Malkin responds to swastika Obama photo uproar
February 18, 2009 1:56 pm ET by Karl Frisch
Michelle Malkin is up with her defense for a photo we posted yesterday (originally posted by ProgressNowColorado) showing the right-wing blogger posing for a photo with a man holding a sign that uses a circled swastika as the "O" in Obama. The photo was taken at a Colorado rally against the President's economic recovery plan. For those of you who missed the photo, here it is again:
Malkin’s defense? Post a bunch of images using the swastika and Nazi imagery to attack former President Bush and other conservatives (including herself.) Like much of her writing, Malkin misses the point. Are there looney-tunes on both sides of the aisle who have used Nazi imagery to attack those with which they disagree? Yes.
Did Malkin post any images of prominent progressives -- say, Markos from DailyKos, radio's Ed Schultz or MSNBC's Rachel Maddow -- posing with someone holding a swastika sign? No.
This is about Malkin's judgement, or lack thereof.
How could anyone, let alone a quasi-public figure such as herself, think it a good idea to pose with a man holding that sign?
Because she doesn't care. This is her base and she knows it.
This was proven in the prez campaign. Remember the lunatics that showed up at McCain/Palin rallies? They were all trumped up from a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity and Malkin.
These have been the leaders of the right-wing & GOP for a long time now. And their base accounted for the small section of red state victories in the natl election in Nov 08.
I know a lot of liberals, myself included, who think comparing anyone to Hitler is stupid. Comparing our leaders, regardless of party affiliation, is stupid, and does nothing to further anyone's argument, about, well, anything at all. Malkin's defense, about "other people have done it against Bush" doesn't defend what she did.
Her defense could have been so much simpler. As in, she could have just said, and I would actually believe her on this, that, "I had a picture taken with a fan, and didn't see his sign until I saw the picture later." I don't believe that this would have been a stretch, as the guy had the sign kind of down low, she was looking at the camera, and probably didn't spend more than a few seconds posing with this chump. But instead, she falls back on the "they do it too."
It's a weak non existent defense really. She can do better than that can't she? Of course not, because this is a woman who, for years, has basically made a living writing books taking small examples of liberal loony birds, and making it look like ALL liberals were like that. Thing is, I don't remember democrats, or liberals at Obama's rallies calling for McCain to be killed, or calling McCain a terrorist, or calling McCain a socialist. I mean, these weren't isolated incidents at all, but happened all over the place. I went to a Palin rally in Asheville, NC just to see what kind of folks showed up, and what did I hear? I heard cries of kill him (referring to Obama), and cries of "SOCIALIST" from the crowd when Obama's name was brought up. And again, it was not just one person, it was many.
Malkin, go back to your computer, and gin up a better excuse. If you can't think of one, just agree with the dude holding the sign. And if you can dig up a picture with someone from the left roots web posing with someone that has a Nazi sign about Bush, post it up. Until then, why don't you disavow what this guy stands for, and talk about how it's stupid to compare ANYONE in this day and age to Hitler, or Nazis? Wouldn't that be more productive? Then again, you are the person who led the charge for banning Rachel Ray from her Dunkin Donuts advertisements because she wore a scarf that sort of looked like a kafiyah. How unhinged can you be? Better yet, don't answer that.
It really disappoints me that pundits on both sides see apology as a sign of weakness.
Your response is a half-truth. That amounts to a lie. She presented the Left's regular misrepresentation of President Bush. What she did not do is what you wanted her to do. Just because you don't get your way, don't accuse the opposition of not having a valid response.
If you want to do something to criticize the Left, if you are willing, try taking a look at C&L's Communist ideals. Like Che is a really nice guy. Right. And so is Castro.
Get your facts straight. You have a reputation for lying.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-thoughts-on-left-wing-violence.html
We
Yes, claiming C&L has "communist ideas" is clearly so objective and that Anchor Baby Malkkkin is the only one espousing "truth" is, again, so objective.
Malkkkin
So typical. Brand her as a racist. For what? Suggesting that a nation should identify itself by maintaining a border? (That's the usual complaint, periodically on C&L.) I saw the same nonsense at a Promise Keepers event, where the sign read "Promise KKKeepers". It really gets old.
Who called her a racist in here? Although, she did seem to have no problems with interring Japanese Americans during WWII, or having issues with Mexicans, mostly, because they're Mexican, or Muslims (even though that's not racist, that's bigotry).
Hmm. It seems that the Hero of Socialism, FDR, also had no problem with it. (This is a matter on which I would disagree with Malkin. Yet reading back into history is a temptation to avoid. Alas, many of us in the caucasian west do not easily understand how other cultures can be so much more cohesive than ours.) Other than that, what you have (that's not racist, that's bigotry) is a distinction without a difference. Unless something else is meant by "KKK" that is not typical of its usage.
You never did answer the question. Who here called Malkin a racist? Or did you make that up in your mind? Nobody in this comment section called her that, or said anything to that effect (not yet at least).
Also, the KKK is a well known hard core right wing Christian organization (their terms, not mine).
FDR DID have a problem with the Japanese, and interred them, and that was one of the darkest moments in America during WWII, because we allowed our fears to get the better of us. Thing is, many decades later, Malkin condones it. That's the difference.
And I responded to that with an alternative to both views.
You never did answer the question. Who here called Malkin a racist? Or did you make that up in your mind? Nobody in this comment section called her that, or said anything to that effect (not yet at least).
I did answer the question.
Other than that, what you have (that's not racist, that's bigotry) is a distinction without a difference. Unless something else is meant by "KKK" that is not typical of its usage.
Also, the KKK is a well known hard core right wing Christian organization (their terms, not mine).
And they are not considered a part of orthodoxy. Same with many others. It is a term with meaning, not a term of convenience. You need to establish that they somehow represent orthodoxy in order to confirm your position. Otherwise you use the term as loosely as do they.
Umm, no you didn't.
I did answer the question.
You didn't answer the question of WHO, in HERE called Malkin a racist. Nobody has.
they are not considered a part of orthodoxy. Same with many others. It is a term with meaning, not a term of convenience. You need to establish that they somehow represent orthodoxy in order to confirm your position. Otherwise you use the term as loosely as do they.
Yes, but they consider themselves a Christian group. Again, I'm not tying them into a larger Christian orthodoxy, I am saying, they self identify with being a Christian group. They represent what they believe are "Christian" values. And, yes, they do have a lot of members, still. They're, of course, not a religion, but we all knew that. I was just pointing them out as a Christian group that has done, and continues to do violent acts.
Sounds like someone was banned from C&L and doesn't like it. Here you go:
It's quite clear you have no idea of the definition of communism.
Their support of Che. Zero criticism. You think they would treat a movie about Ronnie or W the same? Not for a second. Do you think they support violence, even a moderated violence of coercion? Documented. They get no allowances here. Do they think of themselves as socialists? Sure do.
With all this talk about half-truths, I think you need to buff your argument about C&L as a communist blog with more than just a movie review and a sarcastic comment from C&L on the perception of socialism in America.
Oh, come on now.
To be generous, they have plainly declared themselves as Socialists.
On the criticial side they are positive about Che. So what if the movie review was from another site? It expresses their non-critical sentiment toward Che.
The thing is, the US will never be a socialist country, we're just not programmed that way.
You do realize, that the link you provided means, well, nothing. It's a picture of a recent Newsweek cover, with an open thread after it, meaning anyone can make a comment about it. Did you even read the comments? Probably not. It doesn't mean that they endorse communism as you say they do.
As normal, you've got nothing here.
So you want us to read your blog for facts? OK, that seems, well, like someone's opinion again.
Malkin represented what SOME people from the left think of Bush. And that's very few people. What we're seeing is that she's not defending herself, but pointing to someone else and saying, "They do it too, so it must be OK.", and as I've responded here, it's not OK in any case, right, left, or center. You are disregarding everything that I wrote saying that how some on the left portrayed Bush as a Nazi was wrong. I know many other people, who are as liberal as I am, or more liberal than me, who think the same thing.
You are doing the same thing Malkin does, which is, you're putting all liberals into the same basket, and that's not even remotely accurate, same as I can't put all conservatives into the same basket, although the conservative message does seem to be, well, more unified.
See, Blog9021, reading your blog post, you commit your first inaccuracy about a sentence into the post, saying that ACORN is a federally funded leftist organization. ACORN DOES NOT receive federal funding, and never has.
Second inaccuracy. Radical leftists did not run Obama's campaign, and did not get him elected. When Obama wins reliably red states, such as my home state of North Carolina, I wouldn't call the State of NC radical left, or Ohio, or Florida, or... Name the state that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 that Obama won. Obama won due to the overwhelming support of the entire country, and his approval ratings reflect that the country, as a whole, approves of what he's doing. If he only had an approval rating of say, 25%, like Bush, then we could say only hard core leftists were supporting him, but currently, we don't have that.
What here on MMFA is a lie? Point some out, and refute it with facts. You can't do it.
Where has religious freedom in this country ever been challenged? It hasn't, well, except for some Muslims that I know of. You are preaching about how you've been persecuted being a christian, I hardly doubt that is true, since a vast majority of people in this country (over 90%) identify themselves as Christians, or agnostics, which is about the same thing.
What dangerous people on the right? Well, there were folks who killed doctors for performing abortions, but I wouldn't even dare to think that this is the majority of people on your side. It's not. But still, it happened. How about Tim McVeigh? He was pretty Christian, and right winged. And again, I don't propose to think that he represents Christians in this country, but he was, and he was a hardcore republican, and he killed, well, lots of people because he disagreed with some Clinton policies.
What's funny is that you link things on your blog to things on, well, your blog. So a protest in front of a Congressman's house, that "traps" him inside is somehow violent? How so? Did McConnell even try to get out? Or did he just let the protesters do their thing, and he left later? Probably the latter. Thing is, he could have left, but didn't want to until the protesters left, and there was no hint of violence.
Your entire blog is ridiculous, majority persecution complex. It's kind of weird actually.
I don't know any liberal who thinks Che is a nice guy.
Then you didn't read the pro-Che item from C&L that I linked to.
So you want us to read your blog for facts?
I never presented my blog as a news source. It is opinion and theology. Please do not misrepresent me.
Radical leftists did not run Obama's campaign, and did not get him elected.
Hmmm. It is hard to imagine that he did not win the nomination because of Hillary's Iraq vote and the differentiation that created within the anti-war Left.
What here on MMFA is a lie? Point some out, and refute it with facts. You can't do it.
First, I identified the half-truth character of this post. Second, I linked to and described another half-truth matter regarding Dobson. It's there. Don't tell me, and other readers, that it's not.
Where has religious freedom in this country ever been challenged?Lots times it has been suggested. Here is a recent one:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/2/1/1528/69972
How about Tim McVeigh? He was pretty Christian
Now that is a quality misrepresentation of any normal meaning to the term "Christian".
So a protest in front of a Congressman's house, that "traps" him inside is somehow violent?
The fact of the matter is that he was not trapped. My complaint was that Nicole Belle suggested that he was, or should have been "trapped." It was her term. And that is a promotion of violence. It may not be physical harm, but it is a suggestion of something serious. I'll bet if someone kept you in your home by some sort of force or intimidation that you would also use the term "violent" to describe the incident.
Nope, you're right. I don't read that website.
I never presented my blog as a news source. It is opinion and theology. Please do not misrepresent me.
You did actually, because you presented it as something to reference.
Hmmm. It is hard to imagine that he did not win the nomination because of Hillary's Iraq vote and the differentiation that created within the anti-war Left.
Actually, he won the nomination based on how he ran his campaign, and the mere fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around, is that at the time of the campaign, and the election, the VAST majority of Americans were then, and as they are now, against us being in Iraq. If you can call the majority of the country radical leftists, then so be it. But I don't think that you can. And you skipped over the most important part of what I wrote, that being Obama had been elected through popular support throughout the country, radical left is only a very small percentage of those people, such as I would think, less than 10%.
First, I identified the half-truth character of this post. Second, I linked to and described another half-truth matter regarding Dobson. It's there. Don't tell me, and other readers, that it's not.
What half truth? This post was all about opinion, and how Malkin didn't go against the sign, or the stupid person she had her picture taken with. She just pushed it off as people from the left do it, so why can't we?
Lots times it has been suggested. Here is a recent one:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/2/1/1528/69972
That's your definition of religious freedom being challenged? Seriously? That's one opinion from one person, and it suggests that if religion wants to become involved in government, then they need to give up their perks (tax free exemptions and such). I don't see any challenge of religious freedom in there. It's called, the government cannot suppress freedom of religion. What one person writes an opinion about does not subvert anyone's religious beliefs.
Now that is a quality misrepresentation of any normal meaning to the term "Christian".
And like other right wingers, you took my words right out of context. Tim McVeigh WAS a Christian, and he considered himself a good Christian. Notice in my original posts though I said I don't believe he represents even a small amount of Christians in this country, but he did massive harm, and caused many deaths, and he was a republican, and a Christian. You never provided any violent actions by left wingers, and I'm sure that there are some out there.
The fact of the matter is that he was not trapped. My complaint was that Nicole Belle suggested that he was, or should have been "trapped." It was her term. And that is a promotion of violence. It may not be physical harm, but it is a suggestion of something serious. I'll bet if someone kept you in your home by some sort of force or intimidation that you would also use the term "violent" to describe the incident.
It's not a promotion of violence. The protest was completely safe, and non violent. There were people picketing outside of his house. McConnell could have left at any point in time, and not had a problem doing it, but he didn't want to, he said that he didn't want to leave his house until the protesters left, so they didn't leave. He could have left at any point in time, and do you think the Capitol police would have allowed them to stay if they were violent? They weren't, and they were allowed to stay. He didn't want to leave, because he then would have had to have gone through the crowd, and I'm sure they had things to say that he wouldn't, or didn't like. The man was not threatened with violence in any way, shape, or form. Unlike Planned Parenthood workers who have been assaulted by protesters on their way to work, or, killed. Again, small minority of good Christians doing that, but it still happened. You can either provide an equivalent example, or, well, I'm sure you can't.
You did actually, because you presented it as something to reference.
A point of information, not a news source.
Actually, he won the nomination based on how he ran his campaign, and the mere fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around, is that at the time of the campaign, and the election, the VAST majority of Americans were then, and as they are now, against us being in Iraq. If you can call the majority of the country radical leftists, then so be it. But I don't think that you can. And you skipped over the most important part of what I wrote, that being Obama had been elected through popular support throughout the country, radical left is only a very small percentage of those people, such as I would think, less than 10%.
Now you are guilty of reading back into history, confusing the general election with the primaries. Go to the primaries. Look at the points of contention between him and Hillary Clinton. The war vote was the big one. And his personna helped him greatly. We will wait and see how his policies work out.
That's your definition of religious freedom being challenged?
Do you read Americans United/Barry Lynn? It's all about keeping the religous voice out of the public square. Or Public Eye, esp. Fred Clarkson, but certainly others with other organizations? There are a lot of Leftist voices calling for a change in First Amendment practice. Back in 80s a man put up some Christian billboards and was sued (though the suit was thrown out) with the claim that public religious speech was somehow "proto-pubic" and as such came under the venue of being federally controllable, the equivalent of government speech. (I think that was PAW, but am not certain.) To say that there is nothing going on, or just a few miniscule voices, shows a lack of knowledge of your own side's behaviors.
You never provided any violent actions by left wingers, and I'm sure that there are some out there.
Lots. I'm from Wisconsin and remember Armstrong. He got off with a slap on the wrist. He deserved the same as the abortion clinic killers. Never mind the rest of the Left's flag-burning, anti-American violence. (Rick Monday is a hero to me.)
... equivalent example ...
That seems a shallow method of argumentation. If you have more examples of the other side's violence, then that makes your side "right" and the other side "wrong." There is lots of violent racism on the Left. Look at all the material on HuffingtonPost and their opposition to the Jewish state. Do you think for a moment that if some "conservative" opposed a black or Jewish community's existence that it would not be called racism? But many on the Left espouse a hatred for the Jewish state that could, if allowed to come to fruition, would result is particularly Jewish deaths. Remember the anti-Israel Left after 9-11? How about the anti-black attitude after the success or Proposition 8? Both are racism, pure and simple, with the former matters being on the edge of real violence.
You mean, a point of opinion, not information.
Now you are guilty of reading back into history, confusing the general election with the primaries. Go to the primaries. Look at the points of contention between him and Hillary Clinton. The war vote was the big one. And his personna helped him greatly. We will wait and see how his policies work out.
I am? Really? Because, once again, go back to primary season, and see what the majority opinion was of the American public as to how they felt about the Iraq war (which isn't just the "radical left" as you like to keep calling, well, everyone). There was a big difference, and that was Hillary's vote to use force in iraq, but Obama didn't vote on it, he just stated that he opposed it from the start, and again, public opinion favors Obama. Did during the primary, as far as the war goes, and in the general.
Do you read Americans United/Barry Lynn? It's all about keeping the religous voice out of the public square. Or Public Eye, esp. Fred Clarkson, but certainly others with other organizations? There are a lot of Leftist voices calling for a change in First Amendment practice. Back in 80s a man put up some Christian billboards and was sued (though the suit was thrown out) with the claim that public religious speech was somehow "proto-pubic" and as such came under the venue of being federally controllable, the equivalent of government speech. (I think that was PAW, but am not certain.) To say that there is nothing going on, or just a few miniscule voices, shows a lack of knowledge of your own side's behaviors.
See chief, thing is, the Constitution of the United States keeps the voice of religion out of the government, and the public square (where it affects government). You just said yourself, that in the 80s someone put up billboards, and he was sued, and he won, just as he should have. There is no persecution of Christians in this country, but just because you can't have the 10 Commandments in Courthouses from coast to coast doesn't mean you're being persecuted. They have no place in our government. Religious items have no place on government property.
Lots. I'm from Wisconsin and remember Armstrong. He got off with a slap on the wrist. He deserved the same as the abortion clinic killers. Never mind the rest of the Left's flag-burning, anti-American violence. (Rick Monday is a hero to me.)
Armstrong who? You're going to have to give me more than that. Flag burning is not violent, it's a method of protest, and when was the last time you actually saw anyone burning a flag? Guess what? Even though I disagree with flag burning vehemently, to say that it's going on shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Is there some rampant flag burning thing going on in this country that I'm not aware of? No, there isn't. You guys just like to use that as some sort of strawman argument, and it's not illegal, and I would protect that, even though I don't like it. What anti American violence are you talking about? Give me examples... I have asked several times, and you dodge it using someone's last name and explaining that you're from Wisconsin. How about an example without the overt obfuscation? How about examples of recent flag burnings by America hating leftists? Rick Monday, yeah, he made the right play right there, just as I would stop that as well if I saw it happening. I've no place for flag burning, and if done in front of me, would try to stop it. Yeah, that's right, I'm a super liberal and don't like flag burning, but know that it is protected speech in this country. You seem to be confused about who can, and can't be good Americans.
... equivalent example ...
That seems a shallow method of argumentation. If you have more examples of the other side's violence, then that makes your side "right" and the other side "wrong." There is lots of violent racism on the Left. Look at all the material on HuffingtonPost and their opposition to the Jewish state. Do you think for a moment that if some "conservative" opposed a black or Jewish community's existence that it would not be called racism? But many on the Left espouse a hatred for the Jewish state that could, if allowed to come to fruition, would result is particularly Jewish deaths. Remember the anti-Israel Left after 9-11? How about the anti-black attitude after the success or Proposition 8? Both are racism, pure and simple, with the former matters being on the edge of real violence.
No, I don't care if I can find more recent examples of the right's violence, but sprinkled throughout history, the more conservative members of our society have perpetrated the greatest violence. KKK, Aryan Nation, McVeigh, Rudolph, Southern States, and so on. I'm just looking for you to give me an example of what you claim is radical leftist violence in the US in recent times. You link me to an article before about a protest keeping poor Mitch McConnell in his house as evidence of violence, but it was nothing of the sort. And what leftists are you talking about are against Israel? I'm a liberal, I like Israel and Jews. Many Jews are democrats actually. What anti Israel left after 9/11? What the heck are you talking about? I don't remember anything of the sort post 9/11... Again, post some links, show some examples. You've done neither thus far. If the left is against the Jews (which they're not), again, that would be bigotry, Jews being a religion, not a particular race of people. Anti black sentiment after prop 8 was wrong, and misdirected. But there was no violence there either.
You're making this stuff up about the left being against Jews and Israel. Where are you seeing this? Where are you making this up from? Whole cloth no doubt.
Malkin, you're the one who wants to send Muslims to concentration camps, like Hitler wanted to send the Jews there. Didn't you join the Klan too, Malkin?
I'm not Malkin.
I just looked up, from the Straight Dope ''Was the Swastika Used by Native Americans.'' Here's what they said.
You are absolutely right, Scott--and believe me, for most of the Teeming Millions, this isn't something that happens every day. The swastika was employed by various American Indian tribes, notably the Navahos, for whom it was a sort of good luck sign. I recall once seeing a picture of the young Jackie Kennedy (then Bouvier) wearing a costume decorated with swastikas for some kind of Indian pageant. Or maybe she was going to become a professional wrestler; my memory is somewhat vague. At any rate, the swastika was widespread throughout the ancient world, particularly in India, where it remains in common use by Hindus, Jainas, and Buddhists. Originally it probably symbolized the sun circling through the sky, although many other explanations have also been offered. Up until the 20th century its significance was generally benign.
In the 1870s the swastika was greatly popularized by the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, who found many examples of it during his diggings at ancient Troy and Mycenae. Schliemann was fascinated by the swastika and publicized it in his books, referring to it as an Aryan religious symbol. Schliemann himself was not a racist, but the swastika was soon taken up by less principled writers, who were attracted by the Aryan connection as well as by the symbol's strangely compelling experience. Hitler may have been introduced to it through the work of the fanatical Aryan supremacist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels, who was using the swastika as the symbol of his cult as early as 1907. Many anti-Semitic and militarist groups had adopted it as well by the time Hitler commandeered it for the Nazis around 1920. Even he was a bit surprised by the impact it had on people. It is undoubtedly one of the most effective political symbols ever devised.
THE MISUNDERSTOOD SWASTIKA
"In Obama’s America, you see, swastikas wielded for political protest are not allowed to be used…"
Therefore, Malkin did not "miss the point", as this article states. Malkin was not condemning those in the left for using swastikas against right-wingers. She used is as a reminder that the symbol is permissible, period.