Dear New York Times, put down the race card and back away slowly

April 12, 2015

Liberal tolerance racist

I swear by all that’s holy, I am so sick of the Left branding any criticism of their policies or philosophy as “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” or whatever that I nearly break out in a rash when it happens these days. It demonstrates their barrel-scarping intellectual bankruptcy that they have to resort to smears, since their ideas have long since been shown to be miserable failures. And it’s not just the loony Left engaging in these nauseating campaigns, but supposedly respectable people and institutions.

The latest is The New York Times, which has an error-filled editorial accusing the Republicans of, naturally, racism in their opposition to President Obama, the latest case being criticism (1) of the nuclear “deal” with Iran.  Here’s an excerpt:

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.

This is such bull-waste that I think I should have put on my hip waders before reading it.

Joel Pollack of Breitbart has a point by point rebuttal of this farce. Here’s what he has to say about the above quote on questioning Obama’s citizenship:

Another attempt to rewrite history. The first questions about Obama’s citizenship, and the first attacks on his faith, came directly from the Hillary Clinton camp in 2008. (2) No doubt the Times feels uncomfortable acknowledging that fact on the day that Hillary Clinton announces her new run for the presidency. The fact that a fringe of the GOP later embraced the Birther movement did not change the fact that it started with Clinton, nor make it the basis for Republican opposition.

Then, regarding the Republican open letter to the Iranian leadership, authored by Senator Cotton (R-AR)

The charge of racism is ridiculous, made more so by the example the Times chose. The Times also distorts the content of the letter. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and his colleagues did not say Obama “had no authority to conclude negotiations.” It said he shared that authority with Congress, such that any agreement he did conclude would only be an “executive agreement” and would not be binding on future presidents. The fact that the Times has to lie about the letter is telling.

…The difference between Reykjavik and Lausanne is that Reagan was willing to walk away from talks at Reykjavik! And the fact is that Democrats in Congress undertook many actions that undermined President Reagan and other Republican presidents. There were Ted Kennedy’s overtures to the Soviets, John Kerry’s outreach to the Sandinistas, Nancy Pelosi’s coddling of Assad, and other examples. Does the Times really want to go there? No problem!

Read the rest to see the Times’ editorial thoroughly dismantled.

So, in the effort to support the president’s policies and convince people that they should support Democrats, all America’s once-premier newspaper has left are lies and slanders.

Pathetic.

Footnote:
(1) Odd that there’s no mention of the strong resistance from Democrats, such as Senators Menendez and Schumer. Are they racists, too, O editorial board?
(2) So, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee is racist, n’est-ce pas?


(Video) Remember “Hands up, don’t shoot?” It was a lie, and the media ran with it

March 20, 2015

From the Media Research Center:

There are exceptions, but so much of the MSM is corrupt, but in their minds they don’t think of it as corruption, because they’re “fighting for justice,’ which is more important than the truth.

They don’t give a damn about the truth.


The Democrat-Media complex is scared to death of Governor Walker

February 12, 2015
Fear him.

Fear him.

Via Michael Walsh, the MSM and their progressive clients have just tipped their hands:

Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.

In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.

To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.

Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school.

Get that? There’s something wrong about Scott Walker: he quit school, he wasn’t a good student, he was politically ambitious, and –my favorite– he may be religious:

Walker lost, 1,245 votes to 927. His friends say he handled it with grace, telling them the loss just meant that God had another plan.

What you see there is a liberal “dog whistle, meant to signal like-minded progressives that Walker’s “not one of us.” He’s one of “those people” — the religious. Who knows what other frightening and primitive things he might believe? OMG!! RUN FOR THE HILLS! VOTE DEMOCRATIC OR WE’LL ALL HAVE TO GO TO BINGO NIGHT!!! AAIIEE!!!!!

Does anyone else besides me see nothing noteworthy in the son of a Baptist minister dealing with his electoral defeat in a Christian manner? The. Horror.

Read the whole Post article, then read Walsh for its deconstruction. He’s spot on when he writes:

To the Kredentialed Klass, a college degree — preferably from an Ivy League school — is the sine qua non of life itself. Sure, a couple of very prominent media personalities lack one themselves, including the recently defenestrated Brian Williams; the current host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, didn’t graduate from college, either. But no matter: this is the presidency we’re talking about!

