I had heard that Brooks’ recent Sandra Fluke piece caused a bit of an uproar, with people on both the left and the right flinging the anti-Semite label at him. It has taken me a little while to figure out the best way to address this, as it has clearly hit a nerve.
Over the 12 years that I have been friends with Brooks, I have heard him called all sorts of names. He also has a thick skin, so I have never seen him put any stock in what other people say about him. But, I can usually see where people are coming from. So I would say that Brooks is a bit of an acquired taste. You either like him, or you don’t. It is just that simple.
Now, Brooks may be a lot of things, but I can say one thing for certain: he is not, and never has been, an anti-Semite. In fact, in my many debates about Israel with our mutual friends on the left, he has always been as staunchly pro-Israel as it gets. He even went out of his way to consult with a Rabbi so that he could better accommodate me and my strictly kosher diet (at the time) when I visited him for a few days.
Looking at the various blog posts and tweets about the Fluke piece, it strikes me that the outrage is born of a misreading. I can see how one who reads the piece, and thinks that Brooks “is relying on the premise that there is something socialistic about Jewishness” (as Marc Tracy at Tablet does), concludes that the piece, and therefore Brooks, is anti-Semitic. In fact, I recommend you read all of Tracy’s post, as he makes a good point about how to discern the fine line of anti-Semitism.
However, this is not what Brooks has done. He is not saying that socialism is Jewish and socialism is bad, therefore Judaism is bad and anyone associated with Jews are bad. His reference to Tikkun Olam is also not proof of this. Coming to this conclusion is simply a misreading of the piece.
All Brooks has done is point out that there is a variant of socialism that has Jewish roots, and then proceeds to tie Fluke to the political circle of elite Jewish socialists. (As a side note, Jewish progressives have used the concept of Tikkun Olam to their advantage, as its literal meaning fits quite nicely with the tenants of socialism. This has been going on for a long time, and is really not new information). This does not mean that Brooks thinks that Jews are bad, etc. All it means is that a connection is there, and for all people in the political arena, connections and associations matter.
We cared that President Obama’s pastor was Rev. Wright, who is a radical that espouses anti-American sentiment, among other things, and associates with other Christians. Does this mean that we think all Christians are radical anti-Americans, and therefore that makes us anti-Christian? Of course not. It also does not make us racist, since Rev. Wright is black, although there are those who would have you believe the charge of racism.
As people in general, but as Jews specifically, we need to be vigilant when it comes to anti-Semitism. But we also need to be careful with the accusations that we make. Could the Fluke piece have been done differently and with less sarcasm (sarcasm being part of Brooks’ acquired taste)? Sure. Does that make it, and by extension, Brooks, anti-Semitic? Of course not.
John Knowles’s classic novel, A Separate Peace, begins memorably:
I went back to the Devon School not long ago, and found it looking oddly newer than when I was a student there fifteen years before . . . as if a coat of varnish had been put over everything for better preservation.
I get precisely the opposite feel when I look at the Republican Party.
Republicans Return to Disarray
Less than two years after the Tea Party carried Republicans to historic gains in Congress and state houses around the country, the Grand Old Party looks much older than grand. Its skin is coarse and leathery. Pachyderm-ish.Or like the broken, bleeding hands of a North Dakota railroad worker in January. It’s as if a coat of Elmer’s Glue had been put over everything to blister and peel and crack like mud under the burning sun.
Across Missouri, people were driven away by heavy-handed party regulars. The disenchanted were mostly newcomers to politics.
Most infamous of these events was the St. Charles County debacle in which the county chairman ruled with an iron fist, inspiring a rebellion that ended with police riot squads clearing the premises and arresting two caucus-goers. Ready to lead, indeed.
In Illinois, a wealthy young man from a prominent family unleashed a tidal wave of lies—flat out, ridiculous, and cruel lies—against a decent and honest opponent. Meanwhile, the Illinois GOP insiders threatened and cajoled anyone who dared support the young heir’s opponent. At a Lincoln Days dinner in Madison County, I heard a small business owner explain the sticker on his chest: “I’m not supporting him, but they’ll go after my business if I don’t wear this.”
