By MacIver Institute - October 24, 2018
Dan O’Donnell discusses what Tony Evers’ serial plagiarism reveals about his character and ethical fitness for public office
In the beginning, there was darkness. Then four score and seven years ago, Tony Evers said “give me a school budget or give me death.”
The DPI website includes 178 different references to the unacceptability of plagiarism in public schools, and even features a video warning students “that plagiarizing is stealing, as if it’s criminal.” CLICK TO TWEET
The jokes about Evers’ serial plagiarism write themselves, but they—along with the speed at which the media buried the story—belie a far more serious truth: That plagiarism of this magnitude reveals far more about character and fitness for public office than most might assume.
That Evers is the head of the Department of Public Instruction makes it unforgivable.
The DPI website includes 178 different references to the unacceptability of plagiarism in public schools, and even features a video warning students “that plagiarizing is stealing, as if it’s criminal.”
“Plagiarism can carry some pretty serious consequences in school,” the video continues. “Each school has its own plagiarism policy or academic honesty policy, but students who plagiarize may get reported to school officials, get an F on the assignment or in the course, or in some cases even expelled from the school.”
What about a state superintendent who plagiarizes? He can apparently get promoted to governor.
No teacher in Wisconsin would accept a book report lifted from Wikipedia, but Evers’ most recent budget proposal includes a paragraph copied directly from the online encyclopedia’s entry on Early Childhood Education.
No serious liberal intellectual would accept a policy proposal stolen from a conservative think tank, but Evers’ most recent budget proposal steals a whopping fifteen paragraphs from an article from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute…written by an intern.
Such is the state of Wisconsin’s media that Evers’ theft is all but gone from coverage of the gubernatorial race. After a few obligatory headlines that included the caveat “Walker alleges plagiarism”or “Republican Party accuses Evers,” the local press has dropped the story quicker than it has apparently dropped any pretense of objectivity. READ it HERE
BY MONA CHAREN. Center for Ethics and Public Policy, Published in National Review Online on October 19, 2018
She was mocked as “Fauxcahontas” long before President Trump began referring to her as “Pocahontas,” and frankly, Senator Elizabeth Warren invited the ridicule. She is a poster child for the pitfalls of basing identity on race and reminds us of the many furies such self-definition unleashes.
What people choose to call themselves shouldn’t matter to outsiders. If I want to call myself a post-Jerseyite dog lover, no one will care, unless there is affirmative action for former Jersey residents who can’t skip dog videos on Twitter.
What made Elizabeth Warren infuriating is that she was gaming the system. There is a clear career advantage at leading law schools, as in other institutions, to being a member of a minority group. Warren apparently secured a position at the University of Pennsylvania Law School without the minority credential. But while at Penn, she dusted off some “family lore” and began to list herself as “Native American.” Who knows if this helped get her a slot at Harvard Law? As columnist Jeff Jacoby has reported, Harvard highlighted Warren as a Native American when it was accused of lacking a diverse faculty, and the Fordham Law Review bestowed on the blond-haired, blue-eyed Warren the title “Harvard Law’s first woman of color.” Seriously.
This charade reveals the bankruptcy of the practice — well-intentioned at first — of granting benefits based upon race. With DNA testing now routine, nearly anyone can rummage around in the genetic attic and come up with an ancestor, especially a distant one, who is of a different ethnic group. In fact, as Warren has been reminded 1,000 times in the past few days, most “white” Americans have roughly the same non-European genetic markers as she. Why Warren thought this excursion “even unto the 10th generation” would bolster her claim is anyone’s guess.
Even if Warren’s interpretation of the genetic test is correct — i.e., it proves that she has some tiny genetic contribution from Native Americans — it doesn’t make her disadvantaged, does it? She didn’t suffer discrimination or prejudice based upon her Native American identity. Neither did her great-grandparents. READ it HERE
… and the Dam Wall Finally Must Be Built
by Dov Fisher, American Spectator October 31, 2018
There seems no way that the caravan of 4,000–14,000 migrants approaching our southern border is going to end without blood being shed. There probably will be blood. And, while the debate over “man-made climate change” is far from over, the debate over The Wall is finally over:
The Wall finally must be built. Just as a dam serves as a last-ditch physical barrier to prevent or control a flood, The Wall now is revealed as the only logistical way to create a barrier to prevent or control a flood of Illegals. So, as an Orthodox Rabbi who must restrict certain words I use, it is not inappropriate for me to say: Build the Dam Wall already!
The Israel Experience
This past year, Israel has had to deal with a variation on this same human conundrum. Incited by Hamas murderers at the helm of the Gazan terrorist government, and led by experienced bloodlusting murderers, thousands of Gazans have marched repeatedly on Israel’s southern border these past six months, trying to force themselves into the country. Their goal has not been to learn Hebrew nor to get recipes for gefilte fish. Rather, they have tried overrunning Israel’s border for the purpose of bursting through, massacring anyone they can reach, and eventually seizing the country.
The Capital Times invited all statewide candidates plus those in races in our area to write op/eds making their cases for why voters should choose them Nov. 6. Today we run op/eds by the two candidates for Wisconsin's Senate District 27: Democratic incumbent Jon Erpenbach and Republican challenger Casey Helbach.
by Paul Kengor, American Spectator October 1, 2018
It’s shocking what forms of violence Christine Blasey Ford’s backers will accept.
Something undeniably bad happened to Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s. That seems clear. Whether the chief perpetrator was Brett Kavanaugh is something we may never know with absolute certainty, even as his alleged accomplice (named by Ford) likewise insists on Kavanaugh’s innocence. Still, Ford’s story, given in her compelling and emotional testimony, seemed heartfelt and believable. Likewise, Kavanaugh’s denial, given in his compelling and emotional testimony, seemed heartfelt and believable.
My earnest sympathies, at this point, are with both Ford and Kavanaugh, but they are not with the pro-choice Democrats and liberals reflexively backing Ford and reflexively excoriating Brett Kavanaugh as a presumed-guilty sex abuser.
The Senate Democrats and abortion lobby opposing Kavanaugh vowed to oppose him long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward. Her allegations merely gave them ammunition for a character assassination (rightly or wrongly earned) to further back their pre-determined vote against Kavanaugh from the outset. Three weeks ago, before the public heard of Ford, nearly all Senate Democrats announced their intention to vote against him. And why? We all know the reason. There’s not a liberal or conservative in Washington who doesn’t know the reason.
Three words: abortion, abortion, abortion.
And therein lies something sick, perverse, wicked about the “pro-choice” left’s castigation of Brett Kavanaugh as an abuser. What Kavanaugh was accused by Ford of doing when they were teenagers — forcing himself upon her, covering her mouth, with her fearful of being raped — is an abusive act we all condemn and abhor. I’m the same age as Ford, and if I ever saw a guy doing that to a girl at a party, I would have been the first to pounce on the dirtbag. And I’d shudder to imagine him one day sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. READ it HERE
September 25, 2018
by Robert Stacy McCain, American Spectator Sept. 19, 2018
It is up to ‘We the People’ to judge the Kavanaugh case.
Where were you in the spring of 1982? Can you verify your whereabouts and produce evidence to establish that you weren’t molesting prep-school girls in suburban Maryland? Christine Blasey Ford insists she’s a victim and, while the main suspect is Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps no man can be entirely sure he won’t be summoned before the Senate Judiciary Committee in some future investigation.
Feminist “rape culture” discourse, which has sowed a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses in recent years, has escaped its native habitat and is now wreaking havoc in our politics, to say nothing of its damaging effect on our culture. Do I want to discuss what allegedly happened at a party in Montgomery County, Maryland, on an unspecified night in 1982? Do you want to read such a discussion? Do any of us want to watch such a claim litigated on national TV with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser testifying in front of a Senate panel, with cable-news pundits endlessly rehashing every angle of the sordid saga day after day?
If you’re raped, call that cops. This is what sensible people have been saying for years about the situation that has emerged on American college campuses, where claims of sexual assault have been removed from the criminal justice system and handed over to administrative panels. Universities conduct secretive hearings where students accused of sexual misconduct are systematically deprived of the due-process protections that would be their constitutional right, had their accusers simply called 911 to report these alleged crimes. Centuries of Anglo-American common-law precedent have been discarded in favor of star-chamber tribunals operating under the putative authority of federal Title X legislation.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser is a university professor. The former prep-school girl Christine Blasey went on to obtain two master’s degrees and a Ph.D. in psychology, marry an engineer named Russell Ford, and thus become Professor Ford of California’s Palo Alto University. Having spent her entire adult life working in academia, Professor Ford is eminently qualified as a representative of the mentality that currently prevails on our nation’s university campuses, where male students are presumed guilty of rape as soon as any female student accuses them.
By Debra Heine PJMedia September 14, 2018
In the wake of newly released text messages between fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova said he believes "the walls are closing in" on Obama-era FBI and Department of Justice Department officials.
Damning new texts obtained by Fox News this week show former FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page talking about government employees "leaking like mad" and media outlets competing for scoops in the run-up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
"The walls are closing in, but they're not closing in on the president. They're closing in on the FBI and the Department of Justice under President Obama," diGenova said on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night.
He explained that the new Strzok-Page texts exposed a strategy to "illegally and criminally" release Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant information, including releasing the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in the surveillance abuse.
"By mentioning Carter Page, they have now created massive civil liability for everybody involved in revealing Carter Page's name," diGenova declared. He cited the names of former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap, former FBI director James Comey, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI general counsel James Baker as people who are particularly vulnerable to civil liability. READ it HERE
The Blanket of Silence Andrew B. Wilson, American Spectator September 14, 2018
How intellectuals and the news media made light of a man-made socialist Catastrophe.
“All I know,” the British socialist Beatrice Webb confided in her diary in 1932 as she and her husband Sidney were writing a laudatory two-volume history of the Soviet Union, “is that I wish Russian communism to succeed.” The playwright George Bernard Shaw — a close friend of the Webbs, a fellow socialist, and a great admirer of the communist dictator Josef Stalin — claimed after a nine-day visit to Russia, “There was not, and could not be, a food shortage in the USSR.” Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow bureau chief from 1922 to 1936, took that falsehood and raised it to a still more preposterous height, assuring American readers that Soviet granaries “were overflowing with grain” and that the cows were “plump and contented.”
Unemployment in the United States reached a peak of 25 percent in the United States in 1933. As terrible as that was, there was human suffering on a far greater scale at this same time inside the Soviet Union: Famine wiped out scores of villages and caused millions of people to starve to death. This was a purely man-made famine — caused by the forced collectivization of agriculture, or the stamping out of an independent peasantry allowed to sell any part of their product in an open market.
Instead of merely extorting peasants to turn over a large portion of their harvests to the state at low prices, Stalin decided to wage class war against the kulaks in the Ukraine and North Caucasus — the more prosperous peasants… or any peasant who opposed the abolition of private farms and the herding together of all farmers into giant “grain factories.” Begun as a part of the Five-Year Plan of 1928, the inevitable result of this massive exercise in “social engineering” was chaos, crop failures, and the raging 1932-1933 famine. Read it HERE