Friday, January 31, 2014
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.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
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.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/msnbc-abortion-activists-like-battered-women/#b7jUyEtgfDMTHuxh.99
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
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.
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
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?”