Month: March 2016

Michelle Fields and Michael Brown, a rush to judgment

What do former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and former Ferguson thug Michael Brown have in common?

Their supporters loathe and despise Donald Trump.

OK, that was too easy. Let’s try again: What commonality exists between Fields and convenience store-tosser Brown?

Answer: The rash judgment immediately following their national exposure.

Nearly two years ago, the country was engulfed in the sad, sorry saga of Michael Brown. Shot dead in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, Brown became the poster boy for police brutality against blacks. Brown’s body was still warm on the pavement when the media went into berserk mode, charging Officer Darren Wilson with murder and maligning the entire police force as inveterate racists.

The story fit the progressive narrative: Brown was an unarmed black teeanger gunned down by a white cop. A few conservative voices called for calm as the details were sorted out. Rep. Paul Ryan (now Speaker of the House) warned the public not to “jump to prejudging conclusions before evidence is in.”

Their warnings were prescient: President Obama’s Department of Justice declined to charge Officer Wilson. The law-enforcement agency, which was headed by race-baiter Eric Holder, could not disprove Wilson’s claim that he was acting in self-defense at the time he killed Brown.


Self-segregation and a third world invasion

A curious thing is taking place in the West. Two opposing forces are coming to a head, the effect of which could be disastrous or salutary, depending on your view.

First the bad news: There is a conscious effort afoot to overrun the First World with Third World immigrants. Popular commentary sites talk openly about how whites must be forced into subservience. Refugee advocates threaten to overwhelm nation-state borders “until Europe will turn black.” Political leaders are intransigent about their open border views, despite the culture clash they engender. In America, Mexican wall jumpers openly brag about “owning” states.

The audacity of this insidious invasion would make Jean Raspail blush.

While the West’s political leadership seems hellbent on putting out the welcome mat for barbarians, another concurrent trend is happening. It is far less pronounced, but it’s taking shape nonetheless.

I’m referring to what John Derbyshire calls “segregation lite.” Across the country, minorities are demanding protection from assimilation with others races. These agitators for apartheid are overturning the gains of the civil rights movement – which, given the country’s increase in racial strife, may not be a terrible thing.


Scalia’s legacy: undying fidelity to the letter of the law

Reprinted from the Press and Journal

Antonin Scalia believed in the Devil.

In a 2013 interview with New York magazine, the Supreme Court justice expressed shock when his interviewer thought it strange to believe in the Prince of Darkness.

“Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?” asked the liberal-minded questioner.

Scalia, in typical fashion, replied: “You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil!”

For that kind of folksy yet intelligent wit, Justice Scalia will be sorely missed.

The long-serving justice and conservative center of our nation’s highest court passed away unexpectedly at a resort in remote west Texas. Without missing a beat, President Obama and congressional Republicans politicized his death, not waiting 24 hours before announcing their plans for moving forward.

Republicans vow to block any Court appointment, while the president insists on nominating a replacement.

However the president and Congress settle the vacancy dispute, one thing is known: Justice Scalia is irreplaceable. He was a man of supreme intellect, of unwavering courage, of religious devotion and incisive prose.