Washington, D.C. – Project 21′s Jerome Hudson is calling for an end to all National Public Radio subsidies in light of NPR’s broadcast of a racialist rant on January 12.

The broadcast of Hispanic activist Daisy Hernandez featured derogatory racial language.

“Hernandez’s comments and NPR’s poor decision to air them highlights a hypocrisy at NPR,” said Project 21′s Hudson. “That, and the separatism voiced in the Hernandez essay, nightmarishly blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration. NPR, in airing it, effectively perpetuated America’s racial divide.”

In the January 12 segment, titled “Across America Latino Community Sighs With Relief” featured on the program “All Things Considered,” Daisy Hernandez, a writer on race and politics for the New York Times, Ms. and ColorLines, said:

It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn’t be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they’d be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about everywhere.

In short, the only reason the nation is taking a few days to reflect on the animosity in politics today is precisely that the shooter was not Latino…

I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter’s gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday and those who, like Representative Giffords, were severely wounded.

“Gringo” is a derogatory racial term for white people. Wikipedia, for example, categorizes the term under “ethnic and religious slurs” and “pejorative terms for people.”

“Hernandez’s comments show a complete disdain and contempt for the rule of law, but what is most offensive is that her comments offer not even a hint of sympathy or concern for those suffering unparalleled loss in the country she wants others to be able to access illegally,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “NPR’s willful silence thus far is an acceptance of and essentially support for Hernandez’s reprehensible remarks. It condemns them forever to being the mouthpiece for surreptitious vitriol as long as it is directed at conservatives and associations their representatives disapprove of. It is a tragic display of disrespect, and — in light of what happened to Juan Williams less than three months ago — NPR staff should be ashamed of this unambiguous and duplicitous double standard.”

Hudson added: “If her use of a racial slur wasn’t bad enough, Daisy Hernandez’s lack of concern for the bereaved families and the injured only add to the pain. The question that should be asked here is: Why is NPR’s damaging left-wing reporting still being subsidized by the American taxpayer?”

“Loss of humanity is the issue at hand in the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords and the senseless murder of a nine-year-old girl, among others. Losing liberty and finding ways to silence conservative views shouldn’t even be on the table,” said Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch, a guest host at KLBJ radio in Austin, Texas. “Those who use this tragedy as anything more than a reason to pray, reflect and call each of us — as brothers and sisters — to stand united in humanity and love are acting as tools of evil.”

Despite no evidence that the man charged with the shootings, Jared Lee Loughner, was motivated in any way by political speech, liberal politicians are using the Arizona shootings to launch a campaign to resurrect regulations to curtail freedom of speech in the media and possibly other aspects of American life.

Representative James Clyburn (D-SC), a member of the liberal leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, has called for a reinstatement of “Fairness Doctrine” regulations that once allowed government to oversee and police political content. In a January 10 interview on National Public Radio, Clyburn said, “I really believe that everybody needs to take a look at where we are pushing things, and [we] may need to take a serious step back and evaluate what’s going on here.” Asked if this would constitute censorship to “an unfortunate degree,” Clyburn responded, “I don’t know that it’s necessarily to an unfortunate degree.” Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon, is a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency that administered the Fairness Doctrine in the past.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) similarly complained that the FCC is “not working anymore,” claiming that blame for flared tempers and violence, such as was experienced in Arizona, was due to “what they’re hearing over the airwaves.”

Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks, the host of the PJTV internet television network’s “The Hicks File,” said: “Along with the nation’s liberals and leftists, mainstream journalists and pundits spent the past week acting like vultures — picking at the bones of a national tragedy. Now liberal members of Congress are shamelessly seeking political advantage from the actions of a madman. Make no mistake, these members of Congress, in alliance with racial hucksters like the Reverend Al Sharpton, want to slam the door on free speech and limit the diversity of viewpoints that are currently available to the American people.”

“Those squealing the loudest about injustice and dangerous points of view seem most often to be guilty of the same. And I think, to their peril, the controls they now want would be more applicable to their ilk,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “For example, Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy complains now about conservatives who are ‘[t]rading in ambiguity and veiled threats,’ but the Post published a column by him last March in which he expressed his desire to ‘spit on [tea party activists]… and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.’ That’s the type of person who now, without apparent remorse for his own actions, wants to arbitrate acceptable speech?”

Massie additionally warned: “A re-evaluation of our guarantee of freedom of speech in favor of undefined civility would — by necessity — silence people such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Louis Farrakhan because they all have long and proven records of using their own voices to poison minds and incite mayhem. I know Representative Clyburn would likely think otherwise, but fairness means you can’t go after Sarah Palin and the tea party movement without going after the race hustlers.”

Washington, D.C. – Attorneys at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believe new technology that makes it easier for employers to check the criminal and credit histories of applicants also makes it harder for blacks and Hispanics to find jobs. Members of the Project 21 black leadership network fault this position, noting that it unjustly interferes with the ability of employers to build a trusted and coherent workforce.

“Background and credit checks are legitimate hiring and recruitment tools,” said Project 21 member Horace Cooper, a former visiting assistant professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law. “There is no federal law making a refusal to hire convicted felons a crime, and felon status is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Especially in the midst of a recession, suits like these — which charge racial discrimination — falsely serve to only make hiring decisions unnecessarily harder and lessen the impact of real allegations of racism.”

Adrienne Hudson filed a lawsuit against First Transit after she was fired from a bus driver position with the company. She alleges her firing was due to her prior conviction for welfare fraud, and that First Transit discriminates against blacks and Hispanics when it does background checks because these minority groups have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites. First Transit representatives would not comment.

The AP reports the EEOC believes background checks can have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics, and quotes EEOC assistant legal counsel Carol Miaskoff saying “the problem is snowballing because of the technology” that is making it easier to do such checks.

Last fall, the EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit against the Freeman Companies event-planning company that claimed the company’s background checks discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and men.

“Once again, the liberal legal theory of ‘disparate impact’ is trotted out. This time, it is by the bean-counters at EEOC. They are now arguing that if an employer conducts background checks on employees they are, in effect, discriminating against black and Latino applicants. But shouldn’t employers have the right to set standards for those they seek to employ and reject those who have criminal records?” said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com “Americans strongly believe in the concept of redemption, but there must be consequences for illegal behavior. To claim otherwise suggests that employers should ignore employment standards and simply hire people based on some ideological concept of ‘social justice.’ The notion that criminal background checks disadvantage blacks and Latinos is based in the reality that blacks are 38 percent of the prison population but only 12 percent of the general population. This shouldn’t be used as an argument for eliminating employment standards, but a reason to understand and combat the dysfunction and violent criminality that’s an all-too-real part of poor black urban life.”

Picture this if you will. One day you sit down to your computer and log onto your favorite website. That of course would be the Black Bear Blog. There you find a story about 300 scientists who have gathered in Chicago to discuss the prospects of global cooling, update everyone on the fallout from Climategate and provide the best available science about our changing climate. In the middle of your reading, this annoying bubble keeps popping up trying to tell you that if you go over to the website Climate Debate Daily, you’ll get an opposing view.

So that you know, the administrator of the Black Bear Blog did not provide that service for you. That would be compliments of Cass Sunstein and his dictator Barack Obama. This is just one idea these intellectuals have for us ignoramuses because we just aren’t smart enough to figure out right from wrong or what our interests are.

You may even think that it’s a good idea to have such a feature on all websites. From my own perspective, if the Internet Marketplace demands that this be the trend, then more than likely I would keep up with the demands of my readers and give them what they want. Government should have no business telling me or anyone else that I must provide a link to a website with an opposing view.

I heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday and someone asked if this sort of opposing view enforcement would be carried out to involve everyone and everything? In other words, when the president is giving his State of the Union Address, will there be a script rolling across the bottom of the screen informing viewers where they can go or who they can listen to that has an opposing view?

I remember when I began making a few waves about Internet regulation, etc., I was told that this would never happen in America. I was fear mongering. Well, it hasn’t happened yet but there sure are a lot of people in high places that want to see it happen.

If FCC Chairman Genachowski announces his intention to reclassify the Internet as a telephone system, he will be reversing 30 years of precedent

By Phil Kerpen – FOXNews.com

As I have repeatedly warned and noted on www.ObamaChart.com, when Congress blocks the Obama administration, the White House always finds a way to get around the normal policy-making process and pursue its agenda by other means. Today’s reclassification assault on the Internet is the latest-and perhaps the most egregious-example.

In its effort to imposing crippling net neutrality regulations on the Internet-an idea with very little support from the American public or Congress-the Obama administration first turned to the FCC simply to pretend Congress has given it authority to regulate. <<<Read the Rest>>>

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Not only is Olbermann calling for reduced freedom in America, but the company that employs him has been using its own influence to save itself at taxpayer expense, says National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project director Tom Borelli.

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns. Olbermann suggested the decision in the Citizens United case would lead to corporations and wealthy citizens essentially buying lawmakers.

MSNBC is currently owned by General Electric.

Borelli said:

“To call increased political participation a threat to democracy is ludicrous. What seems to be the case is that Keith Olbermann wants to keep the playing field clear for his employer.

“Taxpayers kept GE solvent by bailing out GE Capital – the company’s financial arm. Yet the company now escapes Obama’s assault against the banking industry. Additionally, GE’s lobbying army – which has a $20 million annual budget – helped secure hundreds of millions of dollars for the company’s utility customers from Obama’s economic stimulus package, and the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives would mandate the purchase of renewable energy products such as GE’s wind turbines.

“Let’s also not forget that taxpayer money was also used to prop up GE during the credit crisis. Shockingly, it’s our money that was used to pay Keith Olbermann’s salary.

Both shareholders and taxpayers should be outraged because GE CEO Jeff Immelt and Olbermann continue to use MSNBC to attack the American people in a failing effort to defend President Obama’s left-wing policies. Ultimately, for them, this effort may be a marketplace failure. To wit, GE’s NBC unit just today reported a 30 percent drop in profit.

“Immelt and Olbermann may have secured favors from the Obama Administration, but they are just continuing to prop up a losing enterprise.”

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns. In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, U.S. citizens. The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property. The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice. There is no correlation between the two. Congressman Grayson needs to apologize. His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been? He compares today’s landmark decision – in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions – to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property. He’s off base yet again. It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.” (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution. In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!” (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights. The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

An Historical moment coming from the halls of Congress.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one political party to dissolve the political party of another which have connected them with sane and rational discourse and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of the democrats and of Nature’s God entitle them, a disrespect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare certain words and phrases unusable which impel them to the separation with the rest of society, due to elitism, narcissism and ignorance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that those with opposing views are not created equal, that they are endowed by their party leader with certain rationed Rights, that among these are abortion, health care and the rules of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their almighty leader.

With nothing pressing to work on in Congress, it is vitally important that morons and idiots set about thinking up bad words and phrases that can’t be said in school. For the millions of unemployed, I’m sure they can rest much easier today knowing that someone cares.

I believe the date we need to focus on is November 2, 2010.