Whenever Faux News wants to lob a race bomb out there, Jesse Lee Peterson is happy to oblige and provide cover. Sean Hannity, who sits on the advisory board of Peterson’s Brothers of a New Destiny (BOND) welcomes him to play pathologically self-loathing House Negro on the air. (NewsHounds, video via Media Matters):
As soon as Peterson had a chance to speak, he launched his racial attack against Obama: “I think we all agree that Barack Obama was elected by, mostly by black racists and white guilty people. Most black Americans, 96 percent of them, are racists who (unintelligible) white Americans. And white folks feel guilty and they are afraid of being called racists,” Peterson said.This was too much even for Hannity, who usually tacitly approves Peterson’s bigoted rants. This time, Hannity said, “Do you really believe 96% of black America is racist? You don’t believe that.”
“Yes, sir,” Peterson answered.
“No, you don’t believe that,” Hannity repeated.
OK, so maybe Hannity thinks Peterson believes only 90% of blacks are racist. Because that is exactly the kind of thing that Peterson has been saying for years on Hannity & Colmes, without a peep of objection from Hannity.
Peterson’s “colorful” history saying stupid sh*t like this in the MSM goes way back. Some highlights:
“If whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.”
– his 9/21/2005 WND column, “Moral poverty cost blacks in New Orleans“
“If black folks want to blame someone for this tragedy they only need to look in the mirror.”
– More Peterson “it’s the poor darkies’ fault” for Katrina tragedy, in The Washington Times.
“Most blacks, not all but most in Tennessee, especially in the Memphis, Tennessee area, are still living in the 50′s and 60′s. They are so racist that they don’t even realize that white Americans have moved on. And so whenever there’s a campaign like this, such as this, they always use racism in order to intimidate white America.”
– Jesse’s analysis of the congressional primary between Nikki Tinker, a black woman who used bigoted tactics, and incumbent, Steve Cohen. Cohen swept all demos with a landslide 80% of the vote.
And Rev. Peterson’s versatile – check out his views about women and gays:
“Most women themselves don’t understand why they provoke and agitate their spouse to lash out or run away. They don’t understand the subtle control they have over weak men….In a relationship the man often has an unnatural need for his wife or girlfriend. He’s addicted to her approval and to her sex. The woman senses this wrong need the man has and she begins to test him. Often times, men find themselves giving in more and more in order to a receive her favor. Sometimes the demands of the woman become unbearable to the point that the man may lash out — I’m not saying this is right, but this is the reality. ”
– Peterson on man-woman relations in his WND column, “Why fathers leave“
“The so-called ‘Hate Crimes’ bill is an attempt to take away the rights of Christians to speak out and express their freedom of speech. This is unjust and Americans deserve better than this from their elected officials.”
– the wisdom of Peterson in WND article opposing hate crimes legislation.




49 Comments


Wild, Absolutely WildI applaud you for even trying to take this on from an analytical perspective. I can’t. It’s way too complicated. I would say this, I will defend his right to spout his stuff, however it may be defined. I do believe that all of us should determine if what we put out there positively advances the interests of society over the long haul. With all of the media outlets and the advances in communications technology, it is inevitable that individuals like this will appear. He has pretty of followers, and folks who will say “amen” while nodding their heads.
Best we can do in a free society? Education. Always has been, always will be.
Lies the right wing tells itselfThe right is in self-medicating mode, gazing at their navels and wondering why everyone hates them.
So this Uncle Tom comes on to Faux News’ Insanity program and spews bile and attributes to his entire race the same hatred and racism that he himself feels – for himself.
Observe as the right tries to soothe its hurt feelings and bewilderment over their massive election losses. Rush has already started his treatment, deciding to become the voice of the “We Hate Obama” club. Coulter has tried too, but with less traction.
It is no surprise to me that even low-grade wingnuts like Mike Scarborough on MSNBC is in a flailing attack mode.
The right is scared to death about what will happen to them and their ideology when Obama shows that progressive policies work and are actually better for our nation than anything the “tax cuts at any cost” crowd can offer.
What the hell?So, we men are weak willed worms who can’t control ourselves around women (except for the fags of course), but men are supposed to be the head of the household?
Just another poisonous view among many.
Where did the whole, “hate crime laws will be used to muzzle free speech!!!1!” meme come from? Sigh. Another dumb talking point that will have to be answered individually. I wonder if it’s possible to take out full page ads in a a few newspapers that consist of nothing but blocks of text to respond to this sort of thing.
Is Faux Newstrying to compete with Comedy Central?
When one makes comments like this……that appear to be racist at the face, one has to back up the comments with documentation…statistics.
Why-oh-why do I believe that Rev. Peterson has no data or information that backs up his statistical sounding “96%” claim — Why-oh-why do I believe that Rev. Peterson is a racist, sexist, homophobic individual who’s just pulling numbers out of his ass?
Show us the documentation for your outlandish claims, Rev. Peterson.
I’m not a fan of hate crimes legislationI’d rather see more teeth put in laws against coercion, intimidation, extortion, etc. and have them used against people who commit crimes aimed at intimidating any group of people.
That said, hate crimes legislation only takes away the freedom to spew hatred WHILE YOU ARE COMMITTING A CRIME, so if you want to spew hatred, do so without committing assault, battery, arson, rape, murder…
Thank youfor exposing this kind of garbage that Jesse Lee has been spewing for years and years, Pam.
Just when I think that I have heard it ALL…
Jesse, poor self loathing JesseHe’s so small in this big world, bless his heart…said with the utmost southern snark
LOL!Do I hear Shuffling?
Here’s your answer
Sean Hannity advising African-Americans about, well, anything?
Give him 30 minutes a night to do that and that alone at 11 (10 Central) and it would give the Daily Show a run for its money.
What Next?Will we hear that the Rev. Fred Phelps and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson have teamed up to fight to get their version of America back.
This all may be free speech but it still doesn’t make it any less scary to hear.
Nah, but maybe a shuck-and-jive show…All I know is, I think the transcripter meant to type “Yassuh,” not “yes, sir.”
Nah, but maybe a shuck-and-jive show…All I know is, I think the transcripter meant to type “Yassuh,” not “yes, sir.”
UnclassifiableAgreed, Autumn.
And to add to that, the term “racist” is one without a universally agreed-upon definition. In fact, I’ve heard from many sources that “racism” is defined as “a system of oppression that benefits white people at the expense of people of color,” and by that definition, the only “black racists” would be black people who believe that white culture and traditionally white values are superior. (Um, look in the mirror, indeed.)
But I’m assuming that Peterson would define “racist” blacks as those who believe that blacks are superior to whites – which is well and good as one valid definition among many, but how do you possibly codify that?
Personally, I would guess that 96% of Peterson’s “black racists” actually believe that all people are human beings deserving of dignity and equal access regardless of race, but get stuck with the “racist” tag because they recognize that white privilege still exists in this country (and the world) and give voice to this reality, making the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh squirm uncomfortably and bleat out their childish defenses in a tantrum of unintelligble gibberish that usually ends with “racist!”
It’s just a theory.
Whenever Faux News wants to lob a race bomb…And then there are Bill O’Reilly’s best friends Wayne Besen and Jasmyne Cannick. Anyone who goes on Fox News is an IDIOT.
This is from Cannick’s own YouTube channel, BTW.
Hate crimesIf the courts NEVER examined motive when trying an individual who has committed a violent crime, then hate crimes legislation would be unnecessary.
However, as we all know, that’s not true. A woman who shoots her husband because he’s been physically abusing her for years and is about to do so again is treated very differently by the courts than a woman who shoots a husband she hates because he’s less successful and accomplished than she’d wish him to be.
We sentence violent offenders to jail time not solely because we’re punishing them, but we’re also removing them from society for the sake of public safety. Someone who commits a violent act because they hate an entire class of people is arguably much more dangerous than someone who commits a violent act because he personally hates another individual person because of a particular circumstance. Personally, I believe that the former kind of criminal deserves a much longer jail sentence; he (and accuse me of sexism if you will, but it’s almost always a “he”) poses a threat to anyone else in that hated group.
All violent offenders are not the same, and the reason they commit violent acts matter.
ah, Jasmyne…I don’t know abt. that sister
When I hear of a trans persons being killed while LGBT epithets are hurled……I feel terrorized. The ones engaging in the violence are not only attacking the individual who is the direct victim of the crime, but are putting fear into the community members who live similarly, or identify similarly.
Hate crime statutes recognize that crimes involving hate are not crimes just against the direct victim of the violence, but the community that’s terrorized by how the direct victim was chosen for the violence.
Historically, the burning of crosses in the yards in front of African-Americans homes — as well as the lynching of African-Americans — didn’t have the effect of putting fear just into the heart of the direct victim of the violence, but to the African-Americans who live in the direct victim’s community. As a society, we tend to believe that crimes that have the effect of creating fear within a class of people are more heinous that those directed at individuals targeted as individuals.
Hate crime statues were designed to address the terrorism aspect of crimes against individuals — individuals that have been targeted for belonging to an identifiable class of people, or have been the recipients of extraordinary violence because the individuals belong to an identifiable class of people.
Well…we disagree on a basic philosophical level. She feels that her “black” self is more important than her “gay” self. Whereas I refuse to have that choice imposed upon me, it’s a false dilemma and a game that I refuse to play.
Yet we don’t have “woman who shoots a husband she hates because he’s less successful and accomplished than she’d wish him to be” lawsI just find hate crimes laws to be a rather piecemeal solution. I prefer a solution that says the punishment fits the crime and the public safety to one that says “hate against these n classes will get you more punishment”, because there is always another class that somehow doesn’t get rolled into the hate crimes laws.
Green-eyed people, employee benefits professionals, and people who are allergic to peppers are not included in hate crime legislation. Yet someone who is out to kill all green-eyed people or to get people to stop working in employee benefits ought to be subject to greater punishment.
At any rate, hate crimes legislation is something that I think isn’t a great solution, but I’m not working against it – and it wasn’t my point, it was a disclaimer.
My actual point to these folks is that hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with what you say: it has everything to do with the harm you cause to others, and the why behind it. I’m tired of this BS about it stopping free speech. Say you don’t like gays, lesbians, transgender people, people with disabilities, tall people, short people, fat people – say you hate bigots if you want. Just don’t vandalize their property, set fire to things, beat them, rape them, kill them, etc.
Maybe it needs a new name – hate-motivated crime, or hate-aggravated crime.
I understand the rationaleI just think there should be a better, broader solution. If this is the best we can come up with, I guess we’l have to settle for it.
Where I disagree…I don’t think anyone with an ounce of concern for the LGBTQ community should go on Fox News — especially The O’Reilly Factor.
Most of the people who appear on these programs are primarily concerned with self-promotion. They have a book to sell or just like seeing themselves on TV.
How are Besen and Cannick any different from Jesse Lee Peterson? They all participate in the Fox News right wing propaganda machine.
With going on O’ReillyI agree with you.
On all of Faux News, I have to think abt. that one. After all, we will have to talk with people and audiences that don’t like us and, therefore, aren’t necessarily receptive to our message. We can’t keep preaching to the choir.
Black racists…where did I hear this one before?David DuKKKe just called new RNC head Michael Steele a “black racist”. Now Peterson (of BOND – Boorish Obnoxious Nosy D-bags) used it against the Obama supporters.
Looks like BOND is becoming the new Klan.
Legal PrecedentI don’t know if the “woman who shoots a husband she hates because he’s less successful and accomplished than she’d wish him to be” situation is codified in the law or not, but there’s tons of legal precedent to guide lawyers, judges, and juries as to how to treat such cases. Specifically, there are laws that say that killing someone in self-defense is not punishable by law. So there are laws that speak directly to motive, and they do influence how and to what extent a person is punished.
But you’re correct: hate crimes are violent crimes motivated by hate, specifically hatred directed toward an entire group of people. Angry words are not a “hate crime.” Free speech is a canard in this debate, and we ought to call people out when they bring it up.
And no, we don’t have hate crimes legislation specifically targeting those who would commit violence against everyone with green eyes. But if there were enough people out there motivated by anti-green-eye hate, we could push for such legislation, and if green-eyed people were being beaten and killed for no other reason then the color of their eyes, then I’d be in favor of such legislation. But they’re not, so I’m not.
Hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation won’t prevent anti-gay beatings and killings from occurring, but it will prevent juries from being easy on a perpetrator who pleads “not guilty because of gay panic” and hopes to get away with it. Were such legislation passed, judges would be quite clear in their instructions: if you believe that this individual targeted his victim because he was gay, you must find him guilty of a hate crime,” which would carry with it a longer and harsher sentence. Which sounds A-OK to me.
I disagreeThere are a whole lotta people out there who don’t think they know a gay person, and a lot of those people get their news from purely ideological sources, such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, etc.
If an LGBT person or an LGBT ally is skilled enough to hold his or her own against blowhards like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, then I think it’s his/her duty to appear on these shows to present rational arguments in defense of the LGBT community.
Will they change Bill’s mind? Or Sean’s? Probably not; they know where their bread is buttered. But they will reach thousands of people who would never have a chance to witness an LGBT person or ally using reason and logic to further the conversation.
And, due to the magic of You Tube and the rest of the internets, these snippets are not limited to those who watch Fox News – if someone does a good job against these horse’s asses, the clip will be seen by moderates and progressives all over the world thanks to blogs such as this one.
I understand the desire to boycott conservative channels in order to diminish their credibility, and in some circumstances, I understand it. But I see more validity in the other side of the argument, that visibility is a good thing. For instance, I think Obama was a genius for agreeing to sit down with Bill O’Reilly; I think that interview might have been the spark that eventually turned Virginia blue last November.
True, not everyone is equipped to effectively debate using the Hannity/O’Reilly model, where the loudest and most simplistic argument always wins. But I think that if you can compete, you gotta get in the game.
Remember, a hostile host has the kill switch even when live – you get replaced by the next advert. in line. It’s a no-win situation when you appear with a host whose main gig is humiliation and rudeness.
O’Really isn’t shy about shutting people up – remember when he silenced an anti-warparent of a child who died in the Twin Towers? O’Reilly just said a few rude words (unpatriotic, etc) after which an earlier-than-scheduled commercial break cut in.
IT’S TRUE!!!!I’m white, and I admit it! I voted for Obama!
(cries)
I voted for the candidate who is clearly a more competent leader with more reasonable economic and social views.
And he’s black.
I’m so ashamed of my racism…
Same hereI voted for the person who proved to be competent AND who chose someone equally competent to back him up.
If someone tried to shoot you–to MURDER you–but had poor aim and only managed to nick your earlobe, would you want him prosecuted for simple assault, which is what he actually committed, or for attempted murder, which was clearly his intent?
We take INTENT into consideration all the time when trying and sentencing criminals. There is no sane reason why hate criminals should be exempt from that.
“If an LGBT person or an LGBT ally is skilled enough…”That makes it even worse. It gives credibility to Fox News and their claims that LGBTQ activists are dangerous and subversive.
My 75-year-old father watches Fox News almost exclusively.
When he watched this episode of the O’Reilly Factor, he believed all of the lies O’Reilly said before Besen and Cannick appeared in part because a gay man and a lesbian appeared on the show. He thought he was getting a “fair and balanced” report.
Fox News can claim that they are presenting both sides of the issue because media whores like Besen and Cannick are willing to appear in programs that are obviously slanted.
Just look at the way O’Reilly constructed the program shown in the clip. He makes a bunch of anti-gay statements and then brings Besen and Cannick on the show to discuss something else. This does nothing except promote homophobia.
If people are going to be “exposed” to LGBTQ people, it should be on our terms and on an unbiased platform. Otherwise, we’re just putting fuel on the fire.
The truth…I’m white and I voted for Obama IN PART because he is black.
That isn’t because I am ashamed of being racist. It is because it is ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
I see nothing wrong with a little social engineering — especially when nothing but good can come from it.
That’s why I saidI wouldn’t go on O’Reilly.
Doesn’t Shepard Smith have a show? (I don’t have cable and, even if did, I wouldn’t watch Faux News.) You mean there is NO Faux show that any LGBTQ should go on?
Way past time, I just wonder how long it will take for the deep south to come to terms with the fact that the President is black.
I think this country realy needs a black lesbian woman for President. Pam does come to mind
No!Roger Ailes runs the entire network. He’s a rabid right winger who has worked as a political consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.
He is responsible for a large number of Republican successes over the last 35 years.
By going on Fox News, we lend our credibility to what is nothing more than an arm of the GOP.
Or the GOP as it iscurrenly constituted.
And what of the 15 or 16 year old gay boy in, say, Alabama or Mississippi or Texas whose Mom and Dad swears by Fox News? We need to have a presence there and not be invisible people.
I get what you are saying Fritz in the senseCannick does NOT speak for me anymore than Besen or Patterson(though I like some of Besen’s positions, much more so than Cannick). And as far as choosing those who would speak to issues like this, Faux does seem to pick the most reactionary folks wh take the most reactionary positions. It can seem like a no-win situation.
Besides, other mainstream networks (CNN, MSNBC) seem to pick Dan Savage and I don’t think Savage is all that effective as a political advocate for GLBTQ causes.
“We need to have a presence there…”Well, if you’re happy with us being portrayed as perverts and terrorists, I guess that you can achieve a certain type of visibility by appearing on Fox News.
Did you watch the clip? O’Reilly and everyone on Fox News gets their storylines directly from Ailes. The talking points are identical throughout the news day, regardless of the program.
What you’re saying can be compared to the belief that it was better for African Americans to appear in blackface during Jim Crow because at least they were working in show biz.
I’m not going to be Roger Ailes’ Stepin Fetchit!
Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry may have become the first black actor to become a millionaire, but he created a lasting negative stereotype in the process.
Those LGBTQ people who appear on Fox News may sell their books and gain public exposure. But, they are doing great damage to our fight for equality.
Think of it this way –Current hate-crimes laws only address violent acts which are also acts of intimidation against whole communities. The immediate crime is the violence — but hate crimes are acts of terrorism and used to express the threat of further violence towards their target communities. Of course, if laws regarding threats of violence and death were applied reliably…
I admit to not looking at the clip just now. (Though I’ve seen it, before) And I will backtrack this farthat someone who has enough…gravitas (?) to avoid these pitfalls would not be selected to go on Fox News to debate the issue.
But, then again, Dan Savage doesn’t either (and Sullivan is even worse), even though I occasionally like his take on things. Actually, I think Keith Olberman would be my ideal and (as far as I know) he is straight)
Or AC, for that matter
Agree….But would Kate be covered by the Secret Service? I don't think so. So that's a big no go.
People like…- Anthony Romero
- Barney Frank
- Michelangelo Signorelli
We could make a list of people who could take on Fox News without being manipulated. They’ve all been around the block and would demand appropriate conditions in order to appear. They’d walk off during a lead-in like the one O’Reilly did for Besen and Cannick. If you’re not trying to sell anything, you can afford to have principles.
I’d bet our Pam would not allow herself to fall into a Fox News trap like that. She’s got too much integrity.
or Tammy Baldwinor (least now) Ron Huberman. I would even put Barack Obama (circa 2003, that is) up there. And, no, Pam would not fall for a trap like this.
I just went back and watched the intro of the clip and you are right, the way BO’Reilly framed the issue was the problem and I would not have gone on under those circumstances, either. Nor did O’Reilly, Besen, or Cannick explain that, in effect, the majority imposed it’s electoral will upon a protected minority. With Besen, that surprises me, but maybe he is a better writer than spokes-person.
Cannick sounded more controlled than that screech she wrote in the LA Times right after the election. No wonder she posted this on her site.
OK Fritz, I will give you bow on his. Or a curtsey (which ever you prefer!)
Let me see if I understand thisThousands of people get trapped in the Super Dome with no facilities to wash and toilets that don’t work. Then when the place inevitably gets dirty and smelly, it’s the fault of the people who are trapped there.
Is this guy related to Barbara Bush? She’s the one who said, “Why are they complaining. The Super Dome is better than their used to having.”
Unless…
Unless, of course, they happen to be LGB or T.
Motive is always a considerationMotive is used to determine what crime to charge.
Motive is also used to determine the sentence after conviction.
Hate-crimes laws simply codify how certain motivations will be handled and are enacted because of the resistance of some judges and juries to apply the law equally to criminals who target the groups specified in the hate-crimes legislation.
Additionally, hate-crimes laws provide for increased penalties because, as a society, we believe it is more heinous to attack someone for being a member of a group targeted by the perpetrator.
We don’t call them hate-crimes laws, but we do have harsher penalties for crimes against policemen, children, and the elderly – to name a few.
A good example:
A few years ago, Richard Bednarski and 7 of his friends decided to go to the gay area of Dallas, abduct some gays, and murder them. They went to the Oak Lawn area, picked up to gay men, took them to Revechon Park and executed them.
Only one of those involved was prosecuted. When the one who was prosecuted, the judge gave him the minimum sentence because, “Some victims are less innocent then others and I’d be hard-pressed to give a harsh sentence for killing a prostitute.”
One of the murdered men visited his mother and had dinner with her prior to being executed. The other had cooked food to take to church the next day before his execution.
It sounds like David Duke and Limbaugh wrote his scriptI love when these hired Black mouths spew the sh*t RACIST repigs encourage them to say. I’d love to see some REAL LEADERS of the African American community just verbally rip him to shreads.
Just amazedThe things that were coming out of the mouths of these people just made my jaw drop. Guilty white people? Are you kidding me? I felt no guilt going in to the polling place, and I feel no guilt now.
Here’s my perspective: Are there people who probably voted for Obama because he’s African American? Yes, probably. Are there people who voted for George Bush because he wears a cowboy hat and is from Texas? Yes, probably. I think we should be happy that people actually cared enough to go out and vote, and if it took a person of color to run for office for that to happen, good. Why is it also impossible for some people to believe that, even if Obama is a multicultural man, maybe some people voted for him because they thought he’d be a better leader than McCain? Is that really so hard to fathom?
And I can’t believe this used the religion card to boot. Apparently, if you voted for Obama, you are a bad Christian. Really? In that case, I don’t want to be part of that Reverend’s church in the first place. The part that scares me is not only did this guy get to spout this trash on television, but he stands up in front of his church members and spouts this to people looking to him for real guidance and wisdom. Blind following the blind is a sad state.
“And who is so barbarous as not to understand that the foot of a man is nobler than his shoe, and his skin nobler than that of the sheep with which he is clothed?” –Michelangelo