Category Archives: Media

Update V: The Kindness Of (Caucasian) Strangers (On Brotherly Love)

Africa, America, Family, Foreign Aid, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Race, The West, Welfare

“Everywhere in quake-stricken Haiti, the same generic, benevolent, much-maligned ‘white man’ is doing the heavy lifting in the mostly thankless rescue, recovery, and rehabilitation efforts.”

To continue the topic I dared touch upon in “Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values,” where are all the black would-be parents to Haitian orphans? Paraded on the menstrual channel (CNN), I’ve seen many sweet, do-gooder Caucasian couples having adopted a Haitian orphan. Where are the African-American benefactors of these children?

The pattern is discernible: Here’s Maya Esther and her folks. And Meet Katy Hansley, Jeremy Wardel, and dozens of other fat, pale-faced adoptive parents. “Since the 7.0 earthquake struck two weeks ago, 497 Haitian orphans have been evacuated to the United States.”

Agence France-Presse: “France will immediately take in 276 children from quake-hit Haiti who had been matched with French parents for adoption, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Wednesday.” I wonder if the French Maghrebi community is partaking in these acts of generosity.

Here is one of 14 Argentinian couples in the process of adopting a Haitian child.

Update I (Jan. 31): Believe me, you’d be hearing about black charity non-stop, at least from CNN, if it amounted to something. I hazard a guess that when compared the to Honky cohort, the proportional numbers of such charity are minuscule. Why, if there was an outpouring of world-wide African charity for Haiti, CNN would have that idiot Soledad O’Brien present “Black During a Disaster,” as a follow-up to her “Black In America,” “Latino In the Same Place,” and plain “Boring in America” series.

I wonder: Do blacks give to needy whites at all? I think you’ll find that blacks confine giving to their own; whites the opposite. Guys, girls: Why not research this crucial topic for the blog?

Update III (Feb. 1): Latino media have given in to the celebrity driven extravaganzas. Telemundo is riasing tons of money. “‘La Raza Esta Con Haiti,’ loosely translated as ‘the Hispanic people are with Haiti.'”

Update II: LET THE NOT-SO PASSIVE AGGRESSION BEGIN. Laura Sillsby from Idaho, who is probably every bit the sniveling, slobbering do-gooder that the aforementioned Katy Hansley is, was arrested by “Haitian authorities,” whatever gang is officiating now, on the manifestly bogus charge of trafficking in kids.

When she was apprehended by the intrepid Haitians, Sillby, who runs an “Idaho-based charity called New Life Children,” was with a minister and some other really good people. The party was crossing into the Dominican Republic in the hope of bringing “the children to an orphanage that we have there.”

The same authorities that do nothing whatsoever to stop home-grown Haitian child chattel (scroll down), have clamped irons on Americans who’re there to help. You can be sure that whatever were Sillby’s plans for these kids, these were better than what’s in store for them if they remain at home.

The NYT is reporting that the prisoners are from Central Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, Idaho. “The team traveled to Haiti to rescue children from orphanages destroyed in the quake.”

Update IV (Feb. 1): “Love me brother of mine, love me; can’t you see? We’re all the same under the skin.” That’s the cri de coeur of the liberal Brit or Boer before his Bantu brother—all South Africans—rapes his wife, slashes her Achilles heels (that’s in right now, don’t ask me why) and guns down her pleading, humanist of a husband.

Have I mentioned how much liberal men, especially, creep me out? All women appear to be biologically programed to be liberal, but a liberal man is an especially off-putting creature. The peerless Thomas Fleming explained why white liberal males are the problem, “not blacks, women, homosexuals, or Mexicans,” as they have turned away from their religion, civilization,” and against those they are supposed to love most and protect. In the Haitian context, the kids I most felt sorry for where the biological children of the liberal do-gooder daddies who bounced off planes from Haiti with a new Haitian son or daughter. How do you bring a stranger into the lives of your biological children? How do they feel deep-down when the cameras are off? Ghastly, I’m sure. Liberals pretend that charitable adoption is the easiest and most natural thing. Only for idiots is it easy.

And, no; we’re not all the same. A common liberal refrain (I would like to see what Steve Sailer has said in this regard) is that differences between individuals are statistically more significant than those between cultural, ethnic, and racial groups. I don’t see why the fact of inter-individual differences would nullify inter-group variance. That’s liberal logic for you.

Exhibit A: In Haitian and other African societies families don’t find it terribly hard to sell their girls into slavery.

Larry King, SJ Gupta, and A. Cooper like to frame this phenomenon as an agonizing decision. Grow a brain. The reason hundreds of thousands of little Haitian girls are given to wicked witches who beat them and to men who rape them is … can you guess? Their parents neither love them as much as, say, I love my daughter, nor want them. Most American mothers would sell themselves to save their children from such a fate, a sentiment simply not shared in backward societies.

Exhibit B: In the West, at least before liberalism made men into pathetic pansies, males make sure that women and children were evacuated, fed, and rescued first, while they wait their turn. I’d argue a lot of young, Anglo-men still possess such virtues or instincts. In fact, so basic are these values to our culture that even Hollywood transmits them regularly in repetitive, vapid screenplays.

In Haiti, “Relief workers began handing out women-only food coupons, launching a new phase of what they hope will be less cutthroat aid distribution to ensure that families and the weak get supplies following Haiti’s devastating earthquake.

“Young men often force their way to the front of aid delivery lines or steal from it from others, meaning aid doesn’t reach the neediest at rough-and-tumble distribution centers, according to aid groups.”

[SNIP]

I saw French rescuers crying, as they did their noble work: “I have kids this age.” I venture that few Haitian men would risk their lives to rescue French kids much less shed tear over mangled little white bodies.

Update V (Feb 2): From The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk: “The study of primitive societies refutes the notion that all men are brothers, and that all men are equal.”

Updated: Coakley’s Corrupt! What About Journalism?

Democrats, Ethics, Etiquette, IlanaMercer.com, Intelligence, Journalism, Liberty, Media, Political Philosophy, Private Property

WE KNOW that Attorney General Martha Coakley, who lost Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, is at the very least philosophically corrupt. But what about the said omissions of those who’re supposed to check the “lady” and her posse? I mean the roving citizen journalists, endeavoring to expose her?

I watched the hereunder YouTube clip twice. Perhaps I missed something but, as far as I could see (and hear), nowhere did the “journalist” filming the Coakley goons’ crass conduct articulate for her viewers why they ought to be furious at the conduct of these fascistic public servants.

WATCH the clip. What lessons for citizens does it impart? How does this YouTube snippet help, or even convey, the cause of liberty? The answers to these questions: “Nada” to the first; “it doesn’t” to the second. Not unless you consider being polite and not calling journalists Nazis as contributions to liberty and freedom.

Goons say to journalist, “You are on private property.” Journalist replies softly, “We want some questions answered,” “Why so rude?,” and, “We’re on a public sidewalk.”

Unless “journalist” is able to append a principled tag to her gritty clip, the Democrat mafia appears merely impolite.

THE SHORT, SWEET instructive reply to these fattened fascists would have been this: “You are NOT on private property but on public, taxpayer-funded property. You and Coakley are civil servants, beholden to the public who pays your way.”

What service do you perform as a putative journalist if you cannot convey the only philosophical truth the viewer ought to take away from this snippet? None, as I am sure a Democrat journalist could easily film similar infractions.

All this journalist has done is add a tit to the other side’s tat.

I grow impatient with the “Age of the Idiot” activist. Resources such as this blog and its companion site, ilanamercer.com, can help the corrupt and the clueless (with attribution please) become acquainted with the now “defunct foundations of the republic.”

But to take instruction, one has to have courage and humility. Dream on, ilana.

Update (Jan. 24): Say the Democrat Party paid for the offices of this candidate. Is this property then accessible only to a select portion of the public? Was Coakley seeking to represent some constituents to the exclusion of others? At the very least, journalists ought to be able to pose such question, when a politician’s brown shirts turn them away from said premises on the grounds that the offices from which a candidate is operating are walled off from the individuals she is endevoring to represent.

What do you say?

Update III: Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values (Senegal Does It Right)

America, Celebrity, Christianity, Ethics, Foreign Aid, Hollywood, Human Accomplishment, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Media, Morality, Political Economy, The West, UN

The excerpt is from my new, WND.COM column: “Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values”:

“… in all its self-serving displays, humanitarianism is, overwhelmingly, a Western affair; a Judeo-Christian thing. It’s as simple as all that. Liberals like Angelina Jolie will trace Western generosity to the founding of the United Nations, to the League of Nations, or to some other supra-national structure.

I suspect that what is at play in Haiti, and in countless locales around the undeveloped world, began with the revolutionary, universal, elaborate moral and legal injunctions encoded first in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus – and, thereafter, throughout the Hebrew Bible – to protect and do justice by the poor, the weak, the defenseless, the widow and the stranger. The people of Israel were enjoined to practice what Christians later perfected.

That stuff stuck.

A different set of beliefs animates Haitian society, and helps explain its helplessness and hopelessness. ‘Haiti is not a Catholic country, Haiti is a Voodoo country,’ Erol Josue told National Public Radio. Josue is a Voodoo priest in a country whose former president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, officially recognized Voodoo as a state religion.” …

The complete column is “Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values.”

And do read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update I (Jan. 22): Martin’s comment hereunder reminded me what I clean forgot: the Obamas’ very public giving. I’m also grateful to Martin for bringing to our attention the DIRECT injunction in the New Testament against showy charity. Martin quotes the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them.” How has this country forgotten something as foundational as that?

Self-righteousness has replaced righteousness and self-aggrandizement has supplanted simple goodness.

Update II (Jan. 23): CHILD SLAVERY still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.” Children are kept in grinding poverty and worked to the bone. In the West this would be considered perverse in the extreme; in Haiti owning a Restavek is a status symbol. CNN has done stories on Restavec children, but has never connected the dots, as the favorite phrase goes. The angle is, invariably one of, “Look how good I am [Dr. Gupta here]; I’m crying.” Coupled with, “This happens in the US too.

No it doesn’t. When a slave is discovered, usually in the home of immigrants who imported their bad habit, American society shames and punishes the offenders.

Update III (Jan. 24): SENEGAL DOES IT RIGHT. Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade has offered Haitian refugees a “parcels of land – even an entire region. It all depends on how many Haitians come. If it’s just a few individuals, then we will likely offer them housing or small pieces of land. If they come en masse we are ready to give them a region,’ he said.”

Wade “insisted that if a region is handed over it should be in a fertile area – not in the country’s parched deserts.”

Wade’s got the right idea, or at least the righteous one. He is offering Haitians a most generous chance at self-sufficiency; at working the land.

“Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish philosopher and codifier of Jewish law, holds that the most praiseworthy and effective means of fulfilling the commandment of Tzedakah [charity] is through offering an impoverished person a business partnership, a business loan or a job. … the Prime Minister and [former Finance Minister] of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently understood this well. Speaking on the benefits of workfare reform in Israel, Netanyahu was once quoted in the press as saying that it is not enough to be a Thatcherite, a Jew should go even further and become a Maimonidite. [Excerpted from the monograph titled Judaism, Markets, and Capitalism: Separating Myth from Reality, by Corinne and Robert Sauer of the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, with which I am affiliated.]

[SNIP]

Will Haitians be tempted by a chance at an honest living when hand-outs abound?

Update IX: Massachusetts Musical Chairs (Brown WINS; Dems Blame…)

Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Media, Politics, Republicans, War

Finding a conservative instinct in a “conservative” female writer is near impossible. Kathleen Parker, the yin to neoconservative David Brooks’ yang, zeros in on the essence of State Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican vying with Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

The second most important thing to Parker, as noted in her column about the candidate who is fast gaining on the Coakley character, is that, “He’s a Mr. Mom to his busy wife, a Boston TV news reporter.” Like most “conservative” women, Parker makes the candidate’s feminist and family bona fides front-and-center.

But we’re not here discussing the mediocrity of Parker’s saccharine sweet, gender-specific, unremarkable prose, but the banality of the “JFK Republican,” Scott Brown. Basically Brown likes senseless war more than futile welfare.

Brown’s wishy-washy platform notwithstanding, you don’t need CNN to tell you that, “A GOP victory in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts could give Senate Republicans enough votes to block Obama’s health care plan. It also could shatter assumptions about the competitiveness of politics in the progressive Northeast.”

Brown has opened up a lead of 4 percentage points.

According to the Suffolk/7 News survey, Brown is grabbing 65 percent of independent voters, with three in 10 pulling for Coakley. And 17 percent of Democrats questioned said they’re supporting Brown.
If Brown pulls an upset and defeats Coakley, the Democrats will lose their 60-seat filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate. The shift could threaten the party’s priorities on health care and a range of other issues.

Brown’s election could mean the defeat of Obama’s healthcare bill, and that’s a good thing.

Otherwise, it’s all more musical chairs between the mamzers.

Update I (Jan. 18): If he wins, and it looks like he will, Brown will be on the next flight to DC to cast a vote in the Senate to kill the bill. As I understand it, Brown does not need to await confirmation to vote. His vote will be perfectly legal. If Democrats pull any procedural mischief, there will be riots.

The most liberal, Democrat-favoring state in the country—I believe Massachusetts has not elected a Republican to the Senate since the late 1970s—is rejecting Obama’s policies, or at least some of them.

This is a turning point in current Democrat-Republican dispensation. It’s a serious blow to blowhard Barack and a kick in the pants to Ted Kennedy, his “legacy” and possy. Some overall gains for liberty may result, although homeostasis within the duopoly will ultimately be restored.

Remember, “The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one entity to the other.”

Update II (Jan. 19): Not a peep from the media about this gentleman. Thanks to Myron for introducing Joe Kennedy, an independent candidate.

I skimmed his short platform. Kennedy’s a patriot. A tad weak on immigration, as he dares to speak only of the illegal kind, and cleaves to the, “We are a nation of immigrants” mantra. Still, Kennedy is better than most any establishment Republican.

Update III: Michelle Malkin clobbers David Frum in a post on Brown: “Brown has run on the core Tea Party issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national defense, while appealing to a broader swath of voters by emphasizing integrity, independence, and willingness to stand up to machine politics.” Read the complete post for the Frum bits.

Update IV: From Salon’s Joan Walsh, who has the aura of a wound-up, puritanical Martha Coakley, to Brother Eugene Robinson of the WaPo; to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and the pretty, empty-headed Norah O’Donnell—the malpracticing media seems intractably unwilling to apply analytical acid to what’s unfolding in Massachusetts.

In Obama’s election, the Left saw a heavenly celestial alignment of the political stars. The media had been blessed at last with a son. “For Unto Us A Son is Born,” blah, blah. In the near dethroning of a Democrat in the liberal miasma that is Massachusetts, the ponces above see only logistical and tactical missteps.

The latest from Fox News: “Republican Scott Brown has taken the early lead in the Massachusetts special election, an unexpectedly competitive contest that could have significant implications for President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

Update V: BROWN HAS WON. Associated Press:

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Coakley has conceded.

Update VI: Want proof that Olby is bonkers? Here is what the MSNBC host said of the center-right, senator elect from Massachusetts:

“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.’
— Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown, in a virulent rant against the Massachusetts candidate”

Michele Malkin: “… there are more long faces at MSNBC than at an aardvark convention.”

Here’s an image courtesy of Chris Matthews PR:

Update VII: Joan Walsh pleads, under the guise of an impartial postmortem: “this is a referendum on Coakley’s campaign, not on President Obama (thought I’ll get to him later.) She blew it … Coakley didn’t lose because of doubts about the health care reform bill…”

That’s settled, then. If Dems run good campaigns, they should be alright.

Walsh’s woman’s wiles tell her that this Republican victory in Massachusetts, achieved because the candidate rode a populist, tea-bag wave, has nothing to do with Democratic overreach. “In fact,” she assures her readers, “the problem has been under-reaching, and failing to deliver on campaign promises. But it’s going to take a lot of work on Obama’s part to bring those two poles within his party together. Exactly a year after his inauguration, it’s time for Obama to lead.”

Blessed be the boobs for they have inherited the earth.

Note Walsh’s dark demands that “agendas” be delivered on by hook or by crook.

The winner, Brown, disagrees. Campaigning “from the Berkshires to Boston, from Springfield to Cape Cod,” the voters of the Commonwealth told him they did “not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.”

Odd that. (Even odder was Brown’s smarmy allusions, in his victory speech, to playing basketball with the president. Did you get the impression that the Republicans’ golden boy was looking forward to hobnobbing in high places? That disturbed me. The liberals, on the other hand, didn’t appreciate his crass peddling of his daughters as “available.” Cheap and inappropriate, that’s for sure.)

Update VIII: A good summery of the diabolical options Dems have been weighing, vis-a-vis the health care bill, soon to be laid to rest (we hope).

Update IX (Jan. 20): I’m hanging at Salon for a bit. Sometimes one just has to experience, or endure, a full frontal of the stuff. You tend to forget how repulsive the beltway liberal really is. Another insight into the seismic dethroning of Dems in Massachusetts courtesy of the Salon scribblers: “Massachusetts is filled with sexist voters.”