Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba

This morning's Los Angeles Times focuses on Pakistan's ties to Islamist militants:

Lashkar-e-Taiba, the self-styled "Army of the Pure," has left its footprints in the snows of Kashmir, the back alleys of Lahore and Karachi, the harsh terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier -- and now, investigators say, in Mumbai, India, the scene of last week's horrific rampage by gunmen.

The growing case against the Pakistan-based militant organization speaks directly to a doubt that has plagued U.S.-Pakistani relations since the two countries became allies after the Sept. 11 attacks: whether present or former officials in Pakistan's powerful security establishment continue to nurture radical Islamic groups.

Pakistan's relatively weak civilian government, in power less than a year, has shown a degree of reluctance to forcefully confront militant groups or to assert control over the intelligence establishment -- a pattern that could bode ill as fallout from the attacks on India's financial capital poisons relations between the two nuclear-armed countries.

Lashkar-e-Taiba's alleged social wing, which gained prominence after Lashkar was officially banned in 2002, operates openly on a sprawling campus outside the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. Its head, Hafiz Saeed, was one of the founders of Lashkar and is on a list of about 20 militant suspects India has demanded be handed over.

Pakistan's government vehemently denies involvement in the Mumbai attacks, which left more than 170 people dead and 300 injured, and U.S. officials say no formal links between the attackers and Pakistani officialdom have been found.

However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Pakistani officials during a visit Thursday that the evidence gathered so far by Indian and Western investigators against Pakistan-based militants was compelling enough that Islamabad should be acting on it.

Successive Pakistani governments have tolerated and even abetted Lashkar-e-Taiba, which for much of its two-decade history was used by Pakistan's intelligence service as a proxy for fighting Indian rule in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

Pakistani officials insist that in recent years the country's premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI, has been purged of militant sympathizers. But as recently as four months ago, U.S. intelligence officials alleged that the ISI aided militants who struck another Indian target, its embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

"You could argue that if you have 20 years of active sponsorship, it takes time for these linkages to disappear from the state apparatus," said Ishtiaq Ahmad, a professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

Read the whole thing, here.

This passage is key:

The investigation of the Mumbai attacks is complicated, analysts say, by the fact that much of Lashkar-e-Taiba's operational capability has migrated from the Pakistan-controlled slice of Kashmir to the lawless tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, where many of its camps and training centers are now believed to be.

Someone, the United States, the Pakistani government, India, or a multiltateral coalition, needs to go into the area and sweep out the sanctuaries. It's no brainer. You go to the source. Lashkar-e-Taiba is said to have been working out of the tribal areas since 1990, the group has ties to al-Qaeda, and the borderlands are the mountainous redoubts where Osama bin Laden and the Taliban extremist fled after the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in 2001.

If we didn't finish the job then; it's time to do it now. The terrorists have spoken. How will the West respond?

Talks Falter on Middle East Peace

At WSJ, "U.S. Gambit on Mideast Peace Talks Falters" (via Google):

The Obama administration's campaign to forge a Middle East peace agreement appeared near collapse Tuesday, despite a U.S. move to negotiate the release of a convicted American spy in a last-gasp effort to win more concessions from Israel.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who was set to visit Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday, canceled his trip, the State Department said.

A formal breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, which the White House stressed hasn't occurred, would throw into turmoil President Barack Obama's second-term foreign-policy agenda, already reeling from rising tensions with Russia and an inability to stop the civil war in Syria.

Mr. Obama has said solving the Mideast conflict is one of three main international objectives of his second term. Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday criticized his administration's last-minute discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to offer up the spy, Jonathan Pollard, to persuade the Israelis to make good on previous promises to release prisoners. They called it a sign of a White House desperate for a major foreign-policy success.

"Releasing Pollard, in the context of the current peace-process travails, is bad policy," said Aaron David Miller, who served for some two decades as an adviser to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. "It reflects the weakness and desperation of the administration that is presiding over a peace process not yet ready for prime time."

Mr. Obama's allies on Capitol Hill questioned the move.

"I've followed this issue closely over the years. It's hard for me to see how releasing Jonathan Pollard would help jump-start Middle East peace talks," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said. "It's one thing to consider releasing him after an agreement has been reached, but it's another to discuss setting him free before that has happened."

White House officials refused to declare the peace effort a failure on Tuesday. One senior administration official said the situation is "still fluid," and it is unclear how it will conclude.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama hasn't made a decision on whether to release Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Kerry has made a peace agreement the barometer through which to gauge his tenure by making dozens of trip to the Mideast over the past year and often holding meetings with Israeli and Arab officials by himself. Mr. Kerry has argued that ending the conflict would bring broader stability to the region and rob extremist groups like al Qaeda of an important recruiting tool.

Despite eight months of negotiations spearheaded by Mr. Kerry, diplomacy appeared to be unraveling late Tuesday after Mr. Abbas said he had signed papers formally applying to join 15 international organizations affiliated with the United Nations.

The U.S. had pressed Mr. Abbas during the negotiations not to move forward with such actions, which would have given the Palestinians more authority to press grievances. Washington hoped to forestall such a move through Israel's agreement to release political prisoners and to take other confidence-building steps as part of a larger process with a goal a formal peace agreement by April 29.

Mr. Netanyahu, though, had balked at following through with the prisoner release, infuriating the Palestinian side, and precipitating the U.S. offer of Mr. Pollard in a bid to get more Israeli cooperation.

All three sides have remained tight-lipped about how far the negotiations had progressed since their start in July, including the issue of the prisoner release...

Also at the Times of Israel, "Despite Palestinian unilateralism, talks will likely limp on," and "Pollard-for-prisoners deal said to be near completion."

And at the New York Times, "Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter."

Also at NY Daily News, "Kerry’s shambles: Mideast peace push turns to mush."

Texas Fred and the Banality of Racism

This post is an update to my earlier entries, "Texas Fred's Bigotry," and "Texas Fred's No Holds Barred Anti-Immigrant Racism."

Readers will recall that Texas Fred is the bullying online megalomaniac who spouts some of the most reprehensible anti-immigrant racism to found in the conservative blogosphere.

I first came into contact with Texas Fred in 2006, in the comment thread of conservative milblogger, where the issue under discussion was victory in Iraq (and recall that this was pre-surge, and things weren't going well). Texas Fred's a Bush-basher, and he was spouting the extreme antiwar line, and I called him out for his advocacy of all the Murtha/Pelosi talking points. It got a bit nasty, and things now have been rekindled.

For further background on the reemergence of the debate, check Saber Point.

In any case, there's been an interesting (or disturbing) number of developments over the weekend in response to my rebuttals of Texas Fred's anti-immigrant ideology.

I've received a lot of support from readers, in the comments and in private e-mails, and I'm grateful. Texas Fred apparently has been reaching out by e-mail to other conservative bloggers in an effort to find validation for his hated. Samantha West, in the comments to my last post, reported:

Well, he emailed me and asked if I thought he was advocating murder. My response: yes he is.

The problem with such kinds of hatred is that it is easily transferred to any group: bigots need a group to hate, and they will fill that need with anyone who comes along and doesn't act like them.

There's more at the comment, but note that Samantha was so turned off by all of this she wrote her own elegant post repudiating anti-immigrant eliminationism: "Why Do You Hate Them So Much?"

I communicated with another blogging buddy by e-mail as well, and he indicated to me that he'd requested that he be taken off the Texas Fred blogroll. I clicked on the link to Texas Fred's blog in my buddy's note, and it turns out my ISP had been blocked by a plug-in filter system Texas Fred uses to ban critics of his racism, preventing them from monitoring his hatred. When I spoke to my buddy by e-mail later he wrote back:

I'm laughing. I've been banned from Texas Fred's site. When I attempt access it diverts me to the ACLU. The measure of a man...

That's right: Texas Fred's filter-block redirects his critics to the home page of the American Civil Liberties Union!

There's an unbeatable combination of irony and hypocrisy in this feat, by a far right-wing bigot, who bans his critics by redirecting them to the far-left wing homepage of the defenders of open-borders illegal-immigrant sanctuary radicals. You can't make this stuff up!!

But follow along, because it all makes sense: It turns our Texas Fred both sought out validation AND banned his critics while putting up a Father's Day post bragging about his patriotic right to demonize illegals: To ALL of My Low Class Redneck Friends:

We have been called REDNECK, BEER DRINKING, NASCAR LOVING, BACK WOODS, HILLBILLY, PORCH SITTING, GUN TOTING, CRACKERS, DAMNED-FOOL, CRACKER AIRHEAD, FAT-ASSED MURDERING NAZIS and RACISTS simply because WE want to stand up for America while there is still an America to stand up FOR.

And to those accusations I say: IF my standing up for America makes me all of that, then I wear the title of REDNECK proudly, and I hope all my FRIENDS enjoy this little musical thank you!!

We may not be PhD’s, we’re not FAUX Intellectuals, we don’t live in Ivory Towers and we’re NOT hypocrites, we KNOW what we are, we love our families, our homes and our nation, we’re REAL Conservatives, not RINO posers and we’re proud of it too!!

God Bless America, God Bless Texas and God Bless each and every one of you wonderful AMERICAN REDNECKS!!

Now, while there are no links to my page, the references to Ph.D.'s, "faux" intellectuals, RINOs, and so forth, represent outright libelous attacks on my reputation. Here's Texas Fred in his comment over at American and Proud, where had responded to the blog's host, Robert (who had commented on my page):

Damn Donnie Dickless, your superiority complex is enormous…

I hope you realize that not everyone is as impressed with your faux intellect as you are, that was what got your ass run off from Jarheads place the last time…

And because you were pretty much told off, you have taken issue with me in nearly every format that has followed since, troll much Donnie??

Aside from the vulgarity, this quote immediately links Texas Fred at American Proud to his latest slurs on my reputation on his home page. So readers can see why I find it just mindboggling that these "real" conservatives, who pound their chests and announce their martial superiority, and who display tremendously patriotic images on their blogs, actually claim to represent the mainstream of the traditional American right:

Now, in my previous entries (here and here) I went too far in suggesting that maybe Texas Fred's page should be taken down for advocating racist hatred and eliminationism. Constitutionally, extremist hate speech is protected, as long as there is no explicit incitement to violence.

So far, while the noxious sentiment expressed by Texas Fred and his commenters is extreme, I've yet to see Texas Fred, by definition, urge his readers to commit violence on his behalf.

I don't read Texas Fred 's page, of course, and I've never trawled through his archives, so perhaps that's the motivation for setting up the plug-in ISP filter-system.

The issue, in any case, is larger, in that the right of free speech should not be moral license to bigotry and hatred, but that's exactly what's happening in Texas Fred's echo-chamber. I mean, this type of advocacy is not just "venting." We're seeing the extreme glorification of martial eliminationism, which goes just so far before its hedged as constitutionally protected or as plausibly deniable.

Look over at Texas Fred's later comment at American and Proud:

I wouldn’t be terribly upset if the POTUS decided to put me on the border with a 50 cal with shoot to kill orders, I would miss a few at first but eventually I’d get the hang of it.

Read that whole thread, as well as some of the others at these blogs - it's just more of the same.

In fact, this is what I call the "banality of racism," which draws on the concept of the "banality of evil," from Hannah Arendt. Arendt's thesis is controversial, but it does have application.

For our purposes, we're seeing the essential banality of racism in Texas Fred's blog rings. Banality refers the commonplace, the ordinary, the unquestioned. When old Freddie writes up all his bigoted posts, and all of the commenters engage in mutually congratulatory flagellation, it's just establishing racist immigrant-bashing ("shoot-to-kill" or "starve the bastard babies") as commonplace and correctly ordinary.

Contemplation of the horrific becomes operationalized in terms of "normalization." With reference to Arendt, normalization in the Nazi context refered to the process in which noxious, inhumane, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and standard. The justification is found in statements like, "I was just following orders," which is similar to Texas Fred's assertion that "if the POTUS decided to put me on the border with a cal" he might miss a few at first, but would soon be mowing down the "wetbacks." All of this would be just fine, because it's seen as structually mechanical, ordered from above. No need to think about ultimate moral or human agency. Just kill the "bastards," and be done with it.

More recently, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has gone much further than straightforward "normalization" of mass murder in his book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. He argued that everyday Germans acted on the basis of eliminationist anti-Semitism, and thus the origins and progression of Nazi Germany's extermination of the Jews bubbled from the bottom-up, rather than having been coerced by totalitarian elites.

Now, while I don't want to take such analogies too far, it's certainly the case that those of the Texas Fred blog rings reflect a banality of racism in the commonplace sense used here. Also, recall from above that old Freddie argues that this is what "REAL conservatives" do, not "RINO posers," and that's the problem.

Clear-thinking people know that this level of racial intolerance and anti-immigrant bigotry simply is not mainstream thinking in America.

Texas Fred knows this, deep down, which is why he bans by plug-in filter (and ACLU redirection) those who would shine down the bright light of moral opprobium. It is why he seeks external validation by sending his e-mail probes to potentially sympathetic conservatives, like Samantha above, who he might then recruit into his hate syndicate. It is why he seeks further justfication by lurking around the web to find examples that might validate his views, for example, in his post today, "Michael Reagan Advocates the Mass Murder of 9/11 Truthers."

If there's no psychology at work here, then we're substantiating the "banality of racism" thesis, and we can see where things might logically go. If there's some true mental derangement at work, on the other hand, then the man needs help (as some of my readers have suggested).

Whatever the case, this kind of hate makes it harder for the rest of us conservatives, who respect the rule of law, and who practice some level of divine tolerance, even when we're outraged at our government.

This hate makes it more difficult, because the true extremists - the nihilist left whose anti-Semitism and racism I'd rather be exposing - can point to folks like Texas Fred, who claims to be the "true GOP," and then extrapolate to smear all conservatives as "fascist."

This simply will not do.

Now before concluding, let me disabuse those readers who might think I'm becoming obsessed with Texas Fred.

Frankly, I'll be really glad if I never write another post on the issue. But for anyone who spends serious time on the web, it's a matter of principle to rebut hateful slurs against one's integrity, morals, and reputation. For example, recall Peter Wehner's devastating take-down of Joe Klein's misrepresentions, "The Klein and the Fury."

Finally, I'm no William F. Buckley. I just want to be on record as defending my integrity in a way that promotes a respectable model of how a morally right conservative should act, First Amendment guarantees or not.

Texas Fred and his webrings of hate do not constitute that model.

Most Illegal Immigrants Smuggling Drugs, Says Gov. Jan Brewer -- UPDATED!!

The Arizona Guardian reports that, "Brewer advisor says "missteps" were made on immigration claims"

Still, anything Gov. Jan Brewer says will "ignite controversy." As long as any official speaks bluntly and honestly about the crisis, media types will repudiate those remarks as extremist.

At NYT, "Arizona: Governor Ignites Controversy With Remarks on Drug Mules." (Via Memeorandum.)

RELATED: "Obama picks another illegal alien-coddler for key role at ICE."

UPDATE: At Fox News, "Arizona Gov. Stands by Claim That Most Illegals Smuggle Drugs Into Country."

This is What They Do: Chester County Democrats Smear Conservative School Board Candidate - UPDATE! Sean Carpenter is Upbeat!

UPDATE! I've just heard from Skye at Midnight Blue. Her report:

I've just spoken with Sean Carpenter and he is upbeat about his chances of winning a seat on the school board. He said he's receiving nothing but positive feedback from everyone he talks to and that Karen Porter's smear campaign is pissing people off.

Thanks for posting on this subject.

***********

My good friend Skye at Midnight Blue reports on the vicious smear campaign Chester County Democrats are waging against Republican school board candidate Sean Carpenter. See, "The Definitive Post on Hypocrisy."

Below is the Democratic video that libels Carpenter, a conservative and pro-victory activist, as an extremist::

This is the blurb at the YouTube page:

The definitive video about Sean Carpenter and the Sheepdogs, a pro-war, pro-torture, far right wing group. In their own words, their own actions, and their own vile behavior they expose their real values and true nature to the West Chester, Pa community and the entire world.

Skye responds:

Despite a recent exposure of a vicious backdoor smear campaign, in which Democrat committeemen and a representative of the Democrat WCASB candidates conspired to subvert campaign finance rules for a negative literature drop on the Republican candidates; they still press on with a negative campaign. You can view their latest attempt HERE. The video was crafted by John Grant, an avowed socialist and chavez groupie. The candidate highlighted in the video is Sean Carpenter, a well respected member of the West Chester community and devoted dad.

Plus, Skye's got video, "Peaceful hypocrites on display in West Chester":

Arianna Huffington's Right Wing Fringe

Glenn Greenwald has a brief review, at Firedoglake (where else?), of Arianna Huffington's new book, Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe.

I've written on Greenwald quite a bit, but ever since Megan McArdle smacked him down mercilessly, I can't resist quoting her line hammering him as a preface:

Mr Greenwald's anger at the establishment power structure seems to be rapidly transmuting into anger at the non-Glenn-Greenwald power structure...

The anger's showing again in Greenwald's introduction to Huffington's book:

Arianna Huffington's latest book -- Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe -- thoroughly documents the most influential fact in our political life: namely, that the right-wing faction which has taken over the Republican Party is radical, deeply hostile to America's core political traditions and values, and incomparably destructive. As she puts it: "they don't believe in evolution but believe in torture."

But the real value of this book is its examination of the two key culprits in the ascension of this right-wing fringe: the establishment media and the Beltway leaders of the Democratic Party. Huffington's insights are most piercing and innovative when her targets are the bloated, empty-headed media stars who have done more than anyone else to allow this fringe group to masquerade as part of the mainstream. And she pinpoints the dual afflictions which have rendered the media totally supine, when they aren't actively complicit, in the face of this falsehood-spewing, extremist movement -- the twisted notion of journalistic "balance" which means that they present every claim no matter how objectively false, along with the "self-hating" mentality of "liberal" journalists who have internalized right-wing smears and thus repeat them and seek to accommodate them...

I'm always amazed at this theme of the compliant, enabling, and slacking journalistic establishment. If these guys are so bad - "the two key culprits," the second being the Democrats - Greenwald and Huffington should just quit writing about the GOP and direct their anger at the real enemy!

Not only that, the media-enabler is a fiction of the left's mind. Both left and right take sides, as we have in many respects a partisan press, with CNN on the left and Fox on the right in television journalism, and with the New York Times on the left and the Wall Street Journal on the right in print journalism. Most of the other political news outlets follow along down partisan lines from there.

Gross generalizations are the key logical fallacy at the heart of Greenwald's work, but to Huffington's as well, if this review has any merit to it at all.

But what's really good here is Huffington's language itself, which obviously gets Greenwald aroused:

The other not-so-innocent bystanders to the Right’s takeover are the Democrats who have continued to tread far too lightly when it comes to holding the GOP’s fanatical core accountable. Time and time again, the Democratic leadership has allowed itself to get played, run over, or distracted.

The "right's takeover" and the "GOP's fanatical core"?

What is Huffington taking about?

Oh sure, we'd need to see text from the full book itself for context, but the theme of a Republican takeover's clear enough, and wrong.

President Bush won a clear majority in 2004, and he's been battling the Supreme Court on constitutional issues like habeas corpus for enemy combatants, especially on Guantanamo Bay military commissions and detainees' rights, throughout his administration.

But note too: Arianna Huffington always been one of our current era's least effective critics of the Republican Party.

She was formerly married to Michael Huffington, a Republican big-money oil heir and carpetbagger who won a seat to Congress from Santa Barbara, California, in 1992. He immediately filed to challenge Dianne Feinstein in her reelection to the U.S. Senate for the next election in 2004. He spent over $30 million in a losing bid and Arianna divorced him in 1997.

My long-running counterfactual hypothesis on Huffington holds that she'd still be married had Michael won a seat to the Senate, and he'd likely have run for the GOP presidential nomination at least once. The lesson for young senatorial aspirants with hot, power-hungry wives is to know that your sweetcakes will show you the door shortly after losing the election. Hopefully those prenups are in order!

Arianna's a Greek-born and Cambridge-educated socialite, who parlayed her broken marriage into a career as an opportunistic far left-wing columnist.

When Mayhill Fowler got in trouble for outing Barack Obama's "bitter" comments at Huffington Post last month, Arianna had okay'd the publication of the breaking story while vacationing on David Geffen's 454 foot yacht in the Bahamas.

There's more of that worker solidarity for you!

This is not a criticism of her analysis (I'll likely read the book), only some background analysis to put things in perspective.

Greenwald doesn't care - anything's gold that take a good shot at the non-Glenn-Greenwald power structure!

Photo Credit: "Becoming more publisher than columnist, Arianna Huffington calls Huffington Post an “Internet newspaper,” New York Times

Barack Obama and the Anti-Anti-Communists

Paul Kengor's got a pentrating piece on Barack Obama's communist ties, at the American Thinker, "Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists":

Since literally the founding of the American Communist Party in 1919, the extreme left - specifically, the communists -- have relied upon genuine liberals to be dupes, or suckers, to help further their cause. Here's how it typically worked: the communists would engage in some sort of work or agenda, very focused, and which they would be prepared to publicly deny. Anyone who has done any work with or on communists, from New York City to Moscow, can speak at length about how they operated with deceit. As Vladimir Lenin had said, in a favorite quote cited often by Ronald Reagan, the only morality that communists recognized was that which furthered their interests.

At some point as the communists pursued their intentions, someone or some group - usually conservatives or moderate Republicans - would catch on and blow the whistle. When the alarm was sounded, the communists typically would flat-out lie about whatever they were doing: claiming not to be guilty of the charges, but rather victims of right-wing paranoia. For this, they relied upon gullible liberals - non-communist liberals - to join them in attacking their accusers on the right.

These liberals, particularly after the McCarthy period, came to detest the anti-communists on the right. These liberals were not pro-communist but anti-anti-communist. They saw the anti-communists as Neanderthals, and still do, even though the anti-communists were absolutely right about the 20th century slaughter otherwise known as Marxism-Leninism. This ongoing anti-anti-communism is immediately evident in a quick conversation with your typical liberal in the press or academia. When I lecture at universities around the country, rattling off facts about the literally unparalleled communist destruction in the 20th century - easily over 100 million people died under communism from about 1917-79 - the young people are riveted, clearly having never heard any of this in the classroom, whereas their professors roll their eyes, as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy had flown into the room and leapt inside of my body....

Why do I mention this now? Because the entire process is being repeated once again before our eyes, except now it's worse, given that the modern left is so outrageously uninformed, having been trained -- by the mainstream media, Hollywood, liberal historians, and the academy -- to reflexively dismiss any charge of communism as illegitimate McCarthyism, even when the charge is not only accurate but, importantly, exposes how the communists have literally schemed to undermine yet another genuine liberal cause.

I will start from the beginning:

A couple of weeks ago in Washington, Herb Romerstein and Cliff Kincaid, two veteran investigators of American communism, held a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce the release of two new reports on Barack Obama's radical past, or, more specifically, his association with extremist elements from the American left -- yet more evidence of a frightening pattern of associations by Obama throughout his distant and recent life, from Bill Ayers to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, all of which at the least shows bad judgment. At the press conference, they discussed Romerstein's report on Frank Marshall Davis, an influential figure in Obama's early life, whom Obama refers to only as "Frank" (albeit affectionately) in his autobiography Dreams From My Father. Davis was a communist, a member of CPUSA. Romerstein developed that fact very carefully in his report, which contained at least a half dozen exhibits and other forms of reliable documentation -- a fact that itself is news, since many (on the gullible left) still like to question whether Davis was a Party member ....

... what did Romerstein find on Frank Marshall Davis? He showed not only that Davis was a communist, but -- listen up, liberals -- how Davis and his comrades worked to undermine genuine liberal causes because of their lock-step subservience to the Comintern and the USSR. Modern liberals need to understand, for example, how the American communist movement, including men like Davis, flip-flopped on issues as grave as Nazism and World War II based entirely on whether Hitler was signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin or invading Stalin's Soviet Union. The disgusting about-face by CPUSA on this matter was unforgivable. And what a shame that liberal college professors don't teach this to their students. Liberals also need to know how their friends inside government were used by communists who sought victory for Mao Tse-Tung in China in 1949, which would lead to the single greatest concentration of corpses in human history: 60-70 million dead Chinese from 1957 to 1969.

Where does Obama meet Davis? -- in Hawaii. Similar to Obama, who moved from Kansas to Honolulu to Chicago, Frank Marshall Davis went from Kansas to Chicago to Honolulu. Obama freely admits to learning and taking advice from Davis, which surely was nothing like the "Midwestern values" that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) claimed he learned in Kansas. While most Americans by the late 1970s and early 1980s were at last convinced that détente with the Soviets was a sham, and that the USSR was an Evil Empire that needed to be dissolved, Obama almost certainly was learning exactly the opposite -- moving totally against what Ronald Reagan described as the "tide of history," a "freedom tide" that would "leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."

Instead, as Obama writes in Dreams From My Father, he was hanging out with the "Marxist professors," attending "socialist conferences," and "discuss[ing] neocolonialism." Rather than learning about the American exceptionalism that would seek to bring freedom to the USSR and Eastern Europe, Obama was hearing about the glory of the Bolshevik experiment. This was the wrong side of history.

Enter Dana Milbank

Jumping into this unfolding drama is Dana Milbank, the columnist for the Washington Post. Milbank was apparently one of the few mainstream journalists to attend the Romerstein press conference on Capitol Hill, according to the reporting of columnist Bill Steigerwald, a good reporter who was also there. Steigerwald noted that it quickly became apparent that Milbank was basically there to mock the event. In response, Milbank could write about it in the Post, and his fellow liberals could enjoy a chuckle at the expense of the latest exhibit of right-wing anti-communist cavemen.

Milbank didn't disappoint. He described the press conference as a new Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, as the 2008 version of the 2004 Swift Boat veterans, and described Romerstein as "a living relic from the House Committee on Un-American Activities." The whole thing, reported Milbank, sounded "like a UFO convention." He even pooh-poohed the quite legitimate, quite telling point that Obama's past affiliations are so "dodgy" (Milbank's word) that he would have difficulty getting a government security clearance. Indeed, he would-and that's a big deal for a man who could be our next president.

To be fair, Milbank, while at the press conference, did ask the pertinent question: Was Romerstein trying to argue that Obama is a communist? What's the point of this if Obama is not a communist, right?

Well, yes and no. He has not, to anyone's knowledge, ever been a member of the Communist Party. On the other hand, his friends have been members. And there is a clear long-running association in this man's life with the most radical of the far left: on the religion side, there is Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger, on the political side, there is the likes of William Ayers and, yes, Frank Marshall Davis, to name only a few. And remarkably, Obama cites some of these people as mentors, and even draws from their messages in conceiving the title of the bestselling book that made everyone gaga over Obama in the first place - here I'm referring to Audacity of Hope, which is based on a Rev. Wright sermon.

These associations actually should tell us a lot, as should Obama's struggle to deal with them only once the public learns their full extent. It all points to a truly troubling reality: regardless of whether the man is a communist, his politics are remarkably radical, and have been for a very long and recent time - and that's a crucial consideration as America considers voting for him.

That's an extremely interesting story, and I want to reiterate that last point: Whether or not Obama's communist, throughout his life he's run with the radical crowd.

The information just keep coming in on Obama's oppositional political ideology, but of course just to point these things out gets me slured as a "chicken little" in the comments.

Frankly, it's people like Kengor and everyday regular bloggers who are powerfully grounded in reality. An Obama administration's going to shift American politics to the extrem left of the spectrum. How far depends on a wide-range of factors, but the country will see undeniably significant - er, radical - change upon the accession of a Barack Obama presidential administration.

Dana Loesch Slams Far-Left Ghoul 'Pin Head' on 'The Kelly File' (VIDEO)

Following-up from the other day, "Dana Loesch's Birthday Today, and She's Standing Strong."

She contacted the FBI about this ghoul, who's a typical leftist anti-gun extremist.

Here's Megyn Kelly's interview with Dana from Tuesday:



RELATED: At Twitchy, "Awful: Somebody made a DISGUSTING video of Dana Loesch shooting herself in the head [video]."

BONUS: At Mediaite, "Dana Loesch Speaks on Threat Video: Always Gun-Haters That 'Want You to Die by a Gun'."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Headlines 'Stand With Arizona' Rally in Tempe

Last Saturday, conservatives countered the day's big reconquista march with an evening rally in support of SB 1070 at Tempe's Diablo Stadium: "Stand With Arizona."

I got back to my hotel around 3:00pm, showered, and uploaded my photos from the morning's shoot. Naturally, I had Mexican food for dinner (from Chipotle, which was overpriced) and then headed over to Diablo. It's a beautiful stadium. The Los Angeles Angels hold spring training there. Here's the scene right at 6:00pm, with crowd estimates at over 5,000 for the whole night:

Griff Jenkins of Fox News was covering the event. A fun guy (and no, I wasn't interviewed, LOL!):

Arizona State Representative Debbie Lesko, a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1070, was thrilled to meet Griff Jenkins:

Patriots were out in full force:

A policeman spoke to this fellow (obscured) with the sign on the left. Not sure why. The guy's wife, in the white t-shirt at the man's right, was unhappy and animated --- and the guy didn't raise the sign again. Can't see the whole thing but perhaps someone complained about political incorrectness? Hard to believe though. Looks like "Send Illegal Immigrants Back to ..." Mexico? Of course, no one complained about the extremist signs of the anarchists, indigenous supremacists, and socialists in downtown Phoenix earlier (indeed, the media was eating that stuff up):

No Mexican flags at the Tempe rally, thank goodness:

Frankly, I was tired from my morning coverage downtown. I decided to just kick back in the stands and enjoy the show, taking in the calm, patriotic atmosphere. Some families took off early, perhaps too tired to stick around for the headliner, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sometime after 9:00pm, Sheriff Arpaio arrives with his entourage. Down at the third-base dugout, the press swarmed for interviews and photos:

I moved down onto the playing field. Arpaio's a local rock star. He lingered along the fenced enclosure for a half-hour or so, greeting supporters and signing autographs before taking the stage:

I said hello, shook his hand, and thanked him myself. Here at Arpaio's right is L.A. activist Ted Hayes:

Just behind Arpaio here is retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Albert Rodríguez, the founder of "You Don't Speak for Me!", an anti-amnesty Hispanic-American interest group.

Here's Gina Loudon, founder of the St. Louis Tea Party and creator of the BUYcott campaign. She gave a rousing address, firing up the crowd in support of Arizona and SB 1070:

When the New York Times ran its story on both events on Saturday night, reporter Randal Archibold, filing from Phoenix, misidentified Gina Loudon as "Tina Loudon." To top it off, Archibold implies that SB 1070 backers are racist:

At the rally in favor of the law, which began with the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem, any mention of Mexico or supporters of the law brought lusty boos — a video clip of President Felipe Calderón of Mexico especially fired up the crowd, which was mostly white and middle-aged or older. Placards like “Illegals out of the U.S.A.” were typical, though speaker after speaker ridiculed the idea that the crowd was racist ...

The later rally, at sundown, was organized by Tea Party groups from St. Louis and Dallas who said they decided to take the lead and support the state against a wave of boycotts protesting the law, some by cities like San Francisco and Seattle.

“We are doing this to crush any boycott against the free market,” said Tina Loudon, a Tea Party member from St. Louis who helped organize the rally. “Arizona has a sovereign right to enforce immigration laws on the books.”

Here's a much better broadcast at FOX-10 Phoenix:

Loudon's own report is here: "Arizona BUYcott!"

Sheriff Arpaio took the stage sometime close to 10:00pm. He was introduced by former "Incredible Hulk" star Lou Ferrigno and his wife Carla:

Arpaio gave a wonderful speech. He's totally no-nonsense:

I got a kick when he waved to the crowd as if to say goodbye, and then continued on for a few minutes:

You can see what I mean at about 8:00 minutes at the clip:

The rest of the evening's videos are available on YouTube. One of the most memorable speeches was from Ted Hayes, pictured above with Sheriff Arpaio. Plus, more pictures at BulletPeople Blog, as well as Barbara Espinosa and Robert Stacy McCain.

And worth another look is the Stand With Arizona promotional video:

RELATED: From the Quinnipiac University National Poll, " More U.S. Voters Want Arizona-Like Immigration Law." (Via Memeorandum.)

Radical Leftist Arrested for Assault With a Deadly Weapon and Assault on Military Personnel

Remember my comments about Repsac3's merry band of extremist henchmen? "I expect physical threats to my safety as forthcoming ... so always remember --- leftists are pure evil..."

This is what I mean, or worse, "Pacific Grove Police: Military Personnel Assaulted at Beach":

Pacific Grove police officers arrested a 20-year-old man who they say assaulted a group of military students late Tuesday night at Asilomar Beach.

Police said Tyler Tirado, of Monterey, had confronted the group of Defense Language Institute students, called them “baby killers” and struck a 20-year-old woman in the head with a beer bottle.

Officers responded around 11:50 p.m. on the 1800 block of Sunset Drive to reports of a woman with a one-inch cut to her scalp.

The victim and about a dozen of her friends, police said, were gathering on Asilomar Beach when they were confronted by another group who began making derogatory comments towards them.

To avoid any further altercation, officials said, the DLI student started to leave the beach.

As the victim’s group left, police said, Tirado threw a beer bottle and struck the woman. She was taken to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula where she required staples to close the wound.

Hat Tip: BCF.

Smearing the GOP: The Obama "White House" Button Controversy

It turns out that a lone vendor was hawking a racist political button at this week's Texas GOP convention, which caused fits of apoplexy across the leftosphere yesterday:

A prototypical attack on virtually all Republicans as racist was offered by John Aravosis at Americablog:

Expect the Republican party to do absolutely nothing about the racists in its own midst. The national Republican party in Washington has contacts all the time with its state parties. I'm sure there's money involved, and you'd better believe that when John McCain visits the states, he meets with local party officials. At what point do we hold John McCain responsible for fraternizing with racists? You don't see John McCain ever saying that he's no longer going to meet with, fundraise with, any state parties that promote or tolerate racism (like the folks in NC and TN). All McCain and that national party does is say "gosh, that's so bad, stop that now." McCain and the GOP have the power to punish the racists in their midst. So when will they? Oh, and for all of you in the media who will of course say that this has nothing to do with the GOP: What would you say if racist pins were being handed out at the Democratic National Convention?

In truth, most genuine Republicans would be appalled if racist buttons were being distributed at ANY convention, because there's no room for any of this in either party. No one, least of all members of the Party of Lincoln, should be attacking Barack Obama or anyone else with vile bigotry.

Notice, though, how this one vendor, for Aravosis, becomes emblematic of the alleged embedded racism of the GOP.

As I've said many times (see here, for example), most Americans are not racist. But note what James Joyner has to say, with reference to the Texas GOP:

Is there still racism in America? You betcha. Is it going to play some role in an election featuring the first black man with a legitimate chance to be president? No doubt.

But let’s not pretend that one yahoo selling some buttons is emblematic of much of anything.

Exactly! One "yahoo" does not impugn the integrity of true conservatives, despite the most aggressive efforts of the left to smear us as such.

Sure, there are a few of these bigots around, along with their defenders:

Unfortunately, as I've discussed, these types give radical leftists like Dave Neiwart fodder for their unhinged, universal smears against the GOP as the party of contemporary fascism (see Neiwart's post today, "Talking Down Violent Rhetoric").

As evidenced by early indicators, campaign '08 will be marked by heightened allegations of racism, even at the highest levels. Some discussion of race will be good - that is, there may be benefit in having a meaningful national conversation on racial progress in the post-civil rights era.

But keep in mind a key distinction: While racism is frequently exposed among extremist fringe elements on the right of the spectrum, in contrast the mainstream of the Democratic Party base today is populated by some of the most vicious race-baiters imaginable, at Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and TRex, for example (see Noel Sheppard, "More Racism at a Prominent Liberal Blog").

True conservatives need to keep these points in mind, especially as we maintain the high ground this election in our fight against Barack Obama's radical hordes.

Related: See Michael Williams, Chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas, and his address to the Texas GOP convention. Williams is a black American, and he offers words of (tempered) praise for Barack Obama - precisely the message of racial unity the GOP's poised to offer this year (Hat Tip: Panhandle's Perspective).

Is Charlie Crist Gay?

Some thoughts on Florida GOP Governor Charlie Crists, from one of Robert Stacy McCain's readers:

How are you/we/they going to handle the persistent rumors that Charlie Crist is gay? The first conservative blog to raise this issue is going to be slammed by the MSM, the Democrats and Crist’s Republican supporters for rumor mongering and the politics of personal destruction. But these rumors ain’t going away. LGBT groups have already raised the specter of hypocrisy about Crist being safely in the closet while denying gays access to marriage.

If Crist is gay and had sex with a man, what are the odds we are going to hear about it? If so, I would wager that any revelations will come out after he has won the nomination.

If Crist is gay but has been celibate his entire life, until, you know, he married a woman, what impact will the rumors have on conservative voters in Florida?
If Crist is not gay but the rumors persist, again, impact on conservative voters?
Mark Foley Redux?

On the other hand, what negative impact will a public discussion of the topic by conservatives have on the Rubio campaign?

Speaking of LGBT groups ... here's this on Crist over at Queerty, "That Fag Charlie Crist Wants to Be a Senator (And Wishes to Be Straight)":

Yes, he's making it official. And yes, the gay rumors will only grow closer and closer to accepted fact, if they aren't already ....

Why such animosity toward Crist? Not because he's a closeted homo — which we feel bad about — but because it's folks like him whose self-hatred comes out in the political games they play. Playing god with other people's rights from the governor's mansion, Crist stood by Florida's standing ban on gay couples adopting, claiming "traditional family provides the best environment for children." Then there was his 2006 run for governor, where he supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage. And his support during the 2008 election season for Proposition 2, which wrote into the state constitution a ban on same-sex marriage.

What strikes me first about the Queerty post is how they throw around epithets like "fag" and "homo" casually, like black do-ragged inner-city gang bangers calling each other "nigga"! It's appropriate to no one except as a badge of stupidity on those making the slur.

It's too bad too. Queerty makes a good point. If the rumors are true, Crist has an extremely odd governing philosophy for a gay man. I don't, however, think this should be seen as some larger negative statement on the GOP. What Crist does is give radical leftists ammunition. The focus will not be on Crist's assumed hypocrisy, but on the alleged "GOP bigotry" that has forced him to stay in the closet. So, let's get to the bottom of it. Christ is a basically Florida's Schwarzenegger Repubican, which is to say, he's really no Republican at all. The press doesn't care of Crist is a fiscal moderate. They'll hammer him on the hypocrisy. A good preview of the coming attacks is Howie Klein's post, "Charlie Crist's Bright Shiny Object":

Is the fight between the far right plus nutroots extremists and the Establishment Republicans of the NRSC and the Florida Republican Party over the Charlie Crist/Marco Rubio Senate nomination just a ruse to keep the media from talking about Crist's closet problem? With the release of Outrage, which exposes Crist's hypocrisy on gay issues while he himself was seducing young gay men, it was important to the GOP to point the media in another direction-- any other direction.

So Republican extremists and John Cornyn's NRSC are engaged in a noisy, very flashy topless mud wrestling match about who's further to the right, the Republican Governor who Inside the Beltway Repugs felt is their only shot of holding onto the Florida Senate seat, or the fanatic Bush-clone ex-Speaker of Florida's lower house who's stuck with a job.

Notice something in all of this. Radical gay leftists can attack Crist with bigoted language, but that's cool as long as you're down with the homosexual agenda. Then angry communists like Howie Klein can hammer both Crist for his closeted shame and Marco Rubio as a right-wing extremist.

And you know what? This is the first I've really paid attention to this angle. Rubio's no media distraction. He's the real thing. So what Crist does is give left-wing nihilists ample ammunition to paint the GOP as both hypocrites and rednecks. And in the backgound is the fact that huge majorities oppose same-sex marriage while supporting civil equality for gay couples. It's all quite interesting, but let's bring it full circle with Robert Stacy McCain:

OK, this is not a story that really interests me, either politically or personally. But as my tipster says, you can bet good money that it's a story the MSM are going to be very interested in -- if and when Crist gets the Republican nomination.

#RomneyRyan2012 — Mitt Romney Announces Paul Ryan as Vice Presidential Nominee

I'm tired. I stayed up past Midnight. After I woke up to pee I realized Romney'd be making his announcement in less than an hour. So I got up. I haven't had coffee yet. I think I'll lie back down for awhile.

In the meantime, here's the New York Times, "Vice-Presidential Choice Shakes Up November Contest."

It's a great pick. The secular-collectivist left would have gone after any Romney pick with remorseless villainy. The only variation we'd see are the specific smears. With Ryan, get ready for tons more grandma-over-the-cliff style attacks. Get ready for extremist anti-Catholic bigotry and "pro-choice" fearmongering, like NARAL:

NARAL: Ryan "supported'Let Women Die Bill' which wld allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency abortion even if she cld die"
— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) August 11, 2012

Check William Jacobson's comments along these lines, "Romney-Ryan 2012."

And Glenn Reynolds has a huge roundup, "And on the day Ryan was picked, it’s worth pointing out that we’ve gone 1200 days now without a budget."

On twitter, it's #RomneyRyan2012.

And you can tweet the veep nominee @PaulRyanVP:

.@paulryanvp Welcome aboard. We love you, man! #RomneyRyan2012
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) August 11, 2012

More at Memeorandum.

I'lll be updating throughout the day, after I wake up.

AARP Staffers Bail Out as Retired (Swastika-Bearing) Astroturfers Shut Down Town Hall Meeting!

Via Red State, "Behold Those Scary, Scary Swastika-Bearing Astroturfers." Also, Pat in Shreveport's got the report:

Watch this video from the AARP Town Hall on health care in Dallas, August 4, 2009. The AARP representatives did not want to hear from the members at all; in fact, once the members began to ask questions, the meeting was officially shut down. The members, however, continued without them. Stunning ...

These members were not violent or threatening; they had questions. Just questions. And concerns. They were not plants by some insurance company or right-wing extremist group. They are ordinary citizens.

Also, at AOSHQ, "Gray Mafia: Senior Mobsters Take on AARP Reps on "Listening" Tour, Who Quickly Get Tired of Listening and Cancel Meeting."

And Michelle Malkin, "Revolt Against AARP in Dallas: “Do You Work for Us or Do We Work for You?”

There'll be a huge thread for this on Memeorandum, but not yet, not yet ...

Bigotry's Mirror: Carrie Prejean Just Needs Some Education!

Miss USA Runner-Up Carrie Prejean was interviewed by gay media activist Rex Wockner yesterday at San Diego's Sanctuary of the Rock Church. The link is here, via Memeorandum.

Readers should read the whole interview. Other than manners, I make no distinction between Rex Wockner and Perez Hilton. Wockner's questions are just as much "set-ups" as were Hilton's at the Miss USA pageant. For example, Wockner's very first query attempts to establish Ms. Prejean as an anti-gay bigot:

Clearly, nobody would ever get up there (at the Miss USA pageant) and say, "I don't think black people should be able to marry white people" or something like that. Or nobody would get up there and say something sexist. And people are wondering if maybe we've gotten to a moment in American culture where you can't really say something that's interpreted as anti-gay anymore, like you might have been able to five years ago ...

Ms. Prejean responded well, but without seeing her response in person or by video it's difficult to assess her comfort level. She was right to suggest the discussion should be about tolerance, but let's add to that: Whose tolerance is at issue here? Tolerance for a traditional Christian woman to have her own opinions about the proper relationship between men, women and matrimony? Actually, no: Leftists reject Prejean's traditional views. As Ed Morrissey notes this afternoon, Miss USA officials have stated that Ms. Prejean needed to "apologize to the gay community." But for what? Having an opinion, and for responding honestly to Perez Hilton's homesexual views and agenda?

Note too that Wockner's question - "black people should be able to marry white people" - is bogus. The comparison of gay activists today to the same-sex interracial couples prior to Loving v. Virginia has long been discredited, but radical leftists continue to deploy it as a battering ram designed to make traditionals feel guilty, and thus force them to capitulate to the extremist gay marriage program. Have people forgetten Marjorie Christoffersen already?

Ms. Prejean turned the tables on Wockner, in any case. He asked her "what would be so wrong" with two women getting married, and she turned it around and asked to him, "What don't you see wrong with that?" and "'Why"? In response, Wockner repeats the left's redefinition of the marriage institution:

Uh, why don't - oh, this is fun - why don't I see anything wrong with it? Uh, because they're in love with each other, and they want to spend their lives together, and marriage is kind of the way that our society recognizes that two people love each other and want to spend their lives together and make commitment and be financially intertwined and be faithful and, you know, permanent. So, why should that be something that gay people can't do? There's gay people all around us all the time.

Well, there's nothing now in the laws of California that prohibits two people who love each other from spending "their lives together." Further, what's key here is that marriage is much more than recognizing love and making things, you know, "permanent." Love is wonderful, but gays can have a "permanent" relationship without being married. No, the key is that marriage "historically is recognized as a practice that his essentially procreative and regenerative." Same-sex couples cannot claim to be biologically equal to heterosexual couples. What they seek is to change society's discourse and overturn the historical and regenerative conception of marriage as between one man and one woman.

An interesting footnote here is Pam Spaulding's response to the interview. Spaulding attacks Ms. Prejean for her alleged ignorance:

I don't think Carrie Prejean is a spiteful and hateful person - clearly she hasn't given this issue much thought outside her social circle, and quite frankly, doesn't have to. She could have remained in her bubble of ill-informed views, but now, due to her high-profile, she is no doubt going to engage with many who have a different worldview, and hopefully people who can explore this in civil conversation. Perez Hilton's hostility after the interview has given license to the Right to hide behind the rancor as a defense. More encounters like the one with Rex Wockner will challenge Miss California in a positive manner to think more deeply about what discrimination really means.

Actually, it's clear the Ms. Prejean has given a great deal of thought to the gay marriage question. Would that so many more people had done so as much. This point about the correct "social circle" is more leftist authoritarianism. Just because traditionals choose not to hang out with gay libertines and barebackers doesn't mean they can't form an honest (and morally superior) opinion.

And Pam Spaulding's cant about "Perez Hilton's hostility" is pure smokescreen. Why treat Carrie Prejean in such a civil manner when you're not willing to treat other opponents of same-sex marriage with the same respect? Just a few weeks ago Spaulding was attacking traditional marriage advocates as "fundies," and she excoriated the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins in a post entitled, "Fundies gone wild: reaction to Vermont, Iowa, DC."

But recall that Mr. Perkins issued a press statement on Carrie Prejean last week, "Miss USA Pageant Guilty Of Cheap Ratings Stunt At Expense Of Miss California's Reputation." So, it's just kind of strange that the young Ms. Prejean is treated with such thoughtful concern trollery, when she's hardly different in views and opinion from the D.C. "fundies gone wild."

Leftists are the true bigots here. Perez Hilton is representive not anomalous, and Pam Spaulding's hollow efforts to separate herself from gay activist "bitch" hatred should be seen for exactly what it is: reverse discrimation and a hypocritcal scam.