There are two problems with such assertions. First of all, Black Lives Matter does not advocate violence against police. The opposition cannot point to any statements made by Black Lives leaders explicitly encouraging violence against law enforcement. If they had such proof, they would have repeatedly broad casted such statements on Fox News and other news stations.

The protest chants that Fox News did broadcast are ambiguous at best. By the way, the term “pig” is not a reference to all police officers. Pigs are police officers who abuse their authority and abuse the people. Pigs are those who unjustifiably harass, intimidate, humiliate, racially profile, beat and kill black people. Such criminals masquerading as police officers have earned our condemnation. Such condemnation is not the same as advocating indiscriminate violence against police.

Second, there is absolutely no connection between the movement and the killer. In fact, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman acknowledged that he has no “details of a motive.” There is no proof that alleged killer, Shannon J. Miles, was affiliated with the Black Lives Matters movement. There is no proof that he was inspired by the movement. Instead of blaming and condemning Black Lives Matter, the critics should blame and condemn the alleged killer,Shannon J. Miles.

In addition, people have attacked the slogan “Black Lives Matter.” During his press conference, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said we should “drop the qualifiers” and say “lives matter.” Obviously, the Movement is not saying that non-black lives do not matter. They are emphasizing black lives because American society devalues black lives. For example, police disproportionately target and kill black people. As reported on the Huffington Post,

Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.

The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police…

ProPublica’s risk analysis on young males killed by police certainly seems to support what has been an article of faith in the African American community for decades: Blacks are being killed at disturbing rates when set against the rest of the American population.

Often, when the police kill black people, the police are not prosecuted. On the rare occasions when they are prosecuted, they are not convicted. For that reason, the emphasis on black lives is appropriate. Washington Post reports:

“To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in any rational way,” said Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green who studies arrests of police. “It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang their reputation on.”

But even in these most extreme instances, the majority of the officers whose cases have been resolved have not been convicted, The Post analysis found.

And when they are convicted or plead guilty, they’ve tended to get little time behind bars, on average four years and sometimes only weeks. Jurors are very reluctant to punish police officers, tending to view them as guardians of order, according to prosecutors and defense lawyers…

Among the officers charged since 2005 for fatal shootings, more than three-quarters were white. Two-thirds of their victims were minorities, all but two of them black.

Nearly all other cases­ involved black officers who killed black victims. In one other instance, a Latino officer fatally shot a white person and in another an Asian officer killed a black person. There were a total of 49 victims.

Such alarming statistics regarding low prosecution rates and low conviction rates generate righteous black outrage. In light of the statistical disparities, it is simply ridiculous for Kelvin Jackson to dismiss the movement as “nonsense.”

We have to understand that this is nothing new. The opposition often deploys Negro proxies to discredit the movement. Those black surrogates buffer claims of racism and add legitimacy to the racist opposition. They use official mouthpieces like Kevin Jackson and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke to justify racial profiling and police brutality. Sheriff Clarke actually claimed that Black Lives Matter has weakened policing.

Police accountability does not weaken policing. Police do not have to resort to unjustified brutality in order to be effective.  Furthermore, racial profiling wastes resources by unnecessarily targeting innocent black and Latino people based solely on the color of their skin. Such resources should be devoted to targeting actual criminals. Racial profiling and police brutality undermine policing by breeding animosity and distrust in the black community. Without trust, the people are less likely to report crime, and they are less likely to cooperate with the police.

Not only does the opposition use official Negro spokespeople, they exploit gullible, uninformed African Americans on social media. When African Americans get on camera and attack the Black Lives Matter Movement and other prominent civil rights groups, the opposition and corporate media share, promote and make those videos go viral.  Such videos deflect away from police brutality and over emphasize so-called black-on-black violence. They focus on elements of so-called black dysfunction and virtually ignore the police brutality.  Police brutality and inner city violence are two completely separate issues. Those issues must be addressed separately. The suggestion that urban violence must end before we can address police brutality is absurd.

