Thursday, January 19, 2017

Prescient (Not)? Schadenfreude Celebration about Donald Trump Distress in a Wiley Cartoon from 2007

Non Sequitur: A Wiley Miller cartoon from before the Barack Obama era, Christmas 2007 to be exact, proves to be strangely prescient (not), almost as much as the much-vaunted video compilation of VIPs saying over and over, and that among gales of laughter, that Donald Trump will never be president.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

As We Predicted in 2008, Accusations of American Racism Would, and Will, Never Cease

As we predicted weeks before the 2008 vote, the (then-hypothetical) election of Barack Obama would in no way bring an end, not to American racism, but to accusations of American racism.

In its issue immediately prior to the 2016 elections, Charlie Hebdo was back to its tired old prejudices and its tired old tricks, saying Obama [Would] Again Be a [U.S.] Citizen Like All the Others, while the poor black man (victim) is forced to flee under a hail of bullets fired by white police officers. In the meantime, Jean-Yves Camus reports on the alt-right (Ku Klux Klan Without the Hoods) while a "Jacob Hamburger" compares The Donald to (sigh) a cowboy and a gangster.

A couple of weeks prior to the 2008 election, I wrote a post asking a series of questions…

(By how many percentage points must Barack Obama win for "America" to "prove" (to itself as well as to others) that it is no longer racist? … What if the Illinois senator wins by, say, 60%? That's a pretty impressive victory by any standard. But does that mean that the other 40% must necessarily be racists? Must race be the only, or the main, reason for their voting against Obama? … And how about the future? Given that one in seven Americans is black (it's actually about 12.85% or closer to one in eight, but since we are talking about presidential terms, seven is an easier figure to handle), must Americans from now on elect an African-American every seven election cycles to prove they aren't racist? … Or must Americans make up for the 220 years without an African-American at the helm, meaning that the next six presidents (the total number of white males in the White House, 43, divided by 7) must be black.)

Here was/is the point of the questions
What is the point about these questions? The point is as follows: Make no mistake about it. Should Obama win the election, the hand-wringing and wild charges about American racism — both at home and abroad — will at best cease temporarily. Any opposition to President Obama's policies will be construed as racism "rearing its ugly head" again.

And at best (at best, according to the — non-thinking — bean-counters, that is), in the faraway future, we will be told by the snickerers and the snorters: "Well yeah, a black American was elected in 2008 (even reelected in 2012), but that was a one-time travesty!"

Or they will say that oh, sure there is an African-Americans (there are African-Americans) whom Americans have elected president, but… his (but their) skin color wasn't dark enough. "Would they ever" — insert knowing ironic smile here — "elect a really dark Negro?"

 … Why does this come up? Because Americans — or certainly, conservative Americans from small town America — must be accused of something sinister.  If it isn't racism, it's fascism. If it isn't fascism, it's something else. Americans must be treacherous, they must be greedy, they must be warmongers, they must be reactionary, they must be clueless. And… they must be racist.

 … the basic truth about racism is as follows: racism is far less an accurate description of an attitude prevalent in a given society, in a given individual, than it is a weapon that is wielded to demonize one's opponents while making oneself appear heroic by parroting (and by doing nothing else than parroting) politically correct platitudes. More often than not, in other words, the fight against alleged pockets of racism is nothing more noble than a self-serving act of self-praise.
Watch the video, Erik Explains Racism in the 2008 Election to His Cat

See No Pasarán's previous coverage of Charlie Hebdo (which
features an explanatory cartoon on the magazine's English page)…

RelatedWitness the Unbelievable Amount of Racism
That Exists Among Conservatives and in the Tea Party

Dennis Prager: Foreigners of every race know that
the U.S. is the least racist country in the world but most black
Americans and the entire left deny it
(the entire left, foreign as
well as American)

• A week or two before the 2008 election, Michael
Ramirez drew a cartoon called Who Are We to Judge?

2008 Flashback—What You Never Read About in the MSM: Obama Mockingly Imitates a Handicapped Man

A look back: Back during the 2008 campaign, one of the two contestants was not taken to account by the media for imitating, for mocking, a handicapped man — indeed, the wounded war veteran who proved to be his opponent.

From a September 2008 post:
It's one thing (one which is bad enough), as Jonah Goldberg points out, that Barack Obama and his campaign staff do not realize that
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious.
(Jonah Goldberg goes on to ask: "what does it say about his supposedly 'cybersavvy' staffers that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search?", adding that "by this logic [incidentally], Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime.")

It's another thing, as Christopher Cook points out, that Barack Obama seems to intentionally mock McCain's war wounds (at 12:20 in the video).
At a moment when describing a McCain ad, Obama adds a somatic gesture to create an image of John McCain. That gesture involves changing his stance and arm position to imitate the way McCain stands—a stance the Senator developed as a result of the injuries he suffered while he was a "guest" at the Hanoi Hilton.

…The gesture was clearly an imitation of McCain—the context makes that plain. Obama makes no other such bodily gestures EXCEPT when he's creating a picture of McCain in the windmill commercial.

Obama may not have been directly saying "ha, ha, you got your arms broken and a bayonet plunged into your groin and I didn't." It doesn't matter. His way of imitating John McCain is by imitating the man's physical stance.

Barack Obama is a puerile, emotionally under-developed little man. It's appalling to think that he could be this close to the presidency.
And by the way… Let's not even go into the subject about what this says about the left's alleged undying respect for servicemen and veterans…
Oh, and by the way: while we're wallowing in the past and the good ol' times, do you remember this one?
You have heard about the Republican candidate's stooping to negative ads and hateful campaigns, haven't you? Disgusting, scandalous, going down into the gutter, etc… Well, it so turns out that the McCain campaign was doing little more than using Obama's own comparison to Paris Hilton! And that, from a Washingon Post article of three and a half years ago (merci à Arnaud) [from February… 2005!]…
"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," [quipped Barack Obama in February 2005]. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Obama dismisses those who disagree with him like a professor forced to deal with simple-minded, wayward students

  … after two terms of the Obama presidency, the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been since the 1920s
writes Peter Wehner in the New York Times.
IT wasn’t supposed to end this way for Democrats.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama won the presidency promising to transform America. A supremely self-confident politician, Mr. Obama was the object of extravagant hopes that he nurtured and encouraged.

