Didn't anyone besides me understand Megyn Kelly's question to Donald Trump? In asking about the crude terms with which Trump has referred to women who he doesn't like, Kelly was pointing out that since the Democrats are surely going to play the worn, greasy "War on Women" card again, wouldn't a Trump nomination make their work in that regard a little too easy? WE GOPers would like to know how he plans to respond when they play it.
That is a perfectly reasonable question, and there was nothing wrong with Megyn Kelly asking it.
What I found more revealing was Trump's after-the-debate actions, including his crude (again) insult to Megyn Kelly. He has once again revealed himself to be too juvenile, whiny, and sophomoric to head our government. Can you really imagine a man-child inherited wealth type like Trump dealing successfully with Vlad the Impaler Putin. Vlad would give him a wedgie.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Steve Deace slanders National Review
This column is twaddle. National Review hosts a wide variety of conservative thought in its pages, including social conservatives like George Weigel and Kathryn Jean Lopez, who helped found the National Organization for Marriage. (That's heterosexual marriage, to avoid any further distortions) Mark Steyn broke with National Review over defense strategy in the lawsuit filed by notorious global warming hockey stick fraudster Michael Mann, not over social conservatism. As for William F Buckley, he was such a "social conservative" that he championed marijuana legalization. To read a real conservative position on marijuana, read "Going to Pot" by William Bennett.
Furthering conservative principles is not aided by ill-informed writers like Deace slandering other conservatives like National Review.
Furthering conservative principles is not aided by ill-informed writers like Deace slandering other conservatives like National Review.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
In today's America
I've been thinking about life in 2015 America:
Thanks to Lois Lerner and John Koskinen, I no longer instantly delete those emails that say "I'm thinking about f___ing you". I check to make sure they're not from the IRS first.
Seeing Bill Clinton lying with his characteristic shamelessness about Peter Schweitzer, author of the eye-opening (I hope) expose of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation "Clinton Cash", I experienced a wave of nauseastalgia - that sick feeling you get when you remember experiences you wish had never happened to begin with. Damn it, why can't the Clintons take their ill-gotten millions AND GO AWAY??
Thanks to Lois Lerner and John Koskinen, I no longer instantly delete those emails that say "I'm thinking about f___ing you". I check to make sure they're not from the IRS first.
Seeing Bill Clinton lying with his characteristic shamelessness about Peter Schweitzer, author of the eye-opening (I hope) expose of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation "Clinton Cash", I experienced a wave of nauseastalgia - that sick feeling you get when you remember experiences you wish had never happened to begin with. Damn it, why can't the Clintons take their ill-gotten millions AND GO AWAY??
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Test week for liberals, etc.
I wake today to the news that two more police officers (AKA the people who make civilization possible, as Charles Barkley pointed out) have been murdered by thugs, this time in Mississippi. This poses a test for President Obama and new Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
Can B.O. come right out and say this is wrong, murder is never justified, and STOP KILLING THE POLICE? This time, can he avoid the usual boilerplate about "the problems of the black community" and "distrust of the police"? He needs to stop condemning the police before the police start resigning because they feel that the authorities who should be on their side are on the other.
As for the new AG, can Lynch come right out and say that this incident is a horrific crime against those we depend on to keep us safe from criminals? Can she call for the prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law? Can she rise to the dream of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and judge the perpetrators "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?
Peter Schweitzer's new book "Clinton Cash" has caused quite a furor and reminded us of the rampant, fantastic corruption of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. I wish these people would just go away and leave us alone, but obviously that's not going to happen. Anyway, Bill Clinton, aka the sleaziest liar in the history of American politics, made a television appearance that was disgraceful even by his sleazy standards. As Charles Krauthammer mentioned on FoxNews Special Report, every word was false. Every word. Many of the lies he told are verifiable, meaning they are lies about facts which can be proven positively.
The challenge is to the so-called mainstream media - can they label the lies as lies this time? The whole reason Billy Jeff Horndog doesn't even bother nodding toward the truth while shoveling his manure is because the media has let him get away with lying (sometimes under oath) for so long. This time, can they behave as truth-seeking journalists and point out the lies? Peter Schweitzer, like any prominent conservative writer, documents his allegation thoroughly. He knows he'll be accused of making things up, so he gives references. Schweitzer is not making things up; the Clintons (don't forget Hilliary's involved, too) are lying, as they have their entire lives.
Will the alphabet-soup media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) label the lies of the Clintons this once?
I shouldn't bet the mortgage on it.
Can B.O. come right out and say this is wrong, murder is never justified, and STOP KILLING THE POLICE? This time, can he avoid the usual boilerplate about "the problems of the black community" and "distrust of the police"? He needs to stop condemning the police before the police start resigning because they feel that the authorities who should be on their side are on the other.
As for the new AG, can Lynch come right out and say that this incident is a horrific crime against those we depend on to keep us safe from criminals? Can she call for the prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law? Can she rise to the dream of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and judge the perpetrators "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?
Peter Schweitzer's new book "Clinton Cash" has caused quite a furor and reminded us of the rampant, fantastic corruption of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. I wish these people would just go away and leave us alone, but obviously that's not going to happen. Anyway, Bill Clinton, aka the sleaziest liar in the history of American politics, made a television appearance that was disgraceful even by his sleazy standards. As Charles Krauthammer mentioned on FoxNews Special Report, every word was false. Every word. Many of the lies he told are verifiable, meaning they are lies about facts which can be proven positively.
The challenge is to the so-called mainstream media - can they label the lies as lies this time? The whole reason Billy Jeff Horndog doesn't even bother nodding toward the truth while shoveling his manure is because the media has let him get away with lying (sometimes under oath) for so long. This time, can they behave as truth-seeking journalists and point out the lies? Peter Schweitzer, like any prominent conservative writer, documents his allegation thoroughly. He knows he'll be accused of making things up, so he gives references. Schweitzer is not making things up; the Clintons (don't forget Hilliary's involved, too) are lying, as they have their entire lives.
Will the alphabet-soup media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) label the lies of the Clintons this once?
I shouldn't bet the mortgage on it.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Liberty Counsel on the Florida Ruling and the Redefinition of Marriage
"The New Year has brought a new era to Florida: lawlessness. Clerks of court throughout the state began Tuesday issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, disregarding their oaths to uphold the Florida Constitution. Not to be outdone, Florida Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel, a day earlier, ordered same-sex “marriages" to begin immediately in Miami-Dade County. More troubling than her ruling, however, was the fact that she immediately inserted herself into the ensuing celebration of the litigants for whom she had just ruled by eagerly officiating their "marriages," destroying any impression of impartiality in an active case. Lawlessness is masquerading as law.
When 5 million Florida voters passed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in 2008, they did not act out of hate or "animus," as they have been spuriously accused by a few insular judges. Rather, Floridians democratically affirmed in their Constitution the historical, natural definition of marriage, in accordance with the millennia of history in which marriage has been recognized as the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, and the foundational social institution upon which the future of children and family, and the state and nation depend. Natural marriage uniquely fosters stability, permanency, prosperity, and the optimal healthy environment for children. Outcomes for children are best when raised with a mom and a dad; same-sex “marriage" permanently robs children of ever having a mom and a dad. No judge has provided a sufficient reason for dismantling this granite foundation and replacing it with the shifting sand and artificial construct of same-sex "marriage."
To be clear, no Floridian—and certainly no judge—defines marriage. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment memorialized, but did not create, the definition of marriage as what it always has been and always will be. Marriage is defined by its nature, and predates government, which is limited to regulating marriage in accordance with its nature.
Do not be deceived: Same-sex "marriage" is NOT the law of Florida. The now infamous opinion of Judge Hinkle in the federal case Brenner v. Scott does not require the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples throughout the state, regardless of how the order has been (intentionally) misrepresented by the media and others. But Florida clerks are using the opinion as cover to violate their oaths and the Florida Constitution to issue illegal licenses. Nor is legal same-sex "marriage" in Florida inevitable: All of the Florida marriage rulings are on appeal, and since those rulings four federal judges in other cases have upheld the rights of states to recognize the natural definition of marriage. A Florida appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say. Until then, natural marriage is the law of Florida.
Florida clerks of court should respect Florida's citizens enough to uphold their oaths of office and the legal, democratic process that will ultimately decide Florida law. Florida clerks are not allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow. Until a court with proper jurisdiction rules otherwise, Florida clerks in all but two counties are bound by Florida's Constitution and its memorialization of the historical, natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. No matter how any of these clerks personally feels, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is lawless.
When 5 million Florida voters passed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in 2008, they did not act out of hate or "animus," as they have been spuriously accused by a few insular judges. Rather, Floridians democratically affirmed in their Constitution the historical, natural definition of marriage, in accordance with the millennia of history in which marriage has been recognized as the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, and the foundational social institution upon which the future of children and family, and the state and nation depend. Natural marriage uniquely fosters stability, permanency, prosperity, and the optimal healthy environment for children. Outcomes for children are best when raised with a mom and a dad; same-sex “marriage" permanently robs children of ever having a mom and a dad. No judge has provided a sufficient reason for dismantling this granite foundation and replacing it with the shifting sand and artificial construct of same-sex "marriage."
To be clear, no Floridian—and certainly no judge—defines marriage. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment memorialized, but did not create, the definition of marriage as what it always has been and always will be. Marriage is defined by its nature, and predates government, which is limited to regulating marriage in accordance with its nature.
Do not be deceived: Same-sex "marriage" is NOT the law of Florida. The now infamous opinion of Judge Hinkle in the federal case Brenner v. Scott does not require the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples throughout the state, regardless of how the order has been (intentionally) misrepresented by the media and others. But Florida clerks are using the opinion as cover to violate their oaths and the Florida Constitution to issue illegal licenses. Nor is legal same-sex "marriage" in Florida inevitable: All of the Florida marriage rulings are on appeal, and since those rulings four federal judges in other cases have upheld the rights of states to recognize the natural definition of marriage. A Florida appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say. Until then, natural marriage is the law of Florida.
Florida clerks of court should respect Florida's citizens enough to uphold their oaths of office and the legal, democratic process that will ultimately decide Florida law. Florida clerks are not allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow. Until a court with proper jurisdiction rules otherwise, Florida clerks in all but two counties are bound by Florida's Constitution and its memorialization of the historical, natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. No matter how any of these clerks personally feels, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is lawless.
When the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Liberty Counsel warned that the decision would lead to legal misinterpretation, judicial activism, and unbridled intolerance toward those of us who insist that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Regrettably, that warning has become prophetic in Florida and in far too many other jurisdictions across America."
To be clear, I agree with every word above. The federal government didn't invent marriage, and it cannot legally redefine it.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Weekend Free-for-All December 5, 2014
Why are the good people of this country still obliged to put up with Al Sharpton anywhere besides behind prison bars? Here is a racist loudmouth mob-inciter who has worse than the notorious Tawana Brawley hoax on his sheet - he's a "reverend" with a body count. The dead of Freddie's Fashion Mart and Yankel Rosenbaum were killed by people who this racial arsonist incited to violence. Perhaps it's impossible to assign legal responsibility to this tax cheat and all-around repugnant character, but moral responsibility covers him thickly and odorously.
Such a man should have been driven from society or locked up by it. This man is an arsonist with a gas pump and a flamethrower. It's bad enough the morally degenerates of the Democratic Party bow and scrape to this grotesque figure, but does he have to plague the rest of us? In better times, such a notorious person would hide from sight. Now they get their own show on MSNBC.
Begone, weird Al, and take your criminal record and your venom-spewing with you.
It occurs to me that now that we have the Eric Garner issue in New York City, I wonder if any of the racism-shouters and their allied ax-grinders regret that they spent so much of their credibility on the far less suspicious Darren Wilson/Michael Brown matter. The only miscarriage of justice that could have come out of the Ferguson (MO) jury would have been an indictment of Officer Wilson. With the Eric Garner tragedy, the issue is more complicated. Now, however, people are more likely to see these demonstrations as simply hooliganism extended, and will turn away in disgust.
Once you protest something stupidly, people will assume that every protest you stage is also stupid.
Louisiana has a chance to send Bill Cassidy (R) to the Senate to replace their incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu. I feel strongly about this, despite my living nowhere near the state. There is strong evidence that Landrieu had her first two elections stolen for her by the New Orleans Democratic vote-stealing machine. They did it the classic way - by holding their numbers until the other voting precincts have reported their numbers, and then magically producing just enough votes to elect the Democrat. If I were the head of a board of elections in some other Louisiana parish, I would hold my results back until New Orleans released theirs. Better still, I would organize other parishes to do the same.
I loved the Metallica song One until I saw the beginning of their video, in which a young boy asks a man (perhaps his grandfather) "What is democracy?"
The older man responds "I don't know. I think it has something to do with young men killing each other."
Have you ever read anything so pretentiously stupid in all of your life?
I watched a few documentaries lately. The first was "Titanic Arrogance", which undertakes to take an overview of the hubristic errors that led to the great ship's demise on its maiden voyage. The producers of the documentary, having only 44 minutes to work with, wisely choose to concentrate on facets of the story usually left uncovered by other documentaries on the subject. I was particularly startled to find out that the floating city had an outmoded propulsion set-up (I'm no shipbuilder; I don't know the proper word). Information chestnuts like this kept me watching, but there was an odd surprise in store for me.
When Wyn Craig Wade updated his classic study Titanic: End of a Dream, he mentioned in his introduction that he had received (after publication of the original work) letters from some determined defenders of the master of the Californian, Stanley Lord, claiming that the terrible loss of life that night could in no way be blamed at Lord's door. Wade called them Lordites, and noted that in the years since publication the wreck had been discovered by Robert Ballard and the Woods Hole sea search team. The position of the wreck of the Titanic indicates that the Californian was not stopped 19 miles away from the great dying ship, or even 10 miles away as believed by historians who had studied the disaster, but might have been as near as 5 miles away. Dr. Ballard, one of the most genial of men, said after finding the Titanic that "No one needed to die that night." Keep in mind that no one was killed by the collision, and the ship has stayed above water for over 2 hours after being wounded.
Incredibly, the producers of Titanic Arrogance made the fantastic claim that the discovery of the wreck had totally exonerated Captain Lord! He said the position of the wreck proved Lord was correct in his estimate of the distance, when it in fact was a damning refutation of it. Lord's whole alibi for his actions depend on this inverval between the ships. If the ship was in fact only 5 miles away, then the crew on the night watch of the Californian would have clearly seen the 8 (8!) distress rockets launched by the crew of the Titanic considerably above the horizon . It is an accepted fact that the sightings were reported to Captain Lord (who had turned in for the night) and that the Californian took no action until morning. This also makes damning the fact that Captain Lord didn't have the wireless operator Cyril Evans awakened when the sighting of the distress rockets was reported to him. If Evans had turned on the wireless set, he would have caught the distress calls of the sinking vessel in time for the Californian to have saved lives. Sometimes the difference between being a hero in history and being a villain is a single decision.
I give Titanic Arrogance a qualified recommendation.
I couldn't make myself watch "Ghosts of My Lai"; I couldn't help thinking that the script had been written by Billy Ayers and Noam Chomsky and that veterans who appeared in the film were recruited from the phony veterans who testi-lied in John F___ing Kerry's Winter Soldier Show Trials (which historically were as accurate as the show trials during Stalin's Great Terror). I think the honorable Americans who served the cause of freedom in Vietnam have been slandered enough already without having a fresh coating of slime poured over them. Avoid this one at all costs, and shame on you, NewsMax TV, for erring by airing this shameful propaganda.
I give my most unqualified endorsement to History Channel's The Men Who Built America. This is a four-part series telling the stories of financial magnates like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, and Henry Ford. The portraits are balanced and fascinating. Several of the magnates of our time appear on camera giving their view of their predecessors. See if you can identify how the filthy legal trick Morgan played on George Westinghouse over Nicola Tesla's patents presaged how the brutal Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh would bully men like Oliver North and Elliott Abrams. Also, you'll find that Hillary Clinton's phony memory loss when testifying was pioneered by John D. Rockefeller in the famous anti-trust case United States vs. Standard Oil.
My only quibble with this fine production (the web page is here) is that the fascinating facts which appear at the bottom of the screen are too small to read from any distance and appear a little too briefly onscreen. I taped the series, but of course the best option is to buy the dvds.
Watch "The Men Who Built America". It is entertaining, disturbing and altogether superb.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Once you protest something stupidly, people will assume that every protest you stage is also stupid.
Louisiana has a chance to send Bill Cassidy (R) to the Senate to replace their incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu. I feel strongly about this, despite my living nowhere near the state. There is strong evidence that Landrieu had her first two elections stolen for her by the New Orleans Democratic vote-stealing machine. They did it the classic way - by holding their numbers until the other voting precincts have reported their numbers, and then magically producing just enough votes to elect the Democrat. If I were the head of a board of elections in some other Louisiana parish, I would hold my results back until New Orleans released theirs. Better still, I would organize other parishes to do the same.
I loved the Metallica song One until I saw the beginning of their video, in which a young boy asks a man (perhaps his grandfather) "What is democracy?"
The older man responds "I don't know. I think it has something to do with young men killing each other."
Have you ever read anything so pretentiously stupid in all of your life?
I watched a few documentaries lately. The first was "Titanic Arrogance", which undertakes to take an overview of the hubristic errors that led to the great ship's demise on its maiden voyage. The producers of the documentary, having only 44 minutes to work with, wisely choose to concentrate on facets of the story usually left uncovered by other documentaries on the subject. I was particularly startled to find out that the floating city had an outmoded propulsion set-up (I'm no shipbuilder; I don't know the proper word). Information chestnuts like this kept me watching, but there was an odd surprise in store for me.
When Wyn Craig Wade updated his classic study Titanic: End of a Dream, he mentioned in his introduction that he had received (after publication of the original work) letters from some determined defenders of the master of the Californian, Stanley Lord, claiming that the terrible loss of life that night could in no way be blamed at Lord's door. Wade called them Lordites, and noted that in the years since publication the wreck had been discovered by Robert Ballard and the Woods Hole sea search team. The position of the wreck of the Titanic indicates that the Californian was not stopped 19 miles away from the great dying ship, or even 10 miles away as believed by historians who had studied the disaster, but might have been as near as 5 miles away. Dr. Ballard, one of the most genial of men, said after finding the Titanic that "No one needed to die that night." Keep in mind that no one was killed by the collision, and the ship has stayed above water for over 2 hours after being wounded.
Incredibly, the producers of Titanic Arrogance made the fantastic claim that the discovery of the wreck had totally exonerated Captain Lord! He said the position of the wreck proved Lord was correct in his estimate of the distance, when it in fact was a damning refutation of it. Lord's whole alibi for his actions depend on this inverval between the ships. If the ship was in fact only 5 miles away, then the crew on the night watch of the Californian would have clearly seen the 8 (8!) distress rockets launched by the crew of the Titanic considerably above the horizon . It is an accepted fact that the sightings were reported to Captain Lord (who had turned in for the night) and that the Californian took no action until morning. This also makes damning the fact that Captain Lord didn't have the wireless operator Cyril Evans awakened when the sighting of the distress rockets was reported to him. If Evans had turned on the wireless set, he would have caught the distress calls of the sinking vessel in time for the Californian to have saved lives. Sometimes the difference between being a hero in history and being a villain is a single decision.
I give Titanic Arrogance a qualified recommendation.
I couldn't make myself watch "Ghosts of My Lai"; I couldn't help thinking that the script had been written by Billy Ayers and Noam Chomsky and that veterans who appeared in the film were recruited from the phony veterans who testi-lied in John F___ing Kerry's Winter Soldier Show Trials (which historically were as accurate as the show trials during Stalin's Great Terror). I think the honorable Americans who served the cause of freedom in Vietnam have been slandered enough already without having a fresh coating of slime poured over them. Avoid this one at all costs, and shame on you, NewsMax TV, for erring by airing this shameful propaganda.
I give my most unqualified endorsement to History Channel's The Men Who Built America. This is a four-part series telling the stories of financial magnates like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, and Henry Ford. The portraits are balanced and fascinating. Several of the magnates of our time appear on camera giving their view of their predecessors. See if you can identify how the filthy legal trick Morgan played on George Westinghouse over Nicola Tesla's patents presaged how the brutal Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh would bully men like Oliver North and Elliott Abrams. Also, you'll find that Hillary Clinton's phony memory loss when testifying was pioneered by John D. Rockefeller in the famous anti-trust case United States vs. Standard Oil.
My only quibble with this fine production (the web page is here) is that the fascinating facts which appear at the bottom of the screen are too small to read from any distance and appear a little too briefly onscreen. I taped the series, but of course the best option is to buy the dvds.
Watch "The Men Who Built America". It is entertaining, disturbing and altogether superb.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Thursday, December 4, 2014
A Tale of Two Media Conservatives
12/4/2014
Not all conservative media members are rock-ribbed. The phrase "rock-ribbed Republican" has an old and venerable history. Like the accursed term RINO, it is over-used. Ferguson is one of those topics that helps you winnow the RRRs from the squishier sorts.
Leading the RRRs - no surprise here - is the Crab's favorite multimedia conservative, Ann Coulter. Her column of November 26 is a classic. She is righteously outraged that there even was a grand jury. Officer Darren Wilson, a good officer with a clean record, was forced to fire his weapon after a size XXL thug named Michael Brown slammed his cruiser car door shut on him and then tried to grab the officer's gun. After a sequence of events available in numerous places on the Web, XXL Brown charged at Officer Wilson (with his hand under his waistline, where one might stash a gun), and Wilson fired the shots that killed him. All of the forensic evidence supported Wilson's narrative of events. The credible eyewitnesses of the encounter (meaning the ones who weren't provably lying) supported him as well. Or, as Ann Coulter put it:
There's nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can't the peaceful protesters read?
Ann is a role model for the Hermit Crab, since she speaks the clear truth without fear. She defends Joseph McCarthy (as do I), derides the fraud called Darwinism (read her book Godless), reminds her readers that Richard Nixon had in fact won the war in Viet Nam (a victory throw away by the Democrats), and most usefully for this discussion, she authored the invaluable book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. Anyone who read Mugged was unsurprised by the events that followed Michael Brown's death by misadventure.
To call Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online the anti-Coulter is a bit harsh, but his column of November 27 was in my view harmful, in that he seemed to disavow the riots in Ferguson while nearly endorsing them across the rest of the country. By stating that the hostility and distrust of many members of minority communities have legitimate concerns, he nearly endorses all of the steps that followed the incident - steps including rioting, arson, assault, and even murder.
It is my contention that there are in fact few areas left in the United States in which white police bully and abuse blacks because of their skin color. The days of Bull Connor and his like are over. For a police chief or sheriff in any state of the union to allow racial bias in their departments would be political suicide, and the end would come quickly.
In this year 2014, the most dangerous racists holding public office are President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Not all conservative media members are rock-ribbed. The phrase "rock-ribbed Republican" has an old and venerable history. Like the accursed term RINO, it is over-used. Ferguson is one of those topics that helps you winnow the RRRs from the squishier sorts.
Leading the RRRs - no surprise here - is the Crab's favorite multimedia conservative, Ann Coulter. Her column of November 26 is a classic. She is righteously outraged that there even was a grand jury. Officer Darren Wilson, a good officer with a clean record, was forced to fire his weapon after a size XXL thug named Michael Brown slammed his cruiser car door shut on him and then tried to grab the officer's gun. After a sequence of events available in numerous places on the Web, XXL Brown charged at Officer Wilson (with his hand under his waistline, where one might stash a gun), and Wilson fired the shots that killed him. All of the forensic evidence supported Wilson's narrative of events. The credible eyewitnesses of the encounter (meaning the ones who weren't provably lying) supported him as well. Or, as Ann Coulter put it:
There's nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can't the peaceful protesters read?
Ann is a role model for the Hermit Crab, since she speaks the clear truth without fear. She defends Joseph McCarthy (as do I), derides the fraud called Darwinism (read her book Godless), reminds her readers that Richard Nixon had in fact won the war in Viet Nam (a victory throw away by the Democrats), and most usefully for this discussion, she authored the invaluable book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. Anyone who read Mugged was unsurprised by the events that followed Michael Brown's death by misadventure.
To call Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online the anti-Coulter is a bit harsh, but his column of November 27 was in my view harmful, in that he seemed to disavow the riots in Ferguson while nearly endorsing them across the rest of the country. By stating that the hostility and distrust of many members of minority communities have legitimate concerns, he nearly endorses all of the steps that followed the incident - steps including rioting, arson, assault, and even murder.
It is my contention that there are in fact few areas left in the United States in which white police bully and abuse blacks because of their skin color. The days of Bull Connor and his like are over. For a police chief or sheriff in any state of the union to allow racial bias in their departments would be political suicide, and the end would come quickly.
In this year 2014, the most dangerous racists holding public office are President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)