Search Results

ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW: The New York Times finally discovers what the right has known for years: that “Progressive” icon Woodrow Wilson and the man whose wartime administration was the prototype for FDR’s New Deal (whose collectivist slogan was “We Planned In War” — i.e., WWI) was a stone cold racist. As Steve Hayward writes at Power Line, the Times “still haven’t been able to connect the dots between Wilson’s racism and his progressive ideology, nor grasp the irony that Wilson was merely aiming to provide blacks with a ‘safe space,’ as we say nowadays. We know liberals are slow learners, but this is embarrassing, unless the Times is planning to announce tomorrow that it has in fact decided to compete with The Onion.

Charles Paul Freund wrote of “Dixiecrats Triumphant: The menacing Mr. Wilson” at Reason magazine back in 2002. Jonah Goldberg wrote about Wilson’s racism and his administration’s central role as the prototype of the New Deal in 2008′s best-selling Liberal Fascism and in this concurrent excerpt in the Christian Science Monitor. But it’s nice to see the Times finally stumble kicking and screaming into the truth as well — if only to really make an unperson of “the menacing Mister Wilson.” (Don’t let them.)

COVERING THE IMPORTANT NEWS: How to Talk About Star Wars at Thanksgiving With Your Ignorant, Rebellion-Backing Uncle.

Related: NRO’s Katherine Timpf: “I Will Not Apologize for Making a Joke About Star Wars:”

More than a month ago, I made some jokes about Star Wars on Red Eye, a satirical political comedy show that airs at 3 a.m., and it has resulted in me being verbally abused and told to die by a mob of enraged fans for the past four days now.

The capital-offense comments were:

“I have never had any interest in watching space nerds poke each other with their little space nerd sticks, and I’m not going to start now.”


“Yesterday I tweeted something, and all I said was that I wasn’t  familiar with Star Wars because I’ve been too busy liking cool things and being attractive.”

Now, I received a few death threats right after I posted the aforementioned tweet — which, by the way, was why I was saying Star Wars fans were “crazy” in the first place. Overall, though, it wasn’t a big deal, and I kind of forgot about it.

Then, this week, one Star Wars super-super-super fan who calls himself “AlphaOmegaSin” made a ten-minute (!) video brutally ripping me apart.

She probably should consulted fellow NR contributor James Lileks, who discovered firsthand nearly 20 years ago just how much of the dark side of the Force Star Wars obsessives will conjure up, if you dare badmouth their imaginary universe.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. This obsession with ‘cultural appropriation’ is leading us down a very dark path. “The idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ sums up everything rotten in today’s intensifying politics of identity. It’s fuelled by the borderline racist idea that to mix cultures is bad. It isn’t only yoga that’s getting it in its supple neck from these new cultural purists: white rappers like Iggy Azalea are slammed for appropriating black culture; students have been banned from wearing sombreros lest Mexicans feel mocked; non-black celebs who try out the cornrow hairstyle can expect to be Twitch-hunted by mobs of these new cultural purists who think black people and white people should stick to their own cultural camps.”


You just look at how many of our collective bigotries we have overcome in America in the last 100 years. We are less racist than we used to be, we are less sexist than we used to be. We are less religiously bigoted than we used to be. We are less homophobic than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be around anybody that disagrees with us.


The candidate for First Man also said, “the polarization of American politics is present not just in Washington, but in American life.” Clinton didn’t call out any institutions in particular, but one wonders if he had the recent campus meltdowns in mind. American universities in some ways epitomize the trends Clinton has described: They pursue aggressive affirmative action, they are saturated with centers for race and gender and LGBT students, their brochures are shot through with paeans to diversity and tolerance—and yet they are now cementing their reputations as the most ideologically intolerant institutions in the country.

For good and ill, there is no reason to think that the trends Clinton described are abating. As we noted last week, millennials are more tolerant of different identities than older generations, but they are also most eager to censor offensive opinions.

This Turkey Day, be thankful that America is winning the war on racism and sexism. And ignore the torrent of articles telling you how to DESTROY your relatives for their incorrect opinions.

Good advice.

PRINCETON STUDENTS FIGHT BACK: Steven Hayward over at Power Line shares a letter that a group of intrepid Princeton students has sent to the President of the University:

Dear President Eisgruber,

We write on behalf of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition to request a meeting with you so that we may present our perspectives on the events of recent weeks. We are concerned mainly with the importance of preserving an intellectual culture in which allmembers of the Princeton community feel free to engage in civil discussion and to express their convictions without fear of being subjected to intimidation or abuse. Thanks to recent polls, surveys, and petitions, we have reason to believe that our concerns are shared by a majority of our fellow Princeton undergraduates. . . .

This dialogue is necessary because many students have shared with us that they are afraid to state publicly their opinions on recent events for fear of being vilified, slandered, and subjected to hatred, either by fellow students or faculty. Many who questioned the protest were labeled racist, and black students who expressed disagreement with the protesters were called “white sympathizers” and were told they were “not black.” We, the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, refuse to let our peers be intimidated or bullied into silence on these–or any–important matters. . . . 

We oppose efforts to purge (and literally paint over) recognitions of Woodrow Wilson’s achievements, including Wilson College, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and his mural in Wilcox Dining Hall. As you have noted, Wilson, like all other historical figures, has a mixed legacy. It is not for his contemptible racism, but for his contributions as president of both Princeton and the United States that we honor Wilson. Moreover, if we cease honoring flawed individuals, there will be no names adorning our buildings, no statues decorating our courtyards, and no biographies capable of inspiring future generations.

We worry that the proposed distribution requirement will contribute to the politicization of the University and facilitate groupthink. However, we, too, are concerned about diversity in the classroom and offer our own solution to this problem. While we do not wish to impose additional distribution requirements on students for fear of stifling academic exploration, we believe that all students should be encouraged to take courses taught by professors who will challenge their preconceived mindsets. To this end, the University should make every effort to attract outstanding faculty representing a wider range of viewpoints–even controversial viewpoints–across all departments. Princeton needs more Peter Singers, more Cornel Wests, and more Robert Georges.

Similarly, we believe that requiring cultural competency training for faculty threatens to impose orthodoxies on issues about which people of good faith often disagree. As Professor Sergiu Klainerman has observed, it reeks of the reeducation programs to which people in his native Romania were subjected under communist rule.

As Hayward observes, “May I suggest that employers write down the names of each of these signatories, for the obvious reason that they’re the kind of young people you want to hire.”

‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ GETS ONE RIGHT: Woodrow Wilson Was a Terrible Racist:

Wilson even wrote a book that served as the foundation for the infamous movie The Birth of a Nation.

Princeton should rescind every honor given to this vile man.

But to be consistent, the university must also make an effort to explain to the Black Lives Matter students that Wilson’s racism was intrinsically linked to his Progressivism. The dangerous political ideology believes all individuals are servants to the state; I don’t expect that correcting this side of the Wilson story will be prioritized over there anytime soon.

Of course not – the essence of “Progressivism” is to sell collectivism under the guise of wild hedonism and Nietzschean extreme individualism, a sleight of hand that’s been going strong on (at least) two continents for a century or so.


GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson is resonating most with Republican and Republican-leaning voters who are “angry” at the government, a new poll says.

Approximately 71 percent of GOP voters “angry” at government view Carson favorably, according to the Pew Research Center survey. Just 15 percent of that group have a negative view of the retired neurosurgeon.

Carson is also popular among GOP voters who said they are “not angry” with the government, receiving a 63 percent favorability rating among that segment, versus 15 percent who see him unfavorably.

In general, the Pew survey found growing distrust of the government among likely GOP voters, with 32 percent saying they are mad at the government.

Maybe if the government were more trustworthy. . . .

WHY IS THE WASHINGTON POST SO RACIST? Tom Maguire disassembles their “fact check” of Ben Carson.

There’s no lie they won’t tell to keep a black man down.


It hardly needs stating, also, that the Islamist terrorists are as brutal to those Muslims who aren’t of a hardline Salafi creed as they are to non-Muslim infidels. . . .

The West — Europe, in particular —is in a terrifying bind, for it has living in its midst substantial populations of Muslims, the majority of whom are poorly integrated into Western society. And by integration I don’t simply mean a case of Abdul or Cherif or Aicha getting up every morning to go to work with other citizens of Belgium or France or Denmark, but an embracing of the civic and social and constitutional values of these countries — what might, by useful shorthand, be called the Western “way of life”.

To the extent that we have the full facts, we know that every single perpetrator of the carnage in Paris was home-grown. That is a chilling fact (and phrase), conjuring visions of a venom that eats away at the body-politic, with echoes of a cancer in the human body. The fault, I fear, is that of Europe’s elites. For decades, they ignored — and even actively worked against — integration, scorning it as unfashionable, old-fangled, and, worst of all, racist. Is Our Way, they asked, with impressively self-destructive hubris, really better than Their Way?

That question now has an answer. It’s an answer the West must live and, increasingly, die with.

All these eggs keep being broken, but the promised omelettes never appear. . . .

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO RACIST? Gov.-elect Matt Bevin Lashes Out at ‘Overtly Racist’ Cartoon published by the Lexington Herald-Leader. “Bevin and his wife Glenna adopted four Ethiopian children in 2012.”

The Herald-Leader also apparently thinks that Syrians are black.

WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY’RE BOTH JUST DEMOCRATIC PARTY FRONT GROUPS, THE CONFLICT RESOLVES ITSELF: Matt Welch: Black Lives Matter and Michael Bloomberg’s Gun Control Machine: the oddest couple? “As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his blistering concurrence in 2010′s McDonald vs. Chicago, which incorporated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in all 50 states, explicitly racist gun restrictions and confiscations were a critical tool for pro-slavery whites in the post-Civil War South. . . . We think of stop-and-frisk as a drug or simple harassment measure, but Bloomberg’s legal justification was the need to keep guns off the streets. According to Bloomberg’s logic, cops needed to initiate more than 5 million interactions between 2002 and 2013, 86% of which were with black or Latino residents. . . . There is an always timely lesson in those statistics: Whenever government agents gain more power over citizens, whether to enforce bans on loose cigarettes or raze private property to build a baseball stadium, poor and disadvantaged communities will be on the receiving end first and hardest.”

I had a piece on this recently.

SO IF WE’RE GOING TO BAN WOODROW WILSON BECAUSE HE WAS A HORRIBLE RACIST (AND HE WAS), what about FDR, who segregated bathrooms when Secretary of the Navy, and imprisoned over 100,000 people becouse of their race?



Hillary Clinton is not well-liked by Colorado women, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

The poll found the former secretary of state trailing each of the top four GOP presidential candidates (Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) by double digits.

Even worse news for Clinton, who is making her womanhood a central part of her campaign and won’t stop reminding people of her gender, is that women in Colorado prefer nearly every top GOP candidate to her.

I think she’ll have trouble making that up with votes from men. . . .

Plus: “Clinton does especially poorly among white women, who went for Carson 52 percent to Clinton’s 42 percent.” Those racists.

THOSE RACIST DEMOCRATS: Pro-Hillary Mayor Makes The Most Shocking Argument Yet For Denying Syrian Refugees. “I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.”

METAPHOR ALERT: Vanderbilt Hate Crime Turns Out To Be Blind Girl’s Dog’s Poop.

Hello, you go to a top twenty school. Do PC bros not do grammar now? But more importantly, “As many of us sit in grief..” Oh give me a fucking break. It was a bag of poop left on the stairs outside. This left you grief stricken?

The post went viral with all the liberal media — PC BRO RACISM ALERT, THERE’S POOP ON CAMPUS STEPS — and an investigation into the bag of poop ensued.

Yep, an investigation by Vandy police. (To be fair, this is the most important investigation the Vandy police have been involved in investigating by themselves since a Kappa Delta sorority girl left her hazards on too long unloading Nordstrom bags outside the sorority house).

Who was the horrible racist who left dog poop on campus steps?

Well, it turns out that it was a blind female student whose seeing eye dog pooped on campus and she couldn’t find a trash can.

Vandy cry-bullies, we’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.


UPDATE: “And the race haters come out of the woodwork.”


In addition to slurs against Mexicans, Marx, whose father had converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, was none too keen on Jews and blacks, as well.

But the SJWs are already on the case! They want to see Marx removed from the college criteria not because he was a stone cold racist totalitarian, but — wait for it! — because he’s yet another dead white European male. As James Lileks wry observed back in January, “Some Berkeley students are mad about a class that is just plain othering the living heck out of them. From a piece they wrote for the Daily Californian:”

We are calling for an occupation of syllabi in the social sciences and humanities. This call to action was instigated by our experience last semester as students in an upper-division course on classical social theory. Grades were based primarily on multiple-choice quizzes on assigned readings. The course syllabus employed a standardized canon of theory that began with Plato and Aristotle, then jumped to modern philosophers: Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Marx, Weber and Foucault, all of whom are white men. The syllabus did not include a single woman or person of color.

