Chuck Todd Is Wrong About Left/Right Comparisons of Antisemitism

  • At the 2017 convention of the Democratic Socialists of America, delegates chanted: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” after passing a resolution to support the boycott, divestment and sanctioning of Israel. — BLOOMBERG
  • Eight House Democrats have met with notorious racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan during their time in Congress — RPT

Chuck Todd is a dunce. I know I am suppose to be not posting for some cruise time, I watched Chuck Todd interview Liz Cheney… and his tropes about the right and antisemitism bugged me enough to be up at 4am posting before we drive to the port. But, he has a partial list of things in the following video that allow me to respond in short to a few of his points.

REMEMBER as well Chuck’s admission of using ALTERNATIVE FACTS, whatever that means.

So let’s take a few of these…

GOOD PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES

ABC fills us in on the larger quote:

  • “I think there is blame on both sides,” the president told reporters that day in August 2017. “You had some very bad people in that group,” Trump said, referring to the white nationalist groups rallying against removal of a Confederate statue. “But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Let me explain using an adaptation of the quote:

  • “I think there is blame on both sides, the fascist group Antifa, who threw the first punches,[A] and the white nationalist groups in attendance” the president told reporters that day in August 2017. “You had some very bad people in those groups,” Trump said, referring to the white nationalist groups and Antifa thugs rallying against civil society. “But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides, there were people there to support peacefully the taking down of these — to them — offensive pieces of our history memorialized. And there were others who were peacefully showing support for keeping monuments to our first sin as a nation, thinking that a society that forgets about our sins are doomed to repeat them.”

This is what Trump clearly said as Prager quickly points out:

[A] DAILY WIRE >> New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg made the mistake of admitting that along with the abhorrent, violent, white supremacists who terrorized Charlottesvilleover the weekend, many Antifa protesters were also enacting “hate-filled” violence, as they’ve done in several other cities in recent months. For noting that the “hard left seemed as hate-filled as the alt-right” — citing “club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park” — Stolberg was hammered online, even after repenting and issuing a correction that depicted the violent left in more heroic terms.

A few wrap-it-up thoughts from Charlottesville:

1. Striking how many of the white nationalists were young people, almost entirely men. 1/3

— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) August 13, 2017

2. The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding “antifa” beating white nationalists being led out of the park 2/2

— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) August 13, 2017

3. Among my unanswered questions: police response. Why did things get out of hand so quickly? Could violence have been prevented? 3/3

— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) August 13, 2017

PITTSBURGH SYNAGOGUE SHOOTER

I have clearly discussed the Left leaning philosophy of the white supremacist groups and the KKK many times on this site. From 3-of-the-4 largest supremacist groups telling it’s people to vote for Obama, to David Duke supporting Democrats in Congressional runs (one can see this in-depth in my third point HERE). Rr even the most recent support by Duke of Ilhan Omar, as I recently noted on my Facebook:

No surprise here: “Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke Endorses Ilhan Omar, ‘Most Important Member of the US Congress!’” >>>>

  • “By Defiance to Z.O.G. [Zionist Occupation Government] Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” David Duke said in a Twitter caption linking to his blog post.

I noted in my excoriation of the Left’s idea that Trump supports white supremacists or that they support him was false — included in this refution was video of KKK members endorsing Democrats: 

In my RECAP in that post I note that KKK and white supremacist members are,

  • “typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).”

Boom!

HOWEVER, the idea that Robert Bowers (the synagogue shooter) was a product of Trump is laughable. Even the Left leaning DAILY BEAST notes the following in there article entitled: “Pittsburgh Synagogue Suspect Robert Bowers Hated Trump—for Not Hating Jews

The man accused of murdering at least 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue Saturday morning was a neo-Nazi who posted online about killing Jews—and raged at Donald Trump for being insufficiently anti-Semitic.

[….]

Bowers was also among a set of neo-Nazis who criticized President Donald Trump for being, as they saw it, not biased enough toward Jews. “Trump is a globalist, not a nationalist,” Bowers wrote on Gab. “There is no #MAGA as long as there is a kike infestation.”

Bowers also bashed Trump for being insufficiently supportive of the white supremacists of the deadly Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and of the Proud Boys, a violent alt-right gang….

In other words… Bowers ideology lines up well with Ilhan Omar’s, at least her stance on Jews and Israel. Here is some info from an older post about Ilhan (and Rashida Harbi Tlaib):


~ QUOTE ~


…two explicitly anti-Semitic women voted in by Democrats. GATESTONE has more:

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history.

Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.

America’s first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel’s right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.

Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.

In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah.” She continued:

“I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.”

Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime,” and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

[….]

JIHAD WATCH also chimes in with the Left’s love for diversity at the expense of hatred:

The hijabed (and therefore pro-Sharia) Ilhan Omar, meanwhile, is even more hateful than Tlaib. According to the Daily Wire, in 2012 Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.” Challenged about this tweet much more recently, she doubled down and attacked the man who called attention to the tweet: “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.”

There is much, much worse about Omar. David Steinberg of PJ Media has done extraordinary work in shedding light on aspects of Omar’s record that the establishment media has steadfastly ignored. Steinberg reports that Omar has “faced allegations — soon backed by a remarkable amount of evidence — that she had married her own brother in 2009, and was still legally his wife. They officially divorced in December 2017. The motivation for the marriage remains unclear. However, the totality of the evidence points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud.” What’s more, she swore to apparent falsehoods in court.

But Leftists rarely have to answer for their corruption, and in a Democrat House, Omar will much more likely be celebrated than investigated. She and Tlaib will enjoy establishment media accolades as they pursue their hard-Left, anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. Their presence in the House of Representatives may be evidence of “diversity,” but it is also a disquieting sign of the continued dominance of identity politics, and the increasing balkanization of the American body politic. Forthrightly pro-America, pro-Israel candidates would stand little to no chance in either of their districts. And that is indicative of a much larger problem.


~ unQUOTE ~


THE MEDIA MYTH OF INCREASED ANTISEMITISM

(Jump to new material) First, here are the two articles by David Bernstein Dennis Prager is reading from:

  • Has There Been a Surge of Anti-Semitism Under and Because of Trump? || In short, probably not. And about that ADL study everyone is citing… (REASON.org)
  • Correcting the ADL’s False Anti-Semitism Statistic || The spread of misleading information on hate crimes is counterproductive in the fight against real and rising anti-Semitism (TABLET MAGAZINE)

Dennis Prager is livid at the lies (The Fake News) we are “bathed in” on a daily basis. This is a great segment to pair with an earlier upload of mine, titled: “Antisemitism In America ~ #FakeNews” (DENNIS PRAGER).

TABLE MAG:

The ADL also reports that “college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016.” How many of these incidents were of the alt-right nationalist variety, and how many were related to leftist anti-Israel activism? There is no way of knowing from the ADL study, but to the extent the latter was the cause, that could hardly be blamed on Trump.

Finally, it’s worth noting, that despite showing a 57 percent increase in incidents overall, from 1,267 to 1,986, the ADL study shows a 47 percent decrease in physical assaults, from 37 to 19. This is obviously inconsistent with the meme that 2017 saw a surge in violent anti-Semitism. Physical assaults are also the most objective sort of incident to document, which adds to concerns about the robustness of the rest of the data.

[….]

I have no desire to let Trump off the hook for his very real flaws, and I am not nor have I been a Trump supporter or apologist. But the Jewish community’s assessment of the dangers of anti-Semitism should be based on documented facts, not ideology, emotion, partisanship, or panic. And the truth is this: The claim that anti-Semitic incidents increased 57 percent in 2017 is contradicted by the very ADL study on which that claim is based.

REASON.org:

Those who wish to blame Trump have an ace in the hole, an Anti-Defamation League study that purports to show an almost 60 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, which is implicitly blamed on Trump. This study has been cited on over and over in response to Pittsburgh.

There are several problems with relying on this study for Trump-bashing, however. The first is that the study includes 193 incidents of bomb threats to Jewish institutions as anti-Semitic incidents, even though by the time the ADL published the study, it had been conclusively shown that the two perpetrators of the bomb threats were not motivated by anti-Semitism. One can only guess why the ADL chose to inflate its statistics in this way, but none of the explanations speak well of it.

Second, the ADL report itself acknowledges that some of the rise in incidents may simply be due to better reporting (“more people are reporting incidents to ADL than ever before”).

Third, “college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016.” How many of those incidents emanating from traditional forms of anti-Semitism that one might associate with Trumpian populism, and how many from leftist/pro-Palestinian sources? The ADL doesn’t say.

Fourth, the ADL counts ambiguous incidents as anti-Semitic incidents, so long as they were reported as such. For example, the report states, “Jewish graves or cemeteries were desecrated seven times in 2017. The desecration of Jewish headstones is a classic anti-Semitic act employed for hundreds of years. The majority of the cemetery desecrations occurred in the first months of the year, at the same time as the bomb threats were called in to Jewish institutions, which contributed to a sense that the Jewish American community was under siege.” The problem is that desecrations of cemeteries of all faiths is not uncommon, and are often the product of either bored teenagers or vagrants. In fact, at least some of the cemetery incidents counted by the ADL were ultimately determined by police not to be anti-Semitic in origin. The desecraton of a cemetery in St. Louis got a particularly large amount of attention. The police eventually caught the perpetrator, and determined that he was just “mad and drunk,” not anti-Semitic. The ADL has not updated its study or press release to reflect such facts. Other questionable “anti-Semitic” incidents I’ve seen reported include graffitti with a swastika and “TRUMP.” Is the “author” supporting “Trump the Nazi” or attacking Trump by accusing him of being a Nazi? My inclination would in most cases be to suspect the latter, but surely it’s at least unclear….

Again, Chuck Todd is a dunce. The latest report from the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations shows that 72 percent of hate crimes against religion in the county were against Jews in 2017 (JEWISH JOURNAL). What is not known is that most of this is graffiti, not physical violence, BUT, actual altercations against Jews are from Black racist cults. Both the FEDERALIST and ALGEMEINER discuss the rise of attacks in Crown Heights.

The title of the video should be, “Anti-Semitism Increasing Under Trump A Myth,” maybe a subtitle should read… “But holds firm in the Democrat Party”?

I suggest reading the entire article in the FEDERALIST, it is well written and informative:

This week, an assemblywoman from Brooklyn — the New York City borough with approximately 2.7 million people, not some far-flung hamlet in flyover country — went on an near-hour-long rant in which she accused Jews of conspiring to gentrify her district and steal her home. In the midst of this outburst, Diane Richardson reportedly referred to one of her rivals as the “the Jewish senator from southern Brooklyn.”

This incident comes not long after a DC Council member named Trayon White Sr., a Democrat who represents the Eighth Ward of the capital of the free world in the twenty-first century, posted a video offering some of his thoughts on how “the Rothschilds” were controlling the climate to squeeze money out of the oppressed.

Both of these people have been treated as raving lunatics, which they might very well be. But a person could easily imagine the fate of any elected official in a large city had he or she aimed similar conspiracies at African-American neighbors. We would almost assuredly be plunged into a national conversation about the shameful bigotry that plagues our cities.

That’s not to argue that we should overreact to these incidents. Although certainly a serious concern, anti-Semitism is a relatively minor problem in American life. It is, however, getting difficult not to notice a trend among liberals of either ignoring, rationalizing, or brushing off anti-Semitism, which seems to be more commonplace on the Left than it has been in a long time.

But when identity politics and class warfare propel your movement, as it does the progressivism that’s becoming increasingly popular on the American Left, it’s almost inevitable that the Jews, who’ve tended to successfully navigate meritocracies, will become targets. This hate has traveled with socialists since Karl Marx first declared that “Money” was the god of the Jews.

[…..]

Extremists and quacks have always attempted to tether themselves to mainstream political movements. What’s more concerning than the presence of Sarsour and Mallory is how liberals have either ignored anti-Semitism or gone out of their way to rationalize it.

“[Many] black people,” wrote The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, in one of a number of articles working through this sudden “conundrum” of Jew-hating on the Left. “But many black people come into contact with the Nation of Islam as a force in impoverished black communities—not simply as a champion of the black poor or working class, but of the black underclass: black people, especially men, who have been written off or abandoned by white society.”

So, you see, “white society” is really at fault for Mallory’s turn towards anti-Semitism. Would anyone ever accept such reasoning for racism among the poor of Appalachia or the Jews of Brooklyn? At this point, you have to wonder what kind of relationship someone would have to enter to merit a full-throated denunciation from fellow liberals. I imagine nothing less than socializing with a conservative would do the trick.

At least Serwer concedes that the Nation of Islam is a consequential force in urban communities and offers a theory for its popularity. Most often, those who associate with anti-Semites are insulated and excused of any wrongdoing by the mere fact that Republicans are the ones bringing the charge.

For example, while it’s inconceivable that a person who spent a decade as a member of the Klan could find a place in politics today, despite its lack of influence, a member of the Nation of Islam can rise to become deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee without anyone in his party challenging his ascendency. Elizabeth Bruenig, a Washington Post columnist, recently praised Keith Ellison (she was far from alone) for “calling out the silly Farrakhan-related smear campaign against him for what it is: a totally cynical attempt to pit the black community against the Jewish community.”

Now, maybe it’s silly to point out that Ellison once appeared as a local Farrakhan spokesman in Minneapolis to defend a congregant who said “Jews are among the most racist white people I know,” or to mention that the left-wing magazine Mother Jonesreported that Ellison had embraced that idea that “European white Jews are trying to oppress minorities all over the world” and talked about “Jewish slave traders” (there was never a denial from the congressman’s office), or even that the DNC’s deputy chairman only distanced himself from anti-Semites during his 2006 run for Congress, and then only when right-wing bloggers started pointing out his past.

But is it really silly to point out that one of the leading lights of the Democratic Party told a group in 2010, after breaking with Farrakhan, that Jews were running American foreign policy or that he and Farrakhan attended a dinner honoring Iranian President and Holocaust-denier Hassan Rouhani in 2013?

[…..]

It’s also why Richard Spencer and David Duke [EDITOR’S NOTE: who tells people to vote for Democrats], people with few followers and zero political power, are given an inordinate amount of media attention while the fact that Congressional Black Caucus members, who both coordinated and met with the leader of the Nation of Islam, is given virtually no coverage at all. It’s why the deputy Washington editor of The New York Times, Jonathan Weisman, can write an entire fearmongering book purporting to examine Jewish life in “the Age of Trump” by stringing together a bunch of disparate incidents — some genuinely troubling, others imagined — to warn of the coming fascism, while meticulously ignoring the contagious strains of anti-Semitism that live, not on the periphery, but smack in the middle of the most celebrated activist movement in the country…..

But here is the good news (under reported) about hate-crimes in general (listen to full interview HERE):

ARE HATE GROUPS SURGING ACROSS AMERICA?

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER goes after the partisan hate-group with this excellent article:

Newsrooms were on fire this week with terrible news: The number of hate groups in the United States has soared to record highs under President Trump.

There are most certainly hate groups in the U.S., and even one is one too many, but I’d encourage everyone to approach the numbers reported this week with calm and caution. There’s nothing partisan operatives would love more than for you to panic and to believe them when they suggest that the problem can be solved by expelling “the other team” from power. That the figures cited by newsrooms come via the decidedly unreliable and hyper-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center also doesn’t help anything.

The New York Times reported, “Over 1,000 Hate Groups Are Now Active in United States, Civil Rights Group Says.”

“Hate groups ‘surge’ across the country since Charlottesville riot, report says,” reads the headline from the Miami Herald.

“Trump ‘Fear-Mongering’ Fuels Rise of U.S. Hate Groups to Record: Watchdog,” U.S. News and World Report said in a headline that sort of gives the game away.

First, let’s keep things in perspective. Remember, for example, that the rise in the number of hate crimes is attributable in some way to the fact that there are more reporting agencies ( hundreds, in fact!) than ever before. It’s easy to say, “Oh, it’s all because of President Trump,” pointing to incidents like his disastrous Charlottesville statement. But the problem of bigotry is far older and deeper than the current administration. That the Trump White House isn’t helping anything is one complaint, but don’t fall for the suggestion that it’s the main driver.

Second, while we’re on the topic of taking things seriously, it’s important to remember that the SPLC is not an organization whose declarations should be taken seriously or treated as fact. As I’ve written before, much of its “hate group” reporting is trash.

In 2015, for example, the group put Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” citing the one-time presidential candidate’s “anti-LGBT views.” Later, in 2016, the SPLC labeled women’s rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslim extremist” because she opposes Islamic extremism. The British activist and extremist-turned-counterextremist Maajid Nawaz was placed in the same category. The SPLC lumps pro-family and pro-Israel organizations in with actual neo-Nazis.

The SPLC is not in the business of exploring and addressing racial and ethnic bigotry. IT’S IN THE BUSINESS OF CRUSHING ANYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

As for the report the SPLC just released this week, IT CONCEDES THERE IS AN UPTICK IN THE NUMBER OF BLACK NATIONALIST GROUPS SINCE 2017, BUT IT DOWNPLAYS THIS FACT BY CLAIMING THOSE GROUPS “HAVE LITTLE OR NO IMPACT ON MAINSTREAM POLITICS AND NO DEFENDERS IN HIGH OFFICE.” I must’ve just imagined noted-anti-Semite and frequent Democratic guest Louis Farrakhan.

[….]

Hate groups are real. Hate crimes are real. The SPLC is not. It exploits hate groups to raise money and further political interests unrelated to the problem of hate. Don’t fall for the SPLC’s lies.

(emphasis added — read it all)

THE GEORGE SOROS [FALSE] EQUIVALENCY

And from the interview of Liz Cheney, a comparison of George Soros is made and criticisms of him being made as similarly “antisemitic.” Dennis Prager deals with this in taking two calls, one discusses it explicitly… the other ends with Prager noting it (also hear an older show where Prager discusses him):

See more at:

Why Progressives Need Control of the New Media

Firstly, for the sake of good conversation and clarity… we need [actually, Dr. DiLorenzo] to define socialism:

Here are some article headlines that will help encapsulate the quote:

FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech ~ The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now. While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members…

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners ~ Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission. “Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”…

[Editor’s note: that means blogs like mine of Gay Patriot’s could be considered “bullying” and to protect “freedom” they will be banned… the redefinition of the meaning of words is what allows these progressives to win in conversation.]

Leaked Memo: Soros Foundation Eyed Stronger Internet Regulation in TPP Negotiations ~ A leaked document from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations reveals the organization was seeking to influence the positions of Latin American governments in negotiating the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, or TTP…

You Media People Should Stop Reporting on Terrorism So People Don’t Know What’s Going On ~ …This new push by Kerry shouldn’t be surprising, after all it was just a few weeks ago when Kerry essentially argued the use of air conditioners and other appliances are bigger threats to the world than ISIS. Here’s the reality: Kerry doesn’t want the press giving attention to the issue of terrorism because it further exposes the failure of the Obama administration’s foreign policy over the past eight years….

[Editor’s note: you see, if the press would stop reporting on terrorism, then more people may actually take Kerry — and other politicians — serious when they say stuff like, “air conditioners… are bigger threats to the world than ISIS.]

Another example from a few years ago is the Fairness Doctrine. Just listen to Ed Schultz admit something in this radio excerpt (below-right ~ from an OLD POST).

You see, all this is a power play. In a society becoming increasingly more-and-more socialist… power and control over every aspect of life becomes more-and-more natural. Almost a necessity [inherent] on the part of the politician. Democrats think they are for freedom, but in fact they are the root cause for the constant attacks on freedom. That is, progressive liberalism… not classical liberalism.

And as a Christian I am concerned, ultimately, for truth [Truth]. Truth is what a free society strives for… and often getting to it means discussing all options. “Options” are anathema to socialism, to wit:

Because of the inevitable failure of socialist bureaucrats to “plan” an economy and a society better than the millions of individuals comprising the society can, there will be “dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal,” wrote Hayek. “It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough ‘to get things done’ who exercises the greatest appeal” to the public. The public demands a “strongman” (or strongwoman) “who can get things done”—even if it means the abandonment of democ­racy.

[….]

Moreover, the socialist regime is likely to be popu­lated by “the worst elements of any society,” warned Hayek. Political demagogues (and socialists are always demagogues) have long understood that it is easier for the masses to agree on a negative program—a hatred of an enemy or “the envy of the better off” than on any positive program. In Bolshevik Russia, it was the capi­talists and monarchists and Christians and independent farmers and aristocrats who were the enemy, and against whom the masses could be swayed, and against whom violence could be inflicted in the name of “the people.” In the Europe of Hayek’s day it was the plutocrat and “the Jew who became the enemy….” “In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the represen­tative of capitalism,” and hence became the target of extreme hatred. In America, political demagogues tar­get “Wall Street” and the wealthy “one percent” as the objects of their hatred. [RPT’s addition: And the “fundamentalist that would dare question transgender normalization of bathroom use and female sports, etc.]

Hatred and violence, especially for the young, is justified in the name of idealism, however perversely understood. To a socialist, the ends justify the means (which is the reverse of traditional morality) and can justify any action desired by a socialist. To a social­ist, said Hayek, there is nothing “which the consis­tent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves `the good of the whole.’”  This socialist mindset accepts if not celebrates “intolerance and brutal sup­pression of dissent,” and “the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual,” because the “selfish” individual does not matter; the socialist will argue that what he does is “for the good of the whole.”

In a socialist society, said Hayek, the only “power” worth having is political power, and to consolidate that political power government relies on propaganda, intimidation, and government domestic spying to dis­credit, bully, and eliminate possible opposition.

Socialism can lead to “the end of truth,” as Hayek called it, because socialists believe in indoctrinating people into “The Truth.” This is why socialist regimes have made us familiar with “reeducation camps” and rigid, totalitarian ideological conformity. Socialists believe that there are no legitimate, alternative view­points. Socialist propaganda must dominate the edu­cational system and the mass media so that, in Hayek’s words, “a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed” which “directs everybody’s actions.” Under socialism, “every act of the government, must become sacrosanct,” while minority opinions—or even majority opinions at odds with the official ideology—must be silenced and are demonized. This all sounds like a perfect definition of the “political correctness” that plagues American colleges and universities and which has gone a long way toward destroying aca­demic freedom both for students and professors.

“Truth” in a socialist society is not something to be debated; it is mandated and enforced by the Social­ist regime, from which there is no alternative and no appeal. Once socialist ideology takes over and respect for actual truth is destroyed, wrote Hayek, then all morals are assaulted because all morality is based on respect for the truth.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism (New Jersey, NJ: Regnery, 2016), 55-58.

Worth your while as well is this commentary by Ezra Levant on Venezuela a little over a year ago.

Left Wing Liberal Orgs Paying For Racial Strife

For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

“The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America,” said the Borealis announcement.

In doing so, however, the foundations have aligned themselves with the staunch left-wing platform of the Movement for Black Lives, which unveiled a policy agenda shortly after the fund was announced accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state” guilty of “genocide.”

Released Aug. 1, the platform also calls for defunding police departments, race-based reparations, breaking, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a “universal basic income,” and free college for blacks.

As far as critics are concerned, the grab-bag platform combined with the staggering underwriting commitment offer more evidence that Black Lives Matter is being used as a conduit for left-wing politics as usual.

“It’s about time people woke up to the fact that big money is using people as pawns to stoke racial hatred and further their global agenda,” said the Federalist Papers Project’s C.E. Dyer.

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said corporations and others may want to think twice about partnering with the Ford Foundation, the fifth-largest U.S. philanthropy with $12.4 billion in assets.

(Washington Times)

Clinton Cash (Movie) and Campaign Donor List! [+ More]

Clinton Cash, is a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book that the New York Times hailed as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.”

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as US Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

Buy the book that inspired the movie.

The following is with a h-t to YOUNG CONSERVATIVES, and comes by way of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS!Hedge Fund

….Topping Hillary’s list is the Saban Capital Group. The “private investment firm,” (read: hedge fund) has given the Clinton campaign more than $10 million this year alone. Founded by Hami Saban, an Jewish Egyptian national, he has said his greatest concern is to protect Israel. He is also part owner of Univision, Hillary Clinton’s greatest Spanish-language cheerleader. Here’s how the New Yorker described his relationship with the Clintons: 

By far his most important relationship is with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2002, Saban donated five million dollars to Bill Clinton’s Presidential library, and he has given more than five million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a major policy address at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, co-sponsored by the Saban Center. And last November Bill Clinton was a featured speaker at the Saban Forum, an annual conference attended by many high-level Israeli and U.S. government officials, which was held in Jerusalem. Ynon Kreiz, an Israeli who was the chairman and chief executive of a Saban company and Saban’s closest associate for many years, attended the conference, and when I commented that his former boss appeared to be positively smitten with Bill Clinton, Kreiz replied, grinning broadly, “No! No! I remember once Haim was talking to me on the phone, and he said in Hebrew, without changing his tone so Clinton would have no idea he was speaking about him, ‘The President of the United States, wearing his boxers, is coming down the stairs, and I am going to have to stop talking and go have breakfast with him.’”

A close second on the list is Renaissance Technologies, another hedge fund. They sunk $9.5 million into Hillary’s campaign this year. Founder James Simons has given more than $30 million to Democrats and their campaigns since 2006.

[….]

…It’s important to note that Trump’s top contributor has given a fraction of all the people on Hillary’s list.

The John Powers Middleton Companies gave $150,000 to Trump this year. Middleton is a TV producer who co-producedThe Lego Movie. 

Also on the list? A boring group of contributors, really.

There’s a financial group that gave $50,000, a realty company. The AON Corporation. All told, Trump has received zerodollars from Political Action Committees and has self-funded 56 percent of his campaign.

Love him or hate him, he answers to nobody but himself and the American people….

Take note that if you combine the above with this… you have in the Democratic Party EVERYTHING the Republicans are accused of.  An example:

From maligning and subverting others in the race (GOP or Democrat), from taking bribes, to making bribes… what has happened here in the primary is a giant leap ahead of what Democrats accuse George Bush of doing in Florida. Florida is chicken feed to what was revealed from these leaked DNC emails. On the DNC Convention floor, Bernie signs were confiscated, they censored the California delegation with “white noise speakers” and “reserving” the seats. It is worth noting that the woman behind this original censoring in the leaked DNC emails, stepped down because of this activity… to only be immediately hired by Hillary’s campaign. I would also posit that this almost Orwellian censoring at the Democrat Convention has Debbie Wasserman Schultz finger prints all over it.

Republicans are rightly called “the stupid party” (read here Donald Trump) and the Democrats are called “the evil party” (read here Hillary Clinton).

An old Washington joke is that the Republicans are called “the stupid party” and the Democrats are called “the evil party.” When the Republicans and Democrats get together on legislation, they do something both stupid and evil—and they call it “bipartisanship.”

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) called conservatives “the stupidest party” in his Considerations on Representative Government (1861). The newspaper columnist Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was credited in 1993 with writing “There are two parties in Washington: the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.” It’s probable that Francis wrote the full joke at some time in the 1980s or early 1990s. The joke (cited in print since at least 1999) is also often credited to an unnamed Congressional staffer, who was explaining the U.S. government to someone from Russia (or another country in the former Soviet Union).

(Barry Popik)

I would rather be part of the Stupid Party.

Why MSNBC is Last In Cable News Ratings (Soros vs. Koch Brothers)

~ Re-Posted ~

Had to post this from NewsBusters. The rhetoric from the media (MSNBC, CNN, and the like) has been mind-numbingly shallow. I also wish to say that I doubt Ball has ever mentioned any add as being backed by Soros. To wit, before getting to the NewsBusters piece, let me explain why people fear government via a post of mine answering a local writer:


And any person should acknowledge why someone should “fear” government more than business. In fact, I made this point on my FB outgrowth of this blog in talking to my liberal friend:

…this is to show how the Obama admin is stacking the books with GM. You see, when the government chooses winners-and-losers instead of getting contracts with private companies (like Ford, GM, etc.), they are invested to [i.e., forced to] only choose a government run business and stock their fish (so-to-speak) with GM fleets… leaving the non-government company to flounder.

This next audio deals with the differences of the Koch brothers, in comparison to the Left’s version of them, Soros. There are many areas that one can discuss about the two… but let us focus in on the main/foundational difference. One wants a large government that is able to legislate more than just what kind of light-bulbs one can use in the privacy of their own home. Soros wants large government able to control a large portion of the economy (see link to chart below), and he has been very vocal on this goal. The other party always mentioned are the Koch brothers. These rich conservatives want a weak government. A government that cannot effect our daily lives nearly as much (personal, business, etc) as the Soros enterprise wants. And really, if you think about it, what business can really “harm” you, when people come to my door with pistols on their hip… are they a) more likely to be from GM, or, b) from the IRS?

The possibility of them being from the IRS is even more possible with the passing of Obama-Care [i.e., larger government]. So the “fear” (audio in next comment) I think the Left has of “Big-Business” is unfounded, and the problem comes when big-business gets in bed with big-government. Here I am thinking of (like with the penalties that were found to be Constitutional in the recent SCOTUS decision) a government that can penalize you if you do not buy a Chevy Volt, or some other green car in order to save the planet. When this happens, guys coming to my door because of unpaid (hypothetical… but historical examples abound of the tax history of our nation) “fines” are likely to be IRS agents because of a personal choice made in the “free-market.”

Appendix: If the above example didn’t inspire any liberal fear (forced to go green or be penalized), maybe this one will?

…First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.

Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership….

…read more…

This is why people fear government, to answer John’s question.


Back to the excellent NewsBusters response to “Krystal Ball” on MSNBC:

Honestly, how does this woman have a job in a news division?

Oh. That’s right. MSNBC isn’t a news organization. How could I have forgotten?

Saying Republicans don’t want young people to buy health insurance is preposterous.

What conservatives don’t want is the government to force young people to purchase something that morbidity tables show will likely have absolutely no benefit for them until the distant future so that others who likely will benefit much sooner can get it either for free or far more cheaply.

Irrespective of what Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts foolishly ruled last year, this is neither Constitutional nor ethical.

As for these young people dying if ObamaCare is not enacted, that asininely assumes that people won’t have the money to pay for their care if they get sick or won’t purchase health insurance when they reach an age when they believe they need it.

For example, Ball mentioned prenatal care and tetanus shots. As a person that owns an insurance agency, I certainly would be telling a client looking to have children to purchase health insurance.

As for Pap smears, the Mayo Clinic recommends women over 21 do them every two to three years.

The cost varies state by state. In New York City, you can get one for as little as $150.

As such, a woman in that city doing it even once every two years would save thousands of dollars paying for it herself rather than buying health insurance.

As for cholesterol tests, these are now available online for as little as $40.

…read more…

This great, short, update comes via The Lonely Conservative:

The short answer to the question posed above is “Not even close.” It’s not the Koch Brothers or ALEC. Nope. The biggest spender in the dark money game is the Tides Foundation. Oh and by the way, Tides is a big liberal group.

Whenever “ALEC” and “dark money” are mentioned in the media, however, there ought to be a third name given at least equal attention – the Tides Foundation. That’s because Tides, the San Francisco-based funder of virtually every liberal activist group in existence since the mid-1970s, pioneered the concept of providing a cut-out for donors who don’t wish to be associated in public with a particular cause. It is instructive to compare the funding totals for Tides and ALEC.

A search of non-profit grant databases reveals 139 grants worth a total of $5.6 million to ALEC since 1998. By comparison, Tides is the Mega-Goliath of dark money cash flows. Tides received 1,976 grants worth a total of $451 million during the same period, or nearly 100 times as much money as ALEC. But even that’s not the whole story with Tides, which unlike ALEC, has divided and multiplied over the years. Add to the Tides Foundation total the directly linked Tides Center’s 465 grants with a combined worth of $62 million, and the total is well over half a billion dollars. (Read More)

So there.


BIG versus SMALL


(You can enlarge the article by clicking it.) This is a local, small town magazine, and John Van Huizum writes a regular piece that I will critique here-and-there. Here is my first installment:

I wish to write a response to a recent Concepts article by John Van Huizum, entitled “What Does ‘Free’ Mean?” There are a couple issues worth responding to or in-the-least offering a differing viewpoint on. The first of Mr. Huizum’s positions that needs de”concept”ualizing is the idea of “greed.” Mr. Huizum spoke of history, something Dr. Sowell reminds us of in the telling of Richard Sears ferocious greed in wanting to overtake Montgomery Ward.[1] This type of greed leads to lower prices. Alternatively the Fords, Rockefellers, and the Carnegies found ways to offer goods at lower prices. This type of greed leads to Carnegie — for instance — becoming a “prodigious philanthrop[ist] – building more than 3,000 public libraries in 47 states…, founding Carnegie-Mellon University and the Carnegie Institute of Technology (C.I.T.), establishing Carnegie Hall in New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and much more.”[2]

In a wonderful response to Donahue’s 1979 challenge to Milton Freidman on the issue of greed and if greed has ever caused Dr. Friedman to doubt capitalism. Milton Friedman responded that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests, the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory from an order of a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of the grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and free trade.”[3] So I wish to proffer another history that maybe, just possibly Forbes is taking into account and Mr. Huizum is not.

Another point worth politely rejecting is the definition given to Forbes by Mr. Huizum on freedom: “free from ANY government regulation.”[4] This is a fallacy of straw-man.[5] Mr. Huizum does not show a full knowledge of Forbes understanding on this matter. Nor does the facile dealing with this complex issue and the putting forth of a false definition as if-it-were Forbes do this topic justice.

One last point, the most important. Unlike big business when it makes mistakes, big government cannot go out of business. Unlike corrupt government, corrupt business cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency. Businesses cannot coerce you by force (tax liens, garnishing of wages, or armed IRS officials, etc) into an action. So the “greed” of the corporation pales in comparison to the greed of government.[6] Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).

Footnotes:

[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004), 361.
[2] Michael Medved, The 10 biggest Lies About America (New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2008), 132; see also, “What Did He Get for That Money?
[3] youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
[4] John Van Huizum, Agua Dulce/Acton Country Journal, Vol. XXII, Issue 21 (May 26, 2012), 19.
[5] a) Person A has position X; b) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X); c) Person B attacks position Y; d) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
[6] Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 35-36.

Teachers Advocating Against 2nd Amendment ~ The NRA Was Started to Fight the KKK (Forgotten History)

Via Breitbart.com:

From Breitbart:

Jones College Prep, a Chicago Public Schools “selective enrollment” school, held “Social Justice Week” in March, a collection of events geared towards turning students into activists. See the schedule of events here.

According to a flyer on the school’s website:

Social Justice Week was created to promote community advancement through dialogue and community service based activism. Moreover, we hope to unify the voice of various JCP and community organizations in which to facilitate collaboration for the betterment of the community at large and promote a unified human rights advancement initiative.”….

[….]

On Wednesday of Social Justice Week, Black Star Project, a Chicago-based community organizing group, was brought into the school after school hours to teach students about “non-violent” protesting. Led by Phillip Jackson, former “Chief of Education” under former Mayor Richard Daley, the optional discussion was focused on students fighting back against gun crime.

Black Star Project, according to its website, is funded by Open Society Foundations (i.e. George Soros), Best Buy, ING and Toyota Motor Sales, among others.

But Jackson apparently had no interest in allowing students to come to their own conclusions on gun ownership.

Jackson’s co-presenter, Camille Williams of the Peace in the Hood movement, made several inflammatory statements about gun ownership and the National Rifle Association. She claimed the NRA is indifferent to gun violence….

[….]

At this particular session of Social Justice Week, no opposing views were offered.  It appeared only certain outcomes were being sought.  Jackson strongly encouraged the students to develop forms of non-violent protest. “I’m not telling you to do it, but if you were going to,” he said, leading the proverbial horse to the water.

“I’m just saying,” he said on several occasions.

Jackson then offered the idea of creating a symbolic graveyard on the school lawn of headstones featuring the names of Chicago residents killed with guns….

…Read More…

Ann Coulter for Human Events:

….Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country’s history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: “[I]t would give them the full liberty,” he said, “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the right of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 — passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant — made it a federal felony to “deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property.” This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress’ authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How’s that “may issue” gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high — beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams’ repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, “Negroes With Guns.” In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

In the preface to “Negroes With Guns,” Williams writes: “I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense — and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence.”

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

…Read More…