And so, when overnight, Mr. Hinderaker offered his comically unflinching diatribe — largely about the supposed prejudices he finds in the main stream media (MSM), especially as it relates to shootings/mass attacks — I remembered the earlier post of his — and how sactimonious and ironic his most-recent remarks were.

It is illuminating that Mr. Hinderaker derides the MSM for leaping to conclusions about any given shooter’s political affiliations — and views.

I concur. Responsible people should not do that. As of tomorrow morning, it will have been 28 days — or four full weeks — since Mr. Hinderaker mis-identified the Bulgaria bus bomber (whose post mortem photos showed without a doubt that he had crystal blue eyes — and thus it was impossible that he was the man Mr. Hinderaker called a “liberals’ hero” in his headline).

Cue the crickets — on his apology. For a month, now, nearly.

Mr. Hinderaker wasn’t even right about the ACTUAL perp’s faction — likely connected to Hezbollah — in Iran, not Al Queda (in Iraq and Afganistan). Will Mr. Hinderaker apologize?

I will be shocked if he does — because it won’t comport with his political prejudices — to have to admit his error. Just as he faults the MSM for its supposed political prejudices.

This morning Mr. Hinderaker wrote about Mr. Romney’s largely laughable attempt to court Hispanic voters. But to hear Mr. Hinderaker tell it, Mr. Romney is their guy. I’d wish him luck with that thought. [Especially when one hears how horribly Mr. Romney butchers the otherwise lyrical romance language (in his closing “Soy Mitt Romney. . .” section) — if offered by anyone who took more than a moment to actually try to handle — with genuine sensitivity — the pronunciation, accents and structure of the language. And yes — this is an echo of the post that originally contained the graphic, at right — as Mr. Hinderaker continues to show his colors.]

But I digress; the reason I decided to post this was not for that patently-silly Hinderaker position. No, it was for a “throwaway” line Mr. Hinderaker offered, in connection with African American voters, while on his journey to make the Hispanic point, such as it is. It is — in my estimation — one of those unintended “tells” — it says more about Mr. Hinderaker, certainly — and his prejudices — than he intends. I’ve bolded it, in context, below:

. . .Mitt Romney has opened up a huge lead over Barack Obama among white voters. So far, that hasn’t happened with Hispanic voters, but it should. Like African-Americans, they have borne the brunt of the disastrous Obama economy. (There are very few Hispanic lobbyists, “green energy” moguls, etc.) Unlike African-Americans, they have no particular reason to be loyal to Barack Obama. . . .

Odd. I wonder whether Mr. Hinderaker would be fully-comfortable explainly — with precision — why he believes African Americans, as a group, have reason to “be loyal” to Mr. Obama. Does he believe that Mr. Obama puts African American interests ahead of American interests? I am curious.

Mr. Hinderaker often (erroneously) derides Mr. Obama as the “Welfare President” — does he wrongly think most Welfare recipients are people of color (i.e., African Americans and people from Central and South America)? I hope not; but I worry that he does think so.

Finally, if Mr. Obama’s “good youngster deferral” program is no reason for Hispanic voters to “be loyal” to Mr. Obama, then I am truly confused. It is obvious that Mr. Hinderaker is aware of that program — and has denounced it.  If — in his mind — skin color creates loyalty, why wouldn’t an affirmative policy benefit for the primarily Hispanic youth here in America (i.e., young people  without formal papers) be an even more powerful “tangible” loyalty creator?

Note that recent estimates put the number of such youth at around 1.7 million people. Wow. Mr. Hinderaker, your bias is showing. And it is a skin-color driven bias. I suspect a nationality/national origin bias is at work here, as well, but the evidence for that isn’t as strong — yet.

Mr. Obama simply extended his sympathy to the family, and remarked that if he had a son, his son would look like Trayvon Martin. That is called empathy — not politicizing, Mr. Hinderaker. Goodness, you are a pedantic little man.

In any event, here is Mr. Hinderaker’s PowerLineBlog.com statement — in context:

 

. . .So any time something happens that allows liberals to pretend that the 1962 template is operative once again, they rush in. . . politicizing the shooting of Mr. Martin; and Barack Obama, too . . .

This incident, whatever you think of it, has nothing to do with the Civil Rights template. The neighborhood where the incident happened is multiracial, only about 50% white. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, is a Hispanic who has African-American relatives and may himself be partly black. . . . Whatever he did, he did on his own, and not as part of some sort of movement or political faction. . . .

This case has nothing to do with race. Racialists cite Zimmerman’s muttering of the phrase “f****** coons” while on the phone with 911 as evidence of racism. Others have interpreted that phrase differently, but to me, the one time I listened to it, it sounded like “f****** coons.” But so what? It is not illegal to say “f****** coons.” Zimmerman or anyone else can go around muttering “f****** coons” to his heart’s content. . . .

 

I gather that, in Mr. Hinderaker’s view — for it to be “about race” — it must be demonstrated that Zimmerman was a member of an organized hate group. I guess Mr. Hinderaker thinks that racists can’t act alone — or exhibit elements of self-loathing. Not so.

I’d note that since Mr. Hinderaker wrote the above, Mr. Zimmerman has been charged with Second Degree Murder, and a judge has found that lied about his indigency (and thus quite properly revoked and vastly increased his bond), and been newly accused of allegedly sexually molesting a young girl over the course of a decade — a family acquaintance, no less,

In addition, on the goofy Fox network — Hannity’s show — Mr. Zimmerman told the nation that young Trayvon Martin’s killing was all part of “God’s plan” (presumably — at least in Mr. Zimmeramn’s mind — for Mr. Zimmerman, not Trayvon Martin), thus (per CNN):

 

. . .During the Fox interview, Zimmerman expressed his regrets to Martin’s parents, but said, “I’m not a racist, and I’m not a murderer.” He said he can’t now second-guess what happened, adding, “I feel it was all God’s plan.”

That drew an angry response from Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. God did not have a plan for Trayvon to die and for George Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon for no reason,” she told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on Thursday.

Trayvon Martin’s father, Tracy Martin, said, “I would just like to know, why did he even get out of the car? Why was my son so suspicious? What made him rush to judge my son and think that he was a criminal?”. . . .

 

I wonder whether Mr. Hinderaker still feels the same way: has this case nothing to do with race? And in what way, precisely, does Mr. Obama’s expressing empathy “politicize” the case, Mr. Hinderaker? He did not instruct Attorney General Holder to bring federal hate crime charges, did he? No, he is letting local law enforcement sort it out (though the very comments Mr. Hinderaker repeats above, make a prima facie case of hate crime under the applicable federal statutes). Mr. Obama has shown admirable restraint here.

Seriously, Mr. Hinderaker, did Mr. Obama “politicize” the case by offering his empathy to the victim’s family? Or is Mr. Hinderaker clutching at straws — to try to demonize our 44th President? You decide. For me, it is yet another in a seemingly-endless parade of Whopper-line hysteria-induced rants.

Let me place this at the top: to learn the truth, do go visit unfaircampaign.org. It is entirely funded by charitable and religious groups — almost all local to Minnesota. Of course, had Mr. Hinderaker clicked on the name on the billboard, he could have saved himself a blood-pressure elevating anti-federal rant. But I suspect he actually wanted to blame Mr. Obama — and wasn’t about to let any of the actual facts get in his way.

And so, as a graduate of both Dartmouth and Harvard (at a time before such things were polite to discuss), it doesn’t surprise me that Mr. Hinderaker cannot see his white privilege. It does surprise me that he isn’t aware that far more white Americans are on welfare (and depend on it, too!) than Americans of color, however.

It surprises me as well that he blames a local charitable billboard he finds offensive, on our 44th President. He, the would-be king of states’ rights, and local police powers — apparently assumes that some unseen federal govermental force is behind a local charity’s attempt to raise northern Minneapolis residents’ awareness of the problem of racism — even the kind Mr. Hinderaker would pretend he does not exhibit, and benefit from, to this day.

Here’s his quote, in context:

. . . .Insulting white people, however, is A-OK in the Age of Obama. Thus, in Duluth, Minnesota, a group of non-profit institutions that includes four colleges has gotten together to put up racist billboards that insult the city’s white population. Which, no offense to our neighbors to the north, is almost the entire demographic. . . .

I am guessing that these billboards were paid for overwhelmingly, if you trace it back, with federal money. . . .

I suppose I should cut him some slack, afterall, we learned this week that he believes he — and he alone — is responsible for ALL his success. No one ever taught him anything; no one ever gave him a break; no one ever gave him a hand up (or a hand out). . . No sir, Mr. Hinderaker is an island. He never received any benefit — from any kindly old white lady, or gentleman, in his younger days — that his toothy smile, nice haircut and white skin afforded him. Right.

He just was — and is — completely clueless on the topic. No one (not even the purchaser(s) of those billboards in Minneapolis that so deeply offend him) wants him to feel guilty — they just want him to be aware.

But all he has, when he sees the signs — is hatred for our President. Charming.

This may be at the margin of triviality — but I feel compelled to point out the sneering entitlement Mr. Hinderaker unconsciously embeds in his commentary. He recently whined about being “forced” to listen to CNN in an airport. What. A. Pity. Poor. Little. Rich. Boy.

. . .The network’s defenders say the problem is that it is an objective, “just the facts” network, in an era when most viewers prefer the partisan approaches they can get from Fox and MSNBC. But no one who actually watches CNN buys that. Scott and I have both written about the horror of being trapped at an airplane gate, and being forced to listen to an infinite loop of CNN’s liberal commentary. . . .

Oh. The. Horror.Of. It. All. The poor dear man neglects to mention that he usually hides out in the American Airlines Admirals’ Lounge, at most airports. And when he doesn’t, he wears iPhone earbuds, and presumably listens to George Will’s podcasts (on his iPhone or his iPod or iPad) — in a mirroring infinite loop. [BTW, we recently obliquely learned that a few of the blog’s authors usually fly first class — apparently to invade the privacy expectations of others in first class — with iPhone photos of their reading habits.]

Sheesh — these far right entitlement divas are so mendacious. [If the wit of the graphic eludes you — do see this Wiki entry. What a wonderful old school Brit show! And, fittingly, the photo here suggests the blog authors are much more the wardens, than the prisoners.] Some latter-day Patrick McGoohan he is — not.

Once again — Mr. Hinderaker intentionally misstates the sense of what Mr. Obama has said — and more importantly, done:

. . . And these actions dovetail with Obama’s belief that those who prosper in America didn’t really build their businesses, but rather succeeded, whether they realize it or not, through government largesse and government sufferance. . . . [Accorind to Mr. Obama,] government help is the sine qua non . . . .

It is actually sort of sad to see a man of Mr. Hinderaker’s obvious analytical abilities demean his intellectual integrity so completely — and all for some illusory partisan gain.