School officials in Wisconsin were caught on video trying to intimidate parents into closing down a weekly “Jesus Lunch” for hungry kids in a local park, and now the police are involved.
Mothers in Middleton have been hosting a Jesus Lunch 16 times per year since 2014 in Fireman’s Park. Students from Middleton High School, who may eat at local dining establishments, often choose a free lunch provided by the mothers. The religious message shared with meals was the catalyst for targeting the gathering, which has grown from a small handful of students to hundreds.
“We are asking you to allow our legal counsels to consider this together because this is certainly a question you contend is a First Amendment right,” Donald Johnson, the superintendent of the Middleton-Cross Plains district, recently said to the mothers after blocking the park entrance with hazard cones. “We contend that this is really an issue of our ability to exercise our lease for the city. We think that cooperation is really the way to go.”
Johnson was then presented with a letter from the group’s lawyer, another from the City of Middleton, and a lease agreement to use the park, the education watchdog EAGnews.org reported last Friday.
“[Officials] coned up the parking lot, waited there and confronted my clients and told them to leave,” Phillip Stamman, an attorney representing the moms, told the website. “[The parents] responded how I recommended. They walked right past them. The superintendent repeatedly tried to confront them. He was the first one. But they just moved on.”
The video also shows the Johnson simultaneously lamenting the parents’ lawyers while saying his desired resolution would entail their removal from the park.
“Fireman’s Park – a public park owned by the city of Middleton – remains accessible to everyone in the public for the purposes of assembly and free speech,” lunch organizer Beth Williams said in a statement. “By law, the lease agreement between the city and the school district of Middleton does not privatize the park.”
The school district contends it has jurisdiction over the park because its lease applies to school hours.
“The District has understood over the past 16 years that this is a District responsibility, and that school rules and District policy must apply,” Johnson wrote in an email to Cap Times April 16. “[Middleton-Cross Plains School District] is not interested in litigation, and is committed to working collaboratively to find a solution that meets the needs of all parties. We are interested in thoughtful and respectful dialogue. We do not intend to interfere with the Jesus Lunch, and we will continue to reach out to organizers to find an amicable resolution in the near future in the best interests of all of our students.”
Middleton Police Department will now monitor Tuesday’s Jesus Lunch due to heightened tensions in the town.
“Reasonable people differ over the interpretation of the wording of the lease,” Police Chief Charles Foulke said April 15 on the department’s Facebook page. “I’m not worried about reasonable people, but I am concerned about unreasonable people, people who are using this issue for their own purposes and who are beginning to threaten good people on either side of this issue. Unless something unforeseen happens, the ‘Jesus Lunch’ is going to happen this Tuesday and will probably continue until the end of the school year… Please do not assume that our presence in any way indicates a preference for any side in this issue other than to preserve the peace and allow people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights… I hope it is not the students who teach the adults how to act.”
In addition to citing food-safety concerns, school officials sent an email to parents on April 12 saying, “We believe that religious or political events do not have a place in our school or on our campus, except when sponsored by a student group in accordance with our rules, which require prior approval,” Fox News reported.
Principal Stephen Plank also attempted to denigrate the group by saying the Christians’ message has resulted in some students “sitting in the hallway crying” or leaving school early, the network reported.
Stamman told Fox that no form of harassment will deter the parents from hosting Jesus Lunch in the future.
“These women will not be intimidated,” Stamman said. “They are wholeheartedly committed to serving the students a free meal while sharing a Christian message.”
New State Department documents belatedly provided to the watchdog group Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton told different stories as secretary of state to different foreign leaders about a YouTube video that the Obama administration falsely blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks.
The documents, which Judicial Watch obtained last month, include notes of calls that Clinton had with world leaders after the terrorist attacks.
One set of notes comes from a Sept. 15 telephone call Clinton had with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr. During the chat, Clinton referred to the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence, which left four Americans dead.
“I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film, but also intentional efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Clinton told Amr.
“This runs counter to American history and the Constitution. But we’ve made clear that violent attacks are never justified in any religion,” she continued, adding that “we have to exercise more self-discipline.”
That call took place a day before then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday morning talk shows to blame the “heinous and offensive video” as the impetus for the attacks.
Clinton also appeared to blame the film – “Innocence of Muslims” – in a Sept. 12 call with Afghan President Hamid Kharzi.
“We appreciate your statement in response to the video. Especially, the point that the people that make these kind of videos are a fringe group,” Clinton said during the call.
“We need to talk about religious feelings and insults and defamation,” she added.
Judicial Watch says that the State Department provided those call notes only last month in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It is unclear why it took so long for the agency to hand over the documents.
Also unclear is why in other private conversations Clinton claimed that the video was not the spark for the Benghazi attacks.
During a Sept. 12 phone call with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil Clinton said that the Benghazi attacks “had nothing to do with the film.”
“You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda,” Kandil responded to Clinton during their chat.
Clinton’s call with Kandil was referred to during Clinton’s Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. As was an email that Clinton exchanged with her daughter, Chelsea, on the night of the attack. In that email she acknowledged that an “Al Qaeda-like group” had carried out the attack.
But Clinton’s comments in those communiques were at odds with the public position that she and others in the Obama administration took in the days after the attack.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
Further complicating matters is Clinton’s statement during the Oct. 22 Select Committee hearing and during a Democratic debate that she believes that the video did play a role in the Bengahzi attacks.
“Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role,” she told Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan
during the Benghazi hearing.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that the new documents show that Clinton offered inconsistent stories about the root cause of the attacks.
“There are two scandals here,” Fitton said in a statement.
“The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack.”
The second, he said “is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents.”
He accused the agency of playing “whack-a-mole” with the Benghazi documents.
“It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.”
The White House website has censored a video of French Pres. Francois Hollande saying that “Islamist terrorism” is at the “roots of terrorism.”
The White House briefly pulled video of a press event on terrorism with Pres. Obama, and when it reappeared on the WhiteHouse.gov website and YouTube, the audio of Hollande’s translator goes silent, beginning with the words “Islamist terrorism,” then begins again at the end of his sentence.
Even the audio of Hollande saying the words “Islamist terrorism” in French have, apparently, been edited from the video.
According to the official White House transcript of Hollande’s remarks, Hollande refers to “Islamist terrorism.” The audio of the bold text in brackets is missing from the video – the only point in the video were the audio is absent:
“We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination.
“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, [Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.] And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we’ve been able to launch with the coalition.”
Watch the video of Hollande’s censored comment:
Pres. Obama has come under fire from Republicans for his refusal to say “radical Islam” when discussing terrorism and, again yesterday, he declined to do so.
Obama made three vague mentions of terrorism, citing the “hands of terrorism,” the “scourge of terrorism,” and “counterterrorism” in Thursday’s press event.
The animus between Cruzites and the Trumpians is so strong these days that anyone in either camp who tries to point out that one side isn’t always right and the other side isn’t always wrong results in knee-jerk, moonbat-like hostility the likes of which I’ve not seen among the Republican electorate in my lifetime.
For instance, I read a brief post the other day on some social media network by an ardent Trump fan wherein he(?) mentioned that Cruz gets a bum rap for being a part of the “RINO-Bush” 2000 campaign. The Trumpian in question merely pointed out that, at the time, Bush was the most conservative guy in the race who had any chance of beating Al Gore, and that Ted was simply supporting his party’s nominee. He opined that Cruz wasn’t necessarily some establishment assclown just because he’d backed George Dubya for president, and he was exactly right in that assessment, but that didn’t stop other Trump backers from treating him like he was the worst traitor since Benedict Arnold.
Similarly, I was attacked by faceless, #NeverTrump SM-warriors just the other day for defending The Donald over accusations by Ted Cruz that he had planted the National Enquirer sex-scandal story. All I did was share information which confirmed that it was allies of Marco Rubio who had been shopping that story around for months prior to it becoming public. Afterward I mentioned that I thought it was hypocritical of Cruz to be doing exactly what he’d accused Trump of doing only days before, which was holding someone to account for acts that no one could prove they’d actually committed. Based upon the reactions I got from my fellow Cruzites, one would have thought that I’d tortured a puppy on live video. I was branded a Trumpaloompa, a TrumpRump and other such monikers, even though I’d made it clear from the start that I’ve always backed Ted Cruz for president and still do. Not only did none of the people who responded to me exhibit the intellectual honesty to admit that I’d made a valid, fact-based point, but they seemed to assume I was a part of some pro-Trump, lunatic-fringe spy network or something.
In both of the above cases, the various respondents behaved with irrational contempt toward well-intentioned and well-reasoned people, and nobody else piped up at any time to illuminate these folks as to how completely leftist they all sounded. Yes, I said LEFTIST!
