Category Archives: Conservatism

Update III: Remember Andrew Breitbart; Forget Honky Hater Shirley Sherrod (Tease Journalism?)

Conservatism, Human Accomplishment, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Race, Racism, Republicans

It is all about the legacy of Shirley Sherrod; didn’t you know it? In the universe of a dim bulb like CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux—who together with hormonally charged sisters such as Jessica Yellin just about climax on air when their president performs—the untimely passing of Andrew Breitbart, of the BigGovernment.com enterprise, is about Shirley Sherrod, the black woman Breitbart is alleged to have wronged racially.

Lies.

Sherrod, as this analysis revealed, “was fired by an administration that mistook her for a worse racist than she actually was. The Obama posse had overestimated the extent of Sherrod’s animus for whites. She turned out to be merely a mezzanine-level racist, rather than a hardcore honky hater.

One day, as she told the NAACP gathering, God put things in her path that made her realize she was there for poor people. A white farmer appealed for her assistance. Had the white farmer been a brother forced to beg before a sister in a position of power, Sherrod might have characterized him as a proud man in humiliating circumstances. Given the desperate farmer’s hue, Sherrod alleged he had a superior attitude, before going on to describe her dilemma: having to help a white man save his property, when so many black people had lost theirs.”
So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do,” Sherrod smirked. “I did enough. I took him to a white lawyer; one of them; to his own kind.”Drum roll for Ms. Sherrod

As I wrote at the time, “The acme of ethics in American is a black woman who has graduated from hard-core to soft bigotry. … if an African-American rejects her birthright, and demonstrates less prejudice toward whites than is her right—she is up for beatification.”

Do read the moron MALVEAUX’s reverential love-in with Sherrod (well-annotated with my comments).

RIP Mr. Breitbart.

UPDATE I: Myron, you make the perennial libertarian mistake of reducing all argument to the state dimension. We’ve been over this error on BAB, many times, last in “Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension.” Breitbart is not to be compared to Sherrod. Not ever.

UPDATE II: Andrew Breitbart being something of a neocon garnered plenty criticism from me. Here is one of quite a few critical posts from the past about “big this, big that” “Conservative Cretinism.”

There’s a reservoirs of piss-poor conservative commentary on the Internet. (People lap it up.) Trust Lawrence Auster to point out what few others do: “So much of the conservative part of the Web is unintelligent, incoherent partisan trash. Mondo Frazier’s article at Big Journalism about the Gore sex assault charge is an example. I saw it because it is listed in the ‘must-reads’ at Lucianne.com.”
Andrew Breitbart’s “Big this; big that,” ever-mutating websites exemplify what Auster terms “low-grade conservative media.”

But then, you had to concede that Andrew Breitbart was splendid when he told the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), “Go to hell.” He just wasn’t your typical crunchy conservative, forever cowering for fear of being called a racist.

UPDATE III: “O’Keefe Antics, Again.” And I have not been very flattering about a brand of tease journalism Breitbart sponsored, I believe.

Among the many dumb things Republicans have given us (read “GOP and Man at Yale”) is a brand of tease “journalism” headed by Hannah Giles, a well-connected, monosyllabic, Town-Hall tartlet, who partook in an ACORN-exposing (tush-wagging) operation. Her partner (he played the pimp) was James O’Keefe, who, it transpires, is even dumber than Hannah.

Budget Baloney

Conservatism, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Feminism, Uncategorized

If Barack Obama gets reelected, he will face two Republican Houses. Thus his budget plan has no hope of ever being put to the vote. “It’s all about election year 2012, not fiscal year 2013,” writes CNN’s Alan Silverleib, about Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget.

Obama’s plan hikes taxes on the wealthiest Americans to the tune of roughly $1.5 trillion. It ends the Bush-era tax cuts for families making over $250,000 annually while enacting the so-called Buffett Rule, requiring households earning more than $1 million to pay at least a 30% rate. …
The administration is proposing to spend billions on infrastructure, education and domestic manufacturing. Among other things, Obama’s budget includes $30 billion to modernize schools, along with another $30 billion to hire and retain teachers and first responders….
It also includes an extension of long-term unemployment benefits and the current payroll tax cut, something Congress is expected to take up this month.
“Congress needs to pass an extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance without drama and without delay and without linking it to some other ideological side issues,” Obama declared Monday morning. “The time for self-inflicted wounds to our economy has to be over. Now is the time for action.”
Now is not the time, however, for new details on deficit reduction.

NATURALLY.

More details from Larry Kudlow. Veronique de Rugy has her say at National Review too.

‘South Africa’s Bloody Freedom’

Africa, Conservatism, Constitution, Crime, Journalism, Media, Political Correctness, Race, South-Africa

There is none so complex and politically charged an issue as the new South Africa. Cosseted American journalists, for the most, can’t and won’t deal with it honestly. Barbara Simpson, WND colleague and beloved KSFO talk-show host, is not a member of the pack. In reviewing “Into the Cannibal’s Pot – Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” Barbara castigates “a world media” that are “complicit in the massive, politically correct cover-up of the gradual destruction of that country.”

In her WND column, “South Africa’s Bloody Freedom,” this grand lady reaches beyond the remit of the Mandela-worshiping masses, among whom are the insular, petty, provincial penmen of the American conservative press (pulp and pixels).

I was especially interested in her book because I’ve been to South Africa twice, not as a tourist, but spending time with people who live there, talking with them, seeing how they live, reading local newspapers and seeing it, not through rose-colored glasses, but as it is. It led me to pursue the horrors of Zimbabwe as well. The pattern is clear and almost identical.
Unfortunately, the blindness of our country continues, most recently with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg traveling in Africa.

UPDATED: STRASSEL’S Non Sequitur

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul, Terrorism

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL of the Wall Street Journal claimed, in “Why Ron Paul Can’t Win,” that “conservative Republicans” cannot accept Paul’s philosophy as it “fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

Is STRASSEL equating American exceptionalism with the kind of non-defensive militarism America currently practices? It would appear so.

This writer’s position on said “exceptionalism”: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.

Thus, I find myself in agreement with this one statement by Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids…deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

[SNIP]

I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later:

UPDATE: About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.'” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.'” (ABC)

Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.

Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.