Sean Hannity's race-based attacks on President Obama – over a hug he gave to a “radical” Harvard law professor in 1990 – has been widely ridiculed, including a devastating send up by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Hannity's own colleague, Geraldo Rivera, called it a “sign of desperation.” But segregation-supporting Hannity isn't giving up on his efforts. In fact, last night, he spent most of his Fox News show doubling (or was it tripling?) down on his efforts to “prove” President Obama is a racist.
Although Hannity camouflages his attacks by purporting to focus on Obama's “radical” associates, throughout this segment, he repeatedly makes a racial context and prompts his guest to make racial attacks.
In your case, however, you simply expressed anger over your unhappiness both with the current President and with posters here who do not accept your assumptions as truths. Nobody said you couldn’t state your opinions, and nobody threatened your life.
You put up a blog filled with your assumptions about various talking points discussed by Sean Hannity and then you presume that nobody here might actually know about the truth that belies those talking points. For example, your commentary about Bill Ayers and the beginning of Barack Obama’s career assumes that the two men worked “closely” for years, when in fact they barely knew each other. You attempt to make the case that Sean Hannity has also tried – that somehow Bill Ayers was an integral part of the beginning of Obama’s political career, rather than one in a large number of local Chicago educators and community members who supported Obama for local office, and whom Obama visited during a campaign swing where he went to many living rooms in a single day.
The point of this thread is that Sean Hannity’s personal attacks on Obama, particularly as relates to a popular Harvard professor, reflect not any issue with Obama’s “associations” but instead Hannity’s desperate attempt to smear the President. Repeating Hannity’s talking points about this will not make those talking points true statements, and you have been unable to make any case for them, either here or on your blog.
Then you insulted Saul Alinsky – it’s interesting that you did that in light of his popularity with Tea Party Republicans (who use his recommendations under the name “Rules for Patriots”), as well as the admiration expressed for his work by William F. Buckley. Did you actually read any of Alinsky’s writings, or did you just assume what a right wing pundit said about him was true?
You may feel that I haven’t “said anything interesting or provocative to the contrary of anything I have said”, but the readers here can see that I have challenged the basis of your assumptions and called you on your false statements here. I’ve also challenged the idea of coming on a website and angrily insulting people there.
You’re correct that I was trying to get a reaction from you – specifically, I was trying to get you to be clearer and less emotional in your posts. I’m sorry that I have not succeeded.
Andrew Breitbart absolutely made a career out of smearing people. He did so repeatedly and angrily, even after he had been shown to be out of line. The one time he actually had something was when he decided to publicize the obscene photos sent by Anthony Weiner. The other cases were debunked, and one of them is about to lead to a major problem for his estate when they settle the lawsuit.
I also need to ask you not to call other people here names or to throw invective about. It’s another sign of that anger that we talked to you about before. It might help to count to ten before writing such posts, either in this thread or in the many others available here.
And it’s okay for you to be angry. I just don’t believe that it gives you a solid bedrock on which to build your case. And as I tried to point out to you before, it leads you to make insults about other people that only detract from your ability to make a cogent argument. You asked me to cite examples. Okay, how about referring to posters here as “bed wetters” or referring to media sources with whom you disagree as the “damn media?” Or how about repeatedly saying that people that disagree with you are being “spoon fed”? I do hope that when you are able to compose yourself a bit more, you’ll see and understand that these are unfortunate statements, and that you may find it in your heart to apologize for them.
Now, as far as Professor Ogletree’s classes, your postings do not constitute evidence that there is some conspiracy to “hide” President Obama’s 1990 appearance at the rally to support Professor Bell. The actual footage of Professor Ogletree shows him teaching his class. The isolated clip shown by the guys from Breitbart’s website would have you believe that somehow this footage was “hidden” away under lock and key. But the reality is that Frontline included the footage, including that hug, including audio of then-student Barack Obama’s remarks. Have you actually watched the Frontline special? I have. You can easily hear the remarks, and you can see what was happening. And there’s nothing sinister about it at all. Unless you believe that free speech is somehow sinister.
Professor Bell’s record as an educator has been available for public examination for years. It is sad to see that Andrew Breitbart’s last attempt at fame for himself was intended to slander a man who himself had just passed away a few months ago, and who dedicated his life to teaching people.
It’s also sad to see people depending on someone like Andrew Breitbart to tell them “the truth” about politics without knowing that their source had been roundly discredited and humiliated on multiple occasions. The one story he seems to have been able to get right was the footage of the obscene sexting done by Rep. Anthony Weiner. Pretty much everything else was debunked, and the eventual result of that will be a humiliating settlement that will drain what estate Breitbart currently has for his family.
