(Video) Don’t judge Blacks differently

April 27, 2015

From Prager University, this was made in the wake of the Ferguson riots, but has sharpened relevance after the latest disturbances in Baltimore. Of particular note is Ms. Valdary’s argument that those who hold Blacks to a lower standard are themselves engaging in bigotry(1), no matter how well-meaning they are. Also infuriating is her classmate’s insistence (and the instructor’s agreement) that facts —objective truth— don’t matter; only the narrative. Down that road lies fascism.

Footnote:
(1) She uses the word “racism,” but I prefer to avoid it, since “race” is a biologically meaningless concept that has its roots in 19th-century pseudoscience. In my opinion, it obfuscates more than it enlightens.


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?


Truth-telling on race, politics, and America, courtesy of @BobbyJindal

February 9, 2015
x

Wait. He’s not White?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is on my short-list (1) of presidential candidates, and his recent statements on race and politics in the wake of a silly “controversy” over a portrait that painted him with very light skin:

But in an interview with reporters during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Monday, Jindal rejected the premise that Americans should be defined by race — for any reason, politics included.

“You mean I’m not white? I’m shocked at this revelation,” Jindal, 43, said sarcastically upon being asked about a portrait that reportedly made him appear Caucasian. “I will give you permission in every picture you run of me, every story you run about me, you have my permission to put a disclaimer, to put a note that, I’m not white.”

“I think this whole thing is silly. I think the left is obsessed with race. I think that the reality is, one of the dumbest ways we divide people is by skin color,” Jindal continued. “We’re all Americans, and one of the great things — one of the great aspects of our country is that we’ve been a melting pot, it shouldn’t matter whether you came here five minutes ago or 100 years ago, we’re all Americans and that’s the important thing.”

Spot on, both about the Left’s mania over race and on the nature of the United States. The Hill has more on Jindal’s views on Democratic politics:

Jindal on Monday accused liberals of seeking to make an issue of his race.

“I think the left is devoid of ideas, and unfortunately this is what they’ve resorted to – name-calling, going back to dividing people by the color of their skin,” he said. “This is nonsense.”

Again, right on the money. Progressivism (2) is a bankrupt ideology that’s failing even as it achieved its greatest electoral victories in decades in 2008. It has nothing to offer anyone except perpetual victimhood and dependency on government. So all they’re left with is the politics of division, resentment, and envy, as the Community Organizer in Chief shows again and again. Unable to offer good government, genuine opportunity, and real prosperity, they have to divide people into groups and set them against each other. And, given America’s history, race is the quickest, easiest, and dirtiest way to do it.

Like the Governor said, it’s “nonsense.”

Footnote:
(1) Subject to change as new data warrants. But, in case you’re curious, and in no particular order… Top-tier: Jindal, Perry, or Walker. Second-rank: Rubio, Cruz. After that, everyone else. Generally I prefer governors over senators who haven’t yet been a governor.
(2) I prefer this term to “liberal,” since I think it’s more honest about modern American liberalism’s roots.


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.


#Ferguson and the racists of the Congressional Black Caucus

November 25, 2014
Justice is individual, not social

Equal justice for all

Ran across something disgusting last night while reading about the riots that erupted in the wake of the grand jury decision not to indict a White police officer for killing a Black teen:

On Monday Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called the grand jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown a “miscarriage of justice.”

In a statement released through the Congressional Black Caucus, which she chairs, Fudge said the decision not to indict Wilson “is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail.”

“This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that Black lives hold no value; that you may kill Black men in this country without consequences or repercussions,” Fudge said. “This is a frightening narrative for every parent and guardian of Black and brown children, and another setback for race relations in America.”

“My heart goes out to Michael Brown’s loved ones, and to the loved ones of all the Michael Browns we have buried in this country,” Fudge said.

The news of the grand jury’s decision came out between 6 and 7 PM PST. The time stamp on the PJMedia article behind the link is 11:23 PM PST, so 4-5 hours after the news broke, Rep. Fudge was rushing out her statement. There is no way she (or, more likely, her staff) had any chance to read the transcripts of the proceedings to consider the same evidence the jury took weeks to hear and mull over. And yet, that same night, she is sure that there had been a miscarriage of justice and this was due to some sort of “open season” rule on Blacks. (Read the rest of the piece to see how her soon-to-be successor is of the same mind.)

The congresswoman’s opinion seems to be a common one among the membership of the CBC, in fact. That same evening, my representative (hah!) tweeted this:

Why “disturbed?” The grand jury did its duty: consider the evidence and decide if there was probable cause that the suspect committed a crime. They found the evidence showed otherwise, and so they refused to return an indictment. Does Congresswoman Bass, who also could not have considered the evidence presented, know better than the grand jurors who spent weeks on the case? Is not Officer Wilson entitled to the same 5th Amendment protections as any other American — including a member of Congress, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the Untied States?

The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”

The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a rubber stamp. It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the government prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and expense of a trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have committed a serious offense.

But Representatives Fudge and Bass, and perhaps many in the CBC, really don’t care a whit about constitutional protections in this case. Not when the officer is White and the victim is Black. Were the roles reversed, would they be so quick to issue statements claiming a “miscarriage of justice?”

Call me cynic, but I don’t think so.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There have been all too many incidents of police brutality towards Blacks; it continues to this day, though I think not to the extent the race-grievance hustlers would have us believe. And that sad experience can understandably make Blacks suspicious of authorities or of ever getting justice from the system. When abuse happens, corrective action needs to be taken, including criminal legal proceedings.

But, in the specific case of Mike Brown, Officer Wilson, and a terrible day in Ferguson, Missouri, the prosecutor took the unusual step of presenting all his evidence (1) to the grand jury. Not just enough to indict a ham sandwich, but everything. And then he asked the grand jury, as representatives of the community, to decide if there was probable cause to take Officer Wilson to trial. Bear in mind that a grand jury operates on a lower burden of proof, “probable cause,” than a trial jury, which needs proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict.

The grand jury worked on this case for weeks and still refused to indict. Representative Fudge notwithstanding, justice did prevail, because indicting someone without probable cause to think he had committed a crime would be the height of injustice.

Yet Fudge (who speaks for the CBC) and Bass found it “deeply disturbing” and a “miscarriage of justice” that no indictment was issued.

You know what I find disturbing? That Members of Congress, who swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, could so easily forget or ignore their duties. That members of an ethnic group that’s been subjected to terrible bigotry and awful treatment for centuries would themselves rush to demand what would be little better than a show trial, based just on the skin colors of the policeman and the victim.

They could have set examples for everyone by calling for calm and supporting the rule of law and the colorblind rights of all, perhaps even by asking people to wait and read the evidence for themselves.

But, no. They had to impugn the integrity of the legal process and feed the grievance beast, in their own petty way enabling the agitators trying to generate riots in Ferguson and elsewhere.

All because the cop was White and the victim Black.

You know what that’s called.

Footnote:
(1) Really, read the linked article. It’s an important education into how prosecutors and grand juries work.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh — “The grand jury process was fair.”


(Video) Who are the real racists: liberals or conservatives?

October 27, 2014

Liberal tolerance racist

If you’re a conservative, or just someone who thinks everyone should be treated equally, you’ve probably been called a racist at one point or another. And if, like most people, you’re a decent person, you’ve probably been taken aback and left wondering if maybe, subconsciously, you did hold beliefs and attitudes that were racist.

Stop wondering. You’re not. In fact, as Derryck Green of Project 21 explains in this Prager University video, it’s the American Left that harbors the racist attitudes, rooted in the assumption that Blacks just can’t compete, the infamous “soft bigotry of low expectations:”

So, relax. You’re not racist for believing we can all be held to the same standards. Far from it.

via Legal Insurrection

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Andrew Klavan on “How to speak Leftist”

August 28, 2014

This could be an important series:

I hope he does “fairness” next; I’ve been trying to figure for years just what the heck the other side is talking about when they use that word.

Via.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,444 other followers