Search Results

REVENGE OF THE REPUBLICANS:

The fact of the matter is Biden’s call for unity is like the kid in your class who lost every game, but always shouted ‘starting now’ only after he was ahead. In the days since Biden asked Republicans to turn the other cheek, his old boss Barack Obama launched his book promotion by claiming that Trump only won in 2016 because too many Americans are racists. Obama followed that left hook to Main Street America by then denigrating Trump as a dictator despite the fact that it was Obama who arrested and investigated journalists during his presidency.

So, you see, according to Democrats, if not for the Supreme Court in 2000, fixed voting machines in 2004, and Russian interference in 2016, no Republican would have won the presidency since 1988. One legacy of Trump is he taught Republicans how to fight back. Thus, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Biden will now serve under a cloud of suspicion and feel the heat as investigators dig into every nook and cranny of his family’s life. If Republicans pick up the handful of seats they now need to take back the US House in 2022, Biden and the Democrats will rue the day they made Schiff their attack dog.

Turnabout is fair play, especially in politics.

Meanwhile, America’s Newspaper of Record explores the other side of the equation: Study Finds Connection Between Believing Russia Rigged 2016 Election And Believing 2020 Election Was Foolproof.

RON RADOSH: The Angela Davis Moment.

We’ve had nearly a  century of what we now call the MSM airbrushing communism, when not outright praising it. No wonder Davis is considered a hero by the far left. As blogger Moe Lane once wrote, “Marxism is intellectualism for stupid people; it tends to attract the sort who can’t understand that an economic system that cannot feed its own population reliably has failed at the game of Life. Literally.”

JIM TREACHER: Buffalo, NY: Yet Another Hate-Crime Hoax.

The owner of a BMW that was spray-painted with racist and homophobic graffiti in October is now facing insurance fraud charges.

Erie County District Attorney John Flynn announced Tuesday that, Clifton Eutsey, 18, allegedly spray-painted messages of hate on his own car in North Buffalo.

Swastikas, the N-word, KKK and profanity against Black Lives Matter were spray-painted all over the car, a BMW X5. The police report also stated that sugar was poured into the gas tank.

* * * * * * * * *

Of course, all of this nonsense only hurts actual victims of actual hate crimes. Every time I see one of these hoaxes exposed, it makes me all the more skeptical about these sorts of stories. Cry wolf enough times, and eventually the villagers will stop caring. Then you’re on your own when the wolf really does eat you.

Oh well. At least a bunch of “journalists” got their clicks!

Flashback: Here’s A [2019] List Of Hoax ‘Hate Crimes’ In The Trump Era.

ROGER SIMON: Encountering Antifa in Front of the Marriott.

I was in the Epoch Times office when one of the young women working across from me said, “I heard Antifa’s outside.” She gestured to the street below that was several floors down.

Antifa? It was certainly possible. Nearly every storefront in the area was boarded up with plywood. Something was feared or expected.

I was in D.C., having flown up from Nashville, my first flight since COVID, for meetings with my ET colleagues and possibly to report on the big MAGA rally that ran from Freedom Plaza up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Supreme Court.

The latter had been extremely peaceful as far as I could see and also multi-cultural, something that came as little surprise after the plethora of blacks and Latinos who had supported Trump during the election.

The only thing worth writing about was the usual blather about how many people showed up—25 or so, half of them confused tourists, according to CNN, two-thirds the population of India, according to Breitbart.

Crowd size is one of the great mythological subjects of our times. No one can possibly say for sure but everyone has an opinion. So I will state the obvious: It was a lot of people and, as noted above, everything was peaceful.

Until night fall.

So back to Antifa. Either because I had nothing to write about or out of morbid curiosity, and though I had a sudden minor attack of butterflies, I decided I wanted to see this for myself.

The young woman kindly lent me her electronic security key to the building, one of those little guys you use to activate elevators, and I headed out of the office, down the building elevator and out onto the sidewalk.

No one was there. I glanced up and down the street. Still no one. False alarm, apparently.

I was about to go back inside, when I heard a noise, yelling and screaming. Then something like a firecracker going off. I looked further off and noticed a crowd half in the street and half on the sidewalk.

They were in front of the hotel where I was staying—the JW Marriott.

My curiosity now exploding, I hurried down there to see for myself.

The hotel has a rather large porte cochère and a number of people were gathered there, many in MAGA garb from the rally, some of those also staying in the hotel, staring in incredulity at what was in front of them.

Several Antifa-types were whizzing by on skateboards in front of the porte cochère driveway, seemingly about to enter it and storm the hotel, taunting and yelling obscenities at the crowd and calling them, almost needless to say, “racists,” although the onlookers were of decidedly mixed race. That, of course, didn’t matter.

Just then, one of the Antifa came closer, as if he were about to attack someone, daring us to respond.

For a split second, he was staring straight at me.

He appeared not like any sort of political activist I had seen but a complete psychopath, more like The Joker as portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in the latest Batman movie, only this joker had long, bedraggled blonde hair and the deadest grey eyes you could imagine.

This was pure evil, beyond psychoanalysis or any ideology I could think of.

I had read many Antifa were actually community college teachers. Was that possible? What was this madman telling his students?

And then just as suddenly he moved past me deeper into the crowd, shouting more obscenities and racist accusations, threatening violence.

The onlookers were yelling for the police to come and arrest him, but they were nowhere to be found, although there were a handful of uniformed Marriott security people urging everyone to back up, including the Antifa.

He could have cared less, continuing his taunts, several of his cohorts whizzing behind him, cheering him on, when one of the MAGA people—a six-foot-four or so guy with the build of a power forward, stepped forward and literally hurled the smaller Antifa into the street, his skateboard flying.

Related: ‘Total Media Blackout’ as Antifa Launches Attacks on MAGA Rallygoers in D.C.

#HATEHOAX: 18-year-old accused of vandalizing own vehicle with racist, homophobic graffiti.

An 18-year-old told Buffalo police last month someone vandalized his car, spray painting “Trump 4 President” and also profanity next to the phrase “Blacks Matter.”

On Tuesday, he was accused in Buffalo City Court of vandalizing his own vehicle.

Flashback: Here’s A [2019] List Of Hoax ‘Hate Crimes’ In The Trump Era.

ROGER SIMON: Bullets over Louisville.

I thought back to my days as a sixties anti-war protestor, being caught up in the crowds yelling “Off the pig!” The joke then was what we would do if someone broke into our apartments with no cops available. “Call a hippie!” was the supposedly jocular response.

In truth, in those days few of us thought badly of the police (with the exception, of course, of the extremist Kathy Boudin/Weather Underground-types who killed them). It was all kind of a game to us, stupid, juvenile and pointless as it was, not to mention politically reactionary. The police were and are the working class, not the privileged college kids then attacking them.

Today, things are very different and multiple times worse, making the sixties indeed seem like child’s play.

As I type this, yet another cop is reported as being shot in Louisville, making two, the same number as were shot just the other day in L.A., with no one apprehended.

All this after it was made clear that in the Breonna Taylor case, the one all the Louisville madness is supposed to be about, the police did not break in on her apartment with a “no-knock” entry, and her drug-dealer boyfriend they were seeking admittedly opened fire first. And yet a cop, who was defending an already wounded buddy, got indicted. Go figure.

Basta.

The time has come to say clearly what many of us have muttered for a long time:

BLM… the Marxist-led Black Lives Matter… is the modern version of the KKK. The skin colors may be different but the murderous instincts and racist loathing are the same.

So, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, to coin a phrase?

 

ROGER SIMON: Bullets Over Louisville.

I was about to write about why Michael Bloomberg could have seen fit to spend millions paying the fines of Florida felons so they can vote, thus courting a possible indictment of his own for bribery (short form: terminal envy of fellow billionaire Trump augmented by fear POTUS might turn off the China spigot that so enriches the former NYC mayor), when it was announced yet another cop was shot, this time in Louisville.

I had been watching the violence and destruction in that city—about two and a half hour’s drive from where I am sitting—out of the corner of my eye on my office TV.

There went my plans for next year’s Kentucky Derby, I thought selfishly, then felt sick to my stomach. How much more of this could any of us take? How many more police need be shot?

I thought back to my days as a sixties anti-war protestor, being caught up in the crowds yelling “Off the pig!” The joke then was what we would do if someone broke into our apartments with no cops available. “Call a hippie!” was the supposedly jocular response.

In truth, in those days few of us thought badly of the police (with the exception, of course, of the extremist Kathy Boudin/Weather Underground-types who killed them). It was all kind of a game to us, stupid, juvenile and pointless as it was, not to mention politically reactionary. The police were and are the working class, not the privileged college kids then attacking them.

Today, things are very different and multiple times worse, making the sixties indeed seem like child’s play.

As I type this, yet another cop is reported as being shot in Louisville, making two, the same number as were shot just the other day in L.A., with no one apprehended.

All this after it was made clear that in the Breonna Taylor case, the one all the Louisville madness is supposed to be about, the police did not break in on her apartment with a “no-knock” entry, and her drug-dealer boyfriend they were seeking admittedly opened fire first. And yet a cop, who was defending an already wounded buddy, got indicted. Go figure.

Basta.

The time has come to say clearly what many of us have muttered for a long time:

BLM… the Marxist-led Black Lives Matter… is the modern version of the KKK. The skin colors may be different but the murderous instincts and racist loathing are the same.

The veneer of social justice is less than paper thin. “No justice, no peace,” is the hollowest slogan imaginable. It’s all about acting out like a bunch of crazies in a Hieronymus Bosch painting, except now they’re drugged out on fentanyl, meth or whatever. Evil is on the march in this country.

The question is who is putting the rioters, looters, and destroyers up to their mayhem? Who, for example, rented the U-Haul from which, video shows, all sorts of ad hoc weaponry was disgorged to the supposedly peaceful protestors before the Taylor decision came down? And who paid that person and so on?

The Department of Justice knows. But will it act?

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Children of a lesser pod.

As New York City schools grapple with how to handle a virus that has an under 1 percent infection rate in children, parenting boards frequented by the educated, monied-but-not-so-monied-as-to-send-their-kids-to-private-school set, are forming ‘pods’. A ‘pod’ will be a small group of children, usually no more than five, who will meet at each other’s homes in lieu of traditional schooling in September. You, and four other families in your same tax bracket, will hire a teacher to educate the five children in the pod. Parenting boards are overwhelmed with requests for these tutors. The families will agree to only interact with each other: an absurd and impossible promise that will surely be broken.

We’re in a time where there is a ‘right’ opinion on everything, and every other opinion is stupid and likely racist. The right opinion right now is that it would be just crazy to open schools in New York City in the fall. This is despite the fact that every other country is opening schools and New York’s governor is on a prolonged victory tour on late night television for his celebrated handling of the COVID crisis…which resulted in the death of 32,000 New Yorkers.

If you’re a parent who is pushing to open schools, well, you don’t care about the lives of teachers. Those sending their kids to private schools which plan to open must love their kids less than the podders. Pods have become the only acceptable way to educate your children this fall.

The idea that moving a group of children from house to house, and bringing in a commuting educator who is theoretically isolating herself from others in the name of teaching the group, is somehow seen as safer than just sending the kids to a traditional classroom, is a testament to how much science and reason have ceased to matter.

Read the whole thing.

Earlier:

CHARMING: Democratic Strategist Calls GOP Sen Marsha Blackburn ‘Inbred Racist Trash.’

PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO HOLD THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ABUSE A GRIEVING DAUGHTER: Teenage daughter of one of two Texas cops shot dead in ambush deletes emotional tribute to her ‘hero’ father after backlash for using #bluelivesmatter in the post.

The teenage daughter of a Texas cop killed in an ambush over the weekend was slammed by critics online after posting a moving tribute to her father that included the hashtag #bluelivesmatter.

Savannah Chavez, the grieving daughter of Officer Ismael Chavez, 39 – one of two cops fatally gunned down in McAllen on Saturday – uploaded the post just hours after her father’s death.

‘Words cannot describe the pain I’m in, but I’m glad my dad is at peace. You were an amazing man and anyone who ever came across you knew that,’ Savannah had written. ‘I’m going to miss you so much. You died doing what you loved most, you died a hero. I love you daddy, see you soon. #bluelivesmatter’

But within minutes, the 18-year-old began receiving messages of contempt from people online criticizing her for using a ‘racist’ hashtag – causing her to delete the post all together.

‘Being a cop is a choice. Lmao and last time I checked, blue people don’t exist. Maybe educate yourself?’ one person replied.

‘Blue lives matter was literally created in response to and to undermine black lives matter. There’s no other connotation unfortunately,’ added another.

A third person wrote to Savannah insisting, ‘Blue lives matter was literally created in response to and to undermine black lives matter. There’s no other connotation unfortunately.’

‘I am so sorry for your loss but you didn’t have to use a racist hashtag,’ added another, who later identified herself as a high school student.

Others even tweeted Savannah the names of people killed by police officers in other areas of the country.

Don’t worry folks, your fame isn’t over. Donald Trump will be quoting your tweets between now and the election. When he mentions your names, you’ll complain about being “bullied.” But you bullied a teenager with a murdered dad, and no amount of sloganeering will change that.

Flashback: “At the beginning, pretty much the whole country was united in horror at what happened to Floyd, and a desire to do something about it. Then the Red Guard came in and started rioting, attacking and dividing people. If people do things that keep us from coming together as a nation and solving our problems, maybe it’s because they don’t want us to do that.”

UYGHUR LIVES MATTER, TOO: Coke, Nike, and Pro-Black Lives Matter Corps are Using Slave Labor.

A factory making shoes for Nike was “equipped with watchtowers, barbed-wire fences and police guard boxes.” Nike Shox were discovered being made in another factory by slave laborers shipped far from home to produce shoes for the sportswear giant. Too far for them to run away.

“We can walk around, but we can’t go back,” one worker said.

The same company that holds up Colin Kaepernick, a millionaire anti-American activist, as an icon of social justice, also profits from an alleged slave labor facility that moved to be closer to “the region’s cotton fields”. The millionaire victims of imaginary racism that Nike wants us to care about are on their billboards while modern day slaves still toil in the cotton fields because their lives don’t matter.

The dirty secret of the big Corporate Left brands is that behind the familiar names and commercials, are huge conglomerates and financial investors who cut costs by outsourcing their production to China. The Americans design and market, but the real work is done by huge Communist enterprises, either owned directly by the state or by oligarchs tied to the Communist leadership, whose names you don’t know.

All this leaves the executives with plenty of time to come up with new social justice initiatives and call the country and the American people whose wealth, future, and hopes they’ve stolen, racists.

Read the whole thing.

A RACIST NOTE HOAX IN AGGIELAND?

Investigators say they have found the perp and ripped off the mask.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) – In a report released to KBTX on Thursday, police at Texas A&M University said a student who reported finding racist notes on his car’s windshield last month may have placed the papers there himself. However, the 21-year-old at the center of the case strongly denies those claims.

Isaih Martin, a senior at A&M, called police on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 24, to report finding three handwritten notes on his car that said “All lives matter” and “You don’t belong here.” The third note contained the N-word.

They got him via video from a security camera at a swimming pool in the area.

As Roger Kimball wrote when Jussie Smollett’s story broke last year, “The less hate there is in the United States, the more hate crimes must be manufactured in order to keep the Fraternal Order of Victims afloat.”

ANTIFA AND BLM FORGET MARX WAS A RACIST:

Marx thought of everything! Well, most stuff. Marx saw history as coming in three waves. The first two were feudalism and capitalism. The third phase is Communism – so do not worry your pretty little mind, it is coming no matter what you do. This inevitability is comforting to Marxists and is often convincing to those who do not question (or, read good). The Marxist theory, story, or narrative is just too darn comforting. So the masses who do not think critically (American college students in particular) resign themselves to it.

However, one detail often overlooked is Marx was a racist – a fact I will ask you to ignore since I know many readers will want to tear down statues of Marx and abandon the Marxist followers who lead Marxist Antifa (MANTIFA) and Marxist Black Lives Matter (MBLM).* In fact, since the inconvenient truth of Marx’s racial profiling emerged in the 1970s, the world Comintern of Marxist followers has endeavored to kill the history, or rewrite it. These dedicated followers are racism enablers.

Flashback: Berkeley students angry that they have to read Marx, not because he was, well, a Marxist, but because he was yet another dead white European male: “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.”

As James Lileks wrote in response, “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.”

UPDATE: Karl Marx Calls Mexicans Lazy. Will Social Justice Warriors Demand Noted Racist Karl Marx Be Banned From Study on Campus ?

