Dr. Cornel West Calls Al Sharpton “The Bonafide House Negro Of The Obama Plantation”

December 17, 2013

Calling all Beer Summits!

(CEO) West likened Al Sharpton to a slave in response to his speech delivery during the 50th Anniversary Ceremony of the historic March on Washington earlier this week. Public intellectual Cornel West tore into many of this week’s speeches surrounding the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s “I Have a Dream” speech, accusing everyone from President Obama to Rev. Al Sharpton of “sanitizing” Dr. King’s vision. “Brother Martin himself, I think, would’ve been turning over in his grave,” West said of the event. “[King would have wanted] people to talk about Wall Street criminality, he wants people to talk about war crimes, or drones dropping bombs on innocent people,” he asserted. “Instead,” he lamented, “we saw the coronation of the bonafide house negro of the Barack Obama plantation, our dear brother Al Sharpton.” West went further declaring that Sharpton’s decline was “supported by [MSNBC analyst] Michael Dyson and others who’ve prostituted themselves in a very ugly and vicious way.” West and Tavis Smiley both lamented that black leadership has become “so sold-out” so as not to have the courage to be a “bull in the china shop,” break rank, and talk about “racism, poverty, and militarism” at an otherwise “bought-out” event.

Give West credit. He’s a lot more consistent than the other leaders in the black community… when he is sober.


#ChrisMatthews: Did #Boston Bombing Have Anything To Do With Tax Day? | #BostonMarathon #MSNBC #MSLGBT

April 15, 2013

After saying shortly into his Hardball program, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right,” Matthews later asked his guests if Tax Day had something to do with the event since it doesn’t mean “a whole lot to the Arab world or Islamic world or the, certainly not to al Qaeda” (video follows with transcript):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, Michael, Tax Day today. That came up. You know, I was thinking of all the iconic events, or being told about them today. Of course, I knew it was Tax Day because I got them in. But of course, it’s Patriots Day. It’s also the Boston Marathon. And would you as an expert be thinking domestic at this point? I don’t think Tax Day means a whole lot to the Arab world or Islamic world or the, certainly not to al Qaeda in terms of their world. It doesn’t have any iconic significance.

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER: At this point, as an investigator, you don’t want to shut down any options, but based upon the type of explosive that appears, the size of the explosive, the way it was done, this is well within the capability of somebody with too much time in front of the internet who was looking up bombs and who hates government, who hates America. For whatever his or her reasons for doing something like this, this is well within the realm of one person.


Senator’s sex scandal shuts feminist daughter’s mouth

February 12, 2013
Alicia-Menendez

(WND) While Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is fighting for his political life following revelations that he and a wealthy donor are under FBI investigation for Dominican Republic trips the senator took on the eye doctor’s private plane as well as accusations he engaged in sex with under-age prostitutes while there, one prominent supporter has been conspicuously silent – his media-star daughter Alicia Menendez, a Democratic Party adviser.

Alicia Menendez is the former co-director of “The Vagina Monologues,” an episodic feminist play comprised of soliloquies read by women dealing with matters including sex, love, rape, menstruation, female genital mutilation, masturbation, birth, orgasm, the various common names for the vagina, or simply as a physical aspect of the body. She is a former Harvard gender studies major who is a host on “Huffpost Live” and a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

Known for her outspokenness, even on matters involving her own prominent family, she once wrote that her “gringa” mother claimed to be Dominican in a past life.
Alicia Menendez’s mother, the former Jane Jacobsen, teaches sex education in the Union City school district. She and her former husband were divorced in 2005. The divorce documents are sealed.
Alicia Menendez came to fame for being a feminist. It was her 2005 senior thesis on gender studies that got her media attention; The New York Times and U.S. News and World Report gave her work mentions. The 87-page thesis, “To Whom Many Doors are Still Locked: Gender, Space, and Power, in Harvard Final Clubs,” decried a culture of male domination at the Ivy League school.
“Establishing yourself as a big man on campus is pretty formulaic, but there’s no such woman at Harvard who has done that to a positive capacity [sic],” Menendez told the student newspaper.
“The Harvard campus can be a very lonely place,” she explained. “And meeting beautiful, smart, socially adept women here is not an easy task.”
She was especially critical of Harvard’s men’s clubs, which she says relegated women to being “perpetually guests” on the campus social scene.
The thesis, obtained by WND through Harvard’s library, is focused on the injustice that the women’s clubs don’t have their own building.
“Tired of discussing the inequalities of ownership of space in private forums, it became my objective to examine the role of final club buildings and their implications for the men and women who are a part of the final club community,” she wrote in the introduction to her “ethnographic study.”
She added: “As a woman, as a feminist, as an ethnic minority … I recognize that I am not supposed to be a part of this supposed elitism, but I am,” she wrote.
As for her topic on “gendered power and social space,” she writes, “I did not choose this subject; it chose me.”
The feminist screed about the clubs includes buzzwords and phrases such as “male role models,” “homosocial legacies,” “male privilege,” “single-sex group identification,” “objectification,” and “Lolita fetishism.”
Alicia Menendez continued to write on gender issues after she graduated, ever quick to write on the latest political sex scandal. In 2008 she was fascinated by the prostitution story of former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
“As the updates streamed in, I got a good look at how the story was shaping,” she wrote at the time. “Eliot Spitzer did something very wrong but fairly ordinary: he hired a prostitute. It’s only so extraordinary because of who Eliot Spitzer is and what Eliot Spitzer purports to stand for.”
She remained fascinated by Spitzer’s sex scandal and others, even going so far as to write whimsical online advice for politicians going through them, titled “What to Do When Scandals Hit”:
“Admitting that you’ve done something wrong is the first step. If you’re there, that’s half the battle,” she wrote. After trying to find a true friend, she enumerated a few dos and don’ts. “Don’t give yourself room to lie (any more than you already have). Don’t rely on half truths. And please, please don’t over share.”
That post (and others like it) have been scrubbed from the website that she co-founded. Perhaps she’s trying to follow her own advice offered as a candidate’s daughter in 2008: “The cardinal rule for candidates’ children, whether they choose to hit the campaign trail or not, is the same: Don’t do anything stupid.”

Repeated attempts to reach Alicia Menendez by email and Twitter were unsuccessful.(MORE)


MSNBC: People Against Gun Control Are Scared Of “Black And Brown People” Rising Up To Get Them…

December 22, 2012

Shockingly, this is the same UPenn professor who called for the filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims” to be locked up for making the movie.

HT: NY Post


A Bagel for Hagel

December 22, 2012
(Care for a “hagel” and lox? Um, no thanks!)

Paleo Conservative rump served medium rare. Tastes like chicken. #Hagel can support Hezbollah and terrorists, but they won’t let him be a homophobe. Obama’s Anti Zionist for Defense is about to be eaten by the vultures at the NYTimes. Aw too bad! (SheikYerMami)Brzezinski Backs Hagel, Accuses Critics of Loyalty to Foreign Interests. The usual suspects. Or, if you prefer: birds of a feather. Brzezinski told the MSNBC anchor team, which includes his (unhinged)  daughter Mika, that Hagel’s “critics, they would like to plunge the U.S. into some new wars, promptly, and not always for U.S. national interest.”  (Who? The Jews, of course!) Who’d have thought? WaPo comes out against  Hagel: Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary Scaramouche: Obama Set to Appoint “Ferociously Anti-Israel” Senator as His Next Sec’y of Defense; Ironically, His Name Rhymes With “Bagel” Why would Obama tap Senator Chuck Hagel for the job? Mincing no words, Caroline Glick ‘splains it like this: “Obama wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisors and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them.” Meanwhile, pseudo-Zionist outfit J Street high fives the selection, prompting this wry quip over at The Corner: If there were any questions remaining regarding his fitness for Secretary of Defense, JStreet’s endorsement should be the final strike against him.


Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN’s Crowley for ‘Making Up History’ on Benghazi

November 19, 2012

Moderating Candy Crowley

It took more than a month — and an intervening presidential election — but it appears as though MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has finally joined the chorus of conservatives criticizing Candy Crowley for covering for President Obama’s false statements on Libya during the presidential debates.
Speaking on Monday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough strongly rebuked the Obama administration’s handling of the post-Benghazi coverage.  [See video below page break.  MP3 audio here.]

Scarborough started off the segment by ridiculing the idea that the White House couldn’t say the attack on our embassy was Al-Qaeda-related:

They’re like, oh, you know, we couldn’t say it was Al-Qaeda because that might expose some of our assets on the ground. Andrea Mitchell, the term Al-Qaeda, like, if there’s a terror attack in the Middle East, and you say Al-Qaeda, that’s going to expose some of our assets on the ground? That does not, as my professor said, Professor Pearson, that does not pass the straight-face test.

Scarborough followed this up by strongly criticizing the CNN reporter and presidential debate moderator for falsely claiming President Obama immediately classified the attack on Libyan Embassy as terrorism:

Andrea, what I don’t understand is that Susan Rice said this five days in. The president — remember, the president at the debate saying, you know, and Candy Crowley for some reason basically making up history on the run, said, well, the president did say this was a terrorist attack the day after, which he really didn’t say that at all. So there’s an inconsistency even there. In the debate, the president said, we said this the day after that it was an act of terror. No, no, he didn’t. And five days later, Susan Rice is reading a supposedly Intel that says it wasn’t a terror attack. I mean, there are — there’s confusion.

Colleague Andrea Mitchell used much softer language to excuse Susan Rice, instead placing the blame on the intelligence community:

I think the problem here is what this has exposed is the bureaucracy of the intelligence community. The fact that the intelligence community waters down what can be said in a declassified setting and that Susan Rice, I mean the criticism is that she took what they handed her and didn’t challenge it, which her defenders, Dianne Feinstein on Meet The Press and others say is really really unfair. 

Mitchell’s blame is misguided, as it was the White House, NOT the CIA which edited the post-Benghazi talking points memo which Susan Rice relied on when she went around blaming a YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi.
For once Scarborough didn’t go along with the usual MSNBC agenda of covering up or excusing White House failures.
It would have been nice to see more of this before the election, but better late than never, we suppose.

See relevant transcript below.

MSNBC
Morning Joe
November 19, 2012
6:11 a.m. EDT
 MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You mentioned Benghazi. Let’s go to the developments now in the ongoing controversy over the administration’s response to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Members of Congress are now vowing to find out why the CIA’s conclusion that terrorism was to blame for the attack was removed from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points. In the days following the deadly assault, Ambassador Rice said the administration believed the attack was a reaction to an anti-Islamic video. But, an associated press report says former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Friday that he believed all along that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist strike.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So let’s — before we set up these clips, let’s make sure we set this up right. So we’ve been hearing, Mark Halperin, that Susan Rice said what she said because she was just reading straight Intel basically from the CIA. We find out after David Petraeus’ testimony, this just isn’t true. That immediately David Petraeus and Intel officials knew this was an Al-Qaeda attack. Right?
MARK HALPERIN: It’s still kind of confusing.
SCARBOROUGH: By the way, I’m basing that on The New York Times reports and everything I read through the weekend.
HALPERIN: Yeah, the totality of the reporting, there was another line coming out of that closed hearing which was they didn’t want to say everything they knew in public because they didn’t want the terrorists to know that the U.S. government was on to them.
SCARBOROUGH: Well I heard that. But, I mean, seriously, Al-Qaeda. They’re like, oh, you know, we couldn’t say it was Al-Qaeda because that might expose some of our assets on the ground. Andrea Mitchell, the term Al-Qaeda, like, if there’s a terror attack in the Middle East, and you say Al-Qaeda, that’s going to expose some of our assets on the ground? That does not, as my professor said, Professor Pearson, that does not pass the straight face test.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Or the smell test. I think the problem here is what this has exposed is the bureaucracy of the intelligence community. The fact that the intelligence community waters down what can be said in a declassified setting and that Susan Rice, I mean the criticism is that she took what they handed her and didn’t challenge it, which her defenders, Dianne Feinstein on Meet The Press and others say is really really unfair.  You’re pilaring this woman.  She says it is, Feinstein’s words, character assassination, to suggest that she would read anything other than the unclassified version of this. A lot of people are asking where was Hillary Clinton that weekend?  She knew better than to go out into the middle of this.  She doesn’t do the Sunday talk shows.  So they gave Susan Rice this assignment. She went on all five shows.  And it was supposed to be an important venue for her. And by going with these declassified talking points, she has now taken the hit. This reminds me very much, Joe, Mika, and everybody, of what happened in the month leading up to the Iraq war when the declassified version was different in thrust than what was known about WMD and what the Senators should have been reading. And the intelligence community has to be asked why do you tell the American public something that is different in meaning? It should be perhaps leave out details, leave outsources and methods?
SCARBOROUGH: Again, though, the details here were Al-Qaeda.
MITCHELL: Exactly.
SCARBOROUGH: Just so people at home don’t think that this is just Lindsey Graham and John McCain going at it, Maureen Dowd was especially tough yesterday on Susan Rice because Susan Rice read the Intel briefings, she knew what the truth was and she chose to read something.  If the script was handed to her, Maureen Dowd’s point Steve Ratner was if the scripts was inaccurate, misleading, she shouldn’t have read it.
STEVE RATNER: Okay but look. I think we have to go through this logically. What we know — I think what we know is that the CIA produced a set of talking points that included Al-Qaeda, included more specific references to what happened. Somewhere during an interagency process, and I’ve been through a bunch of these interagency processes, these drafts get handed around. People mark them up. They mark them up for all different kinds of reasons. Somewhere along that way those words were changed.
SCARBOROUGH: Al-Qaeda was taken out.  Now the suggestion, of course, is by republicans, that –
RATNER: That it was political.  That’s one suggestion. 
SCARBOROUGH: In the middle of the campaign. And, again, the president’s punch line for a lot of speeches, GM’s alive, Osama Bin Laden’s dead.  Al-Qaeda’s on the run. 
RATNER: That’s one suggestion.  But it seems to me,
SCARBOROUGH: It’s a pretty strong suggestion.
RATNER: But before you get to the question of what Susan Rice should or shouldn’t have said, I think we need to know the answer of who changed their talking points and why.  And then I think we’ll know a lot more about what went on.
HALPERIN: I agree with that but this is not just a one off where ambassador rice went on the Sunday shows and said this.  Jay Carney was asked for a week about this and gaffe substantively the same answer.
SCARBOROUGH: And again, Andrea, what I don’t understand is that Susan Rice said this five days in. The president — remember, the president at the debate saying, you know, and Candy Crowley for some reason basically making up history on the run, said, well, the president did say this was a terrorist attack the day after, which he really didn’t say that at all. So there’s an inconsistency even there. In the debate, the president said, we said this the day after that it was an act of terror. No, no, he didn’t. And five days later, Susan Rice is reading a supposedly Intel that says it wasn’t a terror attack. I mean, there are — there’s confusion.
BRZEZINSKI: Why is this important, Andrea?
SCARBOROUGH: First of all, and why can’t they get their stories straight a month and a half later?
MITCHELL: Well, one reason is it’s important for us to know about the intelligence failure leading up to and coming out of Benghazi, according to the both Republicans and Democrats, there really wasn’t an intelligence failure, they knew what was happening.  Then why didn’t the State Department ask for more security and, more broadly, how should we handle regions like this where we want to have diplomatic and intelligence missions and we’re asking people to serve where they cannot properly be protected.  So there are big issues.  There’s also a proxy war going on here because Susan Rice had a very sharp tone during the 2008 campaign against some people like John McCain. And there is a disagreement there that is now being exaggerated all out of proportion, some people say, because they just are seeing this as a trophy where they can get a prominent nominee, potential nominee, for one of the top cabinet positions, there’s Treasury, there’s State, Defense.
SCARBOROUGH: That’s one side of it. The other side of it would be — and I hate to say this — but I wonder if that would be the media narrative if George W. Bush, we’re accuse of doing, what, I don’t know, politicizing –
BRZEZINSKI: It’s not a narrative. It’s just a point that Andrea made.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m not talking about Andrea. I’m hearing this a lot though coming out of the White House and I’m hearing it also that, again, there is — there is no doubt it is personal. I agree with Andrea completely, it is personal between John McCain and Susan Rice. I agree with that completely. What is surprising is it’s been a month and a half maybe, two months, and this — this looks to some, including Maureen Dowd, like it was a politicizing of Intel, the death of an American ambassador and we can brush it aside if we want to.
BRZEZINSKI: There’s the other side to it where you see Republicans going after someone they want to bring in?
RATNER: We shouldn’t glide too quickly over Andrea’s other important point, which is the security failure, that we had the Intel, knew what was going on in Benghazi and yet we did not protect our people there adequately.
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
JON HEILEMANN: To me that’s always — that’s the most troubling aspect of the entire thing. And it’s the thing that Senator Feinstein was clearest about on Meet The Press yesterday, was the notion that there had been months of concerns raised by people on the ground that the consulate itself was not well protected enough and that people crying out for more security and that those decisions were not made to protect those people as they should have been. To me that actually is almost the more substantially troubling thing about the entire episode.


No Joke: MSNBC’S Harris-Perry Says Voter ID Laws Discriminate Against “Transgender Americans”

September 29, 2012

Mind-numbing.
Via Newsbusters:

MSNBC doesn’t just oppose voter-ID reforms on behalf of blacks. In an interview with the DC gay newspaper The Washington Blade, weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry insisted “voter suppression efforts continue to impact transgender Americans.” It came with a lot of leftist lingo.
“They don’t look like what their photo IDs are,” she said. “So if they are self-presenting in front of an election official and they have an ID that says male or female and they’re sort of gender self-presenting in a non-conforming way, of course you end up with the possibility of shame or embarrassment or not being believed to be who you are.” They also don’t have birth certificates with names and gender markers that “are not informative of what their current life is.” Biological truth is an ideological lie:
“All of those things impact the ability of people to have the kind of state-issued ID that is allowable in a lot of these states around voting,” she said. “And so the idea that a person would be a perfectly eligible American citizen who has an opinion about voting and is kept out of it because of those sorts of issues — it goes to the heart of helping us understand that these efforts are really voter suppression efforts, not efforts to keep the election process above board.”
Keep reading…

I don’t get this enough to comment, which is why I’m reposting it. to understand it better. I suppose a lot of people are confused