Search Results

RACISTS: The Hill: Teachers’ Unions Turn On Obama.

ERIC HOLDER: If You Oppose Obama, It’s Probably Because You’re A Racist.

THAT’S HIS JOB: RUNNING INTERFERENCE FOR CROOKS AND INCOMPETENTS. Elijah Cummings: The Democrats’ first line of defense against Republican attacks. And if you criticize him for that, you’re racist.

REALLY? “WE?” We Are Making Ebola Outbreaks Worse by Cutting Down Forests. Well, I haven’t cut down any forests. But if you replaced “we” with “Africans,” some people might think you were racist or something.

PREP SCHOOL STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT forced out over racist, sexist remarks.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: In Search Of What You Resent.

Maliki failed to grasp that Obama had even less trust in the influence of America to do good things abroad than did Maliki himself. But the larger irony is that now Maliki is begging for a return of American hard power to save his government from those killers that his policies helped create. In extremis, he understands that no other country would depose an oil-rich tyrant, stay on to foster democracy, leave the oil to its owners, and then leave when asked — and finally consider coming back to the rescue of an abject ingrate.

The Latin America narrative in the age of Obama — often best characterized in Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, or Venezuela — is little empathy south of the border for the Yanqui paradigm of free-market democratic capitalism. The stale 1960s rhetoric of colonialist, imperialist, racist, etc. is back in vogue in much of Latin America, and Mexico as well, encouraged by an administration that itself is unlikely to defend present or past U.S. conduct.

Likewise the themes of most Chicano-Latino studies programs in the U.S. are American culpability, racism, and colonialism — the same old, same old whine of the myriad faults of the U.S. In my community, the time it takes a first-generation foreign national to cross the border illegally, and then to develop a sort of resentment toward the U.S. and a romance about the birthplace he abandoned, seems about five years.

Why then are tens of thousands of Latin Americans willingly flooding into a supposedly racist country where cutthroat capitalism ignores the poor and the oppressed such as themselves? In most past polls of Mexican citizens, two general themes often show up: the majority of Mexican nationals believe that the American Southwest still should belong to Mexico, and a sizable minority would like to leave Mexico for the U.S. You figure out the mentality.

I don’t have to figure it out, and I don’t have to respect it. Or the people who do.

JIM TREACHER: Is Anybody Really Surprised That Whoopi Goldberg Is A Racist?

JAMES TARANTO: Walmart and Welfare: Low-wage employers aren’t to blame for food stamps.

David Tovar, Walmart’s vice president for corporate communications, certainly earned his paycheck last week by preparing a devastating Harpers magazine-style annotation of a column by the New York Times’s Timothy Egan. Egan denounced Walmart for poor corporate citizenship, a metaphor that he seems to take literally: “As long as the Supreme Court says that corporations are citizens, they may as well act like them.”

(As an aside, that’s an embarrassing error Tovar doesn’t correct. The court has never said corporations are citizens. Presumably Egan has in mind the court’s findings that the government may not infringe on free speech merely because it comes from an incorporated organization. But the right to free speech–unlike, say, the right to vote or run for office–belongs not only to citizens.) . . .

This columnist has no particular interest in Walmart, apart from shopping there on occasion, but we’d like to take a deeper conceptual look at Egan’s argument, which is far from original to him (we rebutted a version of it last month).

The complaint about food stamps (and other welfare programs) seems to be an effort at a cross-ideological appeal. Normally the left not only doesn’t object to food stamps but claims that objections should be out of bounds: In 2011, as the Daily Caller noted, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews accused Newt Gingrich of “talking in this dog whistle like the white racists” because Gingrich had called Barack Obama “the food stamp president” owing to the explosion in the number of beneficiaries during his presidency. But all taboos are off when liberals can vilify a big corporation, especially one they see as déclassé.

The notion is that food stamps amount to a sort of corporate welfare for Walmart and other employers of low-wage workers. But that makes no sense.

Walmart, after all, does not set eligibility standards for food stamps, a program created by Congress and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The benefits go to individuals with low incomes, whether they work or not. (True, Walmart is an indirect beneficiary of the food-stamp program in its capacity as a retailer of food. But its critics never give it credit for helping beneficiaries stretch their food-stamp dollars by selling food at low prices.)

Contrary to Egan’s needlessly repeated claim, Walmart does not force anyone to collect food stamps. Those who are eligible need not enroll in the program, and Walmart employees who are eligible would not lose their eligibility by quitting.

But it’s a Democratic talking point.

POLITICO: Dana Milbank’s Heritage Disaster. A racist smear that failed because there was video.

Reminds me of this from Drudge:

Screen Shot 2014-01-01 at 8.22.22 AM

JOHN HINDERAKER: Smearing Scott Walker. If you’re a Republican who’s a threat to the Democrats, of course you’re a racist. That’s the definition of a racist, nowadays . . .

RON FOURNIER: ‘I’ve Had Enough:’ When Democrats Quit on Obama: Bergdahl swap is latest last straw for top Democrats frustrated with president’s leadership. Who knew so many Dems would turn racist in 2014?

RUSSELL BERMAN: The New American Isolationism. I’m opposed to isolationism in general, but with Obama so clearly inept, a do-nothing strategy may be the most prudent thing for the next couple of years.

Related: Walter Russell Mead: Obama’s Failing Foreign Policy, Groping For A Reset. “You don’t demonstrate your mastery of world events by making smart speeches about how intelligent your foreign policy is; you demonstrate your mastery of world events by having things go your way.” Well, that goes beyond the core competency. Plus, from the comments: “Some of us saw this coming a mile away. But we’re racists and bitter clingers.”


TODD ZYWICKI on “Operation Choke Point.”

The Justice Department’s “Operation Choke Point” initiative has been shrouded in secrecy, but now it is starting to come to light. I first heard about the program in January through this article and since then it has been difficult to discover details about it. It is so named because through strangling the providers of financial services to the targeted industries, the government can “choke off” the oxygen (money) needed for these industries to survive. Without an ability to process payments, the businesses – especially online vendors — cannot survive.

The general outline is the DOJ and bank regulators are putting the screws to banks and other third-party payment processors to refuse banking services to companies and industries that are deemed to pose a “reputation risk” to the bank. Most controversially, the list of dubious industries is populated by enterprises that are entirely, or at least generally, legal. Tom Blumer’s extremely informative post summarizing what is known to date about Operation Choke Point reproduces the list, which includes things such as ammunition sales, escort services, get-quick-rich schemes, on-line gambling, “racist materials” and payday loans. Quite obviously, some of these things are not like the other; moreover, just because there are some bad apples within a legal industry doesn’t justify effectively destroying a legal industry through secret executive fiat.

Especially ironic, of course, is that while the DOJ and bank regulators are choking off financial services to legal industries, they are also encouraging banks to provide banking services to illegal marijuana sales. . . . The larger legal and regulatory issue here is the expansive use of the vague and subjective standard of “reputation risk” to target these industries. In a letter to Janet Yellen, the chair of the Federal Reserve, last week, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling expressed concern over the growing use of “reputation risk” as a vehicle for attacking legal businesses. Is there any discernible principle as to why, for example, a payday lender or firearms dealer poses a “reputation risk” and an abortion provider does not?

I don’t understand why this isn’t simply a conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights, and actionable as such.

I’VE WONDERED ABOUT THIS MYSELF: Does Donald Sterling Have Dementia?

WELL, THEY’RE OBVIOUSLY RACISTS: The Hill: Senate Dems Pound Obama Judge Pick Michael Boggs.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday suggested President Obama’s nominee for a federal court in Georgia is in trouble.

The Democrats said they have deep concerns with Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs’s voting record as a former state legislator, particularly on abortion, gay rights and civil liberties.

