Bill Burr takes on Hillary Clinton

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Bill Burr takes on Hillary Clinton

Uncovering White Racism

Robert Weissberg writes: Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” speech has yet again raised the issue of whether countless white Americans are “racists.” Of course, given the term’s inherently fuzzy quality, who can authoritatively say for sure? But, imprecision acknowledged, it is important to scrutinize how the liberal media elite has expertly twisted racism to demonize millions of whites who (correctly) reject the “racist” label. Far more is involved than playing semantic games–controlling the meaning of “white racism” is a huge prize in today political environment.

A perfect example of an elite media capturing “racism” occurred in a recent column by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. Under the headline, “Yes, half of Trump’s supporters are racist” he sought to show, with seemingly hard facts, that, indeed, Hillary’s assessment was correct. What was Milbank’s smoking gun proof? One such fact comes from the 2012 American National Election Study that found that when white people rated blacks on scales of hardworking/lazy and intelligent/unintelligent, some 62% of whites rated blacks lower than whites, a jump from the 2008 figure when only 45% of whites did not see blacks as equal to whites in either work ethnic or intelligence. Milbank also cited a Pew Research Center study that found that while 79% of Clinton supporters believed that that the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities was an important issue, a mere 42% of Trump supporters concurred. Milbank also had previously noted that Trump supporters were significantly less likely to believe that racial and ethnic diversity improves the United States. To close the case, Milbank offers research showing that Trump does best among voters who believe that white people were “losing ground.”

Milbank’s modus operandi is to take a proposition amenable to scientific verification, decide what is factually correct and then bestows the racism label upon those who reject his version of reality. This is equivalent to a court of law where defendants—here whites charged with racism—are given zero opportunity to defend themselves. And Milbank, like other liberal sages, is a hanging judge. If he decides that asking whites if blacks are naturally faster than whites in races less than 400 meters, and a white answers “yes,” Milbank is totally free to convict the respondent of “racism.” And there is no appeal—off with his head! And even to suggest that the conclusion from on high is scientifically iffy will only add years to the racism sentence.

Now imagine if survey respondents could defend their “racist” choices. Plausibly, countless interviewees would argue that yes blacks really are lazier than whites given the obvious willingness of employers to hire immigrant workers over native-born blacks and surely less motivation to work helps explain black proclivity for public welfare. And if, as Milbank implies, blacks and whites are equal in vocational talent, why must government pass countless anti-discrimination and affirmative laws to force employers to hire more blacks? As for the issue of black intelligence, has Milbank every uncovered any data showing that blacks and whites are equal on any test assessing cognitive ability, tests such as IQ tests, SAT tests, and multiple measures of K-12 achievement. Such data do not exist.

I would love to see Milbank’s data demonstrating the tangible benefits of racial/ethnic diversity in the US or, better yet, the Middle East or Africa. The opposite is more plausible—diversity is a problem to be managed and if its benefits were as advertised, why spend millions on lawyers and bureaucrats whose job it is to force firms to embrace diversity? To be blunt, Milbank’s reasoning only confirms his personal upside down world, not the racism of Trump supporters.

According to Milbank and fellow liberal pundits, a white saying bad things about blacks is prima facie “hard” evidence of racism even if the negative statement is indisputably factually correct. To be “racist” is to assert, for example, that compared to whites, blacks commit more crime, have higher rates of illegitimacy, are more likely to abuse drugs, more likely to be suspended or expelled from school, more prone to commit child abuse among many other examples of “bad” behavior. White racism was once evidenced by whites visibly inflicting harm on blacks; today, white racism is anything—no exceptions–said or believed by whites, regardless of veracity, that blacks find offensive or disrespectful. The measure of racism has shifted from behavior to attitudes or beliefs, no small shift given the widespread disconnect between attitudes and behavior. In fact, now just thinking “bad thoughts” about blacks independent of any action constitutes the sin of white racism.

This devious approach cripples any intelligent public discussion of America’s racial tribulations. Consider, for example, the minefield awaiting a blunt white office-seeker discussing what can be done to revitalize such black-dominated cities as Detroit or Selma, AL Sensible proposals might include cracking down on crime (including qualify of life offenses such as public intoxication), imposing stricter discipline in local schools to build a higher quality work force, hire public employees by merit, not race, and otherwise make the inner-city more business friendly…

Why do liberals pursue this discussion-killing strategy? Let me suggest that demonizing whites in general and Trump supporters in particular with white racism cheap shots is the paramount value in today’s political conflict. It certainly outshines holding frank discussion that might accomplish something tangible. Going one step further, I suspect that the Milbank and company must know this awkward, unspeakable reality– nearly all black pathologies are self-inflicted–but having repeatedly defined “racism” as anything that blacks find disrespectable, reversing course is no longer an option. There certainly are no personal costs for continued dishonesty and few blacks complain that avoiding racial offensiveness is a recipe for stagnation. Bashing whites as racist has become an all too easy way of making a living regardless of the consequences.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Uncovering White Racism

Why Not Add America’s Advantage to the Anglosphere Commonwealth?

From American Thinker:

“England and America are two countries separated by the same language,” George Bernard Shaw once remarked. Post-Brexit, why allow any barriers to stand between the world’s two greatest allies?

During debate over the United Kingdom referendum to exit the European Union, Remain supporters argued that British trade would suffer; Leave campaigners countered that Britain had the world as its oyster, pointing to her proud history of overseas trade during which the “second” British Empire flourished. But why should Britain limit herself? Why not include her “first” imperial American offspring?

For even as the War of Independence created the worst relations imaginable between the two countries, with peace America wasted little time in renegotiating trade deals with her former mother country.

When the United States became tangled up in Britain’s conflict with revolutionary France upon the high seas, President Washington sent John Jay as his envoy to London, resulting in the eponymous treaty which resumed trans-Atlantic “amity, commerce, and navigation.”

Disagreement at the climax of the Napoleonic conflict brought the two nations to arms again during the short-lived, fairly inconsequential War of 1812. But tranquility and, more important, a dynamic alliance, has reigned ever since. Now another opportunity presents itself.

“Of all the many splendid opportunities provided by the British people’s heroic Brexit vote,” British historian Andrew Roberts writes, “perhaps the greatest is the resuscitation of the idea of a Canzuk Union.”

Roberts foresees the time is ripe for the Canzuk ideal: “The Crown countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom need to form a new federation based upon free trade, free movement of peoples, mutual defence, and a limited but effective confederal political structure.”

One question only remains of its organizers: Why limit Canzuk to its represented countries? Why not include the United States?

The New York Sun is America’s principal advocate of such a liberty bloc of nations, united by rule of law and the common law tradition, free markets, and mobility of capital, goods, and labour. Canzuk’s own numbers tell the story of its combined economic strength and political liberties. America’s addition would compound the benefits, considering her population, financial, and military advantages.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Not Add America’s Advantage to the Anglosphere Commonwealth?

Debate Rules Being Set by Hillary Donors

NEWS: Campaign contributions from ‘bipartisan’ debate commissioners given exclusively to Clinton

The men and women who run the supposedly “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates have put their money where their mouths are — and it all has gone to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The amount of money is small by the standards of a modern presidential campaign, but it is one-sided. A pair of Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University examined campaign finance reports and found that all of the $5,650 in contributions that commission members have made to presidential candidates during this election season have gone to Clinton.

Republican Donald Trump, who will meet Clinton in the first debate a week from Monday, received no donations from debate commission members. Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who both learned Friday that they will be shut out of the first debate, also received nothing.

Kevin Zeese, an adviser to the Stein campaign, told LifeZette the contributions are further evidence of a bipartisan conspiracy to rig the electoral system against third-party alternatives. And the fact that Clinton scooped up all of the contributions made by commission members this year fits with the fact that she has won support not only from her own party but many Establishment figures in the Republican Party, as well.

“Hillary Clinton has done a really good job of uniting the two parties,” he said. “It’s almost like one party.”

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Debate Rules Being Set by Hillary Donors

The Pim Fortuyn Solution: “Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Trump?”

Steve Sailer writes:

From the New York Times:

Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton’s Bodyguards Should Disarm to ‘See What Happens to Her’
By NICK CORASANITI, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO SEPT. 16, 2016

MIAMI — Donald J. Trump once again raised the specter of violence against Hillary Clinton, suggesting Friday that the Secret Service agents who guard her voluntarily disarm to “see what happens to her” without their protection.

“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons,” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Miami, to loud applause. “I think they should disarm. Immediately.”

He went on: “Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, O.K. It’ll be very dangerous.”

In justifying his remarks, Mr. Trump falsely claimed that Mrs. Clinton wants to “destroy your Second Amendment,” apparently a reference to her gun control policies.

Obviously, this is a brain dead intentional misinterpretation of Trump’s simple talking point in favor of gun ownership rights.

What’s concerning is that when the establishment media acts this stupid — something that must be painful to their self-images as smart — they are processing powerful emotions and projecting them on to Trump. The press claims to be reading Trump’s mind that somebody should shoot Hillary, so it’s fair play for me to say that they are projecting their inchoate feelings onto Trump.

We saw this kind of projection in the first half of the year, when the press ranted about “violence at Trump rallies,” which, sure enough, conjured into existence massive violence against Trump supporters. Similarly, the media projecting concerns about black criminality onto white policemen got ten cops murdered over the summer in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

This kind of press frenzy has a history of sometimes getting candidates murdered, such as Dutch immigration restrictionist upstart Pim Fortuyn in 2002.

One attempted assassination of Donald Trump has already been provoked this year. The would-be murderer pled guilty a few days ago … to almost zero coverage in the United States.

So it’s time for some self-analysis and self-restraint on the part of the press before somebody gets killed.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Pim Fortuyn Solution: “Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Trump?”