Is MM an FDR Democrat?
Vox Day’s column this week laments the shift of the conservative movement to (and its subsequent dry-humping of) The Left, and he finally does what none of us have had the courage to do: Peg down Michelle’s politics with a single label based on a single controversial stance on a nonexistent issue.
[I]t is debatable as to which group is in worse shape, the ‘’conservative'’ politicians or the ‘’conservative'’ commentariat. While the leftward drift of the administration and the Congress have not escaped notice despite the best efforts of its cheerleaders to play it down…
Indeed, what with Michelle Malkin pushing FDR’s internment program, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and numerous others pushing Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, Larry Kudlow pushing Richard Nixon’s monetary policies and the editors of National Review harboring a Harry Truman-style crush on the United Nations, one has to wonder if a liberal media is redundant these days.
There you have it. Michelle is a New Deal Democrat because she wants to lock up the undesirables. If this seems a bit farfetched to you (as it does to me), take solace in the fact that you are not a genius like VD. We’ll never get to hang at those hot MENSA orgies. American politics is, like, totally hard to understand.
****
For more on being a Pro-Internment Leftist, read Neiwert’s latest!
****
Vox responds. If I had anticipated receiving the attention of someone of Vox’s stature, I would have put some substance, or even logic, into this laughable turd of a post. (Part of the mission here is to document some of the more profound critiques of Michelle’s work.)
I would proffer that calling for a widespread internment regime is not a leftward or rightward position — just a radical one. Malkin’s thesis, that ethnic Japanese were interned based on concerns of national security and their own safety, was thoroughly debunked years ago, not to mention that the topic is absent from any serious domestic policy discussions. Michelle’s too busy going on TV complaining about “unhinged moonbats”, anyway.
Well he’s not the only one distorting the truth: look at the lastest Malkin distortion/exaggeration–the so-called trial of Oriana Fallaci. First of all while it is a LAWSUIT and not a Fallaci was not charged with defaming Islam as Malkin and her original sources pretend. Fallaci will face no jail time or anything other than paying a nut job IF she loses which she no doubt will not since the nut job who is suing her does not have a case.
Comment by skippy — June 12, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
That’s pretty funny, because in this episode of VENT, Michelle claims that she will face two years in prison. I bet she got it from this WSJ editorial. I don’t see any other sources that claim this. Anybody else got anything?
Comment by Ryan — June 12, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
OK. Couldn’t help myself. From the New Yorker profile that Malkin herself linked to:
“A Mussolini-era criminal code holds that “whoever offends the state’s religion, by defaming those who profess it, will be punished with up to two years of imprisonment.” Though the code was written to protect the Catholic Church, it has been successively amended in the past ten years, so that it encompasses any “religion acknowledged by the state.” The complaint against Fallaci marks the first time that the code has been invoked on behalf of any religion but Catholicism. (In January, Fallaci’s supporters in the Italian Senate pushed through an amendment to the code, reducing the maximum penalty to five thousand euros.)”
Long, but an excellent read. Especially the part about the Khomeini interview.
Comment by Ryan — June 12, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
So what Malkin and her friends need to do is lobby the right people to get such a misguided law off the books rather than claiming that a move by one religious nutcake is some sort of giant Islamicist conspiracy.
Comment by skippy — June 12, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Actually I thought a little more about this: Malkin and her ilk do not want such a law removed from the books since it allows a country to persecute someone who speaks out against a religion. What they want is to have the unfair application of the law so that it can be cherry-picked to apply to only the religions they think appropriate. This lack of tolerance of other religions is exactly why we have the no-establishment clause in the US Constitution: it is to prevent some nutjobs from proclaiming their magic spaghetti monster is better than some other nut-job’s magic spaghetti monster.
Comment by skippy — June 12, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
I’m too itchy on the trigger finger today, I think. In any case, the idea that a law is going to be applied unfairly follows right along with Malkins’s tolerance of incarceration of the Japanese and no incarceration of people of German descent or pretty much any thing else she takes a stand on. I fear her scary, unfair world where someone gets to pick and choose who a law applies to and to whom it does not.
Comment by skippy — June 12, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I’m going to put up a quick post on this. Just a copy-paste-minor-edit job with the comments I’ve put here. Feel free to do the same with yours when I get it up.
Comment by Ryan — June 12, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Ok. I have a feeling that the European Court would be very interested in sanctioning Italy for this law. They’ve done similar things in the past to other countries and their old laws. A teensy little county like Sark is a good example: they ruled that its feudal system violated the UN Human Rights policies which forced Great Britain (whose Privy Council oversees Sark) to force the government of Sark to conceded to democratic principals. No doubt the expansion of this law was the way to appease the religious folks who feel that it is necessary to persecute people who speak out against them (in this case the Catholic establishment in Italy) versus doing the right thing and de-establishing religion in Italy all together.
Comment by skippy — June 12, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
-She’s down with the welfare-warfare state as was FDR
-She’s prointernment
-She’s never met an expansion of government that she was profoundly disturbed by
I’d say that that makes her a FDR Democrat. Don’t be confused by the label. Your average Democrat today has very little in common with FDR.
Comment by MikeT — June 14, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
No one can succeed without any hard work. Karl Max was successful, because he spent more than 30 years writing the book “Communist Manifesto”; Tomas Edison succeeded, because he had experimented thousands of times to find the best material for lights. Every success calls for hard work. If you want to suc-ceed, work hard first.zhongchengmaoyi110post
Comment by Moncler Jackets — October 22, 2011 @ 3:36 am
This might be little offtopic, but i am hosting my site on hostgator and they will suspend my hosting in 4days, so i would like to ask you which hosting do you use recommend?zhongchengmaoyi110post
Comment by nfl jerseys for cheap — October 22, 2011 @ 3:38 am
Please remember that vintage watches have survived for many decades by being treated Romance God created the brand since 1988, the company, registered in 102 countries around the world omega seamaster ladies watches,jewelry brand,merchandise exports to 70 countries, is a specialized manufacturer of watches and jewelry. Romance of God in 1998 to become a global brand,hire famous Swiss designer Wolfgang Jonsson program development of brand identity company logos,uniform color. Romance God omega seamaster quartz watches Korea Co., Ltd. has become the leading companies in the industry, the reputation is well known South Korean brand abroad. God watches Co.Ltd. has always been committed to technological innovation and excellence in quality romantic and fashion capture,fashion jewelry has become a world dedicated to business goals and tireless efforts.
Comment by cheap tiffany — May 18, 2012 @ 2:27 am
Please remember that vintage watches have survived for many decades by being treated Romance God created the brand since 1988, the company, registered in 102 countries around the world omega seamaster ladies watches,jewelry brand,merchandise exports to 70 countries, is a specialized manufacturer of watches and jewelry. Romance of God in 1998 to become a global brand,hire famous Swiss designer Wolfgang Jonsson program development of brand identity company logos,uniform color. Romance God omega seamaster quartz watches Korea Co., Ltd. has become the leading companies in the industry, the reputation is well known South Korean brand abroad. God watches Co.Ltd. has always been committed to technological innovation and excellence in quality romantic and fashion capture,fashion jewelry has become a world dedicated to business goals and tireless efforts.
Comment by tiffany rings — May 25, 2012 @ 1:55 am