Via Salon today comes one of the most truly bizarre pieces of revisionist history I have ever seen, even within the context of articles appearing at Salon. The basic outline of the piece is as follows:
- Dallas in 1963 was full of crazy right-wingers;
- These people had guns;
- John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963;
- Barack Obama likewise has many right-wingers who oppose him; therefore
- It’s only a matter of time before one of them shoots him.
The baseless appeal to sensationalism and emotionalism is the primary (and usually only) tool in the gun control advocate’s toolbox. To that end, I have to admit that this is well played on Salon’s part; every reasonable person of all political stripes in America is legitimately terrified at the prospect of President Joe Biden. The problem (as always, when dealing with a gun control advocate) is that reason, logic and history demand a completely opposite conclusion. Let us grant for just a moment that Dallas in 1963 was full of various fringe right-leaning groups that were well armed. I don’t know; it might or might not be true. I’m not a Dallas historian and it’s not really relevant to the point of this post. The point is that factually, John F. Kennedy was killed by an avowed communist because of that communist’s belief that Kennedy was too tough on commies. These are not facts that are in reasonable dispute. Even if you are one of the grassy knoll people you have to concede Lee Harvey Oswald’s place as at least one of the shooters which means that, without a doubt, Kennedy was killed by left-wing extremists not right-wing extremists. In an especially delicious bit of irony, while trying to somehow pin Kennedy’s death on the anti-communists, they omit mentioning that seven months before assassinating Kennedy, Oswald attempted to assassinate one of the most prominent anti-communists in Dallas, General Edwin Walker.
What’s that you say, Salon mentioned General Walker? So they did – only, they mentioned him as one of the right wing zealots who posed a threat to Kennedy when he visited:
Over the next three years the simmer burst into a full boil as various luminaries of the John Birch Society such as millionaire oil man H.L. Hunt and the anti-communist fanatic Gen. Edwin Walker, a zealot so far to the right that he even believed Eisenhower was a communist, fanned the flames of anti-Kennedy hatred.
Walker …read more
Barbarians (if the story is true, of course):
A top UN official in Iraq has said the Sunni Islamist group Isis controlling the city of Mosul is seeking to impose female genital mutilation.
All females aged 11 and 46 in the northern city must undergo the procedure, according to an Isis edict, UN official Jacqueline Badcock said.
She said the unprecedented decree was of grave concern.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m pretty much at the point where I want our government to go tell the Kurds that they can simply keep whatever territory they take back from ISIS. As I recall, Mosul is traditional Kurdish territory, and clearly it could use a change in ownership. And that’s even if this particular story turns out to be false: we already know that ISIS is committing war crimes. I see no reason why they should have free rein to commit any more.
Via Hot Air.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: You would think that the Western feminist movement would be the first in line to slam the butt of a rifle into the face of radical Islamist terrorism.
The post UN official: ISIS planning widespread female genital mutilation in Mosul, Iraq. appeared first on RedState.
A common complaint about George W. Bush’s second term is that he was “insulated” and cut off from the outside world, and increasingly so from what he perceived to be a hostile press. This alleged isolation caused many liberal commentators to begin to derisively refer to President Bush as a “Bubble Boy.” It has taken considerably longer for the press to openly criticize Obama for the same tendencies given their largely shared ideological heritage but finally the Press is starting to carp openly about Obama’s refusal to allow them basic access to Presidential events.
The specific issue that has raised the ire of the White House Correspondents’ Association is Obama’s refusal to allow members of the press access to two high dollar Super PAC fundraisers that occurred this week on the west coast.
Tuesday, the reporters and photographers traveling with the president on Air Force One and in his motorcade were left on the gravel path not even within sight of former Costco CEO Jim Sinegal’s house in the Seattle suburbs where Obama sat for a Senate Majority PAC fundraiser with a $25,000 entrance fee.
Wednesday morning, when he met with big donors for the House Majority PAC at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown San Francisco, they weren’t even told what room or floor he was on.
As noted in the article, there are at least two major issues that make Obama’s participation in these events a matter of public interest and therefore open to at least some of the press. The first is that in 2010, Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of blasting a sitting Supreme Court for their Citizens United decision that paved the way effectively for the very existence of these Super PACs. In 2012, Obama campaigned heavily against them and sought to create active distance between the Super PACs that were supporting him and himself. The fact that he is now personally appearing at fundraisers for these PACs with the wealthiest 1% of the 1% is a newsworthy item.
Second, and more importantly, Obama himself is on record opposing these Super PACs specifically for the allegedly corrupting nature of unfettered donations from large moneyed donors. Since he has apparently had a change of heart on this issue, it is a matter of public interest for the people to know what, specifically, the sitting President is doing or saying in order to encourage donations. Especially given …read more