Sunday, January 30, 2011

Top 7 Reasons (and One Promising Way) to Abolish the IRS for Good


In the true spirit of the kind of bipartisanship that led members of Congress to “date” across the aisle for the State of the Union spectacle, we take a look now at an issue that SHOULD be bipartisan. After all, didn’t our Prez use part of his SOTU to argue for some type of reform of the tax system? Why, yes, he did:
“Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to the deficit.”
(I don’t think I’ve ever quoted the Anointed One in an article before. See, even I am feeling warm, fuzzy, civil, and bipartisan!)

Anyway, a reform such as he described would benefit not only business but us little guys filing individual returns, as well. While the pundits argue about how complicated all this would be to sort out, one interesting proposal deserves the highest consideration.

This proposal is very attractive due to its relative simplicity. Abolish the Internal Revenue Service. Shut it down. Close the doors. Unplug the phone. Send the whole stinkin’ IRS bureaucracy to its eternal reward (and something tells me that the IRS has earned a trip south, not north). Anyway – END IT.

Crazy, you say? Impossible? Well, legislation to do EXACTLY that is currently before Congress. H.R. 25 and S. 296 are the latest incarnations of the so-called FairTax. And here are the top 7 reasons to put the IRS out of its (our) misery for good – and I do mean FOR GOOD. For the good of our country and every single taxpayer and business in it.

A quick note, first. This truly can be a bipartisan issue, in the sense that it is not really about how the government is spending its money. Conservatives still need to battle to drastically cut spending and greatly reduce the size of government. But this proposal isn’t about that, per se. In fact, the FairTax is said to be “revenue neutral” with the present income and payroll tax system, meaning it would fund the federal budget at current levels. So what IS it about? It’s about how to collect the money the government would need – in a more fair, less intrusive way: A carefully crafted plan that shifts the tax burden from the earner to the consumer. In a nutshell: The FairTax people figure a 23% tax would do the trick (see their website for detailed and convincing explanations). Certainly, when you add up all the hidden tax you currently pay, it’s easy to see how any given individual would come out ahead.

More information ahead…


Reason #7 to abolish the IRS – it has way, WAY too much power and is a threat to our liberty

The most important reason to abolish the IRS is that it is an agency with agents who have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited power – with no real accountability. Unlike in a court of law, you are not innocent until proven guilty. The agency wields tremendous power over individual citizens and businesses. Let’s face it – the IRS has a [VIOLENT IMAGERY ALERT] metaphorical gun to your head. If you don’t pay, they have the power to take virtually everything (including your freedom) away from you. What’s more, this power can be – and HAS been – abused for political reasons, as audits can be used to target political enemies.

And let’s talk about privacy. Why does anyone else have the right to know where you work, how much you make, and what you choose to do with your money? They do NOT. The FairTax, in abolishing the IRS, restores individual privacy rights. This is yet another reason the Left should get on board. After all, they’re big fans of privacy in the bedroom and in the abortion clinic; shouldn’t our wallets and our very livelihoods be subject to privacy as well?

And speaking of the bedroom – in eliminating the IRS, the FairTax also does away with the need to declare who you live with (marriage clarification).

So, all those political footballs can be retired. Congress can quit bickering over tax cuts, who deserves special treatment in the tax code, and whether the rich are paying their fair share. Those arguments are all off the table, meaning that government cannot use the tax code to penalize any one group or individual.

What’s more, abolishing the IRS restores to churches and nonprofit organizations the First Amendment rights they now hesitate to use, for fear of losing tax-exempt status.

(A quick aside about those churches and nonprofits: What would happen to charitable donations if tax incentives to make them disappeared? Nobody knows for sure, but if all Americans had more spendable income, there is some research to suggest the nonprofits would not unduly suffer. Another factor to consider is that said nonprofits would no longer incur the costs associated with filing tax returns and paying Social Security and Medicare payments for employees.)

The existence of the IRS is an assault on liberty. With the FairTax, the coercive, punitive power of the state is given a swift kick in the booty.

Next: It’s simple…


Reason #6 to abolish the IRS – the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid)

The FairTax doesn’t just eliminate the IRS. It eliminates income tax entirely. And payroll taxes of all kinds, including Social Security. And corporate, gift, estate, capital gains, self-employment, Medicare, death, alternative minimum… all GONE.


So how does the government keep functioning? It’s pretty simple. Even as it repeals the 16th amendment that first allowed Congress to levy an income tax (through companion legislation), the FairTax sets up a clear and straightforward national retail sales tax.


By the way, there’s a reason they had to amend the Constitution, back in 1913, to legalize the income tax. It’s because the Founding Fathers, wise men all, believed that taxing private income was economic madness. And they have been proven perfectly correct – our economy grew and people prospered for our first 124 years. Even then, the original income tax only affected those with very high annual incomes, the tax code was 14 pages, and a return was one page long.

ANYWAY. The people behind the FairTax have thought through all the angles, and they’ve preemptively struck down many objections that bureaucracy-lovers and IRS agents could throw their way. One key element is a so-called prebate to ensure that no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level. This pretty much demolishes the oft-heard argument that the FairTax is regressive and results in a higher overall tax burden for lower and middle income folks. That is simply not true.

However, the prebate is the part of the FairTax with which I’m most uncomfortable, simply because it is the most bureaucratic part of the FairTax solution. Everybody gets a prebate check? Others have proposed not taxing any food items in order to alleviate a disproportionate impact on the poor, but the FairTax people point out, rightly so, that exempting ANY product or service opens the door to, as their site puts it, “the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today.”

True enough. But philosophically, why should any group be exempted from any part of the proposal?

Simplification is better served by dropping the overly fussy “fairness” of the proposal.

That being said, the FairTax as it stands is still a proposal worth serious consideration. For one thing, collection of this sales tax requires very little added bureaucracy – because after all, the states are already collecting sales tax. The FairTax lays out a plan for the states, too, to make sure they can easily collect and transfer money to the federal government.

Of course, it goes without saying that there is nothing simple in our current tax system. The complexity is so insane that even tax accountants – specialists in IRS regulations – can’t tell you FOR SURE if you’re in 100% compliance. (Within the past year, the commissioner of the IRS admitted he used a tax preparer because the tax code is “complex.” If HE can’t figure it out, why should we have to?) Special interest groups have riddled the tax code with exceptions, loopholes – chaos. That’s a big part of why the tax code is now some 60,000 pages long, across multiple volumes – 9 million words!

 Enough said.

Getting rid of all those pages, and the IRS, would also simplify retirement planning. No special knowledge of tax law would be necessary, because there would be no need for your 401(k), IRA, HSA, or any of those other accounts designed to protect your savings from taxes.

But I don’t really need to belabor the “simplification” argument. After all, if even our current president recognizes that this is a problem, the only ones left to argue in favor of the status quo are the criminally insane.

Next: Keep what you earn…


Reason #5 to abolish the IRS – we should not be punished for working

Perhaps back when the income tax was first implemented, the American work ethic was strong enough that it wasn’t a threat to our way of life. Now, however, we live in a time when millions of people find a government handout preferable to putting in eight hours a day – and in some ways, you can’t blame them. It is certainly de-motivating when taxes take such a huge chunk of your income.

It’s time to stop penalizing us for having a work ethic! The FairTax completely eliminates this societal scourge by shifting the tax burden to a consumption-based tax. The reason that’s preferable? It puts YOU in control.

Imagine! You keep every penny you earn. Your paycheck is truly, for the first time in your life, a check with all your pay. What you do with it is up to you! Wealthy people may pay more tax due to their ability to buy more stuff, but nobody is forcing them to. You can be as frugal or as spendy as you wish.

The FairTax authors have definitely included some inducements to frugality. For one thing, sales tax is only collected once, which means that there’s no tax on used goods. Used house? No sales tax. Used car? No sales tax. Used refrigerator? Used clothing? Used tennis racquet? No sales tax on any of it. Uncle Sam gets only one shot at taxing any one thing.

What’s more, even on new purchases, if it’s not for personal consumption, it’s not taxed. In other words, business owners or farmers buying new equipment don’t pay the consumption tax. In this way and a lot of others, the FairTax supports every aspect of the working world, from the business owner to the working man.

