Bill O'Reilly addresses Minister Louis Farrakhan

What's the difference between Louis Farrakhan and any media supported Black "leader"?

Nothing.

It's not a joke. There is no punchline. The fact is that I don't see a difference. Whether it's Rev. Sharpton, or Rev. Jackson, or Minister Farrakhan the net result is the same. An individual that owes their success to the division of people in this nation solely on the basis of skin color.

It's not a job that I would imagine anyone would be proud of. Yet the media ensures that when this highly selected group of men speak, their words are promoted (intentionally or not) across the nation. What may be even worse is that most of the time these individuals are speaking about situations and issues that are real concerns for African Americans - minus the rheotoric and bias they instill to the issue at hand.

Last night Bill O'Reilly address part of a recent speech by Minister Farrakhan



I agree that the comments highlighted are hate-speech. They feed off of the worst fears and prejudices in America. But I don't think O'Reilly and many Americans get it.

O'Reilly and others get stuck on the hate-speech, the over-the-top presentation being made for the explicit purpose of providing Minister Farrakhan (in this case) coverage in the media. They miss, and deafen their ears to the kernel of truth at the core of the comments.

I'm not excusing Farrakhan. But there is a fear in the nation among African Americans that President Obama will be assassinated. That fear has existed long before President Obama ever considered running for the Presidency. If ever there is another Black President (which I doubt, sadly) the fear will be there as well, though to a lesser degree - if President Obama exits the Presidency unscathed.

I think that many misrepresent the source of the danger to the President. The first thought obviously goes to a neo-nazi or similar fanatic. But to call such a person an example of the generic right-wing of America is about as accurate as when I'm told I look like Richard Pryor. Still that does not mean that a segment of America, likely some part of the 47% (Democrats, Republicans, and Independants) that voted against President Obama, hates the President on a basis as crude and deranged as the color of his skin.

So it is not like the assassinations of Lincoln or JFK. There is a component in the attempts on his life (so far) that is derived solely in race. Were an assassination to succeed it would be more than a political attack, it would be a call to return America to a not so distant past that most want to forget willfully.

Like most, of any color or race, in America the issue of racism is something no one wants to address. Thus it is mocked, and isolated, and rebuffed. But it is also mislabeled - which is perhaps the greater problem. When President Carter, and President Clinton, attacked those that had legitimate issues with the politics of President Obama, calling them racists, they only fanned the flames of the problem. They in fact gave credence to the fears that Farrakhan uses to support his power base. To the detriment of the nation.

There is no way that Bill O'Reilly, or anyone, can come to understand the issues that face people of color in America in 5 minutes. To even try to do so only creates more anger. Because misunderstanding and confusion cannot help but be created in such a short time frame, no matter the good intetions. This is even worse when the intricate and persistent issues still dominant in America are not allowed to be exposed, as O'Reilly did when cutting off Leo Terrell. Given the fact that the purpose of the segment was not to address all the issues of people of color face, nor the causes of fears based on race (true or not).

One thing though is very clear. America has not entered a post-racial period. Racial issues still dog America as much as they did 6 months ago, as they did 6 years ago, as they did 6 decades ago, as they do 6 minutes from now. For all the interconnectivity of the internet, the immediacy of cable news, the presence of the first Black President, America has not moved forward - just sideways.

Minister Farrakhan is no worse than any other "Black leader" promoted in the media. He may be more extreme, more honest, or if you choose to believe him more accurate. But in essence he is just as much a minstrel and opportunist as the others. Highlighting this in 5 minutes or less segments does not disrupt his actitivies, it enhances them.

Rather I think he should be either ignored, or exposed fully to the world in full. Only then can he be seen for what his is, just as the other Black "leaders" are.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL - the true shame

In listening to all the discussion about Rush Limbaugh potentially buying the St. Louis Rams, I come to a simple conclusion. It is yet another example of a saying that I believe the far-left lives by

"You can say anything you want... unless we disagree with it."

It really is just that simple.

