Quotas: According to the Obama Administration, the U.S. Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is

Grab your ankles

warns Benny Huang,

the Secretary of the Air Force is talking about diversity again.

Deborah Lee James, a career bureaucrat who has never worn the uniform of any service, announced last week that she aims to remedy the supposed problem of too many white men in positions of authority.

“America is a diverse population, and we don’t want to shut down pieces of the population from which we can recruit,” said James. “We want the best we can possibly get from all sectors.” Oh yeah? Well why not just hire the best person for the job and let the chips land where they may? She doesn’t say.

This most recent policy comes about a year and a half after Secretary James announced another equally discriminatory “diversity” initiative. In March of 2015, she unveiled her nine step plan to diversify the Air Force, particularly its most glamorous career fields such as pilots and air battle managers. One of her nine points was to reduce height standards for pilots, thus making it easier for women to qualify—as if height standards were arbitrary obstacles dreamed up by sexist men to preserve their boys’ club.

A year and a half has passed and Secretary James is not satisfied with the “progress” made thus far so more drastic measures will be imposed. … Of course, that one “diverse candidate” has to be “qualified”—a term that is highly malleable whenever race or sex is of paramount importance.

It’s no wonder that the blurb on the cover of the Air Force Times cover blared: “Minorities, Women, Now Have Edge in Key Positions.” Yes, they do. In years past affirmative action proponents framed the issue in terms of “leveling the playing field” but these days it’s all out in the open—minorities and women have an “edge,” which is another way of saying that they’re favored. It is literally impossible for favored groups to exist without the existence of corresponding disfavored groups. Don’t be fooled—this policy has real victims with names and faces.

But the Rooney Rule alone isn’t discrimination, is it? After all, no one is saying that the “diverse candidate” has to get the job. Well…not exactly. While it may be true that the “diverse candidate” isn’t guaranteed to get the job, commanders will now have to explain their decision to a board which will consist of a certain proportion of women and minorities. Commanders who care about their careers will take the hint from on high—things like performance are no longer considered to be as important as race and sex. Commanders are not under any explicit mandate to select the “diverse candidate” but there is pressure to discriminate against white men in order to meet “goals”—or what used to be called quotas.

No one dares use the “Q” word anymore, at least not since the landmark 1978 court case of California v. Bakke. … Secretary James’s 2015 “diversity” initiative failed to reach some critical mass of women and minorities in key positions so she resorted to more drastic measures in her 2016 initiative. If she’s allowed to stay on into the next Clinton Administration she will surely continue to tighten the screws until she gets the numbers she wants. As long as she has any number in mind—the “right” proportion of women and minorities who should be in key positions—that’s a quota and it’s illegal.

 … Secretary James’s lickspittle Chief of Staff, General David Goldfein, is completely on board with the policy. If you listen closely, you can hear him speak openly of quotas: “Having a diverse group of leaders, having a diverse group of airmen that are representative of the nation, that can come together and bring those diverse backgrounds and [ways of] thinking, to provide creative solutions to some of these complex challenges is as much a war-fighting imperative as it is about improving our Air Force.” (Emphasis added).

When the general speaks of creating a force that is “representative of the nation,” he is clearly implying that the program’s goal is to adjust the demographics of the Air Force to match the demographics of the country as a whole—or at least in regard to sensitive categories such as race and sex. In other words, the Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is. Not only that, but these proportions should remain constant across all ranks and throughout all career fields—lower enlisted through general officers, cooks, mechanics, pilots and navigators. Again, that’s a quota. Quotas are discriminatory even by the Supreme Court’s screwy logic—and they’re illegal.

General Goldfein’s comment about having airmen that are “representative of the nation” is boilerplate diversity-speak that echoes a thousand public officials before him. …

It’s possible that some discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots don’t realize that they’re discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots. They just think they’re good people who want to make everything fair. They would never use—gasp!—quotas. But alas, they do. Quotas never lapsed into disuse, not even after the Bakke decision which changed nothing except maybe the way people employ language. People learned to speak of “goals” rather than quotas, to talk about reforming institutions to “look like” the general population, and to stress the importance of achieving demographics that are “representative” of the community. These are all coded language, red flags that illegal discrimination is being employed. Watch out for phrases like these and call them out when you hear them. 

Dalrock Finds One More Major Problem with the Thrust of the Leftists' Complaints Regarding the Trump Scandal

Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

I thought that all the liberals' double standards about Donald Trump's 10-year-old video had been said on scores of Instapundit posts (Bill Clinton, the Kennedys, etc), but Dalrock manages to find another, indeed one of the basic problems with the scandal. Indeed, they can be presented as bring two problems.

Not only may women, even those who do behave sluttily, no longer be called out, but the fact that a man goes after another's wife in no way fits into the scandal equation.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him.  Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

The title of Dalrock's post is

Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning

Don't the Main Respected Institutions Gutted by the Left Turn Out to Be the IRS, the FBI, the State Department, and the White House?

A famed Iowahawk meme has been, all to accurately, used to describe every kind of institution, from the Smithsonian and the NFL to, most notoriously, college campuses around the country:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. 

Of course, what is the most venerable institution of all? Isn't it the United States government — most notably the IRS, the FBI, and the State Department, as well as the White House itself?

David Burge's meme is the story of Barack "fundamentally transform the United States" Obama and the Obama administration, and David Burge's meme will be the story of the Hillary Clinton administration.

What can we expect regarding the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the House of Representatives under a Hillary administration, as well as "the miracle at Philadelphia" — the Constitution itself?!

Turning America, one step at a time, into a banana republic.


Addendum: For this, you can thank in great part the 26th Amendment.

In reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," the reasonable reply ought to have been the French proverb, "si jeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait" ("If youth had the knowledge, if old age had the energy", i.e., Youth is wasted on the young).

To the Yahoo Answers question, "What is meant by 'youth is wasted on the young'?", the "Best Answer" reads in part:

It means that young people have everything going for them physically; they're in the best health they will ever be in; their minds are sharp and clear BUT they lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort.

In other words, Youth has the muscle, so it fights, it goes to war.

Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws.

Before you are tempted to protest, let's add to the previous sentence: Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws; including the laws concerning the beings for whom they have the deepest love in this life — their very own sons.

Think of this: don't the reasons given for the Amendment XXVI turn out to be some of the most extreme-leftist arguments ever raised?

Indeed, what is the main assumption behind "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"?

That a boy's (or girl's) father, and a boy's mother, are clueless clods, incapable of reflecting beyond their own self-interest, thinking of nobody but themselves, far too clueless not to vote in favor of what would be the best for their son (or daughter), especially in what concerns matters of life and death; no, for that, you need to go somewhere else.

And what would that else one should go to be? The government, of course, and its politicians (those white knights in shining armor come to rescue a hapless citizenry, in this case the young), which has/have so effectively taken over the roles of family (as well as religion) — Big Brother — all over the Western world.

… young people … lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort

Another reasonable reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" would be the famed saying:

If, at 20, you don't lean to the left, you have no heart;
If, at 30, you don't lean to the right, you have no brains.

You have no choice but to wonder whether the United States is where it is at — institutions identified, killed, and gutted, with respect demanded (not to mention "5 Make the carcass apologize") — because it has, out of a sense of "justice" and "fairness", enacted amendment after amendment during the 20th century, most of which have undermined the Republic while building Democracy, thereby enabling the era of the Drama Queen.

You have no choice but to wonder whether the entire Western world is where it is at because it has allowed election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters lacking "patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort"; election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters with plenty of passion ("this is not who we are") but with no brains.

No brains at all…


To repeat what I wrote on Sunday:

Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

— Abraham Lincoln

A "Ferocious" and "Blistering" Attack: MSM Outlet Uses Extreme Vocabulary for the GOP Candidate While Ignoring Both Clintons and Hillary's Campaign Entirely

With the words "ferocious" and "blistering" attack, the BBC has, far from unsurprisingly, shown its true colors again — spinning everything negative towards the GOP's candidate while ignoring his Democratic challenger, leaving her and her spouse out of the equation…

Abe Lincoln and the USA's Future as a Banana Republic: How Can Republicans — and Americans in General — Be So Naïve?!

I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

Doesn't John Hinderaker have it exactly right (thanks to Instapundit)?

First, … I was never under any illusions as to Trump’s character, his competence or his conservatism. I think he is a horrible Republican nominee. But he is still better than Hillary Clinton. His character is no worse than Hillary’s, he is more conservative (or less liberal), and he would make a better president. So I have every intention of voting for him as the lesser of two evils. I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

Second, it can be useful to ask, What would the Democrats do? Here there is no need to speculate: we saw what they did in the 1990s. They circled the wagons and defended their man to the hilt, using whatever smears and lies were helpful, even though he was credibly accused of rape and multiple instances of sexual harassment. Indeed, that is what the Democrats are doing now with Hillary Clinton, as revelations much more material to her performance in office than the Trump video have come out over the past year or two. See, generally, Clinton Cash. Republicans are always held to a higher standard than Democrats, but why? Maybe this is as good a time as any to reject the double standard and fight fire with fire. E.g., this Drudge headline: “KATHLEEN WILLEY CALLS FOR HILLARY TO RESIGN FROM CAMPAIGN…”

Finally, calling on Trump to resign signals, at best, an unprecedented and humiliating disarray within the GOP. It still may make sense if the party has an opportunity to substitute a better candidate with a greater chance of winning. But, as Paul noted earlier, it is not clear that such a switch is practical. If Mike Pence (not Mitt Romney) could be substituted on the ballot for Trump, it would be an improvement. But I doubt that any such smooth transition is possible.

Ted Cruz's (non-brainer) prediction is coming true (is there no way the GOP can make the Texas senator the party's nominee?). The Alinsky Democrats, having maneuvered a highly controversial candidate into the opposition party's front ranks with the help of the media and idiot Republicans, in true banana-republic fashion, are bringing their October surprises

Applying Alinsky's principles, the Democrats are tempting Republicans — Americans — to live by their higher standards, standards that they never have applied, or had any intention of applying, to themselves (see Clinton, Bill, as well as Kennedy, Anyfirstname).

And those idiots are falling for it.

Paul Mirengoff ponders whether

it may be that no course is better than letting this horror show play out, learning the lessons it has to teach us, and then picking up the pieces

That is, if there are any pieces to pick up, and anybody, any party, left to take heed of the lessons…

As Peter Ingemi, who refuses to let himself "be played" (thanks to Instapundit), puts it,

Right now a lot of people are forgetting that for good or I’ll the only thing standing between us and the financial, military, security, cultural and constitutional rights disaster that a Hillary Clinton administration would be is Donald Trump.

See also Ed Driscoll on the 1990s' "It's just sex", with Kathy Shaidle pointing out that

If ‘it’s just sex!!!’ in 1995, then it’s ‘just sex’ in 2005, and this year and every year forever. THEY made that rule. Make your enemy play by his rules — remember your Alinsky.

Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

— Abraham Lincoln

Trump/Clinton: Second Debate Preparation Survey

The Trump Pence campaign has sent out a Second Debate Preparation Survey. Here is how one wag filled it out:

1. Which issue do you think Mr. Trump was strongest on during the first debate?
Fair trade
Foreign policy
Cutting taxes
Reducing $19-trillion debt
Job creation
Law and order
Other, please specify:

Not sure

2. Which issue do you think Mr. Trump should focus more on in the next debate?
Fair trade
Foreign policy
Cutting taxes
Reducing $19-trillion debt
Job creation
Law and order
Other, please specify:

Clinton and Obama must be constantly lumped together, as the purveyors of the (self-serving) view of an America that is evil (racist, sexist) and clueless in need of their generous management; as well as as one and the same architect of the fairy tale policies (domestic and foreign) of the past eight years

3. Should Trump call out Hillary for lying about her stance on the job-killing trade deal TPP during the first debate?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

DP must point it out, yes, but must add that he is FORCED to do so, since the mainstream media is not doing its job.

4. Should Trump lay out how his business, private-sector experience will directly benefit the economy?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Sure thing, but what must be pointed out is that less government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, and fewer bureaucrats is the way forward.

5. Did you agree with Trump’s decision to call out Hillary for being in politics for 30 years and not accomplishing anything?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: Other, please specify: 

Concede that HC HAS accomplished something, indeed, the same as Obama (see 2 above): she has brought Americans more rules and regulations; she has brought Americans more and higher taxes; and she has brought more functionaries and bureaucrats into their lives

6. On the subject of Hillary’s emails, should Trump have brought up the fact that Hillary jeopardized our national security?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Yes, but more than that, DT must point out that he is forced to bring it up, given that the media has not covered national security under Hillary (and under Obama—see 2 above)), other than uncritically

7. Should Trump have brought up the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes?
Yes
 No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Again, what DT must do, additionally, is bring up the fact that he is FORCED to bring it up since the MEDIA has overlooked the issue.

8. Should Trump have brought up Hillary’s failure in Benghazi as a disqualification for the presidency?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

DT should point out that Hillary AND Obama's failure (see 2) in Benghazi ought to serve as disqualification for the presidency. Again, point out that Hillary's failure in Banghazi is part and parcel of the liberal fairy tale that has been governing Washington for the past eight years (see 2 above): that being nice to America's enemies will make America, and the world, safer. Bring up what MItt Romney failed to bring up in 2012: How top Democrats all are like Obama whispering to Medvedev that Putin can count on him once the election is over; meaning they cozy up to foreign autocrats while dissing the American people — as "racists, sexists, xenophobes, Islamophobes"

9. Should Trump have called out Hillary’s massive Wall Street fundraising and the paid speeches that she refuses to release to the public?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

DT should get specific, pointing out for instance that money received by the so-called champion of the poor for one speech is as much as the average person makes in two years (that was a wild-answer guess; I'll let your experts find the statistics, do the math, and come up with a viable comparison)

10. Should Trump attack Hillary as a life-long politician who has zero experience creating jobs?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Yes, but add that this is normal, as she is a government statist, like Barack (see 2 above); so she DOES have experience creating jobs: for lawyers, bureaucrats, and other types of parasites

11. Should Trump call out Hillary for flip-flopping on NAFTA and TPP in an attempt to gain votes from Bernie’s supporters?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Point out that flip-flopping is far from abnormal when, like Obama (see 2) and Bernie himself, your only "argument" consists in saying you are smarter than everyone else, you are more humane than everyone else, and you are more compassionate than everyone else.

12. Should Trump double down on the need to rebuild our infrastructure, and draw on his own experience in construction to get the job done?
Yes
No
 No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Make sure that the private sector is central to the plan — and, indeed, get the government out of the way: point to the Hurricane Katrina example of the public bridges in New Orleans being out of order for weeks, if not months, while a private company's railroad bridge was repaired and rebuilt within 24 hours

13. When discussing cybersecurity, should Trump bring up Hillary’s unsecured secret server left vulnerable to hackers?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Point out that for Hillary, as for Obama (see 2 above), hobnobbing with foreign leaders is the norm, be they the sweetest democrats or the vilest autocrats, and thus the only enemy of both seem to be the clueless American people (see 14 below) — who at times, indeed, seem to be the only beings on the planet not to know the contents of the Hillary Clinton emails.

14. Should Trump address Hillary’s failure to take the threat of radical Islamic terrorism seriously?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Point out that for Hillary, the main enemy of America and of the world alike is the same as it has been under 8 years of Obama presidency (2): the American people (see 13 above), also known (self-servingly) to progressives like them as nothing better than "racists, sexists, and other types of xenophobes"

15. Should Trump talk about the importance of rebuilding our own country instead of nation-building abroad?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Yes, but within the the free market and of its private sectors: the best and quickest way to do this is to let the private sector loose (see 12)

16. Should Trump criticize Hillary’s tax hikes on the middle class as senator and plan to raise taxes as president?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Point out that for Democrats in general, raising taxes, making more rules, and creating more bureaucrats is the norm. YOU know that the average American is perfectly capable of living a perfectly good life — indeed, a better one — with less of all of the aboves.

17. Should Trump paint Hillary as someone who has betrayed working-class policies in favor of Wall Street?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Explain that the whole Democrat Party has abandoned the working class — for which, these days, it has nothing but disdain and contempt.

18. Should Trump continue to tie Hillary to Obama’s failed policies including ObamaCare and the Iran Deal?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Again, these are the fairy tales that liberals love to tell themselves — which involves using the taxpayer's money for the most insane of schemes — while ramming it down everyone else's throat. Add this: Hillary is the successor to one Obama, who has been called the most intelligent man in the history of the nation. Well, say that, indeed, neither you (DT) nor Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio nor any of the Bush brothers would ever have dreamed of sending not $100 million, not $1 billion, but $100 billion to the ayatollahs of a terrorist-sponsoring nation regularly holding mass demonstrations with shouts for "Death to America!"

19. Should Trump continue to promote his tax plan that will cut taxes in order to stimulate the economy for ALL Americans?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Yes, and for this reason: unlike the left, which views the average American as a spoiled brat (also, see 20 below), he knows that the average American can be trusted to take care of his own life

20. Should Trump attack Hillary for referring to tens of millions of American men and women as “deplorables”?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

BY ALL MEANS! Point out that this is the CENTRAL TENET of the Democrat Party today, and that Hillary will continue eight years' of Obama Fairy tale policies (see 2) of the average American being considered nothing but racist, clueless clods needing MAGNANIMOUS OVERLORDS like themselves to rule over the American people and manage their lives. Add that this is normal, when — like Hillary and Obama — you think that you are wiser than everyone else, that you are more compassionate than everyone else, and that you are more humane than everyone else — i.e., that you are superior to everyone else.

21. Should Trump bring up the importance of not only the Supreme Court, but also the next president’s ability to appoint many federal judges?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify: 

Point out that Leftists like BO and HC want to judges to get the government to INTERVENE in people's everyday lives — such as the ridiculous bathroom conundrum — while Republicans want judges who, when necessary, will keep the government OUT OF people's lives

22. Should Trump point to his history of employing thousands of Americans as evidence of his firsthand experience and ability to create jobs?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Again, point out that he is FORCED to do so, since the media will hardly write anything positive about his campaign, as contrasted with its unwillingness to write anything negative about Hillary's campaign.

23. Should Trump hammer Hillary on wanting to enact more of Obama’s regulations that have stunted the economy and prevented small businesses from growing or even starting up?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

The big dream of government statists like Hillary and Barack is using government to give stuff to people; for that to have any value, people must not be rich. This is their dream, then: to make Americans poor! POOR enough to have to turn to government. In that perspective: Why not bring up the Country & Western song line, "They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please" ("Government Cheese" by the Rainmakers)?

24. Should Trump focus on Hillary’s proud claim to put a lot of coal miners out of business?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Same answer as 23: The big dream of government statists like Hillary and Barack is using government to give stuff to people; for that to have any value, people must not be rich. This is their dream, then: to make Americans poor! POOR enough to have to turn to government. In that perspective: Why not bring up the Country & Western song line, "They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please" ("Government Cheese" by the Rainmakers)?

25. Should Trump emphasize the importance of harnessing American energy in order to grow our economy and reduce the cost of gas at the pump?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

America was once a can-do nation; it's time to Make America a Can-Do Nation Again

26. Should Trump spend more time articulating plans to rein in corruption in D.C.?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Say that the VERY act of getting rid of thinning the ranks of bureaucrats and getting rid of bureaucracies as well as departments (education? etc) will — of NECESSITY — rein in government corruption.

27. Should Trump paint Hillary as the epitome of D.C. corruption and the close relationship between lobbyists and politicians?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Simply ask how on Earth she can consider herself to be a factor for change with all her history.

28. Should Trump accuse Hillary of representing everything that everyday Americans are worried about in Washington?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Say that it is worse than that: that, with Obama, she is creating a permanent oligarchy.

29. Should Trump speak directly to the American voters at home and defend our positive message for America?
Yes
No
No Opinion
Other, please specify:

Doesn't he already?!

30. Do you have any personal advice for Donald Trump for the next debate? 

As the webmaster of a 12-year-old blog, No Pasarán, I would say something like this: point to the Founding Fathers — those people who are not taught in school anymore, in favor of more and more ridiculous victim groups. 240 years ago, they told autocrats like King George one basic truth: that the average person is equal, and can be believed to take care of his or her affairs alone, without minimal "assistance" from the government.

Media Fact-Checkers

Media Fact-Checkers, by Branco, aka
Democratic operatives with bylines…

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."

    That's true, isn't it?  In the past, when poverty was the norm for the vast majority of the human race — whichever continent they came from — slavery, or some type of bondage (racial or same-race), was likewise the norm, poverty's Siamese twin, if you will; that would be before humanity was on the path to making significant leaps forward to wealth, mainly following… the birth of the United States and thanks to… the yields of its free market.

    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?!

[Update: See also the New York Times' 1619 project of 2019]

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 — what MSM outlets like The Economist want us to dismiss instantly and categorically as "the absurd “birther” controversy" — 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, a saint 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 simple question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?

Moreover, in the past two or three election cycles, there have been (entirely valid) questions about the place of birth of… (get this) white male Republican candidates!

Imagine, if in 2008, someone raised questions about John McCain, pointing out that he spent a lot of his youth outside the United States. Indeed, it turns out that the senator from Arizona was born in Panama. What if, in 2016, someone raised questions about Ted Cruz, pointing out that he seems to have spent a lot of his youth north of the border? And, indeed, it turns out that the senator from Texas was born in Canada. (Still, it turns out that both men qualified, or qualify, as natural-born citizens and thus as U.S. presidents — as, presumably would… Barack Obama (!), even if he indeed had been born abroad!)

There have been rumors that Obama may have attended college as a "foreign student" and that his book editor listed him as born in Kenya. Even if they are piddling issues, occasionally proven false, the point has nothing to with Obama per se. (As Breitbart states, "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.") The point is that the mainstream media never bothered to devote even a minute to investigate the issue (or the strategy behind the different public personas); only new online media (Breitbart and Snopes) did so.
 
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 it 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 the MSM's (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