by E. Michael Jones
As the November 2014 mid-term election season limped toward the finish line, it threatened to become one of the least consequential elections in the history of the state of Indiana. In fact, if the May primary election was any indication of how people were going to vote in November, the elections of 2014 were on course to set a record for low voter turnout. “Turnout was pretty bad yesterday,” said St. Joseph County Clerk Terri Rethlake one day after the May 2014 primary election, “only 6.48 percent.” Yes, the decimal point was in the proper place. The turnout was not 64.8 percent, which would have been low enough to invalidate an election in, say, Bosnia. It was 6.48 percent, which means according to United Nations’ standards (or anyone else’s) that this election was invalid because too few Hoosiers voted.
Not to be deterred by this obvious fact, the local politicians tried to see the silver lining in a very dark cloud. “I think it’s a fluke,” said Jake Teshka, Executive Director of the St. Joseph Country Republican Party. “I don’t think it’s really a cause for concern.” Then, contradicting what he just said, Teshka continued by saying that “the ballot he received when he went to the polls didn’t have a single competitive race on it.”
So maybe the low turnout wasn’t a fluke after all. Maybe the voters of St. Joseph County were trying to tell the politicians something that the politicians didn’t want to hear. Those suspicions deepened in the wake of the one and only debate between the two candidates in the one and only competitive race in the county, the race for the Congressional seat for the second district, which pitted Republican incumbent Jackie Walorski against Democratic challenger, Joe Bock. Walorski was at the end of her first term in office, after spending a career in the county as a fundraiser for Ancilla College and head of the local Chamber of Commerce. Bock was a professor of public health at the University of Notre Dame, who had served as a state legislator in Missouri some 20 years ago.
The debate itself was a carefully orchestrated ballet in which both incumbent and challenger danced around the issues. To begin with, the debate was held in Wabash, Indiana, a small town in the remotest corner of the Second Congressional District to insure low attendance. The mainstream media, who were actively collaborating with the candidates to keep the voters in the dark about the real issues in the election, hinted at this fact when Erin Blasko, wrote that “the 40-minute contest at the Dallas Winchester Senior Center [was] in Wabash about 60 miles southwest of Fort Wayne on the southern end of the district which includes all of St. Joseph County.” If we were looking for an analogy between St. Joseph County and the World, a location 60 miles southwest of Fort Wayne meant that the debate was being held somewhere near Kamchatka.
The South Bend Tribune, it should be noted, regularly harangues the voters of the Second Congressional District about their civic duty to vote. The fact that 6.48 percent of the population acted on this advice is some indication of the influence this newspaper has on voter behavior.
The debate was a hollow charade worthy of the worst excesses of the Breshnev era. In the Soviet Union, the workers pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them. In the United States, candidates for public office pretend that Republicans are different than Democrats. Walorski, who was still running TV ads of Jackie helping her mother fill out her social security forms as atonement for promising her Tea Party constituents during her campaign two years ago that she would privatize social security if elected, “focused on her efforts to reach across the aisle on issues such as military sexual assault, domestic violence and health care for veterans.” Joe Bock, for his part, “attacked Walorski for her vote on the government shutdown and for the Paul Ryan budget.” Both candidates simply read the list of talking points that their campaigns had issued months ago; neither candidate responded directly to the other candidate’s claims. And that was that. Afterward, 11 carefully scripted questions got asked—five from “an independent panel” and six from the audience. When one member of the audience asked the candidates for the top three issues facing the voters of the Second Congressional district, he got the following response: “Bock’s list included jobs, health care, and the threat of terrorism. Walorski’s included jobs, a balanced budget, and national security.”
The unanimity that came out of the debate shows, of course, that great minds run in the same circles. It also shows that elections have become a game in which the ball of political power gets dribbled down the court and passed from Republican to Democrat and back to Republican in a meaningless exercise that keeps the duopoly in power, all duly reported in The South Bend Tribune and the local TV stations, who profit from the political ads which the dribbling duopoly duly churns out as the local media’s main source of revenue—next to the latest big Pharma forms of anesthetization. But the waning influence of the local newspaper, which finds expression in its ever-decreasing physical size, says nothing about their intention, which is to keep the voters ignorant of what is going on while at the same time ensuring that they are active—nay, enthusiastic—participants in a system of governance that in no way represents their real interests. Chief Commissar in this regard is Jack Colwell, the aging pundit who reports on elections for The South Bend Tribune. Colwell, whose reporting can be relied on to take the side of the Democrats, the dominant party in South Bend, favors the hard-hitting question and answer format in his columns, as when he writes:
Q. So does Bock’s impressive win make him the favorite to defeat Congresswoman Walorski in the fall?
A. No. Far from it. Walorski, who had some high negative ratings in past campaign polls, has strengthened her image through work on legislation for veterans and to curtail sexual assaults in the military. She has a substantial lead in fundraising over Bock -- over a half million dollars more in cash on hand on April 1. And the district was drawn to be “safe” Republican.
Q. What will be the key issues in the race this fall?
A. Bock will cite that vote by Walorski on the government shutdown and her vote for budget proposals of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, contending that Ryan would destroy Medicare as it now operates and hurt students and the middle class. Walorski will continue to stress her opposition to Obamacare and contend that Bock would support the Affordable Care Act and other priorities and spending proposals of the Obama administration.
Q. So does Bock have a chance?
A. Of course. After all, Mullen, after the 2012 primary, went on to be an effective candidate and to darn near beat Walorski in that same Republican-drawn district. He was helped when Richard Mourdock, the tea party favorite for the Senate, spilled tea all over himself and hurt the entire Republican ticket. Outside factors could again affect the race, either way, helping Walorski to win big or giving Bock a better chance to pull an upset.
Q So, this election is important?
A Yes, even in Indiana, especially in the 2nd District, and for local races. Also, results for those “lesser” state offices sometimes have significant consequences.
The fact that only 6.48 percent of the electorate responded to these stimuli bespeaks the law of diminishing returns, if nothing else. If the “key issues” are what Jack Colwell says they are, why should anyone vote?
However, Jack Colwell is right. This election is important, but not for the reasons he mentioned. As I said, the main purpose of the local mainstream media is to keep the voters in the dark about the real issues. If the voters of Congressional District 2 came away from the Bock-Walorski debate thinking there was no difference between the two candidates, they were wrong. There was a significant difference, but no one, most certainly the candidates themselves, wanted to talk about it.
One day after the one and only debate for the Second Congressional District race, Joe Bock appeared on “Cable Access Michiana,” a local cable access TV show hosted by Notre Dame grad and sometime RV deliverer Peter Helland. During the course of Peter’s show, it became clear that the District 2 election was a crucial race for the Israel Lobby. After Eric Cantor, the de facto leader of the Israel Lobby in the House was unexpectedly defeated, Jackie Walorski is now being rumored as his successor. Not only that, it turns out that Joe Bock was “pro-terror”! The source for that claim was a posting by Beverly Sandler at the Rabbi Reflects Blogspot, which Helland read aloud during his show before soliciting Bock’s comments.
The tone of Sandler’s posting was nothing if not dire. It was like Jack Colwell columns but with real content instead. “Elections matter,” Sandler began:
Indiana Congressional district 2 pits very pro Israel incumbent against very anti Israel pro BDS candidate. Support Warlorski [sic] (endorsed by the Protect Our Heritage Pac/ (Midwest’s largest pro israel [sic] pac) against Joe Bock. Israel and the world can’t afford another anti Israel pro terrorist Congressman. Donations to https://donate.standwithjackie.com/ or jackiewarloski.com [sic] PASS this on to anyone who lives near South Bend
“[sic] As Jewish voters and supporters of Israel, it is our duty and responsibility to know who we voting [sic] for. In this information age we cannot allow facts to be buried.
To which we can only say, “Amen, Bev.” Thank God for “Jewish voters and supporters of Israel”! If it weren’t for them sending notes like this through the secret networks of the Israel Lobby, the goyim would never know what this election was really about. I for one think that Bev would be the ideal replacement for Jack Colwell, if he ever retires, because in listening to Bev we’re getting the news straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. We’re getting it directly from the Israel Lobby, which as Professors Walt and Mearsheimer have pointed out, control America’s foreign policy and the Congress as well, which Pat Buchanan characterized as “Israeli occupied territory.”
Bev in other words, gives us the best analysis of what this election is really about when she writes:
The voters of Indiana’s 2nd Congressional district (our neighboring South Bend Region) have a critical decision as we approach our 2014 election cycle. I know I do not want a congressional representative who believes culpability for global terrorism lies on the backs of Israel and the US. Such is the case as Professor Joe Bock from Notre Dame is challenging the current Representative Jackie Warlorski. [sic] While Rep. Walorski has been among Israel’s finest supporters in Congress, Joe Bock has a history of supporting pro-Palestinian anti-Israel institutions including Al-Quds University, Caritas Internationalis [sic], and the UN’s Division for Palestinian Rights.
Joe Bock, it turns out, is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill goy. No, not by a long shot. In fact, Bock:
openly exclaims [sic] injustices towards Palestinians without ever acknowledging the systematic terrorism Palestinians have engaged in. Bock advocates “Preaching the Word,” a Catholic social doctrine that applies biblical justice to the Palestinians. Bock was assigned Country Representative for Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Jerusalem-West Bank-Gaza program, and settled in East Jerusalem for 3 years, ending just before the 2nd Intifada. Bock’s wife Susan Lyke, who is also outspokenly anti-Israel has written. “I learned that Christians shouldn’t sit on the fence when (Israeli) injustice is at play.”
There you have it! The smoking gun! “Bock advocates ‘Preaching the Word,’ a Catholic social doctrine that applies biblical justice to the Palestinians”! Who knew? Why didn’t Jack Colwell bring this up in his column?
It only gets worse:
Joe Bock and his wife Susan Lyke are members and supporters of Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), a Palestinian Christian organization based in Jerusalem. FOSNA serves as the “voice for Palestinian Christians” against Israel’s policies and has been a driving force behind various Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel, including those initiated by mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. They employ a “Palestinian liberation theology” which is based on the premise that the Bible’s explicit descriptions of the land of Israel as belonging to the Jewish people must be repudiated and redefined. Friends of Sabeel’s agenda calls for the right of return for Palestinian refugees, an end to American policies that support and give aid to Israel, and active engagement in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Friends of Sabeel hosts large conferences on University campuses (including Notre Dame) featuring strong anti-Israel themes and speakers who accuse Israel of racism, oppression, and human rights violations. Their speakers have also depicted Israel as a systematically racist country comparing Israeli policies to Nazism. They outspokenly purport that the pro-Israel lobby is excessively powerful and that Israeli interests control the U.S. government’s foreign policy. Friends of Sabeel has similarly targeted high schools [sic] audiences throughout the U.S. in recent years. They sponsored an unsuccessful campaign in Minnesota against Israel Bonds stating it hoped their political efforts would be “replicated across the country to get state governments to pull their money out of investing in Israel.”
Bev is especially concerned about Christians supporting fellow Christians, especially when some of those Christians are Palestinians: “This Palestinian-Christian connection to other Christian groups is highly toxic, and a United States congressman that shares these views would have the ability to write and sponsor legislation that is very detrimental to Israel. How can we let this happen?”
To make sure that the “toxic” collaboration between Catholics and Palestinians does not happen, Sandler ends her posting with a ringing endorsement of Jackie Walorski. Unlike Joe Bock:
U.S. Rep. Jackie Warlorski [sic] has emerged as one of Israel’s strongest supporters. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, she has won bipartisan support for new measures increasing pressures on Iran. Upon returning from Israel last August Walorski stated “As Israel continues to experience constant terror threats from surrounding countries, the United States recognizes its special bond to Israel and is proud to be a strong ally. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I believe it is critical that the United States continues to focus on Israel’s security, particularly from the growing nuclear threat in Iran, to help stabilize the region and protect our own national security interests.” Both parties have identified this seat as a key battleground in 2014. With the rise of anti-semitism and Iran on the verge of nuclear power, we Jews are living in turbulent times that call for unity and action. How we respond to the detractors will determine how pro-Israel we are, REALLY.
At this point it’s worth pointing out that the only reason the voters of the Second Congressional District had a clue about the real meaning of the Bock-Walorski race was Peter Helland’s cable access TV show “Cable Access Michiana.” That TV show provided, as well, the only vehicle whereby Candidate Joe Bock could respond to claims which were being circulated through the Israel Lobby’s networks. Which is what he did on the day following the one and only official debate. Bock denounced the charge that he was “pro-terror” as libelous and went on to refute Sandler’s claims point by point. His support of Al-Quds University turns out to be a scholarship he gave to the son of a Palestinian taxi-driver. As for the other accusations, Bev condemns herself out of her own mouth.
The big question remains, however: Why did it take a cable access TV show to expose the real issue driving this election? Given his background and his status as the hopelessly underfunded underdog in this election, why did Joe Bock have to have Peter Helland drag this information out of him, especially since Bock knew that these libelous claims against him were circulating in the underground chambers of the Indiana Israel Lobby? Other questions need to be answered as well. If Jackie Walorski was determined to do an “attack video,” she certainly had material more relevant than a pay raise Bock voted for 22 years ago when in the Missouri state legislature. Taking the Bev route, however, would have entailed serious side effects for Jackie, the main one being that she would have outed herself as an agent of the Israel Lobby. So it’s easy enough to understand why Jackie would not want to go there.
But why is Joe Bock determined to collaborate in his own defeat by not raising the real issue driving this campaign? A Bock attack video would have been much simpler. He could have run footage of Jackie testifying before Congress that Israel does not target civilians followed by footage of the 3,000 some “untargeted” civilians who died during the Israeli incursion this past summer. Footage of the dead women and children who died after Israeli tanks shelled a UN school that was clearly marked as a shelter would have underscored his point. And then Joe Bock could have asked the $64,000 question: “Does Jackie Walorski represent the people of Indiana or the Israel Lobby?” But he didn’t, and why he didn’t will remain a point of conjecture.
As Joe Bock was leaving the WNIT studio in downtown South Bend after filming Peter’s show, I mentioned Jackie’s testimony before Congress and asked him if he thought that the Israelis intentionally targeted civilians. After some hemming and hawing, he said, “No, I don’t think they intentionally targeted civilians.” How he can maintain this position after living for three years in Israel is anyone’s guess. Does he secretly share Bev’s view that being “outspokenly anti-Israel” is tantamount to being “pro-terror.” He said he did not on Peter’s show, but if that is the case, why didn’t he say so in public before that?
The answer to that and other questions is our totally corrupt political system. The system is so corrupt that no one is allowed to talk about it, not even candidates who are being libeled by it and thereby doomed to defeat. Shorn of the religious input that the Catholic Church could have provided over the past 50 years, America was unable to prevent the complete eclipse of its own democratic principles and their replacement by the crudest form of Jewish plutocracy, symbolized best by the role which casino mogul Sheldon Adelson played in the 2012 presidential elections, or in the so-called “Sheldon Adelson Primary” which took place in the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections, or in the 20-some standing ovations that the entire American Congress gave to Binyamin Netanyahu in the Spring of 2011 in order to keep Jewish money flowing into their coffers. When asked what kind of government America’s founding fathers had created, Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Well, by the time George W. Bush left the White House in 2008, it was clear that America had entered into a state of totalitarian decadence that was the antithesis of everything that America’s founding fathers had sought to maintain.
The verdict of history is now in. “The West,” as Denethor claimed prophetically in J.R.R. Tolkien’s novel The Lord of the Rings, “has failed.” The experiment in ordered liberty which was launched by America’s founding fathers at the end of the 18th century has degenerated into an Israeli-managed police and surveillance state under the leadership of dual citizens like Michael Chertoff, whose body scanners now scrutinize our private parts in the hope of thwarting terrorist plots. Like its predecessors, the East German Stasi and the Bolshevik CHEKA, the Department of Homeland Security views the people as the enemy of the regime and relies on a network of Jewish spies, informants and commissars to keep them in line.
That Joe Bock is not a part of that regime and that Jackie Walorski is should be obvious by now. Unfortunately, what William Butler Yeats said in “The Second Coming” is truer now than when he wrote it almost 100 years ago: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”
Walorski defeated Bock by a wide margin: “Unofficially, Walorski collected 58.9 percent of the vote or 85,119 votes to 38.3 percent or 55,331 votes for Bock.” Walorski celebrated her victory by telling her supporters: “This is a great night for America” when what she should have said is that it was a great night for AIPAC. Bev can sleep better now that the pro-terror candidate was defeated.
Joe Bock blamed his defeat on “serious headwinds . . . on the national scene . . . including ISIS, the Ebola scare and an unpopular president,” but in the final analysis the main reason he lost the election was lack of funding. Walorski raised more than $1 million more than Bock in campaign contributions and outspent him 2-1. “Money is so dominant now in our political system it’s pathetic,” Bock said. “I can say I wish I would have had a better message, or that I would have shook [sic] more hands, but the bottom line is I needed more money.”
In the end, Bock’s post-mortem on his defeat was every bit as conventional as the campaign he ran. In the end, Bock didn’t deserve to win because he refused to take on the main issue driving this campaign, namely, the role of the Israel Lobby in Indiana’s Second Congressional District. Bock had the background to make this an issue in the campaign from the beginning, but he refused to do so. When Peter Helland brought up the issue on his cable access TV show late in the campaign, the Bock campaign tried—successfully, it turns out—to suppress the story. Because of their pressure, Helland’s show didn’t air until after the election, and Bock, who had nothing to lose at this point, went down to defeat anyway. When asked if Israel targeted civilians in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, Bock said no, thereby obliterating once again another key issue in the campaign, one which should have been raised from the beginning. As a result, the Israel Lobby got to control the election from behind the scenes, and the candidate who had the background to oppose them censored himself and lost the election.
Just as the polls were closing in Indiana on November 4, Amnesty International issued its report on the 50-day war in the Gaza, claiming that the IDF “showed ‘callous indifference’ to civilians in airstrikes on homes that felled entire families.” The New York Times and virtually every other article on the AI report cited the claim that “Palestinian armed groups fired thousands of indiscriminate rockets and mortar rounds into civilian areas of Israel,” suggesting a moral equivalence that was belied by the details of the report, which got suppressed by the mainstream media. During Operation Protective Edge, six Israeli civilians, including one four-year-old boy were killed by Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket attacks. Israeli airstrikes, on the other hand, killed 2,200 Palestinians, including more than 500 children in the course of destroying more than 100,000 buildings. To say that these casualties did not come as a result of direct targeting of civilians strains the credulity of all but the most rabid supporter of Israel, which is why the mainstream media reported on it in their biased fashion. “The repeated, disproportionate attacks on homes indicate that Israel’s current military tactics are deeply flawed and fundamentally at odds with international humanitarian law,” said Philip Luther, director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa program.
Mainstream media accounts omitted passages from the report which gave any evidence of the criminal disproportionality of Israel’s response:
In the single deadliest attack documented in the report, 36 members of four families including 18 children were killed when the three-storey al-Dali building, was struck. Israel has not announced why the building was targeted, but Amnesty International has identified possible military targets within the building.
The second deadliest attack appears to have targeted a member of the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ armed wing, who was outside the Abu Jame’ family home. The house was completely levelled killing 25 civilians including 19 children. Regardless of the intended targets, both of these attacks constitute grossly disproportionate attacks and under international law, they should have been cancelled or postponed as soon as it was evident that so many civilians were present in the house.
Israeli officials have failed to give any justification for carrying out these attacks. In some of the cases in this report Amnesty International has not been able to identify any possible military target. In those cases it appears that the attacks directly and deliberately targeted civilians or civilian objects, which would constitute war crimes.
Joe Bock could have cited this report during his campaign, but in spite of the fact that he was uniquely qualified to raise the issue of the Israel Lobby and its control of the second district as part of his campaign, he chose not to and, as a result, deserved to lose the election. Joe announced on Peter Helland’s show that he was working with J Street, the liberal Jewish Lobby. Whether he refused to raise the issue or he was cowed into not raising the issue by his staff is immaterial now.
In the end, Joe Bock’s moral failure should provide a cautionary tale to future challengers to unseat the Israel Lobby’s incumbent. This issue is not going to go away. Jackie Walorski’s video defending Israeli war crimes is still accessible on youtube, and it will most probably remain there as long as she is the pawn of Jewish money. The only question is whether another challenger will have the courage to mention the Jewish elephant in the second district room. The evidence about Israel’s intention is now in. The Israelis targeted civilians; the Israelis are guilty of war crimes. Jackie Walorski is on record as supporting their criminal activity. As Philip Luther put it: “It is tragic to think that these civilian deaths could have been prevented. The onus is on Israeli officials to explain why they chose to deliberately flatten entire homes full of civilians, when they had a clear legal obligation to minimize harm to civilians and the means of doing so.”
E. Michael Jones is the editor of Culture Wars magazine.
This article appears in the December 2014 issue of Culture Wars.
 http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Null-Bock Null-Bock-inf in cpds apathetic, Null-Bock-Generation, generation characterized by general apathy, “couldn’t care less” generation, disaffected youth Null-Bock-Haltung “couldn’t care less” attitude.
 Erin Blasko, “Rivals Stick to Script,” SBT, 10/22/14, p. 1.
 Erin Blasko, “Rivals Stick to Script,” SBT, 10/22/14, p. 1.
 Erin Blasko, “Rivals Stick to Script,” SBT, 10/22/14, p. 1.
 Erin Blasko, “Rivals Stick to Script,” SBT, 10/22/14, p. 1.
 Erin Blasko, “Walorski Beats Bock,” SBT, 11/05/14, p. 1.
 Blasko, p. 2.
 Blasko, p. 3.
Wars • 206 Marquette Avenue • South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574)
289-9786 • Fax: (574) 289-1461