The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

BOOM! WaPo’s Dana @Milbank ‘Is Why People Loathe Journalists’

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 36 Comments

So says Mollie Hemingway (@mzhemingway), reacting to the columnist’s deliberate distortion of a Heritage Foundation event:

This, my friends, is why people loathe journalists. They twist and turn and play gotcha games. Also, they make stuff up. A good editor in my past told me that he was always suspicious of reporters who rely on breaking up a quote multiple times and adding in their own words in between. It means they’re trying to force the speaker to say something. We can now call this the Milbank Rule.

What happened was that a Muslim student at American University attended a panel discussion about Benghazi and — in a complete non sequitur — accused the panelists of blaming “all Muslims” for the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans. This was a rude provocation, but transcripts and video of the event show that the panelists responded courteously. Yet Dana Milbank wrote this:

“Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”

The panelist quoted is Brigitte Gabriel, the Lebanese-American author of an excellent book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, which I have often recommended. But as Hemingway points out, Milbank’s partial quote of Gabriel completely distorts what Gabriel actually said to the student, Saba Ahmed:

And since you’re the only Muslim representative in here, you took the limelight instead of speaking about why our government — and I assume are you an American? — You’re an American citizen — So as an American citizen you set in this room and instead of standing up and saying a question or asking something about our four Americans that died and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful moderate Muslims. I wish you brought 10 with you to question about how we can hold our government responsible. It is time we took political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.

Do you see the vast difference between what Gabriel actually said and how Dana Milbank characterized it? Brigitte Gabriel isn’t just making a partisan talking point when she criticizes “political correctness” about Islamic terrorism. Our general unwillingness to recognize the nature and scope of the threat made the United States vulnerable to attack 9/11, and our ridiculous fear of offending “peaceful moderate Muslims” continues to hamper an effective response to the radical menace. This is a serious policy problem, and Milbank’s cheap partisan smear job — calculated to depict conservatives as hateful and irrational — is symptomatic of the problem.

Exit question: Which anti-American extremist organization is a greater threat to our freedom, al-Qaeda or the Washington Post?

(Hat-tips: Instapundit and Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Islam, Media Bias, Terrorism

The Pathology of the ‘Male Feminist’

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 37 Comments

 

When last we heard from @HugoSchwyzer in March, the disgraced professor promised to take “an extended hiatus” from writing:

As a quick glance will reveal, I haven’t updated my blog in many months. I am in the midst of what will be a very long break from public writing. The promise of an extended hiatus is one I made many times last summer, but invariably failed to keep. For some time now, however, I’ve been able to stay away from doing interviews, publishing articles and blogposts, and otherwise unhelpfully inserting myself into the conversation.
The April issue of Los Angeles Magazine includes a long article about my fall from grace. Written by Mona Gable, it’s based in part on interviews she did with me in late August of last year while I was staying with my mother in Carmel. These interviews were given during a time when I was in an emotional tailspin, fresh off a psychiatric hospitalization, and heavily medicated on a cluster of psychotropic drugs.

Let’s be clear: Hugo Schwyzer is mentally ill, he has been mentally ill for a long time, and it is highly unlikely that someone suffering from such a chronic psychiatric disorder will ever be completely sane again.

John Hinckley has better prospects for recovery.

“Almost all of the worst allegations about me made by my critics turned out to be true,” Schwyzer said last fall, after confessing that he had slept with many of his students at Pasadena City College. Shortly thereafter, Schwyzer seriously injured a young woman in a felony DUI car crash and admitted: “I am a danger to myself and others.”

Despite his promise of a “hiatus,” however, Schwyzer continues to be active on Twitter, thus exemplifying his basic problem — he is dishonest, irresponsible and untrustworthy, and cannot be expected to restrain his compulsive habits, rooted in a narcissistic craving for attention. Schwyzer’s fame as a “male feminist” was one of his most shameless lies; not only was his own behavior toward women characterized by sexual exploitation and violence, but he claimed to be a professor of “gender studies” (although his college offered no such course) despite the fact that he had taken only a couple of undergraduate classes in the field, having gotten his doctorate in British history. Schwyzer was an impostor, an unethical fraud, and if any of his former students were to sue Pasadena City College, I’d imagine the college’s lawyers would advise administrators to offer a generous settlement.

Schwyzer’s indefensible behavior should alert us to the problematic nature of feminism as an ideology, especially when that ideology is embraced by men. We can understand why disgruntled women would find an anti-male worldview appealing; feminism has the therapeutic value of presenting women with a rationalization for their unhappiness, scapegoating men for everything. But what kind of man is attracted to an ideology that treats his very existence as a sort of social disease?

University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen.

“[A] young professor of journalism, Robert Jensen . . . sent me several of his articles describing his transition from heterosexual, to homosexual, to celibate man now exploring impotence as the ultimate response to the apparent inescapability of ‘patriarchal sex,’ in whichever context sex is pursued. . . .
“Jensen gave up sex ‘with other people (including the people in pornography)’ after realizing that he could not have sex of any sort without recreating ‘patriarchal sex.’ He explains, ‘I was the man, and I was in control because men “naturally” take control of sex.’ Even converting to homosexuality did not save him from these dilemmas, for he found that gay sex, too, was contaminated by patriarchal values. . . .
“All men are raised with rapist ethics, he maintains, whether or not they are all rapists in legal terms.”
— Daphne Patai, Heterophobia (1998)

Stipulate that Professor Jensen’s interpretation of feminist theory is more accurate than Hugo Schwyzer’s. Obviously, a middle-age community college professor banging his teenage students is not a “feminist” by any definition. Yet to acknowledge the authenticity of Jensen’s feminism is not to recommend either feminism or Jensen.

Professor Jensen is absolutely correct that eschewing normal masculine sexuality — becoming an impotent gay celibate — is the only way short of castration or suicide that any man can become wholly acceptable within the context of feminist theory.

This is why most people reject feminism. Normal men refuse to accept the insulting anti-male rhetoric of feminism, and normal women — i.e., the kind of women who like normal men — have no enthusiasm for the pet theories of Marxist lesbians.

All feminists are insane, but “male feminists” are a special kind of crazy.

 

Category: Education, Feminism

Call Implausible IRS Lie About ‘Lost’ Emails What It Is: Obstruction of Justice

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 49 Comments

Democrats lie routinely and habitually, and are accustomed to having their lies accepted without question by the media. It is therefore significant that the media are openly mocking the preposterous claim that Lois Lerner’s emails have been “lost”:

Last Friday afternoon, the Internal Revenue Service claimed that Lois Lerner, a former executive tasked with overseeing tax-exemption applications, lost thousands of emails after her computer crashed. Many of those emails, the tax collection agency claimed, could not be recovered.
This convenient excuse for failing to comply with a request from House investigators is not sitting well with some in the journalistic community.
“Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?” CNN’s John King asked his panel of political reporters on Monday. “Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe that Lois Lerner’s emails suddenly went ‘poof?’” . . .
In a sardonic segment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough ruthlessly mocked the notion that a hardware crash could eliminate files stored on remote servers.
“Mika, even you have to admit this is pretty ridiculous,” Scarborough probed.
“Pretty ridiculous,” Brzezinski replied. “Those emails exist.”
Perhaps made uncomfortable by the implications surrounding this admission, Brzezinski quickly changed topics.

Of course, Democrats want to change topics, because “the implications surrounding this admission” are logically obvious: If we know the administration is lying about the “lost” emails, why are they lying?

The only logical explanation: Lois Lerner’s emails, subpoenaed by congressional investigators, must include evidence that the IRS targeting of conservative groups was approved by the White House.

This is what the “lost” email lie is intended to conceal. It can have no other purpose. For the past year, Democrats and their media allies have insisted that this is a “phony scandal,” even while evidence and testimony disproved a series of excuses offered by the administration, e.g., that the targeting was the work of a few “rogue” employees in the Cincinnati IRS office. The so-called “investigation” by the Justice Department is part of the cover-up, a whitewash designed to hide the truth of the scandal.

Ever since this scandal first became public, congressional investigators have believed (although they would never say so, on the record) that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups because of political pressure from the White House and congressional Democrats. If the IRS has deliberately destroyed (or attempted to conceal) relevant evidence, we need not wonder why. Cleta Mitchell is not deceived:

Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the bad faith destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. . . . The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they have been “lost” appears to evidence bad faith.

It’s time to call this what it so obviously is: Obstruction of justice.