The effrontery of this rube, thinking he can rise from Flyover Country to join Our Betters on the East Coast!

Walsh brings up the example of Mitt Romney and how the MSM had to dig into his high school days to find anything bad about him, but I think there’s a better example: Sarah Palin. Remember the reaction from when John McCain introduced her as his running mate to her amazing speech at the Republican convention? The Democrats and the media elites (but I repeat myself) were beside themselves with fear and, once they had stopped wetting themselves, they set out to do everything they could to destroy her: mock her intelligence, her middle class origins, and even the way she speaks; set hundreds of reporters dumpster-diving through her records, looking for anything little thing that could be spun against her; get Alaska allies to file bogus ethics charges one after the other; and even question whether her Down-syndrome child was really hers. They were scared to death she could beat them, and so they set out to find anything they could to destroy her. And while they didn’t find anything, the constant drumbeat of accusation and innuendo itself did its work: she was forever tarred as a future candidate. (1)

Then there’s the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the one that didn’t bark. For all that digging into Palin, Romney, and now Walker’s distant past —looking for anything!— let’s recall how closely the media in 2008 and 2012 looked into Barack Obama’s background.

Oh, you’re back already. Yep. The dog did nothing in the night-time. Almost no one in the MSM  looked more than superficially into Obama’s family, his boyhood in Hawaii, his time at Occidental and Columbia, his law school years at Harvard, his years as a community organizer or his record as a state senator. Not into his actions or the people he associated with. Nothing. (2)

Good doggie. You just lie there and stay asleep. You’ll know what to do when a Republican shows up.

Walsh (and before him Rush Limbaugh) is right: the Democrats and their allies in the media will always tell you whom they fear most. Right now, Governor Scott Walker scares the tar out of them.

With good reason.

Footnote:
(1) Yes, I know: “She resigned!” And that stained her image, too. No doubt. But, without going into a long explanation, I think a whole lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about in this case.
(2) There are good books about Obama’s background, but they came out either too late for the 2008 election (and were overwhelmed by the financial panic) or years later and were mostly read by a specialized audience. Three I’ll recommend are The Case Against Barack Obama, The Communist, and Radical in Chief. I reviewed the latter two here and here.


In which Max Abrahms makes a darn fine observation

February 8, 2015

Looking at the ferocity of the Jordanian response to ISIS’ atrocities, he notes:

Funny how that works, isn’t it? Almost as if there’s a double-standard in play, with the loser happening to be Jewish… Nah. Couldn’t be.


Time Magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger writes what might possibly be the stupidest article about climate ever – climate change causes volcanoes

January 30, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Global warming is like the monster in a bad 1950s science fiction movie: there is nothing it cannot do. Nothing.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.

volcanoes-climateExcerpt from the article:

Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island…

View original 926 more words


Journalism Dean: “There are limits to free speech”

January 21, 2015
"Free speech means the freedom to offend."

“Free speech means the freedom to offend.”

It’s a measure of how craven and corrupt our political culture has become that even the Dean of a journalism school in a nation founded on free speech and freedom of the press should say “there are limits, however:”

Charlie Hebdo has gone too far.

In its first publication following the Jan. 7 attack on its Paris office, in which two Muslim gunmen massacred 12 people, the once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest depiction of the prophet Mohammed — a repeat of the very action that is thought to have sparked the murderous attack on its office — predictably has given rise to widespread violence in nations with large Muslim populations. Its irreverence of Mohammed once moved the French tabloid to portray him naked in a pornographic pose. In another caricature, it showed Mohammed being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.

While free speech is one of democracy’s most important pillars, it has its limits.

So says DeWayne Wickham, Dean of the School of Global Journalism and Communication at Wayne State University. In a very limited sense, he’s right: I cannot go yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater (1), for example (2). Nor can I incite to violence by, for example, standing before a crowd and telling them to go now and beat up a certain person or persons.

But that’s it. All other political speech is within bounds, regardless of whom it offends. You cannot have a free society unless the it includes the right to freely criticize those in authority — and not just criticize, but to satirize and mock, too. If I as a Catholic want to question Original Sin and the need for Divine Grace, or that Jesus was not Divine until adopted by God, then the Church might well denounce me as a heretic and excommunicate me, but the law cannot punish me for my beliefs, nor should I fear physical violence. If I want to be truly outrageous and place the Crucifix in a beaker of urine, I would be a jackass, but I still should not have to fear either legal sanction nor physical violence.

And the same is true of any religion. If I want to question Muhammad’s status as a prophet, or even if he existed at all; if I want to argue that his earliest biography shows he was a bandit, a warlord, and a torturer; and if I want to criticize Sharia, Islam’s divine law, for calling for the execution of homosexuals, that is my right as a free man — even if I want to draw questionably funny satirical cartoons.

This is the right of any human being and well-within the “limits” of free speech.

Let’s be honest. It’s not a regard for the proper limits of free speech that motivates Mr. Wickham. If he or one of his students offended some Amish who then complained, I’m willing to bet he’d be on his soapbox screaming about “free speech” and “freedom of the press.”

And that leads us to the truth. Amish might shun you. Catholics won’t invite you to Bingo Night. A Buddhist would probably just decide you’re an annoying illusion and don’t really exist.

But all too many Muslims would be quite willing to kill you for insulting their Muhammad. Just ask the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, or Theo van Gogh.

The limit to Dean Wickham’s freedom of speech is his fear of punishment, and thus he is not free at all.

via Michael Walsh

Footnote:
(1) Popehat points out the serious flaws with that particular justification for censorship.
(2) When it’s not true, that is.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Michael Tomasky’s raging progressive bigotry

December 8, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Michael Tomasky’s South

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the worst reactionary bigots I’ve ever met have all been on the Left. Case in point:

I’d never heard of Michael Tomasky before this morning, when my feed reader was suddenly full of commentary about his anti-South screed at The Daily Beast. Apparently the recent disaster the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections set him to boiling, and Mary Landrieu’s defeat over the weekend in the Louisiana runoff blew the lid off:

Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)

With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.

“They’re such nice people, but I really hate their guts!”

Mikey then goes on to say there are some parts of the South the Democrats really do need, but, for the rest, he wishes secession had succeeded, because they just aren’t real Americans down there.

Yeesh. Look, Mike. I know the election was hard on you. From Texas to the Atlantic, there is now only one Democratic statewide officeholder in the Old Confederacy. Landrieu lost a seat the Democrats held since I think the 1870s (1). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think every state legislature in the South is now in Republican hands, too.

I get it. This is tough on you. It can’t be easy being rejected when you’re so cock-sure of your own side’s intellectual and moral superiority. I only hope you didn’t smash the keyboard while writing your tirade.

I’d like to think the election results would have lead you and your fellow progressives to reflect on why you lost so badly in that part of the country. What policies lead to your rejection? What was it about what the Democrats were offering that made so many say “no, thanks?”

But, no. You and so many like you in the progressive commentariat already know the answer, no self-reflection needed: “They’re all a bunch of mouth-breathing Jesus-fetishists who just don’t know what’s good for them, so we should just tell them to go to Hell!”

If that’s the case, Mike, how do you explain Colorado and Iowa, where Republicans won the Senate races? Or New Mexico and Nevada, where Latino Republicans won reelection for governor? Or deep-Blue Maryland and Massachusetts, where Republicans also won the elections for governor? I’ve never been to Maryland, but I know it ain’t a “Free-Market Jesus Paradise.”

If you want to find the real bigot suffering from “choleric resentment,” Mike, try looking in the mirror.

Footnote:
(1) You know, when Reconstruction ended and the Democrats returned to power, using Jim Crow laws and their allied terrorist groups, such as the KKK, to make sure Blacks could never vote Republican — or often not at all. There’s a good book on all that and more.

RELATED: Also writing on this are Jonah Goldberg, Charles Cooke, and Noah Rothman.

Correction: When I wrote “only one Democratic statewide officeholder,” I was thinking of Governor McAuliffe in Virginia. I forgot about Senator Nelson in Florida. Still, the party is almost extinct in statewide offices.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,978 other followers