We must defend the Black Lives Matter movement. We should not allow anyone to label the movement as a hate group. In the words of Malcolm X, “a label can kill you.” Remember the government labeled the original Black Panther Party (“BPP”) as a hate group. While the larger black community just sat back and watched, BPP leaders and members were jailed and killed. We cannot allow that to happen Black Lives Matter. We must defend, protect and strengthen them.

[Originally posted at New Possibilities]

The post #BlackLivesMatter: In Defense of Black Lives Matter appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:

The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”

“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.

“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”

Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.

The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, Bill O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.

The post When Conservatives Face the Music (Bill O’Reilly is a Liar) appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Yonce’s all on Bill O’Reilly’s mouth like liquor. At least it was a few weeks ago when O’Reilly, the notorious Fox News political commentator, yet again took up the task of publicly attacking Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, Time Magazine’s Most Influential Person. He points to her groundbreaking latest album, Beyoncé, as to why her Knowles-Carter isn’t “influential.” Centering his critique on songs like “Partition,” O’Reilly completely ignores other tracks like, “Heaven,” which some have speculated alludes to the pain of the pop superstar’s miscarriage. O’Reilly decided to put on his mask of “concern” for Black folks to hide his disdain for Black women. Under this mask, Beyoncé becomes the spokesperson for the Black community and O’Reilly gets to ignore how her artistry nods to the fact that Black women miscarry at a higher rate than other women and the overall Black genius of her album.

After the attack on his own show, O’Reilly went on to visit David Letterman maintaining his argument that, “Right now, in the African American community, 72% of babies are born out of wedlock. Back when Motown was hot, in the 60s, it was like 10 or 12 percent. So what we’re seeing then is a deleterious effect on American society.” I’m sure O’Reilly conveniently left out the fact that when “Motown was hot” (when did it cool down?) Black women didn’t have the right to vote, couldn’t access the same educational resources as white folks and were busy being the backbone of a civil rights movement. There were also different cultural norms in the 60’s that are no longer relevant today. Even still, perhaps Black women were exhausted and not really in the mood for their Freakum Dress. Or, perhaps O’Reilly’s data is manipulated and divorced from the reality of the periods referenced.

There is often very little attention paid in mainstream media white men’s assaults on Black women. Or when a group of white men sit together to discuss Black women’s bodies. White men need to understand the sense of entitlement associated with consuming and commenting on Black women’s bodies. Instead, we can focus our attention and collectively listen to Black women’s experiences. Last week, Drexel University put together a panel where Black women discussed Black women, sexuality, beauty and so much more. With all the speculation on Beyoncé as spokesperson for Black women, Treva Lindsey noted, “Beyoncé had so much parental care, nurturing, and investment so many Black girls are not afforded.” Followed up by Dr. Brittany Cooper arguing, “I don’t know that there’s the same [sexual] freedom when we talk about this for unmarried [Black] women.” Despite the fact Beyoncé is a married mother of one and respectability politics are alive and well, her sexuality is still policed and condemned. This begs the question: if this is how Black women with the power of celebrity are treated, what does this tell us about how Black women are generally treated?

I have little interest in the fact that Bill O’Reilly’s fascination with pregnancy doesn’t begin or end with Beyoncé—the women he sexually harassed over a decade ago volunteers at Planned Parenthood. I’m interested in the long history of white men making up imaginary stories about and harassing Black women. I’m interested in the fact most of the public debate is centered on Beyoncé instead of the entitlement of white men or issues impacting Black women. Of course, no conservative white man is going to touch the fact that white men have felt Black women are readily available for consumption since the days of chattel slavery. Yet even more recent is the history O’Reilly completely ignores; the history of how stereotypes about Black mothers persist despite evidence that refutes them.

Instead of celebrating Black motherhood, O’Reilly joins a long line of white men hell-bent on maintaining stereotypes about and blaming Black women for structural barriers they may face. Like one of his predecessors, Ronald Reagan, we see that cultural “analysis” divorced from the political landscape is an inaccurate portrayal of communities. Reagan was the father of the socio-political image, the “welfare queen”—an image designed to blame Black women for the structural obstacles that limit the opportunities their families face.  And just as Reagan blamed the fictitious Linda Taylor, O’Reilly got to thinking he was irreplaceable when he tried to problematize Black teen pregnancy then blame Mrs. Carter.

If only this stopped with Reagan and O’Reilly. We see these types of harassment everywhere from daily life to television to virtual reality. Whether it is Piers Morgan sensationalizing Janet Mock’s story as she tries to promote her New York Times best-selling book, “Redefining Realness” or the various ways Black women are treated on social media, we see continual warfare on Black women throughout culture, our social interactions and policy formation. Culturally, we need to move beyond scapegoat devices of blaming individuals to see the structural barriers Black women face—from reproductive rights, housing and employment discrimination to collective care.

So here are a few ways white men can start re-imagining Black women, to the beat of Beyoncé’s lyrics. Yes, bring the beat in!

1)   Put A Ring On It: Call local legislators to protect reproductive rights. There are any number of issues, including the rejection of bills like SB 1391, a dangerous Tennessee bill designed to prevent childbirth that will hit Black women the hardest or the need to end the over-criminalization of pregnant mothers.  

2)   Recognize Who Runs the World and work to disrupt and change it. Beyoncé understands that men have had chances and now it’s time to shift the paradigm. Instead of using media to condemn Black women, support Black women in media. Check out then donate to Esther Armah’s campaign to build a weekly talk show run by women of color.

3)   When you hear other people condemning Black women, say, Driver, roll up the partition please! Check them with facts that center Black women and incorporate their lived experiences. You can do this by reading books written by and building relationships with Black women.

4)   Check On It: Instead of focusing on misguided perceptions of who’s to blame for Black teen pregnancy,shed light and awareness on the fact 234 Nigerian girls were kidnapped from their dorm rooms. #BringBackOurGirls

White men need to stop being Beautiful Liars and join the Party. Wake up and realize that Black women are***Flawless. Let’s focus our attention on building social practices and policies that support Black women instead of neglecting them.

XO!

Johnathan Fields is a writer and activist living in New York City. He believes in racial justice, mental health advocacy and Beyoncé. Follow him on Twitter: @JohnnyGolightly.

The post Bill O’Reilly Thinks Beyoncé Can Do More to Save the Black Community appeared first on Madness & Reality.

In recent history, Bill O’Reilly had a stand-up routine about Beyonce’s agenda to pushteenage pregnancy. Here is an excerpt of what Bill O’Reilly actually feels:

Bill re-upped his outrage on Friday while talking about Bey’s TIME cover, saying — “she knows that young girls getting pregnant in the African-American community now is about 70% out of wedlock. She knows and doesn’t seem to care.” [1]

To add to the punch line, Bill took things even further. He even noted that she was not deserving of the TIME cover because she does not encourage abstinence [2]. In short, Bill O’Reilly has a problem with the inner messages of Beyonce’s music.

You have to hand it to Bill O’Reilly: he does take the time actually make his brand of slap stick comedy accessible to the world. Too bad he is missing that counterpart to balance his foolishness (*cough* Cam’Ron *cough*). I mean, somebody has to treat Bill like the political stooge that he is.

The Bill O’Reilly-Beyoncé Issue

Here are a few things that are off about his issues with Beyoncé:

Legally, she can whisper “Hail Hydra” in her boo’s ear.

1.)    Beyoncé is married: It is extremely hard to promote ideals that you, yourself, are not openly apart of unless you mention them in a guided fashion. Nowhere on Beyoncé’s new album is there a reference to premarital sex. In fact, Beyoncé has been married for quite some time now. So, Beyoncé can be as raunchy and subtly sexual as she wants to be. Here is the newsflash: she is a married woman. So, she has that right to do what she does.

2.)    The “marriage in wedlock” issue: I think I covered this with the Melissa Ortiz female that wanted to go on a simple minded rant about Black people. Personally, I think she was mad at her own dysfunctional-loon ass family. At any rate, I explained the entire marriage-out-of-wedlock issue plainly:

Another problematic stat she spoke up on is the “75 percent bastard baby rate”. Yeah, that rate is misleading in its own right. The problem is that the birth rate for married AND unmarried Black women is dropping [3]. It just so happen that those said children are “bastard babies”.

Now let us move on.

3.)    Teen pregnancy is on the decline: Can you believe it, people? Teen pregnancy is on the decline in all communities as a whole [4]. That isn’t the only major development that Bill O’Reilly got wrong. He also did not note that teen pregnancy in the African American community has dropped 51 percent between 1999 to 2009 [5]. So, Bill is caught in a mental time warp where Puff Daddy may have been wearing shiny suits and Tommy Hilfigermade his clothes accessible to the African American community.

The Skinny on the Bill O’Reilly-Beyonce Madness

It is hard to take Bill O’Reilly seriously anymore. Too many times he is either misinformed or just plain lying. So, all I can take him as is a comedian. Too bad many conservatives see him as some sort of political/social pundit. Then they would realize that Bill O’Reilly takes more pie to the face than Martin Clare.

The post Hey, O’Reilly: Beyonce Isn’t Making Girls Get Pregnant appeared first on Madness & Reality.

This is what was on display before the Super Bowl this past Sunday. For some reason President Obama agrees to this annual idiot fest, where O’Reilly interviews him on national television before the big event. Why he subjects himself to this torture is anybody’s guess. Maybe he wants to show that he is willing to be interviewed by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Or maybe he knows there are millions watching and it’s a good way to reach so many in just a few minutes. Or maybe he wants to show all of those people what an idiot O’Reilly really is. I think that might be it.

If I were the President I would do the interview but only if it were conducted by a real news person, not an entertainer. Just allowing O’Reilly to conduct the interview gives him a sort of cashe that he doesn’t deserve. But anyway Obama is Obama so he does the interview. The first question was about Obamacare. But O’Reilly didn’t ask about the CURRENT state of the ACA or how many people have signed up or even legitimate questions about some road bumps, no O’Reilly went back four months to the roll out, something that has been out of the news (except on Fox News) since November when it was fixed. Obama brought up the fact that it was indeed fixed and that over 3 million have signed up along with 6 million who are now signed up for Medicaid.

The ACA question would be the MOST legit question of the interview. It was all downhill from there. It was as though O’Reilly was stuck in a Fox News news cycle, one that only exists in their world of paranoid conspiracies and erection inducing Obama bashing that their older (nearly 70 avg age) white viewers masturbate to on a daily basis.

O’Reilly asked about Benghazi and the I.R.S. Once again bringing up those golden oldie questions about whether it was a terrorist attack or some dudes who were annoyed at the video tape. O’Reilly brought up Susan Rice again, making it look like she was wrong when she said it was probably a result of the video, even though we now know she was right.

O’Reilly continued the false belief that the I.R.S. went after right wing groups and tried to (god forbid) make them pay taxes since they are all political organizations when it’s a known fact that they targeted groups on both sides of the aisle. Groups that should damn well be paying taxes.

No matter though, whether it was about Benghazi, the I.R.S. or the ACA. The answers didn’t matter. You see O’Reilly wasn’t looking for answers, he was looking for red meat to through at his ‘Love to bash Obama’ audience. It was the key words that mattered..Benghazi, I.R.S., Obamacare, Rice, Sebelius, Terrorist, Scandal, Conspiracy… on and on. This is all that mattered.

You could see the Fox News 70 plus year old white males sitting up in their comfy Archie Bunker chairs and cheering on the idiot O’Reilly, the way they would their favorite football team. “Get em Bill!” they would yell, “You tell em Bill O!” while their own Edith’s yell at them to “Calm down before you get a heart attack!”

