Everyone Is Hitler

Be Nice

Derision is not discourse.  Ridicule is not a response.

Thank You Letter to the Left

Dear Left:

It is always nice to hear your sweet and consoling words whenever a person of the right passes away. It’s refreshing to hear the kind words about those with whom you disagree.

However, these kind words are always missing while those people are alive or in a position to influence. People like George HW Bush and Mitt Romney are dismissed as racist, sexist, homophobic haters when they are in or running for office.

After leaving office, the ignoramus you compared to Hitler, George W Bush, was lauded as thoughtful, restrained and even a genuinely nice guy. Heck, he almost rose to genius status when he assessed Trump's abilities by saying, "Wow, this guy really doesn’t understand the job of president." Amazing how tolerant you became of this hating, racist, bigoted, sexist pig when he was no longer in a position of power.

This is a problem. You demonize and seek to destroy when you should be battling ideas. Everyone you disagree with is bashed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical - until they die or are no longer in a position of influence. Then you praise them.

This is a big part of the reason we have Trump in the White House. Because you can’t help yourself and have to be mean demonizers instead of talking about the issues. And I get it. It works. There are fields full of sheeple out there who hear your accusations and don't dig deep enough to know better. But your Johnny-come-lately hagiographic accolades shed light on your unprincipled tactics.

As always, thanks for the nice compliment frosting on a cake of venomous hate. Reaching across the aisle to shake the hand of the former hate-filled bigot is really big of you. But shame on you for giving us Trump.

Who Are The Neanderthal Bigots?

It really isn't about a black man's way of thinking or a Latina woman's perspective, it is about who is a leftist. More on this here.

The left isn't really interested in women's advancement, they are interested in leftist women's advancement. The left isn't really interested in black's advancement, they are interested in leftist black's advancement. The left isn't really interested in homosexual's advancement, they are interested in leftist homosexual's advancement. This is why any of these groups and others on the right are mocked and ridiculed by the left. This is why the left feels comfortable mocking and making racist comments about blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas. (Juan Williams being a particularly pertinent example since he is a man of the left.) Similarly, leftists feel no guilt or shame about their own sexist impulses when they dismiss the woman of the right, or their homophobic comments about right leaning gays, or any other group they claim to care about when it deviates from the leftist mantra.

...the left is not interested in intellect per se, but is interested in leftist intellectuals.

The most vile, sexist and racist epithets are hurled at anyone on the right no matter what their educational pedigree is. Feminism, racial sensitivity, decency, nuance and any number of other concerns are kicked to the curb when leftism is jilted.

Anything can be said about those on the right. And leftists can be as sexist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, mean-spirited and repugnant as they want. They claim to be none of it while doing all of it.

Jonah Goldberg's article deals with the inanity of the racial aspects of this double standard.

Benghazi-dahl

Walking off post is not serving with honor and distinction. As Ralph Peters noted, desertion is not the equivalent of skipping class. And it appears that is what Bergdahl did. We should all be very careful about judging too harshly the decisions of those caught in the fog of war. However, it seems that his decision was less foggy than it was sympathetic to the Islamists he signed up to defend against. If similar evidence existed for a mall or school shooter that revealed similar ideological ties to the tea party, there is no doubt that the media would escort the judge, jury and executioner to the public square to hasten the tedious timeline of justice. But we still should be careful, and as Jonah Goldberg cautions, "Indeed, there are so many unknowns here that it might be best to withhold judgment on a lot of aspects to this story."

The notion of not leaving anyone behind is honorable (although, apparently, a post-Benghazi sentiment). And yes, Bergdahl is somebody's son. But those Taliban henchmen that were released are going to kill innocents again - maybe Americans and maybe not. But no matter who they kill, the slain will be humans that we should care about and they too are somebody's child. So yes, we seek to not leave anybody behind. But that honorable notion is competing with many other honorable notions. (And some not so great consequences like the increased risk to American service men and women - who are also somebody's son or daughter - of being taken hostage.) And such is the case with most of life's decisions and almost always is the case with foreign policy decisions. It is rarely black and white.

One of the problems in this whole affair is the same problem that has existed for the last six years. Everything is treated by the administration as though it is simply black and white issue for which they have the unambiguous answer. Anyone who dares to disagree or question any decision is either a fool or a villain with bad motives (ala the dismissals as a racist, sexist, homophobic, wealthy, anti-science or any other of a list of horribles) who is only deserving of mockery and contempt. It is not possible that anyone of moderate or higher intelligence could possibly disagree with them. And God forbid one should call into question the legality of such a move. Those who do are sure to be dismissed as kooks and wackos who are immediately thrown in with birthers that can only be motivated by racism. All of this is compounded by a lickspittle press who rarely confronts this President.

Foreign policy is ridiculously difficult at best. There are competing principles, ideologies, desires, goods and ramifications to every option. You often have to hold your nose and partner with, or make deals with, horrible, evil people. But we don't get a sense that these decisions are contemplative and filled with heart-rending trade offs but rather there are just wrong answers and our answers. There is such confidence in their Manichaean ways that consultation with Congress isn't even required.

As Nordlinger commented, that the story we get from the President is merely "Sergeant Bergdahl is somebody’s child, we don’t leave anyone behind, and that’s that. If only he could acknowledge trade-offs, in a messy, wicked world: a world of difficult and excruciating choices — but he cannot, apparently. For eight years of Ronald Reagan and eight years of George W. Bush, I heard the same thing: 'The president is simplistic. Everything is black-and-white to him. There is no nuance.' That wasn’t true. Before the invasion of Iraq, for example, Bush said over and over, 'There are risks of action and risks of inaction.' He had to weigh those risks. In Obama’s mind, however, everything seems to be clear-cut, inarguable. There is no gray at all. It’s his way or the highway. Before he was elected, we were assured that, whatever his policy views, he had a first-class temperament." That just isn't so.

