Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

No Protest From Ingraham on The Factor While Coulter Asks for “Fairness” For Racist Boston Cop

Reported by Ellen - August 1, 2009 -

Guest blogged by Julie

Every time I watch Laura Ingraham hosting The O’Reilly Factor, I think of the Stephen King movie, “Misery” – I can so totally see her with a sledgehammer raised high, getting ready to hobble some liberal. With video.

But, O’Reilly has placed his faith and confidence in her journalistic skills, so she of the glassy smile and crucifix-adorned neckline hosted the Factor last night (7/31/09), to put her head together with two-time voter fraud suspect Ann Coulter’s (and, frankly, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see those heads adorned with white hoods) and, in synch with the rest of Fox News using the Gates incident to fan the flames of racial divisiveness, discuss how racial profiling is, you know, just a hoax, and even if it’s not, blacks commit more crimes anyway - so I guess stopping all the blacks just saves time, huh? Oh, and Coulter defended – with Ingraham’s tacit approval, judging by the lack of protest – a Boston cop who wrote a vile, racist e-mail regarding Professor Gates. With video.

I’m gonna start at the back of the segment and move forward, because Coulter and Ingraham are so dull, boring and predictable in this segment that you might fall asleep before the part where the two of them make you throw up on your own shoes. So let’s get the vomiting over with first.

Toward the end of the segment, Ingraham sneeringly talked about “Gates-gate” and the “beer summit” at the White House Thursday between President Obama, Professor Gates and Officer Crowley.

Ingraham crowed, “He didn’t get an apology from . . . Gates, apparently Gates wanted an apology from Officer Crowley -- Crowley didn’t give it, Gates didn’t give it, and Obama didn’t give it, so what was the teachable moment?”

Lily-white Coulter, with lily-white Ingraham looking on approvingly, then gave her white supremacist oral presentation: “I think the teachable moment should be applied to the cop who did send an e-mail in an intemperate moment exploding at a journalist. I mean, he turned out to be the Emmanuel Goldstein of the week, liberals are bitterly disappointed that Sergeant Crowley, they couldn’t find anything on him suggesting he’s a racist, so they got this one cop who sends a stupid, immature, intemperate e-mail and now he’s apologizing all over the place. If Gates doesn’t . . . apologize, how about a little fairness for this guy, doing something immature and irrational too?”

Did you get all that? And did you note how Ingraham didn’t refute any of it? I guess we should all just give a “boys will be boys” pass to the Boston cop, Justin Barrett, who sent an e-mail to The Boston Globe and his fellow National Guardsmen in which he called Professor Gates a “banana-eating jungle monkey,” said the paper’s reporting was “jungle monkey gibberish,” and wanted to “ax” a question. I mean, hey, the guy said he “didn’t mean it in a racist way,” so we should all just have a “little fairness” for the guy and take him at his word, right? Of course, according to Coulter – “doing something immature and irrational too” – Professor Gates and this Kluxer cop are in the same category, despite the fact that one, Gates, is a victim in a situation where his only wrong may have been losing his temper, and the other is a supposed law enforcement officer who, while dragging his knuckles on the ground, proved the point we were all trying to make about the Gates-Crowley racial profiling situation.

But now, let’s roll it back to the beginning . . . where Ingraham and Coulter were only auditioning for the junior white supremacist league.

Ingraham began, her voice sending shivers down my spine like fingernails on a chalkboard: “What exactly is that teachable moment in all the recent racial banter? Joining us from Florida, with her provocative take, as always, is Ann Coulter . . . I have to say, I watched you last night with Sharpton, okay, and just the look on his face when you came out and said, ‘Well, what racial profiling?’, and I’m sure African Americans across the country were saying, what is this woman talking about? Explain.”

A proud little cackle from the bony white vixen, then Coulter responded, “It’s not that it’s never happened . . . clearly there was no racial profiling in this case in Boston unless you’re talking about Professor Gates racially profiling an Irish cop . . . there was some racial profiling that way . . . I only give an abbreviated list in “Guilty” . . . of all the alleged acts of racism or racial profiling that turn out to be hoaxes . . . .”

Coulter went on a long, boring litany of the, you know, like five cases where racial profiling might not have actually happened – the Tawana Brawley case, an Exeter kid who mugged an undercover cop, something about a black kid carrying a machete, some woman who supposedly vandalized her own car, and a professor who hung a noose – and of course no “oh, there’s no racial profiling” discussion would be complete without throwing in the Duke LaCrosse case, where, “Yeah, there was racial profiling, there was athletic profiling of the allegedly rich, young, frat boys.”

So, Coulter got her little say first – but, since Ingraham clearly won’t let us get a peek at the true exchange between Al Sharpton and Coulter on Larry King Live Thursday night, it’s my sworn duty to help old Laur out with the “fair and balanced:”

Sharpton: “And I think that the fact of the matter is there are clear cases that have to be dealt [with]. I mean can you go from Rodney King to Abner Louima and on and on where people went to jail. I'm not going to get in this argument with Ann. Clearly, 23 states [that have laws against racial profiling] are not hallucinating racial profiling. And Colin Powell said on this show the other night, talking about his own experiences . . . So all of these people are not making this up. To go 23 years ago to Brawley -- I mean try to find something this century, Ann. We're talking about a problem . . . .”

With Ingraham, Coulter continued, whining, “. . . Every time one of these comes up you have liberals saying, well, okay, it wasn’t true in this case but we still have an epidemic of racial profiling. They gotta start having their cases not turn out to be hoaxes before they can say that.” Right, all five of them.

“What about the ACLU lawsuit against Maryland,” Ingraham asked skeptically. “ . . . There was an out of court settlement, essentially an admission on the part of Maryland that they do stop African American drivers . . . in some type of pattern that I guess some people believe is profiling.”

Coulter went on nasally, “What they compare these stops to is the percentage of blacks in the population which . . . is obviously absurd . . . in an article by Heather McDonald this week she releases the astonishing statistic that 82% of the shootings in New York City, the shooter is black. Less than 1% is the shooter white . . . so if cops are looking for, if there’s been a shooting the witnesses are probably very likely to say it was a black who did the shooting . . . .”

Coulter eagerly continued, saying that in New Jersey, "there was an absolute scientific study" comparing the black numbers in the population to the number of blacks speeding. According to Coulter, the "scientific survey" concluded that the “New Jersey Highway Patrol was stopping not enough blacks. Blacks speed more . . . .”

I stand ready, yet again, to help little Laur out with the “fair and balanced.” Racial profiling is not about speeding. According to Amnesty International, “Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.” (Emphasis mine). What these two don’t seem to realize is that by making the excuse that cops stop more blacks simply because more blacks commit crimes IS IN ITSELF PROOF OF RACIAL PROFILING.

And let’s take a look at the study cited by the crone. Aside from the fact that it was, like, years ago, the release of the New Jersey study Coulter mentioned was blocked by the Justice Department because it was suspected to be “faulty, flawed, and poorly designed.” Columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote: “It [the study] found that 3 percent of blacks exceeded the 65-mile limit, while half as many white drivers exceeded the speed limit. But this means that 97 percent of black motorists observed the lawful speed limit. If so, how does this explain why a New Jersey judge in 1996 tossed out a slew of drug possession cases because New Jersey troopers illegally targeted black motorists? Or, why a Justice Department study found that blacks account for 70 percent of all routine traffic stops, and a similar review of New Jersey state police practices found that 75 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey Turnpike in two months in 1997 were minorities.”

You know, nights like these and I start to feel a real affection for ol’ Bill O’Reilly. After a few milliseconds of Ingraham, I’m starting to look at him fondly, like an old friend –even if it’s the twisted, Stockholm Syndrome sort of friendship. But I have a message for Ingraham: Quit false-flagging with the crucifix -- with the ugliness of your words and the blackness of your heart, I’d find it easier to believe you’re a hardened (white) gang member than a Christian.

If you can't view the video below, here's a link.