Archive for the 'National Review' Category
In what was thought to be the aftermath of the Zimmerman-Trayvon episode, there was a solid, if perhaps, premature, column from Matt Parrot, which noted:
Even if White Americans did want to feel guilty about the death of Trayvon Martin, the guy who shot him isn’t even White. George Zimmerman is of Peruvian descent, votes Democrat, mentors Black youth in his spare time, and is an anti-racist activist…For us, the most important and exciting development was the effectiveness with which Kyle Rogers of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent, Nicholas Stix (Jewish) of VDare, and others from across the movement effectively subverted and scooped the lumbering and lazy media conglomerates at every turn. The mainstream media kept lying, and our people kept catching and exposing them.
But alas, the story is only just beginning.
The Republican Governor of Florida—that hotbed swing state—appointed a special prosecutor, Republican Angela Corey, to replace the local prosecutor who originally handled the death of Trayvon Martin and did not press charges.
Republican Angela Corey is moving forward with 2nd Degree Murder charges.
In the background, Presidential aspirant (then aspirant) Rick Santorum sided against Zimmerman and with the mob. Alleged Tea Party Congressman, Allen West, sided with the mob against Zimmerman. And most recently in the news as far as this web site is concerned, Rich Lowry sided with Sharpton and the mob.
It’s clear that this is a political prosecution of Zimmerman, or rather, a witch hunt, based on discredited political calculus that pleasing the mob, will get the mob to vote Republican.
But circle back to Zimmerman’s original defenders, the ones who will remain his defenders.
A sense of justice, or at the minimum, the old concept of a fair trial, perhaps does triumph other considerations—an ethic evolves.
Zimmerman is going to be railroaded, in some post-modern combination of the Dreyfus Affair, ‘To Kill a Mocking Bird’, and Bob Dylan’s (born Zimmerman) misleading account of a song, Hurricane.
… must be a wonderful thing. We wouldn’t know about that here in the DC Empire, since questioning egalitarian orthodoxy gets you fired. The latest victim is Robert Weissberg of National Review. Here’s uber-weenie Rich Lowry announcing Weissberg’s firing, and here’s Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs clucking with glee.
What can we do? If you subscribe to National Review, cancel your subscription.
National Review has an editorial from “The Editors” that specifically says not to vote for Newt. (H/T Joseph Lawler at AmSpec) As Lawler asks, what is the word for the opposite of endorsing someone? They suggest Romney, Huntsman and Santorum as acceptable options.
Here is what they say about Ron Paul:
Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence.
What are they even talking about? Re-dabbling? Did I miss some recent development? Tom DiLorenzo reports that Bill Bennett brought up Ron Paul and conspiracy theories tonight on Hannity. Is this just a new concerted attack on Paul by people who are frightened by his increasing poll numbers and/or did I miss something?
National Review published another attack on non-interventionism today, libeling its proponents as “isolationists” (this after the shabby treatment of non-interventionism in the Ron Paul interview). This one must have been a rush job – the authors (Alvin S. Felzenberg & Alexander B. Gray) wheel out every wheezing, decrepit canard and ancient boogey-monster in the imperialist handbook. Here’s a taste (my comments in brackets):
“The United States and the world paid a severe price for the ostrich-like behavior too many democratic nations exhibited during the 1920s and 1930s [This one has more lives than Buddha's cat].”
“But the next decade will witness increasing competition among nation-states for control of valuable resources and the exertion of influence worldwide [Imagine that? Nation-states vying for resources and influence? Unprecedented!]”
“Russia, through its control of vital energy pipelines, seeks to draw Western Europe more closely into its orbit, thereby weakening the latter’s historical ties to the United States [Uh oh - Red Dawn II]”
“The alliance of these two anti-American and increasingly menacing states could pose a threat to the United States of a kind that would make us nostalgic for the Cuban Missile Crisis [The two "menacing states" in question are... Iran and Venezuela. I'm not kidding - go read it. Iran and Venezuela will make us "nostalgic" for close calls with nuclear armageddon, or for an authoritarian communist empire hostile to the West and armed with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles]”
By far my favorite sequence of thoughts, though, is this one:
“China… has proclaimed its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, menaced neighbors from India to Vietnam, used its economic muscle to intimidate Japan, and increased its threats against Taiwan [Sounds sinister. Perhaps we do need an inconceivably massive military with such a menace abroad]”
“the Chinese are acting from a desire to defend their nation’s trade and access to world markets, with a focus on energy supplies [Ah! Here we see that China, that muscly menace, is trying to seize "control of valuable resources" and exert its influence - precisely the dread specter America needs its fully-funded military to confront!]
Then comes a brief history lesson explaining that it was the British Empire (specifically its navy) “that gave the Monroe Doctrine force”, which gave the U.S. the space to “develop internally” and, as we all know, eventually achieve global military supremacy.
Then comes this bit of salesmanship:
“If appropriately funded, the United States Navy has the capacity to play a similar role in China’s rise.”
Count me in! Of course we need to sacrifice blood and treasure to help midwife the Communist Chinese Century. That way, according to Felzenberg and Gray, it will be the right kind of Communist Chinese Century. The good kind. Not the nasty kind.
There’s quite a bit more, and I haven’t the time to address all of it, but the closer is in my opinion particularly remarkable:
“A world in which the United States willingly ceded power and influence would both be more dangerous and prove less receptive to values that most Americans share, such as respect for human rights [Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Black sites, Blackwater], the need to restrain governments [This entire argument is against restraining the most dangerous government power, remember] through the rule of law [The Congress shall have Power To... Declare War], and the sanctity of contracts [Amendment X].”
Please do read the article, and let them know what you think – comments are open (must join to post – it’s free).