It is no small bit of hypocrisy that the groups that used to look down their noses at the supposed simpletons that used to occupy the White House now seek to operate in simplistic black and white ways and then feign shock and disdain whenever somebody has the temerity to question. To be told in the face of contradictory information that this man served with honor and distinction makes it all feel more like narrow political interest than humanitarian. (Not to mention that Susan Rice seems to have no capacity for shame given the whoppers she has told and continues to tell.)

There is also the 'wag the dog' feel of all of this. This certainly knocked the VA controversy and the EPA's lawmaking without the formality and tedium of running it through Congress from the front pages. The dribbling out of different reasons to not inform Congress does not instill great confidence but more feels like rationale de jour to just see what sticks. For people who tout the greatness of government they sure do government badly.

One suspects this will run its course as all other difficulties for this administration have: the President will find out about this by reading about it in the papers, he will be more outraged than anyone, an investigation will ensue, construct fantastical strawman and smugly decapitate them in front of the world, dismiss those who disagree with the profound decrees or decisions with reddit-style snarky name calling, nobody will be fired, drag feet until we are all finally lectured about how this has all been discussed already and is old news followed by a 'what difference at this point does it make' style declaration.

And all of this without the benefit of an adversarial press. But don't worry, they haven't gone extinct. They'll return as soon as another Republican is elected.

Just Shut Up

The Devolution of American Politics

We often see this sort of dismissal of those who do not agree with the left:

But one might just as easily conclude the following to reflect how the left behaves:

You're Perfect. We Love You. As Long As You're Leftist.

The left believes they are wiser, kinder, better, more decent and sophisticated than the right. This graphic demonstrates some of that characteristic of the left. It is one of the most depressing things that is revealed about the philosophical differences between left and right. The left cannot simply disagree with those on the right; the right must be mocked, demonized and ridiculed.

The left isn't really interested in women's advancement, they are interested in leftist women's advancement. The left isn't really interested in black's advancement, they are interested in leftist black's advancement. The left isn't really interested in homosexual's advancement, they are interested in leftist homosexual's advancement. This is why any of these groups and others on the right are mocked and ridiculed by the left. This is why the left feels comfortable mocking and making racist comments about blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas. (Juan Williams being a particularly pertinent example since he is a man of the left.) Similarly, leftists feel no guilt or shame about their own sexist impulses when they dismiss the woman of the right, or their homophobic comments about right leaning gays, or any other group they claim to care about when it deviates from the leftist mantra.

The right must be dismissed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. That way the deep discussions about legitimate issues can be dismissed without rigor. After all, who needs to have a discussion with a cretin? There is no need to account for one's own actions or behaviors when one can just dismiss the humanity of the other side. The end justifies the means.

This is why the colossal double standards of the left do not trouble the left. That the Obama administration paid women less on average than men is of no interest to the left. That two stories were told about Benghazi is of no interest to the left. That Obama has held every possible position on gay marriage for the purpose of political expediency is of no interest to the left. The list is endless and the lack of 'progressive' introspection limitless. But it doesn't matter because bigger issues are at stake.

The left are experts at ridicule and use it as a substitute for thoughtful discussion. From Bill Maher to the MSNBC crowd to the President himself mockingly lecturing about "these things called aircraft carriers" and submarines during a debate. I'm sure the self-satisfied left thinks this is funny, but it is likely behavior that they would not approve of from their own children in a public forum. For a crowd that is hypersensitive to hate speech and meanness, they sure do engage in a lot of it. As Mark Steyn noted with regard to the Duck Dynasty dustup:

GLAAD wouldn't rather "start a conversation." But, if you don't need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don't oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It's quicker and more effective to silence them.

The left cannot allow the right to be thought of as decent folks who just have a different vision or opinion because they would then be forced to deal with the arguments and ideas of the right. Instead they engage in voicing hostile, coarse and vulgar sentiments. They embark on the dehumanization tactic of ridicule and dismissal – they seek to DE-humanize their opponents. After all, one does not need to mount an argument with a sub species. Steyn is correct that something akin to shout-shaming a child is far easier than engaging in a discussion. It is shameful and sad. And, ironically, un-intellectual, unkind, unwise and unsophisticated – snarky graphics about how stupid one's opponents are notwithstanding.

And for those that tout science and facts and such as king, evidence contrary to their premise makes no difference. After all, science is settled so why shouldn't everything else be as impervious to thoughtful discourse? However, a few rebuttals for hope's sake:

• Romney went to Harvard Business, Harvard Law, BYU, Stanford and Harvard.
• George W. Bush went to Harvard Business and Yale.
• Thomas Sowell went to Columbia, Harvard, University of Chicago, Harvard College, and Howard University and taught at UCLA, Amherst College, Brandeis University, Cornell University, Howard University and Douglass College.
• Milton Friedman went to University of Chicago, Rutgers University, and Columbia University and taught at Columbia University, University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago and was a Nobel laureate.
• Clarence Thomas went to Yale Law School and Yale University.
• Robert Bork went to University of Chicago and taught at Yale and had as students Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown and John R. Bolton.

But in spite of the spiteful graphic, the left is uninterested in and unimpressed by these pedigrees. Again, the left is not interested in intellect per se, but is interested in leftist intellectuals. Just as VP Biden jettisons Catholic doctrine when it does not conveniently comport with leftism, so the left doesn't care about alma maters when those with substantial pedigrees don't conform to leftist doctrine.

