See Part I, here.
This whole incident — the football/muslim prayer kerfuffle — and the editorial comment I reproduced(1) reminded me of two things. The first is illustrative, and the second is important.
The first thing — the illustrative one — this guy’s editorial comment brought to mind was the incident way, way back during the time of all the wild accusations against then-President Bush concerning Hurricane Katrina. Remember the stories of black people in the New Orleans SuperDome after the storm, “reduced to eating the bodies of those who had died?”
Someone on the right had the good sense to suggest that, just maybe, it was really a pretty horrible thing to say about black people that they would turn into cannibalistic savages after just a few days of privation following a hurricane. Other, more level-headed commentators had to come forward quickly to say that, no, blacks don’t eat dead people, and that the story was untrue. The fabricated stories of blacks eating the dead disappeared soon after.
As it turns out, no, blacks didn’t eat the dead, and yes, the story was an out-and-out lie, fabricated to make President Bush look mean, and evil, and uncaring and racist. Bottom line, yes it was a horrific thing to say about black people … by someone who thought he was making a really strong point against Bush, but ended up making a completely different — and contrary — point.
This kind of lie was standard fare for the left during the tenure of George W. Bush.
Remember the fabricated National Guard documents concerning Bush’s tenure in the Guard, that Dan Rather reported as fact, solely because he wanted them to be fact? When Rather, and his producer who had been the “brains” behind the fraud, were deservedly cashiered for their blatantly corrupt act, Rather departed still maintaining the truth of the fraudulent documents, as he does to this day. Wouldn’t it be nice if the media were to spend just one-tenth of that kind of effort on digging up Barack Obama’s undergraduate transcripts from Columbia?
That brings me to the second, and important, thing: The left always does this kind of thing. In the guise of trying to defend their actions or the actions of others, they inadvertently say things that condemn themselves — if, that is, you read between the lines.
This is, by the way, across the board, on all topics. I’m reminded also of this essay, reproduced in our pages, but by a British supporter of their nationalized health care system, the NHS. Summary: the woman, one “LadyTaylor72” went through months and months and months of hellish abuse at the hands of literally every level of the “free” “health care” “service” (quotes because the British NHS is neither free, nor does it have much to do with health care, but with rationing limited and decreasing health care resources, and it’s certainly not a “service,” as ladyt’s piece demonstrated clearly) as her health deteriorated. At the end of the ordeal — impoverished, exhausted and unemployable — she says, “Can you imagine if I had had to pay for my health care?!?”
Bottom line: LadyT survived her ordeal despite the best efforts of the NHS, not because of their efforts.
My piece is here. (Be forewarned it’s a long one, but the piece, and the back-and-forth with the commenters afterward, are illuminating.)
For us on the right, it’s vital that we catch the left when they unintentionally reveal their true thinking. You have to remember that the signature tool in the left’s toolbox is the lie. If, however, you are aware of this then you can see their tales of cannibalistic blacks and spittle-dripping lunatics driven over the edge by a football penalty (see our previous post on this topic here) for what they are: indictments of the left and of their thinking.
(1) This editorial comment:
“For anyone wondering why angry Muslims join ISIL, this whole saga could easily make the list.” — Ahmed Tharwat, Star Tribune, Oct. 1, 2014.