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?


If you go off the reservation, the Democrats will try to destroy you

November 20, 2011

We’ve seen it happen time and again: a public figure from an ethic minority considered “ours” by the liberal left gains prominence as a conservative, they do everything in their power to ruin him or her politically for fear that others might follow. Long ago, it was Clarence Thomas and the “high tech lynching.” More recently, minority conservatives such as Miguel Estrada, Condoleezza Rice, and Marco Rubio were all subjected to vicious, mendacious, even racist attacks questioning their truthfulness, morality, and “authenticity” (1).

Now it’s Susana Martinez’s turn. The Governor of New Mexico has committed a great sin: she is from a minority (2) , Mexican-American, a conservative and a Republican, and she has the temerity to govern as one.

She is thus a threat and must be destroyed, in this case by lying about her family:

Here we have a popular and successful Latina politician with a bold, conservative agenda in an important swing state. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, there has to be a catch.

“Ms. Martinez, who grew up along the border, is also Mexican-American, with news reports since her election revealing that her paternal grandfather came to the United States as an illegal immigrant,” wrote Marc Lacey in a New York Times profile three months ago.

“…The New Mexican’s Sandra Baltazar Martínez reported recently, at least two of the governor’s grandparents also were [undocumented immigrants],” wrote the Santa Fe New Mexican in a recent editorial.

Lest you be under any illusions about the nature and motives of these news items, bear in mind that Gov. Martinez wants to roll back certain of her predecessor’s policies regarding illegal immigration in New Mexico, most notably, a policy that allows illegal immigrants to secure drivers licenses. “The governor’s opponents have pointed to her immigrant grandparents as an example of why New Mexico should welcome illegal immigrants and continue to allow them to get a driver’s license,” reports the Associated Press.

Obviously, the stage is set for the media and her political rivals to paint Gov. Martinez as a hypocrite and a traitor to her people.

There’s only one problem: The story about Martinez’s grandparents is junk. The Governor’s grandparents were not U.S. citizens, but they were most certainly not illegal immigrants.

Read the rest to see why this charge is bogus.

It’s an old rhetorical trick, one beloved of demagogues everywhere: plant a leading question seemingly loaded with damning implications with the audience, then trust that their cynicism and distrust of politicians will prevent them from thinking critically and asking rational questions such as, “What was the state of the law at the time her grandparents arrived in the US?”

It’s a cheap, sleazy tactic, but it’s one that’s used so regularly because it often works.

Thankfully, in the cases of Marco Rubio and candidate for US Senate Ted Cruz (R-TX), it didn’t work. But now the “smear guns” have been turned on Governor Martinez, who’s increasingly seen as another threat to the Democrats’ death-grip on minority groups.

We mustn’t let them succeed.

Footnotes:
(1) Because, after all, what “authentic” minority could ever consider being a Republican. Must be a traitor.
(2) Twice-over. A Mexican-American and a woman. The horror…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Barack Obama: so hypocritical, it’s almost grotesque

October 10, 2010

Recently, President Obama joined in a campaign by the Democrats and other left-wingers  to vilify the US Chamber of Commerce by accusing it of using foreign money to fund its political operations:

Referring to a study by the liberal group ThinkProgress that – correctly – notes that the US Chamber of Commerce has some funding sources abroad, including foreign corporations and American Chambers of Commerce around the world (or “AmChams”), the President said, “just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations.”

The president then took this step, saying, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from.”

Chamber officials say that money coming from foreign donors cannot be used for political activity under the 1907 Tillman Act, and that the charge is false.

Forget whether the charge is correct or not. Ignore the fact that this is a desperate, xenophobic smear job by a party facing a massacre at the polls.

It’s the hypocrisy that’s jaw-dropping, given that Obama’s own presidential campaign winked at foreign money. Michael Barone explains:

Glenn Reynolds nails this one: the Obama Democrats’ campaign riff against foreign donations to Democrats is bogus—and according to the New York Times, no less. This looks like a matter of projection, since it’s well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals. Here’s the Washington Post on this back in October 2008: Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

Go read the rest of the article and follow the other links back to reports from 2008 on the Obama campaign and odd donations. Here’s another. Obama and the Democrats engaged in rampant cheating regarding foreign donations, and now they have the gall to falsely accuse the Chamber of Commerce of doing what they themselves did?

Just another day of Life Under Alinsky Rules:

“Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

And, we should add, “Lie about it and hope the rubes fall for it.”

RELATED: Of course, in 2008 the Obama campaign was just following the precedent established by Clinton and Gore.

UPDATE: And here’s the cherry on top: The President’s chief political adviser, David Axelrod, says he doesn’t have to produce proof – it’s up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. Wow. Just shameless.

UPDATE II, 10/11/10: Ed Morrissey calls Obama’s baseless accusations “McCarthyism” and a form of tyranny. He’s right.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In search of: People of Color

September 13, 2010

If you listen to the mainstream media narrative, the Tea Party movement is a Whites-only affair, the second coming of the angry white man, and a thinly disguised Klan revival. To find out the truth behind this, Bob Parks went on the scene at the Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. Here’s what he found:

Weird. I thought sure he’d find some.

via Big Journalism

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Wait, the conservative Christian doesn’t want to burn Qurans?

September 9, 2010

Back in the 2008 campaign, one of the most persistent smears of Sarah Palin was that she tried to have some books banned from the local library while she was Mayor of Wasilla. That’s kind of hard to square with the woman who would write this, however:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

So, let me get this straight: that raging, fire-breathing Evangelical Christian, that chillbilly social conservative, is arguing against burning the sacred texts of a religion, Islam, many of whose adherents are waging war against us in its name? And she’s doing so in eloquent terms that appeal to reason and express the best ideals of her country and her faith?

Yeah, she’s a danger to the nation. You betcha.

Oh, and she didn’t try to ban books, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pravda would be proud

July 20, 2010

People on the Right have for years complained about a media establishment biased toward the Left, only to be roundly mocked as paranoid, even when some evidence shows they were right. (For example) During the 2008 campaign, it became increasingly apparent that the major media had given up objectivity and was openly pulling for the victory of then-Senator Obama. While concentrating all their powers on Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, they almost totally ignored Obama’s political background, relationships, and lack of experience.

But they weren’t just passively avoiding anything that might be critical of Obama or detrimental to his presidential bid. No, at the very least some members of a now-defunct private mailing list  for liberal and left-wing journalists and other opinion makers called “Journolist” were looking for ways to actively intimidate into silence not just conservative critics, but even more moderate liberal members of the MSM. How would they do this?

According to The Daily Caller, by smearing their opponents as racists:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

The members of Journolist weren’t about to see their champion hurled to the ground. But, rather than investigate and try to refute the allegations regarding Reverend Wright and Obama, they instead decided to attack their colleagues:

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

“I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

“And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In other words, a naked call to play the Race Card in American politics in order to stifle debate and criticism. Racism is the most vile charge one can make in our society; to accuse someone of it is to smear them for a long time, if not forever. And the discussants on Journolist were about to unleash it on their professional colleagues.

It’s fair to note that the people mentioned in the DC article formulating this strategy are almost all opinion journalists, such as Katha Pollitt at the progressive The Nation. One would expect them to try to shape the debate and defend their ideological positions, just as their counterparts at The Weekly Standard or National Review would do.

But not by character assassination and implying they were racists. And not by attacking members of the “objective press” for simply asking tough, legitimate questions.

That crosses the line not just into advocacy journalism, but propaganda of the worst sort, the kind I’d expect to see from the “journalistic organs” of a totalitarian state. Jack Reed and Walter Duranty would be proud.

The Daily Caller promises more in the days to come, and it will be interesting to see how far this rot has spread from politically-oriented opinion journalists to mainstream reporters.

I suspect it’s gone quite far.

(via Big Journalism)

LINKS: More from John Nolte, who says the playing of the race card isn’t the most shocking thing; Andrew Breitbart, who thinks the reporters at Pravda were better people; Kurt Schlichter, who talks about the MSM memory hole; Ed Morrissey, who considers the implications of this for the Left’s attempts to paint the Tea Party as racists; and William Jacobson, who says “Yes, Liberal journalists did manipulate the 2008 election.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leftist nitwit: US Border Patrol same as the KKK

June 24, 2010

I’ve got a few words in mind for Elena Herrada, but I’d have to ban myself if I used them, so I’ll let this “activist” speak for herself.

(via Allahpundit)