Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

The Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor reports on a UN panel arguing that "The history of slavery in the United States justifies reparations for African Americans" (thanks to Daniel Aronstein).

I wrote about what follows 19 years ago, when the topic came up during the Clinton administration. Shortened versions of the post below appeared in the International Herald Tribune, in the Washington Post, and in Le Monde (and I admit to feeling honored when a college professor of philosophy later contacted me to ask to include my letter to the WaPo editor in his course book).

Notice that in 1997, all that was being asked for was an apology, and (to his credit) Bill Clinton did not give one. Only a dozen years later or so did the Congress vote for this — with one leftist lawmaker wondering "why nobody ever thought of doing so before" (perhaps, answered one pundit, because 600,000 Americans happened to have died between 1861 and 1865). And now, the liberals have gone to the next step and ask for reparations… (Nor will that be the end of it…)

Related: Richard Epstein on The Case Against Reparations for Slavery.

Having said that…

    I should like to know on behalf of whom, exactly, slavery should be apologized for and whom remedies should be made to. I myself, like the majority of today's U.S. population, am descended from immigrants who arrived after the turn of the 20th century and therefore have nothing to do with the treatment of blacks on the plantations (or that of Indians on the plains, for that matter).

    As for Americans living at the time slavery existed, over twice as many whites lived in states where slavery was illegal and where it had been so, for the most part, since before the French Revolution. Nobody can hardly apologize for the South either, since most whites even there — two thirds of them, to be precise — did not own a single slave.

    Maybe somebody should apologize for the planters and slaveholders? (Their descendants?) But they inherited the system they dwelled in, and although they certainly did little if anything to change it, in what way are they more guilty than the English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and other European nationals who introduced it in all their colonies (including, of course, the future United States) and whose only reason for not introducing it onto the European continent proper (as well as the North of the future U.S., needless to say) was the absence of a propitious climate?

    And how, finally, are the above-mentioned whites more guilty than the Arab traders and, especially, the African tribes whose warriors raided neighboring villages to gain slave labor (slaves of the same skin color in this case) themselves or to sell their enemies to the Europeans?

    Speaking of the "dark continent":  Did not Mungo Park note during his 1799 Travels in the Interior of Africa that the slaves in that part of the world "are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen", unable to leave "a state of hopeless and hereditary slavery" which "probably had its origin in the remote ages of antiquity"?  Didn't he further report that during times of great scarcity, there "are many instances of freemen voluntarily surrendering up their liberty to save their lives"?  The Scottish explorer was told that, during one drought, "many freemen came and begged, with great earnestness, to be put upon [a] slave-chain, to save them from perishing of hunger."

    And speaking of remedies, didn't as many Americans die in the Civil War as in all of America's 20th-century wars combined? Didn't one Southerner of military age out of four lose his life in the conflict? How many bereaved families is that, altogether — North and South? And apologies, and remedies are still supposed to be owed?!

Histrionics rule the day: Shouldn't "Black Lives Matter" ought to start calling themselves "Facts Don’t Matter"?

The quickest way to tell that the Black Lives Matter version of the Charlotte shooting is disintegrating,

writes Benny Huang,

is that the most basic facts of the case are now being declared irrelevant. Corine Mack, president of the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP, told CNN’s Carol Costello that “In my mind, and in most of the community’s mind, it doesn’t matter if he [Keith Scott] had a gun.”

It doesn’t matter if he had a gun? Actually, yes it does. The gun is the sticking point of the entire debate, the hinge upon which so many judgements turn. Take, for example, the cell phone video released by Scott’s widow, Rakeyia Scott, in which she pleads with the police not to shoot because, in her words, “He has no weapon.” Her statement is oddly incongruous with the police’s shouted commands to “Drop the gun!” If he did in fact have a gun, the officers’ actions appear justifiable. If he was only holding a book, as the Black Lives Matters movement contends, then the incident appears to be a coordinated attack on an innocuous citizen. So did he have a gun or didn’t he? It makes a difference.

The fact that the police were ordering Scott to drop his weapon demonstrates at least that they thought he had a gun. Purveyors of the book theory are implying that a book looks like a gun to racist southern cops when a black man is holding it. But this wasn’t a case of misperception—the police did recover a pistol at the scene, a possibility that Corine Mack almost certainly dreaded, hence her clever hedging. The pistol was covered with Scott’s fingerprints and blood, and it was apparently stolen property.

Scott’s supporters are now resorting to outlandish conspiracy theories to explain away the gun. Not only did the cops shout “drop the gun” for the benefit of the camera, but apparently they also planted the gun afterward, laced with fingerprints and DNA, all so they could shoot an unthreatening, unarmed black man while he read a book and waited for his son to get off the school bus.

Rakeyia Scott’s shrieking pleas to the cops seem criminal in light of the fact that her husband was in fact armed with a pistol. The police were caught up in a tense situation with an armed suspect and she was interfering with their duties.

 …/… Rakeyia Scott doesn’t see anything wrong with her lie because the facts of her husband’s violent history and criminal gun ownership are irrelevant to her. Nor do they matter to the NAACP and, if their chapter president’s statement is accurate, they don’t matter to Charlotte’s black community. Facts never seem to matter when a black criminal gets shot. Take for example the unnamed neighbors who claimed that they also saw a book in Scott’s hand, thus corroborating the widow’s story and painting the cops as liars. It’s Ferguson 2014 all over again, with the black community saying whatever they have to say to indict the cops. I wouldn’t be surprise if some of the “witnesses” weren’t even there.

Black Lives Matter really ought to start calling themselves Facts Don’t Matter because that’s what they believe. What’s important to them is the narrative—the story that gets told through the media. Luckily for them, the media is predisposed to tell their story for them, regardless of its veracity. The narrative is so well-rehearsed that reporters no longer wait for the facts to come in before dashing off ill-informed pieces filled with factual errors. The vaunted New York Times, for example, tweeted that Charlotte police had killed an “unarmed black man.” Just a mistake? If so, why do these mistakes always seem to portray the cops in the worst light? The Times later “corrected” itself, tweeting that it was still undetermined whether Keith Scott was armed. No, it isn’t undetermined, it’s merely disputed by a few halfwits who cannot and never will accept that a gun was recovered at the scene. The Associated Press ran a story that claimed Scott had been killed by a white police officer. False. Keith Scott was killed by Officer Brentley Vinson, who is black, and by all accounts a great cop.

This shooting should really be a 30-second story on the 11 o’clock local news, and it should go something like this—a violent convicted felon nearly killed a few police officers with a pistol he illegally owned but the officers defended themselves and, unfortunately, the felon died. That’s the no-nonsense version of what happened and it’s exactly how it would have been reported if Keith Scott had been white. The fact that the dead guy was black really shouldn’t be mentioned at all because it implies that he was only killed for being black. There’s zero evidence of that. If they must mention his race they should also mention, over and over again, that the cop who shot him is also black.

But of course histrionics ruled the day and this minor local story became national news. The media merely updated their template with a few details pertaining to this particular case and went to press with the same old story—racist cops murder innocent black man in cold blood for no other reason than his race. To my knowledge, there has never been a police shooting that actually went down this way—at least not in my lifetime. That’s not to say that in every case the police were blameless, though in some they were. In other cases, the cops were too quick to use force, and in others they showed indiscipline, but in no instance that I can think of did police officers gun down a completely innocent black person for no other reason than racial animosity.

But if the facts of the case won’t fit the narrative, it’s the facts not the narrative that Black Lives Matter alter. From “hands up, don’t shoot” to Sandra Bland’s supposed murder, the movement thrives on enormous lies. They seem almost incapable of telling the truth, hamstrung by some kind of mental or emotional roadblock that simply won’t allow an honest accounting of what happened. Charlotte is being terrorized over a lie, just like Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Ferguson before it. No, we don’t need to “understand” the rioters’ grievances because their grievances are bunk. We need to stand up for the truth and good cops.

Is It Betraying One's Principles — and One's Conscience — to Vote for Donald Trump?

As has been said elsewhere, it is quite simple actually:

Ted Cruz is not endorsing Donald Trump, he's voting for him.

That may sound the same but it is quite a different thing.

There are excellent reasons to be in the #nevertrump group, but if the Supreme Court is in the balance, and that for the next generation — while President Hillary uses immigration to make the entire nation, like California, a one-party state/nation — won't our deepest principles have ended up being highly harmful to the land we love the best?…

When you think a about it, doesn't this — voting, even for someone you find despicable, to prevent your country from becoming the banana republic the democrats hunger for — fit the definition of both patriotism and sacrifice while, indeed, quite literally adhering to Ted's "Vote your conscience" clause at the Republican convention?

Ted Cruz explains his decision:

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

BBC in Awe of One of Britain's Ambassadors After He Converts to Islam

It would seem that the reception of the UK Ambassador to Saudi Arabia’s conversion to Islam is noted in British and Saudi society for the host’s exquisite taste that captivates its dhimmi guests…

In one of its "usual, fluffy BBC puff piece[s] on The Religion of Peace", the UK's key mainstream media outlet, aka Al-Beeb, is gleefully gushing that the

British ambassador to Saudi Arabia has performed the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca after converting to Islam, complete with photos and praise from Saudi royalty (if you need further background on the Hajj, click here)

reports David Vance on the Biased BBC Blog…

The Beeb says he made “the holy trip” wearing the white robes traditionally worn for the pilgrimage which re-enacts the actions of the “Prophet Muhammad” (once again Muhammad is referred to as “the Prophet”, as if it is a fact rather than an opinion). Still, let’s hope [that Simon] Collis doesn’t re-enact all of Muhammed’s actions now he has converted.

Woody Allen: his 40 best one-liners

The Daily Telegraph treats us to Woody Allen's 40 best one-liners. Here are my three favorites.

If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists?

What do the pope and President Obama have in common?

asks Benny Huang.

They both agree that the key to fighting Islamic terrorism is to import the maximum number of Muslim refugees as fast as possible. Yes, that’s really their solution.

Though estimates vary widely as to the exact proportion of terror-prone individuals among the refugees, nearly everyone acknowledges that there are at least some scattered throughout. Any rational person would see that this whole thing is analogous to Russian roulette—the more refugees the West brings in, the more likely we are to fall prey to terror attacks like the St. Cloud mall stabbing (perpetrated by a Somali Muslim refugee) or the New York/New Jersey bombings (perpetrated by an Afghan Muslim refugee) [not to mention the attacks in European cities such as Paris, Nice, and the Brussels airport].

Just don’t tell that to Pope Francis. At a conference on refugees, the pontiff spoke of hospitality as “our greatest security against hateful acts of terrorism.” Oh, I get it—if we’re not nice to them they’ll kill us. Somehow I’m reminded of the drone C3PO and his immortal words [to R2D2] when facing a brute who wished to dismember him: “Let the Wookie win.” That’s not Christian charity; it’s just plain old, garden variety cowardice.

The pope went further: “I encourage you to welcome refugees into your homes and communities, so that their first experience of Europe is not the traumatic experience of sleeping cold on the streets, but one of warm welcome.” Who exactly is sleeping on the streets? Many refugees in Europe are staying in luxury hotels. In Sweden they’ve even been given their own cruise ship. Others are sleeping in the apartments of citizens who were evicted to make room for refugees.
 
But seriously, do people turn to terrorism because they are “sleeping cold on the streets?” Hardly. This is just the pope’s defense mechanism. In order to avoid talking about Islamic jihad he tries to change the subject to homelessness and in the process excuses mayhem and violence. To hear him tell it, you’d think the refugees only kill their hosts because the hosts haven’t done enough to ease their transition. Disgusting.

The irony of the pope’s comments is that one of his own priests was attacked by a refugee whom he naively welcomed into his home. In August, Father Jos Vanderlee allowed an asylum seeker access to the rectory at his church in Belgium after the poor chap knocked on the door and asked to use the shower. The refugee then demanded money and lunged at the priest with a knife, who suffered injuries but survived. It was the European refugee crisis in microcosm—first the young Muslim refugee asked the aging European to have pity on him, then the refugee mugged and assaulted the bleeding heart who was foolish enough to let him in. Maybe it was the priest’s fault for not letting the refugee in faster, for not handing over his money, for not shining the refugee’s shoes, or for not fluffing the refugee’s pillow. Whatever you do, don’t blame the refugee and for heaven’s sake don’t blame Islam!

President Obama struck a similar chord in March of this year after ISIS terrorists killed 32 people in Brussels. In his weekly address, the stuffed shirt president blamed a “distorted view of Islam” for the attack and regurgitated bromides about staying true to “our values.” It was more of the same song and dance our leaders always go through whenever some guy shouting “Allahu Akbar” goes on a killing spree. They think they sound inspiring but really they just sound like jackasses. Obama even tossed in a warm fuzzy about America’s respect for “religious freedom” which undoubtedly came as a huge surprise to the Little Sisters of the Poor.

But it was President Obama’s solution to the problem that ought to make stomachs turn. His proposed response to the Brussels attacks was—you guessed it!—to double down on immigration from the Muslim world. “As we move forward in this fight, we have to wield another weapon alongside our airstrikes, our military, our counterterrorism work, and our diplomacy,” the president said. “And that’s the power of our example. Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL’s violence.” No matter what the problem is, Obama’s solution is always to bring in more third world savages. Anything less would be letting the terrorists win—and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The Left’s self-serving policy prescription to the refugee crisis is arrived at by reasoning backwards from their conclusion. It makes sense to them to repopulate the West with people who will become wards of the state, hate their adopted countries, and reject Judeo-Christian values if only because they and their descendants will overwhelm and transform the population already living there. Honestly, it’s not a bad strategy. Here in America, for example, Barack Obama is building a power base for his party that will stand firmly for many generations to come. Our country will be poorer, less free and more dangerous because of his policies, but at least his party will rule without challenge. Pope Francis’s motive is less clear, as the Islamization of Europe (and beyond) does not bode well for the Catholic Church. He must like being the media’s favorite pope more than having a flourishing flock.

Once the preferred conclusion has been determined, it’s easy to rationalize a path to get there. The Left constructs an argument that Muslims are only attacking us because they want to be part of our great nation—which no liberal really believes is great—but we spurn them. Ergo, the proper way to defeat Muslim terrorists is to allow more Muslims into our country, some percentage of whom will inevitably become terrorists themselves.

This theory simply does not stack up against the facts. If the antidote to Islamic terrorism is mass immigration from the Muslim world, why then is a once safe and orderly country like Germany becoming a terrorist focal point? In the past year they have admitted an astonishing 1.8 million refugees, mostly from Muslim countries. Their efforts have been Herculean, even if they have been in the service of a very misguided goal. Surely the plotting schemers at ISIS stand in awe of Germany’s tolerance and openness and will soon capitulate. There’s no sense in trying to goad those Germans into defending themselves, they just won’t do it! But alas, Germany’s strategy of plowing ahead with a dumb idea hasn’t given the terrorists a change of heart.

 … If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists? The Syrian Civil War has impacted Christians more than any other and yet they have faced discrimination when attempting to flee to other countries, including our own. An argument could be made that Christians should be given preference over Muslims because Christians are wearing targets on their backs in ISIS-held territory but as a matter of fact they aren’t even afforded equal treatment. According to an article in Christianity Today, the United States resettled 2,093 Muslims and 53 Christians displaced by the Syrian Civil War by November 2015. That means that Christians represented 2.5% of the refugees taken in by the US, though they represent roughly 5% of the Syrian population as a whole and 18% of all refugees trying to escape Syria. If we’re slamming the door in anyone’s faces, it’s Christians—and yet they don’t respond by killing us.

The real reason President Obama lectured us on being more open to Muslim immigration after the Brussels attack is because he had already made up his mind to go pedal to the metal with mass migration from the Middle East. Nothing was going to change his mind on that issue, not even a little blood in the streets. So he decided to reverse cause and effect, as leftist often do, claiming that Muslims only attack people when they feel rejected. The opposite is true—people reject Muslims because of their violence.

The West has done everything that its finger-wagging, multiculturalist elites have prescribed, and yet the killing continues. …

Typical MSM Headline? "Clinton wants to move past email scandal, but voters can't seem to"

On its contents page, AOL links to the news stories with major developments regarding all three presidential candidates.
 
You don't even have to read the stories; just check out the headlines. That's right: Compare the AOL headlines for the news story on the Democrat candidate with those concerning the Republican and the Libertarian candidates.

Clinton wants to move past email scandal, but voters can't seem to

Like with Barack Obama, it's too bad that the American people let the Democrat leader down and that it cannot be dissolved for another to be elected.

Indeed, in the tradition of putting the onus on the (evil or at least unsportsmanlike) GOP — the ol' Republicans pounce angle — and/or on the (clueless) voters, Grant Suneson seems to bemoan that, given that Bill Clinton's enlightened wife wants to move forward, the clueless voters can't act like grown-ups and turn a blind eye to a largely irrelevant scandal in order to focus on more pertinent subjects.

And what might those pertinent subjects be? Well, one might be Trump Caught in Major Factual Flub Ahead of US Debate. Another might read, say, 2016 Candidate wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.

So what does a "Major … Flub" refer to? It's to the fact that Trump calls first US debate moderator a Democrat; records show otherwise. Indeed, NBC's Lester Holt, we learn, happens to be a registered Republican. Now, right there, we have one paramount sin, obviously of the unforgivable type. What a "Major … Flub" does not refer to is such things as being sneaky and secretive while lying about your four years at the head of one of the branches of government.

(By the way: An NBC reporter, a registered Republican? Would that be of the David Brooks variety?! And while we're at it, notice the weasel word "claim"; a fine verb, indeed, but hardly so when it's exclusively applicable to Republicans…)

Moreover, the Matt Picht story, Gary Johnson wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, is sold on the "contents" page anonymously (as 2016 Candidate wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security) — probably for no other reason than the third party candidate being not well enough known in person to command interest as well as clicks.

However, notice that the photo (clearly, of a man in a man's suit) and the subhead with twice the word "he" ("The presidential candidate said on Monday that if he's elected to the White House, he will shut down the federal department") obviates any chance that the candidate in question could be Hillary while implying somewhat that it might, just might, be The Donald.

Let's hope this can be attributed to nothing else but paranoia on this reviewer's part.
 

The Four Key Facts that Nobody Tells You About Obama's Birth Certificate Issue

The one certain bet about the Barack Obama birth certificate issue over the past eight years (and counting) is that you do not know the four key issues involved or realize the extent of their importance.

First, a(n unfortunately) necessary disclaimer: Out of over 12,500 posts in the past 12 years, less than 10 on this blog have been about the so-called "Birther" issue (and in a couple of those, it was never even the main subject). That amounts to more than 99.92% of No Pasarán posts that do not treat Obama's birth Certificate in any way. Just so you know that you can hardly accuse (or dismiss) No Pasarán or any one of its webmasters of being associated with alleged nutjobs (at least not with regards to that issue).

Having put that out of the way, let's get started:

1) The "Birther" issue did not rise among Republicans, conservatives, and/or the unruly rubes of flyover country

(aka the bitter clingers to guns and religion; or, if you prefer, aka the basket of deplorable and irredeemable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes). It started with the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2008, involving — you know the tune — the compassionate, intelligent, humanistic, forward-looking fellow members of Obama's (and the Clintons') Democrat Party.


2) Far from being totally racist, twisted, dangerous, and/or simply abnormal, the ideas brought up by the alleged "Birther" issue (whether leveled by a Democrat or a Republican) turn out to be pretty conventional and run-of-the-mill.
And, that, on a ho-hum issue of secondary importance (aka a distraction).

May we be allowed to examine this issue — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

As I wrote a few years ago, in a lengthy, an in-depth, and a dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth:

 … Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and 1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad, and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend numerous years abroad. [Neither did Herman Cain or Ben Carson have to deal with such charges in their respective elections about a quarter century later, be it by Democrats or by the supporters of their GOP competitors.]

 … to believe that an American citizen (whatever the color of his skin) born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country turns out not to be that far-fetched at all.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man hypothetically telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life? Let me ask everybody a simply question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?

3) Here comes the kicker: the so-called "Birther" charge (whether brought by a Democrat or a Republican) was never a charge leveled primarily at a man called Barack Obama or, for that matter, against a member of a minority or a person of a particular race.

It was a charge against the media. 

Indeed, as in 2) above, the "birther" charge was, and is, an entirely justifiable charge against the mainstream media. It was never about birth certificates per se. It was about the double standards that the MSM demonstrate again and again, first, between a Republican and a Democrat, and, second, between the other members of the Donkey Party and the media's preferred (i.e., its "dream") candidate.

(See Instapundit for a myriad of examples of why Glenn Reynolds refers to reporters and journalists as Democrats with bylines; or, as I call them, the fellow travelers in the (self-serving) drama queen view of America and the world.)
 
Recall Hillary Clinton referring to the SNL sketch journalists asking "Barack" if he is comfortable and needs another pillow. Here was a candidate (whatever the color of his skin) with, again, a foreign father and with long years of his childhood spent abroad (oh, and by the way, running a campaign extolling transparency): why not have a reporter or two (briefly) ask this person to (quickly) prove his credentials for the Oval Office (once and for all) — y'know, in the process of challenging politicians on their merits)?

4) The fact that the "Birther" issue was an (entirely justifiable) attack (by a Democrat or a Republican) on the mainstream media offering undeniable proof of its double standards is the very reason that it was—deliberately—turned into a scandal of humongous proportions depicting unspeakable hatred spewed by vicious packs of deranged, loony, and fanatic Neanderthals.

It was not by accident that the title of my "lengthy, in-depth, and dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth" was The JournoList Issue No One Is Bringing Up. The reason I keep referring to the "alleged" and to the "so-called" "Birther" issue in quotation marks is that it is an entirely fabricated story (or narrative, to use the MSM's preferred expression), by members of the mainstream media itself, with an entirely fabricated cast of nasty and dangerous villains, consisting of mobs of zealous trouble-makers and despicable enemies of the people. 

The ensuing pearl-clutching "omigod-don't-tell-us-that-you-are-one-of-those-racist-clods?!" attitude was, and is, in no way a defense of Obama or the occupant of the white House; it was, and is, a defense of the mainstream media.

It was and is certainly not a gallant and high-principled attack on hate and bigotry, in defense of a minority member sitting in the White House.  

It was and is a shameful, a disgusting, and an un-American attempt to shut down debate by shaming anyone wishing to take a deeper look into the biggest single piece of evidence exposing its (bogus) credentials of neutrality and impartiality.

Jacques Julliard : Pour l'extrême gauche, tout est bon pour suggérer que les crimes ne sont pas des crimes, mais des conséquences

Aujourd'hui, le parti collabo naissant est d'extrême gauche

tempête Jacques Julliard (merci à Lucien Oulahbib), dont les paroles reflètent ce que vit le peuple américain depuis 8 ans (mais aux States, il s'agit du parti au pouvoir ainsi que d'un leader adulé à travers le monde).

C'est celui du «pas d'amalgame» à tous crins ; du «vivre ensemble» à tout prix ; c'est le parti de la psychiatrisation («une poignée de déséquilibrés»), de la contextualisation («des victimes du racisme ambiant»), de la diversion («les fruits du colonialisme») et de la banalisation («le burkini est un vêtement comme un autre»)...

Chaque fois que la France est menacée dans son existence et dans ses raisons d'être, il se forme dans ses marges un parti collabo. Bourguignons de la guerre de Cent Ans, frondeurs du début du règne de Louis XIV, émigrés de Coblence sous la Révolution, vichystes et pronazis de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. D'ordinaire, ce parti est d'extrême droite et se confond avec la réaction. Aujourd'hui, il est d'extrême gauche.

C'est le parti du «pas d'amalgame» à tous crins ; du «vivre ensemble» à tout prix ; de «la faute aux cathos» quand les islamistes égorgent ; c'est le parti de la minimisation («quelques actes isolés sans signification»), de la psychiatrisation («une poignée de déséquilibrés»), de la contextualisation («des victimes du racisme ambiant»), de la diversion («les fruits du colonialisme»), de la banalisation («le burkini est un vêtement comme un autre»). Tout est bon pour suggérer que ces crimes ne sont pas des crimes, mais des conséquences.

C'est surtout le parti de la France coupable. Cette façon de faire son procès quand l'ennemi la calomnie, cette manière de lui tirer dans le dos quand elle est attaquée de face ; ce chauvinisme inversé qui l'accable quand elle est affaiblie ne porte qu'un nom, quels qu'en soient les auteurs : lâcheté ! lâcheté !

Quand la France connut en 1940 les jours les plus noirs de son histoire, le parti de la soumission, avec à sa tête le maréchal Pétain, ne trouva qu'une explication : la France est dans le malheur parce que la France est coupable ! Coupable du Front populaire, coupable de son esprit de jouissance, coupable de son esprit d'insubordination.
 
(...)

>>> Retrouvez l'intégralité de cet éditorial dans le numéro de Marianne en kiosques.

Helicopter Parenting Anticipated 21 Years Ago by Bill Watterson

Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Condemned to the Ultimate Penalty in Paris: Not a Socialist, But a…

While the caretakers in the Church of the Sacre-Coeur were going on their rounds late on Monday night

reported the The New York Herald (European Edition) in early September 1891 (13 years after construction on la basilique du Sacré-Cœur was started and 23 years before it was completed),

they were startled by a strange noise which seemed to come from behind the high altar. Suddenly something leaped on the altar, overturned the candles, and disappeared. By the light of the lanterns appeared the shadow, not of a Socialist, but of a fantastic-looking animal with a tail. Yesterday morning the curé of Montmartre found fifteen of his chickens strangled, and in a corner of the fowl house a fox was crouching. The animal was of course taken before the Commissary of Police, who condemned it to death.

— The New York Herald, European Edition, Sept. 9, 1891

The New Yorker: Compare Things to Hitler

The New Yorker

Cartoons from the September 5, 2016, Issue

Racism: The Vicious Circle of Crises, Or, How the Drama Queens Operate

Thanks to Ed Driscoll for Instalinking my post entitled the Era of the Drama Queen.

As I wrote in the subtitle, Every Crisis Is a Triumph, and examples of this were mentioned briefly:

The numerous pitfalls of Obamacare? The Iranian deal leading to a greater chance of terrorism and war? The drama queens are fine with that, they don't even mind being blamed for having made "mistakes," it all leads to more crises down the road and a greater need for intervention, ever more intervention from politicians and bureaucrats and members of the Intervention Party the Democrat Party, aka knights in shining armor.

To expand on a more recent example, turn to Heather Mac Donald's New York Post story on The Lies Told by the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Gang shootings occur almost exclusively in minority areas. Police use of force is most likely in confrontations with violent and resisting criminals, and those confrontations happen disproportionately in minority communities.

 … Officers are routinely surrounded by hostile, jeering crowds when they try to conduct a street investigation or make an arrest. Resistance to arrest is up, officers report. Cops have been repeatedly told by President Obama and the media that pedestrian stops and public order enforcement are racist. In consequence, they are doing less of those discretionary activities in high-crime minority communities.

The result? Violent crime is rising in cities with large black populations.

So, to summarize, according to the Era of the Drama Queen (Every Crisis Is a Triumph):

• Barack Obama and his kindred spirits (white or black) in organizations such as the Black Lives Matter movement (a phoenix-like resurrection of Obama's ACORN, according to some) decry racism (real or exaggerated) in American society. (Check Powerline's Paul Mirengoff for an example of bogus allegations of racism.)

• Protests against racism and racists mount throughout the media and throughout society, particularly after violent encounters between members of opposing races (no matter what the context may have been).

• Hostility against police leads to officers becoming either the targets of "understandable" retaliation and revenge (including shootings and killings) by the alleged "victims" of racism or becoming the targets of the valiant anti-racism crusaders at the helm of society (demonization by intrepid members of the MSM and/or lawsuits by gallant attorneys general, etc…)

• Police officers, as concerned (if not more) at being labeled (and pursued as) bigots and racists as being shot at by members of minorities, consequently develop a far-from-unwell-founded timidity about engaging and patrolling minority communities — where most blacks are killed (in black-on-black crimes, by the way).

• With police absent (or less prominent) in inner-city neighborhoods, criminals feel more secure and violence explodes.

• Guess where more violence in inner-city neighborhoods (and its corollary, more black deaths) take us? That's right — we are back to step 1! You remember: that step where Obama and his kindred spirits decry racism and violence in American society; they now have even more nightmarish statistics that they can use to decry even more racism and violence in American society.

By the way, Heather Mac Donald's New York Post story on The Lies Told by the Black Lives Matter Movement ends with this paragraph:

For the past two decades, the country has been talking about phantom police racism in order to avoid talking about a more uncomfortable truth: black crime. But in the era of data-driven law enforcement, policing is simply a function of crime. The best way to lower police-civilian contacts in inner-city neighborhoods would be for children to be raised by their mother and their father in order to radically lower the crime rate there.

• Related: In the Era of the Drama Queen, Even Conservatives Turn to the Candidate of Melodramatics and Excitement