Day: April 21, 2021

The D.C. BLM Insurrectionists Get a Pass

It’s okay to riot in D.C., and assault government buildings and police officers again.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/dc-blm-insurrectionists-get-pass-daniel-greenfield/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The face of the Black Lives Matter insurrectionist who was arrested in Washington D.C. with an axe, a laser, and a “destructive device” will not be plastered by the FBI over any local billboards. 

The BLM insurrections who rioted in Washington D.C. over the death of Daunte Wright, who had choked a woman to steal her rent money, threw fireworks and heavy objects at police. They shone lasers in the eyes of police officers and vandalized the Columbus monument with the obscene and hateful graffiti of a racist black supremacist movement. And they’ll get a pass.

Even when the racist insurrectionist mob chanted, “burn the precinct to the ground.” 

While the D.C. police department has asked for the public’s help in identifying one of the BLM insurrections who attacked a police officer and is offering a reward, the national media has not picked up the story the way that it did when there was an effort underway to identify the Capitol rioters, nor has the FBI taken to buying billboards asking anyone who knows the thug for tips.

Fighting with a police officer in January was profoundly morally different than doing so in April. 

That’s all the more striking since the D.C. Metro police force is 52% black, while the Capitol Police are 29% black. Black lives don’t matter when they’re also blue. Just ask Captain Dorn.

Only a handful of months after the media agonized over the spectacle of a riot in D.C. and our political class acted as if fights between protesters and police was some inexplicably horrifying event, worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor put together, instead of the top outdoor sport of 2020, it’s okay to riot in D.C., assault government buildings, and call for burning them down.

It’s fine to brandish axes, throw fireworks, and assault police officers for social justice.

None of the handful of BLMers and Antifa who have been arrested will have their ugly faces splashed across social media, be fired from their jobs, or face the threat of decades in prison.

Insurrection is once again no longer a crime in America. 

Scenes in which BLM insurrections "lobbed a large firework that exploded amid the police line" and "tossed debris, including water and water bottles" at police was, according to the Washington Post, merely a skirmish. There’s no particular interest in how the cops are doing. Having fireworks and debris thrown at you is just part of the job of coping with social justice.

It was also safe for Rep. Maxine Waters to head down to Minnesota and incite violence by telling BLM race rioters to "stay on the street", fight, and "get more confrontational" if the half-minority George Floyd jury didn’t find a police officer guilty of Floyd’s overdose death. 

Brooklyn Center is a long way from Maxine’s California mansion (well outside the impoverished district she claims to represent), so she wasn’t visiting her constituents. But the Democrat Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee doesn’t have to worry that any of the Wall Street companies she regulates will stop donating to her over her incitement to violence.

Waters regularly wins every election with at least 70% of the vote, but has nonetheless raised and spent nearly $2 million. And Wall Street isn’t about to cut off the insurrectionist’s cash flow.

After the Capitol Riot, MetLife announced that “the board of MetLife’s Political Action Committee (PAC) is reviewing all of its guidelines and giving to ensure that they are consistent with the company’s purpose and values” and that “one of our guiding principles will be to support candidates who uphold our values and the rule of law.” MetLife has been a Maxine donor.

Will MetLife continue donating money to Rep. Maxine Waters after she incited violence?

Don’t bet against it.

No one in the media is calling the latest outburst of Black Lives Matter rioting, even when it targets D.C. police officers and takes place in D.C., an insurrection. The city has asked the National Guard to be ready to provide assistance, but the national media is carefully overlooking the fact that the first time troops have been needed to deal with actual violence in D.C. since Biden took office has been in response to violent race riots by a Democrat political movement.

If it’s not an insurrection, then what is it? Following the AP Stylebook definition, some media outlets are calling it an “uprising”. What’s the difference between an insurrection and an uprising? Much as with the famous quip, “none dare call it treason”, it’s a question of power. 

Challenges by Republicans to Democrat power are an “insurrection”, while Democrat riots are an “uprising” meant to seize power. The difference is not in the substance of the violence, but in the morality of who has power. Democrats and their media believe that Black Lives Matter race riots are righteous, while protests over a rigged election are not. Just as doxxing, election fraud, and cancel culture are right or wrong depending entirely on their practitioners and targets.

The only rule is that leftist power is moral and everyone else’s power is immoral. Everything needed to rectify a leftist imbalance of power, from violence to election theft, is justified.

If an anti-government riot in the nation’s capital that attacks government buildings isn’t an insurrection, then what is it? It’s whatever euphemism the media uses to glamorize it.

“Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s,” the AP Stylebook had argued.

We heard a great deal about the “ransacking” of Pelosi’s office during the Capitol Riot. The focus on “rioting and property destruction” there was justified because the AP didn’t agree with the politics of the rioters. But when the AP and the rest of the media does agree with the politics of the rioters, then it’s important to ignore the violence and focus on the rightness of the cause.

The police and other law enforcement officers caught in the middle of the riots are confused because they’re never sure if they’re supposed to stop a riot or kneel to the rioters.

The Bidenite military leadership just disciplined soldiers who had flown choppers too low down to the crowd of rioting Black Lives Matter insurrectionists who had set fire to a church and the White House gatehouse during the BLM riots over the summer. The media accused the military of being tinpot fascists out to terrorize a mostly peaceful uprising and their arson attempts.

"Immediately after this event, we instituted a very strict ... approval process for the use of the National Guard, not just [for] the Metropolitan Police Department, but any agency that is requesting them," an Army official said. 

And then when the Capitol Riot happened, and the National Guard, which had by the orders of the D.C. government, been relegated to unarmed traffic control, didn’t arrive right away, the media once again howled holy hell, this time because there weren’t choppers and soldiers. 

But that’s because the National Guard wasn’t using the AP’s stylistic spinbook. 

Under Biden the mostly peaceful race riots, the uprisings, or insurrections, by any name, are back. After the worst part of a year in which the Biden regime decided to keep thousands of troops in the city for political theater, the National Guard is actually needed to keep the peace.

The BLM mobs are shooting off fireworks at police, shining lasers in their eyes, throwing debris at them, and shouting, “If we don't get it, burn it down!" 

But that’s not an insurrection.

It’s an insurrection when the rioters are out of power. When the rioters have the White House, the Justice Department, the House and the Senate on their side, it’s not an insurrection.

Just like the Nazi brownshirts or the Maoist Red Guard, BLM is now a form of state terror.

People Testing Positive for COVID-19 AFTER Getting the Vaccine

People Testing Positive for COVID-19 AFTER Getting the Vaccine

BY JESSICA MARIE BAUMGARTNER

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/people-testing-positive-for-covid-19-after-getting-the-vaccine/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden administration is urging American adults to “roll up their sleeves” and take the COVID shot, and doctors everywhere are being told to encourage people to take the experimental vaccine for everyone’s health and safety, yet all over the country fully vaccinated individuals are testing positive for the virus.

More than 200 people in 24 different Washington counties tested positive after receiving vaccinations just last week. Of that 200, five people died. In St. Louis County, Missouri, 71 people tested positive after being fully vaccinated; and 246 people in Michigan tested positive after vaccination, and three of them died.

Health officials say this is rare and uncommon, but more and more reports are coming in of people testing positive for COVID even after both doses of the vaccine. The CDC has yet to address this alarming occurrence.

As if that weren’t concerning enough, any deaths resulting from the vaccine will go without compensation because of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA). Passed back in 2005, PREPA exempts vaccine developers from vaccine safety laws in the event of an emergency declaration (such as a “pandemic”) by Health and Human Services, and protects them from lawsuits unless “willful misconduct” can be proven. So family members of those individuals who have died from the vaccine will receive nothing from vaccine manufacturers.

To make matters worse, Dr. Fauci has repeatedly told Americans that even after taking the vaccine we should not resume life as it was before. He has urged people to continue wearing masks and to social-distance after they have received the shot. This is the same “health expert” who told us we should wear two masks to protect against a virus that is not as deadly or contagious as previously predicted.

So based on the Biden administration’s “top health expert,” vaccinated people have to do all the same things that unvaccinated people do, for “the greater good.”

This raises a question: If those getting in line to “roll up their sleeves” can still get COVID-19, and will not be able to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages in the event of serious side effects or death, and vaccinated individuals cannot take off their masks and get back to life as usual, then what is the point of taking the experimental drug?

That question remains in the minds of those with “vaccine hesitancy.”

 

Lindell’s $1.6 Billion Lawsuit Against Dominion Shows the Importance of the Counter Attack

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/lindells-1-6-billion-lawsuit-against-dominion-shows-the-importance-of-the-counterattack/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Mike Lindell, the outspoken conservative owner of MyPillow, announced Monday that his company sued Dominion Voting Systems for $1.6 billion because the voting technology firm has violated his First Amendment-protected rights.

“MyPillow just sued Dominion for $1.6 billion. This is all about the First Amendment rights to free speech, what they have done to our country,” said Lindell during a livestream on the Right Side Broadcasting Network.

“This isn’t about the money,” he added. “This is about our First Amendment.”

The announcement was a response to Dominion’s decision to sue Lindell for $1.3 billion earlier this year on grounds that he defamed them by claiming that their technology was used to steal the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden.

That case, pending in federal court in Washington, will be heard by Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee. Lindell filed a motion to dismiss it last week.

Dominion has also launched lawsuits of over a $1 billion each against Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, and against pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

In announcing his suit, Lindell was joined by lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who argued that Dominion acted as the government due to the power the feds extended to the voting-machine company. Thus, Dominion’s actions are suppressing the viewpoints of critics, Dershowitz alleged.

“We don’t suppress. We don’t censor, but that is what Dominion is trying to do on behalf of the government,” said Dershowitz, who is advising Lindell and his legal team. “We are going to be demanding access to their machines, to their codes.”

In the suit, Lindell accuses Dominion of engaging in “lawfare” in order to silence critics who question the workings of their machines.

“Dominion’s purpose is to silence debate; to eliminate any challenge to the 2020 presidential election; and to cancel and destroy anyone who speaks out against Dominion’s work on behalf of the government in administering the election,” reads the 51-page complaint. “Dominion is using the legal process as a weapon to suppress free speech.”

