Islamic State Claims Responsibility as Homicide Bombers Slaughter at Least 80 in Kabul (VIDEO)

It's every day now.

It's catastrophic slaughter on a daily basis.

At WSJ, "Suicide Bomber Kills at Least 80 in Kabul":

KABUL—Three suicide bombers killed at least 80 people and wounded more than 230 others at a protest in Kabul on Saturday, according to the Afghan health ministry, where thousands had gathered to demonstrate against plans to reroute a new power line.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack on a “gathering of Shiites,” the group’s affiliated Amaq news agency reported, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist activity.

It is the first attack claimed by the Sunni extremist group in the Afghan capital. Islamic State emerged as foreign forces were withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2014 and has established a stronghold in the eastern part of the country.

An Afghan intelligence agency official said the attack was carried out by three suicide bombers dispatched from Islamic State’s eastern stronghold in the Achin district. “There were three bombers and they were all armed with suicide vests. Probably they all detonated their explosives at once,” the official said...

More.

Antiwar Left Seeks to Recreate Protests of 1968

Some in the antiwar movement are hoping for a '08 reprise to the summer of '68 protests at the Democratic National Convention, which was held in Chicago that year. The Politico's got the report:

A coalition of anti-war groups is vowing to protest this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Denver under the rubric “Re-create ’68,” prompting criticism from some on the left who are loath to revisit what they see as a disastrous time for both the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party.

Capping a year that saw the assassinations of both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention erupted in violence as thousands of Chicago police officers, supported by U.S. Army troops and National Guardsmen, battled in the streets with activists protesting the Vietnam War. Inside the convention hall, the Democrats chose as their presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the general election to Richard Nixon.

Re-create ’68?

“What’s the political calculation that speaks to them of the wisdom of civil disobedience — which means a massive media spectacle — on the brink of a Democratic campaign that could plausibly put a Democrat in the White House who’s committed to withdrawal from Iraq?” asked Todd Gitlin, an anti-Vietnam War activist who was at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. “If the objective is to put a belligerent Republican in the White House, they should keep up the good work.”

The “belligerent Republican” of whom Gitlin speaks will almost certainly be Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who spent the summer of 1968 as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Organizers acknowledge that their “Re-create ’68” moniker has been met with skepticism as they’ve toured the country to gin up support among fellow activists. “A lot of people of course associate it with the DNC of ’68 and react negatively,” said organizer Mark Cohen. But the point, Cohen said, isn’t to reproduce the violence associated with the 1968 convention, just the strong sense of countercultural protest that coalesced against the Vietnam War. “We don’t call ourselves ‘Re-create Chicago ’68,’” Cohen offered.

If antiwar radicals want to showcase their extremist views to a national television audience, by all means, let it rip.

The more examples of hard-left extremist antics that are distributed, the better it will be to paint the Democrats as in the tank with the most nihilist forces on the fringe of left-wing popular culture.

Are You With PETA on This One...?

I love elephants. I'd like to know if the trainers' whips can be used without the beating. But given how casual the men look, I have no doubt that those elephants get whapped into line routinely. My family skipped Ringling Bros. this summer. Every year the animal rights activists are out there protesting. It's hard not to shamed, and readers know that's a trick with me!

The New York Daily News has the story, "PETA Video Shows Ringling Bros. Circus Handlers Beating Elephants":

The world-famous Ringling Bros. circus faces fresh accusations of animal abuse today after undercover videos show handlers beating elephants before they enter the ring.

The tape, made by a man who posed as a stagehand for six months, is likely to stir outrage and give animal rights activists new ammunition in their campaign against the circus that bills itself "The Greatest Show on Earth."

A worker with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals used a secret camera to document what the group calls the abuse of animals as they're led from holding pens to the stage.

The animals are seen herded together, wearing headdresses, while trainers stand around, appearing to randomly whip them with bull hooks across the head, legs and body.

Loud cracking noises can be heard.

In one scene, a handler curses an elephant, saying, "F--- you, fat ass" before using his whip to nonchalantly strike its trunk.

The elephants are led with a bull hook - a long pole with a metal point at the end - used to pull them by the trunk.

The undercover PETA employee scored a job with Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus and traveled with the circus as it toured seven states, a spokesman said.

Footage was shot between January and June, the animal rights organization said, and included a stint at Madison Square Garden.

"He witnessed these elephants being beaten for no apparent reason," said Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA's vice president for cruelty investigations, who described the abuse as "consistent" and "routine."

"We've known for years that backstage beatings occur," said Nachminovitch, "but what will strike the audience is that these elephants can't do anything right as far as these workers go.

"This sort of behavior is deeply embedded."

Ringling Bros. officials said they were unaware of the video and could not comment on its content, but they maintained their animals are treated properly.

"PETA is an animal rights extremist group," said Steve Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment, which owns Ringling Bros.

The guy's right about PETA being extremist. See Jacob Laksin, "Animal Rights Extremism Meets Academia." That piece discusses Gary Yourofsky, a hardline radical activist who's been banned in Britain for seeking to "foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs ..."

That sounds about right. I wrote about some related issues earlier at, "J. David Jentsch Stands Up to Animal Rights Extremists." At that piece I link to Roger Scruton's key essay, Animal Rights."

For reasons found at those links, no matter how much I abhor this treatment of the elephants, I just can't get too close to these radical activists ideologically and politically - if not physically.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum. Also, blogging, Perez Hilton, which shouldn't be surprising I guess ...

The West Bank's Other Violent Extremists

You had the stabbing death at the gay rights parade, as well as the arson bombing attack that killed a Palestinian baby.

I had a couple of posts, "Israel Braces for Violence, Hamas Rockets, After Palestinian Baby Killed in Firebombing," and "Meir Ettinger, Grandson of Meir Kahane, is Held in Israel."

So, FWIW, here's a look back to Daniel Byman and Natan Sachs's piece from the September/October 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Rise of Settler Terrorism":

Late this past June, a group of Israeli settlers in the West Bank defaced and burned a mosque in the small West Bank village of Jabaa. Graffiti sprayed by the vandals warned of a "war" over the planned evacuation, ordered by the Israeli Supreme Court, of a handful of houses illegally built on private Palestinian land near the Israeli settlement of Beit El. The torching of the mosque was the fourth such attack in 18 months and part of a wider trend of routine violence committed by radical settlers against innocent Palestinians, Israeli security personnel, and mainstream settler leaders -- all aimed at intimidating perceived enemies of the settlement project.

This violence has not always plagued the settler community. Although many paint all Israeli settlers as extremists, conflating them with the often-justified criticism of Israeli government policy in the West Bank, the vast majority of them oppose attacks against Palestinian civilians or the Israeli state. In the past, Israeli authorities and the settler leadership often worked together to prevent such assaults and keep radicalism at bay. Yet in recent years, the settler movement has experienced a profound breakdown in discipline, with extremists now beyond the reach of either Israeli law enforcement or the discipline of settler leaders.