 

Category: Barack Obama, Scandal, Taxes

Hard Choices Is Sort Of The Literary Equivalent Of Healthcare.Gov, Then

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 20 Comments

by Smitty

Pardon me while I munch on the schadenstrudel:

According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, “They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks.” The publishing house was “hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week.”

“The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped,” says the source.

It’s been reported that one million copies of Clinton’s book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. “They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime,” the source writes in the email.

Read the whole thing to find out how much Simon & Suckers paid for this steamer. Of course, you peasants will all rue the day when Her Majesty ascends the throne, and you’re taxed by law for a copy.

via Drudge

Category: Hillary Clinton

Back to Iraq

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 32 Comments

The “optics,” as they say, are unpleasant:

Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets as President Barack Obama nears a decision on an array of options for combating fast-moving Islamic insurgents, including airstrikes or a contingent of special forces.
The U.S. and Iran also held an initial discussion on how the longtime foes might cooperate to ease the threat from the al-Qaida-linked militants that have swept through Iraq. Still, the White House ruled out the possibility that Washington and Tehran might coordinate military operations in Iraq.
Obama met with his national security team Monday evening to discuss options for stopping the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Officials said the president has made no final decisions on how aggressively the U.S. might get involved in Iraq, though the White House continued to emphasize that any military engagement remained contingent on the government in Baghdad making political reforms.
Still, there were unmistakable signs of Americans returning to a country from which the U.S. military fully withdrew more than two years ago. Obama notified Congress that up to 275 troops would be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. The soldiers — 170 of which have already arrived in Iraq — were armed for combat, though Obama has insisted he does not intend for U.S. forces to be engaged in direct fighting.
About 100 additional forces are being put on standby, most likely in Kuwait, and could be used for airfield management, security and logistics support, officials said.

As with the hasty and unwise total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, this redeployment is essentially a matter of domestic politics for the Obama administration. Having made opposition to “Bush’s war” a centerpiece of their campaign rhetoric since 2004, when John Kerry was the anti-war candidate, Democrats then nominated Barack Obama in 2008 based on his promise to completely withdraw from Iraq.

From a standpoint of policy, it would have made sense to leave at least a token military presence there — say, 5,000 troops holding a small base near the Baghdad airport — both as a tactical foothold, and to signify a continued U.S. commitment to defend a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. But, no, the Democrats (and Obama foremost among them) were fanatically determined to un-do all Bush had done, and so the U.S. presence had to be reduced to zero.

Now, predictably, we realize that zero was not an ideal number.

Yet it is still obvious that domestic politics — not policy — is controlling the Obama administration’s response to the Iraq crisis. While partisan apologists scramble to exculpate the president for the consequences of his errors, the administration is caught between its own pacifist commitments and the pragmatic political realization that anarchy in Iraq looks bad for “swing voters.” The pressure to “do something” — anything — was irresistible, yet Obama will make only a token deployment, too small to make a difference, because a larger deployment would be tantamount to an admission that his general policy has been all wrong.

Now, imagine the cussing of senior NCOs at Fort Bragg as they react to chatter about sending Special Forces into the Iraq mess. This scenario has “Mogadishu” written all over it and, as much as these guys love to fight for the sake of fighting, the prospect of being thrown willy-nilly into this Iraq disaster cannot be a welcome thought. The seriousness of the Iraq crisis is impossible to exaggerate:

[T]he events unfolding in Iraq point toward a much wider war, reaching from the Iranian frontier to the Mediterranean coast. The long open border between Iraq and Syria, and the big stretches of ungoverned space, has allowed extremists on each side to grow and to support one another. . . . [T]wo of the strongest groups fighting in Syria, were created by militant leaders from Iraq, many of whom had fought with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia against the United States. The vast swath of territory between the Euphrates and the Tigris — from Aleppo, in Syria, to Mosul, in Iraq — threatens to become a sanctuary for the most virulent Islamist pathologies, not unlike what flourished in Afghanistan in the years before 9/11. Among those fighting with isis and Al Nusra are hundreds of Westerners, from Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. At some point, the survivors will want to go home; they will be well trained and battle-hardened.

Meanwhile, a “senior advisor” to the Obama administration is blithely describing a return of the Islamic caliphate as inevitable.

 

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats, Iraq

LIVE AT FIVESEVEN:06.17.14

Posted on | June 17, 2014 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
White House Reportedly Considering Sending Special Forces To Iraq

Shiite militiamen rallying against the Sunni insurgency

Other stories say administration still insisting it won’t send ground forces to Iraq

Gazprom Shuts Off Gas To Ukraine
Kiev missed $2 billion payment due for natural gas


Israeli Economy Minister Threatens Hamas
“We’re going to change a Hamas membership card into a ticket to hell.”



POLITICS
Calling Off The Speech Police

The Supreme Court

Supremes allow challenge to Ohio law restricting campaign speech

Border Patrol Overwhelmed By Flow Of Illegals

Supremes Rule Straw-Buyer Bans Constitutional

Congress To Investigate Alleged Computer Crash That Made Lerner E-Mails Allegedly Disappear

Report: Obama To Expand Pacific Ocean Sanctuaries

NM Governor’s Former Campaign Manager Pleads Guilty In E-Mail Hacking Case

Alabama Court Strikes Down Sodomy Law

“Duck Dynasty” Cousin Running For Congress



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Eases: NYMEX $106.72, Brent $112.70
GM Recalls Another Three Million Cars For Ignition Defects
IMF Cuts US Growth Outlook, Says Full Unemployment Years Off
Hillshite Dumps Pinnacle For Tyson Deal
Corn Trades Near Four-Month Low As U.S. Crop Conditions Improve
Judge Rules For Macy’s In Martha Stewart Case
Parallels Remote Desktop App Arrives On Android, iPhone
Blackberry Launches BBM Protected For Secure Enterprise Messaging
Amazon Triples Android App Content, Still In Third Place
Unicode Announces Over 250 New Emojis
Girl’s Tearful Facebook Post Credited With Saving Dad’s Life



SPORTS
Hall Of Famer Tony Gwynn Dies, 54

Fighting back the tears at his final game in 2001

Died of cancer Gwynn believed was from his tobacco-chewing habit


Padres Cap Somber Day With 5-1 Loss To Mariners

Tribe Rallies Past Angels To Snap Skid


Murphy Goes Yard Twice As Rangers Outslug A’s 11-8

Royals Rock Verlander, Tigers For Eighth Straight Win

Pete Rose Gets A Taste Of Baseball Again

Harry Reid Makes Redskins Fans Happy, Vows Not To Attend Games Until Team Changes Name

Phillies Break Through In 13th To Beat Braves 6-1

Brewers Surge To 9-3 Thumping Of Snakes

The Rotation Strikes Back



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Teresa Palmer Land Female Lead Role In “Point Break” Reboot

Last featured in 2013’s “Wish You Were Here”

Remake to be set in world of extreme sports



Nikki Finke Lawyers Up

Zendaya To Star In Lifetime’s Aaliyah Biopic


Is Terry Richardson An Artist Or A Predator?

Injury To Sideline Harrison Ford For Eight Weeks

“Heroes” Alum Jack Coleman Set For NBC’s “Heroes Reborn” Miniseries

“Bachelorette” Andi Dorfman Resigns From DA’s Office



FOREIGNERS
Argentina “Won’t Submit To Extortion” On Debt
Royal Bank Of Australia Says Cash Rate Not Moving Soon
UK Inflation Falls To 1.5% In May
Fifteen Killed As Somali Jihadis Hit Another Kenyan Coastal Town
41 More Palestinians Arrested As Israeli Army Continues Manhunt For Kidnapped Teens
Canada Takes Hard Line On Iran Nuke Talks
Al-Sisi Swears In New Egyptian Cabinet
Ukrainian Forces, Rebels Clash Near Russian border


