Search Results

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.”

DON SURBER: Journalistic liars cost 8,000 households $250 million in Ferguson.

I am sure Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post felt warm and fuzzy when he posted, ” ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie.”

Admitting his mistake is a start.

When will he pony up some money to help the 8,192 households in Ferguson, Missouri, recover the approximately $250 million in lost property values caused by his sloppy journalism and to be blunt, racism?

Jonathan Capehart is not alone in repeating this outrageous lie, of course, but before he pats himself on the back for finally admitting the truth, four months after the truth came out, how about some cash. This is a tort. Jonathan Capehart, Comcast (through MSNBC) and dozens of other news organizations made stacks of money by repeating a lie for months.

They should pay.

Ferguson, Missouri, was an inner suburb of St. Louis in August when the media began repeating the lie that Michael Brown, 18, was “hunted down” (to use the words of Comcast’s Al Sharpton) by a racist white cop.

Today it is a shambles.

Ouch.

YES, WELL, SOME OF US WERE POINTING THIS OUT AT THE TIME: Jonathan Capehart: ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie. And we were called racists, etc., by lefty journos for doing it. I guess just like some people were “premature anti-Fascists” in the 1930s, we were “premature noticers” re Ferguson.

But now, after the media fanned the flames of riots that wrecked a town and polarized a nation, we get this:

What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements.

Nice job, guys.

PROF. JOHN BANZHAF IS WEIGHING IN ON THE OKLAHOMA SITUATION:

For Racist Speech – Educate College Presidents, Not Students
There Simply is no Exemption to the First Amendment for “Hate Speech”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 16, 2015) – At the University of Oklahoma, all members of a fraternity, including many who did not even participate in the private singing of a racist song, were summarily evicted from their dwellings, even though virtually all legal commentators addressing the issue have recognized that, in the absence of a clear and present danger, even disciplining those who led the singing is a clear violation of their constitutional rights for which the university and its president could be held legally liable.

Likewise, the University of Maryland is apparently considering disciplining a student for sending an email to a handful of other students in which he expressed his sexual preferences in women based upon their race, and used some vulgar words. That’s also strange, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, because it is not illegal, even in a public ad or notice, to specify the race, ethnicity, and gender of a desired roommate, so why would expressing such preferences regarding a much more intimate association, and doing it in a strictly private email, trigger a major campus investigation.

For these and other “transgressions,” many are arguing that there should be mandatory educational programs – what others have called indoctrination – for all incoming students (or at least for fraternity members). But perhaps what is really needed is educational programs for college presidents, deans, and other administrators who either don’t understand or fully appreciate not only the legal protections offered to students under the First Amendment, but also that academic freedom obviously includes the right to articulate ideas which are very unpopular with the majority views at a university.

Singing songs in praise of apple pie and motherhood, or sending emails expressing preferences for sexual partners who are pretty or smart, obviously don’t need the protection of the First Amendment nor guarantees based upon academic freedom, explains Banzhaf. Rather, the guarantees of Free Speech and academic freedom are expressly established to protect speech to which most in a community very strongly object, find abhorrent, reprehensible, etc.

It may be the official view of a university – to the extent that a university, and not its individual members, has official views – that persons of all races have equal abilities, that there is nothing wrong with engaging in homosexual acts, etc. but individual students in our free society have a right to disagree and, especially in private among those with similar views, to express them.

Banzhaf, who has himself brought many successful legal actions against discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, gender, etc. notes that the proper remedy for “bad speech” is not to punish those who engage in it – especially in private – but rather to overwhelm it with “good speech,” but not indoctrination.

At Oklahoma, the president’s actions have opened the institution and its president up to law suits in federal court, seeking not just damages, but also attorney’s fees. . . .

These causes of action include violation of rights to Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution, violation of their rights to Due Process also guaranteed by the Constitution, violation of the procedural protections guaranteed by the university’s own “Student Rights and Responsibilities Code,” and legal action under any local laws protecting people from summary evictions from dwellings.

Virtually all legal authorities who have spoken out agree that a state school cannot expel students for even racist or hateful statements – “there is no hate speech exception to the U.S. Constitution” – even if the speech mentions lynching, and especially if the speech occurred in private.

Indeed.

NEW YORK POST: Paging Eric Holder:

Remember how Eric Holder had threatened to disband the Ferguson, Mo., police department on the grounds it was racist?

And before that, how he was asking Judge Shira Scheindlin to grant his Justice Department oversight of the NYPD if the judge ruled against stop-and-frisk?

Well, maybe the Justice Department should look closer to home.

The Washington Post reports that two senior Secret Service agents — one a member of President Obama’s protective detail — last week drove right through a White House barricade into an ongoing investigation, right next to a suspected bomb.

Overruling agents at the scene, a supervisor ordered the two men sent home without even a sobriety test; they were later given lenient temporary assignments.

This comes on top of other scandals at the agency, including agents’ use of prostitutes on overseas trips and a recent breach that saw a knife-wielding man get inside the White House.

The Secret Service, of course, is not the only federal police agency that’s had its share of problems since Obama took office.

Thanks to administration stonewalling that saw Attorney General Eric Holder cited for contempt of Congress, we still don’t know the full story behind the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Operation Fast and Furious” — in which licensed firearms wound up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

So we’re with Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds on this one: Team Obama probably should spend more time fixing the law-enforcement agencies that are its responsibility rather than sliming ones that aren’t.

Insufficient opportunity for graft, I guess.

CONSERVATIVES BAND TOGETHER on criminal justice reform.

It’s been a good week for conservative criminal justice reform, which increasingly appears to be a unifying issue for the base and the party’s national leadership. On the one hand, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry—who some speculate will run again for president this election cycle—has joined Jeb Bush as a signatory on the “Right on Crime” pledge. That pledge entails upholding a series of criminal justice reform principles, including the idea that prisons have been too often relied upon as a shortcut to solving our criminal problems—the equivalent of sweeping dirt under a rug. . . .

Overall, this is pretty mild stuff, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Perry’s announcement that he was signing the pledge highlighted that he had closed down three prisons in Texas and was amping up treatment programs for “people who wouldn’t be served well by sitting behind bars.”

In the meantime, reforms slated in Utah to “get mentally ill, drug and alcohol addicted criminals into rehabilitation programs, and sentence them to shorter times in prison or secure rehab facilities” seem to be enjoying wide support. 63 percent of “very conservative” respondents to a recent poll on the proposed changes agreed with them—even though they will cost more in the short term.

With growing support from the base and with Presidential candidates signing on (likely to use as a talking point during the election season), the GOP is taking a welcome step forward on making the criminal justice system more humane.

I assume, though, that Dems will still call them racist.

CAMPUS FREE SPEECH: ACLU of Oklahoma: ‘[I]t is difficult to imagine a situation in which a court would side with the [University of Oklahoma] on this matter.’

Right now, OU has to be hoping that the frat guys will be too embarrassed to sue. But slinking away would be a mistake. Better to be a First Amendment hero! So now the question is, how smart are OU frat guys? Or at least, how smart are their parents and lawyers?

Related: ACLU Now Admits OU’s SAE Expulsions Are Likely Unconstitutional. As they are. “I’m glad the organization is articulating a clearly pro-speech position on the expulsions. There is nothing contradictory about condemning the students for terribly racist statements while still defending their absolute right to express such sentiments.”

Nonsense. Free speech is only for speech that everyone likes!

BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Everyone who has been the victim of a breach [of] First Amendment protections like those frat brothers in Oklahoma is un-heroic, it least to contemporary observers. People who say nice things aren’t expelled, or evicted, or jailed, or beaten, or tortured, or killed — and by nice I mean conforming to the prejudices of majority. The free speech martyr is always despised by the majority because he says things or writes things or makes photographs of that which the majority finds objectionable. So when the government cracks down on Nazis like Lincoln Rockwell or pornographers like Larry Flynt we all tend to think “good, the bastard needs to be shut up since what he says is so horrible, so false, and so hurtful.”

But the bastards are heroes, and here’s why — we wouldn’t have a First Amendment except for the fact that back in the 1780′s not all Americans were approved of by the majority. Some were Catholics, some were Jews, and some Quakers… and some weren’t too happy with the break with England. These people were afraid that the new American nation would turn on them for being nonconformists, and would enacts restraining laws against their worship, schools, festivals, and observances. Some slaveholders feared the abolitionists. Some abolitionists feared the slaveholders. We must remember that the Constitution in it’s original form contained no restraints on legislative power that would prevent enactment of laws against the saying and hearing of Mass, for example. Under the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Catholics and Catholicism were banned absolutely. In 1788 Massachusetts was still overwhelmingly Calvinist, and in the 18th century Calvinist zeitgeist a Catholic was either an ignorant superstitious peasant, or an idolator in league with Anti-Christ, a least as bad a racist today.

Everybody who has an opinion and his ballsy enough to express that opinion is somebody’s worthless bastard who needs to shut the fuck up, get right with God, and dress like a human being fer chrissake. It was the nonconformist bastards of 1788 who insisted on free speech. Without them America could have wound up like any tin-plated dictatorship. Dictators always curb speech, and the reason they give is always “we gotta shut up the bastards!” The bastards are a minority, so the majority don’t complain too much, except when it too late as Bonhoeffer discovered to his sorrow.

If you only stand up for speech you approve of, you’re a hack. If you only stand up for speech that everyone approves of, you’re a coward.

PRIORITIES: Oklahoma U. Expels Racist Students, But Not Violent Football Players: Do feelings matter more than actual violence?

(1) Yes. (2) Also, they’re afraid the SAE thing might hurt football recruiting. OU football players are heavily black, and matter more to the financial bottom line than fraternities, and they’re not taking it well.

F.I.R.E.: University of Oklahoma Expels Students for Constitutionally Protected Speech. “The university’s actions also present serious due process concerns.”

Will the students sue? I would. Right now they’re tarred as racists. If they win, they’ll be First Amendment heroes. And experience suggests that apologies don’t help, but just embolden the people who are after you. As a great man once said, punch back twice as hard.

UPDATE: OU Could Be Making A Huge Mistake With Its Expulsions.

Civil liberties advocates have already pointed out that punishing the students could be illegal, saying the song is protected free speech. But even if the offenses warranted expulsion, the taxpayer-subsidized school could be shooting itself in the foot by acting so quickly, and Boren could even be personally exposing himself to thousands of dollars in damages should he be sued by the punished students. (RELATED: The Oklahoma Frat Song Was Racist, But Was Still Free Speech)

In the letter that Boren used to notify each student of their expulsions, he appears to be acting unilaterally as president to immediately expel the students without any prior due process.

“As president of the University of Oklahoma acting in my official capacity, I have determined that you should be expelled from this university effective immediately,” the letter reads. “You will be expelled because of your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” . . .

Oklahoma, like most universities, has a student conduct code outlining the reasons students can be disciplined by the school. The code also has an appendix explicitly listing the procedures to be followed when a student is accused of misconduct. There is no listed procedure allowing the school’s president to unilaterally punish any student, let alone expel them. Instead, there is a clear process to be followed, with extra safeguards for students facing expulsion that would be virtually impossible to meet in the two days.

For example, the code clearly states that conducting conducting investigations is the prerogative of the Student Conduct Office, and that any punishment must be preceded by ordering an accused student to attend a “mandatory meeting” to hear and, if the student wishes, answer the allegations against them. Students have at least a five-day window to have this meeting, unless prompt action is “essential” due to a substantial safety concern or the imminent end of a semester.

Student Conduct can only suggest a punishment following this mandatory meeting, and if the student disagrees, the student is allowed to request a full hearing, which is not an appeals body but rather assesses the case independently.

In cases involving a possible expulsion, even more protections exist, ensuring the accused the right to an attorney and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against them, as well as present evidence on their behalf. And even if the students’ involvement with the video is not in doubt, they are promised the opportunity to show remorse, suggest mitigating circumstances, or offer other forms of defense.

Instead, Boren appears to have overridden these procedures, and it could end up costing him, personally.

Yeah, the First Amendment issue may be clear enough to override qualified immunity; the due process issue is clearer still since it’s spelled out in the school’s own manual. If it were me, I’d go after him personally.

And as for the people in the comments who say that libertarians like me, Eugene Volokh, and FIRE shouldn’t be defending these students: If you only defend speech you agree with, you’re not a free speech advocate, you’re just a partisan hack.

ROBERT SHIBLEY: Censorship can’t cure racism of Oklahoma frat: OU must rely on marketplace of ideas over mandates for addressing race, religious issues.

Related: Two Oklahoma Students Expelled For Racist Chant. Well, to be fair, OU President David Boren is a former Democratic Senator, so you can’t expect him to understand the Constitution.

EUGENE VOLOKH ON THE OKLAHOMA FRATERNITY SCANDAL: No, a public university may not expel students for racist speech. This should be obvious, but I’ve been surprised how few people have been pointing it out.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MOTHER JONES: Breaking: Food, Language, Global Warming, and Your Mother Are Now All Racist.

ONCE WHEN I REFERRED TO PRO PUBLICA AS A LEFTY OUTLET THEY GOT MAD, BUT DUMB CONSPIRACIST STUFF LIKE THIS PROVES THE CASE: Behind Supreme Court’s Obamacare Case, A Secretive Society’s Hidden Hand. The “Secretive Society” is the Federalist Society, which isn’t at all secretive, and which isn’t behind the ObamaCare case. This is all just part of the lefty Court-bullying press, and for Pro Publica to take part in it makes clear just what team they’re on, despite any protestations.

ANN ALTHOUSE, RESPONDING TO DANA MILBANK: Non-Wisconsinites, I need to explain something about Scott Walker to you that you are missing. “Those of you who think that he’s a neophyte, that he hasn’t yet learned how to step up to answering a question. You don’t get it. You are a neophyte. You haven’t yet learned how to step up to understanding Scott Walker. . . . Implicit in that is: That’s not Wisconsin style. Get used to it, coasties.”

UPDATE: More from Althouse: “Scott Walker feeling the heat” — says Politico, but how does Politico know what Scott Walker feels? “Maybe MSM are feeling the heat as the kind of questions that used to generate heat aren’t heating things up like they used to. They’ve been hoping to have some fun watching Republicans self-incinerate, after all these years dutifully admiring the cool character they call ‘No Drama Obama.’”

Related: “Notice how Democrats have not asserted that Obama actually loves America. Instead, they assert we’re racist for doubting he does.”

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: Rudy Is Right: Barack Obama doesn’t even like America.

Questions about patriotism and love of country are, according to our self-appointed referees, out of bounds, déclassé, boob bait for bubbas, etc. Those are questions that we are not allowed to ask in polite society. Why? Because polite society does not want to hear the answers.

Does Barack Obama like America? The people around him certainly seem to have their reservations. Michelle Obama said — twice, at separate campaign events — that her husband’s ascending to the presidency meant that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” She was in her mid 40s at the time, her “adult lifetime” having spanned decades during which she could not be “really proud” of her country. Barack Obama spent years in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church as the churchman fulminated: “God Damn America!” The Reverend Wright’s infamous “God Damn America!” sermon charges the country with a litany of abuses: slavery, mistreatment of the Indians, “treating citizens as less than human,” etc.

A less raving version of the same indictment can be found in the president’s own speeches and books. His social circle includes such figures as Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, who expressed their love of country by participating in a murderous terrorist campaign against it. Does Barack Obama love his country? Call me a rube for saying so, but it’s a fair question.

Though it’s one that our media folks might have done a better job exploring in 2008.

But here’s why Democrats, and their media protectors, are so unhappy with this question with regard to Obama in particular: It turns 2008 on its head. Obama’s appeal in 2008 lay in no small part in xenophilia: We’re so open-minded, we’re not just electing a President with a Muslim-sounding name, we’re electing a President with the same name as our most recent wartime foe! It let people feel enlightened, and progressive.

But all those differences that seemed so appealing can quickly flip into grounds for suspicion, especially when the object is behaving suspiciously. After all, if — like me — you believe in evolution, you might think that xenophobia, as such a well-established human trait, must have had beneficial functions: Maybe the xenos couldn’t be trusted, or even expected, to have the polity’s best interests at heart. Maybe, when people start getting worried about the polity’s future, those novel characteristics that once seemed so appealing now seem threatening. So while there’s a general reason the establishment wants to take the patriotism question off the table — patriotism is unsophisticated, and so limiting — there’s also a specific reason, which is that it’s something Obama’s vulnerable on right now, and it’s something the establishment can’t afford to cast Obama loose on, for reasons internal to its coalition.

But of course, the more they attack Giuliani on this, the more attention they draw to it. And even those who are, at first, repelled by Giuliani’s argument may find doubts lingering, and perhaps even growing, as they look at Obama’s presidency in a new light. . . .

And what are those reasons internal to the coalition? Williamson explains:

There is a personality type common among the Left’s partisans, and it has a name: Holden Caulfield. He is adolescent, perpetually disappointed, and ever on the lookout for phoniness and hypocrisy. His is the sort of personality inclined to believe in his heart the declaration that “behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” (He also believes that this is a quotation from Honoré de Balzac, whose works he has not read, when it fact it comes from Richard O’Connor’s The Oil Barons: Men of Greed and Grandeur.) He believes with Elizabeth Warren that the economy is a rigged game based on exploitation and deceit rather than on innovation, productivity, and competition. He believes with Barack Obama that the only reason (e.g.) Staples does not pay its part-time associates more or schedule them for more hours is so that it can pad its executive pay and protect its “billions” in annual profits.

(He believes that Staples, whose financials he has not read, makes “billions,” when in fact it does no such thing.) Say an admiring word about Steve Jobs and he’ll swear that there are four-year-olds working 169 hours a week in Chinese sweatshops producing iPods at the point of a bayonet. He believes that most people get into Harvard and Yale because they have influential parents (that’s the University of Texas, unfortunately), that rich Americans mostly inherit their money (in reality, about 15 percent of their assets are inherited, less than for middle-class families), that the U.S. goes to war abroad to enrich contractors at home, and that the entire history of Latin America must be understood through the prism of the United Fruit Company’s maneuverings in 1954.

Give Holden Caulfield a television show and you’ve got Chris Hayes.

Barack Obama has a great, big, heaping dose of Holden Caulfield in him. That and chutzpah: When as a candidate he was in trouble because of his association with the racist lunacy of the Reverend Wright, he responded by giving the American public at large a lecture on racism and its culpability therein, while his minions began proclaiming that the only reason to oppose this politician with the racist associates was — presto-change-o! — racism.

Yep. Read the whole thing.

ERIC HOLDER WANTS AN HONEST CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE. PAUL RAHE TAKES UP THE CHALLENGE: What Do the Ten Most Dangerous Cities in America Have in Common?

Early on in his tenure, Eric Holder called for a national conversation about race and he described us as “a nation of cowards.” Although I doubt very much whether he in particular could stomach a genuinely frank conversation on this subject, I do believe that he is right that we as a people are afraid to speak up — and I regard this as a serious defect, for it prevents our even thinking about how we might address a grave problem.

The truth is simple and sad. While violent crime is by no means restricted to inner-city African-American neighborhoods, it is more prevalent there than anywhere else.

We have been treated in the last couple of years to astonishing nonsense concerning the “rape culture” that is supposedly pervasive on America’s campuses — when the statistics based on crimes reported to the police suggest that rape is exceedingly rare at our universities and exceedingly common in inner-city black neighborhoods. If our President and his Attorney General really cared about the mistreatment of women, these neighborhoods would be their focus.

If we were to have an honest national conversation on race or, for that matter, on rape, we would have to attend to the near collapse of the black family, to the fact that only 17% of African-American teenagers aged 15 to 17 live in a family where both parents are present, and to the impact this has on the likelihood that young black men will turn to crime. If Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were victimized, it was not by the likes of George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson. It was by their parents who did not stay together and keep their sons on the straight and narrow.

This really is a serious problem — and it is much more of a problem for ordinary African-Americans than it is for white men such as myself. For by and large black people are the ones who are victimized. They live in the dangerous neighborhoods. They are the ones threatened by violent crime. They are the ones most apt to be raped.

One would think that, with a black President and a black Attorney General, we would be witnessing an attempt to think through this problem and to deal with it. But, in the last six years, neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder has said a word on the subject.

Sorry, wrong narrative. Also, you’re a racist for mentioning this.

PALACE GUARD: The media rushes to defend Obama’s honor from Rudy Giuliani. Their sensitivity on this topic tells you that it’s effective.

Also, that they’re racists.

ROGER SIMON: #JEWISHLIVESMATTER:

Thought experiment: What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.

How would President Obama react?

Do you think he would say there was something racial about the obscene incident? Damn right he would — and he should. In fact, he would do it forcefully and immediately. After all, when Trayvon Martin died in far more ambiguous circumstances, he was quick to jump in, identifying with the 17 year old who would resemble, Obama said, his own son if he had one.

Now consider what our president said about the events at the Hyper Cacher market in Paris on January 9 in a new interview with Vox.com: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

“[V]icious zealots… randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli”? That’s the way the way the president of the United States describes a dedicated jihadist murdering four Jews in a kosher market in one of the oldest and largest Jewish neighborhoods in Paris, the day after other jihadists shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices, killing even more people? No Jews, no jihadist, just more “random” violence, as if Ahmedy Coulibaly, the man who murdered the four Jews and had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, just stumbled into a kosher deli by accident with a submachine gun while on the way to Cafe de Flore for a cognac.

Well, this is entirely consistent with Obama’s worldview. As Roger notes: “Barack Obama — despite a claque of Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Lew, Emanuel, etc. I wonder how they felt when they heard this latest round) — appears to have a very complicated, almost bizarre reaction to Jews. Maybe it’s a weird competition between oppressed groups — blacks and Jews — or more of his not-so-masked appreciation of (and defensiveness about) all things Islamic.”

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MITT ROMNEY, RACISTS WOULD BE OPPOSING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! State senator says all white people are racist and ‘polluted’ his blood.

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers said all white people are racist and that his blood was “polluted” by white people last week while filibustering a bill and lambasting a state education board member who has rejected calls for his resignation after his blog called the president a “half-breed.”

Chambers, a 77-year-old African American senator who is the state’s longest serving lawmaker, made the comments about race while filibustering a bill that would increase the fee for marriage licenses.

Boy, those people who warned me about voting for Mitt Romney sure were smart.

ASHE SCHOW ON THE DEMOCRATS’ LATEST TROPE: If you oppose Loretta Lynch for AG, you’re racist.

That’s right, Paul isn’t really upset that Lynch supports a practice that allows law enforcement to seize people’s cars, money and other property without their having been tried or convicted — a highly dubious practice that has unjustly expropriated many black Americans, by the way. He just doesn’t like that she’s black.

Paul told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday his reason for opposing Lynch.

“Civil forfeiture turns justice on its head,” Paul said. “Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent. The government takes your cash — $1,000, $100, $500, whatever it is. This program predominantly has targeted black individuals, poor individuals, Hispanic individuals. And when Sen. [Mike] Lee asked her about it in the committee, she said, ‘Oh, no, as long as there is a valid court order.’”

Lynch said during her confirmation hearing the previous week that she believes “civil and criminal forfeiture are important tools to the Department of Justice, as well as our state and local counterparts through state laws, in essentially managing or taking care of the first order of business, which is to take the profit out of criminal activity.”

Remember — police can seize that property without charges even being filed. They often do so when there is no evidence of a crime. They have been known to take the homes of parents whose children were alleged to have sold drugs without their knowledge. Current AG Eric Holder even took steps earlier this year to limit the use of the practice by requiring evidence of a crime before assets could be seized.

Lynch has used the practice in her office to rake in more than $113 million in civil actions between 2011 and 2013.

But there’s no way that could be the reason Paul opposes her nomination. No, it must be the racism.

You know, I don’t think this country was ready for black officeholders at the highest level. Too much racism.

UPDATE: From the comments: “Not only is Rand Paul racist for opposing her nomination, he probably murdered innocent Muslims when he fought in the Crusades.”

RACISTS CHARGE DIFFERENTLY-RACED MAN WITH RACISM: Black Caucus slams Rand Paul for opposing AG nominee Lynch.

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) issued a sharp condemnation of Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) opposition to Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch on Thursday.

Paul said he opposed confirming Lynch because she supports civil forfeitures, a controversial law enforcement tactic, but the chairman of the CBC dismissed those concerns.

“Senator Paul is using the issue of civil forfeitures to block a well-qualified federal prosecutor from heading the Department of Justice,” said CBC Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) in a statement. “Senator Paul also has the audacity to suggest that Loretta Lynch should have more concern for people living in poverty.

“The Congressional Black Caucus recognizes Senator Paul’s unfounded argument as nothing but an excuse to keep an African American legal scholar from holding this high position, and we directly call on him and Republicans to allow the nomination of Loretta Lynch to proceed to an up or down vote in the Senate,” he added.

There’s no bigger hotbed of racist hackery in Congress than the Black Caucus, and this is just another example.

JOHN C. WRIGHT: Dinosaur-Sized Bigotry. “They used to be firmly on the side of the workingman; now they hate the workingman as a white racist oppressor. . . . They serve Sauron and have forgotten their own names.”

JAKUB GRYGIEL: Know Thy Enemy: The modern Western penchant for trusting in the equal rationality of all is strategic folly. Aeschylus understood this well.

Good strategy requires a sound understanding of one’s rivals. A rival in any walk of life is, in a sense, an interlocutor. To engage him effectively in debate one must understand his speech and reasoning patterns. Without that knowledge, conversation is at best pointless, at worst self-defeating. So it is in strategy. It is futile to engage in competition with a rival power without having at least an inkling about his thoughts, fears, and desires.

The modern Western penchant for trusting in the equal rationality of all suggests otherwise. According to this conceit, there is no reason to plumb the nature of an enemy’s thinking because it is no different in essence from one’s own. But this is wrong. A rival’s response to one’s strategy is not predictable as a simply rational and universal reaction that can be generalized and grasped with relative ease. Rival states or groups respond to similar actions in different ways based on their culture, worldview, history, and the proclivities of their leaders. Good strategy, as Bernard Brodie once put it, “presupposes good anthropology and good sociology.”

Despite their superficial attachment to multiculturalism, our elites don’t really want to think of other cultures as, you know, thinking differently, for fear that it might somehow be racist to take that into account.

MILO YIANNAPOULOS: ‘Yes, I was a racist… and I’m mentally ill’: Shanley Kane in shocking social media meltdown. And yet so many people listened to her, feted her, excused her behavior, and gave her money, because social justice!

SAYUNCLE: Why are anti-gun activists so violent? “The incident where the man lawfully carrying a gun was tackled by another man was captured on video. Did you see that? A law-abiding black man minding his own business when suddenly an obviously racist white guy batters him. I wonder when Al Sharpton will organize a march to protest this injustice!”

UPDATE: From the comments:

So let me see if I understand this correctly: in a former Confederate state, a white man attacked an elderly black man for exercising a legal right, and the Democrats are upset that the white man is being prosecuted?

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Heh.

LIFE IN OBAMA’S POST-RACIAL AMERICA: “Peaceful protesters” disrupt ceremony for 100 yr old war veteran.

While the disrespect shown for Mr. Raschio is beyond the pale, this is fairly characteristic of the latest rounds of anti-cop, “peaceful protests” going on around the country. One of the defining characteristics of these schemes is that they are so completely outside the realm of the issue they are purportedly out there to correct. If you are angered about perceived injustice by police against minorities, what could that possibly have to do with Mr. Raschio? This theme is repeated in the so called Black Brunch protests in Oakland and New York City this weekend. Protesters invaded various businesses to disrupt service and dining in what they referred to as “white spaces.”

This is simply a continuation of the theme we saw when more allegedly peaceful protesters blocked traffic and tried to shut down the highways. What on earth do people eating french toast in a diner have to do with police practices? How does stranding thousands of motorists in rush hour traffic convey any sort of relevant message? The disconnect is obvious, but these protesters may be doing the rest of us a favor. By demanding an end to “business as usual” and screwing up the daily lives of regular working people with an off tune message which is inappropriate for the situation, the nation will tire of them even faster than they did with the filthy homeless camps of the Occupy movement.

The vast majority of the nation is not anti-cop. The further these agitators push the rest of the rank and file citizens, the quicker they will find that out.

This is bullying for the sake of bullying, by racists. It is designed to intimidate, but it is likely to have the opposite effect. It has also completely undermined what looked like a substantial bipartisan consensus on police reforms.

BUREAUCRATIZE EDUCATION AND THIS SORT OF THING IS PRETTY MUCH INEVITABLE: Branded bigots at the age of THREE: How thousands of children are being blacklisted by schools for using innocuous playground taunts such as ‘girl’ and ‘fat bucket of KFC.’

EXPULSION IS SILLY, BUT A CONSERVATIVE STUDENT WHO MADE SIMILAR RACIST TWEETS WOULD BE IN TROUBLE NOWADAYS: At Brandeis, Outrage Over Student’s Tweets. I’d like to go back to the idea that campuses are places that prize free speech, but under current rules I think lefties should suffer just as much blowback as anyone else.

JOURNALISM:

Last Thursday morning, Boston.com staff were called into a meeting to discuss what they thought was the worst mistake they would have to deal with that day. The previous evening, the site had posted a story accusing Harvard Business School Professor Ben Edelman of sending a racist email to a Sichuan Garden employee—only to retract the story a short time later, as it became clear that Edelman didn’t actually send the email, a key fact they hadn’t verified before going live with their version of events.

In the meeting, Corey Gottlieb, executive director of digital strategy and operations at Boston Globe Media Partners, assured the team that, this incident notwithstanding, Boston.com’s values and processes are solid. “There’s a reason this doesn’t happen every other week,” Gottlieb said. “This feels more like an exception.”

What Gottlieb probably didn’t know at the time was that the next act was unfolding right in front of him. The morning meeting was being secretly recorded, and the leaked audio would later land in the hands of a couple of media outlets around town, prompting rumors of disciplinary action of two staffers. And Hilary Sargent, the top editor in the room, would be handed a weeklong suspension after a “joke” she made online landed with a thud.

Layers of editors and fact-checkers. Plus, stonewalling media inquiries about the debacle: “When it comes to answering journalists’ difficult questions, the Globe’s policy is Do as we say, not as we do.”

I SUSPECT THE ANSWER IS THAT THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES WERE AFRAID OF BEING CALLED “RACIST.” Australia vows to unearth why ‘sick’ extremist was at large.

JONATHAN TURLEY: After Ferguson, come the apologies for nothing:

College campuses last week seemed more like centers of political reeducation rather than real learning as various academics have been forced into public apologies over references to the recent controversial decisions of grand juries in Missouri and New York.

Consider the bizarre case of University of California at Los Angeles law professor Robert Goldstein who based an essay question on his final on Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, chanting, “Burn this b—- down!” after the grand jury decision. The angry mob proceeded to loot and burn various businesses in the town. With some calling for Head to be prosecuted, this was a ready-made question for exploring the limits of the First Amendment in a real-life situation. However, Goldstein was immediately attacked by commentators like Elie Mystal of the blog Above the Law for being “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal falsely stated that Goldstein’s question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

Goldstein actually apologized and told his students that he “clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question.” He proceeded to throw out the question in what seemed a cringing compliance with a new taboo subject.

Related: The Trouble With Teaching Rape Law. “Imagine a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood. What should his instructors do? Criminal-law teachers face a similar question with law students who are afraid to study rape law.”

Higher education today: A race to the bottom, between the vicious and the trivial.

UPDATE: A bright spot from Oberlin, of all places.

ROGER SIMON: Did Edward Snowden Hack Sony Pictures? “Many of us who have spent even part of our lives working in the film industry, particularly those who have committed the unpardonable sin of not adhering religiously to the orthodox liberal line, cannot but grin at the release of the hacked emails from the bosses of Sony Pictures. We were right all along about these self-described liberals and progressives and now we have proof — they are pond scum. They are about as liberal and progressive as Attila — not that those words mean anything anyway. They’re also racist, but forget about that. It’s hardly surprising. What is surprising is that they are clueless. They don’t know what the average ten-year-old nerd knows.”

IT’LL BE HARD FOR THE RIGHT TO RESPOND IN KIND BECAUSE THERE ARE SO FEW LEFT-LEANING LEGISLATURES LEFT: Liberal group plots to catch GOP state pols being racist and sexist.

The leader of a group hoping to improve liberals’ fortunes at the state level revealed on Friday plans to start tracking conservative state legislators based on the assumption that “someone’s going to say something about black people” or women.

The comments came at the first ever conference of the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), the Left’s attempt to counter conservative policy successes that have followed Republican victories at the state level.

“We’re working with David Brock and Media Matters and American Bridge who have trackers that we can send out to monitor the debate on some bills that you all might be running,” Nick Rathod, executive director of SiX, said. “I think in many legislatures my understanding is that a lot of legislatures stream their floor debates but don’t necessarily transcribe it or capture it in any kind of way. And so we want to start capturing them on that. I think we know, someone’s going to say something about black people. Someone’s going to say something about women. Someone is going to say something.”

Hey, I’ve got an absurdly sexist — and probably racist — legislator from a red state for you right here:

I don’t keep up with football, except college football. Unless it’s Eli Manning or Peyton Manning. Eli and Peyton don’t do sexual assaults against people, other than their wives.

Run with it! What? Oh, right. . . .

LIBEL BAIT? Boston.com: Editor designed T-shirts mocking Harvard professor. “An editor for the Boston Globe’s Boston.com who wrote an unverified story accusing a Harvard professor of firing off a ‘racist’ email is facing scrutiny for peddling T-shirts mocking him for a flap over a $4 Chinese food charge. Boston.com deputy editor Hilary Sargent designed the T-shirt, which was posted for sale for $20.95 on Internet shopping site Zazzle.com, Boston.com confirmed yesterday.”

Won’t look good if there’s a lawsuit.