In the past few days there has been a sort of alt-singularity as Putin and Trump exchanged compliments, as one might think befits mature heads of powerful states (one actual, one potential). Naturally, one of these men has been taking a lot of heat for it from all the empty suit punditry and the Cuck-in-Chief himself:
Far from apologizing and backing down, Trump has instead doubled down. This is really encouraging, because it suggest that his opposition to invade/invite the world is borne of genuine convictions, and that increasing numbers of Americans are beginning to wake up to the scams the elites run on them. And of course it doesn’t hurt that the facts are solidly, incontrovertibly on Trump’s side, regardless of how much the presstitutes might hate it.
Donald Trump: Well, he is a strong leader! What am I gonna say, he’s a weak leader? He’s making mincemeat out of our president. He’s a strong leader. You would like me to call him a weak leader. He’s a strong leader, and I’m not gonna be politically correct. He’s got an 80 percent approval rating done by pollsters, from I understand this country, okay? So it’s not even done by his pollsters, he’s very popular within Russia!
That is correct. A Gallup survey conducted in 2014 showed Putin with an approval rating of 83%. The latest poll from the (liberal-leaning) Levada Center gives him 85%. A recent study by four American political scientists confirm his genuinely high level of support at around 80% or more.
Stephanopoulos said, “Here’s what Mitt Romney tweeted, ‘there’s an important distinction, thug Putin kills journalists and opponents our presidents kill terrorists and enemy combatants.”
Trump said, “Does he know for a fact? It’s possible that he does. I don’t think it’s been proven. I’m not trying to be –”
Stephanopoulos interjected, “Allegations he was behind,” then Trump continued, “Sure, there are allegations. I have read those allegations over the years. But nobody’s proven that he’s killed anybody … If he has killed reporters, that’s terrible. He’s always denied it. He’s never been proven that he’s killed anybody. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty at least in our country. He’s not proven that he’s killed reporters.” …
Trump answered, “I’m not saying anything. I’m saying when you say a man killed reporters I’d like you to prove it.I have never seen any information or any proof that he killed reporters, George, you’re just saying, he killed reporters. You and other people killed reporters. I don’t know that. I haven’t seen it. If he did it’s despicable. It’s horrible. You’re making these accusations, I don’t see any proof. By the way, he totally denied that he killed reports are. He totally denied it.”
This particularly enraged Establishment commentators, but once again Trump is completely right and cannot be stumped. There is absolutely no evidence that Putin ordered the assassination of a single journalist.
Moreover, according to figures from the Committee to Protect Journalists – hardly a bastion of Putin apologists – journalist murders have plummeted in Russia under the reign of the Dark Lord of the Kremlin relative to the “free” and “democratic” 1990s when the US was best buddies with Russia, or at least the oligarchs pillaging it, and for that matter whacking any journalists who dared report on their activities.
Literally MORE Russian journalists were murdered for their reporting under 8 years of Yeltsin than 15 years under Putin.
Note also the following:
(1) Russia has a lot of journalists – according to UN data, it has twice the number of newspaper journalists as the US (despite having half the population). Adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists have always been far safer than any number of “democratic” countries that get on with the US such as Brazil, Mexico, India, Colombia. Even in the 1990s. And this is despite the fact that under Putin, the CPJ has been actively trying to tie any murder of a Russian journalist it feasibly could to his or her professional activity, even where such connections are questionable or altogether non-existent. According to a 2008 analysis by blogger Fedia Kriukov, considerably more than 50% of the Russian journalists the CPJ claims were killed for their professional activities – that is, angering business interests, local authorities, etc. – actually turned out to be wholly or partially falsified. Note that Putin doesn’t even begin to enter into this.
(2) As of this year, Russia imprisons only one journalist. It usually veers in the 0-1 range. Although even one is too much, but within the 1-3 range that even developed Western countries occasionally stray into. That consistently includes Israel; Italy in 2013; and for that matter, the US itself in 2013, though for some reason, the CPJ doesn’t count Barret Brown. (Another curious exception is Ukraine and the case of Ruslan Kotsaba, who is in prison and almost a year on still awaiting trial for calling the war in the Donbass a civil war and expressing his opposition to conscription). In contrast, Erdogan’s Turkey imprisons 14 journalists (an improvement from 40 in 2013). Of course that minor matter didn’t stop Jeb Bush from enthusiastically affirming his support for them when the Turks knocked a Russian warplane out of the sky for an accidental infringement of their territory for a few seconds.
Posted inJournalism, Russia|Comments Off on Trump Is Factually Right on Putin and Journalists
* My thoughts on the Frum piece, as they occurred:
– tribalism (fissures) within the parties mirror the more lurid colour-coding of America race-wise, under Obama, doesn’t it?
– immigration… as now constituted looks a lot like slavery; elites in favour (bonded, cheap labour). But palpable terrorist threat throws this ‘history repeats’ model into the air, doesn’t it? In capturing fears of poor whites (slaves’ first victims) and in appearing to be the only strong man in the room/race over Islamic imports, Trump scores twice, doesn’t he? (Did Frum pen this before San Bernardino?)
– Frum’s last option is a chimera: once GOP tacks to centre, the centre will move…further to the left. GOP has been consistently and successfully tarred as the heartless party; moving Democrat-wards will only see more ransom being extracted from them.
– bad timing: desperation on this scale may be a reverse indicator. Just when GOP and Dems converge (former capitulates) on idea of govt doing more/very little less, well, along comes $18trillion of public debt to effectively neuter activist government! That stark reality was veiled by zero rates for Obama’s reign; but the truth (the costs, and the eternal fact of scarcity of resources) will become plain as rates rise. Arguably GOP just has to stay ‘on message’ – government the problem not the solution – and the election success will follow. Of course, they have to find a way to spin this better. (Why don’t they talk more about ‘the children’, who’ll face the ‘centrist’ bill, in the ‘fairness’ debate? ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is still the best selling ‘business’ book of all time – someone on the GOP should discuss.)
– Trump: aside from two boosts above (related to immigration), isn’t The Donald just another example of the lust for a strong man after a failed recovery from a catastrophic depression? There are bloodier examples on this (European) side of the pond. And the most egregious was ‘Trump-like’ in his ‘whatever it takes’ attitude to ‘solutions’; high theory got you into a concentration camp as often as not.
– “Americans love the crush of competition, the hard-fought struggle, the long-slogging race”; I think the legacy of the Obama putsch is: ‘not so much’. He has moved America Europe-wards. How is that for Democrats’ respect of ‘the centre’?!
I think events will shape the election. As a businessman – at least surrounded by more clever people willing to question whether the Emperor has any clothes – Trump looks ahead more naturally; my money would be on events (another San Bernardino; another Hillary scandal; economic downturn) coming to him. I mistrust the polls that have him 5+ points behind Hillary. The arguably equally ‘outside’ (the political spectrum anyway) Goldwater was blitzed in 64 by a Kennedy sympathy vote and because events were on Johnson’s side (Vietnam not yet a running sore; economy still on sugar rush of ‘benign’ state expansion). Trump faces no similar headwinds. If he can keep his comb-over in place in cross-winds, he has a chance.
* It’s odd how intensely the media hypes the Hispanic vote when their turnout rate is less than half. Small shifts in either the black or white vote can reshuffle the electoral map yet you wouldn’t know that by listening to the news.
The way the media sounds sometimes it’s as if non-Hispanic voters shouldn’t even bother going to the polls.
* Once a gay Asian cashier at Starbucks once visibly panicked when I paid for a $2 coffee with 8 quarters.
* There have been a few times when I have been at a fast food restaurant or supermarket where the cashier has punched in the wrong bill to make change from (say $50 instead of $5) and now has to figure it out herself and they just can’t do it, especially not in their head. They get out a piece of paper and start writing it out and even then they can’t get it. It’s both sad and funny. This has never happened to me with an Asian cashier.
* I read somewhere that there was an Italian food contest somewhere, and a Japanese chef won it – he learned his trade in Italy, but only to move back to Japan to open an Italian restaurant there. I’d bet he can now teach other Japanese cooks on how to cook Italian.
You might argue that cooking Italian (Ghanaian, whatever) is not exactly rocket science (although in the case of haute cuisine it might be closer to that), but even if it was rocket science – well, rocket science itself could be copied by other countries, couldn’t it?
* You could easily cut half the Federal workers and contractors in the greater Washington DC region and no one would notice. Get rid of the 11,000 EPA workers for a start. Get rid of the Federal Department of Education which is really just a glorified jobs program for every affirmative action leech under the sun starting with women, blacks, gays, lesbians…….with (angry) Samoans and Aleutian Islanders bringing up the rear.
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Labor
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Health and Human Services
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Housing and Urban Development
There are 3000+ county governments, 50 State governments and one Federale Gov’t. So you have to be specific about what government and what agencies can be pruned back or eliminated
REPORT: The hunt for the killer of a 19-year-old Mississippi woman who was burned alive last year has resulted in the arrests of 17 suspected gang members, authorities said this week, though none have been directly linked to the woman’s death.
FBI officials announced the arrests Tuesday of suspected members of the Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and Sipp Mob street gangs, according to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper.
Officials told the paper the investigation, dubbed “Operation Bite Back”, was focused on Panola County, in the northwest of the state, and was a byproduct of the investigation into the death of Jessica Chambers.
On the night of Dec. 6, 2014, Chambers was doused with gasoline and set on fire in her car on a road in Courtland. She was found on the road with burns over most of her body and later died at a hospital in Memphis.
“It’s taken eight or nine months, if not a little longer, to get to this point,” Panola County District Attorney John Champion said. “And this is not over by any stretch of the imagination.”
Posted inBlacks, Crime|Comments Off on 17 Gentle Giants Burn Beautiful Woman To Death
Comment: AP Poll: Islamic State conflict voted top news story of 2015
4: MASS SHOOTINGS: Throughout the year, mass shootings brought grief to communities across the U.S. and deepened frustration over the failure to curtail them. There were 14 victims in San Bernardino. Nine blacks were killed by a white gunman at a Charleston, South Carolina, church; a professor and eight students died at an Oregon community college. In Chattanooga, four Marines and a sailor were killed by a Kuwaiti-born engineer; three people, including a policeman, were shot dead at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.
Hilarious. It’s like they want us to notice how they operate:
“There were 14 victims in San Bernardino.” Islamic fanatics? What are they?
“Nine blacks were killed by a white gunman.” Wow, specificity makes a stunning comeback in the next sentence!
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on When Specificity Makes A Comeback
There is a country with a race-neutral, class-based affirmative action policy that is large enough to study: Israel. The evidence there suggests that, far from being complementary, broad diversity and race-neutrality are conflicting goals.
In the mid-2000s, four of Israel’s most selective universities adopted an admissions policy that favored underprivileged applicants. The program is completely race-neutral and need-blind: Applicants are not evaluated on their ethnicity or their particular financial status. Instead, the emphasis is on structural determinants of disadvantage, such as applicants’ neighborhoods or the socioeconomic status of their high school (some individual hardships are also considered). This approach has deep roots in sociological research that shows that social structures, such as neighborhoods and schools, have a great impact on educational outcome.
The Israeli model of affirmative action does achieve widespread diversity because it considers several aspects of disadvantage. In addition to increasing geographic diversity, the program increases the number of students who are new immigrants and who come from poorer families and poorer neighborhoods.
But it achieved these goals at the price of ethnic diversity. Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system. If a race-based affirmative action policy had been implemented instead of this policy, the level of ethnic diversity would have been twice as high. Such a policy would also expand the level of socioeconomic and geographic diversity at the Israeli bastions of privilege, but not as much as the class-based policy did…
There is no silver bullet for generating broad diversity at elite institutions. On one hand, race-neutral models of preferential treatment cannot match the level of racial and ethnic diversity that race-based affirmative action can achieve. On the other hand, race-based affirmative action does not produce the same level of socioeconomic and geographic diversity at elite campuses.
Posted inAffirmative Action, Israel|Comments Off on What Israel Tells Us About Affirmative Action and Race
The Atlantic: “Because so few adults can remember the pertinent details of their own preschool or kindergarten years, it can be hard to appreciate just how much the early-education landscape has been transformed over the past two decades. The changes are not restricted to the confusing pastiche on classroom walls. Pedagogy and curricula have changed too, most recently in response to the Common Core State Standards Initiative’s kindergarten guidelines. Much greater portions of the day are now spent on what’s called “seat work” (a term that probably doesn’t need any exposition) and a form of tightly scripted teaching known as direct instruction, formerly used mainly in the older grades, in which a teacher carefully controls the content and pacing of what a child is supposed to learn.”
This is horrible for kids. They are meant to move. Sitting in chairs deforms the body. Just look at the difference in grace of movement between those cultures that sit in chairs and those that don’t.
Posted inEducation|Comments Off on The Atlantic: The New Preschool Is Crushing Kids
At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology.
Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths1. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories.
Jussim’s talk began with one of the most egregious examples of bias in recent years. He drew the audience’s attention to the paper: “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax.” The study was lead by Stephan Lewandowsky, and published in Psychological Science in 2013. The paper argued that those who believed that the moon landing was a hoax also believed that climate science was a fraud. The abstract stated:
We…show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings above and beyond commitment to laissez-faire free markets. This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.
After describing the study and reading the abstract, Jussim paused. Something big was coming.
“But out of 1145 participants, only ten agreed that the moon landing was a hoax!” he said. “Of the study’s participants, 97.8% who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landing also a hoax.”
His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.
Jussim explained that within the field, those on the left outnumbered those on the right by a ratio of about 10:1. So it meant that even if left-leaning and right-leaning scientists were equal in their bias, there would be at least ten times more research biased towards validating left-wing narratives than conservative narratives. Adding in the apparent double standards in the peer review process (where studies validating left-wing narratives seemed to be easier to publish) then the bias within the field could vastly exceed the ratio of 10:1. In other words, research was becoming an exercise in groupthink.
Posted inScience|Comments Off on How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes
I have right-wing Orthodox friends who now refer to Ann Coulter as a “vile anti-Semite.”
If someone as pro-Israel and pro-Jewish as Ann Coulter can get called a “vile anti-Semite” despite her many years of support for Jews and the Jewish state, then it seems there is no reason for gentiles to seek Jewish approval because it can be snatched away for the smallest of reasons.
I’ve struggled with saying “Merry Christmas.” Until the past week, I have deliberately refrained from saying “Merry Christmas” because all the Orthodox rabbis I consulted concurred with my analysis that to say “Merry Christmas” grants the appearance of giving legitimacy to the claims that Jesus of Nazareth, the historic person, was the Christ (Messiah). I don’t see how an informed and identifying Jew should do that.
On the other hand, I choose to live in the diaspora and it seems rude to me to not say “Merry Christmas” when it is the major holiday of my country.
From a Jewish perspective, Christianity is idolatry. We don’t rule that way in Jewish law because if we did, it would be very difficult to live around Christians. We couldn’t do business with them. We’d have to shun them. So the Ashkenazi consensus is that for purposes of Jewish law, we do not regard Christianity as idolatry, but we Jews know that this is purely tricky legal reasoning for public relations and to make our lives better, but of course — not to say it in front of the goyim — Christianity is idolatry (the consensus of Sephardim).
From the authentic Christian perspective, Jews crucify Jesus anew each day with their unbelief.
From an authentic Muslim perspective, Jews and Christians must be forced to submit to Islam (through during that process Muslims are free to dissemble about their intentions).
Every group wants to rule the world. Muslims are more willing to kill and die in the process than any other group so Islam is the most powerful religion in the world now.
Part of what makes Dennis Prager interesting is the way he balances conflicting values, such as between being Jewish and being an American. There’s nothing in Judaism that endorses “Merry Christmas” but it is — until recently — the American thing to do.
American religions have in general toned down their claims for divine truth in the spirit of tolerance. They’ve given up authenticity for getting along.
The nearly universal change from wishing fellow Americans “Merry Christmas” to wishing them “Happy Holidays” is a very significant development in American life.