The more you work, the more money you should have. Ultimately, this should be a truism, not the joke it currently is.

Next: What it would do to our economy…


Reason #4 to abolish the IRS – to make the economy go BOOM

Along with the economic advantages already outlined, the FairTax would actually bring down the cost of goods. Why? Because, according to economists, about 20% of what you pay for any given good or service right now is what the business has to tack on to cover the cost of compliance with our onerous tax regulations. Take that away, let businesses compete with prices unaffected by the monster tax code, toss in consumers with big fat whole paychecks – talk about a stimulus!

What’s more, since our insanely-complex and burdensome tax code is chasing more and more jobs out of the country, the FairTax would bring them all back as businesses would be lured by the promise of no corporate taxes and thus no burdensome compliance costs. (It costs a company about $3 in compliance costs to pay $1 in payroll and income taxes!) The U.S. could become the most attractive tax-free haven in the world for doing business – again: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Other economic benefits:
  • U.S. exports could compete with foreign goods, as imports would be subject to the same FairTax as domestic products; positive effect on trade deficit
  • Reduces production costs for currently subsidized businesses like farming, leading to a reduction in subsidies, which would reduce the federal budget (aka spending cuts)
  • Consumption has been shown to be more stable than income, therefore the tax revenue stream would likely be a more predictable amount… Federal Reserve rates based on current consumption instead of future earnings result in surer inflation prevention
  • By eliminating capital gains tax, investments in business would be encouraged
  • By eliminating the death tax, families could keep their farms and businesses
  • By eliminating the gift tax, individuals could offer tax-free assistance to each other
  • By eliminating the need for states, counties, municipalities and school districts to pay FICA, those entities would see significant increases in their available budget revenues
And, as the FairTax website puts it:
“It moves many individuals now providing tax advice (return preparation, advice, accounting, planning, and records maintenance) into an expansive economy where they will be producing goods and services. There they can add to the standard of living of all Americans and likely earn more than they do currently, instead of shuffling paper for the government (and not contributing anything economically to society).”
Probably not an argument that will fly with your well-compensated CPA, but philosophically it’s spot on.

Next: The biggest economic argument deserves a page all its own…


Reason #3 to abolish the IRS – the crazy, obscene costs of the current tax system

You may not be able to rattle off a specific figure, but you have a pretty good idea what the IRS is costing YOU. Hassle, time, anxiety and angst – and that’s before you ever get around to writing a check to Uncle Sam. Eliminating the current tax code isn’t being proposed to starve the government of all funding. It’s being proposed because the current tax code is an obscenely enormous drain on American business, American families, and the American psyche.

I know many people who supplement their regular paycheck with free-lance work. That is to say, they’re working more than one job in order to provide for their families and raise their standard of living. In more than one case, this has resulted in a very unpleasant surprise at tax time, when their untaxed (but legally reported) free-lance income results in an unexpected bonus – to Uncle Sam. Is it right that hard-working folks working two jobs should find, at the end of the year, that they must take out a loan to pay taxes – or risk further interest, penalties, or even prison? Of course, these threats apply to any family or individual who guesses wrong on their withholding tax, as well. Why do we let the government cause us this stress?

And the cost… the cost to our economy is staggering. Estimates of what American families and businesses waste attempting to comply with the IRS range from $250 to $600 BILLION per year. That’s $1000 to $2000 for every man, woman and child in the country, because businesses typically pass those tax compliance costs on to the consumer – so individuals and families are paying for that, too.

The FairTax eliminates approximately 90% of those costs, which in and of itself is a reason to consider it.

Next: Crimestoppers on the case…


Reason #2 to abolish the IRS – stopping all kinds of bad guys

Stopping them from at least some of their crime, at least.

Let’s start with crime committed by some real scumbags, like your gang members, Mafioso, or drug dealers. They don’t pay income tax on their sometimes considerable income – but with the FairTax, they would pay their taxes just like everyone else. After all, they will still want their sports cars, designer sunglasses and assorted “bling,” will they not? When these people are roped into the tax pool, an estimated $1 trillion is brought back into the system. The tax base would now be comprised of everyone who spends money in the U.S.! (Which, by the way, includes tourists. They’re not criminals, of course, but they will add to that much broader tax base – some 51 million extra taxpayers from foreign countries alone!)

Here’s another criminal group that will be roped in – immigrants who broke the law to be here. They’re not paying any taxes, but they’re sucking the lifeblood out of government benefits. How awesome would it be to make them taxpayers too – simply by taxing the stuff they buy? As we all know, this aspect alone would add millions and millions of taxpayers into the system.

The FairTax would eliminate the temptation to commit a number of crimes, as well. For one thing, there would be no benefit to working “under the table.” Right now, people who don’t report their income (tax cheaters) aren’t paying into the system – but under the FairTax, this problem vanishes, as does every other tax fraud-related crime, which currently costs the Treasury a figure running into at least the tens of billions.

It would also eliminate certain crimes of political corruption, as politicians would be unable to repay big donors with tax favors. Again, this is another one of those points that in and of itself is a powerful argument for this type of change.

Finally, it eliminates even the possibility that an otherwise honest taxpaying citizen might be tempted by adverse circumstance to cheat. After all, when was the last time you cheated on your sales tax?

Next: A reason we can all get behind!


Reason #1 to abolish the IRS – go green!

This is one to throw out to your Lefty friends to get them on board with deep-sixing the IRS. Despite the advent of electronic filing and all, the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Fun fact: Laid end to end, that would stretch around the earth 28 times.

And tell this to your tree-hugger friends: It takes 300,000 trees each year to produce all the paper the IRS needs.

More importantly, the FairTax promotes recycling and reuse. After all, if pre-owned cars, furniture, clothes and houses are not taxed, more people will use them. Waste not want not.

The FairTax proposal isn’t perfect; many conservatives are concerned about the prebate aspect. Others question the math and the research. But these are fairly minor quibbles in light of the bigger questions – does the IRS promote individual liberty or deny it? Is the IRS a boon to our way of life and economic system, or a curse? Is it right that we spend vast quantities of time, energy and money trying to “game” the system and/or worrying about a possible audit – when we could replace the system with something more simple, more fair, and more economically sound?

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Top 7 Ways the Left Is Gunning for Parents

Apologies for Violent Imagery!

There was a time, just a few years ago, when I was the mother of three teenagers, all at once. Being a survivor of this horrifying experience (!) I can attest to the fact that there are times when state-sponsored child raising sounds like a great idea. Hey, maybe a few days (weeks? months?) in foster care would be a nice break for everyone! Haha! Ha! Ha. Okay, wait… this entirely loses its humor in light of what the radical statist leftists have up their sleeves these days.

Let me give you the punchline right now: They want your kids. They don’t want you raising them, they don’t want you teaching them, they don’t want you disciplining them. Bottom line? They want you to get the hell out of the way. And you may be surprised at what they now openly advocate in order to work toward this “utopian vision.”

Make no mistake – this battle is just in its infancy. Another battle the Left is fighting – to normalize, legitimize and push for gay marriage – is now well in hand. Many on both sides of this issue believe that it is only a matter of time before legal and public opinion is nudged over, firmly and permanently, to the Left, and this battle is chalked up in their victory column. Twenty years ago, this would have been unthinkable. So, how’d they do it? Well, early in the battle there were a lot of law school professors writing in support of gay marriage, and then cases starting moving into the courts…

So… what are our friends at the leftist law schools writing about now?

Next: Cancel your appointment at the beauty salon – just reading this will curl your hair…

Just another brick in the wall

7. The Left wants to ban private education and homeschooling

Education is the battleground in question, and the leftists are starting to be more vocal in their insistence that state-sponsored (and union-controlled) public schools be the ONLY option for parents. As in, no private schools. No religious schools. And for heaven’s sake, no homeschooling.

