May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
Well, surprise surprise.
A sportswriter for the Washington Post has turned out to be one more liberal who loves to judge others by race. This morning this was apparent in a Michael Wilbon column on Rush Limbaugh.
Let’s leave aside that when it comes to putting up examples of Rush’s supposed racism, Wilbon says “I don’t listen to his show” and “I’m not going to try and give specific examples of things he has said over the years; I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) that he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word.”
So we have established, according to Mr. Wilbon himself, that he doesn’t listen to Rush, and has “screwed up” attributing racial remarks to him that Rush never said. A promising start.
Alas, not for long.
Wilbon than instantly goes off the track by referring to President Obama not as the president of the United States, which, the last time I checked, he was. No, he said this;
“But Limbaugh has long history of the same insults and race baiting, to the point of declaring he hoped the president of the United States, a black man, fails.”
So. That’s it. Those of us who view Barack Obama as (a) the President of the United States, and (b) a thorough-going left-winger whose policies are off-the-charts damaging to the country….. are race baiting? So when blacks wanted Nixon to fail they were race baiting? Got it. When they hated Hoover they were race baiting? When they voted for Jimmy Carter, who got to the White House after getting elected governor by courting every thorough-going white racist vermin in the state of Georgia, they were…what?
Apparently Mr. Wilbon is an enthusiastic supporter of Justice Clarence Thomas but just forgot to write a column trashing all those liberals who went after Thomas because of his race. Oops.
The hard fact and deeply unattractive fact seems to be that the race-baiter here is Mr. Wilbon. He is incapable of viewing the President, by his own admission, as The President. But as such, Barack Obama is the same in every way as the other 43 from Washington through Bush. Except to Wilbon. No, Wilbon’s focus is on race. The President isn’t president in Wilbon’s eyes, he’s the black man who is president. And the rest of us who want to treat this president the same way we treated all the others (on a scale, that covers everything from fainting in a swoon to hurling buckets of invective, the usual approach of Americans to their chief executives) are told that we have to judge Mr. Obama differently because of his skin color.
Mr. Wilbon is put forth to Post readers as a professional. A journalist. A sportswriter. He is also a black man. So what? Is that how Mr. Wilbon wants to be judged? As “Michael Wilbon, black sportswriter.” rather than “Michael Wilbon, sportswriter”??
His approach to Rush Limbaugh in the end has nothing to do with Rush, who is, as those of us who do listen to his show are well familiar, a believer in a colorblind society. He makes fun of — quite deservedly — those like Wilbon who pretend to this when in fact they insist on judging people by skin color, by race.
Mr. Wilbon clearly lives his life on what some refer to as the liberal intellectual plantation.
It’s time…way past time in American life…for Wilbon and others to cut the chains and walk off. And the next time they see the President of the United States…understand that he is that. Just that. And only that.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online