How Folx-sy

Yesterday we noted the exchange in the House hearing with Columbia University president Minouche Shafik in which she was asked about the use of the term “folx” in Columbia University’s School of Social Work. President Shafik professed ignorance of the term, but this is very likely an outright lie, as the term has been catching on in academia for a long time, like “Latinx.”

Here, perhaps, is a clue to what’s behind this deliberate mutilation of the language (among other mutilations). The video is only one minute long, but seems so much longer:

Prediction: At some point in the future—perhaps several decades from now alas—we’re going to look back on the gender and identity insanity of the current moment the way we now look back on phrenology and lobotomies.

And keep in mind that none of this could have spread so widely without the ideological hothouses of our universities. President Shafik undoubtedly knows this, but like most college leadership today is too spineless to do anything about it, let alone admit it.

The California Pedo Files

As Katy Grimes of the California Globe reports, Bakersfield Republican Sen. Shannon Grove, and two state senate Democrats, authored Senate Bill 1414, which as Grove explains:

states that any individual who solicits, agrees to engage in, or engages in any act of commercial sex with a minor will face felony charges. If passed, this law will hold these offenders accountable under strict liability (meaning buyers can’t just claim they thought the child was of age) and they will face imprisonment in the state prison, along with fines up to $25,000 and mandatory registration as a sex offender. We must continue to shed light on the darkness of human trafficking, bring justice and protection to those who are most vulnerable. We are sending a clear message with SB 1414– Not one more child should have to suffer at the hands of those who seek to exploit and harm them.

Democrats added hostile amendments and passed the modified bill:

Now, instead of making the purchase of all children a felony, the committee has made the solicitation or purchase of children for sex punishable by a wobbler, which can still be charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by as little as 2 days in jail or up to a $10,000 fine. A felony can only be charged if the child solicited or purchased was 15 years old or younger, and unfortunately, the buyer would still be ineligible for prison. If a buyer has a previous conviction of purchasing a child under 16 years old and is convicted on a second offense of buying child under 16 years old and the victim and buyer are more than 10 years apart in age, only then would the buyer have to register as a tier one sex offender (10-years).

In similar style, Grimes recalls, Sen. Scott Weiner’s Senate Bill 145 states that non-forcible sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration with a minor do not require mandatory sex offender registration “unless there is a ten-year gap between the minor and the other person.” Trouble is, “it is against the law to have sex with a minor, gay or straight” and “the legal age of consent in California is 18 years of age.”

As Grimes sees it, Democrats in the California Legislature “are pulling out the stops to legalize abhorrent sexual acts between adults and vulnerable kids.” This should come as no surprise in a state that has made an icon out of Harvey Milk, a fully qualified pederast.

Columbia now

Ilhan Omar elicited the testimony of Columbia President Minouche Shafik at the House Education Committee hearing yesterday that she had seen no “protests” at Columbia “saying we are against Jewish people.” See the video below at 0:40. Omar also regurgitated the canard that students had been attacked by “a toxic chemical substance.” That appears not to be the case. I think it might more accurately be deemed the raspberry statement.

While President Shafik was testifying, Columbia enjoyed a pro-Hamas/anti Israel “protest” at the heart of the campus. The production included a makeshift “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.”

The “protest” continued into the evening and may be continuing now for all I know. The New York Post covers it here. The video below is time stamped 8:47 p.m. (EDT, I assume) yesterday.

Yesterday’s “protest” is of course a replay of the other such pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus since October 7. For example, the Columbia Daily Spectator posted the December 1 video below of the “Columbia University Apartheid Divest Tree Lighting Protest.” President Shafik’s denial to the contrary notwithstanding, I think this may fairly be described as a “protest saying we are against Jewish people.”

The rest of the Columbia witnesses were not entirely on board with President Shafik when Rep. Elise Stefanik revisited Omar’s question with them. Board co-chairman Claire Shipman actually used air quotes to describe one such “protest” at the law school.

Nightmare at Columbia

Columbia University President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik skipped the December 5 House Education Committee Hearing on anti-Semitism at their institutions that disgraced the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT. President Shafik was invited to the hearing, but she was otherwise engaged. She was speaking at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai. Some might say that she sensed stormy weather.

Yesterday the committee reconvened to hear from President Shafik and Columbia’s leadership team. They were better prepared than their colleagues who appeared at the December 5 hearing. Listening to their testimony, one could not help but understand what an ant-Semitic cesspool Columbia University has become. The New York Post story on the hearing is here.

If you know any Jewish students or teachers at Columbia, you have undoubtedly heard about the sickening climate of hate on campus. It is shocking. It may be as bad at Columbia as any comparable institution in the United States.

Committee Chairman Virginia Foxx and committee member Rep. Elise Stefanik warmed up for the hearing with a press conference featuring Jewish Columbia students. I have posted the video below.

President Shafik appeared before the committee with the co-chairs of the school’s board of trustees, Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, and David Schizer, a law professor and former dean of Columbia’s law school. Schizer and Greenwald are Jewish. They did not labor to put a pretty face on the campus scene.

I watched the hearing live online at C-SPAN yesterday morning. I have posted full video of the hearing below. The hearing had highlights, lowlights, and moments of comedy, but most of all it captured the inescapable reality of this moment in the United States. Every remedial development at Columbia took place in anticipation of yesterday’s hearing, and yet the cesspool remains.

Committee Democrats took a variety of approaches to the witnesses. Some were decent, some disgraceful (“but Trump,” what about “Islamophobia”?), and then there was our own Ilhan Omar.

Readers may recall our role in exposing Omar’s marriage to her brother for fraudulent purposes. Yesterday she sought fraudulently to help Columbia minimize its anti-Semitism — while a pro-Hamas/anti-Israel “protest” was in progress on campus. One has to wonder if the Columbia leadership really appreciated Omar’s “help.” Omar herself is into flaunting her anti-Semitism. At this time one somehow doubts that the leaders of Columbia crave the Ilhan Omar seal of approval.

Wisdom from the Book of Samuels

On August 2, 2023, Tablet editor David Samuels interviewed David Garrow, author of Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a massive attack on Israel and committed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. In light of those events, and the recent attack on Israel directly from Iran, consider some of Samuels’ own statements during “The Obama Factor” interview:

I find Barack Obama deeply sympathetic as a person. I identify with him emotionally. Yet there was something about this fictional character that he created actually becoming president that helped precipitate the disaster that we are living through now.

Obama’s hostility to American exceptionalism also seemed linked to his hostility to Israel, or more specifically to America’s identification with Israel, which finally resulted in his determination during his second term to reach his agreement with Iran—an agreement with the main objective of integrating that country into America’s security architecture in the Middle East, while limiting Israel’s power in the region. Again, why?

The sheer amount of political capital and focus Obama put into achieving the JCPOA during his second term, to the near-exclusion of other goals, suggests that the deal was central to his politics. It also carries more than a whiff of the kind of politics in which the American Empire is seen not just as unexceptional, but also, in some ways, as actively evil. It was a politics born out of the confluence of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, which saw a racist war abroad being used to protect a racist power structure at home. That old alliance of civil rights, anti-imperialism, and identity politics made the Democratic Party that Obama positioned himself to lead—college-educated, corporate-controlled—seem cool, allowing it to use post-1960s radical ideology as a language to sell stuff.

In the absence of what was once American journalism, it is hard to know which portrait of Obama’s post-presidency is truer to life: Obama as a celebrity-obsessed would-be billionaire, or as a would-be American Castro, reshaping American society from his basement, in his sweats.

The election of Joe Biden in 2020 gave the Obamas even more reasons to stay in town. The whispers about Biden’s cognitive decline, which began during his bizarre COVID-sheltered basement campaign, were mostly dismissed as partisan attacks on a politician who had always been gaffe-ridden. Yet as President Biden continued to fall off bicycles, misremember basic names and facts, and mix long and increasingly weird passages of Dada-edque nonsense with autobiographical whoppers during his public appearances, it became hard not to wonder how poor the president’s capacities really were and who was actually making decisions in a White House staffed top to bottom with core Obama loyalists. When Obama turned up at the White House, staffers and the press crowded around him, leaving President Biden talking to the drapes—which is not a metaphor but a real thing that happened. (Samuels’ link)

I have heard from more than one source that there are regular meetings at Obama’s house in Kalorama involving top figures in the current White House, with Secret Service and cars outside. I don’t write about it because it’s not my lane. There are over a thousand reporters in Washington, and yet there are zero stakeouts of Obama’s mansion, if only to tell us who is coming and going. But he clearly has his oar in.

 The easy explanation, of course, is that Joe Biden is not running that part of his administration. Obama is. He doesn’t even have to pick up the phone because all of his people are already inside the White House. They hold the Iran file. Tony Blinken doesn’t.

Rob Malley is just one person. Brett McGurk. Dan Shapiro in Israel. Lisa Monaco in Justice. Susan Rice running domestic policy. It’s turtles all the way down. There are obviously large parts of White House policymaking that belong to Barack Obama because they’re staffed by his people, who worked for him and no doubt report back to him. Personnel is policy, as they say in Washington.

