“Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.”

 In 1991, when Clarence Thomas came before Congress for his nomination process, he was bamboozled by a former employee’s outlandish, and heretofore completely un-complained of, allegations of sexual harassment.  I was only 11 years old when this happened, but even I could see that this was nothing but a shallow and desparate attempt to derail his nomination process.  But I didn’t understand why.  When he famously referred to that incident as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blackswho in any way deign to think for themselves,” I didn’t really understand what that meant.  Now, I do.   

The Democratic party, the liberals, believe that they have a hold on black Americans.  They have no reason not to believe this; blacks have, in recent memory, supported the Democrats by enormous majorities.  So Thomas was threat; he could show the public an intelligent, high ranking black man who openly and unapologetically rejected the liberal line.  “Uppity” used to refer to a black person who thought that he could rise above his rank and be on par with whites; for Justice Thomas, it was no different.  He was uppity by thinking for himself and rejecting the norm.  He had to be stopped, and Anita Hill was to do it.  While these allegations did not, fortunately, derail Thomas’s nomination, they put a serious dent in his prestige as a justice. 

But this is about far more than race.  More recently, we have seen the treatment of women who dare to speak against the liberal ideal.  Democrats have never had as tight a hold on women as they do on blacks, but they do have some significant grip.  More importantly than the sheer number of voters, though, is that outspoken women are largely liberal.  Many conservative women stay quiet; they have families and jobs and lives; they keep their heads down and don’t make waves.  Not seen means no real threat; Democrats can continue to tell us that Republicans are the party of sexism, and who’s going to challenge them?  Some man?  Hah! 

But enter Sarah Palin; enter Michelle Bachmann; enter even Carrie Prejean, and we have a problem.  If women start seeing that they, too, could speak out about their conservative beliefs, that they could do so passionately and honestly, well, Democrats could lose what hold they have.  So they don’t engage these women on their beliefs or positions.  Intelligent debate is too great a risk. These women must be destroyed, with slander, threats, and more.

And now, it’s the gays.   In case you aren’t familiar, the blog HillBuzz, which is run by some gay men who originally wanted to throw their full-fledged support behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, got a lot more buzz when it brazenly and defiantly rejected President Obama and the present Democratic leadership.  And how does this leave them?  Well, the fabulous gents at HillBuzzare now finding themselves working to uncover a plot against them that they describe as “defamation, threats, and harassment.”  And, from what they’re hearing, this is more than just an internet prank:

Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.

We should have seen this coming.  Gays are also beholden to the Democratic party; they’ve long voted for the D almost without thinking, and the Democrats must do no more than throw them a few crumbs every now and then to keep them onboard.  There’s reason to believe that this might be changing.  Change is bad, if you’ve already got a group under your thumb.  HillBuzz has publically broken ranks with the Democratic party, and criticized them at every turn since 2008.  HillBuzz must be stopped. 

But, HillBuzz notes something that the liberals didn’t count on:

Well, they’ve made the mistake of targeting single, gay guys with no children, no one depending on us for anything, and no real reason to sit back and let them attack us unchallenged.  We live in Chicago.  We’ve been mugged.  We’ve been physically assaulted before.  We’ve been dealing with nonstop harassment from Obama supporters for over two years now — all in service to their “Lightbringer” of Hope and Change, whose message can only, it seems, be spread through violence and thuggery.

Godspeed, Fellows.  You might just lick this thing for all of us.

Advertisements

This doesn’t delight me anymore

There was a time, when Barack the Lightworker was still in recent memory, when people were still painting things like this (BTW, not safe for work or anyone who ever wants to have sex ever again!), that any sign of liberal blowback, of liberal criticism, was something to cherish in the most lovely schadenfreude, and perhaps a bit of delight over the fact that maybe they aren’t all brainwashed. 

But I think that that day has passed.  Newsbusters points to an article, one among many, from a very leftwing professor detailing President Obama’s failings:

Barack Obama has now, in just a year’s time, become the single most inept president perhaps in all of American history, and certainly in my lifetime. Never has so much political advantage been pissed away so rapidly, and what’s more in the context of so much national urgency and crisis. It’s astonishing, really, to contemplate how much has been lost in a single year.

…he doesn’t really “charge” at anything. He just talks about things, thinks about things a real long time, defers to others on things, and waits around for things to maybe happen.

…I have never seen a president so utterly lacking in passion. This man literally doesn’t even seem to care about himself, let alone this or that policy issue. He doesn’t seem to have any strong opinions on anything, a sure prescription for presidential failure.

…if you’re trying to run the most failed presidency ever, a really good idea is to campaign in the grandest terms possible, and then deliver squat. You know, talk about bending the arc of history. Invoke Martin Luther King’s dream and his struggles and even those of the slaves. Ring the big bells of generational calling. Remind voters every thirty seconds that the country badly needs “Change!”. Then get elected and turn around and continue the policies of your hated predecessor in every meaningful policy area. Only with less conviction. People will love that.

Is it amusing in a way?  Sure.  He’s not wrong, not about anything.  And yet, that’s my country’s president he’s talking about.  I love this country.  On one hand, I can’t defend Obama here, but on the other, I don’t want to see the leader of the U.S.A. maligned quite like this, fairly or not.  I can’t argue against it, so I can only be sad that it has come down to this.

Sounds like a stunt to me

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, by way of the Augusta Chronicle, some one is trying to start a “whites-only” basketball league. 

The Augusta Chronicle reported on Tuesday that the All-American Basketball Alliance plans to kick off its inaugural season in June and hopes that Augusta will be one of 12 cities to host teams.

But here’s the kicker: According to a press release the newspaper and other Augusta media outlets received from the new league, “only players that are natural-born United State citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league.”

That’s right. Lewis, who calls himself  the commissioner of the AABA, will exclude blacks and all foreigners from his new league, which the newspaper said will be based in Atlanta.

According to the Chronicle, Lewis said he wants to emphasize “fundamental basketball” instead of “street ball” played by “people of color.”

Reasons why it is clearly a stunt: 1) the promoter is a former pro-wrestling promoter, 2) why would they choose Atlanta to promote this out of?, 3) it would never work, 4) no website yet, 4) he “hopes will have teams in a dozen southeastern cities such as Augusta, Albany and Chattanooga, Tenn.”  Nobody who doesn’t already live there aims to do anything out of Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

Thing that gives me pause: his “reasoning” for the rule. 

According to the Chronicle, Lewis said he wants to emphasize “fundamental basketball” instead of “street ball” played by “people of color.”

“There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” Lewis told the paper. “I don’t hate anyone of color.”

Lewis pointed out recent incidents in the NBA, including Gilbert Arenas’ suspension for bringing a gun into the Washington Wizards locker room, and said, “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?”

Most people would have gone with an affirmative action argument, that Caucasians are not represented in the NBA, as a stunt.  His argument is merely silly and pointless. 

Of course, it should go without saying that if it’s not a stunt, it’s pretty horrible.  Even if it is a stunt, other than the reverse affirmative action point that he’s not using, it’s pretty dumb.

I’m sorry, I can’t understand you with that tape over your mouth

So Cindy McCain, wife of the former presidential hopeful, has decided to pose for the Anti-Anti-Gay Marriage campaign “NoH8.”  The picture, similar to hundreds of others in the campaign, displays Ms. McCain, glamourously made up, heavily photoshopped, and hair wind-blown, and posed with duct tape covering her mouth and the (word?  phrase? symbol?) letters and number combination”NOH8″ written on her cheek. 

This has gotten a lot of buzz in the internet world.  I can’t imagine why folks are surprised; her husband has always been at least as friendly towards the subject of gay marriage as his former opponent, our current president.  (By the way, interesting to note how differently these two men’s positions, which are exactly the same, were portrayed by various media outlets.)  The comments in the CNN story consist of expressions of surprise and “you go girl”-type statements as if she’s doing something remarkably brave.  She’s not; she, and the rest of this campaign, are doing something remarkably silly.  Not because they are wrong on the issue, mind you.   I don’t think that they are.  But their interpretation of the issue is nothing short of stupid. 

The Advocate describes this campaign thusly: “All of the subjects are photographed with duct tape over their mouths to symbolize that their voices aren’t being heard on the subject of marriage equality.”  But duct tape over the mouth doesn’t symbolize voices not being heard; it symbolizes restraint from voices being used.  It’s similar to the “Day of Silence” campaign, where schoolchildren are encouraged to act like spoiled brats by refusing to speak all day long, in order to “symbolically represent the [supposed] silencing of LGBT students and their supporters.” 

Imagine, for a moment, that I am a Baptist preacher.  I preach against the sins of alcohol.  (They actually do that here in Tennessee.  No, I don’t get it, either.)  I even preach that the government should make drinking illegal.  I buy commercials and billboards, and do everything possible to make my opinion known. 

And nobody listens to me. 

Oh, sure, a few people might listen to me and agree.  And some (probably quite a lot of) people will make fun of me, and a few people will complain about me.  But no one can say that my voice is not heard, or cannot be heard, simply because the majority of people disagree.  So it goes with the gay marriage movement, and other gay rights issues.  They can speak; no one is preventing it.  Some people simply don’t like what they have to say. 

And let’s talk about the name of the campaign, the real principle of the thing: “NoH8.”  Obviously, the H8 is intended to indicate “hate,” in the sense that hatred, as opposed to just the inability to get married, is what they are really striving against.  Now, I know that it’s in vogue to proclaim that any opposition to your point of view is clearly the result of “hate” and to proclaim all of your opponents to be “haters,” but is this really the case?  Is it really true that all, or even the majority of, opposition to gay marriage stems from “hate”?

As best as I can tell, the main reasons given for opposition to gay marriage comes down to just a few broad arguments: religious beliefs, tradition, or social concerns. 

Many people believe that religion dictates that homosexuality is immoral and an affront to God.  Do you hate everyone who ever does anything immoral?  If you do, it must keep you pretty busy.  Most religions I’m familiar with indicate that you should love the sinner, even if you think they’re wrong.  The second argument is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so it should remain so.  Again, I’m not saying it’s a good argument, you’ve got to squint pretty hard to translate that into hatred.  The third argument is that gay marriage can lead to other social changes, such as kids being taught about gay issues in school without their parents’ consent (this was considered a powerful argument in the Prop 8 debate) or businessowners being forced to participate in gay weddings despite their disagreements with them.  Again, this is an argument about individual rights; it has nothing to do with hatred of anyone. 

Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t some people  out there who truely hate people just because they are gay.  I mean, I’ve never met them, but the internet certainly indicates to me that they exist.  So, of course, do KKK members, and neo-nazis, and people that want to beat up redheads.  We can deal with it.  But accusing your political opponent of “hate,” rather than engaging his or her actual arguments, is nothing short of lazy.  It implies that you don’t have anything substantive to say.  Or not say, as the case may be for the subjects of the NoH8 campaign.

I don’t know what this means, but it troubles me.

The present White House has a tendancy to shoot from the hip, so I’m hoping that this is just some flunkie’s idea of  strong sounding phrase that doesn’t have any real meaning or intent behind it.  Yet, the more I think about it, the more it troubles me, and I’d like to remember that it was there in case of future reference. 

The White House’s official response to this week’s Supreme Court decision upholding free speech rights in Citizens United (Via Ann Althouse):

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

(bolding mine) The Supreme Court’s decision was on constitutional grounds.  It ruled that the law which forbid distribution of a movie is invalid, under the constitution.  The president has no power to change that.  The congress has no power to change that.  The constitution says what it says. 

What, exactly, is Obama proposing to do here?

Added: Really good description of the issues at play in this case here.

Ann Althouse has a great piece . . .

juxtaposing Sec. State Clinton’s wonderful pro-free speech statements recently with President Obama’s statements in view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC. 

Hillary says (in a discussion about speech in Vietnam):

In fact, I would like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. Explain what it is you’re doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that a blogger might be taking.

Obama says (in a discussion about the Supreme Court case refusing to allow censorship of a documentary which was intended to put down Hillary Clinton):

That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Terrifying.  Ironic.  Read the whole thing. 

Also, from reading the comments to this and others like it recently, I am amazed at how ignorent people (well, liberals) are on the concept of corporations as people.  Someone(s) in the liberal world is pushing the idea that this is a new idea, just put out by a runaway (evil-Bush supported) Supreme Court.  I don’t know who the source of this is; the liberal commenters who are pushing this on the ground are clearly just repeating what they have heard. 

This idea is hardly new.  Here’s a good Wikipedia article that explains the history, but in a nutshell, corporations have bene people for the purposes of contracts since 1819, and people under the 14th Amendment rights (which are basically all of the Bill of Rights rights) since 1886.  But then, liberals never were big scholars of history, were they?

Germany has lost hope

Der Spiegel has a collection of German commentators expressing the lack of love for Obama (HT: Ann Althouse):  

This week, though — a week when Obama should have been celebrating the first anniversary of his inauguration — may have been the president’s worst yet. Scott Brown, an almost unknown Republican member of the Massachusetts Senate, defeated the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The defeat in a heavily Democratic state not only highlights Obama’s massive loss of popular support during his first year in office, but it also could spell doom for his signature effort to reform the US health care system.

This week, though — a week when Obama should have been celebrating the first anniversary of his inauguration — may have been the president’s worst yet. Scott Brown, an almost unknown Republican member of the Massachusetts Senate, defeated the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The defeat in a heavily Democratic state not only highlights Obama’s massive loss of popular support during his first year in office, but it also could spell doom for his signature effort to reform the US health care system.

This echos something my dad told me the other day.  He travels all over Europe on a regular basis (homeland security type job; it’s a family joke that he’s a secret agent) and says that Obama is now a laughingstock per the people he meets. 

On November 5, 2008, my liberal friends were oh so starry-eyed, saying over and over that all was going to be well and good now.  They’re most excited mantra, the one that they repeated over and over, was that that the world was going to like us now!  Now, thanks to Obama, we would be loved! 

I laughed it off, because, really, I’d rather be right than loved.  George Bush was right about the things that Europe hated him for, of this I have no doubt.  (He was wrong about a lot of other things, but that’s another post.)  I stopped worrying about being liked in my teens, and haven’t looked back. 

So, I’m laughing at them, not celebrating that Obama is not loved and not attempting to prove any points with that. 

Added: Hkatz, one of Althouse’s commenters, cites this story about Germany’s stage show: Obama, The Musical.  The article says:

Their plan is to take Hope on tour across Germany and then the rest of Europe. Hutchins acknowledges that it may be commercially difficult to take the show to the U.S., however, given the current gloom surrounding the Obama presidency.