Our Liberal Racist Media Goes Bust

ObamaCorps

ObamaCorps

Journalists who deliberately go easy on the president are practicing racism.

—T.K.Farrow, Pajamas Media

This week, Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson covers the month-old Pew Research Center study which found that “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

The study—which examined over 1200 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, NewsHour, and Newsweek—found more than 40 percent favorable coverage for Obama, compared to Bush’s 22 percent and Clinton’s 27. More significant than the percentage gap itself is the conclusion Samuelson reaches:

"But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he’s a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don’t want to see the first African-American president fail."

If Samuelson is correct, then the mainstream media is racist. And like most liberal racists, they don’t even know it.

No liberal media member wants to be branded a dissident of Obama, much less be accused of dissenting for racial reasons. So even the liberal reporters who don’t think Obama needs the help of the media have justifiable fear of being considered a hindrance to his agenda. And race, of course, is at the center of that fear.
In the late 1990s, author Jim Sleeper wrote a book titled Liberal Racism, which presented the ways in which the effort of many Caucasian liberals to close the historical racial divide and eliminate related inequities has gone horribly wrong. Sleeper writes:

    It was Congressman Major Owens, a black representative from New York City, who in 1981 first told me and other members of a small audience of liberal activists and journalists that “liberals are sometimes the worst racists.”

There are many African-Americans—including this writer—who would instantly agree with the former congressman. White liberals might be surprised at how frequently his observation is a topic of conversation among the “victims” that liberals wish to lift out of oppression.

Mr. Sleeper continues:

    Only gradually did I realize that liberal racism has several dimensions. Sometimes, prompted by misdirected and self-congratulatory compassion, liberal racism patronizes nonwhites by expecting (and getting) less of them than they are fully capable of achieving. … Liberal racism ends up perpetuating double standards by setting the bar so much lower for its intended beneficiaries that it denies them the satisfactions of equal accomplishment and opportunity.

No kidding! You think?

If Samuelson is right, then the media lowers the bar for Obama by consciously deciding to provide less critical analysis of his policies and performance. Under those circumstances, any presidential achievement is suspect because it’s shrouded in media assistance, rather than merely media coverage.

It also means the results of any disastrous Obama policy that manages to pass muster in the court of public opinion can be laid at the feet of those who are supposed to be the watchdogs of our democracy.

As a president suspiciously fond of holding two oppositional positions at the same time, I suppose it’s a no brainer to conclude that when Candidate Obama said, “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills,” apparently he was referring to his own rather scary administration.
To be fair, there must be some media professionals who would never want to be an accessory to disastrous policy such as cap-and-trade or single-payer, government-run health care. But these very same liberal media members may still be unable to write critical stories about Barack Obama or his policies, even if they don’t bear the “liberal racism” belief that the black president can’t possibly accomplish his ambitious agenda without the help of the newsroom. For that group of journalists, fear is the explanation for their absence of critical thought.

Candidate Obama’s campaign staff repeatedly showed they were not above branding Obama’s critics—see the repeated complaints by former President Clinton at having been so branded—and the candidate himself used race when he believed it to be beneficial: “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills.”

Some of the president’s ardent supporters participated as well, such as Janeane Garofalo with her response to the tea parties. And we’ve also seen liberal media members attack one another when one dares to disagree with an Obama policy. Although not related to race, Jon Stewart’s reaction to Jim Cramer’s criticism of economic policy was scathing.

No liberal media member wants to be branded a dissident of Obama, much less be accused of dissenting for racial reasons. So even the liberal reporters who don’t think Obama needs the help of the media have justifiable fear of being considered a hindrance to his agenda. And race, of course, is at the center of that fear.

Who said election of the first black president would make race less relevant in America? Whoever it was needs to think again.

The previous opinion was written by T.K.Farrow for Pajamas Media. We, at the Two-Fisted Quorum, completely agree with the author's honest assessment. Viewing folks as equals, in the flow of circumstances is the only way out of the maze. But be careful how you parse these simple but double-edged words. Egalitarianism is not patronizing, smug, condescending, or passed along on a piece of paper. Nor is it achieved by branding.

As a president suspiciously fond of holding two oppositional positions at the same time, I suppose it's a no brainer to conclude that when Candidate Obama said, “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills,” apparently he was referring to his own rather scary administration.

Detroit And The Last American Value

Detroit

Detroit, Motor City, has seen better days...

JUST IN CASE you haven't been paying close attention to the news of the day, Detroit City, long on the frail side, is failing and failing fast. The key questions are centered, or at least, should center on the reasons of why the American automobile industry, once the paragon of manly strength echoing the pervasiveness of ingenuity, hard work, and the American Way, is failing. Even if you are sympathetic to this latest charade of tycoon muskateers looking for a bailout for their own house of cards, and want to believe in your hearts of hearts that everything is on the up and up—guess what—these empty suits are just there to collect a king's ransom, and even admit before Congress they have no clue how to turns things around.

Detroit's woes are not new. The irascible Pat Buchanan, in his latest column, has sounded a litany of reasons why this once proud industrial model has slammed into these hardest of times, placing the blame on the government and the unions. Or as another irascible character named Pogo once remarked, "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us."

Nothing really new here, but the article is worth a glance, just in case you haven't been paying attention. And here is a poignant if somewhat ideologically unsympathetic comment by one of Buchanan's readers:

Our problems are...

1. In winning WWII, we inadvertently (most of us, not FDR and his cronies) made the world safe for communism, so part of the resistance to commie expansion included opening our markets to foreign imports. We don't need an export-driven economy, but have to reestablish trade balance.
2. As Pat points out, we won WWII in large part because we could build the weapons and vehicles to destroy the enemy. Not only our external enemies and rivals, but also the leftists who are our internal enemies, have been working to destroy that advantage ever since.
3. Our tax system is utterly unprepared for the degree of foreign participation and ownership of our economy, and much of the income arising from what we consume is now no longer taxable by the U.S.
4. The U.S. dollar is currently the world's reserve currency, in part because probably no country makes it easier for foreigners to own real estate and businesses, and the tax system lets them do it on a largely tax-free basis. We need to domesticate our dollar and establish a barter at the border, goods for goods trade system, that no goods can come into the U.S. without being paid for right then and there at the border by goods going out of the U.S. That would enforce trade balance.

I keep reading about this border barter solution. What a logistical nightmare for the boys down on the docks. But then, that's what heads up business communication and moral leadership is supposed to be all about, not a culture weaned on astonishing golf courses where everybody knows your name and overwrought golden parachutes and getaway private jets around every turn for these self-serving song and dance resumè-builders and corporate thieves who do little but handsomely enrich themselves while grappling for the next rung on the ladder, while the very businesses they were hired to run falter, or fail.

But things are never that simple. American cars aren't the problem, the business model is. Robotics in Detroit has greatly reduced the toil of the average line worker who now makes over $70/hr including benefits. The car companies have gone as far as they can in reducing labor costs but have more people on retirement than in production. Toyota and all other foreign companies now producing in the US have 1/2 the labor costs and do not have to contend with the many years of retirement and health cost benefits.

I'd like to add that while it seems outrageous that the rank and file have nice comfy retirements as Detroit suffers, shall we not point out that so do the executives, who by the way, have lived a lifetime in excess privilege while it was they who mapped out the corporate plans with all their papers and pie charts, jetting around to meetings and rounds of golf, living high on the hog in mansions. The fact that the future in the car business did not turn out exactly as they planned was THEIR failure in doing their own cushy executive job. But now they want the workers on the line who popped and welded and bolted and polished and shipped the cars to market, doing their jobs on the clock, now, years later, to take the big hit. Somebody should throw those number crunchers to the Lions...

Read it all.

Legalizing Terror In America With Benefits

Married To Children

Islam, Where Old Men Bethrothing Children Is A Legal Delicacy

IF ISLAM WITH ITS TERRORIST FOUNDER, role model and long bloody history gets all the fringe benefits, social largesse and tax breaks shouldn’t all other violent gangs with terrorist founders get the same benefits?

Was the founder of the Muslim gang mentality any less violent and hateful than Shoko Asahara of “Aum Shinkryo”, David Duke of K.K.K., Charles Manson of “The Family,” William Ayers of “Weather Underground” or gang-leaders of MS-13? Certainly not. Didn’t the founder of Islam kill and rob more people, enslave and rape more women than all the above mentioned gangsters combined? Isn't Mohammed considered the perfect example of an exemplary model of man, a man privileged to be unquestioned and instead, shamelessly imitated in all his ways. At least these other gangsters had the decency of not killing their own gang members and showing them mercy, but Prophet of Islam had no such reservations. He had his own followers burned alive when they got out of line. Meanwhile here another peek into Mohammed.

Type 1. Ticks the “Muslim” box on forms. Watches al Jazeera. Doesn’t drink in front of the children.

Type 2. Goes to mosque on Fridays. Buys Halal meat.

Type 3. Prays five times a day. Neat beards and headscarves. Advocates the non-violent bits of Sharia law.

Type 4. Supports full Sharia law, and world-wide Caliphate. Understands abrogation. Bushy beards and rent-a-tents.

Type 5. Taliban and al Qaeda.

Read it all at this website created by ex-Muslims.

And while the most gruesome of news continues to reach some of us concerning the volatility of global Islam on the rise, other oddball Islamic-inspired events also contribute to a mountain of evidence for concern to those of us who might wish for world peace if the question wasn't so damned contentious as to who gets to make the rules for that peace, such as this snippet from Kuwait, so many in the West sleep:

The only two women in Kuwait's executive branch risk being driven out from the government. The parliamentary legal committee has decided that their presence violates the constitution and the law, because they do not wear the hijab, the Islamic veil. The committee's statement will now be submitted to voting by the fifty members of parliament.

The Kuwaiti parliament is dominated by conservatives, who had four of the seven seats on the committee. But three "liberals" also voted against the two women. "The committee unanimously decided that appointing the two ministers in the cabinet violated article 82 of the constitution and article one of the election law for failing to abide by Islamic regulations," says Ali al-Hajeri, spokesman for the legal and legislative committee.

The two women under accusation are education minister Nuriya al-Sebih and administrative development minister Mudhi al-Humoud. Appointed following the elections on May 17, the two women immediately met with negative reactions from conservatives. At its first session, on June 1, parliament approved submission of the matter to the committee, which has now decided. That same day, as cabinet members took the oath, nine parliamentarians left the hall in protest against the "un-Islamic" attire of the two women. As one wit put it, guess in Kuwait you need to be a Type 3 Muslim to get along.

Unofficially...

Type 1. Ticks the “Muslim” box on forms. Watches al Jazeera. Doesn’t drink in front of the children.

Type 2. Goes to mosque on Fridays. Buys Halal meat.

Type 3. Prays five times a day. Neat beards and headscarves. Advocates the non-violent bits of Sharia law.

Type 4. Supports full Sharia law, and world-wide Caliphate. Understands abrogation. Bushy beards and rent-a-tents.

Type 5. Taliban and al Qaeda.

Like VP candidate Joe Biden said, "Gird yourself, people. It's going to get rough."

Outrageous Visa Waiver Program

We received this email. The compelling topic of illegal immigration warrants its republication here. There's a reason we do not seem to be winning the war for America's own hearts and minds. We have disintegrated as a people. We have sold our soul and our future. Is it too late to recover our sensibilities and our purpose? This is the issue at hand:

I was interviewed a couple of days ago by a reporter from the Saint Petersburg Times about the Visa Waiver Program. I have attached a copy of the article below. As you might expect, I remain absolutely opposed to this program that in my judgement creates an unacceptable vulnerability for our nation, especially as we continue to attempt to keep terrorists from entering our country and launching terrorist attacks that have the potential of wreaking havoc on our nation and slaughtering many of our citizens.

During the Second World War, our nation’s leaders did what was in America’s best interests to secure our nation and win the war. We live in a democratic country because of the leadership and efforts exhibited by the “Greatest Generation.” It is time that our leaders conducted themselves as true leaders especially as we prosecute a war on terror and made the decisions that will truly secure our nation, regardless of the demands of corporations that are motivated by obvious, unrelenting greed.
While much attention has been paid to our porous borders, especially our border with Mexico, it is estimated that as many as 40% of the illegal aliens currently in the United States did not run our nation's borders, but rather entered our country through ports of entry. On May 11, 2006 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations.

The topic of the hearing was, "VISA OVERSTAYS: CAN WE BAR THE TERRORIST DOOR?" In considering the issue of aliens who overstay their authorized period of admission, the impact of the Visa Waiver Program on this issue was considered as an area of particular vulnerability. You can read the transcript of that hearing at:

US House of Representatives

I have written about my concerns regarding the impact of the Visa Waiver Program on previous occasions however, since this article deals with the Visa Waiver Program, I will explain once again, why I am opposed to it. In fact, I have copied a section of a recent commentary about the Visa Waiver Program and attached it below:

Before the attacks of 9/11 we used to be able to arrive at an airport 30 minutes before flight time to take a trip. Today we need to get to the airport at least 2 hours before flight time. If you take a couple of trips a year, you wind up spending more time at airports to comply with the ever more intrusive security requirements than an alien seeking a visa would have to spend at an American embassy or consulate.
The Visa Waiver Program continues on and the President has recently called for the expansion of this program that imperils our nation's security. The Visa Waiver Program makes it far easier for criminals and terrorists to enter the United States.

While American citizens are required to remove their shoes before boarding airliners because Richard Reid, the notorious "Shoe Bomber" secreted explosives in his shoes. Meanwhile, the fact that as a British citizen, Reid was able to board that airliner he intended to destroy in midair with his bombs, without first applying for and receiving a visa because of the Visa Waiver Program is conveniently ignored.

We are highly restricted in being able to bring any fluids on board airliners because a number of terrorists had planned to bring quantities of liquids on board airliners that are harmless by themselves but become explosives when mixed together with other fluids. This ingenious scheme involving binary explosives was put together by more citizens of Great Britain.

They too, could have boarded airliners without first obtaining visas. Visas also help beleaguered inspectors at ports of entry in the United States better screen foreign visitors seeking entry into the United States. The inspector is supposed to conduct an inspection of an arriving alien in about one minute and decide on the admissibility of that alien. The visa process, if done properly, can help make this process more effective. The visa application contains about 40 questions that can provide invaluable information to law enforcement and intelligence officials should that alien ultimately become the focus of an investigation. If an alien lies on an application for a visa, that lie can result in prosecution for visa fraud.

Such fraud is often easier to prove than it is to prove an alien is a terrorist. In fact, terrorist suspects are often charged with visa fraud. If it can be proven that an alien committed visa fraud in conjunction with drug trafficking, the penalty for such fraud increases to a maximum of 20 years in federal custody. The penalty further increases to a maximum of 25 years of incarceration should the alien be found to have committed visa fraud in conjunction with terrorism.

However, under the Visa Waiver Program, none of these potential benefits can be brought to bear. I have been told that this is the case because the travel, hospitality and airline industries have powerful lobbyists and that they are concerned that the visa requirement would discourage aliens from visiting our country, thereby cutting into their profits. In my judgement, this is a foolish and flawed concern.

First of all, in the days, weeks and months after the attacks of September 11, 2001 many airlines found a huge drop in the number of passengers buying tickets. Hotels in New York had a significant drop in occupancy rates and the world economy reverberated for years in the aftermath of the attacks.

Visas can be issued that are valid for up to 10 years so that well established travelers can travel as frequently as they desire and apply for a visa once every ten years. Generally, motorists in the United States and in other countries as well, need to spend a day at the dreaded DMV to renew driver's licenses. Yet nobody would refer to that process as unreasonable.

Before the attacks of 9/11 we used to be able to arrive at an airport 30 minutes before flight time to take a trip. Today we need to get to the airport at least 2 hours before flight time. If you take a couple of trips a year, you wind up spending more time at airports to comply with the ever more intrusive security requirements than an alien seeking a visa would have to spend at an American embassy or consulate.

richard_reid

Richard Reid

Yet our government refuses to require visas from the citizens of 27 countries that currently participate in the dangerous Visa Waiver Program. Incidentally, the e-passports that are finally being used are not a substitute for the visa requirement anymore than airbags do not obviate the need to wear seatbelts.

What is disconcerting, is the fact that the Visa Waiver Program is continuing on and, in fact, may be expanded if the President has his way, is the direct result of pressure being applied by the tourist-related industries that can not see beyond the bottom line. In effect, their greed is jeopardizing our nation's security and the safety of our citizens. The outrage is that their wishes appear to be this administration's commands!

Of course, the executives who want the Visa Waiver Program to be expanded are being extremely shortsighted, because if, indeed, there is another attack against our nation, their industry will suffer immeasurable harm. They are apparently being blinded by unfettered greed.

What I want to know, is how can our government yield to the pressure being applied by those lobbyists employed by those executives? In matters of national security, corporate interests should carry little if any weight. Yet this administration is doing what these corporate executives want. If you doubt this, read the news article below.

During the Second World War, our nation's leaders did what was in America's best interests to secure our nation and win the war. We live in a democratic country because of the leadership and efforts exhibited by the "Greatest Generation." It is time that our leaders conducted themselves as true leaders especially as we prosecute a war on terror and made the decisions that will truly secure our nation, regardless of the demands of corporations that are motivated by obvious, unrelenting greed.

—Michael Cutler