DO TELL: Muhammad Ali’s son says dad would have hated ‘racist’ Black Lives Matter.

On the fourth anniversary of his death, Muhammad Ali’s only biological son says that his father would be against Black Lives Matter, calling the movement “racist” and the protesters “devils.”

The legendary boxer and activist stood up against racism throughout his life, but Muhammad Ali Jr. says his dad would have been sickened by how the protests have turned to violence and looting after the death of George Floyd.

“Don’t bust up s–t, don’t trash the place,” he told The Post. “You can peacefully protest.

‘‘My father would have said, ‘They ain’t nothing but devils.’ My father said, ‘all lives matter.’ I don’t think he’d agree.

Of the BLM movement, Ali Jr., a Muslim like his father, said: “I think it’s racist.”

“It’s not just black lives matter, white lives matter, Chinese lives matter, all lives matter, everybody’s life matters. God loves everyone — he never singled anyone out. Killing is wrong no matter who it is,” Ali said during an hour-long interview with The Post.

Read the whole thing.

TWITTER ADMITS ‘ERROR,’ REINSTATES ZEROHEDGE AFTER BANNING IT IN LATE JANUARY FOR CALLING OUT CHINA.

UPDATE: Democratic Party operatives with bylines at NBC attempting to starve the competition:

Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention. ZeroHedge had already been demonetized prior to NBC News’ enquiry, Google said. ZeroHedge and The Federalist did not respond to requests for comment.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said it found advertisements for many companies that had otherwise made public statements supporting Black Lives Matter and the recent protests running on the websites.

“We found that lots of those companies are inadvertently funding through their advertising content that is outright racist in defense of white supremacism and contains conspiracy theories about George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement,” he said.

Google has banned various websites from its advertising platform in recent years, mostly targeting fake news operations.

ZeroHedge and The Federalist have become well known in recent years for publishing far-right articles on a variety of subjects. On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google.

Notice the “far right articles” language above, as NBC’s “objective” news division tacitly declares which side of the aisle it’s on.

(Via Newsalert.)

JONATHAN TURLEY IS NAMING AND SHAMING WILLIAM JACOBSON’S ATTACKERS: Cornell Professors Declare “Informed Commentary” Criticizing The Protests As Racism.

The letter is signed by a huge number of clinicians (Professors Zohra Ahmed, Sandra Babcock, Briana Beltran, Celia Bigoness, John Blume, Elizabeth Brundige, Angela Cornell, Sujata Gibson, Mark H. Jackson, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, Cortelyou Kenney, Sital Kalantry, Ian M. Kysel, Mallory J. Livingston, Delphine Lourtau, Beth Lyon, Estelle McKee, Keir Weyble, Carlton E. Williams, and Stephen Yale-Loehr).

Not a word about academic freedom or free of speech; not a suggestion that critics of these protests could have anything other than racist motivations. It is the antipathy of the intellectual foundations for higher education. Rather than address the merits of arguments, you attack those with opposing views personally and viciously. That has become a standard approach to critics on our campuses. Unless you agree with the actions of the movement, you are per se racist. It is a mantra that is all too familiar historically: if you are not part of the resistance, you are reactionary. . . .

It is strikingly elitist. It would suggest that somehow these schools are the only important measure — or at least those schools matter the most. From anything other than an elitist (even privileged) perspective, the focus on ivy league schools exclusively is far from self-evident since most of those schools are ranked behind non-Ivy League schools in U.S. News & World Report, including Cornell which is ranked 17th among universities. Finally, it suggests that the presence of conservative (which they seem to view as synonymous with racist) scholars have no place at such schools. That last point is unfortunately the view of many faculty at top schools which are overwhelmingly if not exclusively liberal.

The professors, of course, have every right to to denounce writers for what they believe are racist elements or messaging in their writings. However, they specifically go after scholars who they believe defend “institutionalized racism and violence” and “express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place.” That would encompass what they describe as seemingly “informed commentary” supporting institutions of a racist society. It is an all-too-familiar attack on campuses against speakers and academics. What is most striking for me is the inclusion of Professors Mark H. Jackson and Cortelyou Kenney, who teach in the Cornell First Amendment Clinic. They are in fact the Director and Associate Director of the First Amendment Clinic, which is presumably committed to the value of free speech even at private institutions. So these professors teach free speech and just signed a letter that people who question the BLM movement or denounce the looting are per se or at least presumptive racists. It is reflection of how free speech is being redefined to exclude protections with those who hold opposing views.

It’s a disgrace, and their behavior is shameful. They are undermining the place of higher education in America, and given the prevalence of this kind of behavior that’s not such a tragedy as it might be.

MY OLD LAW PROFESSOR, STEPHEN L. CARTER: We Can Fight for Racial Justice While Tolerating Dissent: We cannot allow the present moment — one of such potential importance — to deteriorate into a McCarthy-like hunt for wrong-thinkers.

We’re living at a dangerous intellectual moment. In the wake of the coldblooded police slaying of George Floyd on a Minneapolis street corner, people are marching for racial justice, a development that’s all to the good in our broken country. But when those demands turn to restricting the universe of permissible conversation, they cross a democratic line that’s worth defending.

Item: HBO Max has temporarily removed “Gone With the Wind” from its catalog, citing its racist stereotypes and glorification of Southern slavery, until the film can be reinserted with what the company considers appropriate “context.”

Item: Critics are demanding the resignation of a distinguished economist who co-edits the Journal of Political Economy because of his strongly expressed criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Item: A political science lecturer at UCLA has been condemned by his own department and is under further investigation after reading aloud to his students Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” one of the great documents of U.S. history, which includes what we’re nowadays supposed to call “the n-word.”

I question neither the pain nor the sincerity of those who are angry, fearful or frustrated. I feel the emotional impact of the moment myself. So I’m not prepared to agree with critics who say that what we’re seeing is an outbreak of an ideology they call “safetyism.”

But for the sake of our democratic future, we have to find a way past the difficult place where we currently find ourselves, a place where the expression of views that are hurtful and infuriating is viewed as out of bounds. Democracy rests crucially on the battle of ideas, and on the old-fashioned notion that the cure for bad speech is better speech.

It’s part of my job as an academic to resist the urge to judge an argument by whether I agree with it, or even whether I’m wounded by it. But professional training aside, it’s also part of my job as a citizen to allow others to make arguments that pain or frighten me — even when on the searing issue of race.

Back in law school, I worked my way through James J. Kilpatrick’s controversial volume “The Southern Case for School Segregation.” The book wasn’t assigned for a course. I sought it out. Kilpatrick didn’t persuade me, but he did make me think. I was taught that the vitality of intellectual life rests upon reading not only those who are right but also those who are wrong in an interesting way. . . .

As I’ve written before, my wariness on the subject is influenced by the fate of my great-uncle. During the McCarthy era, he went to prison for refusing to name names. He was a brilliant scholar, an expert on the work of Tennyson, but because he was a Communist, he found himself essentially unemployable.

Among the targets of the McCarthyites were films that presented the wrong message, academics who took the wrong positions and teachers who taught the wrong lessons. 1 With rare exception, nobody was legally prohibited from expressing views the Red hunters hated; they were simply publicly humiliated if they did — and that public humiliation often led to loss of status, and of employment. Books were removed from stores; teachers were removed from the classroom.

You might respond that in retrospect the Red Menace was overblown. Perhaps it was, but that’s not the point of the story. The point is that in that horrific era, those with power to control the words and fates of others saw the threat as real and deadly, always on the verge of rearing its destructive head. The only way to halt the spread of what they considered a dangerous idea was to punish anyone who propounded it. For a decade they largely succeeded. And for a brief and agonized moment of history, the Communist hunters kindled a bonfire that came close to consuming our democracy.

The 2020s aren’t the 1950s, but unless we do a lot better than we have been lately at coping with ideas and arguments that wound us, our democracy might still be at hazard. It’s vital to resist the temptation to allow our present moment, so rich with the potential for genuine and overdue social change, to deteriorate into a McCarthy-like hunt for wrong-thinkers. Because the more often we play with the same matches, the greater the chance that we’ll light the same blaze.

At the beginning, pretty much the whole country was united in horror at what happened to Floyd, and a desire to do something about it. Then the Red Guard came in and started rioting, attacking and dividing people. If people do things that keep us from coming together as a nation and solving our problems, maybe it’s because they don’t want us to do that.

AMID DEMONSTRATIONS, LIBERAL ELITES PRAISE VIOLENCE AS PROTEST TOOL:

There’s an astonishing story in the Boston Globe-Democrat — it’s hard to imagine it appearing anywhere else — in which Newbury Street shop owners hit by looters and vandals Sunday night still stand by the protest “heroes.” These stores were ransacked, and not for survival gear or basic foodstuffs, but sneakers, coats and luxury goods.

No matter. The events on the streets in response to the killing of George Floyd are good. Period.

If you think it’s unfair to throw peaceful protesters and violent rioters under the same bus, you make an excellent point. That’s almost as bad as treating all cops like racist murderers — throwing bricks at them, screaming in their faces, calling them “pigs,” — because one despicable dirtbag in Minnesota used his badge to perpetrate a horrific crime.

So yes, it’s possible to support protests and not support violence. Unfortunately, many members of the social justice platoons are determined to defend both. And so the headline from Slate.com is “Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence.”

Nine local police officers were injured trying to protect the lives and property of Bostonians, and Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins takes to the mic Monday to attack the cops as murderers.

In a New York Magazine piece entitled “The Rioters Aren’t Here to Convince You,” Zak Cheney-Rice defends the violence in and of itself, arguing that, like The Joker who wanted to see everything burn, “you might begrudge the rioters their insistence on seeing some of it burn for a few nights. But then again, you’d be missing their point.”

As Stacy McCain writes, it’s “The Return of the Riot Ideology.”

DOMINIC GREEN: Life’s a riot with Meghan Markle. “Why send in the troops when you can send in the clowns?”

It’s a vintage performance: the dress-down ponytail and Diana-like white shirt, the Diana-like rolling of the spontaneously moistened eyes, the Diana-like repetition of the clichés of the day as if she is thinking of them for the first time, the long pauses where she is overwhelmed, speechless but still profoundly moved by her own compassion in a sensitivity that could only be called Diana-like, or Diana-lite.

It is impossible not to be impressed by the conviction with which the millionaire wife of a ginger prince faces the pervasive hierarchies of white supremacy. Only a racist cop would refuse to take a knee, and perhaps a Sussex Royal tea towel, when hearing Meghan’s tremulous account of witnessing the Rodney King riots as an 11-year-old. The bit where she quaveringly recalls seeing ‘men in the back of a van, just holding guns and rifles’ must have been especially upsetting for her.

Click on over because this is a joy to read.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND SOFT TOTALITARIANISM:

“This is absolutely chilling Have there been racist and offensive tweets by A&M students? No doubt, and shame on them. But what counts as ‘racist’ and ‘offensive’?”, Rod Dreher asks:

Do you trust an American university in this current climate to fairly sort out unambiguously racist tweets and social media posts from ones that simply state an opinion on matters pertaining to protests, riots, and the like, that do not conform to progressive dogma? I do not. I absolutely do not.

How far back do these searches by A&M go? A week? A year? What if an incoming student posted something racist or otherwise offensive in high school, but repented? Is A&M going to deny them a college education now? What if they posted something that was perfectly acceptable six months ago, but which is now considered racist? Drew Brees simply reaffirmed his previous stance on not kneeling during the National Anthem, and he was widely trashed as racist (he apologized). Nobody can know

Nor do I want universities policing the private speech of any student, however offensive. Unless the student is calling for specific acts of violence, or unlawfully abusing (slandering, etc.) someone else at the university, why is it the university’s business to hunt for heresy?

Read the whole thing. As Iowahawk once said:

A lot of academicians apparently view The Lives of Others as a how-to guide for better education:

And note that Stasi-like spying is likely only getting started:

THE ROAD TO JONESTOWN: On this day in 1931, Jim Jones—the charismatic religious leader who instigated a terrifying mass murder-suicide—was born in Crete, Indiana.

Personally, I am not a big fan of charisma. I like my leaders—religious or otherwise—to be more on the sober side. Downright boring isn’t a deal killer for me. Exciting leaders tend to lead their followers to places they’d prefer not to be—like the remote jungles of Guyana.

Jones grew up poor with an interest in religion that was unusual for his age. Also an avid reader of Marx, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Gandhi, he began attending gatherings of the Communist Party USA in 1951. Determined to become a great man, he asked himself, “How can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church.”

Continue reading ‘THE ROAD TO JONESTOWN: On this day in 1931, Jim Jones—the charismatic religious leader who instiga…’ »

LEAD NIH CORONAVIRUS RESEARCHER SUGGESTED PANDEMIC COULD BE ‘GENOCIDE,’ SAID DOCTORS WOULD LET BLACKS DIE:

Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is described by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as the “lead” member of the U.S. government team racing to find a coronavirus vaccine, has engaged with online theories calling the pandemic a black “genocide” and condemned what she called “systematic oppression” by white people, a review of her social media posts by “Tucker Carlson Tonight” reveals.

Corbett has also reposted a tweet urging Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Dr. Jerome Adams, the surgeon general, to “check” their “privilege.”

Late Friday, a senior Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Fox News: “HHS career ethics officials are reviewing the matter.” Fox News is told the inquiry is being taken “very seriously.” Making unprofessional social media posts about sensitive government work can violate federal ethical guidelines.

QED:

TWO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE STATEMENT:

IT’S TIME FOR THE COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS TO STOP USING WORDS LIKE “RACISM,” “XENOPHOBIA,” “HATE,” AND “HATEFUL” SO INDISCRIMINATELY.

 On March 20, 2020, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement expressing “grave concern” and “alarm[]” over “recent demonstrations of violence and hate toward people of Asian descent.” It warns of a “growing anti-Asian racism and xenophobia.” For the reasons we will explain below, we declined to support that statement.

We agree, of course, that COVID-19 is no excuse for anyone to attack or insult individuals of Asian descent and that when such acts rise to the level of criminal behavior, law enforcement should immediately intervene. But that’s obvious to just about everyone in America. The rare exception is unlikely to read the Commission’s statement, much less be persuaded by it.

It is important to keep things in perspective. Given that the population of the United States is estimated to be over 330,000,000, the litany of incidents in the Commission’s statement is really quite small; most involve misbehavior by children or teenagers. Yes, a nine-year-old child in New Jersey was told by a classmate, “You’re Chinese, so you must have coronavirus.” But that’s why we send nine-year-olds to school; they’ve got a lot to learn. For adults to view the statement as hateful would be over the top. We’re talking about a child.

More serious is the case of the New York teenager who kicked an Asian-American man in the back, knocking him to the ground. Surely that is (and should be) a matter for the police. Fortunately, there is nothing to show this thuggish behavior represents a wave of racial violence.

Here is our biggest objection: The Commission make the ill-advised suggestion that referring to COVID-19 with terms like “Chinese coronavirus” is somehow fueling “[t]his latest wave of xenophobic animosity toward Asian Americans.” It is common to refer to infectious diseases by their geographic origin. Examples include Asian flu, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, Brazilian hemorrhagic fever, Ebola, German measles, Japanese encephalitis, Lyme disease, Marburg virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Pontiac fever, Rift Valley fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Spanish flu, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever, and West Nile virus. In the case of Spanish flu, it was probably a misnomer. That disease likely originated in Kansas instead. But calling it the Spanish flu was never an indication that people hated Spaniards. It was simply a case in which the Spanish press reported on the flu extensively while the American press was preoccupied with World War I and subject to censorship. People therefore made the mistake of believing it originated in Spain.

It is counter-productive to hector the American people (or its leaders) about describing the COVID-19 as “Chinese” or as having originated in China. It did originate there. Ordinary Americans—of all races and ethnicities—who harbor no ill will toward anyone don’t like to have the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights imply that that they are fueling the flames of xenophobic animosity.   We can’t blame them. It is insulting.

Our colleagues on the Commission close their statement by writing under the current circumstances no American should be “ostracized solely because of their race or national origin.” That is certainly sensible enough. We would add that Americans should not be ostracized on account of false accusations that their conduct has been racist, xenophobic and hateful. The promiscuous use of those terms needs to stop.

Gail Heriot & Peter N. Kirsanow, Members, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

VIRTUE SIGNALING THE VIRUS GOES VIRAL: Kung Flu Fighting –Powerline puns while linking to commentaries on the absolutely silly clique of idiots who object to calling the COVID-19 “Wuhan virus” or “a virus from China.” The post includes this link to Andrew McCarthy’s column on the moniker flu-haha.

Excerpt from McCarthy’s column:

Early this year, as the outbreak became manifest in China and began its relentless march through Southeast Asia and into Europe, the American press itself alluded incessantly to the Wuhan coronavirus. The sudden case of talking-head amnesia over this is being greeted in conservative media by hilarious video montages featuring the same scolds, who now decry the term, matter-of-factly invoking it back then.

“Scolds” is far too kind a description. I commented on the Chinese Communist Party agitation propaganda name blame schtick in my weekly Creators Syndicate column.

Here’s the name blame afterthought in a column that examines Dr. Fauci’s neo-isolationist strategy:

The virus’ name game has become an absurd example of manipulative identity politics. The virus first appeared in the Chinese city of Wuhan. For two months, mainstream media called it Wuhan virus. Now China’s communist dictators, attempting to evade responsibility for initially denying the disease existed and, in doing so, spawning the global epidemic — contend the name “Wuhan virus” is racist. Absurd propaganda. Lyme disease? Remind Beijing it’s named for a town in Connecticut. I’ll stick with COVID-19/Wuhan, thank you.

Manipulative identity politics — a sick social disease infecting America.

WHY ARE BERNIE BROS SO VIOLENTLY RACIST AND INTOLERANT? Brawl breaks out at Bernie Sanders rally over ‘Black Guns Matter’ shirt.

A brawl broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Colorado on Sunday when a supporter of the Vermont senator confronted another man for wearing a T-shirt that read “Black Guns Matter,” a report said.

The man sporting the shirt, who is black, told CBS Denver that he was recording the presidential hopeful at the Colorado Convention Center when another rally attendee called him “racist” because of his shirt.

“He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing,” the man, who was not identified, told the news station.

“I was recording the event, he walks up and calls me a racist. But I thought, ‘What’s he know about black lives, about discrimination, or, for that matter, the representation of the shirt.’”

Not much, but he has the violent and intolerant instincts of today’s Democratic Party down pat.

JACK DUNPHY: 2020 Democrats Are Pure Comedy Gold, None More So Than Bloomberg.

Characteristically of the left, Bloomberg is being branded as a racist for actions he took as mayor that helped black residents of New York, specifically, his continuation of the tough-on-crime policies that began under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner William Bratton. Those policies included proactive measures intended to deter street crime of the type that had turned much of the city into a dystopian war zone. One of those measures, the most controversial of them, came to be known as stop-and-frisk.

The very term has been branded as racist based on the fact that the number of blacks and Hispanics stopped and frisked by police in New York was disproportionate to their share of the population. Gentle readers, when you see stop and arrest rates for this or that ethnic group compared with that group’s share of the overall population, you know you are being hoodwinked. It is the criminal offender pool that must be compared to the stop and arrest rates, and in New York City — as is the case in any other city you can name — it is blacks and Hispanics who commit the vast majority of violent crime.

In 2018, blacks were 72.6 percent of the shooting suspects in New York City, and Hispanics were 24.1 percent (see page 12 of this NYPD report). Blacks and Hispanics were also 73.3 and 22.4 percent of the city’s shooting victims, respectively, so it should be beyond saying (but sadly isn’t) that curtailing shooting incidents will be a balm to those communities. Arrests for firearm possession closely mirrored these statistics (see page 13 of the same report), so it’s clear that, by the benchmark that matters, there is no racial disproportion among the arrestees.

Bloomberg, fearful of the racist label sticking despite its lack of a factual basis, has apologized for stop-and-frisk, in essence saying he regrets the tactic that brought about crime reductions few thought were possible. The NYPD investigated 2,262 murders in 1990; in 2019 the number was 319. This decrease would not have been possible without the proactive measures, stop-and-frisk chief among them, initiated by leaders unafraid of political backlash.

Related: Warren, AOC: Let’s not forget that Bloomberg’s a racist.

MY THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE WITH DON LEMON: As The Good Professor blogged here, CNN coughed up a settlement in the libel claim brought by Nick Sandman, one of the horrible, terrible, vicious and very very racist Covington Kids. In digging through the case file, I found this little gem argued by CNN:

“Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false… Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.”

So, now CNN is saying it’s not possible to prove someone a racist? Did anyone run this by Don LeMons, who would call a dog “racist” if it pooped in his yard?

DISPATCHES FROM GROUND ZERO OF THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: On the Passing of Oberlin Plaintiff David Gibson.

As I reported at the time, David Gibson testified that the school had offered to allow the bakery’s food back in the university cafeteria on two conditions: that Gibson’s drop the shoplifting charges, and agree to report all future instances of theft by students to the university and not the police. Gibson refused. “They didn’t want to move forward until we agreed to special treatment for students shoplifting,” he told the jury. “But I kept telling them that we have to be consistent and call the police no matter who is stealing.” Only later did he realize that the school administrators might be using the controversy to launder their own reputations. “[The school administration] had been accused of being racists by students in the previous year,” he testified, “and I think they used us to deflect from that problem they had. I believe they were using us as a target so that their racial problems with their students would go away.”

In December 2015, Oberlin College’s black student union had published a 14-page, 58-point list of demands, in which they accused the university of “anti-blackness” following four separate race-based controversies in a single year. At the end of May, the New Yorker published a long essay about Oberlin College entitled “The Big Uneasy,” examining unrest at the college, in which one student interviewee complained, “I literally am so tired of learning about Marx, when he did not include race in his discussion of the market!” When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016, the students thought their world was ending. “Part of the inconceivable quality of the election is, I don’t know a Trump voter personally, and I can’t imagine someone voting for Trump,” an Oberlin College senior told the campus newspaper. “I don’t know how to reach across that line. I don’t even know who they are.”

When three African American students attempted to steal three bottles of wine the following day, the protests against the Gibson family’s allegedly racist decision to call the police became a vehicle for election anxiety. David Gibson knew immediately that the timing was going to bring trouble. “They’re going to be trashing us,” he told police an hour after the crime occurred. The row which ensnared the small family business was a proxy for national and college political battles in which it had no part, and over which it had no control.

Read the whole thing.

THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!

Shot: ‘Kamala is a cop’ was a racist narrative that killed Harris’s campaign dead. And whatever you think about her, it’s deeply unfair.

—The London Independent, yesterday.

Chaser: Kamala Harris, a ‘Top Cop’ in the Era of Black Lives Matter.

—The New York Times,  May 5, 2016.

I’m not sure why the Independent believes that the Democratic primary is a cesspit of racism, but I do know that they’re approaching 20 years of first-class journalisming.

EVERYTHING IS RACIST: Harris Aide To Buzzfeed Editor: Reporter’s Tweet Is ‘Whiteness Manifest.’ “Imagine being so desperate to create a stir in the press that a campaign aide has to object to a reporter’s tweet and then call the reporter’s editor-in-chief a racist. ‘It’s whiteness manifest.’ What? Perpetual victimhood isn’t a good look for a female candidate trying to project strength. She is woman, hear her whine.”

Related (From Ed): Jon Levine of the New York Post tweets, “For anyone interested, I have confirmed that the author of this text was [Ian Sams] — per a person familiar with the matter.” Sams was also the person who tweeted, then deleted this Photoshop of Nancy Pelosi appearing to ream out Kamala Harris,  which received bipartisan ridicule on Twitter yesterday:

HEH: Liberals Clarify Their Racism Is Actually Democratic Racism.

Liberals seem to have a problem as more Justin Trudeau blackface photos have surfaced. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians in America continue to say anti-semitic things.

In their defense, liberals have come out to clarify that their racism isn’t the destructive kind condemned by most of humanity, but rather, it’s a new improved form called “democratic racism.”

“It’s not racism—it’s democratic racism,” Justin Trudeau assured supporters as 78 new images surfaced of him in various shades of brown makeup. “It’s totally different from regular racism, and to imply that our racism is the same as the bad kind of racism is ignorant.”

To separate the new democratic racism from old, boring racism, liberals pointed out that their form is very popular, and that their base is willing to defend their racist actions and comments. “See, they voted for us, and no matter what crazy racist comments we make, they’ll vote for us again,” said Ilhan Omar. “Where regular racism is condemned by all, democratic racism is voted for by our supporters. So it’s, like, democratic.”

This is supposed to be satire.

#JOURNALISM: 24 Hours Of Media Malpractice.

Late Tuesday afternoon, some conservatives on Twitter started grumbling about an article the Washington Post published that morning. The op-ed in question accused best-selling conservative author J.D. Vance of being racist, and otherwise tried dubiously to connect the dots between mainstream pro-life advocates and white supremacists. At a speech in July, Vance said the following: “Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.” Washington Post contributor Marissa Brostoff characterized the remark by saying, “Vance did not spell out exactly who was included in the word ‘our.’ He didn’t need to.” Her clear implication was that Vance was referring to the fact he only wanted to have white children. This would be news to Vance, since he’s married to a woman of color, and his best-selling “Hillbilly Elegy” ­– a movie version, directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard, is in post-production – is a very critical look at the mores of poor white Americans.

And Vance did, in fact, spell out exactly what his pronoun referred to. A couple of sentences earlier in his remarks, which Brostoff didn’t bother to read closely, he makes it clear he’s referring to all Americans. Low birth rates are a serious concern in Western countries for many reasons, including the need to sustain liberal welfare policies, which have nothing to do with racism.

The Post printed a correction after all this was pointed out, but that doesn’t answer the question of how it got published in the first place. Once upon a time, accusing people of racism was a serious matter. If you were going to do it in print, editors would demand it was sufficiently backed up by evidence. But if Brostoff is to be believed, “my editor suggested that Vance’s comments might be added to the list of evidence being marshaled” and “we both did our due diligence in putting them in context.” Perhaps it’s telling that this op-ed appeared in a section of the Washington Post’s website called “Post Everything,” a title that, based on many other ill-advised opinion pieces that have run under that heading, appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole point of journalism is that you don’t post everything – you make sure it’s fair and accurate first.

A few hours after the controversy over Brostoff’s article flared up, on Lawrence O’Donnell’s 10 p.m. MSNBC show he delivered a blockbuster report that a Russian oligarch co-signed loans Trump took out. O’Donnell apparently kept repeating “if true” in regard to the assertion throughout the segment.

And that’s just the beginning. Related: J.D. Vance just the latest right-thinker to be smeared by leftist lies.

If you want to understand the power of social media in weaponizing and accelerating the left’s attack on truth and ­decency, look no further than The Washington Post’s false accusation this week that J.D. Vance, author of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” is a closet white supremacist.

This is the anatomy of a Twitter lynching, a good man’s reputation strung up and beaten to a pulp. In the impressionistic half-life of ­social media’s attention span, the damage can never really be undone.

Marissa Brostoff’s column trying to link the pro-life movement to white nationalism was stupid enough to have been rejected by a proper newspaper, but it is astonishing that the smear against Vance made it through any honest editing process.

Her thesis is that pro-life conservatives oppose abortion not because they believe every human life is sacred, but because they fear that abortion will accelerate the demographic “replacement” of white people by nonwhite immigrants.

It’s a stupid argument, considering black babies are aborted at five times the rate of white babies in America, as even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute ­admits.

Brostoff arrives at the point only in her final paragraphs, in what amounts to a rhetorical drive-by shooting of Vance, whom she introduces as her sole example that white-supremacist ideas have become mainstream conservative thought.

She’s a lefty hack boosting a political agenda, without principles or morals. Or, in other words, a typical journalist today.

NEW CIVILITY WATCH: If You Want Civility You Just Might Be a Neo-Confederate and Because of That the Left Really Does Want You Dead.

The opinion pages of the nation’s major newspapers never cease to disappoint. Just a couple of weeks ago, the New York Times announced that it has suddenly discovered that everything to do with everything in American history was a direct result of slavery. Now some twit writing at the Washington Post reveals that the whole call for civility by people on the right triggers her because it is exactly like the rhetoric of defenders of slavery in the antebellum South.

In January of 2011, the New York Times reported, “In Tucson, Obama Urges Americans to New Era of Civility.” Yes, Obama’s a Democrat. But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that’s he’s not a closet neo-Confederate.

More at Commentary, where under the headline, “Truth? That’s What the Slaveholders Say!”, Jonathan Marks writes:

In fairness to the Washington Post, it has been more than twenty-four hours since it had to correct an op-ed falsely claiming that J.D. Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy, had lamented a decline in white births. Perhaps its editors regret the error. But what’s truly regrettable is the impulse to publish any and every article, no matter how wrong or foul, postulating that anyone who crosses the left is a racist.

“Vote for us, you bigots,” is quite an interesting argument for Democratic Party operatives with bylines to be making during in the early innings of a presidential election cycle.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Trump — or What, Exactly? Let’s compare Trump’s policies and behavior to that of prior presidents — and to his 2020 opponents’.

Not a word comes from Trump’s critics about the need for Social Security or Medicare reform to ensure the long-term viability of each — other than the Democrats’ promises to extend such financially shaky programs to millions of new clients well beyond the current retiring Baby Boomer cohorts who are already taxing the limits of the system.

To counter every signature Trump issue, there is almost no rational alternative advanced. That void helps explain the bizarre, three-year litany of dreaming of impeachment, the emoluments clause, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the Mueller special-counsel investigation, Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti, Trump’s tax returns, White Supremacy!, Recession! — and Lord knows what next. . . .

Instead of vague socialist bombast and promises, where is the actual detailed socialist version of the Contract with America, so voters can read it, digest it, and then decide whether it is superior or inferior to the status quo since 2017? Let us see two antithetical visions of America’s future, and let the voters decide.

For those who insist that “character matters” more than policy, then, let us compare the Trump behavior in the White House since 2017 with JFK’s, Lyndon Johnson’s, and Bill Clinton’s. Let’s compare his supposed efforts to “obstruct” justice with Obama’s actual record of politicizing federal justice, intelligence, tax, and investigatory agencies.

So far, all that is something that apparently no presidential candidate wishes to do.

Plus:

Trump’s crime is that, without sanitized surgical gloves, he completely ripped the scab off what we call “journalism” and exposed a festering wound of narcissistic, mostly incompetent, and utterly partisan reportage.

Indeed, we knew what was beneath but dared not touch the scab. We had smelled the fetid pus when journalists rallied around the mythographer Dan Rather, chatted in the JournoList files, and competed to toady up to Hillary Clinton in Wikileaks’ trove of Podesta emails. Dean Baquet’s latest New York Times pep talk about the next “racist!” newspeak to follow the failed Mueller hoax was thus anticlimactic — well aside from the epidemics of #MeToo accusations not usually associated with woke, progressive journalistic professionals.

We know that the New York Times, so eager to accuse Trump and the nation at large of serial racism, is itself fond of publishing anti-Semitic cartoons and hiring those with a paper trail of racism and anti-Semitism as its editors, reporters, or editorial-board members, as we see with Sarah Jeong, Jonathan Weisman, and Tom Wright-Piersanti.

Trump did not destroy CNN or the New York Times as viable news organizations. He had nothing to do the past three years with their suicidal abandonment of ethics, professionalism, and disinterested reporting.

True.

“CALIFORNIA WANTS TO TEACH YOUR KIDS THAT CAPITALISM IS RACIST”:  Bill Evers has an essay in the WSJ about the California Department of Education’s new “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.”  Yes, it’s bad, but I’m sure you figured that:

Begin with economics. Capitalism is described as a “form of power and oppression,” alongside “patriarchy,” “racism,” “white supremacy” and “ableism.” Capitalism and capitalists appear as villains several times in the document.

On politics, the model curriculum is similarly left-wing. One proposed course promises to explore the African-American experience “from the precolonial ancestral roots in Africa to the trans-Atlantic slave trade and enslaved people’s uprisings in the antebellum South, to the elements of Hip Hop and African cultural retentions.”

Teachers are encouraged to cite the biographies of “potentially significant figures” such as Angela Davis, Frantz Fanon and Bobby Seale. Convicted cop-killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur are also on the list. Students are taught that the life of George Jackson matters “now more than ever.” Jackson, while in prison, became “a revolutionary warrior for Black liberation and prison reform.” The Latino section’s people of significance include Puerto Rican nationalists Oscar López Rivera, a member of a paramilitary group that carried out more than 130 bomb attacks, and Lolita Lebrón, who was convicted of attempted murder in a group assault that wounded five congressmen.

Housing policy gets the treatment. The curriculum describes subprime loans as an attack on home buyers with low incomes rather than a misguided attempt by the government to help such home buyers. Politicians—Republicans and Democrats—imposed lower underwriting standards on the home-loan industry. Republicans billed it as a way to expand the middle class, while Democrats crowed that it would aid the poor.

A friend of mine wrote this morning calling Bill “a brave man.”  But he didn’t mean Bill was brave to write the op-ed.  He meant that only a brave man could plow through the thousand pages of material Bill had to read in order to write his op-ed.  “Reading it all would be a fate worse than death,” wrote my friend.

The Republic won’t survive too much of this kind of stuff, you know. Yes, there’s a lot of ruin in a nation.  But it’s not infinite.  I may be a Cassandra. But never lose sight of the fact that Cassandra was right.

YOU’RE GONNA NEED A BIGGER BLOG: The Left’s Broad, Bigoted Politics of Vilification.

I appeared on CNN Monday night to discuss the firestorm over the president’s caustic tweets last weekend criticizing the four most progressive members of the House of Representatives. I deemed the tweets illogical and shrill, and said so on Twitter and on Anderson Cooper’s show. I also pointed out that the overreaction from Democratic politicians and their media allies revealed a hysterical attempt to castigate the president as prejudiced. I cited the incredibly incendiary accusation of my CNN colleague Wajahat Ali who retweeted an article and its headline: “Trump is a racist. If you still support him, so are you.”

Such an immense and broad condemnation of tens of millions of Americans represents, itself, an intensely bigoted tactic. After all, utterly dismissing wide swaths of our society just because they do not share prescribed political preferences represents a wholesale effort to delegitimize and dehumanize; it’s a classic tactic to “otherize,” to borrow a term from the left. Paradoxically, liberals like Ali unveil their own inherent and systemic bigotry by belittling their fellow citizens, merely on the grounds of policy differences. Rather than engage and debate and persuade, the intolerant left chooses the politics of vilification. Their rash judgment deems the “unwashed rabble” of our America First movement as deplorables and racists, simpletons unworthy of real consideration.

When I pointed out this clear chasm between their professed tolerance and real-world bigotry, Mr. Ali admonished me, stating that white Trump supporters “will never love you … no matter how hard you try to be the Latin face of Trump, they will never love you.” This CNN commentator and New York Times writer shamelessly employed an old racist trope, essentially calling me an “Uncle Tom” for daring to be brown and pro-America First. His demeaning comment attempted to remove me of my agency and castigate me as some supplicant intent on pleasing my white betters.

In actuality, I do not view all politics, as Ali does, through the narrow prism of race, and I regard myself as an American citizen and a grown man with his own thoughts. Despite Ali’s disparagement, I am not a caricature seeking the ratification of whites. In fact, I care very little about anyone’s skin color and instead aggressively argue for a new American nationalism that rejects tribalism and instead focuses on citizenship and rejects globalism.

The mainstream identity politics-driven left really are the mirror image of the fringe alt-right.

DAVID HARSANYI: Why CNN’s Normalizing Of A White Nationalist Matters. “It’s transparent partisan attempt to smear Republican voters.”

Which brings me to the purpose of CNN featuring white supremacist Richard Spencer on as a pundit yesterday. These are kinds of people, you see, who say “love it or leave it.” These are the kinds of people who support the president. Literally, the chyron read, “White Nationalist who once backed Trump calls Trump’s racist tweets ‘red meat.’”

Spencer was there to reiterate a point. CNN and other networks have decided that Trump’s tweets are objectively racist and they will repeat that his tweets are racist hundreds of times a day just in case anyone disagrees. They won’t make the same kind of journalistic judgments about the anti-Semitism that infects a sizable faction of the progressive left. They won’t do the same for Ilhan Omar’s tweets.

Well, white nationalists get a “jolt” from Republicans winning elections in the same way terrorist Hamas or Antifa goons get a “jolt” from Democrats winning elections. CNN would never ask an Islamic radical or masked leftist arsonist to talk about Ilhan Omar’s anti-American sentiments in an effort to tacitly tie her to those groups.

There are plenty of articulate conservatives out there who don’t melt down every time the president tweets something stupid. Whether you agree with them or not, they could easily have provided a pro-Trump perspective (which is what I imagine CNN was looking for, but didn’t get, from Spencer).

What they got was arguably even “better,” since the headline impression of Spencer’s appearance was that Trump had gone too far even for him.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Mural of George Washington that ‘traumatizes students’ of George Washington High School in San Francisco to be covered up.

And that cover-up won’t be cheap, no matter what method is chosen:

A high school in San Francisco is considering three options for censoring a mural of George Washington deemed problematic by the local activist community: putting up a curtain (price tag: $300,000), painting over it ($600,000), or hiding it behind panels ($875,000).

* * * * * * * *

According to National Review‘s James Sutton, most of the students want to keep the mural, or don’t really care one way or another. The controversy is the work of “outside busybodies.” Naturally, it looks like they are going to get their way. The school board is currently deciding between three different plans, all of which involve destroying the mural, or covering it up. A final decision is expected next week, reports The College Fix.

By the way, if you’re wondering why it would cost several hundred thousand dollars to get rid of the mural, here’s your answer: Officials are required to conduct environmental impact reports before they take any action.

It’s important that the memory hole be as carbon-neutral as possible.

Flashback: “Here’s the irony, though. The murals were painted in 1936 by artist Victor Arnautoff, who was a protégé of Diego Rivera and a communist.’ He included those images not to glorify Washington, but rather to provoke a nuanced evaluation of his legacy. The scene with the dead Native American, for instance, calls attention to the price of ‘manifest destiny.’ Arnautoff’s murals also portray the slaves with humanity and the several live Indians as vigorous and manly,’ The Wall Street Journal reported in late April.

As I wrote in May at that last link, Stalin smiles (and so does Mao).

THE REVOLUTION DEVOURS ITS OWN: John Cleese faces online backlash after claiming London isn’t ‘an English city any more.’ Cleese tweeted:

In 2017, Cleese admitted to being pro-Brexit: “I don’t want to be run by a bunch of European bureaucrats.”

Monty Python was the culmination of the British left’s satire revolution of the 1960s. As Peter Hitchens wrote in his brilliant 1998 book, The Abolition of Britain, combined, these works were a cultural sea change in England:

Beyond the Fringe, Forty Years On and TW3 created a tradition of ‘anti-establishment’ comedy which continued long after its roots were forgotten. There may still have been an ‘establishment ‘of snobbery, church, monarchy, clubland and old-school-tie links in 1961.There was no such thing ten years later, but it suited the comics and all reformers to pretend that there was and to continue to attack this mythical thing. After all, if there were no snobbery, no crusty old aristocrats and cobwebbed judges, what was the moral justification for all this change, change which benefited the reformers personally by making them rich, famous and influential?

* * * * * * *

It also made the middle class, especially the educated and well-off middle class, despise themselves and feel a sort of shame for their supposedly elitist prejudices, based upon injustice and undermined by their failure to defend the nation from its enemies in the era of appeasement. Thanks to this, in another paradox, they have often felt unable to defend things within Britain which they value and which help to keep them in existence, from the grammar schools to good manners. They are ashamed of being higher up the scale, though for most middle-class people this is more a matter of merit than birth, and nothing to be ashamed of at all.

Cleese’s reference today that “Some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city any more,” is a callback to an interview he gave in 2011:

Cleese also spoke about the shift in British attitudes away from a “middle-class culture” and the emergence of a “yob culture”.

He said: “There were disadvantages to the old culture, it was a bit stuffy and it was more sexist and more racist. But it was an educated and middle-class culture. Now it’s a yob culture. The values are so strange.”

He added that he preferred living in Bath to London because the capital no longer felt “English”.

“London is no longer an English city which is why I love Bath,” he said. “That’s how they sold it for the Olympics, not as the capital of England but as the cosmopolitan city. I love being down in Bath because it feels like the England that I grew up in.”

More recently, Cleese has said he’s relocating the Caribbean island of Nevis. It’s interesting that Cleese fled first London, and then England itself. After WWII, the British left worked very hard to transform the people of England, taking Bertold Brecht’s famous line, “Would it not be easier…for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?” to heart. As with other members of Python, Cleese is discovering the hard way that the revolution, for which they were arguably the most visible part of the spearhead, eventually devours its own.

(Hat tip, Kathy Shaidle.)

UPDATE: Monty Python Star John Cleese Hits Back Against Backlash Over His Claims London Is ‘No Longer An English City’ Because Of Migrants:

Watching a group of lefties calling someone they once worshipped as a comedy god a “racist” is painful to watch, and is a reminder of the corrosive nature of social media. If only somebody had a new book out, devoted to that very topic…

(Updated and bumped.)

OLD AND BUSTED: WWII was won by the men Tom Brokaw dubbed “The Greatest Generation.”

The New Hotness? Washington Post: U.S. WWII Heroes Were Evil Because They Were ‘Racists.’

“Because while Allied countries opposed the Nazis and Allied troops defeated them, the leaders of the United States and Britain rarely attacked the core tenet of Nazism: the belief in a master race,” this ahistorical “teacher,” wrote.

Broich added:

“In my World War II class recently, I had my students pore through the speeches and letters of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the years around the war’s start in 1939, searching for his basis for opposing the Nazis. They found Churchill wanted to stand up to the Nazis’ expansionism, fight their anti-democracy posture and resist what he called (but largely left undefined) their anti-Christianity. What he did not do, however, was call for the destruction of the essence of Nazism: race supremacy.”

Basically, Broich says that despite defeating the Third Reich — the evilest regime in human history — that tremendous moral success doesn’t matter because the Allies were all still racists.

Because the world wasn’t as “woke” in 1945 as it is now, the great victory over Hitler is meaningless.

As Hans Fiene wrote last year when “the Knights of Akshully“ took their shot at Albert Einstein for doubleplus ungood thoughts he recorded in his diary in 1922, “Calling Einstein A Racist Is Perfect For Those Who Can’t Compete With His Accomplishments:”

To recap, unlike Columbus, Washington, or Jefferson, who inflicted real pain upon many people through real actions, in 1922, Einstein had some private thoughts that are roughly as offensive as the 15 RealPatriotsAgainstMexico.blogtown.net articles your aunt shared on Facebook last week. Einstein then wrote those unsavory thoughts in a private journal, never spoke them aloud publicly, and never lived a life in accordance with them. The horror…Why is this news for the Knights of Akshully? The answer is fairly simple. Their goal is not to eliminate injustice. If it were, they’d spend their time fighting against the slavery, oppression, and racism that still run rampant in the world instead of attacking historical figures who were increasingly less guilty of perpetuating slavery, oppression, and racism.

Likewise, it’s hard to believe they’re seeking a genuine debate about how much a man’s moral failings ought to affect his legacy, since the answer is always the same: “Terminate with extreme prejudice the one with extreme (or modest) prejudice.” Rather, it seems the Knights of Akshully’s goal is to devise an ethical system that gives them bragging rights over the far more accomplished figures of history.

Sure Churchill crushed the Nazis, and Einstein’s A-bomb defeated Imperial Japan, but their choice of pronouns were just the worst.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: The Liberal Media ‘Matrix:’ Covington, Smollett, Mueller, Avenatti and other adventures in unreality.

I used to laugh every time I heard someone like Elon Musk say that we are living in a Matrix-like simulation. These days, not so much.

Don’t call the funny farm just yet. On the major question of the nature of sense experience, I remain with Aristotle and against Bishop Berkeley. Matter is real. But there is also the question of how we perceive “the news”; how established media institutions present and frame information; how we are supposed to respond to the “takes” purportedly expert and knowledgeable voices serve up to us by the second on social media. And here, I’m skeptical.

It’s hard not to be. Think of the headlines we’ve encountered since the beginning of this year. We were told the Covington Catholic boys were smug racist Trump supporters on the basis of a snippet of video. A young man, a private citizen, whose only offense was traveling to Washington, D.C., to march for life, was transformed at light speed into a symbol of hate and systemic oppression. However, just as Nick Sandmann’s reputation as a villain was about to set in stone, additional videos revealed that the students’ encounter with a far-left American Indian activist and the Black Hebrew Israelites was far more complicated than initially reported. The Covington Catholic boys had been smeared. People who cast themselves as agents of professional knowledge, expertise, and moral authority had circulated and amplified a lie in the service of a political agenda. Not for the first nor last time.

We were told Jussie Smollett, a rising gay African-American actor and singer, had been the victim of a hate crime committed by MAGA-hat-wearing Trump supporters in the dead cold of a Chicago night. Journalists and bloggers who asked questions about Smollett’s story were decried as bigots, even as key details went missing and the shifting timeline became more and more curious. Then the city’s African-American police commissioner announced Smollett had been arrested for orchestrating a bizarre hoax. The state’s attorney filed charges—charges subsequently dropped after behind-the-scenes lobbying by Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff.

We were told that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin were in cahoots to hack the emails of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign; that Trump might have been a Russian agent since the late 1980s; that the key to the conspiracy might be a server in Trump Tower relaying information to a Russian bank; that the indictment of Donald Trump Jr. was imminent; that Trump Sr., according to the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, had committed “treason”; that Michael Cohen had met with Russian intelligence operatives in Prague; that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to speak to the Russians prior to Election Day 2016; that Trump had instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress; that Paul Manafort had met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy in London during the campaign; that secret indictments in an Alexandria courthouse would be unsealed on the day Robert Mueller filed his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. None of it happened.

We were told that Michael Avenatti, a trial attorney who appeared seemingly out of nowhere to represent Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels,” in her (tossed-out) defamation suit against Donald Trump, was a defender of the rule of law and election integrity who posed, in the words of Stephen Colbert, an “existential threat” to the Trump presidency.

To paraphrase Han Solo, we’ve been told an awful lot.

STACY MCCAIN: Bearing False Witness: The Case of Jussie Smollett.

Anyone with common sense could see that Jussie Smollett’s story didn’t add up, but evidently none of the Democrats running for president in 2020 has any common sense. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris used almost identical language in proclaiming Smollett the victim of “an attempted modern-day lynching.” Former Vice President Joe Biden declared: “We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts.” Smollett was the victim of “the latest of too many hate crimes against LGBTQ people and people of color,” said New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, adding: “We are all responsible for condemning this behavior and every person who enables or normalizes it.” Other leading Democrats joined this chorus of condemnation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the “racist, homophobic attack… an affront to our humanity,” while New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez asserted that the attack on Smollett was indicative of “the rise of hate crimes.” No Democrat more explicitly pointed the finger of blame than California Rep. Maxine Waters who said “this is happening for a reason.… It’s coming from the President of the United States. He’s dog-whistling every day.”

If the incident which provoked all these denunciations proves to be a hoax, however, will any of these Democrats apologize? Will they suffer any actual consequences for being so disastrously wrong about what happened to Jussie Smollett? No, don’t be silly. Liberal journalists won’t ask Booker, Harris, Biden, or other Democrats to explain why they were so easily deceived. Indeed, the media are already trying to spin the story to rescue Democrats. CNN’s Brian Stelter claimed Saturday that the real problem is that “random websites” had “weaponized” the story, whatever that means. Stelter went on to say of the Smollett hoax that “the motive here is still a mystery at the heart of the story.” Except it’s not really mysterious: Smollett has repeatedly declared his hatred of President Trump, and what better way to damage the president than to frame Republicans for a fake hate crime? And liberal journalists were eager to act as Smollett’s accomplices, as Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow remarked Sunday: “This is absolutely about the media and their constant desire to prove Orange Man Bad no matter how implausible the story.”

Read the whole thing.

TO LIVE AND DIE IN ATLA: While many online were joking that, “If I wanted to watch guys failing at scoring for three hours, I would have just taken my buddies to the bar,” I quite enjoyed the on-field portion of the Super Bowl last night. Unlike typical 21st century Super Bowls, in which the scoreboard looks like a pinball game, last night was a titanic defensive struggle reminiscent of the Super Bowls of the early-to-mid-1970s. That was the period best summed up by the January 1976 cover of the since long dead Sport magazine, whose headline implored, “Let’s Have A Super Bowl The Pregame Show Can Be Proud Of.” Certainly, Tony Romo and Jim Nanz, while occasionally getting punchy in the announcers’ booth, did their best to make the action watchable.

If the action on the gridiron was a throwback to the NFL’s past, the commercials and halftime show were a preview of America’s Weimar-esque future. What was Anheuser-Busch thinking, when it paid for ads that believed that light beer drinkers care whether or not their favorite beer has corn syrup in it? And that they wouldn’t get called on the number of beers that Anheuser-Busch brews that contain corn syrup. Or that they’d fail to remember what anybody who drinks light beer actually does care about:

Continue reading ‘TO LIVE AND DIE IN ATLA: While many online were joking that, “If I wanted to watch guys failing at…’ »

OH FER CRYIN’ OUT LOUD: It’s Now Racist To Ask Students To ‘Be Respectful In Class.’

Anita Moss, a senior lecturer of biology at the University of Texas-San Antonio (UTSA) was investigated after she called police on a repeatedly disruptive student, according to the College Fix. Moss, who is white, had been telling Paige Burgess, who is black, all semester to be less disruptive and to take her feet off of chairs.

The problem started when another student, Apurva Rawal, put out a tweet making it seem like Moss had flipped out and called the police just because a student had her feet up in class. He sent a video of the police removing the student.

Even though Moss was cleared of racial discrimination and had positive reviews from students, she was removed from class for the semester. The racial bias investigation was not the only investigation going on. Her demands for proper classroom etiquette were also reviewed, and led to her removal, the Fix reported.

Incentives matter, and these incentives suck.

THE DEMS, THE LEFT AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY HAVE A FARRAKHAN PROBLEM:

Why was Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, which even most of the left will acknowledge is a racist hate group, a few steps away from Bill Clinton, front and center, at Aretha Franklin’s funeral?

The same reason he was at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting smiling with Obama.

The same reason top Black Lives Matter and Women’s March figures either praise him or refuse to disavow him.

Farrakhan is a racist and an anti-Semite. He has praised Hitler, suggested that Jews were using pot to make black men gay, and spewed every possible hateful and ugly thing that the left claims to disavow. But while he may in theory be unacceptable in society, he is a major and mainstream figure within the black community. That’s why scenes like these keep playing out.

Read the whole thing. As Allahpundit tweeted on Friday, “Of the three men to Bill’s right, the guy who once called NYC ‘Hymietown’ has the *least* anti-semitic record.”

Louis Farrakhan, from left, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and former President Bill Clinton attend the funeral service for Aretha Franklin at Greater Grace Temple, Friday, Aug. 31, 2018, in Detroit. Franklin died Aug. 16, 2018 of pancreatic cancer at the age of 76. (AP photo and caption.)

HISTORY’S BAD IDEAS ARE AN INSPIRATION FOR PROGRESSIVES, Victor Davis Hanson writes:

Yet 19th-century nullification is the font of the current “sanctuary city” law adopted by nearly 500 American cities that declare federal immigration statutes null and void within their jurisdictions. No matter that such liberal cities would have been the first to call insurrectionary any conservative city that declared federally protected abortion rights, gun laws or the endangered species act impotent within their city limits.

How strange that the entire “liberal” concept of nullifying federal immigration law rest on illiberal legacies that either sought to or actually did start a civil war.

Resegregation on the Rise

Another dark tradition from America’s past was the institutionalization of segregated spaces on the logic that the victims of discrimination did not deserve the protection of their freedoms under the Constitution, given their supposed innate odiousness. Yet once again the progressive Left has returned to its roots for inspiration and implemented an entire array of discriminatory practices. Special landscapes on campuses where particular races cannot enter are called “safe” rather than “segregated” spaces. Entry is entirely predicated on outward appearance—although how one’s genealogy is assessed ad hoc poses the same challenges as it once did for the racists of the Old South who came up with the ‘one-drop’ rule.

Campus dorms are now routinely segregated by race, at least sort of, given that a white “theme” house would be properly declared racist and shut down.

The far left wants Woodrow Wilson’s name airbrushed from history at Princeton, while continuing to practice his pro-Confederacy, pro-segregation beliefs.

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS: Little House on the Racist Prairie.

Call them cranks. Laugh all you want. Consider the ALSC kooks — but this latest effort to eradicate Laura Ingalls Wilder from our collective culture should scare you to death.

It means the modern Left isn’t afraid of anything in their effort to fundamentally transform America. No target is too beloved by Americans to slow these gangsters down. No hill is too high for them to climb. No matter how many millions and millions of Americans love the Little House books and the 1970s TV series, the Left will target it — and anything else that promotes core American values of self-reliance, independence, and endless possibilities.

The ALSC seeks to airbrush Wilder out of our American consciousness for two proffered justifications: the treatment of Indians in the books; and a minstrel show that appears in Little Town on the Prairie.

These are just pretexts, for reasons I’ll explain shortly.

Read the whole thing.

ROGER SIMON: Why The Left Is Having A Nervous Breakdown.

Trump is what the shrinks call the “presenting complaint.” The real problem, as is often the case in psychotherapy, is something entirely different. And it is this: The left is dead. It’s not only dead, it’s decomposed with no there there or anywhere.

Only dopes or con artists believe in socialism anymore (hello, Venezuela!) and identity politics has been exposed as the racist shell game it is with blacks and Latinos actually doing better than they have in decades under the current pro-capitalist administration.

So the left has nothing to say, only most of them don’t quite realize it yet. But this blockage, this reluctance and even inability to deal with what is actually happening shuts down the brain and emerges as anger, the hamster wheel of constant rage against Trump.

And that, of course, feeds on itself, as we have seen for the past year and a half, making matters worse, not just for the obvious reason — the aforementioned alienation of the public — but for what it does to their own minds.

Anger makes you stupid.

Well, they’re certainly stupid.

ROGER SIMON: Why The Left Is Having A Nervous Breakdown.

But I have news for them. It’s not at all about Trump. It’s about them.

Trump is what the shrinks call the ‘presenting complaint.” The real problem, as is often the case in psychotherapy, is something entirely different. And it is this: the left is dead. It’s not only dead, it’s decomposed with no there there or anywhere.

Only dopes or con artists believe in socialism anymore (hello, Venezuela!) and identity politics has been exposed as the racist shell game it is with blacks and Latinos actually doing better than they have in decades under the current pro-capitalist administration.

So the left has nothing to say, only most of them don’t quite realize it yet. But this blockage, this reluctance and even inability to deal with what is actually happening shuts down the brain and emerges as anger, the hamster wheel of constant rage against Trump.

And that, of course, feeds on itself, as we have seen for the past year and a half, making matters worse, not just for the obvious reason – the aforementioned alienation of the public – but for what it does to their own minds.

Anger makes you stupid. When is the last time you heard a creative idea coming out of the left? (Herbert Marcuse? Okay, scratch that.) When is the last time they even debated the issues in a serious way rather than simply hurling invective or worse?

Infuriating them even more is that Trump is not even a conventional Republican or a conventional anything for that matter, making a mockery of people (like leftists) with rigid, reified (and highly conventional) ideologies that, in most cases, haven’t altered one jot in decades.

Read the whole thing. And chuckle.

SALENA ZITO: Hollywood Desperately Needs to Fill the Hole Left by Roseanne: 

If the lesson the left takes away from this is that all Trump voters are racist, it will be making the same mistake the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the national news media and the NFL have made in misunderstanding this coalition of people. But if wisdom prevails, the left will step back and realize there was a void in the market that even Roseanne Barr could fill — a person who conservatives have reviled for years.

If there was a hole that big in Hollywood, then we should take an honest look at our programming and how our entertainment industry treats Middle America. Plenty of lessons are coming out of this chapter of Barr’s life. Most of them are obvious: Words matter, and there are consequences for hateful behavior.

But people will miss two other very important lessons. The first is we have to stop leaping to the assumption that all people who voted for Donald Trump are racist and everything they like has tinges of racism — from guns to how the NFL has handled the national anthem controversy.

The second is that Hollywood hasn’t been serving a great big chunk of this country for a long time. As a result, a show no one predicted would be popular broke all the records. I sincerely hope ABC is able to revive some version of “Roseanne” under a different name and with some of the same characters, as has been reported. Because right now, people in a large swath of the country are hungry for something that authentically reflects their lives. That’s where the story is.

Much like Jimmy the Greek handing CBS all the reason they needed to fire him after his freshness rating had long expired, Roseanne was axed because her racist tirade gave Disney the perfect excuse to both dump a TV series whose premise they hated, and send a symbolic warning shot to flyover country to know your place, rubes. Disney is such an enormous conglomerate of broadcast and cable TV channels, movies, amusement parks, and a bottomless merchandising well that the revenues lost from cutting Roseanne’s series is little more than tip money. But as with dumping Tim Allen’s conservative-friendly series after Trump was elected president, the frisson of pleasure that Obama and Hillary-supporting Disney executives felt when sacking yet another flyover country favorite makes any minor financial imposition feel all worth while. Roseanne should have had the common sense to know that she was on double-secret probation, and that in television, even the biggest names are ultimately replaceable.

REALCLEARPOLITICS: Trump Lifts The Economic Underdogs.

The movie “Cinderella Man” depicts the incredible true-life tale of boxer James J. Braddock, who rose from abject poverty and the bread lines of the Great Depression to fame and fortune as heavyweight champion of the world — all in a matter of months. In the film, Braddock arrives at a government welfare office to repay the assistance he had received while still poor and declares, “I believe we live in a great country, a country that’s great enough to help a man financially when he’s in trouble … and I just thought I should return it.”

Americans love such tales in which the downtrodden succeed, and underdog stories make for great cinema. In real life right now, a lot of economic underdogs in America are growing into a prosperity they did not think possible just a few years ago. Simply put, it’s time for the little guys, the underdogs, to shine. For example, while government dependency expanded massively during the slow growth of the last decade, since the Inauguration of Donald Trump almost 2 million people have dropped off of food stamps.

On Friday our country cheered yet another stellar jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And unlike the sluggish expansion of the Obama years, the lion’s share of this labor market strength benefits middle-income and previously ignored workers. For example, non-managerial wages accelerated at a 12-month rate of 2.7 percent, the highest in a decade. The jobless rate for non-college graduates fell to the lowest level since 2001. Even for those who did not complete high school, good news abounds, as the jobless rate for that working-class, underdog population has now been below 6 percent for the each of the past five months. . . .

These reforms represent a particularly powerful tailwind for Hispanics, statistically by far the most entrepreneurial demographic in America. Speaking of Hispanics, the labor market news for them has been stellar. In U.S. history, there are only eight months where Hispanics report a jobless rate below 5 percent, and an incredible seven of those eight months have been in the last year alone under Trump’s growth agenda. The news is similarly strong for blacks, where the gap between black and white unemployment shrank to the smallest disparity on record. If President Trump is a racist, as his media critics constantly (and unfairly) allege, then he is remarkably bad at it!

Indeed.

I’M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN MAKING FUN OF OUR PRESIDENT’S DAUGHTER WOULD RUIN YOUR LIFE.

The morning after the uneventful pardoning, my news feed began blowing up with stories about a GOP hill staffer named Elizabeth Lauten, who worked for a backbencher congressman. She decided to criticize the Obama daughters on her Facebook page. Lauten attacked their fashion choices, writing in part, “Dear Sasha and Malia, I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re a part of the First Family, try showing a little class. Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar.”

Her post made the media world go apoplectic. It began a 72 hour outrage cycle. Lauten was called racist, bigoted and insensitive. The cultural zeitgeist would not be satisfied unless it received due punishment for the crime. Lauten was of course fired, even though she apologized the same day.

Her political career was ruined forever.

As I wrote at the time, “In a city where image is everything, this is about the worst thing that can happen to a person. To this day, Lauten has found it impossible to get re-hired in the public sector. The media got its scalp and the precedent was set: Do not attack a President’s children.”

Since then, the cultural paradigm has shifted.

Judging by CNN’s Brian Stelter, I’m not sure what the problem is:

Has it come this? I’m sorry, I thought this was America — are we not allowed to say “feckless” anymore? The “scooplet” is also a nice touch, since Stelter is being fed information by an affiliated network so that he can aid  in their PR cleanup effort.

HOW A PRETTY PROM DRESS HELPED REVEAL ROT IN THE AMERICAN SOUL:

On the one side is a collection of Americans who rightly look at Daum’s dress and say, “That’s not racist. It’s just a pretty dress.” On the other side is a collection of Americans who view this indifference and confusion as a provocation.

Now, let me ask. As you survey pop culture, the academy, and American corporations, which side has the upper hand? Which side is defining American discourse? America’s most prominent culture-makers obsess over identity. They elevate prom dress choices to matters of national debate. And that’s why people who still possess a sense of reason, proportion, and manners (on both sides of the political aisle) need to push back. Reason can’t cede the public square to rage. Sometimes a prom dress is just a prom dress. But Lam’s tweet wasn’t “just” a tweet. It was a symbol of the incoherent anger that is tearing this nation apart.

Definitely read the whole thing. And kudos to Daum for not backing down. What David French accurately calls “perhaps the dumbest story you’ve ever heard — a story that is stupid with a heaping helping of malice on the side” made the Washington Post:

While the family lives in a predominantly white suburb of Salt Lake City, Dawes said she has made an effort to give her daughter a multicultural upbringing. When Daum was in the third grade, her mother pulled her out of her school and enrolled her in a more diverse school in Salt Lake City. “I wanted her to have that exposure,” Dawes said.

She also said that Daum has grown up with a multicultural extended family. Several of her nieces and nephews are of Pacific Island descent.

The mother found it particularly unsettling that “an adult male has attacked her for what she’s wearing,” something that has nothing to do with “her talent or her mind.”

“I’m proud of her for standing her ground because she didn’t do anything wrong,” Dawes said.

In the days since the photos went viral, Daum said she has made a point of researching the significance of the dress in Chinese history and culture. She also says she has learned about the velocity and reach of messages on social media, and the importance of being able to see her own posts from a different lens.

“This does give me a better sense of choice and being careful in what I say in posts and how it can be perceived differently,” she said.  “It’s taught me to be extra cautious because you don’t want people to see it the wrong way.”

But at the same time, she said, “there are people who are going to find something to offend them no matter what it is.”

“I’d wear it again,” she said of the dress.

Good for her. Twitter’s management attempted to keep the mob enraged by spotlighting this weekend’s idiocy as a “Twitter Moment,” but since the cycle that Internet shaming is now completely predictable, that may finally be diluting its impact:

  • Random crank is outraged over minutia, tweets random crankery.
  • The outrage mob amplifies said crankery 140 characters at a time – or simply by hitting the retweet button.
  • A few days later, faced with thousands of thousands of hateful responses, the victim apologizes, and the mob’s thirst for blood* is temporarily slaked…
  • …until the outrage mob finds a new skull to collect.

Also diluting the outrage mob? As Jordan Peterson advises Daum, “Don’t apologize. That will merely be read as an indication of your guilt. You’re innocent. Maintain your stance,” adding “Ignore them. They’re contemptible bullies masking their cruelty with virtue. You’re a kid trying to have a nice time. You’ve done nothing wrong.”

* And the frisson of pleasure from the belief that they’re the doing vital missionary work as members of the anointed.

STEPHEN L. CARTER: Georgia’s law against wearing masks in public must be applied to everyone, including those protesting the presence of hate groups.

I’m a little confused by some of the responses to the arrest of self-styled anti-racism protesters in Newnan, Ga., earlier this week for violating the state’s law against going masked in public. Observers seem somewhere between troubled and outraged that a statute originally enacted to deal with the Ku Klux Klan should be used against people who were marching non-violently against (in this case) self-proclaimed Nazis. But were the law applied selectively, hitting only racist targets, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Statutes that prohibit wearing masks in public go back to the decade after the Civil War, when Reconstruction authorities were searching for a way to deal with the terrorism of what historians call the first Ku Klux Klan. By the end of the 19th century, the group had died out, but a second Klan arose in the 1920s, leading to pressure on state governments to enact anti-masking laws. The Georgia version was adopted in 1951. . . .

That’s it. Nothing about the Klan. Nothing about whether you’re being violent or not. Nothing about which side of a dispute you happen to be on. As a matter of fact, it’s quite important that the statute applies equally to racist and anti-racist groups. Otherwise, the law would be flatly unconstitutional.

I’m certainly not comparing the Georgia protesters to the Klan, but it’s hornbook First Amendment jurisprudence that regulations on speech must be neutral as to content – that is, the state can’t treat two speakers differently depending on which side each happens to take. To propose that the good guys and the bad guys be subject to different rules is to fall into the trap that the journalist Nat Hentoff memorably labeled “free speech for me but not for thee.” In short, if the racists can’t cover their faces, neither can the anti-racists.

