► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Freedom Week: John Paul Stevens Validates What Conservatives Have Said For Decades

by Flyovercountry ( 237 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Marxism, Progressives at April 24th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, has written a book. As you might expect from one of the liberal stalwarts on the court, he has some helpful suggestions on how that pesky Constitution can be changed to allow for an easier transition to the Worker’s Paradise, known as European Socialism. He was nominated by the way, by yet another Republican President who was duped into believing the idiotic advice of an adviser who kept his head hidden squarely within the confines of his own buttocks and proclaimed, “here’s a legally conservative fellow who’ll give us an original interpretation of the Constitution.”

What is made clear by Stevens treatise is one immutable fact. For the entirety of his career as a Supreme Court Justice, he has interpreted the Constitution according to what he wanted it to say, and not according to what the document actually does say. In other words, when you hear the fallacious term, “living constitution,” recognize that this is someone who has determined that they disagree with the founding principles of our nation, and wish to see those founding principles done away with completely. The Constitution for them, is an obstacle to be overcome, and used only as a tool to destroy the fabric of our nation as it was founded.

The Progressive Movement in our nation, who’s two most influential leaders were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, saw our Constitution as an impediment to their desired transformation of a government constrained by its enumerated authority to one that would allow for an elite ruling class to basically rule as they saw fit. Individual freedom and self rule after all has never been the normative state for human beings in our world. Rather than recognizing inalienable rights granted by God as the source of our liberty, the Progressive Movement recognizes those liberties as a grant from government, thereby rendering them subject to removal by those same governments, via whimsy and fiat. In order to achieve this end, our founding documents had to be granted life, thus making an organic change possible.

Both Roosevelt and Wilson sought to increase the authority and scope of the Executive Branch, their own power base, and saw our Constitution specifically as an impediment to that end. They viewed the checks and balances system to be a nuisance which prevented them from edicting their political will, and sought to remedy that problem through direct appeals to transform our nation from being a representative republic to a direct democracy. The most successful of these fundamental changes were the Seventeenth Amendment, the recall ballot initiatives achieved in almost every State and municipal government throughout the nation, and the inroads into the way in which our Constitution has been handled throughout our educational system.

If you ask any high school child in America today whether our Constitution should be handled as a static document or a living document, they’ll give the automatic response of living document, without ever stopping to consider or even ask, what does that question even mean, much less, what does my answer mean. Our Judicial Branch has been given plenary authority to render judgement based not upon what the law actually says, but what they want it to say, which is a dream come true for those who don’t like having their authority checked. The Stevens book admits that fact. Looking back at his record, you’ll see that throughout his entire career, he has ruled as if these changes had already been made to our Constitution.

1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.

3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.

5. Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.

6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

His book is a further admission that far from a living document, until such changes are codified in actual Amendment form, his rulings and opinions are only temporary, which brings up another issue for the Living Document crowd. A living Constitution is as worthless as having no founding law to begin with. For years we have watched as the liberal members of the court have traveled about the globe admonishing audiences to embrace not what the Constitution actually says, but what it should, in their opinion, say instead. When the Egyptians were looking to form a new government, Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually went to the lengths to tell the fledgling conventioneers that the U.S. founding law was a bad example of how to form a nation, and that they should look to the Socialist nations of Europe for their inspiration.

This point can not be stressed enough, and it is the reason for the subterfuge employed by the living document crowd. The role of the Judiciary is as impartial referee, interpretation of what the law says and how our Constitution applies to various arguments of the day. It is not to determine what it should have said, or how it can be changed to accommodate the political whimsy of those who wish to introduce new sources of authority to take increasing lordship over the lives of the citizenry. That is how we will cease to be private citizens and will be established as subjects. It is no accident that one of the principle tenets of the Progressive Movement holds that members of any population are individuals second, and societal members first. In their worldview, we citizens of the United States should have our freedoms, which are our birthright, subordinated to the political will of the ruling class. A class by the way that does not exist, at least not according to the original interpretation of our Constitution.

Our founding law, as written enumerates certain pieces of authority to the Federal Government, and any thing that was not specifically enumerated was and should be considered to be beyond its scope and authority. In order to guarantee that this would remain the reality in perpetuity, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included in the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked, those two very important Amendments were still a part of the Constitution.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Sotomayor insults Minorities

by Rodan ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Headlines, Progressives at April 24th, 2014 - 7:57 am

Justice Sotomayor revealed her low self esteem by claiming that affirmative action is needed because minorities can’t compete. Sadly she has bought into the whole minorities are biologically inferior the Left and some on the Right push. Sotomayor seems to forget that Hispanics are an immigrant group and did not go through the experience of Black Americans. Afro-Hispanics did go through slavery but unlike their cousins in the States, there were no Jim Crow laws in Latin America after they were free. Her dissent was actually very insulting to minorities.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didn’t sit well with the court’s self-described “Wise Latina,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her 58-page-long dissent made clear that she’ll be the last line of defense for affirmative-action policies at the highest court in the land.

But a look at the dissent — parts of which Sotomayor dramatically read aloud from the bench — as well her own history, makes clear that the lady doth protest too much. Immigrants and their children simply have no claim on affirmative action — if anyone does. To the contrary, these policies hurt their intended beneficiaries.

[....]

