"This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory."

The anti-critical race theory campaigner @kemibadenoch could be the next Prime Minister of the UK. Listen to her incredible speech denouncing CRT: pic.twitter.com/YSPfvT0cc2

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) July 13, 2022

Excellent speech. There is no such thing as inherited guilt, let alone inherited racial guilt.

There is a war on Black America

There is a war going on against blacks in America. And it is almost entirely being waged by Democrats. Excerpt:

While Democrats try to cover their racist past, including that of their poster boy Joe Biden, Democrats this week were more exposed than Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

Sen. Tim Scott, an astute black United States Senator from the former slave state of South Carolina was elected to the United States Senate in 2016, garnering 61 percent of the vote.

In fact, according to Breitbart Scott “earned more raw votes and won by a wider margin than Donald Trump.” In other words, Scott is extremely popular in his state. He is also considered by some to be a rising star in the Republican Party.

And for that, Scott is a scourge to Democrats, who expect all minorities—primarily blacks and Hispanics—to support and identify as Democrats.

This past Wednesday, Scott was tapped by the GOP to give the response to Biden’s Congressional (don’t call it a State of the Union) address. Now one might say that Scott was chosen specifically due to his race, which is exactly the trap Democrats fell into.

Never mind the fact that Scott is a bright, articulate voice of conservative ideals. Democrats did exactly what they accuse Republicans of doing…played the race card.

Read the whole thing. John Nolte is right when he pointed out that Senotor Scott "smoked out" the racists in the Democrat Party and elsewhere. By elsewhere, I am particularly thinking of Fred Wellman of the pedophile-infested Lincoln Project, the newest refuge of Republican wokeism, who merely engaged in the standard imperious assertions, proclaiming the speech utter bulls--- and a pathetic joke. Meaning they have no argument.

In my opinion, the Stupidity Award goes to David Leavitt who parrots the line about George Floyd being killed because of racism, a claim that Minnesota AG Keith Ellison recently debunked.

Here's to the courage and bravery of people like Senator Tim Scott to speak truth to power.

"Republicans are Racists"

Mark Shea thinks that if you are a Republican, you are probably a racist. Here is how he just phrased it on his Facebook page:

Mark Shea: "Know what you call a Republican who says 'Not every Republican is a racist' and who stays mum about all the racist Republicans in his party and does not rebuke or attack them on a daily basis? A racist."

"On a daily basis", people. Let's go! You have your marching orders, just try not to goose-step.
So what is being asserted is that registering as a Republican obligates one to be an activist of sorts who, not only "rebukes" and "attacks" Republican racists, but does so on a daily basis. The assertion also assumes either that every Republican knows a Republican racist, or that we really need to dredge up this guy's name all the time. Letting alone the fact that historically the Democrats have been the slave-holders and comprise the majority of the white southern Jim Crow/segregation mafia, this is simply crazy talk. Surely there are many weaknesses which characterize the Democrats, but I would laugh at anyone who made this assertion about them or any political party.

I don't know any racist Republicans personally, but under Mark Shea's definition, every Republican I know is racist. Because the only people I know going around telling the faults of others on a daily basis are liberal Democrats. Q.E.D.

Looking at something else in the news currently, no one expects Democrats to call out #MeToo offenders like Bill Clinton for their sins on a daily basis, or they too should be considered philanderers. No serious person would say that actors and other Hollywood personnel must call out sex offenders like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey or Bill Cosby on a daily basis or else then they too are sex offenders. That would be a mixture of moral equivalency and guilt by association that any honest partisan would have to admit was unfair.

I'm not sure why Mark Shea has gone so crazy in his political beliefs over the last two or three years. Perhaps he has breathed too long the illogic of what people are calling the New Pro-life Movement, but is really just a reheat of the "seamless garment" left-overs from the nineties. This theory states that for a person to be truly pro-life he or she is compelled to accept and promote a number of other policy positions commonly associated with the left. You must be opposed to the death penalty, object to strong border security, and favor a so-called "single-payer" health-care system among other socialistic causes to be part of the New, True, Blue Pro-life belief system, otherwise you are just a "cafeteria pro-lifer" of sorts in the mind of these New Puritans.

Where did this absurd idea come from? Many believe is was mainly constructed to give Catholics an excuse to vote Democrat. You could basically answer the people who said "Don't vote for Democrats; they're not pro-life," with "Basically no one is pro-life, because, you know, the death penalty and health-care and torture and stuff." Don't snort; it works. But wherever it came from, what it leads to is the sort of of totalistic necessitarian thinking that the left loves to impose on the other side, but never on itself. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.... You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules," wrote Saul Alinsky. Yes, he wrote "enemy" and "kill" not "opponent" and "defeat". Thinking on the left is fundamentalist and apocalyptic with language to match.

Shea's preferred word for pro-lifers and others who don't buy into his left-leaning politics is Christianist, a term coined by the extremely paranoid Andrew Sullivan who was preaching back in 2009 that because gays were being persecuted in Uganda they would soon be herded into gas chambers by religious zealots in America. Now we have gay marriage. So... that didn't happen.

Another possibility for the decline in his reasoning ability and increased shrillness is that less people are listening to him than previously used to. He might feel like he has been left behind in the sphere of wordsmith intellectualism and has not become as successful as others. Recently he penned a piece attacking Catholic think-tanker Austin Ruse accusing him of all manner of things, justly or unjustly—I'm not really interested. But he threw in what Ruse's annual salary is along with the accusations. That seems to me to be telling of what ails the run-of-the-mill Patheos blogger.

And really it is well that he is criticizing successful Catholics and using the Sullivaneque word Christianist in his writings, because they have become so wild-eyed, so self-righteous and so bombastic with regard to his co-religionists that it only seems like a matter of time before he hires a private priest and retreats to a Catholic bunker. That would seem to be the prescription if things are really as bad as he says. Yet I often ask myself if he really believes his own allegations. Whatever the reason that Mr. Shea is so unhinged toward conservatives, his vitriol— in which one can detect the resounding echo of the pronounced verdict "deplorable"—is one of the reasons why people voted for Trump and why Jordan Peterson is so popular right now. We've had enough of the "repent and roll-over" rhetoric. If you are going to criticize me, I want to hear something solid.

White Liberals Parrot Talking Poiints

This is a few years old, but still applies to the current situation in our society. White liberals are taught that we need to be extra conscious of how hard black people have it. Except they don't know any real black people.



Requiring identification in order to vote should be a no-brainer to help prevent voter fraud. And someday it will be, I'm sure. As real white racism continues to recede into America's past, the argument that voter ID laws discriminate against blacks will eventually cease to be convincing. A small minority will continue to pretend it's true. As always.

"I don't know, honestly"

Tamir Rice Made A Fatal Mistake

Here's my take on the sad Tamir Rice shooting at the Cudell Rec Center. Excerpt from the report:

Police saw Tamir take what they believed was a pistol from a picnic table under a gazebo where he was sitting with a group and stuff the weapon in his waistband.

A first-year officer, who officials have not named, got out of his car and told the boy to raise his hands. Instead, police said he reached for what later proved to be an airsoft-type gun, a replica of a semi-automatic handgun that shoots pellets.

The officer fired two shots from less than 10 feet away. A least one of the bullets hit Tamir in the stomach. He was rushed to MetroHelath Medical Center in serious condition and died early Sunday.

Questions about the shooting arose when police revealed that the man who called 9-1-1 before the boy was shot told dispatchers "the gun was probably fake."

The caller told the dispatcher he saw "a guy with a pistol" on the swing set pulling a weapon from his pants and "scaring the s—t out of everyone."

Listening to a local Saturday call-in show on WTAM-1100, it would seem that almost everybody who can speak proper English and form an argument agrees that the primary reason that Tamir Rice is now dead is his own stupidity. There were blacks as well as whites calling in to lament the kid's stupidity, and most people mentioned that if you're a cop and you get called to Cudell no one should blame you for being ready to use your sidearm. It's a crime-ridden place.

I don't have much to add except to say two things. One, maybe the cop could have done something else. I'm sure that in hindsight he wishes he used a taser, or maybe used he x-ray bionic vision to determine that the Rice's pistol was only an airsoft gun. As Christopher Johnson from MCJ recently noted:

....You’ve got one second to decide what to do an a life-threatening situation. Well, I guess I should…time’s up. You’re dead.

But come to think of it, I don't know if the officer has a bionic eye. (Sounds like a question Don Lemon might ask, though.)

The second thing is that Tamir Rice's father should be absolutely ashamed of himself for not teaching his son that playing with guns (which have been doctored to look real) in public and not listening to policemen with real weapons will get you killed. I realize that his father, Leonard Warner, has a criminal history, but that should only make him more ashamed that he hadn't taught his son simple survival skills, and what a mistake it is to play chicken with the cops.

Someone should do a quick anecdotal study about how many of these kids involved in these high-profile shootings (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) have the same last name as their father and mother. It seems like they all come from broken homes, which would seem to be a much stronger indicator than race.

The centrality of myth for progressive ideology

Andrew McCarthy is spot on in his analysis of the Ferguson narrative believed by everyone on the hard left. How could they not believe that Michael Brown wouldn't hurt a soul and Officer Darren Wilson is a hateful, racist killer? These are articles of faith. Evidence can't disprove articles of faith. Excerpt:

For the American Left, a bedrock myth is that white cops kill black kids. It derives from the overarching myth that casts racism as our indelible national sin. As Heather MacDonald explains, citing exhaustive criminology studies, it flows seamlessly from the quackery that dismisses the disproportionately high incidence of violent crime in African-American communities as an illusion — as the product of police racism and the consequent hyper-targeting of black boys and men, rather than of racial differences in patterns of offending.

Darren Wilson was a white cop and Michael Brown was a black teenager killed in a violent confrontation with Wilson. Therefore, Brown was the victim of a cold-blooded, racially motivated murder, Q.E.D. That is the myth, and it will be served — don’t bother us with the facts.

Another good point:

....Factually, the chatter about “conflicting testimony” falsely implies that all testimony is created equal. In reality, accounts given by anti-Wilson witnesses, where not patently fabricated, tended to be discredited by forensic evidence. The forensics, instead, corroborated the exculpatory testimony — much of which came from African-American witnesses, a fact that undermines the myth and therefore goes largely unnoticed. The grand-jury rules are more permissive than those that govern criminal trials, but prosecutors are still ethically barred from asking the grand jury to rely on testimony they believe is false, inaccurate, or unconvincing.

Emphasis mine. Blacks who are tired of the idiocy of other blacks get the worst treatment. Their voice is ignored whenever they cannot be intimidated.

Michael Brown's hands were not up

The Daily Caller has the story.

Michael Brown did not have his hands over his head when he was shot by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, a self-identified eyewitness told the grand jury investigating Brown’s death.

The eyewitness recounted his firsthand observations to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch late Wednesday after speaking to the grand jury this week. The grand jury’s decision about whether or not to indict Wilson is expected in mid-November.

Brown had his arms at his sides during at least one phase of his confrontation with officer Wilson, but he never raised his hands over his head at any point, according to the witness. Brown continued to approach Wilson against police orders and stood about 20 to 25 feet away from the officer when he was fatally shot, the witness said.

But will this keep the protestors from doing that "hands up don't shoot" chant? Probably not. But hopefully it will take the wind out of their lying sails.

We need a travel ban

This NR article states well why we need a travel ban to help prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States. Excerpt:

The ban should, of course, apply to a traveler’s country of origin, preventing persons from West Africa from entering the United States via other countries. Such a ban would, in theory, have prevented entry to Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the United States, who arrived from Liberia via Belgium. Furthermore, it would have protected the two hospital workers who contracted the disease through their interactions with Duncan.

No, the ban would not work perfectly. But an inability to eliminate all risk whatsoever should not disqualify efforts that would reduce it, and restrictions would substantially curtail travel from high-risk nations and minimize the risk of Ebola-infected patients reaching American shores.

The situation in Dallas makes clear that it is easier to protect Americans from the disease by keeping it abroad than by addressing it when it arrives. Screening procedures failed, because prior to boarding in Liberia, Duncan lied about his contact with the disease. When Duncan told staff at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital that he had just returned from Liberia, they took no notice and sent him home with a fever of 103 degrees. The two hospital workers now suffering Ebola were the victims of minor missteps in following safety guidelines. Even with American health standards and procedures, treating and containing the virus affords ample opportunities for accidental transmission. The U.S. can reduce that risk by instituting travel restrictions that will minimize Americans’ contact with the virus and keep the treatment process, as much as possible, abroad.

No, the ban would not work perfectly. But an inability to eliminate all risk whatsoever should not disqualify efforts that would reduce it.... It's hard to imagine how our leaders can trade this common sense fact for the blather they have been feeding us. But I suspect political correctness and false accusations of racism.

Do black people break the law more than white people?

Wait! Don't answer that question out loud. You might get in trouble.

Heather MacDonald asks a bunch of controversial questions which shouldn't be controversial in this article. We're also told that it is a good idea to ask questions, even though they might be rhetorical questions, about problems in our society. Don't you think? Liberals also like to question authority, they usually think "questioning the official statement" is a positive thing. Maybe they're right. I certainly like the questions that MacDonald asks with regard to the official preconceptions which we are told to have about Ferguson. Excerpt:

Example: Ferguson issues fines for traffic violations; 20 percent of its municipal budget comes from such receipts. If people with outstanding fines or summons don’t appear in court, a warrant for their arrest is issued. Conclusion: this is a racist system. The city is deliberately financing its operations on the backs of the black poor. The only reason that blacks are subject to fines and warrants, according to the media, is that they are being hounded by a racist police force. “A mostly white police force has targeted blacks for a disproportionate number of stops and searches,” declared Time on September 1. What is the evidence for such “targeting?” Time provides none. Might blacks be getting traffic fines for the same reason that whites get traffic fines—because they broke the law? The possibility is never contemplated. The most frequently summonsed traffic offense is driving without insurance, according to the New York Times’s “exposé” of Ferguson’s traffic-fine system. Perhaps the Times’s editors would be blasé about being hit by an uninsured driver, but most drivers would be grateful that the insurance requirement is being enforced. Might poor blacks have a higher rate of driving without insurance than other drivers? Not relevant to know, apparently.

The next highest categories of driving infraction are blasting loud music out your car and driving with tinted windows. Attend police-community meetings in poor areas and you will regularly hear complaints about cars with deafening sound systems. Should the police ignore such complaints? Are they ignoring similar complaints in white areas because they want to give whites a pass? Do Ferguson’s white and black drivers blast loud music from their cars at the same rate? We never learn. Tinted windows pose a possibly lethal threat to the police during traffic stops, since they prevent officers from assessing the situation inside the car before approaching. Ignoring this infraction puts officers’ lives at risk. Should the police nevertheless do so? Such is the implication, if doing so would mean fewer fines for black motorists. The New York Times quotes a victim of the racist Ferguson traffic-enforcement system, who was fined for driving without a license. Why was his license suspended—was he driving drunk? Did he hit someone? We will never know. What is the crime rate in the black areas of Ferguson? Also something that the mainstream press is not interested in finding out.

"Do Ferguson’s white and black drivers blast loud music from their cars at the same rate?" If you indignantly say "That's a stupid question," then, well, you've already sort of answered it.

But the most ubiquitous “Ferguson is racist” meme was the most familiar: the police force is too white. Four of Ferguson’s 53 officers are black. This imbalance must be the result of racism and must itself cause racist enforcement activity. How many qualified black applicants to the force applied and were rejected? Not an interesting question, apparently.

But interesting to me and other conservatives. Finding answers to these questions would be real journalism. We might even be able to coin a new term for that: Investigative Journalism. What a concept.

MacDonald's conclusion is chilling: "Whether or not an uncontested account of the incident will ever emerge, it is certain that the media spin on Ferguson itself has been driven by facile and ultimately dangerous preconceptions."

Who is empowering the real wolves?

Once upon a time there was a boy who used to shout, "There's a wolf! Help! There's a wolf!" The good people of the town would run to help him, but when they found him there weren't any wolves, just the boy with a tin cup trying to bum money from the good people to buy booze. Some of the good people even gave him some money, but this happened so many times that pretty soon the good people stopped showing up.

The only people who kept showing up were politicians and some shady types who wanted to learn how to lie from a real master. Then it so happened that one day a real wolf decided to attack the boy since no one who really cared about the boy would defend him when he cried "Wolf!" anymore.

The politicians and ne'er-do-wells watched amid the boy's screams as the wolf devoured him alive. Then, while the good people of the town started digging a grave to bury the boy's remains, one of the politicians went to a microphone and began to condemn the good people for not coming when the boy cried "Wolf!" and saving the boy's life. Then when a number of the good people formed a hunting party to go kill the wolf, the politicians make a law against it, saying "The wolf shouldn't be punished for doing something which is in its nature to do."

The End

Inspired by this article. I agree with some of the ideas expressed in it and I disagree with others. So I decided to write this story instead of doing my usual commentary.

Kind of Thing I Live For

Check this out. A guy named Ken Ferrigni writes:

My point here is that Peter Jackson and Co. got called out for color-coded casting, responded by firing the person who was doing the casting, and then continued to cast an all white group. So somewhere, in some production meeting, PJ&Co. concluded that total whiteness was essential to the story of the Hobbit. That's fine. But it has to be viewed as a choice. Not as a default. And not as an accident.

I don't know if Ken Ferrigni is a light-skinned human or not. But a man named Matthew Preston responds succinctly:

Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon had no black people either. WTF? I was just watching the film thinking 'Why aren't there any black people in this mythical medieval China?' They should've made it like Thor where 1/3rd of the Vikings were white, 1/3rd black and 1/3rd Asian, which looks a lot more realistic and believable.

Mr. Preston also included a picture, so you can decide if he's allowed to be ironic about knee-jerk race-baiting.

Matthew Preston, thanks for making my day.

BTW, I have to say this about Thor. Idris Elba did a fine job playing Heimdall, IMHO. And I don't think they gave that Asian Viking dude, what's his name, enough screen time.