Now I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. He has been as right and as wrong as most any pundit. He's made huge amounts of money being incredibly controversial. In that respect he is not different than say Howard Stern, or Rev. Al Sharpton.

Actually, Limbaugh is better than one of his chief critics - Rev. Sharpton. While there are accusations about what Limbaugh has said - the worst of which are untrue - Rev. Al Sharpton is hardly in a place of judgement. The same is true of Rev. Jesse Jackson. These "Black leaders" have no end of comments that factually they have said. Yet there has never been outrage, or a call by the media, to prevent them from making a living or buying anything.

Think about it. Rush Limbaugh is probably one of the most reviewed people in the nation if not the world. For years, if not longer, the media and various Liberal groups have recorded every word spoken or written by Limbaugh. And at a time in this nation where comments by people like Don Imus and Dog the Bounty Hunter have rightly lead to job losses, there has never been a single report proving Limbaugh has said half of the things he is claimed to have said. Not one.

Had Limbaugh said what is alleged, I too would have cried to prevent his ownership. But he hasn't. So how is it that the NFL folded to such rumors? I mean we are talking about an organization that believes in hiring violent individuals, criminals of various degrees and ex-cons. All of whom are given every excuse and reason for a second, third and in cases more chances. The NFL too has no room to judge anyone as being too controversial or presenting a negative image. And again, this was based on rumor alone.

What does this say about the nation? At this point the word racist is more common than ever before. It's been applied to any person that disagrees politically with the far-left, and especially President Obama. Some have even tried to apply it to me for my political commentary, simply because they did not like the facts I have presented. Did that mean my purchase of my home should have been blocked because of accusations some have written about me on my blogs? That I should be denied business opportunites because I am Republican?

If Rev. Sharpton can make a living after the multiple comments he has made, and Rev. Jackson as well, and the NFL can re-hire ex-convicts and minor criminals, how is it possible to bar Limbaugh.

I truly am concerned. Because the mantra I stated above seems more in action day by day. It reaches from simple entertainment to our highest political offices. It's a scary thought that I find more akin to my time in communist led Moscow than an American value. And the damage it does to true issues of racism that still plague this nation is incalculable.

Reverend Al Sharpton may claim the action against Rush Limbaugh as a victory, but I just see it as a slap against America.

What can you do to prevent another Grant, Bell, Diallo, or other police murder?

The question before us is what can we do to prevent another senseless murder from occurring? How can we stop the police departments from across the nation from seeing Blacks as target practice?





In case you missed some of those numbers I will provide them again.

BART Director Carol Ward Allen: 510-464-6095 or BoardofDirectors@bart.gov

Police Chief Gary Gee: 510-464-7022 or toll free 877-679-7000 or ggee@bart.gov

Senator Feinstein: 202-224-3841 or http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUS.EmailMe

Senator Boxer: 202-224-3553 or http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Governor Schwarzenegger: 916-445-2841or http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact

Reverend Al Sharpton (via his National Action network): 212-690-3070 or toll free 877-NAN-HOJ1 or crisis@nationalactionnetwork.net

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson: editor@rainbowpush.org or 773-373-3366

Minister Louis Farrakhan: http://www.noi.org/letters/

Michael Baisden: 877-6BADBOY

NAACP: (877) NAACP-98

100 Black Men: 404-688-5100 or info@100bmoa.org

Again I want to thank Racewire.org for some of their ideas on this subject that inspired my video. We can stop this pattern, this institutionalized policy of murders without reprisal. We can change America. And all we need to do is speak up.

If you know of another useful organization please let us know.

**I've never asked this before, but please DIGG this post so others will also see what they can do to help prevent another cold-blooded murder from happening. Let's never hear of a father,son, mother, wife, daughter, or person being killed in such a manner again.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Senator Barack Obama - Thursdsay

Well here is something that I’m sure will top the Nielsen ratings charts on Thursday. After months of waiting, Senator Barack Obama has finally come in for his interview with Bill O’Reilly. And it’s about time.

