The following article is a well-written and vehement indictment of the passivity of the silent majority and the incomprehensible acceptance by individuals and certain ethnic groups of the political correctness run amok, egregious or corrupt behavior and associations by politicians, etc. Too many have become complacent, silent and feckless. They are afraid to take a stance, whether public or not, against the de facto abrogation of our rights.
This must not be allowed to continue unopposed!
The Silence of the Jews
James Lewis April 10, 2011
We live in an age of public cowardice. That goes for millions of Americans and Europeans, even in the face of simple PC witch-hunts that don't end up burning or jailing people, but only try to destroy reputations and careers. Human beings have stood up to a lot worse than Political Correctness. But we can't seem to rouse ourselves to oppose it. The liberal bullies keep winning, because most of us just look the other way.
Decent people constantly get bashed and bullied by those coneheads at CNN, truly ignorant show-biz airheads, who take it upon themselves to dictate what we, a free people, are allowed to do and say in public. But our constitutional rights of free speech and assembly mean nothing if we do not exercise them. Silence means consent.
This is hugely embarrassing. Where is our self-respect? When did we lose our guts? Why did we cede the moral high ground to bullies and moral throwbacks from the ancient desert? Who made up those rules? I didn't. Did you?
Today we feel guilty about imaginary sins ginned up by the lowlifes at the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is Winston Churchill turned upside-down: Never have so many surrendered so much to so few. Can you really imagine apologizing to the likes of Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton, or to Obama, for the decisions you have made in your life? But that is exactly what we are doing as a people. Michael Barone, the most distinguished political scientist among the political pundits, has labeled this "Gangster Government."
Mr. Obama just went to visit Al Sharpton, right after announcing his new election campaign. Does that give you faith in his moral sensitivity? Or does it just add more evidence to the same story we know so well? And in that case, how could you possibly support Obama or his party?
Internationally things are even worse. We kowtow to an endless freak-show of depraved clowns at the UN and in foreign capitals. Madman Gaddafi goes around parading with a personal body guard of thirty official virgins bearing Kalashnikovs, an internationally famous cross-dressing exhibitionist who has exploded a civilian aircraft over Scotland and had a police woman in London killed by rifle fire. Gaddafi is known to be a madman by all the Arab world. The things he has done to his people are too awful for words. Yet the UN Human Rights Commission now has Muammar Gaddafi, the genocidal Sudan, and Ahmadinejad as full voting members -- and the liberal media are afraid to say how utterly insane that is.
In a healthy society, people who defend the indefensible have their reputations ruined for life. If we defrock and jail abusive priests, well, let's also do that to power-mad, abusive celebrities and political demagogues. Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, defended a criminal warrant-escaping Oscar-winning child rapist with the immortal words, "It wasn't really ‘rape-rape.'"
Well, Whoopi-Whoopi, I'm going to turn your flick-flicks ‘off-off' forever. I challenge anybody reading this to do the ‘same-same.' If enough of us refuse to pay a penny to companies that own and pull the strings on the depraved idols of the culture, their jobs will be ‘gone-gone.' Why can't the normal and decent people of this country get it together? That's the easy part. Don't just sit there, do it.
The Camerons and Merkels and Sarkozys had their bluff called by Libya just this week, and they've crumpled again. After calling for Libya to overthrow that tyrannical freak they can't find the jet planes to keep the pressure on. This is utterly disgusting. Civilized nations hold those who aid and abet criminal actions responsible under the law. Aiding and abetting the enemies of civilization is much worse than mere tax evasion, which the Democratic Party apparently practices as a routine business precaution.
The abhorrence we feel for this level of moral depravity has not changed one little bit since the Nazis. Just because it takes place in Europe or the Middle East does not mean that we should support bloody totalitarians. Your local college campus has been doing exactly that since the 1960s, and we, as a people, have never raised a word of protest, because, after all, there should be academic freedom on campus. That is why the totalitarians of the Left now controls speech on your schools and colleges. Yes, the neo-Stalinist left is doing it --- but we are all submitting to their malevolence without protest. That makes us less than heroic, to say the least.
The United Nations engages in twisted demagogy every single day, and everybody who reads the news headlines, even filtered through the moral midgets of the media, knows that perfectly. This is how one-party Machines operate: Da Mare is as corrupt as the day is long, but nobody can fight City Hall.
Well, that's how oppressed peoples have to act in a brutal tyranny. But in a democracy, people like us take back power at the polls -- if -- and only if -- they can to face the truth. If we do not act, it's because we lack the simple moral fiber our parents and grandparents had. It's not hard and dangerous for us to act. All it takes is concerted action by all the people who are ashamed and embarrassed by the moral depravity of our political leadership. We can stop paying corrupt corporations that control morally depraved celebrities. We can stop paying advertisers who collude with the corrupt and mendacious media. We can start telling them exactly what we think about them. You have free speech. Nobody has beaten you up or thrown you in jail, the way they do in other places. You have freedom, but if you do not exercise it you might as well be living in the gruesome little tyranny of Myanmar.
Our general gutlessness is even more deplorable for those who know the past so well, including American Jews, who can see Israel being more and more surrounded by morally backward reactionaries armed with rockets and missiles (and nukes in another year). We are doing nothing, while America and Israel, and decent Europeans wherever they still exist, are being slandered and scapegoated. No wonder they think they are winning.
Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, Ahmadinejad, every sleazy little upstart generalissimo in the world gets to spit in the face of the two most decent nations in the world: America and Israel. Why is that? Where is our self-respect? Why do the worst abusers get endless chances to rip the most decent and peaceful people in the world? And our media morons collude with them?
The Democrats command the loyalty of most American Jews. But the Democrats have been penetrated by those who hate tolerance, democracy, and respect for sovereign nations. The Left has played American Jews for suckers. Obama is no exception -- he is supported by an inner circle of ideological fanatics some of whom were born into Jewish families, but somehow never got the point of civilized behavior. Part of that point is: It doesn't matter who you are. It matters how you act. If you collude with evil, you are a criminal in your heart, and perhaps in fact. Civilized nations repudiate criminals no matter who they are.
Israel just convicted its ex-President Katzav of the crime of rape. That crime is not something to feel proud about, but the prosecution is. Few countries in the world can act with that kind of moral seriousness and consistency. The United States used to be one of them. Today I wonder if we still have the simple integrity to administer equal justice for all. If the Left keeps winning, we will lose whatever moral integrity we have left, because arbitrary power goes with arbitrary corruption. We see it every day in Washington, D.C.
Jews are among the most abused peoples in history -- not the only ones, but abused badly enough to remember what it's like. Jews should therefore be the most alert to the rise of hate preachers, the kind of thing that the MEMRI website translates into English every day. In a decent world the New York Times would simply take a running RSS feed from the MEMRI website. It would easily triple their accuracy score. The NYT could restore its reputation for honesty and integrity in a single instant, and even rescue its crumbling business model. Obviously they are far too corrupt and morally blind to do anything like that.
I don't personally like the idea of burning books. It goes against my grain. But I would symbolically burn Hitler's Mein Kampf and the works of Jozef Stalin, and so many other books that are brainwashing ignorant people today -- symbolically only, to demonstrate contempt for the worst evils human beings are capable of. That seems to me to be a moral act, in a world where PR stunts govern the headlines every day. If the Left burns the American Flag and tears up the US Constitution, perhaps there is a role for symbolically demonstrating the moral depravity of the Left and Islamic fascism. Killing an innocent human being is infinitely worse than barbecuing a call to genocide and persecution.
A small minority of Americans and Europeans, Christian and Jews and non-religious, have long been aware of the rise of neo-fascism from the Left and Islamic reactionaries. But the majority are sound asleep, in psychological denial, or just afraid to speak up: Like lambs to the slaughter. It is a dreadful thing to behold.
