Archive for May, 2012

“Honor” and Off Her

Just one question: are boys ever “honor killed”? Does their behavior—oh I don’t know, torching cars, throwing Molotov cocktails, fighting with police, harassing and beating Jews—ever rise to the level of dishonor? Or is that sort of thing tolerated and even condoned? When was the last time a Muslim male was beaten and suffocated by having a plastic bag shoved down his throat?


Semper Fly

I see President Obama is delivering the commencement address at the Air Force Academy today, and good for him.

I just wonder if he’ll make the fighter pilots also feel “stereotyped, simplified, and used”? Maybe come across as “paternalistic”?

Interesting how he picks his opportunities for maximum political benefit, isn’t it? A women’s college, a military academy… is there a gay school? Besides Sarah Lawrence, that is? By the time this is done, he may be begging for an appearance before Bob Jones University!

PS: That three fundraisers are tacked on to the trip—one in Denver, the other two in “nearby” California—is purely coincidental, I’m sure.


Mark Steyn, Right Again


To get the obvious out of the way: I loathe John Edwards. I loathe him as a slick ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, as a preening poseur of a presidential candidate, as a multi-bazillionaire “advocate” for “the poor,” as a third-rate sob sister peddling faux-Dickensian guff about entirely mythical “coatless girls” lying in their beds shivering at night because their father was laid off at the mill. I loathe everything about him except his angled nape, which I must concede, having been pressed up against it in a campaign crush in New Hampshire, is a thing of beauty, and well worth every penny of whatever Rachel Mellon paid for it.

And that’s before we get to the affair, and the denial, followed by the admission of adultery but only while his wife’s cancer was in remission, and then the admission of non-remission adultery but certainly not leading to any love child, and finally the admission of a non-remission adulterous love child, and the realization that the sainted, stricken Elizabeth was less the victim than a co-strategist in the massive Edwardsian fraud that was his 2008 presidential campaign, and a full participating partner in an even creepier political marriage than the Clintons’.

Oh, and while we’re at it, I loathe the American media, whose peculiarly contemptible combination of partisanship, snobbery, and self-neutering of any basic journalistic instinct might easily have led (were it not for the candidacy of Barack Obama) to this preening metrosexual slug’s becoming president of the United States.

All that said, his trial is a disgrace.

Edwards now faces 30 years in jail, for the crime of getting a couple of pals to pay for his baby’s diapers.

As bad as Edwards’s behavior is, the Justice Department’s is worse. The urge to ensnare in legalisms every aspect of human existence — including John Edwards’s rutting — will consume American liberty.

‘Nuff said.



I’ve taken to listening to NPR. I’m not sure why, or even when this deviant behavior began, but I’ve developed an interest in the culture. For example, a couple days ago, on the BBC News Hour, which NPR presents locally, I heard a wonderfully obnoxious interview/discussion between a male British vegan and a female American vegetarian. The interviewer was quite fascinated in what sorts of people each of them would consider dating. The vegan wouldn’t have anything to do with anyone who consumed meat or animal products. What if he kissed someone who had animal parts in her teeth? The vegetarian said that she didn’t care, she would potentially date a butcher, even a hunter! Maybe on the hunter. Plus she herself consumes fish. The vegan bitterly explained that consuming fish caused great suffering to the fish. There was a certain level of animosity between them, and to my ears, the vegetarian at least sounded sane. But then, but then… the vegetarian pipes up, rather defensively I thought, and proclaims, I would date a hunter but there is one person I would never date – a Republican.

Ew, right?

So the following day I heard a bit of an interview with Tom Ashbrook, who does a talk show for our local NPR affiliate, and the subject was the fact that there were more babies-of-color than babies-of-white born in the US last year. Mr. Ashbrook was interviewing some “experts” on race relations. The part I heard had to do with the novel idea that young people across races are in more agreement with their peers on this topic, than with elders within their own “race”, their specific “of-color”. (Strange, I thought. Young people feel differently than older people, and more like each other. I don’t recall that phenomena in the 60s and 70s.) Then, out of the clear blue sky, an arrow sailed into my car window, just missing my jugular. The Tea Party, we learned, is both older than 40, and racist. But they will die. To be replaced by young people who are not at all racist. And all will be good. Seriously, they talked about a racist Tea Party that would die soon. I am not exaggerating.

Oh my, I thought. The Tea Party has nothing to do with race, everything to do with fiscal responsibility. Why is a federally tax supported radio station putting on programming that slams perfectly reasonable citizens? Or, put another way, why are we certain that on NPR we won’t hear a sentence like: The Black Church is both older and racist. But they will die. … Or one person I would never date is a Democrat? I would never even hang out with a Democrat.

Finally, last night I heard a bit of Terry Gross interviewing an African American actor. Mostly what they discussed was race. That’s fine, except when you consider the context that all is race on that station. Is this about the election, or do they really just talk about race all day, every day? I am reminded of the period in the 90′s when John Grisham books were very popular. At one point, it looked as if his were the only books that could possibly sell – ever. All anyone wanted to read was legal thrillers.

So I thought it might be fun to remember and record some of these nasty little attacks that our tax dollars provide. If you, or any of your friends, ever listen to this claptrap, we would like to hear from you. Send us a short description of the offensive, race-baiting, tearing us apart from the inside-out, conversation and we’ll start a regular feature.



Comments (2)

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Really Big Stones

The European Spew-nion redefines inalienable rights:

Statement by the Spokesperson of High Representative Catherine Ashton on the case of Bassem Tamimi

The spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, issued the following statement today:

“The High Representative is very concerned by the conviction of Bassem Tamimi in an Israeli military court on 20 May 2012 on charges of taking part in illegal demonstrations and of soliciting protesters to throw stones.

The EU considers Bassem Tamimi to be a ‘human rights defender’ committed to non-violent protest against the expansion of an Israeli settlement on lands belonging to his West Bank village of Nabi Saleh. The EU attended all court hearings in his case and is concerned at the use of evidence based on the testimony of a minor who was interrogated in violation of his rights.

The EU believes that everyone should be able to exercise their legitimate right to protest in a non-violent manner.”

“Non-violent” thusly:

Note rear-facing car seat.

Alas, the late Asher and Yonatan Palmer could not be reached for comment:

But they look like reasonable people. I’m sure they would understand the High Representative (what she was high on has yet to be revealed):

PS: Let me leave you with a smile!

Comments (1)

Obama Rolls!

I can see him dancing around the ring like Muhammmad Ali in his prime, skipping shuffling, calling out his challengers:

C’mon “Uncommitted”, let’s see what you got! I can take on all no-names and imprisoned felons, and kick all of their asses!

President Obama easily won Tuesday night’s Democratic primary in Kentucky, capturing 58 percent of the vote.

That sounds like a solid victory. But with the president running unopposed in the Bluegrass State that means more than four in 10 voters didn’t pick him.

Who did they choose instead? Forty-two percent of those going to the polls rejected the president in favor of “uncommitted.”

And, according to Louisville’s Courier-Journal newspaper, in 67 of Kentucky’s 120 counties, “uncommitted” received more votes than the president.

Over in Arkansas, where he had an actual opponent, Obama lost a similar percentage of the vote. According to preliminary returns from the state’s open primary, John Wolfe, a lawyer from Tennessee, is polling at about 40 percent.

Though little known, Wolfe is no stranger to politics. The Washington Post reports he was previously on the primary ballots in Louisiana, Missouri and New Hampshire, and will be on next week’s ballot in Texas. He has also run four failed campaigns for Congress.

Both Kentucky and Arkansas are considered solid red states for the general election and their less than enthusiastic support for the president comes as no surprise. Still, as the AP points out, “it’s a bit embarrassing for the Democratic Party and highlights Obama’s political weakness in Southern states.”

Just two weeks ago, more than 40 percent of voters in West Virginia’s Democratic primary chose a federal inmate named Keith Judd over the president.

These were Democrat voters, remember, not Republican neanderthals (tautology!). Primaries tend to bring out the extreme voter—or rather not to exercise the average voter to leave home or work to pull the lever for Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul or whomever. So, these voters came out with a purpose. They may vote “Uncommitted”, but they do so with great commitment.

PS: I was going to comment that this is what happens in states that sue over ObamaCare, but neither Arkansas nor Kentucky has signed on to the lawsuit that 26 other sates have. Obama will win California, New York, and other big electoral college states—but he will certainly lose the majority of states. It remains to be seen whether he can win enough battleground states to eke out reelection, but I am hopeful and growing more convinced that he cannot.


Nez Percé, Yeux Bleus

Jonah Goldberg notes perhaps the best defense of Elizabeth Warren that liberal orthodoxy can offer:

…The first poetic vision of Europeans in the new world was that of James Fenimore Cooper, who conjured Natty Bumpo. He had an “Indian name” — he had several: Hawkeye, Deerslayer, Pathfinder — indicating that he had been “reborn” in the new world in the Indian spirit. It is the oldest and most important myth in the American canon of our folklore, from Lone Ranger, who died and became “born again” via agency of an Indian shaman, and Fox Mulder, who returned from the dead via Indian intercession in “The X Files,” born anew with the past burned away in death, to enter a new age under the flag of the White Buffalo.

So Warren’s claim to be “part Indian” is correct in mythical terms. Every old-school white Oklahoman is in this regard even if this in nominally not true. But it is not a lie to want to be Indian and to imagine your ancestors were. It is to be free of Europeanism. Emerson saw the laggard Europeanism within the Yankee mind as a curse of the unformed American, living half in shadow. It would bring temptation unnatural to us raised free in the forest; fascism, as in Italy, Spain and German, and the perennial virus of French nihilism.

Warren in that regard brings a fresh, classical Americanism from the heartland back to us in Boston where we still have tendencies. The James brothers, both William and Henry, would appreciate it. Henry in particular, in The Bostonians, could only find one worthy character up here, the country cousin Basil Ransom, a lawyer visiting from Mississippi. We are lucky to have Warren among us. She adds stock and substance.

I hope Mitt Romney remembers this and incorporates Indian blessings and ritual in his inaugural ceremonies as Canadians do and as they did in those terrific Winter Olympics in Salt Lake in 2002. And I hope Elizabeth Warren doesn’t back down on this, because wanting to be Indian, like Hawkeye, makes us in a deeper sense fully American.

Rush Limbaugh got in trouble for repeating—not coining, repeating—a phrase he read in the Los Angeles Times: “magic Negro”. (It was applied to Obama, but arises from an archetype in the liberal imagination that predates him.) Is the writer imagining a “magic Indian”? Is Betty Buckskin a “magic squaw”?

The “stock” that she trades is without “substance”. The closest her family came to real Indian blood is their spilling of it on the “Trail of Tears”. Even her recipes from Pow Wow Chow (imagine the howls of racial genocide if a Republican had come up with that title) are counterfeit—lifted word for word from that noted French nihilist and pastry chef, Pierre Frenay.

Liberals not only don’t acknowledge truth, they sweep it away like a cobweb. Bills don’t need to be passed (much less read), if they can be deemed passed. The Constitution doesn’t say what it says, it says what liberals feel it should say—and when it does not, it is dismissed as a “charter of negative liberties”.

And if the Nordic ice queen wants to imagine herself a sun-dried, wizened Hopi basket weaver, who the hell are any of us to say otherwise? Shame!

Comments (1)

The Saying of Chairman Ailes

I’m having a hard time disputing even one of them:

What Fox News chief Roger Ailes said at Ohio University on Monday, according to tweets from journalist and media lawyer Jonathan W. Peters:

One thing that qualifies me to run a journalism organization is the fact that I don’t have a journalism degree.

I don’t know if Pres Obama was smart in school. Haven’t seen his transcripts. (Question) No, Fox is not trying to get his transcripts.

Media Matters writes all of the primetime programming for MSNBC. All of it. That’s what a recently published book says.

The first thing I’d change about America would be requiring Congresspeople to follow the same laws we do. They get lots of freebies.

The Internet is an interesting thing, and it will keep rolling out, and eventually convergence will come. I’m watching it.

Jon Stewart is a comedian. He wouldn’t do well without Fox. And he basically has admitted to me, in a bar, that he’s a socialist.

One thing about liberals is they believe they’re always right. Fox tries to fill a different niche: providing alternative viewpoints.

I’ve killed one story, when Dean was running for president. His kid got arrested, and I said we shouldn’t run it. There was no point.

MSNBC is out of the news business. Brian Williams, a sincere newsman, wouldn’t want to be caught dead over there.

I would love for the AP to go back to being a neutral news source. But it slants stories, slants headlines. It tips to the left.

The New York Times is a cesspool of bias.

The security apparatus around me is nothing like the one described in Rolling Stone, Esquire. But I do get threats, most contrived.

Many years ago, I was offered a lot of money to stop doing what I was doing – to stop being effective in politics. I turned it down.

I’m not sure what my ideology is today. I guess I’m more conservative, because on individual issues I have more conservative views.

Any newsroom that doesn’t have diversity of thought is in danger of failing.

The only difference between Fox talk shows and those on CNN or MSNBC is that Fox invites liberal voices to engage in dialogue.

Yeah, I got nothin’. That said, the only time I ever watch Fox is when I’m in a hotel room. If I want to watch morning news (as opposed to local radio stations—sports and conservative talk—that I listen to at home), what choice do I have but Fox & Friends? Of course they’re biased—they make no pretense otherwise. But do you expect me to watch the smug mugs on Today, GMA, or whatever godless entity CNN is broadcasting at that hour?

Besides, he’s right about everything.

PS: An update at the link notes that Ailes regrets the NY Times comment. I hope that’s because it disrespects cesspool builders and maintenance people. They do God’s work, as opposed to Times editors and columnists.

Comments (1)

Taking a Beating

Okay, boys and girls, ask yourselves this:

What if a [insert conservative/Republican/business person, etc. here] had done this to a [insert liberal/Democrat/person of color, etc. here]?

On Sunday, YouTube user edbex posted video that shows South Carolina AFL-CIO president Donna DeWitt taking some whacks at a pinata with a black & white photo of Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) affixed to it (h/t Daily Caller’s Matt K. Lewis).

“After years of being treated like a union thug, Donna Dewitt gets sweet revenge at a retirement reception in her honor,” edbex approvingly notes in her caption.


A video posted online that shows a former union leader in South Carolina smashing a piñata effigy of Gov. Nikki Haley has riled the national office of the AFL-CIO, which wants it taken down.

“Do you think we can get this video pulled,” asked a national AFL-CIO official in an email to Palmetto State union sources.

The author of the email also worried the video might get “picked up by tea partiers, maybe even Haley herself, to attack labor again.”

Nah, you’re fine. Shouldn’t be a problem. (Never remind that I was reminded of the Rodney King beating.)

What a disturbed group of people!


Ballot or Bullet?

Remember how the New Black Panthers turned out for Obama? Sure you do. Here’s King Shamir Shabazz, Poll Watcher:

Well, that was then:

The small but vocal New Black Panther Party is woefully disappointed in President Barack Obama, and is openly implying that the best way to reach its goals is no longer through “the ballot” but through “the bullet.”

In the Spring edition of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) newspaper — cover reading “The Ballot or The Bullet: which way for black people?” — NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz breaks down the presidential election, concluding the Democratic Party is the “institutional pimp of Black peoples and the Black Nation” and that Obama has “been a real disappointment.”

“Black peoples are the whores and prostitutes of the Democratic Party, and mistreated mistress that is courted in the late of night, but left hanging when it is time for real change in the light of the post election day,” Shabazz wrote, following a dissertation on the need to “Vote for Revolution.”

“The black community is at large no better off that (sic) before he was in office. We are curious as to what his agenda is for Black people in America and if he even has one,” Shabazz added.

Wait a minute…. That sounds familiar:

Democrats Rep. Maxine Waters of California, a central member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Tuesday that “we don’t know why” President Obama is not visiting black communities on his Midwestern bus tour, adding, “We’re supportive of the president, but we’re getting tired.”

“The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president, too,” she went on to say. “We’re supportive of the president, but we’re getting tired. We’re getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he’s prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip that he’s in the United States now, he’s not in any black community. We don’t know that.”

It’s not for me to tell people how to vote. But Malik Zulu Shabazz makes a valid point when he declares “Black peoples are the whores and prostitutes of the Democratic Party”. If you want respect, don’t lie down so easily. No one can take advantage of you without your permission.


The Wright Stuff

We don’t trade in the nasty innuendo and racist demagoguery surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright here, no sir, not us, uh-uh, no way.

BUT, we allow that others do:

Our friend Doug Schoen, the Democratic pollster, is a political centrist, ideologically much closer to the post-1994 Bill Clinton than to Barack Obama. That makes all the more troubling his advocacy of government censorship of political speech, the kind of expression that is at the core of First Amendment protection.

Schoen finds it “more than just disquieting” but “shameful and embarrassing” that, as the New York Times reported (and we noted) last week, Chicago Cubs part-owner Joe Ricketts considered funding an anti-Obama super PAC ad that would have reminded voters about the president’s “spiritual mentor,” Jeremiah Wright. Under political pressure, Obama in 2008 repudiated the America-hating pastor, whose views even the New York Times concedes are “clearly racist.”

“Speaking frankly,” Schoen writes, “racially divisive negative advertisements of this sort do not belong in a presidential election. Whether one supports the president or not, he should be judged on his record, and an ad hominem attack of any sort should have no home in the public arena.”

He would like to use the power of the government to suppress this speech of which he disapproves, as he has made clear in other columns. His complaint about the Ricketts ad that wasn’t shows just what a pernicious idea this is and why the Supreme Court was right to uphold free speech in the celebrated case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Schoen and the rest of the press are discovering that the marketplace of ideas functions like any other market: there is supply and demand, and no amount of manipulation or regulation can succeed in stifling the natural direction of information toward wider dissemination. In the old days, sure—even among the mainstream media today—information unflattering to the press’s preferred candidate (and boy do they have their preferences) was buried, ignored, or locked in a broom closet (literally). JFK’s sexual dalliances, to choose the most obvious example, would make Bill Clinton look like the before picture for a Cialis ad.

Jeremiah Wright would not be an issue today if the press in 2008 had fully explored his beliefs and his significance in Obama’s life and personal development. I still don’t know what Obama knew about Wright and when he knew it—but I know he lied and is lying today. He lied about Ayers and Dohrn, stonewalled on his birth certificate, and still refuses to release some of the most basic background material that other candidates routinely release.

But all of this stuff has been smuggled as it if were pornography from under the counter, or samizdat publications from behind the Iron Curtain. We are made to feel dirty just for asking WTF about “God damn America” and “US of KKKA” and “America’s chickens… [can't forget the pause] are coming home to roost!”

Politicians since Nixon (and certainly before) have learned the hard way that it’s not the crime, but the cover-up, that does them in. Obama committed no crime in befriending a racist minister and two former members of the Weathermen. But the press has committed the highest crime of all in suppressing the truth—often with such determination and contempt as would have made Stalin nod in appreciation.


Forty Acres and a Camel

Not that we want it, but after the investment of blood and money, every American has a right to claim any acreage in Afghanistan, including Rodeo Drive, Kabul:

If Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, an influential member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is looking for a country to visit as a member of a congressional delegation, he can cross Afghanistan off his list.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Rohrabacher have been at loggerheads over the congressman’s push for a more decentralized Afghan government. Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the disagreement, Karzai said he is against letting Rohrabacher into the country.

“Until he changes his tongue, until he shows respect to the Afghan people, to our way of life and to our constitution … No foreigner has a place asking another people, another country to change their constitution. Have we ever asked the United States to change its constitution?”

Well, there have been some issues around who declares war and how, but we’ll let that pass for now. What’s the problem with Rep. Rohrbacher?

Rohrabacher went on to call the mercurial Afghan leader a “corrupt prima donna” in the same interview.

Rohrabacher later released a statement through his office saying he would not “apologize to Karzai or any other corrupt leader.

“Afghanistan is failing because Karzai and his corrupt clique are incompetent leaders, not because the U.S. hasn’t pumped enough money or blood to help the brave people of Afghanistan … Right now, I’m more concerned with getting American troops out of that country so they won’t continue to needlessly die than I am getting myself into Afghanistan to meet with officials like Karzai,” Rohrabacher said in the statement.

Hmm, he’s not wrong. Let the record show that his contempt is not for the people of Afghanistan, as Karzai alleges, but for Karzai himself. That makes Rep. Rohrbacher more generous than I, but who isn’t?


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »