Search Results

IT’S MORE THAN JUST A SPOT: Ruth Wisse in the Wall Street Journal on “Obama’s Racial Blind Spot” and how the Iran deal will fuel racism toward Jews:

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency represented to many Americans this country’s final triumph over racism. Reversing the record of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, his victory was hailed as a redemptive moment for America and potentially for humankind. How grotesque that the president should now douse that hope by fueling racism on a global scale.

Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. . . . Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias. . . .

Perhaps Mr. Obama is oblivious to what the scholar Robert Wistrich (who died in May) called “the longest hatred” because it has been so much a part of his world as he moved through life. Muslim Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10, trails only Pakistan and Iran in its hostility to Jews. An animus against Jews and Israel was a hallmark of the Rev.Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago that Mr. Obama attended for two decades. And before he ran for office, Mr. Obama carried the standard of the international left that invented the stigma of Zionism-as-imperialism. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama felt obliged to repudiate his pastor (who had famously cursed America from the pulpit), and muted his far-left credentials. Mr. Obama was voted into office by an electorate enamored of the idea that he would oppose all forms of racism. He has not met that expectation.

Some Jewish critics of Mr. Obama may be tempted to put his derelictions in a line of neglect by other presidents, but there is a difference. Thus one may argue that President Roosevelt should have bombed the approach routes to Auschwitz or allowed the Jewish-refugee ship St. Louis to dock in the U.S. during World War II, but those were at worst sins of omission. In sharpest contrast, President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is an act of commission. This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.

Exactly. Why most American Jews are standing silently by, like sheeple, in the face of these facts is a utter mystery to me. Why did American Jews not demand, at a minimum, Iran’s repudiation of its genocidal aims against Israel? Admittedly, such a repudiation would not have changed the hearts and minds of the Iranians, but it would have at least forced the Administration to publicly recognize and discuss Iran’s genocidal intentions.

As it stands, however, the genocidal aims of Iran toward Israel have been swept under the rug, not even worthy of discussion, which is exactly what the Obama Administration wanted. The Administration’s failure to even discuss the inhumanity of Iran’s racist/ethnic hatred is both shameful and telling, particularly given that Obama is our first black president whose entire presidency has focused incessantly on issues of race and ethnicity. The Obama Administration’s indifference to Iran’s hatred of Jews will further fan the flames such hatred across the globe.

The only explanation I can fathom for American Jews’ acquiescence to the Iran deal is that most are liberals/progressives first, Jews second. How tragic that this attitude has emerged only one generation removed from the Holocaust.

DON’T BE SHTUPID, BE A SHMARTY: P.C. Police Go After Mel Brooks’ The Producers:

The intent behind The Producers can be easily discerned, if not from the material itself, then from the man who wrote it. Mel Brook’s is a Jew. So there’s that. Were that somehow not enough, Brooks has been explicit regarding his feelings toward Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. Spoiler alert: he’s against them.

This protest points to a larger crisis of intellect in modern society. We’re losing the capacity to combat bad ideas with humor and mockery. Apparently, you can’t make fun of a thing without being accused of endorsing it. Amy Schumer’s a racist because she makes fun of racism. Mel Brooks is a Nazi because he mocked Nazism. God forbid this Imm see Blazing Saddles.

Which Brooks has stated in recent years could never be made in the ultra-PC climate his fellow Democrats have created. And as John Nolte warned at Big Hollywood a year ago, “‘Blazing Saddles’ Review: Buy a Copy Before the Left Burns Them All.”

DEMOCRATS’ BLUE COLLAR BLUES: Nolan Finley at Detroit News opines, “Democrats’ Handout Strategy is Failing.”

Blue collar white voters believe the Republican Party is better equipped to make the economic system more fair by an overwhelming margin, according to a new Washington Post poll.

In the survey of non-college educated whites, 50 percent had more faith in GOP policies, while 29 percent favored the Democratic strategy.

These are among the workers hit hardest by the economic shifts of the past quarter century, and in particular by the failed polices of the Obama administration.

They’ve seen good paying jobs in Appalachian coal mines become casualties of the president’s war on coal. They’ve lost solid, middle class work on the oil rigs of the Gulf to a president more obsessed with tomorrow’s temperatures than today’s families. And they’ve bid goodbye to Midwestern factory jobs while the president saddles employers with oppressive taxes and regulations. . . .

Mitt Romney, the failed GOP standard bearer in 2012, bemoaned the prospects for selling a message of smaller government when 47 percent of the population is receiving some form of government assistance.

But many of these blue collar whites are among the 47 percenters. They may be getting Obamacare subsidies, or unemployment benefits, or even food stamps.

And that’s not what they want. They’re looking for the opportunity to take care of themselves and their families. They want jobs, not another Big Government giveaway designed to replace the paychecks Democratic policies have killed.

They’ve lost faith — if they ever had any — in the government’s ability to solve their problems. And who can blame them?

All true. Handouts never create opportunity, only dependency. Blue collar workers aren’t hardwired to want handouts; it demeans their humanity and self-sufficiency.  And I should add that blue collar workers comprise 61% of the U.S. working population.

I would also add that Democrats’ incessant demeaning of blue collar workers because of their race (predominantly white), religion, gender (predominantly male), or values isn’t helping a whole lot, either. If you keep suggesting that white, male, Christians who believe in earning a dollar are racist, ignorant, xenophobic, homophobic or otherwise evil, they probably won’t vote for you. 

BECAUSE THEY’RE HYPOCRITES: Ace at Ace of Spades on the Race-Baiting Hypocrisy of Jon Stewart:

Jon Stewart’s Only Black Writer Told Him He Was Uncomfortable With Stewart’s “Black Guy” Impression; Racist Jon Stewart Told Him to “F*** Off,” Angrily.

I kind of understand Stewart’s reaction — it is, in fact, annoying to be accused of bad motives (racism has in fact been defined as the worst possible motive in existence) over things that are, or at least seem, harmless, and without harmful intent.

On the other hand, this jackass is, like Seth Rogen, a reliable cheerleader for SJW attacks so long as they’re directed at other people; only when such attacks are directed at themselves do they suddenly feel that maybe this censorship-by-contrived-hypersensitivity is stultifying, anti-creativity, anti-thought and ultimately anti-human.

But per the rules Jon Stewart inflicts on others: He’s a g*d-damn racist. . . .

F*** you, Jon Stewart. You’re a hypocrite, a liar, and — by your own rules — an unrepentant racist who not only won’t check his privilege, but who uses his privilege to silence any black voices who dissent against you.

Way to speak truth to power, Ace. These liberal/progressives deserve to be called out–every single time–on their hypocrisy. Don’t hold back calling them the “r” word, because they surely would not, if the tables were turned.

MAD AS HELL AND NOT TAKING IT ANYMORE: Matthew Continetti over at the Washington Free Beacon on “Revenge of the Radical Middle: Why Donald Trump Isn’t Going Away.”

Two decades ago, in the spring of 1996,Newsweek magazine described a group of voters it called the “radical middle.” Formerly known as the Silent Majority, then the Reagan Democrats, these voters had supported Ross Perot in 1992, and were hoping the Texas billionaire would run again. Voters in the radical middle, Newsweek wrote, “see the traditional political system itself as the country’s chief problem.”

The radical middle is attracted to populists, outsiders, businessmen such as Perot and Lee Iacocca who have never held office, and to anyone, according to Newsweek, who is the “tribune of anti-insider discontent.” Newt Gingrich rallied the radical middle in 1994—year of the Angry White Male—but his Republican Revolution sputtered to a halt after the government shut down over Medicare in 1995. Once more the radical middle had become estranged from the GOP. “If Perot gets in the race,” a Dole aide told Newsweek, “it will guarantee Clinton’s reelection.”

Well, here we are again, at the beginning of a presidential campaign in which the Republican Party, having lost its hold on the radical middle, is terrified of the electoral consequences. . . .

What Republicans are trying to figure out is not so much how to handle Trump as how to handle his supporters. Ignore or confront? Mock or treat seriously? Insult or persuade? The men and women in the uppermost ranks of the party, who have stood by Trump in the past as he gave them his endorsements and cash, are inclined to condescend to a large portion of the Republican base, to treat base voters’ concerns as unserious, nativist, racist, sexist, anachronistic, or nuts, to apologize for the “crazies” who fail to understand why America can build small cities in Iraq and Afghanistan but not a wall along the southern border, who do not have the education or skills or means to cope when factories move south or abroad, who stare incomprehensibly at the television screen when the media fail to see a “motive” for the Chattanooga shooting, who voted for Perot in ’92 and Buchanan in ’96 and Sarah Palin in ’08 and joined the Tea Party to fight death panels in ’09.

These voters don’t give a whit about corporate tax reform or TPP or the capital gains rate or the fate of Uber, they make a distinction between deserved benefits like Social Security and Medicare and undeserved ones like welfare and food stamps, their patriotism is real and nationalistic and skeptical of foreign entanglement, they wept on 9/11, they want America to be strong, dominant, confident, the America of their youth, their young adulthood, the America of 40 or 30 or even 20 years ago. They do not speak in the cadences or dialect of New York or Washington, their thoughts can be garbled, easily dismissed, or impugned, they are not members of a designated victim group and thus lack moral standing in the eyes of the media, but still they deserve as much attention and sympathy as any of our fellow citizens, still they vote.

Amen. Read the whole thing.

My own preference isn’t to describe this middle as “radical” (because I don’t think they are) but “patriotic.” They abhor the cronyism of Washington elites, and reflect a major “values gap” between DC and Main Street, USA.  The irony, of course, is that Trump does not share their values, really–except perhaps on immigration and a few other patriotism-centric issues upon which he’s wisely capitalizing. But at least Trump is finally giving a voice to the Silent Majority’s deeply felt patriotism. The great middle is craving a leader who is unafraid to be unabashedly patriotic.

The question is: Why aren’t more GOP presidential hopefuls getting a clue and matching Trump’s vigor on these issues? Are they simply too weak, and are waiting for Trump to stop stealing “their” spotlight? Or are they too weak on these issues to really care?

HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE RACIST UNDERTONES OF HER 2008 CAMPAIGN: From left-leaning journalist Ryan Cooper at The Week.

Should Hillary address the racist overtones of her 2016 campaign as well? Hey, if her campaign is still around in 2016, absolutely.

RELATED: “The stakes are high in 2016 – more so for Democrats than they were in 2012, when Barack Obama’s allies went so far as to accuse Mitt Romney of complicity in negligent homicide. We may come to look back on that campaign as an epoch of civility. If the GOP nominates a competent candidate, and they have a variety from which to choose, Hillary Clinton and her allies will have to scorch the earth in order to win. The torches are already lit.”

MILO YIANNOPOULOS: Minority Wars: Why The Next Ten Years Will Set Everyone Against Everyone.

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Martin O’Malley came face to face with the tragic state of American progressivism last week, when an 11,000-strong rally of progressive activists was disrupted by #BlackLivesMatter protesters.

Activists marched into the room chanting protest songs before taking the stage in front of a bemused O’Malley to demand concrete commitments on police violence.

Never mind that O’Malley and Sanders are, among presidential candidates, by far the most sympathetic to the concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement: because they’re white, they cannot be trusted, and deserve to have whatever they’re talking about shoved off the agenda by thugs with placards.

It may sound racist and bizarre to be suspicious of candidates like Sanders and O’Malley on the basis of their ethnicity alone, but when you consider the primacy of identity politics in the progressive movement today, it really isn’t that surprising.

Since the 1970s, social psychologists have been aware that emphasising differences between groups leads to mistrust and hostility. In a series of landmark experiments, the psychologist Henri Tajfel found that even wearing different-coloured shirts was enough for groups to begin displaying signs of mistrust.

So guess what happens when you tell everyone that their worth, their ability, their right to speak on certain subjects and – shudder – their “privilege” is based on what they were born with, rather than any choices they’ve made or who they are?

So long as there is power in dividing people, demagogues will divide people.

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS THAT IT’S BECAUSE EVEN THEY AREN’T CYNICAL ENOUGH: Why Hillary Clinton and her rivals are struggling to grasp Black Lives Matter. “Black Lives Matter” is an unabashedly racist movement led by unabashed racists.

“‘WHITENESS GOGGLES’ SET OUT TO CHANGE HOW YOU SEE CULTURAL APPROPRIATION:”

Having a hard time understanding the meaning of appropriation? Take a look at Portland-based artist Roger Peet’s handy “Whiteness Goggles” series.

In the images he created for the series, the history of violence and oppression endured by people of color quite literally becomes the backdrop for the quirky styles and awesome music of white people. Take for example his biting ode to Miley Cyrus. In the image above, she twerks before a crowd of armed policemen in Ferguson, Missouri. In another, Katy Perry poses in a geisha costume in front of an exploding atomic bomb.

Blue on blue on blue – an Obama supporter uses (bad) art to destroy his fellow Obama supporters, as the left continues to devour itself.

SHOCKING TO SEE THIS IN THE WASHINGTON POST: It’s Not Dixie’s Fault.

These crude regional stereotypes ignore the deep roots such social ills have in our shared national history and culture. If, somehow, the South became its own country, the Northeast would still be a hub of racially segregated housing and schooling, the West would still be a bastion of prejudicial laws that put immigrants and black residents behind bars at higher rates than their white neighbors and the Midwest would still be full of urban neighborhoods devastated by unemployment, poverty and crime. How our social problems manifest regionally is a matter of degree, not kind — they infect every region of the country.

In fact, many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. Housing segregation between black and white residents, for instance, is most pervasive above the Mason-Dixon line. Of America’s 25 most racially segregated metropolitan areas, just five are in the South; Northern cities — Detroit, Milwaukee and New York — top the list. Segregation in Northern metro areas has declined a bit since 1990, but an analysis of 2010 census data found that Detroit’s level of segregation, for instance, is nearly twice as high as Charleston’s.

The division between black and white neighborhoods in the North is a result of a poisonous mix of racist public policies and real estate practices that reigned unchecked for decades. Until the mid-20th century, federal homeownership programs made it difficult for black Americans to get mortgages and fueled the massive growth of whites-only suburbs. Real estate agents openly discriminated against black aspiring homeowners, refusing to show them houses in predominately white communities.

When all else failed, white Northerners attacked blacks who attempted to cross the color line, using tactics we typically associate with the Jim Crow South. They threw bricks through the windows of their black neighbors’ homes, firebombed an integrated apartment building and beat black residents in the streets. In Detroit, to name one example, whites launched more than 200 attacks on black homeowners between 1945 and 1965. In Levittown, Pa., hundreds of angry whites gathered in front of the home of the first black family to move there and threw rocks through the windows. Racists burned crosses in the yards of the few white neighbors who welcomed the new family. That violence occurred in 1957, the same year whites in Little Rock attacked black students integrating Central High School, yet it’s that story — of racial bias in the South — that dominates our narrative of America’s civil rights struggle.

Yeah, it’s almost like they’re deflecting or something.

LOOKING FOR POPULISM IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES: “There is a disturbance in American politics. But no one in the political class seems to be pinpointing the correct source,” Salena Zito writes in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “Donald Trump gets all of the credit for it from journalists, pundits and academics. They could not be more wrong:”

Think about this: For two administrations, Democrats, Republicans and independents effectively have been told to hold their tongues. During the Bush administration, you were unpatriotic if you criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; during the Obama administration, you’re a racist if you criticize the president or his policies.

And don’t even think about expressing your values if those are outside the elite’s standard of everyone deserving equality and fairness (unless, of course, you disagree with that elitist viewpoint, in which case hatred and character destruction are your reward).

Read the whole thing.

RACIST ATTICUS: The Littlest Victims. “Go Set a Watchman is a threat not just to readers’ heroic idea of Atticus Finch, but also to the many, many children who have been named in his honor.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Freshman Orientation At UNC: Conform Or Be Cast Out.

The skits set forth various scenarios. The first showed an Indian woman talking to a white friend, who unintentionally acted racist. In another, a man aggressively flirted with a woman who was clearly uncomfortable. The next skit showed two friends asking another friend of lesser means to go out to lunch and immediately assuming he had the means to do so. The final skit showed a gay man react with offense at the use of the word “gay” as a derogatory term.

Instead of showing that all people are equally deserving of human dignity, the theater group created its own caricatures: the “villains” in each of the skits were either white, male, heterosexual, middle class, or some combination of the four. Perhaps, if the objective had been solely to learn how to navigate a community whose citizens hail from increasingly diverse backgrounds on ethnic, religious, and cultural lines, this exercise would have been helpful, if ham-handed.

However, learning to get along wasn’t the real purpose. The actual intent was revealed in the discussions that took place afterwards. We were given an opportunity to ask the characters from each scenario and the event leaders questions. Most of them weren’t memorable (“how did that make you feel?” and “why did you think that was okay?”) but a few of them brought the real direction (not to mention, hypocrisy) of the program to light.

Read the whole thing. Taxpayer dollars at work, advancing a narrow agenda of hate and exclusion.

THE DEATH OF GOLF:

By any measure, participation in the game is way off, from a high of 30.6 million golfers in 2003 to 24.7 million in 2014, according to the National Golf Foundation (NGF). The long-term trends are also troubling, with the number of golfers ages 18 to 34 showing a 30 percent decline over the last 20 years. Nearly every metric — TV ratings, rounds played, golf-equipment sales, golf courses constructed — shows a drop-off. “I look forward to a time when we’ve got the wind at our back, but that’s not what we’re expecting,” says Oliver “Chip” Brewer, president and CEO of Callaway. “This is a demographic challenge.”

During the boom, most of those 20-somethings who were out hacking every weekend were out there because of one man: Tiger Woods. Golf’s heyday coincided neatly with Tiger’s run of 15 major golf championships between 1997 and 2008. If you listen to golf insiders, he’s the individual most to blame for those thousands of Craigs­list ads for used clubs. When Tiger triple-bogeyed his marriage, dallied with porn stars, and seemingly misplaced his swing all at once, the game not only lost its best player; it also lost its leading salesman. The most common answer given by golf industry types when asked what would return the game to its former popularity is “Find another Tiger.”

But you can’t blame one man’s wandering libido for the demise of an entire sport. The challenges golf faces are myriad, from millennials lacking the requisite attention span for a five-hour round, to an increasingly environmentally conscious public that’s reluctant to take up a resource-intensive game played on nonnative grass requiring an almond farm’s worth of water, to the recent economic crisis that curtailed discretionary spending. “Golf is an expensive, aspirational game,” says Brewer, “and a lot of millennials are struggling with debt and jobs. If you don’t have a job, golf doesn’t really fit you very well.”

In retrospect, it’s easy to spot the apogee; this Photoshopped cover was created around November of 2009, five minutes before Tiger’s PR cratered, and as the last bloom decayed from the era of Hopenchange. The copy inside the issue, written by such Democrat operatives with bylines as Thomas Friedman and Joe Conason now reads like the worst Stalin-era hagiography. (No wonder so little of it is online, other than the passages I scanned from my now dog-eared hard copy):

tiger-obama-golf-digest-12-09

WHY WHITE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE RACISTS: Because, as D.C. McAllister writes at the Federalist, “The Left Incites Racial Controversy to Secure More Power.”

Or between now and November 2015, simply to keep the dissipated remnants of the once-rabid Obama coalition sufficiently together to help Hillary crawl over the finish line.

GERMAN TEXTBOOKS AND ANTI-ISRAEL LIBERAL ELITES: At Commentary, Evelyn Gordon writes “a German study showing that educated elites, rather than the far-right fringes, are the wellspring of anti-Semitism in that country; just last month, another study found that the same is true for anti-Israel sentiment. And the reason for this goes beyond the obvious fact that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are related:”

The background to the new German study is a series of polls showing shocking levels of anti-Israel sentiment among ordinary Germans: For instance, fully 35 percent “equate Israeli policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi policies toward the Jews.” Given the vaunted “special relationship” between Germany and Israel, such findings raise obvious questions about how so many Germans developed such warped views.

So a group of German and Israeli researchers decided to analyze German textbooks to see what exactly German schools are teaching their students. They examined 1,200 history, geography and social studies textbooks from five German states, and concluded that these books portray Israel almost exclusively as a militarist, warmongering society.

Israel’s robust democracy, respect for human rights and other achievements are absent in these books. The illustrations consist of “tendentious and one-sided photographic presentations” of Israeli soldiers threatening or inflicting violence on Palestinians.

To quote from a 2012 article at the Israeli YNet Website:

To quote psychiatrist Zvi Rex: “Europe will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.” Europe doesn’t want to live under the psychological burden of Auschwitz forever. The Jews are living reminders of the moral failure of Europe. This leads to the projection of guilt on Israel and the remaining European Jews.

Gordon also notes that in America, 47 percent of Democrats “deemed Israel racist, with only 32 percent disagreeing, and a whopping 76 percent said Israel has too much influence on U.S. foreign policy. But in truth, it shouldn’t be news to anyone by now that anti-Israel sentiment, like its kissing cousin anti-Semitism, is primarily the province of the liberal elites.”

Read the whole thing.

RELATED: “A BBC documentary has substituted the word ‘Israelis’ for ‘Jews’ in its translation of interviews with Palestinians, its maker has admitted.”

Unexpectedly.

SCOTT JOHNSON: Reckon with this.

After Dylann Roof murdered nine pastors and churchgoers in the course of Bible study in Charleston, President Obama couldn’t wait to use the occasion for his narrow political purposes. “Let’s be clear,” he said with urgency in his voice. “At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence … doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.” The implication, of course, was that additional gun control legislation was required but that his political opponents refused to see the light.

Now we learn in whose power it was to do something about it, and it wasn’t anyone Obama was talking about. The Washington Post reports: “Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine people at a church in South Carolina three weeks ago, was only able to purchase the gun used in the attack because of breakdowns in the FBI’s background-check system, FBI Director James B. Comey said Friday.” The White House, of course, declines to comment.

If there has ever been a smaller man or bigger jerk than Barack Obama holding the office of president, we need to know now.

What I notice is that the worse Obama does at his job, the more racist America seems to become.

LAYERS AND LAYERS OF FACT-CHECKERS AND EDITORS: Washington Post Writer Who Accused Amy Schumer Of Racism Never Saw Her Standup or TV Show:

The Interrobang; Have you ever watched Amy’s television show… in preparation for the article?

Stacey Patton: Nope. Not at all.

The Interrobang: Her stand up set[s]? have you ever watched any of them?

Stacey Patton: Nope. None of them.

Who needs facts and research, when you have feelings that need expressing? Even after Patton smeared Schumer as a racist, her interviewer is still willing to give her a pass. Because, once again, feelings:

I don’t doubt that Dr. Patton means well.

In an era where the left can point their finger at anyone and weaponize him or her as a racist — including their own — I do.

And note this:

Which is exactly how Patton lashed out on Twitter earlier this week to anyone who complained, when her article was originally greenlit by her enablers at the Post. As John Schindler asks today on Twitter, “Why is WaPo giving a forum to these sorts of low-information #SJWs?”

NO APOLOGY NECESSARY:  Greg Jones at The Federalist: “Sorry, Everyone, America Isn’t That Racist.”

It’s called “proof by example,” and it happens all the time. We take one event and point to it as evidence of a trend or, even worse, a universal fact—a dog attacked my child, therefore all dogs are vicious and should be put down. Despite its popularity, particularly in political debate, proof by example is a logical fallacy. But logic is officially an endangered species in today’s hyperpartisan political environment.

Recent events nationwide, particularly the cold-blooded murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, at the hands of a revoltingly racist white supremacist, have propelled this faulty reasoning to new heights. Dangerous ones, in fact: the conversation surrounding race in America has rapidly evolved into a hyperbolic echo chamber into which today’s pundits, politicians, and professors repeatedly shout their false narrative. . . .

The most serious accusation, however, was lobbed from what has become the most ridiculously reactionary arena in all of American cultural and political life: academia. In response to the Charleston slayings, Occidental College Professor Caroline Heldman labeled America a “white supremacist society.” You hear that? Constant racism; America is a sewer; we are all white supremacists. Apparently the America of 2015 is identical to the America of 1860.

News to me, and if I had to guess to 99 percent of the other 300-plus million Americans that peacefully coexist with members of all races day in and day out. Unless, of course, I am so lucky as to “exist in a vacuum” of peace and tranquility light years beyond what most Americans experience. Judging from my neighborhood, and a few commonly ignored statistics, I highly doubt it.

America is a lot of things; racist isn’t one of them.

Consider, for example, that in 1958 a mere 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. By 2013, that number had grown to 87 percent. In 2012 these once-taboo unions hit an all-time high. . . . In fact, just a little more than two years ago The Washington Post, the same paper that featured Robinson’s editorial, found that America was in fact among the least-racist nations in the world.Ku Klux Klan membership has shrunk drastically from millions a century ago to fewer than 5,000 today. . . .

Most of us interact with people of numerous races daily without conflict or incident. Our friends, and even spouses, have skin colors different than ours, as do our teachers, doctors, and nurses. That’s because proof by example isn’t reality, and the actions of one man or three cops do not define a society of more than 300 million.

The heightened liberal/progressive cry of “racism!” has caused me to start disregarding the appellation. It’s now just background noise that I tune out, rather than taking seriously. Perhaps more significantly, it has started to make me look at blacks with trepidation and less comfort, because now I wonder if they always think such bad things about me regardless of how I behave toward them. I am even beginning to look at old friends and colleagues differently, because I wonder if they think of me as “white,” and “privileged,” rather than just a person who has faced struggles just like everyone else.  That’s not progress, folks; it’s regression.

Thanks so much for all the racial healing, President Obama. You have really used the “first black President” title to help heal past wounds and move this country forward to a happier, more unified place.

BILL WHITTLE’S AFTERBURNER: Democrats’ Horrible Racist Past.

OF OBERGEFELL AND OSTRACISM: After the Supreme Court’s decision on Same Sex Marriage, Dan McLaughlin of Red State was quoted as saying, “Now the contest begins to see who’ll be the angriest winner.” Last week it was George Takei of Star Trek making racist slurs against Clarence Thomas. This week, Max Lindenman of Patheos spots Sally Kohn tossing her name into the ring:

Just as I was learning not to hate the term “national conversation,” gay marriage supporters have decided to quit speaking to us. That would, at any rate, be the earnest wish of Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn. In last Sunday’s piece, “The New, Post-Homophobic Christianity,” she ticks off all the denominations that have changed their teachings on homosexuality and asks “Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized?”

Her answer: “I sure hope so.”

Regarding the social part, I’m curious to know what, exactly, Kohn is thinking. As Br. Dominick Bouck, O.P. observed in First Things, there was a time not so long ago when she was ready to credit “conservatives” with being “emotionally correct,” if nothing else. Did she read the majority decision in Obergefell and exclaim: “By the Goddess! All along those bastards were playing footsie with due process and equal protection! ‘Emotional correctness’ my eye!”? Or is she convinced that offering us the cold shoulder is the best way to make us change our minds?

Or as Ed Morrissey asks at Hot Air, is religion “The new Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

(H/T: The Anchoress.)

IT’S NOT FUNNY, AND YOU MUST AGREE: Robert George explains the latest progressive/liberal/totalitarian temper tantrum over humor they don’t like by comedian Amy Schumer:

The UK Guardian went after the native New Yorker’s “blind spot on race” last month, citing standup jokes like, “Nothing works 100 percent of the time, except Mexicans,” and “I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual.”

