Search Results

THE VIEW OF THE WORLD FROM 9th AVENUE: One fun element of Democrat presidential primaries? Reading how much leftwing elites truly despise the base of Democrat voters. As John Nolte writes today at Big Government, “Prominent Hillary Clinton Supporter Smears Working Class Dems as Racist:”

Obviously frustrated by Hillary Clinton’s collapsing presidential campaign (her second in a row!), The Nation’s Joan Walsh, a frequent MSNBC contributor and high-profile Hillary supporter, took to her verified Twitter account Thursday to attack working class Democrats as racists.

“I wonder if Clinton’s troubles with white working class,” Walsh mused, “which she carried in ’08, have anything to do with the president she served[.]”

The insinuation isn’t at all subtle. Walsh is suggesting that white working class Democrats have moved away from Hillary because she served in the cabinet of a black president.

This is a bizarre strategy from Team Hillary, especially after the catastrophic results from New Hampshire Tuesday night, where Hillary lost the woman vote to 195 year-old socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

It may be bizarre, but this is what Democrat elites do; in April of 2008, in the midst of Pennsylvania primary season, Obama-supporting screenwriter-director Nora Ephron (who passed away in 2012) took to the pages of the Huffington Post to write a nasty screed titled “White Men:”

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Classy stuff — which also reveals much about what Ephron thought about the people who paid to see her movies. In her column today (at Salon, where Joan Walsh served as editor for many years, ironically enough), Camille Paglia spots another leftist dowager (her word) lashing out at the base:

Despite emergency efforts by Gloria Steinem, the crafty dowager empress of feminism, to push a faltering Hillary over the finish line, Sanders overwhelmingly won women’s votes in every category except senior citizens. Last week, when she told TV host Bill Maher that young women supporting the Sanders campaign are just in it to meet boys, Steinem managed not only to insult the intelligence and idealism of the young but to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person.

Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within. I’m sure that my delight was shared by other dissident feminists everywhere. Never before has the general public, here or abroad, more clearly seen the arrogance and amoral manipulativeness of the power elite who hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.

Oh I don’t know – that sort of arrogance is on rather prominent display every four years. It’s as if Democrat elites believe that their base care for little more than clinging to their racism, sexism, guns and religion. (Obama’s infamous crack in 2008 was in the context of trying to win the same Pennsylvania Democratic primary that inspired Ephron’s racist “White Men” screed above.)

So why all the anger from leftist elites directed at their base? Perhaps it’s because, as Ace of Spades noted in 2011, “Our elites are fixated on how disappointed they are with the tawdry public precisely because that allows them to avoid examining their own colossal failures.”

WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF A STRONG BLACK WOMAN? Racist Democrats Target Mia Love For Defeat.

YOU WENT FULL PROGRESSIVE CHRIS MATTHEWS — NEVER GO FULL PROGRESSIVE: Ted Cruz “operates below the level of human life,” Matthews tells his fellow MSNBC denizens on Morning Joe today:

Matthews remarked Cruz had a “troll-like quality” that was “below the level of human life,” said there was a “darkness“ to Cruz’s character that frightened him, and suggested that Cruz, a Cuban-American, is a “theocrat” who views President Obama like Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

“The thing about—there’s a troll-like quality to Ted Cruz,” Matthews said. “He operates below the level of human life.”

“OK, Chris, that’s a little tough,” host Joe Scarborough said. “You have not gotten sleep.”

“Am I allowed to have an opinion?” Matthews asked. “I think he appeals to people’s negativity rather than their joy. I don’t think people feel good about voting for Cruz. I don’t know what it is he appeals to.”

Well, driving crazed establishment lefties such as Matthews utterly insane is certainly a good start. In late January, Matthews was forced to apologize for his racist crack “wondering who would want to watch a Donald Trump-less debate with ‘two Cubans’ — Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz,” as Buzzfeed reported, adding this unintentionally ironic passage:

The remarks are the second time Matthews has been criticized for comments he made about Rubio and Cruz. In November, he questioned whether they are truly Hispanic, calling them “Cuban nationals.”

“People have been going to management, not just Latino employees, but people have been going to management and complaining sort of like ‘What the f**k? Did that really happen on our air?’” an NBC employee said.

Many of the people at NBC that spoke with BuzzFeed News posed the hypothetical of what would have happened had Matthews been talking about someone else. “Can you imagine if someone said what’s up with two old white people debating among the Democrats? Or two Jewish people or two black people?” a second staffer said.

The remarks come amid MSNBC’s long-running attempts to keep its talent and voice in line with its diverse, progressive brand.

Well, considering how deeply racism was baked into the brand of “Progressivism” right from the start, Matthews is certainly behaving well in-line. Almost to the point where his language at MSNBC “reminds me of the ’30s in another country” — as a legendary broadcaster might say.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. It’s time we stopped treating all men as sex pests.

Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, was tried for a sex crime simply because he brushed past a 61-year-old female film star during rush hour at Waterloo Tube station without even breaking his stride.

His accuser (who shall remain anonymous for life) claimed Pearson penetrated her with three fingers for “two or three seconds”.

CCTV of the footage irrefutably backs Pearson’s account; it took a jury of nine women and three men just 90 minutes to unanimously reject the accuser’s version of events and find Pearson innocent.

After the case, Mr Pearson, who still suffers anxiety attacks, said, “This could have happened to anyone. For me, half a second turned into a year of hell. I feel I have undergone a form of mental torture sanctioned by the state. Why couldn’t the CPS have used common sense?”

Which begs the bigger question: why, despite having seen the CCTV evidence (there were also no witnesses nor forensic evidence), did the Crown Prosecution Service still see fit to push for prosecution?

Pearson’s acquittal topped off a bad week for the CPS – and a terrible one for men – following a damning report in which HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate concluded that “poor” decision-making in London rape cases was leading to innocent suspects being wrongly charged in an attempt to raise the number of convictions.

So why is what’s been described as a CPS “witch hunt” against men happening?

Increasingly, there is a sense that the courts are becoming the judicial hammer for the anvil of the CPS’s Violence Against Women And Girls strategy. It’s also hard to avoid the argument that innocent men like Mark Pearson are seeing their day in court because the most prolific and evil sex offender of them all – Jimmy Savile – escaped his.

Meanwhile, of course, the Rotherham rape gangs were covered up by officialdom for fear of being called racist. So it’s not actually a war against all men.

The accuser’s name should be widely publicized, and the officials here should be tarred and feathered.


Michael Moroz is the son of Soviet immigrants. I interviewed Michael’s mother, who told me that they left there because they wanted their son to be able to grow up with freedom. Freedom to speak his mind without concern that saying the wrong thing would mean that the state would come down on him. She believed our marketing materials for “The American Way.”

She now believes that America did not come as advertised.

Michael is a high school student at Central High School in Philadelphia, and is also the managing editor of his high school newspaper, “The Centralizer.” He recently wrote an article called “A Case of Overreaction,” which criticized the Black Lives Matter movement.

I didn’t particularly agree with the article, but I found it to be well written and well presented. It was originally printed alongside an article that supported the BLM movement. Two opposing points of view, presented to the reader – who is left to decide which is more persuasive. This was the marketplace of ideas in action.

But, the Regressive Left does not want debate. The Regressive Left does not want, nor tolerate, a marketplace of ideas. The Regressive Left leaves no room for dissent. The Regressive Left does not want a free press, just public relations for them. You’re either with them, or you’re “a racist.”

Michael’s fellow students took to social media to try and convict him, all in one movement, of his treasonous thoughtcrimes. They posted that someone ought to shoot him. There were calls that he must be “dealt with.” One wrote that “[he thinks] his white privilege will keep him from getting ‘popped.’” Even an alumnus proudly wrote, “Black students at Central will handle their business.”

Michael’s fellow editors then censored his article, “If an article comes across as insensitive, and the Central community would rather have it taken down because of this, then the article will be taken down.” Remember, only Moroz’s article was censored for being “insensitive.” Meanwhile, the counterpoint – the “politically correct” perspective was not. Enter the state — administrators backed the decision. (source)

One would expect that the principal would clamp down on threats of violence against a student in his care. After all, if we condone censorship in the name of “sensitivity”, then certainly we would do the same when calling for the boy’s safety to be compromised. One would perhaps expect the Principal to even call for a “safe space” for a minority view like Michael’s to be able to flourish – even if only to be rejected.

Read the whole thing. In a school system where socialist “justice” prevails, it’s a safe bet that much of the dark history of socialism is forgotten. Just ask these young Philadelphia-area skulls full of mush, as a much more rigorous educator from a more civilized era might describe them:


During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin referred to Madeleine Albright’s somewhat well-known saying, found on a Starbucks coffee cup, that “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women.” At the time, Albright, who served as Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, huffed: “Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics.” She naturally followed that statement with an intense political attack on Palin and GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Now that Democrat Hillary Clinton is running for president and is in danger of losing the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin, Albright has decided that her statement has everything to do with politics, and that women who don’t support Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and vote for her deserve that “special place in Hell.”

This morning Larry Klayman’s Freedom Watch linked to Jeff Jacoby’s 1997 Boston Globe article, “The Deceiving of Madeleine Albright:”

I have much esteem for Albright as a public official. She is assertive and principled, a welcome contrast to the timid Warren Christopher and the arrogant James Baker. A loathing of appeasement is her foreign policy rudder. “The mindset of most of my contemporaries is Vietnam,” she has said. “My mindset is Munich.” Those are the words of a potentially great secretary of state.

But something rings false in her reaction to the news that her family was Jewish. Was this really a bolt from the blue? Did she honestly have no inkling until this month that the Nazis murdered three of her grandparents, her aunt, her uncle, and her 11-year-old cousin Milena?

“A major surprise for me,” says Albright. Yet for years, it turns out, people had been sending her letters with information about her family. Four times the mayor of her father’s hometown in Bohemia had written to her, enclosing detailed material about her parents and grandparents. Albright never replied; her aides say she was too busy to see the letters. Perhaps she was.

Read the whole thing.

And Zero Hedge asks if “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women,” then why didn’t Hillary support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 “also a ‘progressive,’ as ‘first woman governor’ of New York? Seems appropriate for someone asking for support on the basis of “first woman president.” Perhaps Clinton thought Teachout was the wrong woman to be the first woman governor of NY.”

Say, I wonder if CNN will ask Hillary about that — nahh, actually, I don’t.

UPDATE: “Time for Team Hillary to break out the gender card for young liberal women who prefer Sanders,” just as Team Obama played the race card against her in 2008.

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH: Five migrants among seven young men who ‘laughed, danced and sang in Arabic as they gang raped unconscious girl of 17.’

HORRIFIC footage has emerged of a group of young men, including five migrants, laughing, dancing and singing in Arabic as they gang rape an unconscious 17-year-old girl.

It is believed the attack happened after the girl passed out after drinking at a party.

One of the rapists later told police: “She can’t complain. Women must obey men.”

The shocking assault happened in November but was only discovered this week by a teacher at a school in Ostend, Belgium.

A police probe was launched after a 14-year-old boy at the Ostend Technical Institute bragged about a photo of himself dressed in military fatigues and holding a sub-machine gun.

Funny how you never hear anything from feminists about this actual rape culture. I guess it’s all about the feminist hierarchy of values.


UPDATE: Rick Moran emails that the photo above is photoshopped, and that the original is to be found here. Though you can debate about how different the message is between the original and the photoshopped version. . . .


FEMINISM IS TOTALITARIANISM: All Anti-Feminist Talk Would Be Criminal ‘Hate Speech’ If U.K. Activists Get Their Way. Well, unless it’s by Muslims, because then banning it would be racist or something.

A HUFFPO WRITER SPEAKS: Sexism Against Men? I Wish. “One can not be racist against white people. One can’t be sexist against men.” Oh, fuck off, buttercup.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: It’s Now Racist to Wear Toe Rings.

