Search Results

FIGHT IT OUT ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION FLOOR, BERNIE! Is it too late for Bernie Sanders to convince superdelegates to choose him?

On Sunday during a press conference to commemorate the first anniversary of his announcement for the presidency, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders indicated once again that he would be seeking to peel away superdelegates from his rival Hillary Clinton.

Sanders currently trails Clinton by 327 pledged delegates plus 481 superdelegates. If Sanders could convince the vast majority of Clinton’s superdelegates to defect to him, he could in theory win the nomination.

The notion is not unheard of. In 2008, Clinton also won the overwhelming support of superdelegates, but they started breaking away from her and supporting then-Sen. Barack Obama around the time she barely squeaked out what was supposed to be an easy win in Indiana.

The difference in 2016 is that Clinton is also winning primaries, and convincingly so. Sanders has won 17 primaries and caucuses across the country, but even when he wins, Clinton oftentimes gets more delegates because of superdelegate support.

Also, Bernie’s not black, so superdelegates won’t be called racist for backing Hillary.


Recently, Clemson students have been the victims of a smear campaign. Individuals on social media and around campus have claimed that the Clemson student body is racist. On Monday, April 11, a controversial image surfaced on social media. The image circulated online displayed four bananas hung on a poster dedicated to Clemson’s African-American heritage. In the following nine days of protest, five students were arrested and the administration mandated new diversity and inclusivity training for all students and faculty.

Some lower level administration even attended and endorsed the protests, giving credibility to the smear campaign. The administration as a whole genuflected to the protesters’ demands, granting the smear further substance.

Since campus wide unrest was the direct result of the four bananas being hung it seems natural to ask who hung the bananas and what their motivations were. The Clemson administration knows the answers to these questions, but has not revealed them. The only thing most people on campus are aware of is the suspicious behavior and activity from the administration and the student protest leaders.

This leads to more questions than answers. . . .

There have been allegations on campus that the student who placed the bananas on the banner in the first place was African American. The implication is that the student intended for the incident to incite a campus protest. If this is not the case, why has the administration not released any information about the race or motives of the student who placed the bananas?

As it turns out, no charges (criminal or disciplinary) were brought against this student. If the act was supposedly so racist that the administration has decided to start assigning mandatory diversity and inclusivity training to faculty and students, then why was the individual not sanctioned? And if the individual was not sanctioned because she or he did not place the bananas in an act of racism, why are administrators and student activists still claiming the campus has a racially discriminatory environment?

Suspiciously, the identity of the student who posted threatening messages to Yik Yak was released to the public, amid calls for the university to do so. Yet, the identity of the person who placed the bananas is being kept a secret. Why are they so interested in this banana vandal’s privacy?

Stay tuned.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Mizzou Race Relations Committee Releases Series of Anti-Racism Videos for ‘White People:’

The University of Missouri’s Faculty Council Committee on Race Relations released a video series this week that aims to educate students and faculty about racism on campus, Mizzou’s student newspaper, the Maneater, reported.

Committee member Craig Roberts, a Mizzou plant sciences professor, said that the target audience of these videos will be white faculty, the lessons will be applicable for the while community as a whole.

Roberts explained in an email to the Maneater that white people, including himself, are not as likely to detect racism because they do not experience it first-hand, and white faculty often downplay the degree to which racism affects the community.

“White people tend to see racism in terms of lynching, physical abuse, bullying and other products of hate,” Roberts said. “Racism is more than the overt, blatant, extreme incidents.”

As Ace of Spades quips, “And now you can view Mizzou’s handy guide to What a Racist Your Child Is. Plus — there’s still that one-in-five-will-be-raped thing! So you know: Definitely send your kid there.”

But fortunately, to coin a phrase, A New Hope has emerged from a most unlikely source. “Melissa Click just (accidentally) outed the campus PC Gestapo,” Carrie Lukas writes at the New York Post:

Click now claims her own dismissal is racially charged, meant to send a message that blacks aren’t supposed to stand up against whites. Yet she also notes that being “a white lady” makes her an “easy target.”

In other words, Click believes that although bigotry pervades the university’s liberal halls, administrators are too cowed to fire anyone who isn’t white, making her supposed white privilege also her biggest handicap.

Click is suing the school for allegedly failing to follow the rules governing firings in cases like hers. Her charge may have merit. But where was Click when Wolfe was being similarly sacrificed for political expedience?

As Lukas writes, “It’s long been evident that something is seriously wrong with American higher education, but Click’s case ties key pieces of the puzzle together: the absurdity of the racial- and gender-grievance game on college campuses, the politically motivated inquisitions that serve as university justice and the increasingly useless nature of so much of what’s studied.”

Is there nothing she can’t do?

STANDING UP AGAINST RACISM AND BIGOTRY Now THAT’S a tip: Twitter raises R13‚000 for RMF waitress:

Donations received from as far afield as England‚ Canada and Germany swelled a fund for the waitress to R13‚381 by 11am on Saturday‚ according to Roman Cabanac of Johannesburg‚ one of the three men behind the Twitter campaign.

The first gift – R50 – came from Sihle Ngobese‚ the spokesman for Western Cape social development MEC Albert Fritz‚ who went to the ObzCafe after work on Friday to find the waitress.

She had been reduced to tears by Ntokozo Qwabe‚ an RMF leader at Oxford University‚ who then posted a Facebook rant about what he and fellow activist Wandile Dlamini had done.

He wrote: “We are out at ObzCafe … and the time for the bill comes. Our waitress is a white woman. I ask … what the going rate for tips/gratuity is in these shores. They look at me very reluctantly and they say ‘give me the slip‚ I’ll sort that out’. I give them the slip.

“They take a pen & slip in a note where the gratuity/tip amount is supposed to be entered. The note reads in bold: “WE WILL GIVE TIP WHEN YOU RETURN THE LAND”. The waitress comes to us with a card machine for the bill to be sorted out. She sees the note & starts shaking. She leaves us & bursts into typical white tears (like why are you crying when all we’ve done is make a kind request? lol!).”

Ngobese told TimesLive on Saturday that he found Qwabe’s post “insulting‚ racist and disgraceful” and felt the least he could do was to give the waitress the tip she had been denied. He posted a photograph on Twitter of his receipt for R50‚ with the handwritten words “And the kindness is free. F*** RMF!”

“Qwabe misses the complete irony of what he did‚” Ngobese told TimesLive. “If you want to talk about privilege‚ being a master’s graduate from Oxford and lording it over a minimum-wage waitress is the height of irony. It speaks to the disdain I have for RMF’s claims to being a voice for the downtrodden.”

Well, that’s Social-Justice-Warriorism in a nutshell, isn’t it?


In 2010, Jon Stewart warned Wilmore that his race card was maxed out; advice he sadly never heeded.

ONLY A PC KILLJOY COULD HATE THE NEW JUNGLE BOOK, R. J. Moeller writes at Acculturated; but sadly PC killjoys are all too plentiful these days:

In a post titled, “How Disney’s New Jungle Book Subverts the Gross Colonialism of Rudyard Kipling,” Katy Waldman of Slate had the following to contribute to the conversation:

Well, Kipling was certainly a racist f**k—look no further than his novel Kim for a portrait of brave British spies and slavish, dark-skinned Buddhists—but The Jungle Book, which Kipling wrote out of a Vermont cabin in 1894, doesn’t showcase his bigotry so much as his uncritical reverence for power. Might makes right mesmerized Kipling; the more ruthless the subjugation, the better. He loved the panther Bagheera with his liquid menace (“his jaws shut with a snap, for he did not believe in being humble”), the terrifying python Kaa, and most of all Mowgli, who commands fire and possesses a gaze the beasts cannot meet without flinching. You might wince at the subtext of these characters’ dominance—for Kipling, whites were born rulers as surely as tigers were born predators—or point out the author’s lack of pity for the weak. You might furrow your brow at the way the Indian villagers succumb to supernatural babble and suspicion. But as far as pure and explicit racism goes, Kipling’s novel scores lower than Disney’s 1967 movie, which introduced a great ape called King Louie (after Louie Armstrong) who sang minstrel songs about his desire to get civilized.

One would have to guess that the Disney Corporation and director Jon Favreau did not set out to promote imperialism, colonialism, or disrespect for those who have suffered under the yoke of foreign rule—but words and ideas and stories do matter.

So what’s a conscientious, free society to do with such controversial, beloved stories? Am I contributing to 19th century crimes against humanity by singing the ballads of Baloo and King Louie while taking my morning shower? Should we start banning books and movies that Slate bloggers find offensive to their delicate sensibilities (on behalf of the ancestors of strangers half a world away)? Ought we to put F-bomb-laced warnings of “Pro-Colonialism Propaganda Contained Within!” on movie posters?

Nahh — that’s what we have Gawker and its spin-off Website io9 for — that’s where Katharine Trendacosta’s review can be found titled “Reminder: Rudyard Kipling Was a Racist Fuck and The Jungle Book Is Imperialist Garbage.” Hard to predict where’s she going with that subtle, nuanced headline:

The Jungle Book is just as drenched with racism and colonialism as anything else Kipling wrote on the subject. The thread running throughout the stories is that Mowgli is superior to the animals that raised him by virtue of being man, not beast. That’s a neat parallel to Britain and India.

“Except Mowgli is…Indian,” Kyle Smith of the New York Post tweeted in response. And as one of his followers added, “But man is superior to animals. What’s wrong with that?”

Why, that’s so, so problematic, to coin an adjective.

If only someone had predicted at the end of the 19th century that intellectual life was about to face a systematic “recessional,” with dire and lasting consequences to the West. (Lest we forget.)

WHY ARE LEFTIST INSTITUTIONS SUCH CESSPITS OF PREJUDICE? New York Times boss sued over alleged ageist, racist and sexist hiring practices.

MSNBC WITH BETTER VISUALS: Curt Schilling: ESPN Home to ‘Some of the Biggest Racists in Sports Commentating.’

In early 2014, when MSNBC’s race-obsessions were arguably at their most vitriolic, Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator wrote, ‘Meet MSNBC. Better Described as Jim Crow TV.’ ESPN has been working very hard to acquire that ignominious sobriquet as well.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Yale Votes to Retain Honors for Rabidly Racist Democrat.