Nothing justifies violence by extremists of any variety. But to be stopped, it must be understood. The rise in settler radicalism stems from several key factors: the growth of the settler population over the past generation, the diversification of religious and ideological strands among it, and the sense of betrayal felt by settlers following Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Israel, through the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and other security agencies, must now assert control over groups that no longer respect the state or the traditional settler leadership. Yet just as radical settlers pose an increasing threat, mainstream Israeli society has become more apathetic than ever about the fate of the Palestinians. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians remain deadlocked, and even their meaningful resumption, let alone success, seems unlikely in the near future. The Israeli government thus feels little political or diplomatic pressure to confront the extremists.

But with the peace process frozen, what happens under Israeli control matters more, not less. With Israel likely to govern parts of the West Bank for some time, it can no longer shirk its obligations -- to protect not only its own citizens but Palestinian civilians as well -- by claiming that a two-state solution is on the horizon and that the Palestinians will soon assume full responsibility over themselves. And if Israel wants to preserve the possibility of a negotiated peace, it must address this problem before it is too late. Whenever extremist settlers destroy Palestinian property or deface a mosque, they strengthen Palestinian radicals at the expense of moderates, undermining support for an agreement and delaying a possible accord. Meanwhile, each time Israeli leaders cave in to the demands of radical settlers, it vindicates their tactics and encourages ever more brazen behavior, deepening the government's paralysis. In other words, Israeli violence in the West Bank both undermines the ability of Israel to implement a potential deal with the Palestinians and raises questions about whether it can enforce its own laws at home.

Recently, Israeli leaders have begun to recognize the problem. Following extremist vandalism against the IDF and mainstream settler leaders over the past year, some Israeli generals and government ministers began to label radical settlers as terrorists. Now, the Israeli government should translate that bold rhetoric into decisive action. To begin with, it should officially designate the perpetrators of violence as terrorists and disrupt their activities more aggressively. Security agencies should then enforce Israeli law, prosecuting violent settlers as they would terrorists, Palestinian or Israeli. And to slow the tide of radicalism, Israeli leaders must denounce extremists and shun their representatives, placing particular pressure on religious leaders who incite violence. Meanwhile, the United States and other countries seeking to revive the peace talks must encourage Israel to take these steps before things worsen. Washington should itself consider designating violent radical settlers as terrorists and should push Israel to crack down on them. Settler extremism tarnishes Israel's name and imperils its future. Friends of Israel, the Israeli government, and even those who support the settlements in the West Bank should fight back against this dangerous phenomenon...

Keep reading.

RELATED: At the New York Times, "Soul-Searching in Israel After Bias Attacks on Gays and Arabs."

Right Wing Extremist Kristina Ribali!

Nothing like a big beautiful buxom blonde toting an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, lol.

On Twitter:

@JayCaruso Did you see what I won? Yeah... I'm an extremist. Extremely happy! pic.twitter.com/P1YuPMo21U

— Kristina Ribali (@KristinaRibali) April 6, 2014

Obama's Far Left-Wing Backlash

I've commented a couple of times now on the netroots outrage that's erupted in the wake of Barack Obama's FISA vote for telecom immunity. I seriously doubt that "progressive" contingents would consider abandoning the Illinois Senator for some throwaway vote alternative, or God-forbid, the GOP standard-bearer.

It nevertheless does look like there's some real alienation among young voting idealists, who're now shocked - shocked! - that Obama would tack to the center after wrapping up the nomination. Today's New York Times even has a big story on this, "Obama Supporters on Far Left Cry Foul":

Joe McCraw, 27, a video engineer from San Carlos, Calif., who writes three liberal blogs, said Mr. Obama’s shift on the domestic spying measure was a watershed moment.

“This is the first time I’ve ever seen him lie to us, and it makes me feel disappointed,” Mr. McCraw said. “I thought he was going to stand up there, stand by his campaign promises like he said he would, and it turns out he’s another politician.”

Many Obama supporters said the most vocal complaining about various policy positions was largely relegated to liberal bloggers and people who might otherwise support Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, or Dennis J. Kucinich, the liberal Ohio congressman who dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year.

“I think it’s accentuated by the fact that Obama’s appeal is an appeal to idealism,” said Kari Chisholm, who runs a blog, blueoregon.com, and does Internet strategy for Democratic candidates. “They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama’s is very mainstream. I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them.”

This raises some interesting puzzles:

First, while it's certainly true that far left-wing activists are idealistic, what explains their own sense they are the "mainstream," and hence their resistance to terms like "radical" or "leftist," the types of people the Times is discussing? For example, Markos Moulitsas has long claimed his netroots hordes represent today's political center, which I've characterized as megalomania on a number of occasions. The mainstream press doesn't really see these folks that way.

Things get even more complicated if we consider figures like Senator Joseph Lieberman, who very likely will be driven from the Democratic Party because of the hardline antiwar forces among the party base (he's likely a special case of one who's paid a genuine price for extremist antiwar anger).

Still, it's fun to see the hard-lefties squirm when the press identifies them as "hard left," for example, Digby:

The NY Times has published a story proving that the only Democrats who give a damn about wireless surveillance, or anything else of substance for that matter, are a bunch of crazed, leftwing freaks...

Hey, her words, not mine, but I can dig it, Digby!

(Added bonus: Outrage at Comments From Left Field!).

Second, though, is the deeper, essential issue: Is Obama himself really the "mainstream"?

This is where Obama's political skills have really come in handy!

As we have learned throughout the year, the Illinois Senator attended Trinity Lutheran Church for roughly 20 years, absorbing a black liberation theology that has been identified as a gospel of revolution; he has known ties to ex-revolutionary fugitives William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, activists today who still denounce the United States and stomp on the American flag; he has a personal religious pedigree that raises startling questions about his sectarian fidelity to the nation's Anglo-Protestant heritage; his family ties have deep and troubling foundations in doctrinaire Marxist-Leninist activism and ideology; he espouses a form of patriotism that places him firmly in the minority demographics of public opinion; he's got a record of public policy that's been identified as the most left-wing of any of his contemporaries in government; and he's been beating the drums for an unconditional surrender in Iraq louder than most mainstream political leaders, with the exception of also-rans like Kucinich and Ron Paul, all the while trying to backtrack from his own antiwar retreatism.

But hey, some in the Democratic Party must think this is mainstream!

If Barack Obama wins the presidency the United States will have elected a genuine far-left candidate, which raises another puzzle: Is socialism coming to America?

Maybe those lefties aren't so extremist after all!!

Photo Credit: New York Times

Just Awful: Progressives Ecstatic Over Anders Behring Breivik Alleged Ties to Right-Wing Extremism

I had a brief Twitter exchange yesterday with Ruwayda Mustafah and Hena Zuberi. As information on Oslo's terrorism was still coming in --- and reports were going back and forth over a possible Islamist connection --- Mustafah tweeted: "@HenaZuberi @hindhassanmany Oh so there's still hope for bigots?" That's a dead link to @hindhassanmany, but Hena Zuberi was also going on about how bigoted it was to even consider Islamist jihad as the movement behind yesterday's attacks.

And now here's progressive Leah McElrath on Twitter, cheering a New York Times report that links to a video manifesto credited to Anders Behring Breivik, which as later uploaded to YouTube. And notice McElrath's good night tweet:

Well, that actually wasn't McElrath's last tweet. She took time to block JoannaOC in Minneapolis, who called her out for distributing progressive propaganda. McElrath gets angry for being called out, and claims she's saving lives. JoannaOC is trying to focus on the miracle of life and God's grace of survival. Leah McElrath is spreading left-wing propaganda and hate.

In any case, here's the main story at New York Times, "Right-Wing Extremist Charged in Norway" (via Memeorandum). Also trending today is James Fallows' attack on Jennifer Rubin, "The Washington Post Owes the World an Apology for this Item."

Michelle Malkin responds, "No, James Fallows, the Washington Post doesn’t owe “the world” an apology":

The death toll has risen to a staggering 90-plus in the Norway massacre.

It is evil in its most unfathomable depths. There are now reports of a possible second gunman/accomplice, according to CBS News and VOA. Howie at the Jawa Report says it well: “As a Christian I have to say I condemn his actions in the strongest terms. In fact the only praise I’ve seen of the attacks were not by Christians. This is cold blooded murder and no true follower of Christ could do such a thing. We pray for the victims, their families and for those who are injured to recover.” Here is a beautiful prayer for the people of Norway.

Here in America, many on the Left have reserved their greatest outrage not for the perpetrators of the crime, but for conservatives who — like many counterterrorism watchers and mainstream media outlets around the world — initially raised the entirely reasonable possibility that the gunman was a jihadist and who pointed to recent, specific death threats and plots against Norway and Norwegian government officials by Islamic militant groups and individuals.

Those initial assessments were wrong. I was wrong. As I noted yesterday and will reiterate again today for the reading comprehension-challenged:

…the context and timing most definitely suggested jihad and there should be no apology for reading the signs and connecting several large, obvious dots.

Unlike those who speculated that the Giffords’ shooter was a Tea Party activist and held onto the assumption even after it was disproved, I will not continue to insist that jihadists bear blame for this heinous attack if it turns out they played no role.

I will continue to be vigilant in thoroughly covering the global jihadist threat — and in condemning this heinous attack in Norway whoever is responsible.
Prayers for all the innocents. Standing with Norway.

Over at the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin yesterday afternoon published a blog post mentioning some of the same information I brought to light yesterday morning as the news of the terrifying attacks broke — namely, that bloodthirsty Norwegian-based Muslim cleric Mullah Krekar was founder of Ansar Al-Islam and that jihadists have implanted themselves in every corner of the globe. She goes on to argue for continued, vigilant war against the global jihadists who remain at centuries-old, systemic war with us.

Atlantic editor James Fallows — in a prominent rant — is now clamoring for the Post to “apologize to the world” for Rubin’s post and fumes that the post has not been updated. There may be any number of reasons for her not updating yet and being offline — family obligations, Sabbath, etc. I’m pretty sure the reason is NOT that she’s purposely ignoring or misleading her readers or intentionally insulting/smearing “the world,” as Fallows seems to suggest. (In a similar meme, Twitter libs somehow have accused me of “falling silent” about the Norway horror despite the constant updating of my blog post throughout the day and night, in addition to day-and-night-long tweets as news developed.)

Check Michelle's blog for all the links. I wanted to quote at length. I linked yesterday to Jawa Report and The Other McCain, both of whom continued updating with reports on where the evidence was leading. In contrast, people like Charles Johnson used the attacks to score points on political enemies, posting a series of blogs attacking Pamela Geller and other counter-jihad bloggers, alleging their responsibility for terrorism in Norway. In fact, Anders Behring Breivik had no clear ideological agenda, and didn't appear to be an ideological or religious extremist.

I'll update with more, but I want to reiterate one of Michelle's key points:

Unlike those who speculated that the Giffords’ shooter was a Tea Party activist and held onto the assumption even after it was disproved, I will not continue to insist that jihadists bear blame for this heinous attack if it turns out they played no role.

I will continue to be vigilant in thoroughly covering the global jihadist threat — and in condemning this heinous attack in Norway whoever is responsible.

And that's the vital difference. Conservatives are anti-terror, no matter the source. Progressives are anti-conservative and turn a blind eye to terrorism unless it comes from the right.

That's evil and gets more people killed.

Where is the Political Middle?

With Barack Obama appointing establishment Democrats to key posts in his upcoming administration, leftists are braying that "progressivism" has been abandoned: Obama was a centrist all along, don't you know, and forget about hopes for a truly left-wing ideological agenda after the inauguration.

Glenn Greenwald published an e-mail from Digby, where she actually cheers the economic crisis as helping promote the left-wing agenda, the only thing truly pushing U.S. towards socialism:

The villagers and the right made it very clear what they required of Obama - bipartisanship, technocratic competence and center-right orthodoxy. Liberals took cultural signifiers as a sign of solidarity and didn't ask for anything. So, we have the great symbolic victory of the first black president (and that's not nothing, by the way) who is also a bipartisan, centrist technocrat. Surprise.

There are things to applaud about the cabinet picks -- Clinton is a global superstar who, along with Barack himself, signals to the world that the US is no longer being run by incompetent, extremist, political fringe dwellers. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Gaithner is a smart guy who has the trust of the Big Money Boyz, which may end up being useful considering the enormous and risky economic challenges ahead. Emmanuel is someone who is not afraid to wield a knife and if we're lucky he might just wield it from time to time against a Republican or a right wing Democrat. Napolitano seems to have a deft political touch with difficult issues like immigration which is going to be a battleground at DHS. And on and on.

None of them are liberals, but then Obama said repeatedly that he wasn't ideological, that he cared about "what works." I don't know why people didn't believe that. He's a technocrat who wants to "solve problems" and "change politics." The first may actually end up producing the kind of ideological shift liberals desire simply because of the dire set of circumstances greeting the new administration. (Hooray for the new depression!) The second was always an empty fantasy - politics is just another word for human nature, and that hasn't changed since we were dancing around the fire outside our caves.

If you want to press for a cabinet appointment at this late date who might bring some ideological ballast, I would guess that labor and energy are where the action is. It would be really helpful to have somebody from the left in the room when the wonks start dryly parceling out the compromises on the economy and climate change. But basically, we are going to be dealing with an administration whose raison d'etre is to make government "work." That's essentially a progressive goal and one that nobody can really argue with. But he never said he would make government "work" for a liberal agenda. Liberals just assumed that.

Now, Big Tent Democrat has a different take. He's not too worried about any lurch to the right. Indeed, putting all these establishment types in office will simply be a way to reposition progressivism as the new political center:

By default, President-Elect Obama gets to define what the middle is. I believe he will define progressivism as the middle. If that is called "Center-Right," so much the better. Consider what that makes Extreme Republicanism (out of the mainstream of political thought instead of occupying the White House) and what that makes the formerly loony Left (the respectable Left flank.) Role reversal. This is a good thing.

I'm putting my money on Big Tent's prediction. Digby's a loon, not to mention Greenwald. But Big Tent's already been attacked as a traitor to the neo-Marxist vision of today's radical left, so for him to suggest the possibility of a new "progressive middle" is a major concession.

And that's the key: Establishment Democrats are just that, part of the governmental establishment. If they've had to tack to the political center, meaning a genuinely moderate-to-conservative balance point, that's because other political actors and the American public required it. Now with unified Democratic control of Congress and the executive come January, we'll see the greatest political liberation on the left since the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Nolan Finley, at the Detroit News, puts things in perspective:

As they await his ascension, Republicans are reassuring themselves that President-elect Barack Obama, worried about winning re-election in four years, will shake off a lifetime of liberal allegiance and govern the nation from the middle.

They're delusional. Little that Obama has said or done since Election Day supports that theory. Rather, there's every indication that Obama will enthusiastically lead the liberals who now firmly control Washington in enacting a far-left agenda.

Take as proof last week's unwarranted dumping of Dearborn's John Dingell as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The libs scored their first major victory by replacing the moderate Dingell with environmental extremist Henry Waxman of California, and Obama didn't intervene.

That's because his own views on the environment fall closer to Waxman's than to Dingell's. He's already promised to rescind the executive order opening Utah's promising oil shale fields to exploration and will fully undo the domestic oil production expansion Democrats reluctantly agreed to before the election.

Since the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, most Democrats who've won office have done so by dodging the liberal label and declaring themselves pro-growth moderates. Even true liberals eschewed that word, insisting that they be called "progressives."

And while Obama hasn't embraced the liberal label, he has endorsed the ideology.

Listen to what he's saying. On the economy, he's calling for a stimulus package that will create jobs through massive government spending on new projects and programs, rather than by cutting taxes and improving the business climate. Start packing, Adam Smith; welcome home, John Maynard Keynes.

Also on his early schedule is a promise to push through the Freedom of Choice Act, which will exempt abortion from all reasonable regulation by the states.

Big Labor has been assured he'll fight to make it easier to organize workers and harder to adopt free trade agreements.

Finley basically makes the case the Obama's early appointments are window dressing for the true leftist agenda being hatched under the radar.

I simply see the positioning of top moderates as bringing to power the establishment Democrats who have thus far been frustrated by checks and balances and public approbation.

When we see Obama call for tax increases on incomes as low as $31,000, when we see global warming legislation elevated to holy writ to save the world, when non-uniformed terrorist killers at Guantanamo are affored public defenders, and when spending programs from public works to welfare entitlments are expanded to the highest levels since the War on Poverty, we'll know just how progressive this new administration really is.

Of course, Greenwald and Digby still won't be satisfied until we nationalize the economy and dismantle the military.

Radical Feminists and Sarah Palin

Kenneth Davenport has already done a fabulous job identifying the abject hatred found on the feminist left for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who is shown below caring for her 4 month-old son just after being introduced as the GOP vice-presidential running mate in Dayton, Ohio, on August 29.

Palin has been slurred as a "token" and stalking horse for Hillary Clinton's cadre of women voters alienated with the Democratic Party's abject sexism demonstrated in the primaries.

The good news, however, is that with the Palin pick, Americans can get a genuine look at what the radical women's rights agenda is all about. It's not about honoring women who work hard, play by the rules, and take on the entrenched big-boys bureaucracy, all the while holding down the role of outstanding wife and mother.

Indeed, Palin is threatening to radical feminists because she shows that a women from a small-town background with regular, all-American education and working-class credentials is the ultimate alternative to the post-1960s women's liberationist ideology of having it all, but only on my politically-correct terms, baby.

When the news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy broke through to dominate the media cycle today, prominent feminist bloggers attacked Governor Palin for the alleged totalitarian stifling of her daughter's right to choose. Here's Ann Friedman, for example, on the press release on Bristol's decision to have her child:

While it's obvious why they made this statement to assure the public that Bristol was not coerced into keeping the baby (after all, she does have a parent who is a staunch opponent of the right to choose and is currently on the Republican presidential ticket), as my significant other pointed out, there's some serious hypocrisy at play here. I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don't believe women have a right to choose. It's absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol "made this decision," and then push for policies that take away that choice.

In reality, Bristol's actual "choice" was probably not whether to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term, but whether raise the child herself or put it up for adoption. But the reason that the McCain campaign chose to emphasize Bristol's agency in this decision was to reassure the public that this pregnancy is not coercive. They know the public wants to feel secure in the knowledge that it was Bristol's choice to keep the pregnancy. And coming from the McCain campaign, which opposes a woman's right to choose, that statement is disgusting.

What Freidman here is basically saying (by assumption, since the family's decision-making is a private matter) is that as parents the Palins should not in fact be able to counsel their daughter on what to do, that is, they should not as custodians have a say on the welfare of their grandchild. In other words, they have violated Bristol's rights. Note, of course, that the Supreme Court has upheld parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortion, so Friedman's criticism is an all-out attack on the sanctity of the family institution.

But see also Echidne's quick rant on McCain's alleged anti-feminist decision-making:

My head is spinning. My first reaction to the choice of Palin was that John McCain is one of those funny guys who things [sic] of the concept of a "woman" as a spoonful out of some imaginary mountain of the characteristic "womanhood", so that any woman is just as good as any other woman, and that he doesn't see any reason why feminists wouldn't vote for Palin. Even if Palin only supports abortion in the case when a woman's life is at risk. No rape exception ... But she's got a vagina, right? So those feminazis must like her.

This is a strange passage, considering how empowered Sarah Palin is, domestically, politically, and socially. To call McCain a sexist in selecting the Alaska Governor defies reason, unless a women in office is only good for rubber-stamping the radical hard line on abortion on demand.

Katha Pollitt, however, at the Nation, probably offerred the most vehement feminist attack on Palin seen so far:

Palin is a rightwing-Christian anti-choice extremist who opposes abortion for any reason whasoever, except to save the life of the girl or woman. No exception even for rape, incest, or the health of the woman. No exception for a ten-year-old, a woman carrying a fetus with no chance of life, a woman on the edge of suicide - let alone the woman who is not ready to be a parent, who is escaping domestic violence, who is already stretched to the limit as a single mother. She wants to force over one million women and girls a year to give birth against their will and judgment. She wants to use the magnificent freedom the women's movement has won for her at tremendous cost and struggle - the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska - to take away the freedom of every other woman in the country.

"Christian" and "extremist" in the same sentence is jolting, but all the rest of this leaves out something important: Why are "over one milliion women and girls" ending up in situations where they'd need to terminate a life? Isn't the freedom to choose a death warrant for the human product of sex without responsibility?

As for all of the other extreme examples Pollitt outlines, I'm sure Palin herself will respond do these questions herself during the course of the campaign. But politically, if the balance is between a "woman stretched thin" having a child she might not have the means to care for, or of an infant born as the result of a botched abortion, without any power whatsoever to escape the cold, uncaring death of a Chicago-area soiled linen-closet, I doubt many Americans would have a hard time identifying the true extreme between the alternatives.

But note one more example in Taylor Marsh, who so eloquently rebutted sexism against Hillary Clinton during the primaries, but reserves nothing but disdain for Sarah Palin's own career and family choices now that it's clear there's no political angle to be gained any longer by hammering Barack Obama:

At some point, women have to stand up and say no to insulting selections that make a mockery of the rest of us who have not only had to pay our dues, but wait our turn. It took Hillary Clinton 35 years to prove her prowess. It's taken me decades, including honorable investigative work that is often ridiculed, plus years of working tirelessly to make a name for myself, to get where I am today. Women need to be able to stand up against and separate themselves from a political marketing plan based solely on packaging, as opposed to a worthy choice that honors the expertise of women of real stature. The choice of Sarah Palin is gender affirmative action and nothing more, which no independent woman should support or condone. It's nothing less than a slap in the face to all sisters wanting equality based on merit, not marketing.

It all reeks of genuine nihilism (i.e., anti-progress nothingness devoted to the destruction of the traditional family).

As Davenport agued today, Sarah Palin is "the wrong kind of woman." In other words, radical feminists deny successful, family-oriented womanhood to women who don't toe the line to the gendered totalitarianism of abortion on demand for custodial minors or for women whose achievements don't qualify as "real stature" outside of the (f)rigid feminist pro-choice quota system.

Photo Credit: McCain Blogette

Anti-Semitic Extremism and the Democratic Party Base

As regular readers will recall, I recently denounced Daily Kos for the publication last week of an extremely anti-Semitic post, "Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

If you check the link, the post is still available, despite deep criticisms by top conservative blogs (here and here, for example).

In the entry, I asked, "Is this the future of the Democratic Party, announcing the inevitable destruction of the state of Israel?"

But for this one commenter went so far as to say that my attention to the issue shows just as much culpability in sponsoring anti-Jewish hatred as Markos Moulitisas. That's to be expected. I get extremists from the left and the right, and they never denounce the hatred, they never denounce the Muslim calls to wipe Israel to the sea, they never denounce the left-wing cheering at the illness or death of conservatives, and they never denounce the radical alliance between Islam and socialism, which has applauded (if not abetted) the killing of American soldiers in Iraq.

But I want to be out front here in my position: I unequivocally repudiate anti-Semitism, as well as extremist attacks on political opponents. For, example, I pledged earlier today, to "denounce" right-wing extremists just as forcefully as I do the left.

I'll do that right here: In a post Tuesday, Michelle Makin asked:

Put aside your political differences and join me in keeping Sen. Ted Kennedy and his family in your prayers as they grapple with the news of his malignant brain tumor diagnosis.

Unfortunately, some of her commenters were not able to do that:

I just dont feel an ounce of sympathy for this man.

Even if I belived [sic] in something to pray to, I’m not sure i could muster the energy to do so. Perhaps that makes me a monster, but…so be it.

I just cant do it. Sorry.

*****

When Ted crosses over, I’m sure he will be welcomed by the millions of Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese who died because of his wretched policies. He has been the worse Senator of the 20th century and perhaps the most destructive political force in the history of the country.

*****

Sorry I cannot summon any sympathy for the author of the 1965 destructive ‘immigration bill’ that he last year tried to top with an even more destructive ’scamnesty’ bill. He has done more damage to the USA than any other 10 senators put together. So, upon his demise, we are holding an exuberant ‘Irish wake’. Can hardly wait!!

There are more comments like this at the post (note that these are a small minority in the thread).

I most categorically forcefully, and indisputably reject these views (check also Little Green Footballs for some media hypocrisy on "policing" hate comments, "The Beam in Howard Kurtz's Eye").

But to continue with the problem of modern far-left anti-Semitism, in my earlier post, I suggested that by sponsoring extreme Israel-bashing diarists Markos Moulitsas himself endorses anti-Jewish hatred. Further, and more importantly, because Kos claims that his movement represents the mainstream of the Democratic Party, it's not unreasonable to ask: What explains the shift among the grassroots of the Democratic Party toward annihilationist anti-Semitism? How pronounced a trend is this?

Apparently, this is a very serious problem for the Democratic Party. As this story from the American Thinker notes:

Developments in the Democratic Party bode ill for the Jewish people and for the state of Israel — home of up to 40% of the world's remaining Jewish population. The rank and file of the Party has become increasingly anti—Semitic and support for Israel has noticeably fallen....

Democratic Congressmen have reflected this trend in very visible ways: their votes and actions in Congress reveal that support for Israel has eroded in alarming ways. Furthermore, more than a few Democratic Congressman have openly made statements that are either clearly anti—Semitic or can be fairly construed to be at least, 'anti—Semitic in effect, if not intent'.

These disconcerting trends can be observed by a bottom—up approach: looking at the grassroots base of the Democratic Party, how these views are expressed in Congress, and how the Democratic leadership has responded to these developments.

As the American Thinker piece points out, Democratic officials are responding to the intense views of the party's nihilist radical netroots base.

Cinnamon Stillwell, in her reflections on the post-9/11 radical movement, notes what the anti-Jewish views she sees commonly when counter-protesting the "progressive" movement:

I put myself on the front lines of this ideological battle by taking part in counterprotests at the antiwar rallies leading up to the war in Iraq. This turned out to be a further wake-up call, because it was there that I encountered more intolerance than ever before in my life. Holding pro-Iraq-liberation signs and American flags, I was spat on, called names, intimidated, threatened, attacked, cursed and, on a good day, simply argued with. It was clear that any deviation from the prevailing leftist groupthink of the Bay Area was considered a threat to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

It was at such protests that I also had my first real brushes with anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel sentiment on the left -- inexorably linked to anti-Americanism -- ran high at these events and boiled over into Jew hatred on more than one occasion. The pro-Palestinian sympathies of the left had led to a bizarre commingling of pacifism, Communism and Arab nationalism. So it was not uncommon to see kaffiyeh-clad college students chanting Hamas slogans, graying hippies wearing "Intifada" T-shirts, Che Guevera backpacks, and signs equating Zionism with Nazism, all against a backdrop of peace, patchouli and tie-dye.

Being unapologetically pro-Israel, I was called every name in the book, from "Zionist pig" to "Zionist scum," and was once told that those with European origins such as myself couldn't really be Jewish.

It is thus not surprising that Barack Obama, with his huge base of support among neo-progressive activists and radical organizations, as well as his questionable ties to prominent anti-Semitic leaders on the left, is struggling to build support among some main-line American Jewish organizations.

To be fair, note that the editors at Daily Kos have periodically spoken out against the rampant holocaust denial and exterminationist anti-Semitism commentary at the blog, among both the diarists and the commenters.

Nevertheless the hate continues at Kos, as well as at other high-profile blogs on the hard-left.

Daily Kos should should take down its endorsement of the death of Israel. Basic decency demands nothing less.

See also:

* Atlas Shrugs, "Democrats: The New Anti-Semitism."

* Alan Dershowitz, "When Legit Criticism Crosses the Anti-Semitism Line."

* Craid Horowitz, "The Return of Anti-Semitism."

* Seattle Times, "The Democratic Party's Anti-Semitism Problem."

* Wall Street Journal, "Democratic Hold on Jewish Vote Could Slip."

The New Intolerance

I just don't care to debate these homosexual rights issues so much these days. The left, frankly, is winning. The turning point was the Windsor decision a couple of years ago. The crowning moment will be this June when the high court announces a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is what it is.

Unfortunately, with all that comes power to the radical left to discriminate against people of faith. The real hatred and intolerance in America today is found on the extremist secular, Marxist collectivist left. Homosexual rights, especially the homosexual right to same sex marriage, is the nail in the coffin for traditional marriage.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion":

In the increasingly bitter battle between religious liberty and the liberal political agenda, religion is losing. Witness the media and political wrath raining down upon Indiana because the state dared to pass an allegedly anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The question fair-minded Americans should ask before casting the first stone is who is really being intolerant.

The Indiana law is a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed 97-3 in the Senate and that Bill Clinton signed in 1993. Both the federal and Indiana laws require courts to administer a balancing test when reviewing cases that implicate the free exercise of religion.

To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Indiana’s law adds a provision that offers a potential religious defense in private disputes, but then four federal appellate circuits have also interpreted the federal statute to apply to private disputes.

The federal RFRA followed the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling in 1990 that abandoned its 30-year precedent of reviewing religious liberty cases under strict scrutiny. Congress responded with RFRA, which merely reasserted longstanding First Amendment protections.

In 1997 the Supreme Court limited RFRA’s scope to federal actions. So 19 states including such cultural backwaters as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Illinois followed with copy-cat legislation, and Indiana is the 20th. Courts in 11 states have extended equally vigorous protections.

Indiana was an outlier before the new law because neither its laws nor courts unambiguously protected religious liberty. Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.

In February, 16 prominent First Amendment scholars, some of whom support same-sex marriage, backed Indiana’s legislation. “General protection for religious liberty is important precisely because it is impossible to legislate in advance for all the ways in which government might burden the free exercise of religion,” they explained.

That hasn’t stopped the cultural great and good from claiming Indiana added the religious defense in private disputes as a way to target gays. If this is Indiana’s purpose, and there’s no evidence it is, this is unlikely to work.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.

And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent, a tribute to the increasing tolerance of American society toward gays, lesbians, the transgendered, you name it.

The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views...

Yes, that's the paradox, isn't it?

More.

And see Memeorandum.

'I believe that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live...' (VIDEO)

This is apparently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's canned line on what it means to be a democratic socialist. At WaPo, "'No person in America should be too poor to live': Ocasio-Cortez explains democratic socialism to Colbert."

She came up with the same line on the View, when asked by Meghan McCain. See Free Beacon, "Self-Described Democratic Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Struggles to Differentiate Between Socialism, Democratic Socialism."



She's just trying to make her socialism palatable, even for the so-called working class voters in her district, many of whom probably do wake up every morning saying they're "capitalists."

Here's the page for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) at Discover the Networks:

At the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War era, the Socialist Party USA of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas split in two over the issue of whether or not to criticize the Soviet Union, its allies, and Communism: One faction rejected and denounced the USSR and its allies—including Castro's Cuba, the Sandinistas, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong—and supported Poland's Solidarity Movement, etc.  This anti-Communist faction took the name Social Democrats USA. (Many of its leaders—including Carl Gershman, who became Jeane Kirkpatrick's counselor of embassy at the United Nations—eventually grew more conservative and became Reagan Democrats.) The other faction, however, refused to reject Marxism, refused to criticize or denounce the USSR and its allies, and continued to support Soviet-backed policies—including the nuclear-freeze program that sought to consolidate Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe. This faction, whose leading figure was Michael Harrington, in 1973 took the name Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC); its membership included many former Students for a Democratic Society activists.

DSOC operated not as a separate political party but as an explicitly socialist force within the Democratic Party and the labor movement. As such, it attracted many young activists who sought to push the Democratic Party further leftward politically. Among the notables who joined DSOC were Machinists' Union leader William Winpisinger, feminist Gloria Steinem, gay rights activist Harry Britt, actor Ed Asner, and California Congressman (and avowed socialist) Ron Dellums.

By 1979 DSOC had made major inroads into the Democratic Party and claimed a national membership of some 3,000 people. In 1983 DSOC, under Michael Harrington's leadership, merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Harrington’s strategy was to force a “realignment” of the two major political parties by pulling the Democrats emphatically to the left and polarizing the parties along class lines. He expected that this would drive business interests away from the Democrats and into the Republican Party, but that those losses would be more than offset by an influx of newly energized minority and union voters to the Democratic Party, and that over time the Democrats would embrace socialism as their preferred ideology.[1] Thus Harrington sought to establish DSA as a force that worked within, and not outside of, the existing American political system. Following Harrington's lead, most DSAers were committed to electoral politics within the Democratic Party.[2] They feared that if they were to openly move too far and too quickly to the left, they would run the risk of alienating moderate Democrats and thereby ensuring Ronald Reagan's reelection in 1984.[3]

Early in DSA's history, political organizer Harry Boyte, convinced that even Michael Harrington’s non-revolutionary form of socialism would be rejected by most Americans, formed a “communitarian caucus” within DSA. As author Stanley Kurtz explains:

“The communitarians wanted to use the language and ethos of traditional American communities—including religious language—to promote a 'populist' version of socialism. Portraying heartless corporations as enemies of traditional communities, thought Boyte, was the only way to build a quasi-socialist mass movement in the United States. Socialists could quietly help direct such a movement, Boyte believed, but openly highlighting socialist ideology would only drive converts away. In effect, Boyte was calling on DSA to drop its public professions of socialism and start referring to itself as 'communitarian' instead.”[4]
But DSA rejected this approach, worried that if it failed to publicly articulate its socialist ideals, genuine socialism itself would eventually wither and die. Boyte’s opponents stated: “We can call ourselves ‘communitarians,’ but the word will get out. Better to be out of the closet; humble, yet proud.”[5]

DSA helped establish the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) in 1991 and continues to work closely with the latter to this day. Virtually every CPC member also belongs to DSA.

In 1998, WorldNetDaily (WND) published a two-part series of articles titled “Congress’ Red Army Caucus” (here and here), which exposed the close association between DSA and CPC. At that time, DSA hosted the CPC website. Shortly after the WND revelations, CPC established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Meanwhile, DSA scrubbed its own website to remove evidence of its ties to CPC. Among the items removed from the site were the lyrics to such songs as the following:

* “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism

* “Red Revolution,” sung to the tune of “Red Robin” (This song includes such lyrics as: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street throng.…”)

* “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” (The lyrics of this song include: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.”)

In 2000, DSA endorsed Pay Equity Now!—a petition jointly issued in 2000 by the National Organization for Women, the Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women, and the International Wages for Housework Campaign. Together these organizations charged that “the U.S. government opposes pay equity—equal pay for work of equal value—in national policy and international agreements”; that “women are often segregated in caring and service work for low pay, much like the housework they are expected to do for no pay at home”; and that “underpaying women is a massive subsidy to employers that is both sexist and racist.”

In 2001, DSA characterized the 9/11 terror attacks as acts of retaliation for transgressions and injustices that America had previously perpetrated across the globe. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”

Strongly opposed to the U.S. war on terror and America's post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition.

DSA was a Co-sponsoring Organization of the April 25, 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” held in Washington, D.C., a rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating for the right to unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

In 2007, DSA National Political Committee member David Green expressed support for the Employee Free Choice Act as a measure that could “limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace”; “minimize the degree of exploitation of workers by capitalists”; and “provid[e] an excellent organizing tool (i.e., tactic) through which we can pursue our socialist strategy while simultaneously engaging the broader electorate on an issue of economic populism.”

In 2008, most DSA members actively supported Barack Obama for U.S. President. Saidthe organization: “DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.”

In October 2009, the Socialist Party of America announced that at least 70 Congressional Democrats were members of its Caucus at that time—i.e., members of DSA. Most of those individuals belonged to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and/or the Congressional Black Caucus. To view a list of their names, click here.

In the fall of 2011, DSA was a strong backer of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Said DSA:

"The Occupy Wall Street protests have invigorated the American Left in a way not seen in decades … So we have urged our members to take an active, supportive role in their local occupations, something many DSAers had already begun doing as individuals, because they believe that everyday people, the 99%, shouldn’t be made to pay for a crisis set off by an out-of-control financial sector and the ethically compromised politicians who have failed to rein it in."

On October 8, 2011, DSA co-sponsored a Midwest Regional March for Peace and Justice, a protest demonstration commemorating the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
 Click here for a list of additional co-sponsors.

DSA members today seek to build “progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.” “We are socialists," reads the organization's boilerplate, "because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” "To achieve a more just society," adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed.” A major hallmark of such transformation would be an “equitable distribution of resources.”

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: "Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives."

True to its roots, DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own political party but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. "Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party," says DSA. "We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.... Maybe sometime in the future ... an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats."

In a document titled “Where We Stand,” DSA outlines in detail its political perspectives. Key excerpts from this document include the following:

“Nearly three decades after the 'War on Poverty' was declared and then quickly abandoned, one-fifth of our society subsists in poverty, living in substandard housing, attending underfunded, overcrowded schools, and receiving inadequate health care.”

“In the global capitalist economy, these injustices are magnified a thousand fold. The poorest third of humanity earns two percent of the world's income, while the richest fifth receives two-thirds of global income.”

“We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.”

“We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.”

“A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity dedicated to raising living standards across the globe, rather than 'leveling down' in the name of maximizing profits and economic efficiency.”

“Equality, solidarity, and democracy can only be achieved through international political and social cooperation aimed at ensuring that economic institutions benefit all people.”

“Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements—of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color—that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.”

“To be genuinely multiracial, a socialist movement must respect the particular goals of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and other communities of color. It must place a high priority on economic justice to eradicate the sources of inequality; on affirmative action and other compensatory programs to overcome ongoing discrimination and the legacy of inequality; and on social justice to change the behavior, attitudes, and ideas that foster racism.”

“Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.”

“The capitalist market economy not only suppresses global living standards, but also means chronic underfunding of socially necessary public goods,from research and development to preventive health care and job training.”

“U.S. dominance of the global economy is buttressed by its political power and military might. Indeed, the United States is engaged in a long-term policy of imperial overreach in a period in which global instability will probably increase.”

“Fifty years of world leadership have taken their toll on the U.S. The links among heavy military spending, fiscal imbalance, and a weakening economy are too clear to ignore. Domestically, the United States faces social and structural economic problems of a magnitude unknown to other advanced capitalist states. The resources needed to sustain U.S. dominance are a drain on the national economy, particularly the most neglected and underdeveloped sectors. Nowhere is a struggle against militarism more pressing than in the United States, where the military budget bleeds the public sector of much needed funds for social programs.”

“As inequalities of wealth and income increase and the wages and living standards of most are either stagnant or falling, social needs expand. Only a revitalized public sector can universally and democratically meet those needs.”

“Social redistribution—the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society—will require: massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.”

“Over time, income redistribution and social programs will be critical not only to the poor but to the great majority of working people. The defense and expansion of government programs that promote social justice, equal education for all children, universal health care, environmental protection and guaranteed minimum income and social well-being is critical for the next Left.”

“The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts.”

“Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end.”

Lindsey Graham Blames Kooky Koran-Burning Pastor for Animalistic Beheadings of United Nations Workers in Afghanistan

This story got going yesterday with Senator Graham's comments on Face the Nation. I've never been a Graham-hater, but I'm definitely not a fan at this point. The dude fails the most basic lesson of the First Amendment: The antidote to offensive speech is more speech. I hate flag burning, but the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson is central to preserving the marketplace of ideas. By allowing someone to burn the flag we uphold the values for which the flag stands. It's extremely offensive. But as symbolic speech it affirms our freedoms.

So I cringe at this interview with Senator Graham at National Review. I denounced Koran-burning last year during all the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot, and while I support his right to burn Islam's holy book, the same rule applies: Burning the flag is extremely offensive, and so is Koran burning. I don't endorse either form of expression, but I wouldn't attack either as un-American. That's not to say burning the Koran is the right thing to do, especially with how freighted the act is in this environment. But one lone wacko is not responsible for rampaging murderous Muslims 6 thousand miles away. What's evil is the reversal of responsibility game that everyone's playing, from the White House on down. And the headline sets the debate at New York Times, "Afghans Avenge Florida Koran Burning, Killing 12." And also, "Afghans Protest Koran Burning for Third Day." Well, at least the editors at the Baltimore Sun get it. "The U.S. has condemned Quran burning; will Afghans condemn the violence?":

There's no doubt that the publicity-seeking Florida minister who burned a Quran to demonstrate his hatred of Muslims committed a pointlessly provocative and reprehensible act. But the reaction of Afghan rioters who killed at least innocent 20 people in retaliation for what they saw as an intolerable insult to Islam is even more indefensible. And while there are plenty of Americans willing to speak out against anti-Muslim intolerance, where are the Afghan leaders willing to condemn the violence committed by their fellow Muslims?

And check this out:

To their credit, the national news media withheld the lavish coverage it had previously provided the minister's obvious play for attention. As a result, Mr. Jones' reckless provocation initially went largely unnoticed in the Muslim world. But then for some reason known only to himself, Afghan President Hamid Karzai chose to resurrect the issue in a speech on Thursday, in which he sharply criticized U.S. forces for accidentally killing innocent civilians and called for Mr. Jones' arrest for the "crime" of insulting Islam.

Having lived in the U.S., Mr. Karzai knows perfectly well that U.S. law doesn't permit police to arrest people simply for exercising their right of free speech — however repugnant such speech may be. He also had to know that publicizing Mr. Jones' lunacy during a televised address might very well stoke extremist elements in his own country to commit acts of violence and cause the loss of innocent lives. But whatever twisted political calculation led him take such a risk, Mr. Karzai's criticism of his American partners and his calls for Mr. Jones' arrest have only grown more strident since the rioting began on Friday.

One almost gets the impression the Afghan leader is deliberately fomenting unrest among his people, perhaps in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism from the corruption and incompetence of the government he leads. He has always been a shaky ally whose integrity was doubtful at best.

But Mr. Karzai's is not the only voice in Afghanistan. Where are the other leaders of that country who have the moral authority to condemn the violence and the courage to speak out against bigotry and intolerance? Mr. Jones acted recklessly and without regard to the danger others might find themselves in as a result of his shameless self-promotion and puffery. He is a vain, selfish man, the exact opposite of what a true spiritual leader should be. Perhaps that is why he has never been able to attract a flock of followers and relies instead on the anonymous audiences provided by the television news cameras to get his twisted message across.

Yet for all his failings, Mr. Jones did not commit a single act of violence or cause any person physical harm. It was the mullahs in Afghanistan, who whipped their congregations into a frenzy, and the rioters themselves who are to blame for the 20 deaths so far around the country, including seven at a United Nations compound, and injuries to dozens more.

Nope. Not a single act of violence, but Graham's ready to criminalize political opinion in America. (And President Obama's "condemning" the "hate speech.") Boy, wouldn't want to offend those murderous mobs across Afghanistan.

See also Mark Steyn, who calls Graham a "wretched buffoon": "Re: Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment."

Jordan Arrests 11 Islamic State Jihadists

At the Times of Israel:

Security official says suspects admit to plotting attacks in Hashemite Kingdom; Israel has indicated it will act should group reach neighboring state.

Jordan said it arrested 11 members of the Islamic State group suspected of plotting terrorist attacks inside the Hashemite Kingdom

A security source said the suspects were planning to harm high-value interests in the country and admitted to the charges against them, Israel Radio reported.

Earlier this month, Israel told the US that should the extremist group start operating in neighboring Jordan, it will not hesitate to act, according to a Channel 2 TV report which cited diplomatic sources.

The report did not specify what actions Israel might take if Islamic State started impacting upon Jordan, but Israel is wary of its eastern neighbor being challenged by the brutal terror group, and would seek to guard against further inroads that would directly threaten Israel...

More.

Steve Benen: Economic Illiterate, Moral Degenerate

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, illustrates the classic leftist combination of total hubris and moral bankruptcy, in his post on Michele Bachmann, "Polling a Policy That Doesn't Exist":

Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Looneyville) convinced herself that U.S. currency is under attack (it isn't) and the threat of a "global currency" is real (it isn't). What sparked the paranoia was a Chinese proposal to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, which of course has nothing to do with Bachmann's bizarre ideas.

I've written about this at length, (see, for example, "Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Bachmann").

Actually, Ms. Bachmann didn't convince herself of anything. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's suggested last week that he was open to the displacement of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Indeed, Geithner specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange. Check the links, folks. Benen's just smearing Representative Bachmann, nothing less. And for him to say that the dollar isn't under attack is completely ignorant. While we're not seeing market-crashing speculation, over the last week international investors have fled the dollar for the safety of gold on the the New York Mercantile Exchange. And as Martin Hutchinson argues at the Asia Times, there is "no reason to believe that the dollar represents a sound store of value, the principal function of a reserve currency."

So let's be clear about all of this: (1) No, it is not likely that the U.S. dollar will be replaced anytime soon, for the main reason that the U.S. economy, for all it's problems, remains the world's largest, and will continue to be the motor for growth and development worldwide for decades to come; yet (2), the Obama administration's monetary incompetence, combined with Chinese financial assertiveness, means that Representative Bachmann's demands for policy clarification from Secretary Geithner are perfectly reasonable. The U.S. dollar cannot remain the world's reserve currency forever, and Geithner's gaffe certainly reflects a subconsciousness knowledge of the dynamics of currency power in international relations.

Most people are not paying attention to this issue simply because international monetary policy is a complex areas of public affairs (see, "Americans VERY confused about Economics and Personal Finance"). And as Michele Bachmann's not a household name, the netroots rodents of the radical left get free rein to slur her reputation. Then, of course, a lie, told often enough, becomes accepted as truth (a variant of astroturfing, so common on the left).

This is why it's important - now more than ever - to smackdown these idiots when and where they cut loose with their insane leftist trollery.

**********

P.S.: Benen's post also makes a lame attempt to delegitimize Scott Rasmussen's polling organization, and no wonder, since on this issue, most Americans agree with Representative Bachmann: "88% Say It’s Important to Keep The Dollar as America’s Currency." And note how the background discussion to the poll demonstrates just how dishonest Steve Benen is:

China’s top government banker and a United Nations panel have both proposed that the dollar be replaced with a new global currency. However, only 21% of American adults believe the proposal is intended primarily to help the global economy.

Gird your loins, folks. Don't buy the Big Lie that Michele Bachann's an extremist (as have some on the right). As I've argued in a number of recent posts, this administration, and especially the radical left, may well destroy the United States of America.

God help this nation.