Friday, January 31, 2014

Recapping Yesterday's Victory Against Bigoted MSNBC

In case you missed it earlier this week, a tweet sent out on the official MSNBC Twitter page accused the "right wing" of hating biracial families.
After backlash, the tweet was quickly deleted. MSNBC tried to backtrack, saying this "isn't who they are," but they aren't fooling anyone. This is exactly who they are. Remember this? When Melissa Harris-Perry and her show panel mocked Mitt Romney's African-American grandson Kieran? When panelist and actress Pia Glenn sang "one of these things is not the same" about baby Kieran? Harris-Perry eventually issued an apology.
Twitchy quickly jumped on MSNBC's latest moment of bigotry this week prompting conservative columnist Michelle Malkin (and Twitchy founder), who is part of a biracial family, to create the hashtag #MyRightWingBiracialFamily. She urged people to send their photos of their biracial "right wing" families to MSNBC directly through social media. Dozens of people sent their photos in. One of those couples appeared on Fox News' The Kelly File last night to share their disgust over the comments.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus sent a letter to MSNBC President Phil Griffin yesterday demanding a personal apology and banned all employees and people associated with the RNC from appearing on MSNBC programs until the apology was made. Just a few short hours after the letter was sent, an apology from Griffin was read on air at the network by Ari Melber.

On The Five, host Greg Gutfeld praised Malkin for doing what she does best, holding MSNBC accountable for their repeated bigotry and hate through action.

MSNBC hosts and executives have issued 19 apologies in the past two years. Maybe with the power of social media, these jerks will finally stop and learn their lesson. I won't hold my breathe.

H/T RightSightings for the video.

MSNBC’s top offensive moments, in the hosts’ own words

MSNBC has a history of accusing conservatives of racism and then backpedaling.
On Wednesday, the cable channel’s official Twitter account sent out a message about an upcoming Super Bowl ad from Cheerios which shows a handsome interracial family at breakfast, suggesting “Maybe the rightwing will hate it.” (RELATED: MSNBC tweets about ‘rightwing hate’ for biracial families’ after mocking biracial family)
Below is just a partial list of recent incidents in which MSNBC hosts or other affiliates made outrageous statements about conservatives which were then followed up with apologies, suspensions, or firings.

In December, MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel of guests mocked a picture of Mitt Romney, his wife Ann, and their 21 grand children — one of whom is black. One guest on the show said that the picture “really sums up the diversity of the Republican Party.”  Another said, “One of these things is not like the other.”
Harris-Perry issued a tearful apology, which Romney later accepted. “I am deeply sorry that we suggested that interracial families are in any way funny or deserving of ridicule,”she said.
Last November, daytime host Martin Bashir responded to comments made by Sarah Palin on the topic of slavery by saying that someone should treat her the way some slaves were once treated — by urinating or defecating in her mouth. After weeks of debate, Bashir eventually resigned.
On his primetime show “All In,” Chris Hayes had a segment marking the 50th anniversary of former Alabama governor George Wallace blocking two black students from entering the University of Alabama. Hayes ran a chyron that labeled Wallace a Republican even though he was a Democrat.
Hayes later apologized for the error on Twitter writing “This was a stupid, inexcusable, historically illiterate mistake. I should have caught it and apologize for failing to.”
In August 2012, Toure, one of the hosts of MSNBC’s “The Cycle,” claimed Mitt Romney was engaged in the “niggerization” of President Obama. Toure’s comments came in response to Romney’s statements that Obama’s campaign was one of “anger and hate.”
Toure apologized the next day, saying that he should have used a different word.
In April 2012, Hardball’s Chris Matthews walked back a comment in which he called the Republican Party the “Grand Wizard crowd,” an allusion to the Ku Klux Klan. Matthews recanted that characterization later in the same segment.
Also in April 2012, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell came under fire for calling Mormonism an “invented religion.” He also said that Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, “got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it.”
O’Donnell later apologized for his “insensitive phrasing.”
MSNBC’s parent company, NBC Universal, was forced to apologize and was later sued by George Zimmerman for an inaccurate tape splice. In March 2012, NBC aired segments in which Zimmerman is heard saying of Trayvon Martin, the teen he was accused of murdering, “He looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
But the full tape showed that a police dispatcher had asked a question in between the two sentences about Martin’s race. Zimmerman claims that the tape was spliced in such a way to make him seem racist. NBC Universal apologized and fired at least two employees.
In December 2011, MSNBC ran a chyron that read “Romney’s KKK Slogan?” referring to Mitt Romney’s campaign theme “Keep America American.” MSNBC compared Romney’s pitch to a slogan used by the Klan in the 1920s. After the Romney campaign called MSNBC for a correction, “Hardball”‘s Chris Matthews issued an on-air apology.
In August 2011, Ed Schultz accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who was running for President, of racism when, during a stump speech, he used the phrase “big black cloud”. Schultz and his production team spliced together video footage to make it seem like Perry was talking about Obama, when in fact, he was talking about the huge national debt. Schultz said he regretted the error.
Ed Schultz was suspended for a week in May 2011 after he called conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” on his own talk radio show. Schultz later apologized on his MSNBC show, saying he had used “vile and inappropriate language”.
According to Variety, towards the end of 2013, MSNBC ranked 29th in terms of primetime cable television viewers. Fox News ranked 6th.

Read more:

Thursday, January 30, 2014

As it becomes harder and harder to find actual news on MSNBC, the network is now launching a show that sounds outright activist.

Ronan Farrow, the alleged wunderkind who worked for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, told “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” Wednesday that he wants his viewers to actually get involved after tuning in.
“I love the idea of getting people more involved in the news,” Farrow explained. “It’s been an honor to serve in government and I was eager for the opportunity to then be on the outside and be kind of the annoying gadfly, poking people in the eye and saying, ‘Hey, people around the country if you’ve got 10 minutes of your time, you can actually get involved. You can actually move the story forward.’ So where a lot of the news just leaves you by the side of the road once they tell you the story, my hope is, every week we’ll introduce a kind of call to action where we can track how people are actually reacting to the story, being a part of it themselves and being a part of the solution.”

Farrow, whose show is set to debut Feb. 24 at 1 p.m., is the 26-year-old son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, though there is some speculation that his father may actually be Frank Sinatra.
He has impressive professional and academic credentials, graduating from college at 15 and Yale Law School at 21 before being named a Rhodes Scholar at 23. He also worked for Hillary Clinton and the late Richard Holbrooke at the State Department, though it is not exactly clear what that work entailed.

RNC chairman bans staffers from MSNBC after network tweets that Republicans are racist.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is calling on all elected Republican officials, strategists and pundits to not appear on MSNBC, following a Wednesday night tweet implying Republicans are racist.
“Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family…” the tweet read with a link to the ad, before it was later deleted.
According to Priebus, the tweet is part of an unacceptable pattern.

“While we understand MSNBC will go to great lengths to discredit Republicans and conservatives, this kind of attack on the millions of Americans who identify with the political right is offensive and unacceptable. Unfortunately, this tweet is just the latest in a pattern of poor statements by MSNBC and its hosts,” Priebus wrote in a memo sent to all Republican elected officials, strategists, surrogates, and pundits.
He added that he has sent a letter to MSNBC president Phil Griffin demanding he personally apologize and take responsibility “for the disgusting tweet.”
“Until he takes internal corrective action and personally apologizes — not just to the RNC but to all right-of-center Americans — I’m banning all RNC staff from appearing on, associating with, or booking any RNC surrogates on MSNBC,” he continued in his memo. “As an elected official, strategist, or surrogate, I’m asking for you to agree to the same.
 We can have our political disagreements with MSNBC, but using biracial families to launch petty and ridiculous political attacks is low, even by MSNBC’s standards. It only coarsens our political discourse.”
Priebus went on to name current and former MSNBC hosts Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir, Melissa Harris-Perry, Alex Wagner, and Ronan Farrow as examples of individuals who have had a “troubling streak” of demeaning Americans with their comments
“This is more than just a tweet or an offhand comment,” he added. “This is part of a pattern of behavior that has gotten markedly worse, and until Phil Griffin personally apologizes and takes corrective action, we cannot be part of this network’s toxic programming. I am confident that he will want to ‘lean forward’ and prove to the American people that he does not condone this behavior. I look forward to his apology and corrective action.”
The offending tweet has since been deleted and an apology has been posted on the account.

Read more:

GOP lawmaker SLAMS Rachel Maddow: ‘Stop being a cheerleader and be a journalist’

Kansas Republican lawmaker Tim Huelskamp took MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to task during a post-State of the Union interview on Benghazi secrecy, noting that if Maddow “would stop being a cheerleader and be a journalist, you’d recognize we’re not getting those answers.”
Huelskamp spoke with Maddow about an hour after President Barack Obama wrapped up his State of the Union address Tuesday night, with the MSNBC reporter taking the congressman to task for anti-Obama tweets she deemed offensive and inaccurate.
She zeroed in on one tweet, suggesting that President Obama was deliberately ignoring the ongoing Benghazi controversy, asking the lawmaker if he voted to cut State Department security at any point.

“Don’t forget, the fact of the matter is Hillary Clinton did not request security enhancements,” Huelskamp responded. “And we do believe that this administration let our troops down and let this diplomat down.
“We need more answers there,” he continued. “We need answers about a lot of things. This administration promised to be the most transparent in history, Rachel. And I think if you would stop being a cheerleader and be a journalist, you’d recognize we’re not getting those answers.”
Maddow, always eager to pounce on the slightest hint of Republican sexism, imaginary or not, was furious:
MADDOW: Did you just call me a cheerleader?
HUELSKAMP: Uh, I dunno. Maybe you have that history. I’m saying look at the facts –
MADDOW: No, wait, wait, wait. No, hold on, hold on, hold on. Did you –
HUELSKAMP: I’m saying–
MADDOW: Hold on!
HUELSKAMP: – you’re a cheerleader for the administration –
MADDOW: Ok, so I’m a cheerleader?
HUELSKAMP: – you’re not being a journalist when you’re not willing to look at the facts! If it was Bush you would be jumping and screaming –
MADDOW: You’re amazing.
HUELSKAMP: – but because it’s Hillary Clinton, you don’t want the answers, Rachel. Face the facts! We don’t know the answers there.
The two then got into a contentious debate over whether Obama’s promise to take executive action without Congress — along with unilateral changes already made to Obamacare — constitute “lawlessness,” with Maddow suggesting Huelskamp’s comment come from another universe.
“It’s the universe of reality, Rachel,” he retorted. “The universe of outside this Beltway. The president’s speech fell flat in the real world.”

Read more:

MSNBC tweets about ‘rightwing hate’ for biracial families after mocking biracial family.

Weeks after MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and a guest panel gleefully mocked the Romneys for adopting a black grandchild, the network sent out a tweet suggesting that the “rightwing” writhes with rage at the sight of a biracial family.
Imagined conservative hatred of minorities is a favorite theme of progressives. Back in November, Washington Post writer Richard Cohen claimed Republicans — or strangely, people with “conventional views” — “must repress a gag reflex” when they saw New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s multiracial family. Amusingly, he drew the ire of fellow leftists who quickly branded him a racist for calling the tea party racist. (RELATED: MSNBC panel makes Romney’s black grandchild the punchline)
MSNBC’s tweet also comes hot on the heels of Harris-Perry’s sniveling apology for cruelly mocking an innocent child. Before she made a national disgrace of herself, Americans generally recognized her as the woman wearing tampon earrings and claimingObamacare was “the new n-word.”

Read more:

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Melissa Harris-Perry Compares Fighting Pro-LIfers To A Woman Fighting Of...

There is apparently no limit to the incendiary rhetoric allowed to fly unrestricted within MSNBC’s studios. Despite the decision to hire an executive tasked with limiting the number of outright lies repeated by its hosts, the network continues to air reprehensible accusations aimed primarily at social conservatives.

Melissa Harris-Perry, fresh from her own controversy involving vile comments made on her show about Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandchild, recently returned to her deep well of hyperbole in criticizing the advancements of pro-life advocates.
After castigating those who believe in the sanctity of life as “enemies of reproductive rights,” she compared the same group to men who would target and attack women. Unbelievably, she alleged that the current fight to make the murder of unborn children more commonplace is no different than training women in the art of self-defense.
Her tortured comparison revolved around NARAL’s recent push to coerce governors who support abortion restrictions to run on that platform in upcoming elections.
Harris-Perry touted the fact that NARAL President Elise Hogue recently said she wants to “force these anti-choice extremists who hold political office to actually run on and defend anti-choice records.”
She then portrayed such efforts in a David and Goliath context – with the pro-abortion crowd in the role of David! While Planned Parenthood receives taxpayer funding, countless leftist celebrities and policymakers devote endless resources to ensuring abortion remains safe, legal, and taxpayer subsidized.

The pro-life movement, on the other hand, is largely developed at the grassroots level and, as this week’s March for Life events prove, is able to attract huge numbers of Americans without government handouts or celebrity endorsements. Still, this host and many like her choose to depict abortion opponents as bullies who only want to oppress women.

In Harris-Perry’s mind, the millions of Americans who want to see commonsense restrictions placed on a murderous practice makes them no better than someone who would viciously attack a female.


Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Fact-Free Liberals: Part II

Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among those liberals who argue as if rent control laws actually control rents and gun control laws actually control guns.
It does no good to point out to them that the two American cities where rent control laws have existed longest and strongest -- New York and San Francisco -- are also the two cities with the highest average rents.
Nor does it make a dent on them when you point out evidence, from both sides of the Atlantic, that tightening gun control laws does not reduce gun crimes, including murder. It is not uncommon for gun crimes to rise when gun control laws are tightened. Apparently armed criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Minimum wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum wage laws create unemployment, especially among the younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
When you are unemployed, your wages are zero, regardless of what the minimum wage law specifies.
Having followed the controversies over minimum wage laws for more than half a century, I am always amazed at how many ways there are to evade the obvious.

A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum wage advocate.
Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of employers' statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum wage law be determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.

The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll survivors.
Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum wage increase -- and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors.
There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages much more difficult than it might seem.
Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum wage law, at any given time the effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum wage laws. In that case, employment could go up after a particular minimum wage increase -- even if it goes up less than it would have without the minimum wage increase.
Minimum wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to declare that they have now "refuted" the "myth" that minimum wages cause unemployment.
Yet, despite such anomalies, it is surely no coincidence that those few places in the industrial world which have had no minimum wage law, such as Switzerland and Singapore, have consistently had unemployment rates down around 3 percent. "The Economist" magazine once reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February."
It is surely no coincidence that, during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage -- the Calvin Coolidge administration -- unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years.
It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum wage law remained unchanged for 12 years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate -- even during the recession year of 1949 -- was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later years, as the minimum wage rate has been raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.
When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.

Fact-Free Liberals

Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.
President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed.
It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.
But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left -- which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study -- are not likely to get much attention.
The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.
Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.
But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work.
Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things -- and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors.
Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous "top one percent" have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country.
But check out a Treasury Department study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005." It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall -- repeat, fall -- by 26 percent by 2005.
What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.
This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up.
Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.
All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation. For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.
But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.
When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.
Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Democrats, Media Keep Revealing Their Totalitarian Tendencies

Y Gov. Andrew Cuomo is just the latest Democrat to pop off with an extreme, intolerant statement regarding Americans with whom he disagrees over political issues. His remarks are telling, for their bigotry, self-centeredness and shamelessness.
Cuomo singled out mainstream conservatives as “extremists” during a radio interview, and said that we have “no place in New York.”

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
Believing in the right to life was once a mainstream position within the Democratic Party. Former pro-life Democrats include Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton and even the late Ted Kennedy. Believing in the traditional definition of marriage was not “anti-gay,” but was Barack Obama’s own policy until he was running for re-election in 2012.
But as the Democrat Party has become dependent on class warfare, racial and social division, and funding from the labor unions and the abortion industry for its political survival, it has moved far to the left and become rigidly ideological on abortion, redefining marriage and a number of other social issues. President Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted against protections for babies born alive during botched abortion procedures. His position on partial birth abortion makes him objectively pro-infanticide, and is an extreme position that a majority of Americans reject. He is using his health care law to impose his beliefs regarding abortion and birth control on Americans who reject them on religious conscience grounds. He is forcing them to defend their basic, constitutional rights in court, rather than allow any room for disagreement with his policies.
Even in conservative Texas, the Democrats have hitched their wagon to the abortion industry’s local champion, state Sen. Wendy Davis. Despite the fact that she has been exposed as a dishonest person who may have committed perjury, and who may have used a wealthy lawyer in a sugar baby arrangement in order to pursue her career, the Democrats continue to back her. Davis rose to fame not because of any legislative achievement, but because she filibustered a reasonable bill that, among other things, protects Texas women from unscrupulous abortion doctors and unsanitary facilities, and protects the unborn after viability. Incredibly, and incredibly dishonestly, the Democrats and Davis claim that they are “standing with Texas women.” The reality is that they are standing with an industry that seeks to escape all reasonable regulations, and which preys on and lies to women.
Yet, no Republican leader steps up to declare that any Democrat “has no place” in Texas. Nor should they.
The consequences of turning a blind eye to the abortion industry appeared in Pennsylvania, in the slaughter house run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. His heinous crimes, for which he has been sentenced to life in prison, have caused no self-reflection in Democrats or their enabling media.
Cuomo is an extremist, and he joins other Democrats who have sought to push mainstream views completely out of the national conversation. Rather than win arguments on the merits, Cuomo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former Boston Mayor Tom Menino and other Democrats are making mainstream, traditional beliefs taboo, while they seek to make what was once taboo mainstream. “They have no place here” could be a Democrat Party slogan. Cuomo, Emanuel and Menino all offered versions of that statement against traditional beliefs on abortion, marriage and self-defense rights. They remain in good standing with their president and their party.
The media continue enabling the Democrats’ extremism. Cuomo’s comments were reported in the NY Post, but the rest of the media have mostly given him a pass while they continue chasing Gov. Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal en masse. Cable networks CNN and MSNBC have so far steered clear of any in-depth reporting on Cuomo’s statement. Likewise, while the Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater exposed Davis’ embellishing of her own personal story, her hometown Fort Worth Star-Telegram chose to run a heavily edited version of that story, and an AP story that glosses over the worst parts of Davis’ tales. Local media in Austin, the capitol of Texas and hub of state politics, are following the story but casting it less in terms of her honesty and fitness than in the political process of running for governor and “personal attacks” on her. When the truth becomes a “personal attack,” perhaps the candidate has problems that merit media examination.
The national media have taken the AP’s cue, and run only shortened versions of the Davis story that include her attempt to blame her own misstatements on her GOP opponent.
The fact is, if Democrats had their way there would be no opposition to them at all. All traditional beliefs would be swept aside and the church, to the extent that is allowed to exist, would be co-opted by politicians and used for their own ends. President Obama signaled the Democrats’ public shift to intolerance when he joked, in 2009, about using the IRS against his opponents. The IRS did become a weapon against groups that formed to object to his policies, and may have done so much damage to Obama’s opponents that he won a second term he would not have won without the IRS’ abuse. He has set the tone that his party and the media are now following, to the letter. Their endgame is to push traditional beliefs, indeed anything that offers any alternative to government power and authority, out of politics at every level of American life. Faith is no longer protected by the First Amendment, as long as today’s Democrats have power.
Even if you like your church and love your God, the Democrats and the media are seeing to it that you cannot keep them.

How the L-Word Was Won,In the introduction to his new book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class, Fred Siegel of the Manhattan Institute writes:

he best short credo of liberalism came from the pen of the once canonical left-wing literary historian Vernon Parrington in the late 1920s. “Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,” Parrington insisted, referring to both democracy and capitalism, “and the artist and the scientist will erect in America a civilization that may become, what civilization was in earlier days, a thing to be respected.” Alienated from middle-class American life, liberalism drew on an idealized image of “organic” pre-modern folkways and rhapsodized about a future harmony that would reestablish the proper hierarchy of virtue in a post-bourgeois, post-democratic world.
Ninety years later, and as this self-mocking Salon article titled “Let’s nationalize Fox News” highlights, very little has changed amongst that portion of the left’s goals.
If you enjoyed Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, James Piereson’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, and Daniel J. Flynn’s A Conservative History of the American Left, you will certainly enjoy Siegel’s new book. His early chapters chart the end of the early “Progressives” of the late 19th and early 20th century, such as Teddy Roosevelt, whom Tim Stanley of the London Telegraph describes today as a“Racist, imperialist, power-hungry megalomaniac,” and Woodrow Wilson, the man who was a big fan of the Klan (and vice versa). As Jonah noted in Liberal Fascism, Wilson’s brutal term in office during World War I (which Wilson had promised to keep America out of) has largely been airbrushed out of history — two guesses as to why. But it was during that period, Siegel writes, that “Progressives” stole a huge base from the laissez-faire conservative right, and began to describe themselves as “Liberal”:
In the standard accounts of American liberalism, both left and right argue that after the 1920s, Progressivism faced the Great Depression and as a result matured into the fully flowered liberalism of the New Deal. As I suggested in the previous chapter, this is fundamentally mistaken. While “winning the war abroad,” the Progressives “lost their war at home,” notes historian Michael McGerr. “Amid race riots, strikes, high inflation, and a frenzied Red Scare, Americans turned against the Progressive blueprint for the nation. The climax of Progressivism, World War I, was also its death knell.” Modern Republicanism — as incarnated in the 1920s by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover — and modern liberalism were both reactions to the excesses of Progressivism. Modern liberalism was born of discontinuity, a rejection of Progressivism — a wrenching betrayal and a shift in sensibility so profound that it still resonates today. More precisely, the cultural tone of modern liberalism was, in significant measure, set by a political love affair gone horribly wrong between Woodrow Wilson and a liberal left unable to grapple with the realities of power politics. For Progressives, reformers, and Socialists, the years from 1918 through 1920 were traumatic. During the presidential election of 1916, many leftists had embraced Woodrow Wilson as a thaumaturgical leader of near messianic promise, but in the wake of repression at home and revolution and diplomatic disappointment abroad, he came to be seen as a Judas, and his numinous rhetoric was despised as mere mummery.
For the ardent Progressive Frederick Howe, who had been Wilson’s Commissioner of Immigration, the pre-war promise of the benign state built on reasoned reform had turned to ashes. “I hated,” he wrote, “the new state that had arisen” from the war. “I hated its brutalities, its ignorance, its unpatriotic patriotism that made profit from our sacrifices and used it to suppress criticism of its acts. . . . I wanted to protest against the destruction of my government, my democracy, my America.” As part of his protest, the thoroughly alienated Howe distanced himself from Progressivism. Liberals were those Progressives who had renamed themselves so as to repudiate Wilson. “The word liberalism,” wrote Walter Lippmann in 1919, “was introduced into the jargon of American politics by that group who were Progressives in 1912 and Wilson Democrats from 1916 to 1918.” The new liberalism was a decisive cultural break with Wilson and Progressivism. While the Progressives had been inspired by a faith in democratic reforms as a salve for the wounds of both industrial civilization and power politics, liberals saw the American democratic ethos as a danger to freedom at home and abroad.
I interviewed Siegel for PJM’s old Sirius-XM radio show back in 2009, when he had just published a tremendous piece for City Journal on H.G. Wells, “The Godfather of American Liberalism,” material from which is incorporated intoRevolt Against the Masses. Take a listen:
(Ten minutes long, 9.09 MB file size. Click here to download MP3 file directly.)
As Siegel notes in his new book:
Wells was appalled by the decentralized nature of America’s locally oriented party and country-courthouse politics. He was aghast at the flamboyantly corrupt political machines of the big cities, unchecked by a gentry that might uphold civilized standards. He thought American democracy went too far in providing leeway to the poltroons who ran the political machines and the “fools” who supported them. The “immigrants are being given votes,” but “that does not free them, it only enslaves the country,” he said. In the North, he complained, even “the negroes were given votes.”
Yet another reminder that, as Kevin D. Williamson recently wrote in What Doomed Detroit, “It is an irony of our history that the political home of black racism in American politics is also the historical political home of white racism: the Democratic Party.”
Speaking of which, here’s our obligatory Allahpundit-style Exit Question: If “Progressives” dubbed themselves “Liberal” in 1919 to distance themselves from the debacle of an inept heavy-handed leftwing administration run amok, and then ran away from the L-Word after the Carter administration, only to eventually return to the P-Word in time for Obama, what word will they choose to describe themselves in the next few years? In the meantime, as Steve Hayward of Power Linerecently asked, “Now That Hillary Clinton Has Dismissed ‘Liberalism’, Can Conservatives Take It Back?”

Friday, January 17, 2014

NOW Liberal ARE QUESTIONING YOUR PATRIOTISM? Were not Obama Lap Dog like them?

Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is the stated goal of the Obama administration, P5+1 nations and Israel. How the United States can best reach this goal while avoiding war seems to me to be a rather vital debate. So it’s a real shame we’re not having it.
So far, 59 senators, 16 Democrats, are co-sponsoring a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and, perhaps, derail the Obama administration’s recent diplomatic efforts on that front. Really, it’s one of the only times we’ve seen any notable resistance to Barack Obama from people within his party. But, if I’m hearing the administration and punditry from the left correctly, even debating these approaches is a call for war to them. Instead, we’re supposed to believe that those 16 Democratic senators (not to mention the entire GOP) are set to send Americans to die for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Jay Carney kicked off the shameful rhetoric by warning that anyone who disagrees with Obama’s Iranian position risks supporting a “march to war.” As USA Today put it, “the White House has suggested Washington opponents want negotiations to fail so the United States can attack Iran.”
To begin with, it seems an enormous stretch to assume that the Senate’s passage of tighter sanctions would inevitably lead to war with Iran. It’s at least as massive as believing that Obama’s diplomatic efforts are no better than the Munich Agreement. Yet the former is accepted as the basis for nearly every piece critical of the recent debate over Iranian sanctions.
Today supporting sanctions makes you a warmonger. And challenging the president’s efforts is tantamount to desiring war. It’s an inverted form of calling all war critics unpatriotic. It’s meant to stifle debate. Yet here are Joan Walsh, James Fallows and others, all allegedly good liberals, demanding that everyone fall in line with the president on foreign policy. Fortunately, that didn’t happen when Obama was pushing for a greater American presence in the Syrian civil war, and it certainly should not happen here.
As unhealthy as that kind of partisan lock-stepping can be, here’s Andrew Sullivan kicking it up a notch and offering up a list of “Democrats For War With Iran”: “Michael Bennet of Colorado — a key Obama supporter; Cory Booker of New Jersey (ditto); Mark Warner of Virginia; Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut; Ben Cardin of Maryland; and, of course, Chuck Schumer of New York.
All of these Democrats are in favor of humiliating the president of the United States and refusing to allow him to pursue negotiations without being trumped by deliberate, pre-meditated sabotage.”
Does anyone really believe that Cardin and Bennet are driven by bloodlust? That Booker is willing to go to war to humiliate the president? That Warner wants to sabotage a chance at a meaningful peace agreement? That Schumer wants to — wait a second. What does Sullivan mean by “of course”? Schumer, as you may already have guessed, is a Hebrew. And let’s concede that Jewish politicians and their constituents tend to get a bit nervous when a bunch of belligerent oil-rich anti-Semites start pulling together a nuclear program. Does concern for an ally mean you are a member of a fifth column?
It’s just remarkable how regularly liberals will breezily call you a traitor these days for disagreeing with them. That’s exactly what Fallows does when he writes that “a striking number of Democrats have joined them, for no evident reason other than AIPAC’s whole-hearted, priority-one support for the sanctions bill.”
(Actually, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is arguing that Iran should be denied the capability to change course within a day. The interim deal signed over the weekend between Tehran and P5+1 reportedly allows Iran to retain its advanced nuclear centrifuge program, which gives it more than the capability; it basically gives it the keys. Seems like a reasonable concern for Israel, which, once this deal is done, will be unable to protect itself.)
Surely, there is some “evident reason” to support sanctions today. Not that long ago, the administration was bragging about their effectiveness. Perhaps — and I’m just speculating here — most of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s constituents would rather see Iran surrender its nuclear ambitions peacefully than see the U.S. engaged in a costly and futile conflict in the Middle East. Is it even conceivable to Fallows that someone could believe that tighter sanctions might help achieve this goal? Is it conceivable that the United States could extract more from the Iranians during these negotiations with the threat of more sanctions? Now, unlike all of these columnists, I’m no foreign policy expert, but I’d also probably want to wait and see what the president brings back before applying more pressure on Iran. With the disaster of Iraq still fresh, it probably would make the most sense. Still, the kind of reckless and politically motivated scaremongering Democrats are engaged in isn’t helping anyone.

Liberal Intolerance Says Only Liberals Can Marry Outside their Race and Wish Death to Conservatives?, You may remember the show Sister, Sister that starred real-life twin sisters Tia and Tamera Mowry , Tamera has committed the unpardonable sin. She married a white man and brought on the wrath of liberal intolerance.(white man’s whore)

First it was the Romney family that liberal and black racists condemned one of Mitt Romney’s sons from adopting a black baby. It was described as kidnapping by some. Of course, nothing was ever said about Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Jillian Michaels, Michelle Pheiffer, Mariska Hargitay, Jane Fonda, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Madonna, Hugh Jackman, Stephen Spielberg, and many others you may not know who have adopted black or mixed race children.
Instead of being thankful and considered a praiseworthy act if a conservative does it, these good-hearted people are denigrated in the worst way.

You may remember the show Sister, Sister that starred real-life twin sisters Tia and Tamera Mowry. They’re all grown up and married with children. But Tamera has committed the unpardonable sin. She married a white man and brought on the wrath of of liberal intolerance.

Tamera appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show as part of a “Where Are They Now?” She never would have been abused this way if she had not married Fox News correspondent Adam Housely.

Neither Tamera nor her husband speaks out on political issues. It’s the Fox News association that drives these liberal racists crazy:
“‘I get called ‘white man’s whore,’ she said. ‘The new one was ‘back in the day you cost $300, but now you’re giving it to him for free.’ The popular television star who also appeared in a reality show with her sister grew up in a bi-racial family herself — compounding her shock at the abuse she received. ‘I couldn't even fathom or think of these words, because I'm a product of it,’ she said.”
Then there’s ultra-liberal Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein who is making a film with multi-award and Oscar winner Meryl Streep to bring down the NRA. He can do that. It’s a free country. Liberal intolerance is his modus operandi.

Here’s what he said while appearing on 
Howard Stern’s radio show:
“I shouldn't say this, but I'll tell it to you, Howard. I'm going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we're going to take this head-on. And they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them.”

This sounds like a threat to do bodily harm that could result in the death of people who work for the NRA and their supporters. It’s not that Weinstein himself will do such a thing, but there might be some crazed liberal lunatics out there (and there are a lot of them) who won’t wait for the film and take matters into their own hands.

Isn’t this what Sarah Palin was criticized for when she placed a target image on candidates she was identifying that needed to be voted out of office?

Soon after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, some on the left of the political spectrum blamed “anti-government rhetoric” for the assault. Supposedly “hateful” speech directed at politicians had incited a cadre of “right-wing” extremists to put words into explosive action.

A similar blame-game tactic was tried by then Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) after the loss of the Senate to the Republicans in the 2002 mid-term elections. He blamed “talk radio,” and compared American “fundamentalists” to Islamic extremists. He claimed that critical talk about certain politicians and their policies could lead to a hostile environment that could spur people to violent acts. Daschle offered no empirical evidence to back up his claim.

Liberals are the most intolerant group in America. All their talk about tolerance is a one-way street. They want conservatives to capitulate while they build a network of intolerance to destroy all opposing views.