The Perpetually Irrational Ukraine Debate

From hardcore neorealist, Stephen Walt, of Harvard's Kennedy School, at Foreign Policy, "The war continues to be discussed in ways that are self-serving—and self-defeating":

Because war is uncertain and reliable information is sparse, no one knows how the war in Ukraine will play out. Nor can any of us be completely certain what the optimal course of action is. We all have our own theories, hunches, beliefs, and hopes, but nobody’s crystal ball is 100 percent reliable in the middle of a war.

You might think that this situation would encourage observers to approach the whole issue with a certain humility and give alternative perspectives a fair hearing even when they disagree with one’s own. Instead, debates about responsibility for the war and the proper course of action to follow have been unusually nasty and intolerant, even by modern standards of social media vituperation. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is the case.

What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”

This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse. Case in point: When a handful of progressive congressional representatives released a rather tepid statement calling for greater reliance on diplomacy a few weeks ago, it was buried under a hailstorm of criticism and quickly disavowed by its own sponsors.

Wartime is precisely when one should think most dispassionately and carefully about one’s own interests and strategies. Unfortunately, keeping a cool head is especially hard to do when the bullets are flying, innocent people are suffering, and rallying public support takes priority. A narrowing of debate is typical of most wars—at least for a long time—with governments encouraging patriotic groupthink and marginalizing dissident views. And the war in Ukraine has been no exception thus far.

One reason public discourse is so heated is moral outrage, and I have a degree of sympathy for this position. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is horrific, and it’s easy to understand why people are angry, eager to support Kyiv any way they can, happy to condemn Russia’s leaders for their crimes, and willing to inflict some sort of punishment on the perpetrators. It’s emotionally gratifying to side with an underdog, especially when the other side is inflicting great harm on innocent people. Under the circumstances, I can also understand why some people are quick to see anyone with a different view as being insufficiently committed to a righteous cause and to conclude that they must somehow sympathize with the enemy. In the present political climate, if someone is not all-in for Ukraine, then they must be siding with Putin. Moral outrage is not a policy, however, and anger at Putin and Russia does not tell us what approach is best for Ukraine or the world. It’s possible that the hawks are right and that giving Ukraine whatever it thinks it needs to achieve victory is the best course of action. But this approach is hardly guaranteed to succeed; it might just prolong the war to no good purpose, increase Ukrainian suffering, and eventually lead Russia to escalate or even use a nuclear weapon. None of us can be 100 percent certain that the policies we favor will turn out as we expect and hope.

Nor does outrage at Russia’s present conduct justify viewing those who warned that Western policy was making a future conflict more likely as being on Moscow’s side. To explain why something bad happened is not to justify or defend it, and calling for diplomacy (while highlighting the obstacles such an effort would face) does not entail lack of concern for Ukraine itself. Different people can be equally committed to helping Ukraine yet favor sharply differing ways to achieve that end.

Debates on Ukraine have also been distorted by a desire to deflect responsibility. The United States’ foreign-policy establishment doesn’t like admitting it’s made mistakes, and pinning all the blame for the war on Putin is a “get out of jail free” card that absolves proponents of NATO enlargement of any role in this tragic turn of events. Putin clearly bears enormous personal responsibility for this illegal and destructive war, but if prior Western actions made his decision more likely, then Western policymakers are not blameless. To assert otherwise is to reject both history and common sense (i.e., that no major power would be indifferent to a powerful alliance moving steadily closer to its borders) as well as the mountain of evidence over many years showing that Russian elites (and not just Putin) were deeply troubled by what NATO and the European Union were doing and they were actively looking for ways to stop it.

Proponents of enlargement now insist Putin and his associates were never worried about NATO enlargement and that their many protests about this policy were just a giant smokescreen concealing long-standing imperialist ambitions. In this view, what Putin and his allies really feared was the spread of democracy and freedom, and restoring the old Soviet empire was their true objective from their first day in power. But as journalist Branko Marcetic has shown, these lines of defense do not fit the facts. Moreover, NATO enlargement and the spread of liberal values weren’t separate and distinct concerns. From the Russian perspective, NATO enlargement, the 2014 EU accession agreement with Ukraine, and Western support for pro-democracy color revolutions were part of a seamless and increasingly worrisome package.

Western officials may have genuinely believed these actions posed no threat to Russia and might even benefit Russia over the longer term; the problem was that Russia’s leaders didn’t see it that way. Yet U.S. and Western policymakers naively assumed that Putin wouldn’t react even as the status quo kept shifting in ways that he and his advisors found alarming. The world thought democratic countries were benignly expanding the rules-based order and creating a vast zone of peace, but the result was just the opposite. Putin should be condemned for being paranoid, overconfident, and heartless, but Western policymakers should be faulted for being arrogant, naive, and cavalier.

Third, the war has been a disaster for Ukrainians, but supporters of U.S. liberal hegemony—especially the more hawkish elements of the foreign-policy “Blob”—have gotten some of their mojo back. If Western support enables Ukraine to defeat an invading army and humiliate a dangerous dictator, then the failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the Balkans can be swept into the memory hole and the campaign to expand the U.S-led liberal order will get a new lease on life. No wonder the Blob is so eager to put Ukraine in the victory column...

Still more.

 

January 6th Hearings Succeeded Not Just through Good Intentions but With Teasers, Previews, Recaps, and Diagrams to Turn Congressional Inquest Into Great Television (VIDEO)

Well, I thought Cassidy Hutchinson was great. I couldn't take my eyes off of her.

Here's from this week.

At the New York Times, "The Jan. 6 Hearings Did a Great Service, by Making Great TV":

Investigating a threat to democracy was always going to be important. But this time, it also managed to be buzzworthy.

Every new summer TV series has to fight to get attention. The Jan. 6 hearings had more challenges than most.

There was public exhaustion and media jadedness over a story that’s been in the news for a year and a half. There was the MAGA echo chamber that has primed a huge chunk of America to reject, sight unseen, any accusation against former President Donald J. Trump.

Above all, the hearings, which aired a capstone prime-time session on Thursday night — a midseason finale, if you will — had to compete with our expectations of what constitutes a “successful” TV hearing. Not every congressional inquest can be the Army-McCarthy hearings, in which the lawyer Joseph Welch asked the Red Scare-monger Senator Joseph McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

These hearings, in an era of social-media cacophony, cable-news argument and fixed political camps, were never likely to build to a cinematic climax that would unite the public in outrage. Yet by the standards of today, they have achieved some remarkable things.

They drew an audience for public-affairs TV in the dead of summer. They reportedly prompted further witnesses to come forward. Polling suggests they even moved opinion on Mr. Trump and Jan. 6 among Republicans and independents. They created riveting — and dare I say, watchable — water cooler TV that legitimately mattered.

And make no mistake: The hearings, produced by James Goldston, the former president of ABC News, succeeded not just through good intentions but also by being well-made, well-promoted TV. They may have been a most unusual eight-episode summer series (with more promised in September). But they had elements in common with any good drama.

Visual storytelling

When you think of congressional hearings, you think talk, talk, talk. Hours of witnesses leaning into microphones. Countless round-robins of representatives grandstanding. The Jan. 6 hearings, on the other hand, recognized that TV is a visual medium, and that images — like the footage of the assault on the Capitol — can say more than speechifying.

The editing and graphics were more the stuff of a high-gloss streaming documentary than anything we’re used to seeing from the U.S. Congress. Diagrams of the Capitol showed how close we came to catastrophe, metaphorically and physically. Using mostly interview snippets, deftly cut together, the July 12 hearing brought to life a White House meeting in which Trump loyalists floated “unhinged” gambits for seizing the election apparatus — the oral history of a cabal.

Thursday, in a meta device befitting a president who was made and swayed by TV, the committee showed onscreen what the president saw in real time in the over two and a half hours he spent watching Fox News and letting the violence play out. A graphic dropped us into the executive dining room, from the point of view of the president in his customary spot facing the tube.

Later, we saw outtakes of a sullen Mr. Trump the day after the attack, shooting a cleanup video meant to deplore the violence. He rejected the line “The election is over,” stumbled over words, smacked the lectern in frustration. For decades, Mr. Trump thrived through media appearances and flattering editing on “The Apprentice.” Now the TV president was exposed by his own blooper reel.

High stakes Every TV series needs to tell viewers why they should care. The Jan. 6 committee had a ready answer: Americans should care about our free, democratic elections. And they should care when the losing party tries to toss out the outcome in an extra-constitutional bonus round.

But the hearings also repeatedly made clear that this was not about an abstract principle or a bad thing that happened in the past. This was an active threat. The conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig warned in a June hearing that Mr. Trump or a like-minded successor could “attempt to overturn the 2024 election in the same way.”

And the vice chairwoman, Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, used her remarks to underscore the immediacy. When she reported at end of the July 12 hearing that Mr. Trump had recently tried to contact a potential witness, her remarks were a warning to the former president, but they also had the feel of a cliffhanger: The target was still at large and still at work.

Story structure

Beginning the first hearing with footage of the mayhem at the Capitol was an unusual choice by congressional standards. But it was familiar to anyone who watches TV mini-series — the in medias res opening, dropping you at the scene of the crime and then doubling back to trace, step by step, episode by episode, the actions that brought us to this pass.

Each hearing, like the installments of a streaming thriller, focused on a discrete aspect of the attack on the election — the pressure on state governments, the incitement of the mob, the involvement of right-wing hate groups — each building on the last and drawing connections. Thursday night, the narrative came full circle, returning us to the climactic day, this time from the heart of the White House.

Like the graphics, the hearings’ structure gave viewers a map, making sure they knew where they were, where they’d been and where they were going...

Keep reading.

 

The Elites Have Unmasked Themselves and Declared War

President Trump has been permanently banned from Twitter, and most other "unsocial" media platforms. 

The left is bringing on the civil war for which they keep blaming the other side. It's not going well.

At AoSHQ, "Lee Smith: The Elites Have Unmasked Themselves and Declared War." 

Here's Smith's essay, originally published at the Epoch Times:

When a regime sanctions the political violence of one faction against another, events like Wednesday’s bloody skirmishes at the Capitol are a foregone conclusion. Presumably the country’s corporate, political, and cultural elite assumed that after four years of trying to humiliate and unseat President Donald Trump that his supporters would simply accept their continued degradation, impoverishment, and disenfranchisement. Or maybe they thought that with their allied press and social media obscuring reality, no one would notice they were waging war on Americans.

Details of Wednesday’s events are still unfolding. In places, protestors overran police. A Capitol Police officer died of injuries suffered while holding off protestors and others were reportedly injured. Elsewhere it seems that law enforcement welcomed Trump supporters into the Capitol and posed for pictures with them. No doubt there were agents provocateurs among the MAGA crowd, but Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a Capitol Hill policeman when she tried to crawl through a window, wasn’t with Antifa. She proudly supported Trump, as she proudly served her country, doing four tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one in the building the 15-year Air Force veteran entered illegally can explain why America is still committed to those strategically pointless wars.

Neither can anyone on the Democratic or Republican side rationally justify why large parts of the country are still under coronavirus lockdowns—public health measures draining Americans’ life savings and, as importantly, their hope—to fight an illness with a 99.7 percent survival rate.

No one can say why the senior FBI, CIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, and State Department officials from the Obama administration who plotted against Trump’s White House before he was inaugurated are still at liberty, and why some have been named to the incoming Joe Biden administration.

Nor can the representatives of the American people explain to them why the lights went out in half a dozen states election night with Trump holding commanding leads and came back on hours later with Biden in front in all six.

But don’t blame the people sent to Washington for the fate and fortune of the Americans they’re supposed to represent. Rep Liz Cheney says Trump is at fault for Wednesday’s unrest. “The president formed the mob, the president incited the mob, the president addressed the mob,” she said. The Wyoming Congresswoman is one of the staunchest supporters of the Afghanistan war, begun when her father was George W. Bush’s vice president. To hand down a war from one generation to the next is the sign of a careless and depraved elite.

Trump’s former Defense Secretary James Mattis also blames Trump. “His use of the Presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice,” wrote the retired Marine General. In June, he defended the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots that caused billions of dollars in damage across the country and left dozens dead, including law enforcement officers. Those protests, said Mattis, “are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values.”

Both parties within the Beltway are joined in their attacks on Trump because partisan identity—Democrat and Republican—is no longer relevant in U.S. politics. It’s the Country Party, currently represented by Trump, vs the Establishment Party, representing the interests of an oligarchy anchored by Big Tech and owing its power, wealth, and prestige to its access to cheap Chinese labor and China’s growing consumer market.

The establishment party protects its protestors because they are the instruments weaponized to target Trump supporters. “Protestors should not let up,” vice president elect Kamala Harris said of the summer’s violence. “There needs to be unrest in the streets as long as there’s unrest in our lives,” said Rep Ayanna Pressley. “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It is not hypocrisy that corporations like Bank of America and Coca-Cola that issued statements in support of the summer riots were quick to denounce Wednesday’s protests. Nor is it hypocrisy that the activists who took over parts of a Senate office building to protest the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh were celebrated while Biden and the press labeled the people who broke into a federal building Wednesday domestic terrorists. It is not hypocrisy for the establishment to draw a sharp divide allies and enemies, but just evidence that they are at war with the party of the country.

History, simple common sense, tells that when one side shoots at the other, the side taking incoming has two choices: surrender or shoot back. There is little doubt the party of the establishment will use the events on the Hill to implement further measures to punish the party of the country, for they would use any pretext—a respiratory illness, for example—to serve those ends. But now they can no longer be sure how the party of the country will respond.

 

What's Become of Conservatism?

Some time ago I removed "neocon" from my Twitter profile. I'm still neoconservative, though.

"American Power" retains its founding epigram at top, "Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education — from a neoconservative perspective!"

I wouldn't change it even if I knew how, lol. (Blogger's templates are completely changed and I haven't bothered to figure them out, although it's not a big deal, heh.)

I mention this not because attacks on neoconservatives are new (paleocons have despised neocons like forever). What's new is how the most fervent supporters of President Trump have taken to attacking Bill Kristol-style neocons with a fervor that's even more fanatical than what's reserved for the radical left. Why? I guess #MAGA conservatives not only see no difference between neocons and radical leftists, but they're absolutely livid at the perceived treason of those taking the moniker of a "right-winger" while (allegedly) simultaneously working for the destruction of the movement from within.

Longtime readers know that my neoconservativism has been genuine in a number of ways: For one, simply, it's really a "new conservatism" for me, as I was a registered Democrat until the 2004 presidential election — a Truman Democrat, but still. Moreover, I'm ideologically neoconservative across the board, on domestic and foreign policy, and not someone who glommed onto the movement as a rah-rah cheerleader for the (then popular) Iraq war and an ambitious and muscular foreign policy during the G.W. Bush administration. Frankly, most so-called conservatives or erstwhile bandwagoning "neoconservatives" would hardly recognize names like Irving Howe and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It was Irving Kristol who famously defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who'd been mugged by reality."

There's a long pedigree there. I myself have never worried at being attacked as a "closet leftist" or "pseudo conservative" because I've never tried to prove anything to anyone who's purportedly on the right. My writing, blogging, tweeting, and teaching speak for themselves. That said, I've embraced Donald Trump not so much because he's a conservative ideologue (he's clearly and emphatically not) but because he stands up and fights for what he believes in, and what he believes in mostly and so clearly is America and the interests of Americans. If that puts me at odds with "genuine" conservatives, like Jonah Goldberg and the cruise-ship right-wing, so be it.

It's complicated being a neocon Trump supporter these days, heh.

So, why all these pixels to hash out some defense of my persuasions? Well, mostly because I'm disgusted with all the latest bickering, infighting, and hatred I've been seeing on the right. It's ugly and not flattering to those engaged in it, and it's besmirching the reputations of some serious institutions out there. The newfangled populist right flagship "American Greatness" comes to mind. I like the website. Victor Davis Hanson publishes there, and he's among the smartest, most principled conservatives working today (and no spring chicken of the movement at that). But American Greatness is in the business of settling scores, it seems, and policing the right for ideological purity. And it's unbecoming, to put it mildly.

