Advertisements

Stop Hating White People and Maybe They’ll Vote for You 

It’s either that or the Magical Intersectional Muslim Transwomen Coalition.

Daniel Greenfield writes: After a competitive race between the FBI and sexism, the left decided to blame “white people” for Hillary’s defeat.

Racist white people refused to vote for a white woman who was married to the country’s first black president. Samantha Bee, who enjoyed 15 seconds of fame replacing John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart as the whiny obnoxious lefty id, declared that white people ruined America.

“Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president,” a Washington Postheadline blared. “White people did this. And maybe (hopefully) not my friends — but certainly their cousins, their uncles, and their friends,” a racist Vox writer shrieked.

“White people elected Donald Trump,” Vice bleated. “White people put Trump in office,” Fusion whined.

[Read the full story here, at Frontpage Mag]

Majorities of white people did indeed vote for Donald Trump. Oddly enough the left’s culture war of hating white people has only made them more likely to vote for anyone other than the left.

tumblr_ogyatrdtco1so28u7o1_1280

Funny how that works.

Trump won by boosting margins and turnout among working class white voters. The same group that the left trashes in its tirades about “white people”. When Samantha Bee says that white people ruined America, she isn’t talking about herself or the white hipsters sharing her videos on social media. We all know it means the bad kind of white people who shop at Walmart instead of Whole Foods, who drink Pabst unironically, who don’t listen to TED talks or own their privilege, who didn’t graduate from Amherst or from any college, but who fly American flags, drive pickup trucks and serve in the military.

tumblr_inline_ogy3jblytw1r3uhnd_540

A whole lot of those folks used to vote Democrat. Some kept on voting that way until fairly recently.

But the left grabbed the wheel of the Democrat Party, shoved the white working class out the door and replaced it with a glittery rainbow coalition of illegal aliens, Muslims and transgender activists who lost the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and all but a handful of state legislatures.

[Read the full text here, at Frontpage Mag]

Forget losing the South. That’s old news. Republicans won Pennsylvania and have the biggest legislative dominance since Eisenhower. Trump came the closest since Nixon to taking Minnesota and Republicans now have a state senate majority. Do we really need to talk about Wisconsin, Ohio or Michigan?

What happened?

White men were racist and sexist. The white men who had voted for Obama but switched to Trump were more sexist than racist. The white women who voted for Trump over Hillary were, in the words of Hillary’s communications director, suffering from “internalized misogyny”.

Or maybe they just didn’t like being hated. Here’s what the left’s social justice politics had to offer them.

tough-white

“White Women Failed Hillary Clinton. They Also Failed Other Women”, “White Women Sent a Terrible Message on Tuesday”,   “Blame White Women for Country’s Failure to Shatter Glass Ceiling” and “White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World”. Maybe even the galaxy and the universe.

The latter article whined that, “Most white women don’t want to be part of an intersectional feminist sisterhood” because they “identify more with white men than they do with black women, Latina women, Muslim women, transwomen” and defected from “the coalition of nonwhite, nonstraight, nonmale voters who were supposed to carry Clinton to a comfortable victory”.

Why would they ever do that?

starbucks

In that intersectional feminist sisterhood, white women occupy the lowest possible rung and are constantly denounced for their privilege. White feminism is a slur. Why didn’t white women want to stick around in the intersectional sisterhood where they can be inferior to Muslim nonstraight transwomen and fight for their right to blow themselves up in the ladies’ room of a Target? Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

OH YES THEY DID: Katie Couric Sued For Defamation In Anti-Gun Documentary

katie-couric-2-768

Charge: sequence in film was ‘work of fiction’ that damaged reputation of commentators.

Gun rights advocates don’t enjoy being falsely depicted as dimwits who can’t answer the most basic of questions about their No. 1 public policy issue.

Erik Wemple reports: That’s the takeaway from a defamation lawsuit filed today against Katie Couric and the producers of “Under the Gun,” a documentary about gun violence in the United States. Having debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in January, the documentary itself came under the gun in May, when members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) claimed that it slighted them by mal-editing an interview in which they’d participated. In response to a question from Couric, the film’s narrator, the gun rights advocates were depicted as sitting in baffled silence for nearly 10 seconds.

Glamgirls.net - bitchesandbullets.tumblr.com

[ALSO SEE – Katie Couric Sued for $12 Million For Defamation In Anti-Gun Documentary – bearingarms.com]

In fact, they had supplied an extensive response to Couric’s question.

Many onlookers, including the Erik Wemple Blog, blasted the film for this portrayal. Couric, the global anchor of Yahoo News, initially stood by the product but ultimately apologized for the “misleading” edit. The film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, wasn’t so contrite. “I think it’s sad to say that these eight seconds didn’t give the VCDL a platform to speak. Their views are expressed repeatedly throughout the film; we know how they feel about background checks. They said it earlier in the film,” said Soechtig in an interview after the furor.

"The lies we told were thiiiiiiiiiiiis big"

“The lies we told were thiiiiiiiiiiiis big”

Intransigence of that sort may bedevil Soechtig in a legal action filed by the VCDL and two gun rights defenders in the film — Daniel Hawes and Patricia Webb — against Couric, Soechtig, Atlas Films and Epix, the documentary’s distributor. Filed in a Virginia federal court by Elizabeth Locke of Clare Locke LLP, the complaint states, “The Defendants manipulated the footage in service of an agenda: they wanted to establish that there is no basis for opposing background checks, by fooling viewers into believing that even a panel of pro-Second Amendment advocates could not provide one.” It seeks compensatory damages of $12 million, and punitive damages of $350,000 per plaintiff.

[Read the full story here, at The Washington Post]

The filmmakers gave this particular lawsuit a galloping start, with a dreadful sequence that comes less than a half-hour into the one-hour-and-45-minute documentary. Seated in a circle are members of the VCDL against a dark backdrop. Couric asks this question: “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” In response, the VCDL members say precisely nothing. They stare into space, or at the floor. Brain-freeze appears to have enveloped them.

women-guns

As the suit notes, this depiction is a “work of fiction.” The VCDL members actually filled Couric’s ear; Hawes, for example, said this:

The fact is we do have statutes, both at the federal and state level that prohibit classes of people from being in possession of firearms. If you’re under 18, in Virginia, you can’t walk around with a gun. If you’re an illegal immigrant, if you’re a convicted felon, if you’ve been adjudicated insane, these things are already illegal. So, what we’re really asking about is a question of prior restraint. How can we prevent future crime by identifying bad guys before they do anything bad? And, the simple answer is you can’t. And, particularly, under the legal system we have in the United States, there are a lot of Supreme Court opinions that say, “No, prior restraint is something that the government does not have the authority to do.” Until there is an overt act that allows us to say, “That’s a bad guy,” then you can’t punish him.

judge-my-cuz-vinny

That argument, notes the complaint, is part of the six minutes that the gun rights advocates spent answering Couric’s question. Showing the VCDL as dumbfounded required some work on the part of the filmmakers. In coordinating the interview with the VCDL advocates, Couric and a cameraman from Atlas Films told them that they needed to sit in silence for 10 seconds so that the crew could calibrate the “recording equipment.” It was this passage that “Under the Gun” placed in the film instead of the actual answers supplied to the question about background checks. The suit alleges that this moment carried particular implications for each of the named plaintiffs in the case. Webb is a licensed firearms dealer (Gadsden Guns Inc.), and the edits indicate that “she lacks knowledge regarding background checks — a requirement for every gun sale she does,” argues the complaint. Hawes is an attorney who handles cases involving firearms, and the film suggests that “he lacks the legal expertise and oral advocacy skills required to perform his duties.” Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] ‘Dishonest Documentary Makers Are One Of The Lowest Life Forms In The Media’


[VIDEO] Carly Fiorina: ‘Climate Change Can’t Be Stopped by America Acting Alone’

Climate-Change-e1377805589403

The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies.

David FrenchDavid-French-NRO writes:

“…whether climate-change regulations will have any meaningful impact on the climate? Climate-change activists constantly say that “we have to start somewhere.” But what if in fact we’re starting nowhere? What if we’re asking Americans to sacrifice to no purpose? What if America can’t stop climate change?

[Follow David French on Twitter]

That’s Carly Fiorina’s argument, and it may represent the best, and most easily defensible, path forward to consensus. Here she is, like Ted Cruz,  making her case to Katie Couric:

The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal.

Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Photo: Corbis

Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Photo: Corbis

“Nations, as the saying goes, do not have friends, only interests. Our geopolitical competitors will not sacrifice their strategic interests for the sake of combating global warming. Nor will developing nations sacrifice their economies, or their people’s lives, by restraining their own economic growth.”

California enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions. We’ve already been made to pay the price for the veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline when even the State Department declared that it would have “negligible impact” on the environment.

[Read the full text here, at National Review Online]

[Also see – ‘None of this will have Any Meaningful Effect on the Planet’s Climate’]

[More – Obama’s Last Shot – Climate Change – And Why It’s Doomed To Fail]

[More – Why The Left Needs Climate Change]

The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies — as if our decision to fall on our own sword will so move India and China and the rest of the developing world (which has a lot of fossil fuels left to burn to lift its people out of poverty) that they’ll essentially have their own “come to Jesus” movement in defiance of national interest and centuries of national political culture. “America leads,” they proclaim. “The world laughs,” is the proper response. Read the rest of this entry »


Super Bowl Ads: The Best, The Worst, The Movies and NBC

super bowl

 writes: Super Bowl advertising is almost invariably overrated, which doesn’t spare us from the impulse — even the need — to rate it.

“As usual, the hype surrounding the ads turned many into a super-bust, suggesting that the folks on Madison Avenue are either bereft of ideas or, in some instances, taking too much advantage of liberalized pot laws.”

There was some excitement going into the game about an influx of relatively new advertisers, offering the promise of new blood. But just as a wave of newcomers in 2000 preceded the dot-com meltdown, this year’s crop of novice sponsors merely exposed a lot of not-ready-for-primetime players in the marketing world.

Of course, the criticism isn’t limited to the new guys. Car companies in general had a bad day. And Budweiser– which traditionally wields the biggest stick during the game – didn’t so much come up with new creative as recycle it, going back to the cross-species love affair between puppies and Clydesdales and erecting a giant Pac-Man maze to prove that, um, what was the point of that Bud Light spot again? (Admittedly, the puppy ad will no doubt be one of the day’s most popular in snap polls.)

screenshot_2015-01-27-07-29-37

“There was also a surplus of poorly utilized celebrities, including Mindy Kaling for Nationwide; Kim Kardashian for T-Mobile, along with Chelsea Handler and Sarah Silverman; and Pierce Brosnan for Kia. And while Liam Neeson was great, can anybody remember what the product was?”

The overall mix once again seemed to careen from the hopelessly schmaltzy (“Care makes a man stronger,” says Dove) to the simply goofy (Doritos strapping a rocket to a pig) to the borderline bizarre, such as Snickers dropping Danny Trejo and Steve Buscemi into an old “The Brady Bunch” episode.

There was also a surplus of poorly utilized celebrities, including Mindy Kaling for Nationwide; Kim Kardashian for T-Mobile, along with Chelsea Handler and Sarah Silverman; and Pierce Brosnan for Kia. And while Liam Neeson was great, can anybody remember what the product was?

Another subcategory would be the overproduced extravaganza, such as Mercedes’ CGI “Tortoise & the Hare” retelling or Bud Light’s aforementioned Pac-Man spot. Some of these fare well in audience surveys, but the link between creative and advertiser is so tenuous the benefits often seem exaggerated. And while it’s not necessarily fair, both Microsoft and Toyota’s ads featuring people walking thanks to prosthetic blades were undermined in part by the specter of Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius, who was found guilty of murder last year.

“Finally, there were the public-service announcements, with the sobering NoMore.org domestic violence spot – which resonated in light of the NFL’s Ray Rice fiasco – and Always’ ‘Like a Girl’ campaign. Yet as compelling as those spots were, they almost have to be broken out separately from more directly commercial advertising.”

So what were the principal highlights and lowlights? Separating out movies (which are essentially their own animal), public-service announcements and NBC’s promos for its midseason lineup, they loosely breakdown as follows:

bryan-cranston-super-bowl-commercial-1

THE BEST

ESurance: Tapping Bryan Cranston in “Breaking Bad” mode was a genius move, mostly because of the instant cool the association creates in the mind of the show’s fans. In this case, they really did have a lot of us at hello.

Fiat: Look, we all know car ads are essentially about sex. Fiat made the connection overt by dropping a Viagra tablet into one of its cars. If not the best ad of the day, it was the most truthful, since it’s hard to think of any other reason to drive a Fiat.

Carnival Cruises: Wedding John F. Kennedy’s voice discussing man’s love affair with the ocean to beautiful imagery of ships at sea accomplished the near-impossible: It almost made me forget Kathie Lee Gifford and think, at least momentarily, about taking a Carnival Cruise. Plus, in practical terms, the Kennedy-era contingent probably a big part of the company’s target demo.

Coca-Cola: While it’s unlikely spilling Coke on the Internet will sap the venom out of Web comments and our political discourse, it’s hard not to applaud the underlying sentiment and idealism. Notably, McDonald’s went for a similar uplifting spiel with its “Pay With Lovin’” ad, which is probably effective from a marketing standpoint but felt cloying as a commercial. Read the rest of this entry »


Headline of the Day: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Illiberal Identity Politics Problem

HotAir-head-appv

For Hot Air, Noah Rothman writes:

…Liberal outlets dubbed her “Notorious R.B.G.,” whiny folk artists converted her opinion into a terrible but nevertheless widely shared song, and The New Republic laughably dubbed Ginsburg “the most popular woman on the internet.” Take that, Kate Upton.

All this hero worship was entirely unearned, but the left is eternally in search of a totem. Ginsburg revealed just how misplaced the deluge of liberal idolization was on Thursday when she let all that celebrity go to her head.

funny-typo-vag-sandwich

In an interview with Katie Couric, Ginsburg embraced the toxic, disrespectful, and illiberal identity politics that has so intoxicated the left when she said that the five male Justices who decided Hobby Lobby really cannot understand the law in this case because they do not possess her reproductive organs.

Ginsburg began by insisting that the decision in Hobby Lobby meant that “women would have to take care of that for themselves, or the men who cared.” Oh, the tyrannies of free will and independence(read more)

Hot Air


Overexposed: NBC’s ‘Today Show’ Enlists Lauer, Roker for Live Prostate Exams

"...you want me to take my pants off? You mean...right now?"

“…you want me to take my pants off? You mean…right now?”

William Bigelow reports: NBC’s Katie Couric revealed her colon to the world during The Today Show in 2000. On Thursday, 13 years later, Matt Lauer and Al Roker of Today revealed other bodily orifices in receiving live prostate exams on air. “We should mention, we’re going to do this in a tasteful way – this is not The Learning Channel,” said host Savannah Guthrie. Lauer actually just went into a doctor’s office, shut the door, and emerged triumphantly 34 seconds later, when his doctor told the cameras that his prostate was small, smooth, and free of nodules.

Read the rest of this entry »


Judge Judy Makes Entitlement Argument

 Send This Tape To Congress

Independent Journal Review