They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, a Democratic Senate would pound judicial nominees for troglodytic views. And they were right!


North Korean screed against Obama illustrates ‘race-based’ worldview.

— Headline, the Washington Post, today.

WaPo’s Insanely Racist Attack on Tim Scott

— Headline, Commentary, today.

DEMOCRATS ADMIRE THIS RACIST & EUGENICIST:    A newly rediscovered video of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is revealing just how racist this pioneering eugenicist and hero of the political left was.  Concludes Arina Grossu in her Washington Times op-ed, “a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions [are] tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.”

Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009, declaring enthusiastically,  “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously . . . . I am really in awe of her.”

But of course it’s the Republicans who are waging the War on Women, particularly minority women, at least according to the DCCC.


“The profile [of President Obama] that I published in the New Yorker was somebody that eerily, eerily seemed to be claiming himself–it was a sense of not giving up, but of deep frustration–that was the profile that I published in the New Yorker. Somebody frustrated and disappointed,” said [David] Remnick, who has proven to be deeply sympathetic to this president.

“And that’s what’s frustrating to me sometimes about Obama is that the world seems to disappoint him,” he continued to laughter from others on the TV set. “Republicans disappoint him, Bashar al-Assad disappoints him, Putin as well. And the fighting spirit sometimes is lacking in the performative aspects of the presidency.”

“Obama’s sad little minions are now touting his sociopathy as a benefit. It’s our fault that Barry is so very uncomfortable with reality. We’re to blame for his inability to see the world as it is, not as he’d like it to be,” Jim Treacher writes in response. “Nothing is ever his fault. How could it be, you racist hillbilly teabaggers?”

Heh. Actually though, Obama’s minions were touting his sociopathy as a benefit as soon as it became too obvious to ignore. In 2009, the media – who view the world through print, the camera lens, and leftwing groupthink — excused away Obama’s myriad flaws and massive ego combined with a staggering naivety about the world by dubbing him “President Spock.” This helped, at least temporarily, to explain away his lifetime spent trapped in the academic-political bubble, rather than the real world of business or even actual executive accomplishments in political office being being dubbed leader of the free world. But sooner or later, President Spock had to attempt to govern, and Remnick’s pathetic summation today — too much apparently for even MSNBC — is merely the latest apology by the media for their original lack of vetting.

Related: It’s a World of Wonder

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Who Among Us Will Cast the First Bid for Donald Sterling’s Clippers?

Unlike Mr. Bundy, Donald Sterling had a long history not just of racist speech, but also of racially intolerant behavior—and yet was slated to receive—for a second time—a lifetime achievement award from the Los Angeles chapter of NAACP.

Why? Perhaps ask the now former president of that NAACP chapter why it is awarding Al Sharpton its first “Person of the Year” award—Sharpton, the well-known race-baiting, former FBI informant, demagogic instigator of riot and mayhem, tax delinquent, and on the record anti-Semite, and homophobe (“Greek homos”), and frequent White House guest (what does one have to do not to be invited to the White House?). At least, the NAACP does not use a racial standard to honor bigots.

Could Sharpton buy an NBA franchise?

Then there is the issue of the players. Is private racist speech worse than public racist and homophobic remarks from the likes of superstars like Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant, and a host of others? How about felonious behavior? Are there NBA players now in the game who have been convicted of crimes? Are former NBA felons, murderers, thieves, and rapists banned for life from attending NBA games?

Read the whole thing.

LIBERAL RACISM:   It’s been fascinating to watch the ultra-liberal MSM work overtime to portray LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling as a Republican, which is necessary to fit with their Republicans-are-per-se-racist (and Democrats are not) narrative.  But as Derek Hunter points out in this Townhall piece, the liberals/progressives are overtly– and unapologetically–racist toward any minority that disagrees with their position.  Witness the recent characterization by U.S. Rep Bennie Thompson (D-MS) of Justice Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom.”  Says Hunter:

Democrats have locked up the black vote for generations not because they’ve solved any problems in the black community – those they’ve attempted to address have done nothing but get worse – but because they’ve cynically, and diabolically injected race into every issue and labeled with “otherness,” anyone who strays from the orthodoxy they’ve deemed “acceptable thought” for black Americans.

The liberal/progressive PC police for African-American thought are ruthless indeed.  So this is Obama-led, post-racial America?

BLUE RACISM: The Most Racist City In America? Boston.

SLATE: Donald Sterling Is a Vile Racist: But even a horrible human being doesn’t deserve to have his property stripped away. “A private citizen whose private thoughts were audio-taped (perhaps illegally) has been told he can no longer own his private property because of the thoughts that were revealed on that tape. These thoughts were loathsome to be sure, but didn’t advocate anything illegal and didn’t call for any violent or even literally hurtful actions.” Sorry, that’s pre-Obama Era thinking. Now, anyone who offends the collective is fair game.

Though given that, at this point, Sterling doesn’t have much to lose, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him strike back. The ex-Mistress is an obvious target for a lawsuit, since her recording was illegal in California, I believe. And if, as I saw some talking head saying on CNN this morning, the NBA’s charter doesn’t specifically address this kind of thing, he might be able to sue them for civil rights conspiracy: Combining to punish him for free expression. The damages might be large, and the litigation would be extensive and involve a lot of discovery, and a lot of closely held NBA financial information would probably become public.

I’d do it, if I were him, but I was always a Samson-in-the-temple kind of guy. And if I were an 81-year-old billionaire who’d been savaged in public for weeks, I’d probably be more inclined to do so.

UPDATE: This analysis from Sports Illustrated misses the civil rights conspiracy angle, but is otherwise pretty sound. Note this:

Sterling suing may lead to pretrial discovery, which could be designed in part to embarrass other owners and NBA officials of any bigoted remarks or beliefs on their part. Keep in mind, if Sterling is ousted because of racism, he would likely demand that evidence showing that other owners and officials are also racist be shared. He would use such information to portray his penalty as unwarranted and contradicted by the conduct of those who ousted him. Sterling might request emails and other records from owners and officials that depict them in a negative light. Sterling has owned the Clippers for 33 years, which suggests that he has had many interactions — including private conversations with league officials and owners. If there are other owners who are racist or bigoted, it stands to reason Sterling knows who they are.

There’s a gold mine out there. And they’ll have to be worried that there are tapes, since apparently the NBA is one big Watergate. “The NBA is starting to resemble the Watergate era now that it is known that current Celtics assistant coach Dan Erman was fired from the Golden State Warriors for taping private conversations by coaches and players. The Warriors termination of Erman comes on the heels of Clippers owner Donald Sterling being fired for having his private conversation recorded, which unveiled his racial bigotry.”

ROGER KIMBALL: “Daniela Hernandez: who’s that? Why that’s the ever-so-sensitive junior at Dartmouth who shut down a charity event, intended to benefit cardiac patients, because she found the theme of the event—’Phiesta,’ i.e. ‘Fiesta’—offensive.” Even more offensive is that Dartmouth’s lame, PC administration went along. So, you’re supposed to embrace other cultures, but you can’t use their words because that might be racist or something? I guess the only way to prevent that is to segregate schools by race, ethnicity, and gender so that no one is offended. Progressivism: Back to the future!

Roger observes: “There has been a lot of talk recently about the ‘higher education bubble,’ and no wonder. By reneging on their obligation to foster independence and free inquiry, those privileged bastions have utterly forfeited the moral authority our society invested in them. The accumulation of repulsive and cowardly episodes like this one at Dartmouth will sooner or later—probably sooner—erode pubic trust to the point that the entire higher educational establishment will implode.” Why spend six-figure sums to subject your kids to this sort of absurdity?

IS THIS BECAUSE THEY’RE SUCCESSFUL? BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS KIND OF RACIST: Latino assemblyman: Asians not ‘people of color.’

WELL, HE CAN’T REALLY BE “FIRED” SINCE HE OWNS THE TEAM. ALSO, ISN’T HE A DEMOCRAT? THAT SHOULD HELP. Nick Gillespie: Should NBA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling be Fired for Racist Remarks? Scheduled to Get NAACP Award on May 15.

DEMOCRATIC DONOR UNLEASHES RACIST TIRADE: Ed Driscoll: Sterling Cooper Clipper Meltdown.

AVRIL LAVIGNE PICKED THE WRONG WEEK TO GO ALL RACIST. And I definitely picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

RACIST POLITICAL SPEECH IN ILLINOIS: Democratic Governor Compares Black Republicans To Jewish Nazis.

Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is in some hot water with the Jewish community after his campaign tweeted—and then quietly deleted—several messages urging backers to read an article comparing black Republican voters to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.

Chicago Sun Times readers were stunned last week to find that writer Neil Steinberg has penned a column comparing black supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis against their brethren. . . .

Quinn’s camp praised the piece and tweeted it out to supporters several times. The tweets were deleted after local Jewish community officials quietly communicated their outrage to the governor.

If he’d been a Republican, the outrage probably would have been noisier.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Professor: Republicans are ‘Racist, Misogynist, Money-Grubbing People.’ . . . If GOP Wins Universities Will Close.

Well, they’ll close either way, actually. But clowns like this are accelerating the decline by undermining their value. A six-figure cost to attend a center of left-wing agitprop and not much else is a poor deal.

JAMES TARANTO: Race Against Time: Is there a high-minded justification for Dems’ divisive rhetoric?

This column probably isn’t the first to notice a recent intensification of liberal and Democratic rhetoric about race. Last month Paul Ryan was the object of a Two Minutes Hate for some comments on the culture of poverty “in our inner cities,” which, as The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, were no different in substance from things President Obama had recently said.

This Sunday, as Politico notes, Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told CNN’s Candy Crowley that “to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism.” He did allow that “not all” House Republicans are racist, though he didn’t specify how many or which ones he thinks are.

Last Wednesday Eric Holder, in a speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, complained that he had faced “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” ABC News reports. “Look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Although Holder didn’t specifically accuse his adversaries of racial motives, others, including Crowley, assumed that was what he meant. Politico reports that in her interview with Israel, “Crowley said that Holder believes ‘the treatment he has received in the House . . . would not have happened if he were not African-American.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, appearing on Sharpton’s MSNBC show, went so far as to suggest that Republicans had been soft on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius because she’s white, as the Daily Caller reports incredulously.

For this rise in the racial temperature we blame not global warming but political cooling. As November approaches, Democrats face not only an unfavorable election map but an increasingly chilly electorate. From last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza pulled presidential approval numbers for four key Democratic constituencies. Obama was below 50% among three of those groups: single women (48%, to 45% disapproval), Hispanics (49% to 46%), and voters under 30 (45% to 48%). Only among blacks was approval still strong, 78% to 12% disapproval.

By way of comparison, in 2012 Obama won the votes of 67% of single women, 71% of Hispanics, 60% of under-30 voters and 93% of blacks. It’s reasonable to surmise that the racial appeals are a reaction to this desperate political situation, an effort to minimize Democratic losses by motivating the party’s base to turn out.

My advice to Republicans is to target the Dem base with ads showing how they’ve been betrayed. The truth should be enough to get them to stay home.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Coalition of the Disappointed: Obama fires up racial and gender resentments to get out the vote. Telling, isn’t it, that at this point in his Presidency he doesn’t have any actual, you know, achievements to stress?

If I were the GOP, I’d be targeting Obama’s base with ads and messaging stressing how much worse off they are than they were six years ago. It wouldn’t be hard. That said, the GOP hasn’t been very smart about such things — ironically, because they’re afraid of being called racists.

JUST AS ALL CRITICISM OF BARACK OBAMA HAS TO BE RACIST, ALL CRITICISM OF HILLARY WILL BE DEEMED SEXIST: Media Matters writer cries sexism over column critical of Hillary Clinton. That’s how you have to play it, when your candidate can’t withstand normal criticism.

STANDING UP TO THE RACIST BULLIES OF THE LEFT: Dropbox Unswayed By Anti-Condi #DropDropbox Campaign.

Related: Dropbox, Condoleezza Rice controversy: More proof liberals are the new intolerants.


OVER ON TWITTER, R.D. Brewer writes, “Would it be too much to ask for the establishment GOP to become better politicians?”

And apparently, the answer is yes, it is too much to ask. I mean, look: I understand that the NRSC is an incumbent-protection club. That’s basically its job. But to introduce baseless charges of neo-Confederate racism in a GOP primary is beyond inept. Honestly, if you can’t find a real, instead of imagined, problem with a primary challenger then tout the virtues of your guy. And if your guy doesn’t have any virtues to tout that would be better than a baseless charge of neo-Confederate racism, then maybe just keep your mouth shut.

Good grief. You want party unity, don’t falsely tar fellow Republicans, and their grassroots supporters, as racists. Are you trying to get people to stay home in November?


The comparatively wealthy Hollywood film industry is, once again, fighting for hundreds of millions of your tax dollars, pitting California and Los Angeles against cross-country locales that are also giving up public incentives for the chance to host productions.

Politicians often fall over themselves in order to give your tax money to multi-billion-dollar media corporations despite these factors: Studies show the return is negligible; ultra-white Hollywood doesn’t hire a workforce that even comes close to reflecting L.A. (or even America); and the industry appears to rely heavily on workers imported from out-of-state.

I say, repeal the Hollywood tax cuts!

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Judging Obama’s Economy By His Own Promises. I’m sure that’s racist, somehow.

SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE A LOT MORE RACISM HOAXES THAN THERE ARE ACTUAL EPISODES OF RACISM: Racist dorm door writing was hoax, Grand Valley State U police say.

MESSAGING: The Gadsden Flag: Too Racist for Government Buildings, But Just Right for Obamacare Propaganda! Only a historical illiterate — which is to say, pretty much all modern lefties — would think there’s anything racist about the Gadsden Flag. As for the ObamaCare version, well, that’s just pathetic.

MEDIAITE: Rothman: The Left’s Laughable Effort to Label Paul Ryan ‘Racist’ Crumbles. Yes, but just as the Koch attacks aren’t really about the Kochs, but about discouraging other rich people from becoming donors, so the racial attacks on Paul Ryan aren’t so much about Paul Ryan as about discouraging Republicans from talking about poverty.

ROGER SIMON: “Whatever you think of Rand Paul, he’s actually doing something that politicians rarely do — talking at length to audiences who don’t usually agree with him. And winning over new friends in the process.”


The country is changing. Whole new groups are ripe for the picking, most obviously the young who are being so completely raked over by the Obama administration via Obamacare and the rest of the entitlements so many of them know they will never see. They were ready to applaud at Berkeley.

And African Americans — when, since the end of Jim Crow, have they done worse than under the Obama administration with its record black unemployment numbers and horrifying statistics on out-of-wedlock births in their community? Consciously or unconsciously, Democrats have been waging a “War on Blacks” since the days of the Great Society. It’s been a disaster for African Americans, a nightmare, in truth.

But where are the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, on that? They should be in the black communities talking to them about it, suggesting ways to make things better. Instead, they just sit around getting annoyed when the Democrats call them racists. Play offense, not defense.

Indeed. Especially as the Dems have lots of experience on offense, not so much on defense.

IRA STOLL, FACT-CHECKING THE AHISTORICAL PAUL KRUGMAN: TARP and the Tea Party. “The fact that the Tea Party hates TARP undercuts Professor Krugman’s argument that the Tea Party is all a bunch of racists who oppose government subsidies for poor black people but not for rich Wall Street bankers. But Professor Krugman goes ahead with that argument anyway, in defiance of the facts.” Because that’s just how he rolls.

FORMER POLITICO REPORTER DISCOVERS THAT working retail is hard. Do tell. I worked retail all the way through college. It’s one reason I finished college and went on to law school. I still have little burst blood vessels in my feet from standing for 9am to 9 pm shifts. And, unlike him, I wasn’t working in retail because racist jokes and domestic-violence charges made me unemployable elsewhere. I did, however, manage to take pride in my work without regarding that as some sort of character flaw.


Asians in the San Gabriel Valley and beyond joined forces Friday to rally against a proposed Senate constitutional amendment that they said would punish their children for working hard to achieve the American Dream.

Olivia Liao, president of the Joint Chinese University Alumni Association, said Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 is racist because it allows public education institutions to give preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Well, that’s basically correct.



JOHN FUND: Three Cups of Tea: The Tea Party still holds the high ground this year for its third national election. “The Tea Party turns five years old this week, and the mainstream media are filled with stories saying it has lost clout and influence. Certainly the unfair assaults on it as racist and extremist have taken a toll, but in terms of where the political landscape is right now, I’d easily take the Tea Party’s tactical position over that of its liberal critics. . . . In politics it helps to be right, and most of the warnings tea-party advocates issued about the Obama administration have been validated by events.”


By the way, 3 years ago today, in the Wisconsin protests, which included teachers who were calling in sick to absent themselves from the classroom, doctors stood on a street corner under a sign that read “I’m a doctor/Need a note?” They were real doctors, putting their names on notes that the protesters could use to excuse their absence from work.

When lefty politicians or groups break the law, the press’s attitude is “politics ain’t beanbag.” But that forbearance doesn’t extend to Republicans. The reason for this is that the press is largely made up of Democratic operatives with bylines. Plus, from the comments:

Ho-hum another anti-GOP hack job from the WAPO. How ordinary.

Meanwhile, no curiosity about the IRS and Obamas ongoing violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution, as well as usurping the legislature.

It’s interesting to watch the press try to do oppo-research and battlespace-prep on every GOP figure who gets mentioned. These are the same people who told us that looking into Obama’s background — or lack of actual accomplishments — was racist, and that looking into Hillary’s background — or lack of actual accomplishments — is sexist.

JOHN DICKERSON: “Let’s all agree to not talk about Monica Lewinsky for at least two years. In fact, let’s not discuss any of the ‘events’ in the Clinton marriage.”

Hmm. Nobody minded talking about Mitt Romney’s much more distant past.

Related: Byron York: Why Hillary Clinton’s past is fair game in presidential race.

Of course Clinton’s recent experiences are relevant to a presidential run. But so are her actions in the 90s, the 80s and even the 70s. It’s not ancient history; it reveals something about who Clinton was and still is. And re-examining her past is entirely consistent with practices in recent campaigns.

In the 2012 presidential race, for example, many in the press were very interested in business deals Mitt Romney made in the 1980s. In the 2004 race, many journalists were even more interested in what George W. Bush did with the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, as well as what John Kerry did in Vietnam that same year. And in 2000, a lot of journalists invested a lot of time trying to find proof that Bush had used cocaine three decades earlier.

So by the standards set in coverage of other candidates, Clinton’s past is not too far past.

That’s especially true because there will be millions of young voters in 2016 who know little about the Clinton White House. Americans who had not even been born when Bill Clinton first took the oath of office in 1993 will be eligible to vote two years from now. They need to know that Hillary Clinton has been more than Secretary of State.

Those voters need to know, for starters, that Mrs. Clinton once displayed incredible investment skills. In 1978 and 1979, when her husband was attorney general and then governor of Arkansas, she enlisted the help of a well-connected crony to invest $1,000 in the highly volatile and risky cattle futures market. Several months later, she walked away with $100,000 — a 10,000-percent profit. Cynics thought the well-connected crony who executed the trades might have paid her the profits from good trades and absorbed the losses from bad ones, but Mrs. Clinton insisted that she developed her investing acumen by reading the Wall Street Journal.

New voters also need to learn about Mrs. Clinton’s checkered history as a lawyer and the game of hide-and-seek she played with federal prosecutors who subpoenaed her old billing records as part of the Whitewater investigation. After two years of defying subpoenas and not producing the records, she suddenly claimed that they had been in a closet in the White House residence all along.

New voters also need to learn about Mrs. Clinton’s purge of the White House travel office, which was done to steer business to another Clinton crony. There’s no doubt she directed the 1993 firings of long-time White House employees although she testified under oath that she did not. Years later, prosecutors concluded that “Mrs. Clinton’s sworn testimony … is factually inaccurate.”

And the Lewinsky scandal, in which Hillary helped attack Lewinsky, and numerous other women like Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, in order to protect Bill. War on women? On the inconvenient women, certainly.

Also: Why Monica Lewinsky is relevant: Liberals have redefined sexual harassment. “Rand Paul has cagily been reminding us of the fact that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. That DOES matter now, because it demonstrates just how painfully hypocritical democrats are with regard to the treatment of women. Clinton is a sexual predator and Hillary was his enabler.”

Plus: The Vetting of Hillary Already Labeled ‘Sexist’ in the Media. Makes sense. After all, vetting Obama was supposed to be racist, or something.

UPDATE: Limbaugh: Dems Can ‘Attack Palin’s Whole Family,’ But GOP Won’t Dare Target Hillary.


The Nation: Why the Curious Right-Wing Silence on Michael Sam?

The Onion: Conservative Acquaintance Annoyingly Not Racist.

CALLING OUT RON FOURNIER for shady race talk.

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MITT ROMNEY, RACE RELATIONS WOULD BE LOUSY. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Poll: 33% of blacks say Americans are racist, 76% say race relations are bad.

THEY DOUBT HIM BECAUSE THEY’RE RACIST: Poll: 73 percent say Obama NSA reforms won’t boost privacy.

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MITT ROMNEY, WE’D SEE RACIST FEDERAL JUDGES. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! 8-year study: Black federal judges ‘conditioned’ to go easy on fellow blacks.

Black federal judges, inspired by racial “solidarity” and “conditioned” in life to sympathize with other blacks, side with African-Americans filing discrimination cases in significantly higher percentages than white judges, according to a first-of-its-kind study.

The California State University, Northridge study of 516 discrimination cases in federal courts over eight years found that black federal judges side with black claimants 32.9 percent of the time. For white judges it was 20.6 percent.

But when the study looked at how black and white judges ruled on discrimination claims made by “non-black claimants,” there wasn’t any difference.

Boy, those people who told me what would happen if I voted for Mitt Romney sure were smart. I guess I should have listened to them.


Finally on this point, why does the American MSM almost never mention tribes, except occasionally as an afterthought, and never speak about how countries like Libya are organized socially, and how that affects their politics? There are so many examples of this that it cannot simply be a coincidence. This is not the place to go into detail, but it comes down, I think, to a form of political correctness that tacitly prohibits any mention of what might be taken even to imply that Libyans (or Yemenis or Syrians or Egyptians, or Pashtuns, or…) might in some way be pre-modern, as we understand the term. (Actually, they’re less aptly described as pre-modern than simply as different, but lowest-common-denominator Enlightenment universalism is very bad at acknowledging the dignity of difference.) That kind of appellation is considered just this side of racist in the higher etiquette of American Enlightenment liberalism, deeply dented, as it has been, by the nonsense of anti-“Orientalism” regnant now for more than a generation in academe. Yes, it was at university where our elite press reporters and their august editors learned this stuff.