Conservatives keep asking why Jews vote for the Left. Part of the answer seems to be that Jews get suckered by utopian promises. If only we elect a clean-looking black Democrat from the Chicago Machine to the American presidency, all the problems of the Middle East will be solved! Jews may yearn for peace because they have felt the ravages of war and persecution. They may easily be taken in by false hopes that all it will take is a little bit of compromise, a little peace talk, for everything to turn out all right in the Middle East.
But there is no excuse for willing stupidity. I don't care how good your intentions are, if you do not have the courage to open your eyes you are colluding with evil.
Even before Obama, Israel was the only nation in the world directly threatened by nuclear proliferation to mad regimes -- covered up by UN criminocrat Mohammed El Baradei, who naturally received a Nobel Prize for his collusion with the nuclear maniacs in Tehran. Just a few days ago El Baradei came out of the closet by calling for Egypt to go to war against Israel if it defends itself against rocket barrages from Gaza. It's part of his election campaign in Egypt, believe it or not. Was anybody surprised? If you were, you haven't been paying attention. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of malignant evil is much, much worse.
Has anybody noticed these facts at the New York Times, where Baradei was butt-kissed while he was peddling lies about Iranian nukes? Is anybody over there waking up? I don't see it.
Ahmadinejad is celebrating a nuclear Armageddon to come, and the Left is getting panicked by the American Tea Party.
Please. It is beyond belief.
The New York Times covered up the worst crimes of Hitler and Stalin when its correspondents knew exactly what was going on there. Those facts are known beyond reasonable doubt. Today the NYT-wits are covering up Iranian nukes and the spread of Islamic fascism, when they again know exactly what is going on. At some point collusion becomes a crime. Media collusion is what keeps corrupt political machines alive. It follows that the corporate owners and executives of media companies must be held morally liable for the malfeasance they cover up. They do not deserve to make millions by spreading toxic lies. If they engage in systematic libel they should be held to the same standards that ordinary people are. In many countries deliberate libel that does material harm to innocent people is a civil offense.
Turkey is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and pro-democratic Turks have been purged from the police and the armed forces. Egypt is going the same way, after Obama brutally pushed Mubarak out of power. The totalitarian Left is treacherously spreading slanders, like the Goldstone Report, about Israel -- the same slanders it propagated about the United States in the case of Abu Graib (where the goofball perps were already arrested and headed for trial when the media got the photos, and used Abu Graib to bash George W. Bush for five years).
You can't read about the Left over the past two centuries without knowing they are murderous enemies to civilized life anywhere in the world. That is why they keep making friends among the worst totalitarians -- the ones that tyrannize women and kill children, the ones that promote suicide bombing of innocent civilians by the thousands. The totalitarian Left worked hand in hand with the Nazis, and today they are doing the same with reactionary throwbacks in Tehran, Cairo, and Jeddah. Don't take my word for it. Just watch them do it. It's not a secret. They don't even bother to keep it secret.
If your eyes are already open, talk to everybody you know. Don't be intimidated. You live in a free country, and you are keeping it free by exercising your rights.
Two years into Obama's term the Middle East is falling apart. The Saudis are running scared, because Obama just delights in destroying all the unstable Arab regimes -- and the Saudis are none too stable themselves. Even medieval Saudi Arabia thinks America is run by un homme aliene, as Sarkozy called him. Iran is sending modern warships into the Mediterranean. Russia has a new naval base in Syria, and Assad has a second nuclear plant that's just been uncovered.
Meanwhile Obama is running for reelection, and I'll bet that a majority of brain-dead liberals will vote for him again. Obama has made nice with the most dangerous tyrants in Iran and North Korea, and now he is doing the most amazing thing any American president has ever done: He is deliberately pushing unstable allies into collapse.
Rumor has it that even Hillary is ready to leave. I wonder if she has the guts to tell the truth? If so, I might even vote for her. My standard is now truth-telling: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Hillary, I don't care. We are suffering from toxic lies, and a refreshing breath of truth reminds us that truth exists.
Ordinary Americans have allowed one of our political parties to be taken over by the totalitarian Left -- the people who instantly try to control your free speech, because they know that if you can be made to shut up about politics you can be rendered helpless. That is why there are speech codes on American campuses and in our news rooms. Speech codes are inherently totalitarian. The Left has totalitarian swings. Since the "Berkeley Free Speech Movement" of the 60s the Left has slammed the free speech door shut. We now have Forbidden Speech from the Left. That is why they are attacking the free web through the lie of "net neutrality."
We live in an age of corruption, and an age of cowardice among free peoples.
But the silence of American Jews on the fate of Israel is the most ominous reality today.
The noteworthy incidents of speech, writing or thought that have met with publicized censure, humiliation or termination of employment because they transgressed some arbitrarily determined political correctness continues unabated. This has in effect resulted in a contraction of our rights of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, it only seems to work in one direction and that is ideologically determined. Progressives and liberals get free passes on virtually all that they say (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, etc.) but the converse doesn’t hold true. Much of this asymmetry can be attributed to a news media that is overwhelmingly far left and intolerant of conservative and even moderate positions.
The following case is just one more example of this absurdity.
State Legislative Staffer Suspended Over ‘Non-Racist’, Anti-Obama Chain Email
A Louisiana State Senate employee has reportedly been reprimanded and suspended without pay for sending an e-mail to hundreds of government workers with a picture that appeared to show President Barack Obama as a Caucasian. The email asked, “Do you like him any better now? No? Me neither. … Then you’re not a racist.”
Senate President Joel Chaisson announced the punishment Tuesday for Tammy Crain-Waldrop after a number of black lawmakers complained the email was offensive. “It is clear that the nature of the e-mail in question was highly inappropriate. Such actions will not be tolerated,” Chaisson, D-Destrehan, said in a statement that described Crain-Waldrop’s e-mail a violation of Senate personnel policy.
After she sent the e-mail, Crain-Waldrop immediately sent another message, apologizing for forwarding the message to the Capitol e-mail post office box by mistake.
The Associated Press reports that Crain-Waldrop can return to work Jan. 3 but for her punishment, she must send a written apology to Senate and House staffers and attend diversity training.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh assessed the story Wednesday during his broadcast, outlining Ms. Crain-Waldrop’s “real crimes.”
“Ms. Crain-Waldrop‘s real crimes were opposing Obama’s policy and, two, defending her opposition as nonracist. Now, of course such thinking can’t be allowed,” Limbaugh noted. “It’s hate speech to deny that you can oppose Obama and not be a racist.”
It appears that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the blessings of the Obama Administration will seek to impose “net neutrality” policies using the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses when Congress is out of session to facilitate this. Encouraged by the far left and aided with financial assistance from George Soros, this change will provide the federal government with much greater control of various aspects of the internet as opposed to the companies that spent billions of dollars constructing and operating the networks and fiberoptic lines.
“Net neutrality” is a euphemism for legislated government control of internet communications with the pernicious ability to affect free speech. This legislation has been fervently supported by progressives in order to have the ability to silence conservatives and the opposition who use this avenue such as Fox New, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
This is another attack on our rights and freedoms that is supported by the Obama Administration, progressives and communists and funded in part by Soros.
“Net neutrality” laws and regulations must be stopped or reversed if implemented!
Seizing the Internet
The Prowler 11/24/10
Staffers at the Federal Communications Commission with ties to the commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, coordinated media and strategy planning with senior Free Press and MoveOn.org officials in the run up to Genachowski's announcement that he would be seeking an FCC vote on imposing so-called "net neutrality" rules on broadband and the Internet, and doing so when Congress is out of session during the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses.
"Net neutrality" is a policy proposal that would essentially strip the control and traffic management of broadband networks from those companies that deployed them and make them run properly, and transfer much of that oversight to the federal government. Under the proposal rumored to be under consideration by the FCC, network operators such as AT&T and Comcast would not be allowed to offer consumers prioritized service or quality of service guarantees for such things as movie downloads and video streaming.
"It essentially turns the networks into dumb pipes, so you have billions of people going online and no one is really managing the traffic in a way so that consumers have a good experience," says an FCC staffer for a Republican commission member. "People don't realize how much video and communications comes over their broadband lines. This is the left's attempt to rein in things like Fox News, Pajamas Media, Internet radio broadcasts for Limbaugh and Levin -- anything that is data-related or video-related that requires some high-tech network management would be degraded or limited by the imposition of net neutrality."
Congressional Republicans (and even some Democrats) have stated that they do not believe the FCC has the statutory standing to impose such rules -- which would reclassify broadband and Internet services as "telecommunications services" and bring them under rules that were developed for the rotary phone back in the 1930s -- without guidance from Congress. More than 100 members from both parties formally requested that the FCC take no action until the House and Senate had had a chance to weigh in on the matter.
But with the Obama Administration quickly losing its own standing with its radical base as it prepares to surrender to Republicans on the Bush tax cut renewals and possible budget cuts, "We need to give our people a win, and right now, [net neutrality] is the only win we will probably be able to give them for at least the next six to eight months," says a White House official.
About a week ago it appeared that nothing would be done at the FCC, and Free Press, the leftist group founded by Marxist Robert McChesney and financed by George Soros, was due to host a media call to demand FCC action. But that call was canceled without explanation and rescheduled for Monday, November 22, at which point Free Press was able to tout news to its membership that the FCC appeared prepared to act on the neutrality policy.
"We were told [last week] to hold our fire and reschedule our call," says a Free Press media aide, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. "We have friends inside the FCC and they told us that if we just waited a few days, there would be good news for us to announce to our membership. More senior people knew what was happening over there and even had the dates for the ruling circulation and the FCC meeting schedule so we could plan events to support Genachowski and the Democratic commissioners."
Speaking with outside public interest groups or industry officials is not forbidden at the FCC, though in the case of an issue like "net neutrality," FCC staff involved at any level with the decision making process are required to publicly file an ex parte notice about any discussions related to the policy issue they have with outside groups. To date, no ex parte filings have been filed related to any contact a senior FCC official might have had with senior officials at Free Press. A number of current FCC officials have ties to Free Press, including Jen Howard, currently spokesperson for Genachowski, who formerly was a spokesperson for Free Press.
In the past year, Free Press has been caught in several ethics missteps related to its claims of not lobbying Democrats on Capitol Hill or at the FCC. In one instance, the group was caught drafting letters to be published under the names of liberal Democrats addressed to the FCC and intended to influence that decision-making body. Republicans on Capitol Hill have already made it clear that oversight of the FCC will be a priority for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
As it stands, the FCC will release the planned rulemaking for net neutrality while Congress is out of town on Thanksgiving recess, and would vote on the rules on December 21, when Congress is on Christmas recess. "In short, they are doing this in such a way that it is rubbing our noses in it," says a Republican staffer on House Energy and Commerce. "Unless folks just rise up and make noise about this, there isn't much we can do until after the new year when we get back and have control of the committee."
Just days after liberal correspondent Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for expressing what was an innocuous personal feeling that apparently wasn’t in accord with political correctness as determined by NPR, a union worker was fired on the spot for wearing a Bush hat and sweat shirt that actually were in honor of his son who was stationed on the carrier U.S.S. George H. W. Bush. What we are witnessing is virulent political correctness with vicious consequences which is unilaterally practiced by liberals and the far left.
This is a planned attack on freedom of speech and thought which is protected by our Constitution. But of course, Obama and the left have stated myriad times that it should be a living, breathing and malleable document as it doesn’t reflect the times today.
They want those times now to apparently be the authoritarian control of speech, thought, opinion and relevant news by Obama, the Democrats, the mainstream news media and the unions.
WE MUST NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN AND WHEN IT DOES – FIGHT IT RELENTLESSLY.
WE MUST NEVER ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS AND OTHER GROUPS TO CONTROL OUR SPEECH, THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS!
Union Stagehand Fired for Wearing Bush Hat and Shirt
Juan Williams, a liberal Afro-American commentator and a writer on the civil rights movement and issues, was fired from his position at NPR for comments about certain Muslims that he made while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor on FoxNews. What he stated was neither racist nor inappropriate as most sensible people would evaluate. What exactly was stated is covered below.
This is not just political correctness run amok but censorship of free speech which is supposed to be protected in America. This unwarranted action by the far left leaning NPR reveals its repugnant intolerance of opposing views, a situation made even more by the fact that Juan Williams is a "preferred" racial minority whose liberal ideology is well known. Of course, its actions are in general typical and not unexpected from the "mainstream" media.
The NPR does receive significant funding from the federal government annually. WE MUST TERMINATED THIS SUPPORT ASAP!
Following the article below is Juan Williams' response to his firing by NPR. It is very interesting and enlightening.
NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Fox News has re-signed Juan Williams to an expanded role with the network in a multi-year deal, Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive officer of Fox News, announced Thursday after National Public Radio fired Williams for his comments on the O'Reilly Factor Monday night, when he said it makes him nervous to fly on airplanes with devout Muslims.
Williams will host The O’Reilly Factor on Friday night and will appear with O’Reilly on the show Thursday night.
In making the announcement, Ailes said, “Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997. He’s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.”
NPR terminated Williams in the wake of a discussion he had with O'Reilly concerning the dilemma between fighting jihadists and fears about average Muslims.
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said.
"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.
"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.
NPR issued a statement Wednesday night saying that it was "terminating" Williams' contract over the remarks.
Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a senior news analyst for NPR News," CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss said in a statement.
"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," they said. "We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."
Williams said Thursday he wasn't given the chance to have a face-to-face conversation with his superiors at NPR before he was let go.
Recalling a conversation with NPR's head of news, Williams said he was told, "This has been decided up the chain."
"I said, 'I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball to eyeball, person to person and have a conversation. I've been there more than 10 years. We don't have a chance to have a conversation about this.'
And she said, 'There's nothing you can say that will change my mind. This has been decided above me and we're terminating your contract,'" Williams recounted to Fox News.
Williams said that he meant exactly what he said about his fears during his appearance on O'Reilly's show.
"I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety of fear given what happened on 9/11. That's just a reality," he said, noting that when he told his former boss, she suggested that Williams had made a bigoted statement.
"It's not a bigoted statement. In fact, in the course of this conversation with Bill O'Reilly, I said we have an obligation as Americans to be careful to protect the constitutional rights of everyone in our country and to make sure that we don't have any outbreak of bigotry. but that there's a reality. You can not ignore what happened on 9/11 and you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism, and you can't ignore the fact of what has even recently been said in court with regard to this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war in America."
Watch Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8 pm ET Thursday night for an interview with Juan Williams.
The conversation on O'Reilly's show stemmed from a well-publicized argument the previous week between O'Reilly and "The View" hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, who walked off their own set when O'Reilly said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11."
The comment had been an explanation by O'Reilly why the majority of Americans don't want a mosque housed in an Islamic cultural center built near Ground Zero.
The women, who argued that Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, returned after O'Reilly said that he was -- perhaps inartfully -- talking about Muslim extremists.
The conversation has been fodder for both shows. Goldberg appeared Wednesday night on "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren," and said when she cursed at O'Reilly on air -- a word that was bleeped for broadcast -- she knew she was beyond reason and had to leave.
"He wasn't thoughtful and he knew he wasn't thoughtful and once he said, 'if I offended someone I apologize' ... it showed me that he recognized it," she said.
"But he knew that for us it was not ok. ... He got what he wanted and I don't feel bad about doing it. Should I have sat and just bit my tongue? I don't think I could because it was too much like all the things I heard about black folks and women," Goldberg said, adding that she has no hard feelings and planned to appear on O'Reilly's show in a few weeks..
Williams, a liberal African American commentator who has written extensively on civil rights in America, previously got in trouble with NPR for comments he made while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" in February 2009. At that time, he described first lady Michelle Obama as having a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going."
Carmichael was a black activist in the 1960s who coined the phrase "Black Power."
After the Carmichael quote, Williams' position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.
If you can stomach the elitist arrogance and condescension exuding in the video below, you will see liberal news media members in action on CNN discussing the "desecration" of the internet caused by bloggers. Not by pornography, hate sites or terrorist created ones. No, blogs that express points of view that are at odds with the far-left, out of touch news media. Just people exercising their rights of free speech, dissemination of information and opinions.
As we discovered with the Journolist scandal, these media members want to completely control the transmission and availability of information ... with a very liberal/progressive angle.
Another Obama nominee for the Supreme Court … and another pernicious threat to our Constitutional rights. Even though Elena Kagan’s record is almost nonexistent, she has revealed a willingness if not propensity to restrict our First Amendment rights. If nothing else, that should be more than enough to deep six her being confirmed.
Everything else about her pales in comparison including no judicial experience, few cases argued, a long standing far left agenda, and unwavering support for socialism and big government.
She is a political appointee who hasn’t even reached the level of a judicial lightweight, never mind, having the wherewithal to become a Supreme Court justice.
Investors Business Daily 05/12/2010
Supreme Court: Elena Kagan's thin paper trail was supposed to be an asset. But the confirmation of Obama's nominee may focus on one position it's clear she holds: that banning political speech can be constitutional.
'The government's answer has changed." That was how Solicitor General Kagan began her frantic damage control during a second round of oral arguments last September in the Citizens United case, which Kagan and the U.S. government ultimately lost and the First Amendment won.
Her deputy, Malcolm Stewart, in March of last year said the government had constitutional powers extending to banning books to limit corporate political influence.
As a result, the justices ordered a second round of arguments last fall to get into broader free speech questions.
For that, Kagan stepped into the fray herself, telling the justices that the government had reconsidered its position and conceding that banning books would elicit a strong court challenge.
So Chief Justice John Roberts asked her, "If you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?"
"I think a pamphlet would be different," Kagan responded. "A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering," and so the government could restrict such political speech.
Who you are should determine how much you can say — that is the admitted philosophy held by this high-court nominee.
According to the president, alluding to Kagan's role in the Citizens United case as he announced her as his Supreme Court choice on Monday, "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
But who decides who those powerful interests are and how much they can say?
The most powerful interest of all does: the government.
In a 1996 University of Chicago Law School Journal article titled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," which gets raves from left-leaning legal academics, Kagan contended that "the application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
If the motive is compelling enough, in other words, the government can regulate speech in the name of the public good.
The view that "the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage" is mistaken, Kagan wrote. "The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons."
Again, it is the government that decides if, say, a talk radio host or Tea Partyer is doing "harm" by engaging in political speech that allegedly incites some wacko to violence.
Columnist Jacob Sullum hit the bull's-eye on this when he wrote:
"While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on 'neutrally conceived harms,' Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on 'hostility toward ideas.'But as she herself more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful."
In last month's 8-to-1 U.S. v. Stevens court decision regarding depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan contended that First Amendment protection "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs," a claim Roberts called "startling and dangerous" in ruling against Kagan.
At only 50 years of age, Elena Kagan, a "speech redistributionist," could be on the high court for three decades.
Her upcoming confirmation hearings could be a First Amendment battle royal.
Politicians and most of the news media had no complaints when President Bush was the object of interminable vile hate and epithets that were publically spewed. Back then, they considered it to be people exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech and protest.
Now that the tables are turned, the Progressives are crying foul at anything that is less than reverential about Obama. It seems that such rights are only acceptible to them when they support their purposes and ideologies only.