 … The man who seemed to hold such promise for his party ended up taking a scythe to it.
What happened?

For some of the president’s admirers, the answer is that America has become benighted and bigoted. For others, the culprit is the Republican Party, which obstructed Mr. Obama at every turn. And for still others, like Mr. Obama, the problem is that his administration didn’t do enough to advertise its greatness.

Even if you believe there are elements of truth in these explanations, they still amount to excuses. The same country that twice elected Mr. Obama did not suddenly become a nation of deplorables. In his first two years, with Democrats firmly in control of the House and Senate, Mr. Obama won the passage of his sweeping legislative agenda, including the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus package, financial regulations, the extension of jobless benefits and more. As for selling his policies, President Obama was constantly making his case.

The decimation of the Democratic Party came because Mr. Obama turned out to be great at poetry and bad at prose.

Start with the economy. … the Obama presidency has been characterized by injurious incompetence, in particular with regard to his signature achievement, Obamacare.

 … Overseas, the Obama years have been defined by spreading disorder and chaos, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, with nations collapsing and borders dissolving. More terrorist safe havens have been established than ever before. Russia and China have become more aggressive and significantly increased their geopolitical influence. America is now held in brazen contempt by our enemies and mistrusted by many of our allies.

Yet in some respects the greatest failure of the Obama years is in the area where many people thought he would excel. Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his 2008 campaign a promise to end a politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” In February of that year, I praised him for “a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment.” Yet he leaves office with America more conflicted and cynical than when he took office. More than 70 percent of Americans say the country is either more divided or no more united than it was in 2009. Race relations are the worst in decades, and our nation is as polarized as it has been in the modern era.

It would be silly to lay all the blame for this at the feet of Mr. Obama. Republicans have been rhetorically reckless at times, and President-elect Donald Trump has coarsened public discourse and set Americans against one another in ways that were once unimaginable. But Mr. Obama came first, and he played a role in where we are.

In his farewell address last week, President Obama said that for the sake of our democracy we need to heed the advice of the fictional character Atticus Finch, who said, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Yet Mr. Obama never seemed to consider things from a different point of view from his own. He has shown withering disdain for his opponents, constantly impugning their motives even as he testified to the purity of his own. It was his arrogance that proved to be Mr. Obama’s undoing. (Even leaders of his own party felt Mr. Obama’s derision, as if dealing with them was somehow beneath him.) Mr. Obama dismissed those who disagreed with him like a professor forced to deal with simple-minded, wayward students. He warned us against retreating into our bubbles, but he was never able to escape his own.

During the Obama presidency, many people felt unheard and alienated. They are the kind of Americans Mr. Obama had in mind in 2008 when he talked about “bitter” people clinging to their “guns or religion.”

Barack Obama is among the most talented campaigners we have ever seen. But as president, he failed in a manner and on a scale that damaged his party, undermined faith in the institutions of government and left the nation more riven than he found it. For most Americans, the economy has been listless. All this helped create the conditions that allowed a cynical demagogue to rise up and succeed him, one who will undo the achievements he most prizes.

In many ways Barack Obama and Donald Trump could not be more different. Mr. Obama is equable and graceful; Mr. Trump is erratic and graceless. Yet one cannot make sense of the incoming presidency without understanding the failures of the outgoing one.

America's founding fathers wanted elections to have consequences, but they also created a system that requires factions to work together

President Obama started with an outstretched hand,
remembers Eric Cantor in the New York Times, 
but pulled it back with a policy lurch leftward to a place we could not go

 … News outlets, along with the Democrats, labeled us the “Party of No.” But that didn’t reflect the reality. Our goal was to offer a viable alternative to every major piece of legislation the Democratic majority put forward. We wondered if the president would embrace our efforts to bridge the policy divide, and if he did, what that might mean for Republicans in Washington.

A few weeks later, John and I, along with the other congressional leaders, met with President Obama at the White House to discuss our plan as well as his proposed stimulus bill. Bringing along a one-page outline of our working group’s recommendations, I rather brazenly asked the president if I could hand it out at the meeting. The president agreed, and after glancing at it, he said to me, “Eric, I don’t see anything crazy in here.”

I was hopeful. But later in the meeting, when I mentioned that a stimulus package built around government spending would be too much like “old Washington,” the president’s tone changed. He said:
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
It wasn’t long afterward that we learned that Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, were well on their way to having a final stimulus package drafted, and they weren’t really interested in any of our ideas.
 … As Americans witness the swearing in of a new president this week, it’s another reminder that our founding fathers wanted elections to have consequences, but they also created a system that requires factions to work together even after a decisive election. It is my hope that the new president and leaders in Congress live up to our founders’ expectations.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Benny Huang gets misty-eyed recalling all the cherished memories from eight years in the Obama White House

When Barack Obama became our president eight years ago
remembers a wistful and dewy-eyed Benny Huang,
the entertainment community welcomed his ascendancy with a video in which they pledged “to be a servant to our president.”

It was one of those creepy montages in which a diverse group of famous people repeat the same thing over and over again. You know the ones I’m talking about. In this case they kept saying “I pledge” to do this or that good deed, but mostly just to be good Obama-bots. I think it was intended to be inspirational, which it was in its own warped way. It inspired me to puke a little in the back of my mouth.

Two terms later and the jet set is back with an administration-produced video in which they recount their favorite moments from the Obama years. This time it didn’t just feature stars and starlets but also a diverse group of regular folks as well.