This is what the interview was all about. It’s why O’Reilly would constantly interrupt as soon as Obama began his answers. The keywords and phrases were out and that’s all that mattered. Yes Obama made Bill look like an idiot but that’s an easy thing to do when the guy knows he’s an idiot. O’Reilly knows the answers to his own questions because they were all answered ages ago. Answered many times by Obama himself as well as through hearing after hearing. O’Reilly knew the answers, knew the truth, yet he continued to play the idiot for his 70 plus year old white male audience.

Hey, does anyone remember all of those interviews Bush gave with Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann?? Neither do I. Or do any of you recall those interviews O’Reilly did with Bush where he asked him about the failures on 9/11 or in Iraq? Neither do I.

You see we have a President who plays ball. He gives the interviews most likely because he feels it’s the right thing to do. He is telling the truth so why not do them? None of this matters though. Only the key words matter.

O’Reilly is the idiot, playing to idiots who are no better than one of Pavlov’s dogs. Salivating when they hear a word that makes them go into heat.

The post Why Bill O’Reilly Is An Idiot appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Case in point, checkout the following excerpt from his latest piece titled What’s the Matter With White People? A Modest Call for Personal Responsibility. In it, he takes on the tired arguments levied by conservatives retread in the wake of the “Not Guilty” verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial for killing Trayvon Martin. As I pointed out recently, the usual suspects at FOX News are attempting to derail a much-needed conversation on race. By bringing up issues like black-on-black crime, out-of-wedlock births, and every “black pathology” known to white man, conservatives are pulling from the white supremacist playbook to diminish all discussions of inequality in the criminal justice system. Naturally, given the racial demographic of the average viewer of FOX News and their propensity for ignorance, much of what is said is being digested hook, line, and sinker. But just like I did recently as it relates to black-on-black crime, Tim Wise breaks it down on out-of-wedlock births with a twist.

In fact, Tim Wise does a better job:

Despite the alarm bells rung regularly by hysterics on the right, there is evidence that progress is being made in the black community on the very issues about which conservatives love to bray. For instance,teen pregnancy rates have been falling considerably for African American youth, contrary to popular perception. From 1991 to 2010, the rate of births to black teens, 15-19, fell by more than half, with a full 9 percent drop just between 2009 and 2010 alone. Likewise, from 1980 to 2008, the birthrate for all black women under 18 fell by more than half. Indeed, the birth rate for African American teenagers is now at an all-time low.

In fact, since the early 1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock child birth for all women — not just teenagers — has fallen for blacks, while actually climbing for whites. From 1990 to 2010 the white out-of-wedlock birth rate grew by one-third while the rate for black women fell by more than 28 percent. Since 1970, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has more than tripled for white women, while falling among black women by nearly a third.

But how can that be? Over 72 percent of black babies born today are born out-of-wedlock, as opposed to 66.5 percent of all black babies in 1990, and only 37.5 percent of black babies born in 1970! Doesn’t this prove that single black women are becoming less responsible in their childbearing patterns? Doesn’t it prove a cultural tendency in the black community to bring children into the world, despite the lack of a father in the home? Well no, and anyone who knew how to interpret basic statistical concepts would know why. The fact that right-wing blowhards like Bill O’Reilly and pretty much everyone on FOX makes this same point, incessantly, only indicates their statistical illiteracy. A brief examination should explain.

As you can see, in the second section of the table linked above, labeled “percent of live births to unmarried mothers,” it is undeniably true that as a share of all births to black women, those that are out-of-wedlock have indeed grown dramatically over the past four decades. And yet, as the first part of the table indicates (and as I noted above), the actual unmarried birth rate for black women has been declining steadily. So, how can these two facts both be true? How can the actual rate of unmarried births to black women be falling and yet, at the same time, the percentage of births to black women that are births out-of-wedlock be climbing? Easy. These facts represent two different social realities, only one of which indicates anything about the behavior of unmarried black folks. And the one that mattersisn’t the one white conservatives like to talk about.

If unmarried black women are having fewer babies than ever — and that’s what the table demonstrates — then this means unmarried black women are increasingly doing exactly what conservative moral scolds would have them do: namely, be more “responsible” about their sexual activity, and not bring babies into the world that they are presumed less likely to be able to support because of the absence of a father. But if, despite this trend towards “responsible” behavior, the share of black births that are out-of-wedlock continues to rise, what can explain such a seemingly contradictory phenomenon? There is really only one possible answer, and it has nothing to do with cultural pathology or bad behavior. Simply put, it must be that black married couples are having far fewer children than in the past. Indeed, the rates of birth for married black couples must be falling faster than the rates for unmarried black women, such that out-of-wedlock births as a share of all black births will continue to climb, even as unmarried black women cut back on childbearing. That is, in fact, exactly the culprit here. Black married couples are having far fewer children than ever before, and far fewer than white married couples, by the way, unlike in the past when their families tended to be larger. (Read More)

Check out Tim Wise in a recent lecture at the University of San Francisco this year:

The post Tim Wise: The “Black Out-Of-Wedlock Birth” Canard is Racist appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Speaking of which, watch the following before continuing:

That said, check out Don Lemon’s diatribe below:

The post Don Lemon “No Talking Points” Puts Black Community On Blast appeared first on Madness & Reality.

According to most white folks, crime in white communities is as rare as responsible black fathers. White neighborhoods are as close to peaceful utopias as Disney World, only without the rides and cartoon character costume workers. The people there are polite, kind, hard-working, honorable, respectable and have good ole’ fashion American values. In other words white people live there. So, there’s nothing to fear.

On the other hand – still according to many whites – black and brown communities are pits of hell on Earth. Crime and violence always happen there, and most of the crime in the United States is caused by those people. Those neighborhoods support their hedonistic violent cultures and they have no one and nothing to blame but themselves.

It’s no wonder why you need to keep your windows up and doors locked when you drive through their hoods. That’s why those places are best to stay away from, especially at night because you know, black and brown people live there. Trouble is bound to happen.

This is what people like conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly and real estate mogul Donald Trump thinks. Tracy Clayton of the Root reports:

“According toBill O’Reilly,” tweeted Trump (and we know that once you begin making a point by quotingBill O’Reilly, it’s all downhill from there), “80% of all the shootings in New York City are blacks — if you add Hispanics, that figure goes to 98%. 1% white.” In tweets that have since been deleted, Trump went on to say, “When it comes to violent crime, and if we are going to solve the problem, we must stop being so politically correct — must tell it like it is!” Then, “Likewise, the primary victims of violent crime are in the African-American and Hispanic communities. These people want LAW AND ORDER now!”

This doesn’t surprise me in the least. I only read and heard similar statements like this only a million-zillion times already. It’s useless to act shocked, let alone offended. After a while, you kinda let it pass over.

One thing is true though, African-American and Hispanics are also aware of the problem of crime and violence in the community. However, unlike O’Reilly, Trump and many other white-minded critics, there are black and brown folk who actively do what they can with what they have to stop it. When was the last time Ole’ Bill and Don help end crime in places like Brooklyn or Harlem while trying to find ways to eject President Obama and protect the tax brackets of the filthy rich?

I guess Ms. Clayton and I were wrong in what black and brown communities in NYC want. I thought they wanted an end to ‘stop and frisk’ and police brutality. I also thought they want adequate and equal opportunity employment and housing and more effective ways to lower and fight crime and still be treated like human beings. But I guess all we want is “Law and Order”, which I guess they meant the TV show.

The post Bill O’Reilly Plus Donald Trump Equals the Same Old Racism appeared first on Madness & Reality.

As you may know, these are two of my favorite people. So, I just knew they were going to bring it just the way I ike it. That is, they were going to tell it like it is. In the following clip Bill makes an attempt to create a direct correlation between substance abuse and poverty. In ultra-propagandist manner as only the master puppeteer Bill O’Reilly exists. In the following, he tries to convince the brothers that substance abuse was responsible for poverty in America, in his defense of Wall Street.

