Search Results


Why are Democrat-run institutes such intolerant cesspits of racism and eliminationist rhetoric?


Reporting from Washington — Law enforcement officials had only begun their examination of a Tucson supermarket scene where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others were shot Saturday when many on the political left settled on a culprit: overheated political rhetoric.

Even before the name of the shooter was known, a fierce debate spilled out across blogs and social media, with liberal commentators blaming the attack on the violent imagery evoked by some “tea party” candidates and conservatives during the recent midterm elections.

They noted that Giffords’ tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” by shooting an M-16 rifle with him. They pointed to an online map Sarah Palin posted during the midterm election that used cross hairs to mark each congressional Democrat she wanted to defeat, along with her frequent use of shooting metaphors on the campaign trail.

—“In Gabrielle Giffords shooting, many on left quick to lay blame,” the Los Angeles Times, January 8, 2011.

Flash-forward to today; L.A. Times editors choose cartoon of Ted Cruz armed with a long-barreled pistol about to duel with an unarmed Donald Trump to illustrate Jonah Goldberg’s latest column for the paper, “How to stop Donald Trump.”

Given that in January of 2011, Michael Hirsh of the left-leaning National Journal appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews and called for, as Jeff Poor of the Daily Caller wrote at the time, “a moral sanction against gun metaphors similar to the ‘N’ word,” why on earth would the L.A. Times choose such an obviously racist visual metaphor during a heated election year?

And given that, as Glenn asked a few minutes ago, “If Trump Is the One Promoting Violence, Then Why Do So Many Americans Say They Want to Punch Him in the Face?,” why is the Times ratcheting up the eliminationist rhetoric to a whole new level?

OH, THAT ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Viacom Spokesman Larry Wilmore ‘fantasizes’ about killing Donald Trump with Antonin Scalia’s pillow.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC. Here’s the founder of Miramax in early 2014, channeling the left’s post-Tucson “new civililty” tone:

A day after he announced he was going to make a film taking on the NRA with Meryl Streep, Harvey Weinstein — the producer of several violent films — told CNN’s Piers Morgan in an interview to air tonight that he has had a change of heart about violent content in film. Asked by Morgan about his hypocrisy of making these violent films, Weinstein said, “They have a point. You have to look in the mirror, too. I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be. I know for me personally, you know, I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.”

As Deadline Hollywood noted at the time, “Harvey Weinstein Has Change of Heart On Violence In Films.” But not violent eliminationist rhetoric in his language, as this Hollywood Reporter headline from yesterday vividly illustrates: “Oscars: Harvey Weinstein Discourages Boycott, Predicts Chris Rock Will ‘Annihilate’ Hollywood.”

Well, I’d tune in for that — as Red Skelton famously said after all of Hollywood seemed to show up for the 1958 funeral of Harry Cohn, an even more reviled studio head, “It proves what Harry always said: give the public what they want and they’ll come out for it.”

IF WE CAN’T HAVE SMOD, HE’S THE NEXT BEST THING: CNN Compares Donald Trump to ‘Death Star.’

Remember, this is the same network that once got the vapors over its guests using a word like “crosshairs.” But now comparing Trump to a planetary killing machine* is perfectly fine.

Related: “New York Times columnist Ross Douthat apologized for joking about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign ending in an assassination attempt.”

Paul Krugman, always on the lookout for “eliminationist rhetoric,” call your office.

* To be fair, one that’s on the side of the angels, but still.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC, THE STAGE PLAY: ‘Killing Republicans’ musical to premiere, as Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton campaign.

OBAMA — STILL POLARIZING AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, writes Victor Davis Hanson, with a detail that should have gotten much wider play last week:

Polls confirm that Obama is the most polarizing president in recent memory. There is little middle ground: supporters worship him; detractors in greater number seem to vehemently dislike him. Why then does the president, desperate for some sort of legacy, continue to embrace polarization?

A few hours before delivering that State of the Union, President Obama met with rapper Kendrick Lamar. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn’t the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up?

Read the whole thing.

VDH naturally asks how the media would have responded if GWB had invited a figure this polarizing to the White House, but the current president’s own history is also telling. Recall that in January of 2011 after the Tucson shooting, “Obama [Called] for a New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics,” as the New York Times described his widely praised speech. Jared Lee Loughner severely wounded a congresswoman, killed or wounded 17 others — and killed a federal judge. And last week, Obama met with someone whose album cover features an image of a judge who had just been murdered. And a media that was once utterly obsessed over “eliminationist rhetoric” and bulls-eye clip-art didn’t lose a moment of sleep.


As Jonah Goldberg once said of the DNC-MSM, “To Hell With You People.”


Shot: Bernie Sanders: No, I won’t explain how I’ll pay for everything for everyone.



WHERE HAS THE MEDIA BEEN? HOW CAMPUS CENSORSHIP NEVER WENT AWAY: “Most people are familiar with the supposed heyday of political correctness of the 1980s and ’90s, but there is a popular misconception that speech codes and censorship were defeated in the courts of law and public opinion by the mid-’90s,” my fellow Insta-co-blogger Greg Lukianoff writes at Ricochet. “In reality, the threats to campus speech never went away. Before examining what has changed to alarm the public—rightfully—about the state of open discourse in higher education, it’s important to note what hasn’t changed.”

The media was fine with political correctness and censorship when it mostly being used against the right. But sooner or later, all revolutions eventually devour their own; which is why the MSM woke themselves somewhat from their slumber last year. Or as Kevin Williamson noted when lefty Jonathan Chait issued his widely-disseminated cri de coeur on the dangers political correctness in New York magazine last year, “Chait’s recent critique of political correctness insists that the phenomenon has undergone a resurgence. It hasn’t; contrary to Chait’s characterization, it never went away. The difference is that it is now being used as a cudgel against white liberals such as Jonathan Chait, who had previously enjoyed a measure of immunity.”

(Oh and speaking of Chait, perhaps to make up for an argument that last year that advanced the right, he’s now turned to eliminationist rhetoric to try to mend fences: “New York Magazine’s Chait ‘Votes’ For Oregon Militia Members To Be ‘Killed.’”)

RACISM, SEXISM, AGEISM, AND ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Gun-controller Mark Kelly: ‘Middle-Aged White Men’ with Decreased Life Expectancy Cling to Guns.


Last week, Donald Trump was once again disgusted. Commenting on Hillary Clinton’s awkward bathroom break during the last Democratic debate, he said, “I know where she went, it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it. No, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it, it’s disgusting, let’s not talk.”

It’s not the first time that Trump has been perturbed by a bodily function. As Frank Bruni noted in his New York Times column, Trump has been publicly disgusted by Marco Rubio’s sweat and by the idea of pumping breast milk. Then there was his notorious comment about Fox News host Megyn Kelly, in which he conveyed an almost visceral revulsion: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

The Trump campaign has stunned bemused pundits by growing in strength with every controversy and outrageous policy proposal, like banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States. It has finally forced them to admit that his success comes not despite these things, but because of them.

What if disgust is a distinct part of that?

It’s an interesting angle, though I’m not sure if a magazine which in 2013 advised President Obama to roll the tanks in and start shelling the GOP-controlled Congress during the fall budget sequester is the best publication to be proffering it.


Related: David Gelernter asks “What Explains the Vicious Left? When politics becomes a religion, nonbelievers must be punished.”

TNR apparently prefers the T-34 tank to get the job done.


Washington (CNN) Ted Cruz obtained new ammunition Tuesday to shoot at his favorite bogeyman, the mainstream media, after The Washington Post depicted his two young daughters as monkey-like characters doing the bidding of their father.

Beyond the “monkey-like characters” weasel words, nice eliminationist rhetoric there. This from the network where in January 2011, in the immediate wake of the shooting of Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, Republican-appointed Federal Judge John Roll and 17 others, anchor John King “issued a prompt on-air apology minutes after a guest on his program used the term ‘crosshairs’ during a segment: ‘We’re trying to get away from using that kind of language.’”

Feel free to start anytime, fellas.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Chicago pastors warn of political “friendly fire” as anti-Rahm battle continues:

Pssst, Democrats — they’re talking about you. A group of pastors in Chicago warned today that the battle for justice after the Laquan McDonald killing would be a political war in which “there are going to be casualties,” and that “friends of ours are going to go down.” They want a petition drive for a call of “no confidence” in Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and they also want the video of another police shooting released. So far, Emanuel’s administration has refused, but the community is organizing protests to push harder:

* * * * * *

That warning about “friends” wasn’t aimed at Rahm Emanuel. It’s aimed at Democrats who might be inclined to circle the wagons to protect him. It’s a warning to the state legislature not to bottle up the recall-election bill introduced this week for the specific purpose of ousting Emanuel. And at least to some degree, it’s a warning to Hillary Clinton to quit supporting the longtime family friend.

“Casualties”? “Friends of ours are going to go down”? Why are Chicago pastors using gun-related metaphors that MSNBC has deemed the equivalent of the N-word? Particularly after President Obama called for “a New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics:”

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do,” he said, “it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. As legendary pacifist Alec Baldwin also asked of his fellow Democrats in 2011, “What Changes Will We Make After the Giffords Shooting?”

When will their fellow Democrats finally heed these idealistic cri de cœurs?

JOHN HINDERAKER: The Times Goes Gaga Over Guns. “The Times pretends to be concerned about violence, specifically homicide. Weirdly, however, the editorial fails even to mention the fact that the homicide rate in the U.S. has been steadily falling for some years, to the point where it is at a historic low, only around half what it was in the early 1990s–you remember, the golden age of the Clinton administration.”

Plus: “You can find a lot more sanity at just about any gun range than you can in the New York Times editorial board room.” Yes.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg on the NYT:

Similarly, while very, very, very few people outside the Times’ offices — and media nerds like me — could care less about what is essentially a P.R. gimmick, the Times thinks this is a Very Big Deal. For the staid grey lady this amounts to shouting “Unleash the Kraken!” It shows you how desperate and frustrated the editors — and liberals generally — are with the fact that this country doesn’t agree with them on guns. It also shows that the “national conversation” most Americans want has more to do with Islamist terrorism and less to do with the alleged “gun show loophole.” This alone doesn’t make The Times’ views or their arguments illegitimate or invalid. But it does illustrate how unpersuasive they are to much of the public.

The same can be said for the disgustingly hypocritical new fad of calling Wayne LaPierre a “terrorist.” This from the same crowd who insisted Sarah Palin had blood on her hands because of some cross-hairs on a congressional district map and that Michelle Bachmann should be put in the dock for her “eliminationist rhetoric.” I have no problem with criticizing LaPierre, but the double standard is just so appalling. I mean, seriously, to Hell with these people.

What’s true for lawyers is also true for newspapers: When you’re shouting and pounding the table, it’s probably because you’re losing the argument.

Yes, but it’s also meant to get us talking about guns, instead of Obama’s failure at protecting the country from terrorism.


HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Profs Write Openly Racist Manifesto Against Campus Concealed Carry.

Related: College ‘Safe Space’ Boos an Asian Woman For Declaring ‘Black People Can Be Racist.’


Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 9.04.59 PM

I got an email about my USA Today column from an angry lefty with the usual “Republicans are a bunch of dying old white people who’ll be gone soon” eliminationist rhetoric. I was tempted to send him this article on the GOP’s takeover of state governments. But I’ll repeat a question I asked earlier: In light of these campus scandals, will we see more, or less, human, financial, and reputational capital flowing to higher education in the future?



The Cocked Fist Culture has turned into an ouroboros, except the snake is well past swallowing its own tail. It’s eaten its way clean up to mid-sternum. Recent books across the political spectrum have extensively documented this turn, notably Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson’s End of Discussion on the right and Kirsten Powers’s The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech on the center-left. Though the outrage industrial complex shows no sign of shrinking, some thought a high-water mark had been reached earlier this year when Jonathan Chait, a New York writer and reliable liberal, broke ranks, accusing his own team of ideological repression through all the thought-and-speech policing. He charged that the hijacked left had adopted the modus operandi of old-line smash-mouth Marxists, who’ve always been contemptuous of mainstream liberalism’s tendency to enshrine dissent. The present left merely swaps Marxist preoccupation with economics for race-and-gender-identity fetishization.

While some on the right gave Chait a swat for sniffily arriving a quarter-century late to the anti-p.c. party, his comrades lined up to steamroll him. Amanda Taub, Vox’s self-described “senior sadness correspondent,” responded that there’s no such thing as political correctness. Even using the term is just a way “to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue,” a device “often used by those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people.” A sentence that sounded suspiciously like it had been written by a political-correctness meme generator. The kind that Orwell described as prose consisting “less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a pre-fabricated hen-house.”

But the senior sadness correspondent must’ve grown even sadder when several months later, Vox itself ran a piece by a professor bylined Edward Schlosser. He complained of students’ claiming grievous harm over every imagined affront. Of his and his colleagues’ having to adjust their teaching materials so as not to trample the fragile buttercups, for fear of losing their jobs. Of being afraid to teach the likes of Upton Sinclair and Mark Twain at the risk of triggering sensibility-offending IEDs. Of cultural studies and social-justice writers enabling these attitudes in popular media by attempting to make complex fields of study as easily digestible as a TGIF sitcom, which has “led to an adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice.”

The piece’s headline, incidentally, was “I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me.” One is tempted to reply to Professor Schlosser (not his real name, he was too afraid to use it): How do you think the rest of us feel? Especially as the students being taught—if “teaching” is actually what happens in the trigger-warned, hermetically sealed safe spaces that higher-education classrooms have become—move into the workforce. There, they can further the debate, which no longer remotely resembles a debate, since a debate is something too unsafe-spacey to have.

“The Cocked Fist Culture: Crossing the Microaggressions Minefield,” by Matt Labash, which appeared online this past Thursday at the Weekly Standard.

Chaser: “Awful: Somebody made a video of Dana Loesch shooting herself in the head.”

—, yesterday.

No word yet when Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, Brian Ross, CNN and President Obama will be condemning this disgusting bit of eliminationist artwork and its excoriating effect on the culture as a whole.


In 2008, NBC waited until Obama was securely in place as the Democrat nominee before beginning their search and destroy mission on Hillary. That culminated in Keith Olbermann’s violent eliminationist rhetoric in late April of that year, demanding “Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

If not Hillary, which Democrat has NBC’s corporate backing this time around?

Related: “Every GOP candidate better have their contingency plan ready for when Hillary isn’t the nominee. We weren’t in 08 and it screwed us.”

GENDER IN ACADEMIA: Chronicle of Higher Education:

In addition to women’s superiority in judgment, their trustworthiness, reliability, fairness, working and playing well with others, relative freedom from distracting sexual impulses, and lower levels of prejudice, bigotry, and violence, they live longer, have lower mortality at all ages, are more resistant to most categories of disease, and are much less likely to suffer brain disorders that lead to disruptive and even destructive behavior. And, of course, they can produce new life from their own bodies, to which men add only the tiniest biological contribution — and one that soon could be done without. . . . To call being male a syndrome is not an arbitrary judgment.

The eliminationist rhetoric just gets more and more open.

MESSAGE TO STRAIGHT WHITE MEN: “SIT DOWN AND LET US ABOLISH YOU.” The left isn’t even trying to hide its eliminationist fantasies any more.

Screen Shot 2015-04-18 at 8.57.12 AM

Though you’d think a writer would be clearer on the distinction between “less” and “fewer.”

UPDATE: “This was an important exercise in adolescent self-importance.”

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: A Better World, Run by Women: Male biology has brought the world war, corruption and scandal. Women are poised to lead us to a better place.

I know this is just more pro-Hillary battlespace prep — but Hillary herself is the best argument against this gauzy, dishonest thinking. And for that matter, it takes a peculiar sort of person to look at America today and conclude that its problem is too much testosterone.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Texas Democrat Spanish-Language Ad Calls Tea Partiers ‘Radical Terrorists.’

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Ultimately the question is, does ‘mankind’ really need men?” “That’s from the NYT, which is, of course, written for women. Stuff like this is considered light entertainment. It will be interspersed with serious articles about the ‘war on women.’ Enjoy!”

SHOOTING THOSE WHO DISAGREE ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Ed Driscoll: Terry Gilliam’s Eliminationist Rhetoric. With lefties, however funny they might seem, things always seem to turn to the gulag eventually.

Plus: “Gilliam’s dystopian 1985 film Brazil ends with Jonathan Pryce’s protagonist being brutally tortured by Michael Palin’s Speer or Eichmann-esque coolly technocratic statist character. Presumably, Pryce’s character dies at the end of the film or shortly afterwards. Who knew until now Gilliam meant it to be a happy ending and the whole film a how-to guide for big government?”

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Dana Milbank: A Welcome End To American Whiteness.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Daily Beast Targets Rand Paul with Violent Imagery. “Is the Daily Beast calling for the assassination of Rand Paul?”


Whenever there is a school shooting, liberals try to capitalize by pushing for more gun control. But a recent story here in Minnesota reinforces a point that we have made before: would-be “shooters” are usually copycats who admire the fame that prior mass murderers have achieved. If we really want to cut down on school shootings, in particular, the most effective measure would be to prohibit news media from reporting on them; or, perhaps, bar them from reporting the name of the shooter.

Considering all of their tut-tutting about civility, eliminationist rhetoric and talk of banning gun-related words from public discourse in early 2011, I’m sure the MSM will eagerly go along, right?

WEEKEND FICTION REVIEW: Politico Says Media Is Rough on Hillary.

To be fair, they were in 2008 at times, including MSNBC employing plenty of eliminationist rhetoric, when the MSM was pushing her to hand the Democratic nomination to Obama.

And as Glenn noted earlier today when Tina Brown suggested yesterday that Hillary retire from retail politics all together, “The real message is to the Democrats: You’d better have a Hillary alternative ready!”

ED DRISCOLL: The New York Times’ Eliminationist Rhetoric.


“A random individual, unknown to the congressman, began screaming at him and grabbed his arm,” said spokeswoman Cassie Smedile in a Thursday morning statement. “Mr. Duffy was unharmed. He reported the incident in compliance with House security procedures. Congressman Duffy has requested no further action be taken and there will be no further comment on the matter at this time.”

The confrontation may have stemmed from frustration over the federal government shutdown, according to sources.

They told me if I supported the Tea Party, violent yahoos would be attacking members of Congress. And they were right!

ED DRISCOLL: Eliminationist Rhetoric: New Republic Wants Obama to Send in Tanks Against GOP. You know, I’m beginning to think that lefties don’t believe there’s any sort of legitimate opposition. I wonder what E.J. Dionne has to say?

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Newspaper editor wants NRA members sent to Guantanamo.

Makes me want to buy another gun.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: New Tone: Liberals in Media Call Senator Kelly Ayotte a ‘Target.’

BLOOD LIBELS: Developer of Eliminationist Narrative still claiming Jared Loughner was “right-wing.”

Almost everyone else, even in the left-blogosphere, has given up on that claim. Loughner was a lunatic living in a nether world who had no obvious political motivation for the shooting. Indeed, Loughner was so out of it that he initially was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial, a really tough standard.

Anecdotally, Loughner in his earlier years seemed to have liberal leanings according to people who knew him. He had no right-wing activism or connection, regardless of how broadly one defines “right wing.”

But it’s all about the narrative.

PROF. JACOBSON: Add Boston Marathon Bombing to pile of Failed Eliminationist Narratives.

Related: Telegraph: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat. “Even when that fight does directly touch on American lives, as it did last September when the US ambassador to Libya was murdered in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda linked group, the administration appears at pains to deny the connection.”

UPDATE: Speaking of eliminationist: MJ Rosenberg Calls for Public Execution of Republicans and Matt Drudge.

DEHUMANIZING ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC:  “[Anyone] who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting,” tweets Jim Carrey, in-between sparring with moviegoers on Twitter who disagree with his anti-Second Amendment viewpoint.

Presumably Carrey is wishing for his box office appeal to become increasingly “selective,” as Spinal Tap manager Ian Faith euphemistically explained his charges’ own declining popularity.

Update: An Insta-reader emails that Carrey’s hateful rhetoric is “a pretty harsh thing to say about Gabby Gifford’s husband….”

Meanwhile, Greg Gutfeld and Dana Loesch punch back twice as hard; including Loesch asking Carrey if he’ll be denouncing his own upcoming Kick Ass 2 movie, to remain consistent with his anti-gun rhetoric; Carrey bravely runs away in response. Unexpectedly.

(Bumped to top.)

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth.

JAMES TARANTO: Other People’s Children: The NRA accuses Obama of hypocrisy. He proceeds to prove their point. “If the president wants his critics to refrain from even indirectly referring to his daughters, he ought to stop exploiting ordinary people’s children in this manner.”

People keep saying the NRA’s PR effort is inept. But it’s Obama who’s adopted the NRA’s signature anti-school-shooting program, not the other way around. . . .

UPDATE: Flashback: In 1999, Obama wouldn’t support tougher prosecution for school shooters.

Meanwhile, more eliminationist rhetoric: Bob Schieffer likens NRA to Nazis.

And Josh Marshall calls the NRA a “disease.”

STANDING UP AGAINST ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Rep. Sensenbrenner calls on Obama to denounce ‘Bullet to the Head of the NRA’ video game. “Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is calling on President Barack Obama to denounce an online video game that encourages players to shoot and kill National Rifle Association officials.”

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Teachers union leader jokes about killing the rich. But this is my favorite part:

“The thing is, [the rich] think nothing about killing us,” she said. “They think nothing about putting our people in harm’s way. They think nothing about lethal working conditions.”

She cited the fact that not all Chicago schools have air conditioning as evidence that the union’s opponents want teachers to work in dangerous conditions.

Well, that is dangerous when you’re morbidly obese, I guess. (See photo). Plus this:

Lewis is no stranger to controversial comments. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, she charged Teach for America with helping to “kill and disenfranchise children from schools across the nation.”

Nice to know that someone like this is playing a major role in America’s public education system.

UPDATE: In case you thought I was exaggerating with that “morbidly obese” line.


• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

This kind of talk makes me want to buy an assault rifle. Or twelve. And really, dude, the fact that you’re angry doesn’t give you some sort of a pass from the norms of civil society. Or, if it does, be prepared to tolerate a lot of things that you’ll find intolerable. Because, you know, a lot of people are angry.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Rep. Steny Hoyer says House GOP are like child hostage-takers threatening to shoot.

BUT, I THINK, NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT YOU’D SEE HERE, NOW: Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets. Especially with all the eliminationist rhetoric coming from the left lately.

MORE ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers? People certainly do seem to be trying to push the idea of violence against folks on the right lately, don’t they?

UPDATE: Reader Allen S. Thorpe writes:

What amuses me is how so many of these people claim to be anti-violence and pacifistic until someone disagrees with them. Apparently it never occurs to them that these ideals can never be met until we learn to disagree without rancor. It’s a symptom of childishness to throw a tantrum when you don’t get your way.

That’s probably obvious, but it keeps happening and they never seem to get it. You can’t maintain a republic when there are too many people like that allowed to vote.

It’s a problem.

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS POST ASSASSINATION HIT LIST. “In fact, the newsletter conveniently provides the names, addresses and phone numbers of the assassination targets.”

UPDATE: Reader Warren Bonesteel writes: “The ‘narrative’ is about making it socially acceptable to start killing Republicans and conservatives. This type of ‘narrative’ is always a precursor to such events, historically speaking.” We do seem to be hearing a lot of eliminationist rhetoric lately.

I KNOW I HAVEN’T: Don’t get too excited about Professor Loomis. “Professor Loomis’ vivid tweets are not actionable threats. That is to say, they aren’t ‘true threats’ outside the protection of the First Amendment.”

That’s right. They’re just hate-filled “eliminationist rhetoric” of the sort that lefties are always accusing people on the right of, but seem to engage in rather a lot themselves. Not a firing offense, but certainly worthy of widespread mockery.

Related thoughts from Joshua Trevino: “One could hardly defend Loomis and his record on the merits. Nevertheless, one can note that this might not be, well, justice. My only interactions with the man revealed him to be offensive and somewhat dim: he loathes Texas, is a rather pedestrian academic-left radical, and seems to have problems moderating his tone online. These are bad things. (And, reversing the ideological direction, it is not wholly unlike myself.) But they are not the whole man: and they don’t rise to the level, in my book, of wanting to render him bereft and ruined. . . .He earned his opprobrium, but not his destruction.”

UPDATE: Badger Pundit writes: “Nice post on Loomis. Especially classy after the Crooked Timber profs accused you of being the ‘witch hunt’ ringleader. The Crooked Timber profs aren’t exactly open to explaining what the heck is the ACADEMIC FREEDOM interest they’re defending (as Loomis’s tweets were part of his private life, i.e., not related to his academic field.)”

Ringleader? I never even mentioned his name, and I came to the story after lots of other people. But I’m used to bogus charges from the Crooked Timber gang. Which is why I hadn’t seen that, since I no longer read them.

But hey, if you want to argue that “head on a stick” isn’t any sort of eliminationist rhetoric, well, duly noted. (But if it was just a metaphor, what about the subsequent reference to settling for imprisonment for life? Is that some colorful metaphor that I’ve somehow missed?) Anyway, I’m sure that if someone makes a similar statement about Barack Obama, the Crooked Timber folks will rush to defend the colorful metaphor involved. Though certainly Sarah Palin was pilloried for metaphors that were far less colorful.

UPDATE: Free speech academics rally around academic who wanted to shut down NRA free speech. “I don’t think Loomis should be fired, but that doesn’t mean he should be free from criticism. And he certainly is not a hero of anything. He’s just a guy who wanted to deprive others of the rights he claims for himself.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here: “Again, we see no attempt to silence; in fact, the ‘right-wing witch hunt’ arose from little more than (metaphorically) holding up a megaphone to Loomis’ existing speech.”

Plus, how Crooked Timber sanitized Loomis. “It turns out, by the way, that Crooked Timber also misled by omission. Everyone knows that the expression ‘head on a stick’ is a metaphor, and that is how Crooked Timber defended Loomis. But see here for some of his truly vile comments. Crooked Timber quoted none of these.”"

MORE HATE SPEECH: Texas Dem. party official apologizes for threatening NRA, Twitterers don’t accept.

When will President Obama denounce this hate-filled eliminationist rhetoric from his supporters? Never, is my guess.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Rhode Island prof demands NRA chief’s “head on a stick” — Then declares himself a Twitter martyr because people quoted what he said. Then he softened his stance to say that imprisonment for life would be enough. All for the crime of political disagreement.

The anti-NRA syllogism seems to work this way: (1) Something bad happened; (2) I hate you; so (3) It’s your fault. This sort of reasoning has played out in all sorts of places over the past century, with poor results. One would expect a history professor to know better.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Hoffa Predicts ‘Civil War’ in Michigan.

Related: IowaHawk: “I’ve now become oddly accustomed to fat violent paramilitary thugs attempting to take state capitols by force.”

UPDATE: John Steakley emails: “Civil war? So violence, decay, despair, filth and chaos in the streets while innocent people flee as fast as they can? In other words, Hoffa threatens that Detroit will look like . . . Detroit.”


ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Chris Matthews: Global Warming Deniers Are “Pigs.” Video at link:

Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we called such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it.

The reference to “stuff” and wanting “more of it” is an odd remark from a man who is reported to make five million dollars a year, but setting that aside, when Chris calls half the country “pigs,” (and it’s not the first time he used the p-word in reference to global warming) he must know that in the context of the 1960s, it reminds many viewers of some rather unsavory historical connotations.

RELATED: Rand Simberg on The Climate-Change Ambulance Chasers.


JAY LENO: Now, Roger Ailes said to Fox, they’re gonna scale back the rhetoric. You think this will last for any longer than a week or two?

MAHER: No, because that’s the rhetoric they love. The right-wing loves, the go-to rhetoric for them is, “Wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with?”

Newsbusters, January 12, 2001: “Bill Maher Heckled by ‘Tonight Show’ Crowd for Saying Conservatives Want to Kill People They Disagree With.”

Flash-forward an appearance by Maher on the October 7th edition of StarTalk Radio, a syndicated radio show hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson,who brought up the topic of the death penalty. Maher responded:

“I have a lot of ideas that you might consider conservative.  But I feel like on that, I’m just consistent, like the pope is consistent.  The pope is consistently pro-life; I’m consistently pro-death.

“I am for the death penalty, although I do believe in more DNA testing,” Maher continued.  “My motto is, ‘Let’s kill the right people.’  I’m pro-choice.  I’m for assisted suicide.  I’m for regular suicide.  I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving.  That’s what I’m for.”

“It’s too crowded,” Maher continued.  “So, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

Such hateful eliminationist rhetoric. I wonder if that’s the official opinion of Time-Warner-CNN-HBO, Maher’s employer?

CHRIS MATTHEWS IN POST-DEBATE MELTDOWN: “We have our knives out! We go after the people and the facts! What was [Obama] doing tonight — he went in there disarmed!”

Funny, I can remember less than two years ago, when Matthews was agreeing with his guests that eliminationist rhetoric and weaponry-related metaphors were racist and should be stricken from the airwaves.

UPDATE: “i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter,” says…Bill Maher?!

OHIO: Obama and Romney Neck in Neck in OH Poll… WITH D+10 SAMPLE.

Plus this from Stacy McCain:

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus just held an impromptu press gaggle and said, “We’re going to outspend the DNC 10-to-1 for the next six weeks.” Asked about polls showing Romney-Ryan trailing in Ohio, Priebus said “we’re within a field goal and we’re going to crush [the Democrats] on the ground.”

Oh noes! Eliminationist rhetoric from the RNC chairman! Somebody send smelling salts to Paul Krugman.


MORE VIOLENT ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC FROM THE WHITE HOUSE: Obama: Team Romney coming on strong, playing dirty, time to ‘put them away.’


THE TWO-MINUTE-HATE OF LAST MONTH BORE VIOLENT FRUIT TODAY: Family Research Council shooter carried Chick-fil-A bag, posed as intern.

When will the Administration and its allies restrain their violent, eliminationist hate-speech attacks on those who believe differently?

Related: Jim Treacher: It’s only an “atmosphere of hate” if it’s useful to liberals. “An organization that’s been vilified by the left gets shot up by somebody yelling about their policies. Ho-hum. Politically motivated shootings are only news when they can be twisted around to make conservatives look bad. Not much chance of that here.”

Also: “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

I BLAME THE HATE-FILLED ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND ITS SUPPORTERS: Domestic Terrorism? Gunman Taken Into Custody After Shooting At Family Research Council. “Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism.”

UPDATE: Crosshairs.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Is the Southern Poverty Law Center to blame for incitement?

More here.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More from Prof. Jacobson.

MORE: Reader Russ Meyer writes:

What I find most interesting about the Family Research Council shooting that you’ve linked to is that the story is on Fox News’ website and Drudge, but it’s nowhere to be found on CNN. I’m sure that’s just an oversight they’ll quickly correct. I mean, it’s not like they’d selectively ignore stories that don’t fit their narrative…right?


MORE STILL: Meyer follows up: “Just wanted to let you know that CNN has now put up a story on the shooting today…two hours after you pointed it out. Maybe someone over there reads Instapundit!” Could be.

JAMES TARANTO: More Thoughts on Bloomberg’s Idiotic Police-Strike Plan.

We are unable to comprehend what Bloomberg could have in mind when he says he didn’t mean his comment “literally.” Last year, when lefties went hysterical over “violent” and “eliminationist” rhetoric from the right, it was clear that almost all of the examples they cited were not literal. Politicians and political observers have long drawn metaphors from the language of combat. Some such metaphors, like the word “campaign,” are so ingrained in the language that they are dead ones.

By contrast, as far as we know there is no metaphorical meaning of the phrase “go on strike.” Further, the context of Bloomberg’s remarks makes clear that he did mean the phrase literally. Merriam-Webster defines strike as “a work stoppage by a body of workers to enforce compliance with demands made on an employer.” Bloomberg said he wants police to declare “collectively”: “We’re not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

I predict that such a strike — not that it’s likely to happen — would lead to less crime, and far less political support for the police. Meanwhile, just to prepare against the eventuality, I think I’ll go buy a gun.

Plus this:

The prospect of police shirking their duty to protect the citizenry strengthens, not weakens, the case for private ownership of firearms and other tools of self-defense.

A police strike, as Bloomberg figured out a day late, is illegal in itself. Bloomberg’s strike would be for the purpose of curtailing the citizenry’s constitutional rights. The mayor urged an unlawful rebellion by government employees against their employers, the people. Since ours is a government of the people, established by the Constitution, this was nothing less than a call for insurrection.

Bloomberg’s an embarrassment to New York. They should be ashamed to have such an ignorant, anti-civil-rights hick running the show.

UPDATE: Mike Bloomberg, criminal? It’s not just the strike that’s illegal. It’s also illegal in New York for public employees to call for one:

You may be familiar with the Taylor Law for its prohibition on strikes by public employees, such as teachers, transit workers, and, yes, police officers. But the law also declares that “no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike.” Bloomberg is a public employee, no? And he appears to be encouraging a strike? Not that we expect Bloomberg to be brought up on charges or anything, but still, he’s the mayor! He’s not supposed to be violating the law.

He may wriggle out on a technicality, but that’s hardly the point. A truly pathetic exhibition by an increasingly embarrassing politician.

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: White House Official on Cory Booker: “He’s Dead To Us.” Maybe he should cross over and become a Republican.

But wait there’s more:

Cory and Barack Obama have never been besties, but that was the final nail. It’s like, ‘You’re dead and done.’ The firing squad is out,” said a Democratic source in contact with both sides.

Remember when people were calling Sarah Palin a murderer for language far more moderate? But that stuff is no longer operative. But just imagine if Republicans were talking about a black man this way.

UPDATE: “Cory Booker is about to be reclassified as white.” Hey, they did it to George Zimmerman.


In Japan, birthrates are now so low and life expectancy so great that the nation will soon have a demographic profile that matches that of the American retirement community of Palm Springs. “Gradually but relentlessly,” the demographer Nick Eberstadt writes in the latest issue of The Wilson Quarterly, “Japan is evolving into a type of society whose contours and workings have only been contemplated in science fiction.”

Funny how the warnings of demographers are laughed off, while the warnings of climate scientists produce immediate calls for action. But what’s most revealing to me is the kind of sentiment displayed in the comments to the piece, such as “There are a DISGUSTING number of people on this earth.” And: “This column is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on a woman’s right to choose.”

And, unsurprisingly, this triumph of eliminationist hate speech:

Call me an America-hating but what better than declining birth rate among a ‘pathogen on the planet’ (Caldicott), hurling pan-global wars & arms & political meddling for its amerigoon-exceptionalist empire promoting a culture of Greed-Uber-Alles. More fundaMentalist Biblicalism we’re all so over?

Oikophobia lives. And Bob Zubrin is clearly on to something. Of course, quoting Helen Caldicott is an immediate I Am An Idiot! marker. . . .

UPDATE: Via email, Jim Bennett notes an irony:

So, “dumb rednecks breeding in their double-wides” turns out to be “America’s demographic secret weapon”?

Some people are obviously having a hard time with the necessary mental re-adjustment.


THINGS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS WEEKEND, if you were out, you know, having a life or something:

The Secret Service Hooker Scandal. More worrisome thoughts on that, here.

The Tea Party in 2012: Unglamorous, but effective.

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Obama Owns the GSA Scandals.

Woman Seeking Man Who Knocked Her Up In The Bathroom At Megadeth/Motorhead Show On Craigslist.

Eliminationist rhetoric: Sen. Orrin Hatch “doggone offended” by “radical libertarians,” threatens to punch them (us) in the mouth.

Financial-News Shenanigans At The Department Of Labor.

Democrat staffer ‘paid to keep quiet after being sexually harassed by party official.’

Farrakhan Condemns Interracial Sex.

Stay-at-home-moms: Hey, Remember Rielle Hunter? “With all the talk about stay-at-home moms right now, this story seems relevant. After all, Rielle Hunter stayed at home — well, a series of secretly rented mansions — and took care of her baby while the father was out there paying the bills.”

The Diplomad Is Back.

Washington Examiner: Obama Goes Negative To Sidestep His Sorry Record. “‘[I]f you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.’ That is what Barack Obama said when he accepted his party’s presidential nomination in 2008. Four years later, it reads like a prophetic description of his re-election campaign.”

David Axelrod endorses Mitt Romney. Well, not intentionally, but . . .

The Nation explains the real Hillary Rosen scandal. And they’ve got a point.

INSTAVISION: I talk with Robert Zubrin about his new book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism. Bob’s written a number of influential books, but I think this one is really going to make a splash. I like the way he calls out the greens on their “eliminationist rhetoric.” (Bumped).

INSTAVISION: I talk with Robert Zubrin about his new book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism. Bob’s written a number of influential books, but I think this one is really going to make a splash. I like the way he calls out the greens on their “eliminationist rhetoric.”

VIOLENT ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC OVER AT DAILYKOS: Murdering, Lying, Thieving, Rat-F*** Republican Pieces of Sub-Amphibian Sh**…

JAMES TARANTO: Bigoted and hateful rhetoric from a New York Times columnist. “Remember when the Times lectured us on civility and warned of ‘eliminationist rhetoric’ from the right? It was largely bunk. But here we have a Times columnist likening his political critics to vermin. To be sure, he is not actually going to exterminate them, as others who’ve used such metaphors down through history have been known to do. Blow’s comments, that is, are not dangerous. But they are profoundly disturbed and indecent.”

DEATH THREATS? I blame the President’s violent, eliminationist rhetoric.

Threats of the sort described by Charles Koch go with the territory if you are a conservative. We have gotten threats, harassing phone calls, etc., over the years–although none lately, as far as I know–and anyone active in politics on the conservative side has had the same experience. With the bizarre campaign of hate that the Left has orchestrated against the Koch brothers over the last year or two, one can hardly imagine the vitriol they must get from liberals.

Of course, that is of little concern to liberal reporters. The civility campaign of 2011 is so…2011. Thus, the Associated Press picked up the story yesterday, but the only thing the AP reporter added was a note of skepticism.

As usual, the “have you no decency?” crowd has none.

MORE ON THE NEW CIVILITY: Obama fanatic threatens to kill Arpaio.

A “fanatical supporter” of President Barack Obama is the prime suspect in an investigation into an Internet death threat against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Adam Eugene Cox, 33, was arrested in Tennessee Friday on an unrelated warrant for assault.

Working with MCSO, deputies in Knoxville, Tenn., served a search warrant and seized evidence from Cox’s home on Friday after an investigation into the death threat came to light in October.

In that threat, Cox stated Arpaio and his family would be killed, according to MCSO. His postings read, in part: “I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. I promise you this. He won’t [expletive] with Obama. He will be buried 10 feet under and his whole family will be murdered along with him.”

Well, given the President’s extremist, eliminationist rhetoric, this sort of thing was bound to happen, I suppose.

MORE ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Democratic lawmaker likens GOP to terrorists for legislative tactics. Does Dave Neiwert know about this?

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Obama: Republicans threaten the “very core of what this country stands for.”

ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Second Establishment ‘Liberal’ Calls for Violent Death to Florida Governor. Does Dave Neiwert know about this?

PROF. JACOBSON: Eliminationist Tweet Of The Day.

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): ‘Time to kill the wealthy,’ says fan of Occupy Wall Street. “And now, the same people who insisted that a U.S. map with crosshairs symbols on it somehow caused an act of horrible violence — by someone who never even saw that map — will insist that the Occupy Wall Street geniuses bear no responsibility for the actions of this lunatic. That the inflammatory ‘eat the rich’ rhetoric we hear day and night from our moral, ethical, and intellectual superiors on the left has absolutely no influence on anything bad their followers do. Either political speech causes violence or it doesn’t, lefties.”

Personally, I blame the extremist eliminationist rhetoric emanating from the White House.


HEY, REMEMBER WHEN MERE CLIP ART BULL’S-EYES WERE CONSIDERED ELIMINATIONIST?  “WaPo op-ed contributor and former Gitmo detainee posts photoshopped dead Obama pic on his website,” Neil Munro of the Daily Caller writes, along with a copy of the gruesome Photoshop in question:

The Washington Post’s Outlook section just gave ex-jihadi Moazzem Begg a half-page this Sunday to lament the U.S. war on jihadis, and Begg repaid the Post by showcasing a photoshopped image of a dead President Barack Obama on his advocacy website.

“The decision to publish Begg’s piece does not reflect a blanket endorsement of his views or of everything that appears on his organization’s Web site,” according to a statement from Carlos Lozada, the section’s editor. He reports to Marcus Brauchli, the Post’s executive editor. “It reflects our interest in exploring the many ways that Osama bin Laden shattered and upended lives… [and] the experience of a Guantanamo detainee is completely relevant.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism directed TheDC to the photo on Begg’s website.

Begg’s action came just before Thursday, when shareholders are expected to protest financial losses by the newspaper’s parent company, The Washington Post Co. The company’s main revenue-source, the Kaplan education division, has lower profits than expected.

But then as Ramesh Ponnuru of the Corner notes, Begg’s article isn’t the only “Exceptionally Strange” item the Post has run in recent days:

Richard Cohen’s attack on “American exceptionalism” — which “has been adopted by the right to mean that America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God” — takes him into some strange territory.

The huge role of religion in American politics is nothing new but always a matter for concern nonetheless. In the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. The 1856 Republican convention concluded with a song that ended like this: “We’ve truth on our side/ We’ve God for our guide.” Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield.

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter.

Does Cohen really want to maintain that the Republicans of the 1850s should have been more willing to compromise on slavery? Is this what liberalism has come to?

Whatever it’s morphed into, I’m not sure if “liberal” is the necessarily the best word to describe the current state of the left.

LEFTY RADIO TALKER: “I’m A Bloodthirsty Liberal.”

Huh. It’s so hard to keep up with fads these days — it seemed like just yesterday, eliminationist rhetoric was quite a bad thing.

FAILED ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Professor Jacobson says, be careful before you go full eliminationist.

MORE ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC FROM THE LEFT: Progressive Libtalker Mike Milloy Threatens Breitbart. Breitbart craps bigger than this guy.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION UPDATE: Photos: WI protesters call Gov. Walker a dictator, put crosshairs on his face. Someone tell Paul Krugman and the “civility police!”

The very first comment: “These people are the ones teaching the children? Nice. This really makes me want to forgo my own retirement in order to finance theirs. Fire them all.”

UPDATE: James Taranto on the “Civility Swindle.” Say, will some White House reporter ask President Obama if he condemns the violent eliminationist rhetoric of the Wisconsin public-employee unions?

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: “What do you think would happen if a student in a public school called the principal a dictator and put crosshairs on his face? Given the prevailing zero-tolerance (aka zero-thought) policies, the best the student could hope for would be a lengthy suspension. These people really have no clue.”

SO MUCH FOR THE NEW CIVILITY: Chris Matthews Issues ‘Call to Arms’ Against ‘Unpatriotic’ Bush and Rumsfeld. Eliminationist rhetoric! Someone alert Paul Krugman!

JAMES TARANTO: What They Mean by ‘Civility’: The New York Times raises no objection to murderous, racist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

The New York Times editorial page, a division of the New York Times Co., on Saturday endorsed Common Cause’s personal attack on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. . . . That campaign took an even more sinister turn at a Common Cause protest Jan. 30, as we noted Thursday. Participants in the rally were captured on video advocating the assassination of Scalia, Thomas, Thomas’s wife and Chief Justice John Roberts. Two of them explicitly called for Justice Thomas, the court’s only black member, to be lynched. One man also asserted that Fox News president Roger Ailes “should be strung up,” adding: “Kill the bastard.”

A statement from Common Cause made clear that what it called these “hateful, narrow-minded sentiments”–rather a delicate way of describing lurid calls for murder–were contrary to the corporate position of the self-styled “grassroots organization.” But the Times editorial expresses no disapproval of the Common Cause supporters’ racist and eliminationist statements. . . . This is the same New York Times that, as we noted Jan. 11, seized on the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona to announce that “it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible” for a “gale of anger” that the Times claimed had set “the nation on edge”–even though it had already been established that the vicious crime in Arizona had nothing to do with Republicans or their “supporters in the media.”

By the Times’s standards, surely it is legitimate to hold Common Cause, and particularly its most virulent supporters in the media, responsible for the depraved sentiments expressed at the Common Cause rally. That the editorial said nothing at all about the subject is further evidence that the paper’s pieties about “civility” are fraudulent–a cheap exercise in partisanship and a thuggish attempt to burnish its own reputation by tearing down those of its media competitors.

Thuggish but ineffectual.

That’s likely to be the epitaph for Pinch Sulzberger’s version of the New York Times.

“STRING HIM UP:” James Taranto reflects on racist and eliminationist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally. “To be sure, there is no reason to think that Bob Edgar or other officials of Common Cause advocate violence against Supreme Court justices or media executives, that they approve of such violent fantasies, or that they personally hold racially or ethnically bigoted opinions. But Common Cause does describe itself as a ‘grassroots organization.’”

INTRODUCING Academic Death Panels. This sounds like more of that “eliminationist rhetoric” to me.


A self-described Massachusetts “political activist” was arrested Monday night and charged with sending a threatening e-mail to Florida Rep. William Snyder, R-Stuart, an hour after the Arizona shooting that killed six and critically injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The unsigned e-mail, sent to Snyder’s state House of Representatives address on Jan. 8, told the legislator to “stop that ridiculous law if you value your and your familie’s lives.”

Snyder has proposed a bill cracking down on illegal immigration for Florida in a manner similar to what Arizona has done.

Obviously, all the hate-filled rhetoric aimed at Arizona set this troubled person off. Will the Democrats please stop it with the violent, eliminationist talk before more people are inspired to violence?

UPDATE: Pintado, 47, is a student at the University of Massachusetts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: “You would think a 47 year old student at the University of Massachusetts could spell the possessive of ‘Family.’”

JAMES TARANTO: Eliminationist rhetoric against Sarah Palin: a production of the Missoula Children’s Theater. “In all seriousness, though, like much of what we have been writing about in the past few weeks, this incident is shocking but not surprising. For all the bogus accusations being thrown at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, genuinely hateful political rhetoric is commonplace in the art world, even in art that is not overtly political.”

OH, THAT’S RICH: Person Tweeting Death-Wish for Palin Now Wants Privacy.

There are two principles at issue. First, there is no expectation of privacy as to death wishes. Second, there is no expectation of privacy on Twitter.

Sorry lady, you’ll have to live with the consequences of your Tweet, because even if YouTube takes down the video, we all have screen shots.

Have you noticed how these people are all about the airbrushing? Plus, from the comments: “Twitter seems to be very effective, in a raw Darwinian sort of way, at identifying the true morons, doesn’t it?”

Related: Palin Getting Death Threats At Unprecedented Levels. I blame Paul Krugman. When will he apologize for his eliminationist rhetoric?

UPDATE: Reader Paul Stinchfield writes: “The Dutch libertarian Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by a Green Party member. The murder was the direct result of an intense campaign of lies by the European Left to demonize Fortuyn as some sort of neo-Nazi who institute a fascist state and a campaign of ethnic cleansing.” Yes, you’d think Europeanists like Krugman would be paying attention.


I also agree that this may be a tipping point in Krugman’s disgraceful career as a columnist. For one thing, he is intellectually lazy and seems to operate on the principle that a Krugman assertion is, ipso facto, an established fact. He rarely buttresses his assertions with evidence. His one bit of evidence that ”eliminationist rhetoric” in American political life is overwhelmingly on the right was to quote Rep. Michelle Bachmann as saying that people who oppose the Obama agenda should be “armed and dangerous.”

Far worse, however, he is intellectually dishonest. Even the Times’s first public editor, Daniel Okrent, said that Krugman has a “disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” He is no less cavalier with quotes. As John Hinderaker at Power Line shows, complete with a recording of the entire interview, Michelle Bachmann was merely using a metaphor. She was holding a town hall meeting with constituents regarding the cap-and-trade bill and said, “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” She was arming them with information, not bullets, so they could successfully oppose a terrible bill, not shoot politicians.

On June 19, 1954, Joseph Welch asked Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” It turned out to be the tipping point in McCarthy’s career, the moment when public opinion turned decisively against him. By the end of the year, he had been censured by the Senate. He died a few years later, the object of public scorn, which he remains for most.

I hope that Krugman’s column on Monday, when he shamelessly used a tragedy to smear his political opponents, will be his have-you-no-decency-sir moment. He deserves one. He is the Joe McCarthy of our times.


UPDATE: Christian Science Monitor: As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, ‘vitriol’ blame fades. But, so far, apologies are not forthcoming.

“PAUL KRUGMAN, BUFFOON.” Yes, he hasn’t just descended into self-caricature. He’s descended beyond self-caricature.

My guess is that Krugman has no idea when Michele referred to being “armed and dangerous,” or why, or what the rest of the sentence was. Krugman’s biggest problem isn’t that he is stupid. His biggest problem is that he is lazy. He is incapable of doing even the most rudimentary research, which is why his columns rarely contain many facts, and when they do, his “facts” are often wrong.

As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with me, on my radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans.

The interview illustrates quite well the difference between Michele Bachmann and Paul Krugman. Krugman is a vicious hater. He rarely argues any issue on the merits, but prefers to smear those who disagree with him. Bachmann is infinitely better informed than Krugman. All she wants to do is debate her opponents on the facts. . . . For the record, here is what Michele said: “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” Yes, that’s right: she wanted Minnesotans to be armed with materials–facts and arguments–not guns. If this is the best example of “eliminationist rhetoric” that the far left can come up with, you can see how absurdly weak the claims of Krugman and his fellow haters are.

Krugman: Dumb and lazy. And mean. He’s quite a poster-child for the credentialed gentry. Audio of the interview at the link.

THE ECONOMIST: Spinning Tucson: Krugman’s Toxic Rhetoric. “This struck me as irresponsibly premature, and one might have thought that, given a little more time and information, Mr Krugman would change his tune, or at least turn down the volume. Nope. . . . At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by ‘toxic’ or ‘eliminationist’ conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It’s nuts. It’s offensive.”

It’s Krugman. Related thoughts here. “Another way of describing Fitzsimmons’s and Krugman’s comments is that they were fantasies. In the absence of facts, each man constructed a fictional story to explain what had happened. These stories tell us nothing about the external world, but they give us a window into the psyches of Fitzsimmons and Krugman.” Indeed they do. Plus this: “It seems to us there is a very strong case to be made that the ugliest political rhetoric of the past 48 hours has been that coming from the side whose leading voices are attempting to make sense of a senseless crime by blaming their opponents for it.”

JACOB SULLUM: Paul Helmke Indicts Wayne LaPierre for Mass Murder While Condemning ‘Heated Political Rhetoric’. Hypocrisy, thy name is Helmke. Hackery, too.

Related: Eliminationist Symbolism From The Brady Campaign.

REVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC AT SALON? “It must be admitted that there are some who have argued for some time that the Obama administration is ‘radical,’ and that it operates without due regard for the Constitution. For instance, at least one writer at Salon. I trust Mr. Pareene and his colleagues can work this out among themselves, and I eagerly await Mr. Pareene’s clear and unqualified statement of his belief that the election of George W. Bush was neither illegitimate nor illegal.”

Plus, remembering Andrew Sullivan’s eliminationist rhetoric.

TOM MAGUIRE DEPLORES the New York Times’ embrace of eliminationist rhetoric.

I BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION’S VIOLENT, ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Arsonist Strikes on Cape Cod, Leaves Calling Card: ‘F–k the Rich’. When will they be called to account for their inflammatory hate speech, which is producing acts of violence across the country?

ERIC SCHEIE: Libertarianism is dictatorial collectivism. And freedom is slavery. And you can spot the fascists, because they’re the ones calling for a smaller government!

UPDATE: Related item. “Killer angels?” We sure are seeing a lot of “eliminationist rhetoric” from the pro-Obama crowd, aren’t we?

MORE HATE-FILLED ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Kanjorski on Gov.-Elect Rick Scott: “Shoot Him.” “Congressman Paul Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who just lost his seat to Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican, had another target on his mind before he lost his election. Curiously, that would be Rick Scott, now the Republican Governor-elect of Florida. Kanjorski is clearly not a Scott fan. In fact, he has suggested that the Governor-elect should be…shot.”

Related: Should Libtalker Be Held Accountable For Hateful Rantings? Do Low Ratings Excuse Dangerous Outbursts?

ELECTION LOSS PRODUCES more eliminationist racial extremist rhetoric at DailyKos. Somebody tell Jon Stewart!

UPDATE: Reader Margaret Meigs writes: “When you click on the link there is a big Brooks Brothers ad at the top. Wow! Let’s get dressed up and join Kos on those barricades right now!” DailyKos is Stuff White People Like, so it kind of makes sense, really . . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Maybe the Krazy Kos Kidz should be listening to William Galston.

ISN’T THAT “ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC?” Humans as an “invasive species.” Personally, I think it’s good to be an invasive species.

THINGS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS WEEKEND, if you were off, you know, having a life or something:

An Army of Davids is now on Kindle. Hey, if I don’t point it out, who will?

A growing distance between Main Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

More momentum for the “Repeal Amendment.”

My Washington Examiner column: I Told You So. With a warning for today’s GOP leaders.

Stuxnet jumps from computers to humans.

Giving taxpayers an itemized receipt. I question whether this will boost support for government.

The dimness of our “educated” class.

Drone warfare as force protection, and drones as strategic air power.

Earth to Beltway: It’s the uncertainty, stupid.

A constitutional amendment to limit spending?

Environmentalists’ eliminationist rhetoric. I’ve written on this topic before.

Some terrific stem cell news.

Fisheries: Iain Murray says Obama’s right and the critics are wrong.

How to save California.

GM’s IPO: A Government “Pump-and-Dump” Scheme?

Hipster heartache: Velvet Underground Drummer Now A Tea Partier. One who is “furious about the way we are being led towards socialism.”

Ten Great Nontraditional Movie Vampires.

*/ ?>