Now on the left, especially the far-left, Bill O’Reilly is seen as the fanatical face of the right. It’s an unfair accusation, based in the extremist views of those critics. That’s like saying the comments and actions of Code Pink or Moveon.org represent all Democrats, which I would say is equally unfair.

But there is no question that Fox News is the most watched news channel in the nation. It is also no question that throughout the Primaries and since Fox News has been noted as the most unbiased news agency. And it is also factual that Bill O’Reilly is the most popular commentator, reaching millions of Americans of all types of political beliefs.

So it will only be to Senator Obama’s benefit to appear on the program. His audience is so wide and politically beneficial that Senator Clinton appeared as she was regaining ground against Obama in the last few weeks of the Democratic Primaries. And while I dislike Senator Clinton and her policies, she did look good in the interview.

But how might Senator Obama fare?

Well in England we have these headlines on the subject –
Obama agrees to Murdoch's Fox News grilling

Rupert Murdoch broked 'truce' between Fox and Barack Obama

In the U.S. the headline tones are:
The secret Obama-Fox News meeting

OBAMA AND FOX MAKE UP, PHELPS LENDS A HAND, RICH PEOPLE READ

Fox News' Obama Power Play

According to those titles, which I think is a fair and popular representation of the way this is being presented to the world via most news media, Fox News has been seen as an enemy of Senator Obama, and involved in a feud. And Fox is supposed to be biased.

There is no question that some of the commentators on Fox are right-wing. There is no question that I have disagreed with the presentation of various events by Fox News in general. I firmly believe that Fox is prone to presenting African Americans in negative stereotypical tones. Shepard Smith is unquestionably biased in the manner in which he covers cases like OJ Simpson, or the Duke Rape case. Sean Hannity is unquestionably far-right.

But Bill O’Reilly isn’t the above people. In watching his program for years now I see that he is one of the least biased commentators on cable television today. There are issues where he is way off, like anyone, but in general these are subjects where he is as hostile to Whites as Blacks. Child safety is one such example. You just can’t question that O’Reilly is an advocate of all children.

But he is fair. His interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson was fair. His interview with Senator Clinton was informative and fair. His discussions with Rev. Al Sharpton are fair. And he has often covered news stories that I have highlighted that no other major news media, including the hard news of Fox, touch.

On the other hand it does seem obvious that he has a problem with the people Senator Obama knows. Which is not entirely wrong.

So I expect these questions to be asked:

• The association with Bill Ayers
  
  
• The association with Rev. Wright
  
  
• The association with Tony Rezco
  
  
• Senator Obama’s exact views on domestic drilling and alternative energy
  
  
• Senator Obama’s plans for taxing business, his definition of rich, and the economy
  
  
• If Senator Obama will finally admit that the Surge has worked
  
  
• How Senator Obama plans to pay for his nationalized healthcare and how it would be implemented
  
  
• Why a timetable for retreat would be in America’s best interest
  
  
• Whether Senator Obama will or will not speak with Iran and other anti-American governments without conditions
  
  
• The reversal Obama took when he selected a standard of ‘old’ politics – Sen. Joe Biden – as his Vice President
  

Each of the above items are questions that have existed since the Democratic Primaries and each has failed to be resolved fully.

If Senator Obama can answer these questions well, he should have a huge boost in his polling. If he fails to answer them, or does so poorly I expect to see him drop quickly.

Ludacris is not Senator Obama - understand Sean Hannity?

Name one thing that is potentially deadly to the political ambition of Senator Barack Obama and involves the youth of America.

Ludacris.

Or at least that is what the news media would love you to believe. And when I say news media I mean at least Sean Hannity, that I am aware of right now. But I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few that will try to use rapper Ludacris as a weapon against Senator Obama.

The problem is that Ludacris has released a video where he is lauding Senator Obama, and disparages Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bush – in a manner only rappers would believe to be decent.

Here is the video – WARNING – some individuals and parents may find this objectionable. (note there are several versions of this video on Youtube, I have selected the least visually insulting version)



I agree with most of the news media that Ludacris is a poor representative of Senator Obama. His use of foul language, the N-word, and implications of women as valueless sacks of meat meant for the base enjoyment of men are all things I denounce and disagree with. Were that the only implication in the news media I would have no problem with their assault.

But that is not the case. The words and images of Ludacris are being used to intimidate White Americans. As displayed on Hannity & Colmes the lyrics are matched with images that are obviously meant to imply ‘watch out for the crazy violent Black men’. That I do not agree with.

When Senator Obama first met with Ludacris in 2006 it was at YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness. If preventing AIDS is not a positive, what is? What is violent or crazy about keeping our kids alive and healthy? Nothing, and it’s why the national news media had little to say about their conversation.

After Senator Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, months later, a Youtube video came out called Obama Girl. While it was whimsical I heard no comments about how negative this expression of pro-Obama support was beyond its less than serious nature. The media was not rooting out the backgrounds of the performers looking to show how dangerous Obama was at the time. Of course at that time in 2007 Senator Clinton was still expected to garner the nomination.

When Will.I.Am made his popular and catchy music video demonstrating his support of Senator Obama no one raised an eyebrow. Yet Will.I.Am is a member of a music group that has used lyrics that while not as explicit as those used by rappers, is no less suggestive. Of course Senator Obama was still expected to lose to one of the White candidates at the time.

But now that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and another Black musician has voiced his support – well things are different.

But how?

This is just another entertainer that supports Obama. This is just another expression of that support. And it has nothing to do with Senator Obama or his policies. This does not reflect on Obama’s intention to get out of Iraq, or reduce energy prices, or implement a national healthcare system. It’s just a guy saying he likes Obama more than McCain in a bad way.

Yet according to pundits I have seen and read this is Obama’s problem. As if he was singing the song himself. And others have stated how this song does not reflect the social morality and family values of middle America.

But Obama isn’t singing the song. Ludacris has nothing to do with his campaign. And the most recent data states that more than 55% of all rap music sales are because of White youth throughout America. So obviously it must match up with hordes of family values throughout the nation’s White families.

The point is that I can understand debating the policy issues of Senator Obama. I can respect supporters and detractors that have substantive reasons. But to play on stereotypical fears of racial ignorance is insulting and unwarranted.

Yes Ludacris went way too far. Yes he should apologize for the attacks he made. It’s true the Obama campaign denounced the video. But what does any of this have to do with Senator Obama besides the fact that both men are Black?

Sean Hannity was wrong for the manner in which he presented this news item. He was wrong to imply the racial component as he did in his program on July 30th. He too should apologize for the over the top suggestive presentation that he provided. He is no less wrong than Ludacris. And the news media needs to stop trying to create Rev. Wright fiascos for their ratings and newspaper sales, just because a Black entertainer – or just a person in general – supports Senator Obama.

Response to 'Average American' comment on comparing news coverage - 9.28.2007.1

This is in response to a comment from Average American on my post Compare White and Black news coverage Part 2 - 9.25.2007.2. My response was so long I felt it was better as a post of it's own. Please refer to the link to see the comment that lead to this post.


Thank you for responding Average American.

I too feel I am an Average American. I’m 39, of Black Puerto Rican decent and grew up in the Bronx going to public schools. As I state in my bio, I did not grow up in any special way and wealth was never a factor in my young life.

Given that, I do recall how the N-word was used back in the 70’s and throughout my life, including recently. I can recite multiple events, in New York City and the Northeast, where race and law enforcement directly collided against me. Oh, let me add another fact of my life. I’ve never been arrested nor involved in any crime. Yet off the top of my head I can recall several incidents where I have had police draw guns on me, while at college or driving on the parkway, or driving down Hollywood Blvd with friends (White and Asian). I have lived with the knowledge first-hand and through observation that race is a MAJOR factor in how the law and justice are applied in America.

I also have spoken with friends of mine of other races and found that consistently White Americans are not faced with these same events and outcomes. To deny the fact of how race affects issues in my decades of life is to ignore facts that exist. You may not have experienced them, or not recognized when they happened, but that does not change that they happen.

While I agree that if, in the Jena 6 case, race is not considered there is no question that there was an attack made. There is no question that there were 6 against 1. There is some dispute, as stated by Rev. Jesse Jackson and others, whether or not the victim was kicked and/or when he became unconscious. That makes this a crime and prosecution is justified. No one has questioned that.

The question is the application of the law. The victim was not seriously injured. He attended a dance, or some other social event, later that same day. If murder was the intent, 6 people are more than enough to accomplish this, especially if he were unconscious. This was a fight, lopsided but a fight all the same. To charge attempted murder is over the top.

In comparison, days earlier a White student brought a shotgun to school to intimidate one or several Black students. That student, in a nation that has endured Columbine and college shootings, was not charged or reprimanded. Is not a firearm attempted murder when used in this manner? Where is the justice and equal treatment under the law?

While you might say this is a hate crime, I disagree. Were this a random White male selected you might be right. But this student was part of a group of White males that attacked one of the Jena 6; I believe it was Mr. Bell, the day prior striking him allegedly with a bottle. The attack by the 6 Black males was an opportunistic attack in retribution. If the first attack the day earlier, and the shotgun being brought to school, are not hate crimes, then neither is the Black males fight. In fact because this was retaliation on other violence it can be easily argued that race was never a factor.

Continued in part 2...

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 3 - 9.27.2007.3

Continued from Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 2...

I must admit my annoyance with Whites that presume to understand Black America’s issues and present answers with a sense of moral authority. Yes, Mr. O’Reilly is correct that fathers in the community are a major issue, but it is not the only one. Rev. Jackson presented several others that are equally important.

The rant by Bernie (I forget his last name, and honestly have lost massive respect for him after attacking Rev. Jackson) presuming to understand what ails African Americans smacks of the classic ‘White Savior and Protector’ image that portrayed, and continues to, Blacks as jungle savages. Bernie needs to be reminded that Africans created the number system the world uses today. Africans made the pyramids that cannot be duplicated today. Africans have helped create the world that exists today, in virtually every field of endeavor that Man is aware of at this time, and the slave descendants of those Africans continue to be important in America today.

We are as diverse in our culture, though major media ignores this, as much as any group in America today. To say that there is just a simple answer and that he UNDERSTANDS what I have gone through in this life is preposterous. At the best he may comprehend, but it is impossible for him to understand, much in the way I could not understand what it is to be White or female in America.

I can continue to go on. The issues are far flung and deep-rooted in American culture. Fear is a major factor; I have live through many aspects of it. The problems are multiple and come from within and without the Black community. [As I have noted before, having books older than myself while in high school, being denied word and training as a stockbroker because of my looks, being prodded to get into a fight because my manner of dress is upscale and mashed an obviously weak and tiny ego, and far more]

The point is that this is a discussion that needs to be continued. I hope that Mr. O’Reilly is incorrect. Whites need to speak up. Debate, especially passionate debate, must occur. Fear can only be defeated by action.

I will close with this though, but when I get more composed and when I get to read some of the responses from you my readers. I will come back to this.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Franklin D. Roosevelt

**I am posting this here and at Black & White Blog. That is a site where discussion on racial issues are exchanged between myself and the other co-contributor, who happens to be White. For those uncomfortable commenting here for whatever reason, I suggest commenting there as an option.**

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 2 - 9.27.2007.2

Continued from Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 1...

I do not deny that I have criticized Rev. Jackson and Sharpton for their actions in recent years. I still question why they have not lent their considerably publicly accessible voices to the tragedy in West Virginia, or the absence of reporting on Jonathan Riches, or why the major media seems to have completely forgotten the Congressional hearings on the music industry, specifically dealing with gangsta rap. I feel they can make far more noise than most, gaining attention to these matters that demand attention.

Am I glad they are raising the bar on what is being reported on Jena 6? Definitely. Should this have happened months ago? Without question. Do I feel that the major news media is seeking any means possible to avoid the subject and their abysmal responses? Do you even need to question that?

