May Allah Be With The New York Times Always

As a follow-up to this story, the New York Times is now admitting that it made a mistake, and that what Jermaine Jackson actually wished his late brother Michael Jackson was, "May Allah be with you always":

Correction: June 27, 2009
An article on Friday about the death of Michael Jackson misstated the number of songs from his album “Off the Wall” that became No. 1 singles. There were two, not four. The article also misstated part of a comment that Mr. Jackson’s brother Jermaine offered for Mr. Jackson after speaking with reporters. He said, “May Allah be with you always,” not “May our love be with you always.”

So who do you trust: the Neocon Latina or the NY Times?

New York Times Covers Up Islam Reference in Jermaine Jackson Farewell to Michael Jackson

As media outlets have reported, Jermaine Jackson had the following farewell message to his late brother, Michael Jackson: "May Allah be with you always." Watch for yourself here.

But strangely, the NY Times omits the "Allah" reference altogether and instead reports that Jermaine said, "May our love be with you always." Ah, the New York Times -- what would we do without The Paper of Record?

And, I'm not holding my breath, but let's see if any of the tributes for this child-molesting, drug-abusing psychopath mention that he was also a raving anti-Semite, who had this to say about Jews in 2003: "They suck... they're like leeches... It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose." Not to mention Jackson's 1995 song They Don't Care About Us, which contained the following anti-Semitic slurs: "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me."

No wonder Michael Jackson converted to Islam in his later years and also became affiliated with the Nation of Islam.

He was a great musician, but this creep will not be missed.


UPDATE: See here. The New York Times admits its error.

Who Is Worse: Sotomayor or Imus?

Remember when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"? A crass comment, to be sure. But Imus was a "shock jock." Making crass remarks was his job. And it wasn't a comment Imus had prepared in advance -- it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor. The very same kind of "shock" humor Imus had practiced for decades.

But uttering those infamous words proved to be the downfall of Don Imus. The outrage was universal. Although he was almost immediately suspended from his job, that wasn't enough. They wanted his head. Nothing short of an outright firing would satisfy the morally-outraged, "anti-racist" crowd. Obama himself called for Imus to be fired. Obama explained:

He didn't just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment.

And so Imus was fired. His career was taken from him, he was publicly humiliated, and now he's got cancer, which he claims was caused by the stress of his public ordeal.

By comparison, Judge Sotomayor seems to be getting a pass for her racist comment that Hispanic female judges are inherently "better" than white male judges. In Sotomayor's words, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

There is simply no excusing that remark. And there was nothing off-the-cuff about it. Sotomayor delivered that line during a prepared speech at University of California, Berkeley. So she can't claim it was a slip of the tongue. What's more, as the New York Times has shown, Sotomayor's remark was part of larger pattern of remarks, which demonstrate not only that she entertains anti-white, anti-male, pro-Hispanic bigotry, but also that Sotomayor believes that it is actually desirable for her biases to affect the way she decides cases.

Condemnation from Obama? Are you kidding -- he nominated her for the Supreme Court.

And so I ask you, dear reader, who is worse: Sotomayor or Imus? Sotomayor appears to be a bigot, and appears to believe it is desirable for her bigotry to influence the way she decides cases. Impartiality is the most important quality for a judge. Not only is Sotomayor not impartial, but her impartiality stems from racism and sexism. Yet, she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

But Don "nappy-headed hos" Imus? Off with his head!

Sotomayor: A Civil Rights Set-Back For Latinas (Neocon or Otherwise)

I do not know Judge Sotomayor. I've never met her in person, and I don't recall any legal opinions she's authored. By all accounts, she is a competent, albeit not particularly distinguished, jurist. In saner days, being undistinguished would in itself disqualify a candidate from consideration for the Supreme Court. Those days are long gone.

Yet it is not Sotomayor's unremarkable legal talent that makes her a poor choice, but rather her "race-conscious" and "gender-conscious" approach to the law. Sotomayor's predilection to view legal disputes through the prisms of race and gender is illustrated by three quotes published in today's New York Times.

Quote #1:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

This quote is objectionable, but not overwhelmingly so. One the one hand, it is true enough that all of us -- to a certain degree -- are influenced by our backgrounds. On the other hand, by asserting that her race and gender "will make a difference" in how she decides cases, Sotomayor seems to be suggesting that she is at least to an extent captive to her race and gender. In a sense, then, Sotomayor seems to be validating the bigots who would claim that women and racial minorities cannot do the same job as a white man. So when the next promising Hispanic female judge comes along, it may simply be understood that she too cannot be trusted to decide cases on their merits, but will instead inevitably be influenced by her race and gender. That is unfortunate.


Quote #2:

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality "is possible in all, or even, in most, cases." She added, "And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Here, Sotomayor crosses the line. Quote #1 is forgivable in that Sotomayor seemed to be suggesting that some degree of bias is inevitable, but there was no indication that Sotomayor meant that judges should aspire to be biased. In Quote #2, however, Sotomayor asserts not only that bias is inevitable, but that bias is actually a desirable trait in judges. Indeed, she claims that minority judges do a "disservice" to the law and society by attempting to be non-biased. That is astounding.

Quote #3:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Now this is simply David Duke in reverse. Here, Sotomayor seems to be asserting that being Latina ipso facto makes her "reach a better conclusion" than white male judges. That is insane. Can you imagine if Roberts had said that being a white male makes him a better judge than a Hispanic judge? That Sotomayor would even utter such a comment is profoundly disturbing; that she is almost certain to be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court is a sad commentary on the current state of our society.

NY Times Calls AIG Scandal "a distraction, a diversion — an outright red herring"

The latest pro-Obama propaganda from the NY Times is almost too ridiculous to be believed. Referring to the AIG bonus scandal, the Times asserts:

Mr. Obama is hardly the first American president to grapple with a distraction, a diversion — an outright red herring, some might call it — that grew bigger than itself. Ronald Reagan had the Air Force’s $7,622 coffeepot and the Navy’s $435 claw hammer, as well as an ill-fated effort to save money by classifying ketchup as a school lunch vegetable. Bill Clinton had midnight basketball and a high-priced haircut from a Beverly Hills stylist aboard Air Force One.

So there you have it. Obama signed legislation that specifically authorized payments of the bonuses in question, but later feigned outrage when it turned out that many of us ordinary folks -- ya know, the "bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion" -- were none too pleased about it. But for the NY Times, this whole scandal is tantamount to an overpriced coffeepot, a fancy haircut or an assertion that ketchup qualifies as a vegetable.

Of course, I actually agree with the Times that the bonus scandal is a "distraction" insofar as it is merely the tip of the iceberg of the money that's being wasted by this administration. But that's not how the Times meant it.

Arguably the Most Insane Left-Wing Rant in History

While searching for updates on Tristan Anderson, the American leftist who was recently injured during an anti-Israel protest in the West Bank, I came upon this gem posted on the San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia website:

On Friday, March 13th, 2009, my friend and tree sit colleague, Tristan Anderson was critically wounded by the Israeli Army with a tear gas canister. He is in an induced coma and as time goes by, the chances that he will come out of it at all decreases.

What this has to do with U. C. Berkeley is this: Tristan was involved with the Oak Grove tree sit which lasted for 648 embarrassing days to the university. He has also written a number of articles that put the university to shame.

Furthermore, it is no secret that U. C. Berkeley has strong ties to the U. S. government, which is an ally of Israel and it's inhumane military.

Lastly, the tear gas canister which hit Tristan was aimed directly at his head with pinpoint accuracy, instead of on the ground where all it would do would be to release the tear gas. Tristan's injury was no accident.

U. C. Berkeley has the resources, the connections, and the motive for attempting to kill my friend Tristan. I can't help be see connections here.

Wow. Just wow.

Obama Approval Ratings Sinking Like a Stone

The latest Rasmussen poll shows that Obama's approval ratings have hit a new all-time low. He's down to 56% approve; 43% disapprove.

So much for "hope and change."