Bloodthirsty Liberal

I see President Obama is delivering the commencement address at the Air Force Academy today, and good for him.

I just wonder if he’ll make the fighter pilots also feel “stereotyped, simplified, and used”? Maybe come across as “paternalistic”?

Interesting how he picks his opportunities for maximum political benefit, isn’t it? A women’s college, a military academy… is there a gay school? Besides Sarah Lawrence, that is? By the time this is done, he may be begging for an appearance before Bob Jones University!

PS: That three fundraisers are tacked on to the trip—one in Denver, the other two in “nearby” California—is purely coincidental, I’m sure.

Hey, a BTL can dream, can’t he? [NY Times piece, if you're counting.]

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

…

The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.

…

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn’t asking too much.

Oh, come on, “sweetie”, is he that bad?

While I’m sure this is a minority view (meaning the view of a minority of women, as opposed to—oh, never mind), she is not the only one to hold it:

A student at Barnard College, Ayelet Pearl, has written a stirring protest to President Barack Obama’s commencement speech yesterday. Noting that the president’s words were “beautiful,” Pearl nonetheless objected to the use of the historic women’s college as a political prop, and said that the event left her feeling “stereotyped, simplified, and used.”

Pearl, a junior, pointed out in her article in the Columbia Political Review that while many Barnard students shared President Obama’s enthusiasm for “change,” they did not necessarily agree with his policies:

..what if our way is not his way? More importantly, what if my way differs from the woman sitting next to me in my art history class or my English class or my computer science class? What if the change I think we need is a different brand of education reform and a more conservative economic plan?

She also objected to the assumption by Barnard administrators that “all” the women at Barnard shared Obama’s political agenda, and the same conformist liberal orthodoxy:

Barnard President Debora Spar, in an interview on MSNBC, boldly told the show’s hostess that “they’re [Barnard students] all huge fans [of Obama].” Is that true? Can the president of Barnard College say, in good faith, that every single one of her students is a fan of President Barack Obama? Are we that unindividual? Or are we just a liberal student body, and, as women, a key component of the Democratic vote? Too often, the assumed answer is yes.

…

Some women are pro-life; some women are pro-choice. Some women are advocates for universal health care; some women are not. Some women support gun rights, others do not. Some women will vote for Barack Obama in 2012, and other women will not.

The speech at Barnard, she said, was “the perfect political platform” for the president–yet ironically, the speech was held on the campus of Columbia University, Obama’s alma mater, and he left not “setting foot on our campus.”

A press that is typically attuned to symbolism missed that one big-time. The man who fancies himself God’s gift to women “stereotyped, simplified, and used” them without actually setting foot on Barnard’s campus. (One only has to cross Broadway.)

Both like and unlike his father, President Obama leaves part of himself behind with the women he comes into contact with. Barack Sr. “punished” many women with a baby; Barack Jr. punishes them with no job prospects and a condescending attitude. Both would have benefitted from learning a little respect.

PS: Aggie and I wonder (as do all of you) if this guy can be beat. Well, George Bush won reelection (or just election) in 2004, in spite of a hostile media and a couple of controversial wars. And it was people like Aggie and me what did it. We voted for Gore in 200, but for Bush in ’04. All it takes is for enough of Obama’s hardly insurmountable coalition to crumble. He can remain overwhelmingly popular among his various constituencies, only slightly less so—and lose. I’m coming to believe he will (knock on wood).

Make Samaria and Judea (J-U-D-E-A) judenrein!!!

Win valuable prizes!

If you had unlimited resources, how would you bridge the gap between Israeli and Palestinian societies?

By answering that question in less than 500 words, an iconoclastic Harvard graduate student from London won the first Avi Schaefer Peace Innovation essay contest. Joel Braunold, a 26-year-old whose background includes a stint at a hesder (Modern Orthodox) yeshiva in Israel and as a leader of the international pro-peace group One Voice, argues that Palestinians and Israelis should “unilaterally take steps that are in their own self-interest that further the chances of a Two-State Solution, rather than lessens them.”

Braunold proposes that Israel build empty towns in the north and south of the country – with housing, schools, and rail lines to reach major population centers – into which the approximately 30,000 West Bank settlers who will likely be left out of a final peace deal can be relocated.

Okay, show of hands. How many of you are uncomfortable about “final” solutions involving the mass deportation of Jews from areas where they are deemed unwelcome?

Just one hand, please, Saul…. Okay, that’s everyone.

And they gave him a prize? (Oh, it was Harvard.)

Why are some Jews considered kosher and others not? Why do some Jews enable their own worst detractors? This college student sounds about as lucid as most others, habitually toasted on dope as they commonly are:

As for the Palestinians, the Harvard graduate student believes they need to remain focused on the building of state institutions and infrastructure.

“Building a state is not a gift to the Israelis – it’s purely in the Palestinian self-interest,” he says. “But a positive side benefit of it is that it demonstrates to Israelis that they have neighbors who are serious about building a sustainable civil society.”

What part of Nakba Day (the 64th occasion) did this guy not get? Since when have the Palestinian Arabs demonstrated the least interest in a civil society? They name their parks, squares, summer camps, etc., after dead terrorists (the only good terrorist), not civil servants. Didn’t I just read (in the last couple of days) that corruption in the PA is worse than ever? (I’ll add the citation in a comment when I find it.)

Why do all “solutions” to Middle East peace involve Israeli suicide? Please, someone, name me one step the Arabs have made toward peace. One. Please.

You know those annoying rubberneckers who slow traffic to gawk at the mangled wreck on the side of the road?

I think I understand them better now:

Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard.

Last week, Warren explained that she had listed herself as Native American “in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am.” However, she had not been involved in HUNAP, the most obvious avenue for meeting fellow Native American faculty and students.

Warren, who is the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Scott Brown, claims that she has a great-great-great-grandmother who was Cherokee. That claim has yet to be substantiated by evidence beyond family lore, and Warren herself has no formal tribal membership.

Are these other Harvard Hopi, these Ivy Iroquois, these Crimson Crow, also 97% white?

Doesn’t sound like it:

“The Harvard Powwow … is a great way to bring local tribes into the Harvard community, acknowledging the ancestral homelands, and show our heritage,” Cesar Alvarez ’13, the incoming president of Native Americans at Harvard College, told the Harvard Gazette.

…

The Warren campaign declined to comment yesterday, but the state GOP wasn’t going to pass up the opportunity.

“If Professor Warren were truly interested in meeting Native Americans at social gatherings as she claimed last week, then she would have attended this Harvard-sponsored event intended to bring Native Americans together, or any other event sponsored by the Harvard University Native American Program,” said party spokesgal Alleigh Marre. “The fact that Professor Warren apparently wasn’t interested in Native American activities on campus is another blow to her already-damaged credibility.”

That’s the real point, isn’t it? Her credibility. I am going to stipulate that her great-great (etc., etc.) grandwhatever was Cherokee. Or Delaware. Or Jersey Shore. If she checked a box on her various job applications over the years, she was just answering the questions that were asked. It’s bogus, sure, cynical to the extreme—it shows affirmative action for the complete fraud that it is. But that’s not all on her.

Her lies are. Her lame excuses. High cheekbones? Embarrassing, borderline racist. Identity lunches? Dear lord.

Hint, Betty Buckskin: a buffalo wrap contains no bison.

PS: If you ever find yourself in Boston and have some extra time on your hands, you could do worse than hop the Red Line to Harvard Square to take in some of Harvard University’s art museums. Like the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology—specifically, the Hall of the North American Indian.

My favorite exhibit:

PPS: If you know the Harvard campus—enormous though it may be—you might realize that the Law School is quite close to the Peabody:

See the Peabody in the upper right and the Law School Yard across the street? How hard would it be to nip over between teaching Consumer Protectionism 101 and Why Capitalism Sucks 301 for a little reconnection and reflection?

If, like me, you woke up from a lifetime of sleepwalking in a left-wing trance, your discovery (rediscovery) of the Federalist Papers was a revelation (no less the Anti-Federalist Papers). Serious people discussing weighty issues at the highest level of intellectual engagement. What is the role of government in our lives? Will the President merely replace the King as an omnipotent ruler? Are we a union, or a loose confederation, of 57 colonies? The philosophical treatises of the Enlightenment—from Rousseau and Mill to Hobbes and Locke—turned into flesh and blood arguments.

And nothing about percentage of Cherokee blood or whether you can keep your doctor.

No wonder left wing academia (which is all of academia) won’t go near the thing:

[D]espite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can’t be bothered to require students to study The Federalist—or, worse, they oppose such requirements on moral, political or pedagogical grounds. Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.

The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.

…

It displays a level of learning, political acumen and public-spiritedness to which contemporary scholars, journalists and politicians can but aspire. And to this day it stands as an unsurpassed source of insight into the Constitution’s text, structure and purposes.

At Harvard, at least, all undergraduate political-science majors will receive perfunctory exposure to a few Federalist essays in a mandatory course their sophomore year. But at Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley, political-science majors can receive their degrees without encountering the single surest analysis of the problems that the Constitution was intended to solve and the manner in which it was intended to operate.

Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation’s professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist. And these universities’ law schools (Princeton has no law school), which produce many of the nation’s leading members of the bar and bench, do not require their students to read, let alone master, The Federalist’s major ideas and main lines of thought.

Because those lines of thought encourage individualism, not collectivism. To liberals, everything is secondary to political ideology: religion, ethnic identity, you name it. Isn’t it telling that the left sees all sorts of guarantees in the Constitution (where are the blue pill and the red pill mentioned), while enumerated rights (to bear arms) are dismissed?

And thus so many of our leading opinion formers and policy makers seem to come unhinged when they encounter constitutional arguments apparently foreign to them but well-rooted in constitutional text, structure and history. These include arguments about, say, the unitary executive; or the priority of protecting political speech of all sorts; or the imperative to articulate a principle that keeps the Constitution’s commerce clause from becoming the vehicle by which a federal government—whose powers, as Madison put it in Federalist 45, are “few and defined”—is remade into one of limitless unenumerated powers.

Ha! Compare with the “philosophy” of Nancy Pelosi. Be afraid, be very afraid.(I’m serious!)

This is about a month old, but it reminds me of something:

More than 200 Jewish students attending Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, were surprised to find “eviction notices” posted to their dorm room doors on Friday.

The students later found out that the fake notices were placed by the Students for Justice in Palestine.

According to the Sun Sentinel, the group’s stunt was aimed to draw attention to their claim that “about 25,000 homes have been demolished since the occupation of Palestine by Israeli troops began in 1967.”

Rayna Exelbierd, a 20-year-old sophomore from Memphis, Tennessee, said “We’re taking it very seriously. We’re considering it a hate crime. The flier promotes hate; it doesn’t promote peace. People were scared by it. People felt threatened by it.”

Scott Brockman, Hillel executive director, said in a statement that, “While protecting and ensuring free speech on campus, the tactic used by Students for Justice in Palestine is unacceptable.”

Certainly, it’s provocative and intimidating (not to mention dishonest), but rather than call for action by the administration, why not take action yourselves?

I toyed around with this idea a few years ago: spray paint concentric circles on the floor of the dining hall radiating from the spot of an imagined suicide blast. Offer to seat people in the “Immediate Death and Dismemberment” zone, the “Maimed and Brain Damaged” zone, the “Watch Face in the Torso” zone…

… or the “Emotionally Scarred for Life With Survivor Guilt” zone.

If that is deemed too galling, just find the meeting room of the Palestinian Arab organization and rename it either Student for Justice in Judea and Samaria—or, following the eliminationist rhetoric of the Palestinian Arabs themselves, rename it Israel.

It’s not just fighting fire with fire, it’s fighting lies with truth. Even more, it’s fighting, period.

I’ve told you that I’m trying to leave the Elizabeth Warren “Cherokee People, Cherokee Tribe” story behind, but she won’t let me. I tried to convince you that this is a blog of ideas, not gotcha politics, but you know me too well.

Really, it’s like those wildlife programs on television. I just have to avert my eyes when the pride of lions sits down at the lunch counter of an antelope’s entrails. I know about “nature red in tooth and claw”; I just don’t have the stomach for it in politics.

But I’m glad others do. Here’s the king of the pride, the Simba of New Hampshire, Mark Steyn:

Have you dated a composite woman? They’re America’s hottest new demographic. As with all the really cool stuff, Barack Obama was doing it years before the rest of us. In Dreams from My Father, the world’s all-time most unread bestseller, he spills the inside dope on his composite white girlfriend: “When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough…”

…

Then there’s “Elizabeth,” a 62-year-old Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts. Like Barack’s white girlfriend, she couldn’t be black. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. But she could be a composite — a white woman and an Indian woman, all mixed up in one! Not Indian in the sense of Ashton Kutcher putting on brownface make-up and a fake-Indian accent in his amusing new commercial for the hip lo-fat snack Popchips. But Indian in the sense of checking the “Are you Native American?” box on the Association of American Law Schools form, which Elizabeth Warren did for much of her adult life. According to her, she’s part Cherokee and part Delaware. Not in the Joe Biden sense, I hasten to add, but Delaware in the sense of the Indian tribe named in honor of the home state of Big F***kin’ Chief Dances with Plugs.

How does she know she’s a Cherokee maiden? Well, she cites her grandfather’s “high cheekbones,” and says the Indian stuff is part of her family “lore.” Which was evidently good enough for Harvard Lore School when they were looking to rack up a few affirmative-action credits. The former Obama special adviser to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and former chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel now says that “I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group, something that might happen with people who are like I am,” and certainly not for personal career advancement or anything like that. Like everyone else, she was shocked, shocked to discover that, as the Boston Herald reported, “Harvard Law School officials listed Warren as Native American in the ’90s, when the school was under fierce fire for their faculty’s lack of diversity.”

…

Hallelujah! In the old racist America, we had quadroons and octoroons. But in the new post-racial America, we have — hang on, let me get out my calculator — duoettrigintaroons! Martin Luther King dreamed of a day when men would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their great-great-great-grandmother’s wedding-license application. And now it’s here! You can read all about it in Elizabeth Warren’s memoir of her struggles to come to terms with her racial identity, Dreams from My Great-Great-Great-Grandmother.

Alas, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Gran’ma as Cherokee, but let’s cut Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Crockagawea Warren some slack here. She couldn’t be black. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. But she could be 1/32nd Cherokee, and maybe get invited to a luncheon with others of her kind — “people who are like I am,” 31/32nds white, and they can all sit around celebrating their diversity together.

…

Just in case you’re having difficulty keeping up with all these Composite Americans, George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of endemic white racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard. George Zimmerman, redneck; Elizabeth Warren, redskin. Under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws, Ms. Warren would have been classified as Aryan and Mr. Zimmerman as non-Aryan. Now it’s the other way round. Progress!

That’s enough. There’s really not much meat left on those bones. (But much more good stuff at the link!)

I really shouldn’t even feel sorry for her. The absurdity of her claiming Indian heritage—and of Harvard touting it—on the basis of family lore and (only moderately) high cheekbones is an insult to Native Americans, to diversity and worthy minority candidates, to our intelligence, and a whole lot more if I bothered to waste my time thinking about it. Had she stayed at Harvard, she would have maintained elite status; but she listened to the baser angels of her nature and thought she could take the Senate the way Sitting Bull took Little Bighorn. She learned different.

It’s not farfetched or outrageous to say that Obama would like to model the USA after European socialist states: ObamaCare, limitless welfare (which increases in good times as well as bad), ignoring the day of fiscal reckoning, confiscatory taxation, etc. (Heck, remember the conversation we reported the other day where an administration official attending the Nobel ceremony noted that in any other country but the US, Obama would get 70% of the vote?)

Let’s look at what else comes with that:

One of the curious things about modern politics is that the Jewish Question is never far from the surface. That this is true in places without Jews like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia is not surprising. But consider the state of British politics.

The upcoming election for the mayor of London pits the affable Tory incumbent, Boris Johnson, against a former mayor, Labor firebrand Ken Livingstone. An outspoken socialist who spent decades as a party activist, council member, member of parliament and then mayor from 2000 to 2008, Livingstone is famous for championing of public transport over private automobiles, as well as for securing cheap oil for London buses from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

All mayors of major cities have foreign policies but Livingstone’s animosity towards Israel and the Bush administration is unusually pronounced. In 2003 he called Bush “’the greatest threat to life on this planet” and in 2005 he effectively blamed the London bombings on the US war in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Livingstone’s calling a Jewish reporter “a concentration camp guard” and recent remarks that Jews are too rich to vote for him in the upcoming election have raised a few eyebrows but have not put him out of the race (although recent questions about tax-dodging and having secretly paid a mother of an unacknowledged child from public funds might yet.)

These slaps at Jews have been matched by his public embrace of radical cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi and mayoral patronage of the equally radical Islamic Forum of Europe, which received a million pounds to build a new headquarters.

And he’s the nice guy!

The pandering at the heart of George Galloway’s stunning return to parliament was even more blatant. A campaign leaflet made his pitch bluntly: “God KNOWS who is a Muslim. And he KNOWS who is not… Let me point out to all the Muslim brothers and sisters what I stand for. I, George Galloway, do not drink alcohol and never have. Ask yourself if the other candidate (Labor candidate Imran Hussain) in this election can say that truthfully. I, George Galloway, have fought for the Muslims at home and abroad, all my life, and paid a price for it. I, George Galloway, hold Pakistan’s highest civil awards.”

Livingstone’s campaign and Galloway’s reelection demonstrates several things about the state of politics and society in modern Britain. First, it is possible to be elected to parliament solely on the basis of religious appeals in Muslim majority districts. But these appeals also have a very real material side, namely the patronage that will flow into community, read religious, organizations.

Second, there are essentially no limits to inflammatory rhetoric, especially when directed at the United States, Israel or Jews. The British establishment and electorate have long tolerated or downplayed Galloway’s rhetorical and practical support for dictators ranging from Saddam to Qaddafi to Assad, his incitement against Israel and Jews, along with his breaking of international sanctions on Iraq, from which he took money as part of the UN “oil for food” scandal, and his theatrical convoy supplying money to Hamas.

That’s right, the wholly discredited and roundly despised George Galloway won another seat in Parliament.

And he’s got company:

Livingstone and Galloway are distinctively boorish but their eagerness to lash out against Jews and Israel is shared with other leftist politicians and parties around the world. Israeli injustices take their breath away, and local Jewish communities and individual Jews irritate them endlessly.

Galloway’s parliamentary colleague Jeremy Corbyn, a member of both the Labor party and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, is obsessed with Israel, as is Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, who famously opined that Israeli doctors should disprove allegations of having stolen organs from Haitian earthquake victims.

…

Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the German Social Democratic Party and a likely candidate for chancellor, recently denounced Israel’s “apartheid regime.”

And those are just the elected officials! There are also the cultural figures, led most notably by Günter Grass.

And this fellow, we mentioned the other day:

The Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, who made anti-Semitic remarks suggesting a connection between Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik and Israel’s Mossad, drew criticism not only in Israel, but also on the pages of Scandinavian newspapers.

Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published in October an article by journalist John Faerseth, who attended one of Galtung’s lectures at the University of Oslo, where he outlined his doctrine in front of a cheering crowd.

Throughout the article, Fearseth slams Galtung, who is dubbed “the father of peace studies”, saying the “findings” on which he bases his theories against Jews are “dubious” at best.

Norwegian magazine Humanist published a correspondence between Galtung and Fearseth, in which Galtung claimed, as he did several times in the past, that the Jews control world media.

Fearseth wrote a response article together with a Dagbladet reporter, in which they called Galtung a provocateur who uses his authority to “incite classic anti-Semitic propaganda.”

Meanwhile, the editors of Humanist published a special column in which they expressed their reservations over Galtung’s article, explaining why the magazine chose to give him a platform to spew his hate.

Well, that last part sounds reasonable enough. I’d like to read more spewed hate. When can I look forward to the gay-bashing article, the editorial call for ethnic cleansing, the provocative piece on the superiority of some people over others based solely on skin color? We’ll condemn them unanimously, of course, but if Galloway gets a platform, I want a whole dais, complete with styrofoam columns.

Anyway, good for those Norwegians who condemned this.

Now, will they condemn this too?

The Anti-Defamation League has slammed Noway’s prime minister over failing to condemn anti-Israel slogans at the country’s May Day event.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, head of the governing Labour Party, was silent in the face of official anti-Semitic and anti-Israel banners.

Marchers at the event’s parade held banners proclaiming 11 official slogans, including “Israel = Apartheid” and “Boycott Israel!”

Stoltenberg did not comment about the slogans, though he was the featured speaker at the May Day celebration of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) in Bergen.

“It is extremely troubling that given the nature of these anti-Israel slogans, their official status at the parade, and the fact that they were written about by newspapers days before the event, Prime Minister Stoltenberg still participated and did not speak out against these vile, offensive statements,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

Politicians, academics (albeit it “peace studies”), labor—even the press. All dominated by the Left, and all riddled with Jew-hatred. If anyone would care to dispute or disclaim, I’m all ears.

Speaking of all ears, is this coming soon to a president near you?

Wanna make Elizabeth Warren (aka Betty Buckskin) cry?

There’s an old saying in the Indian Nation: When accused of being a fake Indian, go on the warpath.

And so we have Granny Warren, the carpetbagging Democrat candidate for the U.S. Senate doubling down after being unable to produce a scintilla of evidence to back up her claims to a piece of the racial-preference racket.

Evidence? She don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. She’s got her family “lore.” She’s “proud” to be an Indian. It’s the kind of fact-free, how-dare-you defense only a Beautiful Person could get away with.

…

Her campaign is still looking for “evidence.” In the meantime they’ll be praying the story goes to the Happy Hunting Ground, just like her demands to a New York reporter that her $1.7 million teepee in Cambridge be considered “off the record.”

The fact is, you can’t get much lower than being accused of being a fake Indian. It puts you in the same category as that pony-tailed fraud from the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill. You remember, the fake Indian who said all the people murdered in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were “little Eichmanns.”

Now she claims she doesn’t “recall” if she played the race card when she applied for her big-wampum $350,000-a-year job at Harvard Law. You see, it was so many moons — I mean years, ago. Sounds like a lot of bull — Sitting Bull.

No wonder she thinks she laid the intellectual foundation for the Occupy Movement. She sees all those tents and lean-tos and flashes back to the Cherokee and Apache encampments of her youth.

Turns out, Buckskin Betty is more Mandan squaw than school marm.

Or not:

Elizabeth Warren’s avowed Native American heritage — which the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail — was once touted by embattled Harvard Law School officials who cited her claim as proof of their faculty’s diversity.

Warren’s claim, which surfaced yesterday after a Herald inquiry, put the candidate in an awkward position as campaign aides last night scrambled but failed to produce documents proving her family lineage. Aides said the tales of Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware tribe ancestors have been passed down through family lore.

“Like most Americans, Elizabeth learned of her heritage through conversations with her grandparents, her parents, and her aunts and uncles,” said Warren’s strategist Kyle Sullivan.

The Ivy League law school prominently touted Warren’s Native American background, however, in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.

“Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic,” The Harvard Crimson quotes then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura as saying in a 1996 article.

Well, she was born in Oklahoma. That’s not Native American? Anyway, you can’t blame Harvard for trying. They made it sound like they had Sitting Bull on the faculty, when she was in fact teaching bull.

PS: The way I heard it, her great-great-great grandmother was head of the Cherokee Buffalo and Rabbit Consumer Protection Bureau, which made sure that the meat was the genuine article and not coyote gristle coated with pink slime. Maybe that’s what they meant when they referred to her Seminole influence on legal theory.

Didja see the New York Times on Tuesday? Me neither.

What we missed:

Editor’s note: To spread awareness of the eliminationist agenda of the anti-Israel Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement and its elite supporters in the American university system, the David Horowitz Freedom Center placed the following ad in the op-ed section of the April 24, 2012 edition of The New York Times. The ad elicited objections from numerous Times readers, some of which are printed below the ad along with responses from David Horowitz.

…

I read your ad on today’s Op-ed page of the NY Times.

…

As someone who does not want anyone driven into the sea, but as someone who does not believe in bigotry, I have thrown up my hands about the Middle East. I have read quotes in the NY Times from speeches by both the Iranian President and the Israeli Foreign Minister. Except for substituting/changing one word: Jew or Muslim, they were nearly identical, full of what I would call outright bigotry. I do not see anyone leading the charge to get rid of the bigotry of the Israeli Foreign Minister, as they should as far as I am concerned. [You can get rid of the Iranian President as far as I am concerned.] I remember when some leaders in the Middle East were not bigots, something that does not appear to be the case today. Abba Eban, for example. The former King of Jordan, whose name is escaping me at the moment.

It would seem to me that if any country has a bigot as its leader or foreign minister, that country should be called on it, correct?

…

Reply to Robert Khoury from David Horowitz:

Excuse me, but Palestinian leaders have openly called for the extermination of the Jews and the obliteration of the Jewish state in so many words. Where is the Israeli leader who has said anything remotely comparable? Israel’s leaders have offered the Palestinians a state more than once, and continue to promote a two-state solution. Name me one Palestinian leader who supports the existence of the Jewish state. So don’t tell me there’s anything remotely parallel on both sides of this conflict. There is one side that wants peace and has already made enormous sacrifices and compromises to achieve peace (surrender of the Sinai, failure to annex the aggressors territories on the West Bank and in Gaza, unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and so forth). On the other side are religious xenophobes who have conducted a 60 year war whose stated goal is to destroy the Jewish state and who have either openly called for or have not condemned calls from Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran for the extermination of the Jews.

Response from Times reader Jay Gillen:

Friends,

As a Jew and supporter of Israel, I was concerned and saddened by your advertisement today on the NY Times op-ed page.

I fully understand your disagreement with the divestment movement, and I also understand the parallel with Nazi and other anti-Semitic economic attacks on Jews.

It is wrong, however, to equate the divestment movement with anti-Semitism.

There must be a way to criticize Israeli policy without being labelled an anti-Semite or supporter of anti-Semites. We must enlarge the dialogue about Israel in such a way that people can speak together, act politically without violence, communicate, and not attribute motives that put the “other” into the category of evil.

I think you agree with me, and in fact that you reject the divestment movement precisely because it seems to attack Israelis as “evil”. There are anti-Semites. They do hate Jews and Israel. They do take comfort from the divestment movement. But the professors you mention are not anti-Semites and do not hate Jews. You should be able to distinguish them from others. And you should not hate them, even if you believe they hate you. Disagree with them, if you choose; but disagree on the merits of their arguments, not by associating them with the truly evil. Let us have done with that as a tactic, on our side at least.

Thank you for your attention.

Jay Gillen, Ph.D.
Baltimore, Maryland

Reply from David Horowitz:

With all due respect you need to familiarize yourself with the sponsors, spokespeople and agendas of the BDS movement before drawing such facile and comforting conclusions. This is Hamas in action and its agenda is the liberation of “Palestine” from the river to the sea – in other words the destruction of the Jewish state. It is not about policies of the Israeli government which can be amended. It is about the “crime” of Israel’s very existence. To support such a movement you have to be ignorant and a dupe, or an anti-Semite. I grant you that there is a sucker born every minute and there may be several in this movement. But the organizers of the BDS conference are not among them.

As a recovering liberal myself, I admire and respect David Horowitz. But I wish he were a slightly more articulate spokesman for Israel and Zionism. The argument is there to be made that anti-Zionism IS antisemitism, that arguing at the edges of ghettoization is just spelling Holocaust with a lower-case
H. The case for Israel—Judea and Samaria—is overwhelming, whether haters and bigots want to believe it or not. So, make the case. Don’t let them undermine you. Undermine them.

The ad is good; the responses could have been better.

We just received this as a comment on one of our posts about the bizarre anti-Jewish hostility on the campus of Rutgers University in New Jersey.

I’m elevating to the status of a post because we’ve been reporting on the goings-on at Rutgers for quite a while now:

to the editor

After countless, phone calls, messages, emails, and letters, to deans, heads of departments, and the president of Rutgers himself, many concerned students and myself remain left in the dark and our questions unanswered. Our beloved Professor Dr. Rosenberg, has been a victim of the anti-semetic environment that has been created and allowed to grow at Rutgers University. Dr. Rosenberg has been facing many instances of harassment by department heads, deans, and leaders for no reason. He has made many formal complaints and reports to numerous departments over a span of many weeks, and the only response he and us students receive are very rude responses that simply say “thanks” and that this is a personnel matter. This is not the way that a prestigious university, the state university of New Jersey should be handling the serious concerns that its staff and students have regarding harassment, more specifically, anti-semitism. It was not until one of the Rutgers university daily newspapers, The Medium, published an article entitled “What About the Good Things Hitler Did?” In this article, the Medium praised Hitler and said he wasn’t such a bad guy, The medium used an active Jewish students name, and picture as the author of the article, when he in fact had no relation to the article. This is one instance that was made known due to the severity and availability of the evidence since it was published in a newspaper allowed by Rutgers to be circulated throughout campus. Unfortunately for Dr. Rosenberg, the anti-semtism he faces from the department is not published in newspapers, and therefore is not as easily seen by others. however this does not mean that this serious issue can be ignored. Dr. Rosenberg is one of the only professor here at Rutgers that willingly and proudly wears a “skullcap” every day, clearly revealing his Jewish religion. Also a clergyman, he often speaks publicly about his religious views as well as others. He respects all religions and simply wished that people would do the same for his. Now Dr. Rosenberg has lost his opportunity to teach his public speaking course which he does every summer for over 10 years. He is not getting a response as to whether or not he will be teaching in the fall, and the harassment continues. The fact of the matter is that Rutgers University has created an anti-semitic atmosphere and has let it thrive to the point where students feel comfortable publishing anti-semetic articles in a well known school newspaper. Rutgers University allows this paper to circulate throughout campus just like they allow their main newspaper “The Daily Targum” which refuses to address this issue after numerous requests. Overall, something must be done about the anti-semitic injustices Dr. Rosenberg has and still is facing here at Rutgers University.

As we are in the midst of concluding the Spring Semester, we the students of Doctor Rosenberg want you to know that this has been on of the most enjoyable non pressure, insightful, and exciting courses we have ever taken at Rutgers. Unlike other teachers, through his dynamic teaching abilities and intuitive nature, he instills within his students the desire to constantly improve. He does this not through pressure, numerous papers, constant criticism, but through a magic that he possesses to convey his belief in his students abilities to perform. In short he makes public speaking fun. While we have followed the syllabus he has done so with great humor, intelligence, creativity, and sensitivity. We have heard from other students how unhappy they are in other public speaking classes. How even though they deserve an A, the grades have been severely lessened because of their written work on first drafts. Dr. Rosenberg has made this a true public speaking class. He has corrected out outlines and given us tests but from both we have learned much without stress and pressure. It is beyond our understanding why our teacher should be harassed when he in fact deserves the teacher of the year award at Rutgers.
Sincerely the Concerned Students of Dr. Rosenberg’s class,

What do I know? But these students who signed their names claim to know, and Rutgers should be held to account.