Which reminds me – a big shout out to Michael Farris and the fine folks at Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), who are sounding the alarm on what these leftists are up to. All of the evidence presented in this piece comes courtesy of HSLDA, starting with this gem from the Emory University School of Law. Professor Martha Albertson Fineman lays out a clear case:
“The more appropriate suggestion for our current educational dilemma is that public education should be mandatory and universal. Parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children.”
So Professor Fineman thinks public education is the solution to “our dilemma” – but that’s really a solution to HER dilemma. That is to say, the leftist dilemma of having to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Let’s look at a few more of the good professor’s concerns in detail:
“The long-term consequences for the child being homeschooled or sent to a private school cannot be overstated.”
Indeed! One cannot overstate the threat to the Left from people taught to think for themselves and question the politically correct orthodoxy that passes for education in state schools.
“The total absence of regulation over what and how children are taught leaves the child vulnerable to gaining a sub-par or non-existent education from which they may never recover.”
Hey, you stupid parents who are paying thousands of dollars for private education, or sacrificing a second income so that mom can stay home and teach the kids – your children may NEVER recover from this!!

The unmitigated gall that it takes to write these words absolutely floors me. Surely the professor is not ignorant of the quality of America’s public high school graduates. Surely she is aware that when applied to education, the phrase “sub-par” should be etched in stone over the front doors of most public schools. The asinine assertion that it’s the educators in PRIVATE education who need to be regulated is laughable. And the fact is, she is aware of all this. But her larger agenda is about control, not educational excellence. And note that she doesn’t just want control over how the children are taught (the setting, public or private) – but also WHAT the children are taught.

Next: We arrive at the core of the Left’s discomfort with private education…


6. The Left doesn’t want you deciding what your kids learn

Professor Fineman continues to explain it all to us:
“The risk that parents or private schools unfairly impose hierarchical or oppressive beliefs on their children is magnified by the absence of state oversight or the application of any particular educational standards.”
As the kids say, OMG. This sentence is a doozy and needs to be broken down carefully.

First of all, the implication that any alleged problem is being magnified by the absence of educational standards is just an outright fabrication. No private schools (that want to stay in business) adhere to a policy of ignoring educational standards, and homeschoolers, while subscribing to a wide variety of educational approaches, do not ignore “standards” either. That is just inflammatory language. (If it makes you feel violent, just think about puppies or something.)

Second, the only thing magnified by the lack of state oversight is the inescapable conclusion that state oversight is not needed. There is a reason private and home schooling are both thriving, and it has a whole lot to do with the rotten fruits of “state oversight” at the local public school like dumbed-down (and mistake-ridden) curriculum; toilet bowl test scores; out of control classrooms; tenured teachers who don’t give a rat’s ear about their students (or are having sex with them); politically correct sex education, “diversity training” and “social justice” curriculum at the expense of the three Rs; crime on campus… oh yeah, state oversight is NIFTY.

Third, how do parents/private schools “unfairly impose” anything? Would the professor like to explain how we can “fairly” impose something? Is the fact that the public schools impose the aforementioned mind-numbing politically correct orthodoxy on virtually every subject – is that an example of fair or unfair imposition? Inquiring minds want to know.

Fourth, what are the hierarchical and oppressive belief systems to which she refers, and why is it risky to teach them to kids?

Next: Now we know what they don’t like, but why don’t they like it?

Or not.

5. The Left doesn’t want you repeating what you learned in Sunday school

Fortunately for us, some of the professor’s peers have revealed the source of the “risks” that so worried Professor Fineman. I don’t know, maybe some of these ladies got some bad potato salad at a church picnic or something, because – are they EVER hostile to Christians, who they consider numbskulled and generally icky.

From Northwestern University School of Law, Professor Kimberly Yuracko has another description for what Fineman called “hierarchical and oppressive belief systems.” Yuracko calls them “idiosyncratic and illiberal beliefs and values.” She employed that phrase while discussing her claim that there are legal and constitutional limits on the rights of homeschooling parents to teach such beliefs. Yuracko says new laws must be implemented to mandate government control of educational choices – for certain children, anyway.

Which children? Why, those whose “parents want to teach against the enlightenment.”

Stupid, unenlightened, flat earth society Christians. Of course. These legal elites want the government to strip control away from parents who dare to teach against the “enlightened” view that we’re all here in a big cosmic accident. And lest you be thinking that perchance I am misunderstanding the intent here, allow me to introduce you to Catherine Ross. She teaches law at George Washington Law School, and I think she clarifies the core message quite succinctly in her most informative article entitled “Fundamentalist Challenges to Core Democratic Values: Exit and Homeschooling”:
“This essay explores the choice many traditionalist Christian parents (both fundamentalist and evangelical) make to leave public schools in order to teach their children at home, thus in most instances escaping meaningful oversight.”
Surprised? I thought not. As for meaningful oversight, we already touched on the enormous benefits it bestows on the local public school. Only someone far more enlightened than I am could want those benefits!

Next: The Constitution be damned…


4. The Left weaves fantasy about the Constitution and parental rights

Professor Ross is a veritable fount of leftist information on this topic. Here’s how she unpacks it:
“I am not primarily concerned here with the quality of academic achievement in the core curricular areas among homeschoolers, which has been the subject of much heated debate.”
The “heated debate” part is a cheap shot. There is no debate that most homeschoolers are doing just fine in the “core curricular areas,” thank you very much. But that’s why she doesn’t really want to talk about that.
“My comments focus on civic education in the broadest sense, which I define primarily as exposure to the constitutional norm of tolerance.”
Whoa… what? I’m thumbing through my pocket Constitution, but I am not finding the tolerance section…
“I shall argue that the growing reliance on homeschooling comes into direct conflict with assuring that children are exposed to such constitutional values.”
The only children in America who even know what the Constitution is are those being schooled at home or privately. However, the professor’s “constitutional values” are nothing more than a chilling attack on freedom of religion and parental rights. And this is where they really go off the deep end…

Next: Up is down, black is white, we are tolerant…



3. The Left intolerantly attacks parents, all in the name of tolerance

Ready for trip on the crazy train? All aboard! Your guest conductor today will be Professor Ross:
“In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations, society need not and should not tolerate the inculcation of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference… hence an argument that tolerance for diverse views and values is a foundational principle does not conflict with the notion that the state can and should limit the ability of intolerant homeschoolers to inculcate hostility to differences in their children.”
The mind boggles. Which is greater here, the hypocrisy or the irony? The elevation of tolerance to not only the highest value but the ONLY value is undertaken without blinking an eye, as is the rhetorical sleight-of-hand that allows the professor to presumably argue in favor of tolerance while expressing remarkably bigoted intolerance.

And speaking of inflammatory language, it is way over the top to accuse “intolerant homeschoolers” of inculcating “hostility to differences” in their children. (Hey, Prof – can you tone that down some?) For such an educated person, Professor Ross is remarkably narrow-minded. Teaching a child about differences does not equate to teaching him to hate the differences.

Next: To the Left, God is dead…


2. The Left skews belief in God and Jesus, all to tar parents

In case you’re still a little hazy on which “absolutist” views are not acceptable to Big Brother, Ross spells it out:
“If a parent subscribes to an absolutist belief system premised on the notion that it was handed down by a creator, that it (like the Ten Commandments) is etched in stone and that all other systems are wrong, the essential lessons of a civic education (i.e., tolerance and mutual respect) often seem deeply challenging and suspect. If the core principle in a parent’s belief system is that there is only one immutable truth that cannot be questioned, many educational topics will be off limits… unfortunately, the unavoidable counterpart of a belief in absolute truth is that other belief systems are mistaken at best, and at worst, evil.”
Hey, Prof, does that absolutist thing extend to your absolutist belief in your own worldview? See, you seem pretty sure of yourself, and I think you might be guilty of being… well, absolutist. I could easily rewrite your last statement to say, “Unfortunately, the unavoidable counterpart of a belief in [tolerance/atheism/insert worldview here] is that other belief systems are mistaken at best, and at worst, evil.”

Yeah, that pretty much sums up your view of the whole Judeo-Christian thing. Nevertheless, your hatred toward those values has wickedly skewed your viewpoint. For one thing, a belief in the God of the Bible does not make tolerance and mutual respect “deeply challenging and suspect.” What’s more, unlike you folks on the Left, we don’t have “off-limits” educational topics (although we’re not going to teach that all ideas are equally correct, which is the confusing and meaningless message you teach in the public schools). But let’s look at this from the other side – when’s the last time the public school taught the truth about Christianity’s role in… well, anything? Talk about an off-limits topic! I could name, many, many more verboten subjects – shoot, in a lot of schools you can’t even SAY “merry Christmas”! (I apologize for usage of the term “shoot” and suggest that any crazy folks reading this immediately go to their “happy place” and calm down.)

Anyway. Speaking of high blood pressure, don’t even get me started on the myopia that allows these dimwit professors to write this way about Christian parents while pointedly ignoring Muslim parents.

Which brings us to an important distinction to bear in mind. Christians are not writing, talking, or thinking about restricting anyone’s rights to teach their children anything they want. We may disagree with what the atheist or pagan or Sikh or gay parent or even Muslim teaches their child. But we are not trying to stop them. And that is an important distinction. The party trying to stop Christians (and eventually any parent) from teaching their own child what they wish to teach their own child is the leftist.

Next: And these are the people who are TEACHING our next generation of lawyers?


1. Leftists are screwing with the law to violate all parents

Not all attorneys are evil incarnate. As I mentioned, if it weren’t for the legal eagles at HSLDA, like Michael Farris, all this vomitous would still be under the radar. Thank God for them, because the leftist legal eagles (or as I prefer to think of them, vultures) have it all bass-ackwards. Farris uncovered this downright shocking statement from the aforementioned Professor Yuracko, who rejects:
“…the dominant HSLDA view that parents possess absolute control over their children’s education… Parental control over children’s basic education flows from the state (rather than vice versa). States delegate power over children’s basic education to parents…”
Yeah, uh… loony law professor, can you please show me THAT one in the Constitution?

This is the leftist brain. It simply makes up stuff and then writes it in law journals, and then other leftists read it and think it’s real, and when enough people think that and take it to court and try to force other people to think that, then eventually, it all magically ends up becoming real law.

Unless we fight back.

Speak out and speak the truth. Your rights as a parent – any rights including education – do not flow from the state. You may delegate those rights to the state (usually not a good idea, as mentioned earlier), but make no mistake – YOU delegate the rights. They belong – to YOU.

And make no mistake about this, either. In coming after the Christian homeschoolers, because they hate the concept of absolute truth, the Left will inflict collateral damage in the form of stripping rights from all parents.

Remember that old saying about “First they came for the [fill in the blank] but I didn’t protest because I wasn’t a [fill in the blank]…”

Remember how that works out in the end?

Well, they’re coming for the homeschoolers and the Christians (and especially for the Christian homeschoolers), and that means that soon enough, all parents will be in the crosshairs. They’re gunning for all of us. (Insert “vitriolic rhetoric” disclaimer of your choice here).
—–
So, dear parent, your services are not really needed here in the big global village, except as sperm donors and wombs-for-rent. After filling that part of parental duty, you’re pretty much off the hook. Long gone are the days when Father Knew Best. Now it’s State, or Expert, or Psychologist, or Law Professor Knows Best. And if we stay on this particular track, parents will be an endangered species, and children will suffer for it.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Facebook/Twitter Ammo (Yes, We Said Ammo.)


Like many of you, I was flabbergasted by the response to the tragedy in Tucson. Yeah, we know now that about 3/4 of the country gets it – they realize the media/Left’s blame game was just so much – well, “vitriol.” But that still leaves millions of people who do NOT get it, and apparently many of them were tweeting in the hours and days after the shooting – tweeting some pretty appalling stuff:



Now, THERE’S some hate speech for you.

Some of these misguided folks may still be salvageable. They may not be buried so deeply into the leftist hate trough that they will still listen to reason. And there are others out there just like them, ignorant and sheeplike, who simply have not heard much (if any) truth on this issue. These people are probably among your friends – almost certainly somewhere among your Facebook friends. So, if you don’t step up, where are they going to hear the truth? Surely not from the (increasingly lesser) mainstream media!

Feel free to use this “rhetorical ammunition” (Heh heh!) whenever the “ever so civil” Left gets all up in your face, regurgitating the party line about “Right wing rhetoric,” hate speech, the stupidity/incarnate evil of Sarah Palin, or any one of the million other pathetic Leftist talking points currently infecting threads all over the Facebook landscape. There’s a lot here; you may want to pick and choose your favorite weapons (Heh heh!).

First up: where’s the smoking gun?



Rhetorical Bullet #10 – No connection between the shooter and politics
This seems so obvious, but apparently, there are quite a few people who absorbed enough media venom this past week or so that they actually believe there was a connection. Maybe they saw one of those first statements from Sheriff DumbHick and they are under the mistaken impression that you can trust what issues forth from the mouth of a high-ranking law enforcement official. (Although in all fairness to Arizona’s own Barney Fife, DumbHick may just be trying to distract everyone from his office’s incompetence in following up on warnings they apparently had received about Loughner.)

So the point is, the supposed Tea Party/Palin/Fox News connection has been utterly proven false since the shooting, by both those who know Jared Loughner and by his possessions (or lack thereof – he loved the Communist Manifesto, but strangely he owned no copies of Pinheads and Patriots). So tell your friends clearly – there was no connection between Loughner and Right wing politics. Or Left wing politics. Or reality.

Loughner loved the Communist Manifesto, yes, but he also loved staring into space, acting super creepy, and visiting one of Representative Giffords’ 2007 events to ask her “what is government if words have no meaning.” He did that back in the day, before the Tea Party or Sarah Palin were nationally known. See how that works? It’s called a timeline, and it disproves just about every theory the media/Left floated since about 15 minutes after bullets flew.

Why do people go crazy? Well, dabbling in devil worship seems to be a contributing factor.

Which leads me to the core of the reason he did what he did: Evil. He apparently played around with the idea of evil, and eventually he became evil, which led to extreme evil perpetrated on innocent victims.

Ah, but why did he become evil? We may speculate – what kind of life did he live, growing up? What were his parents like? We don’t have a lot of those answers at this point, but we do know one thing he was exposed to… high school curriculum from the mind of unrepentant American terrorist Bill Ayers (another guy just like Loughner – doesn’t like America, wants to destroy things, loves the Communist Manifesto). Ayers has been an “educator” for years, funded in part by his buddy Barry Obama, who Ayers recruited to run a foundation paying for this Leftist educational experiment. So basically, it’s really Obama’s fault!

Not really, of course. But imagine, for a moment, if Loughner had spent a couple years ingesting some Christian homeschool curriculum and then this happened. The media/Left would have imploded, no? (Now there’s a mental image! Take a moment to savor and enjoy.) Oops, did I just lower the rhetorical tone?
SORRY.

Anyway, the truth is, Obama’s fingerprints do actually show up on this crime, albeit in a remote and tangential way – still, that’s a whole lot more than we can say about any involvement of Sarah Palin. After all, she’s not the one who pushed a curriculum that was force-fed to this young man for several years.

One of the victims is now blaming the Right, and has been arrested for threatening the local Tea Partiers. Well, this was inevitable, as Giffords would no doubt draw left-leaners to her event, and it was only a matter of time before one of them tried to capitalize on his/her own misfortune to try to score political points. Most of America, hopefully, still won’t bite.

Next: How the media glossed over the heart of the story…



Rhetorical Bullet #9 – The media/Left were so busy hating on the Right, they missed important parts of the story

Well, they didn’t completely miss them. But these are the HUMAN points that got buried in all the leftist vitriol:

*U.S. District Court Judge John Roll, the federal judge killed by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, was appointed by President Bush (the elder) and enjoyed the respect of many all along the political spectrum. It is believed that he stopped to greet Giffords on his way home from church. Attending Mass was a daily occurrence for the judge. (I do hope he’s enjoying the company of His Maker right now.)

*Three of the dead were senior citizens, and one of them died a hero’s death. Dorwan Stoddard, 76, threw himself over his wife when the shooting started. She was hit, but will survive – because Dorwan’s body absorbed the hail of bullets aimed their way.

*Senior citizens were actually the heroes of the day. When Loughner’s second clip malfunctioned, there bystanders took the opportunity to subdue him. Three bystanders aged 61, 74 and (female) 61.

*A younger man, Joe Zamudio, ran over to help. He’d been in a nearby store, and ran toward the trouble thinking he might be able to help. He was armed with his gun, but realized he didn’t need to use it by the time he got there. Hours later, when MSNBC bigmouth Ed Schultz tried to use Zamudio to prop up gun control during an interview, Zamudio set him straight:



“You would have used your gun? You’re damn right.”
*And… this is a clip that didn’t get a lot of air time, considering that NBC interviewer Meredith Vieira was busy casting aspersions on pretty much the entire GOP last week. But at one point, she spoke with the father of 9-year-old victim Christina Green.

Watch with your Kleenex box handy. And marvel at this man’s strength of character in defending our freedom:



Next: I’ve seen hate speech, and this is no hate speech…


Rhetorical Bullet #8 – What the Right has been saying is not hate

Bluntly put, expressing a desire for limited government is not “hate.” Voting for candidates who wish to curb federal spending is not “hate.” Wanting to secure our borders is not “hate.” Heck, even being pro-life is not “hate”! But you wouldn’t know that from watching media coverage of this unfold after the shooting.

Let’s take a quick look at the flashpoint for the terribly misplaced ire of the Left. As we all know,leftists almost all suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome and fear her powerful gun-totin’ womanhood. She can fell a caribou! She says things like “lock and load”! But WORST of all… the infamous Palin map!



Look at that! She put gun sights – cross hairs – over Giffords’ district!

GUILTY. Case closed.

Well, as Neal Boortz points out… not so fast, my friend. Click here to see how Democrats like to TARGET their ENEMIES with things like BULL’S-EYES.

Now again – nobody’s saying it’s wrong to use military imagery in an election. That’s where we got the word “campaign”! But we are saying that the Left is full of hypocritical douches who apparently have no qualms about demonizing political opponents – for doing almost exactly the same thing they do themselves on a regular basis.

Next: And speaking of hypocritical douches…


Rhetorical Bullet #7 – Civil discourse is best served from the Left

Now, listen up, you dumb redneck gun- and Bible-clingers. We on the Left will now demonstrate civility. Pay attention.

Here’s how you talk about your political opponents – you suggest they be put against a wall and shot (and note the gentle tone used by the reporter in sharing these warm thoughts).

Or, you simply imply they’re drooling idiots.

Here’s how you show respect to a president – you compare him to Hitler in the most offensive ways possible.

Or, proudly proclaim your profound hatred for him, in print.

Here’s how you act if you win the presidency based in part on promises to act in a bipartisan fashion – you tell the other side, basically, to get bent

Here’s how you act after you’ve been president for awhile and things aren’t going your way – you attack your opponents using inflammatory (what?) language, and take potshots at your own side for good measure.

Here’s your idea of a good joke – laughing about imagining your opponents… dead (bonus points if you do this while living in the White House).

Had about all the civility you can stomach? Because it gets worse than this. Larry Elder did a great job of corralling a number of the most offensive Leftist “hate” examples

But Michelle Malkin produced an absolute tour-de-force. (As she notes, they were asking for it.) Grab a cup of coffee (or maybe a big glass of wine) and enjoy this.

Next: Ah, but the Left does more than TALK – they are people of ACTION (read: violence)…


Rhetorical Bullet #6 – For all their flower child talk, leftists have a rich history of violence…

Do they ever! We on the Right are HOPELESSLY behind on this one. Let us again learn from our betters, with just a few examples. Over at American Thinker, they recently took a trip down memory lane:
“Who can forget Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam? Or Eldridge ‘rape is an insurrectionary act’ Cleaver and his Black Panthers? What about the bombings perpetrated by the Weathermen? Former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers is, of course, a close associate of President Barack Obama. Ayers managed to escape prosecution (and proclaimed himself ‘[g]uilty as hell, free as a bird’), but his wife Bernadine Dohrn served jail time for her part in the violence. Black radicals seized Cornell University at gunpoint in 1969, the same year the SDS and the Weathermen staged the ‘Days of Rage’ riots. Race riots took place in Watts in 1965 and nationwide in 1968; leftists rioted at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968. John Kennedy was murdered by a communist, and Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian — hardly men of the right. The 1970s weren’t much calmer. The Army Math Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was bombed by leftist radicals in 1970. Heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and took part in a series of armed bank robberies by the left-wing Symbionese Liberation Army. The SLA inspired Sarah Jane Moore to try to assassinate Gerald Ford — less than three weeks after Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme, a disciple of Charles Manson, tried to kill Ford also. And what about the shooting of FBI agents at Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement in 1975? Since we’re taking about violence against members of Congress, how can we possibly fail to mention the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan and the mass suicide of nine hundred people by the leftist/Marxist Jonestown cult in 1978? Does anyone recall that President Clinton pardoned members of the Marxist-Leninist-inspired Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN? Clinton also pardoned left-wing radical Susan Rosenberg, who was imprisoned for her role in the murder of two police officers and a security guard in a robbery in 1981. She was offered a teaching job at Hamilton College, but public outcry forced her to decline the position. More recently, we’ve seen anarchist and communist riots against the WTO in Seattle in 1999, and violent anti-Bush and antiwar protests.”
Indeed.

This seems like a good place to insert one Richard Trumka, current head of the AFL/CIO. He is, needless to say, alarmed about violent speech in light of the shooting. But actual violence, apparently, doesn’t bother him so much (warning: this story includes a dead animal head, as all good union/mafia stories must).

This also seems like a good place to remind everyone that the nutjob who opened fire, recently, at a Florida school board meeting… well, he actually DID have a bunch of leftist stuff on his Facebook page, etc. What? You don’t recall the media mentioning that? Yeah… me neither. That’s odd. Anyway, Glenn Beck mentioned it – and then went on to emphasize that the responsibility belonged to the shooter alone. Proving the Beck has more class in one of his toenail clippings than pretty much all the MSM combined.

Finally, as was almost inevitable from the torrential outpouring of misplaced hatred, we now have death threats against innocent people who simply wanted to take a stronger hand in their own civic life.

Next: Mental illness epidemic (see Wing, Left)…


Rhetorical Bullet #5 – Jared Loughner not the only one who’s a little bit crazy…

Anytime someone accuses you of what they themselves are doing, it does bring their grasp of reality into question, no? Since the last few pages of this post have already made my point, I rest my case.

But just for fun, let’s hear from dimwit Mark Halperin, who simply cannot figure out why the Right won’t “unite the country” by ignoring the collective blood libel against all of us.

Hahaha! You just cannot make this stuff up!

Next: Is it hateful to lie?


Rhetorical Bullet #4 – When they couldn’t twist the truth any harder, they outright lied

The Left is so far wrong on so many things, they often find they have to resort to that tried-and-true (and Saul Alinsky-approved) technique of LYING in order to obtain or maintain support for their delusional ideas. The Arizona shooting provided no motivation for them to alter course. A few examples should suffice:

Former Senator Bob Kerrey decides, with exactly ZERO evidence, that the shooter was probably upset about the attempt to repeal Obamacare.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, fully invested in this administration’s “kiss up to the Arabs” strategy, tells the United Arab Emirates that their extremists (i.e. the folks who brought us 9/11) are pretty much the same as “our extremists” (i.e. Jared Loughner). In other words, she legitimized Loughner’s insanity as just an extreme version of a political viewpoint – and we all know, of course, which political viewpoint she was tagging on him. And that, again as has been proven far beyond the shadow of a doubt, is a lie.

I find it particularly reprehensible when people use their children to smear others, and so I’m going to include this next one in the lying category, simply because I don’t believe this exchange took place. I don’t know how old her children are, but the exchange reported to CBS by leftist Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz just does not ring true:
“After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, ‘Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean youre going to get shot?’ And then I, you know, did my best to reassure her, tell her, ‘No, you know, Mommy takes precautions. You’ve been to my meetings. You know we have, we take steps to make sure that we’re all safe.’ But then the next thing she said to me was – and this is where you don’t realize how closely they’re watching – ‘But Mommy, Florida’s going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.’ You know, they’re paying attention. The civil discourse is very important because it’s not just – it’s not just adults that – that this permeates. It’s our children.”
Did you get that? It PERMEATES our children. Well then, by all means, let’s just open up the borders and let the entire Mexican population in right now! Nothing could be worse, after all, than permeated kids.
“But Mommy, Florida’s going to pass an immigration law like Arizona…” Isn’t Schultz’ little daughter a genius, with that solid grasp of immigration policy nuances in various states? I’m sure the kid said exactly that, just like mom reported. Yeah.

While we’re on the subject of bigmouthed leftist broads who can’t keep their nose out of other people’s business, Michelle Obama! Here’s why she’s a liar – because she says the lesson from Tucson is to teach your children the value of tolerance and giving others the benefit of the doubt, particularly if you disagree with them.

Really? That’s the takeaway here? As writer Ann Althouse notes, shouldn’t we tell our kids that we need to be aware of the individuals around us, some of whom might need a whole lot more than “tolerance and wishful thinking about how good they might be?”

Just for grins, look at this whopper that the Queen suggests we teach our kiddies:
“We can explain to (the children) that although we might not always agree with those who represent us, anyone who enters public life does so because they love their country and want to serve it.”
Now there’s a whopper, and a darn self-serving one, at that.

Next: Climbing over the corpses to further the cause…


Rhetorical Bullet #3 – True to its policy, the Left did not waste this crisis

It has been fairly well reported, but only across the blogosphere, that a Democratic operative counseled Obama to “deftly pin this on the Tea Partiers, just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.” To his credit, Obama did not go there in his speech. But, so what? He stood by quietly for almost a week and let every other Democrat in America do his dirty work for him.

Others who jumped on the “profit from tragedy” bandwagon include socialist Representative Bernie Sanders, who sent out a FUNDRAISING letter with this quaint verbiage:
“This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area where, it appears, threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate… nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred.”
Yes, it’s an everyday occurrence in Tucson, no doubt. That’s why there was no media coverage.
Sheesh!

Of course, it was kind of an everyday occurrence for Olbermann, because he uses EVERYTHING to bash the Right. This one had him pronouncing from on high that Palin must be dismissed from politics. First it was because she caused it all, then it was because she was hiding and too scared to come out and defend herself, and then it was because she came out and defended herself, and BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL! Speaking of blood, his blood pressure must be sky-freaking-high. (I’m not providing links because I’m sure you’re sick of even looking at him.)

Of course the ultimate leftist misuse of this crisis wasn’t simply to blame the Tea Party, or raise money for crazed socialists, or even to bash Palin. It is something more overarching, and more evil. It is the attempt to SHUT US UP. This entire blame game is all about silencing the people who have been winning in the marketplace of ideas. And that makes the irony of their hateful words particularly rich, as writer Bill Murchison points out:
“They poison the very well they claim to be unclogging.”

Next: What’s at stake if we are silenced…


Rhetorical Bullet #2 – It’s called FREE SPEECH for a reason

After the raw fact of human beings mowed down and injured by a madman, the second most chilling thing to emerge from all this is the sentiment – on anyone’s part – that we somehow must curtail free speech. The fact that political speech did not play a role in this killing is almost irrelevant, since the Left has insisted on making it an issue anyway. So let’s address it. What if Loughner had been a Tea Partier? What if his library was filled with books by Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity? What if he had voted for Bristol Palin 64,927 times during Dancing With the Stars?

It still wouldn’t – and certainly shouldn’t – change anything. Our freedom to discuss the issues of the day is among the most precious freedoms we have. People have literally died (not this time, but plenty of other places) in order to protect those rights. They are dear; they are precious. They are not affected by a madman who chooses his own course.

And that is pretty much the same thing we’d say if the shooter was an Olbermann fan. As unhinged as Olby can be, he has the right to rant on. But no matter what he says – even if he says that someone should be dead (and I think he has said that) – that does not license anyone to go out and harm anyone else. See, it’s really pretty simple.

The media could really help reinforce this simple message. But they’ve got other things on their little minds…

Next: The Left’s best friend in any crisis…


Rhetorical Bullet #1 – The media can always be counted on to spew the (leftist) party line

As a trained journalist with a longtime interest in the news business and a previous career in a big city newsroom, I must say that I cannot remember being more appalled with the state of reporting in this country than I have been this past week.

In some cases, they acted as little more than leftist cheerleaders, like Jonathan Alter of the now-pathetic Newsweek, asking “Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?

Yup, that was definitely the first question that popped into my mind after I heard about the shooting. As it should have been the first question in all of our minds; the wellbeing of the Anointed One should be our highest priority, no? Alter’s the one who also helpfully pointed out that Gabby Giffords was more valuable to Obama alive than dead. (Whew! Lucky for her that didn’t go the other way!)

Without exception, the mainstream media players lined up in mind-numbing, predictable lockstep, like they always do. Of course the New York Times droned on about the “climate of hate” (Paul Krugman),  while CBS News looked forward to note that the GOP “sideshow” of Obamacare repeal would be a test of civility (apparently it would be a lot more civil to just let Obamacare bankrupt the country – we conservatives have SO much to learn about being nice).

In the “up is down” category, the editor of the New Yorker tried to argue that Obama’s early attempts to freeze out Fox News were actually shining examples of civil discourse. Uh… huh?

Over at ABC, reporter Claire Shipman snarked that Palin’s speech was something that was “meant to be statesman like” – but then again, Claire is even more in bed with the Obama Administration than most reporters, and I mean literally IN BED. Her husband is rumored to be a possible replacement for White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Well, she certainly did her part this week to get in good with hubby’s potential new boss! ABC also snidely reported that in releasing her speech, Palin had found a way to insert herself into the story. Yeah! Nobody else had even MENTIONED Sarah Palin before she released that video speech and just pushed herself right into the middle of the issue!

As for NBC and their retarded little brother, MSNBC… well, no surprises. Andrea Mitchell dredged up a 2005 Glenn Beck quote to prove Right wing hatred (2005, Andrea? That’s six years ago! Surely we’ve been hateful since then?!)… she also apparently could find absolutely no examples from the MSNBC video vault that demonstrated similar sentiment on the Left. Hmmm. If she can’t find any examples on MSNBC, methinks she isn’t watching. Ever. Because there’s a new example approximately every 30 seconds. Anyway, Andrea must like MSNBC even if she never watches it, because quoted a poll from msnbc.com to prove that a majority of people disagreed with Palin on something or other; it doesn’t matter what. What matters is, she quoted a poll from msnbc.com! You gotta admit, that’s hilarious. Nearly 59% didn’t like Palin, which means that of the three people reading that site, two agree with Andrea Mitchell.

Of course we can’t leave NPR out of our little circle tour of the media. They asked a Latina to share how relieved she was that a white boy killed the folks, not a brown boy. These are the people who fired Juan Williams for “insensitive” racially-based comments. Okay!

It goes on and on and nauseatingly on. Premier leftist website the Daily Kos tried to argue that Palin removing her infamous map from her website was proof of guilt – of what, we’re not sure. The irony is that after Giffords voted against Pelosi not more than two weeks ago, Kos had made comments  about Giffords (“she’s DEAD to me”) that he scrubbed from HIS site after the shooting (and after tweeting a stream of profanity-laced hatred directed at Palin). But like we said, that’s different. Why? I don’t know. But it’s different.

Media Matters‘ Eric Boehlert completely lost it when Andrew Breitbart’s site ran a livestream of CNN coverage of the shooting. Boehlert implied that the livestream was “proof” that Breitbart approved of the violence.

Look! That rightwing pig Breitbart is showing the violence because he loves it! (Well, why is CNN showing it?) I told you! That’s different!