In other words, one of the highest Hispanics in the land argues that, without preference policies, minorities can’t hope to reach a proportionate participation in universities.

Can you imagine what reading this opinion would do to a young Puerto Rican or Mexican-American girl full of hopes about her own abilities? As Linda Chavez, the highest woman in President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet once put it, “Ultimately, entitlements based on their status as ‘victims’ rob Hispanics of real power.”

[....]

Hispanics simply have no parallel claim. There’s nothing in the Hispanic experience in America that compares with the repulsive system of slavery. Some Jim Crow laws did affect some Mexican-Americans living in the Southwest, but there was nothing comparable with the African-American experience.

And the vast majority of today’s Hispanics either immigrated here or, more likely, descended from people who immigrated of their own volition. They chose to come here to better their lives.

Sotomayor needs some self esteem lessons.

 

The thrill of tyranny.

by Guest Post ( 290 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Progressives, Tea Parties, The Political Right at April 22nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: The thrill of tyranny.


Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.

IRS revokes conservative group’s tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements

The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.

The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.

Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”

Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.

A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.

What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.

BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.

The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”

Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.

Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight against feds

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.

As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.

That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.

What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone to far.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Rick Perry challenges Andrew Cuomo to a debate

by Rodan ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Democratic Party, Libertarianism, Progressives, Republican Party, Special Report at April 22nd, 2014 - 12:19 pm

The Libertarian leaning Governor of Texas Rick Perry has issued a challenge to NY’s Fascist Governor Andrew Cuomo. In a trip to NY, he wants to debate ideas for job creation. He wants to use stats showing Texas has economically outperformed NY in recent years.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who will be arriving in New York this afternoon for a trip trying to lure businesses to the Longhorn State, offered a Texas-sized takdown of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s record on job creation this morning and challenged him to a debate.

“I’d be more than happy to sit down and have a thoughtful conversation, a debate with Gov. Cuomo over the issues that face us as a state and talk about the economic policies and compare New York to Texas,” said Mr. Perry, speaking on New York Post columnist Fred Dicker’s Live from the State Capitol radio show. “I think that would be not only interesting and fun, but a thoughtful way for us as a country to have a discussion between two of the major states in America, talking about which one of these policies are actually better for our people.”

Mr. Cuomo has made a point of emphasizing tax cuts and job growth as he runs for re-election, but Mr. Perry quickly brushed aside those efforts. Asked about a campaign Mr. Cuomo has been running advertising the state’s new tax-free zones to lure new businesses, Mr. Perry ran through a list of companies that had relocated or expanded into Texas recently, and also pointed to New York’s high net migration rate.

Man up Andrew and take Perry up on his offer.

 

 

Freedom Week: The Mystical Meaning Behind The Ancient Secret Of The Second Amendment

by Flyovercountry ( 255 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Progressives, Second Amendment, Uncategorized at April 21st, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

It has always been a source of great amusement for me, that our debates in this nation over the Constitution have tended to center around the concept of what the Founding Fathers meant when they put it all together. After all, they did not frame this document in a vacuum. They debated it vociferously, recorded their debate, argued with one another via written letters, and even took the measure to defend their work and explain it all, in great detail by the way, in a collection of news paper articles. Yet, even with all of that, we still get some down right zany explanations as to how their true intention was to limit personal freedom and build a top down nanny state with an overbearing government in control of even the most mundane daily decisions of everyone who happens to be a citizen of these fruited plains.

While there are certainly many areas of contention, none, in my humble opinion can match the beating over the years, taken by the Second Amendment. This particular safe guard against tyranny is the holy grail for the political left, and they’ve been after it since the very birth of the progressive movement. I want to make something perfectly clear, not all who advocate for gun control deserve ridicule. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of those that I meet and debate with. Most of the people we meet are honest in the way that they debate about any issue, and gun control versus the Second Amendment is no exception to that rule. The vast majority of the debate from the other side is being delivered by people who while they may be wrong, are none the less sincere in their thinking.

That’s important for a number of reasons, the most important of which is centered on how you defeat their ideology. Making it personal will not ever be a winning formula, they were led to where they live via their emotions, and the appeals to those emotions. What will work however, is a complete nonacceptance of their flawed straw man talking points. We need to back the train up, and refute them there, rather than trying to refute each individual piece of Tom Foolery that finds its way to the light of day.

For example, when Governor Cuomo screeches, “you don’t need x number of bullets to kill a deer,” simply remind the world that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, killing deer, or target shooting. When the next mass shooting, and there will be a next one, takes its place in the never ending news pummeling, point out how it happened, as always, in a gun free zone. When the great Joe Biden gives his brilliantly thought out treatise on how merely firing off a shotgun blindly into the night will be sufficient to scare off any home invader, making any other type of firearm unnecessary for protection, remind him that home protection was not at all the intention of the Second Amendment. When Michael Moore intones his preposterous theory that the Second Amendment means that the Framers of our First National Law intended for citizens to be gifted with permission to carry front loading muskets only, laugh at what is truly, museum grade stupidity.

Here is the truth about the Second Amendment. It was not placed in the Bill of Rights so that people who were in militias could form paramilitary organizations to assist in national defense. It was not put in the Bill of Rights so that the people living in that age would be able to hunt for food. The Founding Fathers were not worried about citizens being able to ward off burglars, or even bandits in a wild and lawless frontier. They were not particularly frightened of the Indian population suddenly and without provocation marauding within the original colonies. They wanted to make certain that the citizens would be every bit a well armed, and even better armed, than any army that a central government would be able to put together.

When the Constitution was presented initially to the Legislatures of the individual states, it was not ratified. The individual state legislatures wanted some additions to the agreement codified into the deal, prior to signing on. One of the Amendments demanded was authored by George Mason of Virginia. It was the Second out of Eight, (the last two Amendments that rounded out the Bill of Rights were authored by James Madison, as a response to the discussion concerning the first Eight.) Of all of the quotes concerning the Second Amendment and what it really means, perhaps the best and most succinct belongs to the fellow who wrote the thing.

Here’s what George Mason had to say about the people’s right to keep and bear arms:

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.

If you still have doubts as to what was intended by the Second Amendment, we’ll let the author of the Constitution discuss it, at length. Here is the last paragraph from Federalist number 46, authored by James Madison, with emphasis added after the fact by myself:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

It is clear, or should be to anyone of even a slightly intellectually honest nature, that our founding fathers not only wanted our citizens to be armed to the teeth, but wanted private citizens to be a greater force than any military that our nation could muster. They wanted the private citizens to be able to defeat any military force Washington could send against us. So the short answer to the hyperbolic question, “do you think the Founding Fathers wanted private citizens to have nukes?” is an undeniable and resounding yes. They wanted the citizens to have access to anything our military, or any military has, at any time now, or in the future.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Lena Dunham wishes to be Chelsea Clinton’s fetus

by Rodan ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Entertainment, Hipsters, Humor, Progressives at April 18th, 2014 - 7:00 am

The Popular Culture is rallying around the “Great Mother” Hilliary in preparation for 2016. They are all ecstatic over Chelsea Clinton being pregnant. Leena Dunham who is a heavy hitter of the Popular Culture and a Hipster icon chimes in. She Tweets that she wishes to be the fetus of Chelsea Clinton!

 

 

Lena Dunham Pro-Obama ads in 2012 which Republicans ridiculed turned out to be very effective in motivating young Hipster females to come out and vote. Her opinions influences millions of people in this nation. She is a winner and committed to the triumph of the Progressive cause. That said, we can and should ridicule her stupidity!

(Hat Tip: Twitchy)

Freedom Week: No Captivating Fear Spreads As Far And As Quick As Environmental Fear

by Flyovercountry ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives at April 17th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Have you noticed recently that every single initiative and statement mad by the environmental movement has an underlying theme that remains constant, no matter what the complained about crime against Mother Earth? These stories or proclamations always go something like this, “the upcoming environmental disaster is a threat to all life on the planet, and the only way to put a stop to that threat, thereby saving humanity and all living creatures is to adopt Marxism as a socioeconomic system.” I think, that just about covers it all. To prove my point, the U.N. grand poobahs on all things climate related released their third report this week, and if you had guessed that man kind is doomed and adopting a world wide Marxist government is the only possible way to save us all, then you would have won the office pool this year. I know that I’m shocked, how about you? Of course, there is a reason why, since 1991, Socialism and loss of freedom have been the only possible cures for our environmental sins, and I think I’ll let one of the very first environmentalists to grace our Earth Mother tell us what that reason is.

Patrick Moore, founder of Green Peace, on why he left his own creation:

Basically they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti corporatism, anti globalization, anti business, and very little to do with science or ecology, and that’s when I left. I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicos basically, and that they were using it for fundraising purposes. Nobody is going to listen to you if you say the world is not coming to an end, but if you say the world is going to end, you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it’s combined with misinformation leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.

Now we can go on and on about whether such calamities are actually headed our way. I notice that Chicken Little wastes no time with apologizing for screeching about dangers that weren’t there to begin with, Ozone, Global Cooling, Godzilla, what have you. I also notice that Chicken Little and his merry crew are already on to some new issues with which to convince us to voluntarily give up our basic freedoms and economic prosperity and finally allow for the top down central planners to show us all a better way. But before anyone buys the premise that complete government control of our lives by some super world wide ruling elite party of genius bureaucrats would somehow be better for the environment, have a peek at the environmental track record of the Marxists the last time they were put in charge of things.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain was finally lifted to expose the inner workings of communism to Western eyes, one of the more shocking discoveries was the nightmarish scale of environmental destruction. The statistics for East Germany alone tell a horrific tale: at the time of its reunification with West Germany an estimated 42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water, almost half of the country’s lakes were considered dead or dying and unable to sustain fish or other forms of life, and only one-third of industrial sewage along with half of domestic sewage received treatment.

An estimated 44 percent of East German forests were damaged by acid rain — little surprise given that the country produced proportionally more sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and coal dust than any other in the world. In some areas of East Germany the level of air pollution was between eight and twelve times greater than that found in West Germany, and 40 percent of East Germany’s population lived in conditions that would have justified a smog warning across the border. Only one power station in East Germany had the necessary equipment to clean sulphur from emissions.

snip:

The environmental destruction associated with communism is no coincidence or accident of history, but rather a perfectly logical outcome for at least three reasons. Perhaps most obviously, communism invariably means authoritarianism (how else would a New Soviet Man emerge to work towards the bright, shiny future prophesied by Marx and Engels without re-education camps and control over the levers of societal machinery?), with little tolerance for dissent or concerns about hazardous waste in the worker’s paradise. To voice the opinion that perhaps not quite all was well, or that the air smelled funny, was to invite suspicions being a saboteur, kulak or harboring bourgeois tendencies.

Second, communism means an absence of property rights, having all been surrendered to “the people,” which is to say the state. As that which belongs to everyone in fact belongs to no one, who is to be confronted over the factory sending toxic plumes into the sky which then descends on the cornfield, or the dumping of waste into the river plied by tourists on cruise boats? And who really owns the cornfield or the boats?

Lastly, communism also simply cannot compete with capitalism in the production of wealth and technology, both of which greatly assist in addressing environmental problems. Why should anyone be surprised that only one East German power station had the necessary equipment to scrub sulphur from its emissions? This, after all, was a country whose answer to Western automobiles — the Trabant launched in the late 1950s — did not even include a fuel gauge in its early versions, something first introduced decades prior (unsurprisingly the Trabant was also bad for the environment, emitting nine times the hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007).

Do you want to know what else causes a terrible ecological impact? If you guessed green technology or green energy does, you’ve won the prize. As it turns out, those Solar Energy Farms that our government has been pouring untold Billions into are responsible for a larger amount of deaths to birdies than pheasant season and duck season combined. Those Solar farms are basically the equivalent of the birdie killing fields.

The three main causes of death were:
1. Solar flux: Exposure to temperatures over 800 degrees F.

2. Impact (or blunt force) trauma: The birds’ wings are rendered inoperable while flying, causing them to crash into the ground. Birds that do not die are often injured badly enough to make them vulnerable to predators.

3. Predators: When a bird’s wings are singed and it can not fly, it loses its primary means of defense against animals like foxes and coyotes.
Hummingbirds, swifts, swallows, doves, hawks, finches, warblers and owls were just some dead birds found at the solar facilities’ “equal opportunity” mortality hazards.
In one instance, lab staff observed a “falcon-type bird with a plume of smoke arising from the tail as it passed through [a] flux field.”

The study found that besides the intense heat, birds may be mistaking large solar panels for bodies of water. The injured birds then attract insects and other predators to the area. They, too, are then vulnerable to injury or death.

In one instance, researchers found “hundreds upon hundreds” of butterfly carcasses (including Monarchs). The insects were attracted to the light from the solar farms, which in turn attracted birds and perpetuated a cycle of death and injury.

As for me, were it not for the very real danger of these people getting their way, and fulfilling their dream of wrecking the economic prosperity for all of us, (which by the way has a very real and terrifying human cost, such as famine in the third world among other things,) I would be laughing my touchas off at watching them run around from scary story to scary story bleating on about impending doom. I’m still cackling about that beyond stupid movie in which Man Made Global Warming literally chased Dennis Quaid down a corridor and had him slam a door shut to protect himself from it, (The Day After Tomorrow.)

One of the reasons environmental fear works so well on the easily duped is that you truly can not immediately see via empirical evidence the truth of falsity of the claim being made. The Earth is warming crapola has been shoveled at us since Ronald Reagan was President, and it wasn’t until this year that the American Physical Society has finally pushed back.

Perhaps no bleating from Chicken Little rewards the fear mongers as well as that warning associated with Nuclear Power. I watched with some amusement as the dolts in California flocked to pharmacy shelves and emptied the stores there of iodine due to the Earth Quake experienced in Fukishima. Never mind that the exposure to radiation felt by the California population was 2000 times greater due to the bananas found in the grocery stores there, or the granite on their kitchen counter tops, or in the phosphorous found in their laundry detergent, than any possible exposure caused by the Fukishima Plant, their fear came from that place that dared to use Nuclear Power in order to create cheap electricity for the citizens of Japan. This is because in the world of the Marxists, it is not the actual danger that is important, but that anyone outside of their socioeconomic system would successfully produce energy in order to create prosperity.

Just in case you’re predisposed to be afraid of Nuclear Power, perhaps you should read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

Besides the U.N.’s Chernobyl report, the most extensive data on human exposure to radiation is the American-Japanese joint study of hibakusha—”explosion-affected persons”—the 200,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The expectations at the start of that study (which has taken over 60 years and continues to this day) were that survivorswould be overrun with tumors and leukemia and that a percentage of their descendants would be genetically deformed. Instead, researcher Evan Douple concluded, “The risk of cancer is quite low, lower than what the public might expect.”

Radiologist John Moulder analyzed the results of one group of 50,000 survivors, about 5,000 of whom had developed cancer: “Based on what we know of the rest of the Japanese population, you would have expected about 4,500 of them. So we have 5,000 cancers over 50 years where we would expect 4,500.” Assuming that the 500 additional cases are all due to radiation, that means a rate of 1%. And there was no increase in inherited mutations. Remember: These aren’t victims of a power plant breakdown; they are survivors of a nuclear attack.

For the Fukushima disaster of 2011, the consensus estimate is a 1% increase in cancer for employees who worked at the site and an undetectable increase for the plant’s neighbors. Just think of the difference between the overwhelming nuclear fears and nightmares we’ve all suffered from since 1945 and that range of increased risk: 0% to 1%. And if that’s not enough to question everything you thought you knew about radiation, consider that, even after the catastrophe in Japan, the likelihood of work-related death and injury for nuclear plant workers is lower than for real estate agents … and for stockbrokers.

That’s right, despite all of the Mother Jones and Huffington Post pictures and pontifications showing how Fukishima has doomed all of man kind, the truth is that there is a small chance that two, count them two, more people who worked at that plant on that day might, not definitely but might, develop health problems later in life due to exposure from that particular day. The resulting health impact on the neighboring community will be zero, and certainly Californians went a little overboard with their iodine buying spree.

By the way, if you guessed that Hydraulic Fracturing was going to cause Earth Quakes as the next Chicken Little table pounding warning, then you win the prize. What that prize is of course is another matter. Your prize is a spiffy multi year vacation at one of the reeducation camps coming soon to the People’s Republic Of Amerika, I’ll see you there.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — State regulators for the first time have linked earthquake activity in eastern Ohio to hydraulic fracturing, confirming the suspicions of activists pushing unsuccessfully for a drilling ban.

State Oil & Gas Chief Rick Simmers told The Associated Press on Friday that the state has halted drilling indefinitely at the site near Youngstown where five minor tremors occurred in March following investigative findings of a probable link to fracking.

A deep-injection well for fracking wastewater was tied to earthquakes in the region in 2012.

Simmers says Ohio will require sensitive seismic monitoring as a condition of all new drilling permits within three miles of a known fault or existing seismic activity of 2.0 or greater. Drilling will pause for evaluation with any tremor of 1.0 magnitude and will be halted if a link is found.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

An honor killing, Brandeis University-style

by Speranza ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

We are definitely living in an age of Liberal Fascism. Louis D. Brandeis, a proud Zionist and defender of free speech must be turning over in his grave as a university named after him and founded by secular but proud American Jews, caves in to the pressures of Marxists and Islamists.

by Zev Chafets

Brandeis University committed an honor killing this week. The victim was a Somali woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Honor killings are depressingly common in the Middle East: punishment for women guilty of being raped, losing their virginity outside of marriage, adultery, dressing provocatively or simply embarrassing a male relative. These murders – most of which go unreported and unprosecuted – are usually acid-in-the-face, blood-on-the-floor affairs meant not only to salvage the good name of the dishonored family but to intimidate other women (and gay men) into abiding by the prevailing code of behavior.

[.....]

She comes by her passion honestly. At the age of 5 she was subjected to ritual genital mutilation by her family. As a young woman she rebelled against a traditional forced marriage and fled to the Netherlands, where she received political asylum.

As a girl, Hirsi Ali wore a hijab, abided by Shariah law and even supported the death threat issued by Iranian clerics against renegade Muslim author Salman Rushdie.

[.....]

She enrolled at a local university, became an avowed atheist and, in 2003, just 11 years after her arrival in her new country, she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Along with Theo Van Gogh, a descendant of painter Vincent Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali made “Submission,” a cinematic protest against the brutal treatment in the Middle East of women who do not submit to their role as second-class human beings.

In the wake of 9/11, she issued warnings about the violent nature of armed political Islam. Her point was made for her by a fanatic who, in the name of Allah, stabbed Van Gogh to death on an Amsterdam street.

The murderer pinned a letter to Van Gogh’s body: a death threat against Hirsi Ali, who was forced into hiding and lived under government protection until she settled in the United States in 2007.

Hirsi Ali’s story is a heroic one, and her persona – Third World woman of color, secular humanist, ardent feminist, defender of gay rights and a near martyr to her liberal Western principles – certainly resonated with the awards committee of a proudly progressive university like Brandeis. She was almost the perfect candidate for an honorary degree.

But there was one small problem. She had dared to criticize Islam and Muslim behavior in the same way other religions and other human behaviors get criticized in an open society. In America you can’t get killed for this (yet), but you can be dealt with.

Enter Nihad Awad, the national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He launched a letter of protest at Brandeis president Fredrick Lawrence, accusing Hirsi Ali of wrong thoughts and evil words. Giving her an award, he wrote, would be like “promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”

That was rich. Awad has publicly supported Hamas (which is anti-Semitic) and Hezbollah, the terrorist arm of the Teheran Holocaust deniers. Not only that: He actually accused Ali of threatening the entire Muslim world with violence. The demand to rescind the award was backed by almost a quarter of the Brandeis faculty.

Faced with this absurd and offensive inversion of reality, President Lawrence informed Hirsi Ali that she was no longer welcome at commencement. He blamed this on “certain of her past statements,” which he said were inconsistent with the university’s “core values.”  He had the audacity to invite Hirsi Ali to visit the school someday for a discussion “in the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University through its history.”

[.....]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves her degree for precisely the reason Nihad Awad doesn’t want her to have it – because she dares to speak her mind and say things that offend the sort of people CAIR represents.

The Brandeis commencement this year is conferring an honorary degree on Jill Abramson, the gifted and outspoken editor of The New York Times. Hopefully she won’t let the occasion pass without reminding her hosts of who is absent from the podium: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman whose reputation is the victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style.

Read the rest – Ayaan Hirsi Ali -  victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style

Freedom Week: Fear And Manipulation Are The Greatest Prison Guards

by Flyovercountry ( 189 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Progressives at April 14th, 2014 - 5:11 pm

In honor of Passover starting this evening, with Tuesday being the first full day, I thought I’d go in a slightly different direction. A completely non religious discussion inspired by a religious event or celebration. Passover, for my non-Jewish friends is at its core, a celebration of freedom. More specifically, it means to those of us who are Jewish, our deliverance from bondage, (enslavement,) by God, and as a consequence of that deliverance, the agreement that we would live our lives according to the laws of the Torah, (the first Five Books of Moses found in the Old Testament of the Bible.) So, for this week, my topics will be a celebration of that spirit of freedom, what it means, how do we achieve it, keep it, and prevent the usurpers of such from gaining a foothold on ideology within our societal thought.

There are two conditions required in order for an entire population to be subjugated. One of those conditions is that there must be a group of elites or a ruling class that wishes to do the subjugating. The second condition that needs met is that the population in question must, for the entire duration of that subjugation, be incapable of doing anything about it. Those doing the subjugating will always live in constant fear of losing their upper hand. For them, Life itself will always be a paradox. Having a population that is totally and forever subordinated, and at the same time, constantly a threat if awakened to the possibility of revolt.

That is why slavers will institute certain precautions among their chattel. Education will be disallowed, most specifically, Slaves will not be allowed to learn the art of reading and writing. Disarmament is a must, as in complete gun control. Fear must be instilled, but a deeper and more subtle fear than what you might believe. Yes, making chattel fearful of immediate reprisal for breaking the rules is a necessary tool, but it is not the complete picture. Even more useful is making the subordinate population fearful for their very existence, thus convincing them to become complicit in their own bondage. Even more insidious, convincing the enslaved that they are not a permanent servant class, and controlling their behavior through mass manipulation techniques taught in every Group Dynamics Class on college campuses across our Fruited Plains.

Let’s explore those last two items in a more focused context. How do potential overlords achieve these ends? How do you convince an entire segment of the human population that without your protection from some perceived boogeyman or collection of unseen dangers, they would perish? How do you get them to be afraid of those boogeymen in the first place, meaning initiate the perception necessary to establish the ruse?

Fear, contrary to what you may believe is not a human failing. It is an evolutionary defense mechanism, which in the past helped us, as a species, to survive. When I managed Woolworth Stores in some of America’s crappiest neighborhoods, I happened upon an alcoholic named Norm. One day Norm came up to me and said, “you should try being an alcoholic John, it gets rid of your inhibitions.” I told Norm that I liked my inhibitions just fine, and that inhibited behavior was in fact what kept mankind alive for from his first appearance on Planet Earth. When you think to yourself, “should I play in traffic, in front of that oncoming tractor trailer?,” it is your inhibitions that say, “probably not a good idea.” It is the fear of falling from great heights that convinces your natural curiosity to not test the laws of physics by throwing yourself off of tall buildings to determine if you might indeed be able to fly. Fear and inhibitions were those very things that made early man not pull the tails of lions, poke bear while sleeping, or tug on Superman’s cape. What makes us different as species, is our ability to temporarily control those hardwired pieces of our natural design. The entire point I’m trying to make here is that those pimping fear in order to control everyone have a distinct advantage to begin with, and that advantage is that we are, all of us, genetically predisposed to be fearful pretty much most of the time.

Being a follower, is also hardwired into most of us. I know that this one hurts to read, and more specifically, most people actually see themselves as leaders. The truth is however, that this is not so. From the beginning of our first steps upright as people, when Simian Chromosomes 2 and 13 fused, forming our Human Chromosome number 2, with its two centromeres and three telomeres, our survival has been enhanced by living in collective groups, rather than individually. For any such social structure, leaders and followers are always established, with genetics playing a particular role in determining alphas and betas, (leaders and followers.) After the Nuremberg Trials, in which the world at large refused to accept officially any defense in which the betas of Germany professed that they were merely followers, a pretty smart guy named Stanley Milgram decided to test if it were possible after all that people in general would really be willing to simply follow a maniacal leader to commit genocide. What he found was to say the least, chilling.

Of Milgram’s original 40 test subjects, 4 were removed from the study due to a breakdown of the control conditions, (the actors involved failed to convince the test subjects of the ruse,) 35 deliberately killed off their victims, and 1 person refused. The single failure by the way was a Catholic Priest, scoring one for those of you with faith. Our humanity really is connected to our faith in a higher power. Also of note, Milgram eventually lost his job at Yale due to the fall out from this experiment, as many of those tested over the course of this study needed psychological counseling due to their realization that they were indeed willing to commit murder simply because a person in authority ordered them to do so. If WWII proved one thing, it is that human beings are predisposed to be followers, and that we are capable of being manipulated in mass, even if that manipulation leads us to do terrible things. For those of you who say it could never happen again, I would simply point to Josef Stalin’s mass murder in the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s mass murder in Cambodia, both of which happened after WWII. Both were instances of subordinates being ordered to exterminate millions of people based on ideological or racial grounds, and following those orders without question or failure.

I’m sure that many who read this will be those precious few alphas who are leaders and not followers, but the vast majority will be followers who view themselves as leaders. In Milgram’s experiment, each of the subjects was interviewed prior to the testing, and each one of them professed their belief that they were strong enough to stand out from the crowd and were essentially non-conformist in nature. My personal belief is that the first step in controlling these parts of our nature, genetically coded into us through millennia of natural selection, is recognition of the existence of this truth. Only by recognizing that we are being led against our will, or fearful for possibly irrational reasons, can we overcome the effects of those realities.

Always question the premise for which information is presented to you. Don’t allow for others to frame the debates of the day, dictating terms upon which decisions are made. We, as people with inalienable rights granted by our creator have a say so in matters pertaining to our existence as well, meaning, self determination. As a small lad who was a member of BBYO, (for you Christians out there, think church youth group,) I participated in a leadership weekend. There was some hippie present who taught us a class in Group Dynamics, doubtless based on his work at some leftist corner of what ever institution of higher learning was providing him protection from the consequences of living in the real world. We glossed over the basics of recognizing that when collected together as a group, people will begin to act in concert in certain respects, without recognizing the phenomenon. This behavior will begin to take on a life of its own, and will do so in every instance of any group’s formation. Even today, and in the most unlikeliest of places, I can see evidence of this in motion. Not only can this group behavior be noticed, but it can be manipulated, and most of the members of the group will follow suit. There probably will be a few dissident influences, but there is a methodology of dealing with those as well. The means of dealing with those dissident influences is easier for leaders who are organized, and looking out for them specifically. The success of the dissidents, similarly depends upon the ability to organize, but that success can be accomplished. For what makes groups easy to manipulate, is also the thing that the manipulators fear the most, and that is the recognition of the manipulation. People are generally not pleased to learn that they’ve been conned. They’re downright mad beyond belief if they feel that they’ve been led to a bad end.

Milgram’s test subjects did not just go away after his experiments were done. They contacted the University in New Haven, Connecticut demanding his head upon the realization that he had played with their emotions, consciousness, and pointed out how easily they could be led into tossing aside their humanity. The people of Germany held war crimes trials for decades after the original Nuremberg Trials had ceased, hunting people for prosecution deemed to low on the totem pole to be considered war criminals by the International Court. Truth and knowledge are the tools which will make combating the weapons of the left possible.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Passover is not about eating matza or watching “The Ten Commandments” on television, it is about freedom

by Speranza ( 167 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 14th, 2014 - 7:00 am

The spinelessness of the American Jewish leadership reminds me of  how the Victorian era Jew, Israel Zangwill referred to the leadership of British Jewry as being  composed of “trembling Israelites”.

by Caroline Glick

Passover, which begins on Monday night, is the festival of freedom.

The holiday reminds us of the brutal enslavement of the Jews by Pharaoh and the Egyptians. We recall their midnight flight from Egypt, pursued by the mighty Egyptian army, and God’s miraculous rescue of the Jews at the shores of the Red Sea.  [......]

We repeat the story of enslavement, flight, redemption and freedom each year at Passover, because our sages wanted to ensure that we never forget the value of freedom, and remain vigilant in our fight for it. In Israel, where our freedom is physically threatened, most Jews understand and live by the lessons of Passover.

But something is happening to the Jews in America.

More and more, every day we see American Jews embracing intellectual bondage. We see American Jewish leaders embracing the intolerant, who seek to constrain freedom, and shunning those who fight for freedom and the rights of Jews and other threatened peoples and groups.

To a large degree, this rejection of the lessons of the Exodus among the American Jewish community reflects the growing intolerance and tyranny of the political Left, to which most American Jews pledge their allegiance.

With increasing frequency, leftist groups and leaders in the US are openly acting to deny freedom of expression to their political and ideological foes, and to destroy the lives of people who oppose their dogma.

For instance, last week we saw the growing tyranny of gay activists. Under assault from homosexual thought police, the Mozilla Corporation of Firefox browser fame fired its CEO Brendan Eich because he once contributed $1,000 to a campaign to block the legalization of homosexual marriage in California.

[.......]

The aim of these assaults is to silence all opposition to their agenda using the tools of social ostracism and intellectual terror.

Young Americans now embrace intellectual and social tyranny in the name of “liberal” values. In an op-ed in The Harvard Crimson, undergraduate Sandra Korn celebrated the eclipse of academic freedom in favor of what she called “justice.” Korn called for censoring conservative voices for their “offensive” views.

She also embraced the anti-Jewish hate movement popularly known as BDS (boycotts, divestments and sanctions of the Jewish state) as a good way to promote “justice” at the expense of freedom.

In Korn’s conflation of conservative voices with Zionist voices and insistence on delegitimizing and silencing both due to the “offense” they cause to “right thinking” thought enforcers like herself we see the central role that Jew hatred and the denial of Jewish freedom plays in the new wave of mass rejection of reason in favor of passions and hatred.

Sadly, many parts of the organized American Jewish community have embraced leftist tyranny and discrimination.

In 2008, the New York UJA-Federation teamed up with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and forced the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to disinvite then-US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin from addressing a rally opposing then Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while he addressed the UN General Assembly.

To ensure that Palin would be denied the right to speak, the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA threatened that her appearance would jeopardize the tax exempt status of the Conference of Presidents and other major Jewish organizations.

It may very well be that this threat was the first instance of leftists threatening prejudicial IRS investigations against their political foes as a means of ensuring obedience to their agenda.
[.......]

Palin’s invitation was an oversight.

While fervent Zionists are silenced, post-Zionists and anti-Zionists are legitimized and staunchly defended.

Six years after Palin was brutally disinvited, in the name of cultivating a “wide tent,” the same New York UJA-Federation and JCPA invited anti-Israel organizations that support the boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses to take part in the annual pro-Israel parade.

Three such organizations, Partners for a Progressive Israel, the New Israel Fund and B’Tselem all call for a boycott of Jewish businesses operating beyond the 1949 armistice lines. All three groups have played roles in mainstreaming the BDS movement.

In Israel, the public understands that boycotts are about mainstreaming hatred and bigotry just as much as they are about economic strangulation. That is why in 2011 the Knesset passed the anti-boycott law which allows all Israeli entities to sue groups calling for boycotts against them for civil damages, and bars such groups from participating in state tenders.

But in the American Jewish community, these groups are defended and legitimized.

Disgusted at their community leadership’s double standard of tolerance and support for foes of Israel and intolerance for supporters of Israel, a consortium of organizations and synagogues organized a protest against the inclusion of anti-Israel organizations in the Israel Day Parade.

After weeks of protests in the press and on social media sites, on Tuesday some 200 people demonstrated outside the UJA-Federation building in New York and demanded that the boycott supporters and abettors be shunned.

It was an important act of defiance.

[......]

These groups have joined together in the past to protest against UJA-Federation funding of institutions such as the 92nd Street Y and the New York JCC, which have provided platforms for Jew-haters and BDS supporters.

Their protest was vital. It would be a tragedy if the thuggish behavior of the Jewish community leaders went unopposed. But it is hard to see how the protesters can change the situation.

The rot runs deep.

Consider Brandeis University’s craven and intolerant administration.

Brandeis was founded as a traditionally Jewish university in 1948, the year that Israel was established.

But whereas Israel has remained faithful to its sovereign duty to cultivate and defend Jewish freedom and engender a liberal democracy, over the years, Brandeis has largely abandoned its mission of standing up to intolerance, and protecting Jewish rights and those of other threatened groups.

Case in point is its obscene treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim who suffered genital mutilation as a child in Somalia and at age 21 fled to Holland to avoid a forced marriage.

After liberating herself, Hirsi Ali could have settled into a quiet European life. Instead, she dedicated her life to championing the rights of women and girls in Islamic societies.

For the past decade, Hirsi Ali has lived under an Islamic death sentence for her work. She can go nowhere without bodyguards.

In 2006, despite her membership in the Dutch parliament, Hirsi Ali was forced to flee to the US, when the Dutch government refused to continue to protect her.

[......]

Most recently, she was the executive producer of a new documentary film called Honor Diaries, which describes the plight of Muslim women and girls living in societies where they risk murder at the hands of their family members if they refuse to live in abject humiliation and submission to the misogyny of Islamic law.

Several months ago, Brandeis offered to confer an honorary doctorate on Hirsi Ali for her work on behalf of women and girls.

When the leftist and Muslim thought police in the Brandeis student body and faculty got wind of the university’s plan to honor her, they joined forces with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to force the administration to cancel the honorary degree.

CAIR claims to be a Muslim civil rights group. And yet, the group that purports to care about the civil rights of Muslims is waging a nationwide campaign to bar screenings of Honor Diaries, at universities around the country.

When Fox News’s intrepid host Megyn Kelly asked CAIR leaders this week how they can object to a film that seeks to help Muslims, they said they don’t have a problem with its content. They object to the fact that it was produced by Jews (also known as “Islamophobes”).

Far from being a civil rights group, CAIR is a pro- Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood organization. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas financing trial against the Holyland Foundation.

And yet, on Wednesday, Brandeis sided with CAIR and the thought police, against Hirsi Ali. Brandeis canceled its plan to confer its honorary doctorate on her.

And just as is the case with the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA, Brandeis has no problem with double standard. As Daniel Mael, a Brandeis senior, noted in an interview with Andrew Breitbart, in 2006 Brandeis conferred an honorary degree on playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner, the outspoken foe of Israel. Kushner has claimed that Israel’s establishment was a “mistake,” and that “it would have been better if Israel never happened.” His work, particularly the film Munich, is replete with demonization of Israel and of the notion of Jewish power.

Mael noted that at the time, then-Brandeis president Jehuda Reinhartz defended his decision to honor Kushner by arguing, “Mr. Kushner is not being honored because he is a Jew, and he is not being honored for his political opinions. Brandeis is honoring him for his extraordinary achievements as one of this generation’s foremost playwrights, whose work is recognized in the arts and also addresses Brandeis’s commitment to social justice.”

In other words, Brandeis’s commitment to “social justice” involves shunning defenders of Muslim women and girls and celebrating foes of the Jewish state, which ensures Jewish freedom.

The work of activists like Mael, and of the trenchant demonstrators in New York is extremely important. But it is hard to be optimistic about the future freedom of America in general or of the Jewish community. Aside from the National Council of Young Israel, no major American Jewish organization agreed to sponsor the protesters’ call for pro-BDS groups to be disinvited from the Israel Parade.

When the leaders of the Jewish American community – like their fellow leftists – side with forces of intolerance and discrimination and against Israel’s stalwart defenders and opponents of the oppression endemic in Islamic societies, it does not bode well for the future.

It is my holiday prayer that on Monday night, they will remember that Passover is not about eating matza. It is about the price of freedom, and why that price is worth paying.

Read the rest -  Forgetting freedom at Passover