Stephen Shackelford, a partner at Susman Godfrey LLP serving as Dominion’s legal counsel, declared that the lawsuit had no merit.

“This is a meritless retaliatory lawsuit, filed by MyPillow to try to distract from the harm it caused to Dominion,” Shackelford stated.

Lindell explained that he decided to sue because Dominion was harming his employees and company, which has lost business opportunities as a result of the accusations against him.

“I’ve been canceled individually on just about every platform known to man,” he maintained.

Lindell is correct in describing Dominion’s suit against him as “lawfare.” Not only the Left, but the Deep State in general, have become adept at using lawsuits (or even the threat of lawsuits) as a weapon for silencing and financially ruining their opponents. Just look at the ordeals through which Trump allies such as Mike Flynn and Roger Stone were put through to take them out of the political fight.

Lindell is also correct in counter-suing. Far too often, the strategy on the Right has been to seek cover and hide one’s head under the sand in the face of assault from the Left.

President Trump has said that if someone hits him, he hits back twice as hard. If Republicans as a party had followed that policy over the last decades, the socialist movement in this country wouldn’t have the power it currently does.

Even after President Trump displayed the value of fighting back (and the conservative base’s desire for such fierceness from its representatives) over the last several years, top Republicans refuse to get it.

Observe the difference between the GOP’s reaction to comments made by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before she was elected to Congress, comments her detractors say were violent, and the reaction by Democrats to Representative Maxine Waters’ (D-Calif.) comments in recent days in which she encouraged rioters to be “more confrontational” if police officer Derek Chauvin is acquitted for the death of George Floyd.

Greene was condemned and rebuked by her own party’s leadership. Meanwhile, Waters is being rabidly defended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The political right can expect to continue ceding ground so long as it holds to its traditional strategy of surrender-and-fold.

However, Lindell’s counterpunch offers hope that a new generation of conservative public figures are beginning to understand that action, not empty posturing, is the way to win.

Woke Anti-American Politics Comes to the Veterans Health Administration~EX-FBI AGENT GUILTY OF RESUME FRAUD?

VA hiring thousands of new workers

75th Anniversary Celebration: Veterans Health Administration

BY BRYAN PRESTON

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/04/19/exclusive-woke-anti-american-politics-comes-to-the-veterans-health-administration-n1441129;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Jessica Bonjorni is the chief officer of human capital at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In this role, Bonjorni manages divisions including about 1,000 employees with a budget of about $1.2 billion. The VHA is America’s largest integrated healthcare system, according to its website, serving nine million enrolled veterans each year.

According to a source who reached out to PJ Media, Bonjorni brought her woke, critical race theory politics to the VHA last summer via email communications and unrecorded “open forums” in which she slammed America and promoted the divisive doctrine.

It began in June 2020. As riots swept across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death, Bonjorni — who heads a large department within the VHA — convened the first forum online on June 12, 2020. According to the source, the first and subsequent open forums became vehicles for Bonjorni to express her belief in critical race theory. Bonjorni also expressed her intention to make critical race theory part of her management at the VHA.

Bonjorni is a graduate of Smith College, which has become infamous for imposing critical race theory — which reduces the complexity of life and personhood to boxes and categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed” — on its students and staff. Where it is practiced, critical race theory brings division and anger, not reconciliation or unity.

Critical race theory also teaches that America was founded on racism and slavery and is irredeemably racist. If that is the case, why should anyone ever defend it? Why honor veterans or give us any benefits? I pose these questions because Bonjorni manages a key department in a large federal agency that exists to serve veterans, including myself.

Bonjorni’s first salvo on race came just days after Floyd’s death, on June 5, 2020.

veterans

Six days later, Bonjorni injects “social justice” into the discussion.

veterans

That’s a day ahead of the first “open forum” and set the tone.

The open forums were unrecorded. PJ Media’s source says Bonjorni used them to promote critical race theory and made inflammatory statements in them, such as that America’s founding was racist, and she could not even understand why anyone would disagree with that.

After the first couple of forums, during which one staff member reportedly called another a “racist” and called for that person’s firing — with no pushback or evidence sought to justify such incendiary, possibly life-destroying claims — Bonjorni sent out another missive to VHA human capital staff. This one suggests establishing a race-based star chamber within the VHA, under the name “internal diversity and inclusion council.” Bonjorni cites CRT proponent Ibram X. Kendi and introduces terms such as “microaggression” into the discussion. Bonjorni introduces and apparently tolerates no balanced evidence or opinion.

veterans

After months of riots and exposure of critical race theory as a Marxist doctrine, President Trump banned its use in the federal workplace and among federal contractors. Even French President Emanuel Macron rejected the woke doctrine, leading other leaders in Europe and Canada to do the same. Chinese activists in the U.S. lambaste critical race theory as a “fraud.”

Bonjorni went quiet after Trump’s ban, sending out no more emails and hosting no more of the “open forums.”

That all changed on January 20, 2021 — the day Joe Biden was inaugurated.

That day, Bonjorni happily announced that the politicization of the Veterans Health Administration — along with the rest of the federal government — would resume.

veterans

Bonjorni’s quote of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is deeply ironic. King called for everyone to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Critical race theory rejects that, and judges people purely by skin color and to a lesser extent class, rendering their character, intentions, and actions meaningless.

_______________________________________________________

EXCLUSIVE: Is the Woke Head of 'Human Capital' at the Veterans Health Administration Guilty of Résumé Fraud?

BY BRYAN PRESTON

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/04/20/exclusive-is-the-head-of-human-capital-at-the-veterans-health-administration-guilty-of-resume-fraud-n1440194;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Images from Jessica Bonjorni's Instagram feed, and from the Instagram feed of one of her friends:

In Part 1 of our report on woke, anti-American politics at the Veterans Health Administration we met Jessica Bonjorni. Bonjorni is the woke chief officer of “human capital” at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and a strong critical race theory proponent.

On Wednesday, April 21, according to an email she sent to VHA staff, Bonjorni is scheduled to testify before a U.S. House committee on numerous issues, including VA background checks.

veterans

Prior to her current position, from 2018 Bonjorni was the acting assistant deputy undersecretary for health for workforce services at the VHA, according to this online resume. Such positions “involve all aspects of human resources, including hiring, workforce management, leadership development, training and organizational development,” according to this VA piece.

Prior to moving over to the VHA, Bonjorni worked at the Federal Bureau of Investigations in its human capital division. According to the online resume linked above, Bonjorni has her MBA from Harvard (2006) and a degree in astrophysics from Smith College (2000).

Smith College, located in Northampton, Mass., has been in the headlines recently. Smith graduate Jody Shaw resigned her staff position at the college due to what she described as a pervasive toxic work environment due to its emphasis on race and critical race theory. In her letter to the dean explaining her resignation, Shaw wrote:

Every day, I watch my colleagues manage student conflict through the lens of race, projecting rigid assumptions and stereotypes on students, thereby reducing them to the color of their skin. I am asked to do the same, as well as to support a curriculum for students that teaches them to project those same stereotypes and assumptions onto themselves and others. I believe such a curriculum is dehumanizing, prevents authentic connection, and undermines the moral agency of young people who are just beginning to find their way in the world.

Bonjorni is a graduate of the same Smith College, albeit 21 years ago. Her entire federal career is in the human resources or human capital space, which as noted above deals with personnel management decisions including hiring and the criteria and standards by which hires are made and employees are terminated. Bonjorni wields enormous authority and influence within the Veterans Health Administration.

There appears to be a discrepancy over the degree Bonjorni claims to have earned from Smith College versus the one she actually holds.

Résumé fraud is defined here and includes:

  • Listing a degree or certification that was never attained. Sometimes this can be a complete fabrication. Other times it may be that the individual was indeed enrolled in such a program but simply never finished. Or it could be as simple as lying about how well the person performed in the program, such as claiming a high GPA when that was not what was earned.

Bonjorni’s online résumé states that she holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in astrophysics, earned in 2000, at Smith College. According to a whistleblower case that has been filed with the Veterans Affairs Office of Whistleblower Protections in February of 2021 concerning this and other aspects of Bonjorni’s leadership, Smith College did not offer an astrophysics degree in 2000 and still does not. Smith offered a degree in astronomy in that time frame but did not begin offering even a minor in astrophysics until 2003. Note the last line in this screenshot of Bonjorni’s online bio.

VA

This record from Smith College of its year 2000 graduates and their majors corroborates the fact that the college did not offer an astrophysics major in that year. The record indicates one astronomy graduate in 2000, presumably Bonjorni. There were 11 physics graduates that same year.

VA

The distinction between a degree in astronomy versus astrophysics may seem subtle; the latter is generally a subcategory or specialty of the former. But the difference as a field of study is not as subtle as it may seem. Smith College does not offer a degree in astrophysics and it did not when Bonjorni graduated, in 2000.

Its course offerings in astronomy are noted here, as is the separate minor in astrophysics, which was first offered three years after Bonjorni graduated. The astronomy major is light on mathematics, with just four courses across four years dedicated to it.

Since Smith does not offer a major in astrophysics, we can look to nearby Williams College, which does, to compare the two courses of study. According to Williams’ website describing its Astrophysics major:

An essential ingredient in such students’ undergraduate training is experience in physics and mathematics. Therefore, the major normally will begin in the first year a student is at Williams with Physics 131 or 141 or 151 and Math 140 in the fall continuing with Physics 142 and Math 150/151 in the spring. Students with very good backgrounds placing them out of Physics 142 may elect Physics 201 instead. Astronomy 111 could therefore be taken in the sophomore year, however exceptionally motivated students can consider taking it their first semester at Williams along with physics and math.

Astrophysics is math-heavy; astronomy is not. Universities break the two fields of study out along separate courseloads.

Smith’s astronomy degree does not require the same intense dedication to physics and mathematics as Williams’ astrophysics degree, or any other astrophysics degree requires. This is not to say that astronomy is somehow lesser; just that it’s not the same course and does not require the same devotion to mathematics that astrophysics requires.

Because Smith did not offer an astrophysics degree in 2000 (when Bonjorni graduated) and still does not, the claim on her résumé cannot be chalked up to simple error. Bonjorni makes the exact same, false, claim on her publically available LinkedIn profile.

VA
Screenshot of Jessica Bonjoni’s public LinkedIn profile.

Casting the net a bit wider, Smith College is a member of the Five College Consortium which includes UMass Amherst, Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and Hampshire College. Only one of the five, UMass, offers any type of astrophysics major (a combination astronomy/astrophysics program, which by its name differentiates between the two fields). The other four do not. Amherst College, for instance, breaks the two courses apart under its Department of Physics & Astronomy. It offers a course on astronomy and a course on physics, but not astrophysics.

This website lists all of the colleges in the United States that offer astrophysics degrees in 2021. Williams College, as noted above does offer an astrophysics program and does appear on this list. Smith College does not.

The fact that Bonjorni won an academic award for a paper she wrote in her field of study further emphasizes the point that claiming an astrophysics degree, when Smith College does not offer one, cannot be an error. Also keep in mind, Bonjorni is the head of human capital for the VHA and would understand the consequences for claiming to hold a degree that is different from the one a job applicant or staff member actually holds. Bonjorni has likely had the task of establishing and implementing standards and consequences for résumé padding and fraud. Optional Federal Form OF-306 indicates that any false statements made on the form may be grounds for not being hired for federal or federal contract employment, or for being fired after an employee is hired. Filling out the OF-306 is required of all federal and federal contract employees, according to ClearanceJobs.com. The Office of Personnel Management sheds additional light on when the OF-306 is filled out.

When she isn’t pushing woke critical race theory on her staff at the VHA, Bonjori engages in political protests, which is perfectly legal, if revealing of her politics, and isn’t shy about letting her hair down and posting about it on social media. The following images are from her Instagram feed and that of a friend.

veterans

Thunder From Down Under is an all-male review that bills itself as “Australia’s HOTTEST export” while promising “chiseled bodies” and “seductive dance routines.” Viewing the scantily-clad team is perfectly legal, but imagine if the male head of a vast federal human resources division was caught posting on social media bragging about attending a similar show featuring female performers.

Whites Aren’t Hated for Slavery but for Making America and the West

BY DENNIS PRAGER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/dennis-prager/2021/04/20/whites-arent-hated-for-slavery-but-for-making-america-and-the-west-n1441203;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In Why the Jews? my book on anti-Semitism, there is a chapter on anti-Americanism. My co-author, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, and I long ago understood that many of the reasons for Jew-hatred and America-hatred were the same.

Among them are envy of success — material, of course, but even more importantly, success in terms of influence. Another is the religious foundation of both peoples: Both America and the Jews are rooted in belief in God, belief they are a Chosen People and belief in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, as the book from which they derive their values.

America-haters and Jew-haters resent the enormous influence both nations have had on the world, have contempt for their belief in being Chosen and dismiss the Bible as irrelevant and even malevolent.

In the premodern age, Christian anti-Semitism was primarily animated by the charge of deicide — the charge that the Jews killed Christ, a charge that does not have a parallel in anti-Americanism. But beginning in the 20th century, the reasons for the two hatreds converged.

In his recent biography of Adolf Hitler, Brendan Simms, a professor of the history of international relations at Cambridge University, identified Hitler’s hatred of America and especially of capitalism as central to Hitler’s worldview: “Hitler’s principal preoccupation throughout his career was Anglo-America and global capitalism. … Hitler wanted to establish what he considered racial unity in Germany by overcoming the capitalist order and working for the construction of a new classless society.”

In other words, another commonality of America-hatred and modern Jew-hatred has been hatred of capitalism. The Nazis hated America and the Jews, both of whom they identified with capitalism. And the left (not the liberal, who traditionally loved America, but who has become the primary enabler of the left) hates America, which it regards as the paragon of capitalism. By becoming the most successful country in history, America, the quintessential capitalist country, remains a living rebuke to everything the left stands for. If America can be brought down, every left-wing egalitarian dream can be realized.

The question for the America-hater, just as for the Jew-hater, has been: How do we destroy them? What has always rendered anti-Semitism unique among ethnic and religious hatreds was its goal of extermination. No other ethnic bigotry is exterminationist. Regarding America, the left does not seek to exterminate Americans; the idea is ludicrous since most of those on the left who loathe America are themselves American. What the left does very much seek is to destroy America as we have known it — the capitalist and Judeo-Christian enclave of personal freedom.

The Jews created something world-changing by introducing into the world the Hebrew Bible, a universal and judging God, the Ten Commandments, the rejection of the heart as the guide to behavior, the emphasis on justice (not “social justice”) and the doctrine of Jewish Chosenness. They were forever hated for this. So, too, is America hated for placing the Bible at the center of its value system, its belief in being a “Second” Chosen People, its freedoms and its capitalism. America is not hated for its slavery. If it were, given the ubiquity of slavery throughout world history, every country and ethnic group on earth would be hated. America is hated for its values and its success.

The fact is that, just as did the ancient Jews, the Americans made something unique: the American experiment in freedom. And it succeeded beyond even its founders’ dreams. With all its faults, America did become a shining “city on a hill” — the famous phrase first articulated in 1630 by John Winthrop echoing Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and repeated throughout American history. For example, President Ronald Reagan, in his 1989 Farewell Address, said, “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life.”

And who created this unique place of liberty, opportunity and unequaled, widespread affluence? More than any other group, it was the WASP, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I say this as neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant. Catholics, Jews, nonbelievers and members of every faith, ethnicity and race (blacks, in particular) made major contributions; but it was the WASP, more than any other group, who made America. And for that reason, America-hatred is WASP-hatred and, more broadly, white-hatred.

The idea that whites’ unique achievements — in making America, in music, art, literature and the sciences — means that white people are intrinsically superior is absurd. Hitler was also white, as was Joseph Stalin, as are most American mass-murderers. Those facts are no more a commentary on whites than Johann Sebastian Bach or Leonardo da Vinci being white is a commentary on whites.

Whites made the country and the greatest civilization — not because they were white, but because of the values they held. Hatred of the white is ultimately hatred of those values.

Given what the WASP has achieved in the West and in America, it takes extraordinary levels of dishonesty and ingratitude to be anti-white. But neither truth nor gratitude is a left-wing value.

Biden Puts Specialist in Illegal Aliens in Charge of Census

Biden Puts Specialist in Illegal Aliens in Charge of Census

And a member of a racist hate group that wanted to build Mexico in America.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/biden-puts-specialist-illegal-aliens-charge-census-daniel-greenfield/

TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE CANNOT BE REPUBLISHED. IT HAS BEEN CENSORED BY AN UNKNOWN ENTITY OR PERSON. USE THE URL LINK ABOVE.

The Left’s Plan to Commandeer the Supreme Court

And control all three branches of the federal government

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/lefts-plan-commandeer-supreme-court-joseph-klein/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The fate of America’s constitutional republic hangs in the balance as the leftwing progressive base of the Democratic Party tries to parlay Democrat control of the White House and Congress to obliterate the independence of the Supreme Court.

President Joe Biden has kicked things off by naming a 36-member commission to examine possible changes to the size and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as proposals to set term limits for Supreme Court justices. The commission has 180 days to report back on its study of the issues, although it has not been given a mandate to make any formal recommendations.

While advertised as being bipartisan, the commission’s co-chairs, Bob Bauer and Cristina Rodriguez, both worked for the Obama administration. Even so, establishing a commission to analyze a hot button issue is often regarded as a convenient way to bury the issue. Not this time, however. The left won’t allow Biden or the Democrat-controlled Congress off the hook so easily. Even on the rare occasions when Biden’s old centrist instincts seem about to kick in, he quickly backtracks in the face of blowback from his left flank. What then-Senator Biden called a “bonehead” idea in 1983 and an “institutional power grab” in 2005 is now very much in play during Biden’s presidency.

The left sees immediate radical change to the structure and composition of the Supreme Court as necessary to cement its permanent control over the third branch of the federal government. That can only happen, however, after first nuking the Senate filibuster to pass their misnamed "For the People Act.” Also referred to simply as S.1, this bill would federalize slipshod election procedures across the country, eliminating state protections against potential election fraud, voter intimidation, illegal votes, and inaccurate vote counts. Passage of the bill will help Democrats guarantee their enduring control of Congress and the White House. With the filibuster already cast aside, Democrats will then be able to push through major changes to the Supreme Court this term with their slender majority. The result will be the left’s tight grip on the Supreme Court while ensuring that the other two elected branches remain firmly in their pockets in future elections.

On April 15th, four Democrats in Congress decided not to even wait for Biden’s commission to complete its work. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Hank Johnson, Rep. Mondaire Jones, and Senator Edward J. Markey introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court. This would represent the first change in the size of the Supreme Court since 1869.

"Some people will accuse us of packing the court. We're not packing the court, we're unpacking it," Nadler sneered. Markey claimed that the “legislation will restore the Court’s balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy, and we should abolish the filibuster to ensure we can pass it.”

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not willing to oblige these demagogues just yet. Pelosi said that she “has no plans” to bring their bill to the House floor at this time. She wants to wait for Biden’s commission to finish its work before taking any further steps. But Pelosi has not ruled out supporting such a change down the road. “It’s not out of the question,” Pelosi said. “It has been done before.”

Yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to alter the size of the Supreme Court. However, it has chosen not to do so during a span of 152 years for good reason. When FDR tried to push forward his court-packing scheme in 1937, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report at the time declaring that “we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court…than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact.” FDR's plan was shot down by his own party.

Democrats in Congress today no longer show such respect for the independence of a co-equal branch of the federal government. They are willing to increase the size of the Supreme Court solely for the purpose of turning it into a rubber stamp for their radical agenda. So long as Democrats succeed with their strategy to lock in continuing Democrat control of Congress and the White House by doing away with state law safeguards against election shenanigans, they have nothing to worry about. There will be no future Republican Congress and president elected who will be able to add more conservative justices.

However, there have been a few liberals with a conscience who have spoken out in recent times against court-packing, as Joe Biden did when he was his own man in the Senate.

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the liberals’ heroine replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett – told NPR in July 2019 that "Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.” Justice Ginsburg worried that court-packing “would make the court look partisan," adding that "it would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.' "

At Harvard Law School’s annual Scalia lecture on April 6th, Justice Stephen G. Breyer warned about how court-packing would “reflect and affect the rule of law itself.” Justice Breyer added, “If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the Court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches.”

Progressives dismiss such arguments, of course, and indeed are pressing for Justice Breyer to retire so that a much younger and more left-leaning justice can replace him. However, a few moderate Democrats in the House may be wary of supporting a bill to pack the Supreme Court, fearing the issue would be hung around their necks in Republican ads during the next election cycle. Democrat Senator Joe Manchin has declared his opposition to court-packing legislation, which means it would be dead in the Senate even if the filibuster were eliminated or severely weakened.

Court-packing also does not have widespread public support. In a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted last October during the height of the presidential campaign, a question was asked: ”If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and Joe Biden is elected president, do you think that Democrats should or should not increase the size of the Supreme Court to include more than nine justices?” 58 percent said no. 31 percent said yes. 11 percent said they didn’t know or refused to answer.

Thus, Democrats may decide to rally around a seemingly less drastic alternative to immediately expanding the Supreme Court to 13 members - term limits for future Supreme Court justices. There is more public support for term limits than for court-packing. But the proponents of this idea are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices are arguably unconstitutional since Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” Except in the case of impeachment or early retirement, this provision has been interpreted to mean a lifetime term.

The term limit advocates try to get around the constitutional issue by arguing that their reform would only apply to future justices. Moreover, they propose that after a future justice’s Supreme Court term has expired, the justice would be free to remain in the judiciary as a senior appellate judge. They believe this demotion would satisfy the Constitution’s good behavior term language since the justices would still be judges. However, the Constitution’s text appears to tie the “good behavior” term for Supreme Court justices to their specific “Office” of Supreme Court justice, not to any post in the judicial branch. In her interview with NPR, Justice Ginsburg said that the term limits idea was unrealistic because of this constitutional provision and because, as she pointed out, "Our Constitution is powerfully hard to amend."

In any case, on a policy level, Democrats proposing term limits for future Supreme Court justices are selling snake oil.

Take, for example, legislation proposed by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) would apply only to future justices and would limit their service on the Supreme Court to 18 years. New justices would be appointed in the first and third years of each presidential term. Since, under this plan, none of the current justices would be forced off the Supreme Court, there will be a period during which more than nine justices will be serving at the same time. It is just a slower way of achieving the same objective as court-packing.

If something like the Khanna-Beyer bill is passed in 2021, for example, President Biden would get to appoint one justice this year. This would expand the Court to ten until one of the current justices retires or dies. By a simple majority in the Senate (with Vice President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote), a progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. Biden’s next appointment would occur in 2023, even if there is then no vacancy on the bench. That could mean eleven justices until one of the current justices retires or dies. Assuming the Senate remains in Democrat hands, with the help of vote cheating enabled by the falsely entitled “For the People Act,” another progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. A Democrat White House and Senate in 2025 will ensure yet another progressive added to the Supreme Court, tilting the Supreme Court in a leftward direction. And so on. If a vacancy occurs during one of the off years, it would be filled temporarily by a lower court judge, until the following year

when the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, the next term-limited justice.

The combined effect of the Democrats’ federalizing of elections to slant the outcomes in their direction and the passage of court-packing or term limit legislation for the Supreme Court will be to institute permanent one-party rule in Washington D.C. for all three branches of government. Separation of powers and checks and balances will be dead.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Ronald Reagan once said. We are at that crossroads right now. We must fight the leftwing progressives’ attempt to turn this country into their tyrannical domain lest, as Reagan warned, we “spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

 

Criticizing BLM is Unforgivable, Killing Jews is Understandable

The twisted campaign against the Zionist Organization of America

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/criticizing-blm-unforgivable-killing-jews-daniel-greenfield/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

In 2019, Rina Shnerb, a 17-year-old girl who had been hiking in Israel with her father and brother, was blown up by a bomb. Rabbi Eitan Shnerb, who ran a charity that handed out clothes and food to the poor, had enough time to kiss Rina on the forehead before she died.

"I will say of the LORD, who is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust," the Rabbi at her gravesite chanted the words of Psalm 91. "Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold, and see the recompense of the wicked."

Abdel Razeq Farraj, who was indicted for authorizing the attack, had been named as a career PFLP terrorist who had served 6 years in prison and had been arrested six times. The year that Rina was murdered, Farraj took part in an Adalah youth event in partnership with a PFLP affiliate.

Adalah is one of the anti-Israel hate groups funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF).

According to an NGO Monitor report, the NIF has directed $720,481 to Adalah. George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, who has also funded J Street, is another major donor.

Last fall, Beth Badik, a J Street supporter who serves on the regional committee for the anti-Israel NIF, and Barbara Penzner, a Reconstructionist cleric who had signed a J Street petition opposing a ban on BDS and another calling for engagement with a terrorist government, demanded that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Boston kick out the ZOA.

The Zionist Organization of America is the country’s leading pro-Israel group so Badik and Penzner’s animosity toward it and to Morton Klein, its unapologetically pro-Israel leader, was understandable. The anti-Israel Left had spent generations trying to seize control of the organizational establishment of the Jewish community in order to cut off support to Israel.

