Good Grief, Intollerant LEFT at it Again … Say Obama Outhouse Float at 4th of July Parade Was ‘Racist’
IT WAS NOT RACIST!!! DISRESPECTFUL YES, RACIST … NO!!!
Angry Democrats cry racism to a float in a 4th of July parade in Norfolk, NE depicting Barack Obama standing next to an outhouse labeled, “Presidential Library”. Um, how exactly is this racist? But that does not stop the Democrat lunatic fringe is at it again calling anything that may mock President Barack Obama as racist. Norfolk City Councilman Dick Pfeil told the World-Herald that the city “doesn’t condone” the float, but it just shows how out of touch this politician is, one of the parade’s organizers, Rick Konopasek said the outhouse was the most popular float in the parade, and that it earned an “honorable mention” from three judges. Actually, according to the Journal Star, the float got the greatest amount of cheers.
But this is how the LEFT tries to squelch free speech … cry racism. Sorry, this is getting really tired and old. Oh what a shock, people are offended at Obama being mocked. Where were they during the GWB presidency? The outhouse could easily say America, instead of Obama presidential library, as this president has done everything possible to put us in the crapper.
Pic can be seen HERE.
A Fourth of July parade float in Nebraska that showed a dummy standing outside an outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” is drawing cries of racism from local residents and the Nebraska Democratic Party.
The float, in the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk, Neb., was affixed to trailer being towed behind a blue pickup truck. The dummy was clad in overalls, standing by a walker next to the outhouse.
The pickup truck and the float did not identify a sponsor, according to the Omaha World-Herald.
In a statement, the Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen,” according to the World-Herald.
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.” Really, just curious, how is a float of a president standing next to an outhouse labeled “Presidential Library” racists? Seriously, someone enlighten me. Personally, I am sick of every criticism of the “worst president since WWII” being called racist.
Sorry, but I find this humorous and it is nothing more than political humor. No different than the LEFT ridiculing former Republic President George W. Bush with his presidential library when they stated, why would he need a library, he can’t read. That was kinda funny. Bush even embraced his vocal gaffes by claiming that “English was his second language”. But of course the same people crying foul over anything mocking Obama were laughing gleefully at any form of ridicule of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and any conservative for that fact. What is actually racist is when any conservative who happens to be black is called an Uncle Tom. Racism is when you say about South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, “A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy.” Or when a Democrat Congressman blasts Tim Scott for not voting according to the color of his skin … THAT IS RACIST!
“A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy,” Rev. William Barber II said of South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, according to South Carolina’s The State. “[T]he extreme right wing down here (in South Carolina) finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party.”
From the Political Carnival … If George W. Bush’s name was replaced with Barack Obama, would that be deemed racist?
Hmm, what did the Democrats have to say about the following hate toward GWB? I believe this was a tad bit worse than an outhouse and Obama. But just another example of liberal intolerance and double standard.
The Hypocrisy of the Left, the Global Warming Folks and Tom Steyer … Billionaire Hedge Fund Hypocrite Made Money from Coal
Billionaire liberal and so called climate change activist Tom Steyer, he was for coal, before he was against it.
Define hypocrisy, see Tom Steyer. As reported in the New York Times this weekend, Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates through his PAC, NextGEN Climate, who oppose policies to combat climate change in fact made his billions by, hold it, hold it … investing in coal. You just can’t make this stuff up. But then again, one does not have to when it comes to the liberal, double standard Left. Steyer has been one of the main opponents of the XL Keystone pipeline.
Talk about a complete loss of credibility. If Steyer is so strongly opposed to climate change and has basically made his fortune by increasing global warming (this is the Left’s philosophy) then why doesn’t he give all his money away?
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.
Much, much more on the hypocrisy of the Left and Tom Steyer from Power Line, who was reporting on this story long before the NY Times decided that the news was fit to print.
Hypocrisy Hillary … Wow, if Hillary Clinton can’t keep composed on liberal NPR, how is she going to handle questions as a presidential candidate or will the MSM just give her a pass like Obama?
Get ready for Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings to drop even more as America listens to Hillary Clinton and suddenly remembers that the Clinton era gave us the words, parsing and “Clintonesque”. Neither an endearing quality. In what can only be described as another disastrous interview, Hillary Clinton snaps at the radio host Terry Gross on NPR for pressing her on her gay marriage record. Note to Hillary, an NPR interview is supposed to be a liberal softball. More at Hot Air.
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”
Defensive, Testy Gay Marriage Interview
In an interview this afternoon on NPR, Hillary Clinton gets testy and defensive about her and her husband’s gay marriage record.
After 6 minutes of questioning, Clinton attacks host Terry Gross for pressing her on whether she changed her mind on gay marriage or she publicly stated something she had always believed.
GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand-”
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify.
During the interview, Clinton also attacks gay marriage opponents who “believe they have a direct line to the divine” and claims that “not that many” people supported gay marriage when her husband signed DOMA into law.
ABC Interview: Hillary Clinton Says We Were “Dead Broke” After Leaving White House (Update: Hillary Backtracks on Dead Broke Comments)
Cry me a river … Hillary Clinton says that Bill Clinton and her were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. Really Hillary, dead broke?
Bill and Hillary Clinton were as “dead broke” as Sir Edmund Hillary was Hillary’s namesake. Dead broke. I guess the promised money of book deals and speeches at $200,000 are considered “dead broke” by this elitist liberal. I am sure the many Americans who are struggling today with record numbers on food stamps, under-employed and who have just stopped looking for work can empathize with the poor Clinton’s. Sorry, she cannot help herself from lying or exaggerating. Just what we need in 2016, another president who just cant tell the truth.
Work is just so tough when you make $200,000 to $500,000 a speech. Yeah, you are not too out of touch with the American people. Care to change your statement Hillary?
Hillary Clinton, who recently raked in $5 million dollars in speaking fees in 15 months, recounted to Diane Sawyer the sad tale of her former destitution, telling her, “We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.”
According to Clinton, she and her husband, who has made over $100 million since leaving the White House, “struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.”
But, as Clinton’s story goes, the two hard-working, middle-class millionaires somehow managed to put food on the table in their multiple houses, even though they “had to make double the money, because of, obviously, taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.”
Although Sawyer wondered if Americans would understand why Hillary Clinton needs a speaking fee of $200,000, “five times the median income in this country for one speech”, Clinton assured her that she’s taking the high road: “I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was forced to explain — and recast — what she meant when she complained of her family’s financial struggles after leaving the White House.
The subject was broached on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” when host Robin Roberts asked Mrs. Clinton if she could understand America’s head-scratching reaction to her claim that the Clintons were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House and needed to hit the lucative speaking circuit to build their bank accounts.
Her speaking fees sometimes hit the $200,000 level, while Bill Clinton routinely pockets $500,000 per 45-minute pep talk.
LIARS!!! Hmm, Remember When WH Mouthpiece Jay Carney Said in 2013 … No Bergdahl Decision Will Happen ‘Without Consulting Congress’
YET ANOTHER LIE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT PROMISED, IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTHCARE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT, PERIOD!
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said nearly a year ago back on June 21, 2013 that no decisions about bringing about the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl through detainee transfer would be done “without consulting Congress.” My how times change. When the GITMO 5 were released from Guantanamo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Congress was not notified 30 days in advance as per the law that Carney stated the president would follow.
Imagine that, the Obama White House said one thing in 2013 and then something different today. This administration thinks it can do anything it damn well pleases and no one stops it. They keep pushing the envelop and no one slaps their hand. What does it say about a presidency that cannot tell the truth and has no respect for the US Constitution or the laws that the president is supposed to “faithfully” uphold?
Jay Carney remarks at the press briefing on June 21, 2013. Full transcript can be read HERE:
Q: Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the President would agree to?
JAY CARNEY: What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans — between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue — using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools — the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.
Q: So you haven’t ruled it out?
CARNEY: I’m simply saying that — first of all, you have to separate the two issues. We are focused on the return — the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about. We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place. And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees. And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that.
Protein Wisdom opines, It’s okay to ask: Whose side is Obama on?
But back on topic: we know Obama is no fan of the Constitution. We know he doesn’t believe in or abide separation of powers. We know he doesn’t respect border security or national sovereignty, having refused to enforce federal immigration law and having noted — at a West Point commencement address — that he won’t stop rogue states from acting because the US has refused, in the past, to cede its sovereign powers to the UN, a bureaucratic body made up mostly of representatives of socialist or totalitarian states and a long-time heartthrob of the trasnational progressive movement. We know that he doesn’t value individual privacy, as the NSA scandal shows and as ObamaCare’s data collection requirements reinforce. We know he doesn’t much care for the military, having gutted it as best he could, having shut down its memorials during the partial government shut down, and having slept through an attack that left Americans to perish in some African hellhole. We know that he despises his political “enemies” more so than he does any foreign actor — showing far more contempt for the “teabaggers” than for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members are more welcome in the White House than is Israel’s head of state.
Uber-Leftist Bill Maher & Conservative Dinesh D’Souza Battle Arianna Huffington & Lib Panel Over Islam, ” Liberals Too PC to Ever Condemn It ”
Condemning Islamist extremists and Muslim religion make strange bedfellows.
Who would have ever thought that liberal comedian Bill Maher and Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza would ever be on the same side of any topic? However, that is what happened on on Friday night HBO’s ‘Real Time’ with Bill Maher. The liberal comedian astonished his fellow leftist panel by arguing that the Islamic religion tends to influence horrific acts of violence and has become the “elephant in the room.” Maher was irked by how liberals “do not stand up for liberalism” and outright condemn brutal Islamic laws that go against values of equality and freedom, especially where women are concerned. Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza opined, claiming that most modern day terrorist attacks have some ties to Islam. He joked that you don’t see a lot of “Buddhist suicide bombers.” Comedian Baratunde Thurston warned that Islam did not have a “monopoly” on extremism as he reminded the panel that Christians also commit acts of violence. Maher then amazingly and correctly responded, “If this was the 14th century, I would be coming down on the Christians because that’s when they were too violent. Religions and cultures change.” WOW, nice. How progressive, liberals are still living and outraged by things that took place in the 14th century.
Maher makes the comment as the libs on the panel and in the audience had no idea what to do or say when Maher continued to question the evils of Islam, according to “Sharia Law, failure to perform Friday prayers could get you whippings or amputations. Because its a religion of Peace. [Uncomfortable audience response]. I know, I’m the bad guy because I am against the people who cut your arms off for not praying.”
“There’s no mention here of connecting this to the religion, which is always what I am seeking to do because I think that’s the elephant in the room,” Maher said. “And that in the religion at large, women are seen as property, second-class at best, often as property.”
Reason’s Matt Welch claimed the kidnappers’ ties to Islam are being highlighted in the media, but also agreed that the religion “is providing a disproportionate share of radical nut bags killing people.”
Huffington Post President Arianna Huffington and comedian Baratunde Thurston both warned Maher against condemning the entire religion because of the behavior of radicals. Thurston also claimed that Islam doesn’t have a “monopoly” on extremism.
“Kind of they do,” Maher said. “Not a monopoly, but perspective is important. … It’s the Titanic hitting the iceberg compared to Whitney Houston dying in her bathtub.”
To answer Bill Maher’s question regarding why liberals do not stand up to Islam and Sharia Law for their despicable treatment of women would mean they would have to admit that this is the real war on women. It is called the liberal double standard.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”
HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.
Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.
As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.
What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.
But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.
NAACP Was Set to Give L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award Next Month Before He Was Caught on Audio Tape Making Racist Comments … What About all the previous Racism?
NAACP was for giving a racist NBA Basketball owner a Lifetime Achievement Award, before they were against it … WHERE WERE THEY BEFORE WITH HIS PREVIOUS RACIST ACTS?
The L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was supposed to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award next month from the NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter. However, that was before Sterling was caught on an audio tape making racist and disgusting comments to his girlfriend regarding minorities. The award was supposed to be given on May 15, 2014. Upon the surfacing of the explosive and highly racial audio, the NAACP urged the chapter to withdraw Sterling from its honoree list and suggests that “African Americans and Latinos should honor his request and not attend the games.”
Sorry, my question is not that the NAACP is rescinding this Lifetime Achievement Award, it is why the so-called civil rights group ever gave it to him in the first place? Hey NAACP, Why so Silent?
But that was then, this is now, NAACP Interim President Lorraine Miller said Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that the NAACP will not go forward with plans to give a lifetime achievement award to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. She went on to say, “If you’re silent about this, then you’re accepting this. People have got to say that this is not good and do something about it.” Um, who was being silent? One would say the hypocritical NAACP. Did they forget above his previous racist behavior, or were they just being silent? And guess who has joined the act and is calling for a boycott of Clippers games, why the Rev. Jessee Jackson of course.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Miller condemned the racist remarks allegedly made by Sterling that were caught on audio recording and leaked over the weekend. The NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter was scheduled to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award at its 100th anniversary celebration next month.
“He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP,” Miller said.
HEY NAACP … WHY SO SILENT?
The NAACP must have missed the documented history of allegedly racist behavior where Sterling had been sued twice by the federal government for allegedly refusing to rent apartments to Blacks and Latinos. Oops, hey NAACP … why so silent? Maybe they might want to read about the case below? I guess the NAACP was also remaining silent when former Clippers exec and NBA great Elgin Baylor sued Sterling for racial discrimination. A jury was ultimately not convinced and shot down Baylor’s case. But when has that ever stopped the NAACP, can you say Trayvon Martin.
United States v. Donald Sterling, et al. (C.D. Cal.)
On November 12, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving a pattern or practice lawsuit in United States v. Sterling (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on August 7, 2006, alleged that Donald Sterling, Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust, and the Korean Land Company, L.L.C. violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. The complaint also alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they own or manage in Los Angeles County. The United States also alleged that the Sterling Defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in Los Angeles County.
The consent order requires the Defendants to: (1) pay a total of $2.725 million in monetary damages and civil penalties; (2) implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employees’ compliance with fair housing laws at their Los Angeles County properties; (3) maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and (4) obtain fair housing training for their employees who participate in renting, showing, or managing apartments at the Los Angeles County properties. The order settles the claims of the United States and the private plaintiffs.
Bias law suit: Baylor v. National Basketball Association et al., case number BC407604, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.
The former general manager of the Los Angeles Clippers has slammed the National Basketball Association, the team, Clippers owner Donald Sterling and management agent Richard Andy Roeser with a lawsuit, accusing the parties of race and age discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On Thursday, Elgin Baylor filed suit in the Los Angeles division of California Superior Court, accusing his former team and colleagues of a slew of employment-related misdeeds.
“Elgin Baylor, a former NBA executive vice president and general manager, charges that he has suffered severe and continuing injury, including severe economic and noneconomic injuries as a result of unlawful and wrongful conduct engaged in by the defendants, individually and/or corporately,” the complaint said. “Consequently, in this action, Mr. Baylor seeks an award of economic, noneconomic and punitive damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Another Misrepresentation Spread to the Masses … The Party of the Rich in Congress are Democrats, Not the GOP
So much for the Democrat talking point that the Republicans are the party of the Rich …
Hmm, looks like it is the Democrats who are the party of the rich. As reported in the Yahoo News, Democrats represent 8 of the 10 richest House districts in the United States. Actually, Democrats have the top six wealthiest districts, Republicans represent #7 and #10.
Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It’s a label that has stuck for decades, and you’re hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California
The 10 richest House districts:
- New York 12 – Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Democrat – Per capita income: $75,479
- California 33 – Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat – Per capita income: $61,273
- New York 10 – Rep. Jerry Nadler, Democrat – Per capita income: $56,138
- California 18 – Rep. Anna Eshoo, Democrat – Per capita income: $ 54,182
- Connecticut 4 – Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat – Per capita income: $50,732
- Virginia 8 – Rep. Jim Moran, Democrat – Per capita income: $50,210
- New Jersey 7 – Rep. Leonard Lance, Republican – Per capita income: $48,556
- California 12 – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat – Per capita income: $48,523
- New York 3 – Rep. Steve Israel, Democrat – Per capita income: $47,991
- Virginia 10 – Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican – Per capita income: $47,281
WHAT, CBS HAS A LIBERAL BIAS … SAY IT ISN’T SO!!!
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has resigned from CBS News after two decades at the network. As reported at The Politico, Attkisson had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting. What, you mean there is a liberal bias in the MSM and a lack of investigative journalism, really? Didn’t she get the CBS memo that there was to be no investigative reporting on Barack Obama or Democrats that would go against MSM/Obama propaganda? Hmm, remember when her computer was hacked? But that was just a coincidence.
As Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823, “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
Sharyl Attkisson – @SharylAttkisson
Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.
At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.
Feeling increasingly stymied and marginalized at the network, Attkisson began talking to CBS News President David Rhodes as early as last April about getting out of her contract. Those negotiations intensified in recent weeks, and her request was finally honored on Monday.
Newsbusters reminds us that Sharyl Attkisson kept the spotlight on Obama scandals like Benghazi and Fast and Furious. That must have endeared her to the liberal suits at CBS.
Sharyl Attkisson, whose coverage of the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal won CBS Evening News an Edward R. Murrow Award in 2012, and also provided hard-hitting reporting on the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, announced her sudden departure from CBS on Monday afternoon in a post on Twitter: “I have resigned from CBS.”
It is a shame that an accomplished investigative correspondent like Sharyl Attkisson would cited liberal bias at the network and an insufficient dedication to investigative journalism as a means as to why she would have to leave a network. The purpose of the media is to hold all accountable, no matter what political party they may lean toward. The PJ Tatler opines, but don’t worry, Attkisson won’t have a problem finding a job. Expect her reports to show up on Fox News eventually.