Hillary Clinton Craps on my Dreams of a Glorious Trump v Sanders Debate
Every party has a pooper that’s why we invited you.Read More »
The year 2013 gave us no shortage of stories of interest. There was the fiscal drama being played out not once but twice in 2013, the George Zimmerman trial and its outcome, the gay marriage rulings from the Supreme Court, Obama’s handling of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and, of course, the roll-out of Obamacare. Thus, there was plenty of opportunity for those on the Left to lend us some silly analysis and great fodder for laughter. Except in many cases, their views and take on things really were not that funny. And like other years, some people stand out more than others.
This is the start of an 10-part series outlining the top 20 liberal jerks of 2013. The obvious #1- Barack Obama- is exempt because he is way too easy a target. Instead, this list includes people from government, the media, Hollywood and elsewhere. As expected, MSNBC provided several names to this list. So, without further ado:
At #20 is media mogul Oprah Winfrey: This king-builder’s (or president-maker as the case may be) television show may have gone off the air, but Winfrey has managed to keep her mug in the news. The fact that she controls a media empire makes her sort of like a pop cultural Arianna Huffington, but without the obnoxious Zsa Zsa Gabor voice. Instead, she has her own uniquely obnoxious voice.
Being Oprah and being black, she has appointed herself the apparent “reasonable” voice of black America. She comes off as a softer, more likable Al Sharpton, but her views are no less race-based. Like any other African-American liberal, Winfrey sees race behind everything. That includes purchasing a purse in Switzerland where she almost single-handedly caused an international incident with Switzerland of all countries. What probably really upset Oprah was the fact that the clerk in the store who was trying to help Ms. O did not recognize Her Highness. Her inflated ego was taken down a peg, it hurt her feelings, and therefore it was racially motivated.
As a source of historical accuracy, one should not consult Ms. Winfrey. For example, she had the temerity to state that a million blacks were lynched in the South. The Tuskegee Institute, a black institution, estimates that at most 3,500 blacks were lynched between 1882 and 1968. Even if we throw in about 2,000 between 1865 and 1882 (not likely, but we’ll give it to her for the sake of argument), that leaves Winfrey looking for some 994,500 bodies. Hyperbole is one thing to prove a point, but a million lynchings? Incidentally, that same Tuskegee estimate says that about 1,300 whites were likewise lynched. Maybe she meant the metaphorical lynching, but that would be another story.
Like all good African-American liberals, Ms. Winfrey just had to weigh in on the George Zimmerman trial over the death of Saint Skittles. And true to form, she said that the shooting was “most definitely” racially motivated. Because the great Ms. O said it is. therefore it is!
And not to be outdone by anyone, Winfrey suggested that the only way for racism in America to fade away is for racists to fade away- literally…as in die. Liberals were quick to point out a Sarah Palin website with a bulls eye targeting an Arizona congressional district for a Democratic defeat as being the cause of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Palin was accused of using a subtle message that supposedly suggested gun violence. Yet, here we have Oprah Winfrey openly saying that the only way to get rid of racism is for racists to die. Her comment was never held up to public scrutiny by anyone and if it was, it was not to the extent that Palin was criticized. Note to liberals: we “target” candidates for defeat; we do not condone the death of people you deem “racist.”
At number 19 is NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell. What disturbs me most about this apologist for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is twofold. First, she is not only on MSNBC, but every other incarnation of NBC. She has a variety of platforms to spew her liberalism. Secondly, she comes off, by virtue of her longevity in the field of journalism, as some kind of expert, the “go to” voice of NBC. Within that insular world of that network, she is one step below God (they’d spell it with a lower case “g”) when it comes to political analysis.
Unfortunately, that “learned” analysis is nothing but Obama administration talking points reworded. There are very few stories where Mitchell does not insert the liberal mantra for anything negative about Obama, the Democrats, or liberalism in general. She is an unapologetic apologist for liberalism cloaked in a false air of expertise. How many times is her mug trotted out on NBC round table discussions. She appears more often than that presidential historian NBC uses all the time whose name I can’t remember (Kearns?) and the equally obnoxious Chuck Todd.
Nowhere was this more disgustedly on display than in her support of Caroline Kennedy to be Ambassador to Japan. Largely living off her family name, Kennedy became a lawyer and once thought of taking the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York, but then backed away. Most of her work involves the Kennedy Library in Harvard and liberal causes. This is great if you want to be a Senator from New York, not an Ambassador to Japan. Granted, most ambassador jobs are political paybacks, but what makes this interesting as concerns this article is Andrea Mitchell’s smarmy swooning over Caroline Kennedy.
Not one to hide her feelings when it comes to swooning, she then openly stated that she hopes Julian Castro is the man that leads the Democrats to a political resurgence in Texas. Again, it is fine to “endorse” someone, but Mitchell came off as if those crazy Texas Republicans have it coming to them in Texas and Castro is the Democratic messiah in the Lone Star State. It makes one conjecture that Mitchell may very well have a school girl crush on Castro.
And speaking of Texas, this self-anointed political expert predicts that state’s recently enacted abortion law will be the ultimate undoing of the GOP in Texas. Like any good liberal, Mitchell believes that all women, in order to be a “woman,” predicate their votes upon a candidate’s position on abortion (or the more euphemistic “reproductive rights”) to the exclusion of all other topics. Of course, a majority of Texans, including women, have shown support for the law and although Wendy Davis may have made a name for herself and became a darling of the liberal media in the process, that law passed rather easily in the Texas legislature.
And most egregiously, Barack Obama’s handling of the Syria controversy was excused away. Although now five years removed from his presidency, Mitchell and others just could not help but to blame George Bush for Obama’s waffling and ineptitude. A groundswell of opposition from the Right and the Left and everything in between- all without even thinking of George Bush- was swept aside by Mitchell and her liberal cohorts: it was “war fatigue” and that fatigue is solely attributable to Bush.
In the end, Mitchell is like any other liberal news commentator. What makes her disturbing is that she is somehow recognized as an “expert” in politics. This is based solely on her longevity in the business. It is certainly a case of quantity over quality especially when that “quality” is so obviously minimal and one-sided. She should just end the charade and marry Jay Carney already.