It reached a fever pitch Tuesday. In The Washington Post, Stacey Patton and David Leonard called Schumer a racist on par with Donald Trump. They closed with this haymaker:

“While black families are burying their dead, churches are burning, black women church pastors are receiving death threats and the KKK is planning rallies in South Carolina, Schumer is ‘playing’ with race. While Latinos are being deported in record numbers, while ‘80 percent of Central American girls and women crossing Mexico en route to the United States are raped,’ while children are languishing in camps in the Southwest, Schumer has got jokes, and only white America is laughing.”

Isn’t that just a bit . . . dramatic?

Why yes, yet it is dramatic. But this objection is coming from the same delicate snowflakes who incessantly search for  ”micro” aggressions, require explicit consent before kissing, and need “safe spaces” to complain that everyone else is a bigoted hater.  As I noted yesterday, this is not authoritarianism, it’s totalitarianism, and they won’t be happy with just stopping practices they deem offensive. No, they want you to agree with them.  As George Orwell put it in 1984,“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.” 

VIDEO: DC RESIDENTS SAY TAKE DOWN JEFFERSON MEMORIAL, RENAME WASHINGTON, DC:

“It should come down,” one D.C. resident told PJ Media, referencing the Jefferson Memorial in Washington.

“If we do that, though, George Washington owned slaves. Should we rename Washington, D.C.?” he was asked.

“You have to draw the line at some point, I guess, maybe take a poll across the country and see what people think about it and if they want to rename the city, do it,” he said. “I would support changing the American flag as well. America is based on a lot of mass killings and slavery and the history is just – look at the Germans, they own up to the Holocaust, nobody is proud of their history. Americans, at least, you should not be proud of any mass killing. You should not be proud of anything wrong that’s been done in the past or any symbols that represent that and that’s all.”

Leave no black armband behind.

RELATED: Perhaps it’s time to rename the Washington Post, considering its namesake’s background. Either that or admit, as Marc Thiessen does within its pages that “Our country is in a miasma of political correctness,” and that “The recent criticism of the Confederate flag is really not about a flag — it is about the people of the South. It is driven by the notion that most Southerners are a bunch of racists who agree with the Charleston shooter’s murderous actions. As we saw after the shooting, nothing could be further from the truth.”

UPDATE: Heh, indeed:™

WAPO OP-ED BLAMES AMY SCHUMER FOR ‘INSPIRING’ CHARLESTON SHOOTER:

All this time we were blaming the Confederate flag, it turns out comedienne Amy Schumer was the only who “inspired” Charleston shooter Dylann Storm Roof to murder nine African-Americans.

So argues a Washington Post op-ed written by Stacey Patton and David J. Leonard, who are regrettably both college professors. Titled “Don’t believe her defenders. Amy Schumer’s jokes are racist,” the pair rip apart Schumer for racial insensitivity in her comic material.

C’mon – it was really Sarah Palin’s clip art, wasn’t it? I bet it was the clip art.

UPDATE: “Turns out the writer sliming ‘racist’ Amy Schumer is a NASTY piece of work,” Twitchy notes, archiving her many deleted race-obsessed tweets.

THOSE RACIST MINNESOTANS:  Professor says Minnesota’s flag is racist, too.

As the campaign to tear down the Confederate flag from statehouses, shops, and memorials continues to be waged across the country, one professor has chosen to weigh in on a flag she says is similarly offensive: Specifically, the state flag of Minnesota.

At a glance, Minnesota’s flag seems pretty bland. Like many states, it simply has its state seal on a blue field. Said seal shows a pioneer working his fields, while a Native American rides southward in the background. But Judith Harrington, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, published an argument shortly before the July 4th holiday complaining that the flag creates a racist contrast between peaceful whites and supposedly violent American Indians.

MN state flag

Professor Harrington says the flag must go. Of course she does. Because, you know, academics.

While we’re on the subject, I think all good thinking liberals/progressives should call for Massachusetts to immediately take down all state flags, which portray an Algonquian Native American with bow and arrow.

MA state flag

It’s all very Washington Redskins-y, and I’m sure must equally deeply offend Native Americans, including Elizabeth Warren and UC-Riverside “Indian” scholar, Professor Andrea Smith.

WELCOME TO CULTURE WAR 4.0: THE COMING OVERREACH, as explored by Benjamin Domenech and Robert Tracinski at the Federalist. Though based on this passage, it sounds like the left’s overreach in the culture wars has been in full-swing for quite a while now:

If history repeats itself, it is good news for traditional Americans and bad news for the Left, which has taken on the role of Grand Inquisitor so rapidly that overnight civil liberties have become a Republican issue. Slowly but surely, the American Right is adopting the role of the cultural insurgent standing up for the freedom of the little guy. They crowdfund the pizza shop, baker, and photographer; they rebel against the establishment in the gaming media and at sci-fi conventions; they buy their chicken sandwiches in droves. The latest acronym that came out of the Sad Puppies movement says it all. They describe their opponents as CHORFs: cliquish, holier-than-thou, obnoxious, reactionary, fascists. This is their description of the cultural Left.

There is significant potential for a new, diverse coalition that responds to this overreach. The religious Right, libertarians, and even the moderate Left are already being drawn together by their refusal to be cowed into conformity by social justice warriors. The comedians who rebel against an audience that calls every joke racist or sexist, the professors who refuse to be cowed by the threat of Title IX lawsuits, the religious believers who fight for their right to practice their beliefs outside the pew represent a coalition that will reject the neo-Puritanism of the Counterculture, rebel against its speech codes and safe spaces, and reassert the right to speak one’s mind in the public square. Atheists and believers alike can unite in this belief—as we, the authors of this piece, have.

The culture war will always be with us. There are always people who want to change the culture and an establishment that wants to ward off these insurgents. The Sad Puppies are just the Salon des Refusés with different players—and what were the Renaissance and Enlightenment, if not one giant culture war? But there is some good that comes of it, as well.

The culture wars of the past produced great achievements in art, architecture, literature, and science as the opposing parties strove to demonstrate that they had more to offer and deserved the people’s admiration and loyalty. Those culture wars gave us Michelangelo’s David, Galileo’s science, Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, and the movement for the abolition of slavery.

As Domenech and Tracinski write, “Yes, this can be a dangerous time to be active in the culture. But it’s very hard to make speech codes, safe spaces, and other anti-thoughtcrime measures work in the long term. Sometimes all it takes for the whole apparatus to come crashing down is a handful of people brave enough to speak their minds without fear.”

That sort of preference cascade is long overdue.

THE REDDIT REVOLT as history’s biggest sympathy strike.

Of course, the predictable analysis from Vox’s Max Fisher:

Screen Shot 2015-07-06 at 9.26.40 AM

Ever notice how every revolt against corrupt authority is now characterized as racist and misogynist . . . by the tools of corrupt authority?

DAN HANNAN ON LESSONS FROM THE TIM HUNT DEFENESTRATION: Speak Up And Stop The Lynch Mob.

One of the women present, a lecturer called Connie St Louis, complained on Twitter about his “sexism”, triggering the usual lynch mob. By the time the professor had returned to London, his career lay about him in broken shards.

The scary thing here is not the Twitter reaction — we are familiar enough with the ugly psychology of mobs. What is truly depressing is the behavior of those directly involved. For it soon emerged that Mrs. St Louis had given only a partial account of events. You would not have gathered from her version that the professor was being ironic, making a little joke before the “now seriously” that led to his main point about female scientists playing an important role in Korea. Plenty of the women present were journalists but, as is the way when a lynch mob forms, they were reluctant to step into its path.

UCL behaved abominably, first ordering the professor to resign quietly to avoid being sacked, and then allowing its ultimatum to become known. It has since emerged that Sir Tim’s accuser had made some seriously false claims about her own qualifications, but no one has suggested that she lose her post. As another Nobel prize-winner, Sir Andre Geim, remarked: “No Vice Chancellor would take on an ethnic-minority militant feminist. Those are not humble Nobel laureates who can be forced to resign quietly.” . . .

It’s always easier to keep your head down. Write about these subjects, as I’m doing now, and you run the risk of being called a sexist or a racist or whatever. But surely we have to take a stand. The next time you see a mob gibbering and shrieking and demanding someone’s dismissal, don’t hunker down. Speak up. Someone has to, for Heaven’s sake.

As President Obama advises, punch back twice as hard. Make this sort of thing as personally unpleasant as possible for the administrators, the false-accusers, and everyone else in the lynch mob and this sort of thing will fade away.

IS THE WORLD BECOMING FED UP? “A great pushback is awakening here and abroad, but its timing, nature, and future remain mysterious,” Victor Davis Hanson writes, adding that Trump’s polling success is a potential harbinger of things to come:

Presidential candidate Trump is supposedly enjoying a bump in the polls. How could that be, given his plutocratic hubris, his flamboyance and his often sloppy rhetoric? Again the answer is predictable. He is blunt — and uncouth; while the Left is sly and uncouth. The public sometimes prefers their exaggerations as bold and not packaged in nasal whines. We are supposed to shudder at the reaction when writer Ann Coulter, promoting a supposedly nativist book about immigration, is rushed by illegal immigration activists at a book signing. Then she confirms our stereotypes by declaring that Latin Americans typically express criticism in such a riotous fashion. The media forgets that she is matched and trumped by the activists themselves. They disrupted a peaceful book signing; they tore up books that they disagreed with (an act which has a good 20th-century fascist pedigree); some brought out Mexican flags to show solidarity with the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to. And there was a shout or two, in racist fashion, that Coulter should return to Europe — as if a guest here illegally from a foreign country has a greater claim on residence than does a U.S. citizen.

As in the case of Paula Deen, Duck Dynasty, and the addled Donald Sterling, the nation unleashed its thought police to destroy Trump in the fashion that has worked so well with other intemperate or biased speakers (at least those who are not of the liberal bent of politically incorrect gaffers like a Sen. Harry Reid, Vice President Joe Biden, Al Sharpton, David Letterman — or Barack Obama who believes “typical” white people (all 220 million?) stereotype blacks while there are apparently “gangbangers” crossing illegally into the U.S. on his watch).  But so far, the politically-selective yanked sponsorships and corporate ostracism seem to have little effect on the self-promoting and boisterous multibillionaire Trump. Why so?

Read the whole thing.

JACK NEELY: Was The South Ever Confederate Anyway?

The Civil War is a big bagful of ironies and paradoxes, and not a recommended study for folks who like to keep things simple. It would be a particular challenge for anyone to survive the 1860s in Knoxville and either idealize one side or demonize the other. It took a later generation, one that didn’t remember the war, to glorify it.

I do want to point out something provable. Whether the Confederate flag is an irredeemably racist and oppressive symbol or not, the Confederacy is not “the South.” It is not “the South now,” certainly. It was not even “the South” in 1861. The conflation of the Confederacy with “the South” began, I suspect, as some tired editor’s attempt to make a headline fit.

People of European and African ancestry have been living in the South for 400 years. The Confederacy lasted for four years, about 1 percent of that time. And even during that 1 percent, a large proportion of the people who lived in the South—perhaps even a majority—were skeptical of the Confederacy. . . .

The Confederacy was not universally popular, even in the South. It would be difficult to prove that as much as half the people who lived in the South in 1861 were fond of the Confederacy. Sam Houston, who grew up in East Tennessee and spent his entire life in the South—except when he was in D.C., representing Southern states in Congress—despised the Confederacy and denounced it publicly. David Glasgow Farragut and Gen. William Sanders—whose last names survive in multiple institutions in Knox County—both grew up in the South and fought against the Confederacy. Sanders, who’d spent most of his life in Kentucky and Mississippi, was killed by Confederate bullets. Several of Knoxville’s fiercest Unionists, Parson W.G. Brownlow, William Rule, and Thomas Humes, were lifelong Southerners.

It might take years to do a thorough study on the subject, but judging by what we know of those who favored secessionism or the Union, here in East Tennessee at least, Confederate sympathies didn’t necessarily suggest Southern roots. Many of Knoxville’s notable Confederates were immigrants from Switzerland, Germany, or Ireland. John Mitchel, probably Knoxville’s most nationally famous secessionist—editor of The Southern Citizen, which advocated slavery—was an Irish revolutionary Unitarian who’d spent several years in prison in Tasmania and never laid eyes on the South until 1853. J.G.M. Ramsey, the secessionist most influential locally, was from a Pennsylvania family. Father Abram Ryan, Knoxville’s “Poet-Priest of the Confederacy,” grew up in Maryland and Missouri, son of Irish immigrants. Thousands of New Yorkers, many of whom had never seen the South, were Confederate sympathizers.

Meanwhile, many of Knoxville’s Unionists grew up in multi-generational Tennessee families. Did Southern heritage even play a role in affiliation with the Confederacy? Here in Knoxville, a demographic study might even prove the opposite. Maybe it was the people with the deepest roots here who were most skeptical of the noisy rebel bandwagon.

In any case, in 1861 more than 30 percent of Tennessee’s Southerners voted against secession, against joining the Confederacy. Well over 30,000 Tennesseans took up arms against the Confederacy.

Yes, but the important point is letting low-information white Democrats feel superior.

UPDATE: Oh, look: Here’s one of those now. Though to be fair, I considered using the “outside agitator” line myself.

MATT WELCH: ‘His name was Jefferson Davis Hogg!’ If The Dukes of Hazzard was racist, it sure had a funny way of showing it. It’s all about knee-jerk banning, not about any rational consideration. The point is to wield power. If it’s wielded arbitrarily and capriciously, so much the better, as that makes people feel less secure.

JIM TREACHER: Mr. Sulu, Set Phasers To Racist.

By referring to Clarence Thomas as “a clown in blackface,” George Takei has taken away nobody’s dignity but his own.