Check this out; I thought they were gonna fight:

The post Shots Fired: Bill O’Reilly vs. Tavis Smiley & Dr. Cornel West appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Last week when Rick Sanchez publicly apologized for what I saw as no-wrong-doing, or anti-Semitism, I said I was gonna stop defending minorities caught up in the media spotlight. I said that because it’s common knowledge that whether right or wrong, one thing’s for certain, they will apologize because it’s the politically correct and acceptable thing to do. So here we are another week, and I’m gonna renege and defend Juan Williams.

Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. Being a regular reader of this site it’s probably stuning that I’m gonna come to the defense of someone who is a) a slave catcher in the eyes of many, and b) an individual who is a regular staple over at Fox News Channel. Yes, I realize that me defending him can be construed as slave-catcher behavior on my part, but dammit I gotta do what’s right or else my wife won’t give me any at night.

So Juan Williams was fired by NPR for what was perceived to be the expression of anti-Muslim rhetoric while doing his usual gig on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor. So what exactly did Williams say that warranted his dismissal from the good folks over at NPR? Well, here’s what everyone is focusing on as being anti-Muslim:
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,” he 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. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. 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.Now look, the way I see it, there’s nothing anti-Muslim about Williams’ remarks above. I think over the course of the last few months, our political discourse exists as an example of just what anti-Muslim actually is, when it centered on a proposed mosque being built at Ground Zero that’s not even at Ground Zero. I mean, add to that the “Burn A Quaran Day”, or the slashing of the neck of a Muslim New York cab driver, and… Well, you get the picture. Shit, I’m nervous at the ATM here in Memphis, does that make me a bigot?

To let it be known that given the events of 9/11 that you’re a tad bit nervous when stepping onto an airplane and seeing a few middle eastern doo-rags and Jesus clothes, isn’t actually a bigoted remark. Hell, I live in the south and was once almost ran off the road by a guy in a pickup truck flying confederate flags just after he stared directly into my eyes while on an interstate in Alabama. That said, would it be bigoted if I said that the sight of white folks, big trucks, and confederate flags while I’m driving makes me nervous?

Of course not; and it would be natural for me to feel that way. But I guess to the folks over at NPR, what Williams said was a bit too much unlike anything the uber-cool liberal $10 latte-drinking-crowd would ever say. But the truth is, we’ve seen this all before in our 24/7 media soundbite driven culture; context be damned in our inability to critically think on our own.

Yep, remember Shirley Sherrod? Sure you do! She hated all white people and proudly and without a care felt the need to share her feelings with a group of folks attending an NAACP event or workshop. Well, that was up until somebody got the bright idea to view the entire tape after she was fired. Remember that now? Well, the same thing can be said about Williams given that the larger context and relevance of his remarks have been ignored. One has to wonder if NPR made him pull off to the side of the road so that he was able to text his resignation; after all, NPR didn’t like the idea of him working for Fox anyway.

The fact that he made his remarks as part of the larger argument or context, that would be in defense of the idea that every Muslim is a terrorists, as was Bill O’Reilly’s postulation. The fact that this is being ignored says a lot about where we’re at in American society. Period, point blank, we’re all a bunch of idiots much in the same way the NAACP, the White House, and Tom Vilsak, who all saw Shirley Sherrod as a racist.

Now watch the entire clip instead of the 42 second soundbite. Yep, do that and then tell me if anything Williams said was “inartful”, and or offensive. If anything, hopefully one can see that it was Bill O’Reilly, and not Williams who was defending his right to be a racist bigot on national television. And, this is one move that we cannot blame on Fox. However, I guess in the eyes of some the fact that he works for them that he got what he had coming to him. Well to that, I say bullshit; yep, and it doesn’t matter that he’s a black republican:

The post So, Was Juan Williams Really anti-Muslim? appeared first on Madness & Reality.