Some of the protesters arrested in Georgia told reporters that they kept their faces covered for fear of retaliation by white supremacists. The idea, wrote one critic of the arrests, is to make it harder for opponents “to weaponize their politics with employers or fellow right-wingers.” The fear is understandable, but to cite it as a justification for masking also carries a certain irony. If you peruse the pro-Klan writing of the past, the desire to avoid retaliation was a consistent theme. The night riders had to keep their faces covered, they claimed, so that those perfidious Yankees would not arrest them for protecting their communities against crimes and depredations that Union occupiers ignored.

It’s also ironic given how “anti-fascist” protesters are always going after people’s jobs.

JUST NBC THE SHARK JUMPING! On Easter Sunday, Christians must remember how easily and often our faith is used defend white supremacy.

That’s pretty rich coming from the network that employs Al Sharpton, a Louis Farrakhan supporter with decades of racist and anti-Semitic baggage all his own.

Related: NBC’s Chuck Todd slammed on Twitter for Good Friday comments.

LICENSE TO KILLJOY: As Tom Wolfe wrote, paraphrasing Malcolm Muggeridge, “We live in an age in which it is no longer possible to be funny. There is nothing you can imagine, no matter how ludicrous, that will not promptly be enacted before your very eyes, probably by someone well known.” Back in October, while Harvey Weinstein was being defenestrated near-daily in the news, Rob Long, as part of his “The Long View” column in the dead tree edition of National Review, wrote up a satiric lawsuit featuring a dozen Bond girls suing the living daylights (sorry) out of Her Majesty’s swinging secret agent.

The above-named plaintiffs — and others to be included at a later date — allege that in separate instances the above-named defendant, James Bond, repeatedly made unwanted advances upon their persons, in locations including public areas, private hotel rooms, corporate-jet interiors, ski slopes, and hollowed-out volcano hideaways. Further, plaintiffs claim that defendant refused to accept their demurrals, would not take “No” for an answer, and in some instances used his considerable latitude vis-à-vis License to Kill etc. to coerce, intimidate, blackmail, and relentlessly pursue the plaintiffs into unwanted situations.

Half the article is behind the NR subscriber paywall, but you get the gist of it: how could James Bond survive in the Weinstein-inspired #Metoo era? It turns out that maybe he can’t.

Continue reading ‘LICENSE TO KILLJOY: As Tom Wolfe wrote, paraphrasing Malcolm Muggeridge, “We live in an age in whi…’ »

ONLY IN THEIR WEST WING/NPR FANTASIES: Does the Left Lose because It’s Too Civil?

We’re still endlessly debating how we “got Trump” in 2016. But one of the chief reasons is that many Republicans — down to the very marrow of their bones — believed that the GOP had been “too nice,” and that nominating gentlemen like Mitt Romney meant that the party was unilaterally disarming in a no-holds-barred political war. There is still deep rage at the way in which lefties who allegedly yearn for civility painted Romney as a greedy, racist monster who was indifferent to cancer deaths and sought to put African Americans “back in chains.”

No, Democrats aren’t losing because they’re “too nice” or because they yearn for dialogue. The better explanation is that they’re losing in part because their own incivility and rage drive millions of Americans to the polls to vote in perceived self-defense. Their own incivility and rage falsely escalate too many political disputes to matters of life and death. What’s the argument after claiming that Republicans are intentionally killing people? Is there a rhetorical step beyond that?

No, the next step is physical violence, and we’ve seen plenty of that from the left over the past year, up to and including, as the Daily Caller noted in August, “Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.”

NORTH KOREA ACCUSES NATO SECRETARY GENERAL OF “APING TRUMP”: How racist. How politically incorrect. From a hereditary Communist no less. Will Chuck Schumer and Black Lives Matter and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and The New York Times and who-the-heck-ever in the Left Establishment demand an immediate retraction from Pyongyang? Of course not. So what is this? This is another indication that Trump has rattled Rocket Man.

THOMAS CHATTERTON WILLIAMS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES: How Ta-Nehisi Coates Gives Whiteness Power.

I have spent the past six months poring over the literature of European and American white nationalism, in the process interviewing noxious identitarians like the alt-right founder Richard Spencer. The most shocking aspect of Mr. Coates’s wording here is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race — specifically the specialness of whiteness — that white supremacist thinkers cherish.

This, more than anything, is what is so unsettling about Mr. Coates’s recent writing and the tenor of the leftist “woke” discourse he epitomizes. Though it is not at all morally equivalent, it is nonetheless in sync with the toxic premises of white supremacism. Both sides eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while those of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice. Both sides mystify racial identity, interpreting it as something fixed, determinative and almost supernatural. For Mr. Coates, whiteness is a “talisman,” an “amulet” of “eldritch energies” that explains all injustice; for the abysmal early-20th-century Italian fascist and racist icon Julius Evola, it was a “meta-biological force,” a collective mind-spirit that justifies all inequality. In either case, whites are preordained to walk that special path. It is a dangerous vision of life we should refuse no matter who is doing the conjuring.

This summer, I spent an hour on the phone with Richard Spencer. It was an exchange that left me feeling physically sickened. Toward the end of the interview, he said one thing that I still think about often. He referred to the all-encompassing sense of white power so many liberals now also attribute to whiteness as a profound opportunity. “This is the photographic negative of a white supremacist,” he told me gleefully. “This is why I’m actually very confident, because maybe those leftists will be the easiest ones to flip.”

If you divide America along racial/ethnic lines, eventually the largest racial/ethnic group will start to think of itself as a racial/ethnic group and act accordingly. But in the meantime, it’s a good living for Coates, and I guess an okay one for Spencer.

And if you want more Trump, well, Coates will help you get more Trump, and a lot more effectively than Spencer ever has. Right after the election, John Podhoretz tweeted, “Liberals spent 40 years disaggregating [the] U.S., until finally the largest cohort in the country chose to vote as though it were an ethnic group.” That’s where “whiteness”-as-original-sin gets you. But hey, like I said, it’s a good living for some people.

SPIKED: We Need More Texas Attitude And Less PC:

The official response to Harvey appears to be very competent. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was on the ground two days before Harvey reached land. Texas governor Greg Abbott deployed the entire Texas National Guard. Houston mayor Sylvester Turner quickly activated police and firefighters, and provided calm, clear instructions to residents. This was much better than the response to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana in 2005 – indeed, it seemed to show that the authorities had learned the lessons of the botched response to Katrina. . . .

As capable as the local, state and federal disaster response has been, what has been even more impressive is the great effort made by thousands of ordinary people, volunteering to help their fellow citizens. Seeing massive flooding and destruction, many would think: ‘How do I get out of here?’ But in Houston we saw lines of cars towing boats, people driving into the worst of the flooding. Like the cavalry, on came the hundreds of the ‘Texas Navy’ (joined by the ‘Cajun Navy’ of Louisiana) in fishing boats, jet skis and kayaks.

They went about their business with modest determination. CNN found two men loading up their boat, heading into the storm. ‘What are you going to do?’, the CNN reporter asked. ‘Go try to save some lives’, one of the men said, in a matter-of-fact way. Those without a boat helped, too. Five volunteer rescuers from Lufkin, Texas stopped at a gas station, and a guy handed them three $100 bills, according to a New York Times report. ‘Texas people just stick together’, said one.

While Hurricane Harvey brought out the best in many, it also brought out the worst. Across social media, certain liberals were feeling less than sympathetic to Texans, seen as Trump voters and Republican Party backers. ‘I don’t believe in instant karma, but this feels like it for Texas’, tweeted a University of Tampa professor: ‘Hopefully this will help them realise the GOP doesn’t care about them.’ (This professor was later fired for this tweet, which he shouldn’t have been.)

The heroism shown by ordinary Texans has been a great antidote to the prejudices expressed by well-off liberals towards ‘deplorable’ Americans. The politically correct view is that white folks are irredeemably racist, and the country is inescapably divided by race, yet the images from Houston told a different story: a black deputy sheriff wading through floodwaters with a white child in each arm; a white SWAT officer carrying a Vietnamese-American woman and her baby through floodwaters; three Asian and Hispanic constables moving an elderly woman in a wheelchair.

As it happens, this was not exceptional: as anyone who has travelled through Texas and the South will know, social interactions between people of different backgrounds are casually pleasant. Unlike PC liberals, most people don’t see life through a prism of racial categories. In response to Harvey, we didn’t see the ‘diversity’ of essentially different people – we saw citizens helping citizens, Texans helping Texans.

Yes, but that offers insufficient opportunities for graft and political manipulation.

RACISTS SHOULDN’T DO DNA: I Celebrated Black History Month… By Finding Out I Was White. “I found out I was White. Not just 13% White, my husband’s percentage when he too completed the ancestry composition report. Not just 25% White, since the average amount of DNA in an African American’s genome traced back to West Africa is about 75%. I was damn near 1/3 White. That’s significant. . . . It can remain a theory for the rest of my family, but as someone who has become a Black millennial marketing expert… this s*** matters. It’s as if I’ve obscured the one thing which has guided me since I was nine years old… my heritage. Even back then I believed in Black power, creating drawings in art class titled “A Strong Black Nation”, featuring black construction paper hands reaching for the sky. Along with being a millennial and being a woman, being Black enlivens me. I’m personally and professionally compelled to clarify misconceptions and elevate all three of my squads. As inappropriate (but honest) as it sounds, I’d discovered I had the so-called ‘superior’ race running through my veins, and never before had I felt so inferior. Then, in a startling and unexpected twist, shame surfaced.”

Related: White nationalists are flocking to genetic ancestry tests. Some don’t like what they find.

ROD DREHER: CHARLOTTESVILLE IS THE KIND OF AMERICA THAT IDENTITY POLITICS IS CALLING INTO BEING. It’s time for straight talk about that:

Finally, we on the Right have to start speaking out without fear against identity politics — and calling out people on the Left, especially those within institutions, for practicing it. The alt-right has correctly identified a hypocritical double standard in American culture. It’s one that allows liberals and their favored minority groups to practice toxic identity politics — on campus, in the media, in corporate America, on the streets — while denying the possibility to whites and males. By speaking out against left-wing identity politics, and by explaining, over and over, why identity politics are wrong and destructive, conservatives strengthen their position in chastising white nationalists on the Right.

But none of this will matter at all as long as the Left refuses to oppose identity politics in its own ranks. As I keep saying here, you cannot have an identity politics of the Left without calling up the same thing on the Right. Left-liberals who want conservatives to stigmatize and denounce white nationalism, but conservatives who do so will be sneered at by white nationalists as dupes and fools who advocate disarmament in the face of racist, sexist forces of the Left.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): David Marcus was warning of this over a year ago: How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism: White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea.

Related: We’ll have more Charlottesvilles. I’d rather have a culture in which people responded to ideas and groups they dislike with peaceful criticism, but we haven’t had that for a while.

QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED, OR THE ESPY FOR THE MOTHER OF THE YEAR GOES TO…

I’ve never been what anyone would call an athletic person. I grew up dancing ballet, but I was determined to encourage my own kids to play sports. The last thing I wanted was for my kids to experience the exquisite torture of being picked last in P.E. or struggle to keep up with their peers who played sports like I had. I wanted my kids to grow up secure in their abilities, and to benefit from being a part of a team. Despite my enthusiasm, it didn’t take long for my oldest son to put the brakes on my athletic aspirations. He dabbled in everything from T-ball to soccer before steadfastly refusing to try another sport.

Not every child will grow up to be the next Russell Wilson, but most kids benefit from playing a sport and being a part of a team. So what’s a parent to do when you know sports can be a great confidence and friendship builder, but your kids want nothing to do with them?

Stop talking and start listening

“When parents listen to their kids, what they find is that the children who don’t like sports had some sort of a bad experience,” said Dr. Kyle Pruett, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University and an executive board member of The Goddard School. “The sport was too competitive, the coach was mean, or they felt that they didn’t have the skills necessary to succeed at that sport. If parents just push and push, all that will do is create negative energy that will then be pushed back on them in the future.”

—“Sports for kids who hate sports,” Jody Allard, ESPN.com, June 23rd.

And speaking of creating negative energy, the “stop talking” part sounds like excellent advice in this case:

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture. The struggle I wrote about was universal, I thought, but I was wrong. My essay went semi-viral, and for the first time my sons encountered my words about them on their friends’ phones, their teachers’ computers, and even overheard them discussed by strangers on a crowded metro bus. It was one thing to agree to be written about in relative obscurity, and quite another thing to have my words intrude on their daily lives.

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so. He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls. He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

* * * * * * * *

I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true.

—“I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons),” Jody Allard, Role Reboot July 6th.

Found via John Podhoretz, who tweets, “You want to know how an ordinary person can also be a monster? Read this. Read this person do evil to her son.”

And ESPN wonders why their numbers are down so dramatically.

IN CHICAGO, THOUGHT-POLICE BRUTALITY; Chicago Theater Critic Shunned for Racial Honesty:

In Chicago, where there were more homicides last year than in Los Angeles and New York City combined, expressing any support whatsoever for the police is now considered an outrage. Should you point out that, say, a play seems to suggest cops are evil crackers, you may find yourself denounced as a racist and targeted for abuse and ostracization.

A theater writer has just found that out. In what the website American Theatre dubbed “the review that shook Chicago,” adding in a subhead that “Local theatre artists rise in revolt,” veteran theater critic Hedy Weiss of the Chicago Sun-Times criticized a new play called Pass Over, which I haven’t seen but is being described as a kind of update of Waiting for Godot filtered through the sensibility of Black Lives Matter. The play, by Antoinette Nwandu, was mounted by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company, perhaps the most celebrated outfit of its kind outside of New York City. Weiss found its racial politics to be a bit reductionist, and offered these thoughts in her review:

No one can argue with the fact that this city (and many others throughout the country) has a problem with the use of deadly police force against African-Americans. But, for all the many and varied causes we know so well, much of the lion’s share of the violence is perpetrated within the community itself. Nwandu’s simplistic, wholly generic characterization of a racist white cop (clearly meant to indict all white cops) is wrong-headed and self-defeating. Just look at news reports about recent shootings (on the lakefront, on the new River Walk, in Woodlawn) and you will see the look of relief when the police arrive on the scene.

Cue unbridled rage. Steppenwolf charged her with “deep-seated bigotry.” An actor named Bear Bellinger announced that he would not perform if Weiss showed up at a workshop production he was appearing in. An ad-hoc coalition that might as well have dubbed itself the Blackball Hedy Movement (but is actually called the Chicago Theater Accountability Coalition, or CTAC) launched a petition via change.org to organize the theater world of Chicago against Weiss by denying her invitations to its plays. Several theater organizations have publicly agreed to join the blackballing effort, and dozens have offered noncommittal statements of support. The group’s broadside against Weiss reads, “Over the last few years especially, we have joined together to make it clear that inappropriate language or behavior does not have a place within our community, and that prejudice of any kind will not stand.”

* * * * * * * *

It was less than two years ago that Steppenwolf mounted a stage adaptation of George Orwell’s 1984. Do these people not recognize their kinship with the thought police? Do they not see that “Shut up” is not an argument?

Other than violence, what other arguments do the left have these days?

ZOMBIE ON THE BATTLE FOR BERKELEY: “Antifa got their asses kicked, and were literally driven from the park and fled. Ooooooh, dearest me, right-wingers threw punches! Let us clutch our pearls! But that’s the point. People’s patience was used up. Saturday’s punches were in response to YEARS of being punched and not being allowed to fight back.”

Read the whole thing.

As David French writes at NRO in “The Battle of Berkley:”

We are now teetering on the edge of a truly terrifying incident, one trigger-pull away from a slaughter. Campus and urban progressives have a choice to make. Is this a nation of laws? If it is, then it’s time to grow a backbone, protect free speech, punish rioters, and expel those who disrupt the educational environment regardless of ideology. There should be no more sympathy or leniency for the lawless social-justice warrior than there is for the lawless neo-Nazi.

Every single time the progressive establishment ignores, minimizes, or whitewashes leftist violence, it sows the wind. Americans have watched mobs attack police and burn buildings in Baltimore, Ferguson, Charlotte, and Minneapolis. They have watched mobs riot over politics and free speech in Middlebury, Berkeley, Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Is anyone at all shocked that when the police hang back, others will step into the void? Leftists are fond of saying “violence begets violence.” If we don’t restore the rule of law, we’ll all find out just how right they are.

The Tea Party was a peaceful protest made up of plenty of middle-aged men and women who saw themselves called Nazis and racists by the Cathedral for their efforts at reforming Big Government. Trump’s core supporters are made of tougher stock – and they know the DNC-MSM’s narrative is pre-written, no matter what happens. No one can say they’re surprised at this past weekend’s news. (OK, maybe the wedgies, though.)

Earlier: “Funny, you never see these freakouts at trade schools.”

DAVID BERNSTEIN: Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on).

“Whiteness studies” is all the rage these days. My friends who teach U.S. history have told me that this perspective has “completely taken over” studies of American ethnic history. I can’t vouch for that, but I do know that I constantly see people assert, as a matter of “fact,” that Irish, Italian, Jewish and other “ethnic” white American were not considered to be “white” until sometime in the mid-to-late 20th century, vouching for the fact that this understanding of American history has spread widely.

The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical. They are referring to a stylized, sociological or anthropological understanding of “whiteness,” which means either “fully socially accepted as the equals of Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic stock,” or, in the more politicized version, “an accepted part of the dominant ruling class in the United States.”

Those may be interesting sociological and anthropological angles to pursue, but it has nothing to do with whether the relevant groups were considered to be white.

Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). . . .

When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.” That’s true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race,” and the “Teutonic race,” the latter two generally considered to be superior. The racist pseudo-science of the day divided Europeans into various races by nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy among those groups. But that was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups weren’t considered to be white. This point is often obscured by the whiteness studies crowd, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism solely being about “whiteness.”

I’m deeply suspicious of the “whiteness studies” movement.

GEORGE NEUMAYR: Trump Is Beating The Media At Its Own Game: The left’s own politics by shorthand is now being turned against it.

Whenever editors say that they refuse to acknowledge “two sides” on such matters as “marriage equality” or Darwinism or climate change, they are paying homage to Lenin’s devious politics by shorthand. They pay homage to it whenever they substitute their opinions of the news for actual reporting of the news. Even the squabbling among journalists recently over whether or not to suspend “conventional reporting” in Trump’s case, or whether front-page stories should declare his misstatements “lies,” is a tacit acknowledgment of that politics. With Lenin, the Christiane Amanpours have no use for the peskiness of precise responses. Just call Trump a “liar,” their attitude goes, and “everyone will understand everything.”

But that demagogic shorthand only works as long as Republican politicians defer to it. For years journalists opined self-servingly under the guise of objectivity and got away it because Republicans were too afraid to shatter that illusion of objectivity. They permitted the media to serve as the arbiter of what qualifies as “mainstream,” “extremist,” “racist,” and so forth, and made sure to stay within the media-determined parameters of any discussion.

Donald Trump has blown up that absurd arrangement and is beating the media at its own game. He labels reporters in the same way that they label him. He upends their dishonest framing of debates by treating them as what they are, liberal partisans. His exchange last week with April Ryan, a correspondent for the American Urban Radio Network, captured that perfectly. She asked him a loaded question not as a neutral reporter but as a water-carrier for the Congressional Black Caucus. So he treated her that way. “I’ll tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?” the president said to her, after she asked if he would meet with the CBC. “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?” Of course, they are friends of hers and she was trying to score a partisan point for them. Had Trump not deconstructed that for the audience, her question might have done him damage. Instead, it fell flat and looked unserious.

Reporters are thrown by a president who questions them as aggressively as they question him. And they resent that he refuses to accept as “facts” what is nothing more than their biased interpretation of the facts.

Well, it makes life harder for bylined operatives.

ADRIANA COHEN ON THE DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION-DENIAL:

Since Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, Democrats have been trying to delegitimize his historic upset.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who sent shock waves through the media echo chamber this weekend when he said in an NBC interview, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” Former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon went on CNN Friday to chime in as well. . . .

I’ll tell you real reasons Clinton lost. In addition to failing to campaign in key battleground states, she lacked an inspiring message. Hillary thought she could win by (A) riding Obama’s coattails and (B) attacking Trump.

Never mind that she alienated voters with her “Pay to Play” family foundation, her Wall Street ties or her failure to maintain national security by insisting on doing government business on a private email server — all to dodge public scrutiny. After the lies she told from “I didn’t send or receive any classified emails,” to blaming a video for the terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, voters got skittish.

Add to it skyrocketing Obamacare premiums and her goose was cooked — quite apart from any alleged hacking.

Remember, Vladimir Putin didn’t announce Obamacare costs were going up double digits on average in 2017 — the Health and Human Services Department did — right before the election.

But no matter, Dems are still trying to delegitimize Trump’s victory. Can you imagine if GOP members of Congress called Obama’s presidency in 2008 or 2012 illegitimate? They would’ve been called racist. If Clinton won this election and Republicans said her presidency wasn’t legitimate, they’d be called sexist. It would be the War on Women all over again.

Yep. And I don’t think this is playing very well, but I also don’t think it’s so much a planned strategy as something they just can’t help. But Joe Manchin understands that this is playing badly with swing voters:

Georgia Rep. John Lewis’ comments about President-elect Trump were “uncalled for,” Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday.

“I’ve got the utmost respect for Congressman Lewis. He’s an icon, if you will,” Manchin told CBS’ John Dickerson. “I just think that was uncalled for. I just wish that rhetoric would tone down from both back and forth.”

Lewis had said last week he doesn’t view Trump as a “legitimate” president, nor does he look forward to working with the president-elect once he enters office.

The “bickering going on back and forth” between Lewis and Trump makes the U.S. look weaker to its allies, Manchin said.

Related: Don Surber: When Atlanta’s High Crime Rate Is Acceptable To The Journal-Constitution. When treating it as a problem might help Trump, of course.

Plus: The Left Hates Trump Because His Victory Was A Cultural One, Not Just A Political One:

The left is used to losing political battles. They scream and cry over these but they don’t truly panic, because they know that as long as they maintain their hammerlock on the culture, Republicans can’t really change anything.

Blue Team Progressivism is a church, offering you moral superiority and a path to spiritual enlightenment. As a church it’s got a lot going for it. It runs religious programming on television, all day every day. Every modern primetime program is like a left-wing Andy Griffith show, reinforcing lessons of inclusion, tolerance, feminism, and anti-racism.

Watching a 90-pound Sci-Fi heroine beat up a room full of giant evil men is as satisfying to the left as John Wayne westerns were for the right.

The Blue Church controls the HR department, so even if you don’t go to church, you have to act like a loyal churchgoer in every way that matters while you’re on the clock. And off the clock, on any kind of public social media platform.

Jon Stewart and John Oliver are basically TV preachers. Watching them gives the same sense of quiet superiority your grandma gets from watching The 700 Club. The messages are constantly reinforced, providing that lovely dopamine hit, like an angel’s voice whispering, “You’re right, you’re better, you’re winning.”

Hollywood award shows are like church talent shows – the skits and jokes aren’t really funny, but it’s fun to look at the pretty girls, and you’re all on the same team. . . .

For the first time in decades, voters explicitly rejected the Blue Church, defying hours of daily cultural programming, years of indoctrination from the schools, and dozens of explicit warnings from HR.

We’ve been trained since childhood to obey the pretty people on TV, but for the first time in decades, that didn’t work.

Donald Trump won because flyover America wants their culture back, and Blue Team has not been rejected like that before.

The younger ones have grown up in an environment where Blue Faith assumptions cannot even be questioned, except anonymously by the bad kids on Twitter.

But now the bad kids are getting bolder, posting funny memes that make you laugh even though John Oliver would not approve, like passing crude dirty pictures under the table in Sunday School.

Meryl Streep is panicking because for the first time voters have rejected HER, and everything her faith has taught her to believe.

I think there’s a lot to that.

BRENDAN O’NEILL: Why are people so terrified of Milo Yiannopoulos’s book?

The response to Milo Yiannopoulos getting a big-bucks book deal with Simon & Schuster has been nuts. Even by today’s standards. The cry has gone up that S&S — or SS, amirite? — is endangering the wellbeing of women and gays and blacks and other minorities that have felt the sting of Milo’s camp polemics. Please. It’s a book, not a bomb. It’s words, sentences, ideas, not fire and pogroms. Everyone needs to calm down.

Milo is the Breitbart editor turned darling of the agitated, anti-PC right, given to manicured fuming against feminism, Islam, censorious students, ‘Black Lives Matter’ and other things that apparently threaten Western civilisation. When it was revealed that Simon & Schuster would be publishing his first book in March, and that it is called ‘Dangerous’, and that Milo has been remunerated very handsomely indeed for it, Twitter went epileptic; snowflakes melted; literary doyens called for a boycott.

The New Yorker went full haughty, calling on its readers to protest ‘vociferously’ against S&S, ‘in emails, letters, tweets, phone calls — you name it’. The publishing house should be made to ‘answer for the harm it condones through [this] decision’, it said, as if S&S were making landmines rather than bits of paper with words on them. Leslie Jones, the Ghostbusters actress subjected to vile racist abuse by alt-right morons on Twitter, said S&S is helping the alt-right to ‘spread their hate’. S&S-published author Karen Hunter said she was rethinking her relationship with the publishing house.

Most perversely, the Chicago Review of Books said it would not review any S&S books through the whole of 2017, in protest against what its editor, Adam Morgan, calls the ‘deadly consequences’ of Milo-style ‘hate speech’. Morgan says rhetoric like Milo’s, whether on race or transgenderism, has ‘real-world consequences’ — it nurtures violence. ‘It arguably encourages people such as Omar Mateen [the Florida nightclub shooter] and Dylann Roof [the Charleston Church shooter] to think of entire groups of people as less than human,’ he says. In short, publish Milo’s book and people will die. This is bonkers, and indistinguishable from the fuming of pointy-hatted policers of heresy in the past, who likewise feared that certain ideas, certain words, might warp minds and destroy souls.

Ultimately, this is about status anxiety. If they can’t silence and marginalize people, what have they got left?

But they’re not doing a very good job of silencing and marginalizing Milo.

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS: Pray For Jeff Sessions.

Everyone who believes in prayer should say some for attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions is experiencing the full wrath of the worst hateful lies that the modern Left and Democrat Party can conjure. Lies, half-truths, and smears have become the strategy to attack his nomination.

The age of Obama has seen the rise of bricks-and-mortar operations with deep cash reserves designed to permanently transform the nation, and the Justice Department has been ground zero. That’s why Jeff Sessions is the perfect pick for attorney general, and that’s why the liars on the Left are willing to smear this good man. They’ve served up all their familiar charges against him from their phobia smorgasbord: homo-, xeno-, Islamo- or trans-.

That’s why the NAACP decided to trespass and occupy his Senate office — an action far worse than the one that landed James O’Keefe in jail (banner photo above). Don’t expect Loretta Lynch to do anything. Who commits the crime is sometimes more important than what they did. O’Keefe played for the wrong team. . . .

Consider Deval Patrick. Mr. Patrick formerly served as assistant attorney general for Civil Rights at the Justice Department, an NAACP lawyer, and of course, governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Patrick sent this disgraceful letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking to derail the Sessions nomination.

It claimed that when Mr. Sessions prosecuted a case of brazen voter fraud, he actually engaged in voter intimidation.

Sound familiar? It’s part of a larger campaign to preserve vulnerabilities in the American system of elections. It’s why they oppose voter ID and efforts to clean voter rolls. It’s why they are anxious to get felons to the ballot box. It’s why they hate Mr. Sessions — he understands the corrosive evil of voter fraud and has been willing to fight it.

At this point, the Left is mostly just a noise machine. If Trump and Sessions and the GOP majority in the Senate ignore it — and I expect they will — nothing it does will matter. Except that it may stiffen Sessions’ spine:

Feeling the full wrath of the ugly, hateful Left is an experience that leaves one assured that there are no coincidences. When someone experiences the soul-wrenching lies and distortions of the sort now blasting at Mr. Sessions, it provides a reassuring context to the larger constitutional fight in which we now find ourselves engaged.

There have always been enemies of individual dignity and freedom. The nastiness aimed at Mr. Sessions reminds us there always will be. The task at hand is to beat them.

I’m pretty sure that attitude is widely shared in the Trump Administration.

Plus: GOP to Dems: Assault on Sessions will carry a price.

“I hope that doesn’t happen,” Roberts said. “I mean, that really eliminates any possibility for meaningful bipartisan action because then that opens the door for us to respond in kind and then it keeps devolving and poisons the well for any cooperation down the line.”

Other Republican senators said Democratic efforts to cast Sessions as a racist simply won’t work regardless of whom the Democrats call as witnesses because the Alabama senator, a 20-year veteran of the Senate, has worked well with so many Democrats over the years.

“We all know Jeff and have worked with him for a long time,” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “I think you are going to see strong support for him among Republicans but also some Democrats too.”

“He’s worked with a lot of Democratic members of the Senate for a long time and built up good relations,” he added.

The GOP, if it’s smart, will push back against all the attacks on its nominees.

Related: The Law Professors’ Scandalous Statement Against Jeff Sessions. “Character assassination is so unworthy of our profession – what an awful example to set for the budding lawyers who are our students! The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit ‘conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.’ I contend that the law professors’ statement, which condemns Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions based on irrelevancies and innuendoes, is just that.”

Plus: Hans van Spakovsky: How Black Democrats Stole Votes in Alabama … And Jeff Sessions Tried To Stop It. This, of course, is what Democrats are really upset about.

And look who else is weighing in — the NRA’s Chris Cox, with this: Sen. Jeff Sessions will fight for the Second Amendment: Unlike his predecessors, Jeff Sessions knows that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

JOEL KOTKIN: Obama’s Not So Glorious Legacy.

Like a child star who reached his peak at age 15, Barack Obama could never fulfill the inflated expectations that accompanied his election. After all not only was he heralded as the “smartest” president in history within months of assuming the White House, but he also secured the Nobel Peace Prize during his first year in office. Usually, it takes actually settling a conflict or two — like Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter — to win such plaudits.

The greatest accomplishment of the Obama presidency turned out to be his election as the first African American president. This should always be seen as a great step forward. Yet, the Obama presidency failed to accomplish the great things promised by his election: racial healing, a stronger economy, greater global influence and, perhaps most critically, the fundamental progressive “transformation” of American politics. . . .

Whenever race-related issues came up — notably in the area of law enforcement — Obama and his Justice Department have tended to embrace the narrative that America remains hopelessly racist. As a result, he seemed to embrace groups like Black Lives Matter and, wherever possible, blame law enforcement, even as crime was soaring in many cities, particularly those with beleaguered African American communities.

Eight years after his election, more Americans now consider race relations to be getting worse, and we are more ethnically divided than in any time in recent history. As has been the case for several decades, African Americans’ economic equality has continued to slip, and is lower now than it was when Obama came into office in 2009, according to a 2016 Urban League study.

And that’s just the beginning of his failures. Read the whole thing.

SCOTT ADAMS: “The only people who will think Trump is a racist going forward are people who haven’t read this article. If you find someone like that, send them the link. This piece is a brilliant service to the country. Breathtaking.”

Excerpt:

Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:

If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.

Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source).

Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population. . . .

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.

I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn’t want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we’re past the point where that matters anymore, I want to present my case. . . .

First, I want to go over Donald Trump’s official, explicit campaign message. Yes, it’s possible for candidates’ secret feelings to differ from their explicit messages, but the things they say every single day and put on their website and include in their speeches are still worth going over to see what image they want to project.

Trump’s official message has been the same vague feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric as any other politician.

Read the whole thing.

I’M SO OLD I CAN REMEMBER WHEN “TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY” WAS A RACIST PHRASE: Anti-Trump Protesters March In Downtown Boston. “Chants of ‘My Body My Choice,’ ‘Black Lives Matter’ and ‘Love Trumps Hate’ reverberated around the park. Protesters, many of who said they feel unsafe now, argued they want to take back the country.”

UPDATE: Twitter Erupts With Calls For Donald Trump To Be Assassinated.

Plus: Rioting Snowflakes: Hillary Fanatics Burn Flag, Threaten To Kill “Not My President” Trump.

KINKY FRIEDMAN ON THE ELECTION: ‘We Don’t Know Who the Hero Is Until the Ship Sinks.’

The Texas Democrats have been nearly wandering in the desert forever. It’s not a matter of left or right. There are a lot of liberal pussies in Austin. I don’t think people like Sam Rayburn, Barbara Jordan, hell, probably even Ann Richards, that whole bunch … I don’t think they’d recognize it [the Democratic Party].

It’s a matter of, all they do is spend their time calling people racists. In doing so, they create a lot of racists.

Plus:

If you look at the great ones, Mother Teresa, Winston Churchill, FDR, they were all aristocratic freaks with very little interest in others. They’re very much like Trump. I mean, particularly Churchill. He was a polo player in India and an adult butterfly collector. They liked to hang out at the country club, Rachel. They were very privileged people.

When they got into office, Churchill and FDR, they did something that Obama was never able to do: change. The agent of change, Obama, could not change himself. He remained a fixed point in a changing world. It’s just too bad; it’s who he is. He’s not the smartest guy in the room. He may be the glibbest. He may be the most facile. I believe, if he’s concerned about a legacy, I believe he can pretty well forget that.

All I’m saying is, we don’t know who the hero is until the ship sinks. Or when the plane is crashing. You don’t know who’s going to run back and save somebody, or who’s going to dress up like a woman so he can hide in a lifeboat.

And: “I’m old enough to sleep alone now. My shrink, Willie Nelson, has advised me not to get married under any circumstances. He says that would be a very big mistake.” Read the whole thing.

THE BULLY PARTY: Scott Adams: “I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.”

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.

Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?

It’s who they are, it’s what they do.

MORE LIKE THIS, PLEASE: An Unarmed White Man Is Shot by a Cop, and Black Activists Rally.

Over the last several months, the phrase “white lives matter” has been derided by many as a willfully obtuse (and usually racist) response to the Black Lives Matter movement, particularly in light of the disproportionate number of African-Americans shot by police.

But one group of mostly African-American civil rights leaders is stepping up to question a deputy’s shooting of an unarmed, white, homeless man in Castaic — because it just might be the right thing to do.

“We can’t only be advocates when black people are killed by police unjustly,” says Najee Ali, founder of Project Islamic Hope.

Viewing the problem through a racial lens has political benefits for some, but it actually makes the problem harder to solve. And it’s not like plenty of white people aren’t shot by police, too (and in many of the recent shootings, the police officer was black, under a black chief). You want police to only shoot people when it’s absolutely necessary, regardless of their race. Like the NRA’s (somewhat slow, but still important) call for an investigation in the Philando Castile case, where a black man with a CCW was shot, we need this stuff to cross racial lines. Making it all about race is a formula for paralysis.

JOHN PODHORETZ: The liberal establishment’s Clinton obsession is blowing up in its face:

Trump wasn’t defeated in his quest for the nomination, but it wasn’t because the party or the conservative movement lay down and rolled over for him. Indeed, all the lines of attack being raised today by Hillary Clinton against him, from Trump’s footsie-playing with racists to his foundation’s high jinks to Trump University, were introduced into the national discussion and aired out on the Right for months.

Democrats and liberals, by contrast, did not adjudicate the matters now dogging Hillary’s candidacy during the primary season. Instead, they left all opposition to the ministrations of a 74-year-old socialist who wasn’t even a Democrat until 2014.

And his surprising strength in running against her — Sanders ultimately secured 44 percent of the Democratic primary vote — should have made clear that whatever the mainstream Democratic view, ordinary Democrats did see her as shifty, untrustworthy and someone they did not wish to vote for.

Well, here we are. And here you are, Democrats and liberals. There will be a lot of blame to go around if Trump wins. But a significant share will go to you, because you live in a bubble so impervious to reality, you didn’t realize that nominating a widely disliked person with legal and ethical problems might come to bite you in the ass in the end.

Naturally of course, Podhoretz’s warnings will go unheeded inside the DNC-MSM. Which brings us to this bit of eye-rolling hagiography: It might be time for our media to take a breather from non-stop praise of Hillary Clinton,” Mollie Hemingway similarly warns at the Federalist.  “The Washington Post just called her a style icon. Really.”

Atop Mollie’s post? Hillary’s recent Pittsburgh Steelers horizontal striped bumblebee throwback jersey look – which makes for a nice contrast with her silver United Federation of Planets galactic ambassador togs, I guess.

hillary_space_ambassadors_9-18-16-1

Click to enlarge, deplorable primitive earthling!

BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTORS IN PHILADELPHIA’S STREETS: They claim they’re sending a message to the Democrats. They oppose Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill. One spokesman said Hillary’s “husband created a bill that generationally continues to harm black and brown families.” OK– a Clinton did it. But then the spokesman — no doubt saving his job– called Donald Trump a “racist bigot.” The man’s free to express his opinions, and express them forcefully. The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to free political speech (though Hillary wants to restrict it). But after the Dallas massacre, the Black Lives Matter organization and those who speak in its name no longer receive free pass privileges from media. The outfit’s members went too far when they scorned the phrase Blue Lives Matter as racist. The Dallas tragedy showed why their angry scorn was a mistake.

JONAH DOES POLITICAL JIU-JITSU: The conservative principle behind Black Lives Matter, as explored by Jonah Goldberg in the L.A. Times:

Liberals have seemingly boundless faith in the power and nobility of government, but many draw a line around cops, creating one of the strangest ironies of modern liberalism: Many of those most eager to support new laws and new regulations suddenly lose faith when it comes to the government employees charged with enforcing them. It’s particularly amazing given that law enforcement personnel typically receive far more training than your typical bureaucrat or legislator.

Just as conservatives need to recognize the ills of police abuse, liberals need to acknowledge that the first obligation of the state is to defend the safety and property of its citizens, and that nothing undermines the legitimacy of the law more than vilifying those sworn to uphold it.

As lots of people have pointed out, the modern left has devolved down two opposing statements: All cops are potential racists and can’t be trusted. But only the police should have guns.

So which is it?

ANALYSIS: TRUE. “Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in the Orlando gay club, is like saying that Zyklon B gas was the cause of the Holocausts and not the Nazis:”

Shot:

In Toronto, Premier Kathleen Wynne, Canada’s first openly gay premier, also refused to address the Islamist nature of the attack, saying, “one cannot fight homophobia with Islamphobia”, at a vigil for the Orlando victims.

This is nonsense. Orlando was an act of Islamic terror and of Islamofascism, a doctrine of hatred towards the West and what it stands for, including LGBTQ rights.

It holds secular liberal democracy in contempt, hates non-Muslims, degrades women and is racist towards non-Arabs, especially black Africans.

It is a supremacist death cult that has the end times as its ultimate goal.

Chia Barsen, a 32-year old Canadian Marxist, was 10 when his family fled Islamic Iran, political refugees escaping the murderous rule of its barbaric ayatollahs.

Commenting on the liberal left’s reaction to the Oralando massacre, Barsen wrote on his blog:

“Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in the Orlando gay club, is like saying that Zyklon B gas was the cause of the Holocausts and not the Nazis. Gun control is a clear and present issue in the U.S. and there are countless episodes of shootings in the U.S. to justify the removal of all guns (not just automatic weapons), from the streets.

“However, piggybacking on the gun control debate and not making any mention of the threat of Political Islam and Islamism, is the furthering of a political agenda and not simple ignorance or apathy.” Exactly.

Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah in a column titled “West bowing to radical Islam,” who looks back on Mark Steyn’s America Alone and his run-in with Canada’s anti-free speech authorities and concludes, “Today, I recognize, Steyn was right and I was wrong.”

Chaser:

From the editors: Like the rest of the country and the world, Billboard editors were horrified by the mass killing at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub on June 12, and by the murder of singer Christina Grimmie the night before. Both tragedies occurred where musicians and music fans gathered. And so faced with another gun-related tragedy, the staff organized this special “Open Letter to Congress” cover of Billboard.

With the help of leading gun-violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, editors reached out to those we cover in the music industry, and asked for their support and their signatures to help seek a sane and safe end to gun violence. Within minutes, Joan Jett was the first to sign on. Lady Gaga shortly followed. Within hours, and then in a matter of just a few days, nearly 200 top artists and executives—pop stars (including Grimmie’s friend Selena Gomez), rappers, rock gods, legends, Broadway heroes, even two Beatles and Yoko Ono—lent their voices to the chorus of Americans looking to our political leaders for change. Billboard, artists and music-industry executives join so many members of the House and Senate this week proudly advocating for common-sense gun safety.

—Entertainment industry house organ Billboard, a once-staid publication devoted to tracking record and videotape sales, which has now dropped the mask and gone full SJW.

Funny though, the week after 9/11, I don’t recall music industry mavens lining up at the Boeing plant in Seattle to protest against the massively lethal attack caused by their giant assault planes. But then, a different form of magical thinking was employed by many on the left back then to wish away the causes of that Islamic terrorist attack onto a more acceptable enemy.

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM: Clemson let white students be tarred and feathered for hate-crime they knew was hoax.

‘Our own administration has allowed the reputation of a majority of the student body to be torn to shreds’

One Clemson University student says he is very upset at campus leaders for their decision to allow the student body and the nation to wrongly believe that bananas hung from a pole on campus was a hate crime.

The incident took place in mid-April, but emails released a few weeks ago by the school show officials knew the same day the bananaing occurred that it was not racially motivated.

But “Bananagate,” as some now call it, had thrust South Carolina’s second largest university into the national spotlight because the day after the pictures of the hanging bananas spread like wildfire on social media students launched an eight-day sit in over claims of campus racism.

The “racist” bananas prompted student protesters to claim they felt unsafe at Clemson, that it was filled with racism, and that “Clemson does not embrace its students from underrepresented groups.”

Now at least one student, Clayton Warnke, said he believes campus leaders should apologize for their “lie,” he recently told “The Tara Show,” a radio talk show on local station 106.3 WORD.

“I do believe they should apologize,” Warnke said. “Clemson is made up primarily of white students, I think everyone knows that. … And our own administration has allowed the reputation of a majority of the student body to be torn to shreds in the public spotlight and has done nothing to stop this.”

Reached for additional comment by The College Fix, Warkne referred to his extensive comments given on the show.

Asked by Tara whether Clemson’s decision was discriminatory toward white students, noting “it really made white people at Clemson look horrible,” Warnke replied: “Absolutely it did. Talking to some of these people, I am basically told straight up that my opinion and what I have to say doesn’t matter simply because of the color of my skin.”

“Ironically,” he continued, “that is exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther back during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s advocated for.”

This is all about diversity and student-life educrats trying to build their empires via racial/political intimidation.

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF TALKS TO a 22-year-old Trump supporter. Key bit:

We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters. But we’re not. Both of us voted Libertarian in 2012, and ideologically we remain so. But in 2016? We’re both going for Trump.

For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it’s just instant shunning. Say things online, and they’ll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it. Being anti-PC is not about saying “I want you to agree with me on these issues.” It’s about saying, “Hey, I want to have a discussion and not get shouted down because I don’t agree with what is considered to be politically correct.” . . .

This is a war over how dialogue in America will be shaped. If Hillary wins, we’re going to see a further tightening of PC culture. But if Trump wins? If Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime. If Trump wins, I will personally feel a major burden relieved, and I will feel much more comfortable stating my more right-wing views without fearing total ostracism and shame. Because of this, no matter what Trump says or does, I will keep supporting him. . . .

Look who PC culture does empower. Yesterday’s “Google doodle” was a racial separatist who admired Osama Bin Laden. I think she is just as hateful as white supremacists, but she is celebrated by Google. I don’t think Google would celebrate a white separatist with a fun drawing and a place of honor on its front page! I have a problem that it celebrated someone who denounces America, but I’m willing to debate why she should have no place of honor instead of just denouncing Google.

You hear a lot of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOW, NO WONDER OBAMA CALLED HIM A RACIST IN 2008: Bill Clinton: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protesters Are Defending Murders And Drug Dealers.

Also: Bill Clinton: “Things are coming apart around the world” under Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: In his 1944 State of the Union address, FDR smeared the laissezfaire Coolidge era of the 1920s as “the spirit of fascism:”

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920′s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

Classy stuff.

And of course, Nixon was far from immune from receiving “Reductio ad Hitlerum:” “In 1971, the year before the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon was described by his Democratic rival George McGovern as a warmonger like Hitler. ‘Except for Adolf Hitler’s extermination of the Jewish people, the American bombardment of defenseless peasants in Indochina is the most barbaric act of modern times,’ said McGovern. After the arrests of the five agents who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, McGovern said Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in was ‘the kind of thing you expect under a person like Hitler.’”

UPDATE (5/1/20): Since I’ve rounded up numerous examples of Republican presidents and candidates being slurred as National Socialists by the left in this post, I’m adding a link to “Democrats and Their Reductio ad Hitlerum Slander” by Steve Hayward of Power Line, which sets the clock back from ’44 to 1940:

By now we are used to Democrats calling Trump literally Hitler, just as they did for George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, etc., but [Fred Siegel in his 1984 book, Troubled Journey: From Pearl Harbor to Ronald Reagan] points out that this favorite liberal calumny began at least as early as 1940:

If Republicans diehards insisted that Roosevelt was “that Bolshevik in the White House,” ideological New Dealers returned the favor by denouncing conservative Republicans as fascists. Henry Wallace, the point man for the New Dealers, fought the 1940 election with the slogan “Keep Hitler out of the White House.” Wallace conceded that “every Republican is not an appeaser. But you can be sure that every Nazi, every Hitlerite, and every appeaser is a Republican.” Wallace glossed over the isolationism of leading Democrats like Burton Wheeler who were left-leaning at home yet impassioned appeasers. [Siegel might have included Joseph Kennedy here.] . . .

At their harshest, fervent New Dealers dropped the qualifiers and pronounced Wendell Willkie, Roosevelt’s middle-of-the-road Republican opponent, “the man Hitler wants elected president.”

Things really got rolling with the 1944 election, where the Democrats’ reductio ad Hitlerum argument was directed at Thomas E. Dewey.

Read on for the rest, which is a sneak preview of the attack Dewey would receive from Harry Truman as the 1948 election approached the wire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: THE HOST WHO CRIED RACISM:

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

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

Plus note this:

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

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

Oh and obligatory Jon Gabriel tweet:

exjon_racial_healing_12-17-15

(Via Maggie’s Farm.)

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole thing.

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

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

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

See also: Ventura, Jesse.

UPDATE: Heh, indeed.™

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MOROZ FAMILY – FROM THE SOVIET UNION TO THE LIBERAL GULAG:

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

She now believes that America did not come as advertised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEADLINES FROM 2008: What if Hillary Were a Republican?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES: Hamilton College edition. Steven Hayward at Power Line exposes a mind-boggling list of 83 demands presented by progressive infants students at Hamilton College, a small private college in New York:

We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand the end of the inevitable tokenization of all marginalized bodies at Hamilton College. Hamilton College cannot continue to overwhelmingly perpetuate narratives that center whiteness, able-bodied individuals, colonization, heteronormativity, and cisnormativity.  The faculty, administration, staff, and student body at Hamilton College almost ubiquitously encompass a single population that continues the exclusion of historically underrepresented communities.

This syndrome produces a methodically unfair system that inhibits these underrepresented bodies from thriving. . . .

We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand that the Office of the President releases an official statement without clause acknowledging that Black Lives Matter. . . .

We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand for questions aimed at the prospective President-Elects to center systematic oppression and Hamilton Colleges’ accountability with institutional racism. We demand a President of Color for the twentieth President of Hamilton College. . . .

We, the Students of Hamilton College demand that President Joan Hinde Stewart issues a formal apology to all Faculty, Students, Staff, and Administrators of Color, as well as their allies, neither of whom were provided a safe space for them to thrive while at Hamilton College.

We demand an immediate increase in Faculty of Color on campus. We also demand an increase in tenure track hires for Faculty of Color. In order to retain Faculty of Color, we demand an increase in mentorship for tenure track Faculty of Color. We demand the prioritization of Faculty of Color in new hires. We demand the representation of all students by fostering diversity within our classrooms. We demand the active recruitment of Indigenous Faculty, Gender Nonconforming and Transgender identifying Faculty, and an increase of all Faculty of Color in the STEM fields. We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand Black Faculty to make up thirteen percent of Faculty before 2025. This number must exclude members of the Africana Studies Department .

We, the Students of Hamilton College demand mandatory yearly diversity and inclusion workshops for all Faculty and Staff with optional workshops being offered consistently throughout the academic year. . . .

We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand the immediate an increase in the recruitment of undocumented students to the college. We demand for the endowment of various scholarship programs to benefit these students presence on our campus. Hampshire College of Massachusetts executes an effective model. These undocumented students would be admitted under the Dream Act.

We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand the immediate institution of free tuition for all Indigenous peoples. . . .

Translated: We, the students of Hamilton College, hate whitey. We are racist and vile infants. We want what we want–now!–or we will sit here and throw a tantrum.

Yeah, this affirmative action thing is really working out well.  I hope les infants terribles get everything they want. It would serve them right. Because an expensive degree from THAT new and shiny “safe space” college (current tuition is almost $50,000 per year) would be utterly worthless.

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.

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.