Liberty my foot. The Illinois GOP is every bit as capable of totalitarian control as the Obama administration. It feels like the Republican Party is more interested in protecting the power and redistributive entitlements of its long-time insiders than in growing its base. The party fears new blood (except their properly schooled off-spring), the way closed country clubs of the 1970s feared blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
Where Does the Money Go?
Did I say “redistributive entitlements?” Yes, I did. When it comes to government spending, the biggest difference between the Republicans and Democrats is to whom they redistribute our money. Democrats buy votes with tax dollars; Republicans buy donors.
Now, I admit, I’d rather live in a nation led by Republicans than one ruled by Democrats. Republicans tolerate more personal liberty and more economic growth. They are more open to learning and to experimenting with better methods than are Democrats. Republicans remain naturally skeptical of experts who’ve never accomplished anything in real life.
But only slightly.
Republicans do not tolerate real competition between businesses. They championed TARP as much the Democrats did, and TARP was the crown jewel of anti-competitive legislation. Nor do they welcome newcomers into the party—at least not newcomers who want an equal say in things.
I realize that people who’ve worked on Township committees for 20 years want to have more influence than some guy who accidentally wanders into his first caucus looking for a public toilet. But rigging the process to produce results that were predetermined by a small cadre of insiders doesn’t help Republicans win or grow the base—it helps launch third parties.
After the Tea Party dragged the GOP across the finish line in 2010, to borrow Mike Leahy’s line, the GOP wanted nothing more to do with us. They’ve quietly toiled to let us know our kind isn’t welcome. We’re like Irish and Italian immigrants a century and a quarter ago. “We’re going to vote now, dear. Be a good little immigrant and take out the trash.”
If the Republicans don’t wake up and grow up quickly, come November they will find themselves the most exclusive club in America—on their way to joining the Whigs.
Who Held the Line?
The GOP in Missouri wasted the biggest influx of new blood into the political fight in 30 years. Now you understand why so many young people support Ron Paul. The Democrats are destroying the country, but who has the stomach to work with Republicans?
In 2008 and 2009, Republicans across the country gave up. They let Al Franken steal a seat. They let Arlen Specter slip through their fingers. They embraced the idea of 40 years of Democratic Rule. Heck, even Roy Blunt was touring the state hoping to stop Robin Carnahan from being the 60th Senator. They had given up.
- While the Republican Establishment cut deals with Democrats, The Tea Party stood in the gap and said “No more.”
- While the Republican Establishment cowered behind city walls, we charged into the streets and parks and hearings and town halls declaring, “we created this government, not the other way around.”
- While the Republican Establishment ducked its head and buried its wallet and worried about its political future, our flesh and blood held back and reversed the tide to historic victories across the country.
It was the Tea Party that held back Obamacare from fast track implementation in August of 2009. They were ready to pass it, and we stepped up in the townhalls and said HELL NO! We were telling them it was costly and unconstitutional long before the CBO and the Supreme Court got involved. We were right then. Do you remember?
It was the Tea Party that made a national mission out of Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts. And if the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare, it will be because the Democrats rushed the bill through the Senate knowing Brown was the 41st vote for freedom.
It wasn’t just healthcare shoved down our throats. The Republicans couldn’t stop the stimulus. They put up token resistance and then a bunch of them voted for the omnibus budget a few weeks later (allowing Claire McCaskill to vote against it because Kit Bond voted for it). They ducked the debt ceiling fight. They refused to defund Obamacare or the czars. They were given a huge majority in the House of Representatives – the power of the purse, and what have they have done with it? The debt continues to grow as the Senate refuses to even consider a budget.
Now it’s March, 2012. In Missouri, the Tea Party candidates have been driven out and redistricted and co-opted. What exactly is a Tea Partier supposed to fight for in Missouri? Where’s our skin in the game? Who can we stand behind?
The Republicans don’t appreciate what was done for them. They will. They will wake up this fall to empty phone banks, small events, and the full attention of a press eager to prove 2010 a historical anomaly.
Come October, the Occupy Crowd will hound them at local events, and the social media will be all leftwing, all the time. The Republicans will have lost the narrative, and they will once again be playing defense.
And they’ll put a coat of varnish on the state capitol and talk about the ebb and flow of politics, as the debt tsunami approaches. The Tea Party was willing to fight alongside Republicans. We never signed up to fight for them. The danger is not that Tea Party voters sit on their hands and let Obama stay into office. It’s that across the nation, publicly funded groups like the unions and the new ACORN and Occupy and Color for Change are preparing for 2012. The Republicans, in their arrogance, have decided to tell a million volunteers and donors to stay home.
As patriots with families and businesses, we have choices on how to use the limited time God has granted us. We are forced to choose where to apply our time and attention. Is that focus to be placed on working with candidates and fighting the mainstream media? Or is it shoring up our homes, finances, families, and communities for whatever comes next?
George Zimmerman Is An Hispanic Democrat? Does Spike Lee Know? #TeamDueProcess Does And We Don’t Care
Please tell Spike Lee, a black Democrat, and the other leftists who’ve been trying to paint George Zimmerman as a racist white Republican, that Zimmerman’s an Hispanic Democrat. Spike Lee is the irresponsible celeb who shared Zimmerman’s address on Twitter, twice. Inciting lynch mob violence, Shelton (Shelton is Spike’s real name, btw)?
The news shares Zimmerman’s political affiliation:
We federalists and conservatives will continue to defend George Zimmerman’s right to Due Process. The irony here is that my political brethren are defending one minority’s constitutional rights from another minority’s lynch mob mentality. The latter of which, the GOP freed from slavery 150 years ago! An interesting, but telling aside, is that zero democrats voted for the 14th Amendment back then. Today, there’s no major outcry of support for Zimmerman’s constitutional rights from the left. Let that fully sink in. It’s as if things haven’t changed at all in 150 years within the Democrats’ ranks. Please don’t lynch that Hispanic, Democrats!
Here’s what’s most important: my side are so passionate about American liberty, that we’ll staunchly defend the constitutional rights of those who don’t share our political ideology. We believe that Due Process is greater than tyranny and lynch mobs. Not much has changed for us in the last 150 years either.
H/T: Dan Riehl
Eunuchorn: (n) “conservative” emasculated male who is working for national political organizations, their state counterparts, or one aspiring to be any part of this unfortunate class. This word is a semantic change of “eunuch”, a term Andrew Breitbart was fond of using to describe such people (for obvious reasons). Andrew and I didn’t agree on a few issues, but we agreed on the big issues. Long before Andrew arrived on the scene, as the very public and intentional “happy warrior”, many of us activists knew who our enemy was. Andrew was able to articulate it with special efficacy, likely due to his time as an author and the muscle behind Huffington Post and The Drudge Report: we’re fighting a war against the professional left. However, Andrew’s eunuchs are another enemy, one within our ranks, which most of us don’t want to acknowledge. That’s about to change.
When Andrew died, I took the day off from work, social networking, etc., because even though Andrew and I weren’t close, I, like many others, realized that we had lost our most effective warrior in actively taking the battle to the enemy (vs. “our side” always being reactionary). Late that evening, I decided that I was all in for the fight. I concluded that many of us are needed to fill Andrew’s shoes, and I happen to be in a place in life where I have the ability, experience, network, and resources to meet this challenge. A couple days later, I told some of my friends in town for Andrew’s funeral about my personal epiphany and my commitment to the cause. I’ve been iterating on the battle plans since.
I don’t know exactly how Andrew envisioned the war unfolding, but I’ve been using the definition in this context: A state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism. A struggle between opposing forces for a particular end. Ayn Rand looked at it like this: ”A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.” I encourage you to develop your own teams and strategies, but consider these fundamental ideas of philosophical war as you move forward. My model is inspired and energized by Sherman, Patton, and Sun-Tzu; read them, and you’ll get the idea. I’m sure as hell not going to post my strategy online, but you saw a very thin slice of one aspect in the Sandra Fluke piece (there are a couple updates posted). The Washington Times is now hounding Anita Dunn asking her for an interview to discuss whether Sandra Fluke and the White House colluded before her “testimony”. That strawman has been pulverized, no matter how the enemy wants to present it moving forward. I definitely learned some lessons, and I admit that I made some tactical mistakes. I will adapt. Trust me, this is only the beginning.
We have $15 trillion in debt due to the political machine’s ineffectiveness, and many of these toolless wimps (note the band-aid on the eunuchorn’s crotch in the above picture) on “our side” keep doing more of the same things that got us to this low point. Does it really need to be said that this milquetoast people group, with their self-serving and self-preserving agendas, are not the answer? HELL YES. The point needs reinforcement if we’re going to have substantive change and start weaning people of their publicly subsidized “jobs”. However, regardless of how much fun I have publicly smacking the eunuchorns around on Twitter, I’m not content to throw out the baby with the bathwater – but, I’m still trying to ascertain if it’s the baby or the bathwater that needs to go. How many billions of dollars have gone through organizations like Heritage, AFP, Freedomworks, CATO, NRA, etc., yet we’re still fighting for the heart and soul of our nation?
In fairness, some of the eunuchorns who served in the military were able to fight heroically in that previous professional calling. Sadly, they have no clue how to fight the professional left. But, they *think* they do, as most political eunuchorns love to believe they have the answers, even though their abhorrent track record proves otherwise. It’s about results, not your donor-subsidized resume, peppered with examples of being reactionary to the left’s proactive attacks.
However, the eunuchorns will continue to blog about finer points of policy, tweet all damned day in support of candidates like the severely conservative Etch A Sketch (Brad was correctly mocking some of the them here) et al, and write whitepapers! America struggles under the weight of $60+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, with no sign of any decrease in the foreseeable future, yet too many everyday conservatives choose to remain influenced by what this naive political class churns out, as they have for decades. Polishing a turd isn’t as bad as letting the turd polish you. Am I saying that all whitepapers are bad? No, but *most* whitepapers should be used to wipe your ass when you’re done reading them, because the later is likely a more pragmatic result. Meanwhile, our leftist enemies are supporting the Occupy rejects, who use police cars to wipe their asses – I wonder if whitepapers would solve that problem. Perhaps a bipartisan organization could provide once-read “conservative” whitepapers for the Occupiers to wipe with. Hmm… I digress, or do I?
A little background to qualify some of my statements, especially about the Tea Party (some of this will be redundant for people who’ve known me awhile – skip this paragraph if that’s you.), I’ve been a federalist since I cut my teeth on the words of our founders at the ripe old age of 8. I’ve never been registered with any party, not even the GOP. Although, I was formally involved with the Libertarian Party before the crazies invaded, was a local vice-chair, and a national delegate in the LP, as well. During this time, we fought against TennCare, unsuccessfully, but we led the fight against the proposed Tennessee state income tax, and were successful. I’ve been at this activism thing for a long time, right up through being one of the original founders of the Tea Party movement, and I’ve moderated the Teapartiers listserve for the past few years. I never vote for democrats, because I despise the totalitarian means that collectivists use to advance their agenda. I struggle with my support of many GOP presidential candidates. The same GOP, which in 2008, gave us McCain, and in 2012, they’re likely to give us Romney. More of the same gilded shite! The by-product of this gold-covered crap, no doubt, of decades of the masters and masses staring out through the same Overton window.
