Archive by Author
Keith Olbermann Thinks NAACP Resolution Against Tea Party ‘Was Kind of Mild’
Posted on 15. Jul, 2010 by Noel Sheppard.
Keith Olbermann on Wednesday said the recently adopted resolution by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People condemning alleged racism within the Tea Party "was kind of mild."
Speaking with NAACP President Ben Jealous on MSNBC’s "Countdown," Olbermann asked, "Do you think that what you passed was actually kind of moderate?"
With a straight face, Olbermann continued, "Because it struck me that, that one of the points that you emphasized was that the Tea Party is, is not a racist movement, but is merely tolerating racism and bigotry by its, by its members."
Still with a straight face, "I thought that was kind of mild" (video follows with commentary):
KEITH OLBERMANN: Do you, do you think that what you passed was actually kind of moderate? Because it struck me that, that one of the points that you emphasized was that the Tea Party is, is not a racist movement, but is merely tolerating racism and bigotry by its, by its members. I thought that was kind of mild.
Kind of mild?
Well, although the NAACP isn’t actually going to release a full text of the resolution until October, this is the press release from the organization:
NAACP DELEGATES UNANIMOUSLY PASS TEA PARTY AMENDMENT
NATION’S OLDEST AND LARGEST CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS ASK TEA PARTY TO REPUDIATE RACIST FACTIONS
(KANSAS CITY, MO) – Over 2,000 NAACP delegates today unanimously passed a resolution-as amended-called "The Tea Party Movement," asking for the repudiation of racist Tea Party leaders.
The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the Tea Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic Tea Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the "N" word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur.
"We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Last night after my speech, I was approached by an African American member of the NAACP and the Tea Party. He thanked me for speaking out because he has begun to feel uncomfortable in the Tea Party and wants to ensure there will always be space for him in both organizations. I assured him there will always be a place for him in the NAACP. Dick Armey and the leadership of the Tea Party need to do the same."
The resolution was amended during the debate to specifically ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party. It comes on the heels of NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous’ announcement of the "One Nation, Working Together" Movement culminating with a national march on Washington on 10-2-10.
The resolution will now go to the NAACP National Board of Directors for a full vote when they meet in October 2010 in Baltimore, MD. A formal copy of the resolution will be released at that time.
Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.
For the record, that’s what a shill like Olbermann believes is mild.
Any questions?
Continue Reading
Eleanor Clift: Obama’s Poll Numbers Down Because He Hasn’t Blamed Bush Enough
Posted on 14. Jul, 2010 by Noel Sheppard.
After the release of a number of polls Tuesday showing President Obama’s favorability rating plummeting, his minions in the media were out in force trying to blame the slide on something or someone else.
Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift, ever the dutiful shill always at a Democrat’s service when the chips are down, took a predictably absurd tack: Obama hasn’t blamed George W. Bush enough for all that ails the nation.
"Obama hasn’t done as good a job as Reagan of blaming his predecessor," wrote Clift after sharing some of Obama’s dismal poll numbers.
For our sins Clift elaborated:
Jimmy Carter for years served as the GOP’s version of Herbert Hoover while Obama let George W. Bush slip away into the ether, a former president so invisible that he might as well be in a witness-protection program. Bush’s upcoming book, Decision Points, won’t be released until a week after the November election, reinforcing the GOP’s decision to keep the unpopular president out of the mix in the midterms.
Readers are reminded that another Democrat media shill Bill Press told his radio listeners Tuesday that Obama’s declining poll numbers were due to Americans being spoiled, impatient children.
What do we learn from this?
That no matter what the current president does, and no matter what happens to the economy, in Iraq, in the Gulf of Mexico, or anywhere on the planet, Obama has media minions that will quickly be out in force trying to deflect blame from him without regard to facts or reason.
After all, as it pertains to Clift’s argument, there likely hasn’t been an administration in history that has spent more time blaming the country’s problems on the previous president.
To suggest otherwise is what Hillary Clinton would say requires a willing suspension of disbelief.
But Clift knows her role, and she plays it well.
Of course, the magazine she writes for is in terrible financial condition desperately looking for a suitor to save it from extinction, but that’s beside the point.
Despite the inanity in her position, Clift must be given an "A" for tossing such nonsense at her readers with a clear conscience and a straight face.
That is certainly something she can always be counted on for.
Continue Reading
Bill Press: Obama’s Poll Numbers Down Because Americans Are Spoiled Children
Posted on 14. Jul, 2010 by Noel Sheppard.
Liberal talk radio host Bill Press says President Obama’s poll numbers are down because Americans are spoiled, impatient children that want everything solved yesterday.
After describing to his listeners Tuesday all the fabulous accomplishments this president has made since taking office in January 2009, Press admonished the citizenry for giving the White House resident poor grades for his efforts.
"I think this says more about the American people than it does about President Obama," barked Press.
"I think it just shows once again that the American people are spoiled" (audio follows with partial transcript and commentary):
BILL PRESS: Basically, spoiled — as a people, we are too critical. We are too quick to rush to judgment, we are too negative, we are too impatient. Especially impatient. We want it all solved yesterday, and if you don’t, I don’t care who you are — get out of the way.
And again, basically spoiled. To the point where it makes me wonder if it’s even possible to govern today. I gotta tell you, I don’t think Abraham Lincoln — who certainly didn’t get everything right the first time — could govern today. I’m not sure Franklin Roosevelt could govern today, the way we are again. Just about like spoiled children. And it’s Americans, and it’s the media, and if we don’t get instant gratification, then screw you is basically our attitude.
Yes, America, you’re spoiled.
We promised that if you elected us, things would get better for you.
When you bought into our "Hope and Change" pitch, the unemployment rate was 6.6 percent. Now it’s 9.5 percent.
On Election Day 2008, 7.3 million Americans were out of work. Now it’s 14.6 million.
And the fact that this makes you unhappy means you’re spoiled and impatient.
As Brian Maloney wrote Tuesday, "[O]nly ultra-partisan Democratic Party crony Bill Press could manage to blame voters for Obama’s failure to thrive."
Continue Reading
ABC News Uses Michelle Obama’s NAACP Speech to Accuse Tea Party of Racism
Posted on 13. Jul, 2010 by Noel Sheppard.
ABC News on Monday used Michelle Obama’s speech before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to accuse the Tea Party movement of racism.
The news network prominently featured at its website a story with the headline "Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning ‘Racist’ Elements of Tea Party."
The problem is the First Lady didn’t talk about the Tea Party at her address to the NAACP Monday. She didn’t even mention the group. NOT ONCE.
She was there to talk about childhood obesity.
Yet ABCNews.com chose to make its entire report on her speech about alleged racism in the Tea Party (photo courtesy AP, h/t NBer motherbelt):
First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation’s largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.
The nation’s largest and oldest civil rights organization will vote on the resolution Tuesday during its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.
In her speech, the first lady focused on the issue of childhood obesity and her "Let’s Move" initiative, but outside of her remarks, anti-Tea Party activism has been a key focus of the gathering, which conservative leaders say is driven solely by a political agenda.
Tea Party members have used "racial epithets," have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in "explicitly racist behavior" and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically," according to the proposed resolution.
"We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made," NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. "We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement."
Next, the article promoted a rally being orchestrated against the movement:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions, is planning a protest march in Washington, D.C., Oct. 2 as the next step in building momentum against the Tea Party.
The "One Nation" march is designed as an antithesis to the Tea Party, and it’s about "pulling America together and back to work," McDowell said.
"We see it as a threat to democracy. We see it as a threat to human rights. We certainly see it as a threat to civil rights," McDowell said, adding that the resolution will likely pass when it’s voted upon Tuesday.
Supporters of the Tea Party movement have frequently faced charges of racism.
After listing some of the allegations of racism in the movement, and giving some print space to members that disagree with the accusations, author Huma Khan concluded:
The first lady’s speech focused on childhood obesity and her "Let’s Move" initiative designed to promote healthy living and eating for children.
NAACP leaders have individually taken on the Tea Party in the past, but the organization is now trying to build a bigger momentum against the Tea Party, which has emerged as a strong grassroots, albeit fragmented, force across the country.
"We have to close the enthusiasm gap," NAACP president Ben Jealous said in an interview with the Associated Press Friday. "The danger of the Tea Party is that people see them and think about periods in history when groups like them were much more powerful than they are now, and so a lot of what we spend energy doing is explaining to people what reality is, and that the reality is that the majority from 2008 still exists."
That’s correct. Her speech DID focus on childhood obesity. But ABC News chose to focus its report on her speech on allegations of racism within the Tea Party.
Not only that, the article was prominently featured at the top of the front page of the news organization’s website Tuesday:
How disgraceful!
Continue Reading
Newsweek Bombshell: ‘Environment No Longer a Surefire Political Winner’
Posted on 12. Jul, 2010 by Noel Sheppard.
After pushing manmade global warming for years, the folks at Newsweek appear to be cooling on the idea.
Prominently placed at the front page of the magazine’s website Monday was a large, overhead picture of what appeared to be a golf fairway or park with the following headline in green:
A Green Retreat: Why the Environment is No Longer a Surefire Political Winner
Even more surprising was the contents (h/t Climate Depot):
Following two of the harshest winters on record in the Northern Hemisphere-not to mention an epic economic crisis-voters no longer consider global warming a priority. Just 42 percent of Germans now worry about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it a pressing issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Americans rank climate change dead last of 21 problems that concern them most, according to a January Pew poll. Last month Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasting climate change as a "sideshow" to global economic issues, canceled the meeting of environment ministers that has preceded the G8 or G20 summit every year but one since 1994. Merkel has slashed green-development aid in the latest round of budget cuts, while in Washington, Barack Obama seems to have cooled on his plan to cap emissions. In perhaps the most striking momentum reversal for environmental politicians, last month Rudd became the first leader to be destroyed by his green policies. Flip-flopping over planned emissions cuts as the opposition exploited Australian voters’ flagging support for climate measures, he was finally ousted by party rebels.
After discussing some of the politics involved at local levels around the globe, author Stefan Theil started pointing out the really inconvenient truths Nobel Laureate Al Gore has hidden from his followers:
Increasingly, the whole concept of radical, top-down global targets is coming under scrutiny as citizens and governments face tougher choices over costs and benefits. Green policies can be popular when they mean subsidizing renewable fuels or going after unpopular power companies, but can quickly hit a wall when they force lifestyle change, such as less driving and fewer swimming pools-fears Rudd’s opponents have exploited. Policies that push trendy green fuels also cost much more than other options, such as replacing dirty coal with cleaner gas or emissions-free nuclear power. Some schemes, such as America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel made from rapeseed, have virtually zero net emissions savings, but any petroleum they displace is quickly bought up by China. Even in the ideal case that the United Nations’ goal of 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050 is technologically and politically feasible, economists disagree widely on whether the cost of the current set of policies, such as carbon caps and green-fuel subsidies, is justified by the avoided damage from warmer temperatures.
But here’s what should really grab the attention of those that either believe this myth or are still on the fence:
In many ways, green projects have become just another flavor of grubby interest politics. Biofuels have become a new label for old-style agricultural subsidies that funnel some $20 billion annually to landowners with little effect on emissions (only Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol produces any significant savings; America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel do not). Germany’s solar subsidies, a signature project in the country’s battle against climate change, are perhaps the most wasteful green scheme on earth, producing a mere 0.25 percent of the country’s energy at a cost to consumers of as much as $125 billion. A leading member of Merkel’s Christian Democrats in the German Parliament says there is growing unease both in his party and in the Bundestag "about the scary monster we’ve created that is sucking up ever larger amounts of money for a negligible effect." [...]
With green politics losing its moral high ground, there is a growing realization that climate change is just one policy priority among many that compete for limited resources and attention. That means, first, that climate politics will likely fall off its pedestal of being the Western world’s overarching priority. Second, the new sobriety could give more space to a third stream of climate politics between those who see warming as an unmitigated catastrophe that must be stopped at any cost, and those who reject global warming as a hoax. A new climate realism would more carefully weigh the costs and benefits of emissions controls, and look at other options beyond the current set of targets. The new debate will be more pragmatic and include a broader mix of policies. That might include a shift of subsidies into research and development, as many climate economists have argued. It would also include greater efforts to adapt society to a warmer climate, rather than focusing only on stopping the warming process in its tracks.
Those that have been following this debate from a grander perspective than what is typically presented by global warming-obsessed media know that climate realists have been saying this for years.
Sociologists and economists from around the world have argued that moneys currently being devoted to try to "stop this problem" could be far better spent in ways that would more greatly impact citizens on every continent.
But as Theil pointed out:
That idea has so far figured little in the debate, largely because mainstream environmentalists fear it will distract from their push for CO2 cutbacks. Yet adaptation may offer equally valid and much less expensive choices than cutting back on emissions.
Imagine that: man could adapt to a changing environment more cheaply than trying — likely with little to no success! — to prevent the change:
In other words, some of the money spent on current policies that often have only limited efficacy might be better spent on other measures, including protection against the worst effects of warming. What’s more, current economic worries are a reminder that every dollar spent on solar cells or biodiesel is a dollar less for education and other budget priorities.
Truly shocking stuff, especially from a magazine that as Tom Nelson points out published a cover story almost exactly three years ago entitled "Global Warming Deniers: A Well-funded Machine."
So why the change of heart?
Was it evidence that the weather really isn’t cooperating with the desires and computer model-driven predictions of the alarmists?
Did last year’s ClimateGate scandal, despite the relative lack of press it got here in the states, open up some eyes as to the modus operandi and the deviousness of those spreading the myth?
Did revelations concerning misreporting and truly bad science employed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contributors weaken the resolve of believers?
Or was it all the controversy surrounding the Green Messiah Al Gore’s new home purchase in Montecito quickly followed by a separation from his wife and allegations of a four-year-old sex scandal?
Or is it merely a consequence of a struggling economy and a federal government trying to figure out ways to finance all its current commitments without the additional burden of environmental spending?
Whatever the reason or combination thereof, Americans should hope that this isn’t just a brief moment of sanity, and that Newsweek isn’t going to quickly reverse course once someone wakes up Monday morning and realizes what’s been so prominently placed at the front page of its website.