And they didn’t have far to go.

Badik, who is a supporter of one anti-Israel group and affiliated with another, also sits on the  JCRC of Boston's Israel & Global Jewry Committee. 

What was bizarre was the accusation in Badik and Penzner’s op-ed, “We’re Calling for ZOA to Be Kicked out of Boston’s JCRC”, the petition backed by J Street, the NIF, and a number of other anti-Israel groups, and the JCRC’s final response affirming the bizarre accusation that Morton Klein, the son of Holocaust survivors, was supporting white supremacists.

Their evidence was that Klein (pictured above) has called Black Lives Matter “a Jew-hating, White hating, Israel hating, conservative Black hating, violence promoting, dangerous Soros funded extremist group of haters” and correctly noted that its ranks are “filled with hatred against Jewish people.”

Not only had the Boston JCRC and Jewish organizations failed to condemn the BLM riots which had vandalized synagogues and assaulted Jews, especially in the Fairfax Pogrom in Los Angeles, but they had decided to treat criticism of the black supremacist hate group as racist.

If the Boston JCRC had any standards, it’s the anti-Israel organizations calling for ZOA’s removal which should have been condemned and kicked out of any Jewish community alliance.

Beginning with J Street.

Rep. Ilhan Omar had attended J Street’s gala dinner and praised an exhibit smearing Israel. It’s chosen to honor Jimmy Carter who had falsely accused Israel of being an apartheid state.

While the anti-Israel groups were attacking the ZOA for opposing BLM, neither they nor the Boston JCRC seemed particularly interested in actually defending Jews against antisemitism.

The anti-ZOA petition was obsessed with social justice, election integrity, and the other shibboleths of a leftist establishment that is incapable of actually talking about Jewish issues as an end, not a means.

J Street, which was behind the petition, had defended Rep. Ilhan Omar, even as ZOA and Klein had condemned her antisemitic tweets. Just as J Street has called for making a deal with Hamas. The J Street campaign to oust the ZOA attacked it for condemning George Soros while neglecting to mention that Soros had been a major funder of the anti-Israel organization.

If JCRC Boston and J Street consider Klein’s statements provocative, what of Soros’ belief that the "resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe" is caused by Israel and that the “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.” What are these except typical antisemitic tropes and defenses of antisemitism?

Has J Street ever been asked to condemn these statements by its own backer?

And if “rhetoric that has been associated with antisemitic tropes” is a cause for expulsion, then how can the Boston JCRC justify letting any Soros-funded group remain in its umbrella group?

And it gets worse.

The Boston Workmen’s Circle, one of the groups petitioning to kick the ZOA out, proudly notes in its own literature that members of the Workmen’s Circle included Communists and that “The first member expelled from the Workmen’s Circle was kicked out in 1901 for working on behalf of the Republican Party.” A member of the group recently wrote an angry open letter to Chelsea Clinton celebrating the fact that one of her heroines was a Marxist and a Communist. 

Even though the Communists killed countless Jews and ethnically cleansed the Jewish communities under their rule, forcibly closing synagogues, imprisoning and killing Rabbis, and banning the entire Hebrew language, that doesn’t get you condemned by the JCRC.

The BWC even held an event featuring "longtime BWC member Alice Rothchild".

Rothchild is a radical anti-Israel activist who is a member of the anti-Israel JVP BDS hate group that was considered too extreme even for the Boston JCRC. 

Rothchild has described herself as a "self-hating Jew", falsely claimed that “the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that can now be found in Muslim countries began almost entirely with the founding of the State of Israel", and posted on an antisemitic site that, “If I believed in a wrathful God, I might wonder why the Jewish National Fund forests were burning?"

"Hamas has produced horrific suicide bombers and incredible social service agencies building schools and hospitals and caring for the forgotten population. Hamas grew out of a response to Israeli oppression during the First Intifada," Rothchild was quoted as saying.

According to the JCRC, uplifting the voices of the worst sorts of deranged antisemitism from the Left isn’t a problem, but Morton Klein condemning BLM, Soros, and other Jew-haters is a crisis.

The Badik and Penzner op-ed argued that failing to kick out the ZOA would “convey an astonishing lack of empathy, decency and basic compassion, for people of color, for immigrants and Muslims”. The only astonishing thing here is the utter lack of interest in Jewish interests by leftist activists who claim to be Jewish and even more falsely to speak on behalf of Jews. 

Where is their basic compassion, their empathy and decency toward the Jewish synagogues and small businesses hatefully assaulted by Black Lives Matter rioters, and for the Jews of Israel living under the shadow of Islamic terrorism?

The New Israel Fund, in which Badik plays a role, and which is one of the leftist groups that demanded the expulsion of the ZOA, has funded BDS organizations and groups linked to terrorism. The lack of basic compassion, empathy, and decency that is required to be a member of the New Israel Fund is astonishing. As is the disinterest from the Boston JCRC.

Criticizing Black Lives Matter is unforgivable no matter how many synagogues they trash, but Jewish lives are worthless to organizations with ‘Jewish’ in their names, but not their hearts.