Why is it okay for a Japanese man to use such racist language against a black man? Because of their relative positions in the hierarchy of grievances. Sure, Thomas is black, and therefore he’s a designated victim. But he’s also a conservative, and he’s explicitly rejecting the narrative of victimhood that underpins the entire “social justice” movement. Therefore, the black dude is trumped by the gay Asian dude. Takei can spew as much racist garbage as he wants, and he’s protected because he not only embraces his own victimhood, but he treasures victimhood itself like the purest gold. Without it, he’s just another washed-up actor from a schlocky old show about spaceships.

Not that I doubt Takei means what he says. He really is a huge racist.

True.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS SO RACIST? George Takei: Justice Thomas ‘a clown in blackface.’ As somebody said on Twitter, Takei is taking the sore-winner thing to a whole new level.

PROGRESS: IF IT’S RACISM, IT’S PROBABLY FAKE RACISM: Black Man Arrested For Posting KKK Signs Outside Black Church.

SHE SPEAKS THE TRUTH:  Katie Pavlich: America is not racist.

It’s interesting how those on the left, in this case Obama and Heschel, make broad, general statements about how far we have to go on race issues but don’t give specifics about what’s left to fix. What do white churches have to do with the Charleston killer? They’ve offered support and unity. Is that something they should hang their heads over? The answer is no. And despite what Obama says, racism is not passed along in DNA through the generations. If that were the case, America wouldn’t be the tolerant, multi-racial country it is today.

Yes, America, like the vast majority of the rest of the world, at one time participated in slavery. While the sin of slavery is not justified, it is important to acknowledge that the sin of slavery isn’t a uniquely American sin, but rather one of mankind throughout the course of history. Further, owning slaves is not a sin unique to white people; in fact, black Africans sold other blacks into slavery (and still do today). Slavery is uniquely human, but societies and countries that respect human dignity, like America, have stopped the horrifying practice.

We need more direct refutations of the “racism” accusation like this. Liberals/progressives talk incessantly about racism, yet there are spectacularly few examples of the phenomenon, so they pounce on every conceivable black-white interaction–think Ferguson and Baltimore–even if the facts don’t support their immoral, divisive accusations.

The Charleston shootings have given race-baiters an excuse to ramp up their rhetoric and double down on their strategy of divisiveness. Too bad the good folks in Charleston keep disappointing the progressive/liberal racism promoters with their acts of good faith, unity and charity. One can almost feel the race-baiters’ frustration that a random evil act didn’t spark race riots. But hey, they are at least getting traction on their longstanding agenda to erase all memory of Confederate soldiers and, of course, the Confederate flag.

I BLAME THE CONFEDERATE FLAG: Google Apologizes After Photos App Labels Black Couple as Gorillas. I don’t understand why Google was unable to “correct the issue” with the software, though. Is their bot racist?

I’M GLAD THAT SOMEBODY NOTICED: “Blogger Glenn Reynolds noted that when the South was solidly Democratic, we got ‘Gone With the Wind’ nostalgia. Now that it is profoundly less racist, but also less useful to Democrats, it’s the enemy of all that is decent and good.”

ATTENTION OUTER PARTY MEMBERS, LATEST VERSION OF NEWSPEAK DICTIONARY NOW ONLINE: Univ. of WI Releases List of Microaggressions; Saying “Everyone can Succeed” Now Racist.

REFUTING RADAR ONLINE’S RACIST ATTACK ON NIKKI HALEY.

WHITEWASHING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S RACIST HISTORY.

MAX BOOT: Rightfully Reversing Decades of Secessionist Rehabilitation:

But there is a big distinction to be made between remembering the past — something that, as a historian, I’m all in favor of — and honoring those who did bad things in the past. Remembrance does not require public displays of the Confederate flag, nor streets with names such as Jefferson Davis Highway — a road that always rankles me to drive down in Northern Virginia. Such gestures are designed to honor leaders of the Confederacy, who were responsible for the costliest war in American history — men who were traitors to this country, inveterate racists, and champions of slavery.

In this regard, honoring Jefferson Davis is particularly egregious, or, for that matter, Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. But I believe even honoring the nobler Robert E. Lee is inappropriate. True, he was a brave and skilled soldier, but he fought in a bad cause. Modern Germany does not have statues to Erwin Rommel even though he — unlike Lee — turned at the end of the day against the monstrous regime in whose cause he fought so skillfully. Thus, I don’t believe it is appropriate to have statues of Lee, or schools named after him, although I admit in his case it’s a closer call than with Jefferson Davis.

This is not “rewriting” history; it’s getting history right. The rewriting was done by Lost Cause mythologists who created pro-Confederate propaganda (such as Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind) to convince their countrymen that the South was actually in the right even as it imposed slavery and then segregation. This required impugning those Northerners who went south after the Civil War to try to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. They were labeled “carpetbaggers,” and their memory was tarnished while the actions of the white supremacists they opposed were glorified.

Boot is exactly right. I wasn’t kidding when I said before that I am glad to see Nikki Haley get the Stars and Bars removed from government buildings. Eric Foner and other historians like James Oakes and Richard Sewell are to be credited with correcting the historical record from the pro-Confederate revisionism that is still accepted by all-too-many on the right. Where the “Lost Cause” fable might once have been justified as a useful fiction to unify the country, lying about the Civil War and Reconstruction now only serves those who wish to sully the reputation of those who opposed slavery and promoted the civil rights of blacks when doing so took real courage (as it did for the civil rights activists of the ’50s and ’60s). In this way, like the Southerners of old, they can claim that there is a moral equivalence between North and South, between the USA and the CSA.

MORE HERE: I highly recommend the books I link to above about the men who opposed the pro-slavery reading of the Constitution before the Civil War, and who established the Republican Party to see their vision of the Constitution affirmed in its text. You can also read my articles on antislavery constitutionalism here and here. The more I learn about the history that has been concealed by pro-Confederate revisionism, the more I find to admire in our past.

Cross posted on The Volokh Conspiracy.  h/t Eugene Volokh

THE DNC-MSM’S DESPICABLE, RACIST ATTACK ON BOBBY JINDAL: “As a fun test, let’s take these quotes from the Post and TNR about Jindal, D’Souza, and Haley [and] replace their names with Obama’s (along with “left-wing” instead of “right-wing,” etc.). I’ll invite my liberal friends to tell me if any of these sentiments are remotely okay to voice.”

UPDATE: Question asked and answered:

 

EXPUNGING WOODROW WILSON FROM OFFICIAL PLACES OF HONOR. As I indicated in my post yesterday, I support Governor Nikki Haley’s initiative to remove the Confederate battle flag from government buildings. Now that we are expunging the legacy of past racism from official places of honor, we should next remove the name Woodrow Wilson from public buildings and bridges. Wilson’s racist legacy — in his official capacity as President — is undisputed. In The long-forgotten racial attitudes and policies of Woodrow Wilson, Boston University historian William R. Keylor provides a useful summary:

[On March 4th, 1913] Democrat Thomas Woodrow Wilson became the first Southerner elected president since Zachary Taylor in 1848. Washington was flooded with revelers from the Old Confederacy, whose people had long dreamed of a return to the glory days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, when southern gentlemen ran the country. Rebel yells and the strains of “Dixie” reverberated throughout the city. The new administration brought to power a generation of political leaders from the old South who would play influential roles in Washington for generations to come.

Wilson is widely and correctly remembered — and represented in our history books — as a progressive Democrat who introduced many liberal reforms at home and fought for the extension of democratic liberties and human rights abroad. But on the issue of race his legacy was, in fact, regressive and has been largely forgotten.

Born in Virginia and raised in Georgia and South Carolina, Wilson was a loyal son of the old South who regretted the outcome of the Civil War. He used his high office to reverse some of its consequences. When he entered the White House a hundred years ago today, Washington was a rigidly segregated town — except for federal government agencies. They had been integrated during the post-war Reconstruction period, enabling African-Americans to obtain federal jobs and work side by side with whites in government agencies. Wilson promptly authorized members of his cabinet to reverse this long-standing policy of racial integration in the federal civil service.

Cabinet heads — such as his son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo of Tennessee – re-segregated facilities such as restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. In some federal offices, screens were set up to separate white and black workers. African-Americans found it difficult to secure high-level civil service positions, which some had held under previous Republican administrations.

A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

The novel “The Clansman” by Thomas Dixon – a longtime political supporter, friend and former classmate of Wilson’s at Johns Hopkins University – was published in 1905. A decade later, with Wilson in the White House, cinematographer D.W. Griffith produced a motion picture version of the book, titled “Birth of a Nation.”

With quotations from Wilson’s scholarly writings in its subtitles, the silent film denounced the Reconstruction period in the South when blacks briefly held elective office in several states. It hailed the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as a sign of southern white society’s recovery from the humiliation and suffering to which the federal government and the northern “carpetbaggers” had subjected it after its defeat in the Civil War. The film depicted African-Americans (most played by white actors in blackface) as uncouth, uncivilized rabble.

While the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People publicly denounced the movie’s blatant appeals to racial prejudice, the president organized a private screening of his friend’s film in the White House for the members of his cabinet and their families. “It is like writing history with lightning,” Wilson observed, “and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

Here is the exchange between Wilson and Trotter:

Mr. Monroe Trotter. Mr. President, we are here to renew our protest against the segregation of colored employees in the departments of our National Government. We [had] appealed to you to undo this race segregation in accord with your duty as President and with your pre-election pledges to colored American voters. We stated that such segregation was a public humiliation and degradation, and entirely unmerited and far-reaching in its injurious effects. . . .

President Woodrow Wilson. The white people of the country, as well as I, wish to see the colored people progress, and admire the progress they have already made, and want to see them continue along independent lines. There is, however, a great prejudice against colored people. . . . It will take one hundred years to eradicate this prejudice, and we must deal with it as practical men. Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation.

Mr. Monroe Trotter. It is not in accord with the known facts to claim that the segregation was started because of race friction of white and colored [federal] clerks. The indisputable facts of the situation will not permit of the claim that the segregation is due to the friction. It is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness, doing so even through two [President Grover Cleveland] Democratic administrations. Soon after your inauguration began, segregation was drastically introduced in the Treasury and Postal departments by your appointees.

President Woodrow Wilson. If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me. . . . Your tone, with its background of passion.

Mr. Monroe Trotter. But I have no passion in me, Mr. President, you are entirely mistaken; you misinterpret my earnestness for passion.

A swell guy, eh? After resigning from the Socialist Party to support Wilson, W.E.B Dubois was appalled at Wilson’s racist policies:

President Wilson’s initial policy measures were so stridently anti-black, Du Bois felt obliged to write “Another Open Letter to Woodrow Wilson” in September 1913. Du Bois was blunt, writing that “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that every enemy of the Negro race is greatly encouraged; that every man who dreams of making the Negro race a group of menials and pariahs is alert and hopeful.” Listing the most notorious racists of the era, including “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman,** Du Bois wrote that they were undoubtedly encouraged since “not a single act” or “a single word” from Wilson “has given anyone reason” to believe that he will act positively with respect to African Americans citing the removal of several black appointees from office and the appointment of a single black whom was “such a contemptible cur, that his very nomination was an insult to every Negro in the land.” Altogether the segregationist and discriminatory policies of Wilson in his first six months alone were judged by Du Bois to be the “gravest attack on the liberties” of African Americans since Emancipation.

In a tone that was almost threatening Du Bois wrote the president that there exist “foolish people who think that such policy has no limit and that lynching “Jim Crowism,” segregation and insult are to be permanent institutions in America.” Pointing to the segregation in the Treasury and Post Office Departments Du Bois wrote Wilson of the “colored clerks [that] have been herded to themselves as though they were not human beings” and of the one clerk “who could not actually be segregated on account of the nature of his work” who, therefore, “had a cage built around him to separate him from his white companions of many years,” he asked President Wilson a long series of questions. “Mr. Wilson, do you know these things? Are you responsible for them? Did you advise them? Do you know that no other group of American citizens has ever been treated in this way and that no President of the United States ever dared to propose such treatment?” Like Trotter later Du Bois ends by threatening Wilson with the complete loss of black votes for any of his future electoral quests or that of his Democratic Party. Du Bois relied on questions to hammer home his point. “1. Do you want Negro votes? 2. Do you think that ‘Jim Crow’ civil service will get these votes? 3. Is your Negro policy to be dictated by Tillman and Vardaman? . . . “

(**As Justice Thomas notes, Democrat Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina was the author of the earliest campaign finance “reform,” the Tillman Act that barred corporations from contributing directly to federal candidates.)

In response to these outcries, in 1914, Wilson told The New York Times, “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.” It would be a valuable educational experience today to correct this mistake, and the historical record, by having a candid conversation about the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson. And racism was not his only sin. The Wilson administration prosecuted and jailed many antiwar activists for sedition, including Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs for having made an antiwar speech.  (Debs was later pardoned by Republican President Warren Harding.) 

No doubt there are others whose names should also be expunged. But because of his record of official racism and betrayal,Wilson’s name should be first on any such list. Those who oppose its removal from government buildings should explain exactly why whatever principle of tolerance they apply to so extreme a purveyor of racist policies as Wilson should not be applied equally to memorials to other historical figures as well.

RELATED: Historian Paul Rahe on Progressive Racism:

Wilson, our first professorial president, . . . was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites. With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.

STILL MORE on The Menacing Mr. Wilson:

Wilson’s racist views were hardly a secret. His own published work was peppered with Lost Cause visions of a happy antebellum South. As president of Princeton, he had turned away black applicants, regarding their desire for education to be “unwarranted.” He was elected president because the 1912 campaign featured a third party, Theodore Roosevelt’s Bullmoose Party, which drew Republican votes from incumbent William Howard Taft. Wilson won a majority of votes in only one state (Arizona) outside the South.

What Wilson’s election meant to the South was “home rule;” that is, license to pursue its racial practices without concern about interference from the federal government. . . . But “home rule” was only the beginning.

UPDATE: When Will The American Political Science Association Stop Giving The Woodrow Wilson Award In Honor of Noted Racist Thomas Woodrow Wilson?

[Cross posted at The Volokh Conspiracy]

ROGER SIMON: 90% of the Racism in America Comes from the Democratic Party and the Left:

I am uniquely positioned to say this because I spent most of my life on the Left and was a civil rights worker in the South in my early twenties. I was also, to my everlasting regret, a donor to the Black Panther Party in the seventies.

So I have seen this personally from both sides and my conclusion is inescapable.  The Left is far, far worse. They are obsessed with race in a manner that does not allow them to see straight.  Further, they project racism onto others continually, exacerbating situations, which in most instances weren’t even there in the first place.  From Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton, they all do it.

Barack Obama is one of the worst offenders in this regard.  Recently, in reaction to the horrid actions of the deranged, but solitary racist Dylann Root, the president claimed racism is in our DNA.

How could he possibly utter such nonsense and who was he talking about?  The majority of Americans are from families that came to this country after slavery existed.  Many of those were escaping oppression of their own.  In my case my family was fleeing  the pogroms of Eastern Europe.  Many of the members of my family who stayed behind ended up gassed in Auschwitz or starved to death in Treblinka.

Read the whole thing.

TIME TO BAN GONE WITH THE WIND? Well, that didn’t take long:

If it were left to me, I would take the flag down (for the reasons South Carolina governor Nikki Haley laid out Monday). But this kind of cheap moral preening is galling. Is it really too much for people to muster the moral imagination that the issue isn’t nearly as simple as that?

A November poll of South Carolinians found that 61 percent of blacks wanted it down. That means nearly four in ten blacks felt differently. Are they deluded? Are they the moral equivalent of self-loathing Jews, happy to live under a swastika?

It’s a sure bet that some of the white South Carolinians marching across that bridge and attending services at Emanuel AME Church also support keeping the flag. That doesn’t mean they’re right, but they surely aren’t the American SS of Jenkins’s imagination either.

Blogger Glenn Reynolds noted that when the South was solidly Democratic, we got Gone With the Wind nostalgia. Now that it is profoundly less racist, but also less useful to Democrats, it’s the enemy of all that is decent and good.

“The Dignity of Charleston Flies in the Face of the Left’s Uninformed, Anti-South Bigotry,” Jonah Goldberg, writing for his L.A. Times column, which ran yesterday.

But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission?

Warner Bros. just stopped licensing another of pop culture’s most visible uses of the Confederate flag — toy replicas of the General Lee, an orange Dodge Charger from “The Dukes of Hazzard’’ — as retailers like Amazon and Walmart have finally backed away from selling merchandise with that racist symbol.

That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.

‘Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag,” Lou Lumenick, the New York Post, today.

Hey, MoMA is an interesting choice; considering the very problematic 1930s-era tribal politics of one of its founders; but in any case, will Warners heed Lumenick’s (tacit or otherwise) advice and ban Gone With the Wind on Blu-Ray?

Speaking of which, Mel Brooks has noted that there’s no way Blazing Saddles could be made in today with his fellow leftists in full-bore PC on steroids mode. Last year John Nolte of Big Hollywood received plenty of dismissive scorn from the left for advising his readers, “’Blazing Saddles’ Review: Buy a Copy Before the Left Burns Them All.”

Will that film be next for the full Fahrenheit 451 treatment?

RELATED:

 

BECAUSE MANNERS MATTER TO SOUTHERNERS: Jason Riley: What Charleston tells us about race relations.

The reaction to the carnage in Charleston represents racial progress of the type today’s liberals have no interest in acknowledging. The post-1960s left derives political power, in the form of voter fealty, from encouraging blacks to view themselves primarily as helpless victims of white racism. The struggles of blacks are the fault of whites, in other words, and until the Dylann Roofs are no more, nothing has really changed.

But the shooting victims deserve to be remembered as individuals, not politicized symbols of black struggle.

Mr. Roof may have his sympathizers, but they are largely relegated to the anonymous fever swamps of the Internet. Racism still exists, alas, and no one reading this is likely to see the day when it doesn’t. But antiblack animus doesn’t explain racial gaps in employment, crime, income, learning and single-parent homes. Furthermore, attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. have evolved to a point where a twice-elected black president has asked the second black attorney general to investigate a shooting in a Deep South state with a black senator and Indian-American governor.

The black left guards its victim status fiercely. Witness the “Black Lives Matter” brigades that reject replacing the slogan’s adjective with “All.”

Riley’s right. The individuals who were murdered in Charleston are being mourned by a tight knit, Southern community, where a lot of racial progress has taken place since the civil rights movement. While those who have never lived in the South love to demean Southerners in various ways and assume they are all redneck racists, the truth is that Southerners–of all colors–are some of the best mannered, polite people in the world. They value community, family and God. When tragedy strikes, the first instinct is to help, and to unify, not to hate, or riot. Yes, there is still racism (flowing in both directions) in the South, but having lived all over the country (except the west coast), I believe Southerners are no more racist that the rest of the country, and perhaps in some ways, less so.

As someone who grew up in the South, I have a hard time imagining the Baltimore riots happening in Charlotte, Charleston, or Savannah. And before someone starts lecturing about how Baltimore is a “Southern” city that had a lot of confederate sympathizers (it did), I know few Southerners–those from the deep South, rather than border states– who would ever characterize Baltimore as a “Southern” city. When I was in high school, a family moved into our neighborhood from Maryland, and we all referred to them as the “Yankee family” for awhile. It was just good-natured joking around, of course (the girl in that family became a good friend), but the family definitely wasn’t “Southern” in its mannerisms and culture.  Nice, to be sure, but not Southern, bless their little hearts.

So when I see what’s happening in Charleston, I am not surprised. I see a bunch of nice, well-mannered, God-fearing Southerners coming together to mourn the loss of good people and condemn an evil act.

‘HOW IS THIS NOT RACIST?’ WaPo gives airtime to blatant bigotry about Bobby Jindal.

“And incidentally, if you think Jindal’s having it tough from WaPo today, wait until Nikki Haley starts creeping up the VP ranks,” Allahpundit warns at Hot Air. “Jindal retains his identifiably Indian surname and his wife is Indian-American; Haley’s husband is white and she took his Anglophone surname in marriage, so she’s extra inauthentic ‘n stuff. And candidly, she’s much more of a threat to Democrats politically than Jindal is at the moment: His polling right now is pitiful whereas she’s a legit contender to balance the GOP ticket against Hillary, especially after yesterday.”

JURASSIC WORLD CALLED “RACIST” OVER DINOSAUR NAME:

A British comedian originally brought attention to the line, offering a tongue-in-cheek rant against the dinosaur’s name. However, people did not get the joke, and are actually calling the film racist.

During the course of the film, the Pachycephalosaurus escape from their enclosures, leading one character to shout, “The Pachys are out of containment!” This has led news outlets and Twitter users to call the film “racist.”

The Independent called the line “very racist.” The Huffington Post called it “accidental racism.” Yahoo News called it “unintentional, but very racist.” The Irish Examiner called it “unintentional racism.”

If everything is racist, that is, if everything can be weaponized by its enemies as being racist, than nothing is racist. Of course, a very different group of animatronic monsters had the very best response to this topic years ago.

TV NETWORKS IGNORE REVELATION OF JONATHAN GRUBER’S CLOSE TIES TO WHITE HOUSE:

All three network morning shows on Monday ignored the revelation that Jonathan Gruber, an ObamaCare architect who called Americans “stupid,” had closer ties than the administration previously let on. According to the Wall Street Journal, there were 20,000 pages of e-mails. Writer Stephanie Armour explained, “The emails show frequent consultations between Mr. Gruber and top Obama administration staffers and advisers in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act.”

Too bad – ignoring the issue causes some of us to remember how loudly virtually all of old media were cheerleaders for Obamacare in 2009.

RELATED: And of course, “WH continues to deny Jonathan Gruber was very involved in O-care.”

BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS A RACIST?: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to send armed volunteers to protect black churches.

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio will send armed volunteers into 60 predominantly black churches Sunday in response to the shooting at a Charleston, S.C., church.

Arpaio said he was responding to a request from Rev. Jarrett Maupin, who USA Today reported is a progressive Baptist preacher and civil-rights advocate, to provide the volunteers.

Arpaio said Maupin told him he was worried about racist white supremacists in the area, according to USA Today. ”I am the elected sheriff of this county. He asked me to help, and I’m going to help,” Arpaio said.
Arpaio is of course the well-known sheriff who has been an outspoken proponent of cracking down on illegal immigration. His efforts in this regard have earned him a DOJ lawsuit for “racial profiling,” and charges of racism against Hispanics. He also launched an investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate, so he was labeled as a racist for that, too. This latest move–to protect black churches–just goes to show that Republican haters gonna hate.

BUT MR. PRESIDENT, A 21 YEAR-OLD ISN’T A “KID”: Obama expresses desire to block ’21 year-old kid’ from buying handguns.

Referring to the church shooting in Charleston, Obama insisted that mass shootings were “unique” to America because of its gun laws, adding such events don’t happen as often in other “advanced countries.”

“It’s not because there aren’t violent people or racist people or crazy people in other countries; it’s that a 21-year-old kid can’t just walk in and buy a firearm and, oftentimes, through gun shows, avoid background checks, and then act on this hatred,” he said. “And we’ve got to change that, and it’s not enough for us to express sympathy — we have to take action.”

In every State in the country, a 21 year-old is considered an adult. So basically, Obama wants to ban adults from buying handguns.

To be fair, our former adjunct professor of constitutional law taught before the Supreme Court decided DC v. Heller (2008) and  McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). But surely he’s aware of them now. Oh wait–I’m assuming the current President of the United States actually cares about the Constitution. My bad.

OF COURSE HE HAS A “MANIFESTO.” AND HIS BIGGEST COMPLAINT WAS THAT HE COULDN’T FIND ANY OTHER RACISTS TO HANG OUT WITH. Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof’s Racist Manifesto: On what appears to be his website: “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.”

Meanwhile, the survivors are forgiving him: “Such strong and profound expressions of Christianity rarely appear in the media. Truly awe-inspiring.”

I RECOMMEND GUN-TOTING REPUBLICAN WOMAN HARRIET TUBMAN: A woman will appear on redesigned $10 bill in 2020. Who will it be?

UPDATE: Quin Hillyer: The Decision to Replace Hamilton on the New $10 Bill Is Outrageous and Ignorant. Well, you see, we couldn’t replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill because, although he was a racist genocidaire who defied the Supreme Court, Jackson was also the founder of the modern Democratic Party, which still holds annual fundraising dinners in his name.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Bennett stands up for Hamilton: “I protest the blatant discrimination against Caribbean immigrants signaled by the removal of the only Founder born outside of the Thirteen Colonies.”

SO BASICALLY EVERYTHING IS A MICROAGGRESSION: It’s official. The University of California, headed now by former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has gone insane with political correctness. The confirmation comes via its new “faculty training guide,” which has conveniently listed some microaggressions to be avoided in the classroom, including:

  • “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
  • “Affirmative action is racist.”
  • “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
  • “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
  • “I don’t believe in race.”
  • “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”

Alumni of the UC system should immediately cease wasting their charitable dollars on such an anti-intellectual, fascist institution. And any intelligent young person should avoid it like the plague. The system has clearly been captured by individuals with micro-brains possessing micro-tolerance and micro-confidence. It is–like too many institutions of “higher” learning–a place where critical thinking goes to die.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: The damage Rachel Dolezal has done. “Dolezal is a laughingstock and has made a mockery of the work she said she cared about.” Well, yes. But that’s because she’s exposed the absurdity of race-fetishization, and undercut the notion of “white privilege.” Much as Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner has done with gender. If it’s so great to be a white male, how come there’s so much transitioning away?

Related: Dolezal in 2010: I’d Be ‘Nervous’ to Go to a Tea Party Rally Because of the All-White Crowd. It’s racist Potemkin villages all the way down.

ON TRADE, OBAMA CURRENTLY DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES: “The most troubling bloc is several dozen who aren’t normally troublesome but come from Midwestern districts where job losses in manufacturing have been heavy. Supporting trade is not easy for them. Still, Ryan and GOP leaders believe they can hit their mark of 190 to 200 Republican votes. That leaves Democrats to fill the gap. Leadership, both Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, have been completely silent on the issue and their advisers say that, given the antipathy toward this legislation among rank-and-file, public silence is the best the West Wing can get. There are roughly 20 public yes votes among Democrats, and Obama will need at least five to 10 more in order to go ahead with the vote Friday.”

I think any new sweeping, unclear trade policy should await the election of a President we can trust. Also, why aren’t all these opposed Dems being accused of being “obstructionist” and probably racist, too?

ANOTHER ISRAEL AND AMERICA-HATING PRESIDENT: Former President Jimmy Carter spoke recently to an AARP group, telling them, “Americans still have racist tendencies or feelings of superiority to people of color.”  Nice to hear such pro-American words from a former President.

Carter’s other recent gems include an oped last August in which Carter accused Israel of committing war crimes against Palestinians.  He also defended Obama’s decision to miss the unity rally in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, saying, “President Obama’s just come back from vacation, and I know how it is when you’ve been gone for a week or two.”

The similarities between Carter and Obama are growing day by day– although a poll last summer had Obama beating Carter for the title of “worst President since World War II” by five percentage points.  I suspect Obama’s lead in that poll would be much higher today. 

HEY, KIDS — LET’S CELEBRATE DIVERSITY BY HATING PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM US: Students protest Greek life at ‘check your privilege party.’

Hundreds of students at the University of Washington held a rally on campus last weekend to protest the Greek system, accusing members of fraternities and sororities of being exclusive, racist, misogynistic and violent.

The Facebook page called the event, “Check Your Privilege Block Party,” and has been flooded with posts and comments from students who feel marginalized by the Greek community, as well as pushback from fraternity and sorority members.

The event description calls on the “rebels and rejects of society” to “take over and claim space on Greek row,” and accuses fraternity members of physical and verbal abuse towards other students.

“They have said black lives don’t matter, they have raped us and then called us sluts and liars,” the description reads.



Stand up against stereotyping!

AT LEAST THEY HAVE A BRAIN, WHICH IS MORE THAN I CAN SAY FOR HER: New York Magazine’s Annie Lowrey tells MSNBC’s Alex Wagner that she wants GOP presidential candidates to “unleash their lizard brains” during the debates. Her full comment is even worse:

“Even in terms of getting a better bread and circus type ludicrous production, which as a journalist is all that I care about, I just want chaos, anarchy, racist comments, sexist comments, I want, I want the worst of these people, I want them to, like, unleash their lizard brains.”

Yeah, that seems like reasonable, objective journalistic analysis. I’m sure Ms. Lowrey wants Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates to also make racist, sexist comments that unleash their lizard brains, too.

STACY MCCAIN ON THE TUMBLR FEMINISTS:

The thing about Tumblr feminists — as with all feminists, really — is their bedrock conviction that men know nothing. All men are bad and wrong and stupid, the feminist believes, and the only things men ever do is (a) enjoy male privilege and (b) oppress women.

Fortunately, the suffering victims of oppression have Tumblr, where they can advertise to the world how pathetic they are, and how racist/heteronormative their mom is, etc., etc.

When I call attention to these pathetic creatures, I’m sometimes accused of an intent to “bully” or “harass” them. Because this is the definition of “harassment” in 2015: Quoting what people publish on their blogs.

All I did was search Tumblr for “heteronormativity,” see?

Strange people you can find, if you know how to find them.

Would I like to help these crazy people? Sure, but feminism by its nature means that nothing I say is valid, all my ideas are wrong, and no advice I might offer would be helpful. The young feminist must only ever listen to what her fellow feminists tell her, because everybody else is evil in this world full of heteronormativity, misogyny and, of course, racism.

They have been catechized, as it were, into this belief system.

Well, people are vulnerable when they have no other.

SALON: BERNIE SANDERS’ RAPE APOLOGIA JUST A CRITIQUE OF “HETERONORMATIVITY”:  Of course it is.  Katie McDonough at Salon offers this weak defense of Sanders’ odd 1972 fictional piece called “Man and Woman,” in which Sanders says,  ”A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”

These ex post ”you just don’t get it” excuses for liberal/progressive actions are so tiring–reminds me of that Goldsmiths, University of London “diversity officer,” Mustafa Bahar, whose racist, sexist anti-white male comments were excused by a Slate writer as “ironic misandry.”

NPR: How The New Deal Created Segregated Inner City Ghettos:

On how the New Deal’s Public Works Administration led to the creation of segregated ghettos

Its policy was that public housing could be used only to house people of the same race as the neighborhood in which it was located, but, in fact, most of the public housing that was built in the early years was built in integrated neighborhoods, which they razed and then built segregated public housing in those neighborhoods. So public housing created racial segregation where none existed before. That was one of the chief policies.

On the Federal Housing Administration’s overtly racist policies in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s

The second policy, which was probably even more effective in segregating metropolitan areas, was the Federal Housing Administration, which financed mass production builders of subdivisions starting in the ’30s and then going on to the ’40s and ’50s in which those mass production builders, places like Levittown [New York] for example, and Nassau County in New York and in every metropolitan area in the country, the Federal Housing Administration gave builders like Levitt concessionary loans through banks because they guaranteed loans at lower interest rates for banks that the developers could use to build these subdivisions on the condition that no homes in those subdivisions be sold to African-Americans.

Much more at the link. But hey, FDR was a great hero except for this. Well, and the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO MOCK RAPE VICTIMS: Boston University prof in racist tweet flap accused of trolling white rape victim. “Go cry somewhere, since that’s what you do.”

PLANET OBAMA:  Where self-awareness goes to die.  Heather Wilhelm’s terrific piece today on RCP.  Wilhelm highlights a statement of Michelle Obama on Sunday to Tuskegee University graduates:

“There will be times,” the first lady continued, “when you feel folks look right past you, or they see just a fraction of who you really are. … My husband and I [have] both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives — the folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety; the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores; the people at formal events who assumed we were the ‘help’ — and all those who questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country.”

. . . . [T]hat last phrase is rather breathtaking. In one fell swoop, it groups “those who questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of country” together with a giant bushel of supposed racism. It also reveals a lot about the mind of Michelle Obama, who apparently assumes that the only reason you could possibly criticize her or the president is simple: You’re probably a racist.

But it’s not just Michelle who should check her #privilege.  The President has his own checking to do:

Alas, among the Obamas, self-awareness is not a strong suit, and this particular deficit isn’t limited to the first lady. This week, at Georgetown University, the president bemoaned the scourge of private schools, driven by “an anti-government ideology that disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.”

One wonders: Did he feel that way as a teenager while in the bosom of the exclusive Punahou prep school in Honolulu?  The Obama children, of course, attend Sidwell Friends, a private institution that costs $37,750 a year. Before moving to Washington, D.C., Sasha and Malia studied at the University of Chicago’s elite Laboratory School, where middle school tuition runs at $29,328.

Of course the truth is that neither the President nor First Lady need to check their “privilege.”  They have succeeded–wildly so– and they have done so because America is a place where that can happen.  Maybe the Obamas suffer from “black guilt” or something.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:  The First–and a Half–Amendment.

Among those who attack free expression the most loudly are progressives who do not like politically incorrect speech that does not further their own agendas. The term “illegal alien,” an exact description of foreign nationals who entered and reside in the United States without legal sanction, is now nearly taboo. The effort to ban the phrase is not because it is hateful or inaccurate, but because it does not euphemistically advance the supposedly noble cause of amnesties and open borders. Of course, the politically correct restrictionists have no compunction about smearing their critics with slurs such as xenophobe, racist, or nativist.

Yep–totalitarians do that sort of thing.

BECAUSE #DIVERSITY!:  And, you know, #tolerance!  A thought police diversity officer at Goldsmiths, University of London has once again revealed the modern progressive movements’ ugly, racist core.  I wrote about Bahar Mustafa’s nasty “no white males allowed” event at the university before.  In response to the outrage Mustafa’s previous comments triggered, she now defends herself thus:

I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system.

In order for our actions to be deemed racist or sexist, the current system would have to be one that enables only people of colour and women to benefit economically and socially on such a large scale and to the systematic exclusion of white people and men, who for the past 400 years would have to have been subjected to block colonisation.

We do not live in such a system, we do not know of such a history, reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real.

There, there, sweetie–it’s okay. It’s those big, mean, privileged white men who are the racists, not you!

I’ll give Ms. Mustafa some credit:  At least she is being forthright about the contents of the rotten, festering, racist and sexist cavity where her brain would normally be.

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME FOX NEWS:  At this morning’s Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit at Georgetown, President Obama once again blamed Fox News, asserting that if we want to change poverty,“We’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”  Obama’s logic proceeded as follows:

I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top or be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, ‘I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obamaphone,’ or whatever.

Well, as my grandma used to say, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?  (and no, that’s not racist!).  How very astute of President Obama to observe that making “folks” mad at the “folks on the top,” or vice versa, is incredibly counter-productive and indeed, destructive.  He should know: He (and his progressive henchmen, such as Al Sharpton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the like) are quite adept at this tactic.  Just ask Mitt Romney.  Because, you know, successful people “didn’t build that.”

I don’t recall who said it, but someone once said something along the lines of “he who criticizes others often reveals what he himself lacks.”  Yep.

LIBERALS EAT THEIR OWN:  Elspeth Reeve, writing in the New Republic, has a remarkably stupid piece titled “The White Man’s Bargain.”  I suppose this level of idiocy is expected from someone whom NRO’s Kevin Williamson once labeled “America’s least curious journalist.” We can now add “least intelligent journalist” to her growing accolades.  Reeve uses a recent New York Times report on Baltimore as her jumping off point. The NYT report noted, unremarkably, that President Obama’s tenure as President has made the nation’s racial divide even worse:

For those seeking the White House, the conflagration in Baltimore exposed a complicated truth: The racial comity that the election of Barack Obama seemed to promise has not materialized, forcing them to grapple with a red-hot, deeply unresolved dynamic that strays far from their carefully crafted messages and favored themes.

Duh.  But Reeve, in her wisdom, takes issue with this obvious truth, opining:

A strange idea has been running through some of the commentary about Baltimore: wasn’t electing Barack Obama supposed to fix this? Why are black people still so mad all the time when we elected a black president? . . . What [this] means is that people (and, let’s say this right here: white people) are eager to pay off the whole legacy-of-slavery-and-systemic-racism tab, to finally settle up and not have to think about social justice anymore. Wasn’t making a black guy president enough? . . . .

Judging Obama on what he has and hasn’t done to heal racial divisions is a direct outgrowth from a certain assertion about how he became a popular presidential candidate in the first place: he struck a deal with liberals to assuage them of their white guilt. This argument was so ubiquitous in 2008 that Obama himself repudiated it in his major speech on race: ”On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.”

Reeve’s next move is to suggest that racist, white people are just never satisfied:  ”As the country has slowly inched toward a more equal society, at every step, certain white people have protested that this is enough, that black people ought to be satisfied by now.”  Reeve then, remarkably (and hilariously) equates the New York Times’ acknowledgment of Obama’s worsening of race relations with the Confederacy: “There you have it: You can draw a straight line from supporters of the Confederacy all the way to page A20 of the April 30, 2015, edition of The New York Times.”

The Obama speech Reeve links to–given by candidate Obama in March 2008–contains much, much more than Reeve reveals. Maybe her noted lack of journalistic curiosity caused her to stop reading the speech once she found the quote for which she was looking.  But in that speech, Obama-the-candidate sells himself as a bi-racial person who will heal this country’s racial division, and assures Americans that he does not share the radical, racist and anti-American views of Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. . . .

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans. . . .

[Reverend Wright's statements] expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems . . . .

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Gee, I wonder why anyone would think a President Obama would help heal our racial divide?  As Reeve put it, what a “strange idea”!  Improving racial relations was a hope many Americans–black and white–held, in good faith, when supporting the first (half) black President. The fact that Americans now realize that race relations have actually gotten worse isn’t evidence of white racism, as Reeve insinuates, but evidence of President Obama’s failure to lead, or indeed his intent to mislead.

WHAT WE’RE UP AGAINST: It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S. Personally, I think violent talk about the need to “smash patriarchy” is hate speech and should be brutally suppressed.

Related: Australia Must Have Zero Tolerance for Online Hatred. I agree. The term “White Privilege” is racist, and those who use it should be forcibly re-educated.

Also: The Dangerous Myths About Charlie Hebdo.

ISIS GATHERING ON MEXICAN BORDER?:  According to Judicial Watch, ISIS is operating a camp in Mexico, just a few miles from the El Paso border.  Judicial Watch contends:

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation. . . .

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

Politifact rates Judicial Watch’s claim as false.  But then again, Politifact is dishonest and partisan, as has been noted here before.  When Judicial Watch was not willing to offer up the identity of its sources, telling Politifact it “would get them killed,” Politifact asked the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, which denied the claim.  Politifact then called the Mexican government, which “categorically” denied the claim.  And hey, who wouldn’t believe the Obama Administration (they never lie), or the Mexican government, whose President recently called Americans who oppose amnesty racist?

Move along.  Nothing to see here.  There’s no need to build a fence or anything– that would be racist.

At least Texas Governor Greg Abbott is doubling down on former Governor Rick Perry’s commitment of Texas National Guard troops for border security.

UPDATE:  An astute InstaP reader corresponded with the Politifact author, asking “Wouldn’t you agree that a lack of ‘on the record’ corroboration doesn’t determine whether a statement is false?,” to which the Politifact author, Gardner Selby, replied, “Our editors took the absence of on-the-record corroboration to indicate the claim was False.”

So apparently, according to Politifact, “false” doesn’t mean what most of us think it means– i.e., untrue. It means it cannot be corroborated by direct evidence. By this standard, the existence of God, extra-terrestrials and much of history is “false,” since it cannot be corroborated by anyone with first-hand knowledge, and not just “uncorroborated.”

I’m not taking any position on whether Judicial Watch’s sources are good ones or not (who knows?).  But I do see a material difference between calling something “false” versus “uncorroborated.”  Politifact thinks they are synonymous, which is interesting.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S GROWING EMBRACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM:

Last night at a public hearing on the budget in Prince George’s County, Maryland, a flyer with the following headline was circulated:

From Baltimore to Jerusalem It’s the Same Game. In 10 years Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin sent 1.2 billion dollars of Maryland Federal taxpayer money to the Apartheid state of Israel to build schools, roads and other infrastructure while saying Maryland doesn’t have the money to help develop our communities.

The flyer goes on to attack the “Israel lobby,” which allegedly is using Black politicians to split the African-American vote so as to “ensure that Blacks don’t get political power in the Senate.” It also accuses “apartheid” Israel of training U.S. cops in how to “set up paramilitary police armies in minority neighborhoods. . .all across the [United States].” And it accuses Israel of sending Black Jews to prison camps and suppressing the birth rate of Black Jews. . . .

Who circulated the flyer? Surely, it was supporters of Donna Edwards, the African-American congresswoman who is running against Van Hollen for the Senate. It would be interesting to hear what Edwards has to say about this attack on her rival and a sitting Democratic (Jewish) Senator.

Screen Shot 2015-04-25 at 9.59.38 PM

When you elect a racist hatemonger, you get racist hatemongering.

WE HAVE A TERRIBLE RULING CLASS. THEY ARE CORRUPT MORALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY AS WELL AS POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY: America’s Literary Elite Takes a Bold Stand Against Dead Journalists. “One can’t help but get the sense that Charlie critics won’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the newspaper not because it is undeserving—it’s tough to make the case that its journalists lacked courage—but because they can’t muster much sympathy for those who knowingly antagonize Muslims. And those who do should know the consequences.” This is either due to racist condescenscion — Garry Trudeau’s “punching down” — or fear, or a shared antipathy for Western civilization that makes angry Muslims seem like fellow travelers. All these explanations are contemptible.

THE WORLD, IN BLACK AND WHITE:  Normally a voice of semi-reason, Juan Williams has a race-baiting oped in The Hill today, titled “The Republicans and Racial Resentment,” in which he insinuates that the loss of white Southern Democrats (and concomitant shift of white, male voters to the GOP)– what Williams not so subtly calls the “former Confederacy”– is due to racist opposition to President Obama, and “has prompted alarm.”  In true passive-aggressive fashion, Williams then goes on to quote other liberal mainstream media commentators, who do Williams’ dirty work more directly, such as the New York Times editorial board and Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson.

What Williams– and these other liberal/progressive pundits–fail to appreciate is that “white flight” away from the Democrats has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with issues, as I’ve written about before.  In almost every major issue, blacks and whites have wildly different positions, with polling gaps exceeding 10 percentage points.  Obamacare?  83% of blacks support; 34% of whites support.  Obama’s handling of foreign policy?  68% of blacks approve; 29% of whites approve.   The Iran deal?  62% of blacks approve; 25% of whites approve.  Global warming Climate change?  17% of blacks believe there is no solid evidence the earth is getting warmer; 31% of whites think that.  Gun control?  34% of blacks think it’s more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership; 61% of whites think that gun ownership is more important than gun control.   Support for RFRA laws that allow business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings?  36% of blacks support such religious protections for business owners; 52% of whites support them. Same-sex marriage?  42% of blacks support; 53% of whites.

With such fundamental differences in how blacks and whites view various important policy issues, it is base to suggest (as Williams does) that white males are abandoning the Democrats due to race. Given the broad black-white gap on important issues, the demographic data from the 2012 presidential election–which shows that 39% of whites supported Obama while only 6% of blacks supported Romney (93% supported Obama)–frankly indicates that it is blacks, not whites, who are voting based solely on race.

CHAOS UMPIRE SITS: Joan Walsh Says Dangerous Things About Race That Help Perpetuate Police Brutality: Perhaps her white privilege is showing and she should take her ideological fellow travelers’ advice on it.

Since the news came out that three of the officers involved in Freddie Gray’s death were black—this fact is mostly pretty irrelevant to the case. A person isn’t any more or less violated depending on his race or the race of his violator. But it means a lot when some have vigorously pushed the narrative of “black men killed by white cops” as if it were only those instances of state-sponsored violence that were problematic. That narrative helps dangerous myths flourish—like the myth that black cops might be less brutal than white cops. Here’s Joan Walsh arguing that there was “no debate” black cops “absorb” the attitudes of their colleagues. It’s a bizarre idea that’s totally unnecessary if you live in the world but becomes a must-have when your understanding of the problem is based on the fantasy constructed in your head. And it’s a more than slightly racist one because it seeks to diminish the agency of the black adults who make up the black police population.

It gets worse. Walsh also argued that the indictment of the three black cops shows that “black leadership doesn’t protect wrongdoers like white leaders too often do,” this based on just the one Freddie Gray case. This is not only easily disprovable, it too helps perpetuate a dangerous myth. If the black leadership in Baltimore (and how much can be said about “black leadership” or “white leadership” before you’re just resorting to intuitions drawn from racial stereotypes?) were more interested in rooting out police brutality in the police department, why did it take Freddie Gray’s death for Baltimore’s black leadership to say it’ll invite the Department of Justice to probe the Baltimore Police Department for a pattern and practice of police abuse? Stephanie Rawlings Blake has been mayor for four years and Anthony Batts has been police commissioner since 2012. The problem of police brutality in Baltimore, and as any black (or really, any) leader in Baltimore should know (right?), didn’t start with Freddie Gray.

Why are Democrat-dominated cities such havens of racism and police brutality?

ERICK ERICKSON: If Only President Obama Weren’t Black.

It must be comfortable and convenient for President Obama to assume the opposition to him is because of his race. He can negotiate a bad deal with Iran and conclude the public hates it because he is black. He can tell people they can keep their doctors then take their doctors away from them and console himself that the anger of the public is just racist. He can see a solid position in Iraq and Afghanistan squandered as ISIS overruns us and, when people point it out, conclude it’s just because of his skin color. People can drop out of the workforce because they can’t find jobs and when their stomachs rumble and their mouths grumble, President Obama can look himself in the mirror and think it’d all be different if he were not a black man.

If only President Obama weren’t black, maybe he would realize that people don’t dislike him because he is black, they dislike him because he is a self-absorbed ass.

If he weren’t black, he never would have been elected, of course. That’s the only reason people voted for him. And even that didn’t work out as hoped.

Screen Shot 2015-04-25 at 9.59.38 PM

PRAY THIS WOMAN NEVER TEACHES YOUR CHILDREN:  Meg Stentz, a teacher in North Charleston, S.C., has written an “opinion” piece in Cincinnati.com (apparently she grew up in Cincinnati) lamenting racial violence.  Her lead paragraph is unremarkable, but her second paragraph is worth a close read:

Just over a week after Walter Scott was gunned down, the Rev. Jesse Jackson returned to his home state to speak about the national tragedy. He spoke to less than 100 people, including media. The event was put on by the small, young, grassroots group leading the local resistance, Black Lives Matter of Charleston.

Jackson offered the media a chance to ask questions after his talk. The first came from a flushed white man, who said that since Jackson was calling for police to wear cameras, he wanted to know how many officers Jackson had spoken to himself. This white micro-aggression, this nearly purposeful missing the point, has been largely how I’ve perceived Charleston to be taking this horrifying incident.

So apparently, in Ms. Stentz’s infinite wisdom, asking Jesse Jackson a logical question about whether he had spoken to police about wearing cameras is a “white micro-aggression.”  Not a “micro-aggression,” mind you– a white micro-aggression.  Is there really any other kind?

And of course this “aggressive” question came from a flushed white man.  Again, is there any other kind?  They’re just so, you know, pasty-faced– a bunch of Pillsbury Dough Boys, really.  I’m sure his “flushing” emanated from some unconscious physiological acknowledgment of his own whiteness and micro-aggressive behavior.

But wait, it gets worse:

After being raised in Ohio, I moved to now-well-known North Charleston to teach in a Title 1 middle school. My roommates are also transplants and teachers, meaning they’re at least as liberal as most of the North and still observant of how the South operates.

Of course, Ms. Stentz never bothers to explain “how the South operates,” but the educated (read: liberal) reader will understand what this means without elaboration (wink, wink, nod, nod).  You know, it’s how the South operates.  In case you don’t understand (because your white privilege or something is blocking your awareness), she thankfully makes her meaning clear in her closing paragraph:

In the Deep South, complacency is king, and the reaction here, even to sensationalized coverage, is minimal. My students are not angry, because anger only springs from a belief that things could be different. This racial violence is all they’ve known. I hope one day, that won’t be true, but from where I’m standing, the only people up in arms about this “news” are north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Well, thank you Ms. Stentz for condemning an entire region as racists.  I’m sure you know this is true, since you grew up in the pure, non-racist, above-the-Mason-Dixon State of Ohio and everything.

And I’m sure Southern racism persists because of the enormous influx of Northerners over the last several decades, as well the reverse migration of  of blacks into the South.  Oh, wait–those aren’t “real” Southerners (wink/nod)–they’re virtuous transplants from north, so they don’t really count as Southerners.  That term only applies to people who are direct descendants of Confederate soldiers–such as Bushrod Johnson, a Confederate General from Ohio– as any intelligent person knows.

And besides, there’s never any racial violence anywhere else, and it’s never initiated by minority groups.  #Ferguson #FreddieGray #NYCcopambush

This is the kind of intelligent discourse our universities are encouraging, awarding degrees to those who reflexively mirror their liberal/progressive professors’ views, all while flying the banner of #diversity and #tolerance.   And to make matters worse, she is a teacher.

THE LONGER-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING “RACIST” THE EQUIVALENT OF “ENEMY OF THE REGIME” ARE LIKELY TO BE POOR: David French: Feds Play the Race Card to Crush Parents’ Revolt Against Common Core. If they keep this up, people may come to feel that racism isn’t so bad.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the Obama Administration if its reflexive accusations of racism weren’t also just a cover for its staggering ineptitude: “The federal government is flexing its muscles to protect an allegedly state-run program. Liberals are treating other liberals like they’re racist. Even the teachers’ unions are calling Common Core’s rollout ‘botched’ and walking back their ‘once-enthusiastic’ support for the program. It looks like the education technocracy is every bit as ineffective as the rest of our national technocracies.”

BECAUSE DIVERSITY!:  A “diversity” officer at Goldsmiths, University of London, Bahar Mustafa, sponsored a meeting recently to discuss the need for greater “diversity” in the curriculum, announcing on Facebook:

Invite loads of BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you’ve been invited and you’re a man and/or white PLEASE DON’T COME just cos i invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only.

Non-binary is a term that apparently refers to individuals who don’t identify as exclusively male or female.  Ms. Mustafa tried explain the exclusion of whites and men:

Don’t worry lads we will give you and allies things to do.

How thoughtful and inclusive of her, especially for a department that touts as its goals:

  • combat discrimination, victimisation and harassment
  • advance and promote equality of opportunity between different groups
  • foster good relations between people from different groups

Ms. Mustafa–is it a microagression to refer to her as “Ms.”?– describes herself as follows :

I am particularly interested in looking at the gendered body in Japanese pornographic anime and horror through a Foucauldian framework in order to analyse the West’s gaze upon a world it attempts to categorize.  My politics are intersectional, queer, feminist, anti-racist . . . I am a working class, Turkish Cypriot, queer, disabled woman and activist.

Um, okay.  I cannot for the life of me translate that first sentence into English.  She is interested in Japanese anime porn’s portrayal of “gendered” bodies (is there any other kind?) because it attempts to “categorize”?  Whatever.  Yawn.

Apparently, the University was forced to back-walk its exclusionary policy, later posting “ALLIES NOW WELCOME.”   Yeah, right– about as welcome as a bleeding pig in a lion cage.

Can you imagine a University holding an event and publicizing it as “whites only, please?”  Of course you can’t.  “Diversity” is a just a politically-correct label for discrimination against whites, especially white males.  And it most certainly does not include diversity of viewpoint (i.e., conservative thought).

RELATED (kind of):  Abercrombie and Fitch decides to ditch its uber-sexual teen marketing and simultaneously announced  plans to continue to encourage “inclusion and diversity,” such as hiring more non-white “associates” (formerly called “models”).   It also announced plans to establish the A&F Global Diversity and Leadership scholarship program with the National Society of High School Scholars.

Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with the Supreme Court case currently under consideration, Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Abercrombie & Fitch?  This is a discrimination claim by a Muslim individual who was not hired by Abercrombie.  During the interview, she wore a headscarf, though it wasn’t mentioned during the interview. She was later told by a friend that she wasn’t hired because of the headscarf.

Bottom line:  Make it very expensive not to hire anyone other than a white male.  And of course, make white men feel unwelcome as much as possible.  Because #diversity!

TONI MORRISON: “I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back.” Get a grip, you old hater.

You know, I was reading some piece of historical fiction or other where physicians were talking about curing the plague by putting a dead rat over the buboes to draw the poisons to the surface. Barack Obama is our dead rat. Since he has occupied the White House, all manner of poisons — already there, but not visible — have been drawn to the surface. Toni Morrison is just the latest example. Though, if she weren’t a bitter racist, she’d know about stories like this one.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll remembers when lefties were swearing off the rhetoric of violence. Yeah, that didn’t last long. It never does with them.

HUNTING THE WHITE MALE VOTER:  Democrats are beginning to reap the electoral effects of the hatred and divisiveness they’ve sown.  White, male voters are increasingly abandoning the Democrat party, which has shown disinterest in their concerns about economic opportunity and national security, preferring instead to focus on balkanizing Americans with the “war on women,” paranoia about/hostility toward police, and global warming climate change.

Good luck, Democrats.  With op-eds like this one from Charles Blow at the New York Times, I think you’ve got a lot of introspection and attitude readjustment to undertake before you will convince any Americans who define themselves as just “American” rather than “hyphen-American” to vote Democrat.  Blow’s attitude is typical:  Shut up and take it, white men.  You’re increasingly irrelevant, we think you are “privileged,” angry closet racists (talk about projection) and we don’t care about you.  Message received.

RELATED:  Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb has suggested he may challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination because he thinks her campaign isn’t capable of wooing white male voters.  His perspective is almost quaint.  The post-Obama Democrat party is incapable, at present, of realizing the damage it has done and reforming its “divide and conquer” strategy.

JOHNNY ONE-NOTE: Charles Blow: If you oppose Hillary, it’s because you’re sexist. And probably also racist. To be fair, he actually mentions that the Republican field is more diverse, which must have hurt.

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MITT ROMNEY, WE’D SEE RACISM ACROSS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Kentucky judge criticized for telling parents they fostered racist behavior in daughter. “A Kentucky judge blamed two parents for their young girl’s ‘constant fear of black men’ after an armed robbery she witnessed, local reports said. The parents argued for a tougher sentence for the man convicted of busting into their Louisville home at gunpoint while their daughter watched ‘Spongebob Square Pants,’ according to the Courier-Journal. Judge Olu Stevens blasted Jordan and Tommy Gray’s victim impact statement at a court hearing in February and again recently in a Facebook post he later deleted. . . . Stevens contends the statement played no role in his decision to sentence the robber, 27-year-old Gregory Wallace, who pleaded guilty to the March 21, 2013, crime, to only five years’ probation.”

WHAT’S FUNNY IS THAT THESE RACIST “POCKETS OF WHITE AFFLUENCE” USUALLY VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

DAVID BERNSTEIN: The hypocrisy and dishonesty of attacks on Connecticut College professor Andrew Pessin.

Andrew Pessin is a distinguished philosophy professor at Connecticut College. He is also, as I understand it, the only Jewish professor at the college who regularly speaks up on behalf of Israel in an intellectual climate that is often dominated by left-wing and foreign students hostile to Israel.

This made him the target of one Lamiya Khandaker, a student who took his intro to philosophy class without incident last Fall. In February, she sent him an email complaining about a Facebook post from the previous August, in which used the metaphor of a rabid pit bull to describe the situation in Gaza, to wit, “One image which essentializes the current situation in Gaza might be this. You’ve got a rabid pit bull chained in a cage, regularly making mass efforts to escape.”

Reading the post, it’s ambiguous whether the rabid pit bull analogy is meant to apply to Hamas, Hamas and its Palestinian supporters, or Palestinian residents of Gaza more generally (whoever heard of a hastily-drafted, unclear, FB post?). However, I have seen his previous Facebook posts on the Gaza war last Summer, and they are full of criticism of Hamas, and don’t say anything nasty about Palestinians more generally, suggesting that he was, in fact, referring to Hamas.

In any event, Khandaker suggested that she found the post racist. Pessin clarified in response that he was not referring to Palestinians in general, but to Hamas and why its behavior provides a rationale for the Israel blockade of Gaza.

Khandaker is an idiot. Palestinians aren’t a “race.” They aren’t even a nationality. But, of course, the vast majority of campus “racism” complaints are just dishonest political hit-jobs.

Plus:

Speaking of animal analogies, Hamas’s charter calls Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs.” Pro-Hamas activists who gin up phony racism controversies like this one would like you to forget that.

Shame on the Connecticut College faculty for feeding the digital lynch mob rather than standing up for their colleague, or at least wallowing in ignominious silence.

How much per year does Connecticut College cost to attend? Why spend that on an environment in which political hit-jobs are met with “ignominious silence?”

ROBERT TRACINSKI: The Hugo Awards: How to Fight Back in the Culture War. (Let me note, however, that the Hugo fight is not an “outgrowth” of GamerGate — it’s been going on for several years and just finally reached the breakthrough point.) “This year, the Sad Puppies campaign (and a related slate of recommendations called Rabid Puppies) swept the field. The response was a total meltdown among the leftist elites who had assumed, in previous years, that they (and their favorite publisher, Tor) basically owned the Hugos. So they did what the Left always does: they smeared everyone who disagrees with them as racists. Correia notes that on April 6, eight different news sites, from Entertainment Weekly to The Guardian, all published suspiciously similar hit pieces describing the Sad Puppies campaign and its organizers as racist and misogynist. Clearly, someone was feeding these sites the new official narrative, and they all swallowed it without any attempt at basic research.”

And then had to humiliatingly retract.

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY ON THE ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY DEBACLE:

Last Monday afternoon, Entertainment Weekly posted a story in its Books section with the ominous headline: “Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign.”

Within a few hours, the headline changed to: “Correction: Hugo Awards voting campaign sparks controversy.”

That’s some correction. So what happened?

Both versions of the EW story were about the annual Hugo Awards given out to science fiction and fantasy writers. In the original version, EW’s Isabella Biedenharn claimed that “misogynist groups lobbied to nominate only white males for the science fiction book awards,” urging their followers to “cast votes against female writers and writers of color.”

Turns out that the slate of authors recommended by one of the groups, at least, did include women and minorities. Several of them, in fact.

The group’s campaign, in fact, had nothing to do with women or minorities, but an effort “to get talented, worthy, deserving authors who would normally never have a chance (to be) nominated for the supposedly prestigious Hugo awards,” according to Larry Correia, who along with Brad Torgersen, started the “Sad Puppies” campaign to bring more ideological diversity to the Hugo nominations.

“I started this campaign a few years ago,” Correia wrote on his blog, “because I believed that the awards were politically biased and dominated by a few insider cliques. Authors who didn’t belong to these groups or failed to appease them politically were shunned.”

But since the EW reporter didn’t bother to reach out to Correia, or anyone else involved, to check her facts, she apparently didn’t know this.

This story, like the now-completely discredited Rolling Stone “campus rape” article, shows the dangers of an increasingly biased mainstream news media.

Yep. And charges of racism, misogyny, etc. are almost always just political tools to defend insiders against outsiders nowadays.

SO ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY PUBLISHES A NASTY HIT JOBLarry Correia Fisks it here — and without contacting any of the people it attacks, and then after publication, the author, Isabella Biedenharn, invites Larry to give the other side. After publication. What, did she come to Entertainment Weekly from Rolling Stone or something?

Correia responds with typical reticence: “You went to press with a bunch of asinine, obvious lies, and you’re happy to include my side AFTER YOU LIED?”

UPDATE: See, this is why you punch back twice as hard: Entertainment Weekly retracts claim of ‘misogynistic, racist’ Hugo Awards voting campaign.

CORRECTION: After misinterpreting reports in other news publications, EW published an unfair and inaccurate depiction of the Sad Puppies voting slate, which does, in fact, include many women and writers of color. As Sad Puppies’ Brad Torgerson explained to EW, the slate includes both women and non-caucasian writers, including Rajnar Vajra, Larry Correia, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson, and Amanda Green.

This story has been updated to more accurately reflect this. EW regrets the error.

Bottom line: Entertainment Weekly listened to some Social Justice Warrior types, made the mistake of believing them, and humiliated itself. Here’s the corrected version. Props to Entertainment Weekly for correcting so swiftly and prominently.

THEY RUIN EVERYTHING: How Campus Progressives Ruined Liberalism for the Rest of Us.

I have some confessions to make: I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I favor the legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. Given supreme authority, I would drastically cut our military budget and use the money to institute a single-payer healthcare system (certainly not something many of my colleagues at the Independent would agree with). I even voted for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in the last presidential election. However, despite my overwhelmingly liberal political leanings, the progressive movement – particularly as I’ve seen it manifested on college campuses – has made me embarrassed to identify myself as a liberal.

Well, the embarrassment is justified. Plus:

To question the guilt of Darren Wilson was to be a racist, and to question the veracity of Sulkowicz’s story was to be a sexist rape apologist. Doing either of these things would almost certainly get you branded as a conservative. As a liberal who did both of these things, I have been appalled by the irrational mob mentality displayed by my fellow liberal students at events like the Ferguson protest and the “Carry That Weight” march in support of Sulkowicz. I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait. The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.

Reason and facts might interfere with a political goal. So safer to stick with emotion and tribalism.

HANS FIENE: Gay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy: My generation willfully ignores the real debate about gay rights and religious freedom because we want halos without sacrifice.

Comparisons of RFRA to Jim Crow — see this lazy, partisan and clueless one by Ron Fournier are not only ahistorical, but also racist, as they deliberately underplay the real sufferings of black people under Jim Crow by comparing them to, say, someone who has to shop elsewhere for a wedding pizza. Here are some thoughts on that from Julian Sanchez, and here is a rather understated example from the Supreme Court’s Heart of Atlanta Motel case:

Negroes in particular have been the subject of discrimination in transient accommodations, having to travel great distances [p253] to secure the same; that often they have been unable to obtain accommodations, and have had to call upon friends to put them up overnight, S.Rep. No. 872, supra, at 14-22, and that these conditions had become so acute as to require the listing of available lodging for Negroes in a special guidebook which was itself “dramatic testimony to the difficulties” Negroes encounter in travel. Senate Commerce Committee Hearings, supra, at 692-694. These exclusionary practices were found to be nationwide, the Under Secretary of Commerce testifying that there is “no question that this discrimination in the North still exists to a large degree” and in the West and Midwest as well. Id. at 735, 744. This testimony indicated a qualitative, as well as quantitative, effect on interstate travel by Negroes. The former was the obvious impairment of the Negro traveler’s pleasure and convenience that resulted when he continually was uncertain of finding lodging. As for the latter, there was evidence that this uncertainty stemming from racial discrimination had the effect of discouraging travel on the part of a substantial portion of the Negro community.

RFRAs, at the federal or state level, do nothing like this. The comparison is odious, and reflects very poorly upon those making it.

BUT IF YOU ASK ABOUT OBAMA’S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS, YOU’RE RACIST: PolitFact fact-checks Scott Walker’s claim that he bought a sweater for $1 at Kohl’s.

IT’S SAD THAT THIS KIND OF THING IS NEWS: U. of Maryland’s President Loh Responds to Offensive Email, Remembers First Amendment.

Public college presidents are sometimes faced with pressure to expel or otherwise punish students expressing controversial or offensive opinions, even if the speech is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. The University of Oklahoma’s (OU’s) President David Boren and the University of Maryland’s (UMD’s) President Wallace Loh both faced this pressure recently.

On March 10, Boren, ignoring due process and the First Amendment rights he is bound to uphold, chose to expel two students who were among those filmed singing a racist fraternity chant. Boren’s eagerness to oppose racism is understandable, but his willingness to disregard students’ rights in the process is not.

Loh recently faced a similar situation when a racist and sexist email sent from a student and Kappa Sigma fraternity member at UMD was uncovered. Yesterday, Loh emailed his campus regarding the outcome of UMD’s investigation into the email. Loh, succeeding where Boren failed, spoke out against the email and attested to the harm it caused to the campus community, but recognized that the speech was protected by the First Amendment and thus did not seek to punish the student responsible for it. . . .

Loh recognized that the student’s speech was constitutionally protected and could not be penalized at a public university. He also reaffirmed UMD’s role as a place where offensive speech is countered with more speech, not punished.

But, alas, this kind of thing is newsworthy today.

VOTING: Nigeria’s historic election just proved the world wrong.

For months, there were doubts that Nigeria would survive 2015. Headlines fixated on the winds of Boko Haram’s terrorism combining with the ethnic and religious tensions that divide the north and the south to create a storm of rampant violence that would tear the country apart. There was the expectation that Nigeria would burst into flames as a result of bullets being used to force political change instead of ballots, especially considering the massive election violence that erupted four years ago.

But over the weekend, Nigeria, a country of 170 million, gave the world a largely peaceful and credible election, with its most transparent vote to date. Retired Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) defeated incumbent Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for the presidency. To Jonathan’s credit, he called the 72-year-old Buhari on Tuesday to concede. No doubt it is the mark of a functioning democracy when a losing candidate respects the results of a democratic election. Buhari’s victory was decisive: He won 54 percent of the vote to Jonathan’s 45 percent.

Everything’s great, except for this one sad fact: “This is is also the first time that Nigeria used biometric card-reading technology, to help cut back on vote fraud and rigging.” Such a triumph for democracy and the rule of law, marred by the use of racist voter ID.

TAKE THAT, HILLARY: O’Malley: No one’s ‘inevitable’ for 2016.

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) on Sunday scoffed at the notion that any Democrat was a lock for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

“History is full of times where the inevitable frontrunner is inevitable until they’re no longer inevitable anymore,” O’Malley said.

Former first lady Hillary Clinton is widely considered the party’s frontrunner heading into 2016.

O’Malley also criticized the idea of presidential dynasties in politics. He said that neither Clinton nor former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), a likely GOP candidate, were especially qualified for the Oval Office due to their family ties.

“The presidency is not some crown to be passed between two families,” O’Malley said, referencing earlier White House administrations under Bush and Clinton’s relatives.

The former governor also said Americans craved a president who better represented their interests.

“We need a president who is on our side,” he said.

Well, it would be a change. But isn’t pointing that out kinda racist or something?

NO. NEXT QUESTION? Would the Media Allow ‘Cruz Crushing’ if He Were a Hispanic Democrat?

The whole point of the “White Hispanic” designation, and the Canada-talk, is to make clear to the appropriate Dem constituencies that they can say whatever they want about him without fear of being called racist. It’s a species of excommunication.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: CULTURAL ILLITERACY FROM THE MASTERS OF DIVERSITY. George Washington University Makes Racist Mistake, But Blames and Bans Student Anyway.

Remember, they charge students well into the six figures to attend. . . .

TAKING ON the racists at Starbucks.

I THINK THEIR BEST DEFENSE IS THAT THEY AREN’T RACIST, THEY’RE JUST FASCIST: Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Commission Police Leave Student Bloodied, Beaten.

A University of Virginia student’s bloody arrest has sparked a massive protest and led Gov. Terry McAuliffe to call for an investigation.

A video showing the bloody arrest of a black UVA undergraduate Martese Johnson sparked hundreds of students to protest against police brutality Wednesday night.

Johnson, 20, joined the demonstration, sporting 10 fresh stitches in his head from the violent takedown early that morning outside a Charlottesville pub.

Footage from the arrest, showing a cop pinning the Honor Committee student against the street and blood covering his face, outraged classmates and spurred McAuliffe to call for an independent probe of the arresting agency.

UVA was quick to challenge authorities for actions taken during Johnson’s arrest. He was pinched for public intoxication and obstruction of justice about 1 a.m. Wednesday.

After all, the same outfit aimed guns at a white coed who had a case of spring water that they thought was beer.

Best question: Why does Virginia have an Alcoholic Beverage Commission with armed police? And for those of you who want more government — this is what “more government” looks like.

On the other hand, the Daily News doesn’t cover itself with glory here:

More recently, members of a University of Virginia fraternity Phi Kappa Psi were accused in a report by Rolling Stone of gang-raping a female student. The magazine admitted after national scrutiny that major portions of its story were inaccurate.

Really? “Major portions?” Like, the part that came after the byline. . . .

WAIT, WHAT? “Sometimes white people are right, in spite of their skin color.”