Two old men, sitting on a bench, exchange thoughts and observations.
"I met a man today," says one. "He actually talks with God."
"Really?" says the other. "How do you know?"
"He told me."
"Maybe he was lying."
"Are you crazy? Would a man who talks with God lie?"
Andrew Breitbart is an honest man. He says so himself.
Last year, the NAACP issued a public reaction to Tea Party exhibitions of views that seemed to fall outside of normal social discussion.
Signs depicted the President of the United States as a witch doctor. Others repeated variations of the joke, showing the President and his wife and children as tribal Africans. A Tea Party leader sent out images of Barack Obama's parents with chimpanzee faces superimposed, and a baby chimp with the face covered by Barack Obama's image.
But it was the Washington DC demonstration that brought back images of the 1960s. Protestors screamed racial epithets at passing Democratic members of Congress. Civil rights hero John Lewis was among those on the receiving end. Another, Emanuel Cleaver from here in Missouri, was spat on.
The NAACP debated a response to the Washington exhibition, working on wording that would be fair yet firm. They wanted to support free expression, yet urge Tea Party leadership to discourage displays of racial bigotry.
WHEREAS. The NAACP has a long history of political struggle through non-violence urging words and ideas to change people’s views through the democratic process; and
WHEREAS. sadly, incidents of intolerance, bigotry and senseless violence have become more and more frequent as a means of political discourse; and
WHEREAS. the recent debate over health care reform was riddled with racist slogans and peppered with violent acts; and
WHEREAS. opposition to the landmark Health care Reform law has given root to demeaning, racially charged outbursts including violent attacks on property and human beings.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. that the NAACP decries the increase in racist comments and violent acts as a means of political expression; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the NAACP call upon people from all sides of every debate to resist the urge to use racist, bigoted comments during the course of debate; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED. that the NAACP urges all people to cease and desist in the use of violence as a means of political expression, as it has no place in a democratic society.
The President of the NAACP called on the Tea Party leadership to express their passionate political views while repudiating bigotry.
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 and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.
Many within the Tea Party really resented the chastising tone of the resolution and accompanying statements. This account of the reaction of one leader appeared in Newsweek and on the Daily Beast web site.
"Nobody in the Tea Party movement that I know is a racist." She notes that she attends a church with a black pastor, supports a black candidate (Allen West) in a local congressional race, and backs a Latino candidate (Marco Rubio) for U.S. Senate.
Okay. There are a lot of folks who take what you might call an non-nuanced approach to racism. Not everyone thinks before speaking. The disrepute of the some-of-my-best-friends approach is not universally obvious to all. People who have not read or thought much about racism sometimes walk a different walk, more in lack of awareness than in outright hostility.
But Andrew Breitbart was made of sterner stuff. He posted a deceptively edited video on his website that showed a minor official in the US Department of Agriculture boasting about how she screwed over white folks. The audience, members of a small Georgia chapter of the NAACP, were shown applauding with enthusiasm as she told of how she refused to help one white farm couple.
Fox News ran with the story and the woman was fired.
Then it blew up. It seems someone had another video of the same presentation, an unedited video Breitbart and Fox didn't know about, and the entire lie came apart. The employee was actually talking about how she overcame her own resentments and dedicated herself to helping people of every race. And it was her story of overcoming resentment that the NAACP audience was applauding and cheering. The white couple came forward and defended her. She was rehired.
But Andrew Breitbart defended his honor. You see, it was not his fault the woman was nationally ridiculed and ultimately fired.
For one thing, he did not himself alter the video. He merely posted it.
Besides, he said, his target was the NAACP. Later, when the damaged employee sued him for the lies, he spoke through his lawyers. He simply had a different interpretation of her story. Others may think she was giving a moving account of getting past race. Breitbart still knows she was really shouting about how to get Whitey.
Through his lawyers, he also said that the employee was trying to intimidate and bully him, squashing his rights as a journalist to get to the truth, so she didn't have any right to her day in court. But a federal judge pretty much squashed Breitbart's argument about squashing his rights. So he's back to pointing out that his heavily edited video is about an honest difference of opinion.
Some conservatives have defended Breitbart and attacked his so-called "victim." Others have moved on. The incident, you see, is so last year.
This year, conservatives became outraged at some university professors here in Missouri. It seems they made some horrible statements, during presentations in their classrooms, encouraging union violence. And there it was, videos of the entire thing. And the entire matter was documented by video and put on Andrew Breitbart's website.
Stop me if you've heard this before.
The videos turned out to be heavily edited. But that doesn't mean they're not true, right? Oh, you have heard this before?
Okay, so several of the incidents were also video taped by students. The unaltered videos showed that the professors were actually saying the direct opposite of what the Breitbart cut-and-splice videos showed.
A comment sent to us here expresses the defense. What about all the other incidents where there was no other video? Doesn't that prove Breitbart was honest? At least about those?
Besides. Breitbart did not personally alter the videos. He merely posted them.
Okay, I guess this is getting pretty repetitive.
Let's try something completely different.
In Washington DC, at a press conference, a reporter for CBS, Norah O'Donnell, asked a few questions. Conservatives have gotten so they don't like her. She shows up on non-Fox news programs and sometimes digs into documents and facts and things to figure out who is telling the truth. It comes out very un-neutral at times. You know. Fair and unbalanced. Like us here at FairAndUNbalanced.com
Now she's making an incredibly partisan statement, during the question period, about the deficit crisis: "But you gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing."
Oh really? What do you mean we and they, Kemosabe?
It was as if she was personally representing Democrats, liberals, and the impoverished about to be hurt by the budget cuts. Pretty biased.
And it was posted on ... wait for it ... Andrew Breitbart's website, headlined CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell: ‘Where are the Tax Revenues?’, ‘We Got Nothing’. And there is a video !
The microphones are trained on the Press Secretary, so it's hard to pick up everything. Still, it's almost as if there is a part of the question that's harder to hear. Almost as if somebody is not quite being truthful about what she says. Listen. Listen carefully.
Sure enough, it turns out:
"But you gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing."
"But you have Democrats saying 'You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing.' "
It turns out that the question that is posted is another ... um ... matter of interpretation.
And besides. Breitbart did not personally . . .
You say you've heard this story before?
I suspect we'll hear it again and again.
Trackback address for this post
How do we know these things happened? Well, because these honest politicians told us so. The fact is that Andrew Breitbart himself offered a $100,000 dollar donation to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could produce evidence of these events and yet to date the bounty remains unclaimed.
I don’t know much about Breitbart. I haven’t seen his videos, and I really don’t care. If he is guilty as charged in Ms. Sherrod’s case, then I hope he is found liable accordingly. If not, it won’t matter to the left regardless.
Right now, despite our “wonderful deal” that the terroristic Tea Party managed to get completely “their way”, it would seem our stock market is crashing, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch are both still discussing downgrading our credit rating, like China actually did yesterday. Not one single solitary cent was cut in spending, and yet the Democrats, including our ass of a Vice President, are calling their political adversaries “terrorists” for not letting them spend more money. Yeah, right now I am a little more concerned about whether our economy and country survives rather than if some partisan right winger is guilty of doing what Media Matters has done in the past.
I apologize for my acerbic comment in advance, but I am feeling rather testy this morning.
Like Mr. T. Paine, I have to ask myself, why is the stock market plummeting? Why is our credit rating at risk? Hmmm. When did this happen? What makes people think American is not as credit-worthy as it used to be and what makes them think it would consider defaulting on its debt and stealing from those from whom it borrowed money? Hmm. If only I could remember how this came to be. It wasn't the debt. We had that before things plummeted. What in the hell was it?
If only I could remember.
It is the fact that we have once again NOT addressed our deficit problem and have instead decided to add to our debt without cutting any spending whatsoever that our credit ratings are now in danger, and indeed already down-graded by the Chinese reporting agency yesterday.
If it was simply a matter of reaching a deal regarding the rasing of that debt ceiling, well we accomplished that, so why would the threat still be there regarding downgrading our AAA status if that truly was the problem, sir?
Nice try, however.
I would, however, like to point out that the moronic world only became moronic when the Tea Party started its threats and there is no reason to believe the world would not have remained moronic if not for the education the Tea Party provided. However, this has nothing to do with confidence in America. So, what made everyone so timid? It is the fact that we raised our debt ceiling instead of defaulting on our loans that made the world lose the faith that we will pay our debts. We have tried that strategy with great success so many times that it was bound to get us sooner or later. Purely by chance, it happened to get us at the same time the Tea Party promised everyone that we do not intend to pay our debts unless certain demands that are out of their control are met.
Coincidences! You gotta love ‘em.
Thank you for recognizing my previous effort. I love recognition from those whom I respect, and I receive it all too seldom.
In that way we could have endlessly continued to spend money we do not have and simply raise the debt ceiling each time we approached it. Yep, I cannot think of a single reason why this would be unsustainable, my friend.
Leave a comment
|« Christy Responds to Bigotry - Good for Him||Democratic Ad In Wisconsin Recall Election »|