Posted on May 5, 2024 by Steven Hayward in Podcasts

Bonus Podcast: Three Whisky After Hours, on How to Think About the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

There was a lot of listener and reader interest in our too brief comments on the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in our last episode, and we realized this issue deserved keeping the whisky bar open after the usual 2 am closing time to extend our treatment of the issue, yielding this short special episode.

To recap: Lucretia thinks it is a stupid idea (hence, “Don’t murder a man who is committing suicide“), while John thought it was also unsound on basic free speech principles. I was, naturally, in the middle, but ended up as road kill for my analysis of why Republicans thought there were some political mischief to be made.

So we decided to order another round of drinks (or, in Lucretia’s case, four margaritas to honor Cinco de Mayo) and try to go through the issue more thoroughly, especially taking account of David Bernstein’s observations at National Review Online that there’s a lot of disinformation about what the bill does and doesn’t do.

We also wanted to take up the argument Harry Jaffa argued more than 60 years ago that a free society could, under certain circumstances, curtail the speech of Nazis, Communists, and . . . anti-Semites? . . . in defense of a free society. Jaffa argued:

“Does a free society prove false to itself if it denies civil liberties to Communists, Nazis, or anyone else who would use these liberties, if he could, as a means of destroying the free society? The answer, I believe, is now plain that it does not. Is saying this I do not counsel, or even justify, any particular measure for dealing with persons of such description. What is right in any case depends on the facts of that case, and I am here dealing only with principles, not their application. However, those who think every denial of civil liberties is equally derogatory of the character of a free society, without reference to the character of the persons being denied, make this fundamental error: they confuse ends with means. . .  [But] it is seldom either expedient or wise to suppress advocacy of even inhuman doctrines in a community like ours, it is not for that reason unjust.”

Does the current campus scene arise to this standard? What does prudence counsel? The normally quarrelsome threesome at the whisky bar arrive at surprising agreement on the matter. Hint: We rather like Jaffa’s conclusion to his classic essay: “The more we can accomplish by opinion, the less we will have to do by law.”

Listen here, or from wherever you source your late night drinks or favorite podcasts.

 

Meanwhile, I want to know who the hell is responsible for this:

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Leftism, Liberals, Protests

Who Is Paying For the Protests? [Updated]

The anti-Semitic and anti-American protests that have engulfed college campuses are among the most disgraceful events of our recent history. A lot of people want to know, who is paying for, supporting and coordinating these outrages?

Politico has been looking into that question:

President Joe Biden has been dogged for months by pro-Palestinian protesters calling him “Genocide Joe” — but some of the groups behind the demonstrations receive financial backing from philanthropists pushing hard for his reelection.

The donors include some of the biggest names in Democratic circles: Gates, Soros, Rockefeller and Pritzker, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Two of the main organizers behind protests at Columbia University and on other campuses are Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. Both are supported by the Tides Foundation, which is seeded by Democratic megadonor George Soros as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and it in turn supports numerous small nonprofits that work for social change. …

Another notable Democratic donor whose philanthropy has helped fund the protest movement is David Rockefeller Jr., who sits on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. In 2022, the fund gave $300,000 to the Tides Foundation; according to nonprofit tax forms, Tides has given nearly $500,000 over the past five years to Jewish Voice for Peace, which explicitly describes itself as anti-Zionist.

Several other groups involved in pro-Palestinian protests are backed by a foundation funded by Susan and Nick Pritzker, heir to the Hyatt Hotel empire — and supporters of Biden and numerous Democratic campaigns….

Most of the liberals referred to in Politico’s story refused to comment, but the Tides Foundation is out and proud:

The Tides Foundation, funded by the Prizkers, has also supported the Adalah Justice Project, which has also been part of protests at Columbia University. The group wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that “universities are hedge funds, deeply embedded with weapons manufacturers.” Tides also supports Palestine Legal, a legal defense fund that is offers legal assistance to “students mobilizing against genocide.”

The Tides Foundation issued a statement about funding groups that protest, saying it is “committed to advancing social justice,” adding that its “community of fiscally sponsored projects, donors, and grantees represent a wide range of perspectives on what social justice looks like.”

Why are so many of America’s richest people viciously anti-Semitic and anti-American? That is probably one for the psychiatrist’s couch.

UPDATE: Here’s one more: add Goldman Sachs, a notoriously left-wing operation, to the list.

MORE: Here is another one–Lina Khan, Chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. To be fair, though, she is an “intellectual” supporter of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, not a financial supporter. A sample:

In July 2022, Khan and FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter spoke at an event that was hosted by the [Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project, which supported the pro-Palestinian protesters involved in the encampment at Columbia University].

During this event, the two spoke about “anti-racist antitrust” and how the FTC can “shape markets and economic outcomes.”

It is hard to overstate how evil these people are.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in 2024 Election, Poll

Trump +10?

If Democrats aren’t pushing the panic button, they should be. Rasmussen’s latest has Trump ahead of Biden by ten points:

Despite being on trial in New York City, former President Donald Trump has widened his lead over President Joe Biden during the past month.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, in a three-way contest between Biden, Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 46% of Likely U.S. Voters would choose Trump, 36% would vote for Biden and nine percent (9%) would vote for Kennedy.

Another 4% say they would vote for someone else, and 4% are undecided. Those numbers can’t give Biden much comfort. The “someone elses” in the race are leftists who no doubt will draw some votes, and I don’t think 4% is a high number for undecideds at this stage. Nor are RFK’s numbers high enough to give a lot of hope. If we assume that half of Kennedy’s voters will fall away between now and the election, a reasonable guess, I think, that leaves 4-5% to flop one way or the other. Biden’s problem is that they won’t all come his way. On the contrary, a good number of voters are interested in Kennedy because they are disgusted with Biden. So I doubt that Biden will net more than a point or two as Kennedy falls back.

If we assume that most voters who are undecided on the eve of an election vote against the incumbent, as pollsters tell us, the picture gets even bleaker.

Of course, events between now and November will play a major role. But Biden’s poor numbers reflect the majority’s judgment that his term has been a failure. That is a hard burden to overcome.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Biden Administration, Democrats, Election law

Al Gore, Statesman?

Until I saw Lloyd Billingsley’s post, I hadn’t realized that Joe Biden awarded Al Gore, among others, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The White House’s press release is here.

This year’s recipients were the usual mixed bag, but I want to focus specifically on Gore. This is what Gore’s citation says:

Al Gore is a former Vice President, United States Senator, and member of the House of Representatives. After winning the popular vote, he accepted the outcome of a disputed presidential election for the sake of our unity. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for his bold action on climate change.

Let’s dissect that: “After winning the popular vote…” This is completely irrelevant. The “popular vote” does not elect the president. The point is to emphasize what follows: “…he accepted the outcome of a disputed presidential election for the sake of our unity.” That is what Richard Nixon did, but not Al Gore. Gore went to court to challenge George W. Bush’s victory in Florida. After Gore lost in the trial court–correctly–four partisan Florida Supreme Court justices tried to steal the election for their man by purporting to award him Florida’s electoral votes. That triggered a further appeal. Gore fought for the presidency until the last dog was hung in the U.S. Supreme Court. And even thereafter, he claimed that he was the rightful winner, as have many Democrats ever since 2000.

Obviously, the only point of Biden’s ahistorical tribute to Gore is to contrast him with Donald Trump, who also took his case to the Supreme Court and lost. But one fact that is almost always lost in retrospectives about the 2000 election is that Florida shouldn’t have been particularly close. Gore almost won Florida, only because the news networks collaborated in trying to swing the election his way. They called Florida for Gore while the Florida panhandle, which is on Central time and is heavily Republican, was still voting. They did this in order to suppress Republican votes–unless, of course, you are willing to believe that their election preparation was so inept that they didn’t realize that a substantial part of Florida was still voting.

An outraged Karl Rove pointed out that the networks were premature, that voting was still going on, and that Bush was going to carry the state. But only after the polls had closed, and the damage had been done, did the networks withdraw their erroneous call. Later analyses showed that their calling of the state for Gore depressed Bush’s vote total in the panhandle by thousands of ballots. Without that collaboration by the left-wing media, none of us would ever have heard of “hanging chads.”

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Biden Foreign Policy, Hamas, Israel

Biden sits on ammo for Israel

Based on two official Israeli sources, Barak Ravid reports at Axios that the Biden administration put a hold on a shipment of American ammunition to Israel. The Biden team of course opposes Israel’s long-delayed operation to clear the last Hamas redoubt in Rafah. Ravid adds this:

Last Wednesday U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Israel and had a “tough” conversation with Netanyahu regarding a possible Israeli operation in Rafah, two sources briefed on the meeting said.

Blinken told Netanyahu during their meeting that “a major military operation” in Rafah would lead to the U.S. publicly opposing it and would negatively impact U.S.-Israel relations.

Even before Ravid’s report Lee Smith had deduced that the Biden administration supports the survival of Hamas and “sees the terror group as a valuable asset.” Lee finds in Biden’s support of Hamas the statecraft of the Obama administration overlaid with a few new wrinkles introduced by the Biden administration:

The Biden team’s moves to shelter Hamas are best understood in the context of a revolutionary program of domestic initiatives that aim to reconstitute American society on a new basis, and which in turn require the outright rejection of the country’s history and culture, its existing social arrangements, and constitutional order. The current regime has weaponized the security state, labeled its opponents “domestic terrorists,” and waged a third-world-style campaign against the opposition candidate because it’s a revisionist faction. Its political and cultural manifesto is a program for remaking America, whether through social pressure, or censorship, or bureaucratic fiat, or threats of violence, or actual violence. Among other devices to transform America, the Biden administration has opened the border to at least 7 million illegal aliens (and counting), many from places in the Middle East where Hamas is revered, and for whom political violence means steady, well-paid work.

Holocaust Remembrance Day begins this evening. Ravid adds this note:

Netanyahu hinted at tensions with the Biden administration in a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day issued Sunday.

“In the terrible Holocaust, there were great world leaders who stood by idly; therefore, the first lesson of the Holocaust is: If we do not defend ourselves, nobody will defend us. And if we need to stand alone, we will stand alone,” he said.

As always, I want to note that the White House declined to comment on Ravid’s story. Further, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office didn’t immediately respond to questions (though Ravid proffers the Netanyahu quote above).

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Hamas, Higher education

Students for Justice in Palestine: Whodat?

The Middle East Forum’s Dexter Van Zile visited Gaza Solidarity Encampments in Boston/Cambridge at Emerson College, MIT, and Harvard (he didn’t make it into Harvard Yard). MEF has posted his report “Students for Justice in Palestine Grooming American Students for Intifada: A First Person Account.” Who are these people? What do they want? What do they have to say? Who funds them?

It’s an enterprising report. I am sorry to say, however, that Van Zile doesn’t make much progress in his investigation. As I have asked a few times before: Where is the FBI? The FBI is apparently otherwise engaged. It’s not love they’re looking for in all the wrong places. They are taking their cues from the Biden administration.

What’s it all about? Van Zile turns to the work of Richard Landes:

They’re paving the way for Islamists in the West just as they did in Tehran in 1979.

And that’s the point. Richard Landes, a former history professor at Boston University and author of Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong? Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism and Global Jihad, says the encampments taking place throughout the United States are part of a “cognitive war” intended to convince Westerners to stand down in the face of Islamist efforts to transform our civilization.

The success of the encampment movement, Landes declared, “is the culmination of fifty years during which [Edward] Said’s Orientalism occupied Western academia (hence it’s most apt for [the campaign] to emanate from Columbia) pushing out any sane narrative about Caliphators’ invasion of the West.”

The encampments represent “a new stage in the Bolshevization of the movement in which outside money and outside actors are infiltrating, brainwashing, and regimenting the wannabe ‘true believers’ on the inside,” Landes reported. “Thus, the ugliest aspects of global Jihadi warfare can express their desires openly, with the support of the ‘cream’ of the elites they target. It’s hard to imagine a greater cognitive war victory for the Jihadis and a greater peril for the West.”

Daniel Greenfield has posted a sidebar to Van Zile’s story. Greenfield reports that the Biden administration has undertaken a civil rights investigation of Columbia for “extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment,” as alleged in a complaint filed with the Department of Education by Palestine Legal, “the same group providing advice to the encampment protesters.” The complaint challenges the suspension of members of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Well, anyone can file a complaint, but again: Who are these people? (See the Discover the Networks profile of SJP here.) Who is behind them? Who is funding them? Funding, that is, our very own fifth column.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Music

Sunday morning coming down

John Pizzarelli and Jessica Molaskey celebrated the centennial anniversary (on April 28) of the birth of Blossom Dearie on yesterday’s Radio Deluxe show (posted here). With her girlish voice, I thought the first time I heard her, some creative genius must have come up with that stage name. But no, Margrethe Blossom Dearie was her real name. I was introduced to her late in life courtesy of Pete Lee’s Bop Street show on Minneapolis’s KFAI.

I thought I would follow John and Jessica’s celebration of Dearie at 100 with the five songs by which they chose to remember her on this week’s show. There is much more in her catalog, but this is not a bad start.

I believe Dearie is the singer who originally put Dave Frishberg’s insanely witty “Peel Me a Grape” on the map. John and Jessica played the version of the song that can be found on My New Celebrity Is You — Volume III (1976). She wasn’t the first to record the song, and she recorded it several times, but her original version landed. Frishberg, by the way, was a native of St. Paul. “Insanely witty” only begins to capture the quality of his work. I paid tribute to him here when he died in 2021.

“Bruce” is a song for our time. Popularized by Dearie, it “offers facetious tips to a clueless drag queen,” as Stephen Holden put it in his New York Times obituary for songwriter John Wallowitch. I say it is a song for our time, but it may be too witty for our time. It is hilarious. “Bruce, you read too much Proust.” One joke buried in the wordplay is Wallowitch’s heavy deployment of a variation of feminine rhyme (rhyming words on their stressed penultimate syllable) in the lyrics. In this case, Wallowitch frequently rhymes the lines’ penultimate words. The name of the album from which the song comes is Me and Phil: Live in Australia (1994). Phil Scorgie accompanies Dearie on double bass. Dearie accompanies herself on piano.

“‘Deed I Do” comes from the album Blossom Dearie (1957). It features a dream team of jazz players assembled by Norman Granz for her first album on his Verve label. Dearie accompanies herself on piano with Herb Ellis on guitar, Ray Brown on bass, and Jo Jones on drums.

“I’m Hip” returns us to the work of Dave Frishberg. She covered it on Blossom Time at Ronnie Scott’s (1966), her first live album.

John and Jessica played “Moonlight Saving Time” in two different versions. The one below is from Once Upon a Summertime (1959), also on Granz’s Verve label and again featuring stellar jazz musicians — Mundell Lowe on guitar, Ray Brown on bass, and Ed Thigpen on drum backing the lady Blossom on piano. Covered by many performers over the years, it goes back to the Depression era. The song was written by Irving Kahal and Harry Richman.