Over the last few months, I’ve been speaking with former Teapartiers about the next iteration of our work. I say former Teapartiers, because most of us have moved on (most moved on after the 2010 mid-term election we handed the GOP on a silver platter), as the Tea Party was never supposed to be a status quo cadre. But, people like Judson Philips, who just joined the rest of the charlatans at Tea Party Net (they’re the group that was propped up by CPAC as “Tea Party” this year), have too much invested in the Tea Party “brand” to let it go. The establishment shysters are trying to milk that co-opted dead horse. Tasty. Hell, even Lucifer’s buddy Alinsky knew that people had to move on to the next thing to keep their interest, and more importantly, their effectiveness. During these recent conversations about possible new steps, I’ve presented, as others have (Buckley, for example, who was hugely effective) in the past, federalism as the answer to more effectively label and pursue our intent. Last month, I brought the conversation about federalism to the open forum of Twitter. In these discussions, the consensus among most conservatives is that “conservatism” now denotes Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and company and not a view of first principles federalism. Many have expressed the desire to break with traditional beltway-styled circle-jerks, because even though these career politicos purport to be laissez faire regarding capitalism, but they’re more accurately laissez-nous faire about everything, because they’re better than you schmucks. There are a few who think we still need these career political planners as allies. Allies? How about neutered servants? Personally, I believe we need to break the eunuchorns like a cowboy would a self-serving horse, get them in line, and refocus their “zeal”. They can be our allies, not vice versa. Amat victoria curam.
Having “ingratiated” myself to a few in the eunuchorn class, via publicly ridiculing their continued wasteful and misguided efforts, it’s been pointed out to me, by some of my Twitter followers, that the eunuchorns have been sneering (some of the betas love to stalk me. that’s typical beta behavior.) at my pseudo-rejection of conservatism in favor of federalism. I say pseudo-rejection, because flipping a cultural paradigm overnight is impossible to do, and splitting hairs over terminology is a waste of time. I believe messaging is important, but call yourself whatever you want, as long as federalism is a large part of your foundation.
The reports of the eunuchorn sneers about my federalist paradigm are interesting, because in a recent twist, that the betas obviously missed, or ignored, Jonah Goldberg’s piece, hails none other than federalism as the cure for what ails political parties and modern conservatism:
The main advantage of federalism is more fundamental than the “laboratories of democracy” idea. Federalism is simply the best political system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness. A one-size-fits-all policy imposed at the national level has the potential to make very large numbers of citizens unhappy, even if it was arrived at democratically. In a pure democracy, I always say, 51 percent of the people can vote to pee in the cornflakes of 49 percent of the people.
Jonah also notes:
It [federalism] would also dethrone those in both parties who think they know what’s best for more than 300 million Americans.
To the Enuchorns:
The irony is that you didn’t even notice Jonah’s piece, and if any of you did notice, did you take the time to mock Jonah? No, because in many ways, you aspire to be like him. Political betas, if you’ve been spending all your time devoted to your political, donor-subsidized, “careers”, while attacking the fighters on “our side”, rather than doing something truly effective, you’re doing it wrong. Yes, we remember how most of you despised the Tea Party when it started. We watched as you recently begged for Rush to apologize for his justifiable attack on a leftist strawman argument, and you *literally* praised God after he folded under pressure from you and the left. And many of the true fighters on our side recently watched a few of you try to paint some in our ranks as something we’re not, while using leftist tactics. For what purpose… who knows? How’s any of that working for America? Did you affect that $15 trillion debt, eunuchorns? No, you didn’t. However, you did show your true colors, and the people who matter most have seen those colors. Fortunately, most of the fighters will no longer see you as allies, and I’m glad we pushed the requisite buttons to make that happen. Hook. Line. Sinker. Small favors and all.
Now is the time to look in the mirror and admit the truth – or sthu, gtho of the way, and continue caving to the left. We’ll know we’re doing something right when you join the left in attacks against us. You can tune out now, but I’m sure you’re already distracted by some whitepaper, policy blog post, or a tweet about a candidate that you’re in the tank for. Bye, political betas!
Back to the warriors:
As you now know, the war we’ve undertaken isn’t only our assault against the professional left, it will continue to involve our getting sniped in the back by the political class and their lackeys on “our side”, because the reality is that these people are comfortable where there are. They love their tiny insignificant perches, because what is most important to them is looking down on all you slack-jawed yokels while they pontificate amongst themselves.
All politicians, in any party, need your accountability, not just your vote. See: history.
Don’t kowtow to the left, because they’re your enemy, and as William F. Buckley Jr. said, they “lie”.
Don’t kowtow to the eunuchorns, because, by definition, they don’t have any balls, and they’re obviously more interested in drawing a paycheck via their hoodwinked donors.
The ranks are forming. Pick a side. And don’t forget the most important rule: loyalty means everything in this fight.
Just a couple weeks after Slate hack Matt Yglesias wrote, “Obama really has hurt the oil industry by declining to approve the Keystone XL pipeline…” (albeit, ruining his statement by following it with the idea that we need higher gas taxes), he started talking about general tax cuts, and zero interest rates today:
My theory is that if we’d acted more forcefully with tax cuts and aid to state and local governments while holding interest rates at zero, households and governments would have bought more stuff and firms would have invested more (buying more delivery trucks, for example) in order to fulfill that increased volume of orders.
Your theory? Sir James Steuart came up with that theory back in 1767, in his famous (well, famous to people who really read about this stuff) essay, “An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy [sic]“. He wrote, in part: ”…new demand will cease as soon as it is made, for want of a supply”. I believe James articulated this theory a couple hundred years before you, Matt. Not sorry to burst your sweat bubble, hope it doesn’t get infected.
And Matty’s notion of selective tax cuts and increases has all the logic of taking X dollars from one bank ATM, driving to another ATM, and depositing X dollars.
These leftist haters of women get paid to write this nonsense. That’s a subsidy we should all work to end. These poor beta males…
(Filed under: “Never mind, media, we’ll do your damned job, losers.”)
Updated: Added link to the Jewish Encyclopedia for an explanation of “traditional Jewish socialism“, amongst those who’ve chosen the socialist/marxist ideology. It’s in the first paragraph about Adam’s parents. I assumed the readers could Google something if they had questions, but I was wrong.
Update #2: Finally, The Washington Times is now asking the right questions. Like, “Hey, Anita Dunn, what role did the White House play in having Sandra Fluke appear before congress?” This is looking bad for SKDKnickerbocker, Anita’s PR firm.
Recently, it was reported that Sandra Fluke is connected to none other than 1%’er, William (Bill) Mutterperl, through her boyfriend. However, it wasn’t reported who her boyfriend is. Everyone, meet Sandra’s boyfriend, wannabe producer, and amateur stand-up comic, Adam “Cutie Pants” Mutterperl, in this video audition he submitted to a “reality” show:
Cutie pants? This guy the epitome of what everyone thought Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend would be. Maybe Adam could produce a biopic titled, “Beta Males and the Progressive Chicks Who Dig Them”.
Anyway, here are some pictures of Sandra and Adam frolicking in typical ghetto places like Spain and Italy:
The caption that Adam added to one of the Barcelona pics, “Pretty drunk”. Is this the part where I’m supposed to pay for your condoms, Adam? You know, because traveling between L.A., D.C., and New York, and vacationing in Barcelona, Italy, etc., is pretty darned expensive. I get it. Did you piss off your uber-wealthy parents to get cut off from your trust fund? You and Sandra must need some government subsidies. Idea: mock hearing. Brilliant!
Awesome that Adam is so happy about Sandra making “the big time” (h/t to SooperMexican for this particular screenshot).
Anyway, on to Adam’s “typical Democrat family”. The term BIll O’Reilly used to describe Bill Mutterperl is “Democratic stalwart”. However, as soon as I heard his name in a story about Sandra Fluke, I almost choked, due to my sudden epiphany. Why? Because anyone familiar with Boston and New York political history knows about the wealthy Mutterperl family’s long tradition of supporting the traditional Jewish variant of socialism. Bill Mutterperl’s family are much more than Democratic stalwarts.
I’ll let Woody Allen give you the basic overview (if Woody introduces left-wing, Jewish socialism, it’s not anti-Semitic, AMIRIGHT?!):
(Transcript of the video clip: “What’s your name… Allison… You’re like New York Jewish, left-wing, intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, socialist summer camps and the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, really strike-oriented. Stop me before I make a complete imbecile of myself… No, that was wonderful! I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype.”)
Allen’s description probably describes Adam’s childhood, right down to the Ben Shahn drawings. I wonder if Adam has ever been to a kibbutz.
The Mutterperl family, via Adam’s great grandfather Sol’s handbag fortune, established the ”Mutterperl Scholarship Endowment Fund” in 1951 for Brandeis University. This school, as some people call it, is named for Louis Brandeis, a secular Jew, Zionist, and United States Supreme Court Justice appointed by Woodrow Wilson. Brandeis was a self-proclaimed socialist. Herbert Marcuse, the famous Frankfurt School Marxist, came to Brandeis in 1954, three years after the Mutterperl fund was created. Brandeis University is one of the nation’s leading petri dishes for anti-American and neo-Marxist thought. Here’s the statement from the Brandeis bulletin about the Mutterperl fund:
Traditions of charity inculcated in their children by a New York couple, who recently celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary, are being perpetuated in their honor by the children who have established a Sol and Susanne Mutterperl Scholarship Endowment Fund at Brandeis University.
Honoring the 50th wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. Sol Mutterperl, the endowment fund has been established by means of a substantial initial grant which will be augmented from time to time.
The initial grant was made by the children through the Mutterperl Foundation, Inc., which was organized in December, 1951, by Raphael Mutterperl: his brother, Martin Mutterperl, and their sister’s husband, Ludwig S. Buckhardt. for the purpose of fostering the philanthropic ideals of their parents.
President of the Foundation is Raphael Mutterperl, prominent New Bedford (Mass.) manufacturer.
Since Sol is credited with creating the women’s handbag market, and was a wealthy manufacturer and proprietor of those goods, he and his wife, Susanne, lived at 22 Central Park West in Manhattan for a time, and then at 350 Central Park West. Not too shabby, Mutterperl! Sol was also supportive of unions and was the Director of the United Jewish Appeal (now The Jewish Federations of North America) a Jewish “social” organization. From the JFNA website:
The Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah (charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).
There’s that “social justice” code word again. Jewish Socialism is linked to a very progressive concept of the above tikkun olam. New Bedford, MA, where Raphael Mutterperl ran the family’s manufacturing arm, was a hotbed of Marxist trade-unionism in early 20th century America. Why? It was easy to “sell” radical trade-unionism to a whole people group who were brought up in the lap of Weimar Marxian ideology, because New Bedford had many new eastern-European Jewish immigrants living there at the time, including, of course, the Mutterperl family.
For some added historical context, two popular Marxists, Samuel Gompers and Daniel De Leon, agitated in New Bedford, and were instrumental in fomenting strikes amongst the workers of the textile mills there. As I wrote before, Gompers was the founder of what is now the largest Marxist union organization in America, the AFL-CIO.
In addition to the Mutterperl’s extensive history within the Jewish socialist activist/political world, and their generational wealth, they’re still doing what they can to help the 99%. An excerpt from Bill’s current Reed Smith LLP (one of the 15 largest law firms in the world) bio:
Bill is a partner in Reed Smith’s Financial Industry Group. He specializes in providing high level counseling to CEO’s, General Counsel, Boards of Directors and members of senior management of major financial institutions.
As the former Vice Chairman of The PNC Financial Services Group, he held management responsibilities for certain PNC staff functions, including legal, compliance, legislative affairs and media relations, and he was responsible for implementing best practices for corporate governance. He served on several senior management committees, including Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Re-Engineering and Consumer affairs, and also served as management liaison to a special ad hoc committee of the Board of Directors dealing with regulatory affairs and corporate governance. He also served as a PNC representative on the Board of Directors of BlackRock Investment Management, one of the largest investment management firms in the world.
Bill also had a distinguished 25-year career at FleetBoston Financial Corp. where he served as its Executive Vice President and General Counsel world-wide, responsible for all legal affairs of the company.
In addition, Bill served as Executive Director of the Independent Oversight Board for Arthur Andersen, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. The other members of the Independent Oversight Board included current and former CEO’s of major U.S. companies. Bill advised the Board on proposed best corporate governance practices to be adopted by Andresen in the wake of governmental investigations and criticisms of that firm.
In private practice, Bill was a partner in the business law division of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels in Boston, specializing in corporate governance issues. He began his legal career at the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
Bill has also made nearly $90,000 in personal donations to Dems and their allies in the past 10 years, according to OpenSecrets.org. Check out the awesome Daddy Warbucks screenshots:
Adam’s mother is Nancy Mutterperl. According to the California Secretary of State, she’s involved with a company operating in Beverly Hills, CA as Charlotte Lu, LLC. They specialize in jewelry that runs from $300, to nearly $4000. Their website has a brief bio of Nancy, listing her role as “Business Development and Display“:
Raised in West Haven, Connecticut, Nancy Mutterperl enjoyed studying art history in college, but it was her love of jewelry that led to her earning certificates from the Gemological Institute of America. While she was a stay-at-home mom, Nancy began creating her own jewelry pieces that were sold in retail stores and catalogs. Nancy’s experience with gemstones gives her the edge for selecting beautiful stones for Charlotte Lu. Nancy is married, has two sons and resides in both Manhattan and Beverly Hills.
Stay-at-home mom, indeed. You know, typical, bi-coastal, “stalwarty” kind of stuff in the Mutterperl family. I wonder if Adam lives with mom here in Beverly Hills. From the looks of Adam’s audition video above, it’s safe to assume that mom imparted some of the “art history” stuff that she enjoyed in college, unto her son.
In summary (with bold for emphatic inflection): Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old leftist activist, attending Georgetown University, whom the Dems tried to inject, via non-sequitur, into Issa’s hearing about Obamacare’s encroachment upon religious freedoms, protected by the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. Her boyfriend, Adam Mutterperl, is the son of one of the most well-connected leftist Jewish families on the East Coast (add the West Coast to that, apparently), with ties to neo-Marxist Brandeis University as decades old donors… and whose father, Bill Mutterperl, worked directly for Paul Volcker, one of Obama’s pals, advisors, and Keynesian “stimulus” bill architects. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that this just boils down to a poor girl needing us to “subsidize” her birth control. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
We’re talking Sgt. Schultz levels of ignorance and avoidance if you buy that load of schmutz.
Some have claimed that Sandra’s reps (Anita Dunn’s PR firm – Anita’s the Mao lover, and former Obama Communications Director) are lying about the Mutterperl “boyfriend”. I’ve posted the Facebook photos, above, of them, that are dated, and go back a few years – but you never see them kiss in their photos. To me, it’s obvious that she’s in bed with him, literally, or figuratively. Either way, Sandra’s connection to this particular Jewish-American socialist dynasty is a “little” secret that they don’t want you to know. Which begs the question… if you’re so connected to the Mutterperl family, Sandra, why not go to Brandeis, a school much more aligned with your worldview, instead of Georgetown University, a Catholic Jesuit school? Are you admitting that a Christian school is better than a neo-Marxist school, or is there some other agenda? Now *that’s* funny when you think about it.
Based on all this random connectedness, I’d love it if Miss Fluke would sue Georgetown for “subsidized” birth control. The Georgetown lawyers would have a field day with discovery. Do it, Sandra. I dare you.
Oh, as a complete aside, check out Adam’s grandpappy, Martin Mutterperl, hanging out with Cass Sunstein’s, (another Obama appointee, Regulatory Czarina, and overall radical leftist) great-uncle, Alexander Cass Sunstein, and Samuel “Subway Sam” Rosoff, the guy who killed one of his detractors over a labor union spat, in Palm Beach back in 1965, at the Ambassador Hotel (see: photo below). Purely coincidence, I’m sure, since they’re all associated with Marxists, socialists, and trade-unionists of Eastern-European, Jewish, descent. There are some other interesting names in this list. Can you spot them?! Just kidding. Move along. Nothing to see here, hobbits.
Derrick Bell’s Connections To Socialism, Frances Fox Piven, The Black Panthers, And Anti-Christian Activism
The left has become so efficient (with all that free time on their hands) that they’ve distilled Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, which most of their presentments now follow, into a methodology fitting for a tidy flow chart. Who needs a whole book (albeit short), written by Alinsky, Obama’s hero, to hamper inefficiency, when all you need are these four simple steps? Amiright?!
I present to you, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, abridged. Behold!