Unexamined Premises
Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

They’re Not ‘Americans’

August 28th, 2014 - 7:57 am


Or “Britons.” Or “Norwegians.” Call them what they call themselves: Muslim members of the ummah:

As many as 15 Somali-American men have left their homes in Minnesota in recent months to travel to the Middle East and join up with ISIS, the jihadist army at war with Syria and Iraq, according to Minnesota Public Radio.

The fighters appear to have made the decision to go fight with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Levant while the terror group was fighting to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but some may now be in Iraq, where the marauding group is seeking to topple Baghdad. ”A Muslim has to stand up for [what's] right,” Abdirahmaan Muhumed told MPR News through a series of Facebook messages dating back to the beginning of the year. “I give up this worldly life for Allah.”

You can read more of Muhumed here, but let’s start with these fun facts –

A profile of Muhumed by Minnesota Public Radio this past June described him as a 29-year-old Somali-American who had been married more than once and was a father of nine children. MPR reported, citing the FBI, that at least 15 young men from the Twin Citites’ Somali-American community had traveled to Syria to join Islamic State, the militant group formerly known as ISIS that has captured wide swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.

In a Facebook messages to an MPR reporter, Muhumed wrote “I give up this worldly life for Allah” and “Allah loves those who fight for his cause.” A picture posted on the social network showed Muhumed carrying a Koran in one hand and a rifle in the other.

– and be sure to watch the video, in which two clueless Fox babes natter on about the story with the same kind of gravity they might bring to a story about Kim Kardashian.

But hey, what’s nationality these days as long as you have a passport? As “David Kahane” wrote in Rules for Radical Conservatives:

And look at the results: we’ve gotten an entire generation of journalists to frame every issue through the structuralist lens of race, class, ethnicity and gender (which is what we used to call sex before sex became so commonplace that it’s more titillating to think about having gender these days than it is to think about having sex).  It doesn’t matter what the news event: once past the actual report of the event, the press can be counted on now to move the story to the next level, to interpret it in the media’s own alternative universe of bias, discrimination, glass ceilings and unicorns.  Admit that you’re no longer surprised when you read a headline or a Chyron like this:

            Two Swedes charged in plot to bomb airliner.

The first you think of is a couple of big, blond guys who look like Dolph Lundgren, or maybe a guy and gal who looks like a member of the Swedish bikini team.  What you don’t think of – of course you wouldn’t, you filthy racist – are a couple of Arabs from North Africa, who had been living in Sweden as asylum-seekers while they merrily colluded with al-Qaeda and, surfed the jihadi beheading videos on the Internet and exchanged messages of spiritual guidance and consolation with an imam in Yemen.

So sensitive are the members of the American Fourth Estate to the slightest hint of racism – which, under the current definition consists of the very act of noticing that someone is of a different race than you – that they have utterly altered what we used to consider reality: that Sweden was a country, like most European nation-states, of cousins who shared a common language, culture, history and gene pool.  It was not a racist cliché to assume that many Swedes were, in fact, tall, blond and good-looking, it was a fact.  But now the definition of ethnicity has been changed, in part to reflect that all the European countries are undergoing a demographic and immigration-driven hollowing-out, and that what we used to think of as being quintessentially “British,” “Italian” or even “German” will no longer be true in the future, if it even still is, and that henceforth you will be blinded to the demographic changes going on across the pond and right here at home.  And the media leads the way.

Pages: 1 2 | 58 Comments»

So four chicks and a metrosexual-type guy walk onto a gun range…

Don’t miss the bit around 2:16 where “confused and conflicted” Allison nearly blows away her instructor with her, um, enthusiasm; gotta work on trigger discipline there, girl! And Abe’s comment at 1:56 about bad-assery is priceless.  Dude — cock that shotgun!

The girls’ reaction at the end reminded me of this classic Blackadder sketch. “They will be slaughtered the minute we mince up the hill.”

Meanwhile, back at the Democrat-Media Complex propaganda shop known as Meet the Press, the Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Riley — author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed – brings a different kind of discomfiture to the faces of the gentlefolk of the Left, particularly Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, filling in for recently defenestrated host David Gregory:

Pages: 1 2 | 15 Comments»

This is the place for you to have your say — to engage, criticize, chime in, insult or just plain vent about the news of the day. I post, you decide in the comments, where I will also mix it up with you. Always wanted to be an op-ed columnist?  Here’s your big chance. Ready…aim… let ‘er rip.

First, the news from Ferguson:

Michael Brown was shot in the head and chest multiple times, according to Mary Case, the St. Louis County medical examiner.

While Case declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation into Brown’s death, another person familiar with the county’s investigation told the Washington Post that Brown had between six and eight gunshot wounds and was shot from the front.

In addition, Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot and killed by a police officer on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.


Legendary M.E. Michael Baden weighed in earlier:

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

As I observed on Facebook yesterday:

All the shots hit Brown in the front, and the final shot hit him in the top of his head, indicating he was likely charging the cop when the officer put him down. Looking at Baden’s sketch, it is possible to suggest that the cop was trying to hit him center mass but was missing to the left (common in the case of a right-handed shooter, especially under pressure). My guess is that the two head shots likely came at closer range than the others. We shall see.

It’s hard to see a happy ending for this one.  Black people were understandably outraged at what first seemed to be an unwarranted police shooting (it may still be.  We don’t know all the facts yet.) Still, the ever-helpful New York Times does its best to race-bait:

… majority-black Ferguson has a virtually all-white power structure: a white mayor; a school board with six white members and one Hispanic, which recently suspended a highly regarded young black superintendent who then resigned; a City Council with just one black member; and a 6 percent black police force.

(The Washington Post begs to differ, here.)

There was once a failed, now vanished, state that kept obsessive, taxonomic tabs on racial statistics and I think we all remember what it was. Meanwhile, speaking of fascists, the Democrats in Texas have now sunk to a new low: criminalizing politics. Even lefties like Jonathan Chait are aghast at the indictment of Gov. Rick Perry for the crime of doing his job:

They say a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this always seemed like hyperbole, until Friday night a Texas grand jury announced an indictment of governor Rick Perry. The “crime” for which Perry faces a sentence of 5 to 99 years in prison is vetoing funding for a state agency. The conventions of reporting — which treat the fact of an indictment as the primary news, and its merit as a secondary analytic question — make it difficult for people reading the news to grasp just how farfetched this indictment is.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg — a Democrat who oversees the state’s Public Corruption unit — was arrested for driving very, very drunk. What followed was a relatively ordinary political dispute. Perry, not unreasonably, urged Lehmberg to resign. Democrats, not unreasonably, resisted out of fear that Perry would replace her with a Republican. Perry, not unreasonably, announced and carried out a threat to veto funding for her agency until Lehmberg resigned.

I do not have a fancy law degree from Harvard or Yale or, for that matter, anywhere. I am but a humble country blogger. And yet, having read the indictment, legal training of any kind seems unnecessary to grasp its flimsiness.

And just who is Rosemary Lehmberg? Behold the shrieking Dem harridan/DA the Dems are defending by trying to indict Perry:

Jailer: You’ve been arrested for DWI.

Lehmberg: That’s your problem, not mine.

Of course, she didn’t resign — why would she? She’s a Democrat! And now the Travis County thugs are using lawfare against the governor, the same way they did against former Rep. Tom De LayNow you know what happens when a criminal organization masquerading as a political party gets its hand on the levers of government. Remember: they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit. They have to BE stopped. As Andy McCarthy notes, this is now politics as combat, and the rule of law be damned. 

Did someone say “criminal organization“? As John Hinderaker asks at Power Line, “Is Nancy Pelosi a Crook?” Let’s ask Maerose Prizzi herself! 

Lachlan Marklay, writing in the Washington Free Beacon, reports that Nancy Pelosi steered more than a billion dollars in subsidies to a light rail project that benefitted a company run by a high-dollar Democratic donor and in which her husband is a major investor. Here, according to Marklay, is how the scheme operated:

Pelosi has worked for more than a decade to steer taxpayer funds to a light rail project in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood, where Salesforce had planned a new campus. Experts say the project boosted the value of Mission Bay real estate.

The company’s CEO, Marc Benioff, is a high-dollar Democratic donor. Pelosi and her leadership PAC are among the recipients of his generous campaign contributions. Pelosi’s husband is also a major Salesforce investor.

In April, Salesforce sold its property in the Mission Bay area for a significant profit. CEO Benioff, the big Dem donor, obviously benefited from the increase in property values that federal funding helped generate. So did Pelosi, through her husband’s large investment in Salesforce.

Read the whole thing. As George Washington Plunkitt famously said, “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”

Over to you. Follow me on Twitter @dkahanerules.

Let the Daily Debates Begin

August 14th, 2014 - 10:59 am

This is the place for you to have your say — to engage, criticize, chime in, insult or just plain vent about the news of the day. I post, you decide in the comments, where I will also mix it up with you. (Check back throughout the day for updates and new outrages.) Always wanted to be an op-ed columnist?  Here’s your big chance. Ready…aim… let ‘er rip!

This just in: David Gregory is officially out as host of Meet the Press and is being replaced by Chuck Todd, effective Sept. 7:

Confirming one of the longest-running and most tortuous rumors in the television business, NBC News announced on Thursday that David Gregory was being removed from his post as anchor of the network’s Sunday morning discussion program “Meet the Press” and would be replaced by Chuck Todd, NBC’s White House correspondent.

News of the impending switch has been reported on an unofficial basis for several weeks, and the timing of the move was confirmed in a report on the website of CNN on Thursday. But NBC delayed in making the confirmation official until it had finally worked out the terms of Mr. Gregory’s departure.

MTP was never a very good fit for Gregory, the argumentative and blatantly partisan NBC correspondent who stepped in the job after Tim Russert was felled by a fatal hear attack in 2008. The show was hemorrhaging center-right and conservative viewers who had respected Russert’s relative impartiality; whether Todd will be an improvement remains to be seen. Even the lefties at Salon are unimpressed:

NBC took stock of the problems facing its “treasure” of a news program and the diagnosis was that it just didn’t have enough respect with “insiders.” Here’s the thing: “Meet the Press” already has a “loyal following among newsmakers and political junkies.” The show is a pageant of Beltway insiderism in which the least-credible, least-respected talking heads in the industry sit on pundit panels and blurp up conventional wisdom. “Insider cred” is the reason Gregory hung on as long as he did – he’s a member of the D.C. establishment and was able to survive a years-long string of failures out of deference to his own status. If that’s what “insider cred” brings to the equation, then it’s a problem to be solved, not a goal to be achieved.

In that respect, I’m not sure what, exactly, Chuck Todd brings to the table that Gregory doesn’t. He’s a Beltway insider, has a predilection for both-sides-do-it-ism, and exhibits the pundit’s knack for diving timeless truths from a poll’s cross tabs. Sure, he’s a “political obsessive” with access to sources and the attention of newsmakers and “political junkies,” but “Meet the Press” hasn’t lacked for any of those things. And if, as Allen’s report indicates, it’s generally agreed that Todd’s TV chops aren’t up to the level of Tim Russert’s (or even David Gregory’s), then what, exactly, is his appeal?

Meanwhile, on Martha’s Vineyard:

obama dancing

What, me worry?

Your tax dollars at work and play, courtesy of the criminal organization masquerading as a political party, Washington, D.C. division.  Nothing like keeping Barry dancing the night away on the Vineyard, in the style to which you know damn well he’s become accustomed. Luckily, there’s nothing important going on elsewhere in the world:

President Barack Obama was photographed getting his groove on at a Martha’s Vineyard birthday party last night at a dinner where he sat next to Hillary Clinton following her well-publicized criticism of his foreign policy.

Reporters were not allowed into the private dinner celebration at the Farm Neck Golf Club, but White House spokesman Eric Schultz said afterward: ‘The Obamas danced nearly every song. A good time was had by all.’

Nope, nothing happening around the globe. Nothing at all. From Hot Air:

In an open letter to President Barack Obama in Politico Magazine, [Ali] Khedery chided the president for his commitment to a policy of “benign neglect” toward the Middle East. He advised the president to give up on his current team of advisors, who have not served him well leading up to and during this present region-wide crisis, and surround himself with new voices.

“One former aide from your White House team recently told me: It’s not just that they don’t understand. It’s that they don’t want to understand what’s happening in the Middle East. They just want it all to go away,” Khedery wrote. “But it’s only going to get worse.”

Which is why his warning to CNN host Jake Tapper should be that much more disturbing. Unless the United States gets its head around the fact that what is occurring in Iraq has the potential to become a full-fledged regional war (in many respects, it already is), America can expect that “another 9/11 is imminent.”

Naturally, some foreigner or other has to go and rain on the parade:

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius took a shot at Obama on Tuesday for continuing on with his two-week vacation while Iraq burned. ’I know it is the holiday period in our Western countries,’ Fabius said, ‘but when people are dying, you must come back from vacation.’

But heck, it’s great to be king. Especially when you’re the country’s most avid duffer, as Joseph Curl notes here:

As Barack “Eldrick” Obama approaches his 200th round of golf since his election as president, here’s a fact to put that into perspective: Since January 2009, Tiger Woods has played 269 rounds of golf.

And Tiger, beleaguered by injury, is almost certainly done for the year. So that means the president, if he keeps up with his pace of play during his 15-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard (a round a day) and his normal weekly round, will pass Tiger sometime next spring.

Think about that for a minute. The president of the U.S., juggling the American economy and the entire world’s problems — Iraq is in full meltdown, the Middle East is a powder keg, Russia is moving on Ukraine — has played golf nearly as much as a guy whose day job is playing golf

He may complain about the “One Percent,” but he doesn’t mind being one of them — as long as the American taxpayer is footing the bill.

obama golf

Did somebody say ‘foursome’?

Impeach Obama? Heaven forfend! According to Investors Business Daily, he’s the best asset the GOP has:

Liberals claiming Republicans want to impeach Obama should first explain why Republicans would want to. Obama is Republicans’ greatest political asset and Democrats’ greatest political liability. And for Republicans, he promises to be an asset that continues to pay dividends…

If Republicans are correct and the administration is truly incompetent, its performance promises to only get worse, as allies disappear from Capitol Hill and experienced staffers depart the White House… So from a political standpoint, impeachment is the last thing Republicans should want. They’d be better off repealing the Constitution’s 22nd amendment limiting presidential terms. Right now, Obama’s the best asset they have … and could remain so for some time to come.

Ah, I hear you say, but what about Hillary!? (Via Drudge):

Separated at birth?

I’m sick of people who don’t appreciate their blessings

Let’s ask this guy:

Any questions?

Game over!

Hey — every puzzle has its pieces.

Meanwhile, back in New York City, Mayor DeBlasio proves once more that fascists never change:

Mayor Bill de Blasio gave his unflinching support Wednesday to a call from the city’s top cop that New Yorkers being placed under arrest should submit to police rather than fight back. “When a police officer comes to the decision that it’s time to arrest someone, that individual is obligated to submit to arrest,” the mayor said.

The issue has become a hot-button topic since the death of Eric Garner, a Staten Island man who was put in a fatal NYPD chokehold after he resisted arrest for selling loose cigarettes.

Looking that up in my copy of the Constitution right now.  Little help, here…

Can Israel Finish the Job Now?

July 23rd, 2014 - 11:52 am

In “Why Israel Needs to Finish the Job Now,” my colleague David Goldman writes:

[Israel] cannot afford a repeat of 2012, after which Hamas rebuilt its weapons capability. Where Hezbollah is concerned, the Chinese proverb applies: Kill the chicken while the monkey watches. The reduction of Hamas has to serve as a deterrent for Hezbollah and Syria, not to mention Iran.

Israel’s leaders know this well, and outsiders should be cautious about offering tactical advice. But Israel’s friends must be clear that a “pinpoint operation,” as Secretary of State Kerry demanded inadvertently before an open microphone last weekend, does not serve Israel’s urgent interests. Hamas must be rooted out in depth.

Col. Kurtz provides a strategic assessment:

This is what the Jews are up against: an enemy that willingly sacrifices its own children, so great is its animus against its eternal foe.  To paraphrase Jimmy Malone in The Untouchables – what are the Israelis prepared to do? 

Pages: 1 2 | 21 Comments»

Me scared

Bar none. Go ahead, I dare you to read it and not thump your head against the nearest wall. It starts badly enough:

Contrary to what those who defend the right to own high-powered assault rifles believe, not all guns are created equal. Due to a combination of availability, portability and criminal usage the following five types of guns are the country’s most dangerous.

And then gets worse.  The link takes you to the instantly infamous piece in Rolling Stone by some poor lassie named Kristen Gwynne entitled, “The Five Most Dangerous Guns in America.” Now, most normal people reading that might think what follows is a list of suggestions for your next firearms purchase — you know, something that packs major firepower into an attractive, well-priced package that will instantly deter or atomize a bad guy should the need arise. But no. It’s an anti-gun piece. And by “anti-gun,” I don’t mean anti specific makes and models. Oh no…

Using firearm trace data from the ATF, as well as FBI homicide records, we determined the types of guns most often recovered from crime scenes and/or used in murders. The numbers are stark: According to the FBI’s 2012 Crime in the US data, nearly 70 percent of homicides for which the FBI received weapons data involved the use of a firearm and handguns alone accounted for about 72 percent of firearms used in murders and non-negligent manslaughter. While the FBI does not elaborate on the type of handguns used in these incidents, the ATF’s analysis of weapons confiscated from crime scenes provides a more specific look at the weapons criminals prefer, which we’ve shared with you here.

Holy cow, what could they be? The Glock G42? The Smith and Wesson 500? Gatling guns? Derringers?

Ready?  Aim… and fire after the jump.

Pages: 1 2 | 108 Comments»

Barry, Harry, Barry and Harry

June 17th, 2014 - 10:12 am
Barack Hussein Obama, in unfamiliar surroundings

Barack Hussein Obama, in camouflage

With the backsliding economy, the collapse of Iraq, the record rise in disability, the slow-motion invasion along our southern borders — actively assisted by the current administration — and the fixation on imaginary threats over real-world problems, we have now arrived at a an inflection point in the development of the American political system. For if war is too important to be left to the generals, can we not now also say, definitively, that politics is too important to be left to the politicians?

Consider the increasingly strange case of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetero, a man apparently born and bred for a single purpose: to run for office and yet somehow singularly unsuited to the task. Bereft of any discernible skills, intellectually mediocre, a flat and uninspiring speaker away from his omnipresent teleprompter, incapable of extemporaneous thought, indifferent to the actual discharge of his constitutional duties and possessed of low cunning attached to an overweening sense of self-importance, Obama is the first president in our history for whom the White House was the only logical career path. Neither a public intellectual like Wilson, a war hero like Teddy Roosevelt or Ike, or a self-made man like Reagan, Obama in many ways resembles JFK, who had been spawned along with his brothers explicitly for public office by an Irish parvenu with visions of grandeur and a chip on his shoulder.

Thackeray wrote about just such a family is his early novel, Barry LyndonIn that work, made into a memorable film by Stanley Kubrick, the wheedling, smooth-talking Barry (egged on by his implacable mother) woos and wins the lovely Lady Lyndon, only to beggar her with his profligate spending and undisciplined personal behavior. If you picture Marisa Berenson as Lady Liberty, this scene takes on added resonance:

Still, one can easily imagine John F. Kennedy doing something productive with his life had his quest for the White House, taken in place of his fallen older brother, not been successful. The president’s untimely death ensured that his younger brothers Bobby and Teddy would spend the rest of their lives seeking the family restoration. Not so Obama, unless you count an academic sinecure “productive.”

Pages: 1 2 | 45 Comments»


The coming fall of the artificial nation-state called “Iraq” should come as a surprise to exactly nobody. There never was such a place, other than in the minds of the British Foreign Office, which carved it and other equally imaginary countries out of the rump of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Now, an “insurgent” group nobody had even heard of two weeks ago, known by the pretty Egyptian-flavored acronym of ISIS,  has gone and done the West a favor, if only we are smart enough to understand it, accept it and deal with it.

The Iraq wars, begun and not concluded by President George H.W. Bush, continued half-heartedly by Bill Clinton, disastrously expanded by George W. Bush and cravenly abandoned by Barack Hussein Obama, are coming to a close. The real war, against a unified and motivated “caliphate” of vengeful anti-Western Islamist Muslims, is about to begin. If anything argues more forcefully against a continuation of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle of elections, this alone ought to do it. No Jeb, no Hillary, nohow, never. Mene, mene tekel upharsin.

Meanwhile, back in the real world beyond the Beltway, ”Iraq’s borders are disappearing,” writes Tom Rogan in the Telegraph. Britain’s Tory newspaper; “this is a disaster.” But is it, really?

The Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS) is shredding Iraq. After seizing the northern city of Mosul on Monday, on Tuesday ISIS stormed down Iraq’s route 1 highway to take Tikrit. This victory has left them emboldened and only 110 miles from Baghdad. The Iraqi military seemingly overrun, Nouri al-Maliki’s government is greatly concerned.

Unfortunately, the disaster isn’t confined to Iraq. After all, ISIS isn’t interested in Iraq per se. Instead, it seeks a caliphate that stretches from western Syria to Iraq’s eastern border with Iran. A dominion preserved under an iron fist of brutality (think Fallujah 2004) and a base from which to export global terrorism.

What’s happening in Iraq and Syria today is the nightmare that drove George W Bush to gamble everything on his January 2007 surge. He knew that Iraq’s collapse might enable Al-Qaeda in Iraq to rip the Middle East apart. And today Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s successor – ISIS – have never been closer to their dream.

The crack “Iraqi security forces,” trained at so dear a cost by the American military and then abandoned to their fate by the Obama administration when it failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Maliki government, apparently are fleeing the battlefields. As the Independent reports. “Sunni insurgents advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul have captured the city of Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein, as government forces disintegrate and fail to offer resistance. Iraqi soldiers and police are reported to have discarded their uniforms, changed into civilian clothes and fled after firing only a few shots.” Brave Sir Robin, indeed, but about what we’ve come to expect from Arab armies whose hearts are clearly not in the fight.

Pages: 1 2 | 65 Comments»

Icarus Descending, Dishonorably

June 5th, 2014 - 3:15 pm
And away we go

And away we go

That the feathers have melted off the formerly high-flying Obama administration is now beyond dispute. First time tragedy (Benghazi), second time tragic-comedy (Bergdahl). And now, with the leak of the famous Obama “workout” video,  farce and ridicule. Ladies and gents, I give you the effective end of the Obama presidency. And off into the brave unknown we fly.

Has there ever been a presidency like this one? Jimmy Carter, whose administration I’m old enough to remember vividly, began with a similar euphoria of “hope,” coming as he did in the wake of Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s pardon.  The unknown governor from the South began his presidency on a wave of good will from all Americans, who were exhausted by Watergate and its aftermath. But it didn’t take Carter long to transmogrify from the “I’ll never lie to you” good guy into the national scold of the so-called “malaise” speech, which is better characterized as the “crisis of confidence” speech. (Watch the speech at the link and then try to convince yourself we’re not all trapped in the political equivalent of Groundhog Day: with Democrats, nothing ever changes).

But even with 20 percent inflation, international humiliation, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and gas lines, in retrospect Jimmy Carter seems like Pericles of Athens compared with Barack Hussein Obama, the least-qualified man ever to actively seek and win the presidency. When the full extent of the harm the Obama administration has inflicted on the United States is finally realized, not only will Obama come in for blame, but so also will the forces that put him in office, especially the Democrat-Media Complex, led by David Axelrod (a former Chicago Tribune reporter turned campaign consultant and presidential guru). My former Time magazine colleague, Evan Thomas, who went on to edit Newsweek, famously said during the election of 2004 that the media’s support for the Kerry-Edwards (oops) ticket was worth 15 points to the Democrats, and while even that wasn’t enough to put them over the top, it was the deciding factor four years later.

There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.

Carter’s damage was limited to the four years he spent in the White House; the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the American hostages in Tehran were released, the sun came out and it really was, however briefly, morning in America. Obama’s reign still has just under three years to go, a prospect that, in light of recent events, ought to appall all right-thinking people. As I wrote over at the Corner on NRO:

Unfettered by having to face the electorate again, a second Obama term would be a nightmare for the country — four years of unencumbered mischief in the Oval Office while the criminal organization masquerading as a political party gets on with the serious business of picking its next candidate to ensure that eight years of “fundamental change” are irreversible…

Most every president hopes for a second term, but this bunch understood from the jump that the second term is everything. Harry Reid sounds and acts like a man who never expects the Democrats to lose another election. And what are the Washington Generals up to now? Hey, look over there! It’s Chris Christie on top of the George Washington Bridge! Alert the media!

Pages: 1 2 | 36 Comments»

At first glance, this is not only risible but actively ridiculous: a bunch of metrosexual beta males apologizing for their very existence. And, in fact, it does seem to be a parody — if Stephen Parkhurst’s previous work is any guide — although many conservative sites have fallen for it, owing to its extreme plausibility. But behind every parody is more than a grain of truth so, just for fun, let’s follow the granular subtext of this exercise in cultural-Marxist nastiness.

It begins with Saul Alinsky’s famous Rule No. 4: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” Leaving aside the fact that there is no single “Christian Church” (a mistake common to non-Christians), and that Christianity comprises the Catholic Church, the Greek/Russian Orthodox Church and various declining sects of Protestanism, among others, the central issue here is to make “the enemy” (Alinsky’s words) face the consequences of his own imperfectibility. That any contradictions and consequences are entirely in the head of the Alinsky side matters not; after all, in psywar, it’s not what’s true that counts, it’s what you can get the enemy to believe:

Right now, the Leftist meme being pushed is “inequality.” We see it everywhere, starting at the top, with President Obama carping about it in speeches, in the sudden prominence of a book nobody will ever read, in Eric Holder’s Justice Department using the cudgel of “disparate impact” as its weapon of choice against the nation as founded. Because, the thinking goes, if all men really are created “equal,” how can you possibly object to any action government takes to rectify a perceived “inequality”? Well, you can’t — unless, of course, you can reason past the formulation “if A then B.” But the modern Left understands that few can or will — and even if they could, the sound-bite hegemony of the media will rule out any substantive discussion of C, D, or E. As the AlinskyDefeater notes:

This tactic is genius in its simplicity. The idea is to keep the attention on your opponent by simply peppering them with the ways in which they fail to be perfect. No one is perfect and so the rule is powerful. In fact, it is one of the most powerful tactics in the Alinsky arsenal.

It’s simple and effective because it’s false, taking no account of the actual crooked timber of humanity (in Sir Isaiah Berlin’s famous phrase), nor of the fundamental “unfairness” of Nature herself. It’s false because it assumes facts not in evidence (white male “privilege”) and purposely targets a single group, without remarking upon the fairness, or lack of it, of other societies (female, non-white, whatever). In other words, it assumes a conspiracy — the Big Meeting Theory of History — in which European men got together in the Caves of Lascaux or somewhere similar, and made a binding pact for all eternity. Never mind that they could have no knowledge about the existence of other human societies; they were Oppressors, and that would be that.

Pages: 1 2 | 87 Comments»