Over the last few weeks the left has made a concerted effort to target black conservatives, challenge the legitimacy of their organizations, demand the names of their funding sources, all in an effort to control those who’ve rejected their inherit need for supremacy.

The left has a few black organizations they control, or at least they think they do….

For those of you familiar with my site, Black & Right, ColorofChange.org may sound familiar. ColorofChange.org collected money for the Jena 6. A New York rapper joined up with ColorofChange.org and MoveOn.org to protest the racist scrutiny Fox News dared inflict on then-Senator Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. This is also the same ColorofChange.org that led the advertiser boycott of Glenn Beck’s program

Let’s take a quick look at ColorofChange.org, who like Al Sharpton, is still on Fox’ case.

The founder is this guy named James Rucker.

Before ColorofChange.org, Rucker just happened to work with Moveon.org. Both organizations have been closely involved in the push for net neutrality regulations. In fact, Rucker recently led the Professional Left’s protest against Google after Google announced a compromise position on net neutrality, though Rucker seemed to be better at organizing buses and reporters than actual protesters.

On Monday, James Rucker issued a broadside against somebody named David Honig, “the face and voice for Black America in Washington, D.C. on Internet issues, and perhaps the most influential person from the civil rights community representing our interests on media and telecom policy.” Apparently, Honig has not lined up with Free Press, Moveon.org and ColorofChange.org on Internet regulation. This puts him in the company of just about every other Democrat politician and group who uses these groups during elections and keep them at arms’ length during the off years.

Don’t get me wrong; I sit back with popcorn when liberals eat themselves alive but James Rucker may have pulled a Plaxico and shot hisself. Again with the attack-the-source-of-funding tactic, Rucker is essentially accusing David Honig and his organization of selling out. Via HuffPo, Rucker wrote,

While one can argue that these dollars don’t have influence, the disclosure is important when making such statements, as is providing a characterization of an organization’s funding picture and any other evidence to show how these dollars don’t introduce influence.

However, when you’re trying to get into people’s business, people start asking questions about yours.

For example:

• ColorofChange.org does both grassroots and direct lobbying. Where is their lobbying disclosure statement?

• Where does ColorofChange.org gets its funding? They don’t seem to be big on full disclosure.

• Color of Change claims they “take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values”. I’m a simple man, but it sounds to me like they do take money from lobbyists and large corporations that do share their values, but I can’t confirm this because the info just isn’t publicly available.

• Is Rucker getting paid by someone outside of Color of Change that might be pulling his strings? That’s only something we can speculate because we just don’t know, but a brother with family’s gotta eat so he’s getting paid by someone.

Bottom line: ColorofChange.org isn’t being very transparent, but a ColorofChange.org donor let it slip.

Michael Kieschnick is the president of CREDO Mobile. He has known Van Jones for a decade and has served together on the advisory board of The Beatitudes Society. CREDO Mobile has supported the Ella Baker Center, Color of Change, and Green for All, each founded or co-founded by Van Jones.

CREDO Mobile is a wireless company. A very, very far left wing wireless company. So that means ColorofChange.org and James Rucker get telecommunications industry funding, but they probably forgot to mention that before launching an attack on David Honig and demanding transparency from Honig and MMTC.

As vicious as the left can be when wanting to know who feeds their opponents (and we are dealing with the hypocritical left), don’t hold your breath waiting for him to tell us all who helps pay his bills, especially someone who may be influencing his high-profile actions.

Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black.

Okay, I’ll give her that.

But at the same time, would The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker have won a 2007 Pulitzer for “for her courageous, clear-headed columns that evince a strong sense of morality and persuasive knowledge of the community” if she weren’t black and thus praised by a pandering body in need of translation of the community’s pulse?

Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason.

While I’ll question Tucker’s knowledge of the conservative community, it would appear her assumption that Republicans were “devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president” is in her small mind. I know of many aging white Republicans who voted for Barack Obama precisely because they wanted to see a black man in the White House, despite their gut feelings against.

A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos.

Cynthia Tucker is in partisan lockstep when it comes to perceptions of Republican racism. I would be very curious to hear her probable kneejerk response to the racist comments of Democrats like Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton on Obama’s serving him coffee, Harry Reid and Obama’s on-and-off Negro dialect, and John Mayer’s boasts of his nigger pass.

I would also ask Ms. Tucker to name the first two black Secretaries of State, first black National Security Advisor, as well as the first black to be a national party chair? What party do they belong to?

So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy.

Cynthia Tucker had be very careful when bringing up affirmative action.

I am more qualified to be President of the United States than is Barack Obama. Granted, I’ve not met a payroll, but I do have the ability to go back and look at what’s not only created a positive atmosphere for job creation, but what’s also resulted in the doubling of tax revenues for the government: both things Barack Obama refuses to do.

As a veteran, I would not have let an Army general in-theater languish for months with not so much as even a phone call, when he requested reinforcements on the battlefield.

And if the Republican Party hadn’t picked a black man as RNC chair, Cynthia Tucker would be the first person to point her finger, shake her head, and bitch about how nothing’s changed in the Republican Party while she gloated about Change We Can Believe In.

Illustrating her ignorance of the GOP, there are many blacks the Republican Party could (and should) have chose from. Ken Blackwell, Lurita Doan, J.C. Watts, Larry Elder, Ken Hamblin, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, and I’m sure there are many others who would raise their hands if there were walk-on tryouts.

Michael Steele had name recognition, made the cable news rounds heavily after Obama’s election, and really wanted the job. Obviously that should have been a red flag, but much was expected of his abilities.

Perhaps Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution should now spend more of her time asking why Democrat whites and Independents are abandoning the first black Democrat. Of course she’ll say it’s not because of race but because of what Obama inherited.

Heaven forbid she see racism coming from it’s historical origin.

Equipped with the state-of-the-art Media Research Center TV studio and the excellent production work of MRC Video Producer Bob Parks, we at NewsBusters have been hard at work developing a new biweekly program that mocks the liberal media’s most outrageous and humorous soundbites.

We debut the new “Notable Quotables” video program on Monday, October 12

This will be fun.

1. The Ballot Becomes The Race Card
Both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama had the same campaign guru: David Axelrod.

Using white liberal guilt to his political advantage, Axelrod created candidates that were immune from the normal political vetting process, as any attempt to do such would be called veiled racism. With that, they run with vague slogans that touched at progressive heartstrings, and they did. Patrick’s campaign “Together We Can” and Obama’s “Yes, We Can” offered what the beholder thought he or she wanted, without the nasty details.

Read here

In what he casts as an attack on litterbugs and nicotine addiction alike, Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose a fee on an age-old inhabitant of city streets: the cigarette butt.

The proposal, to be introduced next month to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would add 33 cents to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, to offset the estimated $10.7 million the city spends annually removing discarded butts from gutters, drainpipes and sidewalks.

I agree that there are lazy smokers who litter.

But how about kids who toss their candy wrappers or soda cans on the street? Take a look at any street and tell me all the litter is only cigarettes. This is not a litter issue. It’s the ongoing use of smokers as a demonized revenue base, pure and simple. So, let’s get something started.

On the last weekend of every month, cigarette smokers (who use a legal product properly yet are demonized) will not buy cigarettes. If done monthly on a national scale, this should noticeably impact federal and state revenues to the point where lawmakers will either ban this dangerous product or leave us the hell alone.

Pass this on.

Click here to view video.

Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, considered a leading contender to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, speaks on a panel at Duke Univ. Law School in 2005. She is responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships

If Judge Sotomayor is so flippant now about being an activist judge, imagine what she’ll do once she’s in the Supreme Court?

h/t Verum Serum

In a stinging email rebuke by MassResistance,

Newly elected Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour has wasted no time making it clear where she wants the party to go. Last week, in a front-page interview with the hardcore homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, she told the homosexual community that they didn’t need to worry about the Republican party opposing them on “social issues” or “the culture wars.”

We’ve known for years that the loser RINOs run the Mass GOP. They’ve now just rubbed it in the face of the base.

Whatever your issues are with all topics gay, one would hope that a surrender would be treated as an olive branch by the opposition. However, the gay community in Massachusetts is not in favor of tolerance and inclusion as they claim. It’s all about heterosexuals meeting their demands or else, and many in the Republican base are now past fuming.

She (Chairwoman Nassour) can’t raise money, She can’t get a turnout of over 25 and now this!

The person is, I assume, referring to a recent, heavily-publicized “reception” for Nassour.

This party, the MAGOP is now and forever officially dead! The Cheerleader of “the party” is more Democrat than most Democrats. We need to, or more particularly those of you still involved in this utter failure, see if she will support the “Bathroom Bill” allowing any sex to use any public bathroom (to include schools) depending on how “they feel on that day”?

To those who supported, politicked and endorsed the Cheerleader, enjoy your “party”

And the backlash is coming in fast and furious.

One former Town Committee member fired an email to Nassour titled “Why I’m an ex-Republican”, saying “Social issues are not just personal. Redefining marriage, restricting religious expression and usurping parental authority by the state in public education are not personal issues. They affect the lives of every citizen.”

And for all you Romney lovers out there…

Under Mitt Romney, the party strenuously avoided social issues, particularly the homosexual “marriage” issue, even though that was the hottest issue of the day. That led to some absurd situations in the 2004 elections. For example, Romney’s people gave huge financial and organizational support to Steven Howitt, a Republican who was running to unseat then-Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth). Although a Democrat, Travis was a leading pro-life, pro-family rep. Howitt was pro-choice and endorsed by several homosexual PACs. At one point the Republican Howitt even sent out flyers warning people that the Democrat Travis wanted to “take away a woman’s right to choose.” (Luckily Travis won the election 63% to 37%.)

Sometimes I wonder why I ran for chair of this state party, and in retrospect, I’m glad I didn’t as I’d have to be dealing with backstabbing RINOs on an almost daily basis and I have no patience for them.

So for the other state Republican parties around the nation, be happy you’re not as dysfunctional as ours is in Massachusetts. When it comes to “tolerance” and “inclusion” with certain opposition groups, it means for us to take it up the ass.

That’s just how they like it.

Sky News, 3/26/09 — Brazil’s President, while meeting Gordon Brown, has said the global financial crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes”. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made the comments after talks with the Prime Minister to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.

Da Silva could’ve easily been today’s “Bonehead”, but I thought we should have an appropriate, elevated category for heads of state.

Oh, and President da Silva, does the name Franlkin Raines mean anything to you?

From: Web Enforcement [mailto:Web.Enforcement@fox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:35 PM
To: customersrv@stratagemtech.com; techsupport@stratagemtech.com
Subject: Nmatv.com – URGENT — Copyright Infringement Notice

Attention Stratagem Technical Services:

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”) is the owner of exclusive rights protected under copyright law and other intellectual property laws in many motion pictures and television programs including the television series entitled FAMILY GUY (“Fox Properties”).

Unauthorized copies of the Fox Properties are being offered from the website http://www.Nmatv.com which we understand is hosted by Stratagemtech.com. This website also makes illegal use of artwork and trademarks associated with Fox’s copyrighted content.

Please help coordinate the immediate removal of all links to illegal copies of Fox content offered on the http://www.Nmatv.com website including the link identified below:

FAMILY GUY
http://www.nmatv.com/flvideo/1807.flv

“Removal”. A reoccurring theme….

This email is not a complete statement of Fox’s rights in connection with this matter, and nothing contained herein constitutes an express or implied waiver of any rights, remedies, or defenses of Fox in connection with this matter, all of which are expressly reserved.

The undersigned has a good faith belief that use of the materials in the manner described herein is not authorized by Fox, its agent, or the law. The information in this notice is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on behalf of Fox with respect to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lesley Wright
Manager, Online Enforcement
Content Protection
Fox Group Legal
2121 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 369-7582
Fax: (310) 969-0448
Webenforcement@fox.com <mailto:Benjamin.Sheffner@fox.com>

My response is the following…

To Web Enforcement, Fox Inc.

I must admit to being perplexed by your recent email, so please permit me to be blunt.

NMATV is a 50% black-owned business. While race isn’t an issue, public perception is another thing.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of Family Guy videos currently on YouTube. NMATV has ONE.

I understand the subject matter of the video in question is controversial, but we didn’t write, produce, or air that clip on national television. Fox Broadcasting did. We could cite Fair Use from the Copyright Law of 1976:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

And while your program clip is covered by copyright law, your email is not, and removal of the video from NMATV would require an explanation to our viewers. How it would be perceived by them is beyond our control.

We would be more than happy to remove the video once it’s confirmed that ALL of the Family Guy videos on YouTube alone, are purged from the Internet. Singling out our ONE video would have the appearance of selective discrimination, and I’m sure we don’t want to go there.

Please inform me of how you wish to proceed.

Thank you,
Bob Parks
Executive Director, NMATV