William Jacobson has a report: ” Remembering Giffords shooting, and the reaction .” Not mentioned at William’s post: Racist TBogg of Firedoglake: ” Fuck it. I’m going there… ” BONUS : At National Post , ” Gabrielle Giffords returns to Tucson on anniversary of shooting .”
Here is the original post:
One Year Ago Today: Progressives Ruthlessly Exploited Gabrielle Giffords Shooting to Destroy Conservatives
Hey, getting 2012 off to a great upside-down start. At Psychology Today , ” Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism “: Racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and rife with stress and controversy. Many ideas have been advanced to address this sore spot in the American psyche. Currently, the most pervasive approach is known as colorblindness. Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity. At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity. However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism. Nah. For some reason I think MLK wouldn’t be down with that. I like this one better: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Continued here:
Colorblind Racism?
From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News , ” Liberalism In 120 Seconds: Ron Paul’s Fans Can’t Have It Both Ways “: Also, from Jamie Kirchik, at The New Republic , ” Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters? ” (via Eric Dondero ).
Go here to read the rest:
Ron Paul Has a Lot of Disqualifiers That Make It Impossible for Him to Be the Next President of the United States
He still doesn’t address the core issue: Why would Ron Paul permit such inflammatory newsletters go out in his name? Paul says it’s ironic he’s getting hammered on this, since he’s the biggest “civil libertarian” in the race, who backs the rights of minorities against government. That’s chutzpah, I’ll tell you. And he goes on to blow off the more incendiary charges as perhaps a failure of management. By now most people don’t buy that Paul had no clue of these things, and the candidate simply keeps the discussion away from the clearly racist statements by saying that the “race war” stuff was less than 1 percent of what was published in what was basically a “hard money newsletter.” See also New York Times , ” Gingrich Criticizes Paul on Newsletters and Foreign Policy .” And Robert Stacy McCain has a limited defense of Paul, seeing the newsletters as fringe fundraising classics of the pre-Internet era, ” Classics of the Golden Age of Fringe, Or: Ron Paul Digs the Beatles’ White Album .” EXTRA : Ta-Nehisi Coates has a sick obsession with finding racism in every crack or crevice under the sun, so it’s no surprise that the Paul letters have been a bonanza for his blogging. That said, I can’t really disagree with this : Yesteday [sic] Ron Paul claimed on CNN that he’d never read the newsletters that went out in his name. Here is Ron Paul in a 1995 video discussing the very newsletters he claims to never have read. If you can find away to explain away a hateful newsletter written in someone’s own name, it’s likely you can find some way to explain this video away too. There’s always a path to make yourself right, if that’s your intent. Indeed, at this point it probably behooves me to stop arguing.
Continue reading here:
Ron Paul Portrays Himself as Champion of Minorities in Interview on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto
You know, Gloria Borger’s been in the business a long time, and she’s not haranguing the candidate. And she’s apologetic as he pulls the microphone off of his lapel. But Paul is very defensive and his answer is too pat considering his status as the Iowa frontrunner. The CNN report is here, with video in case this one gets pulled: ” Ron Paul defensive over past newsletters .” And today’s Los Angeles Times made a serious effort to accept Paul’s explanation, saying that: Paul has disavowed the ranting of the newsletter published under his name (just as he did when the subject came up in 2008) and his spokesman says that Paul didn’t write it and “disagrees with it totally.” That’s comforting. Sort of. It helps distance Paul from these lunatic scribblings, but it fails to answer the question of why he allowed them to be published in the first place. He and his admirers complain bitterly when he’s ignored, then protest when he’s scrutinized. Paul should answer for these writings. That sounds reasonable. See also, Saberpoint, ” Solving the Problems of Race in America .”
See original here:
Ron Paul Walks Out of CNN Interview
This lady broadcasts her proud lesbianism , which is used to explain how she failed to “comprehend” this epic one-liner from Althouse’s comments: The commenter who wins the prize (t rigger warning for real this time!!! ) also lets you know — in case the others on Althouse allow you to forget — why we still need feminism. Here goes: “ There is the question of whether one would want someone like Claire Potter for a friend, unless of course there’s a prospect of sex as a reward for mutely enduring the unendurable. The solution is to wait for the full and complete BJ then give her the unvarnished veritas right between the eyes .” It took me a minute to comprehend this, me being a gold star lesbian and all, but this commenter is fantasizing out loud about taking a money shot in my face. Nice, Althouse. Nice. Love your friends. Now, what’s interesting is the post is published at the “Tenured Radical” blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education . I didn’t know they had a “Tenured Radical” blog! And boy, they don’t kid around with their radicalism! Here’s the biographical info for Professor Potter: I am Claire B. Potter, Professor of History and American Studies at Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT. My specialties are feminism, political history and cultural criticism. Translation : “My specialties are racism, sexism, post-colonial gender studies, Marxism, and cultural relativism.” It’s a wonder if any Wesleyan students actually learn American history. (And a quick Google search confirms it .) Althouse has the response, and she’s not pleased with this “sister”: ” ‘But why would anyone — much less a law professor — leave a comment like that up on her blog…’ ” And here’s Althouse’s original post with the offending comment, which she has now removed: ” ‘Feminist blogging is definitely not for wimps, which is why the vast majority of us do it pseudonymously’ .” And note something : Althouse hadn’t read the ostensibly offending comment, but she removed it when she found that Professor Potter thought it offensively sexist. And that’s because Althouse is a good and decent woman. Progressives, on the other hand, are not decent. These sick f-king racists routinely attack conservatives with the most vile bigotry, and they twist contortions to deny the patently obvious racism spouted in their own comments. They sponsor racism, hatred, workplace harassment and intimidation, and make personal threats against those whom they despise. Yeah, progressives suck like that, and the news is spreading .
Read the original post:
Claire Potter, Radical Lesbian History Professor at Wesleyan, Can’t Comprehend Shot of ‘Veritas’ Between the Eyes
From Timothy Carney, at Washington Examiner , ” GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa “: The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses. The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.) But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value. If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like “Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa”). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media. Well, it’s certainly going to be interesting. Continue reading at the link . IMAGE CREDIT : Conservative Network, ” Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof .” Also, ” Ron Paul Is A Lying Scumbag Politician With Borderline Sociopath Tendencies .”
See the original post here:
Republicans Will Destroy Ron Paul If He Wins Iowa
Jeffrey Lord has this at The American Spectator , ” The Ron Paul Newsletters ” (via Memeorandum ). And from Dan Riehl as well, ” Ron Paul Can’t Withstand the Scrutiny of Being a Frontrunner .” But don’t miss especially Ace of Spades HQ, ” Only Ron Paul Can Restore America to Its Former Greatness* .” Check that link for what follows after the asterisk. The post is a devastating indictment of what looks like a blatantly racist newsletter program of pandering ggressively to paleoconservatives and “libertarians and old-time neoconfederates and former Klanners.” And according to Ace, “it wasn’t just the newsletters.” Here’s the block quote from the post: Paul is closely connected to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, founded by the libertarian conservative Murray Rothbard and currently run by Lew Rockwell. Rockwell was formerly Paul’s chief of staff. … For Rothbard, freedom was best when it wore pants: he blamed the “origins of the Welfare State” on “the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle– or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth.” He regretted the Constitutional amendment that had “imposed” women’s suffrage on the nation. In 1963, for example, at the height of the Civil Right movement, Rothbard warned about “the negro crisis as a revolution.” “Demonstrating Negroes,” he said, “have taken to a favorite chant: ‘What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now!’” One might expect a libertarian to like such a chant, but Rothbard found the idea of freedom for negroes alarming: they did not understand it properly. Freedom was a “hopelessly ambiguous word as used by the Negro movement,” and “the very fuzziness of the goal permits the Negroes to accelerate and increase their own demands without limit… it is the very sweep and vagueness of the demands that make the movement insatiable.” An insatiable desire for freedom usually stands in libertarian accounts as the most praise-worthy of human attributes, but Rothbard found the African American freedom struggle alarming. Rothbard worried not just about “insatiable” negroes, but also about King and his non-violent protests against “private citizens as store-keepers or owners of golf courses; their rights are already invaded, in a “non-violent” manner, by the established Negro ‘Center’.” Rothbard explored ways to stop “the negro revolution:” his words are worth quoting in full. There are two ways by which it might be crippled and defeated. First, the retaliatory creation of a white counter-revolutionary mass movement, equally determined and militant. In short, by the re-creation of the kind of Ku Klux Klan that smashed Reconstruction and the Negro movement in the late 19th century. Since whites are in the majority, they have the capacity to do this if they have the will. But the will, in my opinion, is gone; this is not the 19th century, nor even the 1920’s. White opinion, as we have seen, has drastically shifted from racism to egalitarianism; even the Southern whites, particularly the educated leadership, concede the broad merit of the Negro cause; and, finally, mob action no longer has respectability in our society. There have been attempts, to be sure, at mass counter-revolutionary white action: the Ku Klux leader in Georgia told a rally that “we must fight poison with poison,” armed conflict between white and Negro mobs has broken out in Cambridge, Maryland, and white hoodlums have repeatedly assaulted Negro pickets in the Bronx. But all this is a feeble replica of the kind of white action that would be necessary to defeat the revolution; and it seems almost impossible for action to be generated on the required scale. … Not surprisingly, the Von Mises Institute he founded and ran is allied with the “League of the South,” which views the Civil War as a crisis over state’s rights and calls for an independent southern republic and wants, yes, “to return to a sound currency” based in gold. The League of the South laments the fact that “aliens” now govern the former Confederacy. It wants to return rule to the heirs of the “Anglo-Celtic tradition.” Rothbard and the Von Mises Institute similarly describe the Civil War as an unjust intervention, and claim slavery would have vanished on its own. The North, they argue, created racism in what had been a benign natural hierarchy That sounds pretty nasty. But Ace has lots more . For example, to quote Ace himself: Another thing I don’t believe is that Ron Paul’s thick-as-thieves relationship with fringe lunatic crank and Truther Alex Jones is just some kind of coincidence, given that Paul can’t seem to stay away from the ghastly paranoid Here’s Alex Jones following around Michele Malkin, shouting at her for being a “neocon” (he has referred to her as a “monster” and “Marxist”). One of his little goon squad there shouts “Kill Michelle Malkin!” When I say Alex Jones is Truther, I don’t mean he flirts with it. I mean he says the United States government loaded the buildings with explosives and detonated them. And that’s not even the craziest thing he believes. He happens to believe that this is just one of many attacks on citizens by the global cabal that runs the world. But continue at the link . It’s pretty devastating all around, and it needed to be said. And some bonus video:
Read the original:
Taking Ron Paul Seriously
