Progressives Are the Biggest Threat to Freedom of Speech in America

An excellent clip from FIRE.

Rauch, who is a far-left progressive, nails it on who's the biggest threat to freedom of speech, thought and expression in the country today. What's surprising, though, is that harassment-blogger Walter James Casper III "liked" it on Twitter --- tweeting it out a couple of times in fact. And it's ironic too, since Repsac3 is the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing. From racism to anti-Semitism to the recent attacks on Ann Coulter at Fordham, Repsac3 is down with it. He never, ever speaks out against it, and in fact joins in with his progressive hate-commentariat in mounting campaigns of personal destruction against those with whom he disagrees. I've chronicled Repsac3's criminal campaigns of intimidation many times. If he truly "likes" the ideas of Jonathan Rauch he should in fact practice them. Sadly, the record shows that while the demonically hate-addled Repsac3 purportedly champions this kind of classical liberal thought, his actual political loyalties are with those who stand against it. It's not just that Walter James Casper III is a stupid man. It's that he's also been psychological corrupted by progressive evil. Where there's a bodily inclination in him that says leftist thought suppression is not just wrong but massively vile, his raging primordial rage at conservatives kicks in to advance the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates above. Repsac3 is a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse. Honestly, his only hope is to follow the words of people like Rauch and literally repent his ideology of hatred and secular demonology.

PREVIOUSLY: "Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Greg Lukianoff, 'How Free Speech Died on Campus'."

Huge Shout Out to Ladd Ehlinger!

Zilla put the call out for conservatives to stand against evil, and a number of folks have answered the call, joining Zilla's honor roll of moral right.

I've been off the grid, so I'm just now reading all the responses. Ladd Ehlinger responded at his blog with an entry, and I read that first and was moved to write without delay. See "When Flame Wars Spill Offline: Conservative Media Should Stand Up." And my comments there:

Ladd, we've engaged enough times by Twitter that I certainly consider you a friend. The battle is of one big piece. The collectivists go by many names, with the Democrat Party being the most familiar. From there you can go on down to real Marxist-Leninists, the folks so closely tied to the party in power today. Values-wise, they're all the same. Perhaps there are degrees, but it's the obliteration of the individual vis-a-vis the state that's the result. I'm going do a roundup of all the support I've received. I can't begin to thank you all enough. I've been on a high all day and I haven't come down yet. That strength from conservative solidarity is unconquerable, and I hope we sustain it!

The progressives mock and ridicule the notion of secular collectivism, but when I argue that the left's attacks on truth and honesty are "satanic," that's the referential understanding. Marxism is a secular religion. It is a belief system which seeks a totalizing dominion over truth and over those who claim a truth based on universal right. According to Leonidas Donskis, in Forms of Hatred: The Troubled Imagination in Modern Philosophy and Literature:

A world religion, a secular belief system, and a rival civilization, Marxism came into existence as a false secularization of consciousness. Marxism has always rested on a sort of secular demonology, splitting humanity into warring groups and demonizing what it took as agents of exploitation and social evil.

As a kind of secular Church, Marxism succeeded, in a historically unprecedented way, in satisfying the ideological, political, and psychological needs of marginalized and alienated intellectuals scattered around the world. It became the first secular Umma of intellectuals. Moreover, it provided its adherents, those secularly religious radicals and doctrinaires, with a sense of pride --- after all, Marxism made intellectuals a major force in history and a presence in all societies, Marxist and non-Marxist alike --- and also with a spiritual fatherland. Marxism designed the revolutionary-ascetic moral culture, which has always been at odds with all other modern systems of moralization, especially with the liberal and nationalist moral cultures.

Linkmaster Smith, at The Other McCain, responds to developments with a version of this, "They Truly Hate Liberty." But more formally is Lisa Graas, "Is American Power Blog Under Attack From Satan?" Both warn that conservatives, in fighting evil, must stay true to God. Conservatives must live good and decently, for then they will have even more strength to carry them forward. Here is my response to Lisa Graas:

Thanks Lisa. Your advice is welcomed. I live by Him in my actions. None of us are perfect, but I never waver from the truth in my dealings with people, I never bear false witness. I can thus claim a moral position that my opponents repeatedly have made frightening haste to abandon. At my blog I linked the series of workplace attacks I've endured, with a record there of the libelous allegations made against me. Even were these normal political and ideological differences, one must beware the forces of evil lurking about in all the lies. This is what I believe. And in that I believe in God, in that He would have me stand for truth and against the lies. And more, in that all politics for me is moral, I do good by Him if I push ahead for a political vision of goodness and right. Sometimes, I'm told, I might use more care to stay on the side of right. So, I'm working on it. I succumb to emotion at times. But in faith I find strength, for no one should be subject to these campaigns of destruction. Those endlessly and remorselessly working against me are secular demons who live not by His holiness, but by the opposite that attempts to pull the Christian warriors asunder.

Thanks again.

I will be updating and adding new posts --- with links to others blogging on this--- in appreciation for all the support. Please head over to Zilla's if you haven't already. She'll add your link to the honor roll.

Communist REPSAC = CASPER Takes Umbrage?

Actually, no one's taken "umberage" at anything, since there's no such thing as "umberage." In fact, REPSAC = CASPER obviously stayed up all night writing yet another obsessive screed and blew off editing this nonsense. One passage is worth quoting here:

"As I said before, Donald and his friends are not showing these communist groups getting widespread support for their ideology ..."

Actually, I've been documenting progressive-socialist influence in American politics for years. It's threatening to people, which is why leftists continue their attempts to shut me down and destroy my livelihood. Comes with the territory. As for this notion of "not showing widespread support for their ideology," well, Americans elected Barack Obama with 53 percent of the vote, and as Stanley Kurtz has written:

The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the president’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration.

That's how it works. Progressives from the president on down work in stealth mode with nefarious groups coordinating at different levels with hardline communist and revolutionary organizations. Again, nothing I could write would sink through REPSAC = CASPER's blinkers of hate and demonology, but the facts remain. Kurtz is probably the foremost expert on Barack Obama's longstanding socialists ties. The DEMOCRAT-PROGRESSIVE-MEDIA-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX worked overtime to subvert the truth before the 2008 election, but over and over again the president's own statements have proved otherwise. Indeed, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his latest book, To Save America, warned that the "Democrats are trying to impose a secular-socialist machine rejected by most Americans." Stalking slimebag REPSAC = CASPER is in denial. Depending on the source, today there's roughly 80 socialist members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. REPSAC = CASPER ridicules these numbers as a WND conspiracy, but in 2002, when the party's infiltration was still growing, the Communist Party U.S.A. was pretty impressed:

Although this Caucus is not large enough to control the Congressional agenda or even to break into the media, the existence of this group of 57 members of Congress, which includes 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and six members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, provides an important lever that can be used to advance workers' issues and move the debate to the left in every Congressional District in the country.

EARTH to REPSAC = CASPER: These are REAL communists. These are REAL communists of the STALINIST variety. These REAL communists were financed by Moscow until Mikhail Gorbachev cut the cord in the 1980s. These REAL communists are thrilled at the growth of socialist influence in the United States Congress. So don't lie, REPSAC = CASPER. You are a communist. And you are a lying sleazeball stalker with absolutely no respect for truth or reason. I've called you out. My friends have called you out. Time to put it to bed: RETIRE AMERICAN NIHILIST!!

Dick Cheney Appears 'Gaunt and Frail' at Bakersfield Business Conference — Leftists Celebrate With Death Chants

Via JammieWearing Fool, and at NY Daily News.

And from the comments at the article:

THE DEVIL KEEPS HIS FAVIORATE SON GOING AFTER FIVE HEART ATTACKS, WELL GOD WILL END THAT SOON ENOUGH SON OF SATAN, SPAWN OF LUCIFER.

*****

Paybacks a bi**h isn't it you war profiteering dirt bag.

*****

Anyone want to start a "DEATHPOOL?"

*****

Why won't this man just die already?

*****

Was the event during the day? Because obviously it was before he could feed himself from the blood of innocents.

That is the first five comments, if you can believe it. There's a total of 69 comments at the link, but no need to go further. This is typical Democrat-leftist hatred and secular demonology.

I report this stuff all the time. The usual rejoinder is "both sides do it." And I'm sure they do. What you don't see is folks on the right working overtime to defend the the "free speech rights" of the demons of the leftist fever swamps. Truly disgusting, but not out of the ordinary at all.

Misunderstanding Markos Moulitsas and American Taliban

Well, folks might have noticed the photo of Markos Moulitsas' new book at one of my throwaway posts this afternoon. I'm almost done with the book. And I was going to hold off on a review, but folks are speaking out on it now, so what the heck?

As far as I've seen among leftists, only Jamelle Bouie's actually read the book, and can thus comment on it with at least minimal knowledge. Significantly, we also have Kevin Drum's comments on American Taliban. He endorses the book while announcing no plans to read it at the same time. And note the ideological affirmation and reassurance as well:

I haven't read American Taliban and don't plan to. I figure I already dislike the American right wing enough, so there's little need to dump another load of fuel onto my own personal mental bonfire.

And that's just the thing. "Dislike" for the American right is SOP with these people. So it's interesting that Jamelle Bouie attempts to distance the progressive left from the extremist ravings of Markos Moulitsas. Only problem is that Markos Moulitsas is the progressive left, that is, he's perfectly representative of the extreme neo-socialism that's become mainstream in Democratic Party politics. Moreover, Moulitsas' endorsement of take-no-prisoners secular demonology is simply the going game of the Democrat Party netroots base. So note two things: (1) Why should anyone be surprised at the content of American Taliban; and (2) why should anyone begrudge Markos Moulitsas for putting pen to paper (or to pixels) to lay out the neo-communist critique of the (perceived) contemporary right wing of American politics? This is what these folks do. The book is an outrage to read, sure, but it's an outrage to read any top blog of the current leftosphere? Indeed, Moulitsas' book reads like one long epic blog post at Daily Kos. Fact is, American Taliban started as a blog post in 2006, and then was crafted into a book. It's not scholarly. In fact, there are no footnotes to document the majority of the outrageous claims offered. What's important to note is Moulitsas' tactic of finding the most out-of-the-mainstream personalities and foisting these off as mainstream conservatives. It's a smear-by-numbers approach that at times pulls in top Republicans like Sarah Palin, etc., adds a couple of the more colorful quotes from said personalities, and voilà! You're got the modern conservative movement 100 percent equivalent to the medieval barbarian Taliban, REAL TERRORISTS who cut off noses of Afghan women and behead apostates from the Islamist creed, and not to mention Americans such as Daniel Pearl. It's absurd, of course. But it's not exceptional. And not only that, the MFM has elevated Moulitsas and Daily Kos to the elite media/Democrat Party establishment. THIS IS the inside game on today's left. So again, this should be no surprise.

Let me just give one example from the book, so folks'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Here's the representative quote from American Taliban, from pp. 50-51:

In the presidential election of 2008, John McCain thought it hilarious to sing, to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran ..." And the American Taliban's latest enemy de jour, Iran, remains an obsessive target for those who don't believe America has suffered enough war in the past decade. Sarah Palin, for example, thought it would be fantastic as a way for Obama to cynically secure his re-election campaign. "Say [Obama] played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but --- that changes the dynamic in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years."

These political fundamentalists, whether Islamic or American, have zero problem playing the war card for domestic gain, sending our bravest to die in distant wars as thoughtlessly as they would move pieces around a game of Risk. Such reckless warmongering behavior results in death and destruction, all in the service to their god and their political ambitions.

Yet, as bad as it is when the American Taliban direct such violent sentiment to our external enemies, it is a direct threat to our democracy when aimed at domestic targets.

I've highlighted that last clause, because that really does sum up Markos Moulitsas' thesis and political agenda. To wit: It is not fanatical global jihad that is the greatest threat to the American democracy --- an existential ideological movement that would be sweeping up in triumphant conquest throughout the Third World, and a bit of the First, if it wasn't for American military power standing guard. It is folks like John McCain, a decorated Vietnam war veteran who gave almost six years of his life to North Vietnamese communist torture and imprisonment, and Sarah Palin, a citizen-politician with five kids who was plucked from relative obscurity to be the 2008 GOP running-mate, who now threaten to destroy the American way of life as representative of some kind of domestic warmongering conservative jihad against the heartland. Yeah, you can see perhaps why some folks like Jamelle Bouie might cringe at such non-reality-based diatribes. But Moulitsas isn't an outlier: American Taliban tells us exactly how the left's hardline partisans see the GOP. And American Taliban wonderfully clarifies the scope of political battle for those on the right who actually live a reality-based life, people who know that it's in fact the alliance between Islam and socialism --- at home and abroad --- that is the genuine threat to our prosperity and perseverance. It's chilling but it's fact. The truth is that Markos Moulitsas is not an "embarrassment to the left," as Doc Zero argues over at Hot Air. Markos Moulitsas is the left. And the sooner folks get that lesson down cold, the faster upstanding folks of moral clarity and values will be able to defeat them.

Added: Digby hasn't read the book either, but still feels confident in claiming:

Markos has written a polemic called "American Taliban" in which he draws an ironic comparison between the far right in American politics and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He isn't saying they are interchangeable. That's ridiculous. Obviously, one exists within a secular Western democracy with a rule of law and the other well ... doesn't.

No, Digby, American Taliban's whole point is that the American religious right is perfectly indistinguishable from the Taliban of South Asia --- and the "American Taliban" is the bigger threat to the U.S. than global jihad. Folks really need to read this book and quit lying about what is or isn't said there. Digby is right up there with Markos Moulitsas as a crazed leftist demonologist who wants a revolution to topple the traditional bases of American politics, if not the constitutional regime itself. Don't be fooled by these people. THEY ARE ALLIED with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and global jihad to destroy American freedom. It's plain as day. I write about it all the time. But naturally very few are willing to call it for what it is, and forget about the MFM. They're in the tank. And unsurprisingly, Digby, in a previous post, isn't shy about endorsing the "American Taliban" theory of politics (even though she's not even read the book):

The inconvenient truth here is that these people are dangerous because their worldview is dangerous. Lethal even. And somebody has to have the guts and to call them on it in their own terms. This "tired genre" of "our opponents are monsters" has been decidedly dominated by one side and the consequences have been grave. We have a fight on our hands and the only real question left is whether anyone on our side is willing to wage it.

Game on, as far as I'm concerned. Knowing one's enemies is half the battle, and these folks are putting the intel right in our laps.

Caleb Howe Doesn't Like Roger Ebert

Folks gotta read this, "I Don’t Like Roger Ebert." (Via Memeorandum.)

I just tweeted @ CalebHowe the other day, so it's strangely funny kinda coincidence. And the fits of apoplexy caused by this are simply astounding.

Even better is that Ebert couldn't let things go, wrote a big follow-up slamming his critics, and gets slammed in return.

BONUS EXTRA: Behold a radical secular demonologist take (hypocritical) exception to the right's clever use of (turnaround) demonology.

Hypocrisy of the 'Tolerant' Left

At Left Coast Rebel, "Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome or the Hypocrisy of the 'Tolerant' Left?"

Perhaps it is a case of both. Boston talk show host Michael Graham found a contest of Sarah Palin 'signs' to commemorate her appearance at a Boston Tea Party event on April 14.

Then LCR points us to the Weekly Dig, with this "winning" submission at left. And the editors note:

Known only as "g80", the winner of our Palin protest sign contest delivers the perfect balance of humor, striking protest design and good old fashioned WTF appeal. Keep your ears open for details on Palin's Boston visit on 4/14.

"Perfect balance"?

Yeah. Right.

As I've said many times: Nothing, and I do mean nothing, matches the extreme hate and secular demonology on the left.

See more of the "entries" at Michael Graham, "An Angry Progressive’s Picture Is Worth A Thousand “Angry, Right-Wing” Words," and Gateway Pundit, "Hateful East Coast Leftists Attack Sarah Palin Before Her Boston Rally… Media Silent." (Via Memeorandum.)

What's the Best Punchline in 'Conan Obama'?

I have a feeling this piece from Professor David Michael Green will get a lot of play today, although being published at Common Dreams I'm surprised folks feel compelled to identify the author as a leftie.

Anyway, I propose this passage as the best of the bunch:

The obvious solution, of course [to your utter failure of leadership], would be a sharp turn to the left. Go where the real solutions are. Fight the good fight. Call liars ‘liars' and thieves ‘thieves'. Do the people's business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry. Create jobs. Build infrastructure. Do real national health care. End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending. Produce actual educational reform. Launch a massive green energy/jobs program. Get serious about global warming. Kick ass on campaign finance reform. Fight for gay rights. Restore the New Deal era regulatory framework and expand it. Restore a fair taxation structure. Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs. Rebuild unions. Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives. Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda. Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies.

Actually, reading over this essay once more I'm not sure if I find it all that funny. Rather than a parody of the president's failures (which are oh-so real), it's a parody of the hardline left's secular demonology. Still good for a laugh, but more insightful for its inside-baseball look at the Jane Hamsherite ideology of the neo-Stalinist contingent of today's Democratic Party.

That said, I'd give the guy a thumbs up for a least putting on a happy face while eating crow. Sure, Obama's a total failure, but considering the sub-par (socialist) sculpter's clay he had to work with, no doubt things are turning out exactly as to be expected.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum. See also Moe Lane's version, "Which Should Be the Takeaway Quote to This Anti-Obama Screed?"

Biodome10 on Twitter Falsely Reports Death of Chris Henry: Bengals Star Succumbs to Injuries 12 Hours Later

I'm not surprised. I've long considered the Internet a 21st-century Wild West. But this is the most bizarre and genuinely evil story I've seen in some time -- and that's saying a lot, considering my investigations into the secular demonology of the radical left.

Cincinnati Bengals wide-receiver Chris Henry passed away this morning from injuries sustained after a fall from on open pickup truck yesterday. The Charlotte Observer reports, "Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry dies after Charlotte accident." And also, at CNN, "Bengals coach: Henry 'beacon of hope' before death."

Cincinnati Bengals football player Chris Henry died after he fell from the bed of a moving pickup truck during a fight with his fiancée, police said Thursday.

"Chris Henry died as a result of his injuries sustained during this incident," a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police news release said. "Department detectives continue to work diligently on this active investigation."

Henry died at 6:36 a.m. ET Thursday, the statement said.

Shortly before noon Wednesday, Henry's fiancée tried to drive off during a "domestic situation," only to have Henry jump into the bed of the truck, police said.

"The domestic situation continued between the operator and Mr. Henry," according to a police statement. Henry "came out of the back of the vehicle" about half a mile from the house, it said.

Henry was a native of Belle Chasse, Louisiana, according to the Bengals' Web site. He and his fiancée, Loleini Tonga, had planned to be married in March, the team said. Henry leaves three children -- two sons and a daughter, the team said.

But there's a really disturbing twist here. Last night, a Twitter user named Biodome10 falsely reported that Henry had died, and the story was retweeted widely around the Internet, and apparently even the Huffington Post reported the information. See, "The tragedy of Chris Henry and the disaster on Twitter." There's a screencap of the tweet at the link, which reads:

Just spoke to Dr. Allenberg, the head of the ICU at Piedmont Regional Medical Center, he confirmed Chris Henry has passed away and ...

The initial tweet is still available on Twitter, as well as this update:

See also, "How a Fake Twitter Death Report Tragically Came True" (which has more screencaps).

I'm not linking to Biodome10. I checked one of the other tweets. It reads, "Ive received numerous requests for my source regarding Chris Henry's passing. I just finished my article on the DMN blog," and then sends readers to a gay porn blog post. There's another that I haven't clicked. It reads, "Footage of the accident. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU GET UPSET EASILY.Very gruesome." That's followed by a tinyURL link to who knows where?

You'd think Twitter would take the page down. There's no First Amendment protections for falsehoods like this, and I imagine the family could seek legal damages.

Like I said. Nothing surprises me any more. As we've seen just this week with the campaign of intimidation against me by E.D. Kain, there are few taboos left any more.

I'm praying for the family of Chris Henry. And I'm praying for my readers at American Power. Please be careful out there.

Sarah Palin and Going Rogue

This is going to be quite a week for the politics of personal destruction. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's autobiography, Going Rogue, is out today. Ms. Palin's whirlwind book tour begins with a high-profile appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, as well as a very personal interview with Barbara Walters, portions of which will appear this morning on Good Morning America. ABC's Kate Snow has a story, "Game On: Palin Book Blitz Begins: Former McCain Aides Rebut Claims in 'Going Rogue'."

One thing to watch out for is whether critics of Ms. Palin have actually read her book. On yesterday's Fox News Sunday panel, Liz Cheney offered the best comments because she said she'd actually read portions of the book. Along those lines, check out Melanie Kirkpatrick's book review, at the Wall Street Journal, "Her Side of the Story":

She discusses her coming of age in the "new frontier" state of Alaska; her personal faith journey; her experiences with marriage and motherhood, including two miscarriages, a special-needs child and a pregnant teenage daughter; and the free-market convictions that have guided her political career. As a politician, she comes across as a prodigious worker capable of mastering complicated issues—not least the energy policies that matter so much to Alaska's economy—and of building bridges to Democrats.

Through it all, Mrs. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.

Perhaps the most important issue raised by Palin's reemergence this week at the center of national politics is, again, whether she's qualified for the presidency. Of course, by just having run as a major party vice-presidential nominee she's broken perhaps the ultimate threshold, although people will continue to attack her as an undignified backwoods hick. Significantly, there's probably an inverse relationship between Sarah Palin's prospects and the radical attacks against her. Not only is the left's rabid demonization of Palin perhaps the best indicator of the former Alaska governor's viability, but the deeper the levels of leftist secular demonology, the higher Palin's favorables among moderates are likely to go.

We still have over a year until the 2012 campaign gets seriously under way. During that time, Ms. Palin will no doubt be continuing her aggressive self-marketing. There's no one on the right who inspires more passion from the faithful, and that's pretty much what it takes to win the presidential nomination. So, Palin just needs to keep chuggin'. Things are going her way.

(And don't put too much faith in these early public opinion polls, for example, Gary Langer's, "Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?" Palin's got lots of time to work her wonders with the American public, and I can guarantee that the left's demonization campaign will only work to increase Palin's favorables over time.)

More at Memeorandum.

Irving Kristol, 1920-2009: Godfather of Neoconservatism

The Astute Bloggers graciously provides the New York Times link, "Irving Kristol, Godfather of Modern Conservatism, Dies at 89." Also, my good friend Ken Davenport has written his own thoughtful commemoration, "Irving Kristol, 1920-2009." Ken focuses on how Kristol's neoconservatism has become the most important critique of modern statist ideologies (and of especially the consequences of post-1960s Democratic Party social policy).

There's lots of commentary at Memeorandum. See Jules Crittenden, GayPatriot, Power Line, The Other McCain, and Outside The Beltway. See especially John Podoretz's obituary at Commentary, and Robert Kagan at the Washington Post. And Myron Magnet, at City Journal, shares a personal anecdote about Kristol's compassion:

His generosity, especially to young conservatives, was legendary. It was partly a matter of policy, for nurturing the talented and finding them influential jobs is the way to build a movement. But it was even more an emanation of the sweetness of his temper and the depth of his humanity. I was complaining to him about New York’s plague of aggressive panhandlers back in the 1980s, and he said, “If someone is so in need that he asks me for money, who am I to determine what’s driven him to it? I always give something.” The reality he always had before him was the human reality.

You could probably say the same thing about most neoconservatives. These folks, mostly, are former liberals who saw the light. But coming to one's senses doesn't mean abandoning compassion. Neoconservatives have a goodness of vision that's defining, and a propensity to back idealism with power that's frightening to many. Indeed, that's why no other manifestation of conservatism has generated as much hostility among antagonists. One need only to read the comments at Firedoglake's entry to get the feel for how badly leftists want to eviscerate Kristol, but they're ironically constrained by the same morality that's the central plank of the neocon vision: Be good and do good in furtherance of the good society (and don't be afraid of raw power while you're at it). That said, not all of the commentators at the post let their better values contain them, and this remark on the "evils" of the neocon worldview perhaps perfectly captures the left's nihilist zeitgeist:

Neoconservatism visited two disastrous and seemingly endless wars upon us. It engaged in a third, the War on Terror, which wasn’t just seeming but truly was endless by definition. Indefinite detention, rendition, torture, and domestic spying are just a few of its accomplishments. Neoconservatism also helped bankrupt the country, wrecked our image abroad, and damaged our Constitution. It institutionalized the public lie and championed immunity for those neoconservatives, of whom there were many, who broke the law. This is the cobbled together, amazingly unthought out “philosophy” of which Irving Kristol was the godfather.

You can see how comprehensive is that repudiation. But what's most interesting - besides the classic neo-socialist repudiation of the neoconservative worldview - is how the commenter pleads the neocon mindset is an "unthought" philosophy. It's a ridiculous statement, of course, borne of a demonic hatred of the mind that's characteristic of today's hardline leftist ideologies. The comment thus captures both the secular demonology and the secular collectivism that's essential to the base of today's Democratic Party.

As a younger neocon myself, Irving Kristol was less important to my theoretical development than have been the Kagans (Robert, Frederick, and Kimberly) and Charles Krauthammer.

But I nevertheless often return to Irving Kristol's brief and excellent summation of neoconservative ideology, published at his son William's Weekly Standard, "The Neoconservative Persuasion." If folks really are unsure about the fullness of the neocon worldview, which is as much a theory of domestic politics as it is one of foreign policy, they can't go wrong spending some time with that essay. And if readers want more, Commentary has made available the magazine's complete archive of Irving Kristol's work from its pages:

We at COMMENTARY will be opening the entirety of his 45-article oeuvre in our archives (from his first contribution, a short story called “Adam and I,” published in November 1946, to his last, a 1994 essay entitled “Countercultures“) for free perusal by all readers. It is a treasure trove, as he was himself an incomparable treasure of a man, an intellectual, and an American. May Bea, Bill, Liz, and Irving’s five grandchildren be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Cross-posted from Right Wing News.

Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

Regarding my recent blogging on the Democratic nihilists, Skye from Midnight Blue asks,"Why bother with Casper? He is an embarrassment even with the fringe folks."

Democratic blogger, epic moral fail, at bottom, jonesing for traffic.

Why? Well, with all due respect to my beautiful friend Skye, I mainly do it because it's worth highlighting the total moral bankruptcy and infinite hypocrisy of these freaking idiots.

Nihilist netroots bloggers called out conservatives for their outrage on the Linda Biegel story. What's the problem with a little Photoshop of Trig Palin as a ghoul? It's not about the baby. It's the "evil" "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea Bagging, Racist, White Guy, Bigots."

Well, remember John Hawkins' suggestion, that it's "time to give them a taste of their own medicine"?

It turns out when you turn the Photoshop tables, the nihilists don't like it one bit! Here's this from Repsac3, in response to my Photoshop yesterday on the "Commissariat for Internet Affairs":

A college professor with a Ph.D., and this is the level of discourse you're choosing?

As before, all I can say is wow.

If I were your employer, your student, or your friend, I'd be embarrassed to have to admit it.

Politics of the personal, at it's finest.

And worst of all, not even funny.

A loss on all counts.

Sad, to see what you've become. But I guess I should've expected it. The hinges have been coming off for awhile.

My sympathies to all those who knew you back when...

Hmm ... pretty indignant right?

The increasingly frequent "wow, just wow" line is when leftists realize they're TOTALLY F*****!!

I don't recall Repsac3's outrage, or that of his radical allies, at David Hoogland Noon's Photoshop of me from last year. Nope, it's totally cool when it's done by your side!! No matter that nihilist Noon boasts a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Hey, anything to take down the "evil" neocons! Even left-wing anti-Semitism is cool with these jerks.

What was that Black Flag song again? Oh yeah, "No Values":

I've got no values
Nothing to say
I've got no values
Might as well blow you away

And they would too. They would blow away Sarah Palin if they had the chance. Look how they've mercilessly stalked the Palin family for almost a year now. Recall how this whole controversy erupted? With the awful, just reprehensible Photoshops of Baby Trig? Hey, no problem for the Democrats. The leftists are fully down with it! And it's understandable. "Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second." And to the radical left as well.

Of course, look at this picture ... this is who the nihilist leftists want to destroy:

And what does Brain Rage have to say about Trig Palin? It's all at the blog:

There's nothing worse than an ugly baby....

And about Trig's mother, Governor Palin?

... an incurious dullard.

A Downs child? An "ugly baby."

God help these people, seriously? I blog about this stuff all the time. It's time consuming, I know. And like Skye, many others have said, "don't waste your time on these moral reprobates."

The point's well taken, but you have to see it to believe it, so I continue to blog this stuff, to get this pure hate out in the open for all to see. John Hawkins is right: You have to get down and dirty, but you can never GET THAT DIRTY.

Repsac3 and James "Barebacker" Webb are not some fringe contingents of the Democratic Party. These people ARE the Democratic majority. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO!!

Even this morning, James "Barebacker" Webb has a post up saying it's all a joke, and that American Power has suffered a "Humor Fail."

Actually, the post in question wasn't comedy. My parody was only half in jest, as anyone familiar with the left's secular demonology knows.

Besides, we can just appeal to the marketplace of ideas to see who's really epic fail here.

Let's compare: Here's my traffic report for last week:

Here's James Webb's traffic report for last week:

So, my friends. There you have it. James B. Webb. Total. Epic. Moral. Fail.

Pretty freaking lousy blogging too! See Robert Stacy McCain, "How Not to Get a Million Hits On Your Blog, And Not Score With Hotties. Ever."

PWNED!! TOTALLY!! DUDE!!

**********

Cartoon Credit: David Horsey.

Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative 'Ghoulshops' Trig Palin!

A top Alaska Democratic Party operative once again proves the everyday demonology of left-wing secular progressives.

Via Gateway Pundit and Conservatives for Sarah Palin, it turns out that Linda Kellen Biegel, the publisher of Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis, has Photoshopped a ghoulish picture of Trig Palin at her blog. She's also linked by the Alaska Democratic Party website:

From Conservatives for Sarah Palin:

Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Is this the position of the Alaska Democratic party? Keep in mind that she was the official Alaska blogger for the DNC.

Does Bob Poe, who attended a Q&A with Linda Biegel, approve of this?

Actually, why don't you email Bob Poe himself to find out...

And she's linked at the Alaska Democrat's website!

Check this link for the e-mail addresses to Alaska State Democratic Party officials.

Here's Biegel's Facebook link (available from a public Google search). Send her a "friend" request with a personal message!

**********

UPDATE: Celtic Diva's response is here. And this is what it's all about:

When folks like this think a radio talk show host is a "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible-Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea-Bagging Racist, White Guy Bigot," it's pretty clear they're not losing sleep over "ghoulshopping" Trig Palin into a grotesque ridicule of Downs syndrome.

More information here:

For those of you who might be unaware, Linda Kellen Biegel was one of the people who filed a frivolous ethics complaint against Gov. Palin. Her complaint claimed that the governor abused the Ethics Act because she wore a jacket with ... the logo of the company that sponsors her husband in the Iron Dog snowmachine race. Biegel's ridiculous complaint was, of course, dismissed, but not after costing the governor thousands of dollars in legal debt to defend herself. You can donate to the governor's legal defense fund, The Alaska Fund Trust, here.Biegel's use of this sick photoshop is part of her efforts to raise money for her next frivolous ethics complaint.

Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics

I should probably weigh in on the Ed Whelan/John Blevins imbroglio. Everyone else is, and I'm getting some links out of it as well!

Some quick background: Ed Whelan outed "Publius" at Obsidian Wings. The latter's real name is John F. Blevins, and he's an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law. Check the links above, and Memeorandum. At issue are the attacks on Whelan as the right's go-to "legal hitman." The term is from the "Anonymous Liberal," so the irony there is rich. Readers can assess who comes out on top in the substantive debate. No matter, though. Whelan comes off as putz, either way. Both James Joyner and Dan Riehl eloquently make the case against Whelan.

Now, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't out someone who writes anonymously (or "pseudonymously," as the case may be). Repsac3 got mad at me once for using his real name in a comment thread. But he had posted his real name at his Twitter link, at he linked to it at the sidebar. So, it's kind of hard to get mad at being "outed" if you "outed" yourself.

Frankly, if a blogger writes under complete anonymity (or pseudonymity), that's his prerogative. And it's not up to me or anyone else, in pure spite, to reveal their identity. It's kind of cowardly, in my opinion, to use a pseudonym, but I can understand it. After the Repsac3 exchange, PrivatePigg, a conservative blogger and friend of mine, said he blogs anonymously simply to protect his privacy from the radical leftists he knows will stalk him and his family.

It happens. As reader know, I routinely wade into the comment threads at leftist blogs to debate and ridicule. I don't claim to be nice about it. I've even used profanity in a comment thread at "Dr. Hussein Biobrain's" blog. But I don't threaten people; I skewer. And some folks can't handle being revealed as nihilist America-bashers. After commenting a few times at The Swash Zone, I received this e-mail from "(O)CT(O)PUS," the blog's publisher:

DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.

I don't harrass. If folks can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or go to comment moderation at least!

But if there was ever good reason to blog anonymously, real harrassment such as this is it. "(O)CT(O)PUS" made the rounds at leftist blogs to brag about how he'd "kicked my ass." And he PUBLISHED MY WORK CONTACT INFORMATION so that his co-bloggers could call my college president. I wrote about it here, "(O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY."

What's funny about this, in the present debate, is that while Whelan's coming off like an adolescent jerk, the truth is that radical leftists have made a career out of "outing" those with whom they disagree. TBogg, whose real name is Tom Boggioni, has made a pastime of it, as Willliam Jacobson reveals:

So yeah, screw Ed Whelan. The guy's coming off like a thin-skinned prick. But just know that all the faux-outrage on the left is totally hypocritical. These folks get off on outing, snarking, shaming, and demonizing conservatives. That's their livelihood. This secular demonology has no counterpart on the right. Sure, some conservatives are peurile, but leftists are masters at the game.

P.S.: I have a lot of respect for conservatives who get along amicably with leftists. I don't do it well, online at least. Some of my best friends are Democrats (scroll down, here, for my colleague Dr. Greg Joseph, who's a Truman Democrat). But these friends would never put up with the kind of filth that is the stock and trade of today's netroots hordes.

Also, Ed Morrissey's got a poll up, "When is it okay to out liberal bloggers?" See also, Rick Moran, "The Outing of Publius and the Comfort of Anonymity."

Business as Usual at Daily Kos

Here's Markos Moulitas, on Twitter, using the murders of three Pittsburgh police officers as grist for political snark:

When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk "revolution" and kill cops.

As Captain Ed notes, "Markos Moulitsas twittered his list to blame the shooting on the conservative movement, and apparently joke about the murders."

Recall that Moultisas and Daily Kos have longed claimed to represent the "mainstream" of the Democratic Party. I've written previously about Moulitsas' representative secular demonology. But check out Caleb at Red State, "Kos & Kompany: Cop Shooting Equals Twitter Fun:

Diaries and comments at DailyKos indicting conservatives as inciters of murder are utterly commonplace. And not just at DailyKos. To a whole wing of the Democrats it’s axiomatic that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck cause violence. I’m reminded of a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, wherein he and his panel claim that the invective and hyperbole of conservative pundits is so excessive and that it invites harm on Obama, and then equate Glenn Beck with Nazi sympathizer and apologist Father Coughlin. Yes, all in the same segment. Yes, Keith “YOU’RE A FASCIST, SIR” Olbermann.

It’s very telling. Calling conservatives Nazis isn’t even hyperbole to their minds. But calling Obama’s socialist policies socialist is an incitement to murder.

There's more at Memeorandum.

Andrew Breitbart on the Left's Internet Hooligans

Via Memeorandum, check out Andrew Breitbart's essay on the digital disinformation war leftists have waged on conservatives, "Online Activists on the Right, Unite!":

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

And:

The left ... uses disinformation to inundate the advertisers of conservative-leaning talk shows to intimidate them from financially supporting popular mainstream shows.

Which is what Think Progress is attempting to do with Bill O'Reilly right now.

But what's especially noteworthy for me is Breitbart's discussion of the left's secular demonology, which I've discussed on this blog many times:

So now that the right is vanquished and thoroughly out of power, why doesn't it learn from its conquerors and employ similar tactics?

The answer is obvious. The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The current political and media environment crafted by supposedly idealistic Mr. Obama resembles Hugo Chavez's Venezuela more than John F. Kennedy's America.

The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites benefit from the right's belief that there are rules and decorum in political debate and civic engagement. Of course, every now and then, a curious right-winger will go in and engage in discussion at a left-wing site, but rarely under purely disingenuous and mass coordinated means.

David Brock, John Podesta, am I missing something?

As a prolific consumer of online content, I value nothing more than the sincere expression of opinion that differs from mine. Sometimes I am even moved or swayed from my dogma. But that was not the type of communication that got Mr. Obama elected.

The American right is in a heap of trouble in a media age that doesn't shun the goons and liars that have poisoned the political process and won the American presidency by breaking the rules of fair play. It is time to fight back, but it won't be easy. The enemy is willing to do and say anything in order to win.

One of the left's great representatives of radical secular demonology is here.

See also Saber Point for a discussion of "The Dirty Online War Against Conservatives."

**********

UPDATE: Robert Stacy McCain has a big, awesome essay on this, see, "Andrew Breitbart Shows Why He's Becoming One of the Most Important Columnists in America Today."

On Snark and TBogg

The other day, in response to my essay, "How New Deal Policies Prolonged the Depression," TBogg of Firedoglake left this in the comments:

Be careful what you wish for Donald. I would hate to see the definition of a "socialist" become: " a pro-victory associate professor who lost his job because the state didn't get enough stimulus money".

And I'm not being snarky.

Best of luck to you.

TBogg says he's "not being snarky."

Okay, then what is he being? He's certainly not being caring or compassionate. That's not his intent at all, since his entire blogging schtick is snark.

TBogg, for example, in "F-Me Pumps," smeared Alaska Governor following last October's vice-presidential debate - where she was wearing red high-heels - as an Alaskan hillbilly, the political personification of Amy Winehouse's no-nightlife sluts. TBogg's also had a longrunning hostility to Townhall's young conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro. Ridiculed as "Virgin Ben," TBogg has attacked Shapiro for his sexual abstinence, and when Shapiro got married in Israel last summer, TBogg wrote a post entitled, "Mazel Tov! Now why don’t we do it in the road…", saying "The Virgin Ben, had gone Full Metal Conjugal back in July with his new bride, the now Mrs. Probably Not A Virgin Ben ...

And now TBogg claims that his comment at my post wasn't "snarky"? Well, perhaps a little childish excoriation wasn't up to the task needed to take me down more than a few notches, that is, to destroy me for speaking truth to Democratic power.

I'm halfway through reading David Denby's, Snark, a book on the increasing corrosion of public discusion in American life. Now, I'm no fan of Denby. In a later section of the book, in a chapter devoted to Maureen Dowd, he slams the New York Times columnist for the inadequacies of her snarky essays in attacking President George W. Bush, who Denby calls a tyrant (and then pleads that he's not comparing President Bush to "Hitler").

That said, in Snark, Denby is judicious in his analysis, and the book's worth a look for those still sorting out the venom of a life of political blogging. Denby, by the way, is not attacking satire or spoof, irreverence or irony. He's especially not taking on hate speech or Internet trolls. Denby sees snark (which is the use of malicious sarcasm) as a "pinkeye" infecting the national conversation.

In his historical review of snark, Denby says some of those who professionally attack others intend their words to be strong enough to "make their victims disappear - go away, give up, even kill themselves."

This, then, perfectlly captures TBogg's comment above.

I'm one neoconservative blogger who "just won't die," and when I'm actually strengthened by the abuse and invective from folks like TBogg, they'll abandon snark to just sow fear - in this case job loss for a professor like me employed by the state community college system.

It's not just, "How dare you ridicule the Democratic socialist agenda? Don't you know that you'll lose your job?" It's "I hope and pray you lose your job you wingnut freak, and that you die in the wet gutter of the unemployment lines. We've had it with neocons like you who've raked this country over the coals with war and economic catastrophe." TBogg's beyond just flipping conservatives the bird of dismissal. His intent here is to feign serious concern - "Best of luck to you" - in disguise of the dark spells of death and destruction.

This is what's at the heart of the left. Both sides do snark, of course, as Denby indicates to full extent in is book.

But people like TBogg have truly abandoned any modicum of divine grace and reason for the witch's spell of contumely and ridicule. This is the faux humor of secular demonology. It's not for fun and laughs. It's to denigrate and destroy those whose values and ideas stand in the way of the left's progressive nihilism that's seeking a chokehold on the vitality of this nation.

Paul Weyrich Dies, Gay Activists Ecstatic

Paul Weyrich, a central figure in the modern conservative movement, passed away yesterday in northern Virginia.

This morning's Los Angeles Times features a thoughtful obituary, "Paul Weyrich, Religious Conservative and Ex-President of Heritage Foundation, Dies at 66."

It turns out that Weyrich, who suffered from multiple illnesses, and who lost both his legs to amputation in 2005, continued to write commentaries up to the time of his death. He published an essay yesterday at Townhall, "The Next Conservatism, A Serious Agenda for the Future." In 1979, Weyrich coined the notion of the "moral majority" during a discussion with the Rev. Jerry Falwell:

Falwell "turned to his people and said, 'That's the name of our organization,' " Weyrich recalled in an interview last year with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel."

One can see why Weyrich's passing would be a cause for celebration on the left.

It happens whenever a conservative icon passes away. Yesterday, at Pam's House Blend, gay activists cheered the death of Weyrich in classic fashion:

- "Good Riddance ... At least Falwell won't be lonely in hell."

- "I know it's poor taste to speak ill of the dead, but I truly believe that the world has lost nothing with Weyrich's passing and probably experienced a net gain. Hopefully, if there is a hereafter, he gets judged the way he so harshly judged others."

- "You're only supposed to say good things about the dead? Okay. He'd dead. Good."

- "He shall not be missed ... A truly evil, hateful wingnut."

- "YAY ... And the world is a tiny bit better today."

- "Young too ... He was only 66 y.o."

- "He died too late, ... Like 65 years too late, IMO."

- "I was always taught to respect the dead, but ... Seriously, I'm not shedding any tears over this scumbag. Good riddance, ya toad."

The thread reveals a couple of commenters trying to be respectful, and the remarks here are mild compares to the left's demonization of Jesse Helms when he passed away earlier this year.

If you missed it earlier, check out Ben Johnson's essay on the left's secular demonology, where he writes:

Leftists lack the religious grounding to recognize everyone as a divine soul and a tradition that teaches them to “hate the sin but love the sinner.