Which to me is a very odd and kind of spooky arrangement. Spooky, because it is happening outside the constitutional framework of the U.S. government, and yet somehow it’s been placed off the list of permitted subjects to report on. Which is a pretty good indicator of the extent to which the information we get, and public reactions to that information, is being successfully controlled. How and by whom remain open questions, the quick answer to which is that the American press has become a subset of partisan comms. 

What scared me back then was coming to understand that a new milieu had been created consisting of party operatives, the people in the FBI and the CIA who are carrying out White House policy, and the press. It is all one world now. And that’s something people still seem loathe to admit, even to themselves, in part because it puts them in a state of dissonance with this new kind of controlled consensus that the press maintains, which is obviously garbage. But if you question it, you’re some kind of nut.

But historically speaking, Jews are not, or were not, a particularly American obsession, except among some morons and leather fetishists on the right. But they are a major obsession on the periphery of the American empire, where envy and fear of the mythic role that Jews supposedly play in Washington, because of Israel, are defining emotions, regardless of the facts.

So how do you talk all this foundation-land, community-organizer shit and then preside over the transformation of the country into a Gilded Age oligarchy? Maybe I just answered my own question: Obama is the Magic Negro of the billionaire industrial complex. And targeting Jews as outsiders and pushing them outside the circle was the way that the Gilded Age oligarchy consolidated itself in America, back then and also now.

And so on. Look for Garrow’s statements in a future post.

Biden Cannibalizes Himself

I remember when my grandmother reached her mid-90s, and she would tell old stories I had never heard before (and thus had no idea how true they might be), and then immediately repeat them like she was stuck on a tape loop. John notes below that Biden today twice told the story of his uncle’s World War II experience—not previously told that I am aware of—and how he may have been eaten by cannibals in New Guinea. (For what it’s worth, my dad was a Navy seaplane pilot based in Australia, and flew lots of clandestine missions behind Japanese lines in and around New Guinea in 1942 and 1943, often dropping off commandos and picking up teams who had been doing who knows what. Never mentioned spotting, or worrying about, cannibals.)

Later in the day Biden cautioned Israel against invading. . . Haifa:

Cue John Belushi:

How Much Money Does the Government Waste?

It depends on how you define waste, of course. I would define whole branches of government as wasteful or worse. And one can say that all money spent by governments on DEI programs is wasted, regardless of how efficiently the programs are carried out.

If you ask taxpayers, they think the government wastes a lot of their money. Our Thinking Minnesota Poll most recently found that, on average, Minnesotans–not known for being rabid right-wingers–think that Minnesota’s state government wastes 34% of their tax dollars. (One might ask: why, then, do they continue to pay taxes?)

The narrowest category of wasteful spending is fraud: not just inefficient or ill-advised spending, but money literally stolen from taxpayers. How much of our government spending is ripped off by criminals?

The General Accounting Office has been looking into this at the federal level:

GAO estimated total direct annual financial losses to the government from fraud to be between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

The GAO’s methodology is explained at the link. For now, let’s just go with the numbers. Is it possible that something like $400 billion is outright stolen from our federal government each year? Here in Minnesota, the Feeding Our Future scandal, a single fraud among money, accounted for around $500 million in theft from federal taxpayers, in a program administered by the state. That is a little more than one tenth of one percent of the annual theft estimated by GAO. The numbers are staggering.

If we accept the GAO’s estimate, the amount that is not just wasted, but outright stolen by fraudsters from the federal government is around one quarter of what we spend on national defense. If we go back in time, $400 billion, a little over the midpoint of the GAO’s estimate of what is being stolen, equaled the entire federal budget as recently as 1977.

All of which raises the question: why do taxpayers put up with funding an endless succession of inefficient bureaucracies and outright criminals? Why don’t they rebel?

Well, some of us do. But look at it this way: governments at all levels spend around $10 trillion annually. Think about it–governments spend money only by writing checks, to some person or entity, for some service allegedly rendered or goods provided. Out of a total economy of $25 trillion, those checks amount to a large percentage, perhaps 40%.

So this is what I think is happening: a clear majority of voters who are not cashing government checks, at least not in significant amounts, are indeed angry about the vast waste and theft that eats up their tax dollars. (You could refer to these people as “Republicans.”)

At the same time, there are many millions who make their livings largely or entirely by cashing government checks. Some of those people, to their credit, want to live in a well-ordered society and don’t want their governments to waste money. But many others perceive a strong self-interest in keeping the government checks coming, and have no desire to see government spending scrutinized and cut back, even if they are not themselves fraudsters. (You could refer to these people as “Democrats.”)

I think that is the dynamic that is rapidly driving our country toward insolvency.