The students identified as the people behind a recent racist drawing found at Salisbury University’s library are black, school officials confirmed Tuesday.

The image, found April 10 on a whiteboard in Blackwell Library, showed a stick figure being hung and labeled with a racial slur. Underneath was the hashtag “#whitepower.”

The university confirmed Tuesday, April 26, the students involved in the incident were black, spokesman Richard Culver wrote in an email. The university would not provide names of the students, citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

Yeah, if this were genuine and the students were white, we’d know their names.

WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-RUN CITIES SUCH CESSPITS OF RACISM? San Francisco Police Ensnared in New Racist Texting Scandal.

IT’S AS IF THEY CARE MORE ABOUT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAN THEY DO ABOUT CITIZENS: CDC secret warning on surge of illegal kids: ‘Plan on many having TB.’

During the recent surge of tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants crossing the Mexico-U.S. border, the Centers for Disease Control warned staff that many will be infected with tuberculosis — but the public wasn’t given a head’s up.

In fact, the young adults, few of whom had received the types of vaccines U.S. children received, arrived with TB, swine flu and even Dengue, according to reports that eventually filtered out of border agents and hospitals on or near the U.S. border.

The internal warning was: “We might as well plan on many of the kids having TB.” It was included in June 2014 email guidance from environmental health scientist Alaric C. Denton as the agency prepared to handle the crisis, which was repeated in 2015 and is expected again this year.

“Most of these kids are not immunized, so we need to make sure all our staff are immunized,” said Denton, who is stationed at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, according to a new document obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch and released Thursday.

What’s more, the documents obtained in Judicial Watch’s investigation of the flood of so-called unaccompanied minors, topping 70,000 a year, revealed that all aren’t the little children the administration has portrayed them as. Many are young adults, and gang members.

“The CDC official reveals in the documents obtained by JW as a result of the lawsuit that ‘some of these kids are not really kids they are young adults, and we should be wary of personal safety,’” said a memo.

Meanwhile, members of the public who said similar things were called paranoid racist conspiracy-mongers.


Not surprisingly, she writes for the Grauniad.

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: It Takes Exactly Four Tweets From Non-Eyewitnesses to Tar a City as Racist. “As we keep learning, the evidentiary bar for calling people racist is appallingly low, even among institutions that are supposed to be in the corroboration business. Thank Buddha there’s a universe of smartasses ready to use the BS detector that newspapers once prided themselves on.”

DOES SHE HAVE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION FOR THIS CLAIM? Michelle Obama: I’ve Been Victimized By Sexism – Men Used To Whistle At Me!  (For extra frosting on the idiocy cake note she said this in ARGENTINA.  The lack of understanding of Latin cultures this betrays might actually form a black hole* that sucks our entire universe into it.  You have been warned.)

*Added for the benefit of those even less informed than Michelle Obama: Black hole is not actually a racist term.  Here’s an explanation of Black Hole for students k-4.  Ask someone to explain the hard words.

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Democrats, Not Republicans, Have Moved on Immigration.

A casual observer of the 2016 presidential election and immigration politics could be forgiven for thinking that Republicans have moved sharply to the right on the issue, while Democrats have stayed roughly where they have always been. But an interesting new Pew poll suggests the opposite is true: Republican voters’ views on immigration have held roughly steady over the past decade, while Democratic voters’ views have lurched sharply to the left. . . .

As the attached figure from Pew shows, in 2006, 34 percent of Republicans said that immigrants “strengthen the country”; today, 35 percent say the same. Democrats, on the other hand, underwent a massive (nearly 30-point) pro-immigration shift over the last 10 years. So while Trump’s rise probably reflects a stronger mobilization of anti-immigration voters than the GOP has seen before, it may not be the case that the average Republican voter is in such a different place on immigration than he was during the Bush years. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ lurch leftward on immigration—while not covered as extensively as Trump’s various immigration-related outrages—has been visible to anyone willing to look: at the Univision debate last month, for example, both Democratic presidential candidates essentially promised to suspend immigration enforcement altogether.

The standard media narrative holds that political polarization in the United States a GOP-driven phenomenon; that Republicans have gone off the deep end, and that Democrats remain sensible, centrist, and open to compromise. As we’ve said before, however, the truth is much more complicated. As much as many bien pensants would like to lay blame for our angry and polarized politics at the feet of racist Republicans, the Democrats’ dramatic leftward pivot—on issues from the $15 minimum to immigration to the culture wars—has clearly played a major role.

The media rule is that Democrats’ current positions always mark the Sensible Center. Republicans are always trying to turn back the clock. To, you know, the outdated, benighted views that dominated the nation six months ago. . .


Whig history, and the variation of it that I was taught in school, in which all of history led to the glories of FDR, JFK, and midcentury liberalism was built around the notion that people in past centuries were far from perfect, but we need to study them carefully to understand how all of history led to today’s Wondrous Age. Black Armband History, as it was dubbed in 1993 by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey to differentiate it from the Whiggish “Three Cheers” schools of history, implies that the essence of history is racism, colonialism, imperialism, and oppression in general. The people made famous by history are by their very nature nasty old evil racist oppressors and can be safely airbrushed out of history entirely, with the exception of a few flawed but benighted revolutionary souls such as Marx, Che and Castro.

You can’t “Start From Zero,” as Tom Wolfe would say, until the great PC cleanup is complete – at which point, 2+2 can equal five should the state wish it to be so, and “a 5’10″ white man can tell you he’s a 6’5″ Chinese girl,” as Ace writes, “and you are required to believe him because each person constructs his own quantum reality moment by moment, it’s no difficult thing to also accept that killing the kulaks and putting the farms under inefficient state rule will result in a greater grain harvest.”

#THECHALKENING: Trump Drawings Are Now The Great Campus Free Speech Battle.

But the most disturbing action in relation to campus Trump messages comes from Tulane University. The local Kappa Alpha Order fraternity erected a sandbag wall on their own private property emblazoned with The Donald’s famous slogan: “Make America Great Again.” It was built as part of a yearly fraternity tradition and the Trump message was added in the spirit of satire, according to the KA chapter.

That satire, however, didn’t go over well with some of their fellow students. A few of their Hispanic peers labelled the message as “xenophobic” and “racist.” A few African-American members of Tulane’s football team decided to show their disdain for the Trump wall through physical action Tuesday.

Namely, they invaded the fraternity’s private property and destroyed the wall themselves. Video surfaced of the altercation showing KA’s shouting at the Tulane footballers to stop tossing the sandbags because they were on private property — to no avail.

In spite of the evidence a possible crime occurred, Tulane’s Kappa Alpha chapter, through a representative from its national organization, nearly apologized for their ransacked property.

“The comment was written on a makeshift wall on our private property, normally used for a game of capture the flag, to mock the ideologies of a political candidate,” the chapter’s statement read. “This had a unintended negative effect and as such it has been dismantled.”

A major fact left out is that the wall was dismantled involuntarily.

Tulane administrators issued a statement that tried desperately to maintain a non-partial stance, but in the end expressed sympathy for the minority students who were “impacted by this incident.”

Black privilege.



She supported Huey Newton and the Black Panthers in the early 1970s, stating “Revolution is an act of love; we are the children of revolution, born to be rebels. It runs in our blood.” She called the Black Panthers “our revolutionary vanguard … we must support them with love, money, propaganda and risk.”[34] She has been involved in the feminist movement since the 1970s, which dovetails with her activism in support of civil rights.

Jane Fonda’s Wikipedia page.


Fonda’s affinity for communism served as a backdrop for her intense anti-Vietnam War activities. By 1970 she was telling American college students: “If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist. . . . I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism.” The dual villains of Southeast Asian conflicts were, in her view, “U.S. imperialism” and “a white man’s racist aggression.”

—Fonda’s page at David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks who’s who database of the far left.


However, Fonda also predicted violence if Clinton secures the Democratic nomination and goes on to beat the Republican presidential nominee in the general election. The main reason for that vehemence, the actress says, will be the fact that she is a woman.

“Every time women move forward, there is going to be problems,” Fonda insisted. “So one of the things we have to do is help men understand why they are so threatened, and change the way we view masculinity. We have a toxic masculinity and that’s what needs to be addressed.”

—”Jane Fonda: ‘There Will Be Violence’ if Clinton is Elected President in November,” the Blaze, yesterday.

Funny, I’m old enough to remember when the “toxic masculinity” trope was leveled by Hollywood dowagers against Hillary’s supporters, not Bernie Sander’s. (Given that the vast majority of political violence emanates from the left, as Fonda well knows and once encouraged, that’s the group that she’s smearing, no?) Speaking of which, why would the poster child for radical chic suddenly start denouncing violence?

“RACIST OVERTONES” JUST MEANS “DEMOCRATS ARE UNHAPPY.” Slate says there are ‘racist overtones’ to a Senate bill that bans abortion motivated by the sex of the fetus. What’s racist about opposing sexism?

COMCAST SPOKESMAN CONDESCENDINGLY MANSPLAINS TO LEADING FEMALE TELEVISION ANCHOR: Al Sharpton Snaps at Megyn Kelly to ‘Calm Down’ When Challenged on Ferguson Findings.

Why are Democrat-owned industries such cesspits of racism, corruption, homophobia and pervasive mansplaining?

Related: “Megyn Kelly’s contract is coming up for renewal. She says she might sign with someone other than Fox. Allah (linked above) has repeatedly suggested that the lack of support she feels from Fox may cause her to jump ship. I think it would be best if she did. Not because I dislike her,” Ace of Spades writes. But “The possibility that Kelly could colonize a prominent network with her heretical views would be good for conservatism overall. Seizing prominent enemy positions is the goal of any army that’s doing more than perimeter patrolling.”


AND THIS, THIS HERE, RIGHT HERE IS MY SHOCKED FACE: SJWs Want to Train Whites Like Monkeys – Totally Not Racist.

PROGRESSIVES AND EUGENICS: THE CASE OF JUSTICE BRANDEIS. “While the progressives did introduce a number of helpful, legitimate reforms, they also threw their weight behind some of the most destructive government policies of the era, from race-based restrictions on immigration (justified in the name of protecting U.S. workers from degrading competition) to the South’s racist Jim Crow regime (justified on the grounds that state officials should have broad leeway to control economic affairs),” Damon Root writes at Reason. “Perhaps the most glaring example of this phenomenon is eugenics, a notorious branch of pseudo-science that was championed by most leading progressive politicians and activists and ultimately given the stamp of legal approval by progressive judicial hero Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.”


A RACIST JOKE SO BAD THAT NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS GET A PASS. My question: Does Hillary shop at the same store as Dr. Evil?

Screen Shot 2016-04-12 at 9.26.10 AM

Plus: “Half a century of political experience between them and neither of them thought, ‘Hmm maybe this won’t go over well.’”

THE EVER TWISTING COILS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE: You’re now a racist if you say schools need to be safer.


Shot: “In the past week and a half, the liberal blogosphere has become a virtual Bletchley Park of racial cryptographers teasing out the sinister motives and subtexts of McCain’s campaign advertising.

—“Is there sinister subtext in McCain ads?”, Michael Moynihan, The Politico, August 6, 2008.

Chaser: “Is Justin Bieber’s Hair Racist?”

—Stephen Kruiser, PJ Media, today.

QUESTIONS NOBODY IS ASKING: NPR Asks If It’s ‘OK to Profit’ From Cooking Food of ‘Other Cultures’…Or Is It Racist?

Who knew that Pat Morita’s Arnold character on Happy Days was such a stone-cold racist and cultural identity thief serving all-American hamburgers and hot dogs to the lily-white kids who hung out in his diner? ABC should really be ashamed of the racism they pumped into American homes each week.

FAKE NEWS NOT PLAYING SO WELL: The Boston Globe sees itself broadly rebuked online for faux cover. I’m glad that this roundup quoted my reference to the Globe’s 2004 publication of fake photos that smeared U.S. troops as racists, and subsequent weaselly non-apology. Note that that fake-news effort also took place during an election year.

Related: Globe’s stunt could wind up being a big boon for Donald Trump.

Also: Howie Carr: Fake Front Shows Globe A Joke. Carr suggests some fake front pages for Hillary and Bernie, not that the Globe would ever do this to a Democrat.

BOSTON GLOBE PLAYS THE ONION: Offers Fake Sunday Front Page Mocking President Trump. “Can anyone imagine the outrage that liberal media pundits would have had if say, The New York Post or The Washington Times had created a fake page predicting that President Obama would force people off the insurance they wanted to keep, and food stamp use would soar by 70 percent? Imagine those complaints and transfer them to this: A serious newspaper doesn’t satirize the news. It leaves it to The Onion.”

In a 1974 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show on CBS, Mary, working late one night with Rhoda goading her on, writes a joke obit for Minneapolis’ oldest man – and Ted reads their obit on the air when, of course, the man dies soon afterwards. Lou threatens to suspend Mary, reminding her that “the news is sacred.” (Mind you that the real-life anchorman of CBS during this period Godwinned Barry Goldwater, lied about America losing the Tet Offensive and ran eco-crank stories about “global cooling.”)

Flash-forward to the 21st century, when any pretense that “the news is sacred” has long gone out the window, as the MSM are all but official Democratic Party operatives with bylines.   In September of 2004, Cronkite’s successor Dan Rather lied about George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard record, and fellow anchormen Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings eagerly defended him in the last month of the presidential election. In 2005, the DNC-MSM invented the wildest lies about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina even though, as Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile finally confessed in a 2013 column at CNN “Bush came through on Katrina.”

In 2008, the media lied endlessly about Obama, creating “The Wright-Free Zone” to airbrush away his racist mentor, and simultaneously comparing a failed community organizer turned Chicago machine hack to Lincoln, FDR, JFK – and God Himself. In 2012 Candy Crowley played blocking back to run interference on Obama’s behalf in his debate against Mitt Romney, and the entire MSM conspired to pretend that that Romney’s perfectly defensible 47 percent remark was somehow the end of the world. So no one should be surprised to see the Boston Globe, owned until 2013 by the New York Times, which invented the phrase “fake but accurate” in 2004 running fake news as a front page headline.

“Flashback: When Globe ran fake rape pics, smeared US troops, weaseled on apology,” Glenn tweeted yesterday, linking to this May of 2004 Insta-post.

Related: “Before Predicting the Future, Take a Closer Look at the Present,” the satiric People’s Cube Photoshop blog advises the Globe.

GAP PULLS ‘RACIST’ AD, instead of questioning the assumptions of the SJWs who read racism into an ad where none exists.

Or as James Taranto is wont to say, if you’re hearing dog whistles, you’re the dog.

L.A. TIMES GOES FULL-RACIST: “Does A White Doctor Understand A Black Patient’s Pain?”

Why are Democrat-controlled media institutions such cesspits of anti-science bigotry?

CAMPUS PANIC UPDATE: Indiana University terrified by “Klansman with a whip” who turned out to be a priest in white robes with a rosary.

On Facebook, Jason van Steenwyk comments: “Campus liberals successfully identify 139,563 out of every five actual racists.”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Not renting to criminals is racist, because black people are probably criminals.

And this remains evergreen, alas:

Screen Shot 2015-04-25 at 9.59.38 PM

MEGAN MCARDLE: The Real Victims Of Political Bias On Campus:

Every time I write about bias against conservatives in academia, I can count on a few professors writing me to politely suggest that I have no idea what I’m talking about. Sometimes they aren’t so polite, either. How would I know what goes on in their hiring meetings, their faculty gatherings, their tenure reviews? They’re right there, and they can attest firsthand that there ain’t no bias, no sir!

But none of them can explain why, if that bias doesn’t exist, so many of their conservative and libertarian colleagues feel compelled to hide in the closet. Deep in the closet, behind that plastic zip bag of old winter coats in mothballs, and sealed, with many layers of packing tape, in a box marked “Betamax Tapes: Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon 1981-1987.”

“The modern academy pays lip service to diversity,” notes my colleague Virginia Postrel in a column about “Passing on the Right,” a new book about the conservatives in academia. “Yet as a ‘stigmatized minority,’ the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments.” If conservatives aren’t being discriminated against, then why are so many of them, sitting in those same meetings and tenure reviews, afraid to show their ideological colors? . . .

As it happens, I think there are some justice problems with discriminating against people for their political beliefs, particularly in places that are nominally dedicated to free inquiry. But let’s leave aside those questions, and think about what the politicization of the academy does to the quality of its work.

Consider, for example, a study showing that conservative and libertarian law professors tend to publish more and be cited more than their liberal counterparts. This suggests that schools are effectively engaging in a sort of affirmative action for liberal professors, lowering the intellectual firepower of the teaching staff as a whole. Or consider the way bias can affect the methods researchers use and the questions they ask, potentially leading to invalid results.

But perhaps even more disturbing is the way that this bias alters, and narrows, what gets studied. “Conservatives can safely study ancient history but not modern American history, economics but not sociology,” writes my colleague. “Literature, largely a politics-free zone until the 1980s, has become hostile territory.” This resonates with me, and not just for ideological reasons.

The politicization of the humanities was well under way when I was an English major in the early 1990s, and my education suffered as a result. This wasn’t because I was so oppressed as a conservative, but because in roughly half my classes, there was no easier route to an A than to argue that some long-dead author was a sexist pig, racist cretin or homophobic jerk. Being, like so many college students, not overfond of unnecessary labor, I’m afraid I all too frequently slithered along the easy path to the 4.0.

And students who do this get shortchanged, but their tuition check still clear, so the academy doesn’t particularly care.

IRONY ALERT: CEO WHO LAST YEAR DECLARED ALL AMERICANS RACISTS NOW SEEKS NEW CIVILITY. Howard Schultz Caps Starbucks Annual Meeting with a Call for Civility and Values-Based Leadership:

Viewing the American Dream as a “reservoir” that is replenished with the values, work ethic and integrity of the American people, Schultz said, “Sadly, our reservoir is running dry, depleted by cynicism, despair, division, exclusion, fear and indifference.”

Yes, that can happen, when CEOs and other American elites think the very worst of their customers and decide that they’d rather be SJWs than business executives.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO RACIST? Harry Reid accused of telling candidate to stand down because “a Muslim can’t win.”

DISNEY WENT FULL-ON WHITE SUPREMACIST SO GRADUALLY I BARELY NOTICED: Daily Iowan: Disney’s ‘Zootopia’ is a call to arms for white people.

Zootopia is a film about a young rabbit, Judy Hopps, and her dream to join the police force in the world populated by anthropomorphic mammals. Judy is denied a high position in the police force and is assigned meter-maid duty. All animals are bipedal regardless of their species. The animals that are usually prey in the animal kingdom are the dominant force and look down upon the predators. Throughout the whole world of Zootopia, the predators are bullied by the prey, and this is an amazing shift from reality. There is a strange occurrence happening in the film that involves many predators disappearing and going “savage.” Going savage includes going back to their natural state, which means going back on all fours and attacking prey.

I believe the message present in the film is an allegory to the current status of the white population in contemporary society. The majority of the people who were involved in the writing of this film were white. This aligns with my idea of the allegory present in the movie. The prey are akin to minorities of the world, in the way that they get preyed on by the predators, which are white people.

Stupid Disney. I haven’t trusted them since Pocahontas, which suggested that the Wonder Bra was invented by 17th Century American Indians.

SHOT: ObamaCare Was Going To Lower Health Costs: Here’s What Actually Happened. “In year six, even with lower than anticipated enrollment in the health insurance exchanges and the refusal of 21 states to participate in the law’s Medicaid expansion, the health care cost curve is still on an upwardly mobile trajectory. It is fueled by sharp increases in both public and private health care spending.”

Chaser: “This could have been prevented if someone besides racists and haters could have seen it coming.”

21ST CENTURY HEADLINES: Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day.

INDEED: Belgium attacks renew focus on Europe’s Muslim enclaves.

UPDATE: Europe Is Again at War: It’s time to admit the extent of Europe’s problem with Islamic radicalism. This isn’t mere terrorism any longer, this is guerrilla war.

Belgian intelligence has long been short of funds and personnel and above all any political will to do anything substantive about the country’s vast jihadist problem. Belgium’s chronically dysfunctional politics have played a toxic role, as has the general Western European tendency to avert eyes and hope for the best regarding the growing radicalism of whole swathes of young people in the Muslim ghettos that exist in most of their cities now.

As I’ve explained before, there is no intelligence solution to this problem. Although more funds and better information sharing will surely help prevent some terrorism—and especially catch terrorists after they kill innocents—the threat is now so great, with Europe possessing thousands of homegrown radicals bent on murder, that mere spying cannot prevent all attacks “left of boom” as the professionals put it.

Maintaining 24/7 human and technical surveillance on just one target requires something like two dozen operatives, and even the larger European security services can effectively watch only a few handfuls of would-be terrorists at one time. Even then, mistakes will be made. To say nothing of the alarming progress made by Europe’s jihadists recently in communications security—this was a big reason why November’s Paris attackers were not stopped in time—that is blunting the effective Western counterterrorism methods that have been honed since 9/11. The depressing bottom line is that even the best intelligence cannot compensate for political failings on an epic scale.

Simply put, Europe has imported a major threat into its countries, one that did not exist a couple generations ago. It can be endlessly debated why this problem has grown so serious so quickly—for instance, how much is due to Europe’s failures at assimilation of immigrants versus the innate aggression of some of those immigrants (and their children)?—but that the threat is large and growing can no longer be denied by the sentient.

Just a couple of years ago, people who said this were alarmists, and probably racists, too.


We should expect more guerrilla-like attacks like Brussels yesterday: moderate in scale, relatively easy to plan and execute against soft targets, and utterly terrifying to the public. At some point, angry Europeans, fed up with their supine political class, will begin to strike back, and that’s when the really terrifying scenarios come into play. European security services worry deeply about the next Anders Breivik targeting not fellow Europeans, but Muslim migrants. . . .

When that violence comes, a practically disarmed Europe will be all but powerless to stop it. To take the case of Belgium, at the Cold War’s end a generation ago, its army had seven brigades with 18 infantry battalions, plus some 30 more battalions in the reserve. Today, Belgium’s army has only two brigades and six infantry battalions, some 3,000 bayonets in all. That tiny force would have trouble exerting control over even one bumptious Brussels neighborhood in the event of serious crisis.

Back in 2012, Switzerland conducted military exercises premised on conditions in Europe getting out of control, between migration, radicalism and economic decline. They repeated those exercises the following year, and since then the Swiss, who have a knack for preparing for all contingencies, have warned that Europe’s burgeoning interlinked crises may result in major war. Such warnings were pooh-poohed by EU bien-pensants at the time; now they seem prescient.

Funny how so many things that were pooh-poohed by EU bien-pensants now seem prescient.

And: “It’s difficult to miss that Central Europe, whose illiberal leaders have been castigated by Brussels for their unwillingness to accept Muslim migrants, singularly lack the terrorism and radicalism problems of their EU neighbors to the West. Their standing fast on the migration issue seems wise now.”

MORE: Belgian security official named “Mohamed N.”: Kill Each And Every Jew. ““The word Jew itself is dirty. If I were in Israel, frankly, I would do to the Jews what they do with the Palestinians — slaughter each and every one of them.”

Actually, the Jews haven’t done that with the Palestinians. If they wanted to, they would have done it and succeeded.

ROBBY SOAVE: At Emory University, Writing ‘Trump 2016′ on Sidewalk Is a Racist Microaggression, Unsafe: It’s enough to make you root for Trump. Well, almost. “No wonder so many non-liberal students are cheering for Trump—not because they like him, but because he represents glorious resistance to the noxious political correctness and censorship that has come to define the modern college experience.”

Congratulations, Emory Screaming Campus Garbage Babies. If you can make Reason writers think about voting for Trump, you’ll probably swing the election for him.

And the proper response of Emory’s President Wagner to complaining students was: Shut up, you’re idiots. If this bothers you that much, you don’t belong in college. Would you like me to call your mother to come get you?

YES. NEXT QUESTION? Was Che Guevara a racist and homophobic?

PETER WEHNER SAYS THAT TRUMP IS THE MAN THE FOUNDERS FEARED. But you could just as accurately say that about Obama, though Wehner probably wouldn’t for fear of being called racist. The truth is, we have the electorate, and the culture, that the Founders feared. And we’ve had that for quite a while now, with surprisingly little pushback from the powers that be.

I’M CONVINCED: Ban This Dangerous Weapon Right Now Before More People DieThese are the weapon of choice for serial killers, kidnappers, and racists. The torment must end.

FORMER WAPO LEGEND CARL BERNSTEIN INADVERTENTLY EXPLAINS TRUMP’S RISE.  Carl Bernstein Rejects Comparing Trump to ‘Principled’ Barry Goldwater: “I think Donald Trump is an authoritarian. He’s not an ideologue, he’s not a principled man in the way that Goldwater was….I think that the times are different and I think the people are altogether different,” Bernstein tells CNN’s Don Lemon. Earlier this week, as Mediaite notes, Bernstein “told CNN’s Brian Stelter that Trump is ‘a new kind of fascist in our culture’ with an ‘authoritarian demagogic point of view.’”

I’d much rather a proto-libertarian such as Barry Goldwater as president than a center-left celebrity candidate such as Trump. But to paraphrase the famous sign seen at Tea Party rallies in 2009 which read “It Doesn’t Matter What This Sign Says, You’ll Call It Racism Anyway,” it doesn’t matter who the GOP runs, you’ll call him a Nazi anyway. Celebrities from Louis CK to Sarah Silverman are pulling out all of the fascist references to Trump (Silverman even appeared with a brown uniform and tiny mustache to criticize Trump on Conan O’Brien’s show last week.) But no less a figure than Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News in 1964 insinuated that Goldwater the champion of small government, whose father was Jewish was a Nazi, as left-leaning Cronkite biographer Douglas Brinkley wrote in 2012:

As managing editor of the CBS Evening News, Cronkite seemed to relish pricking Goldwater from time to time for sport. In late July, he introduced a report from CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr, a hard-and-fast liberal working from Munich. With an almost tongue-in-cheek smile, Cronkite said, “Whether or not Senator Goldwater wins the nomination, he is going places, the first place being Germany.” Schorr then went on a tear, saying, “It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign in Bavaria, the center of Germany’s right wing.” The backstory was merely that Goldwater had accepted an invitation from Lieutenant General William Quinn for a quick holiday at Berchtesgaden, a U.S. Army recreational center in Germany. But Schorr made the takeaway point that Berchtesgaden was once “Hitler’s stomping ground.” Goldwater, trying to show off his NATO bona fides, had granted an interview with Der Spiegel in which he mentioned a possible trip to Germany soon. Some Democratic opposition researcher floated the idea that Goldwater was infatuated with the Nazis. It was ugly stuff.

Indeed it was; but then, every Republican presidential candidate, from Thomas Dewey (smeared as a Nazi by no less than Harry Truman) to the present will be attacked by the left in this fashion, no matter his temperament, or his small government, libertarian bona fides. Speaking of temperament, perhaps Bernstein would have preferred a more milquetoast CEO as president than Trump – say, Mitt Romney. But in 2012,  the Daily Beast ran one of Bernstein’s columns titled “Carl Bernstein on Mitt Romney’s Radicalism,” which, as Accuracy in Media noted at the time:

The article is based on anonymous sources who claim to be associated with the “moderate” wing of the GOP and are warning about the “crazy right” that might entice Mitt Romney to govern as an extremist as president. “Plainly put,” Bernstein says, “today’s Republican Party (and its Tea Party wing) represent the first bona fide radical political party to rise to dominance in Washington in nearly 100 years.”

At a time when we have a Democratic Party in power in the White House, led by a politician with links to communists and terrorists in Hawaii and Chicago, the Bernstein article has to be seen as ridiculous on its face. But Bernstein represents the mentality of much of the media who see the far-left orientation of the national Democratic Party as nothing unusual or worth commenting on.

Bernstein’s 2,100-word article is full of bizarre statements about Romney and the GOP.

Alluding to the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement, Bernstein writes, “It represents as extreme a shift in political philosophy as any of the radical ideologies that have prevailed in our history.”

Tea Party members oppose Big Government, excessive federal spending and debt. Bernstein is claiming that it is somehow “radical” to want to return to the founding principles of the United States and save America from financial bankruptcy and economic ruin. Who is the real radical?

To ask the question is to answer it. As Glenn noted earlier, in regards to David Brooks, “The Tea Party movement — which you also failed to understand, and thus mostly despised — was a bourgeois, well-mannered effort (remember how Tea Party protests left the Mall cleaner than before they arrived?) to fix America. It was treated with contempt, smeared as racist, and blocked by a bipartisan coalition of business-as-usual elites. So now you have Trump, who’s not so well-mannered, and his followers, who are not so well-mannered, and you don’t like it.”

Exit quote: “The lowest form of popular culture – lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives – has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.”

Carl Bernstein, 1992. Choose the form of your destructor.

THERE’S SOMETHING GOING ON HERE, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS, DO YOU, MR. BROOKS? “Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else. Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.”

Well, David, you should get out more. You might also try reading InstaPundit regularly. But mostly, you owe a bigger apology than this.

The Tea Party movement — which you also failed to understand, and thus mostly despised — was a bourgeois, well-mannered effort (remember how Tea Party protests left the Mall cleaner than before they arrived?) to fix America. It was treated with contempt, smeared as racist, and blocked by a bipartisan coalition of business-as-usual elites. So now you have Trump, who’s not so well-mannered, and his followers, who are not so well-mannered, and you don’t like it.

RECREATE ’68! (PART II) VIDEO: Harvard students debate whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘[white] privilege.’

There’s a lot of jump cuts in the Drudge-linked post; and I wonder if there’s some “ransom note editing” going on to produce the desired result. On the other hand, regarding what can be heard, as Amy Alkon writes in linking to the clip, “If speaking comprehensibly is part of debating, this starts off with a fail.”

But in any case, haven’t we seen this all before? As veteran lefty author Todd Gitlin wrote in 1987 book, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage:

Over the next few months, Weatherpeople rarely surfaced among unbelievers. When they did, one of their themes was that all white babies were tainted with the original sin of “skin privilege.” “All white babies are pigs,” one Weatherman had insisted in Flint. [Feminist poet] Robin Morgan recounts that one day, a Weatherwoman saw her breastfeeding her baby son in the [radical journal] Rat office. “You have no right to have that pig male baby,” said the Weatherwoman. “How can you say that?” said Morgan. “What should I do?” “Put it in the garbage,” was the answer.

In a December article in the Politico, Josh Zeitz, another lefty historian, suggested that today’s “Campus Protesters Aren’t Reliving the 1960s:”

In some ways it is: Today, as in the 1960s, a collegiate generation raised with an expansive understanding of its own rights and entitlements is fusing macro political issues to personal, everyday experience and demanding changes both in the halls of government and in the college dining hall.

But there is a startling inversion of logic in the progression from the 1960s and today. Fifty years ago, college students self-identified with repressed minorities at home and abroad and demanded freedom from the shackles of in loco parentis supervision and stewardship. They clamored to be treated as emancipated adults and foisted on their elders a noisy and disruptive free speech culture. Today’s students, who are certainly no less politically minded than their forbearers, are demanding the opposite. Far from freeing themselves of stewardship, they demand faculty “create a home” in which they remain children in the protection of more powerful elders. They insist on protection from ideas and voices that upset them and require a nurturing and therapeutic environment that bears no relationship to the real world of politics (or, for that matter, of business, technology, art or culture).

Today’s protesters may think they are marching in the footsteps of those who came before. In fact, they are undoing much of that generation’s enduring accomplishment.

Perhaps – but they’ve sure internalized the radical racist vocabulary of their late 1960s predecessors haven’t they?

WE’RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE’RE HERE TO HELP YOU: Was EPA Unwilling to ‘Go Out on a Limb’ for Flint?

In the depth of Flint, Mich.’s water crisis – months after federal and state officials learned that the city’s tap water showed alarming levels of lead and bacteria but months before they alerted the public – an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official discouraged a colleague from using federal money to buy water filters for the city residents.

“I’m not so sure Flint is the community we want to go out on a limb for,” Region 5 Water Division Branch Chief Debbie Baltazar wrote to the regional administrator and others, in a September email disclosed at a congressional hearing Tuesday. Baltazar went on to express concerns about the city’s past use of sewer and water fees for other priorities.

Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said this and other documents showed a pattern of indifference among federal and state officials toward the plight of the residents of Flint – a largely African American community that is among the poorest and most crime-ridden cities in the country.

“Was this driven by race? Was this driven by the fact that this was a poor city? Was this because they were underserved?” Chairman Justin Chaffetz, R-Utah asked during opening statements.

“Why isn’t Flint the community they go to? Of all the communities out there, the one having the toughest time is the one that needs the most protection.”

Why is the EPA so racist?


A similar thing nearly happened in 2003, when the left tried its damnedest to convince California voters that Arnold Schwarzenegger was Hitler incarnate. The mainstream press portrayed Ah-nuld as a Nazi-loving rapist whose election would lead to Mexicans being sent to death camps as Einsatzgruppen squads turned Home Depot parking lots into killing fields of machine-gunned drywallers. But the right didn’t bite, and neither did Schwarzenegger, who watched his words, made few if any campaign missteps, and generally ran a clean, G-rated, inoffensive campaign, in which he pledged to be one of those jolly, likable, fiscally frugal Eisenhower Republicans that everyone can feel comfortable with.

And California ended up with one of its worst governors ever—a weak, deceitful, corrupt man of no principles who buckled at the first sign of defeat, freed Latino murderers in exchange for political favors, and left the state in economic shambles. A big-borrowing big spender who, after leaving office, straight-out admitted that his candidacy was a “joke” intended to “freak people out,” and that he ran for office with no idea what he would do if he actually won.

Make no mistake, that would most likely be Trump’s trajectory, too. Like the Austrian bodybuilder, Trump is a wealthy, high-profile loudmouth with no plan to govern and no principles to guide him. The major difference between the campaigns of the two egotistical publicity whores is that in 2003, leftist cries of “he’s a racist Nazi fascist” were met with a resounding “no he isn’t” from Schwarzenegger supporters. Today, those same charges are met by Trump fans with “so what if he is?” I’m not defending that response, but I’ll freely admit I find it fascinating. I chalk it up to fatigue. Too many people on the right are sick and tired of being policed on the issue of race, by the mainstream media, by SJWs in every corner of society, and by the brand protectors in their own party.

Or as Kathy Shaidle quipped at the start of the month, “Hitler? Be more worried that Trump will turn out to be like that other Austrian…”

ISN’T EVERYTHING? Sumo Wrestling Fat Suit Declared ‘White Supremacist Racism’ at UC–Davis.

Meanwhile, “Students at Clare College in Cambridge are objecting to an ‘Orient Express’ themed party on the grounds that it’s racist, ‘toxic,’ ‘gross,’ and perpetuates tourist privilege.”

Geez — Hercule Poirot could kick these kids’ asses six ways to Belgium, and not even get a stain on his spats.

Perhaps a nice, relaxing facial would calm the hair-trigger nerves of the average screaming campus garbage baby* on either side of the Atlantic. Oh wait – “U. Wisconsin chancellor mistakes skincare masks for blackface, rips students for ‘racist’ photo.”

Fortunately though, one former college administrator has finally found peace in her safe space – and vice-versa: “Mizzou rejects fired Prof. Melissa Click’s appeal.”

To be fair, her appeal has become awfully selective these days, as Spinal Tap’s manager Ian Faith would say.

* Classical reference.

WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED INDUSTRIES SUCH CESSPITS OF RACISM? Ang Lee, Other Asian Oscar Winners Protest ‘Racist Stereotypes’ to Academy.

Meanwhile, “Black stunt performers: Hollywood’s other* race scandal: The concept of ‘blackface’ feels like an outdated taboo — but white stuntmen and women are still being ‘painted down’ to resemble black stars.”

There’s only one or two racial scandals in Hollywood? Now who’s being naive, Kay?

If we can’t nuke the site from orbit, to borrow a phrase from what in retrospect seems like a Hollywood era as bygone as the days of Bogart, Cary Grant, and Orson Welles, we should definitely repeal the Hollywood tax cuts at a bare minimum. Or bear minimum, as Leonardo Di Caprio would suggest.

SO WHY IS HE DOING SO VERY BADLY IN THE PRIMARIES? Rubio Ranks Only Behind Reagan as a Conservative Communicator.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Marco Rubio is the universal choice for conservatives (if he were, he’d be winning the primary instead of being in grave danger of losing his home state on Tuesday). But I am suggesting that for a segment of movement conservatives, like me, Rubio’s likely unrealized potential cannot be overstated.

Let me be frank. Ronald Reagan was the greatest conservative communicator of my lifetime. Marco Rubio is the second. I’m not sure who’s third.

I’ve always believed, going back to Reagan, that a true conservative could still win in our liberal culture and simultaneously persuade and teach non-conservatives that conservatism was the best philosophy to bring about human flourishing.

Reagan was tough and a populist but, paradoxically, he was conciliatory and cosmopolitan (the toughness was reserved for adversaries, not the public). He won over Americans by the force of his charm, and then persuaded them that his philosophy was correct. He was utterly decent, utterly defensible and utterly likable.

Why did this matter? You’ve got to understand that for my entire life, conservatism has had a bad rap. The perception has that we are mean, evil, or even racist. That’s not who I am, and that’s not what the conservatism I grew up with is. And that’s not who Reagan was, either. And I’ve always believed that dispelling this myth about the “evil, racist, Republican” was at least one of the important functions of a conservatism that wanted to grow.

Now, I’m not naïve enough to think that electing a Hispanic president—a Cuban-American, nonetheless—would suddenly win over Hispanics. But Rubio is fluent in Spanish, and I suspect that four or eight years of appearing on Spanish language media might not hurt.

But it’s more than that. Did you see what happened in, of all places, South Carolina when Gov. Nikki Haley (a female Republican and daughter of immigrants from India) and Sen. Tim Scott (a black Republican) endorsed him? This could be the future of the Republican Party. These are all legitimate conservatives—but a racially diverse group who illustrate the promise that conservatism is a colorblind philosophy that can uplift all Americans.

Yeah, that was a great moment. But who won, again? I mean, I’ve got nothing in particular against Rubio except that he let Chuck Schumer snooker him on immigration, but I keep hearing what a great candidate he is, and he keeps sucking in the actual votes.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE. Call for western civilization courses at Stanford gets backlash:

The Stanford Review’s petition to bring Western Civilization courses back to Stanford has met with some backlash.

Western Civilization courses have been absent from Stanford’s curriculum since the 1980’s when, according to a New York Times article, Rev. Jesse Jackson marched with students to remove the courses. Jackson, along with students, chanted “hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go.” Protesters complained that the Western culture course had “European-Western and male bias,” and “sexist and racist stereotypes.”

As Maggie’s Farm notes, “If people do not know the foundational origins and concepts from the Bible and Aristotle through John Locke and Adam Smith, it seems to me that there is very little that you can read with understanding. It is no ‘triumphalist narrative,’ but just the story of how we got where we are. It’s a map.”

But most colleges today have very different notions of which direction they’d like to send their students off to explore.


Related: “Hold Colleges Accountable to the Real World,” Victor Davis Hanson suggests. Outside of engineering classes, do colleges still believe that reality is, err, real?


SCOTT ADAMS: Can we agree that calling the candidate with German ancestry “Hitler” is racist? “If he were female and Asian – with exactly the same policies – would we be comparing him to Hitler every five seconds? I don’t think so.”

Well, the basic rules are twofold: First, it’s only racist if calling it racist advances the preferred narrative. And second, in the future — by which I mean the present — everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes. This was predicted over a decade ago.

ANN ALTHOUSE POINTS OUT David Brooks’ racist anti-Hispanic “dog whistle.”


Bill Clinton bashes Obama’s ‘pretty picture’ economy, says millions left behind.

Bernie Sanders: ‘Real unemployment’ rate under Obama is 10.5 percent.

“Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans” — says the far left Nation magazine.

“Flint has voted for Dems for 84 straight yrs. What did it get us? For 18 months Dems remained silent & ignored pleas while Flint was poisoned” — says far left moviemaker Michael Moore.

● “Let’s not forget that there are lots of Flints out there. Places where poor people and people of color have been left out and left behind,” Hillary Clinton tweets. In order to correct for the 140-character nature of Twitter, Michelle Malkin completes Hillary thought: “See, for example, America’s most liberal, Democrat-ruled cities.”

Add to that all of the racism and sexism uncovered since 2009 in Hollywood and on college campuses — both under monolithic Democrat control as are the racist cities of Chicago, San Francisco, and other deepest of deep blue enclaves — and it’s obvious that the left are issuing a not-so-silent collective scream begging to be relieved of power for the next four to eight years, a lengthy time-out to analyze where it all went wrong.

DAMAGING HIGHER EDUCATION’S BRAND, ONE DIVERSITY WORKSHOP AT A TIME: Yale students agree their campus restricts free speech.

The panelists discussed the issue using an example from last September when Yale student protesters interrupted former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft during an on-campus lecture.

“The idea that he’s not supposed to come is exactly the kind of threat we’re talking about, whether or not it actually happened doesn’t matter,” said John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University.

“Of course students have a right to say he’s not allowed to come,” Kaminer chimed in. “But to do that shows an intolerance for free speech … and a desire not to hear opposing views.”

Donvan discouraged debaters from discussing last year’s events at Yale when a professor was pushed into resignation for sending out a dissenting letter critical of the university’s attempt to discourage “offensive” Halloween costumes, which sparked several student protests, but the topic naturally came up. . . .

“When someone is told they are racist … in America in 2016,” McWhorter said, “it is practically equivalent to calling them a pedophile.”

Actually, I think that’s in the process of becoming less true.


Harris-Perry has done damage that will last for years, both for her own professional prospects and others who aspire to be like her. Her message to fledgling black, female journalists is clear: if you even suspect that you’re treated differently in a job you may have to work twice as hard for, then stage a public temper tantrum and scream that life isn’t fair. Don’t take the high road. Don’t fight for your show behind closed doors. Don’t quit with dignity if you feel you must. Just yell “racism” and the sympathy will flow. This public display of unprofessionalism is lethal to young minority women who need concrete examples of coping with professional challenges. Harris-Perry is a prime example of what not to do, but I fear that young, idealistic media professionals will imitate her actions and make it more difficult for diversity to thrive in media.

But that was her whole shtick – calling everyone from the CEOs who built America (including by inference, the network that employed her) to those who own its pro sports teams racist – when she wasn’t declaring that kids don’t “belong to their parents,” they “belong to the whole community,” as NewsBusters noted last week in their round up of “Melissa Harris-Perry’s 10 Most Insane Left-Wing Rants.” How else would she have gone out? (I wonder how Sharpton would exit Comcast/NBC — would he have enough self-control to not burn all the bridges, in hopes of landing a similar gig/bestowing protection upon a rival cable network.)

Plus note this:

Racism is a serious and destructive force, responsible for inequality and injustice among black, Hispanic, Asian and many other minority communities. It’s not a bargaining chip in a professional disagreement. Harris-Perry learned that the hard way—let’s hope no others follow suit.

Why would anyone start now, given how cries of racism were weaponized by then-GE-owned MSNBC and other DNC-MSM outlets in 2008 as a tool to advance Obama? Of course, you can only do that so many times before it loses its sting and becomes a joke — hence the sign that started making the rounds at Tea Party rallies in 2009 and 2010: “It doesn’t matter what this sign says, you’ll call it racism anyway.”

Oh and obligatory Jon Gabriel tweet:


(Via Maggie’s Farm.)

WHEN P.C. LEADS TO RACIST SEXUAL STEREOTYPES: University denies racism in expulsion of two black students accused of sexual assault.

Earlier this year, two African-American students filed a lawsuit against their university, alleging racism played a role in the school’s decision to expel them for sexual assault.

The two students had what they described as consensual sex with a white female, and even though the woman bragged to other students about the encounter and every witness present the night of the encounter said it was consensual, the students were expelled.

Now the University of Findlay in Ohio has responded in court to the allegations, denying the most egregious claims.

The lawsuits keep accumulating.

THE COUNTRY’S IN THE BEST OF HANDS: Hillary Clinton promises to ‘get to the bottom of UFO mystery’ if elected, and ‘maybe send a task force’ to alleged alien prison Area 51.

Oh, the nonstop howls of laughter the DNC-MSM would generate on the nightly news if the campaign manager of a Republican presidential candidate was a UFO conspiracist. Instead, silence regarding John Podesta’s UFO obsessions.

IT’S COME TO THIS: How to talk about the new Ghostbusters movie with friends, family, and commenters.

But why would any true SJW bother defending a highly problematic film that’s so obviously racist?

(Via Ace.)


WHEN LEFTIES OR DEMOCRATS DO SOMETHING AWFUL, THE PRESS SHIFTS THE FOCUS TO . . . HOW REPUBLICANS WILL CAPITALIZE ON IT. So the New York Times’ Vivian Yee’s take on the fake hate crime at Albany is this: “It was a turnabout tailor-made to delight conservative media outlets and to ignite social-media recriminations.”

Ann Althouse calls this “scurrilous” and comments: “Why invent delight in the minds of conservatives? That’s really a repackaging of what seems to be your own disappointment that a terrible racist attack didn’t happen! Shameful.”

To be a leftist today is to be sad whenever it turns out that a woman wasn’t raped, or a black person wasn’t lynched. Which is most of the time, it seems. . . .


Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) took to the House floor on Wednesday to suggest NBC has a racial diversity problem in the wake of host Melissa Harris-Perry’s departure from MSNBC.

Gutiérrez said Harris-Perry’s exit after the network pre-empted her show for two consecutive weekends reflected a larger issue at hand. He linked the controversy to the lack of racial minorities among Oscar acting nominees for the second year in a row.

“When NBC has a bad year when it comes to race, or when the Oscars have a couple of bad years when it comes to people of color, these are moments to talk about,” Gutiérrez said while standing next to a poster that read “#NBCsoWhite,” a play on this year’s “OscarsSoWhite” hashtag.

In addition to Harris-Perry, Jose Diaz-Balart’s weekday morning show on MSNBC has been preempted for 2016 presidential campaign coverage, and Alex Wagner will not be getting a planned show.

“I’m sad to see her go,” Gutiérrez said, referring to Harris-Perry. “But I’m even sadder because I don’t think these are isolated cases.”

Why are Democrat-run industries such cesspits of racism?

YEP: How the P.C. Police Propelled Donald Trump: By assailing sensible conservatives as sexists, racists, and imbeciles, they paved the way for a jackass who embodies their worst fears. Trump’s campaign is driven by backlash against PC. “Note, for example, how Trump turned the incident in which Black Lives Matter activists humiliated Sen. Bernie Sanders to his own advantage. He didn’t bother drawing partisan lines or going after Sanders. Trump and his supporters couldn’t care less about any of that, and Trump until that point almost had almost never mentioned Sanders. Instead, he made it clear that he’d never allow himself to be shut down by a mob. That, for his loyalists, was the money shot, especially when Trump pretty much dared BLM to disrupt a Trump event, in effect inviting them for an ass-kicking. A lot of people loved that shtick, because they want to see someone—literally, anyone—stand up to groups like BLM, even if it’s in defense of poor Bernie, because they worry that they’re next for that kind of treatment. . . . The point remains that this is happening not because of an overly rightist GOP, but because American liberals, complacently turning away from the excesses of the left and eviscerating their own moderate wing, have damaged the two-party system to the point that an unhinged billionaire demagogue is raking in support from people who are now more afraid of leftists controlling the Justice Department than they are of Putin or ISIS.”

Choose the form of your destructor.

TRUMP AND THE KKK: Jonah Goldberg offers the best explanation for Trump’s footsie-ing with David Duke on Sunday. As Jonah writes, “the issue for me really isn’t whether Trump is a Klan-loving racist. I never thought that (and you can fall far short of that standard and still not have admirable views on various issues), but that isn’t really what matters in this context:”

Again, the best defense of Trump is that he hates these PC gotcha games by the press. I think that’s plausible and probably explains some of it.

But, denouncing the Klan should be easy. You shouldn’t have to think about it. And you certainly shouldn’t let you’re fear of being called “politically correct” get in the way. That’s beyond asinine. If you want to turn the tables on the interviewer and note that the Klan used to be the militant wing of the Democratic party, go for it. The one thing you shouldn’t do is sound like you’re reluctant to condemn the Klan(!) or that you’re dog-whistling that you don’t really mean it when you do.

Yet when you watch the Tapper interview, it becomes clear what is really going on: He think condemning the Klan will hurt him with conservatives or southerners or both. He needed aides to tell him, “Mr. Trump, sir, it’s okay to disassociate yourself with the KKK.” And so he took to Twitter to clean up the mess he created.

In other words, the issue isn’t that conservative opponents of Trump think he’s a Klan supporting racist, it’s that Trump thinks many of his conservative supporters are. And that’s just one reason I don’t want this guy speaking for me.

Read the whole thing.

Before and after Mitt Romney was shlonged in the 2012 presidential election, Jonah liked to write that Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. Trump does too, only he’s able to disguise it better because of his pushback against PC and because of his decidedly non-patrician tone. The fact that Manhattan limousine leftists such as Vanity Fair’s Graydon Carter, who coined the infamous “short-fingered vulgarian” leitmotif while editing New York’s ur-’80s Spy magazine to describe Trump, have long despised the man as a classic nouveau riche wannabe obviously helps to burnish his conservative street cred. (Most people instinctively know they’d have a lot more fun hanging out with Al Czervik than Judge Elihu Smails.) As I’ve mentioned before, this is very much akin to another former New York Democrat who decided to turn his megaphone towards an eager right-leaning audience, Morton Downey Jr. But Trump’s tone-deafness towards conservatism also explains the clanger last night: “Donald Trump Praises Planned Parenthood Again, Attacks ‘So-Called Conservatives’ Who Disagree.”

Expect a lot more of this between now and August and/or November.

