Category Archives: hate speech

Barack Obama Patriotism Flip-Flop

Barack Obama – April 10, 2012:

“I’m a firm believer that whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, that you’re a patriot, you care about this country, you love this country,” Obama said at an intimate fundraiser in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. “And so I’m not somebody who, when we’re in a political contest, suggests somehow that one side or the other has a monopoly on love of country.

Barack Obama – July 3, 2008:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

obama - words are cheap

Which definitions of marriage are bigoted?

Thinking about the efforts by advocates for redefining marriage to portray opposition to the idea as irrational bigotry, this story from a few weeks ago came to mind:

Here comes the single bride. Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota.

So certain questions come to mind –

  • Is it irrational or bigoted to say this woman isn’t really married? If not, why not?
  • If defining marriage as male-female means one is motivated by hate, does that mean you who define marriage as “greater than one” hate Ms. Schweigert?
  • What objective standard distinguishes your line-drawing from those who draw the line differently?

John Derbyshire and his critics

We’re generally opposed to the idea that a person should lose his livelihood because he says or writes something that other people find offensive, whether the offender is on the right or the left. So we don’t join the growing calls in the blogosphere for John Derbyshire to be fired by National Review for opinions he wrote on race (which were on a different website, not nationalreview.com), specifically about what he would teach his children about their black fellow Americans. National Review certainly has a right to end their relationship with Mr. Derbyshire. An opinion magazine has every right to decide what opinions it will promote, and which are out of bounds.

But all the phony outrage from left-wing blogs and liberal media outlets should be ignored by National Review and everyone else. The left is in no position to lecture anyone about their supposedly superior values, especially on the issue of race. Dividing Americans into groups, and treating people differently based on which groups they’re in, is at the core of leftist ideology and practice.

The left’s primary aim is to shut up anyone who disagrees with them, whether it’s John Derbyshire, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity, or whoever. Their main objection is to dissent from leftist ideology. The editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, was attacked as a bigot for simply pointing out the fact that George Zimmerman isn’t the greatest threat in the nation to young black males. Mr. Derbyshire, unfortunately for him and for the publication he writes for, has given the right’s enemies a legitimate complaint with which to attack. And of course they won’t hesitate to attempt to smear the entire conservative movement with his words.

Demonstrating that their real objection is to conservatism itself, the outrage is highly selective. Just a couple of examples from the last few weeks:

Director Spike Lee tweeted an address which he believed was that of George Zimmerman (Lee got the address wrong), implicitly encouraging mob violence and putting an innocent couple in some potential danger. And not a peep from most of those who are now so concerned about what Mr. Derbyshire wrote.

Al Sharpton routinely says things worse than anything Derbyshire said, and has for years. Sharpton has recently been working to create another Freddy’s Fashion Mart or Crown Heights incident in Florida – and he was an invited guest to the White House this week, and has his own show on MSNBC. And again, you’ll have to look pretty hard to find any criticism of the racist Rev. Al from the left, let alone any effort to have him removed from his television program.

And of course the left-wing propagandists at Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, and Mumia Abu Jamal supporter Van Jones’ group Color of Change aren’t pushing boycotts of Bill Maher.

None of this is to defend what Mr. Derbyshire wrote. We believe it’s a core conservative value to approach people as individuals, and judge them on their own merits, and skin color has nothing to do with anyone’s value as a human being. Liberals are the ones who believe otherwise, who believe in judging people based on their group identity, including the color of their skin.

The issue here is one of gross hypocrisy. Liberals are simply in no position to lecture anyone about their values when it comes to race or anything else.

UPDATE: National Review has ended their relationship with Derbyshire.

Hugh Hewitt: Nothing shocks when anything goes

Here is an excellent column from Hugh Hewitt at The Washington Examiner on standards of public discourse. We especially liked this part:

There is one standard for all commentary, and it ought to apply to Palin and Ms. Fluke, to President Obama and President Bush, to Justice Thomas and to Justice Kagan.

So credit nothing of a condemnation from anyone who has not first articulated his or her standard, preferably backed up with a reference to the rebukes they have handed out to themselves and their own team, and only if that standard condemns all of the profane, the vulgar and the bigoted.

and also the end:

If the country abandons the right of religious people to keep their own creeds, it can hardly complain when no creed at all exists to restrain conduct or prompt apologies when they are indeed deserved.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Juan Williams turns into Al Sharpton

Though he’s on the left, so we disagree with Juan Williams on most issues, he’s always seemed like an honest and decent man. So it was pretty shocking to see this blatant play of the race card, full of Al Sharpton style demagoguery.

One part stood out as particularly ugly. Williams, reviewing his debate question to Newt Gingrich about Gingrich’s use of the term “food stamp president”, says:

He [Gingrich] used the same rhetorical technique of the segregationist politicians of the past: rejecting the premise of the question, attacking the media and playing to the American people’s resentment of liberal elites, minorities and poor people.

Really, Mr. Williams? Rejecting the premise of a question in a debate is a “segregationist technique”? Gingrich (who we do not support in the Republican primary) is offering ideas to help black young people. You may disagree with his ideas, but their intent is to try to help. Comparing a person to segregationists is just pure, unadulterated slander. It is disgusting and shameful what Williams wrote. Racism is evil. So is a false accusation of racism. Mr. Williams owes Mr. Gingrich an apology and a retraction.

Why conservatives don’t hate Warren Buffett

E.J. Dionne’s columns don’t offer much in the way of argument or information, but they are valuable as a window into the mind of the left. For example, his column from the Washington Post website on September 28th, titled “Why conservatives hate Warren Buffett“.

Maybe only a really, really rich guy can credibly make the case for why the wealthy should be asked to pay more in taxes. You can’t accuse a big capitalist of “class warfare.” That’s why the right wing despises Warren Buffett and is trying so hard to shut him up.

But conservatives don’t hate Warren Buffett, they disagree with Warren Buffet on the issue of tax rates. And no one is trying to shut him up. It’s pure psychological projection from Dionne, who obviously hates conservatives. He doesn’t offer any evidence in the whole column, none, to back up his assertion that conservatives hate Buffett or anyone else, or that anyone is trying to shut him up. But this is pretty much an article of faith on the left – they’re motivated in large measure by hate, envy, and anger, so they just assume we on the right are motivated by the same emotions.

What’s really bugging Dionne is the fact successful Americans aren’t giving enough of their earnings to the government, and that anyone dissents from the idea that they should give more to the government.

Wealthy people, by definition, have done better within this system than other people have. They ought to be willing to join Buffett and Edwards in arguing that for this reason alone, it is common sense, not class jealousy, to ask the most fortunate to pay taxes at higher tax rates than other people do. It is for this heresy that Buffett is being harassed.

Wealthy people, by definition, do not put their money under a rock, they use it for all sorts of things – they invest in new or existing businesses, they pay employees, they purchase goods and services from other businesses, they give to charity – but Dionne and his fellow leftists don’t think any of that counts. Their comments suggest that only money given to the government counts as contribution to society.

Paul Krugman and the Flag Burners

There’s been a good amount of reaction to the blog post put up by Paul Krugman at the NY Times today. There’s been less reaction to the story that’s linked below Krugman’s on memorandum as I write:

A group of Muslim protesters set fire to an American flag outside the US embassy in London during a minute’s silence to mark the moment that the first hijacked airliner hit the World Trade Center 10 years ago.

You expect some Muslims fanatics to burn a US flag somewhere on any given day. You expect some irrational, angry leftist like Paul Krugman to post some irrational, angry bile on a day like today. So we don’t get particularly shocked or outraged by either event.

We tend to agree with William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

That’s how they feel, so in a sense I’m glad Krugman gave voice to it on this day. They can’t stand the fact that the attacks on 9/11 proved that their world view was wrong, and every mention of 9/11 is like a thorn in their political sides.

Clarity about how leftists like Krugman think and what they believe about America is important, especially important as we approach an election year. We should encourage them to be as open and honest about their real views as possible.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air isn’t outraged either:

It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers. It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut. He’s mailing this in from 2003. It’s as if Krugman hasn’t bothered to think about 9/11 in the past ten years at all, which says a lot more about Krugman than it does about 9/11.

Yahoo News contributor equates “Hispanic” with “Illegal Immigrant”

Yahoo News posted a commentary from Democrat activist William Browning, attacking Senator John McCain of Arizona for alleging a wildfire in May was started by illegal immigrants or drug smugglers.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., made an appalling statement June 20, regarding the Wallow Fire that was raging in his home state. The largest wildfire in the state’s history had allegedly been started by illegal immigrants.

“During our tour of the damaged areas caused by the Wallow Fire on Saturday, we were briefed by senior Forest Service officials, one of whom informed us that some wildfires in Arizona (across our southern border) are regrettably caused by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. This statement is consistent with what we’ve been hearing for years, as well as testimony by the Forest Service and media reports dating back as far as 2006,” McCain’s website stated.

….

Caleb Joshua Malboeuf and David Wayne Malboeuf are cousins who were allegedly camping in the Bear Wallow area May 29. The Tucson Citizen reports their campfire supposedly burned out of the control and high winds picked up the campfire and it quickly spread. After $79 million, 72 burned buildings and 538,000 acres the two men are charged with five counts which face jail time and/or fines.

McCain owes the state of Arizona and every Hispanic living in his state an apology.

Senator McCain’s statement, that “some wildfires in Arizona…are regrettably caused by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants”, is a perfectly reasonable statement, there’s nothing appalling about it at all.

The only appalling statement in this story came from William Browning.

News flash for Yahoo and Mr. Browning – “Illegal immigrant” and “Hispanic” are not synonymous. Most of the Hispanic people living in Arizona are not illegal immigrants, they are citizens or legal residents of the state.

A Republican making such an equation would immediately be shouted down as a racist hate-monger. But obviously the standards are different for liberal Obama supporters.

Alan Colmes’ LoonyLand

Via memeorandum, we noticed this hilarious/pathetic post on Alan Colmes’ website:

The Right’s Hypocrisy About Rap Music and Common

The right wing, desperate to find reasons to attack President Obama, has been going crazy because the rapper Common appeared at a White House poetry event.

Conservative critics are blasting tonight’s White House poetry event for including a rapper named Common, whose lyrics have blasted former President George W. Bush — “burn Bush” — and celebrated a former Black Panther convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper.

The New Jersey state police union is protesting is protesting Common’s appearance at poetry, as is 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

….

Of course one can’t expect Sarah Palin, and many white conservatives, to understand how rap music gives voice to a population that is often mistreated by authorities.

And the right has a short memory, conveniently forgetting their own associations which don’t seem to trouble them. Eazy-E of NWA, famous for the song “F…Tha Police”, attended an invitation-only lunch with the first president Bush in 1991 ….

The utter stupidity of the post is hard to overstate. First, how in the world is it “hypocrisy” (perhaps the most overused and misused word in the left-wing lexicon) for any conservative in 2011 to criticize this current event, because President Bush had lunch with some other rapper in the early 1990s? That’s just absurd. (Colmes is one of many on the left who considered it out of bounds to bring up Obama’s decades-long, close association with his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But Sarah Palin, indeed all conservatives, are responsible for who Bush had lunch with in 1991? Talk about hypocrisy.)

Second, how would any sane person characterize the New Jersey state police union as “the right wing”? Of course this is a rhetorical question.

Third, how about that condescending, even somewhat racist, dig “Of course one can’t expect Sarah Palin, and many white conservatives, to understand…”? Of Course! Who among us could possibly understand the mean streets of the inner city like Alan Colmes does! Nice touch Homes, I mean Colmes!

Finally, American society really is in sad shape if it’s really considered “right wing” to oppose the celebration of someone who murdered a police officer. Fortunately, we don’t think Alan Colmes has that much influence.

The Arizona shooting and the blame game

There’s not much to say about the shooting in Arizona on Saturday that hasn’t already been said in other places. It’s just a horrific, senseless act of evil by a deranged loner. We don’t see that there’s any great lesson to be derived, or any great national discussion to be had. This terrible event doesn’t, as far as the evidence at present shows, tell us anything about the current political environment, or American society, or anything; it just appears to be a senseless crime by one twisted individual in Arizona.

But the concerted effort of the left, and their allies in the mainstream media, to try to pin any of the blame on conservatives, or the tea parties, or Sarah Palin, is just despicable. There is no evidence of any connection. None. As human beings, and allegedly professional journalists, they should be ashamed, but they seem incapable of shame. These are some of the same people who have hounded Mrs. Palin since a few minutes after she was named as the vice presidential nominee in 2008, and now they’re going to turn around and blame her for incivility? Incredible, but completely unsurprising.

There certainly is an argument to be made that political discourse in America could be more civil, but that is an entirely different topic from what happened to Representative Giffords and the other innocent victims on Saturday. We certainly aren’t interested in hearing any lectures from the left on civility, or from people like Paul Krugman, or Keith Olbermann or Senator Dick “Pol Pot” Durbin.

Glenn Reynolds summed up the issue nicely in his piece today at The Wall Street Journal:

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

It is both a vicious lie and contemptible.