BLOGS & STUFF
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Vegas Shooters Hung Out With #Occupy Crowd
First Street Journal: Wendy Davis Plays The Race Card
Doug Powers: Obama Slams Climate “Deniers” Before Firing Up Air Force One To Go Play Golf
Twitchy: “Shows Why Noone Watches MSNBC” – Network Summed Up In One Perfectly Pathetic Pic
American Power: In Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, A Seemingly Endless Surge Of Illegal Immigrants
American Thinker: Benedict Obama’s Invasion Of America
BLACKFIVE: Marines Head Back To Iraq
Conservatives4Palin: “Going Rogue” Tips For “Hard Choices”
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, June 16
Jammie Wearing Fools: The Whining Never Stops – Politico Laments Obama’s “Bush Hangover”
Joe For America: Clueless, Insane, or Downright Evil?
JustOneMinute: Harshing Barry’s Mellow
Pat Dollard: Stinger Missiles Likely In ISIS Hands
Protein Wisdom: SCOTUS Begins Demolition Of Second Amendment
Shot In The Dark: Fortune Favors The Bold
STUMP: Public Pension Watch – Chicago Not Waving But Drowning
The Jawa Report: Idiots Question Authenticity Of ISIS Atrocity Photos
The Lonely Conservative: Veterans’ Problems Solved, VA Tweeted About Global Warming This Morning
This Ain’t Hell: National Guard To The Border? Again?
Weasel Zippers: State Department’s Jen Psaki Denies Terrorism’s On The Rise
Megan McArdle: 23 Ways To Win Your Wedding Registry


Shop Amazon – New Watches

Category: Live at Five

‘Homo-Maniacal’ Cyberstalking

Posted on | June 16, 2014 | 41 Comments

Jeanette Runyon (@No1Important00) is a name that should be familiar to our regular readers. During the weeks when the Kaitlyn Hunt case was the subject of in-depth coverage here, Jeanette distinguished herself in keeping tabs on the “Free Kate” movement, which embraced the lesbian sex offender as a victim of homophobia (see, “Kaitlyn Hunt Is Guilty and, Yes, There Is a Movement to ‘Normalize Pedophilia'”). What she did was actually very simple: Jeanette screen-capped comments from the “Free Kate” Facebook page and posted them to Twitter. As simple as that sounds, it took a lot of dedication and, by exposing the bizarre claims and crude hatred of Hunt’s supporters, Jeanette’s work did a lot to show how dishonest and deranged the “Free Kate” movement was.

They hated her for that. Bad causes attract bad people, and “Free Kate” supporters included some of the most vicious people imaginable, who did everything they could to make Jeanette Runyon’s life miserable.

John Biver at BarbWire has a column about what kind of harassment Jeanette has experienced over the years — an experience that long preceded the “Free Kate” drama:

A few months ago BarbWire’s senior editor Jeff Allen used the phrase “homo-maniacal” to describe the behavior of these radical lefties.

Biver quotes Tammy Bruce:

Childhood trauma, stress disorders, and the resulting malignant narcissism all play a part in the Left’s victim mentality and in their effort, mostly subconscious, to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches.

Read the whole thing. Biver promises this is just “Part One” of a series, and I look forward to future installments.

 

Category: Gays

Police: Arkansas Teacher, 57, Admits ‘Inappropriate’ Lesbian Sex With Girl, 16

Posted on | June 16, 2014 | 57 Comments

Helen Banks molested teenage girl, police say.

Alleged sexual predator:

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Drew Central High School Teacher Helen Banks, 57, of Monticello was arrested by authorities with the Drew County Sheriff’s Office and Arkansas State Police.
Banks was interviewed by authorities stemming from an investigation which alleged that Banks was having inappropriate contact and communication with a 16-year-old female student.
Banks admitted to the allegations during the interview, she was booked into the Drew County Detention Facility and has since bonded out on a $25,000 commercial bond.
She was arrested for Sexual Assault in the 2nd degree, which is a class B felony in Arkansas. However, more charges may follow.

More from KATV:

School officials uncovered e-mails back and forth between the 16 year-old female student and Banks; e-mails that originated on school computers.
Lt. Tim Nichols, detective with the Drew County Sheriff’s office said the district called the Crimes Against Children hotline in Little Rock with their findings. The agency then forwarded the investigation to Drew County.
“We got the e-mail, I began looking at the report and I went and talked to the victim,” said Nichols.
Nichols said the victim corroborated the story, leading investigators to interview Banks.
Banks declined to go on camera and do an interview with KATV, but Nichols said she admitted to the sexual assault during the interview with her.
“She stated that she knew what she had done was wrong,” said Nichols.
The investigation found the alleged relationship didn’t involve intercourse, rather inappropriate touching, but according to Nichols the touching occurred while on school grounds.

An interesting case: Suspect accused of a felony sex crime against a minor in Arkansas. Who would possibly defend such a suspect?

 

Category: Crime, Education, Gays, Sex, Uncategorized
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin