Low-Hanging Fruit Friday: A Comment Section At NRO

This week I have spent a little time at The National Review Online, a conservative-leaning website that springs from a venerable magazine founded by William F. Buckley Jr. and to tell the truth, it kind of needs him nowadays. Which is sad because he ain't coming back even more than Reagan isn't.

Anyway, a Mr. Lamar Smith published a helpful analysis today called "GOP Should Face Facts on Immigration Reform (subtitled, Republicans will benefit by working to make more Hispanics middle class) and I think his point is rather than concentrate on legalizing those who aren't citizens, the GOP should be treating the legal Hispanics better. A sensible counter-strategy, especially if you're opposed to illegal immigration on the grounds that it's simply illegal.

The impression I'm getting from the comments section is that is not the grounds that his readers are using. *

heisenberg2011 • 37 minutes ago − The GOP is "White in race only" or WIROs. They may be White people, but they don't serve the interests of White people (except for the economic interests of the top 1% of White people). On the issue of White genocide they are silent.The program of White genocide is being carried out by sending in millions of non-Whites into White countries and force assimilating (I.e. intermarriage and amalgamation) these non-Whites into all White communities and institutions. This is genocide by forced assimilation. The GOP is just as guilty of this crime as the Democrats.

Mark Probst • 36 minutes ago − yep... the Repuuubss need to pander to criminals, and the uneducated just like the DeeMOcraps. AKA- cant beat em' join em.

Hercules Loadmaster • 9 hours ago − The Mexican middle class. Do you know how they get to be middle class? They pull serious fraud through government programs, extensively cheat on taxes (claim nieces, nephews and probably their dog and cat for the children tax breaks), steal things, such as live chickens and who knows what else. Some of you that think we need to embrace these low lifes should move to rural areas and get more acquainted with the facts.

Mark Lang • 12 hours ago I hate you (author). You and your surrender to the Balkanization of the US electorate make me sick to my stomach.

*Full disclosure - obviously I have picked and chosen here - these are the most racist responses. Many are are reasonable as the article itself. And if that's your idea of entertainment, be my guest, read them. Links up there.

Godwin's Law Holds!

A week ago I wrote about the theory of "no pregnancy coming from legitimate rape" coming from Nazi scientists. I'm happy to report that I was wrong! Kind of. At least, apparently, the Nazis never conducted the experiment.

As controversial as the subject of abortion is, irrespective of one’s personal opinion, it is important that the evidence supporting an assertion that rape inhibits pregnancy be based on credible evidence. Such evidence does not exist.
The controversial nature of claims about rape and pregnancy are further exacerbated by their supposed reference to research on victims of Nazi terror. The medical crimes of the Hitler period were so horrendous that it is difficult to imagine what they might not have done. Indeed, given what is known about medical practices in Nazi Germany, research on rape and pregnancy is plausible. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it actually happened.

So not only is the theory from Nazis, but even the Nazis never verified it. I regret the innacuracy.

Rough Choice: Who To Hate In The Weiner Scenario?

Well... me personally I'd go with the husband, who is cheating and sexting other women and appears to be so self-involved that he doesn't think it should be considered a problem. But if you're with a party that maybe already has a problem with women, maybe the wife?

...it is amazing, as we speculate about Ms. Abedin’s political future, that the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, or at least studiously unmentioned.
Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

The piece is written by Andrew C. McCarthy. I'm not sure if it's the same Andrew McCarthy who was in Weekend At Bernie's (spoiler: no, of course it isn't) but that voice drives me up the wall.

Extra kick-em-when-they're-down credit for the humiliating title, The Huma Unmentionables. That'll teach those chicks to step outta line!

Throwback Thursday: Coupla Followups

About a week and a half ago I expressed a skepticism about the George Zimmerman verdict, which occasioned an angry series of responses from favorite nemesis WAMK. He pointed out that as someone who hadn't watched the whole trial, I... I don't know, shouldn't have an opinion about it? Have one but keep it to myself? Who knows? All I know is, judging by the language, he's very, very angry at me. 

I gotta say though, you know who else was skeptical about Zimmerman's innocence? At least half the jury. In our justice system the accused is innocent unless proven guilty, and the jury did the right thing because they felt there wasn't enough hard evidence to convict. But like me, Juror B29 doesn't think Zimmerman is innocent. Unlike me, she DID watch gavel-to-gavel coverage.

Regarding yesterday's recounting of Rep. Steve King's belief that most illegal immigrants are drug mules, I have an ally. To paraphrase Weird Al Yankovic, even John Boehner knows it's wrong.