And if Trump wins the White House? As Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal recently noted, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s spectacular-celebrity fueled race to Sacramento, followed by five or so years of inertia because the legendary Hollywood tough guy was terrified of running afoul of the state’s entrenched socialist special interests (unlike Wisconsin’s milquetoast appearing Scott Walker) may be a sneak preview to what’s to come.

See also: Ventura, Jesse.

UPDATE: Heh, indeed.™

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY: FEBRUARY 29, 2008. “Kenyan elders threatened to fine Hillary Clinton for circulating a racist photo of Obama in Muslim garb. The move could have cost her many cows:”

Kenyan elders may impose a fine on U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, payable in livestock, after a photo of her rival Barack Obama in robes dragged their people into the race for the White House.

The picture, which appeared on a U.S. Web site, showed the Illinois senator in a white headdress and traditional Somali attire during a 2006 visit to Wajir in Kenya’s remote northeast.

Obama has battled a whispering campaign by fringe elements who wrongly say he is Muslim and his aides accused Clinton’s campaign of “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering” after the photograph was published.

Wajir elders resolved to file an official complaint with the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, dropping earlier plans to hold a protest after Friday prayers.

They said they would also convene a traditional Somali court to investigate the matter. It can impose fines that are payable in cattle, goats or camels.

Why, it’s like Hillary was the original birther or something. No word yet if swapping cattle futures would have been considered an acceptable payment. I hear Hillary has a few of those to spare – and they’re poised to go up like a rocket.

Barack Obama, Mahmed Hassan,

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, is dressed as a Somali Elder by Sheikh Mahmed Hassan, left, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya, near the borders with Somalia and Ethiopia in this file photo from Aug. 27, 2006. The garb was presented to Obama by elders in Wajir. Obama’s estranged late father was Kenyan and Obama visited the country in 2006, attracting thousands of well-wishers. (AP photo and caption.)


THE OSCARS AREN’T RACIST – THEY’RE STUCK IN THE PAST, Patrick T. Brown posits at Acculturated:

Hollywood, as an industry, had its peak of creativity and influence during the middle of the last century and now sees its stature declining. Returning to mid-20th-century dramas and stories of institutional decline is a two-way mirror that studio executives can’t look away from. Looking back, they remember their glory days of being unchallenged tastemakers and cultural arbiters. At the same time, they see their declining influence foreshadowed in the lost luster of other former titans, such as newspapers, Wall Street titans, and can-do government agencies.

This fading hold on popular culture is seen in the endless iterations of movie franchises. The overwhelming glut of superhero sequels isn’t just indicative of a lack of imagination – it’s an admission that studios are rarely able to bring attendees to theaters without a “pre-sold” property. In the age of iPhones and Netflix, movie releases with Happy Meal tie-ins keep the lights on; and movies that trace the decline of once-powerful institutions are nominated for golden statuettes.

Meanwhile, its grievance-mongers are also holding on to a fading past, as Kevin D. Williamson recently noted:

The activists will never be satisfied, because being unsatisfied — being outraged — is their business. It’s a good business: Universal Studios’ “chief diversity officer” holds the rank of executive vice president. The money in the diversity racket is big: Google is spending $150 million to increase the diversity in its work force, in which whites are slightly underrepresented while Asians are dramatically overrepresented — again, if we’re using U.S. demographics for our point of comparison. And it is by no means clear that we should: Google, like Hollywood, is global.

There is a certain irony to our historical moment: At the very moment when a black American family has reached the apex of American social life — the presidency, and a cute movie about their first date! — African Americans are as a group experiencing a stressful disorientation: The racial dynamic in the United States was, for many years, effectively binary. Not any more. In an increasingly multiracial society whose most prestigious institutions are truly global, African Americans are no longer the moral yardstick by which the American commitment to our liberal founding ideals is measured. In 30 years, it very well may be the case that African Americans are no more of a significant interest group than Vietnamese Americans or Norwegian Americans, and the social and economic success of Nigerian American immigrant families, among others, complicates the meaning of “African American” as a concept, in that these communities are likely to maintain a certain distinctiveness that renders “black” devoid of clear meaning.

That is a big, attractive lever for the Al Sharptons of the world to let go of, which is why we’ll see more #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite rather than less, even as the question becomes less significant nationally.

In a classic example of a blue-on-blue faux-protest, Comcast spokesman and NBC anchor Al Sharpton will be holding a ‘Tune Out Presser’ ahead of tonight’s Oscars.

I’ll avoid the middleman and tune both out, particularly since Hollywood’s retrograde views on race won’t be the only hypocrisy on display tonight: Celebrities to Wear Gun Control Bracelets at Oscars While Surrounded by Massive Increase in Armed Security.

MAKING THE CASE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ex-CIA chief: Armed forces would have to disobey Trump.

See, if a black (or female) Democratic president gave an unlawful order, they’d follow it anyway so as not to be called racist or sexist. So if you’re worried about executive misbehavior, you’ve got to vote for the white male Republican.

UPDATE: Here’s the exchange:

Maher brought up Trump’s pledge to kill family members of Islamic State terrorists. “That never even occurred to you, right?” Maher deadpanned.

“God, no!” Hayden exclaimed. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

Maher responded incredulously, “What? Well, that’s quite a statement, sir.”

“You cannot—you are not committed, you are not required, in fact you’re required to not follow an unlawful order,” Hayden replied. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

“You’ve given us a great reason not to support Trump. There would be a coup in this country,” Maher cracked.

Hayden said he was not sure about “a coup.”

“I think it’s a coup that you said it,” Maher said.

It’s certainly something.

PEGGY NOONAN: Donald Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected:

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that. . . . You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

As I keep saying, we have the worst political class in American history. And people have noticed. There’s no particular reason why the outcome must be good. Bismarck said that God looks after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America, but as Jerry Pournelle noted: “Of course we were a much more devout nation” when Bismarck made that observation.

TEACH STUDENTS NOT TO LIE ABOUT RACISM: Students who falsely reported a racist attack will be charged.

Several students who falsely claimed they were the victims of a race-based attack at the hands of a dozen white people will be charged, most likely with filing a false report.

The three students at the State University of New York at Albany claimed they were attacked by a dozen white people while riding on a bus in January. The alleged attack quickly caught the attention of Black Lives Matter activists, the school’s president and even presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, all of whom condemned the attack before any evidence was provided.

The evidence showed the attack was a hoax, and in fact that one of the alleged victims threw the first punch. Bus cameras also showed that no passengers yelled racial slurs at the students, as they had claimed, but one of the accusers did use a racial slur against a white passenger.

Nonetheless, SUNY Albany President Robert Jones said he was “deeply concerned, saddened and angry about this incident.” He added that “there is no place in the SUNY Albany community for violence, no place for racial intolerance and no place for gender violence.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even tweeted about the incident shortly after protesters took to the campus to decry the alleged assault. Clinton wrote: “There’s no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus.”

One SUNY Albany student actually did become a victim after this story was reported. The brother of one of the accusers — who is a lineman for the San Diego Chargers — threatened a student over Twitter whom he claimed was one of the attackers before quickly deleting the tweet. The threatened student allegedly left school fearing for his safety.

In an odd decision, the Albany County District Attorney actually allowed activists to view evidence of the alleged assault. One activist who viewed the footage of course argued against jailing the accusers, but suggested they apologize.

We cannot keep allowing false accusations to go unpunished.

Nope. And note that the story never quite says that the accusers were black, though it does say that the accused were white. Perhaps if the press abandoned racial double standards in these matters it would help.

WHY ARE LEFTIST MILLENIALS SO RACIST? “Ever since Larry Wilmore launched The Nightly Show on Comedy Central on January 19, 2015, the black comedian has lost 55 percent of the audience he inherited from Stephen Colbert, who moved from The Colbert Report on that cable television channel to The Late Show on CBS. According to Joe Concha of the website, the columnist asserted that Wilmore’s huge drop is due to two factors: ‘He’s not funny. And … pretty much no one is interested.’”

By “no one,” he means the young white leftists whom Viacom’s Comedy Central directs its programming toward. Which brings us to a related query from a month ago: “‘Why Are Americans Ignoring Trevor Noah?’ …Is this a trick question?


A new study purports to show that student loan debt is racist, because areas with higher concentrations of minorities have higher levels of debt.

As with any study claiming that correlation equals oppression, this one has some flaws. One big one, in fact. The bigger reason minorities have more student loan delinquency, which the study’s authors even acknowledge, is that more of them choose lower-paying majors. For example, according to the linked chart from Georgetown University, the field with the second-largest concentration of black majors is Human Services/Community Organization. It may be a noble calling — it’s something President Obama believed in — but it’s also the major that promises the second-lowest payday of all the majors black students tend to choose. Also ranking near the top: Sociology, social work, public administration, and interdisciplinary social sciences — all fine things to study, but none of them promise especially high-paying careers.

Choice of field is one of the leading causes of the gender wage gap as well. Women dominate nine of the top 10 lowest-paying fields while men dominate nine of the top-10 highest-paying fields.


Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 6.21.46 PM

HEH: David Mastio: Think Trump’s troopers are racist? Don’t be so smug: Goofy poll cited by ‘New York Times’ reveals 29% of African-Americans aren’t sure Emancipation Proclamation was a good idea. 40% of Hispanics agree.

In the same Economist /YouGov poll:

15% of American Hispanics agree with those racist Trump supporters: The Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea. A quarter of Hispanics are not sure.

32% of American blacks back President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps during World War II. According to The New York Times analysis of the poll results, that is almost exactly the same percentage as among Trump voters.

More than 30% of those UNDER 30 are not sure that President Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order desegregating the U.S. military was a good idea. 15% are sure it wasn’t. (Incidentally, those who were around back then, the 65 and up crowd, are significantly more likely applaud Truman’s desegregation order than kids today.)

43% of likely Democratic primary voters, a very liberal slice of America, approve of President George W. Bush’s pro-torture executive order after 9/11.

So, are America’s Hispanics nearly as racist as Trump supporters? Do a third of African-Americans have it in for their Asian countrymen? Are kids raised in the 1980s and later more resistant to desegregation than Americans born when Jim Crow was a thing? Do liberals love waterboarding?