Look, I don’t give a damn who you support for president or why, that’s your business. However, what I DO care about is the manner in which you choose to do it, and if your idea of righteous campaigning is to defame and denigrate anyone who has the temerity to expose the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods perpetrated by whatever candidate you happen to embrace, then you’re no better than a filthy neo-socialist parasite!
And that goes doubly for people who support Ted cruz for president. Why? Because the number one criticism I hear leveled at Trump from my fellow Cruzites is that he will say or do anything to get elected. And while that may be true, when you turn a blind eye to the fact that Ted Cruz does not appear to be above dirty tricks and hypocrisy himself, you’ve just ceded any moral or ethical high ground you may have had to the opposition. Indeed, I hold Cruz supporters to a higher standard than I do the followers of other candidates in this race, and if you’re to have any real integrity as a Cruzite, you will too.
Moreover, I’m sick to death of seeing people whom I’ve always considered to be genuine, well-principled conservatives take sides against Donald Trump absolutely every time some left-wing media asshat invents a “scandal” out of thin air. Sure, you have every right to criticize The Donald for the myriad dumbass things he’s said over the years, but jumping on the let’s-bash-Trump bandwagon every time the opportunity presents itself is just plain pathetic. It’s beneath men and women of good faith to act in such a way, and what pisses me off the most about this state of affairs is that I am often forced to defend a man I don’t even like very much in the name of fairness and basic decency against others of my own ideological bent.
It angers me, and for that reason I now beseech my fellow Crusites to GROW THE FUCK UP and start behaving like the sort of people you profess to want running our country, instead of the unprincipled swine who’ve done nothing but steer it straight into the crapper since the day after President Ronald Reagan gave his farewell address from the Oval Office.
Edward L. Daley
A video allegedly showing a woman at San Francisco State University verbally badgering a student for “cultural appropriation” has gone viral after being posted on YouTube Monday evening.
The woman can be heard telling the student, a white male, he can’t wear dreadlocks because “it’s [her] culture” and threatens to cut them off with scissors. The woman is identified in the YouTube as a “campus employee.”
After the student attempts to extricate himself from the woman’s grasp – “you have no right to tell me what I can wear on my head… stop touching me” – she pulls him back and says, “if you put your hands on me, you’re gonna learn.”
At the end of the video, she asks the cameraman “why are you filming this?” and shoves the lens after he responds, “for everyone’s safety.”
Barack Obama told an audience of Argentinian youth that the differences between socialism and capitalism make interesting conversation but just pick whatever works. The ideological-left U.S. president suddenly doesn’t have an affinity for ideology.
He said in the past there was a sharp division between communists, socialists and capitalists but that is merely an intellectual argument and it’s not so today.
The Marxist in the White House is erasing the lines between two dangerous ideologies and the one that made the U.S. great, just as he erased our borders. This is a man who would be at home in communist China.
“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said at the Buenos Aires town hall.
“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”
For Obama, high taxation, wild spending, government agency domination over the people and heavy regulations work which tells you what he is.
Obama made his comments in response to a question about establishing nonprofit community organizations and said it’s important to get government and private sector investment, which for him is a sketchy relationship between Wall Street and DC.
“To president Castro, I said you’ve made great progress in educating young people [Cuban dictators indoctrinate its youth]. Every child in Cuba gets a basic education. Medical care, the life expectancy of Cubans is equivalent to the United States despite it being a very poor country because they have access to health care. That’s a huge achievement,” he said about the repressive regime. “They should be congratulated. But you drive around Havana and you see the economy is not working. It looks like it did in the 1950s.”
The US president likes socialism but also likes the capitalism, both of which he has subscribed to for the last seven years.
Then he told them not to rigidly adhere to labels as if the systems of socialism and capitalism are mere labels.
“You have to be practical in asking yourself, How do you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services and innovation and it also gives individuals freedom because they have initiative, depending on the social issues you are trying to address, what works? What you’ll find is the most successful societies and economies are the ones that are rooted in a market-based system but also realize a market does not work by itself. It has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis.”
His love of wealth redistribution and social [unfair] justice trumps all.
During his trip, he told the Cuban dictator that his revolution was like ours – it was a liberation movement – and he told Argentinians earlier in the week that he is frustrated with the separation of powers.
FLASHBACK 2012: Socialist Or Fascist – Thomas Sowell
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous – something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely – and correctly – regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book “Liberal Fascism” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot – and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves – need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.