The utter failure of the mainstream media to report, in a fair and relatively unbiased fashion, the events of the day – well, quite frankly this failure is a threat to our democratic republic. But that failure also means that, unlike you, the well-informed NewsReal Blog reader! – your non-conservative friends haven’t heard most of this information. So bookmark this little compendium, and over the weeks to come, when someone tries to tell you what the shooting was all about, you can come back and pick up your weapon (Heh heh!) of choice… and just maybe blow a few little minds.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Genius California Educator Explains the Arizona Shooting


Another alleged educator, on the payroll of the beleaguered California taxpayer, has weighed in with Solomon-like wisdom on the matter of the Arizona shooting. Although why the chancellor of the University of California, one Robert J. Birgeneau, feels the need to pontificate on the issue remains a mystery. Perhaps his taxpayer-funded use of office time could have been better spent considering how to extricate his campus from the clutches of union-represented professors who are angry at having to wait until age 55 to retire, instead of 50… or the myriad of other problems facing the UC system.


But no, he used his time, office, and taxpayer money to produce this letter, addressed to all members of the campus community at Berkeley, in which he goes on a nasty political rant even while condemning – you guessed it – nasty political rants! Of course, he doesn’t quote any Right-wing “rants” – he just snidely condemns anyone who disagrees with him:
“It calls upon us as an academic community to stop and ponder the climate in which such an act can be contemplated, even by a mind that is profoundly disturbed. A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy.”
Well, we all know what he means. He means the same thing that Olbermann, the mainstream media, and opportunistic Leftists all have been saying for the past 72 hours, and of course Birgeneau has just as much evidence of a connection between the shooter and the Right as the rest of them, which is to say none.

Yawn.

What even makes this worth commenting upon is the fact that it is not a partisan politician, a media pundit, or even a so-called objective journalist spewing this nonsense. It is a paid government employee, using his power and position to make statements to those under his authority (employees and students) that are (a) vile in their own hatefulness [IRONY ALERT!] and (b) politically exclusive – in other words, conservatives (or those who disagree with him in any way) are not really welcome at the UC. Oh, and (c): He butts in to another state’s business, which is particularly rich, since California’s in a far bigger craphole than Arizona in just about every way:
“I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons. This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the Dream Act by legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country.”
Wait a second. Was that… vitriol? Maybe even… INFLAMMATORY vitriol?!?!

So, “mean-spirited xenophobia” is how the good chancellor labels legitimate concern over immigration issues. Hey, Mr. Chancellor! Tone down that rhetoric, sir! One of your more feeble-minded students (like a gender studies major or something) might be unduly influenced by your climate of hatred!

I hope the taxpayers of California kick up a stink over this blowhard’s abuse of his authority. Oops! I meant, I hope they gently express displeasure.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Top 10 People (or Groups) in America Who Loathe Israel, Our Strongest Ally

The Israel Haters Among Us

Across the wide seas, there is a magical place where people live in a similar setting to that here in the United States. They live with democracy, freedom, individual human rights and prosperity – just like here. Although much of their population embraces one faith, they allow all faiths to flourish – just like here. They welcome (legal) immigrants – just like here.

And, in perhaps the most compelling commonality of all, they are targeted for destruction by the forces of Islam – just like here (just like all of Western Civilization, in point of fact).

So, naturally, this magical place is absolutely loathed by American Leftists. After all, they hate their own country, so why shouldn’t they hate Israel? These haters walk among us. Let’s spend a few minutes calling them out (and in some cases, laughing at them hysterically)… 

To start with: the self-proclaimed protectors of human rights.


 
10. The United Nations

No, they’re not American. But they are here in America, are they not? Perhaps it’s (long past) time that we kick their fannies off U.S. soil. The U.N. “Human Rights Council” is obsessed with Israel’s “many human rights abuses” and loses no opportunity to condemn the country, while not managing to muster up any indignation toward Iran, Libya, China, Qatar… oh, wait! Maybe it’s because those nations are all part of the Human Rights Council! Which makes perfect sense, if it was Opposite Day. Unfortunately, every day is Opposite Day at the U.N. – like the day they applauded terrorism toward Israel:





At least under George W., the U.S. boycotted this kangaroo human rights court. But Obama has us going back, so that we can receive human rights counseling from North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, Egypt, and yes, even Iran! Our president apparently believes we have much to learn from these nations. WARNING – this video is not for the weak of stomach:



Next: A Holocaust survivor who hates Israel (or so we're told)...




9. Hedy Epstein

Hedy Epstein is a little old lady who is being misused by the so-called BDS radicals – the Israel haters pushing for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. These people make much of Hedy’s involvement in their cause. And it is terribly sad to see a little old Jewish lady participating with them.
However, she’s not a Holocaust survivor. She was a refugee from Nazi Germany, and she did lose her family to the Nazis, but she was living in England during the war, not in a death camp. You can read her real story here.

And you can see how she’s being misused in this comically angry “flash mob” protest against Motorola at a Best Buy store in St. Louis (just look for the only 85-year-old “dancer”). Who really knows why Hedy went over to the dark side… maybe she’s just senile:





Next: More singing and dancing – this time against chickpeas!


8. BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) groups

What do these Israel Haters have against Lady Gaga, anyway? Everywhere they go, they commit songrape against the Gaga hit “Telephone.” Come on, big-mouthed Israel boycottophiles! Pick on another song!

In this catchy version “performed” in Philadelphia, the lyrics are tortured into an assault on Sabra hummus. Yes, you read that right. And the dancing is every bit as bad as the singing. Worse, in fact, which is odd considering that quite a few of the participants look gay, and I thought gays were good at choreography! Wait – hasn’t anyone told them that Islamists KILL gays? Guess not! Anyway – again, if you have a strong stomach – take a gander:



Next: One more time, with feeling…


7. David Beckham and wife Posh Spice

Okay, not the REAL David Beckham and Posh Spice. But when you watch this video (the last of the BDS types, I promise), you will see how I got confused. After all, they got someone just as handsome as Beckham and just as lovely as Posh to impersonate them. Although I should really put my glasses on and take a look to be sure… wait… uh… sorry… let’s see, with the old specs on board… it seems that these people are actually… uh… oh. Actually, these people are hideous!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Sort of. But the real reason to show you this video is in the interest of fairness. After all, I did ask them to stop butchering Lady Gaga and move on to something else. So they did! The target, again, is Motorola – “Moto’s killing children so say goodbye!” – you’ll be humming it all day:



Next: What about the REAL entertainment types?


Jean Luc Godard - Hater

6. Hollywood – as exemplified by Jean Luc Godard

There is no greater narcissistic self-lovefest than the Oscars, and this man, Jean Luc Godard, is who Hollywood thought deserved an honorary Academy Award this past year. Now granted, this man is French, not American. But Hollywood, last I checked, IS American, although you’d never know it, would you?

So Jean Luc Godard is a bigshot fancy-schmancy pants movie director. And he’s also a virulent Israel hater, again not only walking among us but enjoying showers of accolades. Here’s how my NewsReal Blog fellow writer Dr. Phyllis Chesler describes him:
“Godard has… described Israel as a ‘cancer on the map of the Middle East’; visually, in paired flickering images, has compared Golda Meir to Hitler in one of his films; defended the 1972 Palestinian terrorist massacre of Israeli athletes in Munich and suggested that an image of the Palestinian camps should be ‘broadcast before every Olympics finale’; justified Arab terrorism by describing Israel as a ‘paradoxical form of Nazism’;  insisted that German television is ‘financed by Zionists,’ and demanded that the Germans, instead, allow ‘us’ to buy ‘weapons for the Palestinians to attack Zionists.’ In one of his many films, ‘A Married Woman,’ Godard has a character state: ‘Today, in Germany, I said to someone, “How about if tomorrow, we kill all the Jews and the hairdressers?” He replied, “Why the hairdressers?”’ In other words, Godard, in both his films, and in interviews, is an out-of-control racist and he has wielded his considerable cinematic talent and influence to legitimize a far less talented industry of exterminationist propaganda against the Jews and Israel.”
So, let’s give him Hollywood’s highest honor! I could write an entirely separate article about the self-hating nature of the self-hating Jews in places like Hollywood – but NewsReal Blogger Lisa Graas already did!

Next: American campuses – multiple safe havens for Israel haters…


5. Muslim students on American campuses

The Muslim Students Association. It’s a fixture on many major United States campuses. And that’s great, because clearly if the Muslim students are HERE, then they must admire and maybe even love the U.S., and so they’re learning the kind of tolerance and open-mindedness which the university experience should inculcate. Right?

Well, maybe we can ask Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. He had an interesting experience with the Muslim Student Association at the University of California at Irvine, when he came to speak about Israel. This video really highlights the kind of fair and thoughtful debate for which Muslims are known:



The students were asked, again and again, to show respect for the speaker. Mr. Oren, showing a great deal of class throughout the ordeal, asked them specifically to allow him to speak (clearly, a request he should not have had to make). But these Israel haters are haters above all.

Speaking of hate at the University of California, it seems appropriate here to revisit another Muslim student, star of a video that went viral last year from UC San Diego. The video is compelling because of its jaw-droppingly shocking hatred, expressed clearly and simply:







Next: Muslims’ favorite college campus…



4. Bard College
 
Is this campus really on American soil? I was wondering, because it proudly proclaims that it has an “Alger Hiss” Professorship of Social Studies. Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent and Communist, dedicated to the destruction of both our free markets and our liberty. So anyway, isn’t that super awesome that Bard College administrators have named a chair in their social studies department for this spy?

But I digress. There are far more interesting (and current) scandals at Bard College. Bard is home to a chapter of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which is just another way of saying “really radical Muslim students, or just Muslims.” Writer Lee Kaplan talks about his efforts to get Bard President Leon Botstein (another self-hater, apparently) to stop allowing his campus facilities and student activity money to be used to train ISM activists who are then sent to the West Bank:
“The ISM at Bard has actually invited Huwaida Arraf, a co-founder of the ISM and one of the main organizers of the Gaza Flotilla boats that continually try to run the Israeli navy’s control of the sea lanes to Gaza to import weapons for Hamas. Arraf was invited to campus to do recruiting for ISM terrorism enablers once before and I alerted Botstein then, too, who did nothing about it. The Bard ISM campus group even recently raised money for the Gaza flotillas that included IHH, an al Qaeda-affiliated ‘charity’ that was involved in the millennium bomb plot to blow up the LA airport in 2000. It is common knowledge the ISM organizes these flotillas in order to try to enable the Iranians to run weapons to the Hamas to attack Israeli civilians on Israel’s southern border with rockets and mortars. Photos are available of ISM activists receiving medals from Hamas leaders in Gaza… Bard ISM recruits are trained in how to lie to the Israeli border police in order to enter Israel illegally and go to the West Bank (also illegal) to assist in fomenting weekly riots from the mosques against Israel’s security fence… getting a college like Bard to foot the bill through student activity money and lend legitimacy to their actions is quite a feather in the ISM’s cap. This is one reason why there are not other ISM chapters on colleges across the nation. That is, so long as some college presidents unlike Botstein don’t let them fool people into thinking they are part of the academic experience instead of terrorist enablers, the others don’t train activists to physically aid Hamas… (whose) charter calls for not only destroying Israel, but wiping the Jewish people off the world map.”
Kaplan goes on to note that most campus Muslim groups engage in propaganda and street theater at worst, but “Bard’s ISM chapter is a different animal entirely.” You can read about the whole sorry mess here.

As a quick side note, not EVERY college in America is a haven for Israel haters. At my alma mater, the University of Southern California, administrators recently reprimanded their campus security (and security apologized) for siding with the Students for Justice in Palestine after a member of the pro-Israel group “Stand With Us” was forcibly ejected from a public event. What’s more, new USC president C.L. Max Nikias has issued a courageous statement AGAINST the BDS movement.

Next: The president of USC may be on the right track but not all presidents are…


3. President Obama 

Obama has been no friend of America’s best friend. Washington-based British journalist Nile Gardiner sums it up quite neatly:
“In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends (Israel and Britain), while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of ‘smart power’ has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s na├»ve approach since he took office… the Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.”
Let’s see… Obama has publicly insulted the Israeli president. That’s not how he treats dictators with American blood on their hands – he got all buddy buddy with Venezuela’s murderous Hugo Chavez. (Who has repaid him by pledging to build a new world order with that lunatic currently running Iran). Obama even literally bent over to bow for the king of Saudi Arabia – a country in which nobody votes, women have no rights, and Christianity is illegal. Obama also has compared the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust to the “occupation” of Palestinian territories…  he’s humiliated Israel in a hateful speech at the U.N., and pretty much blamed Israel the for the Middle East conflict… his minions (Clinton, Axelrod, Gibbs) have publicly flogged Israel numerous times.

Wow – with friends like that, Israel doesn’t really need any enemies! Of course, sadly, it has many.

Too bad America is beginning to be one of them, thanks to our current president.

Next: SHOCKER: National Public Radio goes all anti-Israel…


2. NPR (surprise!)

Yeah, I’m being sarcastic, of course. Nobody’s surprised by this. If it’s a cause that’s either stupid or Leftist, NPR is all over it like a bad rash. Last week NPR ran a piece all about how Israel is so mean to its (illegal) immigrants, quoting – well, illegal immigrants, naturally. Ira Stoll sums it up:
“Never mind Juan Williams: What really gets me about National Public Radio is the way it manages to cover Israel in a manner more reminiscent of Tishreen’s or Al Jazeera’s style than that of an American news outlet. The latest egregious example is a piece from NPR’s Morning Edition that runs on the NPR website — and this morning was the lead story on the NPR home page —  under the headline ‘In Israel, No Welcome Mat for African Migrants.’ The article accuses Israel of being inhospitable to refugees. There’s no mention whatsoever of Israel’s welcoming 1 million Jews from the former Soviet Union or tens of thousands of Jews and others from Ethiopia, which, last I checked, was in Africa. Nor is there any mention of whether any other countries are laying out welcome mats for refugees. It’s hard to think of a country other than America that has been more welcoming to refugees than Israel has, so it seems likely that the NPR piece is afflicted by a certain confusion between a ‘refugee’ and an ‘illegal immigrant’ … NPR quotes one illegal African immigrant it states has been in Israel for 16 years as saying that Israel ‘ends up not a place for people who are different. It’s a place where people should be, look, all the same.’ Again, there’s no reminder or reality check from the NPR correspondent to the effect that Israelis, who may be Ethiopian immigrants, black-hat Orthodox, secular supermodels, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, you name it, hardly ‘look all the same.’ NPR has responded to complaints about its Israel coverage by commissioning an independent review every three months of its coverage of ‘the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ But this isn’t even coverage of the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’; it’s just a hit piece on Israel.”
Next: Of course the other American media outlets are doing much better in their coverage of Israel, right? RIGHT?



1. The American mainstream media and the “intelligentsia” than run it

Although Ira Stoll (see #2 above) expected more from an American news outlet, the fact is that no mainstream American news outlets are friendly to Israel, and some are among the worst Israel haters in the country. Shoot, the recognized elder stateswoman of the White House Press Corps, arguably one of the most famous longtime reporters in America, slipped and let her true colors show this year on the subject of Israel. (The Society of Professional Journalists named their Lifetime Achievement Award after her!) Then there’s the fact that Saudi money is controlling some aspects of the American media giants (including, yes, Fox News).

But leftist reporters being leftist, once they get an idea embedded in their gray matter, it just colors how they view – and do – all their reporting. Here and here, read how critics carefully deconstruct Israel-related reportage to show the persistent, insidious, and sometimes very subtle-but-nevertheless-enormous bias. It’s remarkable. And it is how virtually every Israel story is reported in the mainstream press.

Some figureheads in the mainstream media are very open about their biases, as blogger Ron Radosh reports in his biting takedown of current New Yorker editor David Remnick, an arrogant blowhard who could be crowned king of the self-haters.

A footnote: The big social media outlets are not really in the category of “mainstream media,” although the biases of sites like Google and Wikipedia have been fairly well-documented. But it’s sadly instructive that Facebook, an American invention, currently hosts a number of “We Hate Israel” pages – with thousands of members between them.

So here in the greatest Western civilization currently on earth, where we should have great respect for what Israel has accomplished economically, politically and culturally – here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A – the Israel haters walk among us. They spread misinformation or outright lies, they spread their ignorance of history and current events, they spread anti-Semitism, and of course, they spread hate.