In response, Lileks wrote:

If there’s one thing you take away from the Daily Californian essay, it’s the pursed-lip’d narrow-eyed glare of someone who is being forced to sit in a room and NOT BE VALIDATED. (Some of the complainants may be angry because they are witnessing the non-validation of others and are compelled to be enraged on their behalf.) College, apparently, is now a place where the notions of people freshly matriculated from high school must be handled with oven mitts and lightly buffed with soft cloth lest their orthodoxies suffer the slightest abrasion. Like the school that canceled the annual performance of The Vagina Monologues because it othered non-traditional women who lacked the titular orifice, it’s a delightful example of leftist autophagy. Marx is in foul order in Berkeley not for his ideas, or the heaps of corpses accumulated in his name, but because he had a prostate.

By the way, Foucault died of AIDS, so you can dismiss everything the students wrote. Homophobes and haters. No, kids, don’t bother defending yourselves. As your heroes would no doubt say: If it wasn’t true, we wouldn’t have accused you.

Heh. Yet another reminder that as Ray Bradbury predicted in Fahrenheit 451, the books will be burned as much to protect everyone’s feelings as much as to block the ideas within them.

SEE, THIS IS WHEN YOU USE A MOVEMENT AS AN EXCUSE TO BE A MOB: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Disrupt Students in Library: ‘F*ck You, You Filthy White F*cks!’

Protesters at Dartmouth University disrupted students studying in the library, reportedly directing profanity towards white students and physically pushing others.

In a critical editorial, the conservative Dartmouth Review listed some of the epithets hurled by the protesters: “Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” “Fuck you and your comfort!” “Fuck you, you racist shits!”

In addition, the Review reports that some of protesters became physically violent: “Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group. ‘If we can’t have it, shut it down!’ they cried. Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting ‘filthy white bitch!’ in her face.”

Campus Reform managed to obtain video showing the protesters walking through the library shouting as others try to study. One of the protesters can be seen flipping off the cameraman. Another gets in the face of those who are studying demanding they say that black lives matter.

One of the protesters posted online, saying they were ashamed of what the protest turned into. “After making a girl cry, a protester screamed ‘Fuck your white tears,’” he reports. “I was startled by the aggression from a small minority of students towards students in the library, many of whom were supporters of the movement.”

“Were” perhaps being the operative word. And you should be ashamed. This is awful behavior.


The student protests that have swept through Claremont McKenna College (CMC) over the past few days—and the ensuing fallout—have made us disappointed in many of those involved.

First, former Dean Mary Spellman. We are sorry that your career had to end this way, as the email in contention was a clear case of good intentions being overlooked because of poor phrasing. However, we are disappointed in you as well. We are disappointed that you allowed a group of angry students to bully you into resignation. We are disappointed that you taught Claremont students that reacting with emotion and anger will force the administration to act. We are disappointed that when two students chose to go on a hunger strike until you resigned, you didn’t simply say, “so what?” If they want to starve themselves, that’s fine—you don’t owe them your job. We are disappointed that you and President Chodosh put up with students yelling and swearing at you for an hour. You could have made this a productive dialogue, but instead you humored the students and allowed them to get caught up in the furor.

Above all, we are disappointed that you and President Chodosh weren’t brave enough to come to the defense of a student who was told she was “derailing” because her opinions regarding racism didn’t align with those of the mob around her. Nor were you brave enough to point out that these protesters were perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative. These protesters were asking you to protect your students, but you didn’t even defend the one who needed to be protected right in front of you.

Second, President Chodosh. We were disappointed to see you idly stand by and watch students berate, curse at, and attack Dean Spellman for being a “racist.” For someone who preaches about “leadership” and “personal and social responsibility,” your actions are particularly disappointing. You let your colleague, someone who has been helping your administration for the past three years and the college for six years, be publicly mocked and humiliated. Why? Because you were afraid. . . .

We are adults, and we need to be mature enough to take ownership of and responsibility for our feelings, rather than demanding that those around us cater to our individual needs. The hypocrisy of advocating for “safe spaces” while creating an incredibly unsafe space for President Chodosh, former Dean Spellman, the student who was “derailing,” and the news media representatives who were verbally abused unfortunately seemed to soar over many of your heads.

Lastly, we are disappointed in students like ourselves, who were scared into silence. We are not racist for having different opinions. We are not immoral because we don’t buy the flawed rhetoric of a spiteful movement. We are not evil because we don’t want this movement to tear across our campuses completely unchecked.

We are no longer afraid to be voices of dissent.

Good. And read the whole thing, which is just terrific.

A CAMPUS CLIMATE OF FEAR: Univ. of Missouri student: ‘Several of us are afraid to disagree with other students.’

An innocent man lost his job. Racial tensions are at an all time high. Faculty members refuse to acknowledge students’ First Amendment rights. Campus authorities are policing speech.

This is my reality as a student at the University of Missouri.

I believe in liberty for all people, but the current climate on campus runs counter to that. Some friends tell me they are afraid to voice their opinions lest they come under fire from the administration or peers – or the police.

The University of Missouri police department sent an email urging students to report offensive or hurtful speech – not because it is illegal – but so the Office of Student Conduct could take disciplinary action against these students.

Several of us are afraid to disagree with other students, who in turn may report us to the authorities so we can be “dealt with.” Many students have told me they are also afraid to speak out against the protest narrative, afraid they will be called “racist” and become campus pariahs.

What’s lost is honest dialogue.

Well, believe me, that’s the last thing the protesters are looking for. They want submission.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Profs Write Openly Racist Manifesto Against Campus Concealed Carry.

Related: College ‘Safe Space’ Boos an Asian Woman For Declaring ‘Black People Can Be Racist.’


Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 9.04.59 PM

I got an email about my USA Today column from an angry lefty with the usual “Republicans are a bunch of dying old white people who’ll be gone soon” eliminationist rhetoric. I was tempted to send him this article on the GOP’s takeover of state governments. But I’ll repeat a question I asked earlier: In light of these campus scandals, will we see more, or less, human, financial, and reputational capital flowing to higher education in the future?


To paraphrase a one-time frequent MSNBC guest, this is about hating the notion of a Hispanic man in the White House. This is racism straight up. Perhaps the synapses are misfiring in Chris’s limbic brain.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ISN’T ONLY FOR DEMS: Charles Hurt explains, “Jeb Bush, John Kasich seal their fates by pandering to illegal immigrants.”

Outside the debate hall, protesters beat drums and screamed for amnesty. One man with a bullhorn kept repeating over and over again that justice is not possible in America. And every third time or so he accused Mr. Trump of being a “racist” for vowing to enforce America’s immigration laws. No word on whether he was a plant, paid for by the Bush campaign.

On stage inside the debate hall, Mr. Trump stuck to his guns and said that immigration laws passed by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and approved by presidents from both parties should simply be enforced. That is all he is saying.

Yet Mr. Bush not only thinks these laws should be summarily dismissed, he said during the debate that even having a discussion about enforcing our immigration laws is a terrible thing. We should dismiss these laws and there should not even be a debate about it.

Wow. Truly astonishing. Not only does Mr. Bush not belong in the White House or the Republican Party, he should just be deported. Perhaps to Mexico, where he might be happier and find greater success in politics.

Astonishingly, Mr. Bush was not alone on the Republican stage. “Think about the families!” cried Ohio Gov. John Kasich. “C’mon, folks!”

These people really have no clue how desperately frustrated and estranged American voters in both parties are over this issue of rampant illegal immigration and Washington’s absolute refusal to take simple, common sense measures to fix the problem.

John Kasich should be deported right behind Jeb Bush.

Yep. When I heard Bush and Kasich make these remarks about (not)  enforcing existing immigration laws, I wondered if they realized how much damage they were doing to their quest to obtain the GOP nomination. While I’m sure both Bush and Kasich sincerely hold these beliefs, they are shockingly out of touch with GOP voters.

MISSOURI USED TO BE CALLED THE “SHOW ME” STATE FOR ITS INHABITANTS’ HARD-HEADED SKEPTICISM, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE IT HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF MODERN HIGHER EDUCATION: Was The Poop Swastika Incident At Mizzou A Giant Hoax? “Did the incident happen as reported, or did two university administrators resign over protests that were sparked by a hoax? And if the incident did happen as reported, a proposition for which no publicly available evidence currently exists, how did university administrators and law enforcement authorities confirm that the vandalism was driven by racial animosity, as opposed to being promulgated as a public relations stunt meant to tar the university for failing to provide an environment free of racist invective? It would not be the first time a public university fell victim to a high profile PR stunt that was later revealed to be a fabrication.”

Related: #Mizzou student body prez retracts statements about confirmed Klan sighting.

Jesus, you people are pathetic. Get a grip.

UPDATE: Hey, Mizzou: Where’s The Poop? “At this point … we have nothing.”

ENDORSED: Prof. Thom Lambert: Supporting My Mizzou Students.

I could not really support my Mizzou students in this difficult time if I did not point out a few things.

First–The top administrators of a school of 35,000 people cannot prevent all instances of racism. Ignorant, mean people are sometimes going to yell slurs from their pick-up trucks when they drive through campus. Drunken frat boys are occasionally going to say ugly things. When you ambush the homecoming parade, to which parents have brought their small children for a rah-rah college experience, some people are not going to be nice to you. Those ambushed may be taken aback and may not say all the right things. People who draw things with poop are especially hard to control. Be prepared: The people who replace the deposed president and chancellor at Mizzou are unlikely to prevent every racist incident on our campus.

Second–The U.S. Constitution forbids state institutions from employing racial quotas. Having been involved in hiring at Mizzou for a number of years, I can assure that we bend over backward to fill open positions with qualified minority applicants. It is highly unlikely that Concerned Student 1950’s demand that the percentage of black faculty and staff at Mizzou be raised to 10% by 2017-18 can be implemented in a manner consistent with constitutional obligations. You should know that.

Third–Free speech means more than the freedom to express views with which you agree. I honestly think most Mizzou students understand this point, but I’m afraid that the administrator and communications professor in this video don’t grasp it. Lest you be misled by their ill-advised bullying, you should know that the First Amendment is for everyone.

Fourth–Unreasonable demands have consequences. We will survive this, but Mizzou has been badly weakened. I can’t imagine that the press accounts from the last week will help with minority student and faculty recruitment next year. That’s a shame, because based on my encounters with a great many minority students and professors at Mizzou over the past twelve years, I believe most have had good experiences. Perhaps they haven’t been honest with me. Or perhaps the situation has changed in the last couple of years. If so, I’m terribly sorry to hear that. But, following the events of the last week, I can’t imagine that next year will be better.

Fifth–Regardless of your take on the events of the last week, I hope you will not let bitterness reign in your hearts. Unlike many of my gay friends from conservative religious backgrounds, I chose years ago not to write off those people who were once unkind to me. I’m glad I made that choice. I hope any Mizzou student who is currently feeling marginalized for any reason will keep calm, carry on, give others the benefit of the doubt, and be open to reconciliation.

So, Mizzou students, I support you. But I will not coddle you. You’re adults and should be treated as such.

And should act as such. As should the administrators.

SOUTH PARK TO SHOW LIFE WITHOUT ‘RACIST, TRIGGER-HAPPY’ COPS: Sounds like it should be a fun episode, but didn’t The Dark Knight Rises already do that?

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: How gun laws put the innocent on trial: If you care about civil rights for minorities, gun control is not the answer. “Police are horrible, racist monsters who want to lock up minorities over even trivial violations of the law! And police are also the only ones who should have guns!”

ACADEMIA’S SAUL BELLOW MOMENT: One of Rod Dreher’s readers is reminded of Bellow’s first novel:

Watching the video you embedded of [Yale’s] Christakis surrounded by SJWs, pleading along the lines of, “But we’ve eaten together for years, you’ve taken classes with me, how could you think I’m the kind of person you’re now accusing me of being? Doesn’t our having known each other count for anything, at all?” my mind went immediately to a scene from Saul Bellow’s first novel, Dangling Man, when Joseph, the narrator, encounters a former Party comrade in a restaurant.

Plus this:

One day, hopefully soon, we’re going to reach a point where those of us who dissent from the antiliberalism of the campus Left will simply announce, with e.e. cummings, that “There is some sh*t I will not eat.” I think in the refusal to apologize on that campus lawn, there’s a step toward it. (My breaking point came when I refused to write an e-mail apologizing to several colleagues for my insufficient expression of outrage at the “racist condiments” in the department break room. No one had asked me to; I just knew I needed to. And then I realized what I was doing and closed my computer. That was a thing that really happened in my life.)

I’d love to know the insane troll logic* behind which condiment was racist and why! But then, as Kurt Schlichter tweets, “I used to advocate destroying liberal academia, but now I say let’s laugh and watch it destroy itself.”

* TV Tropes reference.


UPDATE: University of Missouri President Just Resigned: What It Means for the Campus Speech Wars; No competent educator can give students the false sense of security they desire.

What were these racist incidents? Someone shouted a slur at the campus’s black student government president. Someone smeared feces in the shape of a swastika on the wall of a residence hall. (In a letter announcing his hunger strike, student Jonathan Butler also cited “graduate students being robbed of their health insurance, and Planned Parenthood services being stripped from campus” among the reasons for Wolfe to resign, although these concerns don’t really strike me as being tied to race.)

I can understand why students were upset about these things. And if they want to call on Wolfe to do more, they are well within their rights. Maybe Wolfe was doing a bad job, although it’s difficult to say what he should have done differently; is there any policy a university could adopt that would prevent idiots from occasionally yelling immature, insulting things at people on the street?

This controversy, as with the current upheaval at Yale, suggests aggrieved students most desperately want administrators to acknowledge their pain and tell them they have a right to live free of emotional turmoil. But no competent administrator can provide them with this false sense of security, since the proper role of a university education is to help students overcome (rather than sidestep) challenges.

In any case, Wolfe’s resignation also means that hyper-offended students are not as powerless as skeptics of the campus speech wars claim they are. I’m often told by these skeptics that the actions of outraged students are harmless because they never amount to anything, but this development at Missori is a significant contrary example.

I would be disheartened, but not at all surprised, to see more professors and administrators driven from campus for the crime of failing to erect suitable safe spaces.

Just making it easier for President Cruz to abolish student loans. And if you don’t think that this will hurt Mizzou at budget time with the legislature, well . . .

Plus, online education seems like a big winner out of this. “In the fall of 2012, the most recent semester with complete data in the U.S., four million undergraduates took at least one course online, out of sixteen million total, with growth up since then. Those numbers mean that more students now take a class online than attend a college with varsity football. More than twice as many now take a class online as live on campus.”

Given that many college students seem to belong at home with Mommy, this trend is likely to accelerate.

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: How gun laws put the innocent on trial: If you care about civil rights for minorities, gun control is not the answer. “Police are horrible, racist monsters who want to lock up minorities over even trivial violations of the law! And police are also the only ones who should have guns!”

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: How gun laws put the innocent on trial: If you care about civil rights for minorities, gun control is not the answer. “Police are horrible, racist monsters who want to lock up minorities over even trivial violations of the law! And police are also the only ones who should have guns!”

WHO’S BURNING BLACK CHURCHES? OH. Michelle Malkin exposes the media myth that angry, racist white folks have been burning down black churches:

Over a two-week period in October, an arsonist targeted seven churches in the St. Louis area — including several in Black Lives Matter protest hotspot Ferguson, Missouri.

The Atlantic magazine, invoking the “long history of terrorism against black churches in America,” lamented that the crime spree had been “slow to get the same attention” in the local and national media as another string of church arsons that occurred earlier this summer.

Reminder: Several of those hyped hate crimes against “black churches” had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the “black churches” were, in fact, white churches; and the complex motives behind the crimes included mental illness, vandalism and concealment of theft.

Reminder: The same hyperventilators who stoked fears about this summer’s church incidents had also stoked hysteria about the 1990s black church arson “epidemic” that fell apart under scrutiny and ended with USA Today admitting that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Undaunted, agitators did their best to fan the flames over the latest alleged wave of race-based black church burnings in October. On Twitter, social justice activists resurrected the #WhosBurningBlackChurches hashtag. “Black churches are burning again,” Oklahoma State University professor Lawrence Ware lamented in Counterpunch. The far left propaganda outfit U.S. Uncut concluded unequivocally: “Racists in Ferguson Burn Down 5 Black Churches in 9 Days.”

Except, they didn’t. Again.

Last week, police charged 35-year-old David Lopez Jackson, who is black, with setting two of the fires. “Forensic evidence linked him to the fire on Oct. 18 at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 1011 Theobald Street,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, and “video of his car near New Life Missionary Baptist Church, 4569 Plover Avenue, links him to the fire there on Oct. 17, police Chief Sam Dotson said.” Jackson is a suspect in the other fires and additional charges are pending.

The arrest follows another black church hate crime spree-gone-bust in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. In late June, after a pair of churches received menacing notices (“Black men, be aware, you are the target,” read one), black suspect Vincent Broughton admitted to posting the ugly signs.

And yes, Colorado Springs is also the home of the January 2015 NAACP office bombing that wasn’t.

Why is it that liberals/progressives–whose ideological core is defined by its adamant belief in various -isms (e.g., racism, sexism)–feel compelled to create examples of -ist actions? Logic suggests that if American society is so racist or sexist, liberals/progressives would not be compelled to invent these faux -ist incidents to justify their own hateful worldview.

Can you imagine conservatives purposefully engaging in activities they condemn, to “prove” that such activities are ubiquitous? Would conservatives obtain an abortion in the sixth month of pregnancy and inform the media that they did so because they decided they just didn’t want the inconvenience and expense of a child, hoping reporters would write stories about the moral/ethical hazards of late abortions? Would a conservative ever bomb or deface a church and spray paint “Christians beware–your faith is a lie!,” to trigger media reports about “hate” crimes and discrimination against Christians by atheists or non-Christians?

And even if conservatives did violate their own principles in a desperate attempt to keep a narrative alive, would the liberal/progressive media even bother writing a story to “highlight” such “hateful” or “disturbing” behavior?

SELF-AWARENESS FAIL: Native American leader at the forefront of trying to ban the “racist” Redskins name wore blackface for Halloween.

Blackface — it’s the New Progressivism. (And has been for about four decades now, at least.)

CHANGE: Four Years After Complaining About Romney’s Wealth, MSM Now Obsessed with Rubio’s Lack of It.

Lack of wealth? My god, the man owns a motorboat — for the racially-obsessed MSM, that practically makes Rubio a Miami Vice character.

Speaking of which, the Federalist charts 6 Of The Most Racist Things The Media Has Said About Marco Rubio.

They’re going to need a lot more server space by the time 2016 rolls around — and infinitely more if Rubio wins the nomination and the presidency.



HMM: Bernie Sanders Now Says There Are ‘Valid Questions’ About Hillary’s Damn Emails. No more Mr. Nice Guy, I guess, now that she’s called him racist and sexist.

AND IT’S STILL ONLY 2015: 6 Of The Most Racist Things The Media Has Said About Marco Rubio.

POOR WIRED. First they run a low, dishonest piece by Amy Wallace smearing Gamergate as racist rape fans on the way to writing about the Hugos. But worse, it’s basically the same piece that Entertainment Weekly ran, and retracted, months ago, though with extra dollops of pretentiousness.

So Wired isn’t just running with a bogus establishment narrative. It’s running with a behind the curve bogus establishment narrative, with extra dollops of pretentiousness.

I remember when Wired was a bunch of rebels ahead of the curve, but that was a decade or more ago.

NOT AN OXYMORON: BEN CARSON, BLACK CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN: “One would think that, in a sane world, the fact that Carson is black and is one of the GOP leaders would make liberal pundits admit that GOP voters must not be as bigoted as the MSM and the Democrats previously thought (or previously claimed) they were. Now, that’s a story. But it isn’t a story you’ll hear much about. In fact, the leftist line about Carson and bigotry is that Carson is a bigot for criticizing Muslims who want sharia law.”

But then Sharia trumping gay rights is perhaps the strangest formulation of the left’s divide-and-conquer identity politics hierarchy.

THE COST OF A LIBERAL WAR ON POLICE: at Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin writes:

Of course, liberals dismiss the notion that there is a war on police that is hurting the poor. But you don’t have to believe me or any other conservative who has repeatedly pointed this out since the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore last year. Last Friday, the man appointed by Barack Obama to be the head of the FBI made these same points. Here’s what FBI Director James Comey said in a speech at the University of Chicago excerpted by the Wall Street Journal:

I have spoken of 2014 in this speech because something has changed in 2015. Far more people are being killed in America’s cities this year than in many years. And let’s be clear: far more people of color are being killed in America’s cities this year. And it’s not the cops doing the killing.

He went on to diagnose the problem in stark language that cuts through the politically correct mush we have been served by the administration he serves and the mainstream media that serves as cheerleaders for the man who appointed him:

Read the whole thing. As Tobin adds:

This is something that a lot of people have been saying in the last year as President Obama, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and the entire roster of MSNBC race baiters have done their best to delegitimize police as armed racists. Crime rates have gone up in New York and Baltimore and in other places. But now that Comey has stated the plain truth about why this is happening, it’s no longer possible to pretend that such complaints are merely the ravings of right-wing radio talkers. It’s the truth, and it’s high time somebody acknowledged it.

Even if the GOP retakes the White House in 2016, it will likely be many years before all of the damage inflicted upon the nation by the current administration and its most rabid supporters has been repaired.


How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.

Carson’s popularity isn’t solely derived from his race, but it is a factor. The vast majority of conservatives resent the fact that Democrats glibly and shamelessly accuse Republicans of bigotry — against blacks, Hispanics, and women — simply because they disagree with liberal policies (which most conservatives believe hurt minorities).

Yet conservatives also refuse to adopt those liberal policies just to prove they aren’t bigots. Carson — not to mention Carly Fiorina and Hispanics Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — demonstrates that there’s no inherent contradiction between being a minority (or a woman) and supporting conservative principles. And that fact is just too terrible for some liberals to contemplate.

You mean judging a man by the content of his character, his intellect, and his accomplishments, rather than by the color of his skin? It’s an idea so crazy, it just might work someday!


NEW SURVEY REVEALS ALARMING STUDENT ATTITUDES ABOUT FREE SPEECH—Yale University’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program recently released a national survey measuring U.S. college students’ attitudes towards free speech on campus. The results were, ahem, troubling. It’s almost as if liberty is something these students are… unlearning.

Here are just a few of the highlights (lowlights?) from the survey:

  • Nearly one third (32 percent) of students could not identify the First Amendment as the constitutional amendment that deals with free speech. 33 percent of those who correctly identified the First Amendment said that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech.
  • More than half (51 percent) of students are in favor of their college or university having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty.
  • 72 percent of students said they support disciplinary action against “any student or faculty member on campus who uses language that is considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive.”

In less awful news, 95 percent of the students surveyed said that free speech is important to them. However, as I have long predicted and discussed, when you ask Americans if they like free speech, they nearly always say “yes.” But when you get into the nitty gritty details about what kind of speech warrants protection, you discover that some folks (especially college students) are more in the “I love free speech, but…” camp. And I fear the list of exceptions is growing larger by the day.

You can check out more from the survey over at FIRE’s website and look through the full results on McLaughlin & Associates’ website.

IF YOU’RE HEARING DOG WHISTLES, YOU’RE THE DOG: MSNBC Host: When Republicans Say The Phrase ‘Hard Worker’ They’re Being Racist.

Huh — I thought “lazy” was the racist word, besides words like “golf” and “Chicago.” Man, the pages you have to keep ripping out of your Newspeak Dictionary as the updates come in.

(Headline via James Taranto.)



We are in the Dark Ages, and the darkness influences all things in society, including speculative literature. I mean the term not as an exaggeration or a metaphor: the technological products of our enlightened forefathers spring from the worldview which says science is a proper way to discover the mind of God by studying His works. Eliminating that God from one’s worldview eventually eliminates the respect for human life, free thought, and reason in law and custom which are necessary precursors to scientific endeavors, and eliminating science eliminates technology. Once the lamps go out, the darkness is everywhere, even in the little corners of society where children read books about spacerockets or elves.

The moderns have been taught to hate and loath their own country, their ancestors, their parents, and been told everything written before the current day is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transcismophobic, and pure evil. These nutbags think that their own standard bearers of the Progressive movement, the founders of their genre, were not Progressives like themselves.

One need only hear sexual libertarian and radical egalitarian nut Bob Heinlein being excoriated as a member of the misogynist phallocratic patriarchy to realize how far off the edge of the world the lunatics have sailed the ship of fools.

This is not some lunatic fringe belief. It is lunacy, of course, but not fringe. It is mainstream. The core institutions and standard bearers of Science Fiction, the largest publishers, the most prestigious awards, our once-respected guild the SFWA, the oldest and most famous magazine: they all buy into the narrative and all support the narrative with a singleminded fury that is Bolshevik in its vehemence, patience, and pettiness.

Progressives hate the past and seek forever to blacken, demean, and obliterate it. Anyone reading the older books would see immediately that the modern works are only merely equal, not as innovative, and that the modern award-winning works are notably inferior.

The notion of progress is the notion that the past is bad and the present is better and the future will be better yet. If you read old books and find that they are either slightly better or remarkably better than modern offerings, you see a decline, not a progress, and the foundation of progressivism, is overthrown.

Orwell understood this, and so do people who tell us that our reading enjoyment ration has been increased from 300 grams to 250.

Plus: “Heroism is antithetical to Goodthink.”


Yes, it’s true. A leader and his people must be entirely free of racial or prejudicial thoughts for socialism to be implemented on a national scale: See also, National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


When she arrived at the house on Memorial Day in 2011, Anna didn’t know what D.J. planned to do. His brother, Wesley, was working in the garden, so she went straight inside to speak with D.J. and his mother, P. They chatted for a while at the dining table about D.J.’s plans for school and for getting his own apartment. Then there was a lull in the conversation after Wesley came back in, and Anna took hold of D.J.’s hand. ‘‘We have something to tell you,’’ they announced at last. ‘‘We’re in love.’’

‘‘What do you mean, in love?’’ P. asked, the color draining from her face.

To Wesley, she looked pale and weak, like ‘‘Caesar when he found out that Brutus betrayed him.’’ He felt sick to his stomach. What made them so uncomfortable was not that Anna was 41 and D.J. was 30, or that Anna is white and D.J. is black, or even that Anna was married with two children while D.J. had never dated anyone. What made them so upset — what led to all the arguing that followed, and the criminal trial and million-­dollar civil suit — was the fact that Anna can speak and D.J. can’t; that she was a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University in Newark and D.J. has been declared by the state to have the mental capacity of a toddler.

To be fair, she seems not to be much beyond the toddler level herself:

Anna shared this interest in disabilities: As a high-school student, she studied Braille and learned the alphabet in sign language. But as a junior academic, she would apply the mandate of tikkun olam to a different focus — the fight for racial justice. Since getting her Ph.D. in 2000, she has become a prominent scholar in the field of Africana philosophy, has published widely on race and ethics and has served as the chairwoman of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on the Status of Black Philosophers — the first and only white scholar ever to have done so. ‘‘Our world is in shambles,’’ she wrote in ‘‘Ethics Along the Color Line.’’ ‘‘White supremacy is central to this state of affairs, and we cannot repair the world without ending it.’’

Her own family is mixed-­race — she has two children with her ex-­husband, Roger Stubblefield, a black tuba player and classical composer. For 11 years, she served on the faculty at the Newark campus of Rutgers University, whose student body is among the nation’s most diverse. Yet for all her work on behalf of African-­Americans, she worried that she might be ambushed by the ‘‘habits of racism.’’ ‘‘Even in well-­intentioned quests to be antiracist,’’ she wrote, ‘‘white people all too often invade or destroy the space of nonwhite people.’’ The same essay lays out what could be a thesis statement for her whole career: It is crucial, she wrote, for white philosophers ‘‘to wrestle with the horrors and conundrums of whiteness.’’

To be fair, she certainly has managed to destroy the space of some nonwhite people here. Why are so many “social justice” crusaders crazy, with twisted sexual issues?

ILLEGAL AND UNAMERICAN: Party Poopers: University Administrators Chill Speech by Investigating Campus Gatherings.

Earlier this month, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) administrators temporarily suspended a campus fraternity and sorority for hosting a “Kanye Western”-themed party before even completing an investigation into allegations that some attendees wore blackface.

While no evidence that any student wore blackface has been found (several students dressed as miners, with soot-smudged cheeks and pans of gold in an dual reference to Kanye West’s song, “Gold Digger” and the gold rush of 1849), that’s beside the point: The First Amendment protects even overtly racist expression. Given that there don’t seem to be any allegations that students were engaged in anything but protected expression, there is no justification even for an investigation, let alone punishment like the suspensions leveled at this fraternity and sorority.

At UCLA, the driving force behind the university inquiry was calls from other students who, according to the Los Angeles Times, swarmed the chancellor’s office “demanding a response” from the school, and holding signs that read “Our culture is not a costume.”

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf criticized those students last week for “squander[ing] their inheritance” from the student-led Berkeley Free Speech Movement in the 1960s, which made freedom of speech a more prominent issue on the nation’s college campuses.

But Friedersdorf puts most of the onus on the university administration, which he (accurately) alleges should know better.

Yes. The metastasizing “student life” and “diversity” bureaucracies are responsible for most of the disciplinary idiocy on campuses today. They should be massively defunded.

THE BIDEN ECLIPSE AND THE TRUMP PLATEAU: Peggy Noonan makes a couple of miscalculations in her latest essay. First on Hillary and Obama in 2008, Noonan writes, “The 2008 Democratic contest was a rush to the center, with both leading Democrats, Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, trying to show they were moderates at heart.”

But in retrospect, that isn’t quite accurate. In January of 2008, Obama famously told the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle in a chilling monotone that “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted…Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

But being good Democrat operatives with bylines, they buried the story instead of realizing the front page scoop they were just handed — “LEADING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO BANKRUPT COAL INDUSTRY.” In the fall of 2008, Obama’s future Secretary of Energy Steven Chu mumbled, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” to the yawn of a largely urban elite MSM who entirely agreed with his punitive goals.

Similarly, when news that Obama spent nearly two decades in the church of a radical socialist — and racist — who shouted “God damn America” in his “sermons,” the media built a wall around Obama that CNN dubbed — on the air while “interviewing” Obama — as “The Wright-Free Zone.” Much the same was true of Obama’s elitist bitter clingers speech.

It wouldn’t have taken much from old media to highlight Obama’s inner liberal fascist and egg him on to reveal more of it, but 2008 was the year in which any vestigial claims of “objectivity” were completely discarded and the mask was dropped.

Which brings us to Noonan’s second misfire, in which she writes:

The only thing I feel certain of is how we got here. There are many reasons we’re at this moment, but the essential political one is this: Mr. Obama lowered the bar. He was a literal unknown, an obscure former state legislator who hadn’t completed his single term as U.S. senator, but he was charismatic, canny, compelling. He came from nowhere and won it all twice. All previously prevailing standards, all usual expectations, were thrown out the window.

Anyone can run for president now, and in the future anyone will. In 2020 and 2024 we’ll look back on 2016 as the sober good ol’ days. “At least Trump had business experience. He wasn’t just a rock star! He wasn’t just a cable talk-show host!”

Yes, the road to Idiocracy’s President Camacho is paved with good intentions — not the least of which from pundits who held themselves out as conservatives, yet found themselves writing in the fall of 2008:

The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.

You don’t need to speak very loudly when all of your enablers and useful idiots have the megaphones (and the Memory Hole.)

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT FOR SPEECH — SPEECH THAT MAY NOT HAVE EVEN TAKEN PLACE: Georgia Tech restricts frat; chapter denies harassing black student.

Georgia Tech has placed restrictions on a fraternity with a history of disciplinary penalties, over what the university says was discriminatory behavior.

In early August, a black student at the university said three members of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity yelled racial slurs at her from windows of the fraternity house. . . .

Under the restrictions, the chapter may continue “recruiting new members, holding meetings to conduct chapter business and service activities,” but may not participate in Greek Week or homecoming, nor host, co-host or participate in social events on campus, with or without alcohol.

Chapter members will be required to complete specified training to get the restrictions lifted.

On Wednesday, the local chapter disputed the university’s findings and requested an independent investigation.

“We remain convinced that the allegation is false, and that no one from our fraternity was involved. There is compelling video and an abundance of other credible evidence that contradicts the claim, which remains unsupported by any corroborating evidence,” Matt Edwards, alumni association president of the Georgia chapter, said in a statement to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday.

“We are troubled by a disciplinary and investigative process that we believe was flawed, and we ask that the Institute be open to an impartial and independent review by a respected third party.”

The fraternity says the windows in the house where the black student claimed the racial slurs were made were locked or inaccessible, video surveillance does not show the student in front of the house, and that the dean conducting the investigation predetermined the fraternity’s guilt before the investigation began.

Georgia Tech officials declined to comment beyond the online posting.

Fake “hate crimes” are common, and university officials’ willingness to punish fraternities — disfavored institutions made up of those icky men — based on no more than an accusation is well established. But even if the accusation is true, punishment is unconstitutional. Racist speech is still protected speech, and it doesn’t morph into “discriminatory conduct” just because the university wants to punish it.

I’m also curious — are any other student organizations collectively punished for the random acts of a few members, or is that sort of collective responsibility reserved for fraternities?

ASHE SCHOW: The Campus Sexual Assault Movement Is Racist: All about giving wealthy white people their own justice system that poor minorities aren’t privy to.

One major and negative narrative about the justice system is that wealthy and well-connected people get to live by different rules than the rest of us. One can find examples both reinforcing and undermining this, but the prevailing narrative remains.

If one wanted to find a blatant example of wealthy, privileged people getting their own justice system they can bend to their will, look no further than the anti-campus sexual assault movement. Born of false statistics and exaggerated (or wholly made up) victimhood, the movement has created (and seeks to maintain) a separate court system for those who can afford college.

What we’re left with is a movement that seeks “easy justice for me, but not for thee.” It’s a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who are at a higher risk for sexual assault and who cannot afford college, many of them poor, minority women.

This elitist view was confirmed by Connecticut State Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Killingly, who plans to re-introduce an extreme campus sexual assault bill (which had previously failed) in the legislature. Flexer defended the separate justice system against accusations that laws were being created that treated college students differently than the general population.

“Flexer countered that colleges and universities are privileged environments that demand a higher set of standards,” the Connecticut Mirror reported. “She said state law is integral to protecting students on campus, and encourages colleges and universities to create better policy.”

Privileged people getting privileged justice — how progressive.

That’s how progressivism works.

SPENGLER: My Prediction: A Cruz-Rubio Ticket.

We could do far worse — but I hope both men are prepared for endless “white Hispanic” references from the very same media outlets who declared references to golf and Chicago as racist.



As a wise former member of Saturday Night Live would say,  “This is about hating [another] black man in the White House. This is racism straight up,” from SNL’s producer and writers.

But then, as Salon warned last year, “It’s not easy being black on ‘Saturday Night Live’” particularly when the show’s writers and producer forces one of its historically few black cast members to perform such racially denigrating material.


Little wonder then, that so many Redditors accuse [Jason “David Wong” Pargin’s] comedy site of becoming little more than a knockoff version of Salon or Gawker. 

Once upon a time, the site knew few comedic boundaries. For example, this “Star Wars” parody, created by former contributor John Cheese contains racial stereotypes, rape jokes, and intensely vulgar language. It specifically advises the easily offended to stay away.

Today, things are different. In his AmA, Wong proudly proclaimed that his writers “try really hard to walk through the reasoning behind our criticism” and explain “why seemingly innocuous things can be toxic.” Readers waiting for a punchline were disappointed: Wong was being serious.

In one viral image, the website’s former content is compared to its current fare. On one side of the image is the site’s front page as it appeared in 2010, featuring articles about superhero identities, historical identities, and writing tips. On the other is the site as it appears today – plastered with headlines like “5 ways men are trained to hate women,” “The 5 weirdest things that can cause you to be racist,” and “5 shocking realities of being transgender.” Widespread accusations that the site has transitioned from comedy to identity politics appear to have a solid basis in reality.

In July of 2010, Kathy Shaidle wrote “It’s come to this: is the ‘paper’ of record.”  At the end of that same year, Aaron Worthing of Patterico praised their surprisingly evenhanded coverage of CNN’s distorted Tea Party reporting, in article titled “ Sets the Record Straight on the Tea Party (And Eight Other Major Stories).”

Based on the above article at Big Journalism, it sounds like Cracked has since jettisoned any effort at maintaining a bipartisan audience — and not at all coincidentally, replacing humor with angry left SJW proselytizing.


First, you censorious Guardians of Feels on the Left: if you thought that the norms you created wouldn’t be used against your “own side,” you’re fools. It is apparently your theory that the law is sexist, racist, and every other -ist, driven by privilege and wealth, and that free speech norms serve to protect rich white guys — yet somehow exceptions to free speech norm will be imposed in an egalitarian, progressive way. That is almost indescribably moronic. Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.

This Royal Throne of Feels, This Sheltered Isle, This England.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Ivy League prof. calls Ben Carson a ‘coon:’

  • U Penn Prof Anthea Butler tweeted “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award” in response to Ben Carson’s claim that people have the right to display Confederate flags on private property.
  • In the past, Butler has tweeted that God is a “white racist” and Michael Brown’s death was a “blood sacrifice.”
  • Butler has tenure status and has boasted “I can’t get fired” after previous criticism for her tweets.

But if she does, she can always receive tenure at MSNBC.

WOULD YOU TRUST THIS MEDIA: CNN Turns Mixed Race Oregon Shooter into a White Man. LA Times claims Mercer was a white supremacist.  (Oh, why not? After all entertainment weekly turned a Latin man, a Latina and a man in an interracial marriage into racist, sexist and homophobic bigots who want to keep women and minorities out of science-fiction.  Dizinformazia. It’s what they do.)

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This photo-lightening report has been walked back, and is apparently false. Sadly, all too believable in light of past media behavior.


This new migration is as perfect a recipe for disaster as you could find.  I hate to sound like an exclusionist in the melting pot, but I would be lying to say that we should admit any of these people.  Well, maybe one or two, after they are vetted for a dozen years or so (not exactly cost effective). And, ironically, the only way for the Middle East to change is for these people to stay and fight it out.  (Yes, it could take a thousand years.)

Donald Trump, who evidently feels the same way, opened the door on the immigration question and got branded a racist for it. Of course he’s not.  He was only talking honestly, if a bit coarsely, about social problems we’re having.  For the left, it’s much easier and more effective to accuse him of racism.  Otherwise, they’d have to deal with the problem.  Who wants that?  It might cost you votes.  Nevertheless, bad as this southern immigration may be with all the attendant crime, we can survive it. We will assimilate in the end. We can come together.

This potential Middle Eastern migration is a different matter.  Far more fateful in our evolving, oh-so-modern society. You have to laugh when you think about the culture clash as Islamic kids deal with the transgendered bathrooms in our schools.  But you stop laughing when you think who’s going to win that clash, ultimately.  And it’s not the transgendered.

UPDATE: As I completed this post, I notice via Instapundit that the strongest opponent of sharia law in the United States among all the presidential candidates has risen to the top of the polls.  That is Dr. Ben Carson.  So what I have written above may not be the opinion of a minority crank.

Read the whole thing.

RELATED: Like America in 2015? Thank the Ted Kennedy of 1965.

PROGRESSIVES’ CAUSE DU JOUR: HATING ISRAEL: The Progressive Left and Israel’s Right to Exist

A small incident during Bernie Sanders’ recent talk at the University of Chicago reveals how the progressive left has turned against Israel. The venue was the largest on campus, and it was packed with enthusiastic supporters. During a Q&A, one student said that he and his friends liked Bernie’s progressive politics but didn’t much like his views on the Middle East. Bernie’s response, and the crowd’s, are worth pondering.

First of all, Bernie said, Israel has a right to exist. It was supposed to be an applause line, but it fell flat. There was only a smattering. That changed when he said he strongly favored a Palestinian state. For that, the applause was loud and sustained.

It’s only a small incident, but it captures a movement that has been developing for years at elite universities and is now spreading to cultural and media institutions. Their views are surely encouraged by President Obama’s diffidence toward the Jewish state. But he is less a leader than an accurate weather gauge. The left loves Israel about as much as it loves fracking, the Keystone pipeline, Goldman Sachs, voter IDs, Clarence Thomas, and deer hunting.

Actually, progressives would probably prefer to go deer hunting with Clarence Thomas than admit that Israel is a democratic ally whose existence is, in large part, the product of a Holocaust that killed an estimated six million Jews and rendered hundreds of thousands more refugees.  Indeed, it is not unusual to still hear “history deniers” disclaim that the Holocaust even happened, or believe it is greatly exaggerated.

Jewish “victimhood” after the Holocaust is irrelevant to the progressives, who only acknowledge the “victimhood” of Arabs. The covert anti-Semitism is patent, but progressives will never admit it, lest they lose the political support of American Jews.

Haters gonna hate, I know, but progressives lack self-awareness of their hatred, and instead project it onto others with whom they disagree.

BLACK LIVES MATTER, EXCEPT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: William McGurn observes in the Wall Street Journal:

When Bill de Blasio was elected mayor of New York in 2013, he came in riding two progressive narratives.

The grand narrative was his “Tale of Two Cities,” a New York where elites grow rich while millions of others are left struggling for basics. Running through this tale was the subtheme of race, especially of young African-Americans being unfairly deprived of their rights. So when the #BlackLivesMatter movement exploded in New York last year, Mr. de Blasio naturally embraced it. . . .

Today, however, the mayor is finding that his progressive measures are being turned against him. For nowhere in New York is the divide between haves and have-nots—or between black and white—as stark as it is on equal access to a decent education. It is this divide the pro-charter Families for Excellent Schools will highlight on Wednesday as mothers and fathers march across the Brooklyn Bridge to demand “school equality,” i.e., great schools for all children.

In the run up to this march, the group has released a powerful new TV ad designed to drive home the human costs of the existing inequality by showing a white boy and an African-American boy on their way to school. As the camera follows the white child, a narrator says, “Because he lives in a wealthy neighborhood, this 6-year-old will attend a good school.” It points out he’ll “likely go on to college.”

The black child is also walking to school. “Because he lives in a poor neighborhood, this 6-year-old will be forced into a failing school,” says the narrator. The narrator adds this child will probably never make it to college.

“Mayor de Blasio,” the ad ends, “stop forcing kids into failing schools. Half a million kids need new schools now.”

One measure of the ad’s power is how vehemently the mayor’s black allies have denounced it. “Racist to the core,” charged Bertha Lewis, an activist who ran the left-wing community organizing group Acorn until it was disbanded. Likewise the head of the state’s NAACP, Hazel Dukes, who calls the ad “an insult to our communities.”

To the progressive left, advocating for better education for minority students is “racist.” Because, you know, #BlackLivesMatter, but one shouldn’t actually try to do anything about it, other than march in the streets, hold signs, get on TV, and condemn white people as racist– well, at least white people who aren’t Democrats.

When will black Democrats wake up and realize they’re being played? Democrats’ policies–including a ridiculous refusal to give parents meaningful educational options other than failed public schools (that resemble prisons more than schools)–are antithetical to the interests of most blacks. But hey, those conservatives are all just whiteys who can’t be trusted, so whatever they propose must be racist in some way, right?

IMMIGRATION: A small town in Slovakia held a vote on accepting refugees; 97 percent said no. “’We’re not haters,’ said Zoltan Jakus, one of the organizers of the vote. ‘But I think this will end badly.’ . . . The people of Gabcikovo say they are not cold-hearted or racist, but they are clearly worried, and many of them are asking the same questions as other Europeans who feel uneasy about the rising numbers of war refugees and economic migrants.”


When asked by Rolling Stone if acts of “racism” and “racist police violence” help feed a narrative that America is a white-supremacist nation, Noah said America still has a long way to go.

“I wouldn’t say America is a white-supremacist country, but I believe America suffers from a level of institutionalized racial segregation,” said the Johannesburg native. “And the effect of that is very similar to South Africa: It’s difficult to remedy that instantly.

“If you look at the legacy of slavery, if you look at the legacy of oppression…I mean even if you just look at women’s rights, take a step away from racial issues: Society has a long way to go in terms of getting women equal pay, equal recognition in the workplace, and so on,” said Noah.

Give the man credit — unlike Jon Stewart, Noah’s not afraid to attack the Obama White House.

EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE NOW: Study Claims Only Way To Be Less Racist Is To Accuse Others Of Racism.

A study out of Denver’s Diversity Symposium has found the only way for people to extinguish racism in their own souls is to become experts at identifying racism in others.

Dr. Wilder, a researcher of racial and cultural statistics gave an interview recently where he informed reporters of his findings.

“Everyone has some form of prejudice. That is simply human nature. But I’m confident in saying that my dedicated group of researchers have found a way in which we can all vanquish those racist impulses that each of us are infected with.

Dr. Wilder went onto say, “The primary way to purge yourself of your own racist inclinations is by diagnosing racist features in others. We’ve found that with each accusation, the brain releases dopamine which diminishes any racist thoughts the accuser may have.”

When asked by one reporter if this would simply cause more negative feelings and conflict, and bring about a greater divide, the Doctor said, “It’s up to each individual to overcome racism in his or her own life. Obviously the more a person has been corrupted and defiled by this hideous cancer, the harder they will have to strive in order to recognize their disease in others, and thus rid themselves of the malady which afflicts them. They are essentially killing two birds with one stone. Eradicating racism in their own lives while also spreading awareness so that others may tackle the issue on their own terms. An issue which has poisoned our culture since the dawn of man.”

Another reporter asked if accusing someone who isn’t racist will have the same effect on the brain, Dr. Weilding responded.

“As previously stated, everyone is racist to varying degrees. So yes, this exercise will still be effective, even if the accused has displayed no outward racist inclinations.”

Well, there you have it. You racist.


In contrast to the physical sciences, and even other social sciences, the study of history is, by nature, subjective. There is no real mathematical formula to assess the past. It is more an art, or artifice, than a science.

Yet how we present and think of the past can shape our future as much as the statistics-laden studies of economists and other social scientists. Throughout recorded time, historians have reflected on the past to show the way to the future and suggest those values that we should embrace or, at other times, reject.

Today we are going through, at both the college and high school levels, a major, largely negative, reassessment of the American past. In some ways, this suggests parallels to the strategy of the Bolsheviks about whom Serge wrote. Under the communists, particularly in the Stalinist epoch, the past was twisted into a tale suited to the needs of the state and socialist ideology. This extended even to Bolshevik history, as Josef Stalin literally airbrushed his most hated rivals – notably Leon Trotsky, founder and people’s commissar of the Red Army – into historical oblivion.

In the modern reformulation, America – long celebrated as a beacon of enlightenment and justice – now is often presented as just another tyrannical racist and sexist state. The founding fathers, far from being constitutional geniuses, are dismissed as racist thugs and suitable targets of general opprobrium.

Initially, the progressive assault made some sense. Traditional “civics” education often presented American history in an overly airbrushed manner. Many of the nation’s worst abuses – the near-genocide of American Indians, slavery, discrimination against women, depredations against the working class and the environment – were often whitewashed. These shortcomings now have been substantially corrected in recent decades, from what I can see in my children’s textbooks.

Of course, the old attitudes still remain embedded, particularly among those mostly older, white middle- and working-class Americans who are attracted to Donald Trump’s call for America “to be great again.” This kind of unfocused nostalgia does seem likely to be consigned to – as Trotsky dubbed it – “the dustbin of history.”

But as progressive ideology has grown in influence, it has become ever more radicalized, often to the extent of downplaying, or even denying, the remarkable accomplishments of our civilization. It is now considered a “microaggression” on college campuses, notably, those of the University of California, to call America “the land of opportunity,” or celebrate the notion of the “melting pot.” This attitude ignores that America has provided succor and hope to many millions of people who left desperate conditions in places like southern Italy, Ireland, the slums of Lancashire, the shtetls of Russia, rural Japan, China, Central America, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa. . . .

Winston Churchill remarked that “history is written by the victors.” Today, in terms of history and the American past, the presumptive winners are Hollywood, academia and the mainstream media, where people often have little appreciation for America’s unifying creed. In such a situation, there are also losers – namely, the rest of us and our children – who will inherit little of the pride in their country’s history that older generations took for granted.

If American and the West are uniquely awful, how come everyone else in the world wants to live here?

But this is best understood as a war by the New Class against the bourgeoisie. Sapping the bourgeoisie of pride and confidence is a vital step toward bringing them to heel. But when a nation’s rulers have no particular affection for the nation they rule, can it end well?

BARRY LATZER: Holder’s Hatchet Job: Another look at the Justice Department’s misguided Ferguson report, which caps the former attorney general’s legacy of racial divisiveness.

One lesson should have been driven home from the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in August 2014: racial interpretations of complex events are dangerous. The media and Eric Holder’s Justice Department initially cast Wilson as a racist who shot an innocent black youth. They were, as we now know, flat wrong. Not only did a state grand jury decline to prosecute Wilson last fall, but the Justice Department itself backtracked and recommended against federal prosecution. The evidence confirmed that Wilson acted in self-defense and didn’t provide a whiff of support for allegations of anti-black bias.

Nevertheless, it bears recalling that the racial narrative did serious damage. It sowed mistrust of police around the nation, especially among African-Americans. The antipolice protests and the shootings of police officers, in Brooklyn last year, in Ferguson this year, and most recently in Houston, were byproducts of the poisoned atmosphere created by the campaign against allegedly racist law enforcement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, shooting deaths of law enforcers spiked 52 percent in 2014, declining in 2015 as tensions eased. (Forty-seven on-duty officers died from intentional gunfire in 2014, compared with 31 the previous year. Twenty-four died as of the end of August 2015, which at the same rate would result in 36 deaths for the year.) . . .

Well-established research on police has shown that, contrary to what we see in television cop shows, a small part of police officers’ duties involves actually fighting crime. This is even truer for departments in places like Ferguson, where serious crimes are uncommon. Police officers in small cities spend most of their time answering calls for assistance—such as for fires, accidents, illness, or injuries—handling minor disturbances, and controlling traffic. How well does the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) do these things? For that matter, what exactly is the crime situation in Ferguson? Readers will get no earthly idea from reading the Justice Department report, which devotes none of its 102 pages to the everyday work of the FPD or to crime conditions in the city. Indeed, at least one-quarter of the report has little to do with the FPD, focusing instead on the city’s municipal court.

Read the whole thing.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE: Barack Obama’s Half-Clocked Tale of Islamophobia. “As usual, the president assumed Americans are bigots before the contrary facts were in about Mohamed’s suspicious-looking device and uncooperative behavior.”

Related: Hey Liberals, #IStandwithAhmed Isn’t Only About Racism. It’s About School Zero Tolerance Insanity. Kids of all colors are at risk while paranoia reigns supreme in public schools.

Obama never misses a chance to call America racist. His post-presidency will be worse than Carter’s. But, then, so was his presidency.

A MAJOR BRANDING FAIL: Xignite Picks Brutal Founder Of Firing Squads And Labor Camps As Icon Of New API Ecosystem.

Earlier today, Xignite announced the co-launch of a fintech API ecosystem, claiming it to be a “revolution” for the financial tech industry. No doubt in search of an iconic revolutionary figure to be emblematic of the new ecosystem, Xignite selected Ernesto Che Guevera. Pictured above with a Xignite logo super-imposed over his beret, Guevara was widely regarded as Fidel Castro’s right-hand man and a key figure in the overthrow of Cuba’s Batista-led government in the 1959. The image of Guevara appears on both the press release as well as a Web page on Xignite’s Web site. The only problem is that Guevara is also known as a brutal murderer who also founded Cuba’s firing squads and labor camps. . . .

The complete list of founders includes Xignite, Advisor Software, ChartIQ, Insight360, PlanWise, QuantConnect,, EdgeLab, Estimize, Nasdaq, PsychSignal, StockTwits, TopRanks, vetr, Yodlee, SR Labs,, Tradier, Level39 and ValueStream.

Che was a virulent racist and a homophobe, too.


SAY THE RACISTS: Color-Blindness Is Counterproductive.

THE WAR ON FUTBAL: Microaggressions: A Case Study, from Ace of Spades:

We have a major microagression situation at, get this, Oberlin College.

Apparently there was an intramural soccer match scheduled at the same time as a Latin Heritage Club meeting. A White Male (uh oh) sent out an email to a Hispanic girl noting that he’d like to have her at the match, if she wasn’t going to the Latin Club meeting.

He wrote the most racist sentence since Mein Kampf:

Hey, that talk looks pretty great, but on the off chance you aren’t going or would rather play futbol instead the club team wants to go!!

Anyone see the problem there?

That’s right, he said the f-word– Futbol. He racistly appropriated the Spanish language.

Uh-oh. Read the whole thing.

And speaking of being on the lookout for highly problematic microaggressions in everything, Helen Mirren, who over the past decade brilliantly transformed her career by seemingly eschewing her earlier, zanier days, is reverting to form: “It annoys me to see men with an arm slung round their girlfriend’s shoulders – it’s like ownership.” The London Independent added that “Mirren, 70, said that if she could give her younger self one piece of advice, ‘it would be to use the words ‘f*** off’ more frequently.’”

Sounds like excellent advice in this case.

VDH ON THE WEARINESS OF THE WHINERS: “The cult of the whining victim is now ubiquitous,” Victor Davis Hanson writes:

The 21st century has become a cowardly era in which we point to collective race, class, or gender rather than own up to our record of behavior and performance when our exalted expectations are not met. Or is it worse than that? Does a Brandon Marshall count on making unsubstantiated charges of racism in hopes of preemptory careerist advantage: one must prove he is not a racist in the future by offering beneficia in the present?

The culprits are not just our obsessions with race, class, and gender, or the careerist aspirations of elites. We also live in the most affluent and leisured era in the history of Western civilization. But given human nature, our bounty has not given us pause for appreciation, but rather increased our appetites in geometric fashion. The more we have, the more we think we deserve — or else. In an affluent society, society can afford now to have no losers. There is enough stuff and praise to be shared by all. In T-ball everyone is a winner; so is today’s student who feels A’s are his birthright. The poor man in the inner city has more computing power in his palm with an Apple smartphone than did the billionaire twenty years ago in his study — but, of course, not as versatile a phone perhaps as that of today’s billionaire, and thus he can legitimately whine that life is not fair due to the machinations of someone else.

The bane of our age is not poverty but parity, or rather the perceived absence of a state-mandated equality of result. It no long matters how much one has, much less in comparison to those abroad or to Americans of our past. The rub is whether someone has something more or better than your own — and why and how that can still be possible in the American horn of plenty. Given those requisites, whininess is the lubricant of our national machinery.

Read the whole thing.

FIORINA’S FACE: TRUMP FIGHTS LIKE A LEFTIST … AND WINS, John Nolte writes at Big Journalism:

Another reason Trump’s winning is due to the Republican Establishment’s rampaging and fatal case of fecklessness when it comes to fighting back against pretty much anyone, including the billionaire businessman. Just like their limp-wristed responses to Obama and Reid, the Establishment is too busy running around crying “foul!” over a Marquis of Queensbury violation to understand that they are losing.

While Obama was hitting below the belt calling everyone racist and sexist; while he called Palin a pig; while he was rabbit punching accusing Romney of murder; while Reid was beating our guy over the head with a metal folding chair with lies about paying taxes — what were we doing?

* * * * * * *

Bill Clinton once said, “It’s better to be strong and wrong than right and weak.”

Let me put it another way: No matter how nasty and underhanded the bully fights, nobody respects a punk.

Nobody votes for punks.

People respect strength.

And the guy getting beat while he’s crybabying about the other guy not fighting fair is always the punk.

We live in a world where the media openly admires how well the Clintons lie their way out of trouble; a world where the media are too busy admiring Obama and Reid’s audacity to make either ever pay a political price for smearing others with what the entire world knows are lies.

As Nolte writes, “Trump understands that this is how the political world now works. This doesn’t mean he’ll go all the way. He may go too far. He might implode. And if he keeps up these boorish attacks against women he probably will. But up to now all he’s done is win and win and win again; defy every rule and prediction and critic to the top of the field.”

As in 2008, today’s ugly media overculture is fixated on the candidate its rules created:


UPDATE: If you want to disarm Trump, don’t attack him. Pity him instead, with a little help from Jerry Seinfeld.

WELCOME TO AMERICA IN THE AGE OF OBAMA, ASIANS! For Asian Americans, a changing landscape on college admissions.

Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.

“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?

I know, lady, it sucks. You thought you were in America. But, see, they told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney, America would become a racist dystopia. And they were right!

INSOMNIA THEATER: PENN STATE PROFESSOR SUPPRESSES STUDENT ARTWORK ON TERRORISM, CALLING IT “RACIST” – Tonight I’d like to share a FIRE video from several years ago that tells the story of artist and former Penn State grad student Joshua Stulman whose Portraits of Terror art exhibit, which satirized radical Islamic terrorism, was censored by his professor and school administrators. While this decision was reversed by the school’s president, Stulman’s work was never displayed at Penn State. Later on, Stulman made plans to showcase his work at Gratz College in Philadelphia, however the event was canceled for fear of a terrorist attack against the institution.

This strain of censorship is not new. At the time of the release of this video I wrote an extensive blog about the many cases we’d already seen of students getting in trouble for being critical of radical Islam, or even of Hezbollah and Hamas. All these years later, the risks are greater than ever. You can even expect people who rely on free speech, like cartoonist Gary Trudeau, to take the murder of other cartoonists as an opportunity to chastise those of us who believe free speech means nothing without the right to offend.


Nice move there CNN editors, joining the New York Times and the Atlantic by insulting your entire audience. So how’s that strategy working out for you?

● Step One: Declare Your Audience Racist.

● Step Two: ?

● Step Three: Ratings Gold!

Or perhaps not.

PAULINE KAEL, CALL YOUR OFFICE: MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle: I Want To Live As Far Away From Anti-Establishment Voters As Possible:

JOHN HEILEMANN: Trump, Carson, Cruz and Fiorina add up to 53% in Iowa.

MIKE BARNICLE: 53%? So that means that if I lived in Iowa, I would want to know where each of those members of that 53% lived, and I would want to live as far away from them as possible, because there is something seriously wrong with the Republican party if those people combined have a majority of the voters.

Those people? Blow that racist dog-whistle!


In the past week, two television reporters in Roanoke, Va. — Alison Parker and Adam Ward — were murdered by a black man who hated whites, and a white police officer in Houston — Darren Goforth — was murdered by a black man. Neither crime has been labeled a hate crime. And no mainstream media reporting of the murders attributes either to race-based hate.

For the mainstream media, the Roanoke murders were committed by “a disgruntled former employee,” and regarding the Houston policeman, the media report that, in the words of The New York Times, “a motive for the shooting remained unclear.”

The disregard of anti-white hatred as the motive for blacks who murder whites even when the murder is obviously racially motivated comes from the same people who denied that the Islamist Nidal Hasan’s murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood was religiously motivated. These people — all on the left — have an agenda: to deny black racism and Islamist-based violence whenever possible. Only white police and other white violence against non-whites is clearly racist — even when not. . . .

So, too, the mainstream media depicted the black murderer of eight white people at a Connecticut beer warehouse in 2010 as a man who had been angered by white racism, not as the white-hater he was. Under the headline “Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing,” a New York Times article reported: “He might also have had cause to be angry: He had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman’s mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed.”

And a Washington Post headline read: “Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism.”

The fact was that the man was fired for stealing beer from his workplace, and there was a video of him doing so.

The left denies black racism in another way. When a white racist murdered nine blacks in a Charleston, S.C., church this past June, the left and the media correctly stressed the murderer’s racism. Indeed, whenever blacks are killed by whites — which, it is worth noting, is many times less likely than a white being murdered by a black — and especially by white police officers, the left attributes the killings to racism. But when blacks kill whites, the left attributes the killings to guns. This is all reinforced by the left’s position that only whites can be racist, because only the powerful can be racist, and whites have all the power. . . .

The left has been supplying both victimhood and lies to black America. The lies are that America is a racist society — as the president of the United States himself has said, racism is “still part of (America’s) DNA” — that the greatest problem facing young blacks is racism, and that white (and even black) police routinely kill blacks for no reason other than racism. . . .

Those lies in turn produce the anger-inducing victimhood that pervades too much of black life. Just this past weekend at the Minneapolis State Fair, a “Black Lives Matter” group chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.”

Some blacks — as in Houston this past weekend and in Louisiana two weeks earlier when a black man murdered another white policeman — are taking this message literally and randomly murdering police officers. And some other blacks just want to kill whites, whether or not they are police. Such is the power of victimhood and lies.

There is a lot of blood on the left’s hands. And there will be more.

The far left notion that only whites can be racist has been part of Critical Race Theory (of which Obama has long been a proponent), which is a key component of Critical Legal Theory. CRT/CLT’s core philosophy is that whites have all the “power,” and design laws to keep minorities from getting any “power,” thus perpetually victimizing those minorities.  The far left needs hatred of whites and victimhood like fire needs oxygen; without them, its distorted view of law and society withers and dies.

The inherent evil of this far left philosophy should be obvious, as one of the founding fathers of the movement, Saul Alinsky–whose devotees include both Barack Obama and Hillary Clintonincluded in the beginning of his book, Rules for Radicals, the following statement of admiration for the community organizing talents of the devil:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

The devil works in obvious ways sometimes. Hating other individuals simply because of the color of their skin–even if you think that brings them “power” or “privilege”–is racism. But at least two generations of Americans have been taught the opposite, thanks to the far left dominance of the academy. Prager is sadly correct when he ascribes growing black-on-white racial hate crimes to the far left’s “victimhood” narrative, as well as his conclusion that more bloodshed is likely to come.


According to The New York Post, Williams took nearly everything as a racial insult. Trevor Fair, a cameraman at WDBJ, said Parker would say, “The reporter’s out in the field,” and Williams would respond, “What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist.” When a manager brought in watermelon for employees, Williams reportedly said, “You’re doing that because of me… You guys are calling me out because I’m black.” He even accused 7-Eleven of racism for selling watermelon-flavored Slurpees.

Bryce Williams may have been mentally ill. But he was the ultimate product of the left’s microaggression society, seeking offense everywhere and then lashing out at others based on a perceived sense of victimization. Some victimization is objectively true, but that doesn’t mean that all claims of victimization are. The notion that subjective self-assessment of victimization should take precedence over objective fact is deeply dangerous.

Jim Geraghty dubbed Flanagan a “Grievance Collector:”

There are disturbing ramifications if media discussions are indeed driving us to become a more grievance-minded society. Willard Gaylin, one of the world’s preeminent psychology professors, writes about the dangers of “grievance collecting” in his book Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence:

Grievance collecting is a step on the journey to a full-blown paranoid psychosis. A grievance collector will move from the passive assumption of deprivation and low expectancy common to most paranoid personalities to a more aggressive mode. He will not endure passively his deprived state; he will occupy himself with accumulating evidence of his misfortunes and locating the sources. Grievance collectors are distrustful and provocative, convinced that they are always taken advantage of and given less than their fair share. . . .

Underlying this philosophy is an undeviating comparative and competitive view of life. Everything is part of a zero-sum game. Deprivation can be felt in another person’s abundance of good fortune.

At the heart of the grievance collector’s worldview is that he is not responsible for the condition of his life; a vast conspiracy of malevolent individuals and forces is entirely at fault. There is always someone else to blame, and the Virginia shooter quickly finds ways to excuse his actions and deflect the responsibility to others.

For decades, the media has given “grievance collectors” plenty of fuel for their paranoia. In a fawning 1990 profile of Bryant Gumbel, then co-host of NBC’s Today Show, a New York Times journalist off-handedly wrote:

The writer-producer Allison Davis, who is also black, notes that Gumbel does many subtle things on the air to help change images. One example, she says: “Bryant Gumbel does not say ‘Black Monday’ when talking about the stock market. He’s constantly qualifying and looking at stories where the issue of race may or may not be germane.”

And every November, like clockwork, someone in the media sees racism in the phrase “Black Friday.” In 2012, the words “golf” and “Chicago” were deemed racist by a division of NBC.

In 2011, Democrats in the media instantaneously seized on Sarah Palin’s clip art as a cause for the shooting in Tucson. When it was obvious that the shooter never saw Palin’s clip art or its concurrent use by Democrats (it’s the nature of elections that everyone is being “targeted” for defeat by someone) this was followed by lots of trolling leftist articles demanding a new civility from politicians and the media on both sides of the aisle.

Naturally, nothing changed; don’t look for the media to stop providing rhetorical ammo to grievance collectors anytime soon, either.

(Of course, as long as the violence is merely rhetorical, it’s fascinating to watch the grievance collectors devour each other — such as the left turning against leftist house organ Salon for describing Trinidadian-born American rap star Nicki Minaj as “savage” in a tweet.)

UPDATE: Joe Scarborough: Cable news has put lives at risk, including MSNBC, for “a few ratings points.”

STUDY: BLIND PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST: “Twenty-five people? This is more like a large focus group than any sort of quantitative endeavor. It makes a good headline but this is hardly scientific.”

But then, starting in 2007, anybody could be weaponized by the left and declared racist if it advanced the narrative. As we approach 2016, anybody can be weaponized and declared sexist as well.

You could be next — yes, you!

VDH ON HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FINALLY TURNED OFF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC: “If there were not a Donald Trump, he would likely have had to have been invented,” Victor Davis Hanson writes:

Sometime in the last five years, the public woke up and grasped that Latino elite activists were not so much interested in illegal immigration per se, but only to the degree that the issue affected other Latinos. Were 3,000 Chinese illegally entering California per day by ship on the Northern California coast, Latino activists and politicians would probably be the first to call for enforcement of federal immigration law.

It is difficult for the National Council of La Raza to attempt to airbrush away vocabulary like “anchor baby” and “illegal immigration,” while insisting that its own nomenclature “La Raza” has nothing to do with race. The public knows that La Raza means “The Race,” and that those who founded that organization chose that racially charged noun for the precise purpose of ethnic triumphalism — in the way that every infamous 20th-century Latinate racist demagogue from Mussolini to Franco found a use for Raza/Razza, a mostly taboo term in Mediterranean Europe today. In an age when the Washington Redskins earn a presidential rebuke, it is inconceivable that the chief illegal-immigration advocate is a federally subsidized group known as the National Council of La Raza. No other organization would dare use such a term. In the public mind illegal immigration has gone from the old narrative that racists were enforcing the law to keep out mostly brown people to a new generation of racists who are trying to subvert the law to bring in mostly brown people.

Read the whole thing.

ROGER SIMON: Who Shot The Sheriff?

Shannon Miles (a black man) is a crazy guy, just as Dylann Roof (the white man from the Charlston church shootings) is a crazy guy and Vester Lee Flanagan (the black man who killed his white co-workers at a Virginia TV station the other day) was a crazy guy. The latter two claimed they wanted to start a race war. No word yet on Miles, but if we believe in what our grandmother’s told us – that actions speak louder than words – he’s already more than half way there.

(You will note that I am not using the neologism African-American, which I think is part of the problem, not part of the solution.)

Also obvious, Barack Obama and Eric Holder (and now Loretta Lynch) are to blame for encouraging an atmosphere of racial divisiveness and, yes, hatred in our society. Anyone honest can see – and the polls have reported – a serious increase in racial tension and violence (Baltimore, Ferguson, etc.) since the beginning of the Obama administration. The racist-to-the-core “Black Lives Matter” movement is quite simply their evil spawn.

But those are the easy targets. We have to go back further to determine “Who Shot the Sheriff?” … way back to the dear old 1960s when the civil rights movement stood at a fork in the road. I was there at the time and, sadly, perhaps meekly, I took the wrong fork.

Read the whole thing.

SEE, HE WOULD HAVE FIT RIGHT IN AT A COLLEGE DIVERSITY-AND-EQUITY OFFICE: “We would say stuff like, ‘The reporter’s out in the field.’ And he would look at us and say, ‘What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist.’”

SHARK SANDWICH: “2016: The Coming Train Wreck,” as spotted by “Comrade” Robert Kuttner (as Mickey Kaus likes to call him) at the Huffington Post, mixing his metaphors in Dan Aykroyd’s Super-Bass-O-Matic ’76 blender as he flails about to warn his fellow lefties of the danger on the horizon:

And a self-declared socialist [curiously, Kuttner sounds like he doesn't mean that as a compliment -- Ed] could defeat her in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even as she tacks left to excite the base, there is no way she can out-Sanders Sanders.

If she could just vault over the rest of the pack and claim the nomination, as she hoped when she declared her candidacy, Hillary Clinton might still be a strong nominee. But that’s not going to happen. As best, the fight for eventual nomination will be a long slog, with Clinton in the role of piñata.

As sharks are drawn to blood in the water, Hillary’s miseries are attracting other candidates. The latest is Joe Biden.

There is much that is admirable in Biden; but if anyone will be a weaker candidate than a wounded Clinton, it has to be Biden.

The man will be 74 years old on Election Day. That’s five years older than Ronald Reagan was at the time of his first election, and Reagan’s age was a liability in the campaign. Clinton, like Reagan will be 69 — youthful next to Biden.

Worse, Biden has proven himself on two occasions, 1988 and 2008, to be a dreadful presidential candidate. He has been a competent vice president, but that is no reason to think that he will be a more effective candidate now than in his previous outings. But he could well draw off enough of the anybody-but-Hillary support to make the nomination quest even more of an ordeal.

And if Biden gets in, others may. Well-placed sources say John Kerry is tempted. He’s been a surprisingly good secretary of state. But he blew a very winnable election in 2004. Like Biden, he’s a better public official than a candidate.*

Can you imagine the geriatric Democratic field? Sanders and Biden at 74, maybe Kerry at 73, and the young sprite of the pack, Hillary Clinton at 69. Jesus wept!

Gosh, how did that happen? As Jeff Greenfield warned last week at the Politico, “Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins.” And the Huffington Post went all in to nominate him in 2008.

Speaking of which, going forward, why would anyone want to vote for a woman whom the Huffington Post described as a stone cold racist in 2008, along with her core Democrat supporters?

* Kuttner really is a vicious man, isn’t he?

(Via James Taranto and Iowahawk who add, “If someone offers you the role of piñata in a hard slog, beware of sharks.” “Especially when you’re a shark slog piñata in a coming train wreck.”)

JOHN HINDERAKER: Dylann Roof and Vester Flanagan: Compare and Contrast.

We now know that Vester Flanagan was a sort of mirror image of Dylann Roof: black instead of white, gay instead of straight, but like Roof a nut with a cause. Like Roof, Flanagan’s cause was race. Flanagan was race-obsessed and, like Roof, wanted to incite a race war.

I agree with Hugh Hewitt that it is a mistake to pay attention to “manifestos” left behind by insane killers. It only encourages them. But if we are going to take seriously the ideology of lunatics, it must be a two-way street. Dylann Roof’s racist ideology was taken very seriously, to the point where Confederate flags came down across the South. In Flanagan’s case, the focus is on gun control rather than his equally racist ideology.

Flanagan was consumed with race hatred, and was disciplined by the television station for which he worked at the time for, among other things, wearing a Barack Obama button while he stood in line to vote. So why do we not retroactively conclude that images of Barack Obama are hateful, like the Confederate flag, and must be banned? Glenn Reynolds asks, “Will Obama apologize for the behavior of one of his followers?” Of course not. But imagine if a racist white killer who worked for a television station had been similarly disciplined for wearing, say, a Ted Cruz button. Do you not think that fact would be deemed highly relevant, and highly embarrassing to Senator Cruz?

Well, sure, but that’s because Cruz is a Republican.

TROLL LEVEL: GRANDMASTER. “Snooty Californian Wine Train Liberals Horrified By Black Book Club,” writes Milo Yiannopoulos.

But considering the amount of racism in the left-dominated TV news industry, in Hollywood (just ask any leftwing movie critic), and in other leftwing enclaves such as Manhattan (just ask Ta-Nehisi Coates), Chicago (as Michelle Obama herself has noted), Washington, and particularly among Hillary Clinton and her supporters, perhaps it’s time for the left to take a good hard look in the mirror about its rampant structural racism.

I’m sure MSNBC, aka “Jim Crow TV,” will get right on this topic.


TESTING THE LIMITS OF CONTRARIANISM FOR ITS OWN SAKE, PART DEUX: Liberal Historian Calls POW-MIA Flag Racist, Then Apologizes While Attacking America.

GUNMAN, STILL AT LARGE, SHOOTS, KILLS two Virginia TV journalists on live TV.

Here are a couple of screengrabs of him. Somebody out there knows who this is.



UPDATE: Shooter is apparently another reporter at the station, who has shot himself now. “Becky Coyner, with the Augusta County Sheriff’s Office, said authorities had been looking for Vester Flanagan, 41, whose used the name Bryce Williams while working for WDBJ. Video has been posted on what appears to be Williams’ Facebook page showing the shooting from the perspective of the shooter. The gun is visible and a victim, Alison Parker, is seen being shot.”

I predict a rapid falloff in media interest now that it’s clear the shooter was a black guy and a journalist. “Flanagan, whose TV name is Bryce Williams and was employed by WDBJ7, began tweeting Wednesday at 11:09 a.m. ET about the incident. Flanagan tweeted that Parker made racist comments and that he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report. He also tweeted that Ward went to human resources on him ‘after working with me one time!!!’”

But don’t worry, the press has figured out what group is really at fault:

Screen Shot 2015-08-26 at 12.22.51 PM

If she’d blamed his entire race, instead of his entire gender, she’d never work again. Because bigotry is unacceptable!

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: All is not well at Connecticut College: An Andrew Pessin update.

Regular readers may recall that Connecticut College philosophy professor Andrew Pessin was the target of what amounted to a hoax accusing him of expressing racist sentiments against Palestinians. Campus activists circulated a Facebook post he wrote in which he denounced Hamas (he compared it to a rabid pit bull, which, as I’ve noted, is grossly unfair to rabid pit bulls), cut off the comment section to the post where he removed any ambiguity that he was referring to Hamas and not Palestinians in general, and, with the complicity of the school newspaper, made Pessin the subject of a campus-wide and ultimately national campaign of vilification. This included various academic departments in the university and even the university president denouncing Pessin’s alleged “hateful” rhetoric, and a campus-wide forum in which Pessin’s few defenders were heckled.

Months later, Pessin, driven off campus by the stress of the two-minutes hate, still has not resumed his teaching duties.

Cost of attending Connecticut College for one year: $62,965.

BAA, BAA RAINBOW SHEEP?: John Leo, “Ten Things You Didn’t Know Were Racist.” The list includes these tidbits:

“Baa, Baa Black Sheep” is racist. The nursery rhyme, which dates back to the Middle Ages, is under attack. Some schools and family centers in Scotland, England, and Australia have eliminated the word “black” as racist, and now refer to “rainbow sheep,” “happy sheep,” or “green sheep,” though these new adjectives make no sense at all. . . .

Liking white meat is racist. Writer Ron Rosenbaum said in Slate that racism accounts for the popularity of white-meat turkey over more flavorful dark meat. “White meat turkey has no taste,” he explained. “Despite its superior taste, dark meat has dark undertones for some. Dark meat seems to summon up ancient fears of contamination and miscegenation as opposed to the supposed superior purity of white meat.” . . .

Libertarians are racist. In an interview, testy HBO writer-producer David Simon (The Wire, Treme) severely criticized libertarians and suggested that libertarian rhetoric about “freedom” and “liberty” is just code for racism.

Disagreeing about any of this is, of course, racist. I was told several years ago by a colleague that when I said “let’s call a spade a spade,” it was racist, though of course it refers to a gardening implement (or to some, a suit of cards) and has nothing whatsoever to do with race. But that’s not really the point, is it?

RELATED:  “Sorry, Jeb, ‘Anchor Babies’ is a Slur.”  Because, you know, sometimes the babies are not white.

STRANGERS ON A TRAIN: Roger Simon’s Amsterdam Diary continues with a look at how the New Yorker deigns to cover The Donald: “He refers to Trump as if it were indisputable that Donald was a racist and a sexist.  Oh, to live in the comfortable environs of political correctness.  You never have to look below the surface of anything. In fact, if you did, your audience would be offended.  You’d probably lose your column.”

Perhaps the New Yorker is simply trying to make amends with its rather parochial hometown audience after its highly problematic coverage of the 2008 campaign.

WHITE AMERICA DONS THE SHROUD OF GUILT: Well, the left half of America, to be specific:

The racial horrors of the past are undeniable. But the reality of black life has changed immensely since the ’50s. Black governors, mayors, and a president are the new normal. Black families are far more prosperous. Although discrimination has by no means disappeared, social attitudes have undergone a revolution. Yet even as racial attitudes and racial equality evolve, enlightened people rush to don the shroud of guilt.

Much of the liberal establishment today is obsessed with white supremacy, and what to do about it. Schoolteachers are required to take “cultural proficiency training,” so that they can “recognize the impact of systemic oppression of people in America who are not heterosexual white men.” The New York Times is currently publishing an exhaustive series on white privilege that features interviews with intellectuals such as Joe Feagin, a (white) sociologist who claims that Americans are no less racist than they ever were (they just disguise it better), and that children are indoctrinated into racism from the time they’re babies. When Mr. Coates published an article in The Atlantic last year calling for trillions in reparations, it was received with widespread enthusiasm.

Some black intellectuals, however, are not all crazy about the cult of Coates. The political commentator John McWhorter argues that the doctrine of structural racism according to Mr. Coates has become a new form of liberal religion. His book is not so much an intellectual argument as a fiery testament from the pulpit. White progressives have embraced the gospel because it allows them to feel absolved from the charge of racism. By professing their guilt, they can also display their virtue to their peers. “You have original sin, you have this guilt, you acknowledge your guilt,” Mr. McWhorter said in a recent podcast. “What you’re doing is being religious – eating the wafer and life goes on.”

Having declared that “God is Dead” in 1883, from white guilt to veganism to radical environmentalism, what part of the left isn’t an attempt to build a replacement religion?

TOO HAPPY, WHITE AND FEMININE? Yep, that’s what an angry writer seems to think about a sweet and upbeat sorority recruitment video posted by the University of Alabama’s chapter of Alpha Phi sorority. The writer, A.L. Bailey, complains:

No, it’s not a slick Playboy Playmate or Girls Gone Wild video. It’s a sorority recruiting tool gaining on 500,000 views in its first week on YouTube. It’s a parade of white girls and blonde hair dye, coordinated clothing, bikinis and daisy dukes, glitter and kisses, bouncing bodies, euphoric hand-holding and hugging, gratuitous booty shots, and matching aviator sunglasses. It’s all so racially and aesthetically homogeneous and forced, so hyper-feminine, so reductive and objectifying, so Stepford Wives: College Edition. It’s all so … unempowering. . . . Yes, sororities are known for being pretty and flirty; they aren’t bastions of feminist ideologies. But perhaps they shouldn’t completely sabotage them either. 

Why do I get the impression that A.L. Bailey is either an ugly, angry feminist who is jealous of the obviously pretty, happy, All-American college girls displayed in the video, or a nerdy, self-righteous progressive male hipster who could never get a date with one of these lovely young ladies? They seem fully empowered to me, and it’s not their responsibility, as college-age sorority girls, to fly the flag of radical, liberal/progressive feminism. In fact, A.L. Bailey seems utterly unaware of the possibility that these young women might think of feminism in very different ways from his/her own antediluvian stereotype. 

According to Scott Greer of the Daily Caller:

What this author is really saying is that these women shouldn’t be so darn white, happy and feminine.

Unfortunately, Bailey is not a fringe outlier. Her article is only the latest salvo in the left’s war on sorority girls.

Last Friday, The Washington Post published an article urging the removal of “the Southern belle from her inglorious perch.” A noted ideal for sorority women in the southeast, the belle in the eyes of the Post is instead a horrific icon of white supremacy.

Thankfully, according to WaPo, southern schools like the University of Georgia are taking the bold step in banning the southern belle’s dreaded “hoop” skirt. This skirt, as the author Elizabeth Boyd believes, is just as much of a “racial symbol” as a noose or Confederate battle flag. That’s why it must go — and so must the belle herself.

Well, I’m certainly no big fan of the hoop skirt, having worn them several times for proms and sorority events when I was a young woman living in Atlanta. But to suggest that the hoop skirt–or being a Southern “belle”–is a “racial symbol” is patently ridiculous. Hoop skirts are uncomfortable and inconvenient, which is why they are no longer worn very often. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with any racial beliefs, anymore than wearing cotton clothing does. Just because cotton was grown principally in the South and harvested by slaves, does this make cotton a “racial symbol”?

C’mon people, grow some common sense, and maybe a little self esteem. Not everything associated with “the South” is racist, and certainly being a southern “belle” or gentleman–i.e., someone of good manners, grooming and education–is something we should be encouraging, not disparaging. And yes, such individuals can come in all races, religions and ethnicities. And a sunny disposition–on anyone–is always preferable to the depressing, too-serious angry liberal/progressive attitude of perpetual grievance.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT’S RACIST TO TEST APTITUDE: Former Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo has an oped in Big Government arguing that all voters should be required to pass the same basic civics test (administered in English) that legal immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship are required to pass:

Shouldn’t all voters possess that same rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution and our federal system of government as naturalized citizens? Why not require all citizens to pass the same civics exam as immigrants have to pass if they want to join the voter rolls? . . . .

This proposal is blatantly “pro-immigrant”: it says native-born citizens should live up to the same expectations we have for new citizens. What’s wrong with that?

Of course, if implemented this proposal will not end all voter ignorance. But it would be a giant step in the right direction. It places equal weight on the responsibilities of voting as on the right to vote.

When I first proposed this a few years ago in a speech to the Tea Party convention in Nashville, I was slammed by the New York Times– which is always a good sign you are onto something good. The NY TIMES, lacking any other argument, played the race card, charging that I was advocating a “return to Jim Crow laws.” Isn’t it blatantly racist to assume blacks can’t pass a simple civics exam in the same rates as others?

Why yes, yes it is quite racist, Tom. But the Democrats literally survive on racism–it is the air that keeps the party alive these days. And perpetuating the stereotype that blacks are inferior, cannot be expected to compete with other races, require government programs to survive, etc., are all part of the Democrats’ agenda of keeping blacks distracted and enraged by incessant, false cries of “racism!,” which is designed to keep blacks and other “aggrieved” minorities firmly planted in perpetuity on the Democrat plantation.

SCOTT JOHNSON: Who Ya Gonna Call?

I’ve noted the anti-Semitic themes and canards on which President Obama has unsubtly drawn in promoting the deal with Iran. He’s injected anti-Semitism into the mainstream of the Democratic Party. He hasn’t been reticent and he’s hardly been called on it.

Despite its liberalism and its Democratic tilt, the organized Jewish community has to a substantial extent come out against Obama’s Iran deal. AIPAC is lobbying against it. The Anti-Defamation League has come out against it. The American Jewish Committee has come out against it. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has come out against it. To say the least, opposing Obama does not come naturally to these organizations.

I should think that the opposition of these groups is little more than an inconvenience to Obama, yet that’s not how he’s treating it. He’s treating it as though it matters. He’s treating it as thought it is an offense to him personally. He’s treating it as though he doesn’t care about the damage he’s doing. Who ya gonna call?

You’re gonna call someone who can pit blacks against Jews. You’re gonna call Al Sharpton.

Lefties — well, Andrew Sullivan, anyway — shrieked when I called Obama a racist hatemonger back in 2012 but, well, the evidence keeps growing.

Screen Shot 2015-04-25 at 9.59.38 PM

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

THE HUNT FOR A GOOD BAD GUY: Gavin McInnes on Canada versus “pickup artist” Roosh V:

There is a severe rape drought going on in the West; not the violent sexual assault as is broadly defined by the law but a particular kind of rape. We want wealthy white males with blond hair high-fiving each other as they torture some poor girl who was just trying to get an education. The Middle East is resplendent with these scenarios, but the guy usually has a funny hat on instead of Richie Rich hair. Here in America prison tops the rape charts, but that’s men on men, and men are gross. Firmly planted behind the prison-rape stats we have black-on-white rape clocking in at tens of thousands a year (unfortunately, the white-on-black rape stats are negligible). That sounds racist. Women were getting gang-raped en masse at spring break this year, but that was mostly blacks too so no thanks.

There is a lot of currency behind the Duke lacrosse rapist ideal. Through Title IX, the government offers financial rewards to schools for digging up sexual offenders in varsity jackets. Rapists give feminists something to fight for in a culture where women have little to complain about. This means when a woman lies about frat boys, or carries a mattress around, or simply says someone resembles a rapist, the ax falls hard.

Read the whole thing.

WRONG COLORS: Larry Elder explains why it’s “not news” when “Unarmed White Teen Killed by Cop; Two White Cops Killed by Blacks.

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.”

Never mind that both a grand jury and the federal Department of Justice exonerated the officer who shot and killed Brown. Never mind that neither the physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony corroborated the assertions that Brown had his hands up or that he said, “Don’t shoot.” . . .

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.” . . .

In just the last two weeks, two cops, who happened to be white, were killed by two suspects, who happened to be black. And an unarmed white teen was killed by a cop.

In Tennessee, Memphis police Officer Sean Bolton approached an illegally parked car, apparently interrupting a drug deal that was taking place inside. The car’s passenger got out, engaged Bolton in a physical struggle and shot the officer multiple times. Bolton, a 33-year-old Marine vet who served in Iraq, died at the hospital. . . .In Louisiana, Shreveport Officer Thomas LaValley was dispatched to investigate a potential prowler, an armed man reportedly threatening a family member inside a house. When LaValley arrived, he was shot multiple times, and pronounced dead at the hospital. . . .

In South Carolina, an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a cop. Zachary Hammond, 19, was out on a first date when he was fatally shot by a Seneca police officer during a drug bust. . . .The Hammond family wonders why so little national attention has been focused on their son’s death. “It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen,” said Eric Bland, the family’s attorney.

We all know that it’s #BlackLivesMatter, with the emphasis being on black. It’s an overtly racist movement, focusing on police killings of blacks, not any other race, and without regard to any actual statistical data or evidence in particular cases. Instead of shunning such overt racism in 2015, top Democrats are embracing it, and Republicans are trying to stay as quiet as possible, lest the racist ire be directed toward them, as it was recently with Bernie Sanders.

#BlackLivesMatter is racially divisive at a time when this country desperately needs unity, and its votaries have on blinders about the biggest problem of all in the black community: black-on-black murder. The only candidate who seems to have the courage to acknowledge this is Ben Carson.  So far, the Black Lives Matter movement has left Dr. Carson alone, presumably because of his race. How typical of them. Perhaps they are also afraid that a thoughtful, fact-based response by a black Republican candidate might take away some of the momentum of  their self-righteous, divisive, racist indignation?

NEWSWEEK: THE POW-MIA FLAG IS TOTALLY RACIST: “It’s Tuesday, so you know what that means: it’s time to get outraged about something stupid and inconsequential,” Sean Davis wrote yesterday at the Federalist in response:

If you’re wondering where the proof is of the POW-MIA flag’s racist heritage, you’re not alone. It turns out there is none, nor does the author attempt to make anything approaching an argument on the topic. At least outlets like Salon and Slate humor their readers with convoluted arguments that make no sense. Newsweek, accurately realizing that it’s probably not worth the effort to cobble together anything approaching coherent content for what’s left of its dwindling readership, apparently figured that stupid headlines are even cheaper to produce than stupid articles.

Since late 2007, when Barack Obama overtook Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential campaign, it’s been obvious that anyone or anything can be temporarily weaponized as racist. Bill, Hillary, and even their rank-and-file Democratic primary voters were declared racist in 2007 in 2008; this year, Bill and Hillary are being offered a ticket back to the White House in 2017. (Engraved by those who declared “Hillary ‘White Power Clinton” as “spouting Klan-style talking points” in 2008.) John McCain was declared racist in 2008, and then welcomed back to polite society as soon as he returned to bashing his fellow Republicans. Mitt Romney was smeared as racist, and then once the 2012 campaign was over, was seen as the GOP’s sane, sensible elder statesman. Words such as “golf” and “Chicago” were declared racist until they weren’t. And now, for no particular reason other than click bait, the POW-MIA flag is racist.

I hope Democrats understand that implications of their scorched earth campaign, which has long since denuded the R-word of the sting it once carried: Ultimately, if everything is potentially racist, then in reality, nothing is.