As long as our elite press censors itself in this manner, an objective socio-political description of these (and other) countries will remain impossible, and a distorted understanding will inevitably feed misbegotten policy adventures like the Libya war. I would like to be able to assure you that what ails the academy and the press does not afflict the clear-eyed professionals at the CIA and the State Department and USAID and the NSC and the officer corps of the uniformed military. Yes, I would like to… but a lot of these guys went to those same universities.

America has been ill-served by its higher education establishment in a number of ways.

OUR RACIST MEDIA: Outrage as MSNBC panelists make Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandchild the punchline of a joke.

JOSH LEVIN IN SLATE: The Welfare Queen: Ronald Reagan made Linda Taylor a notorious American villain. Her other sins were far worse.

Four decades later, Reagan’s soliloquies on welfare fraud are often remembered as shameless demagoguery. Many accounts report that Reagan coined the term “welfare queen,” and that this woman in Chicago was a fictional character. In 2007, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman wrote that “the bogus story of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen [was] a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the whole thing is racist malarkey—a coded reference to black indolence and criminality designed to appeal to working-class whites.

Though Reagan was known to stretch the truth, he did not invent that woman in Chicago. Her name was Linda Taylor, and it was the Chicago Tribune, not the GOP politician, who dubbed her the “welfare queen.” It was the Tribune, too, that lavished attention on Taylor’s jewelry, furs, and Cadillac—all of which were real. . . .

When I set out in search of Linda Taylor, I hoped to find the real story of the woman who played such an outsize role in American politics—who she was, where she came from, and what her life was like before and after she became the national symbol of unearned prosperity. What I found was a woman who destroyed lives, someone far more depraved than even Ronald Reagan could have imagined. In the 1970s alone, Taylor was investigated for homicide, kidnapping, and baby trafficking. The detective who tried desperately to put her away believes she’s responsible for one of Chicago’s most legendary crimes, one that remains unsolved to this day. Welfare fraud was likely the least of the welfare queen’s offenses.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Hyper-Regulated Lawlessness. “The political significance of the ‘welfare queen’ story rests on how many of them are out there. A single person scamming the welfare state does not, by herself, represent a devastating indictment of the welfare state. It matters how easy it was, and whether a large number of people participate in such activities, albeit on a less grandiose scale than ‘the haughty thief who drove her Cadillac to the public aid office’ and wore ‘expensive clothes and oversize hats’ to her trial. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of scamming going on, and the Left is not even slightly interested in cracking down on it, or even admitting it’s a problem.” For them, it’s not a problem. It’s a funding mechanism.

ROBERT VERBRUGGEN ON Whites’ Fear Of Being Labeled Racist.

JAMES TARANTO: Hey, you know what’s racist? Citing crime statistics.

Of course it’s an editorial judgment, and by definition it’s the editor’s to make. But if readers are not permitted to question the editors’ judgments, what’s the point of having a comments section at all?

Finally we come to “crime statistics.” We tweeted the post last night with the comment: “News website bans discussion of crime statistics in comments,” which prompted Eyer to respond: “That’s a gross mischaracterization.” We’ll concede it was a slight exaggeration, but Eyer made a concession of her own by posting a comment to her own post this morning acknowledging: “I have edited the portion above on crime statistics to clarify exactly what I’m talking about.” We didn’t save the original; the following quotes are from the edited version.

“We’ve seen an uptick in commenters posting FBI crime statistics in an attempt to paint the problem as one of race,” she writes. “Usually these crime statistics are not helpful to the discussion because they lack other details, such as socioeconomic status, that give context.” So we’re back to “poverty” as the cause of crime.

The overall thrust of Eyer’s rules is to ensure that discussions of race at MLive conform to the media stereotype of black victimization at the hands of white oppression. . . .

These days elite culture, including the news media, routinely vilify whites, especially “white males.”

As we’ve noted before, feminists also frequently stipulate that they’re vilifying white males, even when race is irrelevant. Eyer promises in conclusion: “Next up, I will address issues related to gender.” We can hardly wait.


FIRST AUBURN, NOW THIS: James Taranto: What’s the Matter With Alabama? A student editor grovels after another cartoon kerfuffle.

For the University of Alabama’s football team, the Nov. 30 season finale against intrastate archrival Auburn ended almost as disastrously as ObamaCare began (and as it has continued). After leading 21-14 at the half, the Crimson Tide gave up a touchdown to the Tigers in the third quarter. Each team scored again during the fourth, leaving the score tied, 28-28, with seconds remaining in regulation.

Alabama was driving, but it looked as though the clock had run out. It turned out, however, that Alabama’s T.J. Yeldon had managed to get out of bounds with a single tick left. Rather than take a knee and go to overtime, Alabama decided to try a long field goal–which missed and was returned for 109 yards and a touchdown by Auburn’s Chris Davis. Final score: Auburn 34, Alabama 28.

Auburn went on to play in this past weekend’s Southeastern Conference championship, in which the Tigers defeated the Tigers, 59-42–possibly the most confusing pigskin matchup since the 1976 Grey Cup.

This isn’t a sports column, but there’s a reason we opened with a nine-day-old play-by-play. Back in Tuscaloosa, the Alabama loss led to a kerfuffle last week involving the student newspaper, the perplexingly named Crimson White. Its cartoonist drew a strip, published Thursday, depicting the final play under the title “This Is What Happens in OBAMA’S AMERICA.” The last two words were in massive letters, drawn in horror-movie style, with what was supposed to look like blood dripping from them.

Later that day, editor Mazie Bryant posted “A Statement From the Editor-in-Chief” in which she explained that “the cartoon was meant as satire . . . as a lighthearted look at some of the more absurd explanations given for Alabama’s collapse at the end of the Iron Bowl game against Auburn last Saturday.”

Only in Obama’s America could something so obvious have eluded anyone. “Unfortunately,” Bryant noted, the cartoon “has been perceived by many readers as having racist intentions.”

That’s because — and I want to be clear here — those readers are idiots. Naturally, some of them were also college administrators. But as Taranto goes on to demonstrate, not all college administrators are idiots. Which, these days, seems like news. . . .

START A PROGRAM TO HELP MEN’S HEALTH, GET BUSHWHACKED BY ANGRY FEMINISTS: “Movember is divisive, gender normative, [and] racist.”

How is it racist? “Movember reinforces the ‘othering’ of ‘foreigners’ by the generally clean-shaven, white majority.”

Othering? President Hayes is not amused.


IT’S COME TO THIS: Dana Milbank: Obama’s photo policy smacks of propaganda. Funny, a reference to Obama and Stalin used to mean you were a doubleplusungood racist bitterclinger.


Shortly before receiving the medal of freedom from President Obama, Oprah Winfrey gave an interview to the BBC in which she seemed to chalk up much of the opposition to the president to racism: “I think there’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs … because he’s African American,” she said.

Her claim reminded me of the times when, as a child of the ’70s, my father would ask an odd question about my friends, “What is he?”

“Huh?” I’d ask.

“You know, what is he — Italian? German? Lebanese? What is he?” my father replied.

I had no idea what my friends’ ethnic origins were. It was only when I traveled with my father to the north side of Chicago where he grew up, and he pointed out which ethnic groups had lived in various parts of town, that I understood.

Well once all the out-of-it geezers die off, that kind of silliness dies with them.

ROGER KIMBALL ON Crystal Mangum’s murder conviction and the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse false-rape case.

Travel back to 2006. Syracuse University early on got into the act when it decided not to accept as transfers any students from the Duke lacrosse team—not just the three accused chaps, mind you, but anyone contaminated by having played lacrosse for Duke. “I think it would be inappropriate,” sniffed Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross. (Where is he now? Llama farming in Peru? Nope. Still athletic director at Syracuse.)