Even so, this does not mean that the media can round up any figure they can get a hold of and allow vile personal attacks on people that are reporting facts they were first person witnesses to. The attacks on Mr. Juan Williams are not out of context. How dare he call any Black American a ‘Happy Negro’. Being Black does not justify such a comment, nor does it automatically allow news commentator at CNN the ability to not challenge such offensive actions. They would not allow a White interviewee to get away with such a comment, nor should a Black one.

I feel insulted that the implication made by CNN is, via their acceptance and lack of action on the insulting attack on Mr. Juan Williams, that any African American (or Latino/Hispanic, Asian and so forth) that agrees in part or whole with views of Mr. O’Reilly is an Uncle Tom, mindless, foolish, minstrel. Would they let someone call a Spanish public figure a spic? Or an Irish one a ‘Happy Mick’? How about an Italian as a ‘Happy Wop’? Is my point made?

Since when have African American been relegated to a singular viewpoint? Since when did anyone get to be the singular voice of African Americans determining what is or is not permissible Blacks? How dare CNN allow such an image to be created, without question or challenge!

I know I have long said that I do not feel that Rev. Jackson or Sharpton are Black ‘leaders’, but that does not mean they are not important figures. I do not believe that this means that any person chosen by major news media can spout any kind of commentary and it be taken as gospel. Being Black does not mean you can say anything you please about other Blacks, nor does it excuse Whites from standing up and correcting such vicious and unwarranted attacks.

Continued in Part 3...

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly - 9.27.2007.

**I am posting this here and at Black & White Blog. That is a site where discussion on racial issues are exchanged between myself and the other co-contributor, who happens to be White. For those uncomfortable commenting here for whatever reason, I suggest commenting there as an option.**

I hope that Fox News, and Mr. Bill O’Reilly make the transcript of the program tonight, September 27, 2007, available to the public. They covered a large number of issues, all of which need to be dealt with more in depth. The conversation needs to be had. And I found Bernie Goldman’s (I believe that is his last name) comments about Rev. Jesse Jackson offensive, cruel and unjustified.

I agree that the whole issue on O’Reilly has detracted from more important issues. I was unaware of the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock 9 (I’m not that old) occurred during all this hoopla. I’ve mentioned several issues that I am aware of that also have been unfairly ignored.

I must mention that I found the words of Rev. Jackson riveting. This is perhaps the best conversation and most informative allocution I have heard from him in decades. There has never been a question in my mind of his intelligence. I have a great deal of respect for his past actions and achievements. At the same time, I admit that I have found fault with his more current actions and failure to address issues that I feel are very important. The same can be said, to a lesser degree of my feelings towards Rev. Al Sharpton.

Rev. Jackson has to be commended for finally being the person that got the actual story of the Jena 6 out to the media. Until this conversation, major news media has picked at parts of this case, sensationalizing aspects of it and ignoring others. Every major news station and news media outlet can share in the blame for failing to properly cover the Jena 6 for MONTHS.

I also have no problem stating that I agree with Mr. O’Reilly, and Mr. Juan Williams, that the absence of fathers is a major source of the issues in the Black community. I do not feel that it is the root of the problem. Mr. O’Reilly is correct that this goes back to the days of Slavery, and that fear motivates many of the actions of Whites (not all but in my opinion most) in America.

I have addressed the fear that prevents America from apologizing for Slavery. I have addressed the fear that prevents discussion of reparations. I have discussed how this fear leads to anger on both sides, and that this anger is a poison in America that is not going away.

I commend both Rev. Jackson and Mr. O’Reilly for honestly stating the issues before America, and denouncing racism – especially when it is used as a tool to manipulate and divide American opinion for the gain of a few extreme groups or worse yet, money.

There is no easy way to address race issues in America. Both sides, actually all sides are wrong at points, and absolutely right in others. All sides are passionate on their view. And there is no question that none completely understand the feelings and viewpoints of the others. Comprehend, sometimes but understand, ABSOLUTELY not.

Continued in part 2...