Justin's Political Corner

Thanks to Donkeylicious for bringing this to my attention. Michael Walsh of National Review Online called for the termination of women’s right to vote last week:

 Nevertheless, you’re on to something I’ve been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era” amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920. 

One of those has already been repealed—the 18th amendment, which ushered in Prohibition—which Walsh admits. That’s not really what he’s on about anyway:

The income-tax amendment was a self-evident attack on capitalism and led to the explosive growth of the federal government we currently enjoy today. (Without it, there’d be no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.) Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and its unholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And women’s suffrage … well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.

I suppose we’re supposed to imagine it’s a “joke”, because he takes a jovial tone for the last one. But if so, it doesn’t make sense. He’s dead fucking serious about the other two—three, really, because he only seems to be against Prohibition because he believes it gave Democrats a leg up, which is one of those deaf-to-historical-change moments that lead Republicans to imagine that Lincoln would have anything to do with the modern version of their party—so, as a joke, it falls completely apart. If he hadn’t rolled it up with the other amendments initially, the “joke” defense he clearly has in his pocket would be an easier sell. Something like, “I’ve long advocated for the repeal of 3 of the Progressive Amendments (though one has already been repealed), and hey, ladies, sometimes you make me wish to repeal all four.” It would still be a misogynist joke, but easier to sell as a joke, even if not a very funny one.

I’m trying to imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if a feminist dare say men should forsake their right to vote until they shape up and start voting correctly. It certainly wouldn’t slide under the waters, like this did.

Typical sexism from the far-right.

h/t: Amanda Marcotte at The Raw Story

At least most of them aren’t snickering about the blood clot.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently hospitalized after doctors found a blood clot in her head, a condition that ABC News reported was “potentially ‘life-threatening.’” The hospitalization came in the wake of the news in December that Clinton had suffered a concussion after catching a virus, becoming dehydrated, and feinting.

The unhinged concussion response seemed to mark the unofficial return of the Clinton Crazies, that marauding mindset among conservatives who spent the 90’s launching endless attacks against the Clintons; vicious and wildly personal attacks that went far beyond partisan debate. (i.e. Accusations of killings and mass murder.)

What else explains the conservative media’s decision to treat Clinton’s head trauma as being side-splittingly funny? There’s something very disturbing about how it coalesced around its strategy to make fun of her health. I’d suggest there’s also very distasteful about gleefully mocking the health of a woman in her mid-sixties.

But boy, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham thought the story was a hoot:

Ingraham loved the tasteless “Immaculate Concussion” quip so much she went on The O’Reilly Factor that same night and shared it with a national television audience, delighting in the phrase. Host Bill O’Reilly couldn’t contain his laughter. “I haven’t heard that! That’s good!” roared O’Reilly.

Still laughing, Ingraham responded, “Did she really have a concussion? Maybe she did. I mean, who knows.”

In truth, it might be easier to list the Fox talkers who didn’t laugh out loud while discussing Clinton’s faltering health last month. On The Five, Dana Perino chortled when co-host Greg Gutfeld joked Clinton couldn’t have a concussion since she’d been “ducking everything” regarding Benghazi. Later that same night, Sean Hannity’sshared a chuckle with Fox’s Charles Krauthammer for mocking Clinton’s “acute Benghazi allergy.” (A “good line,” Hannity assured his guest.) It was noteworthy that Fox host Greta Van Susteren went out of her way, via her blog, to distance herself from the “sarcastic” and “snarky” Fox News comments about Clinton’s health.

The topic of Clinton’s faltering condition became a running joke for weeks. Right up until the day the troubling blood clot news was revealed, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg was still making light of her condition:

In the December 31 issue of The Weekly Standard, readers were encouraged to laugh at the news of Clinton’s head trauma.

Blogger and USA Today columnist Glenn Reynolds recently made sure to share with readers a photoshopped picture of Clinton (with her head attached to a burly man’s body) that suggested she was “drunk as skunk” when she fell and suffered a concussion:

Reynolds also hyped the blatant lie that that Clinton had flown to a “Caribbean resort” for New Year’s Eve.

Reynolds’ baseless behavior was not unexpected. Two weeks earlier he had treated the concussion revelation as one big joke, writing, “HELP, I’VE FALLEN AND I CAN’T TESTIFY ABOUT BENGHAZI”

When Clinton’s doctor recently announced a blood clot had been found during an examine, Reynolds quickly linked to right-wing conspiracist Ann Althouse, who in a pair of blog posts wondered if the “oddities” surrounding Clinton’s health reports stemmed from “fakery.” When critics lampooned her rumor mongering, Althouse insisted she’d been sponsoring “political debate” by raising baseless doubts about the Clinton story.

In the New York Times report about Clinton’s blood clot, the newspaper quoted David Rothkopf, an acting Commerce Department under secretary in the Bill Clinton, who noted the heated politicization of the Hillary Clinton’s health. Beseeching common decency, Rothkopf urged partisan to stop the unseemly behavior and to just act like “human beings.”

For the Clinton Crazies, that’s not always an option.

H/T: Eric Boehlert at MMFA

If there were fewer women and more “male aggression” in Sandy Hook Elementary School, the massacre there never would have taken place, according to a contribution to a leading conservative magazine.

National Review, whose in-house editorial suggested Newtown was the price of the Second Amendment, published a piece on Wednesday from anti-feminist Charlotte Allen suggesting the reason the shooter was able to kill so many students was because Newtown was a “feminized setting:”

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

Via Jessica Valenti, who notes that this is extraordinarily “disrespectful to the female teachers and staff at Sandy Hook. Allen mentions their heroism as an anomalous aside rather than exceptional bravery that saved lives. The bravery of the women in Newtown – principal Dawn Hochsprung and psychologist Mary Sherlach who rushed the shooter before being killed, teacher Victoria Soto who died protecting her students, Kaitlin Roig and Abbey Clements who hid their students and calmed them – is remarkable.”

h/t: Zack Beauchamp at Think Progress Justice

Breitbart.com: “The War Begins Now.” A Breitbart.com post titled “#War More Years” by editor Ben Shapiro belittled the Americans who supported the president and wrote:

The answer here isn’t to end the war against liberalism - a philosophy that will bankrupt the country in the long run and steal its constitutional soul in the short run. The answer is to fight back.

[…]

The fight does not end with retaking the Republican Party, though. It extends to the palace guard for liberalism - the media.

[…]

We will not heel. We will not stop. The defeat of Barack Obama would have launched the beginning of America coming together. But apparently, liberal America prefers to battle for the soul of the country.

And so we battle.

Democracy works. We still believe in democracy. We still believe in the power of ideas. But the only way to win in the battle of ideas is to fight the bullies, as Andrew did. Democracy is not blood; that’s a miracle. But the civil war for the heart and soul of this country is real.

We’ve made gains; perhaps we will even win the popular vote. In any case, the election of 2012 was not the election of 2008. But the battle has only just started.

The war begins now.

#War [Breitbart.com, 11/6/12]

NY Post Compares Obama To Caesar After Re-Election. The New York Post tweeted a post-election front page, showing the president wearing a toga and a wreath with the headline: “Hail ‘O’ Caesar”:

[Twitter, 11/6/12; New York Magazine, Daily Intel, 11/7/12]

Wall Street Journal: Obama’s Successful Campaign Was The “Definition Of Winning Ugly.” A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that Obama caricatured Mitt Romney’s position “even by the standards of modern politics.” But, the Journal claimed, Obama’s strategy “worked with brutal efficiency — the definition of winning ugly.” The Journal also claimed that Obama benefitted from a “long run of extraordinary good luck” and pinned some blame on Republican appointees who helped Obama such as Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke and Chief Justice John Roberts:

[Obama] said little during the campaign about his first term and even less about his plans for a second. Instead his strategy was to portray Mitt Romney as a plutocrat and intolerant threat to each of those voting blocs. No contraception for women. No green cards for immigrants. A return to Jim Crow via voter ID laws. No Pell grants for college.

This was all a caricature even by the standards of modern politics. But it worked with brutal efficiency—the definition of winning ugly. Mr. Obama was able to patch together just enough of these voting groups to prevail even as he lost independents and won only 40% of the overall white vote, according to the exit polls. His campaign’s turnout machine was as effective as advertised in getting Democratic partisans to the polls.

Mr. Obama also benefitted from his long run of extraordinary good luck. Hurricane Sandy devastated the Northeast a week before Election Day, letting him rise for a few days above the partisanship that has defined his first term. The storm changed the campaign conversation and blunted Mr. Romney’s momentum. The exit polls show that late-deciders went for the incumbent this year when they typically break for the challenger.

The President owes a debt as well to a pair of Republican appointees in government—John Roberts and Ben Bernanke. By joining four liberals on the Supreme Court in upholding ObamaCare in June, Chief Justice Roberts provided a salve of legitimacy to the President’s deeply unpopular health-care law. It also helped him unify his party around something to protect in an otherwise aimless second term. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/7/12]

Fox’s Todd Starnes: Time To Impeach Obama. Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes wrote that Republicans should begin “impeachment proceedings” after Obama’s re-election:

[Twitter, 11/6/12]

Fox Regular Trump: “We Should Have A Revolution.” Regular Fox News guest Donald Trump tweeted twice that America needs a revolution after the president’s re-election. Trump later deleted the tweets.

[Media Matters, 11/7/12]

Fox Host Brian Kilmeade: “We’re The Shallowest Country In The History Of Man.” Discussing exit polls that found voters approved of Obama’s handling of the response to Hurricane Sandy, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade attacked people who said their votes were swayed by Sandy:

STEVE DOOCY: (co-host): The October surprise turned out to be something named Sandy.

HEATHER NAUERT (Fox News host): Yeah, who would have thunk that, right? Well, 42 percent of those people we spoke with said the response to the storm was an important issue, and 15 percent said it was the most important issue. So this may have become —

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I can’t believe those numbers.

NAUERT: Yeah. This may have become a national issue in fact.

KILMEADE: Then we’re the shallowest country in the history of man. One photo-op, walking over a two-by-four, and all of a sudden, he’s handling a storm, which by the way hasn’t been handled well. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/7/12, via Media Matters]

Washington Times Columnist Ted Nugent: “Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats” Now Have A President To “Destroy America.” Washington Times columnist and NRA board member Ted Nugent tweeted in reaction to the president’s re-election that “pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters” won the election:

[Twitter, 11/7/12]

WND’s Farah: “We Have Allowed Our Fellow Americans To Pronounce Judgment On The Nation.”WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah wrote in his column following the election that Obama’s re-election shows Americans “have turned away from” God and the founders:

For those of us who fundamentally reject Obama’s policies, things are going to get very rough for the next four years. We have allowed our fellow Americans to pronounce judgment on the nation.

That’s what Obama represents to me - God’s judgment on a people who have turned away from Him and His ways and from everything for which our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

[…]

When you turn away from the ways of God Almighty, this is what you should expect, if you are a student of the Bible and history. [WND, 11/7/12]

NRO’s Steyn: “If This Is The Way American Wants To Go Off The Cliff, So Be It” In a blog post for National Review Online titled, “Live Free … Or Die,” conservative columnist and guest host of The Rush Limbaugh Show Mark Steyn wrote about Obama’s victory in New Hampshire and concluded: “If this is the way America wants to go off the cliff, so be it.” [National Review Online, 11/6/12]

h/t: MMFA

Right-wing bloggers are falsely claiming that Joe Biden is “lying” about having played football at the University of Delaware. Contrary to their claims, several newspapers have interviewed people who knew Biden while he played freshman football at Delaware.

Gateway Pundit, National Review Online, and the Daily Caller picked up a post from Breitbart and claimed that it was evidence that Biden didn’t play football at Delaware and is “lying” about it.

More than 20 years of reporting debunks this claim. For instance, a 1987 Washington Post article retrieved from the Nexis database quoted Biden’s father, Joe Biden Sr., saying that he made his son leave the team because of poor grades after his freshman season. A 1987 Los Angeles Times article reported that Biden’s college roommate said the same thing (via Nexis):

“He probably never studied as hard as other people did,” recalled Biden’s roommate at the University of Delaware, Donald Brunner, now a senior vice president with J. P. Morgan. Brunner and Biden both played football as freshmen, but Biden then quit the team, Brunner said, under pressure from his father, who thought that he was devoting too much time to sports and not enough to books.

In 2008, The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, published an article about Biden’s high school and college football days. One of Biden’s teammates at Delaware, Jack Istnick, recounted a story from practice (article available for purchase here):

Every now and then, the freshman players would help the varsity practice.

One day, Biden and Jack Istnick were shagging punts for the varsity so it could work on its kick-coverage teams. This was done at full speed with full contact. The ball was kicked to Biden, who got “absolutely leveled,” Istnick said, “mainly because I didn’t block anyone.”

“The [freshman] coach, Scottie Duncan, looked at me and looked at Joe lying on the ground and said to me, ‘Don’t you like him?’ “

The Breitbart post uses an ellipsis-laden quote from a September 8 speech Biden made at Ohio University as evidence that he lied specifically about having played in a football game there in 1963:

“I came … I was a football player … I came here in 1963 … and we beat you Bobcats, 29-12,” Biden said.  

BIDEN: Well, I want to tell you, I came — I was a football pl— I came — I came here in 1963. And I had to go back — I just double-checked my memory. You know, you get my age, you’re not so sure [unintelligible]. You know, your glory days look more glorious than they really were and all that.

So, we went back on the Internet, and I just want you to know I came here in — on October 19, 1963, and we beat you Bobcats, 29-12. Now, wait a minute, now, wait a minute. And that’s why I was so happy, I was so happy that when the Bobcats went to Happy Valley, they learned what a bobcat was. Because now, I’ve got bragging rights. Y’all beat Penn State, and so I can say, “Well, they beat Penn State, and 500 years ago, we beat them once.”

[video break]

BIDEN: The last time I was here, I want to make clear to the press, I didn’t get arrested, but I almost did. Because back in those days — you students won’t appreciate this — men weren’t allowed anywhere near a woman’s dorm. And I got invited into a dorm. I thought I was walking into the — into the — into the waiting room. I got brought into the hallway. And I got escorted out very quickly by an Athens policeman. But — so — true story, unfortunately.

h/t: MMFA

The National Review has repeatedly found itself in hot water over the past several months. In April, the conservative publication fired John Derbyshire for a “webzine” which crossed the line into outright racism. But the magazine’s editors continue to welcome contributions from white nationalist, and noted Islamophobe, David Yerushalmi, as well as anti-Muslim advocates Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes. And in a column published on July 4th by Conrad Black, the magazine took a bizarre turn into defending the mission of European colonialists in Africa and Asia.

Black, a publisher, columnist, and Canadian-born member of the British House of Lords declared that, “most of the world worked better in colonial times,” and went on to list the colonial accomplishments of the British, the Belgians and the Dutch. He surmises:

No one could seriously dispute that almost all of sub-Saharan Africa, all of North Africa except Morocco, all of the Middle East except Israel and Jordan and most of the oil-rich states, and the entire former British Indian Empire were better governed by Europeans.

Black’s casual defense of colonialism fails to even hint at the humanitarian costs of colonial projects in Asia and Africa or the long-term destabilizing heritage left by Europeans in their former colonies.

During the British Raj, Indians suffered some of the worst famines ever recorded. In the Great Famine of 1876-78, approximately 10.3 million people died. During the Indian famine of 1899-1900, between 1.25 and 10 million died. Professors Mike Davis and Amartya Sen explain those catastrophies as stemming from British colonial policies.

The National Review took a principled stand in denying outright racists, such as John Derbyshire, access to their magazine. They should show a similar sensitivity toward columnists who celebrate European colonialism while overlooking, and in some cases denying, millions of deaths in Africa and Asia.

h/t: Eli Clifton at Think Progress Security

National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan is trying to aid the unprecedented obstruction tactics Senate Republicans are using to block President Obama’s nominees.

On June 20, 2012, American Bar Association president William T. Robinson III sent a letter to Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging that the Senate hold confirmation votes on three judicial nominees who had strong bipartisan support but were being blocked despite the merits of their nominations.  Whelan, a blogger with significant influence in the media and Capitol Hill, responded to the letter by saying: “A Senate staffer in the know tells me that the ABA never sent a similar letter on behalf of George W. Bush’s nominees.”

But it would have been impossible for the ABA to send a “similar letter” on behalf of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, because Bush’s judicial nominees were not subject to the type of obstruction experienced by the Obama nominees in question.

As the ABA noted in its letter, Obama nominees William Kayatta, Jr., Robert Bacharach, and Richard Taranto “are consensus nominees who have received overwhelming approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.” In addition, Kayatta and Bacharach have “the staunch support of” the Republican senators from their home states. And Taranto, who is nominated to a court with nationwide jurisdiction, has the “endorsement of noted conservative legal scholars.”

Nevertheless, Senate Republicans have announced that they are blocking all three of these nominees along with every single one of Obama’s judicial nominees until after the presidential election, regardless of whether they would be good judges.

Following those confirmations, there were no Bush appellate court nominees left that did not have significant Democratic opposition or other problems preventing their confirmations. Of the 12 appellate court nominees pending on July 1, 2004, one, Claude Allen, withdrew after being caught shoplifting; six, Terrence Boyle, Richard Griffin, Susan Neilson, Henry Saad, David McKeague, and Carolyn Kuhl did not have the support of their home state Democratic senators; four, Priscilla Owen, Brett Kavanaugh, William Myers, and Janice Rogers Brown, had strong opposition from Senate Democrats; and one, Thomas Griffith was nominated in May 2004 and did not have a hearing until after the election.

Unlike Republicans’ treatment of Obama nominees, Democrats allowed all non-controversial Bush nominees to have a vote in 2004. Therefore, contrary to Whelan’s criticism, it would not have been possible for the ABA to have sent a similar letter on behalf of Bush’s judicial nominees. 

h/t: MMFA

Back in April, National Review finally parted ways with longtime contributor John Derbyshire after Derbyshire penned an especially racist piece advising non-black American parents on how to talk to their kids about black people. Explaining his decision to sever ties, editor Rich Lowry called Derbyshire’s piece “nasty and indefensible,” and wrote that Derbyshire:

“is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation.”

While National Review’s decision to can Derbyshire was commendable (if long overdue), ThinkProgress noted at the time that it continued to feature the writings of prominent Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes, and called on the magazine to sever ties with these figures as well.

Unfortunately, not only has National Review continued to publish these Islamophobic authors, it has now taken on as a contributor one of the Islamophobia network’s worst offenders, David Yerushalmi.

As Mother Jones noted, the Anti-Defimation League said Yerushalmi has “record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.”

In short, he has espoused white nationalist views very similar to John Derbyshire’s, with the added bonus of anti-Muslim “creeping sharia” nonsense. Were the editors of National Review simply unaware if these statements? Or don’t they consider this stuff “nasty and indefensible”?

h/t: Matt Duss at Think Progress Security

The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg is claiming that 18-year-olds should be denied the right to vote because they are “so frickin’ stupid about so many things.” In a video first posted by the Daily Caller, Goldberg laments the culture’s obsession with youth and argues that conservatives should “beat out” young people’s belief that “socialism is better than capitalism.”

The magazine fired popular conservative columnist John Derbyshire in April after he topped off a long history of racism and sexism by advising children to avoid “concentrations of black.” It later ended its relationship with Robert Weissberg, who had ties to the white nationalist group American Renaissance.

H/T: Igor Volsky at Think Progress

Last month, the conservative National Review fired its longtime contributor John Derbyshire after Derbyshire published a column in another publication instructing parents on how to train their children to be racists. Although the National Review did the right thing in eventually firing Derbyshire, it published the author for years despite a long history of racist and sexist views. Derbyshire argued in 2009 that women should not vote, and he proclaimed as far back as 2003 that he is a proud “racist.”

As a reminder, this man who now openly praises a racial caste system wrote for one of the nation’s top conservative publications for nearly 12 years.

h/t: Ian Millhiser at Think Progress

This has been a bad week for white nationalists at National Review – John Derbyshire was fired over the weekend and Robert Weissberg was fired on Wednesday. Both men were also contributors at VDARE, the white nationalist website run by Peter Brimelow, who moonlights at Dow Jones’ MarketWatch when he isn’t calling for end to immigration or promoting racial theories about genetic inferiority. 

Brimelow is already rallying to the defense of Derbyshire and Weissberg, but with any luck he’ll be able to land them jobs at MarketWatch like he did another of his white nationalist collaborators – Edwin Rubenstein. Rubenstein, an economic consultant, is a frequent contributor to MarketWatch and VDARE. He also provides research and analysis for the National Policy Institute, which was founded in 2005 to “elevate the consciousness of whites, ensure our biological and cultural continuity, and protect our civil rights.” 

MarketWatch, part of News Corporation’s Dow Jones division, has thus far refused to comment on why they employ a disgraced white nationalist leader who was fired back in 1998 from the right-wingNational Review over his racist views and writing. Now it turns out that they employ not one – but two – prominent white nationalists. They have some explaining to do.

 

I’ve collected some of Rubenstein’s greatest hits on VDARE. Since the entire site has been temporarily given over to a fundraising appeal by Brimelow, I’ll instead link to Google cache versions of the articles:

• Diversity Is Strength. It’s Also Car Theft.
• Immigration Moratorium Could Save Historic American Majority
• Whites Lose Ground to Blacks, Hispanics—Americans Lose Ground To Everyone
• Legal Immigration—The Bigger Problem
  • “Everyone is against illegal immigration (they say). Problem: legal immigration is actually the bigger problem.”
• Bad News About Those South Asian Model Immigrants
  • “Most of this cohort end up with dead end jobs—running cheap motels, small neighborhood stores, marginal gas stations, or taxi-driving.”
• Affirmative Action, Immigration, Curing America Of White Doctors
  • “At the end of the day, not just affirmative action but also immigration policy is on the way to curing America of white doctors.”
• Hispanic Immigrants are Dangerous To Workplace Safety
  • “Over the years, billions have been spent teaching English to Hispanic immigrants. Yet, as we point out in an earlier article, the share of Hispanic immigrants that is “linguistically isolated,” i.e., speak English poorly or not at all, is increasing. Even simple English language instructions are incomprehensible to the “linguistically isolated.”
• Children, Grandchildren Of Mexican Immigrants Fail To Close The Education Gap
• U.S PhDs Have It Tough Enough Without Importing Immigrants
  • “Move over computer programmers. Medical doctors are also alleged to be in ‘short supply’ these days. Meaning that we must import them from abroad—right? Wrong.”
• Immigrant Doctors Aren’t Necessary Either
• Hispanic Family Values?
• The Next Big Headline: Most Births Minority in 2011.
• Cuban Immigration and the Myth of Miami
  • “Even immigration skeptics rarely challenge the role of Cuban immigrants in reviving Miami’s economic fortunes.”
• Why More Immigrant Science, Technology, Engineering, Math Graduates When So Many American STEM Graduates Are Unemployed?

h/t: Josh Glasstetter at RWW 

See Also:  Peter Brimelow still works at MarketWatch (Justin’s Political Corner)

On Tuesday I wrote about John Derbyshire’s firing from National Review over a racist screed he authored for another publication. I also noted that prominent white nationalist Peter Brimelow, of VDARE.com and Alternative Right, was rallying support for Derbyshire. Brimelow has posted an update on VDARE saying that he’s spoken with Derbyshire, who “has agreed to start a weekly column for us as soon as his health allows—maybe as soon as next week! Help us pay him as much as possible!” 

Brimelow himself served as senior editor at National Review from 1993 until he was purged in 1998 for his white nationalist views. He then founded VDARE as safe-space of a different sort – one where racists, bigots, and hereditarians could meet and share their views. It’s no surprise then that Derbyshire, who was also purged for white nationalist views, would land at VDARE.

Following the uproar over John Derbyshire’s racist rant that led to his firing last week, National Review ended its relationship with another racist writer today. Robert Weissberg, who was a contributing writer to the magazine for years, was fired for his ties to the white nationalist group American Renaissance.

“Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism,” National Review editor Rich Lowry said in a post today. Though National Review may not have known, Weissberg’s involvement with the group is clearly stated on his Wikipedia page. And the fact that National Review’s vetting process is so weak that they routinely published two openly racist authors for years raises serious questions about who else they may be publishing and what ideas those writers may share.

Weissberg’s attendance at the conference was not a one-off occurrence. He’s talked before about “the stupid black” (WARNING: link contains offensive language) in relationship with the Jewish community, and talked about the “shortage” of white males on college campuses.

h/t: Annie-Rose Strasser at Think Progress Justice 

The National Review’s John Derbyshire isn’t just an avowed racist and a homophobe. He’s also a misogynist. In 2009, he authored a book that contained a chapter titled “The Case Against Women’s Suffrage.” In it, he argued the country would be better off if women didn’t have the right to vote. He discussed his views in a Sept. 2009 interview with Alan Colmes:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.

COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

H/T: Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress