The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Left’s Anti-Reproductive Bigotry

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

Pundette links to Lisa Miller in the WaPoo making a typical post-Modern, anti-conservative play:

There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried.

Thou bimbo: if there is nothing wrong, why the worry? Because you’re making a cheap anxiety play, that’s why. Are there any on the Left with large families? Hm, never heard of any. The source of this anxiety causing the lashing out at conservatives? One strong possibility, from Wikipedia:

Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Miller was raised in a secular Jewish home. She attended Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, graduating in English in 1984. She worked at the Harvard Business Review, The New Yorker, and The Wall Street Journal.
Miller was married to her husband in an interfaith ceremony performed by an Episcopalian priest who worked with a rabbi on the ceremony. After the birth of her daughter, Miller joined a Jewish Temple for reasons of “blood and history and culture”. She describes this religious community as a “progressive, inclusive congregation.”

Mrs. Miller, it’s your prerogative to have from zero to a trove of children that would trump Michele Bachmann’s 23 (via fostering). Knock yourself out.

But don’t neglect the math. If everyone lacked as much as you and I, there would be no human race. I realize I’m countering your wimpy, Progressive, non-sensical, emotional point with logic. Forgive me. I shan’t chop off my skull any more than the rest of my anatomy. But the overpopulation myth is right up there with global warming in the litany of Lefty loser ideas.

Maybe we the Suicidal Tendencies could record a special variation of their nihilist classic for you: “I Saw Your Culture And Your Culture’s Dead”.

And yes, I pray for more increase. Would that I had understood how deeply false the Progressives are ten years ago. Children are a blessing, and it takes a peculiar form of idiocy to arrive at the conclusion that we want less blessing from God, assuming that we are not bringing children into abject starvation, e.g. Ethiopia. Yes, common sense would dictate that, if you live in a tapped out area, you go to where there is some food before having a family.

But that is not the problem in these United States. Here, the problem is at the other end, where Progressives have formed what is tantamount to a suicide pact and are busy pushing their anti-reproductive bigotry in all directions. Miller is probably too small of a target to have shown up on Andrew Breitbart’s radar. He, a father of four, would have pointed at Miller and laughed, I daresay.

Read more at Pundit & Pundette. Also, note Sheppard, who may be a little too much here. When turning a large vessel, you have to take care just how much rudder you lay on. While generally pro-Santorum, what really matters is the continuous applied will of the people. 5 degrees of right rudder held is better than a shot of 15 degrees, and then back to the 2 degrees of left rudder we’ve had for the last century.

Update: linked by Don Surber, who asks: “How many children are presidents allowed?“

Category: Culture, Progressivism

Facts From Which They Wish to Distract

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 37 Comments

Why has the Left spent the past five days ginning up a ridiculous controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” to describe liberal liar Sandra Fluke? Is it possible that they’re trying to distract attention from their own shady activity? Michelle Malkin is not distracted:

In a scathing fundraising e-mail appeal, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina name-checked wealthy free-market philanthropists Charles and David Koch — along with a growing movement of grassroots conservatives who have freely, voluntarily and legally given money to the Koch-founded nonprofit activist group Americans for Prosperity and its sister foundation. . . .
The threat of scrutiny was backed by Obama himself, whose official campaign Twitter account directed 12 million-plus followers this week to “add your name to demand that the Koch brothers make their donors public.”

Did you catch that? The President of the United States used his official Twitter account to attack the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity, a move that is clearly part of a coordinated effort by left-wing activists (including Occupy Wall Street and their union-thug allies) to smear and intimidate their political opponents.

Meanwhile, no fewer than seven advertisers have been harassed into pulling their ads from Limbaugh’s radio show, and why? Because of attacks from this same Obama smear machinee, that’s why.

If Rush Limbaugh isn’t on the radio, reaching millions of Americans to tell them about what Obama and his allies are up to, isn’t that going to make it easier for the Democrats to get away with their dirty tricks? So however much you may regret the use of the word “slut” on the radio, don’t you think that your offended sensibilities are less important than the work Rush Limbaugh does in opposing and exposing the Left?

On the one hand, we do not wish to endorse misconduct, but to throw Rush Limbaugh under the bus for a few insulting words? At a time when his enemies (who are also our enemies) are trying to destroy him? We need to re-focus our attention, and remember that old Air Force saying: When you’re taking flak, it’s because you’re over the target.

Rush has been bombing the hell out of the target for 25 years, and I’m pretty sure he’ll survive this latest burst of flak just fine — no thanks to certain people who overestimate their own importance.

Category: Barack Obama, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh

Who Is James Wolcott? And Why Would Anybody Want to Know? Or Care?

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 79 Comments

Pamela Geller’s commentary about Sandra Fluke has caused a conniption on the part of — you guessed, didn’t you? — Charles Johnson. Mr. Jazzy McBikeshorts then got into a Twitter colloquy with the infamously boring James Wolcott, who decided to bring my name into it. A commenter informed me about this, prompting my Twitter reply:

News Flash: James Wolcott, who for years has had a Vanity Fair column nobody reads, now has a Twitter account nobody follows.

Because you have probably never heard of James Wolcott, it is necessary to explain that he is a cadaverous-looking college dropout who spent years as an unpopular media critic at the Village Voice before becoming an unpopular columnist at Vanity Fair. His knowledge of politics is extremely limited, as I noted in April 2008:

If James Wolcott is being paid by the word, his 3,700-word screed in the June issue of Vanity Fair is the Crime of the Century. The article is presented as describing the “vicious Clinton-versus-Obama rupture at Daily Kos” and thus an analysis of “a party-wide split” among Democrats, but it’s really nothing of the kind. In fact, it’s nothing at all. There is no reporting and very little that could be called research. Just massive paragraph after paragraph of florid prose.

So far as anyone can tell, Wolcott never ventures outside Manhattan and can’t be bothered to do any actual reporting. He has attempted to remain “relevant” by adding a blog that nobody reads to his duties at Vanity Fair, whose publisher apparently hired him as a favor to Wolcott’s wife, an editor for the magazine.

Wolcott’s most memorable contribution to the online world was a 2004 post in which he cheered for killer hurricanes — “Mother Nature’s fist of fury, Gaia’s stern rebuke” — to hit America, and thereby inadvertantly helped re-elect President Bush. 

Last year, Wolcott somehow inveigled Doubleday into publishing his memoir. Nobody read that either, mainly because the author is so notoriously dull, but perhaps also because readers had been warned via a New York Times review that Wolcott “devotes 50 genuflecting pages” of his 258-page memoir to film critic Pauline Kael.

No, I’m not kidding. Really.

To the extent that most blog readers nowadays have any inkling who James Wolcott is, it’s because he has occasionally attempted to generate traffic by taking cheap shots at Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. Is anyone therefore surprised that a pompous nobody like Wolcott seems to have found a kindred spirit in Charles Johnson?

Readers may be wondering why I would devote an entire 500-word blog post to a couple of windbags like Johnson and Wolcott, but I mainly wanted to use this as an opportunity to point out that Pamela Geller is always interesting, which is why those irrelevant losers hate her so much.

Anyway, the two latest polls — one by Marist and another by Reuters — both show the Ohio Republican primary a dead heat, and I’m thinking about heading to Columbus for the big showdown, which should be a lot more fun than sitting around blogging about James Wolcott.

UPDATE: The Man Who Named the Blogosphere observes that the list of Things Which Are More Fun Than Sitting Around Blogging About James Wolcott is quite long, and welcome, Instapundit readers!

As to the absurd “controversy” that briefly permitted Wolcott to indulge his delusions of relevance, Rush Limbaugh explained his apology to Sandra Fluke today on the World’s Biggest Radio Show.

Category: Atlas Shrugs, Charles Johnson, James Wolcott, Journalism

LIVE AT FIVESIX – 03.05.12

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Putin Victorious, Opposition To Protest

Vladimir Putin tears up during victory rally


Opposition leaders call election a sham, cite over 3000 instances of fraud

AG To Support “Targeted Killing” Of Americans Overseas
Speechifying today at Northwestern U.

419 Delegates At Stake Tuesday
Ten states holding primaries or caucuses March 6



POLITICS
Santorum: Romney Has Failed To Close The Deal

Rick Santorum speaks in Oklahoma City

Predicts nomination won’t be settled until convention

Convicted Killer Received Unemployment Checks In Jail




Pennsylvania Spars With EPA Over Gas Drilling

Feds Exploring Coverup at Penn State?

Obama Facing Uphill Battle For Re-Election In Iowa

Pelosi Divides Illinois Democrats, Endorses Jesse Jackson Jr.

Old Friends Kaptur, Kucinich Now Bitter Rivals For Ohio Seat



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Brent Crude Slips Below $124; India To Cut Iranian Imports
Gold Falls Below $1700 On Stronger Dollar
PRC Raises Domestic Spending As Economy Slows
Euro, Growth Currencies Slip, Yen Firmer
BP shares Rise On $7.8 Billion Settlement
AIG Sells $6 Billion Stake In AIA To Pay Down Debt
United Airlines Switchover Hits Bumps
Tesco To Expand, Add 20K Jobs Over Two Years
Government Motors To Idle Volt Production As Sales Remain Sluggish
Valve “Steam Box” Gaming Console In The Works?
Anonymous Hacktivists Tricked Into Installing Malware
Samsung Rediscovers Ancient Palm Technology: Beaming Files
“Mass Effect” Is To Videogames What “Battlestar Galactica” Reboot Was To TV



SPORTS
Lakers Upend Heat, 93-83

Who was that masked man?

Wade fouls out as Heat drops second game in a row; masked Kobe scores 33 in Lakers pwnz0ring of Heat

Rondo’s Triple-Double Lifts Celtics Over Lin, Knicks

Gregg Williams To Meet With NFL Re:Bounties

Deron Williams Scores 57 As Nyets Beat Bobcats 104-101

Rangers Make It Three In A Row Over Bruins

A-Rod Homers Off Halliday, Yanks Beat Phillies

All Systems Go For Strasburg



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Lindsay Lohan, Jack White Push SNL To Second Best Ratings Of Season

LiLo delivers!

Celebs and armchair critics hostile on Twitter

Madonna Faces Dilemma As Toyboy Pops Question

Shots Fired At Rapper Young Buck’s SUV



GLAAD Butthurt At Kirk Cameron Remarks

Jennifer Aniston Rates Her Happiness Level At 10+

“Lorax” Movie Rakes In The Green

Rocker Ronnie Montrose Dies, 64



FOREIGNERS
OSCE: Russian Election Clearly Skewed For Putin
Obama Makes Case Against Striking Iran Now
Officials: 106 Dead In Yemen Fighting
Gunmen Kill 27 Police In Iraq
More Posturing From Norks As Kim Jong Un Visits DMZ
Iceland’s Ex-PM Faces Trial For Role In Financial Crisis
Chavez Faces More Cancer Treatment Before Venezuela Vote
Floods Spread In New South Wales, Prompting Evacuations



BLOGS & STUFF
Atlas Shrugs: Slutgate Update – 7 Companies To Boycott
Legal Insurrection: Make An Example Of Carbonite
Newsbusters: Gingrich Scolds Gregory, Media For Making Limbaugh The Story Of The Week
Jawa Report: The Vetting, Part I
Weasel Zippers: Israeli Politicians Mock Obama’s AIPAC Speech
Jihad Watch: Australian State Tightens Rules On Veils
Pat Dollard: Chicago PD Promises CAIR They Won’t Look For Muslim Terrorists
Cafe Hayek: Cato And The Kochs
American Power: “Clarion Of Faith”
Right Scoop: Newt Owns Gregory On Contraception Argument
Powerline: Arab Springtime For Hitler?
iOwnTheWorld: Breitbart Is Here

Category: Live at Five

Rule 5 Sunday: Whipping Post

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 17 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


We lead off this week with the best of both worlds, courtesy of the POH Diaries: Kate Upton and a spicy, spicy burger. Too bad the nearest Hardee’s is half an hour away.
Randy’s Roundtable brings us Jenna Webb and Kelly Hu this week, while Fishersville Mike goes with Betty White. Valley of the Shadow, as is his wont, goes Gothic with Emile Autumn, while Reaganite Republican vows to bury the hatchet with Miss Vietnam 2011. Laughing Conservative tips us to Petra Cubanova, the Eye of Polyphemus is on Amber Lancaster, and Jake Finnegan offers Maggie Rizer as his Burkalesque Babe of the week. Three Beers Later offers a Baywatch montage, while Dustbury offers some Angelina Jolie tibial pursuit along with Patsy Kensit. Maggie’s Notebook checks in with the Krupa sisters, Joanna and Marta. Two much of a good thing?


The Rio Norte Line expands this week with Kate Upton’s burger commercial, Jennifer Hawkins, Delta Lea Goodrem, more Kate Upton, Rachel Aldana and her 30L chest set, and Amy Jackson, the Bollywood star from Liverpool.


A View From The Beach starts off with a whole lot of Alyson Hannigan, continues with some studies in elastic rebound, a dino-hunting cave gal, more primitive women, something about vodka, and Taylor Swift.


El Opinador Compulsivo updates John Galt’s speech for the modern age of “capitalist bros before socialist hos,” and adds eye candy to boot. Not content with that, he links to Soylent Green’s awesome good fortune from the spam bucket, Elsa Pataki, and some Champion cheesecake. Yum.


Proof Positive checks in with Anna Vyalitsyna, the obligatory Kate Upton burger ad for the “Sex In Advertising” segment, and vintage babe Deidre Hall. At The Camp Of Blogwhoricus Maximus, our eyes are eased by Bipasha Basu, the Rule 5 News, and Kim Smith.


Soylent Green has moved to new quarters! Update your bookmarks!
While his URL may have changed, his devotion to Rule 5 has not, as one can clearly see by his Monday Motivationer Twofer, tribute to Polish Go(oglers), Polish lingerie post, Corset Friday (Alfred Hitchcock Edition), Evening Wear With Jessica Hall, and an ENORMOUS blogversary alert.


Hard act to follow, that, but that’s why we reserve the cleanup spot for DaleyGator and the DaleyBabes, who this week include Jennifer Aniston, Kari Wuhrer, Momoko Tani, Sara Evans, Hannah Storm, and Kirby Griffin. Also, Asian Babe Thursday!


Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Links for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday are due no later than Saturday, March 10; please send those links to Rule 5 Wombat and not my usual e-mail address.

Category: Rule 5

Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?

Posted on | March 4, 2012 | 124 Comments

Sandra “Not a Slut” Fluke testifies, Monday, Feb. 27, 2012

Far be it from me to stoop to name-calling as a substitute for argument, but this question is not merely rhetorical. It seems that Sandra Fluke — who is receiving media Martyr of the Month beatification as the Matthew Shepard of “reproductive rights” — stands accused of makin’ stuff up.

This story isn’t on my beat: Until Wednesday, I’d been covering the GOP presidential campaign, then I had a family emergency that required me to drive home from Michigan, then Andrew Breitbart died on Thursday, and so I’ve been kind of busy with other stuff. I hadn’t too much followed the details of this controversy, except to note that everybody was slamming Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut.” Fortunately, John McCormack of the Weekly Standard was all over this story:

Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

(We make note of the key facts: One witness, testifying before Congress, about mandating free contraception coverage.)

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

(Again noting the key facts: Fluke claims to have conducted a survey, discovering that 40% of her felllow students “struggled financially” because of contraceptive costs averaging $1,000 a year during the three years required to complete law school. Fluke made these claims, it must be repeated, during a congressional hearing at which she was the only witness.)

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills — the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen — for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

WHOA! John McCormack has done something here that evidently no one else — not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not Nancy Pelosi’s staffers in the House of Representatives — is capable of doing: Calling up a drugstore and asking them how much birth-control pills cost.

Give that man a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

Now let’s back up a minute and consider the key facts again: Nancy Pelosi holds a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee seeking to justify a federal policy that would mandate insurance coverage of contraceptives — with no deductible and no co-payment — even for religious institutions where artificial contraception is forbidden as a matter of church doctrine.

In justification of this policy, Pelosi produces exactly one witness, Sandra Fluke, who then asserts that she has conducted a survey of her fellow students, determined that four out of every ten of them have “struggled financially” to pay for their contraception which, she has further determined, “can cost a woman over $3,000” during the three years required to complete law school.

Craig Bannister’s CNS article about Fluke’s testimony mocked these assertions, and when Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners about the story, he used the words “slut” and “prostitute” to describe Fluke, thus making Limbaugh the target of one of those online lynch mobs that Media Matters specializes in orchestrating.

While everyone is focused on Limbaugh’s alleged “misogyny,” however, it seems that we are ignoring much more important questions:

  • How and when did Fluke conduct her survey of Georgetown Law students’ alleged struggles with contraceptive costs? How many students participated in this survey? What kind of questions were asked? Was the survey conducted with a statistically valid sample? Can Fluke describe her survey’s methodology and provide us with the original questionnaires?
  • How did Fluke arrive at her $3,000 estimate of the cost of contraception? What types of contraceptives — condoms, diaphragms, pills, spermicidal foam — were included in these calculations?
  • Was Fluke aware that a monthly supply of birth-control pills could be obtained for as little as $9 a month? Are Fluke’s math skills sufficient to multiply 9 x 12 x 3 and realize that a three-year supply of pills would therefore cost $324, which is 89.2% less than her $3,000 estimate?
  • Is Fluke aware that annual full-time tuition at Georgetown Law School is $46,865, compared to which an annual cost of $108 for birth-control pills is what statisticians might call “a drop in the bucket”?

Let me be clear: I don’t think Sandra Fluke could provide credible answers to these questions, because I think Sandra Fluke lied through her teeth at that congressional hearing, and I think it’s high time people stop worrying about the alleged misogyny involved in calling someone a “slut” and start asking some hard questions about the alleged lying of Sandra Fluke.

Ace of Spades is giving Jake Tapper hell because Tapper got an interview with Sandra Fluke and didn’t bother to ask her any hard questions about her wildly exaggerated estimate of contraceptive costs. But instead of expecting journalists to do actual journalism, here’s a wild idea:

Aren’t Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives? Doesn’t that give them subpoena power? Couldn’t some GOP committee chairman subpoena Sandra Fluke, put her under oath, and force her to answer some hard questions under penalty of perjury?

I’d sure as hell like to see that hearing, wouldn’t you? And if the House Republicans don’t give us that hearing, I’m prepared to denounce John Boehner as a gutless sissy-boy.

Now, I’ll wait for liberals to accuse me of “homophobia,” so we can spend another week engaged in pointless distractions.

UPDATE: At one point in this “controversy,” Ace tried to find the proper comic tone for riffing on Sandra Fluke:

She’s not a hero. She’s just a Chubster looking for some camera time.

Not good. I thought about going there. The line where I have Fluke “lying through her teeth”? That was going to be “lying her chubby ass off,” but I wasn’t sure that readers would understand that I actually like chubby asses, and I didn’t want to risk offending women who’ve got that kind of more-cushion-for-the-pushin’ biscuits-and-gravy action that me and Sir Mix-a-Lot dig, IYKWIMAITYD.

So I decided against that joke, with a bit of a guilty conscience for even having considered it.

I also felt a slight twinge of guilt when I remembered having made fun of Maureen Dowd’s musty old vajayjay a few years ago. But then I thought about all the vicious things MoDo wrote about Sarah Palin, and my conscience felt a whole lot better all of a sudden.

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Agard, Monoblog and Rio Norte Line — thanks! — and I want to take this opportunity to apologize to readers for some of our commenters who have made derogatory remarks about Sandra Fluke’s appearance. This is terribly unfortunate, and probably sexist, too.

Besides, it is inaccurate to imply that Sandra Fluke is unattractive.

A recent survey I’ve conducted indicates that 27% of men are attracted to women with the “varsity softball scholarship” look. In fact, seven out of 10 Eritrean immigrant cab drivers in the D.C. metropolitan area say that they would be attracted to Sandra Fluke, especially if her family were willing to provide a dowry that included a small herd of goats, or if they could score a Permanent Residency Visa out of the deal.

Also, if given a choice between Maureen Dowd and Sandra Fluke, the Eritrean cab drivers would unanimously choose Fluke.

Category: Ace of Spades, Contraceptive Culture, Feminism, Rush Limbaugh

Andrew Breitbart as Folk Hero: ‘I’ll Die With This Hammer in My Hand’

Posted on | March 4, 2012 | 15 Comments

In happier times: Andrew Breitbart autographs his book
during an April 2011 event at Americans for Tax Reform

When John Henry was about three days old,
Sittin’ on his Mammy’s knee,
He picked up a hammer and he said,
“Lord, Lord, this hammer be the death of me.”

Tributes to our fallen warrior are coming in from every direction. Donald Douglas at American Power features this video interview in which Kathy Shaidle — that rare thing, a good Canadian — talks about how Andrew Breitbart “went down swinging”:

The Five Feet of Fury blogger echoes Bill Whittle in suggesting that Breitbart’s 24/7 “lust for life” was a factor in his early death, but I would say in Andrew’s defense that he was a pioneering entrepreneur, not somebody collecting a paycheck and punching a time-clock while waiting for their next three-day weekend. If you’re an entrepreneur, the alternative to being what is pejoratively called a “workaholic” is failure and bankruptcy, so I think no one should fault him for his work ethic.

Besides, lazy bums have heart attacks, too, y’know.

When my friend Ali Akbar asked me to speak at Saturday’s “Remember Breitbart” event in D.C., I decided to prepare my remarks in advance because I didn’t want to embarrass myself by rambling inchoherently.

If you ever heard an Andrew Breitbart speech, you know how he would sometimes seem to be rambling. The first time I heard him give a lecture to college students — hosted by the Young America’s Foundation at their 2007 West Coast Conference — I remember him going off on a tangent about his own youthful days as a “Generation X” slacker.

Breitbart wasn’t nearly so famous back then, and his hair was still shoulder-length, and I’m sure some of those polite young Republican kids must have been wondering, “Who is this hippie weirdo, and why is he telling us all this stuff?” Read more

Category: Andrew Breitbart

David Axelrod’s Red Roots: Obama Adviser’s Communist Ties Exposed

Posted on | March 4, 2012 | 37 Comments

The cover story of the March print edition of The American Spectator is not yet online and, if you are not yet a subscriber to the magazine, I urge you to rush out to the nearest Barnes & Noble or wherever else you can buy a copy, because it’s definitely worth the $5.95 newstand price.

Presidential historian Paul Kengor has dug up some fascinating facts about the background of David Axelrod, showing President Obama’s top political strategist to have deep ties to the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and other leftist individuals and organizations.

For example, Axelrod’s mother, Myril Bennett Axelrod, worked for the left-wing New York newspaper, PM. Although it lasted less than a decade (1940-48), PM became notorious because of its penetration by Stalinists and others who promoted the Communist Party line on issues both foreign and domestic. Kengor points out that PM‘s famed Washington correspondent, I.F. Stone, was subsequently identified as a Soviet agent both in the so-called “Venona” documents and also by a former top KGB official, Oleg Kalugin.

It is unclear where Axelrod’s mother fit in the orbit of Communists, Soviet sympathizers and other “progressives” who worked at PM, Kengor says, because despite “scouring reel upon reel of microfiche” copies of the newspaper, he was “unable to find a single article with Myril’s byline.” Nevertheless, her association with the paper locates her politics on the far-left fringe of the American politic spectrum in the 1940s, which would seem important to understanding her son’s later activities.

While a student at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s, David Axelrod began working as a political reporter for the Hyde Park Herald, which Kengor says brought Axelrod to the attention of Don Rose and David Canter. Both of these men were associated with the Communist Party and other far-left organizations.

Kengor explains that David Canter’s father, Harry Canter, was “an instructor at the Abraham Lincoln School, an infamous Chicago-based [CPUSA] front that instructed pupils in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.” David Canter followed in his Communist father’s footsteps, so that a 1970 congressional investigation report, “Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications,” lists David Canter 25 times. His Chicago-based publishing company was believed to be partly subsidized by Soviet funds and in the 1960s, Kengor writes, “David Canter and Don Rose joined forces to start a [Chicago-area] community newspaper called Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices.”

This Canter-Rose publication “was on the far left,” Kengor writes. Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices editorialized for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), whose investigations had exposed the pro-Soviet subversive activities of both David Canter and his father Harry. At a time when U.S. troops were fighting communism in Vietnam, Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices also published “pro-Hanoi screeds by [Students for a Democratic Society] members based in Chicago,” Kengor writes.

Don Rose was associated with SDS (the left-wing campus organization from which Bill Ayers’s terrorist splinter group Weather Underground spun off in 1969) and was also a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, commonly known by the slang term “the Mobe.”

Rose and Canter played a critical role as “mentors” to young David Alexrod, Kengor explains, citing numerous sources including David Canter’s son Marc Canter for the fact that it was a letter of recommendation from Don Rose that helped Axelrod land a job as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. By 1987, all three of these men — Don Rose, David Canter and David Axelrod, who had left journalism to become a paid political adviser — were part of the campaign to re-elect Harold Washington as Chicago’s mayor.

Kengor’s American Spectator article is important because Axelrod’s background — like Obama’s associations with such left-wing figures as Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers — shows how ideas, policies and rhetoric originating in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and anti-American propaganda have been “mainstreamed” into Democratic Party politics.

Critics of Kengor’s investigative report will likely raise the charge of “McCarthyism,” expecting us to miss the irony of that accusation because, of course, revelations from the Venona papers and other sources have largely vindicated Sen. Joseph McCarthy: There were Soviet agents in the U.S. government, and the American Communist Party was at all times an instrument of Soviet subversion.

What strikes me, in Kengor’s extensive account of Axelrod’s background (the article is more than 5,000 words long), is the remarkable degree to which Americans seem to have lost their horror of Communism in the post-Cold War era. There was a time when anyone with such clear connections to the world of Marxist subversion would have been regarded as an untouchable in mainstream American politics. But if a far-left agitator like Obama could be elected president, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that no one is alarmed by the far-left background of his chief political strategist.

Category: American Spectator, Barack Obama, Chicago, Democrats, Election 2012, History
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin