Archive for Liberal Fascism

Milwaukee’s Worst

Remember Wisconsin? Mid-sized state next to Michigan? It was in the news a few years ago when its Republican governor tried to pry the fingers of the public sector unions off the throat of state government. For his efforts, Scott Walker was vilified and subjected to every legal and illegal punishment the Democrats could imagine. We were tangentially involved when our reports on the thuggish behavior of the union goons drew churlish, tendentious comments from hired hacks.

What was all that about?

Teachers in Wisconsin’s public schools have learned a major lesson from the state’s landmark 2011 law neutering public sector unions, with more than a third dropping out of their labor organization.

Given no choice but to join and pay dues to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) for decades, teachers have for the last three years been able to opt out. And that is what tens of thousands have done as a result of Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill, also known as Act 10.

“Given the evidence, it shows that the union’s hold is softening,” Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told FoxNews.com

Softening? I’ve seen diapers with firmer resolve.

“As soon as I was given the choice, I left,” Amy Rosno, a teacher with the virtual class program at the Waukesha school system, told FoxNews.com. “I never really understood the union anyway.”

Rosno said she had a better understanding once she was asked to be a representative for her department and attended her first WEAC meeting.

“I realized that it was all political and not about teaching,” she said.

No! What was your first clue, Amy? (These are the people to whom we entrust the education of our children?)

Teachers who spoke to the nonprofit education think tank EAGnews.org said they were glad to be free of the union’s grip, especially because of the perception their dues were spent on political contributions.

“It’s important to have a choice, because we are all professionals,” Michelle Uetz, a special education teacher at Prescott High School told the education news site. “We shouldn’t be pigeon-holed into contributing to politics we don’t believe in.”

WEAC has been accused of having a partisan political alliance with the Democratic Party in the state and backed a failed recall against Walker. Despite losing the policy battle, the union still pressures teachers to join, according to some interviewed by EAG.

“I worked with a young teacher who was thinking of leaving the union and she was actually scared to leave,” Deena Ferguson, a teacher at Fox Prairie Elementary, in Stilton, told the site, adding that WEAC often uses fear to recruit new teachers, suggesting they need protection from administrators.

“If the union is so beneficial and good, people will want to join on the principle and the merits and not be forced to join,” she said.

Rosno agreed, telling Foxnews.com that many teachers are left in a precarious position.

“There’s still a lot of fear,” she said. ‘A lot of teachers are afraid to admit that they support [Gov.] Walker. Many of them felt a lot of backlash. It still continues and they are afraid to show public support for the governor.

“I think it’s interesting the union hasn’t chosen to change its business model, even though teachers are leaving in droves,” Kristi LaCroix regional membership director for AAE said. “It’s just business as usual with them, so I see more and more professionals leaving.”

“Union” and “business model” rarely appear in the same sentence. But she’s right. Fascists never do change.

Comments

Ebola Follies

A great, great, GREAT, GREAT call to Rush today:

RUSH: Here’s Thomas in Washington, DC. Thomas, you’re our first call today. It’s great to have you on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Longtime listener first-time caller. I really appreciate what you’re doing.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I wanted to make a statement that I think the American people need to hear. (huffing for air) Sorry, I was just out jogging. The… (gasping) I’m a physician here in Washington, DC. I used to be in the military.

Introductions out of the way, I’m going to cut to the chase:

CALLER: Just, for instance, somebody comes into contact with somebody with Ebola and the virus now replicating in the host body, in the human.

RUSH: But the host may not know it. The patient may not know that he’s contagious yet.

CALLER: He has no idea.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: If you’re in an infected area or high-risk area where it’s found, you should be concerned about it. But if you’re around somebody, say, in an airport and they’re shedding the virus and they’re asymptomatic you have no idea. What I’m saying is the virus can reach elevated levels prior to 21 days, prior to sickness symptoms and be shed through close contact prior to the patient getting sick. So if we’re just leaving it as a litmus test, “Oh I’m sick; therefore I shouldn’t be on a plane,” or, “therefore I now can transmit this disease,” that’s wrong. The viremia prior to getting sick can be shed even though it may be smaller but it’s still infectious.

RUSH: So let me… So what you’re essentially saying is that when we are told, “If a patient is not showing symptoms, you can’t catch the disease,” that may not be true.

CALLER: That may not be true. Like I said, studies to prove or disprove this have not been made.