Their favorite moments were predictable. Leonardo DiCaprio said that his favorite moment was when President Obama declared at the UN that climate change is the most important issue facing this generation and all generations to come. DiCaprio is really, really concerned about “climate change” (which I think used to be called global warming), though not concerned enough to change his hypocritical lifestyle. John Legend claimed that “I never cried before from an election result.” Yeah, lots of us have shed tears in the Obama years though not necessarily from joy. One guy, who I think is a regular Joe, said that his favorite moment was when Barack Obama finally showed his support for same-sex marriage. Yes, we were all relieved when Obama decided to stop lying about that. It was getting really awkward hearing him try to explain his deep Christian faith.

These people are truly, deeply demented.

But I have good news for the celebrities and non-celebrities who appeared in those agitprop films—the best is yet to come! Yes, Barack Obama’s finest moment will occur about noontime on the 20th of January, 2017, when he gets his sorry butt out of the White House. It can’t come fast enough.
I too have my “favorite” moments. And by “favorite” I mean those moments that are seared into my mind for their hypocrisy, incompetence, narcissism, racism, criminality, and/or idiocy. I’m sure my readers have theirs as well and so I invite them to leave those cherished memories in the comments section.

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane together.

Remember that time that Obama appointed all of those tax cheats to important positions in his administration? Yeah, me too! Liberals like taxes because they don’t pay them. One of those tax cheats, Tim Geithner, was even appointed Secretary of the Treasury. You know, the guy who oversees the IRS?

And who could forget the time someone put a Chairman Mao ornament on the White House Christmas tree? (Oops, I mean the “holiday tree.”) Seriously, were they sold out of Pol Pot ornaments? Mao Zedong is literally the greatest murderer in world history. Not to be outdone, White House communications director Anita Dunn praised the bloodthirsty tyrant as one “of [her] favorite philosophers”—alongside Mother Teresa!
Then there was that time that Barack won the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing more than being a real cool cat. At the time the award was announced he’d been in office for just twelve days. That was before he took his fleet of drones on a killing spree and before he flooded North Africa with guns that were impossible to account for the moment they were distributed. Apparently, the Nobel panel had some misgivings later in the Obama years that perhaps they had given the prize to an unworthy recipient. Ya think? I wonder what their first clue was? Could it have been the Libyan teenagers in Toyota pickup trucks driving around shooting people with American-furnished weapons? Or was it when those weapons seeped into neighboring Mali and helped al-Qaeda-linked Islamists foment a rebellion?

There are so many good gun-related memories from the Obama years. Operation Fast & Furious (F&F) was when Eric Holder’s Department of Justice purposely allowed weapons to “walk” from Arizona gun stores across the border to the Mexican underworld, allegedly so that they could be tracked by their serial numbers. The whole operation spun out of control and the DOJ lost track of the guns. One of those guns was used to kill Brian Terry, a US Border Patrol agent and Marine Corps veteran. An F&F .50 caliber rifle was found at the criminal hideout of notorious narco-gangster El Chapo when he was arrested last year. A third F&F gun was found in the possession of an Islamic terrorist bent on shooting up the “Draw Mohammad” contest in Garland, Texas, and a possible fourth was used in the November 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris.

Another classic Obama moment was when he released five top Taliban commanders, which he did not have the legal authority to do, in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, an American soldier who was supposedly being held captive in Afghanistan. Except he kind of wasn’t. Bergdahl deserted his post and went straight to the Taliban. Subsequent attempts to locate and rescue him got good soldiers killed or wounded. National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed that Sergeant Dirtbag “served with honor and distinction.” She later clarified that she meant only that his original decision to enlist was honorable if not the circumstances of his, um, “capture.” But in any case, “serving” is what soldiers do every day in the military, while enlisting is what they do on their first day. By her definition of the word there’s never been a soldier who didn’t serve with honor and distinction because they all enlisted at some point. Rice’s original comment was not misunderstood, it was a lie.

And let’s not forget all the great work Obama has done on the behalf of convicted felons.

In 2015, President Obama decreed that federal agencies would be prohibited from asking prospective employees if they had ever been convicted of a felony because not hiring felons is raaaaacist! Gee, I wonder if a person could get a job at the White House with a criminal record? But at very least this action was within the president’s legitimate authority. Then the Administration warned landlords that asking a prospective tenant about his criminal background is also illegal. This move was dressed up as a new but wholly legitimate interpretation of the already existing Fair Housing Act. In reality, it was a complete re-write of the law that bans discrimination based on race, not criminal history. So now you have to rent a room in your home to someone who might be a murderer or a rapist. You’ll never know because you can’t ask.

I’m getting a little misty-eyed recalling all of these great times we’ve shared together. There was that time—who could forget it?—when the full force of the federal government was brought to bear on the Little Sisters of the Poor in order to force them to provide birth control to their employees. Then there was that other time that Obama’s Secretary of the Navy named a ship after the pedophile Harvey Milk, as well as the time that the DOJ dismissed all charges against the New Black Panthers after they stood outside of a polling place in Philadelphia threatening voters with a billy club and saying that they were about to “be ruled by the black man, cracker!”

But I’ve saved my absolute favorite Obama memory for last. My favorite moment, bar none, was when Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for his refusal to provide documents related to the Fast & Furious debacle and the US Attorney refused to prosecute! That’s right, the department which Holder headed excused its boss. Poor Eric Holder, that innocent lamb, the one who dealt death to Mexicans (and some Americans, Frenchmen, etc), then lied about it, then blew off subpoenas, got off without so much as a slap on the wrist. That, ladies and gentleman, was the quintessential moment of the Obama Administration. It was all there, all on display—the arrogance, the deceit, the reckless disregard for people and processes.

So what are your favorite memories? Do tell. Some day we might need to remind ourselves of why we can never allow a Marxist ideologue in the Oval Office ever again.

You are invited to leave those cherished memories of yours in the blog's comments section.

Related: Sure Thing—Let's All Go Ahead and Swoon at Barack's Love for Michelle;
Only, What Does That Have to Do with Obama's Beliefs and His Performance?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Sure Thing—Let's All Go Ahead and Swoon at Barack's Love for Michelle; Only, What Does That Have to Do with Obama's Beliefs and His Performance?

So who was the best family man?

Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

Where was there better marital harmony?

In the family of Cromwell or in the family of (either) King Charles?

Where is there better marital harmony?

In the family of Barack Obama or in the family of (either) George Bush?

Are you having your fill reading about Barack Obama and how he has led a scandal-free administration besides also the impressiveness of his showing his undying love for the former Michelle LaVaughn Robinson? (See his tears?!)

Hollywood even made a (worshipful, natch) movie about the couple.

Besides the fact that we don't, offhand, know to what extent the external family values of anybody (the Obamas, the Bushes, the Lincolns, the Davises, the Cromwells, the Stuarts, certainly no one currently alive) is real — rather than window dressing, i.e., more or less carefully thought out propaganda, especially when it concerns a politician (!) — isn't there a reason to question the fact that this makes the person better at managing his country, or, for that matter, better at any job at all?

I don't remember many instances from leftists at how impressed we were supposed to be at the "crazy cowboy" aka the "liar" and the "buffoon" for his love for Laura or that of his father for Barbara and how the latter — immediately — turned away a woman visitor who had had the audacity of flirting with him.

Indeed, I remember the same levels of enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, whose marital harmony, I think it would not be hard to argue, was lower than either of his two successors (the latest successor, I am not so sure) or his two predecessors in the White House. And… how about John F Kennedy?

That's it: Barack Obama is the impersonation of coolness, Bill Clinton was/is the impersonation of coolness, JFK was the impersonation of coolness. All of 'em young. All of 'em sexy. That's it, really, ain't it?

Barack Obama, who dances and sings and raps on television. Bill Clinton, who plays the saxophone on stage. JFK, who, who… who just stands around, looking incredibly sexy.

Are we allowed to wonder to what extent being cool and being young (or young-looking) and being sexy and playing a musical instrument (or one's vocal chords) plus being funny on a TV show (see also Michelle Obama being the coolest FLOTUS ever or the FLOTUS of Our Dreams) — and even have a deep, manly voice — is supposed to be a requirement for being a good leader of a country?

Are we to be allowed to wonder to what extent Barack's love (sure — why not accept it as true?) for the woman of his life has anything to do with his beliefs and with his performance in office?

Related: • Obama had Scandals AplentyThe media just pretended they didn't exist
It's liberating to know that you can tell whatever lies are politically useful without consequence. The Obama administration could almost always count on the media to back it, regardless of the contortions necessary.
Obama's 'Scandal-Free' Administration Was Actually Riddled with Scandals

Saturday, January 14, 2017

During the Obama administration, all these Democrats were silent

AGREED: "it’s worth a full-on embed" writes Glenn Reynolds
— of Ted Cruz's pointing out the double standards of
Congressional Democrats’ newfound concern for the rule of law

Friday, January 13, 2017

Legal Insurrection: When a blog is "a bit too effective at tweaking" the "left wing cry-bullies", the Left strikes back

It's a sad Friday the 13th for the Legal Insurrection blog, for the conservative movement, and for free speech generally (thanks to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds):
YouTube took down Legal Insurrection’s Channel without any prior notice based on “multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement,” but we never received any claims of infringement.

We have lost hundreds of videos, including a lot of original content on important news subjects. You now will see disabled videos in hundreds of our posts.
The following will hardly come as relief for , but I figured out some basic rules years ago: For the past years, every video (and audio) that I have made and every TV show (or radio show) I have appeared in, I have duly downloaded to my hard drive—in addition to copying it to an external drive.

Besides that, we regularly — about once a month — copy the No Pasarán blog onto our hard drive as well (Blogger > Settings > Other > Back up Content).

From Legal Insurrection's comments section:


Redneck Law | January 13, 2017 at 8:05 am
LI clear violation of TOS: PWC
(*posting while conservative)

No proof necessary, just the claims of left wing cry-bullies.

nyc | January 13, 2017 at 7:35 am
Whining–no one does it better than the liberal left.

You were obviously a bit too effective at tweaking the progs.
 This is how faithful progs with power take their revenge.

The only consolation is that this is just a minor, minor taste of what the left would have done to all of us from now on if Hillary had won. Scratch a leftist and you will always find a vicious totalitarian hiding under the surface.

DINORightMarie | January 13, 2017 at 12:44 am
Twitter Gulag.

FB account suspension.

YouTube Channel shut down. Etc. Rinse, repeat.

You are hitting the right people in the right places.

And this is how they retaliate. Alinsky-tactics.

(My guess – BDS sees you’re effective, so you’re their target.)

Granny | January 13, 2017 at 1:20 am
Sadly, I am not in the least surprised.
Always keep a copy of every video you post.

RodFC | January 13, 2017 at 1:52 am
BTW. The videos may not be lost, but you should always have your own copy just in case.

Believe me, this is a painful lesson for a lot of people.

Chaosman | January 13, 2017 at 5:01 am
Best of luck. If/when your channel is restored, make sure to download your videos from the video manager and keep three copies of each video you want to save. Two copies on premises one copy off premises.
Update — from Fox News:
On Friday the publisher received notification from YouTube that the copyright claims were filed by the Modern Languages Association (MLA) based on audio posted of a recent MLA vote on a resolution to boycott Israeli universities. The boycott resolution at the MLA Delegate Assembly failed.

"Clearly this was a politically motivated move," he told "I never received any request or complaint from MLA. These were perfectly legitimate fair use excerpts with great news value."

"This is an attempt to silence our reporting on a matter of great public importance," added Jacobson, whose website reported on the vote. "We intend to pursue all available remedies, and call on YouTube to restore our account."

Thursday, January 12, 2017

There ain’t a word, thought, deed, symbol, piece of legislation, or news item that cannot be imbued with a racial angle when there’s a determined race hustler around

As President Obama prepares to make his merciful exit from office
writes Benny Huang incredulously over at the Constitution website,
he’s taken time to tell a Chicago reporter that race relations have improved on his watch.
He spoke these words in the same city where four young blacks recently kidnapped and tortured a mentally retarded white man while shouting “F**k white people!” and “F**k Donald Trump!” as they livestreamed the whole thing on Facebook. And he did all of this with a straight face.

“The good news is that the next generation that’s coming behind us…have smarter, better, more thoughtful attitudes about race,” said the failed president. What he means by this is that an entire multiracial generation of Americans has been raised on lessons about white privilege and minority victimhood. They’ve internalized this ideology so completely that they simply can’t interact with people who don’t share it.

Barack Obama’s historic presidency was supposed to unite us. I don’t think his “failure” to do so is an accident. He spent eight years agitating just like his hero Saul Alinsky and his mentor Frank Marshall Davis did. The results were predictable—anger, chaos, and violence. Cops have been murdered, neighborhoods have been torched, and innocent people have had their lives ruined. Before Barack Obama came along we were making progress in this country toward demoting race to a nonissue. Now it’s the issue, the all-consuming concern that supersedes all others. Race is everything and everything is racial.

It’s killing our nation.

President Obama’s remarks remind me of a creeping feeling I’ve had of late that I write entirely too many columns about race. It wasn’t always this way. Back when I was in college I made a name for myself on the staff of the student newspaper as a rabid “anti-choice” activist because I wrote regularly about our on-going baby holocaust. These days I rarely address the subject and I feel a little guilty about it. Planned Parenthood is still running its Murder, Inc., so why aren’t I writing more about it?

The answer is that I, like too many other conservatives, play defense. I respond to what’s happening in the political realm. In my college years I wrote so much about the evils of the abortion industry because race was not nearly as important as it is now. These days, with so much emphasis on race, I feel compelled to respond to the all the idiocy that people spout about “white privilege” and our poor, maligned president who just can’t catch a break because no black man can in this horrible, racist country. I want to point out that white-on-black crime is exceedingly rare, that no one cares when cops shoot white people, and that the Department of Justice does not dispense equal justice under the law but instead prefers blacks above all others.

And yet here I am writing another column about race. It’s very difficult to write about anything else when every issue has been racialized. Race and racism are inescapable.

There isn’t a word, thought, deed, symbol, piece of legislation, or news item that cannot be imbued with a racial angle when there’s a determined race hustler around.

Gun control? You betcha. Michael Moore, producer of the anti-second amendment “Bowling for Columbine,” racialized that issue in 2012. Said Moore:
“We’ve got over a quarter-billion guns in people’s homes. And they’re mostly in the suburbs and rural areas where there is virtually no crime and no murder. So why is that? What are they really afraid of? What do they think of — who’s going to break into the house? Do they think it’s little freckled-face Jimmy down the street? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s who they’re afraid of. And it cuts down to the heart of our race problem that we still haven’t resolved.”
Moore’s argument is self-defeating. For starters, he’s essentially admitting the validity of the “more guns less crime” argument advanced by John Lott in his book by the same name. Furthermore, does it make any sense to believe that people who live far away from blacks are really afraid that blacks are going to break into their homes? No, those are the worries of urban dwellers, many of whom favor gun control because they don’t want blacks to have them. No matter, Michael Moore has declared the exercise of our right under the US Constitution to be a form of racist neuroticism. End of discussion.

The issue of illegal immigration (often called just “immigration”) has become so intertwined with race that it’s hard to believe that anyone ever saw it through any other lens. I recall being a soldier stationed in Germany in 2002 when I met a Bulgarian girl who flippantly mentioned that her best friend from Bulgaria was living as an illegal alien in Chicago. (Bulgarians are white Eastern Europeans, by the way.) I was shocked. At the time I didn’t consider any racial dimension to the illegal immigration issue. I didn’t care then, just as I don’t care now, what color the illegal immigrants are. They should come in the right way or not at all. It’s not a racial issue, it’s a rule of law issue.
But there I go again using those racial dog whistles. My “law and order” rhetoric is racist according to National Public Radio. During the 2016 campaign NPR ran an outlandish piece entitled “Is Trump’s Call For ‘Law and Order’ a Coded Racial Message?” Apparently only a racist could want that. Non-racists prefer lawlessness and disorder—which happens to be what Barack Obama has wrought.

Just when I thought that the constant racialization of everything couldn’t get any worse, it did.

Even I was taken aback when New York City legalized (or “decriminalized”) public urination because those kind of laws are raaaaaaacist!

“We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” city council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, a Democrat, told the New York Times. “So the question has always been, what can we do in this job to minimize unnecessary interaction with the criminal justice system, so that these young people can really fulfill their potential?”

My guess is that minorities are disproportionately punished for public urination because they disproportionately offend just as they disproportionately violate most other laws—except Asians of course, but I guess the system isn’t “rigged” against yellow people.

We’re living in a racial bonfire and our public officials just keep pouring gasoline on it. Speaking in defense of the Black Lives Matter movement, President Obama bemoaned the problem of the unfair treatment blacks receive at the hands of police. “The African-American community is not just making this up…It’s real.” Well yes they are making it up and Obama should acknowledge this if he wants to be called a leader. They made up the Ferguson narrative which was a complete fabrication. They tried to railroad the cops in Baltimore before the prosecution disintegrated in court. They made up a ridiculous story about a supposed unarmed black man in Charlotte, Keith Scott, reading a book in his car before being besieged by racist cops. The officer who shot him, by the way, was black. He also wasn’t charged with anything because he did nothing wrong.

 … But that’s what scummy race-baiters like Eric Holder do. They tell lies to agitate, to divide, to make this group of people resentful and that group of people defensive. There’s no excuse for it. Let’s hope that this kind of poison politics goes out with Obama.

Monday, January 09, 2017

We Americans are ruled by a non-religious elite and we seem unbothered by it—and not just in politics but in culture and education as well

News flash from National Public Radio: There aren’t enough atheists in Congress! This is really a problem and NPR wants to rally the electorate to remedy it. In an article entitled “Non-Religious Americans Remain Far Under-Represented in Congress” NPR bemoaned the lack of unbelievers serving on Capitol Hill.

Thus does Benny Huang start another outstanding column.
I’ve got news for NPR—there are plenty of godless heathens in politics. Very few elected officials publicly claim atheism or agnosticism but their actions betray what’s in their hearts. For all of the talk about how rabidly religious Americans are we continue to vote for people who are very secular in their outlooks and in their voting records. There is no pandemic of religious fervor in the United States. We’re ruled by a non-religious elite and we seem unbothered by it—and not just in politics but in culture and education as well. Among those non-religious elite I would certainly count Donald Trump. Perhaps he has certain qualities that are needed at this moment but he’s not a religious man.

I realize that I am treading on thin ice here. There’s an unwritten rule in politics that an elected official’s professed faith should never be questioned—or at least not if you think the person’s religious deception is a bad thing. Barack Obama is a good example of this. The media have spilled plenty of ink “debunking” the supposed myth that the president is not a Christian.

Here’s one from Timothy Stanley at CNN. His opening sentence: “One of the strangest right-wing conspiracies is that Barack Obama is not really a Christian.” I think he meant to say “conspiracy theories” but whatever. It’s not a conspiracy or a theory, it’s just Barack Obama telling lies which I’ve noticed he does quite a bit. This is a man who once said that “Sin is being out of alignment with my values.” Seriously? Actually, sin is being out of alignment with God’s values. I can only conclude that Barack Obama is his own higher power.

Which leads me to my next question—who are these fools who think Obama is a Muslim? That’s ridiculous. Barack Obama is a secular humanist just like the mother who raised him and the absent father he idolized. He joined a church that teaches black victimology while calling it Christianity—and he likely only did that because he had political aspirations.

But the late Christopher Hitchens speculated with some certainty that Barack Obama is an atheist and I don’t recall him being chastised for it. Why? Because Christopher Hitchens was also an atheist and therefore considered Obama’s atheism a plus. Hitchens’s doubts about Obama’s purported religion were somehow acceptable but if you happen to be a Christian who’s sick of seeing President Obama fraudulently sporting your religion on his sleeve, you’re a conspiracy theorist.

So there are actually plenty of non-religious people in politics. Why don’t they identify themselves? There are several reasons, I think. The first is prejudice, which I gather from the NPR article is their preferred explanation.

 … But there are other reasons why more atheist politicians don’t just fess up. One reason is that it inoculates them from accusations of anti-Christian bigotry which is rampant in the jackass party. Take Nancy Pelosi, for example. I consider Pelosi to be an anti-Christian bigot but she’s able to parry the accusation by claiming to be just as Catholic as Catholic can be. This is a woman who never misses an opportunity to mention her Catholicism, sometimes misrepresenting Catholic doctrine to justify her Left Coast policy positions. Nancy Pelosi may have a baptismal certificate but she really worships at the altar of statist liberalism. She should probably just admit it and stop making a mockery of her (and my) religion.

But why would she do that? Then she couldn’t smother criticisms that she despises Christianity. That’s the real reason why she misrepresents herself. It’s not as if San Francisco voters would send her packing if they thought she was an apostate. A 2015 study from the Public Religion Research Institute found San Francisco to be the third least religious city in the country. Only Portland and Seattle had higher proportions of non-believers. Pelosi’s constituents are comfortable with atheism, just as they are comfortable with sodomy on parade down Castro Street. It’s Catholicism that make them squirm—especially its teachings on butt sex. She would pay no penalty at the polls for admitting the obvious fact that she isn’t really Catholic after all. Still she persists with her lies.

The NPR article left me wondering just what’s wrong with too few atheists or, as I think they really meant to say, too many of those darn Christians serving in Congress.

 … Maybe NPR should start looking more like America and give a show to someone who isn’t a coastal liberal elitist for a change. Might I suggest Larry the Cable Guy?

Saturday, January 07, 2017

French Conservaties Chat About Donald Trump's New America

Évelyne Joslain, the author of Trump: For Better or Worse, chatted with Radio Courtoisie's Henry de Lesquen about President Donald Trump's New America and the Reasons for His Success.

Libre Journal d'Henry de Lesquen du 19 décembre 2016 : “La nouvelle Amérique du président Donald Trump ; Chronique du grand-large : « Les raisons du succès de Donald Trump » ; Apologie de la peine de mort”

Henry de Lesquen, assisté de Joëlle, recevait Evelyne Joslain, politologue, essayiste, spécialiste du monde anglo-saxon, Nicolas Stoquer, diplômé de l'IEP, fondateur du Rassemblement Pour la France, défenseur du patrimoine ; Patrick Simon, avocat, président de l'ALEPS ; Charles-Henri d'Elloy, écrivain. Thèmes : “La nouvelle Amérique du président Donald Trump ; Chronique du grand-large : « Les raisons du succès de Donald Trump » ; Apologie de la peine de mort ; Chronique du courrier des auditeurs”.

Première partie

Seconde partie

Référence bibliographique

Trump, pour le meilleur et pour le pire (Évelyne Joslain), Éd. Presses de la Délivrance (juin 2016)

Henry de Lesquen
Henry de Lesquen
Familier depuis 1988 des émissions de Radio Courtoisie, où il était fréquemment invité en tant que président du Carrefour de l'Horloge, Henry de Lesquen y a créé le libre journal des idées politiques en 2003. Après la mort du fondateur de Radio Courtoisie, Jean Ferré, en 2006, et selon les vœux de celui-ci, il lui a succédé, d'une part comme patron de la radio, d'autre part comme patron du libre journal du lundi soir. Membre du conseil d'administration de l'association depuis 2005, il en est le président depuis 2007. Né en 1949, marié, père de cinq enfants, Henry de Lesquen est haut fonctionnaire. Il habite avec son épouse à Versailles, où il est conseiller municipal depuis 2001 sous l'étiquette "divers droite". Il préside en outre le Club de l'Horloge et a participé dans le cadre de ce cercle de pensée politique indépendant des partis à la rédaction d'une vingtaine de livres, dont La Politique du vivant et Penser l'antiracisme. Il préside également l'association Voix des Français : Twitter : @hlesquen.

Friday, January 06, 2017

Chicago's Hate Crime as Presented in France: Only One Mention of the Perpetrator's and Victim's Races, and That as an Aside

Coverage of the hate crime in Chicago is no better in the French press than in the whitewashing press in the United States, as evidenced by this 20 Minutes and AFP report.

The title, first:
The Aggression of a Mentally Handicapped Young Man Broadcast on Facebook
Then, the opening paragraph:
Traumatized, the victim is having a hard time communicating. Four persons have been caught and arrested, announced the Chicago police, after the broadcast of a video where they are seen mistreating a young man while shouting racist insults.
Still nothing unusual about race, with the "shouting racist insults" part giving the idea that, if anything, it seems to be whites hectoring an African-American.

When the races of the perpetrators and victims are finally presented, it is almost as an aside, in a pair of secondary adjective clauses, and only once, in a single sentence:
The suspects, who are black, and the victim, who is white, are all young adults.
For some reason, you see, what matters is that all the "actors" are young.

If the races of perpetrators and victim were reversed, don't you think that sentence would be written quite differently? (The suspects and the victim, all of whom are young adults, are respectively white and black.)

Of course. And, indeed, race would be featured — prominently — in the headline as well as in the opening paragraph and, in fact, throughout the entire article.

From that point on, race disappears from the rest of the article, although one sentence does admittedly hint at the subject, since it contains the shouts « Fuck Donald Trump ! Fuck white people ! »

VIDEO. Etats-Unis : L’agression d’un jeune handicapé mental diffusée en direct sur Facebook

Traumatisée, la victime peine à communiquer. Quatre personnes ont été appréhendées et placées en garde à vue après la diffusion d’une vidéo où on les voit maltraiter un jeune homme en criant des insultes racistes, a annoncé ce jeudi la police de Chicago, dans le nord-est des Etats-Unis.

Les suspects, qui sont noirs, et la victime, qui est blanche, sont tous de jeunes adultes.
To no one's surprise, Newsbusters' Curtis Houck is on the story—the story of the non-story: ABC, NBC Skip White Chicago Man Being Tortured Live on Facebook by Four African-Americans, while shouting “fuck Trump” and “fuck white people.” (Equally unexpectedly, CBS’s coverage left out those last two details.) Leading Ed Driscoll to remind us that
CBS’s blackout on the details of this story, and their competitors’ embargo of the story itself, dovetails perfectly with Iowahawk’s observation that “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving,” and Jim Treacher’s line that in the 21st century, the profession “is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.”

Related: “The Left’s insane hatred of Donald Trump has spun out of control, and there have been far too many instances of this sort of depraved violence,” John Hinderaker writes at Power Line. “I don’t want to hear another damn word about ‘hate crimes’ against minorities supposedly inspired by Donald Trump’s campaign or election, not unless they equal this level of depravity.”
The Boston Herald's Howie Carr (thanks to Instapundit):
Why can’t the alt-left call a hate crime a hate crime?

Is it because some hate crimes are more hateful than others? Or less?

Finally, yesterday, the Chicago police charged the four aspiring rappers with a hate crime for allegedly beating, torturing and kidnapping a white mentally disabled kid from the suburbs.

They were screaming “Bleep white people!” and “Bleep Trump!” but none of the PC posse wanted to … uh, jump to any conclusions.

Take Obama — please. His flack Josh Earnest was asked if this was a hate crime.
“I think it’s too early to tell.”

No call from Obama for a “national conversation” about hate crimes. He didn’t even call it “workplace violence.”

Then there was Don Lemon, last seen drunk on New Year’s Eve on CNN. Apparently, he’s still on his bender, because this is what he said:

“I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people and I think they have bad home training.”

Bad home training. Hey, I’ll bet these at-risk youths were turning their lives around too. That’s why one of Lemon’s guests, one Symone Sanders, said that we shouldn’t be “callously classifying” a kidnapping accompanied by a few chants of “Bleep white people!” as a hate crime.

Yeah, they’re lovely people — Tanashia and Brittany Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hall. Tanashia is 24 and the others are 18. Which, according to Chicago PD Commander Kevin Duffin, makes them “kids.”

“Kids make stupid decisions … That will certainly be part of whether or not we determine this is a hate crime or whether or not this is stupid ranting and raving.”

Here was the Boston Globe headline on the hate crime: “4 questioned after video of apparent racial attack in Chicago.”

Apparent. On MSNBC it was called an “apparent beating.” Apparently, whoever wrote these headlines didn’t see the video.

Various local newscasts said the thugs had “detained” the white kid, who was “picked on” and/or “bullied.”

What if this had happened to some Muslim terrorist at Gitmo? The same pajama boys now averting their eyes from the truth would be hollering for war crimes trials.

This wasn’t the first post-election black-on-white hate crime on the West Side. In November, a 50-year-old white man was dragged from his car by four people screaming obscenities about Trump. That hate crime was likewise recorded on videotape.

Police arrested Rajune Lewis, Dejuan Collins, Julian Christian and a juvenile and … do you remember seeing anything about this on the network newscasts? Me neither.

Compare this kid-glove treatment for all these thugs to what happened to the two Babson College students who drove over to Wellesley College after the election. Let’s let Babson President (and former Lt. Gov.) Muffy Healey describe how her students “engaged in behavior that was, at a minimum, insensitive, unacceptable and contrary to our core values.”

Their crime? They were yelling “Trump 2016!” and “Make America Great Again.”

Muffy banned them from campus and they were kicked out of their frat. They had to hire lawyers to fight Muffy’s fake news.

If it wasn’t for double standards, the alt-left wouldn’t have any standards at all.
In contrast, tweets Anthony Bialy, “Those who believed ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ right away are unsure if the Chicago assault was a hate crime.”

Plus: Remembering (not) the horrific Christian-Newsom murdersGlenn Reynolds:
There was no White House commentary, and no mass marches or riots. And not all that much press attention. Because these horrors did not Advance The Narrative.

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

“Parachute politics” is systemic in the Democrat party, the party whose members never take “no” for an answer

Representative Maxine Waters of California has a curious explanation for why Democrats were so thoroughly humiliated in 2016 
writes Benny Huang (in disbelief)
—they were just too nice. “That has been a problem in my party, that when we’re in power we’re nice,” said Waters. “We bend over backwards to work with people.”

Any hope that the Democrats would conduct a serious post-mortem was dispelled with these remarks. The Democrats lost this year and they’ve been losing with some degree of consistency since Barack Obama swept to power in 2008 but they’re still avoiding introspection. As usual, they’re finding ways to flatter themselves in defeat, convinced that it was their own virtue that did them in—plus Russia, racists, and fake news, of course.

The real explanation for why Democrats lost and have continued to lose is rather complicated but the nitty-gritty is this: Trump’s positions on certain issues helped win over several rust belt states that everyone had hitherto considered safely blue while holding onto the traditionally red ones. This happened despite substantial voter fraud in at least one of those rust belt states—Michigan. Was it the Democrats’ nicety that lost these states? Oh, I doubt it. I think it had something to do with their war on coal and on in industry in general. Barack Obama spoke openly of bankrupting coal-fired power plants and Hillary Clinton, his would-be successor, bragged that she would “put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business.” Killing people’s jobs is not very nice.

Compromise is something the modern Democrat party just does not do. They’re quite skilled at all sorts of subterfuge intended to look like compromise but the real thing eludes them. In some rare instances, when the votes simply aren’t there for their pet projects, they may be forced to give a little ground. But it wounds them deeply. They quickly turn to the judiciary or to Daddy Obama to achieve what they can’t achieve through the legislature. By hook or by crook, they get what they want.

What ails the jackass party is what I call “parachute politics,” named in honor of Maxine Waters’ fellow California Democrat, Nancy Pelosi. During the 2010 Obamacare debate Pelosi displayed an arrogance that I found shocking. “We’ll go through the gate,” said Pelosi at a press conference. “If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the America people.”

Does that sound like someone who’s bending over backwards to work with others? Or does that sound like a fanatic, someone so sure of the righteousness of her cause that nothing—certainly not the will of the people—could have dissuaded her from her path? Pelosi spoke these words just days after Scott Brown pulled off an upset victory in a Massachusetts special election by promising to be the forty-first vote against Obamacare. Yes, running against the “Affordable Care Act” (snort!) was a winning proposition even in ultra-liberal Massachusetts. People didn’t want the crap sandwich Pelosi was trying to force feed them and they want it even less today.
Sure, Americans generally agree that they want some kind of health care reform but they mean something that will make health care more affordable both at the point of sale and in the final analysis. Obamacare has only made it more expensive. Back in 2010 there were at least a few gullible Americans who believed all of Obama’s lies about keeping their current plans and saving the average family of four some $2500 per year. If there are still people who believe these falsehoods they must be delusional.

“Parachute politics” is systemic in the Democrat party. Whether the issue is killing the unborn, stopping voter ID, redefining marriage, or any number of other issues, they absolutely do not take “no” for answer.

Voting rights for felons is a good example. This year, Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia took the bold step of restoring voting rights to all felons in his state who had completed their sentences. He did not attempt to amend Virginia’s constitution. He did not work with legislators to build consensus. He simply decreed it.

 … McAuliffe was undeterred. If the Virginia Supreme Court told him that he could not restore voting rights en masse he would do it on a superficially “individual” basis. He got to work “signing” stacks of clemency documents using an autopen to replicate his signature. Governor McAuliffe’s unilateral and constitutionally dubious scheme was a gift to his dear friend Hillary Clinton, to himself, and to his party—the “nice” party that Maxine Water says “bends over backwards to work with people.”

Not that I doubt Maxine Waters’ sincerity when she says this. Her problem isn’t that she doesn’t mean what she says, her problem is that she considers every concession made by her party, no matter how small and no matter how begrudgingly extracted, to be an enormous sacrifice. If the “arc of history” bends toward her own demented definition of justice why should she ever give an inch to the evil forces of reaction? In her mind she and her friends should get 100% of what they want 100% of the time because they are self-evidently right. It’s this attitude that makes compromise nearly impossible.

 … When asked if she would accept a hypothetical invitation from Trump to meet and find common ground, Waters replied unequivocally that she would not.\

She’s not alone. Congressman Keith Ellison, who is a strong contender to replace Donna Brazile as the next chairman of the DNC, said that “All there is to do is vote ‘no’” to whatever Trump and the Republicans propose. Now there’s some of that famous bipartisanship! I hope the Republican leadership heard Ellison and realizes that he and much of his party cannot be won over. They can be opposed and hopefully defeated but they can’t be swayed from their reflexive opposition. Please don’t try.

I can recall a time not long ago when Ellison’s and Waters’ defiant attitude would have been called “obstructionism.” Of course that was when some Republicans weren’t kowtowing to President Obama. (Others were kowtowing their asses off, by the way.) Things are different now. I also recall that “obstructionism” was not just unseemly but racist to boot. Not anymore. Now that I think about it, there was also a time in the recent past when Republicans’ “obstructionism” justified presidential end-runs around Congress. Is that still fair play or did that change too?

But don’t let Maxine Waters fool you. She may try to pretend that extraordinary circumstances have driven her to adopt a never-before-seen attitude of resistance but that just isn’t true. She was a partisan warrior before November 8th just as she’s a partisan warrior now. She was not “nice” when the Democrats ran the show and neither was the rest of her party. Their 2006 and 2008 victories convinced them that the country had gone left for good. What was the sense in reaching across the aisle to the moribund minority?

Liberals are rewriting history before our very eyes, inventing some mythical time when the Democratic majority extended a hand of mercy to those evil Republicans only to have it slapped away. Those of us with memories longer than a goldfish’s know better.