Beck caps off week of race-baiting by calling Obama a "racist"
During the past week, Glenn Beck has put forth a steady stream of race-baiting and race-based fearmongering on his television show and radio program. Beck's comments culminated in his claim that President Obama "is, I believe, a racist," a statement he subsequently claimed to stand by, in spite of growing criticism.
Beck's statement that Obama is a "racist" brews controversy
Beck claims Obama is a "racist." Discussing Obama's response to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Beck asserts that Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." After being reminded that Obama has numerous white staffers, Beck contradicted himself, stating, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem," before going on to state, "this guy is, I believe, a racist." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Fox News VP responds, saying Beck expressed "his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel." Bill Shine, Fox News' senior vice president of programming, responded to Beck's statement, telling TVNewser, "Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." [TVNewser, 7/28/09]
NAACP releases statement on Beck's comments. On the July 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist read the following statement from the NAACP: "How could the president be a racist, a man of both African-American and white heritage, a man who inspired millions of Americans to unite across the divide of race, religion, class, and age in his historic run for the presidency? We commend President Obama for having the courage to discuss an issue that all too many Americans consider a third rail." [Morning Joe, 7/29/09]
Other media figures blast Beck's comments. Beck's remarks have been criticized by, among others, Joe Scarborough, Ron Christie, Jonathan Capehart, Donny Deutsch, Joan Walsh, Lois Romano, Chris Matthews, Mika Brzezinski, Mike Barnicle, Ed Schultz, Stephen A. Smith, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg.
Beck stands by his comments. On his radio show, Beck stated that he "stands by" his comments that Obama is a "racist," adding, "I deem him a racist by his own standard, the standard of the left." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 7/29/09]
Beck's "racist" comment topped a week of racially inflammatory commentary
July 27
- Beck: Obama "has real issues with race." Beck discussed Obama's policies with Fox News contributor Keith Ablow and said of Obama, "I just see this ACORN thing and also the thing at the White House as a sign -- this guy has real issues with race, real issues." Ablow responded, in part, "I think we get a transparent president in this case whose feelings about white America are coming forward again." Beck then commented, "I think he's one of the more arrogant people I have ever witnessed in the office." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/27/09]
- Beck: Obama satisfying his "desire for racial justice" though "intimidation, vilification, bullying." Beck said, "We have demonstrated President Obama's desire for racial justice, but how is he setting out to achieve it? Exactly the way a community organizer would: through intimidation, vilification, bullying, a system, an underground shell game." Beck continued, "Look how he has handled different things. Gates -- he calls the cops stupid and racist before he admits, he says, 'I don't know all of the facts.' But he jumps to the conclusion that the cops are racist." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/27/09]
July 24
- Beck "theory": Obama planted Gates question because it "helps" him rally "hardcore supporters." Beck said of Obama's response to Gates' arrest, "Now, I have this from insiders at ACORN. This is a bonus for them when we go on the air and I, you know, rip apart the guy from ACORN, especially if he's black, they allow -- it allows them to take that videotape and say, 'See? It's the white man against the black man.' It helps them. Is it possible, that in this emergency or in this crisis with his friend -- his friend is in crisis -- legitimate thing going on. He's in a crisis because health care is bad. His poll numbers are slipping. Is it just possible that he's using this question to be able to rally support of his hardcore supporters?" [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/24/09]
July 23
- Beck points to health care bill provision as evidence that Obama supports reform as a form of "reparations." Beck pointed to a component of the House Democrats' health care bill to buttress his claim that Obama supports health insurance reform as a form of "reparations," asserting:
BECK: Written in the first 1,000-plus-page bill -- that nobody's going to read before they vote on it -- is a provision in this health care bill that says a medical school or other health-related institution pursued a grant or other contract from the government, they would have to prove their inclusiveness to minorities.
On Page 881 and 882 of this bill, it states, quote, "The secretary of Health and Human Services shall give preference to those entities that have demonstrated a record of the following: One, training individuals who are underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds. Two, a high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities. And three, supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations.
After reading from the provision, Beck concluded, "So. You got it? This isn't preference to the best institutions that are going to be churning out our doctors, but the institutions with the most diversity. We shouldn't be dishing out grants based on what hospital looks, you know, the most like an Old Navy commercial." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck repeatedly referred to "reparations" while discussing Obama's "universal program." Beck stated that "just in case the universalness of the program doesn't somehow or another quench his reparation appetite, he's making sure to do his part to pay the debt in the other areas. Written in the first 1,000-plus-page bill -- that nobody's going to read before they vote on it -- is a provision in this health care bill that says a medical school or other health-related institution pursued a grant or other contract from the government, they would have to prove their inclusiveness to minorities." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck: Obama agenda driven by "reparations" and desire to "settle old racial scores." Beck said of Obama's agenda, including the distribution of stimulus funds and selection of advisers, "His goal is creating a new America, a new model, a model that will settle old racial scores through new social justice." Beck also commented, "Obama is no dummy. He knows that you would never pass reparations. He knows you would never pass any of this stuff. This is all affirmative action." Earlier, he said, "[T]his is what he said on the campaign trail -- he's not for reparations because they don't go far enough. We need health care. We need everybody to go to college, et cetera, et cetera. So, we have no reparations. We also have no capitalism, which leads him, in his mind, to justice -- to justice. That is what we're changing to." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck: "Office of Minority Health" could allow for "litigation against Doritos" since "minorities" may "eat more Doritos." Beck suggested that the Office of Minority Health could allow for "litigation against Doritos" since "minorities" may "eat more Doritos." The Office of Minority Health's stated mission "is to improve and protect the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will eliminate health disparities." During a discussion about the office with Fox News contributor Linda Chavez, Beck said:
[H]ere's what I was worried about, because the Office of Minority Health -- I guess you could say, you know -- and I don't know the stats, but let's just say minorities eat more Doritos, so there's more heart disease. Well, wouldn't that lead towards lawsuits and litigation about -- against Doritos or whatever it is? Doesn't this just open up all kinds of things, when instead, what we should be saying is, "Stop eating so many Doritos"?
Chavez responded, "Well, that's true, by the way, for all Americans. I mean, a lot of our unequal health outcomes have to do with not just income but behavior." Beck then said, "But there is no 'Office for Majority Health.' " [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck suggested that Democrats want patients and doctors to be of the same race. On Beck, Chavez said that under the Democrats' health care plan, "we're also going to try to make sure that if you go to a doctor and you're black or Latino I guess that you're going to have to be treated by a black or Latino doctor. And that's what all of the preferences are in terms of medical school admissions that are in this bill." Beck responded, "You know, I really don't care what color of the doctor is. I don't care. Man, woman -- I mean, I don't care. I just want to make sure they're the right person to do it. But apparently, I'm alone in that, Linda?" Chavez answered, "Well, apparently a lot of medical schools -- and there're going to be more if this bill passes -- admit students not so much based on whether they did well on the tests or in their science courses as undergraduates, but to try to satisfy this whole notion of diversity. And that's a very, very bad bargain, because it produces bad doctors." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck guest: "What happens to a black man in America? Well, you slit your wife's throat from ear to ear, and you get acquitted by a jury." Beck hosted conservative author David Horowitz, who said of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., "It's Harvard arrogance. The guy went into a panic mode. And then he reached for the race card. And in America -- you know, what happens to a black man in America? Well, you slit your wife's throat from ear to ear, and you get acquitted by a jury when the whole nation knows that you're guilty." Beck invited two African-American crew members from the program to respond to Horowitz's comments, one of whom said that the police had searched his car without reason. Horowitz responded, "And the gentleman is concerned because the cops are searching his car. If he's on the New Jersey Turnpike or in that area, 70 percent of the drug dealers are black. And who do you think they're dealing the drugs to? Poor blacks in the -- in Newark and the inner cities there." Horowitz also said of the Harvard black studies department, "[I]t's almost the only black studies department in the country that isn't about racial huckstering." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
- Beck on reparations: "The 360,000 in the Civil War, that wasn't enough?" Beck said on his Fox News show, "As I warned before the election, [Obama] doesn't think that reparations would go far enough. Quote, 'I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, "We've paid our debt," and to avoid the much harder work.' You've got to be kidding me. So we can never pay the debt? The 360,000 in the Civil War, that wasn't enough?" Beck made a similar claim on his radio show, saying, "But none of that enters into Obama's thinking. He doesn't even consider the 360,000 Union troops killed in the Civil War as debt paid." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09, The Glenn Beck Program, 7/23/09]
- Beck: Obama "is putting through reparations times 10." Beck mentioned reparations many other times on his radio show, at one point saying, "This man [Obama] is putting through reparations times 10." Beck also asked, "Who'd receive the money? All blacks, or just those directly descended from slaves? Would Barack Obama?" Beck later added, "Wait a minute. His father was not a descendent of slaves, and his mother was white. So maybe Michelle Obama would be the only one that should be able to get the cash. Since Obama is half white and half black, would he pay and receive? See, these are the tricky questions, but then again, they have nothing to do with Obama's objection to reparations. Obama is against direct reparations for one reason: He doesn't ever want the victim card to be lost." [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/23/09]
- Beck: "How about the Irish? Does Ted Kennedy's family need reparations?" Beck said that Obama is not "concerned about repairing other wrongs done to other groups of people." He continued:
For instance, I think the Jews could make a pretty strong case against Germany for the whole World War II thing, you know? Not to mention Egypt -- 400 years of bondage. But wasn't Barack Obama over there just now in Egypt blaming Egypt's problems on the Jews? What about reparations for slavery of the Egyptians enslaving the Jews? And on top of that, they've had to deal with Barbra Streisand -- can't we leave these people alone?
Beck later added, "How about the Irish? Does Ted Kennedy's family need reparations?" [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/23/09]
- Beck's health care fix: "[L]et's weed out the illegal aliens that are here." Beck described a recent trip to the emergency room, saying, "Nobody spoke English in the waiting room. And I waited two hours to get into the -- to see the doctor at the emergency room. Two hours. OK, I have no problem. But are these people who are here legally or illegally?" In the context of fixing the health care system, Beck later proposed: "[L]et's weed out the illegal aliens that are here. Stop illegal aliens from coming in. Protect the border -- it kills several birds with one stone." [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/23/09]
- Beck: "[M]odern day slave state" being constructed out of government programs. Beck said of the purported involvement of ACORN and the SEIU in the collection of information for the Office of Minority Health and the Office of Civil Rights, "So, now, inside the health care bill is an organization where your tax dollars are going to go to go find information out about minority health. It creates a group of slaves to the government -- a group of people working for the government -- most likely minorities, working for the government, under the auspices of community organizers, going door to door to find out information about people's health. This is a modern-day slave state that is being created." [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/23/09]
- Beck promo: "Is massive Health Care bill reparations?" In an online message promoting the July 23 broadcast of his Fox News program, titled "Is massive Health Care bill reparations?" Beck stated:
President Obama has long said he's not for reparations. Of course, the media leaves it at that -- because that's the mainstream view so they want him to look good. But, the real reason Obama is not for reparations is because he feels the [sic] don't go far enough. He actually 'fears' them because he thinks the public would assume the score is settled. He's for reparations all right -- he's just going about getting them in a much scarier way.
From the July 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): On Thursday night, 6 o'clock at the White House --
BECK: That --
DOOCY: -- they're gonna have a beer fest.
BECK: -- is unbelievable.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Why?
BECK: That is unbe-- why?
KILMEADE: Yeah, why?
BECK: For a teaching lesson? Some sort of a -- who needs to learn what here? This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over.
What kind of president of the United States immediately jumps on the police, just like, what kind of president would ever say, "Oh, well, yeah. Well, he's black. Of course he was breaking into the house." You'd never do that.
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas. That's what the Contract with America was -- I mean, that's what it was about? Really? Hmm. I completely missed that.
Now, he's got friends that say things like that. There's his friend. There's Barack Obama's good friend that says things like that, and he has some really, really extra special friends, also.
MICHELLE OBAMA [video clip]: For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.
BECK: We have demonstrated President Obama's desire for racial justice. But how is he setting out to achieve it? Exactly the way a community organizer would: through intimidation, vilification, bullying, a system, an underground shell game.
Look how he has handled different things. Gates -- he calls the cops stupid and racist before he admits, he says, "I don't know all of the facts." But he jumps to the conclusion that the cops are racist.
Health care -- oh, those evil, greedy doctors that are ripping tonsils out at will. And it's also no longer about access -- universal access. It's about preferential access.
His green policies -- it's easy to say he wants to bankrupt the evil, earth-killing coal industry. But now he's got a czar who's a self-avowed communist to make sure that it happens. Our president is not just bankrupting our country; he is fundamentally transforming it as he promised, and he is doing it to the core.
In the next few years, I promise you, America will look more like ACORN in structure and less than anything that our founders had in mind. Obama handles every issue like a community organizer would, and he wants to create a civilian army.
Anybody remember this from the campaign? A civilian army in the form of community organizers, more well -- I'm quoting him -- "more well- funded than the military." Last year, he said, and I quote, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded."
You gotta be kidding me. If you want a government-funded civilian army of ACORNs, well, you're gonna be a happy camper very soon if America keeps sleeping.
Keith Ablow is here. He is a psychiatrist and Fox News contributor.
Keith, am I jumping the gun here? I just see this ACORN thing and also the thing at the White House as a sign. This guy has real issues with race, real issues.
ABLOW: Unfortunately -- and I really mean it, Glenn -- unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I don't think you're jumping the gun. Americans had as their fondest hope and prayer, I think, that they were electing a colorblind president who could embrace everyone equally. I think that was the hope. I think it was the hope -- more than some of his policies -- that here was a man who could treat everyone equally.
Instead, I think we get a transparent president, in this case, whose feelings about white America are coming forward again.
BECK: Yeah.
ABLOW: And I don't know -- listen. As a psychiatrist, I'm trained to look at facts and say what fits and what doesn't, what's a theory that can hold water as to someone's personality and nature. You have someone who sat in a church with a pastor who called white people the devil, whose wife has not been proud of this country in her adult life until quite recently, who calls a Cambridge police sergeant stupid without knowing the facts, and whose friends are community organizers with questionable pasts.
And so, you add all that up, and say, look --
BECK: Questionable pasts?
ABLOW: -- there's more than an apology necessary here. This is a question of introspection. The president needs to look at himself and say, "Do I have prejudice that I wasn't even aware of, perhaps, toward white people?"
BECK: Well, he's not -- you know what? He's not going to do that. I think he's one of the more arrogant people I have ever witnessed in the office. I mean, I -- I don't think he is -- this man has absolutely no fear, and no fear of the American people -- no fear in a good way, like as in fear God. No fear for the office of the presidency of the United States.
From the July 23 edition of Glenn Beck:
BECK: Here's "The One Thing" tonight: Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America. And they are all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations. You crazy right-wing extremist!
Before you say anything, President Obama is against reparations. He himself said so. He said that, but what the media didn't report on conveniently during the election ignores the reason why he's against reparations. As I warned before the election, he doesn't think that reparations would go far enough. Quote, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."
You've got to be kidding me. So we can never pay the debt? The 360,000 in the Civil War, that wasn't enough?
I had forgotten about this position on reparations until a couple of days ago. We were talking about some story on this program. And it was -- I think it was about school or something, and it reminded me, and I was like -- wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. It ties everything together.
Now, let's just go back and find out -- he said it doesn't pay the debt; besides, we have to do much harder work. What is that harder work?
OBAMA [video clip]: If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should be get -- should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.
BECK: OK. So, he believes in the, you know, universal program because they disproportionately affect people of color, and that's the way he feels is the best way to right the wrongs of the past. These massive programs are Obama-brand reparations -- or in presidential speak, leveling out the playing field.
But, just in case the universalness of the program doesn't somehow or another quench his reparation appetite, he's making sure to do his part to pay the debt in the other areas. Written in the first 1,000-plus-page bill -- that nobody's going to read before they vote on it -- is a provision in this health care bill that says a medical school or other health-related institution pursued a grant or other contract from the government, they would have to prove their inclusiveness to minorities.
On Page 881 and 882 of this bill, it states, quote, "The secretary of Health and Human Services shall give preference to those entities that have demonstrated a record of the following: One, training individuals who are underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds. Two, a high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities. And three, supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations.
Vulnerable populations. Wow. This whole thing could have been written by ACORN, who, by the way, on a side note -- CNS News reports today they might get cash earmarked for the health care bill for community-based organizations. When asked about it, Chris Dodd said, "I don't know if ACORN's going to get the money or not."
So. You got it? This isn't preference to the best institutions that are going to be churning out our doctors, but the institutions with the most diversity. We shouldn't be dishing out grants based on what hospital looks, you know, the most like an Old Navy commercial.
Also in this bill, the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Minority Health -- remember I said to you, what kind of health care bill has -- what is that? Well, they're going to be maintaining, collecting, and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity to see if they can identify gaps.
When Obama's economic team was dreaming up the stimulus package, his former adviser Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said, quote.
REICH [video clip]: I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well.
BECK: Yeah, let's not give them to the high-skilled or people who have experience. Let's just -- let's make this a job-training program.
Obama's new green czar, Van Jones -- this is a guy who is a self-avowed communist, and he is in the Obama administration. He says in his book that has been out now for about four months, The Green Collar Economy -- subtitle How One Solution Can Fix Two Big Problems -- that the best way to fight global warming and urban poverty is by creating millions of green jobs.
This guy wasn't a radical, then was arrested. Spent six months in jails. Came out a communist. Then he was a communist-anarchist radical. And then he decided -- he found the eco-movement and decided green is the new red. He then went on to become a green expert.
A percentage of these jobs, he says, should go to the disadvantaged and to the chronically unemployed. Well, why are they chronically unemployed? "The green economy should not just be about reclaiming thrown-away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities."
Obama is no dummy. He knows that you would never pass reparations. He knows you would never pass any of this stuff. This is all affirmative action.
He also knows we can't afford health care. He knows we can't afford cap-and-trade and more stimulus bills.
But, see, that's assuming that he wants to take care of somebody's health. It's assuming that he wants unemployment numbers the way we all understand unemployment numbers, and it's that he wants to take care of the environment.
But I don't think those are his goals. That's a nice bonus.
His goal is creating a new America, a new model, a model that will settle old racial scores through new social justice.
[...]
BECK: Well, here's what -- here's what I was worried about, because the Office of Minority Health -- I guess you could say, you know -- and I don't know the stats, but let's just say minorities eat more Doritos, so there's more heart disease. Well, wouldn't that lead towards lawsuits and litigation about -- against Doritos or whatever it is? Doesn't this just open up all kinds of things, when instead, what we should be saying is, "Stop eating so many Doritos"?
CHAVEZ: Well, that's true, by the way, for all Americans. I mean, a lot of our unequal health outcomes have to do with not just income but behavior.
BECK: Yeah, but there's --
CHAVEZ: And what they are gonna --
BECK: -- no "Office for Majority Health."
CHAVEZ: -- they're gonna try and turn it into a race issue.
BECK: But there is no --
CHAVEZ: Well, that's right.
BECK: -- "Office of Majority Health." So, we're only looking at the -- you know, we can eat Doritos, be white, Asian, black -- it doesn't matter. But we're not studying that. We're just studying the minority health. So, again --
CHAVEZ: And we're also going to try to make sure that if you go to a doctor and you're black or Latino I guess that you're going to have to be treated by a black or Latino doctor. And that's what all of the preferences are in terms of medical school admissions that are in this bill.
BECK: You know, I really don't care what color of the doctor is. I don't care. Man, woman -- I mean, I don't care. I just want to make sure they're the right person to do it. But apparently, I'm alone in that, Linda?
CHAVEZ: Well, apparently a lot of medical schools -- and there're going to be more if this bill passes -- admit students not so much based on whether they did well on the tests or in their science courses as undergraduates, but to try to satisfy this whole notion of diversity. And that's a very, very bad bargain, because it produces bad doctors.
BECK: Yep.
CHAVEZ:. And it gets --
BECK: Bad everything.
CHAVEZ: -- people who would otherwise have been good doctors -- they don't get a chance.
[...]
BECK: You know what? I started in a -- I started into break over here -- I started into a break yester-- here just a second ago, and we'll get into this more tomorrow. But what I just said to you about this whole reparations thing -- I know this is what we're on to here. I know.
This -- we said to you, he -- if you understand that Barack Obama is a community organizer, you'll understand what he's doing. OK. Community organizer -- he's building a new framework to our country. He nominates a Supreme Court justice that is into social justice. That's leveling the playing field beyond the law, which leads us to socialized everything, AKA, socialism.
In the end, he says -- this is what he said on the campaign trail -- he's not for reparations because they don't go far enough. We need health care. We need everybody to go to college, et cetera, et cetera.
So, we have no reparations. We also have no capitalism, which leads him, in his mind, to justice -- to justice. That is what we're changing to.
And do you know who's really helping him? ACORN.
[...]
BECK: What do you think this is about? Because this guy is known as a fairly rational guy. What happened here?
HOROWITZ: Yeah. Henry Louis Gates is one of the more thoughtful professors. Certainly, he has built an impressive -- it's almost the only black studies department in the country that isn't about racial huckstering. But he behaved here. He fell into this mode.
In fact, what happened was that there was a perceived break-in. A neighbor had seen two black men breaking in. It happened to be Gates and his driver, and they were breaking in because he forgot his key. He was returning from a trip. And the officer then went up --
BECK: After being called by a neighbor?
HOROWITZ: -- and asked him to step out --
BECK: After being called by a neighbor?
HOROWITZ: Yeah. Right. He's investigating a crime scene, and his life is in jeopardy, because you don't know what's happening. He asked Gates to step outside, and Gates, instead of that, said, "You're just doing this because I'm a black man in America," and called his police chief, saying, "You don't you know who you're messing with," and started calling him, the officer, a racist over the phone. So this is, you know --
BECK: Why would you --
HOROWITZ: -- obstructing an investigation. It's arrogance. It's Harvard arrogance. The guy went into a panic mode. And then he reached for the race card.
And in America -- you know, what happens to a black man in America? Well, you slit your wife's throat from ear to ear, and you get acquitted by a jury when the whole nation knows that you're guilty. That's --
BECK: OK. Hang on. David, David. Hang on, hang on just a second. I want to play the other side of this here in a second. I've got to take a break. I'm going to play the other side of it, because I grew up in the whitest white town in America in Washington state.
But I have to tell you something. When I moved to Kentucky, I understood the relationship with African-Americans and the police in a different way. It doesn't excuse bad behavior. But I want to share that and get your thoughts on this. We'll do that coming up in just a second.
[...]
BECK: David Horowitz is back with us. He's founder of FrontPage Magazine and the author of One-Party Classroom. I've got to tell you, David. When we went into the break, Jack and Oscar -- and Jack is a sound guy. Oscar is -- runs Camera 3 here. They both said to me, "He doesn't know what the hell he's even talking about." And -- well, first of all, Jack, you tell me. Why does he have it wrong?
JACK: You have it wrong for a simple reason. I borrowed my friend's truck. I was pulled over because of a brake light. I said, "Fine. Just give me the ticket, and I'll take care of it."
In two seconds, they told me to get out of the truck. They're patting me down. Two cops are digging in the truck, OK? Two of the cops don't even have their badges. And I said, "Look, just give me the ticket for the brake light." "No, we're looking for drugs and guns." They stood me out last winter in the sleet and the snow for 20 minutes.
BECK: Oscar --
JACK: For nothing.
BECK: -- you've had a similar experience?
OSCAR: Well, I have, but I personally think, first of all, the O.J. thing doesn't have anything to do with Henry Gates. And I think what Bill Cosby said is probably the most prevalent to the situation, where we should kind of look at what -- how this is going to pan out on both sides before we really make --
BECK: Yeah, well, I don't want to think -- you know what here? I think the guy got off a plane. He was coming from China. He was tired. He was grumpy, et cetera, et cetera. And then he's probably a little bit of an elitist -- "Don't you know who I am?" That's not a race thing. I know elitist white people that do that. And he went and he played the race card.
But I have to tell you -- David, when I -- I grew up in Washington State, in a little town named Mount Vernon. There weren't any minorities in the area.
And when I first moved to Kentucky in the 1980s -- I go into Kentucky, and I see the news -- and I didn't understand how people wouldn't open the door for a cop, et cetera, et cetera, until I saw that they were just on an investigation where they were arresting these -- a couple of these cops that had KKK outfits in the trunk of their squad car. And I went, "Wow, that's a different world. I -- yeah, I don't think I'd open my door for a cop, either."
HOROWITZ: It's a totally different world.
BECK: It is a totally different world.
HOROWITZ: It is a totally different --
BECK: Right.
HOROWITZ: It's a totally different world. There were three police officers here. One was Hispanic, one was black, and the white cop had been teaching officers how not to racially profile for 10 years and was selected for the job by his superior, who was black.
And the gentleman is concerned because the cops are searching his car. If he's on the New Jersey Turnpike or in that area, 70 percent of the drug dealers are black. And who do you think they're dealing the drugs to? Poor blacks in the -- in Newark and the inner cities there.
BECK: All right.
HOROWITZ: So, the fact that they stopped him --
BECK: David --
HOROWITZ: -- I mean, it's an inconvenience.
BECK: All right.
HOROWITZ: I have an inconvenience.
BECK: No, it wasn't an inconvenience. I've -- Jack has talked to me about this --
HOROWITZ: I get searched every single time I jump a plane -- I take a plane --
BECK: I've got to go.
HOROWITZ: -- because I have an artificial hip.
BECK: I've got to cut.
HOROWITZ: But I put up with it.
BECK: I've got to cut. I've got to go. We're up against a break. Right back.
From the July 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Network's The Glenn Beck Show:
BECK: Let me just point out -- I think we should just start taxing white people. Can we just start taxing --
[cheers]
UNKNOWN MAN: Finally.
BECK: Thank you.
UNKNOWN MAN: Finally, someone has said it.
BECK: Yes. Let's just start taxing white people. Let's start taxing white people, cops that, you know, stop black people from just breaking into their own house, and making stupid moves, and doctors that are just motivated by greed and profit that are just ripping tonsils out of people for no apparent reason. Let's just tax them. Let's imprison them. You know what? Let's gas them. We should just gas them. And I think --
[applause]
BURGUIERE: Woo! Yeah, whitey!
[...]
BECK: Has anybody been to the hospital lately? I was just at the hospital just over vacation, I was at the hospital. And I know the first thing that came to mind waiting in the waiting room. Anybody?
UNKNOWN MAN: Illegal aliens?
BECK: Illegal aliens.
UNKNOWN MAN: Yeah, yeah.
BECK: Illegal aliens.
UNKNOWN MAN: Wild stab in the dark there.
BECK: OK? Nobody spoke English in the waiting room. And I waited two hours to get into the -- to see the doctor at the emergency room. Two hours. OK, I have no problem. But are these people who are here legally or illegally?
Stu, you were just at the hospital with your wife the other day.
BURGUIERE: Yes.
BECK: What was their reaction when you came in and you had health insurance?
BURGUIERE: I said to -- they asked me who my normal doctor was, and I said, "Actually, I don't know. We just changed insurance." And they said, "You have insurance?" It was, like, a shocking -- like they were --
BECK: OK.
BURGUIERE: -- they were amazed at this possibility.
BECK: So, here's the two things: One, let's weed out the illegal aliens that are here. Stop illegal aliens from coming in. Protect the border -- it kills several birds with one stone.
Two, if you want to make sure that people have access to health care, the worst thing you can do to have people who don't have insurance give -- have access to health care is to have them get their daily health care at the hospital, at the emergency room. That's not the place -- that's an emergency room.
[...]
BECK: So I'm guessing that's not why Obama says he opposes reparations. Neither is he concerned about repairing other wrongs done to other groups of people. For instance, I think the Jews could make a pretty strong case against Germany for the whole World War II thing, you know? Not to mention Egypt -- 400 years of bondage. But wasn't Barack Obama over there just now in Egypt blaming Egypt's problems on the Jews? What about reparations for slavery of the Egyptians enslaving the Jews? And on top of that, they've had to deal with Barbra Streisand -- can't we leave these people alone?
Then there's the ethnic Albanians, the Kurds, Tutsis, the Hutus, the non-majority population of Darfur, the Cambodians, nearly every other ethnicity that has ever arrived on the shores of this country has been at first beaten down. How about the Irish? Does Ted Kennedy's family need reparations? How about the Asians that built the railroads in slavelike conditions? Do they need reparations?
How about faiths? How about the Jews? How about the Mormons? Does Mitt Romney -- does he need reparations? He seemed to do pretty well for himself, even though his faith -- the people in his faith in the 1850s -- same time as slavery -- killed, tarred, feathered, dragged from their homes, beaten. Their homes, their places of worship -- burned to the ground. Chased by mobs out of every town in which they settled, starting in New York, all the way across the country. The U.S. Army was sent in to attack them after they arrived in a city they called home. They decided not to when they got there. In Missouri, the governor of the state issued an extermination order against them in 1838. An extermination order -- it is the only one in the history of the country where it was legal to kill a group of people. And it wasn't rescinded until 1976. Did they receive reparations? No. All they got was Donny and Marie, and Harry Reid. These people can't even drink their way into drunken stupors to forget their troubles. They moved on.
But none of that enters into Obama's thinking. He doesn't even consider the 360,000 Union troops killed in the Civil War as debt paid. And don't even think about asking him about affirmative action. That wasn't any kind of reparation. Neither was Black Entertainment Television, Black History Month, the United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, RainbowPUSH Collation, 100 Black Men of America. None of these things could exist for whites, and Obama couldn't care less. It's not about doing the right thing and uniting.
[...]
BECK: Then there's this question: Who'd receive the money? All blacks, or just those directly descended from slaves? Would Barack Obama, whose white mother was from Kansas and black father from Kenya -- I know the story; I've only heard it more than I have heard about John McCain's war stories.
Wait a minute. His father was not a descendent of slaves, and his mother was white. So maybe Michelle Obama would be the only one that should be able to get the cash. Since Obama is half white and half black, would he pay and receive? See, these are the tricky questions, but then again, they have nothing to do with Obama's objection to reparations. Obama is against direct reparations for one reason: He doesn't ever want the victim card to be lost.
[...]
BECK: Remember, ACORN and SEIU, the union -- same thing. Same thing. Same people, same street address, same everything. SEIU, the union, and ACORN -- same thing.
Those people are the ones that are leading -- they were the ones that held the conference with all the pharmaceutical companies. "How can we reduce the cost of health" -- it's ACORN-slash-SEIU. So, now, inside the health care bill is an organization where your tax dollars are going to go to go find information out about minority health. It creates a group of slaves to the government -- a group of people working for the government -- most likely minorities, working for the government, under the auspices of community organizers, going door to door to find out information about people's health.
This is a modern-day slave state that is being created. It is quite an ingenious organization. It is an exoskeleton that is using our republic as a host. It is feasting on it. And when the host dies, it won't care. It won't care. Because the new system that replaces it is already there. Don't worry. We took out the inefficiencies of Congress. Congress is irrelevant, and you know it and I know it. It hasn't been -- it hasn't even been reading the bills. Well, don't even worry about it. We've taken out all the inefficiencies. All of the rich people were the problem; all of the businesses were the problem.
[...]
BECK: This man is putting through reparations times 10. This guy is not a guy who didn't listen in the pew of Jeremiah Wright. He is just -- he's putting these things in.
Hey, perhaps Tom DeLay is available as the 2012 GOP nominee!
Think about it; if black people had their very own Talk Shows they could combat, compete and challenge all these crazy white people who say the dumbest, most racist things. Black people are reduced to observers, real black people, not uncle-toms.
When Bill Cosby wanted to buy a TV network that was up for sale, executives changed their mind and decided NOT to sell it at all. They did not want to sell it to a black man.
Why don’t white people want black people to have their own TV stations? The reason is this: THEY want to CONTROL the images going out over the airwaves. It’s as simple as that.
This is why we get so many hand-cuffed black people paraded on TV. They would rather project negative images of blacks instead of positive images. As long as they owned them they can do what they want.
These nutty white racist people who say these insane things on TV against the President and black people have no fear of being challenged by their black Talk Show counterpart, because there are none. No real ones that are own and operated exclusively by blacks.
This is no accident, no, this was done so white people could remain free to do and say what they want on TV, and that is exactly what is going on. The only real challenge Fox News’ Glenn Beck would get for calling Obama a racist is being a guest on a Black owned TV station. They would ask him to explain himself. Beck would have trouble explaining his stupidity, and he certainly couldn’t back up his claim.
But this idiot knows he doesn’t have to worry about that; not as long as the airwave are mostly owned and control by people who look like him.
For a Republican.
As a die-hard PBS person, I have long been a Smiley fan and not because he's a fellow Hoosier. His shows are always informative. I get lots of recommendation on books, music, etc. by tuning in.
I know this is not good enough for you to accept even though the facts are a mystery to you.
So out of the millions and millions of blacks there isn't one guy with the desire, talent and training to be a foil to Rush?
Which is more probable: 1) that the above person doesn't exist or 2) there is an effort to keep such a talent off the air? Or there could be another reason for the lack of black talent on the air: no one wants to hear an angry black guy give his unabashed opinion in a fun and entertaining way and definately no one wants to pay him to do it.
I really think some evidence needs to be produced. If not, it's got to be chalked up as a nutty delusion.
You don't have to believe it because you can't believe it and the reason is obvious.
I'll have to admit, it is hard to argue with you. ;-)
Believe me it is no accident. They want to control what goes over the airwaves. It fits their Ideology. You know the one that says we are inferior and less human then them. They could not get away with that if it was a level playing field. That is a fact. We are at a disadvantage and that's the way they like it.
If you notice, MOST of the arguments are between them. We are on standby.
Then THEY pick the one they want to speak for us (usually an uncle-tom).
Wouldn't it be nice that; for all the idiots who say something stupid on these talk shows, a black talk show will air a show that points out their errors- on our terms.
"you simply ho-hum", by you.
As usual you make no sense. You should be grateful your posts are often deleted, I would be if I were you.
It is an Unwritten policy and it is practiced on a daily basis. White people know if the playing field was even they could not get away with the evil, vile, racist stupid things they say on TV or anywhere else. What Glen Beck, [K]lannity and Rush Limbaugh is saying on TV can easily be rebutted because it is nothing but hate and ignorance.As it stands now, they don't have to answer for stupidity, nor are they being challenged, and the reason is what I explained.
You don't have to believe it because you can't believe it and the reason is obvious
Do your own words count as proof?
Again, people like Beck spout racist gibberish and they don't get fired. That fact is actual concrete proof of institutionalized racism. You're being willfully blind in order to deny it.
Statistical evidence showing that there is institutional racism.
A signed affidavit from the head of Clear Channel stating that they make sure to go out of their way to not allow black owned stations or for there to be any format that would allow black opinons to be heard on the radio?
Asking for evidence and denying any that is provided only proves that you do not have an open mind.
Did it ever occur to you that if there were a market for progressive black commentators there would be more? If there were a liberal black man who could bring in the same number of listeners as Limbaugh there is no doubt in my mind he would have his own show. Same goes for an Asian liberal, Mexican liberal, Eskimo liberal, or even a White liberal. I think this argument falls apart based on the simple reality that there isnt a market for progressive commentators.
How many black people do you know that pursued talk shows? I can think of a few more than Tavis Smiley that have had shows. Arsenio Hall had one, Oprah has one, Alan Keyes, Tyra Banks, D L Hughly, am I missing any?
Obama was called a racist because he demonstrated that he supported a black person who instigated a racial event over the police. He also voiced that support even without knowing the facts, by his own admission. Surely that can be construed as being racially motivated. And therefore it is a legitimate opinion. Imus was branded a racist for telling a bad joke, despite years of evidence to the contrary. I am sure you will think that it was fair to call Imus a racist but of course it is unfair to call Obama a racist for his well considered comments. And there is no doubt that Prof. Gates is a racist, he clearly demonstrated that . Do you agree with that?
The issue has never been why the police were there. The issue is how Crowley handled himself.
He didn't have to ask him to step outside at all. All he had to do was to inform him that there was a break-in and ask if he knew anything about it. If he were to say "no", then you ask him to come outside for safety reasons. If "yes", then it's easier to move forward from there.
Let's say that Gates had lost his identification. Would you arrest him? Why or why not?
That's hilarious. Why didn't he leave after seeing the ID then? Why did he call in more cops? Why did the conversation go on so much longer that all those cops were on the lawn when they both went outside? So he can stick around to argue, but when Gates wants his badge number, he's got to keep moving. Give me a break.k
Read the report. Do you think that Crowley got the ID, called for more cops, then immediately went outside and all those cops were there? That would be impressive. Obviously he didn't go outside "as soon as possible".
On what charge? If you don't suspect him of any crime, and you don't really think there was a crime, then what on earth are you supposed to do about it? Cops do get to use judgment, you know.
If you going to accuse me of lying please prove it instead of just running your mouth!!
Sergeant Crowley's defenders told us that the 911 tape would prove how out-of-control Professor Gates was. But, big surprise, they were not telling the truth. None of the yelling or tumultuous behavior described in Crowley's report can be heard on the tape.
There is no crime described in Crowley's official version (which you supposedly have in front of you) of the way Gates behaved. Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling, nothing else, not a single threatening movement, just yelling on the steps of his own home.
Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts.
If you are defending the arrest I can only assume you have not read the report. If you have read the report and are defending the arrest I can only assume you are a fool. The only violation of law in there is false arrest.
If you are a Republican and defend the State arresting a man for yelling on his own property then you are certainly not a conservative. You are a partisan who puts party over principles.
"which by the way I have been) /with a irate person accusing me of being a racists (which happens a lot when you have an encounter with a black man" This is a truly pathetic statement and certainly not a FACT. It does however do alot to explain your position on this matter.
"And yes you would have to detain Mr Gates until his identity had been established." Completely false. If you have the report in front of you as you claim, you know for a FACT that this had no bearing on his arrest and his identification was NOT in question as you claim.
"I didn't mean physical safety necessarily I mean cover your ass safety against BS allegations that could possibly come from this incident." This is false and if you have the report in front of you, as you claim, you know this had no bearing on the arrest. Completely false.
Completely false and even the cop himself does not claim as such. He was arrested for a bogus charge of disorderly conduct, not threatening the police officer. Read the report on your desk. You are, once again, completely false.
"people like gates aren't worth the time and effort!"
"The officer had no reason to be in the home anymore so he was leaving. If I was in that situation (which by the way I have been) /with a irate person accusing me of being a racists (which happens a lot when you have an encounter with a black man) I would want to be in public view as soon as possible so he could accuse me of any more BS."
Why you have such a chip on your shoulder when it comes to black men who refuse to be subservient to the police I do not know. That is a personal issue that you will have to figure out for yourself, but it does explain your ridiculous defense of Crowley.
I was a MP for 5 years and in my personal experience this is a fact unless I just happen to run into the only black people who claim this. FAIL
And yes you would have to detain Mr Gates until his identity had been established." Completely false. If you have the report in front of you as you claim, you know for a FACT that this had no bearing on his arrest and his identification was NOT in question as you claim
I was responding to a direct hypothetical question of would you have to arrest Mr Gates if he did not have an ID. So of course it had no Bering on the arrest it was a HYPOTHETICAL Question! FAIL
Again this comes from my experience I never claimed this was in the report. I was using my experience to speculate and to a reason to want to go outside. EPIC FAIL
We are not dealing with a hypothetical. This arrest actually happened. A man was actually arrested on false charges that were immediately dropped and you are actually defending the arrest. And the arrest itself had nothing to do with his identification being unknown. If you read the report on your desk you would know that.
"I didn't mean physical safety necessarily I mean cover your ass safety against BS allegations that could possibly come from this incident." You barely touched on this claim but it is also clearly FALSE and it is proven so to anyone who actually reads the report on your desk. Crowley's arrest of Gates had NOTHING to do with safety and was based on the idea that Gates being "loud and tumultuous" "served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed". This is in the report on your desk. This is what happened and what you are defending. It is incorrect and on some level you probably know this, but are defending it because you are OK with black men being arrested if they do not show the proper respect as you deem or you are just looking for another reason to hate Obama...or both.
"And by the way the statements you don't know who you're messing with and of this isn't over can be taken as a threat." And just for good measure this statement is also completely false and also had no bearing on the arrest. You would know that if you read the report that you claim is on your desk.
I was a MP for 5 years and in my personal experience this is a fact unless I just happen to run into the only black people who claim this. FAIL
And yes you would have to detain Mr Gates until his identity had been established." Completely false. If you have the report in front of you as you claim, you know for a FACT that this had no bearing on his arrest and his identification was NOT in question as you claim
I was responding to a direct hypothetical question of would you have to arrest Mr Gates if he did not have an ID. So of course it had no Bering on the arrest it was a HYPOTHETICAL Question! FAIL
Again this comes from my experience I never claimed this was in the report. I was using my experience to speculate and to a reason to want to go outside. EPIC FAIL
No, he said that it was stupid for someone to get arrested for disorderly conduct in their own home. Judge Napolitano backed him up on that. There is no legitimate charge to be found there, so the arrest was stupid.
Think about your logic there. "Supported a black person who instigated a racial event over the police". What if Crowley had assaulted Gates? Would the same principle not apply? Crowley had no reason to be there after seeing identification. He acted improperly in continuing the argument, much less putting anyone under arrest. Why can't that be pointed out without it being racially motivated?
Also, if you were actually familiar with the press conference that started all this, Obama said that he might be biased because "Skip Gates is a friend". That would be a perfectly rational explanation for supporting Gates, which makes "racially motivated" a wild and rather ignorant assumption.
The problem started because Gates refused to show ID right from the start and initiated the "police are picking on me" routine. He was not arrested until he did follow Crowley out of the house and continued the verbal assault on the police. He was wrong, period and did not display any of the supposed intelligence attributed to him. The whole incident could have been avoided if he had the brains to show his ID right from the start and realized they were there protecting his property. Had he done so it would have been over. It's too bad that Gates did not display the same intelligence that Colin Powell and Bill Cosby demonstrated when commenting about this issue.
And Obama did support Gates without knowing the facts, he said so himself. That is tacit approval of the racism charges that Gates made. I was unable to reply to your post last night when you claimed that I was dodging the issue of the arrest being unjustified but I never claimed it was. My point was and still is , is that Gates instigated the whole incident with false claims of racism. But the facts indicate he is the one who displayed racist behavior and Obama supported that. Guilt by association perhaps, but justified in this case.
You are admitting that the arrest was unjust, right? If so, wonderful, but then you're bolstering my point:It doesn't matter what Gates said because the police still have an obligation to behave in a certain manner.
So bearing that in mind, what exactly is the criticism against Obama supposed to be? He has to be against white people in order to side with a friend when the police file an absurd charge? Whether Gates instigated it or not, the police were still wrong.
But it gets worse for you, as little as I can believe it:
And then:
If he didn't know the facts, then how exactly is he responsible for supporting Gates when "the facts indicate he is the one who displayed racist behavior"? You didn't really think that through all that well, did you?
Then:
From the same paragraph, even. That is absolutely classic.
And Crowley had an obligation to enter the house and determine if there was a burglary in progress, it is his job and why he was called to the scene. Are you suggesting that the police should just take the word of whoever shows up at a possible crime scene? No investigation, just ask whoever is there?
Since the house belonged to Harvard and the ID he presented was Harvard it is a professional courtesy to keep them in the loop as to what was going on.
I would also love to know (since you believe that Gates, Obama, Sotomayor, etc. are racists) do you believe that Beck and O'Reilly are racists? I know the answer, I just find your pretzel logic particularly hilarious.
He's not allowed to follow someone into their home without permission, and he believed it was Gates' house according to his own report. Is there no sense of judgment here? Is a 58 year-old man with a cane really likely to be a suspect in a burglary? The man was on the house phone in the foyer and didn't see Crowley right away. Let's say he doesn't live there. How flipping stupid would you have to be to break into someone else's house, then stand near the front door so that anyone could see you as they walked past, or a neighbor could see you as they checked on what the hell was going on? How does this situation apply to "whoever shows up", honestly?
As for the idea of some burglar in the house, don't you think that it was established early on that Gates was one of the people who broke into the house? Wouldn't you think that would be the first thing figured out, or at least addressed before anyone asked for identification? "There was a report of a break-in here, do you know anything about it?" If the answer is "no", then you ask them to exit the house for safety. Otherwise, there's no reason to enter the house.
Even without that, how long did it take to get to the house after the 911 dispatch? It seems unlikely that two people broke in the front door, then the owner comes home minutes later and doesn't notice anything wrong. And if that was the case, surely the man would have a different reaction upon learning that their house was broken into just a few minutes previously. If we were talking about a case where a neighbor saw someone quietly slipping in through a window, and then when the police come they wake up the owner, that's one thing. When the front door is busted in and they arrive to find a man standing in the front foyer on the phone, it seems a lot less likely that there's some perpetrator in the house that the person doesn't know about.
Common sense. Ask for it by name.
Please back this up and tell me what law says that officer cannot enter a residence after a burglary call has been reported. Your ignorance of the law is astounding.
I have though from the beginning of this issue that it was more about Civil Liberties than Civil Rights.
Not true the officer had every right to enter a house on a burglary call especially after the man inside refused to show identification.
Not true the officer had every right to enter a house on a burglary call especially after the man inside refused to show identification.
You know that's not illegal, right? And that's why the charges were tossed?
I too believe that Gates acted inappropriately. But he didn't do anything worthy of arrest.
Let's also bear in mind that the reason that Crowley gave was that he couldn't call in on his radio with the noise in the house. That's BS. He didn't have to call in anything at that moment, because he had confirmed Gates' identity. He could have called from the car.
So not only did Crowley draw Gates outside through that condition, he had no valid reason for going outside at that point himself without providing his information. Can you say "entrapment"?
And it would be difficult to argue that there's anything that's going to apply to this situation, because Gates was talking to police. It's not like it would ever be justified for police to haul off and punch someone for something they said, so the part about "fighting words" is obviously more relevant to confrontations among citizens.
In the incident report #9005127, filed by Sgt. Crowley, he says, "As I reached the door a female voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand, told me she was the one who called. SHE WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT SHE OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE TWO BLACK MALES WITH BACKPACKS ON THE PORCH".
Now that's funny, because Lucia Whalen (the 911 caller) says she DID NOT say what race the two men were when calling 911. She goes on to say that the ONLY words she exchanged with Sgt. Crowley were "I was the 911 caller" and the ONLY words Sgt. Crowley said to her was "stand here".
Now I'm sure it doesn't bother you, after all you don't need facts to form an opinion against Professor Gates. But me, I'm curious, since Lucia Whalen didn't say two Black men WHY did Sgt. Crowley write in his incidient report that she did?
If Crowley told that lie, how many other lies are in his "incident report"? And is any of his report true?
You might want to read incident report #9005127 you're using as the gospel truth.
"As I began walking through the foyer, towards the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates I would speak with him outside".
So it appears that Profess Gates was following Crowley's request to follow HIM outside.
Funny how Crowley's, the expert on racial profiling and diversity, official report says two Black men that the ACTUAL 911 caller NEVER described. And after Crowley calls for additional units of the Cambridge police and Harvard police, which is a sure way to draw a crowd, he then arrests Professor Gates for exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place.
No wonder the Cambridge police decided to drop the charges, even they knew it was a bogus arrest!
Get the message out that President Obama is ---a racist, unAmerican, unlawfully President, a tyrant, a socialist, a nazi, etc. in hopes that one (or more than one) lone listener/follower; will take it upon themselves to do the patriotic/American thing and take out the President by any means necessary.
They don't think that they will be blamed for inciting this action - BUT THEY WILL BE BLAMED.
I also don't think that are doing this on their own, their motives may be to get ratings, make more money, and keep their fat faces on TV and radio but hiding out of sight are the true power behind these hate mongers - they are the ones that are driving the train - that keep people like Dobbs, Hannity, Malkin, Rush, Beck and countless others on the air regardless of what they say. It is the Ruperts, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Yoos, the Addingtons; that are hoping for an "incident" that will tear this country apart so they can swoop in to take control after they misdirect the country into thinking that it was all a liberal conspiracy.
I have no doubt that this is what they are waiting for and will keep up the rhetoric until someone acts upon their hate speech.
TheFavs..
Pat Buchanan -2:1
Glenn Beck -7:2
Lou Dobbs -3:1
Rush Limbaugh - 5:1
Sean Hannity -7:1
Other Contenders:
Laura Ingrahm
Michael Savage
Gordon Liddy
Neal Bortz
Michael Steele( yes that Michael Steele)
I'll put a C-note down on Drugbaugh.
He is getting old and sometimes forgets he is on camera.
We probably all have used the R word in the past, but when Beck calls Obama a racist I think we can all agree that the meaning of the word "racist" has been watered down to the point of absurdity.
Welcome to our friendly discussions. :-)
Do you not remember all the Democrats calling Bush's election in 2000 illegitimate? Heck, I still see it cropping here nine years later. Talk about sore losers. Whew!
You may not recall those, including Patrick Kennedy, who claimed that Republicans subverted the 2004 election by somehow tossing the Ohio results to Bush because of voter irregularities presided over by Democratic Party voting officials.
You obviously do not remember there are still calls for Holder to hold investigations against Bush and Cheney for alleged criminal acts during Bush's presidency. Newsweek had a title story on it only a few weeks ago. Lots of people here want that investigation.
So it is my opinion that that you are experiencing selective memory. Don't worry. You are not alone. :-)
There are a small group of birthers who, for their own reasons, want to deligitimize Obama's win through their theory that he is not a natural citizen. They are having their 15 minutes of fame right now, but they don't speak for the vast silent majority of Republicans who accept Obama as our President.
your fellow conspirators got endless coverage on CNN when bush won in 2000. This was not the situation in 92 or 96. Anyone who complained about Clinton lying under oath was called a racist, a traitor and worse by the communist loving MSM and ignored. Again, you left wing terrorists and race baitors are terrible and making a logical analogy. FAIL
I guess you didn't mind that our president wasn't elected but appointed by using illegal case law from the Supreme Court (making law for ONE MAN).
And you're still caught up about Clinton getting a bj. Move on, big fella.
How would anyone even think of the word "racism" when talking about the treatment of a white man who had an affair with a white woman? I sort of understand how some people confuse "racial" and "racist", but using it here is completely random.
Point 1 Most anyone who behaved in his manner ie. Getting BJ for a subordinate in his office while working would be fired. Im in the Army not only would I be discharge I could quite possible be charged with a crime, and since Im married I would almost defiantly be charged with adultery. But hey who want to hold the leader of the free world to a higher standard.
Point 2 Most people were not mad about the BJ there were mad about the perjury in his sworn deposition in the Paula Jones Case.
You complain about being called "a racist, a traitor and worse"
And yet YOU then turn right around and say
You complain about name calling then turn right around and name call.
There's a word for you......I know....WHINER!!
Now that's compelling. You conservatives are just the very model of restraint, where you didn't mention all of the controversial aspects of Clinton's election. If you can bring yourself to break through your post-partisan demeanor for a moment, remind me what could anyone have possibly brought up that would have cast doubt on the results of those elections.
The bit about failing to make a logical analogy is riotous.
From those who chant 'state's rights! state's rights', suddenly the Florida Supreme Court isn't competent. (Along with the Hawaii Health Department)
I was simply jogging your rather one sided memory. You seem to have bought those conspiracy theories lock stock and barrel.
Again to shake your memory, the Tea Parties were not to argue against Obama's election, but to peacefully protest the huge deficits and taxes that with Obama and the Democrats massive spending.
I think you have a point regarding the promotion of those Tea Parties by Fox.
I do disagree with you about protesters out in the streets against Bush. Do you not remember Cindy Sheehan? How about the gratuitous use of Max Cleland down in Crawford? Did not the media follow these people around and cover their street demonstrations?
Comparing birthers to Nazi's is way over the top in my estimation. As a side note, if you'll look, you'll see our government was indeed infiltrated by many Communists and Communist spies in the 40s and 50s.
Its been a fun discussion but I think your attempt to gain the high moral ground here is simply you showing your partisan political leanings. The birthers are a fringe group and are not violent nor do they threaten democracy. I have not seen any case where they have been violent. Apparently you forget the violence and intimidation tactics practiced by the lefts ACORN and Enviornmental whackos.
There are unstable individuals who hold views on both the left and the right , but they are simply individuals. Your fears of violence from the right are unfounded. You should be more afraid of the lurch toward socialism and fascism that the Democrats are pushing with cap-n-trade and health care reform.
Thanks for the discussion.
Also, study up on fascism. It makes you look like a silly fool when you use it in the context of legislation that is being voted on by our elected representatives.
These two things destroy your credibility to the point where it seems impossible to even argue the actual discussion points you may have.
And wouldn't you consider the placing of metal objects in trees to be cut down as violent, as they are designed to injure the people felling the trees?
fairliberal answered your question about ACORN and initmidation.
Here is an example of ecoterrorist groups:
The Animal Liberation Front
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is the nation's most active extreme animal rights movement... ALF cells have claimed responsibility for hundreds of "direct actions," a euphemism for crimes that include freeing animals from their owners and property destruction.
The Earth Liberation Front
By 2004, ALF's environmental counterpart, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), was setting new records for property damage... The movement aims to "inflict economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment" and "to reveal and educate the public on the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it." Acts of property destruction are considered by ELF to be non-violent because no human being or animals are targeted.
...Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). SHAC quickly become a transatlantic cause among radical animal rights activists, with chapters in Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United States. To date, its activists have claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and harassment in both the U.S. and Europe.
In September 2003, the "Animal Liberation Brigade" and "Revolutionary Cells" took responsibility for another bombing, this time at the offices of Shaklee Inc. in Pleasanton, California. Shaklee was targeted because its parent company, Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical, does business with HLS (ironically, Shaklee is listed as a "Caring Consumer" on PETA's Web site). In December 2003, the FBI announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of fugitive Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 25 year-old Sonoma man who is the prime suspect in the Chiron and Shaklee bombings.
I think you get the idea...
http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Ecoterrorism.asp
This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.
This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.
The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:
– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”
The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”
Meanwhile, AHIP, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry is sending staffers to monitor town halls and other right-wing front groups are stepping up their ad campaign to smear reform efforts. The strategy for defeating reform — recently outlined by an influential lobbyist to the Hill newspaper as “delay” then “kill” — is becoming apparent. By delaying a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are now seizing upon recess town halls as opportunities to ambush lawmakers and fool them into believing there is wide opposition to reform. (ThinkProgress.org)
Communist "spies"? Really?? So who were they spying for exactly? Do you mean Russian spies perhaps? Now, there were followers of communism who were in politics, but you're not calling them "spies" are you? Can't an American be a "commie" (whatever that means anymore) and not be a spy?
The birthers do threaten our democracy in the aspect of questioning its constitution and legal precident and as for violence, yeah, many of their adherents have indeeed called for violence. None of the birthers are on the left. WOW.
And fear of Health Care reform and cap and trade rather than the physical violence being planned and perpetrated by a right wing lunatic fringe being egged on by a complict media owned by right wing corporatists who manipulate the entire conversation of our Democracy so far to the right that being liberal now means anything to the "left" of this fringe at this point? Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots at moderately wealthy to extrememly wealthy people paying for poor American's right to being treated like human beings in our own country. And the thought of businesses using competitive theory to reduce the emission of harmful pollutants into American's environment is horrifying.
Nutjobs shooting doctor's in churches, shooting so-called liberals in a church (what's with shooting people in churches by right wingers anyway?) bombing women's health clinics, wanting every unstable person to have access to guns without background checks, nooooo, those are just left-wing fantasies.
Are you for real?
Are you sure about that? Off the top of my head:
Dr. Tiller (the baby killer as O'Reilly called him)
Holocaust Museum shooter
Chuch shooter who read O'Reilly's book and had a diary saying he wanted to kill Democrats.
Timothy McVeigh
I'm glad you mentioned them because both have been targets of the right and even some of the posters here questioned Cleland's heroism or Cindy's right to speak out against the War in Iraq.
And the best is that we've even had posters drop by and make nasty comments about Max and how he was wounded. They admitted that they supported the War in Vietnam. They supported it from their dorm rooms in college and were terrorized by their leftists professors.
Too bad there was no medal for guys like them.
Wow, lets see. $1.3 trillion dollar deficit at left by previous administration. No new taxes but; allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. Uh, Republicans running up the largest increase in government and spending in history.
You should at least let Obama finish his first term before you convict him.
Do you not remember Cindy Sheehan?
Uh, Republican and (conservative) media driven outrage over a mother who was protesting the war, becase her son was killed.
I guess I don't understand your reference to Cleland. Because he was a war veteran, a Democrat from Georgia, because he tried to protest the Swift Boating of Kerry?
I actually had to research that one and I am still not sure. I did like the one (very conservative) quote that I found on Blogs for Bush:
Cleland, as I'm sure we all know, served in Vietnam and lost three limbs while serving there. He did more than his fair share for his country when he was a young man but we must remember that one event, regardless of how honorable, does not cover one for a whole lifetime; you don't get a free pass, ever.
I guess Republicans had forgotten about that when McCain was running. (serving in Nam only buys you so much gratitude)
Apparently you forget the violence and intimidation tactics practiced by the lefts ACORN and Enviornmental whackos.
Well, you sure got us there, since there are certainly some wackos on the environmental side. Of course there are a lot more people on the environmental side who are trying to effect positive change through non-violent actions and education.
Double Bonus for tying in ACORN. Is this what you are talking about?
Death Threats and Violence Hit ACORN
BTW I do agree with you on the birthers. They share the same building with all the other Wackos that are out there. And, that does include wacko enviromentalists or wacko anti-choicers (who bomb or kill)
His "stiff upper lip" by Democrats or leftists or whoever he self identifies with comment regarding 2004 and 2008 is simply laughable.
In all, I simply showed that his supposedly even handed account comparing those who protest Obama to those who protested Bush is, in reality, just another leftist rant.
You are way off the deep end with your vitriol against Republicans and conservatives.
You don't even know it, but you are guilty of the same type of "hating" that you accuse others.
Let me ask you a question: If there was an even playing field in TV land do you think these wacko white TV Stations would get away with the racist evil they air?? And do you think they would go unchallenged by the people they disparage?
Let me answer that for you, no, we would stand up to them, challenge and expose them for the hate hypocrtes they are.
Saying Republicans and conservatives are "spitting on democracy", using derogatory language such as "teabaggers" and using terms like "whacko and white tv stations" and accusing them of "racist evil" and being "hypocrites" is not in and of itself, hateful?
Only in the topsy turvey world of the left this is not hate speech. Gotta love that leftist logic!
Apparently you do not know the difference between a certificat of live birth and a long form birth certificate.
But that is okay. Neither did I. And I don't really care. I agree that the birthers are out on the fringe.
At this point, I could care less if Obama were born in Africa or Hawaii. He's still our President.
What do these bastards do? They say the hell with those who support Obama. They have become the party of no. No to everything Obama proposes and want. All they do is criticize, lie, misinform, misrepresent and Obstruct. Where were these full blown idiots when Bush was in office? They have no room to talk. They have no credibility. It is clear they don't give a damn about democracy or the American people as long as Obama is in office. You are deaf, dumb and blind if you don't see that.
All the stuff they are doing is out in the open. I know what I am talking about. You are one of those fools who voted for a man who wanted to continue Bush failed policie. You are not worth talking to, unless you wise up.
Do you think using a derogatory term and then asking a juvenile rhetorical question simply because you might disagree with my comment shows a certain lack of class?
typical military hating lefty.......comparing comments on a blog to MS< figure. Are you really this obtuse?
"I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers..."
Look, I understand he has a 1st amendent right to say his stuff, but I can't believe he's allowed to say this.
I won't watch this idiot no more, and I call upon real Americans to call this guy out for who he is:A RACIST.
Since when have lefties been considered racist? Seems to me that leftists have long been painted empathetic rather than racist. Beck is such an IDIOT.
Fox News put out a statement saying Beck's words is HIS opinion, but fail to give their opinion of the President.
Randy
Keith Ablow is here. He is a psychiatrist and Fox News contributor.
I love the juxstaposition of those two paragraphs... You could use a good shrink, Glenn. ;>)
president obama did not call the cop stupid... he said the police "acted stupidly".
Or are we supposed to view the officer's demand that Gates go oustide innocuously? The policeman knew he couldn't arrest Gates for disturbing the peace unless they went outside first.
Reporter asks president question about Gates arrest at press conference on heath care.
Obama responds (comment edited) "I think the police acted stupidly"
Response in the press: "he's a racist, he needs to aplogize, etc"
Same scenario:
Reporter asks president question about Gates arrest at press conference on heath care.
Obama responds (comment created) "I think that is is best if I keep my opinions to myself on this issue"
Response in the press: "he's a racist, he needs to aplogize, etc"
The president is in a no win situation. Obviously there are sections of the media that are "out to get him", for lack of a better term. There are sections of the media that are trying to treat him fairly but; are saying to themselves: "man, I want to give him a break but; we really went over the edge in supporting Bush, so we need to be tougher this time. And, of course, there will be a section of the media that will support Obama, pretty much as a given.
This isn't meant to "slam" anyone but; is meant to point out that the media, in general, is like the rest of the population. There are the really hard core conservative, the really hard core liberals, everybody in between, and of course the random wackos.
On another note there are quite a few media outlets for Black talk radio. Check out WVON here in Chicago online if you're not in the area, Tom Joyner and Mike Baisden have good topical shows occasionally. One of my new favs is the Montell Williams radio program on Air America.Joe Madison is another great. As far as a Black view on the tv machine now that's a different story. I feel there is a need for a prime time show with a Black host. Tavis is good but maybe Eugene Robinson or Montell could get a show on MSNBC. Overall Keith and Rachel are doing a good job of exposing Rush, Sean and Glen for what they are.
Beck is an embarrassment to any race including human.
I wish I could say "And you know who you are," but you don't.
*sigh*