Boehner already had issued a written statement earlier in the week condemning King's remarks, but at his weekly news conference, he ramped up his criticism even without being asked. The Ohio Republican took the unusual step of calling King out by name, dramatizing the concern among GOP leaders that incendiary comments from the right can tarnish the party's image even as lawmakers struggle to find a solution to the immigration debate.
"I want to be clear. There's no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials," Boehner said.

I'd only take issue with Boehner's quoted remark: he clearly hasn't been paying enough attention to "this debate".  There doesn't seem to be room for much else!

Pull Out! PULL OUT!

Anthony Weiner, Democrat, is running for Mayor of New York. You might not remember who is is... oh wait, he's THIS GUY.

The serious question he stirs up, and there is only one, is should we be judging our politicians by their sex lives? Or even their private lives in general - what their religions are, or whether they ever shoplifted or toked up in college, etc.? I'm of the camp that says no, politicians should be judged by whether they use the office make the lives of their constituents better. We should vote accordingly.

However, Weiner needs to drop out of the race, because we DON'T VOTE THAT WAY. Anybody in politics nowadays knows that your personal life is, in fact, fodder for a fine-tooth-comb go-over. If you have something this distasteful in your personal make-up, turning a blind eye to it is like thinking you can be a piano virtuoso even though you lost both your arms in the war. It suggests a detachment from reality that must be bleeding over into your policy decisions. Maybe the private sector has a job for Weiner, but I sure wish he'd withdraw his application for Mayor.

99 Percent of Immigrants Are Drug Mules!

Who knew? Rep. Steve King of Iowa knew!



Rep. King is gracious enough to admit that some Mexicans are valedictorians and not drug mules.

I'm wondering how that works economically - the cartels hire these guys and say, here's some money to haul this backpack full of drugs over the border. Once you get there, you can stay and apply for citizenship; I'll hire another guy and send him over after you. Seems a little counter-productive, this operation. Why not use the same mules again? And why would a guy who's struggling to get to the US take the risk of carrying all those drugs as well, when it would attract drug-sniffing dogs?

And of course, considering how fat and lazy those guys are it seems incredible that so many of them have calves the size of cantaloupes. Another research project for another time.

The RNC and I Agree On Something!

RETWEET if you are tired of more @BarackObama speeches and no progress! #SpeechesDontHire
— RNC (@GOP) July 22, 2013

I demand progress! Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Any way you cut it, and whoever's fault it is, you have presided over what it perhaps the least-productive and certainly one of the least popular congresses in history. How do you feel about that? 

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Well, Bob, we should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws that we repeal.

--  Face The Nation, July 21

The RNC oughtta have a word with that guy. And by the way, judging them on how many laws they repeal...

Bills the House Has Repealed So Far This Year:

May 22: the House agreed to an Amendment that would repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a fiscally responsible way.

June 20: the House voted to repeal an amendment that would establish the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.

Bills the House Has Tried to Repeal So Far This Year, and Failed at Repealing:

March 22: the House failed to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to permanently eliminate the Federal estate tax

May 22: the House rejected an amendment HR 1947, which was an attempt to repeal the nutrition entitlement programs and establish a nutrition assistance block grant program.

June 19: the House rejected an amendment to HR 1947, which was attempt to repeal Section 3102, which reauthorizes the Market Access Program (MAP) until 2018

June 19: the House failed to repeal a permanent law from the Agriculture Act of 1949 that pertains to dairy support.

June 20: the House failed to repeal the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program which awards federal grants to educate fleet operators and the public on the benefits of using biodiesel fuels, instead of fossil fuels.

And of course, the House has tried and failed to repeal Obamacare six different times.

So, the Congress is a failure, right?

A Counter-Counter Point

WAMK responds here. I still disagree with him about the idea that Martin was the only aggressor in the scenario as described in court, but I'm not going back there to say so. It's like walking into a biker bar and screaming HELL'S ANGELS SUCK!  The Hell's Angels, frankly, aren't open to reasoned debate on that topic.

Let's add this also... I'm supposed to accept the jury's verdict, apparently, and move on. After all, Zimmerman's story was consistant and Zimmerman had his day in court and was found not guilty. That's a reasonable position to take, as long as you say the same thing about O.J. Simpson's murder trial. Me, I'm still troubled by that one too.

A Rebuttal, From Someone Who KNOWS THE FACTS **Update**

I'm going to admit here that it is seriously gratifying to learn that WAMK reads this blog, at least once in a while. He cranked out a rebuttal to the piece I wrote Monday about the George Zimmerman  verdict. I won't go over there to respond to it because it would be a discourtesy to disagree with him on his own blog (and twitter feed) so instead I'll just admit here that he's right on many counts.

My source now is this Yahoo explainer,  which includes the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call. It's true the police did not insist that Zimmerman stop following the kid; they merely said "you don't have to do that". Obviously Zimmerman could have avoided his alleged beating had he listened, and therefore the subsequent incarceration and trial.

It's the attitude expressed below by WAMK, though I've heard it from many others as well, that still troubles me:

Martin had several choices that night. Martin could have continued on his way home. Martin could have called police, and reported a "creepy ass cracker" following him. He could have hid in the shadows until Zimmerman went away. He could have yelled from the shadows "Stop following me, I've called the police". He could have banged on a door or two, yelling for help that he was scared. He could have told the girl he was on the phone with to call the cops for him while he hid. But he didn't. He made a choice to confront Zimmerman, a choice that ultimately cost him his life.

In other words Martin would be alive today if he had simply NOT CHOSEN TO STAND HIS GROUND. There's a double standard at work here. It's true that Trayvon Martin had a violent incident in his past - but so did Zimmerman. Martin had some racially charged statements in his internet history - so did Zimmerman. So why is Zimmerman a hero and Martin a troublemaker? Remember, there was no evidence that Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime. He didn't have tools. He wasn't even armed.

Since we only have Zimmerman's side of the story now, the testimony of a man who had a murder rap to beat, the trial really doesn't prove anything. And until someone can explain why people who were convinced of Zimmerman's innocence from day one got that idea, people like me will suspect that race is the motivating factor.

In WAMK's favor, I recollect that he was not convinced from day one. You know who was though? The Florida justice system, who didn't even consider the case worthy of a hearing until the bad publicity forced their hand.

Update ** Glad you WAMK guys found food for thought in all this!**

The Hidden Flaw of Stand Your Ground Laws

Even though it wasn't argued in the George Zimmerman case, apparently Florida's Stand Your Ground law influenced the jury's verdict.The idea that you can shoot first and have questions asked later, in a trial, is as American as an episode of Gunsmoke. But the problem is this: Trayvon Martin, if he had had a gun, would have been justified as well. After all, an armed private citizen was following him in a vehicle at night in the rain. Would Martin have gotten the same treatment in trial? Probably not, but that wouldn't be any comfort to the Zimmerman family.

And African-Americans now feel that they are in danger from armed white men. They could cite the very Stand Your Ground laws that protect innocent citizens from harm as they fire their stolen guns into the viscera of "threatening" white folk.

It's up to Richard Cohen to raise the obvious reason why Stand Your Ground cannot stand:

Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.

Blacks are just criminals, people! You can scoff and say that they're arrested more often because of racial prejudice but the truth is that race is just predisposed to crime. IT'S ON THE NEWS.

In the coming election, it's vitally important that anyone who supports the Stand Your Ground laws also calls for, DEMANDS, that there be an exemption to keep black folk from citing it. Otherwise, they'll rise up and kill us all in our sleep. Insist that your Senatorial and Congressional candidates make this a big issue in 2014!

Also, maybe it's finally time to get those Jews out of financial services. We are a Christian Nation after all!

Zimmerman Verdict - Doesn't Make Sense To Me

This won't come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog (or wouldn't, if such people existed) but I'm mystifed how George Zimmerman is a free man today. Now understand, I don't have cable so I was spared the gavel-to-gavel coverage on CNN (by the way, I read that at one point, during the Egyptian coup CNN not only refused to cut away from the trial, but they actually had an inset box on the screen featuring some other aspect of the trial) so I can't speak to all the evidence the jury was exposed to.  But check me on the narrative that I understand the defense put forward:

Zimmerman, during his neighborhood watch night shift, notices a suspicious-looking character in the streets. He reports the guy to the police, who ask him to remain where he is and not pursue. Zimmerman pursues anyway, eventually stopping the car after a block or two and confronting the boy, who assaults him and bangs his head on the sidewalk until Zimmerman is forced to shoot the kid  in self-defense.

My question is, how is what Trayvon Martin did in this scenario NOT self defense? He was walking in a neighborhood he had a right to be in, and a creepy guy in a car is following him for blocks, then gets out and pulls a gun on him. What would you do? You'd try to at least knock him unconcious so you could take his gun off of him. I don't know what other choice a guy in his position was supposed to have.

Even given benefit of the doubt, Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter.

At Last, A Workable Model for Border Security

Why can't congress be as smart as Bryan Fischer?

Yes, we can secure the border. We have 30,000 troops on the border between S. and N. Korea. Sealed up tighter than a drum.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 29, 2013

So we just have to scale it up a little. The Korean border is 160 miles, and the one along Mexico is 1954 miles and the side on the North shoots to kill. So we just have to go ten times bigger and be willing to act like the North Koreans and we got ourselves a REAL border.