This confirms something I thought—and wrote—days ago: how likely is it that you become toxic just the moment you start feeling poorly? The only reason you start feeling poorly in the first place is that the viral load is building up in your body. It must be true that you are “shedding” the virus for a period of minutes to hours before you acknowledging feeling sick yourself.

But let the doctor tell you:

CALLER: Because from a statistical point of view, that’s probably true 99% of the time, for the majority of the time. But the virus is replicating in the body prior to it getting to a high enough titer where they can get sick. But prior to the symptoms occurring, the virus can still be spread or shed from the body that has been infected prior to actually having symptoms. This is what people need to know. We cannot be allowing people to come into America even if they’re asymptomatic, because the virus can be shed prior to symptoms. Prior to a level of the virus actually hurting the body, the body can be shed in the same manner prior to sickness. It may be statistically low, but it can happen.

They finished with the politics of situation:

CALLER: Well, they’re hurting us. Our own health care workers are at risk. Our patients are at risk. You look at what happened down in Dallas and you’ll realize that our facilities are ill equipped to handle an outbreak more than maybe a patient or two. We’re not equipped to handle this. We should not be allowing patients to come in from infected areas without like a 31- or 40-day waiting period.

RUSH: No, no, no. Doctor, as has been stated by a number of people now — particularly when it comes to Liberia and Sierra Leone — we cannot turn our backs on those people because it was slavery in this country that was responsible for those countries being set up and established so that slaves in this country could escape and have a place for freedom. Now if they’re getting sick, we can’t turn our backs on them. We can’t close the borders. That isn’t going to happen for political reasons, among many others.

CALLER: Well, that’s illogical. It bares no common sense, and from a national security point of view —

RUSH: Maybe not, but there is common sense if you have different objectives.

Rush has made the point several times that Obama can’t close the borders to Liberians because he wants to open the borders to everyone else. Anyone want to convince me that’s not so?

I didn’t think so.

Comments (1)

No Graven Images

Are we even allowed to say her name? Or is she just She Who Must Be Obeyed?

A Wisconsin reporter says he was blocked Tuesday from covering a Democratic rally in Madison headlined by first lady Michelle Obama — a week after another reporter claimed she was told at a similar event in Milwaukee not to speak with people in the crowd.

The latest incident has raised concerns from free press groups.

The reporter, Adam Tobias, works for Wisconsin Reporter — the Wisconsin arm of the news site Watchdog.org. He was trying to attend a rally for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke and claimed to have submitted his request for credentials on Saturday, “shortly after the Burke campaign sent a news release outlining the logistics.”

But the reporter was told he could not attend, and videotaped his encounter with a spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party on Monday.

Spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff initially did not give a reason for denying entry to Tobias. But when the reporter told her they would write a story on press being turned away, she suggested Watchdog.org was not part of the press.

“Well, you’re not the press though, so, thanks,” Baldauff said, closing the door.

Ooh, she sure told you! What’s one step below the “press”? Maggots? Scum? Fungus?

Any reporter not leashed and muzzled:

Franklin Center President Jason Stverak blasted the state party for preventing the site from covering Tuesday’s rally — one of two Michelle Obama was headlining for Democratic candidates.

“The problem with our political process is a lack of transparency, and the most recent move by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is an affront to free speech and the freedom of the press,” he said in a statement. “Having said that, I think we understand what’s at work here: Wisconsin Reporter has broken some of the most important stories in the state, not all of them comfortable for the Democratic Party leadership. We will continue to report the truth, and we won’t be deterred by petty, partisan politics.”

According to Watchdog.org, free press groups voiced concern about the decision. “It seems to me that Wisconsin Reporter ought to be able to attend the event and report on it,” Mark Pitsch, president of the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, said.

Wisconsin has some of the farthest Left Leftists, and the farther Left you go, the more fascist you become. Don’t take my word for it—just look at the behavior of the Wisconsin Democrat Party.

PS: Michelle was not speaking on the virtues of kale; she was making a very partisan appearance. Her role was political, not private.

Comments

Lois Lives!

That champion of 5th Amendment rights, Lois Lerner, doesn’t think much of the 1st Amendment

Jason Mattera, author of the new book Crapitalism: Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars, approached Lerner on the street in her upscale neighborhood just outside Washington, D.C. and asked Lerner if she wanted to apologize to conservatives or to comment on her role in “using the government as a weapon to crush political dissent.”

Lerner then dashed across a neighbor’s yard and began knocking on the door. An elderly woman refused to let Lerner in and said she recently had surgery. “Could you call the police?” Lerner asks the woman, who remained shielded behind the closed door. “Please let me in,” said Lerner. “These guys are with the press and they’re not leaving me alone.”

Despite the elderly woman’s disinterest in letting the former IRS official inside her home, Lerner persisted until the woman’s husband arrived.

“What are you doing here?” the elderly woman’s husband asks Lerner.

“These guys are not leaving me alone. They’re from the press. They’re following me. I just want to go in your house for one second,” said Lerner.

“I don’t want her in the house!” the elderly woman’s husband said. “Out. Out!”

Mattera says the video, which debuted Monday night on Hannity, is almost a “perfect proxy” for Lerner’s actions targeting innocent conservative and Tea Party groups.

“She keeps badgering an innocent woman with zero regard for her wishes,” explained Mattera. “It’s an incredible crystallization of Lerner’s character or lack thereof.”

Mattera added, “If Lerner is willing to barge into a person’s home, how much more so is she willing to barge into a conservative’s IRS records to inflict her political will?”

I almost feel sorry for Lois Lerner. And then I remember what she did, what she said and wrote, and what power she wielded in a government agency that has unchecked power. And I remember on whose behalf she acted (Obama, Schumer, Reid, et al). And I remember that she has faced no consequences for her disgraceful behavior. No one has. Their actions very likely stole an election, and there has been no settling of accounts. Then I don’t feel so sorry for her. Even her neighbors won’t take her in. Rich fu*ks are probably Republican anyway.

Comments

Shut Up, She Explained

Obama didn’t call the Constitution a “charter of negative liberties” for nothing!

A veteran reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said Monday she was prevented from talking to the crowd during an event at which First Lady Michelle Obama spoke.

Michelle was appearing Monday on behalf of Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke.

The reporter, Meg Kissinger, said she was “creeped out” by the Orwellian encounter with officials from the White House and the Burke campaign. She posted her frustration on her Facebook page:

Ewww!

More:

At the Burke event, a number of people in the crowd were upset about a lack of seating. Several people, including a woman using two canes, complained that she had nowhere to sit.

Reporters and photographers were cordoned off in a central area with chairs and tables. Several people in the crowd asked if they could have extra chairs reserved for the media — but reporters were initially forbidden from handing them over. Eventually, some of the Burke staff gave the extra chairs to attendees.

Burke and White House staff also told reporters not to talk to people in the crowd before the event.

Burke supporters interviewed after the event said they were focused on the message of the day.

Don’t talk to people. Don’t hand ‘em empty chairs. At a campaign appearance! This wasn’t Malia’s birthday party. It was a partisan campaign appearance. Dems have been after Michelle to get out on the trail. This must be her price.

Comments

Liberal Fascism

Aggie and I will walk away from this blog when the phrase in the title is taken as a tautology. We might well walk away before that, or I will, but when the world comes to see that liberalism inexorably leads to fascism, our work will be done.

Another nail in liberalism’s coffin:

Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice.

Indeed. But if she really believes it…:

I thought of all this when I read through another interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know how you have friends who complain about a super-old relative who just starts spouting racist stuff and can’t be quieted down? This is what interviews with Ginsburg remind me of.

I’m not saying she’s just like a crazy old racist great-aunt who keeps embarrassing us and we can’t do anything about it, but that’s basically what I’m saying.

Anyway, in an interview with Elle, she says her kid and grandkid don’t get how awful it would be to not have legal approval for snuffing out one’s growing baby in the womb. And then when she’s trying to say that protections for unborn children hurt poor women more than wealthy women since wealthy women can just pay the baby away, she lets that old eugenics thing slip again:

It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

It would be one thing if she were talking about the importance of promoting birth among all groups of people as a way of affirming the sacredness of life or what not, but her long-standing focus on how some “populations” shouldn’t be encouraged to have babies and should have subsidized abortion is beyond creepy. We get it, RBG, your social circles think life would be so much better if you didn’t have to deal with those awful poor people and their unapproved backgrounds and living conditions. But you’re supposed to be a tad bit better in covering up those motivations, mmmkay?

Beyond creepy. Ain’t it the truth. And she’s a liberal heroine beyond compare.

Hand me another nail, would ya?

Comments (1)

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)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »