Monthly Archives: July 2010

UPDATED: Are You Or Aren’t You Racist

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Terrorism

That’s the question—the defining existential question in a world that lives under the tyranny of political correctness. This form of terrorism means that for violating correct thinking one can find oneself fired, ostracized, branded, libeled, robbed of property and peace, and even confined in certain “free” countries.

Mirroring this reality is Obama’s ludicrous statement, in the wake of the murder of “at least 74 people … in blasts targeting people watching the World Cup,” about the handiwork of terrorist outfits such as al-Qaeda and al-Shabab. The BBC reveals (they must think this is a worthy, because politically profound, news story) that,

“What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organisations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself.”

BHO’s statement was complemented by an administration cretin, who said:

“al-Qaeda is a racist organisation that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life”.

[SNIP]

Plain murder? Forget about it. Committing murder is secondary to harboring racism. Committing murder while racist—-nothing could be worse than that.

UPDATE: THE RACIAL REALITY is such that a blithering Beck has announced, after expatiating on the topic for two sessions, that the New Panther rants are not about race. They are about black liberation theology (and that’s not about race, right!) or hippies.

There are black and white Hitlers all around us, says Glenn.

Where is the suicidal white supremacist to situate himself outside a polling station in Atlanta, and call for the killing of black babies, in a non-racial way, naturally? The last white supremacist I got wind of was killed by a black supremacist.

UPDATED: ‘MAD’ MEL (What’s Worse?)

Addiction, Celebrity, Conservatism, Hollywood, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Psychiatry

“The South Park depiction of Mel Gibson bouncing off walls he had freshly ‘coated’ in bodily waste is not far off,” I wrote of Gibson’s previous peccadilloes.

It usually falls to liberals to fend for A-list reprobates. Left to Barbara Walters, Paris Hilton’s porn debut, in which she made narcissistic love to the camera, (i.e. herself) was elevated to a PG-rated tale of innocence betrayed. Conservatives, usually attuned to the coarsening culture, and fierce about defending cops, are airbrushing Mel Gibson in the same way (although, unlike Paris, he doesn’t need makeup).
Mel’s many conservative fans have downplayed his vulgar public conduct. He cussed cops who were being decent to him, threatened to ruin them, Russell Crowed a phone, and generally behaved like a hog high on his own power.

The latest Gibson indiscretion is covered well by Larry Auster (whose take comports with mine in “Mel’s ‘Malady,’ Foxman’s Fetish”. Or perhpas I’m biased because LA just echoes my thoughts (minus the aspect on the medicalization of misbehavior)?

Either way, we both have Gibson pegged. Over to Larry’s “Gibson And Conservatives”:

What a ridiculous culture we live in—and that includes the mainstream conservatives. Mel Gibson in a drunken rant that was surreptitiously recorded said a pile of extremely offensive things to his ex-mistress. But because in the midst of this geyser of verbal abuse, he used the word “nigger” once, his rant is constantly billed—by conservatives—as a “racist rant,” even though the rant overall had nothing to do with race. When it comes to race, meaning, when it comes to blacks, the mainstream conservatives are precious little Victorian ladies, ready to faint dead away at the sound of the “N” word, even when uttered in a private conversation by a man who was obviously drunk.

As for Gibson, I’ve been saying for 15 years, based on his movies, based on his appalling demeanor in TV interviews, that the man was not a conservative but a messy product of our debased contemporary culture, a point I particularly emphasized in VFR’s huge debate about his movie The Passion. Conservatives, especially paleocons, couldn’t see this about Gibson, because his Catholicism and his seven children with one wife designated him automatically as a traditionalist conservative in their minds. They didn’t see the non-conservative qualities and attitudes he was actually expressing in the public realm …

UPDATE (July 14): Even more obscene than the preoccupation with Mel and Oksana’s icky audio is the orgy that will follow the announcement of the impending engagement of the two stupidest people in Alaska. I give the marraige of twiddledumb and twiddledumber, if indeed it gets past this stage, six months. I wish them well, of course.

I agree with Gibson on the following. This Oksana Grigorieva is distinctly dumb. Any woman that looks, naturally, as pretty as she did here, yet goes and modifies herself to look like a slightly improved version of the Octamom, is a devastatingly dumb bimbo.

Under HIS Direction

Barack Obama, Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Law, The Courts

“The Obama administration’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona offers a revealing window into the Holder Justice Department. And the picture isn’t pretty, ” writes Kris W. Kobach.

Consider what we learned when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first let the cat out of the bag and told us about it during an interview in Ecuador. Clinton showed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”
The key words here are “under his direction.” In other words, the White House is calling the shots. The same political calculations that drove Obama to criticize the Arizona law in April also drove the filing of the suit. While that is fine for policy decisions in other executive departments, the litigation decisions of the Justice Department are different. Past administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have taken care to insulate these decisions from political forces.
The reasons for doing so are obvious.
The decision to file civil charges or to file a civil lawsuit should be based purely on the strength of the legal case against the defendant, not on politics. And when it comes to the Arizona law, the federal government’s case is a weak one.

“When one considers the Arizona lawsuit in contrast to last year’s Justice Department decision to drop the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, the conclusion becomes inescapable. In the Black Panther case, the defendants had failed to answer the charges against them, and all the Department had to do was ask the judge for a default judgment. But the political appointees of the Holder Justice Department came in and ordered the career department attorneys to drop the case.

So the department dropped a slam-dunk case and yet files a suit that is half-court shot. Neither decision makes sense if the law is guiding the department’s litigation decisions. But both decisions make perfect sense if political calculations are foremost.”

[SNIP]

I’m appalled that other states have not stood up loudly for Jan Brewer who, while not the sharpest knife in the draw, is at least sharp enough to understand the importance of defending Arizonans against trespass, from within (the feds) and without (alien scofflaws and welfare consumers).

Has anyone heard what the Republican beauty queen Sarah Palin has to say about the Federal government’s frontal attack on Arizona? Where is Bachmann on the matter? Are republicans covering up for the terrible two’s relative silence on the topic?

UPDATE II: The Law Of Rule Doubles Down

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Energy, Free Speech, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

A member of the South African opposition (as I have already mentioned) characterized the effects of the ANC’s deployment of law as living under the law of rule rather than the rule of law. This characterization applies equally to Big Man Obama and his posse.

According to Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who does some fine reporting, the decree to dismiss the New-Black-Panther voter intimidation case originated with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Recall: the thugs who received a reprieve flanked the voting location in formation shouting variations on “kill crackers and their kids.”

A note to libertarians celebrating free speech and the beauty of an exhortation to kill in a “free society”: I’m sympathetic even to the last, believe it or not. But this is not about free speech. this is about a legal apparatus under which some are better than others. Don’t get me wrong: we’ve always lived under such an apparatus; my new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, (completed now and being prepared for publication), records this very reality. However, it has become manifestly obvious that things have gotten way worse (albeit on the same continuum) under the racial rule of Brother Barack.

To those interested in the law’s position on speech, here it is stated in one of my columns:

American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. .. the jury would have had to find that … [the] speech posed a “Clear and Present Danger.” While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. And so it should be.

However, speech that falls under the rubric of civil and voter rights law seems to get different treatment—when uttered against the pigmentally privileged.

UPDATE I: To prove this post’s point, the White House is threatening another lawsuit against Arizona. I believe it will try, this time, to make the racial profiling fiction stick. Is this an attempt to prosecute an infraction that has yet to occur? You see what I mean by the law of rule. As I write, coverage of this is hard to come by on the Net, so please do some digging.

UPDATE II: BHO will not abide by a “no you can’t!” The Law had ruled against the Rule in the matter of a moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling.

“[J]udge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water. A ‘blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium … with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,'” is how the judge justified smacking BHO. (Here is District Judge Feldman’s decision.)

But the law of rule wants an outcome of its own. And so, th “Obama Administration Issues New Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling.”