But there are at least two other aspects of the case that deserve comment. One is the role of the media, which pounced on the story with unseemly delight. Oh, how The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and countless other bastions of liberal self-satisfaction loved it! Race. Class. Sex. Victimhood. It was the perfect morality tale. Those white jocks at “the Harvard of the South” just had to be guilty. And what a good time we were all going to have lacerating the malefactors while at the same time preening ourselves on our own superior virtue!

The editorials, the op-eds, the comments, the analyses poured forth non-stop, demonstrating that one of the deepest human passions is the urge to self-righteous pontification. The novelist Allan Gurganus epitomized the tone in an op-ed for the Times in April 2006: “The children of privilege,” he thundered, “feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing.” You don’t say? Even sports writers got into the act. Selena Roberts located Duke University “at the intersection of entitlement and enablement, . . . virtuous on the outside, debauched on the inside.” By August 2006, as District Attorney Michael Nifong’s case was betraying worrisome fissures, the Times published a 6,000-word article arguing—“praying” might be a more apposite term—that, whatever weaknesses there might be in the prosecution’s case, “there is also a body of evidence to support [taking] the matter to a jury.” As the Times columnist David Brooks ruefully noted after the tide had begun to turn, the campaign against the athletes had the lineaments of a “witch hunt.”

Indeed. Richard Brodhead, Duke’s president, got out his broomstick and suspended the accused students, fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the rest of the team’s season, and pandered to every possible PC interest, but especially to those baying for the heads of the accused. (One commentator estimated that only 3 percent of Brodhead’s statements could be construed as supporting the accused students.)

And then there was the Duke faculty. As Vincent Carroll, writing in the Rocky Mountain News, noted, “the most astonishing fact, hands down, was and remains the squalid behavior of the community of scholars at Duke itself. For months nearly the entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues to set the tone.”

Particularly egregious was the behavior of the “Group of 88,” a congeries of faculty activists and fellow-travelers who signed “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?,” a full-page manifesto published in April 2006 in the Duke student newspaper. The statement, which purported to be “listening” to students on campus, mingled anonymous student comments with racialist agitprop. “Regardless of the results of the police investigation,” ran part of the introductory comment, “what is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism.” There followed a mosaic of histrionic proclamations: “We want the absence of terror,” one student is supposed to have said. “But we don’t really know what that means.” “This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists . . .”

Some of the Group of 88 were common or garden-variety academic liberals—timid souls whose long tenure in the protected purlieus of the university surrounded by adolescents has nurtured their risible sense of self-importance and political enlightenment. But a good percentage were radicals more devoted to political activism than scholarship. Indeed, one scandal that still has not received sufficient publicity is the preposterous pseudo-scholarship purveyed by many trendy academics. A look at the CVs of many members of the Group of 88 provides a case in point, partly shocking, partly embarrassing.

Mostly pathetic.

WHITE MEN LEAST RACIST in deciding who to date. Interestingly, of all the people I follow on Twitter, only the black women tweet about how they wouldn’t date outside of their race.

WHEN CORRECTING MINORITY STUDENTS’ GRAMMATICAL ERRORS is racist “micro-aggression.” If you can’t take having your grammar errors corrected, you’re too dumb and immature to be in college, much less graduate school. Unsurprisingly, this was in the school of Education.

K-12 IMPLOSION UPDATE: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is Racist, Says Portland School Official. Remember, these schools supposedly teach children critical thinking.

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: ObamaCare Debacle Could Kill Big Blue:

Sounding like some kind of Fox News contributor, the left-leaning Edsall goes on to point out that the Obamacare dream ignores some basic realities about the way the world and the government work. Democrats pitched the Affordable Care Act as a law that would let the haves keep their doctors and their plans while giving more care to the have-nots, meanwhile offering Amazon levels of service to all comers through a magical website. Now that the quest for that kind of system is looking more like a misguided unicorn hunt, Edsall suddenly, horribly, begins to see just how foolish and utopian the whole project was . . . But as critical as these words seem, Edsall remains a loyal son of the left even as he mourns what he fears may be the greatest liberal failure since the Vietnam War. He blames the Obamacare debacle on the selfishness of middle class American whites— nasty, unenlightened racists that they are—who want to hog all the health care for themselves rather than share equitably with people of color. . . .

Here Edsall is simultaneously overestimating the policy sophistication of the white middle class and underestimating its morality. While it is true that, as Edsall points out, Obamacare is an aggressively redistributionist program that intends to shift hundreds of billions of dollars away from the middle class to the poor, I don’t think many voters have done the math on this. They are not reacting to the $455 billion in Medicare cuts that help to feed the Obamacare beast because not many people really understand how the new system is supposed to work. And at the same time, unlikely as it may sound to the finely tuned consciences of the New York Times editorial page, there are scores of millions of middle class white Americans who don’t hate minorities and would actually like to see things go better for them.

Edsall is not the only one who doubts the goodwill of many middle class whites. Over at the proudly port-listing Plumline blog at the Washington Post, Greg Sargent hammers the theme that America hates Obamacare because America hates poor blacks.

It’s a dumb and desperate argument, but what else have they got? And it flatters the oikophobia of their core readership, such as it remains. Quoth Mead:

Middle America isn’t frothing over Obamacare because we are a nation of racist policy wonks who did the math and hate the blacks. The public is angry first (as Edsall mostly seems to understand) because of the supremely infuriating blend of incompetent arrogance our Second Lincoln has brought to the greatest domestic challenge of his presidency. They are angry because an expensive and cumbersome new piece of social engineering looks badly engineered. But in the second place, they are angry because the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and its journalistic spear carriers in the MSM systematically misrepresented the nature of the new system.

They lied about the plan then, they’re lying about the racism now. That’s who they are, that’s what they do.

THE RACIST ROOTS OF BICYCLE LANES? “It’s almost all young white males. All these bike lanes and other amenities, paid for with our tax money? It’s almost all for white males. Oh, how it would pain Madison liberals to admit it!”

ARNE DUNCAN apologizes for “clumsy phrasing” in racist “White moms” remark.

Background: Jay Carney won’t condemn Arne Duncan’s “white suburban moms” comment. It’s funny how under this administration “white” has become an all-purpose epithet.

Related: Duncan tries to quell uproar over Common Core comments. “The remark lit up social-media sites, prompting pointed responses from bloggers, an open letter from a school superintendent, digital images of Duncan’s official federal portrait with the word ‘bigot’ emblazoned across it, and one congressman’s call for Duncan’s firing.” He’s a putz. He should go.

SECRET TREATIES: Law Professors Call for Public Process for Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Intellectual Property Chapter. I’m pretty sure that makes them terrorist anarchists or something. Maybe racists, too.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Moral Decline Of Oprah.

Multi-billionaire Oprah Winfrey, after her surreal $38,000 handbag “racism” encounter in Switzerland, has just weighed in again on race and the presidency, as yet the nth way of hyping her new film: “There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.”

Nobody ever says? Has she read a newspaper columnist or turned on MSNBC lately?

Aside from her historical ignorance, Oprah Winfrey has increasingly turned to the race card to explain the president’s plummeting polls. In her race-obsessed world, Syria, Benghazi, the NSA, IRS, AP, and ACA messes do not explain why a reelected president crashes from a recent 60 percent approval rating to less than 40 percent in less than a year.

Instead, in Oprah’s no-win, racialist world, to the degree that Obama is popular, Americans are considered for the time being as not racist; to the degree that he is not, the country suddenly is collectively under suspicion (e.g., “everybody’s thinking it”).

