The Other McCain

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

The One Percent

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 15 Comments

Matthew Continetti recounts the luxurious lifestyle of two top liberal lobbyists in Washington whose marriage went kaput:

The stories begin in the fall of 2001. She was in her early thirties, working at a trade association, and on the rebound. Her second marriage had just ended. A friend, Dorothy Robyn, a Democratic policy wonk, suggested she meet Tony Podesta. Tony was decades older than she, and had been married once before, but he was young at heart. He took her to the opera for their first date. On the way, the story goes, they stopped by one of his homes to pick up a car. She noticed his art collection. “I don’t know why it is,” Tony said, “but I have artworks where the women have no heads.” The next day she sent him a note. It was signed, “Woman with a head.”
The woman with a head was Heather Miller, and soon she and Tony were in love. They moved in together. When they married, in April of 2003, Tony was 59, and Heather was 33. Nancy Pelosi witnessed their vows, as did Patrick Leahy, and Ed Markey, and Bill Richardson, and countless other Democratic bigwigs. According to the Post, which has chronicled the ups and downs of the Podestas’ relationships and careers, the noted D.C. chefs and restaurateurs Roberto Donna and Kaz Okuchi “personally cooked for the guests.” This was no ordinary wedding.
And Tony Podesta was no ordinary man. A longtime Democratic aide, a counselor to Teddy Kennedy, Tony had been one of the capital’s most powerful lobbyists for some time. As his lawyers would later put it, “‘Podesta’ was a widely recognized and well-respected name in the lobbying industry at the time of the marriage.” The lobbying firm he had established in 1987 was powerfully connected. His younger brother, John, was President Clinton’s chief of staff. Tony Podesta owned art and wine and real estate in Italy, in Australia, in northern Virginia, and in D.C. He was a major Democratic donor, a force to be reckoned with, and a cut-up, a character who wore loud neckties and red Prada shoes. . . .

Read the whole thing. The swinish Podestas are suing each other and waging a tacky P.R. battle via strategic media leaks.

 

Category: Liberals

Marsha Blackburn, Steel Magnolia

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 21 Comments

The suggestion that Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee might consider a 2016 Republican presidential campaign is encouraging. One does not wish to see the GOP play a “Me, Too” game of identity politics with the Democrats, yet conservatives must be realistic and practical in our approach to electoral marketing strategy. The reality is that Republicans have been stigmatized as the Party of Old Rich White Guys and the optics of politics in the TV age require that this stigma be visibly counteracted. It will not suffice merely for GOP officials to say they are diverse; seeing is believing, and Republicans must provide the public visual evidence of their claim to represent all Americans.

Republicans actually are more diverse than the “Old Rich White Guys” stereotype would suggest, and the presence of Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in the 2012 GOP primary field helped demonstrate that. Neither Bachmann nor Cain were tokens. Both of them were strong conservative voices, popular with Tea Party activists, and each at one point led the entire primary field. Bachmann surged immediately after her June 2011 entry into the race and in August 2011 won the Iowa GOP straw poll. In the debates, Bachmann inflicted some of the most damaging blows against one-time frontrunner Texas Gov. Rick Perry. And when Perry’s campaign sagged, Cain surged ahead in polls on the basis of his business-minded arguments and his populist appeal.

Well, what about Marsha Blackburn? She’s one of the most powerful Republican women in the House and has for years shown her mastery of policy issues in media appearances. And let me warn anyone who cares to know, that lady is tough as a hell.

We were in Tampa for the Republican convention in 2012 and Blackburn was a VIP guest at Blog Bash. During the pre-event reception, about five or six of us New Media types were in sort of an informal circle around Blackburn when I got the crazy idea to ask her about a controversy that had occurred during a meeting of the RNC platform committee on which Blackburn served.

Bad idea.

Blackburn cut me a glance that froze my blood. Her hostility to my question was so evident that Ali Akbar, who was part of the group clustered around her, just walked away in horror at my faux pas.

Exactly what Blackburn said in answer to my question, I’ve forgotten, but the underlying message was clear: Don’t ever ask me a question like that again or I will be forced to destroy you.

It seems unlikely  that Blackburn would actually enter the 2012 GOP field. She’s got a solid position in the House now, and the odds are against her winning the nomination, simply because House members don’t have the kind of broad-based political machinery that a Senator or Governor can bring into a presidential campaign. On the other hand, a White House run would help raise her national profile, and could put her on the short list for the vice presidency or a Cabinet post in a future Republican administration.

Anyway, it’s encouraging to see Blackburn’s name mentioned for 2016 and, if she does run, political journalists should consider themselves warned: Don’t cross her. That lady’s tough as hell.

 

Category: Election

Scapegoated for ObamaCare Failures, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Resigns

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 64 Comments

Thursday’s resignation of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the biggest move yet in President Obama’s effort to rescue his signature government health-insurance plan, and to limit the political impact of the program’s failure.

The administration and its allies are trying to convince Americans that problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are just temporary technical glitches with a website — the “botched rollout” narrative — rather than fundamental flaws with the law itself.

Sebelius’s resignation fits that narrative, permitting Democrats and their media sympathizers to claim that problems with ObamaCare were caused by the former HHS secretary’s incompetence, and not by any basic problem in the president’s program. This is likely to become a key issue in the campaign for the fall mid-term elections, in which Republicans seeking to capture the Senate majority will argue that ObamaCare is a complete failure that should be repealed, while Democrats will say the policy is successful, but simply had a few early glitches that have now been fixed. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein offers the Democrat spin:

Obamacare has won. And that’s why Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius can resign.
Calls for Sebelius’s resignation were almost constant after Obamacare’s catastrophic launch. The problem wasn’t just that Sebelius had presided over the construction of a fantastically expensive web site that flatly didn’t work. It was that she didn’t know healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. And so the White House didn’t know that healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. The demands that Sebelius to step down — or be fired — were as deafening inside the building as outside of it.
But President Obama refused. As National Journal’s Major Garrett reported, Obama believes that “scaring people with a ceremonial firing deepens fear, turns allies against one another, makes them risk-averse, and saps productivity.” Moreover, there was too much to be done to fire one of the few people who knew how to finish the job. Sebelius would stay. The White House wouldn’t panic in ways that made it harder to save the law.
The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare’s first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers.

In Klein’s pro-Obama narrative, then, not only is ObamaCare a successful policy, but the president’s handling of problems with the website’s launch demonstrated his competence as an executive.

Ben Domenech offers the conservative interpretation:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, and Rachel Maddow is right to not be happy about it, not one little bit. For once, I completely agree with Maddow’s analysis. This surprise resignation presents Republicans with an unexpected opportunity to refocus the conversation on Obamacare’s negatives, offers a chance to force vulnerable Senate Democrats to take a hard vote on Obamacare six months before the midterms, and serves to disrupt what had been a positive few days of media spin for the health care law into another conversation about its many failings.

Domenech sees the upcoming confirmation vote for Sebelius’s appointed successor at HHS — Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell — as a “golden opportunity” for Senate Republicans “to reignite their crusade against Obamacare,” forcing Democrats to give an up-or-down vote on a nominee who will serve as a “proxy” symbol for the program’s failures.

Domenech should caution his GOP friends on Capitol Hill to tread carefully, as Democrats and their media allies may be luring Republicans into a “War on Women” trap, setting up a situation in which a bunch of old white guys are seen attacking a female nominee.

This trap could best be avoided simply by calling attention to how the administration is deliberately setting up Burwell.

Having made one woman (Sebelius) a scapegoat for ObamaCare’s failures to date, now the White House disingenuously shoves another top female administration official into the political meat-grinder, hoping to obtain a short-term political benefit from Burwell’s public humiliation in Senate hearings. Considering how Hillary Clinton was scapegoated for the Benghazi massacre, Republicans might well ask, “Why does Obama always blame women for his failures?”

 

Category: Barack Obama, Health Care

In The Mailbox, 04.11.14

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: LA Daily News Runs Doom & Gloom Article On Tim Donnelly
Doug Powers: Deer, Meet Headlights – Six People On “Morning Joe” Try To Cite Hillary’s Achievement
Twitchy: Sebelius “Released From Job Lock”, But Did Obama Ruin Her Chance At A Mozilla Gig?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Here’s What I Would Have Said At Brandeis
American Thinker: Voter Fraud – The Left’s Tool For Social Justice
Blackfive: Arlington National Cemetery Flyover Update
Conservatives4Palin: Kirsten Powers – Liberals’ Mob Rule
Don Surber: 2nd Congressional Race Reflects A New West Virginia
Jammie Wearing Fools: Incompetent Hack Sebelius Resigning
Joe For America: Up To 5000 Armed Militia Members Arriving In Bunkerville, Nevada Today
Pat Dollard: Federal Judge Slams Holder For “Unprecedented” Action That Executive Branch Had “No Authority” To Take
Protein Wisdom: Jesse Ventura – “Dan Snyder Is Trying To Buy The Right To Be Racist”
Shot In The Dark: Guess They Got What They Deserved
The Jawa Report: Red On Red – ISIS And Al Nusrah Continue To Kill Each Other In Syria
Lonely Conservative: House Republicans Might Arrest Lois Lerner If DOJ Doesn’t
This Ain’t Hell: Chandler & Stevens Give Congress The Go-Ahead To Slash Personnel Costs
Megan McArdle: Our Bodies, Our Dry-Cleaning Bill


Category: Linkagery

Violent Teenage Tranny Provokes Connecticut Youth Jail Crisis

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 26 Comments

A 16-year-old boy who wants to be a girl has a history of violently attacking staff at juvenile facilities. After the latest attack, the teenage transsexual was transferred to a prison for young adult offenders, and a variety of activist types have become outraged:

Lawyers for the youth who was transferred out of the care of the Department of Children and Families and into an adult prison pressed for a court order Thursday barring the youth’s placement at the Manson Correctional Institute for males up to the age of 20.
Prison officials on Thursday were still evaluating the female transgender youth at the York Correctional Institute for women in Niantic. A federal judge dismissed the request for a court order “without prejudice,” meaning lawyers for the youth can immediately re-file the request as soon as prison officials decide where the youth will be housed. That could happen by Friday. Through its history, the Department of Correction has always placed transgendered inmates by their biological gender.
There is no criminal charge against the 16-year-old, and DCF said it took the extremely rare action of pressing for a transfer to an adult prison because of the youth’s history of assaulting staff members at juvenile facilities. But advocates for children said DCF deals with many assaultive youths, and said the transfer endangers the youth’s life and sets an intolerable precedent. A state judge on Tuesday approved the transfer of the youth out of DCF care.
Attorney Aaron Romano, one of the youth’s lawyers, said the legal team would oppose any move to place the youth at Manson, saying her life would be in danger. And Romano said any move to put the youth in an isolation or seclusion unit at York would also be opposed — as a violation of the her constitutional rights.

Read the whole crazy thing. There are multiple angles, including the accusation that this teen tranny’s case was dishonestly used by Connecticut officials in lobbying for additional funding:

It turns out that Jill, the ultra-violent girl cited in testimony by DCF Commissioner Joette Katz in February 14th hearings regarding the need for a Connecticut facility for ultra-violent female juveniles is in fact a male transgender.
The 16 year old “girl” and “female” cited in multiple reports as an alleged serial violent batterer of women and girls across several foster care placements was revealed to be a male “transgender teen” yesterday when gay activist groups revealed he has since been remanded to an adult prison facility for evaluation and placement by the state.

It can be hard to keep track of the pronouns in a story like this, but there is no doubting the teen tranny’s propensity for violence:

DCF argued before a judge that it could not care for the youth at any of its programs, including the high-security Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown. The youth had assaulted a staff member at a Massachusetts facility in January. . . .
In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., but the assault charge was not pursued by prosecutors. No criminal charges are pending against the youth, who was placed in the Needham facility by Connecticut DCF.
The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in “apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said Connolly, who reviewed the report.
However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, describes a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
The assault occurred after one of the two staff members attempted to restrain the youth by bear-hugging the youth around the chest.
The youth broke free and punched the victim multiple times, bit the staffer on the top of the head, and kicked the staffer at least six times in the head, arms and face, according to the report.

The ACLU has gotten involved:

Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the effect of the transfer is to single out the youth for unjust treatment.
“DCF asked for and the court approved a plan to treat this girl as if she were an adult and a criminal, although she is neither,” Staub said.
The agency pursued this action “simply because she is a transgendered girl,” Staub said. “No other girl in DCF custody has been endangered in this way. The result, if not the intent, is clearly discriminatory.”

Hey, wait a minute: If you put this “transgendered girl” in a juvenile facility for females, don’t the violent tendencies of this biological male — who is likely taller and stronger than nearly all the female inmates — put those girls at risk? Also . . .

Well, penis?

Having an inmate with a penis in the juvenile girls dormitory might be kinda problematic. Supply, demand. Just sayin’ . . .

 

Category: Crime, Gays

‘Huge Disappointment’: @LenaDunham Laments Her Own Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 76 Comments

 

Where does a lifetime of liberal indoctrination about “inclusivity” lead young women? Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome:

Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.

The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.'”

It’s easy enough to wisecrack about this, but the sad reality is that feminist ideology does celebrate lesbianism as the ultimate in liberation and equality, so that Lena Dunham’s feminist “beliefs and passions” — the core tenets of her intellectual loyalty — are at odds with her personal preference for penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse that feminism condemns as violent oppression. (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) Perhaps you’ve forgotten the radical feminist who explained that their ideology is based on a rejection of the “sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.”

This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.

 

Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.

Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.

 

‘Please Be My Breeder-Slave’?

If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their dick receptacles.”  There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love.  . . .
It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse.

The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.

 

Perceiving male sexuality as intrinsically harmful, and believing that normal women are victims of “heteronormative” brainwashing, feminists imagine the male proposition thus:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Please be my breeder-slave
And dick receptacle, too.

Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.

Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shame for her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “dick receptacle”?

The War on Sexual Biology

Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.

As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.

If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.

However, despite decades of pro-gay propaganda, a Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the population identifies as gay.

It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share.  And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.

This strange hostility toward viewing heterosexual behavior as natural, as a function of basic biology, also explains the attitude that led a Massachusetts college sex educator to complain:

I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.

Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.

Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s  not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!

Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
— Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

 

Category: Celebrities, Feminism, Gays

The Liberal Race-Mongering Derby

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 25 Comments

About three weeks ago, I briefly took notice of a debate between liberals Jonathan Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates about the “correct” view on race relations. Ann Althouse notices that the debate has continued, and has been recapped by Clare Sostanovich.

Let me add two cents: Back in the 1990s, when some piece of legislation was pending in the Republican-held Congress — its passage in doubt because of President Clinton’s veto threat — I talked to a GOP House member who explained the basic political calculus: “It depends on whether we want a bill, or whether we want an issue.”

That is to say, they could make changes in the legislation so that the President would sign it, thus giving Republicans a chance to claim credit for the bill, or else they could pass the measure as it stood, forcing the President to veto it, and giving Republicans an issue that they could then take to voters in the next election.

It seems to me that Ta-Nehisi Coates, who offers himself as a progressive spokesman for black America, must make a similar choice:  Does he want to address racial problems with the idea of doing something about those problems, or does does he just want to continue invoking a sense of black grievance that is more or less permanent? Does he want the bill, or does he want the issue?

Many conservatives have observed that liberals thrive on the political exploitation of problems that their policies never solve. As Ronald Reagan quipped: “We had a War on Poverty. Poverty won.” Of course, liberals have never stopped claiming that poverty is a problem which always demands more liberal solutions. But if they ever got rid of poverty, liberals would be out of business, and so they are politically invested in policies that don’t actually work.

All of this discussion was originally provoked by Rep. Paul Ryan’s remarks about “inner-city” culture as a cause of poverty. Talk to any upwardly mobile middle-class black parent, and they will tell you that one of their greatest challenges is trying to prevent their children from adopting that “inner-city” attitude which is too often presented in popular culture as the only way to be “authentically” black.

It’s really sad to see how often black suburbanites — teachers and accountants and managers who have worked to earn their kids a chance at life in affluent communities with good schools — are heartbroken that their sons and daughters reject the opportunities they’ve been given, instead getting involved in drugs and gangs and every other “inner-city” problem their parents sought to escape.

Such problems involve layers and layers of complexity that cannot be explained — and certainly can never be solved — merely by reference to white racism, nor by invoking a historic “legacy” of discrimination. In 2014, it is impossible to say that racial discrimination is worse than it was half a century ago, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Yet it is perplexing that liberals refuse to consider the paradoxical possibility that liberal policies of the past have in some ways caused (or at least, made worse) the problems that liberals so frequently complain about today. Go read Doug Ross’s summary of how race hustlers tried to smear the Tea Party as racist, a timely reminder of how Democrats shamelessly exploit racial division for partisan purposes.

Whatever your problem is, “vote Democrat” is never the solution.

 

Category: Racism

In The Mailbox, 04.10.14

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Sluggish and “Now We’re Just Haggling Over The Price”
Michelle Malkin: The Meltdown Of The Obama Genderhawks
Doug Powers: House Panel Requests DOJ Prosecution Of Lois Lerner
Twitchy: Abominable Doucherocket Michael Tomasky Of The Daily Beast Explains Why Conservative Women Are So Dumb


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Banned At Brandeis
American Thinker: Pro-Choice – Defending The Right Not To Be Gay
Blackfive: The Bigotry Of The Myth Of The Ticking Vet
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Shocker – Gathering Of Drunk, Half-Naked College Students Ends In Disaster
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Tells Holder “These Are My Identifying Bracelets”
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, April 9
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama Pal Sharpton Wore FBI Wire To Save Himself From Drug Sting
Joe For America: Video Of Violence Breaking Out Between Ranchers, BLM Officers Over Cattle Dispute
Pat Dollard: IRS Agents Caught Openly Campaigning For Obama
Protein Wisdom: Radical Identity Politics, Homosexuality, And The Irony Of The New Jihad
Shot In The Dark: Chanting Points Memo – The New GULAG
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – The Detroit Deal’s Basics
The Jawa Report: CAIR Complains Women Having Human Rights Is Anti-Islamic
Lonely Conservative: Lois Lerner Hoped To Get A Job With Organizing For America
This Ain’t Hell: Marine Corps Sergeant Major Says Poor Marines Are Best For The Corps
Megan McArdle: How Ukraine Could Alter New York’s Skyline


Five days left in tax season.

JustOneMinute: Fahrenheit 8

Category: Linkagery
« 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