• Michele Bachmann went to law school, received a second degree in tax law and worked as a tax attorney for the IRS. This might be a respectable resume for anyone else, but because she does not hold leftist views she is vilified as a racist, bigoted, hater and is told that she should kill herself by decapitation.
• Laura Ingraham went to Dartmouth College, University of Virginia School of Law and University of Virginia but is roundly dismissed as an idiot, bigot, racist, homophobe and worse. 
• Ann Coulter went to University of Michigan, Cornell University and University of Michigan Law School but is called a moron, idiot, lunatic, troll, racist, sexist, white supremacist, bigot, hater, un-American and dumbass. (Space and decency prevents a full listing of leftist Coulter opprobrium.)
• Stacey Dash isn't lauded as a black actress with differing views. She is dismissed as a "house nigga who loves her master," an "idiot" and a "cunt".

Similarly, Clarence Thomas and other blacks who dare to stray from the leftist plantation are ridiculed and smeared. The most vile, sexist and racist epithets are hurled at anyone on the right no matter what their educational pedigree is. Feminism, racial sensitivity, decency, nuance and any number of other concerns are kicked to the curb when leftism is jilted.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of those listed above is not the issue. (I certainly don't agree with every belief held by everyone listed.) Whether the left is blind to their double standard and lack of self-awareness is the issue. The left is tolerant of everyone except those they aren't tolerant of. The left is only interested in mistruths, "inartful articulations", political ambition, lobbyists, infidelities, awful behavior, name calling, big business, tax cheats, cover-ups, voter suppression, misogyny, sexism, legislating morality, flip-flopping, collateral damage, bigotry, hurtful language, religious sensitivities, silver spoons, reading material, mentors, church affiliations, associates, etc., when those things run afoul of leftism. Is the left supportive of blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, women, the poor, homosexuals, immigrants or teachers who hold conservative views? The answer is obvious.

Some dropouts that didn't make the list are:

• LBJ (who dropped out of Georgetown Law) 
• FDR (who dropped out of Columbia Law) 
• Al Gore (who dropped out of Vanderbilt Law)

And yet, the left is mysteriously enamored of these fellow leftists. But, if the graphic is to be believed, what could these dropouts possibly have to offer? One wonders how the left feels about George Washington who never attended college.

When a Pope speaks out against the potential failings of capitalism in the absence of morality, he is a genius to behold and we are regaled with recollections of how certain politicians boast that Catholicism "has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help," and how legislating this morality is the right thing to do. However, when a Pope speaks against abortion or homosexuality we are told that

• such claptrap is a "nod to conservatives" - tossing them a bone, 
• we are to set those notions aside and not "impose that on others," 
• we do not "have a right to tell other people that" 
• we need to quit trying to legislate morality.

When a leftist marries or adopts interracially it is a beautiful demonstration of a colorblind union of love. If somebody on the right dares to do it

• he is saying "no to blacks; he has already said if he can't paint himself white he'll think white and marry a white woman," 
• "His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community," 
• "He's married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black," 
• she is a "white man's whore," 
• they think and live the "wrong" way, 
• they are mocked in song that "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same," 
• that the "other" is merely a "token," 
• they have an "unsegregated adoption."

When a black holds leftist views he is evidence of improving race relations and the will of the individual to overcome – and oh, by the way, "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." However, when Herman Cain advances through life

• he is a "house nigger," 
• an "uncle Tom," 
• "embarrassing", 
• a "black monster," 
• "doesn't think like a black," 
• is not "black enough," 
• is not an "authentic black", 
• is a "white man's puppet," 
• fits the racist stereotype of sexually aggressive black men.

When a leftist woman is successful she is a beacon of hope to women and embodies the American spirit of hard work. However, when Michelle Malkin does it she is

• an "Oriental Auntie-Tom," 
• a "yellow woman doing the white man's job," 
• a "Manila whore" 
• a "Subic Bay bar girl" 

Or if Sarah Palin is successful, she

• "looks like a whore," 
• is dismissed as an object of sexual desire, 
• "would be the outstanding candidate" for the slave punishment of putting shit in her mouth, 
• is a "retard making cunt," 
• is a "dumb twat," 
• is a "white bitch, with your slut daughter and retard child" 
• should be "hate fucked".

Anything can be said about those on the right. And leftists can be as sexist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, mean-spirited and repugnant as they want. They claim to be none of it while doing all of it. Of course it is a double standard. Of course the left doesn't care. Anything is permissible for the cause. As Malkin has noted, 

What a tangled web libs weave when first they practice to aggrieve!

In the end, education and intellect are only of passing importance to the left. These things, along with everything else, are subordinated to leftism. Commitment to leftism is what matters most - thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Derision Is Not Discourse

While commenting about the pleasures of cigars, Jonah made the following comment:

I am a conservative in large part because I believe that politics should intrude on life as little as possible. Conservatives surely believe that there are times when the government should meddle in the daily affairs of the people, but they normally reserve those times for large questions of right and wrong, good and evil. Most conservatives, for instance, may want to restrict abortion on grounds rooted in the Decalogue, but few want the government to stop you from drinking raw milk.

Both the left and the right likely share basic understandings about ethical issues such as feeding the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, forgiveness, compassion, envy, lying, etc. More often than not, the major differences are bound up in their notions about the issue that Jonah touched on – the purpose, scope, size and role of government. As he notes, conservatives seek to limit the role of government. They do this for various reasons, not least of which is an effort to combat the loss of liberty that comes with a statist social order. But they do not seek to eliminate government. The general agreement among conservatives is that less government is better government. They are not anarchists.

Resisting big government necessarily means resisting the temptation to have government perform some incontrovertibly noble efforts such as feeding the poor. But preferring that government not be the primary purveyor of charity does not therefore mean that conservatives are opposed to all charity or even all government sponsored charity as some would have you believe – a safety net is part of everyone's thinking. Mostly, the discussion tends to circle around the size and scope of the safety net.

An atheist might oppose religious symbolism associated with government. This does not therefore mean that that atheist is opposed to morality. There is no need to transmogrify his opposition to the display of religious symbols on government property into hatred of moral people or ethics. But that is often how those who support limited government are treated:

• To support lower tax rates rather than higher rates is not hatred of the poor;
• To see negative societal ramifications with and to question the continued usefulness of affirmative action programs a half century on from their inception is not hatred of blacks;
• To support controlled and lawful immigration is not hatred of Mexicans;
• To make note of perceived societal benefits that customary marriage affords, especially to women and children, is not hatred of gays;
• To ponder and debate the meaning of epochs of temperature data is not science denial;
• To debate how to fund birth control or to oppose partial birth abortion is not warring against, hatred of or denying healthcare to women nor is it misogynistic;
• To support choice in school is not hatred of teachers, minorities or the poor;
• To support gun ownership is not hatred of children or supporting murder;
• To disagree with the policy prescriptions of the current occupant of the White House is not racist.

Although it is easier and politically expedient to just dismiss opponents as moral inferiors, uneducated dunces and cave dwellers, it is anything but intelligent, compassionate, respectful, decent, fair, responsible or kind. It could be that those who hold opposing views are decent people who are very interested in those affected by smaller government. It could be that they have significant moral and ethical struggles when considering the trade-offs inherent in life and politics. They may even have the best interests of others in mind when considering policies.

Each side strives for ideological conformity and none so willingly and gleefully makes use of derogatory language as the left. Those interested in power and the imposition of their values understand that it’s quicker and more effective to silence those with whom they disagree than to debate. It is just easier to liken successful women to whores and crudely titter about hate-f***ing them (it is hard to think of a more sexist/misogynistic notion), assume bad motives on behalf of those with wealth (it is hard to think of a more classist notion), compare the inquisitive to Holocaust deniers (it is hard to think of a more irrational/unscientific notion) and attack the racial bona fides (it is hard to think of a more racist notion) of those with a different opinion than to thoughtfully consider and address anything they might have to say.

So how about let's all do our best to avoid character assassination by slur as the replacement for discussion. Rather, let's rely on thoughtful deliberation for the defense of our values.

Derision is not discourse. Ridicule is not refutation.

Dishonoring Others With Lies

It is amazing that Cheney was even able to speak, what with that file in his mouth to sharpen his teeth and all. I mean he is unmitigated evil, so this really shouldn't be surprising, right?

Well, hold on. I went to a Americans Against the Tea Party to see what all the fuss was all about. A left wing site like this should give me the unvarnished scoop on this most recent utterance of horror from the evil one.

Their headline shouted out the disturbing wickedness: "Dick Cheney Tells Fox News That Benghazi Is Worst Disaster In His Lifetime (Video)." They embedded the video and even kindly posted a transcript of Darth Cheney's words. Let's watch what the portal to hell actually said:

Huh? He didn't say it was the worst disaster. Maybe, as the AATTP so kindly informs, Cheney "mumbles through" this so it was hard to understand. Let's look at their own transcript of the screeching weasel of Hades:

It’s one of the worst .. incidents in frankly that I can recall in my career.

Either they can't read, they can't hear or they are liars. Take your pick. They have no problem misrepresenting what was actually said even after they post the video and the transcript that contradicts their statements - now that's chutzpah. I wonder how often this occurs in the name of partisan zeal? (Rhetorical question.) I guess they don't share the President's feeling that "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."? Apparently telling lies is neither dishonoring nor political big top material but calling attention to lies is.

One of the joys of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. You can misquote somebody you disagree with and attach video and written evidence that you have misquoted them without suffering any shame or embarrassment. Anything for political gain. Destroy the opposition at all costs.

But at least Cheney couldn't say that the Benghazi bacchanal was the “Most Audacious Plan” In 500 Years. That honorific has already been doled out.

If The Right Argued Like the Left

From Maddow:

As Krugman explained a while back, "Arguably the most important thing we can do to limit the growth in health care costs is learning to say no."

What it would sound like if the right argued like the left does:

This is just more obstruction and denial from the party of "no". This is discriminatory and picks on the elderly. Denying procedures for the elderly is unfair. How in good conscience can they deny healthcare to the elderly? Next thing you know, they'll be preying on the young, poor, minorities and women. Why can't the rich just pay their fair share so that women, children, minorities, the elderly, the homeless, the unemployed, the disabled, college students, LBGTQI, the abused, inmates, veterans, the mentally ill, refugees, the under-housed and Vietnamese fishermen can get decent, comprehensive, affordable access to healthcare?

People are hurtin', man.

We all know that doctors are cutting off limbs and taking out tonsils just to fill their filthy, blood-soaked wallets, and maybe we should say "no" to that, but where will it end? I hope that in their heartless, greedy rush to deny all medical procedures, the party of "no" doesn't deny assisted suicide. Sure, suicide should be safe, legal and rare, but denying it altogether is extremist.

Apparently the Krugmans of the world think that "poor people have too much access to affordable health care" and we should deny as much care as we can – that the greedy blood-suckers who gorge themselves on healthcare need to cut back. This is just more austerity that doesn't work. They want to cut corners and refuse to allow procedures as part of a strategy of greed over consumer benefit. Deny, deny, deny. I guess if we could just be a little more considerate by knowing when to say "no" and die, we could save tons of money. Our moral values, in contradistinction to this ass-hat, is we don't think healthcare should be denied to anybody. These people hate everyone.

BTW, denying healthcare isn't, per chance, the task of the oft-maligned death panel is it?

Maddow, Maher and High Taxes

View on YouTube

Maddow is loathsome with her meanness and purposeful misrepresentation. Of course, "the big problems in America right now are that rich people do not have enough money," and that "poor people have too much access to affordable health care." What a despicably demagogic representation of those she disagrees with. Can you imagine so misrepresenting those you disagree with? And that many applauded her is shameful. Is fear of discussing the real issues what causes her to set up her fantastical straw men and knock them down?

Wouldn't this be like saying that because the left supports largely unrestricted abortion and because blacks abort at a rate 5 times greater than whites, that the left hates blacks, are afraid of them and is engaging in genocide to control their numbers?

I struggle to know if it is rank hatred, a who-cares-what-I-say-about-them-win-at-all-costs mentality or complete derangement that motivates her distortions. I normally don't waste any time listening to her degeneracy.

But what follows is priceless. Bill Maher concedes that the rich do 'pay the freight'. This isn't remarkable; anyone who can read knows that. But what is remarkable is that he said, "I just saw these statistics. I mean, something like 70 percent."

Really? Just now saw these statistics? Is he willfully ignorant? How is it possible that a man who has a political commentary show had not absorbed this before now?

I guess Diana Mutz, professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, was correct when she concluded that those with the highest levels of education have the lowest levels of exposure to people with conflicting points of view. This is because universities are largely leftist seminaries and intellectual ghettos. The left lives in an insular cocoon where they only listen to each other and just dismiss those with whom they disagree with mockery, name calling and the sort of trite, twisted deceit that Ms Maddow demonstrates here.

I won't hold my breath for the Maddows of the world to jeer, mock and deride Maher as a mean old rich white guy who thinks America's problem is that he doesn't have enough money or that the poor have too much access to affordable health care.

Intellectual honesty would demand it. But that's precisely why it won't happen.

Coming Out

The Blaze reports that Stacey Dash has Tweeted that she will vote for Romney. Of course this is not how a dignified black woman should act.

This stuff inevitably devolves into name calling of the black person that dares to reveal conservative thoughts. They must be of questionable character if they share the 'white man' thinking of the Founding Fathers that includes limited government, morality by religiosity, E pluribus unum and liberty. One side thinks skin color (aka, genetics) determines how a person should think about government and economics. One side thinks if you don't think like them, you are an Uncle Tom or a traitor to your race. What it is about dark pigmentation that means there is some genetic predisposition of the cranial cellular matter that suggests it is more racially consistent to believe in leftist ideas rather than conservative ideas is somewhat bewildering – or, said another way, raaaaaacist. These are the ramblings of the KKK. To say one must vote or think according race is literally – and not in the way that Vice President Biden uses the word literally – racist.

That blacks of today consent to the idea that there is some appropriate or race-centric way of thinking is astonishing. If whites spoke words such as these, they would properly be dismissed as racists. But I guess the right doesn't need to be as overtly racist as the left because they sneakily toot those racist dog whistles – that, oh by the way, only the left can hear.

Believing that genetics dictate ideology is why the left can say that Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas and others are not only not 'black leaders', but are sellouts. (Oddly, only angry, aggrieved blacks, gays, women, etc. can be 'leaders'.) One is not true to his race if he does not think as the left thinks. How stupid $#!% like this can be said out loud in this day an age boggles the mind. Surely they must then also believe that genetics dictate who is Catholic, prefers Chevrolets and thinks children should be spanked.

Furthermore, this sort of thinking is not only racist tribalism, it is a lie. How so, you ask? Ask anyone who says that you must vote for Barack Obama because he is black whether they will uncritically and publicly support Clarence Thomas because he is black. Of course they won't. They don't want you to support just any black; you must support a black person of the left.

Have you ever seen media types who get thrills in their leg for Obama have similar feelings for Thomas and sing from the rooftops how great it is that a black man rose to such a high station in life and what that may say about the country in which it happened? In contradistinction, commentators on the right are critical or supportive of people no matter what their race based on their ideas. Herman Cain is an ideological friend because of shared ideas and values, not because his DNA says he has relatives from a certain part of the world. Al Sharpton isn't disagreed with because of his skin color, but because conservatives disagree with his ideology. Again, a simple test can demonstrate whether these claims are true. Would conservatives all of a sudden love the policies of the last four years if Joe Biden were the president? Of course not. But the left thinks it is purely racism that animates the right's disagreements with President Obama.

People on the right aren't interested in the color of your skin, they are interested in your values. If you share values, skin color is of no consequence. Ever been in a church that isn't preaching black separatist, er, liberation theology? Blacks and whites arm-in-arm in support of shared values, not shared skin color. The left is obsessed with race, gender and class. The right is interested in values.

The day that these balkanized, aggrieved groups begin to feel that America is likely the best – not perfect, but a damn sight better than most – place on the planet for blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, Muslims, immigrants, illegal immigrants, etc. to live, is the day the individuals in these groups might reconsider their voter registration. That coupled with realizing that those who are not politically like them really aren't the stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical SOBs that the left says they are, is the day they stop voting for leftists – or at least consider the discussion coming from the other side of the aisle. Isn't attacking the humanity and character of those who aren't like you a form of bigotry?

This woman might wilt under the scathing pressure of these mean, bullying and unkind attacks on her character and humanity. It is hard to withstand the fire hose of enmity that seeks to take out any black that strays too far from the plantation. I hope she can channel Rosa Parks and stand firm.

UPDATE:  Good for her.

Bain Charlatans

This graphic and audio is making the circuit on Facebook. The post asks the reader to view the super secret tape to find out that Romney is trafficking slaves or some such.

What exactly is going on here? Romney observed that America is ridiculously wealthy compared to the world. True. He notes that Chinese life is so bad that working for a pittance is a vast improvement and highly desired. True. If you went over and saw this, wouldn't you too say largely the same thing? But giving women equal-pay-for-equal-work jobs that are highly sought after - so much so that fences are required to keep those who want the jobs out to maintain order - is called slavery by demagogues.

If the right demagogued like the left they would say that it is the Dems who don't want to improve the lives of anyone other than Americans and unionists in particular. Or that the left says "To hell with women and gays in Iraq," or "Too bad if girls get acid thrown on them if they dare to act like something more than a dog." Or, in this case, that Dems would rather have girls in China starve than have good paying jobs.

If somebody moved into a rural America and began building computers there because they could pay the workers less (but still great pay for the area) thereby driving down the cost for consumers, wouldn't that be a great thing? (Happened. Called Gateway.) Wouldn't that be great for the workers? And consumers? Not to those exercised by this video. That would be slavery.

And tell that same story outside the borders of America and you're a villainous cretin who hates. Isn't there something just a bit racist, nationalistic or xenophobic about that? Give Americans a manufacturing job and your are Jesus Christ come to earth. Give anyone else a manufacturing job and you are Satan the outsourcer. Dare not give Indians, Tibetans, Africans or Koreans a job. Screw them. Where is all the social responsibility and global community talk then?

But, thankfully we can just follow the money and that should reveal who is behind this horror show of slavery. (Follow the trail of tears here, here and here.) Oops. Apparently the left loves Bain when it makes their pensions larger and  when they are gambling with granny's retirement money on risky private investments that would never work for Social Security, even though government pensions typically don't pay into Social Security because they've got their money tied up in private investments because they don't want to rely on that dumb government Ponzi scheme that won't provide the retirement they desire.

Aren't these wealthy corporations that fund Chinese slavery everything that they accuse Romney of being? Wouldn't they have been pissed if Romney lost all their money by not being a good capitalist when he was at the helm? Does that make them hypocrites? Greedy? Outsourcers? Aren't they funding the work of the devil?

The beauty of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. They get to demonize and accuse people of horrible things and then go do those things they demonize.

We Accept Everybody, Except Those We Don't

The lack of self-awareness on the left is staggering.

Racist Code

Michelle Malkin provides a list of words that are the code of the GOP secret society. If you have ever said things like "angry," "Chicago," "constitution," "experienced," "food stamp President," "golf," "holding down the fort," "kitchen cabinet," "Obamacare," "priveleged," "professor" or "you people," then you too are sneakily using racist code. Even Clint Eastwood's skit at the Republican National Convention where he spoke to an empty chair was "racist", "white man putting dirty words into mouth of black man like a puppet" and a “minstrel show.” These sinister "dog whistle" moments are just the evidence that VP Biden could use to close the case that proves that the GOP wants to put blacks back in chains.

Lori Ziganto at Twitchy notes, "The funny thing is, it is the racist Left who hears them." Her point that the Pavlovian response seems to be missing among the faithful Republican bigots who seem tone deaf to the whistling while the left is particularly deft at hearing the unheard is driven home by James Taranto:

The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else. The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog.

The left is constantly accusing the right of racist motive and intent no matter what the right does. Everything is racist. You are a racist if you use a moderator's first name. You are a racist when you say that people should work a job rather than take food stamps. (And as Gingrich asked Matthews, “Why do you assume food stamp refers to blacks? What kind of racist thinking do you have? You’re being a racist because you assume they’re black!”) You are a racist if you are against the President's policies. You are a racist if you support a black man for president. You are a racist if you talk about problems that afflict certain communities. You are a racist if you don't talk about problems that afflict certain communities. You are a racist if you use racist language. And if you don't use racist language, you're using code and are a racist. And if you don't hear the code, you are a racist. And if you deny you are a racist, it is proof positive that you are a racist. When teachers expel students for their behavior, the left cries racism. If you think culture might have anything to do with the problems in the Middle East, you are a racist. If you don't speak at the NAACP you are a racist. If you do, you are throwing red meat to your racist supporters: (Well, only if you are on the right. The left can go, or not, and if they don't go it just means they were busy that day.) It doesn't much matter what your track record is, if you oppose the left, you are a racist. To the left, the popularity of conservative blacks such as Herman Cain, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Clarance Thomas, JC Watts, Armstrong Williams, Colin Powell, and Mia Love only proves the deep racism within the GOP.

But if you are on the left, you can't possibly be racist. No matter what you say or what policy you support. No matter how contemptuous you are of members of a race. You can even say out loud that certain people by virtue of their skin pigmentation are not capable of getting, or shouldn't be expected to get, an ID. That might seem racist, but no, it isn't if you say it from the left. (How is it that asking for ID be discriminatory only when it comes to voting?)

Forward to the past

It is the right that thinks more highly of citizens and treats them all the same as though there is no difference, no matter what their skin color. It is the left that treats racial groups with contempt by having lower expectations for them. But somehow it is the right who is blamed as the racists in the leftist's world. One wonders how much of this is the projection of the left. When you are on the left, you can say the most hateful, racist things about blacks and be thought of as 'progressive'. You can even say that the GOP wants blacks in chains or that they should be hanging from trees.

So in the end, the right embraces people of all races and background with whom they share values while the left obsesses on race and hears the dog whistles. For whom then does the dog whistle toll?

UPDATE (9/1): Mark Steyn's column on this issue. Some takeaways:

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews declared this week that Republicans use “Chicago” as a racist code word. Not to be outdone, his colleague Lawrence O’Donnell pronounced “golf” a racist code word.

“Negrohood.”

Mr. Akselrod now says it was a “typo.” Could happen to anyone. You’re typing “neighborhood,” and you leave out the “i,” and the “h” and “b,” and the “o” and “r” get mysteriously inverted. Either that, or your desktop came with Al Sharpton’s spellcheck. And then nobody at the campaign office reading through the mailer spotted it. Odd.

When you don’t have frighteningly white upscale liberals obsessing about the racist subtext of golf, it’s amazing how much time it frees up to talk about other stuff. For example, as dysfunctional as Greece undoubtedly is, if you criticize the government’s plans for public-pensions provision, there are no Chris Matthews types with such a highly evolved state of racial consciousness that they reflexively hear “watermelon” instead of the word “pensions.” So instead everyone discusses the actual text rather than the imaginary subtext.

UPDATE (10/5): Peanut butter jelly sandwiches, chair, and many other words have been added to the dog whistle list.  I guess this cover by the New Yorker makes them racist too:

Blame the Right

If a person of the left who "has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," and "had been volunteering recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," shoots innocents at a politically active organization of the right then the shooter is acting out frustrations and we should try to compassionately understand what may have driven a person to commit such a heinous act. Or he just "expressed a disagreement with the group's conservative views" during a "scuffle". For sure, it is "an anomaly, something very rare and very random." But you really can't know for sure if ideology motivated the shooter.

Similarly, if a man shoots fellow members of the military in cold blood while shouting "Allahu Akbar", then the shooter is possibly suffering from "secondary trauma", was sadly "swept up in patients' displays of war-related paranoia, helplessness and fury," snapped in advance, perhaps had a “toothache” that set him off and "It's unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting." But you really can't know for sure if religion motivated the shooter.

However, if we know nothing about a person and that person opens fire on innocents and nobody can figure out why he may have done what he did, the shooter must be a right-wing wacko who is deeply disturbed as the result of right-wing hate. Because "violent acts are what happen when [Republicans] create a climate of hate" and the fomenting and agitating by right-wing wackos like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck. Research consists of Googling shooter's name and the words "Tea Party" while forgetting to search for the name and "Occupy Wall Street". Tweets from those on the left tell us it is OK to score political points by connecting the Tea Party, Republicans and anyone close to the right to murder sprees, whether perpetrated by those on the right or not, because the "Bottom line is that policy decisions are driven by scoring political points."

I guess they didn't read the last paragraph of Michelangelo Signorile's, Editor-at-large of HuffPost Gay Voices, column wherein he admonishes, "What no one should be doing is exploiting this tragedy to make political points or to attack an entire group of people because of the actions of one man."

Strangely missing are the lectures about polarization, heated rhetoric or overdue conversations. No connections to those on the left who share the rostrum with the President and with fist-pumping fury tell the audience that "There can only be one winner", "And, let's take these son of a bitches out..."

The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. The double standard is, well, standard. And all of this from those who fancy themselves to be psychologically sophisticated and uniquely able to see nuance.

Link, link.

Here we go again

Harry Reid shares this free speech notion with John Kerry.

It's time for us all – whether we're leaders in Washington, members of the media, scientists, academics, environmentalists or utility industry executives – to stop acting like those who ignore the crisis or deny it exists entirely have a valid point of view. They don't.

Right Is Evil Redux

Just sit back and drink it in. First Goldberg:

As Noah Glyn noted the other day, apparently Nancy Pelosi is not content to let Harry Reid win the title of shabbiest congressional leader uncontested. She says Republicans want to poison children with E. coli. Or something.

“I say to [Republicans], do you have children that breathe air? Do you have grandchildren that drink water?,” Pelosi asked. “I’m a mom and I have five kids . . . as a mom I was vigilant about food safety, right moms? If you could depend on the government for one thing it was that you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that.”

Link to video.

The dishonesty and/or stupidity of all this is really quite breathtaking -- and obvious. First of all, you could cut government funding down to 1950 levels and still have money for food safety. But this is what liberals do. They metaphorically lash children to the fenders of government so that the budget cutting blade must slice through them first. Then, after insanely putting them in harm's way, they proclaim it is the sane budget cutters who seek to harm children. In fairness, sometimes liberals hold the young human shields in reserve and put firehouses, historic monuments, and old-age homes outside the budgetary walls of the fiscal keep. And, again, they declare that the fiscally sane want to get rid of firefighters and the Washington Monument -- and not, say, the Export-Import Bank or agricultural subsidies.

But this is an old complaint. What is infuriating about Pelosi's comments is the silence that greets them from the same cloying mob of bleaters and emoters who demanded a "new tone" not so long ago. How is saying the Republicans want to kill your children less "extreme" and irresponsible than anything uttered by Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin? Why hasn't it occurred to all of these media outlets currently reporting the news that Jared Loughner has pled guilty to mass murder to do a story on how the new tone they demanded hasn't materialized with Nancy's Pelosi's repugnant musings as exhibit A? Perhaps it is because the whole "new tone" censorial fraud was always aimed rightward. When liberals accuse conservatives of wanting children to die, that's hardball politics. When conservatives put banal targets on congressional maps, that's incitement to murder.

And then Steyn:

Jonah, it's not just that Mitt Romney hasn't paid any taxes since 1975 and that Bain Capital is the planet's largest distributor of E. coli which it manufactures in petri dishes offshored to Mitt's safe deposit box in the Cayman Islands, but that Mitt will kill your loved ones five years after his minions lay you off. Just because he can. He doesn't have to meet you. You might show no outward signs of ill health. You might even have a job and health insurance. But you bear the Mark of Mitt, and decades later when you keel over and expire it'll be because he once laid off your brother, or your cousin, or your hairdresser's sister, or someone who once heard something from someone who knows Harry Reid.

Don't get hung up on details, folks. Details are how the vampire capitalist seduces you into surrendering to his vise-like death grip. Remember, when Obama was a youngster, he fought for social justice and opened up a Jakarta dog shelter in his digestive tract. But the young Romney traveled around Europe opening numbered bank accounts in Zurich and biting women in the neck.

So don't fall for esoteric concepts like details. Details are for subprime mortgages. Like David Axelrod says, keep to the big picture here. Mitt Kills. Warning From The Surgeon General: Voting For Romney Will Result In Death. Voting For Romney While Pregnant Will Result In Your Unborn Child's Death. Mitt = Death. Silence = Acceptance.

And when Mitt responds by chuckling and saying, "Well, I can't comment because a mass killing spree's not part of my campaign, and Nancy and Harry and the oppo-research lads at that super PAC are all good friends of mine", that just shows how vicious and murderous he is.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) recently slandered Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Bill Magwood, an African-American, as “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve dealt with.” Reid, furious with Magwood because of his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository in Reid’s state, also called Magwood a “treacherous, miserable liar,” “a first-class rat,” and a “sh-t stirrer.”

But there really isn't anything new to report here. There is a legacy of this kind of mean-spirited character assassination and Right Is Evil stuff. Remember when Howard Dean when he was Chairman of the Democratic Party said, "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night."

Culture To Blame

It is an interesting fact that the left thinks that economics determines culture and that the right thinks that culture determines economics. Romney said as much when he said "Culture makes all the difference" when comparing the relative differences between Israel and neighboring Palestinian areas (as well as those of U.S. and Mexico, and Chile and Ecuador). Romney reiterates the idea in his article here.

This has caused the left to wring their hands and worry that these "offhand" remarks are overshadowing, that it is tearing at his campaign, was a gaffe and is a problem for Romney. Why? Because the left does not see values or culture as the basis for societal success. They are inclined to blame economics when the poor commit crimes. Blaming the culture, values or the individual is viewed as unsophisticated and lacking nuance whereas blaming poverty is considered enlightened and progressive.

However, when the rich commit crimes, the left cannot use poverty as the scapegoat for crime. They are then forced to conclude what everyone else concludes, that values and culture may have more to say about why a person committed a crime and hold the individual accountable. This must create some level of cognitive dissonance for the left.

Another bout of dissonance must certainly erupt when those on the left contemplate why crime isn't rampant in some of the places around the globe where there is grinding poverty. To be sure, some impoverished places are smothered with crime, but if poverty is the major reason for crime, those poverty stricken places that have low crime rates must cause mental indigestion. The 'but Palestine is occupied' argument creates similar hiccups.

How are areas of low crime and high poverty explained by those on the left? How are financially and morally backward places that are not occupied explained by the left? They aren't. But here's a hint: values may be the answer you are looking for.

So the left is unhappy with Romney's assertion that culture might be the cause of financial disparities. And how does the left counter an argument that makes them unhappy? You guessed it - cry racism.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat informs:

Oh, my God, this man needs a lot of education. What he said about the culture is racism.

If culture is a set of ideas, beliefs, and ways of behaving of a particular group of people and race is essentially genetics, what about what Romney said was racist?

As Prager has noted, "Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not." Israel shares the western world's views on issues ranging from corrupt dictator-types, to feminism, to homosexual rights, to independent judiciaries. But the left loves leftism more than it loves the causes for which it professes love.

Culture, not race, has determined the successes and failures. Romney solidified this argument in both the Israel/Palestine comparison and the Chile/Ecuador comparison. Both comparisons juxtapose similar races with different cultures.

The left's reflexive dismissal of Romney as racist is embarrassing and depressing in that it suggests that the left is incapable of distinguishing between race and culture. They are happy to explain the differences between weather and climate, but for some reason their nuance filters get clogged on the race/culture issue.

As John Podhoretz notes:

Of course, for saying this, Romney was called a “racist” by Saeb Erakat, the longtime slavering lackey of every Palestinian murderer and thief. Erakat blames “occupation” for Palestinian poverty. But the PA has dominion over almost all of the West Bank and Hamas has control over all of Gaza, so the word “occupation” is all but meaningless — except as shorthand for “Israel still holds Jerusalem.”

Poverty. Occupation. Racism - anything but culture and values.

Romney eloquently makes the case that culture determines economics:

But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.

The right believes that it is values that are responsible for the relative success of the US and other democracies around the world. This is the root of the American exceptionalism that runs deep for those on the right. The right doesn't attribute America's exceptionalism to race, but rather to culture. Because the left sees economics, egalitarianism and equalism as the foundations of great cultures, and not values, they are not able to see America as exceptional.

UPDATE: (8/2) Victor Davis Hanson

Few believe that a unique micro-geography in North Korea explains why its way of life differs from the South, or that climate ensures that Tijuana is a very different place from San Diego, or that the differences between East and West Germany were due to genetic or racial variables, or that China between 1964 and 2012 underwent climate change. “Western” does not denote a race, but rather a set of values and protocols that originated in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem and were adopted, modified, and expanded through the next two millennia of European history -- and are undergoing radical changes as we speak.

...the hysteria is over candor, not truth

UPDATE: (8/8) Goldberg:

Though conservatives are more likely to tout this fact than are liberals, the truth is virtually every serious liberal believes it to be true to one extent or another. When you hear liberal politicians celebrate diversity as essential to a 21st century economy, they are making a point about culture. When they lament the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow as a partial cause for the various challenges facing the black community, they are making an argument about culture. When they talk about the “culture of corruption” on Wall Street, they’re not talking about advances in computerized trading.