I do hope you will find other sources for your information, and that you’ll be able to open yourself to other points of view that are beyond what you may find on Fox News. But you will of course need to let go of whatever anger you have about the man who is President and the people who may disagree with him.
I garan-damn-tee ya I did more research than anyone else here, who just swallows another spoon fed bite from the MSM.
I haven’t insulted anyone…please site that!
and please look again, everything I linked to IS RADICAL.
They say its a joke…you believe them, they say Bell was just a professor….you believe them…they say the video has been out since 2008…you believe them (the video was out…minus audio, minus hug)
The prez bein prez don’t bother as much as, knowing every detail bout Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, and Newt, but not knowing anything about your Cesear Obama.
Its clear nobody told me anything…alot of the info on my site, you can’t find at any other website…thats why I did it.
Oh hey! Thanks a bunch! I was just heading to the bathroom,and this beats the Sears and Roebucks catalogue by a mile for softness!
Your “research” appears to be looking at YouTube clips and stuff on Breitbart’s website. Not sure how that constitutes research. Your clips show a Professor at work in his classroom, responding to his students and challenging them to go beyond the conclusions they are making. And their conclusions are not particularly radical ones.
It’s clear that you’re a little angry and upset about this election, but being angry will not help you analyze this material. It seems to only help you come up with unfortunate insults about people you don’t know and haven’t met.
I saw Professor’s Ogletree’s statements and it’s quite obvious that he’s joking with his students. The footage he’s saying he “hid” is material that was openly presented in 2008, and not only on PBS. Breitbart’s attempt to make it look like Ogletree was trying to “hide” it is just another example of the selective and deceptive editing that will cost Breitbart’s estate millions of dollars when they inevitably settle the Shirley Sherrod defamation lawsuit.
If you’re going to think for yourself, you’ll need to come up with something more thorough and studied than a series of clips that appear to be cobbled from Breitbart and the like. You appear to have assumed that whatever Breitbart and Hannity say about this was true. You should be very careful about such assumptions. They have resulted in Hannity making some outrageous statements that even he could not stand by and have caused Breitbart to be discredited, humiliated and will eventually cost his estate a significant amount of money.
You’re completely entitled to dislike this President and to vote for Mitt Romney when he gets the GOP nomination. But you’re not entitled to your own facts about Obama, no matter what Hannity and Breitbart have told you. Try to think independently of those guys and Limbaugh and you’ll be surprised how much you’ll learn.
And yes, Ogletree was joking with his class about this “hidden” video of Obama the student praising and hugging Derrick Bell in 1990.
Hannity’s clear intent is to make Obama out to be a black radical of some kind, even though the evidence doesn’t show anything like that. One can only imagine that Hannity is frustrated due to his inability to make any of these charges against Obama stick, and also due to the clear weakness of the GOP 2012 presidential candidate slate. Since he has nowhere to go in comparing Obama to these guys, all he can think to do is attack Obama and hope people agree with him. Unfortunately for his opinion, this approach isn’t working so well, is it?
We will start with the ones who are convicts and ex-convicts: Bernie Kerik, Robert Allen Stanford, Ollie North, neo-Nazi Hal Turner, etc.
His Atlanta business deal with Fortis Capital that went sour. An ugly court fight it was.
Who can forget Hannocchio’s admiration for the hateful Mr. Antonio? He’s a piece of work.
Second Amendment Leah of Alabama. Hannocchio had no problem associating with this broad. Another piece of work.
Hannocchio has no problem calling racist Pat Buchanan a brother. Of course, these two have so much in common. And we know what that is.
Some of Hannocchio’s good friends, like Pat Buchanan, have been associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens Council in the deep south. This group fought for segregation in southern schools.
This Damien of the airwaves has a dark side. If his audience knew what he has done, most of them would flee from him.
If Fox News gets Boycotted, he’s still #2- the most women are offended by Megyn Kelly’s “I got mine!” hypocrisy in her attacks on women, they want her gone even before Bill and Sean. But hey- at least Hannity finally beat his hated rival at something!
Though I think getting boycotted into cancellation first isn’t something to brag about.
Conservatives continue to insist that their vehement hatred and unparalleled disrespect for Obama has no racial basis whatsoever, indignantly declaring “stop pulling the race card” whenever an Obama supporter points to evidence suggesting otherwise.
And then someone like Rush or Sean steps up to the plate …
And once again, Obama-hating conservatives are using a 6 degrees of separation approach in an effort to establish guilt by association.