That Obama might be utterly inexperienced in the manner of Jimmy Carter, less than veracious in the manner of the impeached Bill Clinton, or suffering the same second-term blues of Ronald Reagan during Iran-Contra or popularity crash of George W. Bush after Katrina simply cannot for Oprah be true of an African-American president, who for some reason must not suffer the same fate and treatment as almost all who have held the highest office.

In the words of Tony Katz: “It’s not his race. It’s that he’s awful.” To Oprah, however, it’s all about his race. That’s why she supported him in 2008, and it’s why she’s smearing his opposition now: Racial loyalty trumps all. Her fans figured this out in 2008, of course, which is why she’s a comparative nobody now.

BYRON YORK: Four years ago, GOP showed exactly what was false about Obama’s keep-your-coverage promise.

It is now painfully evident to millions of Americans that President Obama’s promise that they could keep their current health coverage under Obamacare wasn’t true. But what has received less attention in the current uproar is that back in 2009, when Obamacare was under debate and Obama was making the promise, some Republicans saw precisely what was wrong with it, and said so. And when those Republicans challenged the White House, the White House had nothing to say.

Go back to June 23, 2009. The House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. George Miller, held a hearing on a draft of Obamacare. Christina Romer, then chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, testified. Among the Republicans who questioned Romer was Rep. Tom Price, who is also a doctor. Price pressed Romer to cite a basis for the president’s promise, and in the process predicted much of what would happen more than four years later, in late 2013. Obama’s promise fell apart right there in the hearing room.

Follow the exchange. But note that the press continued to treat Obama’s promise as true — and the critics as lying racists — until, oh, about last week or so.

Related: 27 Democratic senators who promised you could keep your health coverage.

POLITICO: “I don’t know how he f—-ed this up so badly,” said one House Democrat who has been very supportive of Obama in the past.

Obviously, now suddenly a racist, per Oprah.

BACKLASH: Far Right Has Strong Showing in Socialist France.

According to a new survey by BFM TV, a French station, nearly one in two French voters (46%) think Marine Le Pen is the best opposition candidate to take on the ruling Socialist party. That’s a lot of support for a far right politician who once compared Muslim blocking French streets during prayer times to the Nazi occupation of France in WWII

The poll wasn’t asking respondents for the politician they’d like to see become president, and it wasn’t asking which politician they like the most. The 46 percent were saying Marine Le Pen is the best opponent to the ruling Socialist Party. Still, that’s quite a lot of support for someone so controversial.

Le Pen frequently courts controversy. She’s been called racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim. But she remains popular. Her party recently won a small election in southern France where disillusionment with Francois Hollande and his Socialist Party runs strong.

Le Pen’s popularity could have repercussions beyond France’s borders. She and Geert Wilders, a far-right politician in the Netherlands, are exploring the possibility of creating a pan-European Eurosceptic movement.

Read the whole thing. But is Geert Wilders really “far-right?” Maybe by Netherlands standards.

VAMPIRES: Shirley Sherrod Lawyers Seek to Sue Widow of Andrew Breitbart. Shirley Sherrod’s a self-confessed racist. She’s also an asshole. I hope she ends her life broke and in jail.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Eric Holder’s 2014 Racial Politics: The Attorney General tries to reverse a Supreme Court ruling by the back door. “It’s telling that Mr. Holder prefers to file lawsuits rather than take up the Supreme Court’s invitation to modernize the Voting Rights Act for current racial conditions. The Congressional Black Caucus has said it is working on a new formula for preclearance, but such legislative labor doesn’t get the headlines that lawsuits against GOP-run states do. All the evidence suggests that Mr. Holder’s real motive here is political. Portraying voter ID laws as racist helped to drive Democratic voter turnout among minorities in 2012, and the White House wants a repeat in 2014. Never mind if the suits eventually fail in court. The goal is to elect more Democrats in the meantime, even if it means needlessly increasing racial polarization.”

It’s not needless. They really need racial polarization.

JAMES TARANTO: The New Face of Prejudice: A focus group turns into a smear campaign.

The unsurprising part–the part Wilkinson finds “shocking”–is that some of them, specifically the Tea Party and evangelical Republicans, speak in rather harsh terms about the president. If Wilkinson actually finds this shocking, he must be about 17 years old, which is to say too young to remember how liberals (including elite ones in academia, arts, entertainment and journalism) spoke contemporaneously of President Bush.

According to Wilkinson, the Tea Party and evangelical Republicans’ “default position” toward Obama “is essentially abject terror.” In truth, some of the examples he cites are actually quite anodyne: “What is he really thinking?” asks one “Tea Party Man.” Another simply says: “Background.” An “Evangelical Woman” says, “His motives behind his actions,” which would be a tautology if it were a complete sentence. An “Evangelical Man” says: “He wants to fundamentally change the country.” If our theory is right, Wilkinson isn’t old enough to remember that Obama himself said the same thing.

Admittedly, some of the comments are on the truculent side. Each of these is from an “Evangelical Man”: “Not a US citizen. Supports Terrorists.” “I don’t believe he’s a Christian. He’s a tyrant.” “He supports everything that is against Christianity.”

Then again, isn’t it possible that the Evangelical Men are on to something? Obama did, after all, describe as his “spiritual mentor” a so-called pastor whose most famous pronouncement was “God damn America!” That would seem to indicate a theological understanding that is at odds with that of most Christians, especially American Christians. . . .

There must be a word for somebody who does what Stan Greenberg did here, which is to smear and attempt to marginalize a whole group of people, without evidence and based on the color of their skin.

Ideally, it should be a word that carries as much sting as “racist.”

Feeling superior to flyover people is a key tenet of modern liberalism. It’s just gotten more vicious.

BLUE MODEL UPDATE: California Teachers Association Members Don’t Have To Pay For The Union’s Political Operations.

The state’s second-largest lobbyist in terms of dollars spent is none other than the California Teachers Association. In the course of a decade, the CTA has spent more than $50 million alone lobbying politicians for legislation aimed at protecting and expanding its interests, usually at students’ and taxpayers’ expense. Few teachers realize, however, that they don’t have to finance the CTA’s political agenda. California may not be a right-to-work state, but most public school teachers have the right to a yearly rebate of $350 to $400 from their union—money that would otherwise line CTA lobbyists’ and political consultants’ pockets. . . .

Republican or conservative teachers are paying the union to support candidates and causes they oppose. For apolitical teachers, the question is why they should pay to support any causes or candidates at all? But teachers can forgo paying the political portion. It bears repeating that several U.S. Supreme Court rulings deny unions the right to force members to subsidize their political agenda. Teachers never hear this message when they join the CTA. They often aren’t aware that “agency-fee payers” (nonunion members) can request a rebate, even though they’re still forced to pay for “chargeable expenses” that are “germane to the union’s representational functions.”

To make teachers aware of their union membership options, the California Teachers Empowerment Network and the California Public Policy Center have launched the California Teacher Freedom Project. Its aim: to inform California teachers that they don’t have to pay for their union’s costly hyper-partisan agenda. The project’s website provides step-by-step information on how teachers can become agency-fee payers, get the yearly rebate, and join nonunion, nonpartisan, professional alternatives.

I’m sure that’s somehow racist or something.

DAVE CARTER: When The Bleeding Heart Becomes The Iron Fist.

Whatever the perceived shortcomings of Ted Cruz and his hardy band of stalwarts, they’ve performed a remarkable public service by highlighting the fate that awaits all who rub wrongly the translucently thin skin of King Barack the Petulant. The Spartans may have had their shields, Native Americans their tomahawks and arrows, the Samurai may have wielded his sword with all the deadly grace of a tiger in mid-attack, but pound for pound, nothing comes close to the audacious stupidity of “Barrycades” and people in pointy little Smokey the Bear hats, poised to protect America’s monuments from law-abiding citizens.

Welcome to liberal utopia, where barriers are not erected against terrorists or illegal aliens on our nation’s borders, but rather against citizens, and where wheelchair-bound veterans enroute to honor their comrades face tighter security than terrorists enroute to murder a US Ambassador. This is where up is down, wrong is right, illegality is celebrated as progress, and where Constitutionalism is derided as racist. No longer relegated to the fever swamps of academic fancy, utopia has acquired real estate and made known its demands.

“Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual…” the First Lady warned us, and she wasn’t just whistling Alinsky either.

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, pranksters may wish to respond to the shutdown by blocking off federal employee parking lots with orange cones.

SO FEARS OF BEING CALLED RACIST ONLY GET HIM A 2% MARGIN NOW? “49% of all people in the poll say that Obama is acting like a responsible adult in this budget battle, with 47% describing him as a spoiled child.”

Of course, there’s this, in the comments: “From what I know of spoiled children, their methods get results.”

TRUTH-TELLING: Oberlin College Blames The Blogosphere For Pointing Out That Racism Hoax Was A Hoax. “As we have documented before, and as the records released this morning further demonstrate, the Oberlin administration knew no later than February 27 that this was a hoax by students trolling for a reaction. There were no KKK supporters or Neo-Nazis prowling the hallways and buildings. Yet the Oberlin administration never told the students, the alumni, or the media. Instead, the Oberlin administration allowed students to live in fear. In the email last night, there still is no acknowledgement that the primary culprit behind this was a liberal pro-Obama ‘anti-racist’ activist, and that it was not what it seemed. Oberlin thereby furthers the damage done by the hoax.” For these people, it must always be 1963. Acknowledging reality would mean facing unpleasant thoughts.

AARON ALEXIS: Obama Fan. “First we learned that Alexis didn’t use an evil AR-15 to kill all those people. Instead, he used a nice, friendly, Biden-approved shotgun . . . Now we learn that Alexis was a Prius-driving, African-American liberal who liked Obama. Facts aren’t much fun, eh, libs? So now the MSM narrative will magically transform this mass murder from ‘yet another damning indictment of gun-toting, right-wing racist America’ to ‘the completely isolated actions of a misunderstood victim of society.’ Just watch. It happens every time. And every time, they think we won’t notice. Meanwhile, their ratings and their circulation numbers continue to plummet, and they blame everybody but themselves.”

TUNKU VARADARAJAN: Miss America, Meet India’s ‘Dark’ Side: An ugly wave of abuse greeted the new Miss America because of her origins, but in India she would be considered too dark to succeed.

The Girl Next Door can be a dark-skinned daughter of immigrants from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the southeast of India whose inhabitants speak Telugu, 13th in the list of the most-spoken languages worldwide. Take a bow, America. (Compare this country with mostly dark-skinned Brazil, which has had not a single nonwhite Miss Brazil.) . . .

In a nutshell, what Indians are saying (many openly and some with chagrin) is that Davuluri is too dark, too dusky, for the conventional standards of Indian beauty. In India a light skin—“fair” is the word most Indians deploy in the vocabulary of beauty—is prized in women, and lightness of skin is elevated above all other facial features as a signifier of beauty. It matters not one whit that Davuluri’s physiognomy is immensely pleasing to the eye, that her smile could light up a small cricket stadium, that her lustrous hair is a thing to marvel at, because her epidermis is far too many shades removed from “fairness” for her to be considered beautiful. This matter is, in the Indian dialectic of beauty, nonnegotiable. In matters of pigment, Indians can be as dogmatic as party chieftains once were in Stalin’s Moscow.

As a forensic exercise, I encourage you to Google “Miss India” and compare the complexions of the winners of the last 10 years with that of Davuluri. The preference for light skin isn’t confined to beauty pageants. It dominates the acres of classified matrimonial ads in Indian newspapers. It figures casually and brutally in schoolyard banter, where dark-skinned children are dismissed as “kallu” or “blackie” by confreres sometimes with skin barely half a shade lighter. (Imagine the lifelong impact on a girl who, from her earliest days at school, is looked upon as ugly because of her complexion.) It affects the health of young girls, who are often prevented from playing outdoor sports because being in the sun could “blacken” them. It figures, even, in the adoption business, where dark-skinned orphans and foundlings struggle to find a home. (A friend tells me of his experience with an adoption agency in Mumbai: he and his wife were looking to adopt, and months into the process, after they were close to settling on a child, the agency told them that there had been a child they could have considered very early on. But the agency had decided not to present her as an option … because she was “too dark.”)

The worst culprit of all in India’s culture of pigmentocracy is Bollywood. In all its decades of existence, there have been no more than three or four leading actresses—or “heroines,” as they are called in India—who might be described as dark. So year after year, in film after film, Indians receive the message that there can be no beauty, no glamour, without light skin: 99 percent of India’s movie stars don’t share a complexion with 99 percent of Indians.

Nonsense. Only white Americans — preferably Republican — can be racist.

WEAK HORSE: Frustrated Dems Increasingly Defying Obama. So, in other words, the Democratic Party is growing more racist?

Related: Vulnerable Dems Flee From Anti-Gun Nuts in Party: “Do vulnerable Democrats want to see this issue on the radar again? Probably not.”

“SMART DIPLOMACY” BEARS MORE FRUIT: Anti-Americanism Spreads in Syrian Refugee Camps.

Over a million Syrians have fled the war over the past six months, bringing the total outside the country up to 2 million. Half of them are children. Whether or not the U.S. intervenes, that overall figure is expected to climb to over 3 million by year’s end. UNHCR officials describe it as the worst refugee crisis in 20 years.

“Why don’t Americans and your media pay attention to this crisis?” Ahmad Hasan, who worked as a taxi driver outside Aleppo until his family fled to Amman earlier this year, asked me. . . .

A strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism also is shaping young minds within the camp. Uprooted and uneducated young men sit idle, spreading rumors and videos of violence back home via social media sites — Zaatari has its own Facebook page — often devoid of context. Boredom and lack of education make for a potent cocktail. Kids I interviewed play a version of war, where one team is the Assad regime and the other is the FSA.

Such populations may be nurturing a new generation of angry Muslim youths who view the United States, and especially its president, as hypocritical at best, and enablers of Assad’s war crimes at worst.

“Everybody is against the Syrian people,” said a former lieutenant in the Syrian military I met in Zaatari, who defected to the opposition. He was sitting on a cot in a prefab caravan, surrounded by other Syrian men wounded in the war. “We’re giving our blood but for Obama that is not enough.”

After cursing the American president in Arabic, he continued, “Obama is ‘Hussein’ – son of Muslims. If he were a Christian he would support us. But he’s a Muslim.” He shakes his head and his eyes tear up. “It’s always Muslims against Muslims.”

It’s sad that there are so many racists in Syria.

UPDATE: Joe Klein: Obama’s ‘Damaged His Office and Weakened the Nation.’ Yeah, pretty much.

WHIPSAWED BY THE PARTY LINE: So this piece at The Atlantic yesterday — published at noon — tries to connect people opposing Obama’s attack-Syria plan with (in the Democrats’ latest buzzword) “Neo-Confederates.” But then, within hours, Obama himself had turned Neo-Confederate, asking Congress to postpone his vote. Oops! The window where you were racist if you didn’t want to bomb brown people has slammed shut.

BUZZFEED ON THE INTERNET’S REACTION TO OBAMA’S BOMB-SYRIA PLAN: The memes are running 10-1 against, Mr. President.

They left out this one:


ILYA SOMIN: Thoughts on the Text of the Obama Administration’s Proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria.

UPDATE: Seen on Facebook: