Archive for Liberal Fascism

The Little Ball and Chain…and Hammer and Sickle

Speaking of sordid motivations (as we were in the post below), you won’t believe what was behind the near-coup against Scott Walker:

First, Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm used a Kafkaesque procedure—a so-called “John Doe” proceeding—under Wisconsin law to transform a request by Walker’s office for a criminal investigation of an embezzlement into, wonder of wonders, a secret fishing expedition into the entire operations of Walker’s office.

Now a longtime Chisholm subordinate reveals for the first time in this article that the district attorney may have had personal motivations for his investigation. Chisholm told him and others that Chisholm’s wife, Colleen, a teacher’s union shop steward at St. Francis high school, a public school near Milwaukee, had been repeatedly moved to tears by Walker’s anti-union policies in 2011, according to the former staff prosecutor in Chisholm’s office. Chisholm said in the presence of the former prosecutor that his wife “frequently cried when discussing the topic of the union disbanding and the effect it would have on the people involved … She took it personally.” …

Chisholm added, according to that prosecutor, that “he felt that it was his personal duty to stop Walker from treating people like this.” …

Chisholm’s private displays of partisan animus stunned the former prosecutor. “I admired him [Chisholm] greatly up until this whole thing started,” the former prosecutor said. “But once this whole matter came up, it was surprising how almost hyper-partisan he became … It was amazing … to see this complete change.”

We can sort of relate. Conservatives and Republicans can be tolerated (sometimes, barely, by some) in the abstract, but give them authority to enact the policies on which they were elected, and it’s Katie bar the door.

Comments

Wanna Get Away? [UPDATED]

That “Reply All” moment:

A senior communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder seemingly called House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa’s staff by accident and asked for their help spinning new revelations about the IRS scandal, Issa said in a September 8 letter to Holder.

The aide, Brian Fallon, is a former senior aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and a well-known personality on Capitol Hill. The letter describes Fallon as “audibly shaken” when he realizes his request to leak documents to help get ahead of news stories about them was mistakenly made to the very office he was seeking to undermine. Issa believes the call was intended to be made to Democratic Rep. Elijah Cumming’s staff, the ranking member on the oversight panel, the letter said.

According to the letter, Fallon – who is not named in the letter but confirmed he made the call – asked if the aides could release the IRS scandal documents to “selected reporters” to give Fallon an “opportunity to comment publicly on it.”

Fallon explained to Issa aides that the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs had not permitted him to release the documents to the public and he wanted to get ahead of the story “before the Majority” – meaning Issa – could share it, according to the letter.

Issa aides – who had placed the call on speakerphone – were “caught off guard by the unusual nature of the call and the odd request” and asked Fallon to “e-mail the material for evaluation.”

“At this point,” Fallon “abruptly placed the call on hold for approximately three minutes.” When Fallon returned to the call, “he was audibly shaken. He immediately stated that there was a ‘change in plans’ and that there would be no effort” by DOJ to release the material early.

Coupla observations. One, Chuck Schumer, Fallon’s ex-boss, was one of the chief cheerleaders of the IRS attack squad:

Schumer was the author of the 2010 Disclose Act that failed to make it through Congress but would have required the disclosure of corporate donors to tax-exempt organizations, and membership and donor lists of the groups running “issue” ads.

“The bill was designed to embarrass companies,” Schumer admitted, and its “deterrent effect should not be underestimated.”

Advocating the use of government power to harass and intimidate political opponents is nothing new to Schumer. Along with Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Al Franken of Minnesota, he sent a similar letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in February 2012 asking the IRS to investigate 12 conservative groups he accused of violating their tax-exempt status and engaging in coordinated political activity.

So, Fallon’s heritage on the issue is well-established.

Two, planting questions and stories is tried and true IRS methodology:

The first revelation that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups came in a planted question during a lawyers’ conference earlier this month, the attorney who asked the question confirmed Saturday with Fox News.

On Saturday, Celia Roady — the lawyer who asked the question of IRS official Lois Lerner at the May 10 American Bar Association conference — issues the following statement to Fox:

“On May 9, I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks … and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks. I agreed to do so.…We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.”

So, the IRS has been spinning this scandal since before it broke.

In the letter, Issa told Holder the phone call suggests ongoing coordination between DOJ aides and Cummings’ staff to undermine oversight committee investigations.

“It strains credulity to believe that the Department would seek to begin to improve relations via a telephone call between two individuals who had never spoken to each other before at 5:01pm on a Friday afternoon at the end of a District Work Period in the waning days of the 113th Congress,” Issa wrote.

Quite. Just to recap what you can barely believe is actually happening: A former aide to a hyper-partisan Democrat Senator, now working for Eric Holder’s Justice Department, has been regularly conspiring with the senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee to suppress, spin, and otherwise confound the investigation into IRS voter suppression. And we found out about it because the apparatchik hit Redial to the wrong number.

Hey, they nabbed Al Capone for tax evasion. Justice isn’t always divine or swift.

UPDATE

Silly BTL, “suppress, spin, and otherwise confound” is this regime’s motto!

The head investigator charged with overseeing the Department of Justice testified Tuesday that various government agencies have repeatedly stymied his investigation efforts, and have done so in direct violation of federal law.

Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on investigative access to government information.

“Since 2010 and 2011,” he said. “The FBI and some other Department components have not read Section 6(a) of the IG Act as giving my Office access to all records in their possession and therefore have refused our requests for various types of Department records. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded.”

I highlighted that part to make sure you understand that the Inspector General of the Department of Justice forks for…wait for it, the Department of Justice!

Inspectors general are independent investigative officers whose job is to ensure that government agencies are not violating the law or engaging in fraudulent behavior. In August of this year, nearly 50 inspectors general signed a letter to Congress alerting politicians to “the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of Inspectors General at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice.”

These officers “faced restrictions on their access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical areas,” the letter explained. “Limiting access in this manner is inconsistent with the IG Act [the 1978 law that created the inspector general offices], at odds with the independence of Inspectors General, and risks leaving the agencies insulated from scrutiny and unacceptably vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct – the very problems that our offices were established to review and that the American people expect us to be able to address.”

The self-styled “most transparent administration evah”™ couldn’t be more obscure and closeted. Big surprise.

Comments

Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach laments his dissolving friendship with Naomi Wolf:

This Thursday, September 11, Naomi Wolf and I will be debating the question, “Is Israel guilty of genocide in its war against Hamas?” at the Manhattan Jewish Experience on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Naomi is a friend of mine. We both have history at Oxford. She earned her degree as a Rhodes scholar and I served as rabbi to the students for 11 years. Naomi reached out to me for a book she was writing and having been a fan of her work I greatly enjoyed making her acquaintance. She subsequently attended Shabbat dinner with my family. Naomi’s books have raised important issues, particularly in the realm of women’s rights and social justice, which is why I was shocked when I learned that Naomi was involved in a blood libel against the State of Israel with false and shocking allegations of a Palestinian genocide.

I, in turn, responded that in all her condemnations of Israel Naomi manages to virtually omit all mention of the brutal attacks and true genocidal ambitions that Hamas has toward the Jewish state and the Jews. Naomi in an interview later said that she never meant by her words that the Jews didn’t need a Jewish state. I challenged her to a public debate and she graciously accepted.

We’re all free to choose our own friends, but let’s brief the good rabbi on the Rhodes Scholar with whom he broke bread.

Most recently, Ms. Wolf publicly sided with that pestilence known as Occupy Wall Street:

Oops! Wrong movement, wrong picture.

Could they be more smug? Wolf has speculated that the long overdue crackdown on the Occupy movement was a government conspiracy, and on this I think she’s right: a conspiracy of the government to do its job and uphold law and order. The Occupy camps were incubators of disease, crime, filth. Never mind their symbolism (empty and bogus to my way of thinking), their dismantling and sterilization was way, way, way past time.

Wolf also once described Al Gore as an alpha male, but I think this is a misunderstanding: he’d ballooned up to the size of Alpha Centauri was her point (as has she, it might be noted, as have many of us).

I’ll leave aside her feminist views. I am generally favorable toward feminism in the abstract, less so toward today’s feminists and its modern practice. Too often the only issue is abortion, which we have repeatedly shown is harmful to women and minorities.

No, if Rabbi Boteach is not familiar with Naomi Wolf’s politics, we’ll leave him one more example, which should clear up the matter:

In The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
Create secret prisons where torture takes place
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens
Set up an internal surveillance system
Harass citizens’ groups
Engage in arbitrary detention and release
Target key individuals
Control the press
Treat all political dissidents as traitors
Suspend the rule of law

The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all the 10 steps in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks.

Right practices, wrong presidential administration. Let’s take a look:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: The Tea Party.

Create secret prisons where torture takes place: Every day Gitmo stays open is a betrayal of his promise to close it.

Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens: The IRS.

Set up an internal surveillance system: The NSA.

Harass citizens’ groups: The IRS and the FEC.

Engage in arbitrary detention and release: The FBI’s treatment of James Rosen.

Target key individuals: See most of above.

Control the press: When not with the press’ own complicity, by stealth and by force.

Treat all political dissidents as traitors: See IRS above.

Suspend the rule of law: Making and amending law without Congress.

Hope this helps, Shmuley. Wolf’s adoption of Hamass is part of a pattern, not an aberration.

Comments

The Jew-Hating Left

I read every word Caroline Glick writes, but I cite these few as especially worthy of your attention:

The only meaningful commonality between Islamist and leftist dogma is hatred for Jews with power, first and foremost for Israel. And the singular creation of this alliance is the sides’ joint determination that it isn’t racist to hate the Jewish state, or Jews who refuse to condemn it.

In this state of affairs, the only outlet that leftists have for their moral outrage is Israel. Because while they fear being called racist, they know that being anti-Semitic will not expose them to charges of racism.

And they know Jews won’t assault them for attacking Israel and its supporters. So they project all the crimes perpetrated by Islamic fanatics on Israel.

For instance, this week Megan Marzec, the president of Ohio University’s Student Senate, posted a video of herself dousing herself in a bucket of “blood.”

Marzec explained, “This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians – atrocities which OU is directly complacent in [sic] through cultural and economic ties with the Israeli state.”

In other words, she accused Israel of the crimes Hamas seeks to inflict on Israel, and of the crimes that Islamist forces, such as al-Qaida, Islamic State and Boko Haram, are currently carrying out in their areas of operations.

Consider the recent New York Times op-ed by Antony Lerman which ran under the title “The End of Liberal Zionism.”

Lerman insisted that there is no way to square Zionism with liberal values.

According to this disaffected Jewish leftist, “The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism. It is carrying out an open-ended project of national self-realization to be achieved through colonization and purification of the tribe.”

Huh? Who? Where? Even my man Moshe Feiglin, about as far to the right as there is in Israeli national politics (by my reckoning), would accept Arab citizens from an annexed Gaza, or pay them to relocate if they didn’t want to stay.

But if you can write it, someone will print it:

Lerman quoted an article published a few weeks before his in The New York Review of Books by Jonathan Freedland titled “Liberal Zionism After Gaza.”

Freedland argued that as the two-state solution becomes more and more remote, liberal Zionists “will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist.”

That does it. Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of Glick:

But this is of course absurd. The only way a person can uphold liberal values is by being a Zionist. Israel is the only country in the region that is a human rights-respecting liberal democracy that is governed by the rule of law.

What is becoming more and more difficult is being a Zionist while being a leftist. As the Left becomes more and more tied to Islamic fanatics, anti-Semitism is going to become more and more of a staple of leftist dogma. And that anti-Semitism will express itself first and foremost as a virulent rejection of Israel and of Jews who refuse to disavow and condemn the Jewish state.

Sotloff reportedly maintained faith with his Judaism in secret while in captivity. He refused food on Yom Kippur and secretly prayed toward Jerusalem.

In so doing, he showed that the evil that controlled him physically, could not penetrate his soul. For this he died a Jewish hero.

Leftist Jews must take a lesson from Sotloff, who was reportedly a product of a Jewish-leftist worldview.

They should understand that the decision they are being required to make is not a choice between liberalism and Zionism, but between liberalism and a reactionary dogma that sits comfortably with genocidal Jew-haters and misogynist oppressors. It shouldn’t be a particularly difficult choice.

If you’re not wiping a tear from your eye, you have no soul.

Comments

Can You Blame Her?

If I had done half the [bleep] Lois Lerner had, I’d have taken a flame thrower to my hard drive:

Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups.

The new documents obtained by Judicial Watch also reveal that 75% of the groups from whom the lists were solicited were apparently conservative, with only 5% being liberal.

That’s a ratio of 15:1, my liberal friends. Still care to dispute that the chief witch in the IRS was on a witch hunt herself?

I didn’t think you did.

The documents came in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) filed against the IRS after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May, 2013.

Key parts of this email and other documents the IRS produced to Judicial Watch have been blacked out. (Many of the documents are completely blacked out (or partially redacted) seemingly because they are allegedly “pre-decisional” or “deliberative,” information that might be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The Obama administration’s decision to withhold this information is completely discretionary and is not required by law.)

The IRS ignored four previous FOIA requests, finally responding with a heavily-censored batch of emails and other documents.

In which we learn:

A subsequent IRS email thread on June 27, 2012, revealed that inappropriately obtained donor lists were being used for a “secret research project” and that a top official wanted then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller to decide how to handle the issue.

The documents produced do not detail the “secret research project” nor disclose how the IRS used the donor names the agency improperly obtained.

Alas, the subject of the “secret research project” was redacted. But doesn’t that make you feel special, conservatives? Any donor to any cause deemed unseemly by the IRS might have been part of this “secret research project”. (Isn’t that what Mengele called his research?)

Anyway, we know one thing the IRS did with the donor lists:

Then-IRS Commissioner Miller initially testified to Congress on May 17, 2013 that “instructions had been given to destroy any donor lists,” but donor lists were actually produced to the House Ways and Means Committee four months later. The House Ways and Means Committee also announced at May 7, 2014 hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to one conservative (c)(4) organization were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. And this past June, the IRS admitted wrongdoing in releasing the conservative National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) confidential tax return and donor list, which were published in March 2012 by the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign is the chief political rival to NOM; its outgoing president had been named a national co-chair of the Obama Reelection Campaign. The IRS reportedly agreed to pay NOM $50,000 to settle the lawsuit.

But it may be this exchange that puts Lois’s left-leaning proclivities in the least likeable light:

Shortly after this email exchange, another email chain on June 28 between Lerner and Holly Paz, the former director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements, shows that Lerner believed that the TIGTA and congressional inquiries into the IRS’s practices were “dangerous”:

June 28, 2012 8:57 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Now TIGTA wants to talk to me. I am guessing they read this morning’s paper. [Apparent reference to Wall Street Journal article concerning IRS scrutiny of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS tax exempt status]Will keep you posted.”

June 28, 2012 9:13 AM — Lerner to Paz: “Not alone. Wait til I am there.”

June 28, 2012 09:17 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Sorry. Too late. He already called me. It was not about WSJ. Just him trying to get better understanding of the scope of the [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave] Camp [R-MI] request.”

June 28, 2012 8:22 AM [9:22 most probably]— Lerner to Paz: “Just as dangerous. I’ll talk to you soon. Be there in half hour.”

As I say, I’d throw my computer into Hell’s Canyon if it had this much incriminating evidence on it. And I’d plead the 5th on advice of counsel too.

One last lie to dispel: the low-level workers in Cincinnati:

The new documents also include emails further contradicting President Obama’s February 2014 excuse that the IRS targeting was entirely the fault of “bonehead decisions in local offices.” Obama was parroting Lois Lerner’s May 2013 claim that the targeting of conservative groups was the fault of “low-level” employees in Cincinnati for the targeting of conservative groups. In the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Lerner and other top IRS officials made it clear that no “advocacy” applications should be approved or denied without express approval from Lerner’s office in Washington, DC:

June 20, 2012: — Email from IRS attorney Michael C. Seton to managers in Exempt Organizations division defining targeted groups’ approval procedures:
Please inform the reviewers and staff in your groups that before issuing any favorable or initial denial rulings on any cases with advocacy issues, the reviewers must notify me and you [Lerner and other senior IRS staffers] via e -mail and get our approval. No favorable or initial denial rulings can be issued without your and my approval.

That lie is almost as bad as the “anti-Muslim video” they blamed for Benghazi.I’m tempted to say it’s worse, but no one died. Only Democracy.

Comments

Another One-Sided Conversation on Race

In lieu of an actual conversation on race—you know, a dialogue—sometimes, I just start talking.

There are so many misconceptions on race, it seems to me, particularly on the harm done to black people by black people. We spend so much time huffing and puffing about Michael Brow and Trayvon Martin (both of whom were willing collaborators in their own deaths, we now know), we forget the thousands of black people executed in cold blood by other black people. It’s practically sui-genocide (or geno-suicide). The facts don’t lie.

But facts don’t tell a story, pictures do:

If you’ve been reading us for any length of time, you know my heartache over Hadiya Pendleton, a beautiful, promising young woman from Chicago who got caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting in Chicago. She had just returned to that “killing field” of black people after performing at President Obama’s second inauguration (a symbolism too painful for me to explore). But Hadiya is just one face among thousands of the victims in the War on Blacks By Blacks. Some (many) don’t even have faces. Yet.

Abortion in the black community is at an epidemic:

“Black women in New York City aborted more than half of their pregnancies in 2012, topping the number of abortions recorded by women of every other racial or ethnic group in the city.” The report revealed that more than any other ethnic group in NYC, black women were the leading abortion patients and also had the highest pregnancy and miscarriage rates.

[A]according to the 2010 census data, blacks made up 12.6% of the population. And, as Abort73.com broke down:

In 2009, a total of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S.14 That same year, an estimated 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States.15 If 35.4% were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks were killed by abortion as by all other causes.

This being the 50th anniversary of various civil rights and Great Society acts and programs, it is a time for reflection on those movements too. Regular readers here will know (because I mention it all the time) that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed not only with Republican support, but that Republicans out-supported racist, segregationist Democrats.

But this is something I did not know, and I bet you didn’t either:

According to economist Walter Williams, “[f]rom 1900 to 1954, blacks were more active than whites in the labor market. Until about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites … As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it’s about 30 percent longer.” According to economist Thomas Sowell, “[t]he poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs … In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959.”

[B]lack economic progress was advancing steadily during the first half of the twentieth century, but proceeded to flat-line in the 1960s and 70s.

What happened, then? Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1960s-era big government happened. Welfare laws were constructed that didn’t view black men and women as human beings in the image of God, but as useless children and at best tools for political gain.

Okay, maybe I could have cut that last sentence, which is more editorialization than fact. Or is it?

Untitled

Laws like the Davis Bacon Act, which barred federal contracts from paying less than union wages, pushed black men out of federally funded or -financed construction jobs at the behest of white unions; segregated public housing pushed blacks into inner-city ghettos where poverty was concentrated and its impact worsened; government handouts punished those who tried to work; and, most evil of all, men who had limited employment prospects were offered a way to feed their families via the federal government—as long as they packed up and left.

A century of Jim Crow made America almost uniquely shameful—more so than slavery itself (which was once commonplace across the world—apartheid much less so). It’s abolishment was long overdue, and required “by any means necessary”. But fifty years is more than enough time to admit they made mistakes—that there are things to fix that don’t go back to the status quo ante. It may be too late for this generation of young black men (and women, and their babies), just as it is too late for the two generations before them. But can we offer real Hope for genuine Change for any children they see to term?

PS: Not if Obama has anything to do with it. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens will open the floodgates and inundate the job market. If it was a goal to put black people back to work they were before Liberalism ruined their lives, Liberalism will have dashed that hope once and for all.

Comments (1)

Nice Bank Ya Got There

Shame if somethin’ happened to it:

Extortion: Radical Democrat activist groups stand to collect millions from Attorney General Eric Holder’s record $17 billion deal to settle alleged mortgage abuse charges against Bank of America.

Buried in the fine print of the deal, which includes $7 billion in soft-dollar consumer relief, are a raft of political payoffs to Obama constituency groups. In effect, the government has ordered the nation’s largest bank to create a massive slush fund for Democrat special interests.

If there are leftover funds in four years, the settlement stipulates the money will go to Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA), which provides legal aid for the poor and supports left-wing causes, and NeighborWorks of America, which provides affordable housing and funds a national network of left-wing community organizers operating in the mold of Acorn.

In fact, in 2008 and 2009, NeighborWorks awarded a whopping $25 million to Acorn Housing.

According to the list provided by Justice, those groups include come of the most radical bank shakedown organizations in the country, including:

• La Raza, which pressures banks to expand their credit box to qualify more low-income Latino immigrants for home loans;

• National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Washington’s most aggressive lobbyist for the disastrous Community Reinvestment Act;

• Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a “bank terrorist;”

• Operation Hope, a South Central Los Angeles group that’s pressuring banks to make “dignity mortgages” for deadbeats.

Worse, one group eligible for BofA slush funds is a spin-off of Acorn Housing’s branch in New York.

He’s written back-door funding for Democrat groups into other major bank deals he’s brokered, including the $13 billion JPMorgan Chase settlement and the $7 billion Citibank deal. They stand to reap millions more from those deals.

I never really understood the concept of “predatory lending” anyway. It implies—heck, it all but shouts—that the recipients were too stupid to understand the terms of their loans. You wouldn’t catch me claiming that.

But also the banks were all but ordered to increase mortgage loans to “marginal” neighborhoods: no more “red-lining”. How is it a scandal (let alone a surprise) that many people who wouldn’t have qualified for a loan under typical terms failed to keep up with a mortgage practically gifted to them?

I do see a conflict if the government both requires loans to unqualified borrowers and guarantees the loans if the borrowers default. That’s just free money for the banks, who can lend with abandon, without regard to financials, knowing someone will pay them. But that’s at least as much the fault of government as it is of the banks. Capitalism works if there’s a possibility of profit and a threat of loss. Tilting the balance for political ends was bound to end badly. And it did.

But the Left always lands on its feet—thanks to someone else’s parachute. And money.

Comments

Badgered

Gov. Scott Walker’s successful restoration of sanity and balance in Wisconsin was noteworthy in its own right. But the ruckus that it kicked up among the liberal fascists in the public-sector unions and their supporters was equally remarkable. The blowback reached even our distant shores, via long-winded, tendentious comments from comsymps on the scene.

But we still don’t know the half of it:

Conservative targets of a Democrat-launched John Doe investigation have described the secret probe as a witch hunt.

That might not be a big enough descriptor, based on records released Friday by a federal appeals court as part of a massive document dump.

Attorneys for conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth point to subpoenas requested by John Doe prosecutors that sought records from “at least eight phone companies” believed to serve the targets of the investigation. O’Keefe and the club have filed a civil rights lawsuit against John Doe prosecutors, alleging they violated conservatives’ First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

“In fact, Defendants’ submissions confirm and expand upon the scope and intensity of retaliation previously demonstrated,” O’Keefe’s attorney wrote in documents ordered unsealed by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The documents raise serious concerns about the tactics of Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs and others involved in the investigation targeting dozens of conservatives.

Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the dragnet two years ago, and, according to court documents, with the help of the state Government Accountability Board, the probe was expanded to five counties. The John Doe proceeding compelled scores of witnesses to testify, and a gag order compelled them to keep their mouths shut or face jail time. Sources have described predawn “paramilitary-style” raids in which their possessions were rifled through and seized by law enforcement officers.

Using government agencies to target and intimidate conservatives: where have we heard that before?


On a clear day, you can see Milwaukee.

I have a dream (as someone once said): that this whole steaming edifice of leftist bullcrap collapsed like a dung hut in an earthquake zone. The whole Obama decade, from his DNC speech to his illegitimate elections(s), gone, discredited, flushed away. It won’t happen, America will suffer (in the short term) if it does, but it will be stronger for it in the end. A dream, as I say.

Comments (7)

Fetus…Baby…Whatever You Call It…

Don’t call it “difficult”:

Planned Parenthood calls abortion “a difficult decision” in many of its consent forms and fact sheets. When NARAL launched a film on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2013, the president of the pro-choice organization called abortion “a difficult decision” women and couples face.

Lawmakers use the adjective, too. “It was a difficult, difficult decision, but it was the right one,” Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores said last month in defending her choice to have an abortion at age 16. In 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton described the decision to have an abortion as “one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make” and “often the most difficult [decision] that a woman will ever make.”

However, when the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning “informed consent” laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.

Often, abortion isn’t a difficult decision. In my case, it sure wasn’t.

Good for her. I’m glad it was a piece of cake. Easy-peasy. A snap. (Or was that the baby’s spine?)

Who needs the agro?

Today, when advocates on both sides of the debate talk about the decision to have an abortion, they preface their statements with adjectives such as “difficult,” “hard” or “reluctant.” For anti-abortion conservatives, the reason for using such language is clear: Abortion is murder, they contend, but characterizing a woman who has one as a murderer is a bit, well, harsh. A more charitable view is to assume that she must have struggled with making this immoral choice. Pro-choice advocates use the “difficult decision” formulation for a similar reason, so as not to demonize women. It also permits pro-choice candidates to look less dogmatic.

But there’s a more pernicious result when pro-choice advocates use such language: It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate. To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.

And we can’t have that! The “status of a being”? Piffle!

If the fetus is not a being (as if!), she doesn’t tell us what it is instead. I’d kind of like to know.

Not only is abortion not a difficult choice, it’s not even a choice:

Abortion rights groups are struggling to expand their message from “pro-choice” — which they say no longer resonates with voters as it once did — to more broadly encompass women’s health and economic concerns. The movement needs such recalibration precisely because it was drawn into a moral debate about the fetus’s hypothetical future rather than the woman’s immediate and tangible future. Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of “choice,” terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive “difficult decision” posture.

Option, shmoption—get busy abortin’ or get busy buyin’…diapers.

There’s not all that much room between me and the pro-choice crowd. I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, just as they do. The only difference is I mean it. The “pro-neccessity” crowd does not.

Comments

All the News That’s Fit to Suppress

The UK Guardian opinion section quotes an old editor: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

Funny, that:

The British newspaper The Guardian rejected an advertorial piece penned by famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, JNS.org has learned. In the ad, Dershowitz refutes statements by many media outlets that all of the Gaza Strip is densely populated, a claim that has been used to justify the use of human shields by Hamas in the terrorist group’s recent conflict with Israel.

“The British media is divided,” Dershowitz said in an interview. “But The Guardian, which holds itself out to be a purveyor of diverse truth, clearly reflects a bias against Israel on its editorial pages, as well as in its presentation of the news. Now that bias has spread to the advertising pages.”

Dershowitz told JNS.org that newspapers “have a right to decide which ads to accept and reject,” but questioned The Guardian’s decision not to run his advertorial.

“My column was factually sound and not a personal attack on anybody. It simply laid out the geographic facts of the Gaza Strip and its implications,” he said.

“Dershowitz was presenting a new point of view in this article,” Harry Wechsler of the Wechsler Family Foundation told JNS.org in an email.

“Hamas was not forced into shooting their rockets from pads located in urban areas, thereby leading to unavoidable civilian deaths,” wrote Wechsler. “They were not shooting from some of the densest population centers anywhere because they had no other choice. No—the choice was there. Though not large, Gaza had ample space that was not densely populated—farm land, empty spaces where rockets could have been stored and shot from. Furthermore, the U.N. could easily have developed temporary quarters in these same spaces for the sheltering of civilian refugees, far away from the sites of battle.”

“The Guardian rarely shows photographs of Hamas fighters firing from densely populated areas. They continue to perpetuate the myth that all of the Gaza is densely populated. They continue to perpetrate the myth that the vast majority of people killed in this was have been children and women, when the fact is the vast majority of people killed have been males of terrorist age,” Dershowitz said.

It is important for Americans and British readers to know that the worst kind of distortion is “distortion by omission, where the media refuses to print the truth or opposing points of view, and the rejection of this ad [by The Guardian] is a manifestation of that,” added Dershowitz.

Exactly. No one in Britain knows anything except what the media report. If the media report an Israeli massacre, that’s what they believe. If the truth is far different, well, that’s someone else’s job.

But I reject even Dershowitz’s point. So what if Hamass were forced by population density to fire from crowded areas? That’s still on them. Nobody’s making them shell, rocket, and mortar Israel continually over the the past nine years. That’s their choice. If Israel doesn’t have the right to put an end to that, even if protecting their citizens from terror might harm Gaza’s citizens, she is the only country I’ve ever heard of so constrained. Nonsense. Israel may kill as many Gazans as necessary to secure Israelis, no more, no fewer. Indeed, it must.

Comments

[Bleep] Liberals Say

Aggie wrote this comment to a post below:

Yesterday, one of the low information crowd told me, quite seriously, that the Tea Party was an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street. Can you believe that?

I can, Aggie, because I hear [bleep] like that all the time. It’s time to start a column of it.

Yesterday:

I was killing time in Cambridge and overheard two students at a language school waiting for their class to start. One was local, and worked in web design for politics. The other was from out of town, but noted that Massachusetts was a pretty blue state, that the politics must be left wing. The local one assured him that was so, and added “I hate Republicans.” The second one responded “I can’t imagine a Republican learning Portuguese.” They continued in like-minded palaver until their class started.

Why would a Republican not take Portuguese? Why would a Democrat? Is there a hidden logic to that statement? People learn Portuguese only to hit on hot Brazilian chicks. Can’t Republicans fantasize about Shakira?

But it was the “I hate Republicans” line that I really should address.

Now, we all use “love” and “hate” liberally (pardon the pun): We “love” pickles, but “hate” relish; love Sandra Bullock, hate Maggie Gyll…Gylen…you know the one I mean. The one everyone hates.

But “hate” Republicans? How many does this person know? There aren’t that many of us around here—which is why she felt so free to speak of us that way. What are the odds, as the other person observed, that one would be loitering outside a Portuguese language class? Or loitering anywhere other than near a Catholic girls’ school or a highway rest stop? It’s a safe hatred, a comfortable hatred, a without-fear-of-contradiction hatred. Aren’t those the most dangerous kind?

The Governor is a Democrat. The Mayor (of Boston) is a Democrat. Both Senators are Democrats, as are all nine Congressmen (it used to be ten until we mercifully lost one to redistricting). There are only four Republicans in the 40-member State Senate, and 30 out of 160 members of the State House. Shouldn’t Republicans in Massachusetts be pitied rather than hated?

Except for the threat (and reality) of violence, Republicans in liberal strongholds are like blacks in the Jim Crow South. Despised, resented, under-(or un-)represented, misrepresented—if our politics were as readily apparent as the dark skin of African Americans, we would only have more such stories to tell, not fewer. But probably not the threat (or reality) of violence.

Move over, “It’s Unexpected!”™ and Dispatches From the Front Lines of Socialized Medicine, we have a new standing headline, [Bleep] Liberals Say.

Comments

Here’s Your Casket, What’s Your Hurry?

Liberals are like wild animals kept as pets. They may seem cute and furry, but you never know when they’ll return to their native state and bite the hand that feeds them pablum:

President Barack Obama’s comments speculating about openings on the Supreme Court were “unseemly,” columnist Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday.

At a fundraiser Monday night, Obama told supporters of the need to keep the Senate in Democratic control as the November midterm elections approach.

“Not to mention the fact that we’re going to have Supreme Court appointments,” Obama added.

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” on Tuesday, the conservative Krauthammer agreed the statement likely was intended to get the Democratic base out in a year when Democratic voters aren’t excited.

“But it is mildly unseemly,” he said.

Liberal activists have been urging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 81, to resign soon so Obama can appoint a younger successor in case Democrats lose the Senate.

Justice Ginsburg may not be to my political liking, but I have to admire the old bird. She’s licked cancer twice, and is still as sharp (if wrong) as she ever was. But she’s never faced an angry, paranoid Democratic base. Poor, poor girl.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »