The Other McCain

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

Fake Jew Update: SJW Julia Salazar Accuses Truth-Tellers of Racism

Posted on | August 27, 2018 | Comments Off on Fake Jew Update: SJW Julia Salazar Accuses Truth-Tellers of Racism

“The fact that, as a woman of color, I am facing accusations that my deeply held identity is a false one says more about the politics of Jewish identity than it does about my observing Judaism.”
— Julia Salazar

“There was nobody in our immediate family who was Jewish . . . my father was not Jewish, we were not raised Jewish.”
— Alex Salazar, Julia’s brother

In case you missed it over the weekend, a Democrat state senate candidate in New York, Julia Salazar, was caught faking her identity as an immigrant Jew (her mother is an Italian Catholic from New Jersey, and her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen nearly a decade before she was born). Salazar also claimed to be working class, but her father was a commercial pilot and she attended elite Columbia University ($80,826 a year, including room and board). Salazar, who is challenging an incumbent state senator in the Democrat primary in a Brooklyn district, has been endorsed by Democratic Socialist “it girl” Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and garnered laudatory coverage in the liberal media before being exposed as a fake Jew by Armin Rosen of Tablet.

Her response? “RAAAAACISM!”

[T]he piece attacks my identity as a Jewish person of color. This is more disturbing to me; there’s a long history of bigoted policing of the identity of Jewish people of color, particularly people with patrilineal Jewish heritage or Jews who converted. I’m sad to see that brought into my campaign.
The truth here is simple: my father was of Sephardic Jewish heritage; my mother was nominally raised Catholic, but religion had little place in our household. It was in college, in the wake of my father’s death when I was 18, that I began to deeply explore my Jewish roots, participate in Jewish communal life, and commit myself to observing Judaism.

Hey, how about, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? Isn’t honesty part of “observing Judaism”? Salazar’s claim about her father having “Sephardic Jewish heritage” could not be verified and, when contacted by Tablet‘s Armin Rosen, her relatives expressed astonishment that Salazar would make such a claim. As I discussed during Saturday’s episode of The Other Podcast, one of my great-grandfathers (my maternal grandmother’s father) was descended from a Sephardic Jew who lived in Philadelphia at the time of American Revolution, but by the time they settled in east Alabama circa 1850, the Moses family were Christians, founding members of Big Springs Baptist Church. We cannot rule out the possibility that this kind of fractional genealogy — I may be more Jewish than Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee — might be found somewhere in Julia Salazar’s family tree, but this hypothetical possibility doesn’t justify her inventing a “Jewish heritage” for political purposes, and then claiming to be a victim of “bigotry” when her fraud was exposed.

Likewise, Salazar attempts to obscure the facts surrounding her claim to be an immigrant, by saying that her family frequently traveled to her father’s native Colombia when she was a child, to which the correct reply is: “So what?” You grew up in a fine middle-class home in Florida, sweetheart. Your father was a legal immigrant who became an American citizen in 1982, before you were even born, and you lied about it.

Let’s remember Vox Day’s Law:

1. SJWs Always Lie.
2. SJWs Always Double Down.
3. SJWs Always Project.

Julia Salazar is 3-for-3 here, having doubled-down on her phony “Jewish heritage” claim and projecting “bigotry” onto the truth-tellers when she is the one exploiting the bigotry of identity politics. She used these bogus claims of victimhood to justify racialized hatred.

 

That’s a photo showing Julia Salazar (second from right) as an activist with “Jews for Racial and Economic Justice” engaged in a 2017 protest falsely accusing the NYPD of racism. The belief that police in New York City, one of the most liberal places on the planet, are somehow complicit in “injustice” is one of those left-wing myths that Fred Siegel has described as “the riot ideology.” This is a form of hate propaganda, aimed at inciting a sense of anti-white grievance among minorities.

Manufacturing a fake identity as a Jewish working-class immigrant was a way for Julia Salazar to disown her actual middle-class identity, in order to be part of the (tax-exempt, Soros-funded) SJW mob whose claims to “oppression” are the raison d’être of their existence as activists.

Permit me to invoke my own ancestry — which, unlike some people, I can prove — to denounce Julia Salazar as a shanda fur die goyim.



 

 

Category: Democrats, Election, New York, Racism

Rule 5 Sunday: Mariya Takeuchi

Posted on | August 26, 2018 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

For all that YouTube (as an arm of the vile SJW-dominated Google) screws us conservatives at every opportunity, once in a while it serves up a pleasant surprise. Yesterday I followed a link my son had posted to a pleasant piece of jazz music, and in the suggested videos I found Mariya Takeuchi’s “Plastic Love”, a melancholy yet upbeat song that experienced a revival as part of the whole vaporwave musical movement. Takeuchi’s good looks didn’t hurt, either – the pic posted to go with the video is actually from the cover of her album Morning Glory, which is nearly thirty years old at this point. Takeuchi is far from a one-hit wonder, though – she’s released eighteen albums, many of them #1 hits in Japan. Today’s appetizer, helping celebrate her fortieth anniversary in the music business, is a recent pic showing that she (like her music) has aged extremely well.

Tatsuro Yamashita is a lucky, lucky man.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny leads off with Hot Pick Of The Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #356, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. Animal Magnetism may be on the road, but still gets it done with Travel Totty Day 5 and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

This week, EBL brings us Bond Girls, National Aviation Day, Angela Lansbury, Grapes, Jamaican Me Crazy, Toxic Tinder Natasha Aponte, Virginia Mayo, RIP Robin Leach, and Julie Bishop.

A View From The Beach has New Media Star – Anna Akana, Evil Woman, They Called Her Half Breed, Fishing Pic Friday – Gear, Wet T-Shirt Thursday, Again, Russiagate: Manafort Guilty, Cohen Guilty, When in Trouble, Blame the Dead Guy, Offshore Oil Rigs on the East Coast?, #HerToo and #HerToo, “Birmingham” and “Victim of Pleasure”.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Rebecca Gayheart, his Vintage Babe is Terry Martine, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Zooey Deschanel. At Dustbury, it’s Awkwafina and Claudia Schiffer.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short

Posted on | August 26, 2018 | Comments Off on FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule Five Sunday: Barbi Benton
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

‘Gender-Neutral Parenting’ and the Problem of Unintended Consequences
The Pirate’s Cove
EBL

Live Like a Millennial Hipster…
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Talk Dirty To Me
The Pirate’s Cove
A View From The Beach
EBL

Guilt by Association: White House Ditches Aide for Speaking at 2016 Conference
EBL

David Horowitz Schools Jonah Goldberg: #NeverTrump as Moral Cowardice
EBL

No Masculinity Allowed!
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.20.18
357 Magnum
Proof Positive
EBL

Soros Funding Internet Censorship
EBL

Who Is Lisa H. Barsoomian?
A View From The Beach
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.21.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive

Violence Against Women Update: Illegal Alien Murdered College Girl, Police Say
A View From The Beach

Darren Beattie: Guilty of Intellectualism
EBL

Nutty as Squirrel Farts: The Escalating Madness of Ex-Professor Deborah Frisch
EBL

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Insanity
EBL

Anti-Trump Witch-Hunt Update
A View From The Beach
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.22.18
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 08.23.18
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Rare STD Reported in England
EBL

Hollywood Boy Toy Shakedown Racket
A View From The Beach
EBL

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
EBL

Big Brother, Inc.
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.24.18
Proof Positive

Top linkers for the week ending August 24:

  1.  EBL (21)
  2.  A View From The Beach (9)
  3.  Proof Positive (6)

Thanks to everyone for all the links!


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Try Amazon Music Unlimited Free Trial

Category: FMJRA Award

Every Liberal’s Favorite Republican, and the Problem With ‘Bipartisan Reform’

Posted on | August 26, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

My friend John Hoge and I finished the 25th episode of The Other Podcast last night and were out to dinner when I picked up my phone and scrolled the Drudge Report, learning of the death of John McCain, whose general unpleasantness inspired the name of this blog. By that time, co-blogger Smitty had already posted a brief notice of the death of the man I called “Crazy Cousin John,” and I thought: What should I say?

Perhaps it would be wisest to say nothing, although when I saw the Drudge headline — “MCCAIN DEAD” — I felt an urge to reassure friends and relatives that I was not the subject of this news. And certainly, so long as I am alive, I will bear the stain upon the family name caused by my cousin’s advocacy of “bipartisan reform” and his 2008 presidential campaign, which delivered the White House to Barack Obama.

Politics is a team sport and, in a two-party system, there are no silver medals for a second-place finish. You either win, or you lose.

It does not behoove us to celebrate defeat and losers are not generally regarded as heroes in politics. John McCain was a loser, and the particular way he went about losing deserves to be studied as an example of what not to do in politics. So as the cable-news channels are filled today with glowing tributes to the deceased senator, permit me to remind readers of exactly why we hated the man during his life.

Let’s begin by contrasting John McCain with Ronald Reagan. In 1964, toward the tail end of the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, Reagan took to the airwaves to give a half-hour speech in support of the Republican presidential nominee. At that point, Goldwater was clearly on his way to defeat against the incumbent Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, but Reagan felt that it was important to give voters a solid exposition of the conservatives principles for which the GOP candidate stood. That speech, “A Time for Choosing,” is now remembered as the clearest articulation of the philosophy that, 16 years later, took Reagan to the White House and, eventually, consigned the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union to the “ash heap of history.” To this day, video of Reagan’s 1964 speech draws applause when it is shown at conferences of College Republicans, reminding them of their party’s fundamental creed.

That, my friends, is how you win in politics, and the obvious question presents itself: Where is John McCain’s “A Time for Choosing”? Where is the definitive exposition of his political creed? Where is the video of him articulating a cause to which young Republicans can rally?

Such a video does not exist, and why not? It’s because, deep in his heart, John McCain was always ashamed of being a Republican.

This is one of the enduring problems of the GOP, namely that many of its leading officials are embarrassed by their association with the party, in a way that no Democrat is ever made to feel. Because the liberal media operate a 24/7 character assassination campaign against Republicans, it takes a strong mind to resist this psyops propaganda, to maintain a sense of political self-esteem while opposing the Democrat agenda.

All that is necessary for any Republican to win praise from the liberal media is for him to endorse their negative opinion of the GOP, and this is how John McCain became every liberal’s favorite Republican.

This is not how winners play the game. Nor can the kind of “bipartisan reform” agenda with which John McCain made his name synonymous ever do anything to help elect Republicans. There are three basic problems with “bipartisan reform,” first, that GOP officials who support such efforts are always doing so to curry favor with the liberal media; second, that these “reform” schemes always have the political effect of alienating the Republican Party’s conservative grassroots; and third, that Democrats will never support any “reform” unless they believe it will help them win elections (and thus obtain greater power) in the future.

In contrast to John McCain’s pursuit of “bipartisan reform,” consider how the 1996 welfare reform act was imposed on President Clinton by the GOP majority in Congress. In 1994, Newt Gingrich had led Republicans to a stunning midterm victory, putting the GOP in charge of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Taking advantage of this powerful conservative momentum, Gingrich and his allies passed welfare reform legislation, which Clinton vetoed twice, but which the Republican Congress passed for a third time in the summer of 1996, and Clinton — recognizing how a third veto might be used against him in the fall presidential campaign — finally signed it into law, thus depriving the GOP of a major argument against his re-election.

Gingrich & Co. were negotiating from a position of strength in 1996, and this was how welfare reform became a “bipartisan” issue. Such could not be said for John McCain’s advocacy of bipartisan “campaign finance reform,” and still less could it be said of McCain’s repeated efforts on behalf of “comprehensive immigration reform” which, as everybody with a lick of sense knows, is a synonym for amnesty and open borders.

No Democrat will ever vote for any immigration “reform” that does not include amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, or reduces the influx of foreigners whom Democrats regard as a source of future votes.

Anyone who thinks that bipartisan “reform” of our immigration policies is possible, in an era where the two parties are engaged in a closely-matched struggle to obtain a bare majority in the Congress, a situation where neither party has been able to win a third consecutive term in the White House since 1998, is simply deluded. Republicans who support such “reform” are the worst kind of fools, failing to give Democrats credit for knowing their own partisan interests. Whatever else may be said about immigration policy, it is a demonstrable fact that for more than 40 years, no federal immigration law was ever passed without the approval of Sen. Ted Kennedy, a liberal Democrat who fervently believed in a simple formula: “more immigrants = more Democrats.”

All you need to do to understand this is to look at California. Once upon a time, California was the leading site of conservative policy innovation, having twice elected Ronald Reagan as governor, and advancing tax-limitation policies like the Proposition 13 referendum in 1978. Now, however, California is home to more than 2 million illegal aliens, the state government is firmly controlled by Democrats, and every intelligent resident of California is busy planning their departure to Texas or Nevada or anywhere else in the country they can hope to escape the disastrous consequences of Democrat policies. No young American today looks at California as the land of opportunity. What was once “The Golden State” is now infamous for corruption, criminal violence, drug abuse, and sidewalks covered with feces — a failed state: Zimbabwe, U.S.A.

Although I was born and raised a Democrat, and never voted for a Republican until I was 35 years old, I have come to realize that, if there ever was any good reason to vote Democrat, such folly has long since become inexcusable. The decisive shift in what the Democrats stand for seems to have occurred during the 12-year Reagan-Bush tenure in the White House. Having been defeated by landslide margins in three consecutive presidential elections, Democrats apparently reached the kind of conclusion once mocked in a Bertolt Brecht poem:

After the uprising of the 17th of June,
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee,
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government,
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

This is what Democrats are now seeking to do: To elect a new people, so to speak, through unrestricted immigration, in order to implement socialist policies that a majority of Americans have refused to support. Democrats have thus made themselves the anti-American party — quite literally advocating a foreign takeover of our country — and no patriot would assist this subversive project through “bipartisan reform.”

Such was my sentiment in dubbing this blog “The Other McCain.” During the decade after I moved to the D.C. area in 1997, I learned to anticipate the inevitable question when I introduced myself to people in Washington: “Any relation to John McCain?” And for some time, I thought that we were unrelated until, in 2007, I skimmed through the Arizona senator’s autobiography and discovered that we were indeed cousins. Our common ancestor can be found in the first federal census of South Carolina in 1790. That ancestor had two sons, named Hugh and Alexander. As I’ve often said in explaining this, one branch of the McCain family became wealthy plantation owners in the Mississippi Delta, while the other branch became simple farmers in the red-clay hills of Randolph County, Alabama. John McCain was descended from the Mississippi branch, while I’m proud to be an Alabama McCain.

John McCain had many personal traits that I recognize in myself. He was arrogant and stubborn, and viewed criticism as an insult to his honor.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Perhaps the great difference between the Arizona Senator and myself was that, as a Navy officer whose father and grandfather were both admirals, John McCain was used to being treated with deference, no matter how controversial his opinions or behavior might be. By contrast, I long ago learned to expect to encounter opposition, hatred and envy from others, so I usually shrug off insulting treatment without complaint. Because I am a joker and a clown by nature, I often conceal my injured feelings with self-deprecating humor. Only rarely do I lose my temper and lash out at “friends” who have (perhaps unintentionally) insulted me.

It is foolish to expect courtesy from one’s enemies, but the nature of politics is such that we are often insulted by those who claim to be our friends, who smile in our faces while they stab us in the back. This was why I parted ways with the Democrats about 25 years ago — Bill Clinton was one of the most selfish two-faced backstabbers in the history of American politics — and I refuse to tolerate it from Republicans.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”

Don’t rip me off, sell me out, screw me over, and expect me to believe that your deliberate act of betrayal was somehow unintentional.

This was what made John McCain so unpopular with conservatives. He claimed to be acting on high-minded principles, even while it was obvious that he was merely seeking to enhance his own personal reputation by pandering to liberals through his advocacy of “bipartisan reform.”

Politics isn’t everything in life, but if you choose to become a politician, you should expect to be judged by a political standard. Because politics is a team sport, a good politician is always trying to help his team win, and should be judged by his success in doing so. This means, of course, that a truly successful politician can expect to be hated by the opposing party, the way Democrats hated Reagan. One nowadays is often told how Reagan was able to “compromise” with congressional Democrats like Tip O’Neill, but that could be explained by two factors: First, that Reagan won two landslide elections and thus was negotiating from a position of strength, and second, that the Democrat congressional majority in those days included many moderate and conservative members.

We are no longer living in the age of “Scoop” Jackson and Sam Nunn, and any talk of “compromise” with Democrats is therefore folly. No honest or intelligent person can blame Republicans for the hard-left turn of Democrats during the past 30 years. The only way for Republicans to achieve “compromise” now is as simple as the advice Al Davis once famously gave his Oakland Raiders: “Just win, baby.”

You want “immigration reform”? Make sure you vote Republican in the midterm elections, crushing Democrats’ hopes of a “blue wave” and forcing them to accept whatever deal President Trump is willing to offer.

Zero amnesty, and build the wall — that’s the “compromise” we want, and the only way to get it is to beat the Democrats so badly that they’ll have no hope of any future opportunity to vote for anything else.

In politics, as in football, there is no substitute for victory. Why didn’t John McCain understand this? We could blame those six years he spent as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. During the years McCain was a P.O.W., American politics changed, and the Democrats welcomed into their ranks those anti-American leftists who celebrated Communist victory in Vietnam. In the decades after the fall of Saigon, Democrats gradually became the party of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

John McCain’s politics of “bipartisan compromise” expressed a naïve nostalgia for a bygone era when Democrats didn’t hate America. No honest or intelligent person can think that way now, however, so that the Democrat Party now derives its support from two categories of voters:

  1. Socialists, criminals and perverts who want to destroy America;
    and
  2. Fools.

Perhaps this was the case even before I quit the Democrats back in the 1990s, but I was a young fool then, and at least could offer the excuse that I had inherited an ancestral loyalty to the Democrat Party the way other people inherit their grandmother’s silver tea service. We are far past the era when anyone could be as thoroughly deceived as I once was, and the death of John McCain is as good an occasion as any to explain the unfortunate truth of American politics in the 21st century.

He was every liberal’s favorite Republican, which was sufficient reason to hate him as long as he lived, so that it was my policy never to say anything good about John McCain. Only his death has freed me of this obligation, and if I could think of any reason to praise him now, I would, but that would require more effort than it’s worth. Selah.

UPDATE: Oh, dear God!

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today he’ll be introducing a resolution to rename one of the Senate office buildings on Capitol Hill after late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). . . .
The building is currently named for former Sen. Richard Russell Jr. (D-Ga.), who was president pro tempore of the Senate when he died in 1971. There have been calls to rename the office building for years as Russell was a segregationist who led a Southern boycott of the Democratic National Convention after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.) The reason Russell deserved to have a building named in his honor was that he served for 14 years as chairman of the Armed Services committee. Russell was a staunch supporter of national defense, as was his later successor, Georgia’s Sam Nunn. Without regard to the politics of segregation, my native Georgia is home to three major Army bases, Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, and Fort Gordon. Georgia has a proud military tradition, and Sen. Russell was at all times an advocate for the U.S. military. The fact that Chuck Schumer wishes to insult the memory of this famous Georgian, by renaming the Russell building as a tribute to John McCain, is perhaps the best possible reminder of why we always hated John McCain. Any Republican admired by Chuck Schumer must be a bad person.



 

Category: John McCain, Vicious Backstabbing Crapweasels

Trey Gowdy Is Well Worth Your Time

Posted on | August 26, 2018 | Comments Off on Trey Gowdy Is Well Worth Your Time

by Smitty

Not present, but looming large during this: Senator Tim Scott.

Trey speaks on themes present in his book with Scott.
A very timely speech with plenty of Biblical allusions.
Hope to see Gowdy continue in public service.

via JoanOfArgghh

Category: Uncategorized

RIP, Senator John McCain

Posted on | August 25, 2018 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

Stacy will doubtless have a more eloquent word at this difficult time.

Cancer is a horrific way to go. May the Lord rest his soul and strengthen his family.

His centrist, bi-partisan stances were very often controversial. But this is not the time to dig up old bones.

I do hope that he left a memoir to illuminate his viewpoint on events. Maybe clear up some lingering questions. Or even raise a few more.

Godspeed, warrior.

Biographical detail at Victory Girls.

Category: Uncategorized

Fake Hate (Because It’s an Election Year)

Posted on | August 25, 2018 | 1 Comment

This is how you know a crucial election is coming up. If there’s not enough racism to energize black voters, Democrats will just invent some:

A story about a white man urinating on a 5-year-old black child and calling her a racial slur was fabricated, police said.
Grand Rapids police and prosecutors late Friday, Aug. 24 said they determined the story was not valid and said no charges would be issued against a 60-year-old man arrested following the initial report on Wednesday.
Police said several children, all 7 or younger, were playing together sometime before 6 p.m. Wednesday when one of the children urinated on the 5-year-old girl.
Kent County prosecutors said the parents of the children, in talking with them, ultimately determined the children “concocted the story to avoid trouble.”
“We appreciate the conscientiousness of the parents in bringing the matter to the attention of the police, and continuing to ask their children questions as new evidence was obtained,” prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said the 60–year-old man had a “verifiable alibi” from other people who vouched for his whereabouts.
The allegations, when first reported late Wednesday, caused concern across the community and NAACP leaders on Friday said the incident should be considered both a hate crime and sex assault.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Remember that the #BlackLivesMatter movement began in the summer before the 2014 midterm elections, when Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) invented a fictitious narrative around the police shooting of Michael Brown. As it turned out, Brown was a robbery suspect and was shot by a police officer in a struggle over the officer’s gun. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, however, CNN went into 24/7 coverage mode based on a false story that Brown was an innocent honor-roll student who had been shot by a racist cop (the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth, which became a protest slogan). Even though practically everything about the shooting of Brown was misrepresented by the liberal media, they nevertheless continued to report on the riots they had helped incite as if these were a spontaneous expression of “community” outrage, rather than the result of an election-year propaganda campaign funded by George Soros. The message of #BlackLivesMatter could be summarized in two words: Vote Democrat.

This partisan propaganda is about exploiting ignorance:

By depicting criminals like Michael Brown as innocent victims of racist police, activists sought to exploit widespread public ignorance about the reality of crime and law enforcement in America. Heather Mac Donald exposed this reality in her book The War on Cops, pointing out that a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by black man than the other way around (see “Putting Homicide in Perspective vs. the Media’s ‘Atrocity Narrative’ Propaganda,” Oct. 3, 2017). 

What are the facts about crime in America?

Of the 15,070 U.S. homicide victims in 2016, more than half — 7,881 (52.3%) — were black. As to the perpetrators, the FBI reports: “When the race of the offender was known, 53.5 percent were Black or African American, 43.9 percent were White, and 2.6 percent were of other races.” Black people are 12.7% of the U.S. population, and are over-represented in murder statistics — both as victims and perpetrators — by a factor of more than 4-to-1.

What makes it easy for the media to promote the myth that cops are “racist” is that, in the day-to-day business of apprehending criminals, the police must deal so often with black suspects, who are about 1/8 of the population, but commit more than half of all violent crimes. We must note that the vast majority of the victims of these crimes are also black, so that the allegedly “racist” cops are saving the lives of innocent black people by putting black criminals behind bars. Yet because Democrats are so invested in promoting a “blame whitey” mentality in the black community — in order to mobilize black voters at election time — the facts about crime are ignored, and counter-factual myths are promoted by the liberal media, with the result that anyone who tries to tell the truth about all this is demonized as a “racist.” Meanwhile, the most dangerous place for black Americans to live is in Democrat-controlled fiefdoms like Chicago, where more than 2,000 people have been shot so far this year, more than 300 of them fatally, and 80% of the victims are black.

It is a sad testimony to the effectiveness of the anti-white propaganda promoted by Democrats and their media allies that even children use this “blame whitey” myth as an excuse when they get in trouble.



 

 

Category: Crime, Democrats, Media Bias, Michigan, Racism

A Fake Jew in the Identity-Politics Age

Posted on | August 25, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

Julia Salazar is not Jewish. Nor is she a working-class immigrant. Her mother is an Italian Catholic from New Jersey and her father, a native of Colombia, was a commercial pilot who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1982. Julia grew up in a middle-class home in Florida and graduated from Columbia University, an elite Ivy League school where the annual cost of attendance is $80,826 including room and board.

All of this information, available from public records, was discovered by Tablet magazine for a fascinating story about how Julia Salazar invented a fictional identity as a working-class Jewish immigrant in order to run for a state senate seat in New York, as a progressive Democrat.

Perhaps the weirdest revelation in the story is that, when she first got to Columbia University, Salazar identified as a conservative pro-life Christian. At some point midway through Obama’s second term, however, she became obsessed with Israel and began creating her fictional identity, as a left-wing Jew supporting anti-Israel politics.

The second-weirdest revelation is that, despite widespread attention to her campaign in the liberal media — she’s supported by the Democratic Socialists of America and, at 27, is viewed as a progressive “rising star,” a la Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez — it seems that no reporter previously bothered to check the facts of her biography. The headline on a profile feature last month in the Forward was “Julia Salazar Says Jewish Roots Helped Inspire Her Political Activism,” but it turns out those roots are entirely fictional, like “Haven Monahan,” the non-existent frat-boy rapist invented by Jackie Coakley at the University of Virginia.

When President Trump criticizes the “fake news” media, liberals claim that this represents a threat to freedom of the press. However, then the press fails to do its job — as the case of Julia Salazar illustrates — they are their own worst enemies. In an era where the Democrat Party has devoted itself to identity-politics victimhood narratives, how many more fake candidates with phony biographies will the media sell us?

(Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)



 

Category: Democrats, Election, New York
« go back — keep looking »