“Deplorables:” The Bigotry Behind the Impeachment Attempt

Liberals: Trump Supporters Are Racist

The fundamental problem is simple: liberals (whom we don’t like to call “liberals” since they have ceased to have any connection with tolerant classical liberalism) tend to live in a narrow, insular little world. A narrow and insular social world (in enclaves like the East Side of Milwaukee, Manhattan, Madison and Berkeley) and in professions like journalism, academia, government bureaucracies and so on.

And in a narrow media world, where the narratives of the mainstream media are accepted as gospel.

In such an environment, it’s easy to believe that all the good people agree with you, and all those people who don’t are evil.

In such a world, it becomes acceptable to attack people who disagree, to deny them service in a restaurant, to get them fired from their jobs, to harass them, and to demonize them.

Quite simply, bigotry on the right is idiosyncratic, the product of a few deranged souls.

But bigotry on the left is social, the product of a deranged and intolerant culture.

Anti-cop Bigotry at Loyola University New Orleans

From Heatstreet:

Josh Collins, a sheriff’s sergeant in New Orleans, attends classes at Loyola University when he is not working. This week, one of his professors called the police on Collins himself — apparently because he showed up in class wearing his uniform, which freaked out one of the other students.

His professor then called the police, but Collins says he was “not privileged to either of these conversations as they took place behind my back.” His professor then approached him and informed him that they had called the police, but the police never came because Collins was perfectly within the law.

Collins, who works in the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, points out in his Facebook post that it is incredibly ironic that the reaction to being scared of a police officer is to call the police. He also writes that “as a police officer, I feel as though I must hide my profession in order to obtain a fair education.”

The Facebook post is below, and note how much bigotry he has to tolerate at a supposedly Catholic university. But most “Catholic universities” these days are no more tolerant that secular ones, and indeed probably less tolerant, on average.

Update

The professor who called the police when a uniformed cop entered the class is apparently Jonathan Peterson.

He is the only member of the Loyola Philosophy faculty identified as teaching “Law and Morality.”

Further, his contact information has disappeared from the list of Loyola Philosophy faculty.

We e-mailed him to ask for his account of what happened, and he did not respond.

Further Update

Loyola has reportedly apologized to the student, and come out with a statement in support of law enforcement.  According to Loyola, Collins was wearing fatigues, and not a standard police uniform, and was carrying a gun.  This might have contributed to the “misunderstanding.”  Of course, his comments about anti-white and anti-police bigotry are based on more than this incident.

More

Loyola has claimed that Collins was in “fatigues” raising the possibility that students did not know he was a police officer. But in fact, his uniform clearly identified him as a SWAT team member and employee of the Sheriff’s office. It was not just “fatigues” that anybody could wear.

Jodi O’Brien Affair: Undergraduates Loyal to Catholic Teaching Silenced

We found the comments responding to an essay by Matt Wion more cogent than the essay itself. Wion is far short of being a knee-jerk liberal, although he shows flashes of intolerance (calling an essay of our former colleague Chris Wolfe “vile”).

But the most poignant comment came from an undergraduate, and it shows the true nature of intolerance at Marquette.

Hi Matt,

As a senior at Marquette who is admittedly a part of that “traditional Catholic” block, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your post as a breath of fresh air! It’s nice to know that there are people who disagree with my view point who do not throw my intellect in the garbage and call me a bigot. If people are curious why this issue hasn’t been discussed in such a way on campus before now, perhaps de facto silencing of the opposing view point would be a good place to start. What student in their right mind would counter protest these fellow students? Who would post what they actually think as their facebook status? The answer is sadly very few, because to do so is to be labeled as an anti-gay bigot, a student in lock-step with McAdams, and a blind follower of an “intolerant” religion, even if that religion speaks to the very core of who they are. So sometimes it’s better to just fade into the background than to stick up for what you think. And to think, this kind of fear of, are we allowed to call it discrimination?, is prevalent and unchecked at an institution of higher learning. How sad.

But the problem with all of this is, and in my mind the saddest part about this, is these conversations will never take place in the current campus atmosphere. It can’t, when fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice and when groups of students who suggest they are speaking on behalf of all students, declare that the time for listening is over. Nothing could be more destructive towards building a campus that embraces Catholicism, the LGBT community, and the value of all the various beliefs of all members of our community.

This, of course, underlines the utter hypocrisy of those who invoke “tolerance” in wanting to hire a lesbian dean.

They are not, in fact, tolerant at all. They are utter bigots when faced with opinions at odds with their politically correct orthodoxy.

And this, indeed, is the real threat to academic freedom at Marquette.

The issue is not whether it’s possible to espouse views at odds with Catholic teaching.

The issue is whether it’s possible to espouse views in support of Catholic teaching.

Ideological Litmus Test in Social Work Schools

From Fox News:

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school’s “liberal political machine” for being a conservative.

William Felkner, 45, says the New England college and six professors wouldn’t approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the “wrong” side of political issues and countered the school’s “progressive” liberal agenda.

Felkner said his problems with his professors began in his first semester, in the fall of 2004, when he objected in an e-mail to one of his professors that the school was showing and promoting Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” on campus. He said he objected because no opposing point of view was presented.

He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner’s ability to “fit with the profession.”

“I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases,” he wrote.

Felkner’s complaint, filed two years ago, alleges that Ryczek discriminated against him for his conservative viewpoint and gave him bad grades because of it in several classes. It also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.

Felkner said he received failing grades in Ryczek’s class for holding viewpoints opposed to the progressive direction of the class.

Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class “assailing” his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not “progressive.”

The Rhode Island College School of Social Work did not respond to a request for comment.

While the Rhode Island College stonewalled (perhaps on advice of counsel), other social work faculty have spoken out on ideological biases.

Bruce Thyer, professor of social work and former dean at the College of Social Work at Florida State University, has written about discrimination against conservatives and against evangelical Christians in social work. He said discrimination hurts the profession.

“I have seen students actively discouraged from perusing social work because of their politically conservative views. I’ve also seen it happen with students who have held strong religious views,” he said. “I think that the profession is a great and noble discipline and there are occasional episodes like this that cast a black eye, and it’s really unnecessary.”

Thyer said liberal and conservative social workers have the same goal — to help people — and that the school overstepped its bounds in Felkner’s case.

One can, in other words, add social work to education as professions whose gatekeepers (university programs providing necessary credentials) impose an ideological litmus test.

Social work schools have particularly expressed concern that conservative Christian students might have biases that would prevent them properly serving homosexual clients.

Of course this could happen. But it could also happen that homosexual social workers or atheist social workers might let their biases prevent them from properly serving conservative Christian clients.

And students who are professed feminists certainly raise questions as to whether they can be fair to men in things like child support or child custody issues.

So what we have here is not any real, legitimate concern with professionalism, but rather raw political bias.

And what is so appalling is that liberals in academia less and less even feel the need to claim to be unbiased.

Mainstream Media Reporters Talk Frankly to Each Other

From Sykes Writes, an e-mail sent to Sykes from a journalist who covered today’s McCain-Plain event:

Hi Charlie,

As you might have heard, I am covering the McCain/Palin appearance today. At the media breakfast at the Pfister Hotel about an hour ago, you would simply not believe the vicious, nasty conversation I just overheard between several “elite” media types from the McClatchey news service, AP, and a couple of other sources I didn’t quite catch.

Over the course of just a few minutes, I heard that “Sean Hannity gives Dick Cheney the best head of his life,” and that he and Lou Dobbs are “mean-spirited sycophants,” and that McCain himself is “angry” and “crusty.” One even recalled a recent campaign event at which Sarah Palin autographed a supporter’s Bible, prompting this “objective” journalist to remark “these people terrify me.”

And this was just in the span of a 10 minute conversation! I simply cannot believe that these are the people entrusted to cover the McCain/Palin campaign fairly and accurately. I have never before wanted to do a show like yours quite as badly as I do right now--so that I can expose these people for who they really are: unabashed, unashamed partisans whose callous, bitter attitude towards conservatives very clearly permeates their work.

Journalists like to primp and preen and congratulate themselves about their “professionalism” in doing objective journalism.

But the simple fact is that professionalism can only get you so far. Beyond a certain point (long ago reached in American journalism) it can’t restrain the nasty cultural bias of the Mainstream Media, or the liberal subculture generally.

Tolerant Liberals: A Pro-McCain March In Manhattan

Palin Derangement Syndrome: Canadian Version

If the video is not embedded above, click this link.

Liberal Blogs More Profane

From Matthew Sheffield at the Washington Times:

Are liberals more profane than conservatives? Online, the answer seems to be yes. Profanity, those taboo words banned from the broadcast airwaves, is a feature of many people’s daily lives. It’s much less so in the establishment media world. TV and radio broadcasts are legally prohibited from using it, most newspapers (including this one) have traditionally refrained from its usage.

That’s not the case with the Web, where bloggers and readers face no such restrictions. That likely comes as no surprise; what may be surprising, however, is to what degree profanity seems to be a feature more common on one side of the political blogosphere than the other.

Which side is that? For answers, I turned to the search engine Google to see how common swearing is in the right and left blog universes by looking up the late stand-up comic George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” in the most popular blog communities.

The results showed that online liberals tend to use profanity a lot more than online conservatives.

Searching for Mr. Carlin’s seven words and some popular variants at the top 10 conservative Web communities yields about 70,000 results. That is dwarfed in comparison to the 1.9 million instances of profanity on liberal sites.

Things aren’t quite that clear-cut, however, since some Web sites have more pages than others. According to Google, the top 10 conservative sites have about 6 million pages, while the top 10 liberal sites have about 13 million.

Dividing the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields what might be called a “profanity quotient.”

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

The top 10 conservative sites (Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, NewsBusters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy) have a quotient of 1.17.

That’s quite a disparity. Liberals are more than 12 times likely to use profanity than conservatives on the Web.

The interesting question, of course, is whether this is merely a superficial matter of style, or whether it’s a question of fundamental character.

There is plenty of evidence of a deep seated nastiness on the part of the left, and shown by its reaction to the death of Tony Show, or British leftists reacting to the prospect of Margaret Thatcher’s death. Indeed, the bigotry of the Huffington Post has been reported right here.

The kind of vulgarity used on leftist blogs betrays a fundamental contempt for the sensibilities of others. That’s because those “others” are thought to be morally and intellectually inferior, and therefore fair game.

British Left Looking Forward to Margaret Thatcher’s Death

While the left vilified Tony Snow on his death, the leftists in the U.K. are looking forward to the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the same sort of raw hatred, and Lady Thatcher isn’t dead yet!

From the Daily Mail:

The Letters page of The Guardian, seldom the sanest of arenas, has this week descended to virulent venom.

In place of the customary corduroyed bores calling for unilateral disarmament, rainbow-nation multiculturalism or celebrations of Castro’s Cuba, there have appeared several letters which gloated at the prospect of Margaret Thatcher’s death.

Their vengeful tone, though hurtful about the still very much alive Lady Thatcher, has been instructive. It was a timely reminder that no one does viciousness quite like the Left. Far from the Conservatives being ‘the Nasty Party’, Labour’s preachy brothers and sisters have long deserved that title.

The author, Quentin Letts, then goes on about a lot of issues that are pretty obscure to Americans. But then he quotes some of the nasty rhetoric, which Americans can understand very well.

I don’t care what method people use to celebrate the fact that the bitch is dead. But for most people it will be a celebration. Dancing on her grave? Too bloody right, I will.

yeractual, Guardian online.

A 19-GUN salute? Only if they were all aimed at her.

imasmadashell, Guardian online.

I rather like the suggestion that whatever happens she is going to be buried at sea, by the time everyone has finished p***ing on her grave...

greymatter, Guardian online.

State funeral! She should be burned at the stake!

4danglier, Guardian online.

Thatcher should be allowed a state funeral only if the contract is put out to compulsory competitive tender and awarded to the lowest bidder. Any offers?

Rob Watling, Guardian newspaper.

‘The country owes her a 19-gun salute.’ Yeah, but we’re not cruel, she can have a blindfold as well!

BurgermaS, Guardian online.

I liken Thatcher’s rule to a surgeon finding gangrene in the little toe and amputating above the knee.

Green Lake, Guardian online.

The reminder that Charles Darwin received a state funeral underlines the grossly offensive nature of the proposal that Mrs Thatcher should be similarly honoured. Darwin’s magnificent insight liberated and broadened our thinking. Thatcher’s offensive bigotry destroyed much that was good in our society, narrowing our vision.

John Baker, Guardian newspaper.

A state funeral would be a farce. But how about nationwide street parties or perhaps auctioning coffin nails? I’d pay good money to hammer the lid down.

Ifweworkers, Guardian online.

The headline ‘State funeral planned for Lady Thatcher’ is deeply irresponsible. When it appeared, I honestly thought that the week had got off to the best possible start.

Chris Gibson, Guardian newspaper.

I’ll be there protesting and throwing eggs even if they promise to extraordinarily rendition me. Never. It’d be a crime to honour this self-serving, divisive politician who governed with minority support and who created the s*** we live in today. She did more to destroy ‘the family’ than a hundred Roy Jenkins ever could. No, no, no. Just throw some petrol on the corpse, chuck a match and let the wind do the rest.

bass46, Guardian online.

Just a couple of questions: ‘Does that include the grave/dancefloor combo?’ and ‘When is it booked for?’

Chris Hardman, Guardian newspaper.

I’d go along with it on three conditions: 1) The son Mark is stripped of his hereditary baronetcy. He has done nothing to deserve it and everything to lose it. 2) We can get it over with as soon as possible. Friday week would be good for me. 3) We do a special offer (Buy One Get One Free) with the current Prime Minister. The fact that both of them are still breathing should be no obstacle.

EastFinchleyite, Guardian online.

Announcing the Great Thatcher Awayday. On the day of her state funeral, I’ll book the Eurostar and Guardian readers are cordially invited to join me in Brussels to toast her passing with great Belgian beer. The famous bar Morte Subite (Sudden Death) will make a good starting point.

Roger Protz, Guardian newspaper.

She deserves the admiration and respect of every exploiter and authoritarian in the world.

Gegenbeispiel, Guardian online.

Since Thatcher is loathed and despised by a large proportion of UK citizens, may we suggest that her state funeral takes place at Port Stanley, where presumably her popularity remains undiminished?

Lucy Birot, Peter Mackridge and Jackie Willcox, Oxford, Guardian newspaper.

I cannot believe that I am alone in feeling total disgust that there are plans to honour Margaret Thatcher with a state funeral. I would also take issue with the view that she ‘reversed the decline in Britain’s post-war fortunes’. The fact that No 10 appears to have condoned the plans sums up how bankrupt this government has become.

Dr Terry Allcott, Guardian newspaper.

When Margaret Thatcher was Minister for Education, she took away free milk from schoolchildren. I created the slogan ‘Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher’ and put it on a wanted poster with her picture. When she became prime minister, we
wrote to her from the Chiswick Women’s Aid refuge and asked her what she would do for victims of domestic violence. A minion replied on her behalf and said that she was ‘not interested in women’s issues’. A state funeral would be an insult to this nation.

Erin Pizzey, Guardian newspaper.

Give her a nice marble tomb — in the shape of a public toilet.

anstruther, New Statesman online

State funeral? A televised public execution would be far, far too good for her.

RoyalFamily, Guardian online.

There should be a nationwide procession so the public can show their appreciation by throwing anything they like at her — and I do mean anything.

Carl Jones, New Statesman online.

I hope she lives long enough to see her son go to prison for his crimes in Africa. I hope she lives long enough to see ‘actual’ democracy come in the UK in the form of electronic democracy and local communities. I hope she lives long enough to see the mass ownership of companies by the people (not the feudal few). I hope she lives long enough to see Britain stop being the Americans’ poodle, and I hope she lives long enough to see the ‘New Labour project’ overturned by some REAL social democrats. Then I hope she comes back as a poor child in the Third World.

gnuneo, New Statesman online.

Why waste money when half the country will be having a party to celebrate her demise, anyway?

NemesistheWarlock, Guardian online.

Where’s she being buried? We could graffiti her tombstone.

RosaLuxemburgII, New Statesman online.

Letts concluded:

One of the Left’s great propaganda achievements over the years has been the idea that it was somehow kinder to support Labour than to be Conservative.

Think a little harder, though, and you may start to see that Left’s attitude depends on the suppression of tolerance.

It demands communal conformity rather than independent freedom. It seeks to dictate supply rather than allowing the market to find a level. It places the state above the citizen.

Here are the philosophical roots of the harshness of discipline which fuel the unpleasantness. Those Guardian letters spring directly from Left-wing orthodoxy. It is hard to imagine any Conservative worth that name rejoicing at the death of a Labour opponent. The Tory instinct does not work like that.

Leftie Blogger Applauds Disruption of Speech at UWM

Liberals used to at least pretend that they believed in free speech. But they seldom bother any more.

Example: “Whallah!,” a blog started for the sole purpose of stalking Jessica McBride, deals with a blog post from Patrick McIlheran about how a speech from David Horowitz at UWM was disrupted by leftist and Islamic students. According to McIlheran:

The encouraging part is this, and you’ll see it about two-thirds of the way through: “University officials ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen burly officers and staffers for the event. I didn’t count how many individuals had to be ejected during my remarks but there were many,” he writes.

McIlheran finds this encouraging because UWM protected Horowitz’ right to speak. Some might consider it deplorable that people who disagree with Horowitz tried to shut him up.

But not Whallah. He opines:

Why is that encouraging, you may ask? Because it shows there is a growing number of people that see through the lies of the righties. It also shows that there is growing discontent with the way that things are going in this country, and that more and more people are ready to correct the course we are on.

That’s right.

He finds it “encouraging” that people tried to shout down and disrupt the talk of a speaker with whom he disagrees.

Barack Obama: Elitist Snob

From the Huffington Post, Obama’s explanation of why people in Pennsylvania who won’t be voting for him are ignorant rednecks.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This, unfortunately, is the way that many (and perhaps most) college professors view people who disagree with their cultural views.

It’s the way most journalists view people who disagree with their cultural views.

It’s just another piece of evidence that Obama is not really a “black” candidate.

He’s just a standard latte liberal who happens to have racially mixed parentage.

He’s not, in other words, really different from John Kerry or Michael Dukakis.

[Postscript]

Note how Obama included “anti-trade sentiment” in his list of evil beliefs. But he’s been running on a protectionist platform! So he is either hypocritically condemning people who agree with him, or he knows better than to favor protectionism and has been pandering mightily.

Leftist Blogger Laments that Milwaukee Conservative Voices are “Unfettered”

Via Dad29:

It seems local leftist blogger Michael J. Mathias laments the fact that local conservative pundits are allowed -- and this is an outrage -- free speech. He begins by calling Bill Kristol “bloodthirsty,” and then turns to local people:

Locally, we have our own bellicose nutcases, and they are allowed to work, pretty much, unfettered.

That’s right. He thinks it’s an outrage that local conservatives get to freely express themselves.

Just what sort of “fetters” would he impose on them? He doesn’t say, but the history of the leftist blogophere in Wisconsin makes it clear.

If people like Mathias could, they would get them fired, and indeed they were proud in having a role in getting Jessica McBride fired from WTMJ.

They tried to get Charlie Sykes’ blog censored over a parody of the smug “Coexist” bumper sticker.

They will try to use campaign finance laws to shut up conservatives.

Failing that, they want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to force conservatives off the air.

If none of this works, in a classic instance of the frustration/aggression syndrome they will attack conservative bloggers and talk radio people. And they will especially attack women conservatives in the most misogynist terms.

We are old enough to remember what liberals were like before “progressive” politics took a huge turn in the 60s. Before the late 60s, liberals prided themselves in being tolerant. In their hearts of hearts, they were no more tolerant than other people, but the preached tolerance, and they -- quite fortunately -- felt bound by their own rhetoric.

Since then, liberals and leftists have more and more come to embrace a series of rationales for shutting people up. They more and more have felt free to express raw hatred of those who disagree with them. Again, it’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. As young people in the 60s or early 70s, they felt that history was moving their way. But it hasn’t, leaving them bitter and frustrated.

More Hate Speech in the Leftist Blogosphere

Well, Illusory Tenant has finally gotten it though his head that you don’t call a female blogger (Jessica McBride in this case), the “C word.”

The the anonymous but very hateful fellow who runs Hermes’ Journeys isn’t about to do anything so wimpish as refrain from showing how much he hates those who disagree with his political views.

Let it known throughout the blogosphere that I, Hermes, the veritable Messenger of the Gods, declare Jessica McBride to be a conniving, confused, and consummately clueless conservative who is hurting women everywhere by pretending to have an understanding of feminism. Illusory Tenant was justified in using the definition of the word to mean an unpleasant or stupid person in describing her, for she is an embarrassment to educated women everywhere. Furthermore, Charlies Sykes is a laughable twit and Rush Limbaugh is a closeted homosexual pig of a man who wouldn’t know what a c-word was if he could pull his head out of his own pompous ass long enough to stop hating school and read something other than the Bible. But that would entail focusing on something other than how vainglorious his own ignorant, uneducated, loathsome existence has become, which is understandably impossible for someone as arrogant and contumacious as Rush’s swollen, bloated, gay, vapid, incomprehensible and downright stupid personality has made him.

You see, this is the party of tolerance and diversity. So it’s fine for them to hate people who disagree with them.