Exhibit A is this over-the-top Trumpist-nationalist manifesto seen there earlier this week, "Death of The Weekly Standard Signals Rebirth of the Right." It's authored by Chris Buskirk, who's the publisher and editor of the website. I don't know Chris Buskirk. I've been involved in what's sometimes called "movement conservatism" for about a decade now, and I've never heard of the guy. Maybe he's paid his dues. I have no idea. But he's certainly got some ax to grind, or he's got something to prove, or you pick your neologism. Here's the first parts from the article, which might be labeled a screed:

Death of The Weekly Standard Signals Rebirth of the Right https://t.co/FnlbRrZeC0 pic.twitter.com/UdD1wRnHcz

— American Greatness (@theamgreatness) December 17, 2018

Neoconservatism is dead, long live American conservatism. That’s what I thought when I learned The Weekly Standard would be shuttered by longtime owner Clarity Media. The Standard was a creature of a particular time and place—the 1990s, the Bush-Clinton ascendancy, and Washington, D.C.’s insular, self-referential political class. As such, it never really fit within the broad flow of historic American conservatism. It was always, and intentionally, something different. So perhaps the magazine’s opposition to Donald Trump, his voters, and the America First agenda should come as no surprise.

Max Boot described the magazine as “a redoubt of neoconservatism” in 2002 and he was right. If the National Review of the 1970s and ’80s was the journal of Reaganism, The Weekly Standard carried the banner of Bushism. But the Bushes never carried the Reagan mantle and were never conservatives. They were always blithely unconstrained by any identifiable political philosophy other than the unwavering belief that they should run the country. They represented nothing so much as the mid-20th-century country club set that was content to see the size and scope of government expand as long as they got a piece of the action. And The Weekly Standard was there every step of the way, advocating so-called big-government conservatism at home and moral imperialism abroad. All of it failed. The Bush Administration was discredited by its failed policies and incompetence so it was just a matter of time before the chief organ of Bushism failed too.

But the life and death of The Weekly Standard is really the story of the death and rebirth of American conservatism, which is nothing more than the modern political expression of America’s founding principles.

As with other more virulent forms of Left-liberal politics, the neoconservatives maintain a sense of aristocratic entitlement to rule despite having killed almost everything they touched. It is their combination of titanic hubris and priggish moralism that is behind their aggressive advocacy of endless foreign wars and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. For The Weekly Standard, it made sense to send thousands of Americans to their deaths defending Iraq’s borders, but they wouldn’t lift a finger to protect our own. As the real world results of their misadventures came home to roost, conservatives realized that The Weekly Standard didn’t represent them.

For years, neoconservatives undermined and discredited the work of conservatives from Lincoln to Reagan who held to a set of common principles and a common sense understanding that America is for Americans and it is the job of government to protect the rights and interests of the American people—and only the American people. But over the past few years, Bill Kristol became more transparent about his real beliefs. For example, he let us know in a tweet that he “Obviously strongly prefer(s) normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state” and in another that, “The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist.” The point is that Kristol and the Standard’s attachment to conservative principles was always provisional and transactional. The Republican Party and the conservative movement were a temporary vehicle for their personal and policy agendas. Now, Kristol and others have moved on in search of a new host organism.

That’s because the world of Beltway neoconservatism of which the Standard was the arch example is only partially about ideas, it’s also about power and more especially about privilege—and that means sinecures. That’s a nice way of saying that it’s what people hate about politics, that it often becomes self-serving and careerist rather than about the American ideal of building and maintaining the institutions of government that allow the individual, the family, and the church to thrive...

There's more at the link, but you get the idea.

While I can agree with some of the attacks here on elitism and stupid establishment sinecures, the attack on "moral imperialism abroad" might as well have been written by Patrick Buchanan, if not Lew Rockwell. It's stupid. Who would ever argue that President Ronald Reagan failed to espouse a moral American foreign policy, which by virtue of its overwhelming materialist power and geographic stretch has been long characterized as a practical American imperialism by such august scholars as the historian Paul Kennedy and the late political scientist Chalmers Johnson (even in his pre-paleonservative days)?

Besides, it's just personal and nasty. Which brings me to this really ugly kerfuffle of the last few days seen on Twitter, featuring American Greatness feature writer Julie Kelly and National Review's David French and his wife Nancy. You can get up to speed by clicking through at the tweet below, but in short, this is the politics of personal destruction plain and simple, and in my experience it's been the ghouls on the left who've mastered this kind of no-hold-barred ideological combat (and now the so-called new wave warriors of the populist right). See also the Resurgent, "David French Defends Wife on Twitter," and "Julie Kelly of American Greatness Attacks a Victim of Sexual Abuse Because Trump."

I told @DavidAFrench to ignore her characterization of me, until I was finally able to admit the pain of her lies. Both @julie_kelly2 and my pedophile equated 'victims' as 'lovers.' I do not fear anyone who uses the language of the sex predator to score political points. https://t.co/tjkpTDfEGn

— Nancy French (@NancyAFrench) December 18, 2018

So what has become of conservatism? Is a conservative someone who's a populist-nationalist, tough on trade type with "blood and soil" proclivities? Or is a conservative really just the old hardcore free-market libertarian with the social ethos of the old Ward Cleaver suburban cultural demographic?

Actually, it's neither of these things nowadays, if a look around at the right's contemporary ideological battlespace is any clue. It's Trump über alles these days. And that includes a lot of hatin' on those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. To be a "true" conservative you basically have to hate the "cruise ship" establishment crowd that's reigned in D.C. for a couple of decades now. But hey, forget small government ideology. I mean, what's that? President Trump recently said that he couldn't care less about the size of the federal budget, because "I won’t be here" when it blows up. I guess being "conservative" now is more about who you hate than what you stand for.

These debates over ideological purity come and go. We had a big schism on the right after Barack Obama was elected in 2008. We had more of that in 2012 when so-called "faux-conservative" Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination that year. Donald Trump's unpredictable victory in 2016 produced perhaps the most vociferous ideological schism of all. It's rather tiring to me, but then, I've been but a minor figure at the margins of the movement, it turns out. And when push comes to shove, being a political activist or operative isn't my first job: I'm a professor and teacher of politics first (and a father and family man); a blogger and ideological political combatant second.

But whenever these schisms over ideology break out I always refer to my favorite book on what it means to be a conservative, Barry Goldwater's 1960 masterpiece, The Conscience of a Conservative. What sticks out most for me in that book is Goldwater's unabashed and robust defense of the conservative ideal as epitomized as human freedom. And to achieve that human freedom --- the essential liberty of mankind --- government must be limited and reduced to its core functions, providing public order, basic public goods, most especially the vital protection of our nation's security against external enemies. Interestingly, Goldwater's last chapter is "The Soviet Menace," where he writes:

And still the awful truth remains: We can establish the domestic conditions for maximizing freedom, along the lines I have indicated [in the book's previous chapters], and yet become slaves. We can do this by losing the Cold War to the Soviet Union.

It's interesting to me, then, to finish by highlighting that the true "conscience of a conservative" is to be deeply concerned with America's forward moral role in the world, because by only making national security a core prerequisite for securing conservative ideals can a genuine and true "right wing" ideological program at home succeed. This isn't, therefore, the kind of ideology of the folks at American Greatness or other acolytes of the war on the cruise-ship elites. There are some great current conservative voices that might seem to be in the camp of the Chris Buskirks and Julie Kellys --- like the inimitable Kurt Schlichter, for example --- but they're not really, for they're distinctive in their strong moral advocacy for American economic and military power, and for a unabashed support for America's many forward strategic missions currently in operation around the world.

So with that I conclude. We have a strong and powerful current of conservative ideological belief on which to draw. For me it's less about being a "neocon" than being for a unique American philosophy of exceptionalism worth defending. A true exceptionalism as an ideal different from other so-called conservative countries. It's a frontier exceptionalism that's pure and most conducive to human freedom. And it's a conservatism that need not tear others down in vicious bursts of online ugliness nor a conservatism that wants to roll up the drawbridge, turning its back to the problems of the world. It's the conservatism of both ideals and action, and of standing as the beacon for right and a light unto others, at home and abroad.

That's what I believe.

Magical Thinking About #ISIS

A far left-wing take on the attacks, from Adam Shatz, at the London Review of Books:

Before the Lebanese civil war, Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East. Today, Paris looks more and more like the Beirut of Western Europe, a city of incendiary ethnic tension, hostage-taking and suicide bombs. Parisians have returned to the streets, and to their cafés, with the same commitment to normality that the Lebanese have almost miraculously exhibited since the mid-1970s. Même pas peur, they have declared with admirable defiance on posters, and on the walls of the place de la République. But the fear is pervasive, and it’s not confined to France. In the last few weeks alone, Islamic State has carried out massacres in Baghdad, Ankara and south Beirut, and downed a Russian plane with 224 passengers. It has taunted survivors with threats of future attacks, as if its deepest wish were to provoke violent retaliation.

Already traumatised by the massacres in January, France appears to be granting that wish. ‘Nous sommes dans la guerre,’ François Hollande declared, and he is now trying to extend the current state of emergency by amending the constitution. Less than 48 hours after the event, a new round of airstrikes was launched against Raqqa, in concert with Russia. With a single night’s co-ordinated attacks, IS – a cultish militia perhaps 35,000 strong, ruling a self-declared ‘caliphate’ that no one recognises as a state – achieved something France denied the Algerian FLN until 1999, nearly four decades after independence: acknowledgment that it had been fighting a war, rather than a campaign against ‘outlaws’. In the unlikely event that France sends ground troops to Syria, it will have handed IS an opportunity it longs for: face to face combat with ‘crusader’ soldiers on its own soil.

Recognition as a war combatant is not IS’s only strategic gain. It has also spread panic, and pushed France further along the road to civil strife. The massacre was retribution for French airstrikes against IS positions, but there were other reasons for targeting France. Paris is a symbol of the apostate civilisation IS abhors – a den of ‘prostitution and vice’, in the words of its communiqué claiming responsibility for the attacks. Not only is France a former colonial power in North Africa and the Middle East but, along with Britain, it helped establish the Sykes-Picot colonial borders that IS triumphantly bulldozed after capturing Mosul. Most important, it has – by proportion of total population – more Muslim citizens than any other country in Europe, overwhelmingly descendants of France’s colonial subjects. There is a growing Muslim middle class, and large numbers of Muslims marry outside the faith, but a substantial minority still live in grim, isolated suburbs with high levels of unemployment. With the growth rate now at 0.3 per cent, the doors to the French dream have mostly been closed to residents of the banlieue. Feelings of exclusion have been compounded by discrimination, police brutality and by the secular religion of laïcité, which many feel is code for keeping Muslims in their place. Not surprisingly, more than a thousand French Muslims have gone off in search of glory on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq. Most of these young jihadis became radicalised online not in the mosque. Some, like the perpetrators of the attacks in January and November, have histories of arrest and time spent in prison; about 25 per cent of IS’s French recruits are thought to be converts to Islam. What most of the jihadis appear to have in common is a lack of any serious religious training: according to most studies, there is an inverse relationship between Muslim piety and attraction to jihad. As Olivier Roy, the author of several books on political Islam, recently said, ‘this is not so much the radicalisation of Islam as the Islamicisation of radicalism.’

By sending a group of French – and Belgian – citizens to massacre Parisians in their places of leisure, IS aims to provoke a wave of hostility that will end up intensifying disaffection among young Muslims. Unlike the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the 13 November attacks were universally condemned. The victims were of every race, the murders were indiscriminate, and many Muslims live in Seine-Saint-Denis, where the bombing at the the Stade de France took place. In theory, this could have been a unifying tragedy. Yet it is Muslims who will overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the emergency measures and of the new rhetoric of national self-defence. Fayçal Riyad, a Frenchman of Algerian parents, who teaches at a lycée in Aubervilliers, a few hundred metres from where the 18 November raid against the fugitive attackers took place, pointed out the change in the air. ‘In his January speech,’ Riyad said, ‘Hollande clearly insisted on the distinction between Islam and terrorism. This time he not only abstained from doing so, but in a way he did the opposite by speaking of the necessity of closing the frontiers, insinuating that the attackers were foreigners, but above all in echoing the National Front’s call for stripping binational French people of their nationality if they’re found guilty of acts against the interests of the country. So that is aggravating our fear.’ Marine Le Pen, whose National Front expects to do well in the regional elections in December, is exultant. But anti-Muslim sentiment is hardly confined to the far right. There has been talk in centre-right circles of a Muslim fifth column; a leading figure in Sarkozy’s party has proposed interning 4000 suspected Islamists in ‘regroupment camps’.

IS achieved a further strategic objective by linking the massacre to the refugee crisis. The memory of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old boy from Kobani who was found drowned on a Turkish beach, has now been eclipsed by a passport found near the corpse of one of the attackers. That this assailant made his way to France through Greece, carrying a passport in the name of a dead Syrian fighter, suggests careful planning. The purpose is not merely to punish Syrians who have fled the caliphate, but to dampen European compassion for the refugees – already strained by unemployment and the growth of right-wing, anti-immigrant parties. Marine Le Pen called for an immediate halt to the inflow of Syrian refugees; Jeb Bush suggested that only Christian Syrians be admitted into the United States. If the West turns its back on the Syrian refugees, the effect will be to deepen further their sense of abandonment, another outcome that would be highly desirable to IS.

It is hard not to feel sentimental about the neighbourhoods of the 10th and the 11th, where IS attacked Le Petit Cambodge and the Bataclan theatre. I know these neighbourhoods well; a number of my journalist friends live there. In a city that has become more gentrified, more class-stratified and exclusionary, they are still reasonably mixed, cheap and welcoming, still somehow grungy and populaire. Odes to their charms have flooded the French press, as if the attacks were primarily an assault on the bobo lifestyle. ‘They have weapons. Fuck them. We have champagne,’ the front page of Charlie Hebdo declared. But as the journalist Thomas Legrand noted on France Inter, ‘the reality is that we have champagne … and also weapons.’

France has been using those weapons more frequently, more widely, and more aggressively in recent years. The shift towards a more interventionist posture in the Muslim world began under Sarkozy, and became even more pronounced under Hollande, who has revealed himself as an heir of Guy Mollet, the Socialist prime minister who presided over Suez and the war in Algeria. It was France that first came to the aid of Libyan rebels, after Bernard-Henri Lévy’s expedition to Benghazi. That adventure, once the US got involved, freed Libya from Gaddafi, but then left it in the hands of militias – a number of them jihadist – and arms dealers whose clients include groups like IS. France has deepened its ties to Netanyahu – Hollande has made no secret of his ‘love’ for Israel – and criminalised expressions of support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement...

Still more.

Speaker John Boehner Caves on Amnesty

Lame.

At the New York Times, "Speaker ‘Confident’ of Deal With White House on Immigration":

WASHINGTON — Fresh off an election in which Hispanic voters largely sided with Democrats, Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that he was “confident” Congress and the White House could come up with a comprehensive immigration solution.

Immigration reform is “an important issue that I think ought to be dealt with,” Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on “ABC World News.”

“This issue has been around far too long,” he said, “and while I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

The words conveyed a new sense of urgency from Mr. Boehner, who said earlier this year that he thought it would be politically impossible to tackle a Republican proposal on the Dream Act, which sought to open a path to citizenship for some students in the United States illegally.

According to exit polls by Edison Research, President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote compared with Mitt Romney’s 27 percent, a gap greater than Mr. Obama’s 36-point advantage with those voters over John McCain in 2008.

Though Mr. Boehner did not elaborate on his ideas, nor give a time frame, many lawmakers want to tackle immigration legislation in the next session of Congress. The lame-duck session starting next week will be devoted to dealing with pressing tax and deficit issues.

Well, let's face it: Obama's got political capital and he's collecting dues from the opposition. But frankly, the political benefits of immigration reform (open borders amnesty) will accrue to the Democrats. No matter what Republicans do they'll still be attacked as racist. That's the way it is. We may get reform. But the Democrats will only pad their electoral constituencies.

See Jeff Goldstein for more on that, "'Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans'."

PHOTO: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

Obama Worried About Reelection

The Wall Street Journal reveals the inside dope on O's reelection prospects, not the kind of pessimistic introspection you normally hear from the Democrats.

See, "A More Worried Obama Battles to Win Second Term":

When President Barack Obama emerged from his car in Charlottesville, Va., to address a crowd of 7,000 mostly college kids Wednesday afternoon, he asked longtime friend Valerie Jarrett: "Why am I having a short day?"

Mr. Obama was unhappy there weren't more events for him to make his case for re-election. "There should be no short days," he said.

As Mr. Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention next week, the biggest change from his campaign four years ago is reflected in that complaint. The president is having to work more relentlessly to stay in the White House than he did to get there in the first place, and he knows it.

Mr. Obama arrives in Charlotte, N.C., with polls tightening and the economy far from recovery. When he accepts his party's nomination Thursday, Americans will see a charismatic figure much as they did four years ago, and one who, polls say, is more well-liked personally than is his GOP foe, Mitt Romney.

They will also see a more worried politician, who publicly insists he will win his re-election while privately he concedes he knows he could lose. His job-approval ratings have struggled to cross the magic 50% line. Advisers say he is keenly aware of the tough environment.

"He knows it's his last election," says Ms. Jarrett, who is one of his senior advisers. "He won't look back and think he could have done more."

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says the president faces a tougher election because of a shortage of bipartisan achievements, arguing Mr. Obama backed away from big potential budget and tax deals with Republicans. "He was deeply disappointing," Mr. McConnell said in an interview. "He was not the adult you would expect in the White House.…The president's campaign slogan is, 'It's not my fault.'"

Over his first term, Mr. Obama, 51 years old, has fundamentally shifted his view of modern presidential power, say those who know him well. He is now convinced the most essential part of his job, given politically divided Washington, is rallying public opinion to his side.

As a result, if he wins a second term, Mr. Obama plans to remain in campaign mode. "Barack is grayer, but he's wiser from the battles," says Charles Ogletree, a friend and one of Mr. Obama's professors at Harvard. "This time Barack will use the bully pulpit."

The White House declined a request to interview Mr. Obama.

The president views a second term in some ways as a second chance, an opportunity to approach the office differently, according to close aides. He would like to tackle issues such as climate change, immigration, education and filibuster reform.

He has told some aides that a sizable mistake at the start of his administration was his naiveté in thinking he could work with Republicans on weighty issues. "He's not cynical, because he still gets disappointed," one adviser says. "But he won't make that mistake again."

Still, even some people close to the president acknowledge he missed bridge-building opportunities, given his personal style and aversion to the traditional political niceties that can nurture relationships in D.C. circles.

I love that quote from Mitch McConnnell. And on the president's social graces, the White House admits "The One's" an asshole and snob who couldn't care less about building coalitions, even if it takes work and compromise.

Here's more from WSJ:

The president's team is concerned about the lack of enthusiasm, particularly among young voters and Hispanics—both central to Mr. Obama's strategy. Mr. Obama is trying to energize the Democratic base with tough talk about Mr. Romney and the GOP. He recently launched an effort to rally college students in battleground states.

On Wednesday in Charlottesville, after addressing the crowd, mostly students from the University of Virginia, he went online to Reddit.com, a website popular among young people and the tech cognoscenti, and participated in an "Ask Me Anything" question-and-answer session.

"This is a different Barack Obama at this stage," one senior adviser says. "Last time, he thought Hillary Clinton had been his toughest opponent and that the heavy lifting was behind going into the general election." This time, he "understands that—whether Mitt Romney is the greatest candidate or not—the dynamics in this country make victory a harder prospect."

Mr. Obama arrived at the White House in January 2009 with strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a cache of political capital based on his promise to be a consensus-builder. He netted several big legislative achievements, including an economic-stimulus package and overhauls of financial regulations and health care.

But once in the White House, Mr. Obama struggled to find bipartisan consensus on the tough economic issues he inherited, and strained to maintain the connection he established with voters in 2008. He has had his share of legislative and national-security successes but also a host of battles and losses. In his passage of health-care overhaul, victory came after protracted, messy fights that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and closed-door dealings that hurt his standing with voters.

Republicans leveled the field in the 2010 midterm elections by taking a majority in the House and narrowing Democrats' majority in the Senate. It was clear Mr. Obama had lost some of his connection with voters.

By January 2011 Mr. Obama's advisers were holding focus groups twice a week, a former senior White House official said, and test-driving phrases and policies aimed at resonating with key voting groups.

Mr. Obama is particularly bothered that Republicans and some business leaders have painted him as antibusiness. He argues privately that he hasn't gotten proper appreciation for his work in pulling businesses, particularly the financial sector, out of the recession's ditch. "They say I don't get it, but I'm the one who saved it," Mr. Obama complained to a close ally after the 2010 midterm vote.

John Engler of the Business Roundtable, and former GOP governor of Michigan, said Mr. Obama's efforts to help business have been offset by some policies that have been harmful, citing parts of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul. He said senior administration officials have made substantial efforts to reach out to business in recent years, including a call to him this week about issues like export control. But, he said, "There's been some disconnect on the follow-through."

To underscore their contention that Mr. Obama doesn't understand the private sector, Republicans have seized on a remark the president made in July, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Obama aides say the line has been taken out of context, as it was made after a reference to government investment in infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

The poor boy.

O's upset that people "misunderstood" his anti-business comment "You didn't build that" --- as if that's the first time he's ever dissed business owners and entrepreneurs. He personally pledged to crush the coal industry and he long ago attacked everyday Americans as bitter clingers.

F-k him.

After failing to achieve a sweeping bipartisan debt deal that summer—and then, watching as a smaller compromise struggled through the Republican House—Mr. Obama's new view of his campaign and presidency emerged, aides say: He decided to focus largely on re-election. David Axelrod, a longtime adviser, recalled Mr. Obama phoning him to say, "From here on out, I have to take my case to the American people."

In a sense, Mr. Obama is doubling down on his well-documented distaste for socializing with lawmakers and nurturing personal relationships with Washington insiders. Allies and foes alike say this tendency may have made his road tougher because he never established a rapport with Republican leaders.

Mr. Obama, for instance, rarely opens up his golf foursome to anyone outside his close friends and aides, and hasn't hosted members of Congress at Camp David. Both are tools that previous presidents used to mix business and pleasure. Mr. Obama, in contrast, prefers to spend social time with family and close friends.

His aides say that socializing with Republicans would have made no difference anyway, given their intent on unseating him. During his first year, Mr. Obama held occasional Wednesday-night receptions for members of Congress. "But he stopped those niceties because they didn't make a difference when Republicans' only goal was defeating him," an adviser says.

What total buttfreak asshole.

And don't miss the Los Angeles Times, "Obama faces deep division":

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — It was the promise that first brought Barack Obama to national attention, and the one that his presidency has most conspicuously been unable to fulfill — the hope of national unity.

"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America," Obama, then a candidate for the U.S. Senate and relatively unknown outside Illinois, declared in his keynote speech to the Democratic convention in 2004.

That speech — and the image it created of a political leader with potential to reach across partisan bounds — formed the springboard that helped Obama make the improbable leap from freshman senator to the Oval Office just four years later. Against the backdrop of deep partisan division during George W. Bush's presidency, many voters saw a potential healer in the young, biracial candidate who had spent limited time as a member of the deeply unpopular Washington political elite.

Today, as he prepares to accept his party's nomination for a second term, 3 1/2 years in office have ground away much of that nonpartisan aura, leaving behind a deeply polarized view of the nation's 44th president.

Many Republicans denounce Obama as a "socialist." They express fears that he seeks to radically transform the country. Polls repeatedly have shown Republican voters expressing pessimism about the country's future and worrying that the U.S. has been set on a path toward decline.

At the same time, despite complaints from the left about issues as diverse as the war in Afghanistan, which he has pursued, and efforts to cap greenhouse gases, which he has not, Obama has retained strong support within his own party.

As measured by Gallup, his job approval during most of his tenure among members of his own party has surpassed that of any Democratic president since John F. Kennedy.

The partisan gap in views of Obama is among the largest in modern history, only exceeded — and then just barely — by the division over Bush.

Republicans have sought to exploit a shift in Obama's public image. His rival, Mitt Romney, seldom lets a speech go by without criticizing Obama as a "divider."

Ironically, however, if Obama wins a second term, a shift toward greater partisanship that began a year ago may well prove the single most important reason why — the key to his recovery from near-collapse last summer.

Obama portrays his failure to bridge the partisan gap as among his biggest frustrations in office.

"I haven't been able to change the atmosphere here in Washington to reflect the decency and common sense of ordinary people — Democrats, Republicans and independents — who I think just want to see their leadership solve problems," he said earlier this summer in an interview with CBS correspondent Charlie Rose. "And, you know, there's enough blame to go around for that.

"I think there is no doubt that I underestimated the degree to which in this town politics trumps problem-solving," Obama added.

Yeah, ain't that rich, coming from the Blamer-in-Chief.

What a dick.

The election is tighter than a witch's nipple, despite all the talk about how Obama leads in the swing states, blah, blah.

More on that here: "Ohio Is Ultimate Battleground State."

Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III and Progressive Evil: Denial of Israel-Hatred Enables Exterminationist Anti-Semitism

Okay, here's a year-end review on my deranged stalker, racist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III --- with a special focus on Repsac3's endorsement of elminationist Jew-hatred and anti-Israel demonization. I've been spotlighting Casper's support for Occupy Wall Street as a window to pure evil and diabolical opposition to truth and justice in the world. Casper is the epitome of hate-addled progressive ideology, where up is down and wrong is right. And I know the coverage on this has been a bit much, and I apologize, but it's important to expose the program of someone who has made it his life's goal to destroy his ideological opponents. And it's especially important to expose the deception, for racist Walter James Casper is most dangerous in his campaign of lies and subversion.

Racist Walter James Casper III has written a series of whiny butthurt posts weaselly attempting to deny his endorsement of the hate. Recall, of course, the fact that Walter James Casper endorsed Occupy Wall Street in a Twitter exhortation, "Occupy wherever you are."

Yet as we all know, the evidence of Occupy Wall Street's hatred of Israel and the Jews is everywhere. Jonathan Neumann wrote a devastating indictment at Commentary, which left racist Walter James Casper in a fit of apoplexy and rage. See: "Occupy Wall Street and the Jews."

Readers can Google Casper's Jew-hating stalker blog at "American Nihilist." In response to being pinned down like an Nazi camp guard, Walter James Casper writes:

According to ... Donald Douglas, it's irrelevant that one has never spoken ill of Jewish people. All it takes to be a Jew-hating anti-Semite is to endorse a movement at which a few individuals -- either members of the general public, or in a few cases, longer term activists -- have said some pretty horrible things about Jews. Your own words and actions are not what matter; if one member of your group says or does something shameful, every member of your group is responsible for those shameful words or deeds.

I have to shake my head at this, for the denial here is by definition a clinical condition. But to reiterate, Walter James Casper is lying. To keep up a wicked facade holding that Occupy is some wonderful movement full of hope and beauty, racist Walter James Casper must spew lies about how it's just a "few individuals" who are fomenting hate. But truth is difficult to face when your whole ideological program is based on hatred, demonization, intimidation, and harassment. Towards the conclusion of his Commentary essay, after laying out example after example of vile Jew hatred within the Occupy program, Jonathan Neumann writes:

These do not begin to exhaust the extent or foulness of the sentiments toward Jews and Israel that emanated from the Occupy protests—sentiments so extreme as to compel even Michael Lerner, editor of the left-wing magazine Tikkun, to share his ‘‘distress at the hatred toward Israel and/or toward Jews’’ on display in Oakland.

Racist Walter James Casper cannot argue away the facts, so he denies them. This tendency is in fact a clinical pathology, as Dr. Pat Santy has indicated:

Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world -- no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.

It is, of course, "perfectly apparent to everyone" that Occupy Wall Street pushes a program predicated on hatred of Jews. And so for the epic hate merchant Walter James Caspser, he must distort reality to shoehorn into a deranged and hateful ideological belief system, progressivism.

Last night I posted on the comment boards from the Occupy Wall Street homepage: "Occupy Wall Street: 'F**k Israel'." As is often the case, the administrators post a disclaimer that such views are "not official" --- and one can see why. When your core constituency exhibits a fanatical hatred of Israel you'd want to post as many disclaimers as possible. But those who were on hand in Zuccotti documented the hate for all to see, and to deny this hate is to evince a clinical refusal to denounce evil. Here's Urban Infidel, who covered Occupy Wall Street on the ground in New York City:

I went back to Zucotti Square yesterday because David Crosby and Graham Nash were going to perform and since I had the afternoon free I figured I'd head down to check out the absurd scenery. I missed the show but found something else: the Left's total hatred of Israel and probably Jews. Now, it's never been a secret but to see it openly and unchecked on full display was disturbing.

And it should be disturbing. That kind of rampant hatred is unnatural. But Walter James Casper is down with it. He endorsed it and when called out he's twisted himself into pretzels of lies and distortions to avoid his responsibility.

Photo-journalist El Marco traveled to New York in November and published an epic report. Included is coverage of the progressive Jew hatred documented by Urban Infidel and so many others. Here's El Marco's description of what's going on at the picture below:

A gay, Jewish civil servant, on left, reacts in horror to the comments of this sign-carrying radical Israel-hating non-Jewish Jew. The man with the sign supports Hamas and other Jewicidal groups, and I also photographed him surrounded by muslim men and women who were delighted by his anti-Israel exhortations.

I can already hear racist Repsac's desperate bleats of denial. But the truth hurts. And we fight the left's lies because they facilitate extreminationism.

To continue, here's the statement from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "The “Occupy Movement” Must Repudiate the Anti-Semites in Their Ranks":

With a big and sustained boost from the Media, the Occupy Wall Street Movement has gone global. Beyond Los Angeles’ sustained presence outside of City Hall, the anger and angst is being heard in over a hundred cities, with protesters as far away as Italy and Japan adding their disaffected voices.

Unfortunately, the hateful fringe of the Movement is now also coast-to-coast, though you might not know it from the mainstream media. Today’s hate propaganda from the New York protests has gone viral. This includes placards identifying “Wall Street Jews” as “Hitler’s Bankers,” and angry shouts of “Kill/Screw Google Jews.” According to anecdotal evidence, the conspiracy banter that the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. government and/or Israeli plot is also popular among some protestors....

For almost 200 years, blaming the world’s economic woes on the Rothschilds or Wall Street or Jewish bankers has been “the socialism of fools”—and mother’s milk of every demagogue from Hitler to Henry Ford to the Internet bloggers who still insist that Goldman Sachs’s secret Zionist high-command cunningly engineered the 2008 global financial collapse. Of course, toxic hate is not the motivator of most protestors, many of whom are suffering from orsincerely concerned about real economic hardship. Yet history shows the danger of lunatic fringe ideas spreading from the periphery to the center of a tumultuous movement. And it’s not just anti-Semitism. Americans on all sides of the economic/political divide should be concerned about a New York Magazine poll showing that 34 percent of protestors already consider the U.S. government as bad as Al Qaeda.

The Tea Party, when it emerged in 2009, also attracted its own extremist fringe, as a hyper-vigilant national media was correct to quickly expose. Some of the Tea Party fringe equated Obama with Hitler and claimed that the first African American president was a Manchurian candidate with a phony birth certificate. Yet the Tea Party Movement eventually produced grassroots leaders who denounced such nonsense and repeatedly disavowed racism and racists. Though not everyone was convinced by the Tea Party’s disavowals of prejudice, millions of decent Americans who weren’t bigots voted in the 2010 elections to support the complaints and goals of the movement.

The Occupy Wall Streeters and LA’s City Hall crowd have won accolades for marrying new social network technology to bohemian garb. Its pungent invocation of 1960s hippiedom—”God Forbid We Have Sex ‘N Smoke Pot. They Want Us to Grab Guns ‘N Go to War!”—also strikes a nostalgic chord among some grey-haired pinstripers. But street theater is no substitute for the serious work of building a mass movement that can really change society for the good. America’s “Occupy Crowd” crowd likes to compare itself to Tahrir Square and the Arab Spring Movement that toppled a geriatric dictator. Alas, that Movement has largely collapsed—as Egypt slides toward political chaos or Islamic dictatorship—in part because young Egyptian protesters never learned how to move beyond demonstrating and tweeting to become a constructive social force.

If the Occupy Wall Streeters really want their movement to achieve mainstream credibility and clout, they should begin by policing their own ranks. Organizing the public sanitation in their own encampments is a start, but social and political civility must also prevail. The Occupy Movement’s leaders in LA as well as New York need to disown the purveyors of hate within their ranks. They must pull the plug on the bigots amongst them who view the slogan of fighting the detested “1 percent of fat cats” as their opportunity to mainstream the hatred of Jews.

Unfortunately, it's doubtful we'll ever see "policing the ranks." We won't see Occupy "pull the plug on the bigots" because the bigots are running the show. Yid With Lid wrote a magisterial essay in October, "The Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Origins of Occupy Wall Street Are Ignored by the Media." Take a few minutes to read the whole thing. It's a crushing investigation of the essential organizing hatred of Occupy Wall Street, and the essay concludes:

Over the past month there have been many comparisons between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Here is one comparison that the Mainstream Media will not make. The MSM worked very hard to brand the Tea Party Movement as Racist, but it wasn't. They are working just as hard to ignore the blatant Antisemitism and libelous demonization of Israel coming out of the Occupy Wall Street protests, and they are.

It is not just a few nuts within the Occupy Wall Street Movement who are bashing Israel and Jews, it is the leadership and founders, yet our President and the rest of the Democratic Party are practically tripping over their underwear in a rush to embrace these haters.

Yes, they are tipping over backward not only to "embrace these haters," but to deny that the hate is central to the movement. Ben Shapiro also wrote on this. See "The Anti-Semites of Occupy Wall Street." Like the Wiesenthal Center, Shapiro acknowledges the fringe elements, but indicates how anti-Jewish hatred is the animating ideological orientation of the global left:

Europe is a leftist continent – of that there can be little doubt.  Yet anti-Semitism runs rampant through it.  Socialist Spain leads the way in anti-Semitic polling, but countries like France and Austria aren’t far behind.  Britain’s anti-Israel policy is cover for anti-Semitism; Germany’s post-World War II history of stamping out anti-Semitism is beginning to fade into the past.  Crimes against Jews are up across Europe.

In the United States, the left is just as anti-Semitic, if less violent.  Their anti-Zionist rhetoric is certainly a cover for anti-Semitism, since Zionism stands merely for the principle that Jews deserve a state.  The left has no problem with anyone else having a state – Palestinian, Kurd, Tibetan.  When it comes to the Jews, however, they find it respectable to reject out of hand their right to a self-governing homeland.  Opposing specific policies of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic.  Opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is.

The focus on Zionism at the OWS rallies is odd, to say the least.  Why should a foreign state located some 5700 miles from New York have any part in the discussion about America’s economy?  The answer is simple at root: the hard left still buys into the discredited notions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which Jews supposedly plotted the takeover of the world economy.  Zionism, in this twisted vision, is the wellspring of that control – Jerusalem is supposedly the capital of the Jew/banker conspiracy.  That sick notion pervades the rhetoric of the OWS rallies.  Says one OWS rallier in Los Angeles, “I think the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve … need to be run out of this country.”  Says another in Chicago, “Israel is beginning to be seen as the criminal pariah state that it is.”

This nasty thought pattern unites both the nationalist and the internationalist hard left.  The nationalist hard left – i.e. neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups, as well as many nationalist groups in Europe – see Israel as a façade for a globalist Jewish regime seeking to bring “blood-sucking” capitalism to prominence.  The internationalist hard left – i.e. OWS and its ilk – see Israel as the last vestige of discredited nationalism, and Wall Street as its colonialist branch in the United States.

If OWS wants to be taken seriously as a movement, its members need to root out the anti-Semitism from their midst.  Then again, that rooting out process may not be possible because of how close the cancer of anti-Semitism is to the heart of the movement.  If that is the case, every responsible politician has the responsibility to disassociate from OWS.  Somehow, in the case of the Obama administration, that seems unlikely, no matter how outrageous the Jew-hatred gets at OWS.

I have highlighted in bold italics that key line just above. Anti-Semitism is at the "heart of the movement."

Occupy Wall Street has pledged for 2012 an "American Spring" to bring about a revolution in the United States. It goes without saying that the "cancer of anti-Semitism" that is at "the heart of the movement" will be everywhere in evidence as the next round of protests kick off.

So, I'll close with a link to Phyllis Chesler, "An Open Letter to the 'Good Liberal' Who Ignored Occupy Wall Street's Jew Hatred." Chesler is discussing how global Jew-hatred consitutues a threat to Western civilization. And she places Occupy Wall Street smack dab, front and center, at the forefront of that program of exterminationism.

And how will Walter James Casper respond?

He'll attack Phyllis Chesler as a "bigot". He'll attack her for making "generalizations" that amount to "bigotry.' Walter James Casper will attack Ben Shapiro as a "bigot" for pointing out that Jew-hatred is the heart of Occupy Wall Street. Walter James Casper will attack Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Dr. Harold Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center as "bigots" for calling out Occupy Wall Street for its toxic anti-Jewish propaganda and hatred. Walter James Casper will attack Yid With Lid as a "bigot" for exposing the top leadership of Occupy Wall Street as a raving band of Jew-hating extremists. Walter James Casper will demonize El Marco and the Urban Infidel as "bigots" for their first hand reporting on the hate at Zuccotti Park. Walter James Casper will attack Dr. Pat Santy as a "bigoted" hack for highlighting the progressive pathology of hate-based ideological denialism. And Walter James Casper will attack Jonathan Neumann of Commentary as a "bigot" for writing an essay document a nationwide movement based on eliminationist anti-Semitism.

That's right.

Walter James Casper has written an entire post attacking people for highlighting the hate. Racist Repsac3 claims, for example, "As I've said before, these kind of sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people are what lead to stereotypes and bigotry." And he continues, "When one decides to believe -- and worse propagate ... the idea that seeing a statistically small number of _______ people acting a certain way means that MOST or ALL _______ people act that way, that's bigotry."

So, all of us speaking out against the hate are "bigots" It's not the Occupiers calling for the end of Israel who are "bigots." It's the people of good will, my friends and allies cited here at the post, who are the "bigots." So, see what I mean about up is down and wrong is right? Behold true evil. It's just plain evil. And I know, to repeat, it's astonishing that one can deny the hatred that's at base of an entire movement, and it's even more astonishing to attack people as "bigots" for bringing the truth to the light of day.

But I guess you have to see it to believe it. Folks can Google Walter James Casper's hate blog "American Nihilist." I'm not linking. I long ago stopped linking that vile hate dump and attack portal.

Again, my apologies for my extra attention on these matters. But it's warranted. Walter James Casper's blog is a key repository of progressive hate and it's a documented launchpad against good and decency in the world. I will continue to highlight the deeds of the criminal stalking hate-blogger Walter James Casper III. It needs to be done. And it will be done, for the good of decency and right.

Dana Pico Launches First Street Journal

Here's the inaugural post, "Welcome to THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL!":

In an effort to avoid the problems which plagued my previous site, I am instituting a new Comments and Conduct policy, which will have its own separate page, always available in the menu bar. While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling and personal attacks will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times. Repeat violators will simply have all of their comments deleted.

Congratulations to Dana! And here's to another 7 years of successful blogging!

PREVIOUSLY: "Dana Pico Closes Common Sense Political Thought."

Dana Pico Closes Common Sense Political Thought

My friend Dana has ended his blog. See, "The death of CSPT." Dana emailed to sound me out before he went ahead and pulled the plug. Here's my response:

Close it down only if it's not fun for you, Dana.

I'm sorry you lost Sharon and any others. Would they come back to your blog if you screened commenters? It's the Internet. I went to comment moderation because I had one troll, W. James Casper, who runs a whole blog designed to mock and ridicule me, and now to organize attacks on my employment. Casper always has to have the last word and he's "never wrong", so after allowing him for years I finally started moderation, and my comment section basically died. But I don't blog for the comments. I blog to get my ideas out there. Comments and great commenters are an added bonus, but it's also extra work. So, I'd only close it down if losing a great commentariat is a bummer for you. Otherwise, keep blogging and go with the flow. I love the winter photos, so you'll always have things others would like to read and repost.

Donald

I went over there to check the comments, because Dana said that things had gotten personal at the threads. Folks were making threats and posting real names and workplace information. Here's one comment at this post:

Hube, now you go public with a private email! That is a breach right there.

If you don’t know what you did to out me, that’s on you, Hube. I choose to use my first name on this blog, which both you and Hitchcock arbitrarily revoked. Is this what you call behaving with honor in public.

All I ask of you, and Hitchcock, is that we keep our discourses civil, free from the personal attacks. Apparently that is too much to ask of you, Hube.

So yes, Hube, if the personal attacks continue, in retaliation your identity will then be revealed by me, as you have already done to me. Disagree with me all you want, that is fine, but cease the personal attacks. Do I have to spell out to you what a personal attack is? Perhaps, as a warning, I should point out to you first if you use one. Or just take a look at every Hitchcock post addressed to me – there you will find a million examples. Since Dana has refused to follow through on his requests for civility, ignored by you and Hitchcock, I will act when I am victimized and bullied by you too.

And don’t forget, Dana, your blog is in the public domain. You can certainly maintain your devotion to free speech and simultaneously exert your influence in order to minimize the personal attacks, which certainly contaminate your blog. What has happened to your standards, Dana?

One of the other commenters enters after that to suggest it's not fair to pull Dana into a fight between those two. But actually, it's Dana's house, and Dana has decided that things have deteriorated out of control and he wants to start fresh.

Now, compare that to my stalker and demonic hate blogger Walter James Casper III. That hate-blogger has repeatedly claimed that he started American Nihilist as a joke, but once the blog become the online repository for attacks against my workplace, not once has Walter James Casper rejected the attacks or denounced the hate. To this day commenters there, some of the very people who have launched attacks against me only to get burned, continue to scheme and organize for additional rounds.

If Walter James Casper III had even a shred of the decency as my good friend Dana Pico he'd call it a day at American Nihilist and pull the plug. Casper said it was all supposed to be a joke. Now some commenters have decried Walter James "Costanza" Casper III for his "legalisitic" blogging that has just become a "drag." But Casper is driven by pure hatred. Even after being roundly denounced around the Internet as a clinical stalker and sociopath, he continues his smears and lies for no other purpose but to destroy me. He's even taken his attacks to my personal space, sending threats and taunts via email. Hate-blogger Walter James Casper III should look to the example set by Dana Pico. Sometimes things just get out of control. Dana Pico has denounced the threats and hatred. He's giving it a fresh start on another blog. Walter James Casper should also denounce the threats and hatred and give it up. Retire American Nihilist and start fresh in an effort to salvage any thread of decency that might be left.

PREVIOUSLY: "Continuing Lies by Cowardly Hate-Blogger W. James Casper in Left's Demonic Workplace Intimidation Campaign."

Rare Pre-Halloween Storm Blankets East Coast With Snow

A report at Fox News, "Early Storm Pelts East Coast With Wet, Heavy Snow." And at New York Times, "Nearly Two Million Lose Power as Snow Coats Region."

And Dana Pico has pictures, at Common Sense Political Thought, "Afternoon Snow Pictures":

Turning Conservative After September 11, 2001

I've mentioned it a few times in the past. It was actually the left's reaction to the Bush administration and the Iraq war that made me realize I was conservative. In fact, I realized it on the morning of March 19th, 2003, when I spoke at a campus panel on the war. I didn't feel at home. I was surrounded by bloodthirsty leftists, students and professors, who looked like they had vengeance in their eyes. I went home that night and had dinner with my family, and I remember President Bush coming on the air to announce that combat operations had begun in Iraq. My political beliefs have never been the same. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I still thought the Democratic Party was the party of Truman and Kennedy. How naive I must have been. But my vision has become clearer every year since then.

The annual debate over the September 11th attacks always reminds me of my political transformation. By now it's safe to say that 9/11 and the Iraq war have merged in my consciousness, although it wasn't always so. It took me a couple of years to understand the partisan divide in America, that one side stands for old-time values, love of country, individualism and sacrifice. The other side stands for ideological intolerance, anti-Americanism, and appeasement toward the forces of evil in the world. It's a stark difference that took stark historical events to congeal for me personally.

I'm reminded of this by some of the comments at my post from yesterday, "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11." I wrote at the conclusion there: "For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative." And my good friend Kenneth Davenport dropped by to comment, responding in particular to my conclusion:

I haven't thought about it in this way before, but I've certainly become more conservative in response to the painful nihilism that regularly comes from the left. I live in a different world than they do, and there really are no areas of common ground. That's the truth. They see America as a flawed nation which should apologize for itself at every turn and which deserved the attacks of 9/11. And I see America as the last best hope of earth, a place of unbounded fairness and generosity, forged in the belief that the individual -- and not government -- is sovereign. There is no reconciling these two different belief systems. So I don't try. Instead, I surround myself with good people who share my values and who give thanks every day that there are those who are willing to sacrifice everything for our survival as a nation.

That's so well-said, and reaffirming. And Ken's posted a photo-essay from yesterday as well, where he demonstrates his love of country and appreciation of sacrifice: "9/11 on the USS Midway."

Now remember that it was Paul Krugman who got me going yesterday, and it turns out Glenn Reynolds received a load of comments about that. See, "EVERYBODY’S ANGRY, to judge from my email, about Paul Krugman’s typo-burdened 9/11 screed":

Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had. Thus, he tries to piss all over the people he’s always hated and envied. No surprise there. But no importance, either. You’ll see more and worse from Krugman and his ilk as the left nationally undergoes the kind of crackup it’s already experiencing in Wisconsin. They thought Barack Obama was going to bring back the glory days of liberal hegemony in politics, but it turned out he was their Ghost Dance, their Bear Shirt, a mystically believed-in totem that lacked the power to reverse their onrushing decline, no matter what the shamans claimed.

I'm not angry, as much as continually shocked at the brazen progressive hatred. It forces me to look inward, to my values and beliefs, and to history and national purpose. But sticking with the theme here, recall the essay from Cinnamon Stillwell in 2005, "The Making of a 9/11 Republican":

I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

PROTO CREDIT: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

More on Amazon Affiliates

I know I've posted on this, but I'm still bothered by the Democrat budget in California, which imposes taxes on online sales from the state, also known as the "Amazon tax," since one of the biggest companies affected is Amazon.com. One of the things I miss about being an affiliate, is that whenever I mentioned a book --- which is pretty often --- I would link to Amazon's associate's link and I could earn a referral commission. That's not an option any more. So now it seems weird linking books knowing that a referral fee could be earned --- and an earning opportunity lost. Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain wrote about his referral success. Every now and then a reader will buy an expensive product through a referral link and that sends a large commission to the blogger. Some time back a reader bought an $800 bunk bed through my links, and I received a hefty commission for the purchase. That was nice. And Robert writes on those as well:

Somebody got a sweet deal — only $499! — on that piece of high-end home video equipment via one of the Amazon links here, which earned me a sweet $20 commission through the Amazon Associates program.

And Robert shares this video of Jeff Bezos:

Meanwhile, I rarely link him but I'll break my rule to send readers to Little Green Footballs for some lulz. Charles Johnson is perterbed by Amazon's decision to pull out of the state, but not so much that Democrat tax hikes are destroying free enterprise in California.

Typical. Charles Johnson's a bleeding-heart progressive with psychological problems. No surprise he'd back big government over business.

Anyway, Common Sense Political Thought has an entry, "Amazon.com going Galt Updated, Saturday morning."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Amazon, California play waiting game in sales tax fight":

Amazon.com Inc. is sticking by its vow not to collect California sales tax on Internet purchases — and state officials must decide what to do about it.

But the showdown over the new tax collection law that took effect Friday could be months away. Companies don't send the taxes to the state until the end of each quarter, which means the California Board of Equalization won't know officially about Amazon's refusal to collect them until Oct. 1.

The tax-collecting agency said Amazon accounts for about half the Internet sales in California from large out-of-state firms that, prior to the new law, did not have to collect sales tax for the state. It said the new law would capture about $317 million a year in sales taxes that previously went uncollected.

Amazon, based in Seattle, has said repeatedly that it would not collect the California sales tax, calling it an unconstitutional infringement on interstate commerce.

Such defiance sets up a major legal battle by this fall, though Amazon could first challenge the law in court, as it has in New York. It has lost a trial court ruling there and has an appeal pending.

Amazon is "going to fight in every state where it can fight," said Tracey G. Sellers, managing director of the Tampa, Fla., office of tax firm True Partners Consulting. "It's going to be years before this whole issue is settled" in the courts.

Amazon declined to say whether it would sue to overturn the new California statute, though state officials expect a lawsuit.

More at that link above, but California officials are looking to novel ways at making this unconstitutional law work:

The new law also gives the Board of Equalization the authority to develop new theories that would establish a nexus or legal connection, making Amazon liable for collecting California sales taxes.

"This swings the gate wide open to establish nexus as we see fit," said Betty Yee, a board member who spearheaded the agency's support for the law. But she acknowledged that any other theories the board devises would probably be tested in court.

As wee see fit? Gotcha.