Proponents of “Happy Holidays” argue that it’s no big deal at all, and that proponents of “Merry Christmas” are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when proponents say that the substitution of “Happy Holidays” is part of a “war on Christianity.”
But the “Happy Holidays” advocates want it both ways.
They dismiss opponents as hysterical while, at the same time, relentlessly pushing to rid America of “Merry Christmas.”
So, then, which is it? Is the substitution of “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” important or not?
The answer is obvious.
It is very important. That’s why the anti “Merry Christmas” crowd has worked so hard to make this greeting a thing of the past.
And they have been extraordinarily successful.
I have been wished “Happy Holidays” by every waiter and waitress in every restaurant I have dined; by every one of the young people who welcome me when I go to the gym; by every flight attendant and pilot on every one of my flights; and by every individual I have dealt with on the phone.
When I respond “Thank you. Merry Christmas,” I sometimes sense that I have actually created some tension. While many of those to whom I wish “Merry Christmas” may actually be happy that someone felt free to utter the C-word, all the sensitivity training that they’ve had to undergo creates cognitive dissonance.
“Christmas” has also been eliminated by many — probably the majority — of our elementary schools, high schools and universities. Thus, for example, they no longer have a “Christmas vacation,” but a “winter vacation.”
The opponents of “Merry Christmas” and other uses of the word “Christmas” know exactly what they are doing. They are disingenuous when they dismiss defenders of “Merry Christmas” as fabricating some “war on Christianity.”
Of course it’s a war on Christianity, or more precisely, a war on the religious nature of America. The left in America, like the left in Europe, wants to create a thoroughly secular society. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that the left believes in secularism just as fervently as religious Christians believe in Christ.
That’s why “Merry Christmas” so bothers the anti-religious left. It is perhaps the single most blatant reminder of just how religious America is — and it must therefore be removed from public discourse. Here’s a safe prediction: The ACLU and other secular activists on the left will eventually move to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.
Dennis Prager goes after the secular left in his essay but he fails to identify the enemy, which is elite Jews. It is elite Jews of the media and academia who are driving the war on Christmas and the war on America’s white Christian core.
Ironically, in his previous column, Dennis Prager went after Republicans for not accurately naming the enemy:
American conservatives are rightfully annoyed with the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, for refusing to name radical Islam or Islamism as the major source of terror.
When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood ,the administration refused to label the mass murder — committed by a Muslim in the name of Islam — an act of Islamist terror, or even terror at all. Instead it was officially declared a “workplace shooting.”
And when President Obama convened an international conference on terror, he refused to include the word “terror” or any form of the word “Islamist” in the title. Instead the conference — which took place a month after the Islamists’ massacre of the Charlie Hebdo writers and editors and Jews at a Paris shop — was ridiculously named “The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.”
But conservatives and Republicans do the same thing. They, too, almost never identify what they are fighting — namely, leftism and the left. (Note to left-wing websites that monitor conservative writings: This is not a comparison of the left with Islamic terrorists; it is about not naming an ideological foe.)
Republicans — from the highest ranking politicians to rank and file members of the party — fight Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and all other Democrats. But they don’t fight the left and leftism.
The implication is that if only we could defeat this or that Democrat, we would be on our way to a much better America.
But it’s not true. If extraterrestrials came to our planet and absconded with every Democrat holding office from Barack Obama down to every Democratic city councilman in America, nothing would change. Other Democrats with the same left-wing views would take their place.
Leftism is ruining America. But almost no Republican ever — let alone repeatedly — says this.
The universities of this country have become a laughingstock. They have degenerated into anti-intellectual, anti-Western, anti-rational institutions with their ludicrous “safe spaces,” trigger warnings that infantilize students, and all the lies about the racism and a rape culture that allegedly pervade the campuses and American society.
What is responsible for that? Leftism.
Again, Dennis Prager uses euphemism. He really means Jewish elites. Neoconservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement but its campaign to impose democratic values around the world by force is like something from Trotsky and the left. All Jewish intellectual movements seek to build up the fringe against the white Christian core of the West. Prager’s description of universities is simply the logical extension of the tactics of the Anti-Defamation League to make all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment and white identity pathological.
A Jewish friend told me recently: “I think it is worth observing with all the goings on about trigger warnings, micro-agressions, hate speech and the like, that the first persons to claim the right to shut down discussions they disagreed with were Jews who wanted any questioning of the Holocaust to be banned. In fact Holocaust denial remains a crime in some European countries. The ADL was the first group that decided that it would go on the offense when any ‘anti-semitism’ regardless of how slight comes to light.”
They don’t bother making coherent arguments. They simply seek to destroy her.
Fox News had Ann Coulter on right after the second GOP debate:
I’ve been talking to various Jews about this controversy and this is a summary of what I’m hearing:
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. It is the typical ADL playbook where the slightest innocuous comment is used to wholly discredit someone.
Does making the comment, even if it were “vile” which I don’t think it is, justify destroying a person’s career? How many books has she written? How many columns has she written? Who among pundits has been as influential in bringing an issue to the fore in American politics as she has with immigration? How many commentators are unwilling to debate persons with whom they disagree because somehow or other that would legitimize them? Ann Coulter will debate anybody on any topic anywhere.
It is interesting that she was dropped for the column she wrote for National Review in the aftermath of 9-11 (when she said invade their countries, kill their religious leaders and Christianize them.) She also survived the kerfuffle when in her interview with Donnie Deutsch she said that Christianity is in effect perfected Judaism. This is of course the correct theological view from the standpoint of Christians, regardless of denomination, but Jews are so used to politicians and columnnists buttering us up that they couldn’t handle this.
Anyway, we shall see how this plays out. The problem is that the people who are condemning her have so much invested in wresting either contrition from her or marginalization of her, that if they fail, it may weaken them and open the door to much more biting criticism that may in fact be anti-Semitic.
It is good that you are sticking up for her by highlighting all of the out of control condemnations of her.
It is important to really figure out what she was saying.
When she asked rhetorically how many fucking Jews are there in this country, that is open to two interpretations: (1) that despite their small number Jews wield too much influence, especially in the Republican party or (2) the Republicans are needlessly pandering to the Jews, Jewish interests, Israel and Evangelicals since there is no need to dwell on the confluence of views of Republican candidates.
Neither is anti-Semitic although the first interpretation does call in question Jewish power and influence, something that organized Jewry has consistently (1) downplayed and (2) pounced upon and punished those who espouse such views by labeling them anti semites and getting them ostracized.
You are a firm believer in free speech and in fearlessly pointing out where there is Jewish influence and power.
What bugs me about Coulter’s critics are:
In the case of “conservatives”, they criticize leftists, liberals and Democrats as being too politically correct and afraid of honest discussion, calling them “pearl clutchers, delicate little flowers” and people who go their “fainting couches” when confronted with micro-aggressions.
What Ann wrote is not especially offensive, especially in the context of her string of tweets during the debate, yet the “conservatives” feel the need to distance herself from them. This leads me to believe that many of the “right wing websites” PJ Media, Hot Air, Powerline, American Thinker, are in fact basically what pretend to be American conservative promoting sites, but in reality are simply pro Israel sites with the American political stuff serving simply as window dressing.
In the case of the Jewish Press and Jewish Rabbis condemning Coulter, I wonder how many of them publish her or read her with any regularity. I do realize she was a featured columnist for IJR) and if they do, if they share any views with her. Jews are traditionally liberal, consistently voting for Democrats and almost all elected national officials are Democrats (Sanders, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Blumenthal) and the Obama administration has many Jews in appointed positions, most significantly for financial decisions, Jack Lew and Janet Yellen. So I suspect that many if not most of the criticism of Coulter is coming from persons who don’t share her political views and are using this as an opportunity to either take her down a notch or sideline her permanently (a la Joe Sobran)
In the case of the liberal press, it is also seen as a means to marginalize Coulter and her views.
I realize you are a small voice against this, but you are an Orthodox Jew. She has been supported by others who are not widely read, such as Ilana Mercer, and by Mickey Kaus, but they are hard pressed to influence the conventional wisdom once the juggernaut is under way.