Oh, of course it is. But is the reverse true? By that “logic,” minorities such as Barack Obama and Al Sharpton should not be wearing Savile Row-inspired business suits.

MIZZOU’S TRAVAILS: Capitulation Has Its Consequences.

First, a great university needs well-qualified students and the financial resources to hire and retain top faculty. Capitulating to the protesters has impaired Mizzou’s ability to secure both.

Not surprisingly, applications are down significantly. According to a leaked internal memorandum, undergraduate applications for the 2016-17 term dropped by five percent from the previous year. Graduate applications fell a whopping 19 percent.

In particular, applications from students with high ACT scores (30 or above) were down 7.7 percent, and the number of African-American applicants plummeted by 19 percent.

While numerous factors affect application numbers from year to year, it’s hard to believe that last fall’s widely publicized protests aren’t largely to blame for the decline.

With fewer applicants to choose from, particularly at the top end, Mizzou’s incoming class is almost sure to be less qualified than its predecessor.

The application numbers also portend financial difficulties for the university. The drop in undergraduate applications was entirely from out-of-state applicants. A substantial reduction in out-of-state students, who pay much more in tuition than do Missouri residents, will impair the university’s financing.

There’s almost no chance that state funding will offset the shortfall in tuition receipts. Many Missouri voters believe that the protesters’ demands—e.g., that the president of the four-campus system be fired because of a few isolated racist incidents over which he had no control—were unreasonable. When faculty, coaches, and staff endorsed those demands and feckless administrators capitulated, no one from the university would speak reason for fear of being called a racist.

Voters have lost confidence in the institution and legislators have responded predictably. Many of them are threatening to reduce the university’s funding for next year.

If enrollment drops and the legislature reduces state support, the university will have to raise more money from private donors or cut spending. While data on Mizzou’s post-protest fundraising aren’t yet available, the frequency with which remarks like “I’ll never give another dime to that school” are heard suggests that the former outcome is unlikely. Budget cuts are almost certainly coming, and Mizzou’s academic offerings will suffer.

Second, free speech and open inquiry will suffer.

To be fair, to the “social justice” crowd that last isn’t a bug, but a feature.

Related: How the NYT presents the “session on diversity” that the University of Missouri requires for its new students.

Why is it daring to say what it’s obvious the teacher wants you to say? The class was imposed on the students. They’re required to sit through it. What might be daring would be to push the teacher back with the kind of statements that have been upvoted in the NYT comments section: “Sharapova looks like a Victorias secret model while Williams looks more like a NCAA football linebacker and that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race, so don’t make it about race” or “However, Serena IS muscular and she is not built with the long-legged model body of Maria. It’s a fact that most women would prefer to be tall and thin. It’s not a racist fact, it’s simply a fact.” It would be daring to say that from the classroom (as opposed to the comments section), because you’d risk becoming the lesson, as the teacher uses his superior power and experience to demonstrate why what you just said really is racist, including the part where you engaged in denial that it was racist. . . . Human nature exists. Ironically, in an effort to elucidate the human nature that has to do with race, the university and the NYT act as if they are utterly naive about that human nature involved in the teacher-student power relationship and the resistance to coerced speech.

Yeah, people will be lining up to pay top dollar for this experience.

TENURED THUGS AND THIEVES, as spotted by Kevin D. Williamson of NRO, who writes:

Professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri criminally assaulted an undergraduate student and, though local prosecutors were slow to move on the case — there was video of the incident, and the facts were not in question — she eventually was charged with third-degree assault. She will not be convicted of a crime, and, so far, her tenure-track position is safe.

Ironies abound. Click, a professor of Lady Gaga studies (no, really), enjoyed an appointment in Mizzou’s journalism department, which for mysterious reasons is highly regarded. The undergraduate she assaulted was a student journalist going about his proper business, covering a campus protest of which Professor Click was one instigator.

The subject of that protest was, in part, “white privilege,” which the protesters held up in contrast to the purportedly rough and unfair treatment that African Americans, particularly young men, receive at the hands of the police.

Which brings up the obvious question: What do we imagine would have happened to a young black man who criminally assaulted a white female college professor — and then, as Professor Click did, attempted to instigate mob violence against her? On campus? On video?

At the New York Observer, Cathy Young explores “The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors,’” which she abbreviates as “SocJus” throughout her article. (“The callback to ‘IngSoc’ from George Orwell’s 1984 is not quite coincidental,” she adds):

There is a word for ideologies, religious or secular, that seek to politicize and control every aspect of human life: totalitarian. Unlike most such ideologies, SocJus has no fixed doctrine or clear utopian vision. But in a way, its amorphousness makes it more tyrannical. While all revolutions are prone to devouring their children, the SocJus movement may be especially vulnerable to self-immolation: its creed of “intersectionality”—multiple overlapping oppressions—means that the oppressed are always one misstep away from becoming the oppressor. Your cool feminist T-shirt can become a racist atrocity in a mouse-click. And, since new “marginalized” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow.

Or as Jonah Goldberg warned in Liberal Fascism:

This is not to say that there are no racist conservatives. But at the philosophical level, liberalism is battling a straw man. This is why liberals must constantly assert that conservatives use code words—because there’s nothing obviously racist about conservatism per se. Indeed, the constant manipulation of the language to keep conservatives—and other non-liberals—on the defensive is a necessary tactic for liberal politics. The Washington, D.C., bureaucrat who was fired [in 1999] for using the word “niggardly” correctly in a sentence is a case in point. The ground must be constantly shifted to maintain a climate of grievance. Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn’t literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright—they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency.

Jonah’s book was published eight years ago last month — and in the years since, the number of items that campus crybullies find offensive has accelerated exponentially. Which brings us to another evergreen reminder of today’s age:


The gender healing of the Hillary era will be equally heartwarming to observe.

ON EUGENICS AND WHITE PRIVILEGE. In his latest G-File, Jonah Goldberg watches the “Progressive” left shift the goalposts on their deeply racist past and concludes:

When Liberal Fascism came out and I was being attacked on all sides, I remember my editor saying something like:

“Look, everyone’s going to scream about this for a long time. Then, someday, maybe in ten years, a more ‘reasonable’ person will come along and concede about 80 percent of your argument and claim that ‘everyone knows’ that stuff.”

We’re not there yet, obviously. And maybe we never will be. But the recent mainstream liberal acceptance that Woodrow Wilson was a bad, bad guy can be traced directly back to Liberal Fascism. I’m not claiming all of the credit, of course. The Claremont gang and the folks at Reason, among others, were beating up on Wilson long before me. But the anti-Wilson argument went mainstream on the right because of Liberal Fascism (largely because Glenn Beck picked up on it).

Similarly, the notion that progressives were eugenicists was crazy talk ten years ago. Now, everyone knows it, nothing to see here, move along. I can’t wait to see what becomes old news next.

Read the whole thing.

THE 21st CENTURY ISN’T TURNING OUT THE WAY I HAD HOPED: German feminist welcomes refugees: ‘Better rapists than racists.’

JOURNALISM: HuffPo to State Trump Is ‘Racist’ After Every Article; Also a ‘serial liar’ and ‘rampant xenophobe.’ Imagine if they applied this approach to Hillary. But, of course, they never will.

THE UNCANNY PARALLELS BETWEEN Donald Trump and FDR. “Imagine a U.S. president who is bombastic, egotistical, and just a little racist. He worries opening the borders will mean an influx of undesirables. He implements capricious executive orders, and seems more concerned with his own power than with the Constitution. He’s often called a fascist by people who know what the term means. No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”

RACISM STRAIGHT UP: Matthews: Who’ll Watch ‘The Two Cuban Guys’ If Trump Doesn’t Debate?

No seriously — if you’re going to blow the racial dog whistle at words such as “golf” and “Chicago,” you don’t get a pass at slurs such as this one.

GOP ESTABLISHMENT “PEER PRESSURE” ISN’T WORKING: A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Trump is enjoying a growing lead, his support is strong and stable with likely GOP primary voters/caucus-goers, and he is now deemed “acceptable” as a candidate by two-thirds of Republicans.

The poll also finds no sign that Trump’s support wavers among the Republicans who are most likely to attend primaries and caucuses, which are typically low-turnout contests. Trump’s 16-point advantage among all registered Republican voters is similar to his lead among Republicans who say they are certain to vote, report voting in 2012 Republican contests or are following the race “very closely.”

Although there was resistance to his candidacy at the beginning, Trump now is broadly acceptable to GOP voters. About 2 of 3 Republicans say they would find him acceptable as their nominee, a percentage almost identical to Cruz’s and Rubio’s. Rubio is seen as the least unacceptable, followed by Cruz, Carson and then Trump. Only about half of Republicans say Christie and Bush are acceptable, and Bush has the highest “unacceptable” percentage at 45. . . .

The new Post-ABC survey suggests that a sizable majority of Republicans believe that whatever happens in those early states, Trump will emerge with the nomination — a dramatic shift from when he first entered the race in June to mixed reviews and overcame widespread unfavorable impressions among GOP voters before his campaign launched. Today, more than 6 in 10 Republicans say Trump is most likely to win the nomination, up from 4 in 10 in the late fall.

Trump leads among nearly all demographic groups, including a narrow advantage among white evangelical Christians, a key target of the Cruz campaign. Trump’s strongest support comes from those with incomes below $50,000. Previous surveys showed Trump with significantly more support among those lacking a college degree, compared with those who have graduated from college. The new survey finds no significant difference. . . .

On a wide range of issues and candidate attributes, Trump dominates his rivals. Majorities of Republicans say he has the best chance of getting elected president and is most likely to bring needed change to Washington. More than a third say he is closest to them on issues. He and Carson are seen as the most honest of the GOP candidates, while Trump and Cruz are seen as having the best personality and temperament to serve as president.

So apparently, the GOPe talking point that I’ve heard repeatedly in the last week or so–that Trump may be leading in Iowa but his supporters are political neophytes who are less likely to “turn out” to a long, drawn out caucus event– is not panning out in the polls. Likewise, the GOPe’s elitist attempt to brandish Trump supporters as xenophobic/racist, uneducated, low-information voters who aren’t “really” Republican is not merely overtly insulting to the GOP itself, but utterly wrong. According to a new CNN/ORC poll released today:

[Trump] leads among both men and women, younger and older voters, white evangelicals, conservatives and both self-identified Republicans and independents who lean toward the party.

There are two subgroups where Trump’s lead is less dominant: college graduates and tea party supporters. Even among those groups, however, he remains at the head of the pack. Among those holding degrees, 26% back Trump, 20% Cruz, and tea party supporters split 37% for Trump, 34% for Cruz.

In fact, when I dug deeper into this CNN/ORC poll, I found several potential headlines that CNN would never report.  The most surprising one, to me, was that Trump’s lead among GOP women is substantial, with 37% likely to vote for Trump, with the next closest candidates being Ted Cruz with 21 percent, and Marco Rubio with 11 percent. Perhaps more importantly, when asked to describe how they would feel if Trump were the GOP nominee, 42 percent of GOP women said they would be “enthusiastic” (the highest ranking), versus only 39 percent of GOP men.

As for voters’ age, Trump’s lead over Cruz is larger with younger voters than older ones. Among poll participants age 50-64, Trump leads Cruz 43 to 20 percent, whereas among those age 65 and older, Trump’s lead over Cruz fell, 38 versus 25 percent.

Regarding income, Trump’s support among the “over $50K” income group (42 percent) is virtually the same as among the “under 50k” group (43 percent). Trump also leads among college grads, with 26 percent supporting him versus Cruz, who has 20 percent of college grads’ support, and Carson, who garners 12 percent of the likely GOP college grad voters.

So apparently, Trump has strong support among younger, highly educated, high-income, and female GOP voters. Who knew? Apparently, not the GOPe.

RELATED: James Taranto discusses the social-acceptability bias with respect to Trump: “I don’t know anybody who supports him.”


That’s Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Washington, John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln looking on in disbelief at the mess Trump is making of the American presidential election. It’s pretty funny, at first glance, but the problem with this cover is that the only thing many of those ex-presidents would find confusing about Trump is the television he’s on.

Where to start? Teddy Roosevelt backed a racist imperial war and said white women using birth control were committing “race suicide” by turning their country over to less-fair-skinned hordes. FDR, the architect of Japanese internment, ​actually did the thing​ that people are calling Trump a fascist for defending—and kept the internment camps open long after they’d been deemed unnecessary in order to win a presidential election. I don’t know what else to say about JFK other than that his personal life makes Trump look like Ned Flanders, and he started a land war in Asia we’re still recovering from. George Washington owned people and bought an election by getting people drunk. All four were born into privilege. And Abe Lincoln—okay, let’s not speak ill of the dead; that man slayed vampires.

The point here is that what is distasteful about Trump is not that he offends old-fashioned American values; Trump is distasteful because he taps into certain old-fashioned American values—nativism, brash tough talk, slow-burning authoritarianism; family dynasties—that have played a not-inconsequential role throughout our history.

And that’s without even bringing in Woodrow Wilson.


ISN’T IT OBVIOUS, SHEEPLE? ‘The Lion King’ exposed as sexist, racist, homophobic, and pro-capitalist propaganda.

Nobody mention all the animated chemtrails in the background…

ANN ALTHOUSE ON GLENN LOURY ON The coming cascade of smart, educated people embracing Trump. “It troubles me that there can’t be a serious discussion about immigration issues because people are afraid of being called racist. People are afraid of being called a bigot. And I think one of the things that people like about Donald Trump — those who like him — is that he’s going ahead and saying it, and it’s creating a kind of inoculation against something people have feared so much, which is being called a bigot. It’s just too effective to call people bigots, and a lot of people are very intimidated and silenced and don’t even want to talk about certain issues because they don’t want to be called that. So I think part of his popularity is: He goes there, he says it, he takes the hit, and it still works for him. So that’s a kind of a liberating change in the discourse.”

Plus, a preference cascade on immigration? I was talking with Mickey Kaus about just that yesterday.

NO. THEY’RE LITTLE GOLD STATUETTES: The voters otoh are hollywood liberals, so for the majority of them the answer is probably yes.  Are the Academy Awards Racist?

A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE: I say, the leftwing Boston Review doesn’t seem to much like that Donald Trump fellow, do they? “Trump: the Futility of Liberal Backlash:”

Although there are conservatives, libertarians, and disaffected civic dropouts in Vermont—people whose votes will matter in the Republican primary—it was hard to believe Trump was just in Burlington to court ballots. He seemed also to be seeking a particular kind of reaction: a liberal backlash that has not just been futile in disrupting his campaign but has actually emerged as a source of its surprising success.

Trump is the Republican frontrunner, so when he is racist, chauvinistic, dishonest, or otherwise vile, responsible people condemn him. And yet it seems that this outrage only serves to further legitimize him in the minds of supporters and would-be supporters. Any criticism becomes a compliment if it originates in the opposition. When it was quickly revealed, for instance, that Trump’s first television ad featured footage not of Mexicans entering the United States, as implied, but rather of Moroccans crossing into Spain, many liberals felt they had scored an important “gotcha.” The campaign responded masterfully. “No shit it’s not the Mexican border,” said Trump’s campaign manager, the elegant Corey Lewandowski. “But that’s what our country is going to look like. This was one thousand percent on purpose.” Just like that, and the “liberal media” looks more concerned with taking down The Donald than protecting America’s borders—just as Trump’s partisans suspected.

It’s worth a read, if only for that light bulb moment when the far left learns that their clapped-out old gotcha games aren’t going to work anymore.

RACIAL SENSITIVITY AS CONDESCENSION: At Commentary, Michael Rubin reprints a letter in Yale Alumni magazine by Robert Hinton, Yale Ph.D., and father of a class of 2011 alumnus:

As soon as my daughter was accepted into the Class of 2011, she began receiving communications from various offices at Yale that sent her three unintended messages: as an African American, (1) you don’t really belong at Yale; (2) you will never be comfortable at Yale; and (3) to survive the Yale experience, you will have to separate yourself culturally and psychologically. Of course, being my daughter, she ignored this stuff and spent four years having more fun than I usually allow.

If you tell people, before they arrive, that they are moving into a racist experience, you shouldn’t be surprised if they begin looking for racism the moment they land on campus and find it, even where it may not exist. The kinds of black students who come to Yale have already developed strategies to survive “white” situations.

A heavy-handed, paternalistic effort to make them “comfortable” at Yale may create more problems than it solves. When these students move on beyond Yale, they won’t find a “black house” where they can hide.

Now that there is “minority” bureaucracy in place, it will fight for its continued existence even after it has achieved obsolescence. Someone needs to ask if what was necessary and appropriate in 1969 is still necessary and appropriate.

Read the whole thing.

VIDEO: Larry Elder: Is America Racist?



Screen Shot 2016-01-15 at 4.04.46 PM

Teach ‘em a lesson, Bill! Don’t allow them to film in NYC, and refuse to accept any donations from those West Coast Klansmen, until they change. Stand up against Hollywood racism!

BUT OF COURSE: Swedish Police Stop Reporting Suspects’ Ethnicity For Fear of Being Branded Racist. “Dated 15 September 2015, the memo was written by press officers Wolf Gyllander and Carina Skagerlind just weeks after a number of girls were sexually abused by migrant men at a free youth music festival in Stockholm; crimes which the police have now been accused of covering up.”

AND THUS AL SHARPTON COMES FULL CIRCLE: Sharpton launched his career by peddling racist fiction; he’s now reduced to attacking those who sell fiction for a living as racists. (Though it’s curious why Sharpton is attacking all of Hollywood, instead of starting with Universal, his employer, where presumably, he could speak to the CEO or the boardroom anytime he’d like.)

Of course, to paraphrase a frequent question from Glenn, why are Democrat-controlled industries such hotbeds of racism, sexism, misogyny, and pedophilia?

FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS: Muslim: I trolled a Trump rally and wasn’t bullied. Waah!

Kaddie Abdul, “an IT data engineer working in Silicon Valley,” decided to drive four hours to a Trump rally in Nevada to show how racist “those people” are. She wore her Muslim garb, held her Koran, and waited for someone to attack her. No one did. A few people gave her an odd look, but nary a nibble.

Darn it.

Apparently the Guardian in Britain had paid for her gasoline, so she had to write something, so she wrote: “I went to a Trump rally in my hijab. His supporters aren’t just racist caricatures.”

Actually, she meant “just aren’t racist caricatures.”

The article is itself racist, portraying Trump supporters as a bunch of hick white people who want to kill Muslims.

That sort of racism is always acceptable, apparently. Plus:

But what she did was not dangerous. Going outside without a male escort in Saudi Arabia is dangerous for a woman. The only physical danger in driving to Nevada to troll Trumpkins was the drive itself — something she will not be able to do when she makes her pilgrimage to Mecca.

Trump supporters did not gang rape her because she was Muslim. They did not beat her because she was Muslim. They did not to a damned thing to her — and she should have known they would not. There are no thugs or bullies at these rallies. They are a fiction, just like the fiction that the Tea Party was racist.

But without that fiction, what have they got?

WELL, ARROGANCE BEGETS BLINDNESS: Henry Olsen at NRO writes about how the GOP establishment must try to understand, not ridicule, concerns of blue collar workers.

Thanks to Donald Trump, American elites are finally paying attention to blue-collar, white America. They do not like what they see. Racist. Bigoted. Irrational. Angry. How many times have you read or heard one or more of these words used to describe Trump’s followers? Whether they are the academic, media, and entertainment elites of the Left or the political and business elites of the Right, America’s self-appointed best and brightest uniformly view the passions unleashed by Trump as the modern-day equivalent of a medieval peasants’ revolt. And, like their medieval forebears, they mean to crush it.

That effort is both a fool’s errand for the country and a poisoned chalice for conservatives and Republicans. It is foolish because the reasons the peasants are revolting will not fade easily. Ignoring and ridiculing their concerns, the way European elites have done with their own electorates for most of the last two decades, will simply intensify the masses’ rage and ensure that their political spokesmen become more intransigent and radical. If you want an American version of Marine Le Pen tomorrow, ignore the legitimate concerns of blue-collar Americans today.

And it is a poisoned chalice for the Right because such a strategy requires a permanent informal coalition with the Left. Keeping blue-collar white Americans out of political power will result in exactly what Washington elites have wanted for years: a series of grand bargains that keep the status quo largely intact and the Democratic party in power. . . .

The constituency that is rallying to Trump is not fully conservative, but it shares more values with conservatives than do any of the other constituencies that could possibly be enticed to join our cause. It is thus imperative that conservatives understand what these fellow citizens want and find ways to make common cause with them where we can. . . .

I agree with Olsen’s basic thesis that the GOP establishment must consciously embrace and court blue collar workers, but the overall “us” (“true” conservatives) versus “them” (blue collar workers) tone of the piece seems to reinforce the notion that these groups are fundamentally distinct– a proposition of which I am not yet convinced.

It presupposes that there is a rigid definition of “true” conservatism that blue collar workers inherently do not embrace, such as Olsen’s notion that any “true” conservative would never support spending power-based entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare. In Olsen’s words:

Blue-collar whites are also more open to government action than many movement conservatives. For example, 87 percent of “Steadfast Conservatives,” Pew’s term for movement conservatives, think government is doing too much that should be left to individuals and businesses; only 44 percent of Hard-Pressed Skeptics agree. Sixty percent of Hard-Pressed Skeptics think government aid to the poor does more good than harm; only 10 percent of Steadfast Conservatives agree. Seventy-nine percent of Hard-Pressed Skeptics say that cuts to Social Security benefits should be off the table. Clearly a campaign based on cutting food stamps and reforming entitlements will not resonate with blue-collar whites.

I’m not so sure. Blue collar workers may well vigorously support “reforming entitlements” such as food stamps and Social Security (particularly the former) if the reform is phased in, offers commonsense incentives, and/or expands individual choice. Just because blue collar workers do not want to completely eliminate middle-class entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare (entitlements upon which they rely post-retirement) does not mean they are not “true” conservatives who would not support well-crafted reforms.

What Donald Trump has captured–and the GOPe still remarkably hasn’t yet figured out–is that these “Reagan Democrats” were lured away from the GOP post-Reagan, in part, by some of the moderate reforms embraced by Bill Clinton (e.g., welfare reform) and the simple fact that Clinton (himself a product of a blue collar upbringing) seemed like “one of them.”

Blue collar workers’ general fiscal conservatism, patriotism, and general cultural conservatism are “conservative” values that should, in theory, fit comfortably under the GOP umbrella. The intriguing question, to me, is why hasn’t the GOP understood this all along? Why and when did the GOPe decide to shun the backbone of America?

The GOPe’s elitist condescension, combined with the Obama Administration’s overt 8-year progressive bias towards fringe, non-white, non-blue collar issues, has created the 2016 presidential phenomenon and the voters’ hunger for a candidate who doesn’t embody either of these extremes.

RAPE CULTURE: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim Called a Racist and Harassed After Identifying Her Attackers.

TODAY IN HISTORY: Racist Democrat George Wallace Sworn In As Governor of Alabama.

HEADLINES FROM 2008: What if Hillary Were a Republican?

We’ll know if the left is serious about pushing Sanders over the top this year, if they start treating Hillary as the de facto Republican in the primaries — just as they did to her (and Bill) in 2008 to advance Obama.

FIDDLING WHILE COLOGNE BURNS:  Look, we know this.  If it weren’t planned, then this would be happening everyday everywhere, in this scale.  So, he’s telling us nothing, and AT THE SAME TIME managing to somehow blame the native population for the problem.  You know what this does?  This gives credibility to actual racists (not the pretend racists of the leftists fevered imaginations.  Because at least they’re not telling you to stop believing your lying eyes.)  The more of this that people in authority over there do, the more this will end in tears. You can’t last long as an elite at war with your own people.  At some point people have had enough and it becomes “Aristo, aristo a la lanterne.”  German Justice Minister: Cologne attacks planned in advance.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Segregation is making a comeback — on college campuses.

Segregation was outlawed half a century ago, but some want to bring it back, at least on college campuses. And those seeking to bring segregation back are African-Americans — the very group hurt most by it in the early part of the 20th century.

Across the country last fall, college students began protesting alleged oppression and discrimination by white administrators and students. Most of the grievances centered around a lack of black professors or the names of certain buildings, but some protesters are asking for “safe spaces” where whites aren’t allowed.

A website called details the 76 demand lists from protesters across the country. The College Fix has noted that many of the lists call for segregated sections of campus.

They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, crazed racists would be pushing for a return to the pre-Brown era. And they were right!

WALL TO WALL PROJECTION: When they call everyone racists, they’re just looking in the mirror.  Hillary Clinton assumes ‘Making a Murderer’ convicts are black.

TEN YEARS LATER, ESPN To Air Documentary On Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax:

It has been nearly 10 years since a group of Duke lacrosse players hosted a party that would end up getting them accused of gang-raping a stripper. On the 10th anniversary, ESPN will air a documentary about the case.

The accusation centered around Crystal Mangum, who in a bid to avoid being detained for intoxication, told police that members of the Duke lacrosse team had raped her at a party. Her accusations snowballed, and with his election coming up, District Attorney Mike Nifong pressured her to identify the alleged rapists. One of the men she identified wasn’t even at the party at the time the rape was supposed to have occurred. Mangum’s story also changed several times. (She was never punished for her false accusation, although later she was convicted of a separate murder and is currently in prison.)

But the case went forward anyway. Duke University administrators and professors maligned the lacrosse players as racists and rapists, since Mangum is African-American. The lacrosse season was cancelled, and the team’s coach was forced to resign before the students even had their day in court.

The travesty of the case eventually led to Nifong’s disbarment for “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.” The accused students sued, but as is often the case for falsely accused young men, they received no monetary compensation.

Two writers who helped expose the fraud were history professor K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor, who co-wrote a book on the case. Johnson was interviewed for the ESPN documentary, and told the Washington Examiner that to this day, he is still amazed by the “utter lack of accountability.”

“Ten years out, we as a society have learned nothing about the importance of due process in sexual assault allegations. (Indeed, the situation now is much worse than it was in 2006),” Johnson wrote in an email. “The leadership at Duke that so botched the case remains in place; the faculty who rushed to judgment remain firmly entrenched; and the key figures in the media, especially the New York Times, that so badly failed in covering Duke continue to fail in covering this issue.”

Taylor, too, brought up the lack of accountability for anyone involved in the case (with the exception of Nifong), and explained how the school and the media worked to frame these students even as the case began to fall apart.

It’s as if universities are fomenting — quite deliberately — hostile educational environments for male students.

THE COLOGNE SEX ASSAULTS: A Failure By Germany’s Elite.

What is apparent is that, during and since, there has been a widespread failure on the part of German authorities and elite institutions. The police failed to protect its citizens, the press dawdled in holding anyone to account (and see, too, those unanswered questions just above), and at least one politician even now seems to struggle to address the issue without suggesting that young women must somehow accommodate the possibility of assaults and “confusion.”
This all carries echoes of the Rotherham scandal, in which British authorities had for years turned a blind eye to a child abuse ring among Pakistani men in the north of England, seemingly at least in part for fear of looking racist. By the time anyone put a stop to it, an estimated 1,400 kids had been abused, often horrifically. Like the German police and politicians in this case—albeit on a much longer and larger scale—the British authorities may have put the need to appear sensitive over the need to enforce core values and basic human rights.

Western liberal elites see themselves both as feminists and as advocates for refugees, immigrants, and minorities. (As a sign at a protest in Cologne on Wednesday, photographed by Reuters, read, “Gegen Sexismus, Gegen Rassismus”—or, “Against Sexism, Against Racism.”) As principles, all of those are fine sentiments. But in the real world, Europe has just admitted large numbers of young men from cultures with aggressively different attitudes towards women. Authorities in Germany and elsewhere, as well as politicians, feminists, and other elites, are going to have to figure out, fast, how to talk and act about the clash of Western absolutes (the ability of women, dressed as they wish, to walk wherever they wish without fear is not up for debate) with immigrant cultures, or many more problems may lie ahead.

The problem is that these “elites” — not just in Germany, but throughout the West — are, for the most part, horrible human beings who must cover up their horribleness with virtue-signalling. And virtue-signalling is inconsistent with constructive action.

UPDATE: How out of touch are they? This out of touch: Germany springs to action over hate speech against migrants.

MAYOR OF COLOGNE TELLS RAPE VICTIMS THEY HAD IT COMING: Mayor Henriette Reker “said today that women should adopt a ‘code of conduct’ to prevent future assault at a crisis meeting following the sexual attack of women by 1000 men on New Year’s eve,” the London Independent reports:

The crisis management team said prevention measures should include a code of conduct for young women and girls, and Mayor Reker said the existing code of conduct will be updated online.

The suggested code of conduct includes maintaining an arm’s length distance from strangers, to stick within your own group, to ask bystanders for help or to intervene as a witness, or to inform the police if you are the victim of such an assault.

Buried 11 paragraphs and three quoted tweets deep into the Independent’s article is this minor detail:

The attackers were described as North African and Arab appearance by the police. The Mayor has said that not all of the attackers were newly-arrived refugees and had already been known to the police, as reported by The Local.

Perhaps the Independent buried this detail not just because of the usual PC “better dead than rude” mindset, but with Rotherham also on their mind. And it may have been on Mayor Reker’s mind as well, as Allahpundit writes. “The possibility of a (failed) cover-up by authorities in the name of racial harmony recalls the infamous Rotherham sex abuse cover-up in the UK (which lasted years, it should be noted, not just one evening). The idea of sexual assaults happening out in the open in a mass gathering place recalls what Lara Logan went through when she was attacked in Tahrir Square in 2011.”

11 years ago, then-UN Secretary Kofi “Can I trust Saddam Hussein? I think I can do business with him” Annan said, “In many countries of Christian tradition, large Muslim communities are a relatively new phenomenon.  Integration is a two-way street.  Immigrants must adjust to their new societies — and societies must adjust, too.”

Europe can’t say it wasn’t warned that more than a little behavior modification would be in order to placate its large — and ever-expanding “Muslim communities.”

And they’re not alone — “Remember that viral video of Canadian children singing a Muslim ‘welcome’ song? Learn the sick TRUE STORY behind the music,” proffers Ezra Levant today.

JOHN HINDERAKER: Dean Minow, How’s That Investigation Going? “Since then, there has been radio silence on the investigation. This is, perhaps, because a group of students set up a web site called Royall Asses that argued, highly persuasively, that ‘anti-racist’ social justice warriors perpetrated the alleged hate crime as a hoax.”

If it weren’t for hate crimes by “anti-racist” social justice warriors, how many hate crimes would there be?

JOEL KOTKIN: How Liberals Are The New Autocrats: Progressives may preach the joys of localism, but the trend in government is all the other way in everything from climate change to the economic complexion of your neighborhood.

This could be how our experiment with grassroots democracy finally ends. World leaders—the super-rich, their pet non-profits, their media boosters, and their allies in the global apparat—gather in Paris to hammer out a deal to transform the planet, and our lives. No one asks much about what the states and the communities, the electorate, or even Congress, thinks of the arrangement. The executive now presumes to rule on these issues.

For many of the world’s leading countries—China, Russia, Saudi Arabia—such top down edicts are fine and dandy, particularly since their supreme leaders won’t have to adhere to them if inconvenienced. But the desire for centralized control is also spreading among the shrinking remnant of actual democracies, where political give and take is baked into the system.

The will to power is unmistakable. California Governor Jerry Brown, now posturing as the aged philosopher-prince fresh from Paris, hails the “coercive power of the state” to make people live properly by his lights. California’s high electricity prices, regulation driven spikes in home values, and the highest energy prices in the continental United States may be a bane for middle and working class families, but are sold as a wonderful achievement among our presumptive masters.

Under President Obama, rule by decree has become commonplace, with federal edicts dictating policies on everything from immigration and labor laws to climate change. No modern leader since Nixon has been so bold in trying to consolidate power. But the current president is also building on a trend: Since 1910 the federal government has doubled its share of government spending to 60 percent. Its share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II.

Today climate change has become the killer app for expanding state control, for example, helping Jerry Brown find his inner Duce. But the authoritarian urge is hardly limited to climate-related issues. It can be seen on college campuses, where uniformity of belief is increasingly mandated. In Europe, the other democratic bastion, the continental bureaucracy now controls ever more of daily life on the continent. You don’t want thousands of Syrian refugees in your town, but the EU knows better. You will take them and like it, or be labeled a racist.

This will not end well.

FLASHBACK: Why Online Anonymity Frightens Progressives.

Despite its importance to the evolution of liberal societies, or perhaps because of it, anonymity is intensely disliked by today’s trendy, progressive commentariat. Lance Ulanoff, editor-at-large of Mashable recently argued that anonymity should be abolished across the entire internet. SJW darling Wil Wheaton demanded the same for online videogames. Feminist academic Danielle Citron wants web companies to remove the “privilege” of anonymity at will.

Even I once wrote a column along these lines before coming to my senses and realising the value of anonymous and pseudonymous debate online.

Centres of anonymous culture, such as reddit, 8chan and 4chan, are the subject of particularly fearful narratives. 4chan is described as the “cesspool of the internet,” 8chan is a “troll forum,” and Reddit is a “worse black hole of violent racism than Stormfront.”

The commentary isn’t just detached criticism. Many of the writers engage in horrified, hyperbolic rhetoric, presenting anonymous commenters as dangerous evildoers in need of punishment. Ulanoff branded anonymous critics of former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao “sub-human cowards” who “spew hate,” and urged Reddit to record their personal addresses. Adding real-world accountability to Reddit, according to Ulanoff, is the only way to stop its “disgusting, hateful, and racist content.”

But Pao’s critics weren’t racist. They were concerned with free speech, and resented the former CEO for watering down the site’s previous commitment to that ideal. Ulanoff’s use of the word “racist” typifies the progressive approach to discourse: argument via scarlet letters, shaming, and “isms” instead of robust debate.

With influential columnists throwing around career-ruining allegations so casually, it’s little wonder that Redditors and 4chan users are so wary of abandoning their anonymity.

Lefties are a minority that relies on punishing speakers to ensure that the majority doesn’t realize just how big a majority it is. That’s why they hate free speech, and especially anonymous free speech. It’s why many campus groups demand that universities block Yik Yak.

Remember: They’re not well-meaning people who are just a bit overzealous. They’re horrible, nasty, awful people who want everyone who disagrees with them to be silenced and afraid. Keep this in mind, and respond with the appropriate level of respect and politesse.

AMAZON PRIME VIDEO ADDS THE WORLD AT WAR: I’m not sure when the 26-part 1973 series was added to the free programming available to those with an Amazon Prime account, but I noticed it on the roster for the first time while clicking through the Amazon video applet on the Roku box earlier this month. 20 years before the launch of the History Channel, the World At War played frequently on American TV in the mid-to-late 1970s. But for those who’ve never seen it, it’s arguably the best video introduction to World War II that’s ever been released. Produced by Thames Television beginning in 1969, the series featured the sonorous narration of Lawrence Olivier, powerful background music, loads of newsreel footage, and most importantly, interviews with all sides — soldiers who were still only in their 40s, and surviving former world leaders and politicians. (Contrast that with today’s History Channel documentaries, which struggle to find surviving WWII infantrymen who are now in their late 80s and 90s.

We’re very lucky that the World At War has been grandfathered into today’s world of PC history — just imagine how today’s SJWs and their love of both the airbrush and Black Armband History would have told the story of WWII. As I wrote back in 2013 in my introduction to Civilisation, another landmark British TV documentary series produced shortly before The World At War (and equally impossible for the left to make today):

The World At War was made at the perfect time — television documentary techniques were sufficiently developed by 1969 when production on the series began to tell the story properly, and it was only a quarter century after WWII concluded, and enough survivors were still around, still sharp, and able to appear on camera. But of equal importance is that it was made before political correctness had sapped the cultural confidence of the West. If the BBC or Thames’ successor network were to remake the The World at War today, it would have a very different tone to it, probably far closer to Oliver Stone’s “Springtime for Hitler and Stalin” Showtime series than the BBC would care to admit.

Also, the interviews and the contemporary non-newsreel footage were shot in color. We take that entirely for granted now, but when the show first went into production, color TV was still a new phenomenon to many English viewers; BBC2 had only begun broadcasting in color in 1967, and BBC1 not until 1969. It’s tough to conceive of something like Monty Python‘s Flying Circus as being shot in black and white, but as late as 1967, its immediate predecessor, a show with the classic title of At Last, the 1948 Show, was a monochrome production.

Of course, the one problem with The World At War is that those who need to see the series the most will likely never watch it:

“IT’S TIME TO SAY NO TO OUR PAMPERED STUDENT EMPERORS* — The Rhodes statue row can be blamed on a generation raised to believe that their feelings are all that matter,” British columnist Harry Mount writes in the London Telegraph:

The little emperors have grown up. The babies of the late 90s – mollycoddled by their parents, spoon-fed by their teachers, indulged by society – have now reached university. Some of the brighter ones are now at Oxford, demanding that the Cecil Rhodes statue at Oriel should be torn down, because of his imperialist, racist views.

We shouldn’t be so surprised. If you’ve had a lifetime of people saying “yes” to you, of never being told off, you remain frozen in a permanent state of supersensitivity. I wasn’t offended by the Rhodes statue when I was at Oxford 20 years ago. But, even if I had been, I wouldn’t have thought my wounded feelings should be cured by tearing apart the delicate fabric of a beautiful university.

Universities are reaping the whirlwind of two decades of child-centred education. That whirlwind has imported imbecilic trigger warnings – when academics have to warn students that western European literature, from the Iliad on, is full of sex and violence. It has also brought the pernicious idea of “no-platforming” – when students refuse to give a stage to anyone who doesn’t fit with their narrow view of the world.

Read the whole thing.

Related: “Remy: Students United! Collegians everywhere are asking tough questions: Why is our tuition so high? Where are our jobs? Can’t you see your words hurt me, you dumb piece of sh*t?”

* Personally, I prefer Iowahawk’s “Screaming Campus Garbage Babies” description, but perhaps that’s too provocative a characterization for the Telegraph.

THERE IS NO RACIST LIKE AN ANTIRACIST, writes Theodore Dalrymple. “That is because he is obsessed by race, whose actual existence as often as not he denies. He looks at the world through race-tinted spectacles, interprets every event or social phenomenon as a manifestation of racism either implicit or explicit, and in general has the soul of a born inquisitor.”

Read the whole thing.

(Via Ace of Spades.)

COLLEGE SPORTS BOOM, MINORITIES HARDEST HIT: Mother Jones: Racists Hate the Idea of Paying College Athletes.

I’m in favor of paying them, but I’m in more favor of simply abolishing college athletics. If the NFL and NBA want farm teams let the build their own.

WHY IS HILLARY SO RACIST? “You could’ve at least let Rosa sit at the front of the logo @HillaryClinton.”

WAIT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC: Democrat: Tighten social media screening of visa applicants.

A senior Democratic congressman is calling for stepped-up monitoring of social media accounts belonging to people coming into the country through various visa programs, in response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

“We have to do a much better job monitoring the social media of those people, that’s what went wrong,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said in an interview airing Sunday with John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970.

Israel, a prominent member of President Obama’s own party, joined a bipartisan group that said the U.S. is not doing enough to scrutinize Twitter and Facebook for signs of imminent terror threats.


THE LEFT’S ANTI-WHITE RACISM, as explored by Rod Dreher: presents a racist column by an elderly white male leftist named Frank Joyce. A sample from the column:

The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.

The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism.

Blah blah blah.

I know, I know, it’s But you know what? This kind of thing is a big deal, and should not be shrugged off. Can you think of another web publication of its status in this country that could explicitly demonize others by race and gender, and say that “the future of life on the planet” depends on restraining them?

As Dreher’s former colleague Jonah Goldberg accurately wrote in early 2008, foreshadowing the last eight years, “The white man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism.” If that tacit comparison to an earlier war by national socialists causes today’s left to wince, well, they might have pondered the implications of their actions and ideology in the first place.

Related: Tweet of the Day, No. No, Salon Is Not Better Than This edition.


Because once somebody has an (R) after his name, he’s fair game for any abuse the left wants to hurl at him, racism be damned. See also: “George Takei: ‘Blackface’ not racist; Clarence Thomas has ‘abdicated his African American heritage,’” and with Sarah Palin, “SHE IS NOT A WOMAN, SHE IS A REPUBLICAN” as a bumper sticker spotted on a car with a Christian fish symbol (!) in an Oregon church parking lot shouted in 2008.

TRUMP PROPOSES, OBAMA DISPOSES: U.S. Plans Mass Deportation of Illegal Central American Migrants.

To stanch the flow of illegal migrants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is preparing a national operation to deport Central American families in the U.S. who have evaded removal orders, according to a government official with knowledge of the plan.

Raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS unit, would begin in January and target hundreds of families that entered the U.S. illegally and who have ignored a final order to leave the country, said the official. Such an order is issued by a judge in immigration court. . . .

The possible roundup for deportation of families caught immigrant advocates by surprise.

“This is the last thing we expected from the administration at this point, given the court decision,” said Marilena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy organization in Los Angeles. “It is time that administration acknowledge once and for all that these mothers and children are refugees just like Syrians.”

Ms. Hincapie said such a plan “really puts immigrant families on edge.”

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it deported 235,413 in the year that ended Sept. 30, a 25% drop from the previous year and the lowest since Mr. Obama took office. In fiscal 2014, the U.S. removed 315,953 people.

Pretty sure that if Trump had advocated this, it would be racist and absurd. But since Obama’s doing it, it’s fine.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: The 10 Stupidest Things About The Post’s Cartoon Portraying Cruz’s Children As Monkeys. Here’s #3: “As if going after children weren’t enough, Telnaes thought it would be a grand idea to portray the daughters of the first Hispanic senator from Texas as monkeys. I’m not sure if the dehumanization was done because of that, because of their father’s politics or some other reason, but it compounds the error in ways that make you wonder how in the heck the cartoon received editorial approval from The Washington Post.” Plus: “If your cartoon doesn’t work on its own, scrap the idea. Also if it’s racist, scrap it.”

Related: “The media has two wings: The Pious Concern Troll wing, and the Nasty Attack Dog wing. Why no, they’re never asked to reconcile these wings.”

MEATY, BEATY, BIG, AND BOUNCY: Chief Hillary cheerleader David Brock and his psychedelic coiffure declare Trump ‘schlonged’ comment is racist too:

Donald Trump’s offhand comment this week about Hillary Clinton getting “schlonged” in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary was a racial dog whistle suggesting that Barack Obama is a “black rapist,” according to Media Matters founder David Brock.

“What we’re going to see — and what we got a taste of last night — was the misogynistic attacks on Hillary Clinton,” Brock, the founder of the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record, said Tuesday on MSNBC.

“[It] also had a racial appeal as well,” he added. “The idea of a black rapist, basically, using the schlong to defeat Hillary. I think that’s what that’s really about.”

Oh, bless his heart — which was a phrase also declared racist in 2012, along with words such as golf and Chicago. (Typing the phrase “complete list of words declared racist by MSNBC” into Google brings back all sorts of fun results, incidentally.)

But Brock’s freakout over “schlonged” begs the question — why does Brock think that NPR is such a racist, misogynistic organization as well?


Elizabeth Lauten quit Monday as communications director for Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., after her Facebook criticism of Sasha and Malia Obama sparked a huge media backlash.

“It is one of the few rules that the news media and the mob usually both adhere to: Leave families out of the fight. However, tonight a Republican staffer is out of a job after something she wrote on social media about the first daughters,” NBC News’ Brian Williams said during Monday’s evening newscast.

“CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley” followed suit: “[E]lizabeth Lauten: A congressional aide whose Facebook post about President Obama’s daughters, Malia and Sasha, sparked a firestorm.”

“Nets instantly jumped on GOP Hill aide story; ignored Gruber flap for days,” the Washington Examiner, December 2nd, 2014.

The morning after Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes published (then unpublished) a disgusting piece depicting Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s daughters as toy monkeys and “fair game” since they appeared in a campaign ad, ABC’s Good Morning America ignored the story completely while CBS This Morning and NBC’s Today excused it as merely a “feud” and part of “increased scrutiny” for Cruz as he ascends in the polls.

On CBS This Morning, co-host Norah O’Donnell complained in one of the show’s opening teases that it was Cruz who was “lash[ing] out at a top newspaper over his kids” while chief White House correspondent Major Garrett ruled minutes later that the racist cartoon is part of the territory: “With Cruz’s climb in the polls has come increased scrutiny. This Washington Post editorial cartoon depicting his children as holiday props drew Cruz’s wrath.”

Garrett also made sure to hit Cruz for issuing fundraising e-mails last night concerning the smear: “[B]y late last night, the Cruz campaign were sending out fundraising e-mails asking for emergency contributions. The subject line read: ‘They attacked my children.’”

In the 8:00 p.m. Eastern hour, fill-in co-host Vinita Nair explained that “[Donald] Trump isn’t the only candidate who is bashing the press this morning” as “Ted Cruz is angry with The Washington Post editorial cartoon” that “showed him in a cartoon as an organ grinder, using his daughters as holiday props.”

As many on Twitter have pointed out, it seems as though the liberal media have trotted out their tired strategy of already wondering if a conservative will ‘overreach’ concerning their response to a scandal.

“ABC Skips WashPost Smear on Cruz Girls; CBS, NBC Excuse It as a ‘Feud,’ Part of ‘Increased Scrutiny,’” NewsBusters, today.


Many of the same people anxious about the authoritarian overtones of Trump’s appeal were unconcerned about the intense adulation that adoring crowds showered on Obama in 2008, though the spectacle featured similarly troubling signs—the iconography, the messianic messaging, and the implausible promises of government-produced comfort and safety. Just as President Trump fans will judge every person on how nice or mean they are to Trump, so too, those rooting against Obama were immediately branded unpatriotic or racist.

Obama’s inevitable failure to live up to the hype has had many repercussions, and none of them healthy.

One: the hypocrisy of liberalism, which only a few years before was lamenting how W.’s abuses had destroyed the republic, now justify Obama’s numerous executive overreaches because they correspond with liberal political aims. Obama’s argument—and thus, the contention of his fans—seems to pivot on the notion that the president has a moral imperative to “act” on his favored policies because the law-making branch of government refuses to do so. That is weird. This reasoning will almost certainly be modus operandi for presidents unable to push through their own agendas—which, considering where the country is headed, will be every president.

As Victor Davis Hanson noted on Sunday, “What if the reckless Donald Trump were president? Thank Obama for Trump, because long ago the president ended altogether the idea of extreme language in politics. Obama has said anything and everything with implicit media sanction. And we are already harvesting with Trump what Obama and the media have sown.”

TURNABOUT IS A BITCH: Clinton World stunned by Trump remarks.

Donald Trump’s public mocking of Hillary Clinton has renewed criticisms of crass, sexist comments by the Republican presidential front-runner.

Clinton’s campaign on Tuesday decided against a frontal attack, with communications director Jennifer Palmieri offering inviting others on Twitter to repudiate Trump’s comments.

But behind the scenes, Team Clinton saw the remarks at a Monday rally as a new low, and some allies predicted they would lead to his demise.

“We are watching the Donald melt down,” predicted Ellen Tauscher, the former congresswoman who served as undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs under Clinton.

“His racist, sexist, xenophobic rants are now wearing on people generally,” she said.

“Even the folks caught up in the celebrity culture that thought these performances were funny initially, which is stunning, now realize these comments seem predictable and pathetic,” Tauscher added. “What the Donald seems to miss, as he claims he loves women, is that this is a historic election for women and they are done with the juvenile, prurient, potty talk behavior.”

Other political observers contacted by The Hill weren’t so sure.

Meh, Trump has been “melting down” for months, and yet he keeps leading in the polls. Meanwhile, here’s how the WaPo treats Ted Cruz’s kids — by portraying them as monkeys.


As Ace says, “I like how liberals pretend there’s some rule that justifies going after GOP Presidents’ kids, apart from them being GOP Presidents’ Kids.”

RACISM STRAIGHT UP: Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes depicts children of Hispanic presidential candidate as monkeys:

Commenting on Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s daughters appearing in a campaign ad on Saturday, Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes created a disgusting GIF early Tuesday evening depicting Cruz’s young daughters as toy monkeys being played with and arguing that “[t]hey are fair game.”

In attempting to explain her arguably racist GIF, Telnaes argued that because daughters Caroline and Catherine appeared in a humorous Christmas-themed ad, they have decided “to indulge in grown-up activities” and allowed their father to play them “as political props.”

Here’s the cartoon:


“Tell me, if Obama’s daughters were, hypothetically, in his most famous campaign ad, the 30 minute ad he ran on most networks on the eve of the 2008 election, would they be ‘fair game’ too?”, Ace asks, noting that at about the twenty minute mark, “You know what I see there? ‘Fair game,’ according to the Washington Post. That’s what I see there.”

As  T. Becket Adams adds at the Washington Examiner, “In 2014, an obscure GOP Hill staffer was forced to resign from her job after a Facebook post criticizing President Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, went viral on social media:”

Outside of social media, Lauten’s comments also created a media firestorm, and even led the networks one evening in December.

“It is one of the few rules that the news media and the mob usually both adhere to: Leave families out of the fight. However, tonight a Republican staffer is out of a job after something she wrote on social media about the first daughters,” then-NBC News anchor Brian Williams said on Dec. 1, 2014.

Spokespersons for the Post did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.

Not to mention, the Washington Post’s staffers twisted themselves into knots in 2006 to depict George Allen’s impromptu response to his omnipresent Mohawk-coiffed Democrat video tracker as a racist slur — and then proceeded to run an estimated 100 stories on Allen’s “racism” from mid-August to election day to simultaneously swing the race to his opponent, hand the Senate to the Democrats, and knock out a leading 2008 GOP presidential candidate. But hey, the Post’s excuse for practicing racism towards Republicans and their kids? Eh — “fair game.”


UPDATE: “‘You slimeballs’: Why won’t Politico tell the truth about the disgusting Cruz cartoon?”

To ask the question is to answer it.

MORE: Post editor pulls Telnaes’ cartoon, but not before more damage was done to the Post brand and to Telnaes’ reputation.

RELATED: Here’s the ad by Cruz Telnaes attacked, which debuted this past weekend on Saturday Night Live — and now has over 1.5 million views on YouTube:

And here’s Cruz’s response to the slur by Telnaes and the Post:


Indeed.™ Marco Rubio also condemns the Post’s racist hit on Cruz and his kids.

NARCISSIST-IN-CHIEF: “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”  Kevin Williamson over at NRO explains President Obama’s narcissistic trait of turning around criticism about his presidency, implying that his critics are racist:

In a pre-vacation interview with NPR, the president argued that (as the New York Times decodes the message) “some of the scorn directed at him personally stems from the fact that he is the first African American to hold the White House.” I.e, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”

This is kind of clever, in a way. The president says that much of the unhappiness with his administration is “pretty specific to me, and who I am and my background,” which is slippery in that by saying it’s about him, he’s really saying it’s about his critics, and their bigotry and prejudice. “It’s not me, it’s you.”  . . .

The really maddening thing, though, is that President Obama thinks the reason he isn’t perceived as being especially good at his job is that we yokels aren’t smart enough to understand how spectacularly spectacular he is. Barack Obama is a man almost entirely incapable of self-criticism, and in the NPR interview, he repeated one of his favorite claims: He has had trouble with public opinion because he didn’t explain his awesome ideas well enough. That’s a very politic way of saying: “These rubes don’t get it.”

Yep, this is the way narcissists behave. It’s never their fault. They are so perfect, so awesome, that ordinary mortals cannot comprehend their greatness. Those who dare to criticize The Great One must be haters or idiots.

HINT: IT WASN’T ABOUT RACIST CAFETERIA FOOD: Clayton Cramer is raising money for a history project about the Oberlin Rescue of 1857.

THIS JUST IN AT THE NEW REPUBLIC: Yes, you can be a liberal and a sexual abuser:

Spreading the message of progressivism was the job of the firm’s founder and president, Trevor FitzGibbon. But it didn’t stop him from being a sexist lout who preyed upon women. Per the Huffington Post’s reporting, the allegations of prospective employee Sierra Pedraja inspired many others who had experienced similar harassment and abuse from FitzGibbon, some of them his own employees. And he is hardly alone.

Vox’s Emily Crockett used a perfect phrase to describe workplaces like FitzGibbon Media: “putatively progressive.” Too often, it is assumed that the people who wear progressive labels put those ideals into practice in their personal and professional lives. FitzGibbon is an extreme example disproving that assumption, but this should be an alarm, particularly for men to examine themselves, especially liberals. They need to stop believing that liberalism elevates us over the possibility of being sexist, because that’s a Republican thing. Nor should we assume progressivism based upon a few nice tweets, rah-rah columns, or even actual work for liberal causes. FitzGibbon just showed that such work can be used in service not of ideals, but one’s own ego, power, or dick.

Or to put it another way; if the charges prove out, they lend further credence to Kate McMillan’s March of 2008 observation, which was proved out in spades that fall as Democrat operatives with bylines carved up Sarah Palin: “Scratch a progressive, and you’ll find a misogynist.” (See also: Playboy’s “hate-f*ck” meltdown the following year aimed towards conservative women; repeated racist smears to attack Michelle Malkin, etc.)

But man, the magical thinking that by merely having the correct ideology, a person is absolved of all sin is strong at TNR — and amongst the left in general.

YEAH, MAYBE ENDORSING THIS FECKLESS LOSER WAS A BAD IDEA, GUYS: Washington Post editorial: Iran provokes the world as Obama does nothing. Even the WaPo is calling him feckless now. As usual, the alleged racist/troglodyte/mouthbreathers on the right who were saying this years ago were right, just prematurely so. . .

And how feckless? This feckless: Obama cites weak messaging, media saturation for Americans’ ISIS fears.

NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, GUYS, AFTER ALL, HOW MANY OF YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE WHITE MALES? Americans Boycott Sam’s Club After CEO’s Racist Comments About White Males.

IN THE SOVIET UNION, ONLY THE FUTURE IS CERTAIN; THE PAST IS ALWAYS CHANGING: Rhodes Scholars bully University of Cape Town into removing Cecil Rhodes’ statue; England’s Oxford University likely next. In March, the UK Guardian quoted this charming fellow:

Adekeye Adebajo, a Nigerian Rhodes scholar and executive director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution in Cape Town, said on Friday: “At the time I got the Rhodes scholarship, all I could think about was getting a good education and fighting for pan-Africanist issues. This wealth was stolen from Africa when Rhodes plundered the continent, so I felt absolutely no guilt about using the money to criticise what he stood for.”

Yesterday, Daniel Hannan wrote in the London Telegraph that Cecil Rhodes’ statue at Oxford’s Oriel College is next to fall — and now sports a warning label:

Earlier this year, a student at the University of Cape Town emptied a bucket of faeces over a statue of Cecil Rhodes on campus. The bronze sculpture, he and his friends maintained, was symbolic of the “institutional racism” and “white supremacy” that apparently dominate the university.

How did the campus authorities react? By explaining that almost every prominent figure in the late nineteenth century held some views that our generation finds jarring? By gently pointing out that you can disagree with someone, even detest someone, without defacing his statue? By expelling the instigators on grounds of sheer oafishness?

Sadly not. The university senate convened to discuss what to do about the offending mass of metal. Outside, as they deliberated, protesters chanted “One Settler, One Bullet!” Eventually, it was decided that the right not to be offended trumped everything else, and the statue is now boarded up, awaiting its fate.

Now, an Oxonian mob, using the same cretinous #RhodesMustFall hashtag as in South Africa, has complained that walking past that statue inflicts violence on them. Incredibly, rather than telling them to mind their own business, Oriel has rushed out a statement to the effect that it is talking to the planning authorities about removing the effigy and, in the mean time, has put a notice next to it, with the following text:

Many of Cecil Rhodes’s actions and public statements are incompatible with the values of the College and University today. In acknowledging the historical fact of Rhodes’s bequest, the College does not in any way condone or glorify his views or actions.”

As Hannan writes, “Cecil Rhodes is commemorated by Oriel because he left money to the college. Accepting that money in 1902, and honouring the benefactor, doesn’t mean endorsing his opinions today. If you’re really too dim to understand this, maybe you shouldn’t be at university.”

Read the whole thing.

(H/T: Milo Yiannopoulos.)

WHY ARE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS SO PRONE TO RACISM AND SEXISM? Kane’s sister received emails mocking Asians, blacks and domestic violence.

The state attorney general’s twin sister, a top prosecutor of Internet predators, received emails in the office mocking Asians and blacks, and joking about domestic violence and a small child in a cage. She forwarded with comment one email with a photo of a naked man in a sink.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane was copied on a 2009 email that poked fun at world leaders and showed a man’s genitalia.
Kane, 49, of Scranton said she released her emails and those of her deputy, Ellen Granahan, to counter statements by a Philadelphia prosecutor that gave “a false and defamatory impression” that the sisters exchanged pornographic emails through the office computer system.

“I think they’re every bit as offensive as the other emails,” said George Parry, a former federal prosecutor and Philadelphia lawyer. “… At this point, the number is irrelevant. She’s been castigating people for sending and receiving these, and now she and her sister are doing it.”

Maybe the reason lefties think that the entire world is dominated by such racist and sexist misbehavior is because, well, their world is.

WHY IS HIGHER EDUCATION SO RACIST? Are Asians the Jews of the 21st Century When It Comes to College Admissions?

NEWS YOU CAN USE: ARE YOUR ROMANTIC ATTRACTIONS RACIST? “After pressing ‘send,’ he immediately regretted it. Colorado College student Thaddeus Pryor realized he had acted recklessly when he made a Yik Yak post on campus which said that black women ‘aren’t hot.’ He soon deleted the message.” But not before his college “initially suspended Pryor for 21 months, lessening the sentence to six months after his request for an appeal. However, the school refused to give him a new hearing.”

Related: “What I believe about race is that race is not real,” Rachel Dolezal, former NAACP leader and African studies lecturer, tells the UK Guardian. “It’s not a biological reality. It’s a hierarchical system that was created to leverage power and privilege between different groups of people.”

TEXAS ALUMNI ORGANIZATION apologizes for Scalia smear.

As I recounted in The American Spectator, and here, the University of Texas alumni organization (of which I am a Life Member) denounced Justice Scalia for a question he asked during the December 9 oral argument in Fisher v. UT, irresponsibly calling his remark “racist and offensive.” I promptly demanded a retraction and apology, which Texas Exes’s vice president of digital strategy, Tim Taliaferro, stridently refused. (The entire e-mail exchange is reproduced in the TAS piece.) I went public (as I had threatened to do if an apology was not forthcoming), and within days, the President of Texas Exes issued an apology. Tepid? Yes. Inadequate? Undoubtedly. (Taliaferro should have been fired.) But gratifying? Certainly. Even the most politically correct, Left-leaning alumni organizations can be confronted and forced to back down if only vocal members speak up. As I stated in my previous Bench Memos post, “silence is assent.” Texas Exes is eating crow. Make it happen at your alma mater.

As a famous leader said: Get in their faces. Punch back twice as hard.

ACTUALLY, OVERT RACISM IS THE CULPRIT: Sigal Alon writes in The Nation about “How Diversity Destroyed Affirmative Action.” Alon is reading the Supreme Court tea leaves after it heard oral arguments Dec. 9 in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin (Fisher II):

The Bakke case is often looked upon as the landmark ruling for legitimizing race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. Justice Powell set the stage for what came to be known as the “diversity rationale” for race-conscious admissions policies—the argument that having a diverse student body in postsecondary institutions serves a compelling government interest because “the ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” Race-conscious admissions, then, are permissible because, when narrowly tailored, they serve this substantial educational interest.

The Bakke ruling shifted the rationale for affirmative action from reparation for past discrimination to promoting diversity. This, in essence, made the discourse about affirmative action race-neutral, in that it now ignores one of the key reasons for why we need to give an edge to minorities. Today the University of Texas, Austin, when defending the consideration of race and ethnicity in admission decisions, cannot say that this practice is needed because of persistent racial inequality; because minority students do not have the same life chances as white students; because there is extensive racial discrimination in the labor and housing markets; because students who study in poor high schools have less chances for learning and lower achievements; or because growing up in poverty impedes your cognitive development. The only argument at the disposal of UT Austin in defense of its admission practices is that it needs a diverse student body to enrich the educational experience of privileged white students.

Today, the fate of affirmative action rests solely on the Court’s endorsing diversity as a compelling societal interest. The oral arguments in Fisher this week demonstrate the fragility of this situation. Chief Justice Roberts questioned the educational benefits of racial diversity, asking, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?… I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?” . . .

The root causes for the practice of affirmative action in higher education—that is, the systemic effects of racism and segregation in America—were shoved under the rug. This likely causes a frustration among minority students, especially blacks. But what is more troubling it that it also may lead to race-neutral admissions.

The point Chief Justice Roberts was making (as Alon surely knows) is that no one benefits from the notion that a physics class is improved by having the “black perspective” in the room, not even the poor black kid who, under affirmative action, inevitably bears this heavy burden.

God forbid we should be a colorblind nation with a colorblind Constitution. It’s far better, in the warped liberal/progressive mind, to have all Americans in 2015–not just white, but Asian, Hispanic, native American, or purple polka-dotted–relinquish their dream of attending X, Y or Z college so that someone who is black (regardless of socio-economic status or other “privilege”) can achieve theirs.

In the liberal/progressive worldview, the U.S. history of slavery forever brands all blacks (even those whose ancestors were not slaves) as perpetually “behind” the rest of society, entitled to special “help” from other Americans (even those whose ancestors were not slave owners), as a sort of penance for the pain suffered and inflicted by those long dead. The very articulation of this “benign” justification for affirmative action reveals its ugly, rotten, racist core.

In 2015, if a black child performs poorly in school–rendering him/her academically non-competitive with a non-black child–how could it ever be “fair/just/equitable” and consonant with “equal protection of the laws” to to reward that black child (and thus necessarily punish the non-black child who performed better) with the functional equivalent of college admissions “extra credit”?

If the problem of poorly performing black students is going to be solved, it must be solved within the black community, starting with the parents, but extending also to the teachers, administrators, and the students themselves. But of course this commonsensical approach will never be embraced by the race-baiting “civil rights” leaders, who make their living by fueling the fire of perpetual black victimhood.

For the rest of America, however, colorblindness is the only way to ensure “equal protection” of the laws in an increasingly racially diverse society. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,  ”The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” It’s really not that complicated.

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH: Rotherham Witness Says Police Covered Up Child Abuse By Muslim Men. “In February, the then Communities Secretary Eric Pickles sent a team of five commissioners to take over the executive functions of Rotherham Borough Council, saying it was suffering from ‘institutionalised political correctness’. In August last year, the Jay Report found that 1,400 children had been groomed, trafficked and raped by Asian men in the town but police had failed to intervene due to fears of appearing racist.”

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WON’T EVEN LOOK AT IMMIGRANTS’ SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE WILLING TO censor anti-immigrant statements on social media. “The partnership to crack down on what Germany deems illegal speech comes after German law enforcement’s reported concerns about ‘racist abuse’ posted to social media after the country’s huge and extremely controversial import of over a million Syrian refugees.”


Related: Melissa Harris-Perry Brings Parody to Life, Calls ‘Star Wars’ Racist.


The Left is expert at this, using the rich vernacular of political correctness to denounce its opponents without having to address the merits of their arguments. For this reason, it was entirely predictable that Justice Antonin Scalia’s skeptical questioning at last week’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas – zeroing in on the “mismatch” theory — would be mischaracterized by left-wing media outlets such as Mother Jones (“Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges”)

Surprisingly, however, ostensibly neutral publications such as Alcalde, the house organ for UT’s alumni organization, Texas Exes (of which I am a Life Member), joined the shrill chorus, condemning Justice Scalia’s comments as “racist and offensive.” My demand for a retraction and apology (so far, unsuccessful) is chronicled in The American Spectator. Conservative alumni whose alma maters (and/or alumni organizations) are being hijacked by the Left should remember that silence is assent.

I recommend complaining to university administrators, and making clear that you’ll be talking to other alumni. Maybe even occupying somebody’s office. That’s what you do when you’re offended, right?

WHY ARE FEMINISTS SO RACIST? Harvard Law professor: Most sex assault accusations are against minorities.

SHE’S GONE FULL TURNIP. YOU NEVER GO FULL TURNIP: MSNBC host implies Star Wars is racist: Darth Vader is ‘totally a black guy’. And remember, her vote counts the same as yours.

THE NEW YORK OBSERVER EDITORIALIZES: Affirmative Action in College Admissions Is Past Its Use-By Date.

Over the last 40 years the Court has accepted the premise that a diverse student body is a good thing. (The most compelling argument came from the heads of the military and the service academies who argued that having minority officers as role models for the enlisted troops was important to racial harmony and unit effectiveness.) But the oft-repeated argument of AA advocates—that a “critical mass” of minority students—is essential to get diverse opinions into the classroom is coming under closer scrutiny. Justice Roberts asked the lawyers, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?”

Even before the oral arguments were heard—and even more loudly immediately after—AA advocates suggested that campus unrest might increase if the Court did not uphold the UT race-based holistic system.

Sadly, what has been happening on college campuses these last few years has made a mockery of diversity. Ideas that don’t conform to the progressive narrative—and we think those ideas are anything but progressive—are deemed racist. And voices that disagree with that prevailing wisdom are shouted down.

We believe that real diversity—of ideas, of perspectives, of backgrounds—is a good thing. Quotas of any sort are not. Two federal lawsuits brought by Asian-American students against Harvard and the University of North Carolina—alleging discrimination in admissions—are on hold pending the resolution of Fisher II. Sixty-seven percent of Americans polled by Gallup say that it is time for affirmative action in college admissions to end. We agree.

Universities, a cynic might say, have promoted racial diversity as a way of covering up enforced conformity in more important areas.

HOW TO FIX COLLEGE ADMISSIONS: Instead of litigating affirmative action, simply hold a lottery for all qualified applicants.

In its simplest version, the process would work like this. The application would involve a checklist of more or less objective, externally verifiable criteria. These might include GPA above a certain cutoff, scores of 4 of 5 on a given number of AP tests, and so on. Extracurricular achievements could be considered. For example, there might be a box to be checked by applicants who played a varsity sport. The application could even ask about socio-economic status, allowing applicants to indicate that their parents had not attended college or that they grew up in a high-poverty census tract.

Suppose the checklist contained ten criteria. Applicants who satisfied, say, six of them would be entered into a lottery for admission. Universities would then draw an appropriate number of admits. The whole exercise would take about two seconds.

In addition to its appealing transparency, a lottery would be extremely cheap. Under this plan, universities wouldn’t have to maintain a large and highly paid admissions office. All they’d need would be a good website on which applicants could enter their information and a few IT workers to manage the database.

A lottery would also relieve stress on applicants and their parents. Rather than driving themselves nuts pursuing all possible achievements, high school students could concentrate on doing well in their strongest subjects or activities.

Critics might argue a lottery would reduce academic quality. But there’s no reason to think students taken at random from a qualified pool would be worse than those selected in head-to-head comparisons. In fact, Harvard already attracts applications from more valedictorians than it can accept.

I’ve made a similar suggestion myself, noting that a lottery would also remedy the Ivy League’s documented racial discrimination against Asian students.

Which means that if you oppose this plan, you’re a racist.

SELF-PARODY ALERT: MSNBC’s Melisa Harris-Perry Gripes Over ‘Totally Black Guy’ Darth Vader As Evil Character.

I’d suggest that perhaps MHP should embrace the growing number of counterfactuals that depict the Empire as the good guys, but how would she fill her two-hour weekend show at MSNBC if she can’t detect microscopic trace elements of racism absolutely everywhere? 

On the flip-side, OK, let’s run with MHP’s rant: Why is Democrat-controlled Hollywood such a racist hive of scum and villainy?

MORE FAKE RACISM: Yale Determines SAE Did NOT Throw A Racist Halloween Party. “So after a month of chasing down claims that SAE members did not admit people into its party because of race, and claims that members of the fraternity spat on people, the investigation could not verify any of these allegations. Not that the court of public opinion cares, as it determined the fraternity was guilty weeks ago. Is that at all a surprise? Of course not.”

They should now sue their accusers. Because someone needs to push back against the rampant fratophobia on American’s campuses.

NARRATIVEFAIL: Raheem Kassam: Was Steve Jobs Syrian? No, But He Might Have Never Existed If Abortion Had Been Legal In The 1950s.

Earlier this morning Michigan Congresswoman Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) took to Fox News (above) to declare that “Steve Jobs was a Syrian”. Obviously, that’s a massive fib. And a “racist” one too, as Ms. Dingell’s assertion relies on forcing the children of immigrants to maintain their parents’ country of origin as a national identifier. It also flies in the face of the ideas of integration and assimilation. . . .

Finally, if conservatives ever hear “Steve Jobs was a Syrian” – they might want to reply with this little nugget of information, based on his family background.

His biological mother, Joanna Schiebe, fell pregnant with Mr. Jandali’s baby out of wedlock. Her father was intent that she not marry a Muslim, and at the time, abortion was illegal. So, the pair gave Steve Jobs up for adoption.

But had abortion been legal at the time, as per Jeffrey S. Young’s “The Journey Is The Reward” early biography of Mr. Jobs

“Adoption in those days was a much more prevalent occurrence than today. The stigma of single parenthood was intense, and abortion was a dangerous and illegal back-alley operation”.

So could it be that had abortion been freely available in the United States in the 1950s, we would have had no Steve Jobs? Well, it’s more credible than calling him a “Syrian”.

Read the whole thing. Of course, you can see how Debbie Dingell, who inherited her political position, might believe in such things.

WELL, THAT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE RUN BY IDIOTS: Schools continue to grapple with ‘Huckleberry Finn.’

After The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published in 1885, the book was boycotted in some places in the United States for portraying friendship between a black man and a white boy.

“In its time, it was derided and censored,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, which tracks challenges to books.

Today, Mark Twain’s classic – about a boy who flees his abusive father and travels down the Mississippi River with an escaped slave – is still sometimes challenged in American schools, but for nearly the opposite reason: its liberal use of the N-word and perceived racist portrayals of black characters.

This week, a Montgomery County school removed Huckleberry Finn from its curriculum after a group of students said the book made them uncomfortable.

After a forum for students and faculty, the administration of Friends’ Central School decided to strike the book from the 11th-grade American literature class, principal Art Hall said in a letter to parents this week.

“We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits,” Hall said in his letter.

We used to make fun of the Bowdlers for “bowdlerizing” works of great literature to suit schoolmarmish sensitivities.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: No Political Guardrails: President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too.

The press and political class let him burn it all down because they agreed with him, and besides he was black so to complain would be racist or something. Now they can’t figure out how to survive the wind that will blow, now that everything that can stop it has been removed.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. America’s Most Dangerous Demagogue Lives In The White House.

There’s a demagogue loose in the land. He uses immigration and the war on terror to drive a wedge into the American populace. He traffics in absurd conspiracy theories about foreign influence, he mocks his political opponents, and he inspires friends and allies to lash out, lawlessly, against them. He compares patriotic Americans to jihadists, and he endangers our national security with his reckless rhetoric.

I’m speaking, of course, about the President of the United States. It’s been amusing to watch the media hyperventilate over Donald Trump’s comments when it has largely cheered or ignored our own president’s rhetoric — rhetoric that’s inspired serial violations of First Amendment freedoms, and been used as justification for executive overreach and deadly mistakes at home and abroad.

We knew of Barack Obama’s contempt for his political opponents in 2008, when he famously mocked Hillary Clinton’s blue-collar supporters, calling them “bitter” and saying they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” But this was small potatoes compared to the rhetoric he’d employ once he was elected.

Worst President Ever. Or at least since that racist Woodrow Wilson.

TO SUPPORT QUOTAS REQUIRES THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL OUR CO-CITIZENS ARE STRAIGHT UP RACISTS: Which leads me to believe progressives don’t live in the same world I do.  College quotas are actually destroying lives of minorities.

JOURNALISM: Media Jumps The Gun, Attacks Scalia For Perfectly Reasonable Question.

If you’ve been reading headlines from liberal and mainstream media alike today, you might be shocked to hear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is apparently an overt racist. During oral arguments on an affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, Scalia suggested that blacks simply don’t belong at elite schools. “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges” reported Mother Jones. “Scalia: Maybe black students belong at ‘less-advanced’ schools” reported The Hill.

Most of these reports came out before the transcript was released, based on accounts of those who were in the courtroom at the time (oral arguments are never televised). But once the transcript emerged, it turned out that critics had jumped the gun. Scalia wasn’t sharing his own views, he was asking about a very serious academic critique of affirmative action that others had made.

Remember, the storyline is pre-written before anything happens.

TOO DUMB FOR COLLEGE: Ashe Schow: Student protesters jump the shark: Can’t even handle the name ‘Lynch.’

Student protesters at Lebanon Valley College have managed to encapsulate everything outsiders see as wrong with the current campus “revolution”: privileged students finding outrage in mundane things.

Students are demanding that (among other things) LVC administrators remove or modify the name of the “Lynch Memorial Hall” — not because the man it was named after was a racist, but because these students cannot handle the word “lynch.” Lynch, of course, is a term that means to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. Thousands of African-Americans were lynched over three centuries.

But it is also the last name of about 130,000 people in the United States. Do these students faint when they come across “Twin Peaks” on Netflix (directed by David Lynch)? Do they have a panic attack whenever the U.S. attorney general (Loretta Lynch, who is also African-American) makes a statement? Do they crash their cars when they see a sign for a town named Lynchburg?

We mock the Victorians for their delicate sensibilities, but this is worse. And stupider.

HISTORY’S GREATEST MONSTER! Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis:

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He’s just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here’s Jimmy “Hitler” Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against “our values” after all. It may even be “who we are”. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

And note that FrontPage goes there with the Photoshop as well.

(Headline via the residents of Springfield, presumably now finding strange new respect from the MSM…)

SCOTT ADAMS: “I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious []tolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences. But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.”

ERIC POSNER: IS AN IMMIGRATION BAN ON MUSLIMS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? “Probably not.” Which isn’t to say that it’s a good idea, only that people referencing the “religious tests” provision (which applies only to public office) or the Establishment Clause don’t know what they’re talking about.

Related: “Restricting immigration was as central to the progressive agenda as regulating railroads.” Donald Trump as Woodrow Wilson? Well, he’s certainly no Warren Harding.

NOT JUST WOODROW WILSON: Pretty much everything Donald Trump says was said in more stately and respectable prose by early-20th-century academics. My latest Bloomberg View column draws on the forthcoming intellectual history Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era (plus a host of pre-1923 sources easily available through Google Books):

Early 20th-century progressives transformed American institutions, and the movement’s premises continue to inform thinking and policy across the political spectrum. “It was the progressives who fashioned the new sciences of society, founded the modern American university, invented the think tank, and created the American administrative state, institutions still defined by the progressive values that formed and instructed them,” writes Leonard, a research scholar at Princeton’s Council of the Humanities.

The progressives believed, first and foremost, in the importance of science and scientific experts in guiding the economy, government, and society. Against the selfishness, disorder, corruption, ignorance, conflict and wastefulness of free markets or mass democracy, they advanced the ideal of disinterested, public-spirited social control by well-educated elites. The progressives were technocrats who, Leonard observes, “agreed that expert public administrators do not merely serve the common good, they also identify the common good.” Schools of public administration, including the one that since 1948 has borne Woodrow Wilson’s name, still enshrine that conviction.

Leonard also brings to light an embarrassing truth: In the early 20th century, the progressive definition of the common good was thoroughly infused with scientific racism. Harvard economist William Z. Ripley, for example, was a recognized expert on both railroad regulation and the classification of European races by coloring, stature and “cephalic index,” or head shape. At the University of Wisconsin, the red-hot center of progressive thought, leading social scientists turned out economic-reform proposals along with works parsing the racial characteristics — and supposed natural inferiority — of blacks, Chinese, and non-Teutonic European immigrants. (Present-day progressives somehow didn’t highlight this heritage when they were defending “the Wisconsin Idea” against the depredations of Republican Governor Scott Walker.)

The University of Wisconsin has a lot to be embarrassed about. At least The Donald doesn’t talk about “race suicide.” Read the rest of the column here.

UNEXPECTEDLY! CBO projects 2 million fewer jobs under ObamaCare. Remember, if you predicted this back when the bill was under debate, media “fact checkers” would ask the White House if that was going to happen, then give you four Pinocchios when the White House said no. And then call you racist.

FUNNY, WHEN REPUBLICANS WARNED ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO, THEY WERE RACIST: ISIS has targeted refugee program to enter US, Homeland Security chairman says.

Intelligence officials have determined that Islamic extremists have explored using the refugee program to enter the United States, the head of the House Homeland Security Committee said on Monday.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) declined to go into detail about the determination, which the Obama administration has not announced publicly.

Yet the disclosure could add ammunition to critics of the White House’s refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States,” McCaul said during a speech at the National Defense University.

“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U.S. refugee program.”

McCaul would not say specifically who informed him and other lawmakers about the revelation, only describing the sources as “elements of the intelligence community.”

“That was very courageous for them to come forward with this, to tell me about this personally, given the political debate on the Hill,” he added, suggesting that the news did not come from intelligence leaders.

The briefing happened “earlier this week,” McCaul said.

McCaul’s speech comes amid escalating concerns about Islamic extremism in the West, following the killings of 130 people in Paris and 14 in San Bernardino, Calif. The massacres have caused American fears about terrorism to spike, and left Congress grasping for a response.

President Obama has repeatedly pushed back against warnings that ISIS could attack the United States by sending over fighters as refugees.

Well, if Obama has been pushing back against these warnings, then you can take them to the bank. . . .

IS IT BECAUSE SHE’S A LATINA WHO’S RACIST AGAINST BLACK CITIZENS? Chicago State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez balks at charges in Ronald Johnson police shooting, says video shows gun.

Of course, she has a history of backing cops against black citizens, even of prosecuting black citizens who make recordings of cops’ misdeeds for “wiretapping.”

Why are Democrat-run cities such hellholes of racism and police impunity?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON on Liberal Nihilism in a Nutshell:

Obama had been elected in 2008 not on what he stood for or wished to accomplish—indeed voters had no idea of what “hope and change” actually meant—but largely for his iconic status as the first mixed-race president, and a perfect storm of events that favored his nontraditional Perot-like candidacy: the September 14, 2008, financial meltdown that at last saw him take a permanent lead in the polls, unhappiness over the Iraq war, the absence of an incumbent vice president or president in the race (the first time since 1952), and John McCain’s lackluster campaign whose central premise was to avoid any negative campaigning that might be libeled as racially driven. The result was that voters did what they had never done in the last half-century: elected a liberal from north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Obama’s dilemma was the same one facing the new nihilistic Democratic Party. Its agenda, once equal opportunity was achieved, became an equality of result, engineered and coerced by the federal government—an ideology opposed by a majority of Americans. The natural expressions of that nihilism were symbolically expressed in the strange careers of “Mattress Girl,” Sandra Fluke, Ahmed the clockmaker, Eric Holder, the National Council of La Raza, and the hunger strike in Missouri Jonathan Butler, the multimillionaire’s son. Its iconographies were the Pajama Boy ads, the “Life of Julia” video, and the hockey-stick climate graph.

The ideological success of Obamism, to the degree that it exists, rests largely in using sympathetic media, universities, foundations, the entertainment industry, and billionaire progressive activists—in the other words, the small but highly wealthy, influential and powerful coastal populations—to convince Americans that it is hip and cool to support agendas that they otherwise suspect, and to scare them that the alternative is a racist, sexist, homophobic America run by wealthy, cruel white male Christians.

Related: John Hawkins on “The Tribalist Liberal Losers Who Want Virtue On The Cheap.”


HOWIE CARR ON Elizabeth Warren and Native American Heritage Month.

You’ve heard of Sitting Bull? Sen. Warren is Spreading Bull.

Back to Native American Heritage Month, highlighted by Heritage Day, which was last Thursday. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who I’m fairly certain is not Seminole despite her Florida residence, put out a press release:

“As Americans, we recognize the rich and vibrant cultures of America’s first peoples. …”

Well, some of us do. But not, apparently, Sen. Lieawatha. I checked out her Senatorial website and guess what — no press releases about Native American Heritage Month. . . .

Surely America’s first female Native American senator is familiar with her people’s history. Oddly, my call was not returned. Meanwhile, Granny’s old employer, Harvard Law School, which once touted her as its first “woman of color,” is now embroiled in a controversy over whether the seal of the school is racist. Don’t ask why, it’s not worth getting into.

Guess who has been appointed to chair the committee to decide if — when? — the school should get rid of its “racist” crest. The chairman is none other than Bruce Mann, aka Mr. Granny Warren.

I placed another call to the senator’s teepee in D.C. This time I asked whether, if after getting rid of those racist sheaves of wheat on the seal, Professor Mann will take up the continuing scandal of greedy white people claiming Indian heritage to get tenured positions paying them $350,000 a year to teach one course, after which they no longer claim to be Indian and instead say they’re “Okie to their toes.” (OK, that last part I was just thinking.)

Once again, nobody called me back. Some Native American Heritage Month this turned out to be for me!