as terrorist problems. They began as immigration problems. They began because a host of people were in this country illegally, not tracked; Mohammed Atta was even pulled over for a traffic violation prior to 9/11 and released.
Because our government cannot, or will not, match the effectiveness of Israel airports in terms of keeping Americans safe, our dignity and civil liberties must be infringed upon to shore up their inability to do their jobs? The strategy to protecting Americans is to subject them to increasingly intimate and degrading searches?
The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.
“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on “Charlie Rose.”
“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”
So why are Americans who protest the increased infringement on their civil liberties in the name of inefficient and ineffective security offensively called “terrorists?” People who may create a longer line at the airport due to legal protest are like the murderers who slaughtered over 2,000 people on 9/11?
Barbara Walters sarcastically remarked that it was the “great American spirit” at work. Even though she didn’t intend it, she’s absolutely right. The resolute will to question authority when it deserves to be questioned due to a lack of respect for the citizenry from where it derives power is the spirit that built America and made it the most powerful nation on earth.
The spirit to question boundaries is the very spirit that led the way to stopping genocide in the 30s and 40s. It is the very spirit that united in the wake of 9/11 to band together and fight guerilla bullying, a.k.a. terrorism. Fear not the citizenry who questions, but fear the citizenry that blindly cedes power and sense to bureaucrats, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness.
Also: I noticed that the libs who took issue with the same link were silent on all the others which most certainly aren’t satirical – and while these same brand of folks were loudly against President Bush’s Patriot Act they were silently approving when President Obama expanded the Patriot Act’s scope and length. It would be easier for folks to understand their criticism if we knew to which of their double standards they were referring.
Bill O’Reilly is smooth. He’s one of very few broadcasters I know who can squeeze a weeks-long news cycle from one incident and make it entertaining regardless the time stamp. Silk purse from a sow’s ear, if you please. Perfectly apropos in a slow news week like this.
Whoopi Goldberg is scheduled to appear on “The Factor” tomorrow night.
In her “O’Reilly Factor” interview, Goldberg will discuss the incident and the rhetoric behind it, as well as her latest book and film projects.
Oh, man, are the Twitter fanatics going to have fun with this one. Let’s see, Eric Boehlert has a Behar in his shorts? Joy Behar haz stoopid views! Oh wait, I can see a moron from Joy Behar’s house and don’t even have to step outside!
Sorry, but there are no words, folks. No words at all. Joy Behar finds Media Matters to be fair and balanced. When is the last time Joy Behar used an honest scale, that’s what I want to know?
While I’m not one to care what some over-paid harridans think (see Maureen Dowd), you have to admit the recent episode of the View, where Fox’s Bill O’Reilly got into a shouting match with the show’s two more extreme harpies was amusing to watch. It’s also very instructive on how the so called progressives… uh… think. Or should I say, operate. Progressives do not like open debate. They have an agenda, and anything at variance with that agenda must be shut down at all costs. When screeching and hollering didn’t work, the two co-hosts, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, stormed off the set in outrage when O’Reilly dared suggest that Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
What seemed like immature grandstanding on their part was a perfect example of how the left tries to stonewall any argument it doesn’t like. Not willing or able to provide actual intelligent and rational arguments of their own, the two women exited the stage.
Barbara Walters showed she was closer to a true liberal by telling the audience that what just happened was wrong and shouldn’t never occur on their show. It’s a talk show, after all. And as hosts, they should show some measure of respect to their guests. It seems the View’s history of crank hosts is still going strong.
During the rise of the tea party Anderson Cooper called conservatives "tea baggers" on CNN and remarked about "teabagging." The network featured a multitude of guests and contributors who likened tea partiers to nazis, bigots, pick your poison. No pressure was ever brought about to censor the speech of those...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?