Uh, no.

Here’s something that might put things in perspective: If you dig deep into the confusing Economist/YouGov online poll, you find that only 71% of American blacks approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. Five percent definitely disapprove of Lincoln’s action and 24% just aren’t sure.

It’s as if America’s educational system — and its pollsters and media — are run by people who just don’t do a very good job.

GOOSE, MEET GANDER: How Biden killed John Roberts’s nomination in 1992.

In 1992, then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden launched a preemptive attack on any nominee President George H.W. Bush named to the Supreme Court, warning that if Bush tapped someone, Biden’s committee “should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination . . . until after the political campaign season is over.”

While Biden did not get the chance to kill a Supreme Court nomination that year, he did kill the nomination of a future chief justice of the Supreme Court — John G. Roberts Jr.

On Jan. 27, 1992, President Bush nominated Roberts to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts was immensely qualified for the job. He had served since 1989 as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court, making him one of the country’s most experienced Supreme Court litigators.

But his nomination to the federal bench was dead on arrival at Biden’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden refused to even hold a hearing on Roberts’s nomination, much less a vote in committee or on the Senate floor. Roberts’s nomination died in committee and was withdrawn on Oct. 8, 1992. It was only about a decade later that he was re-nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush — and we all know the rest of the story.

Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing.

It’s different with Obama appointments, though, because argle bargle you’re a racist.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT LENA DUNHAM’S ALMA MATER: Oberlin Professor Claims Israel Was Behind 9/11, ISIS, Charlie Hebdo Attack:

Joy Karega, an assistant professor of Rhetoric and Composition, shared a graphic shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shooting last year of an ISIS terrorist pulling off a mask resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The terrorist has a tattoo with a Star of David and the acronym “JSIL” – presumably a Jewish version of ISIL/ISIS. The picture includes graphic text implying that the murder of cartoonists was a “false flag” conspiracy designed to stop French support for Palestinians. In the accompanying status, Karega wrote, “This ain’t even hard. They unleashed Mossad on France and it’s clear why.”

Related: David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy spots “a Facebook post by a recent Oberlin alumna, clearly a political progressive herself, recounting…multiple students [who] dismissively referred to the Holocaust as ‘white on white crime,’ as if the ‘progressive’ students there found it impossible to conceive of horrific racist violence outside the parameters of paradigmatic examples of racist violence in the United States.”

Gee — where would Oberlin students get such thoughts?

NO BUSINESS HATES ITS CUSTOMERS LIKE THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY: The L.A. Times and the New York Times both agree: all of their white readers are hopeless racists.

Related: David Horowitz’s upcoming book is titled Progressive Racism, in which Horowitz asks, “How did the civil rights movement transform from a cause opposing racism into a movement endorsing racial preferences and privileges for select groups based on their skin color?” Sounds rather timely, based on the sulfurous thoughts emanating from today’s colleges and newspapers.

I’M TAKING THIS AS VIACOM’S OFFICIAL CORPORATE OPINION ON THE TOPIC: Comedy Central’s Nightly Show: Rubio and Cruz Aren’t Really Hispanic:

Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz weren’t Hispanic enough for the Monday panel of Comedy Central’s Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore.

“Why do you think Cruz and Rubio don’t really embrace their Hispanic heritage?” host Larry Wilmore asked.

“Whoa! They’re Hispanic?” joked Nickelodeon host Jordan Carlos.

Wilmore asked if they only used their Hispanic identity when convenient. “That’s what will what they do, they use it when it’s convenient,” agreed contributor Grace Parra.

Two observations: Why is the DNC-MSM so utterly racist? And second, I thought Wilmore’s race card had already maxed out long ago. At least, that’s what Jon Stewart said on the air about Wilmore in 2010.


His theme is pride — self esteem. I think the message is: Even if you’re poorly educated — especially if you are poorly educated — you are smart, and you are American, and you should feel great. All those other politicians look down on you, and they look down on the country. They insult it. They use the worst insults, like “racist.” They’d have you believe that it’s racist to say “Make America great again” and to want to preserve the benefits of America for Americans and to increase those selfishly guarded benefits. But it’s not something to be ashamed of, it’s being smart. And he’s very smart, and we — you, with me leading the way — “are going to be the smart people.”

An interesting blend of traditional rightish slogans (America is great) and leftish ones (we’re the smart people). And a natural response to a ruling class that doesn’t much care for the country it rules, and that has gotten uninterested in hiding the fact.

And entirely separately, a big-time journalist — you’d recognize his name — sent me these texts:

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 11.37.18 AM

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 12.21.35 PM

The well-educated have been flattered beyond their deserts for decades, so it’s only fair. And Trump is, in a weird way, a kind of egalitarian: He thinks he’s so great that everybody else is equal in comparison. His message is “I’m great and you can be too.” Sure, maybe not as great as him, but still really, really great.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: “Last night a disturbing racist post that was made to social media was brought to my attention.”

“This post was hurtful and destructive to our campus community. While social media can certainly bring about positive change, it can also be a place that deeply hurts and harms others.”

Said the statement by the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater chancellor about a Snapchat photograph of 2 students who posed in the middle of having a facial that had dark goo spread on their faces. The students say they just thought it looked funny and had no thought of imitating black people.

We’re told the students won’t face any discipline — why would they? — but that “Following the incident and the reaction caused by the image, the college is planning to host a number of race awareness seminars for staff and students.”

A better idea: Resign, and do something you’re qualified to do, like clean out chicken coops. Plus, a pointed criticism of Chancellor Beverly Kopper: “Is there a policy for when it’s appropriate for university officials to describe student speech as ‘racist’? The university should want all students to feel welcome, but part of welcoming all students is taking care to understand and not to mischaracterize what individual students are saying and doing.”

They don’t really want all students to feel welcome. They want certain students to feel welcome, and the rest to feel like they’re constantly walking on eggshells.

NO, THIS ISN’T A PARODY: Schoolwork, advocacy place strain on student activists: Students struggle with mental health, academic pressures as they act on social justice responsibilities.

Two weeks ago, the University released the final version of its diversity and inclusion action plan, which could not have been compiled without the exhaustive efforts of students throughout last semester.

“There are people breaking down, dropping out of classes and failing classes because of the activism work they are taking on,” said David, an undergraduate whose name has been changed to preserve anonymity. Throughout the year, he has worked to confront issues of racism and diversity on campus.

His role as a student activist has taken a toll on his mental, physical and emotional health. “My grades dropped dramatically. My health completely changed. I lost weight. I’m on antidepressants and anti-anxiety pills right now. (Counseling and Psychological Services) counselors called me. I had deans calling me to make sure I was okay,” he said.

As students rallied to protest two racist columns published by The Herald and the alleged assault of a Latinx student from Dartmouth by a Department of Public Safety officer, David spent numerous hours organizing demonstrations with fellow activists. Meanwhile, he struggled to balance his classes, job and social life with the activism to which he feels so dedicated. Stressors and triggers flooded his life constantly, he said.

David turned to CAPS and reached out to deans for notes that extended his deadlines for assignments. These were helpful, he said, but acted only as “bandages” for the underlying causes of stress.

Justice Gaines ’16, who uses the pronouns xe, xem and xyr, said student activism efforts on campus are necessary. “I don’t feel okay with seeing students go through hardships without helping and organizing to make things better.”

In the wake of The Herald’s opinion pieces, Gaines felt overwhelmed by emotions flooding across campus. Students were called out of class into organizing meetings, and xe felt pressure to help xyr peers cope with what was going on, xe said. Gaines “had a panic attack and couldn’t go to class for several days.” . . .

Other students have also seen their academic work impacted by their efforts to advance social justice causes. This past semester, David spent class time on his activist work in order to address a time-sensitive issue. As a result, one of David’s professors lowered his grade because he was distracted in class, he said.

Sampedro was also on the committee that planned workshops for the Latinx Ivy League Conference, including Paxson’s presentation to students following the assault by a DPS officer on a student earlier that weekend. “I remember seeing all the tears in the room — that was traumatizing — and then not being able to focus on my homework,” she said. “Homework was the least of my worries.”

This is the Ivy League. Really, why not just abolish it?

ONLY NOW, AT THE END, DO THEY UNDERSTAND: Stephen Fry is just the latest victim in the authoritarian Left’s war on funny — Humour becomes all but impossible in an era when noisy mobs of self-styled holders of correct opinions are myopically policing what we say.

A half century ago, when the British left was waging war against the postwar “establishment,” it was the so-called “satire boom” that gave them a major foothold. Fry is simply asking his fellow revolutionaries to please devour him last.

TRANSLATION: HE’LL CALL THEM RACIST IN BETWEEN ROUNDS OF GOLF. Roll Call: Obama Plans ‘Robust Engagement’ With Congress on Court Nominee.

White House officials plan to conduct “robust engagement” with Congress throughout the entire process of nominating a Supreme Court justice to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia, according to White House spokesman Eric Schultz.

President Barack Obama wanted to take time after Scalia’s death and go through the nomination process in “a thoughtful and rigorous way,” Schultz told reporters at a news conference Monday in California. “So I expect that when the Senate returns within due time, the president will identify and announce a nominee.”

Schultz declined to further sharpen the timeline for announcing a pick or elaborate about potential nominees. Since the news Saturday of Scalia’s death, the White House has heard from lawmakers who reached out to the president, Schultz said.

“White House officials have been engaged with congressional offices, primarily on the Senate side, but both Democrat and Republican offices,” Schultz told reporters. “Those conversations have been preliminary in nature but are a signal that we plan on conducting robust engagement throughout this entire process.”

“And then we’re also proactively reaching out to key offices,” Schultz said. “I don’t have a list here to detail. But I think in the coming days, that engagement and that outreach will become more extensive.”

Although “engagement and outreach” probably means “pointing out what the NSA knows about you.”

I REMEMBER WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THIS WERE RACIST XENOPHOBES: Secretary Of State Kerry: Migrant Wave Poses “Existential Threat” To Europe.

HILLARYCO’S NEW LINE — BERNIE’S RACIST! Black Congressional Leader Says Bernie Sanders Has a ‘Very Troubling’ Record.

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.

*/ ?>