Spencer Ackerman's Klan Slander

Let me remind readers of my post from July of last year, "Epitaph for Imperialism? Or, the Death of President Bush Foretold."
In that piece I cited a Spencer Ackerman essay, where he declared of President George W. Bush, "May his war-crimes prosecutor be Iraqi; may his judge be American; and may he die in the Hague."

I generally don't like radical leftists, especially in foreign policy, as they enable America's enemies. But I'm certain that Ackerman's got a special place reserved in Hell - the way he condemns, defames, and demonizes those of upright moral standing and resolve - so things do even out in the end.

I mention all of this with reference to Ackerman's essay today, "Neocons vs. Bob Gates, With Special Guest Appearance by KKK Founder." The piece is a slanderous attack on Thomas Donnelly and Gary Schmitt, and their essay at today's Wall Street Journal, "Obama and Gates Gut the Military." The authors argue that the Obama administration's new Pentagon budget, announced this week by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will result in "a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop." Read the whole thing for the specifics (I'd hate to see the F-22 Raptor get the ax after all). At the introduction, the authors quote Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate Cavalry commander and innovative thinker of military doctrine. Forrest was also a founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and this fact provides Ackerman's opening against Donnelly and Schmitt:

Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, members in good standing of the neoconservative cabal to eat your babies and conquer the world and then eat more babies, have an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing against Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ program cuts. While they don’t really like the budget, they do seem to like the founder of the Ku Klux Klan ....

American dominance is not so fragile that trading planes is going to eliminate it. But I guess taking advice from Klan leaders leads to all sorts of paranoia.

Ackerman, at one point, takes issue with Donnelly and Schmitt's argument in favor of the F-22, claiming that the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) is a ready "alternative." Of course, as I cited the other nght, the incomparable F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter aircraft ever built, and as my friend Tom the Redhunter notes, the F-35 Lightning "was never intended to be our primary front line fighter"

Spencer Ackerman, who bills himself as a national security "expert," should know this. But the comparative efficacy of military readiness, force postures, and ordnance requirements are irrelevant to Ackerman's program. His demonic goal is to excoriate and ridicule the "evil" neocons, but in the process Ackerman simply demonstrates once again how childish he is. He's might as well quit journalism to focus on his punk band. No doubt some of the Nazi skinheads at his gigs would be better able to appreciate the significance of historical figures such as Nathan Bedford Forrest.

See also, The Redhunter, "Obama's B-1A?"

Image Credit: All Things Beautiful, "The Power of Demonization."

The Gay Marriage Fantasy

It turns out there's some backlash on the secular left in response to the National Organization for Marriage's new ad compaign, "The Gathering Storm."

The Human Rights Campaign, a radical gay rights pressure group, has launched a counter-offensive, attacking "The Gathering Storm" as "lies about marriage for lesbian and gay couples." The Human Rights Campaign has released a video allegedly countering the claims of the National Organization for Marriage, which is available here.

The National Organization for Marriage can defend their own advertisment, but when the actors in the video suggest that advocates for same-sex marriage "want to change the way I live," there's no question as to that statement's accuracy. Indeed, as William Murchison demonstrates at Real Clear Politics, the gathering storm of gay marriage radicalism seeks indeed to hijack the very identity of traditional American culture, abducting it for themselves in a campaign of vile licentiousness and excoriation of those of moral faith and values:

You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.

Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.

The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.

The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. "What I say goes!" has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existence.

A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

A gay "marriage" (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile -- barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.

Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't "like" too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.

True, marriage isn't the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There's also the ancient practice called illegitimacy -- in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It's a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.

Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to "equal protection of the law" necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.

One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?

The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn't to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to "keep your distance." We're reminded again -- as with Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence -- of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn't say things that weren't so. Would they?

Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.

See also my recent essay on the controversy at Pajamas Media, "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa."

For the radical left's campaign of demonizing those of faith, see Pam Spaulding, "National Organization for Marriage's new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word 'religion'."

The Gathering Storm: The National Organization for Marriage

Here's the new advertisment from the National Organization for Marriage, "The Gathering Storm":

April 8, 2009 (Trenton, NJ) -- Today the National Organization for Marriage is launching a nationwide Religious Liberty Ad Campaign designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation.

Already, Boston Catholic Charities has been denied its adoption agency license because of their religious beliefs concerning marriage and the welfare of children. A New Jersey church group has been denied property tax exemption because they cannot in good conscience permit civil union ceremonies in church facilities. And individual service providers have been forced to choose between their faith and their profession. Religious liberty experts have said that these sorts of conflicts just scratch the surface of what we are likely to see if same-sex marriage becomes widespread.

The secularist media establishment is already attacking the ad campaign. The Hot Sheet has posted a screed entitled, "$1.5 Million Spent On Anti-Gay Marriage Ad." With less hysteria, Ben Smith at The Politico joins in with, "New campaign fights same-sex marriage."

More at Memeorandum.

Congressional Black Communists?

The Congressional Black Caucus is often identified by its acronym the "CBC," which, considering the oganization's meeting yesterday with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, might as well be stand for "Congressional Black Communists":

Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.

“The fifty-year embargo just hasn’t worked,” CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) told reporters this evening at a Capitol press conference after returning from a congressional delegation visit to Cuba. “The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.”

Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro's later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.

"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.

“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama’s message of turning the page in American foreign policy.

"He listened. He said the exact same thing" about turning the page "as President Obama said," said Richardson.

Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. "He looked right into my eyes and he said, 'How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'"

U.S. Represenative Barbara Lee was the only member of either chamber of Congress to vote against the use of force to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Representative Laura Richardson, the "deadbeat Democrat" from Long Beach, is widely recognized as the most corrupt member of Congress.

Now these idiots are getting Communist Cuba on board to "help" the President of the United States?

No doubt Obama will be receptive, and the academic elite and the mainstream press will sweep the Democrats' Communist Diplomacy under the rug. It's not like conservatives didn't anticipate this stuff. See, "Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines."

A Constitutional Convention for Iowa?

At MyDD, "Des Moines Dem" fears the talk in Iowa on holding a constitutional convention:

Although I'm confident that over time a large majority of Iowans will come to support marriage equality, I confess that I am a bit nervous about the issue coming to a statewide vote in 2010 or 2011.

One might think that secular progressives would be more confident in their policies. The Des Moines Register reports on the possible issues that might be addressed at such a meeting. Interestingly, Chet Culver, Iowa's Democratic Governor, voiced the traditional line on same-sex marriage:

As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines.

Any changes to the constitution will go directly to the voters through ballot initiatives, although the process is lengthy. Yet, the sooner the voters decide the gay marriage question, the sooner we'll see how out of tune the state's leftists are with the majority of Iowa citizens.

Leftists Want in on Tea Party Action!

Here's Michelle Malkin on the left's efforts to shoehorn in on the conservative tea party buzz:

So, in addition to preemptive smears and sabotage efforts, the Left’s nutroots — feeling, well, left out of the spotlight after putting the Obamessiah in office — are organizing their own anti-Tea Party demonstrations.

Liberal guru Joe Trippi and government-subsidized Bill Moyers are pushing the new initiative, titled “A New Way Forward.” Hey, wasn’t Obama supposed to be your New Way Forward? Way to go!

The lefties have chosen April 11 to try and usurp media attention from the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party event on April 15. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's funny, but it was just a few weeks ago that leftists were ridiculing conservatives for "Going Galt", and last week Markos Moulitsas blamed the Pittsburgh cop killings on conservatives agitating "revolution." And this week faux conservatives are attacking Rush Limbaugh: "You're a brain-washed, Nazi!"

But they sure are looking to get in on the tea party action!

For example, "The Huffington Post wants to have citizen journalists at as many of these events as possible." Right. "Citizen journalists"? Make that counter-demonstrators, if anything.

In any case, via Glenn Reynolds, see "Tax Day Tea Party local events, videos and anti-tax boom." Also, Nice Deb asks, "Who’s Going to A Tax Day Tea Party?"

I will be attending the Santa Ana tea party, not far from my home (check Tax Day Tea Party - California" for more information on the California protests). And check out "Tea Party Sign Artwork" for downloadable signage.

**********

UPDATE: Actually, I saw the warning last night at Nice Deb, but check out, Via Memeorandum, "ACORN, HuffPo Organizing Efforts to Infiltrate Tax Day Tea Parties":

Acts of protest tend to be synonymous with the left and are usually considered unsurprising on the right. However, when conservatives demonstrate – liberals take notice in a big way.

On Fox News Channel’s April 7 “Your World,” host Neil Cavuto reported that the Tax Day tea party protests on April 15 will be “infiltrated” by their political opponents and led by left-wing activist organizations. He specifically named Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

“Only eight days before a nationwide tea party, some over-caffeinated crashers aiming to lay waste to it,” Cavuto said. “Reports of very well-organized infiltrators trying to mix in and rain on this parade. Talk about taxing.”

One organizer, Mark Meckler of the Sacramento Tea Party, dismissed the counter efforts and said they were to be expected.

“We don’t take them seriously at all, and I’ll tell you why,” “It’s not that they don’t exist – we expect people to attempt to infiltrate,” Meckler said. “We expect people to attempt to disturb what we are doing, but the reality is that this is a very broad-based grassroots movement. There is no leader at the top. There is no individual event that they can disturb that would cause us a problem nationwide.”

Meckler explained that everyone was invited – even if they come to promote a philosophy that runs counter to what the tea party movement is attempting to convey.

“So also, the people – we trust the grassroots,” Meckler continued. “We know, the people are skeptical of anyone approaching at these events, and we believe that people are going to handle it well. And in fact, we invite everybody to come to our events. We don’t care if they are from ACORN, The Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. We want them all there. We’re excited to have them attend.”

Obama's Polarization of America

Amy Walter has published a great essay at National Journal, "From 'Post-Partisanship' To Polarization":

Despite calls for a "post-partisan" presidency, a recent Pew Research Center study found that President Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings for a new president in 40 years.

The 61-point gap in opinion is driven by almost universal support from his party (Democrats give him an 88 percent approval rating) and very low approval ratings (27 percent) from Republicans. In comparison, President Bush had a 51-point gap in April 2001 (he had higher approval ratings among Democrats than Obama has among Republicans), while President Clinton had a 45-point gap in April 1993 (his support among Democrats wasn't as strong as Obama's, though he had the same approval ratings among Republicans).

This sounds shocking on its face -- Obama more polarizing than Bush after the 2000 election? But it shouldn't come as that much of a surprise. After all, when a president pushes -- and passes -- an agenda that leans heavily on government spending, Democrats rally around him while Republicans move away from him. Our own polling backs up this theory.

You can read the entire essay, here, but the point is obvious for anyone with a moderate interest in politics: This administration has aggressively combined leftist big government activism with dishonest claims to bipartisanship. Just one look at this administration's sheer magnitude of deceit and hubris illustrates why Barack Obama is dividing the country more than any of his recent predecessors.

What's even more interesting is how totally cocooned are the hardline Democratic progressives. As soon as conservatives start to act like an actual opposition movement, they're branded by the leftist nhilists and libertarians as "hysterical bed-wetters" and panicked militia-movement "birther" extremists? Indeed, Michael Cohen's got a whole piece up at The Politico on Glenn Beck's recent hypothetical anarchy segments entitled, "Extremist rhetoric won't rebuild GOP."

Jimmy at Sundries Shack takes down the Cohen piece, in "It’s Easy to Call Someone a Conspiracy Theorist When You Can Just Make Up What They Believe."

Ain't it the truth.

But I'm glad to see some pushback here, because while polling data show that it's in fact the Obama administration that's now polarizing the nation, the left-liberaltarians and the progressive totalitarians are making a play to dominate the political framing wars. But let's return to Amy Walter's piece, where she notes:

With almost universal support from Democrats, Obama doesn't have to worry so much about keeping his base happy. But the fact that he has so little support from Republicans means that he can't afford to lose his standing with independent voters. At this point, independent voters are showing signs of disenchantment with the Democrats, but Republicans still need to give them a reason to support them and their policies.

So that's our play. As Robert Stacy McCain notes today, with reference to this week's bogus New York Times poll:

We are barely five months past the last election, the biggest Democratic victory since 1964, and Obama's been in office less than 90 days ... Opponents of Obamanomics ought not be worrying about polls at this point. Organize! Raise money! Identify and support promising candidates in promising districts.

Yeah, organize ... like a few more tea parties!

It's happening already, folks. The conservative comeback is the light at the end of the tunnel!

How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?

Well, there's a lot of news on the gay marriage front today.

The Vermont legislature legalized same-sex marriage by overriding the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas (more here and here). Counterintuitively, what may be even more significant is the vote at the D.C. Council to recognize the gay marriage laws of other states. As the Washington Post reports, "The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress ..." And that debate would then raise questions in Congress surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allows states to refuse recognition of the same-sex marriages of another state.

I've written so much on this question, and sometimes I have to wonder: Maybe Rod Dreher's right - are traditionals indeed "on the losing side of this argument?"

Actually, I don't think so. The problem is that I'm not seeing enough conservative activism against the same-sex movement, or maybe I missed it?

In any case, let me share another section of Robert Bork's essay making the case for a Federal Marriage Amendment, "The Necessary Amendment." I often hear the question posed, well, "how does gay marriage even effect me?" Bork responds:

How does homosexual marriage affect me? What concern is it of mine or of anybody else what homosexuals do? The answer is that the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live.

Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.

Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.

There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold.

Now, just wait ... Pam Spaulding and other representatives of the nihilist hordes will no doubt be attacking me as "bigot" for even posting this.

God, what is happening to this country?

Ta-Nehisi's Blood of Martyrs

I just read over Krissah Thompson's piece at the Washington Post, "Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President." It's a decent article - rather interesting, enlightening even. Thompson indicates that President Barack Obama's honeymoon is wrapping up for a growing and critical black constituency that wants action on a number of pressing issues facing black Americans:

As the nation's first black president settles into the office, a division is deepening between two groups of African Americans: those who want to continue to praise Obama and his historic ascendancy, and those who want to examine him more critically now that the election is over ....

... a growing number of black academics, commentators and authors determined to press Obama on issues such as the elimination of racial profiling and the double-digit unemployment rate among blacks.

Ms. Thompson highlights some prominent radio and television personalities, like Jeff Johnson and Tavis Smiley. Folks like this are facing pushback from the hegemonic "blood of martyrs" old-boys' club of corrupt left-wingers in the Democratic Party's race-hustling shakedown machine.

Interestingly, it turns out that Ta-Nehisi Coates, at the Atlantic, is an aspirant-in-good standing of the Democratic blood of martyrs patronage regime. Ta-Nehisi takes exception to Thompson's piece not be refuting her argument, but by excoriating her as an illegitimate journalist, dismissing her as among a class of "young reporters whose editors don't care enough" to smack down." Ta-Nehisi provides only one example for such demonization, which is that Thompson's use of Tavis Smiley's "Uncle Tom" quotation is weak, and from that Ta-Nahisi can write off Thompson, saying she "does no digging to see if there's more to the story."

The problem here?

The story obviously isn't Smiley's alleged bogus story (to which Ta-Nehisi provides no counter evidence or links). The issue is that Thompson's story challenges the Obamessianism among the far-left civil rights activist contingent - and Ta-Nahisi's obviously down with them "boyz n the hood."

The "Blood of Martyrs" refers to the chokehold the far-left grievance masters have on the post-1960s Democratic Party. As told by Juan Williams, in Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America - and What We Can Do About It, the story goes back to Al Sharpton's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where Sharpton attacked President George W. Bush for taking the black vote for granted:

"Our vote is soaked in the blood of martyrs, the blood of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham, Alabama. This vote is sacred to us. This vote can't be bargained away...given away. Mr. President, in all due respect, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale!"

But as Williams asks, what record of achievement could the Democrats claim to justify continued black partisan support?

The answer: absolutely nothing. But by waving the red flag labeled "blood of martyrs," Sharpton diverted all attention from dealing with bad schools, persistent high rates of unemployment, and a range of issues that are crippling a generation of black youth. Somehow, "blood of martyrs" remains the anthem of black politics at the start of the twenty-first century. Black politics is still defined by events that took place forty years ago. Protest marches are reenacted again and again as symbolic exercises to the point that they have lost their power to achieve change. As a result, black politics is paralyzed, locked in a synchronized salute and tribute, by any mention of the martyrs, the civil rights workers who died violent deaths at the hands of racists. The major national black politicians invoke these icons and perform shallow reenactments of the powerful marches of the movement as hypnotic devices to control their audiences. And if people try to break the spell by suggesting we move beyond these ancient heroes and their tactics, they are put down with language that implicates them as tools of the white establishment, reactionaries who've "forgotten their roots." Race traitors.

Or "truly lazy journalists" not "smacked down" by the editorial bosses. Right, Ta-Nehisi? .

Phyllis Chesler: Voice of Moral Clarity

Phyllis Chesler placed me on her e-mail list sometime after I blogged about the honor killing of Aasiya Hassan. I'm glad she did. Dr. Chesler, a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies, and a contributor at Pajamas Media, is a voice of reason and moral clarity in a world where right and wrong seems to evaporated from the culture.

It turns out that Dr. Chesler has been attacked mercilessly in a series of e-mails from the followers of Norman Finkelstein. See the whole post, "My Norman Finkelstein Problem—And Ours."

I'll just share one of the attacks on Dr. Chesler here:

Dear Dr. Chesler, I’ve just finished reading your article entitled ‘Our Eternal Struggle’ written for the Jewish Press, and I felt compelled to write you. I have to ask you, in all seriousness: do you genuinely believe this hysterical, vacuous drivel you’ve discharged upon we the already steeped-in-bullshit reading public? Do you genuinely believe in this absurd and unjustifiable conflation of legitimate (and legally supported) criticism of Israel’s post-1967 occupation, warmongering, war crimes, rejectionism, torture, settlement expansion, house demolitions, imprisonment of civilians without trial, slaughter of innocent men, women and children (please show me the evidence from any respected, independent Human Rights organisation’s records to support the claim that Palestinian militants routinely use innocent civilians as human shields); with this old, recycled “New Anti-semitism”? Are you not even a little tempted to entertain the overwhelmingly more credible hypothesis that whatever little new anti-Jewish feeling that does exist can adequately be accounted for by Israel’s very real, very consistent and very gross violations of basic human rights in the eyes of the world? Do you feel at all guilty for damaging, albeit in a very tiny but still notably insidious way, the prospects of achieving a just and lasting peace for both sides to the conflict in the form of a two state settlement in accord with UN Resolution 242 and International Law? I mean, surely this MUST bother you in some small way. Do you suffer from nervous ticks at all? From the trademark Dershowitz facial spasm, perhaps? Guilt must manifest somewhere, surely? Assuming, of course, you’re not a hopeless sociopath.

Your genuinely concerned “new anti-semite” (I can safely assume my preceding remarks more than qualify me as a worthy target for this particular piece of ideological excrement?),

Hugo Newman.

p.s. Shame on you.

Hugo Newman, hugonewman@gmail.com

This is not out of the ordinary for those on the contemporary left.

There are a couple of more letters attacking Phyllis at the link.

Personal Message to the Rich in America

I was interviewed by Bill Whittle when I appeared on Pajamas TV last October. Whittle's blog, Eject! Eject! Eject!, is now available at the Pajamas site, and I've been checking over there every few days for new content. You see, Whittle's one of the best conservatives writing today - always a pleasure to read.

In fact, his essay this morning is no disappointment, "A Message to the Rich":

So let me now send a personal message to The Rich in America ...

As an American and a patriot, I implore you – I go to my knees and beg you – LEAVE NOW.

Leave. Just go away. Retire to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or wherever, but do it now, please, while you still have some love for this country. Close your companies, fire your employees, shutter your factories and offices, sell your property, and take all of that somewhere else… better yet: somewhere scenic but poverty-stricken. Somewhere that could use some wealth creation. Somewhere that people simply are grateful to have a job in the first place. Somewhere where you will be appreciated.

You are not welcome in America any more. Take your wealth and prosperity and inventiveness and hard work and vision and insight and bold risk-taking and joy in seeing growth and wealth creation and just go away – right now, before it’s too late. Because if you stay, Joel Berg and Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will continue to come after you for more and more and more and they will not ever stop – not ever – until you are forced to flee. And when that day comes, you will go with not with fond remembrances and a desire to return home, but rather a black heart and hard and bitter memories.

So on behalf of those few of us who still believe in the Land of Opportunity, I beg you and implore you, in the name of our common patriot ancestors who worked so hard and sacrificed so much so that we could become so spoiled and ungrateful: take your 60% of the total income taxes and just go away.

Because if you do, then there will no longer be an Enemy for the Left to stick it to. Then, perhaps, the half of the country that pays no income tax might have to put some skin in the game. Then, perhaps, with most of the wealth generation gone we will turn to our community organizers to provide the wealth creation, and the tax dollars, and the innovation. When you have gone the President of the United States, supported by an army of little acorns like Joel Berg, will have to start calling for the rest of us to be taxed more to address the inequality gap.

This isn't the best part. Whittle's personal confession is even better, so be sure to read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Also: Serr8d's Cutting Edge, "Rich Man, LEAVE!"

Defense Budget Marks Shift in Military Priorities

There's a lot of attention to the news today that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed a dramatic reshaping of the Pentagon budget. The New York Times has a big story in this, and see the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

By chance, I found the story earlier at Business Week, "Defense Budget Reflects Shifting Priorities":

U.S. military spending cuts urged by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Apr. 6 represent a fundamental shift in military priorities and strategy that could save large sums of money for the government. But even though a number of high-priced weapons programs are being pegged for the scrap heap, investors seemed relieved that cuts had not gone deeper. They also seemed heartened by the prospect of gains on other projects—and possible restoration by Congress of at least some of the money for programs such as the F-22, whose builders astutely spread production across 44 states.

Gates aims to slash elements of many weapons programs in a manner not seen in Washington for decades. Among them: the Future Combat Systems program, the F-22 Raptor, an $11 billion satellite network for the Air Force, and the nation's missile defense program, refocusing the latter on the "rogue state and theater missile threat." Many of the programs have faced substantial cost overruns, and military strategists now question their necessity.

Other systems were terminated entirely, including the Multiple Kill Vehicle, the Transformational Satellite program, and a second airborne laser prototype aircraft.

The lefties are loving it! (See here, here, here, and here, for example.)

But see also, "Pentagon Chief Rips Heart Out of Army's 'Future'."

If Gates wants to shift military emphasis to fighting small wars on the periphery, the new focus in fact might well shore up one of the historically more vulnerable areas of America's strategic primacy, the "contested zones" of international conflict. See Barry Posen, "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony."

Photo: F-22 Raptor.

Farrah Fawcett: "Not on Death's Door"

Farrah Fawcett, the actress and former "Charlie's Angel" sweetheart, was hospitalized because of complications from cancer treatment. She was reported earlier as "unconscious," but the Los Angeles Times has confirmed the Ms. Fawcett is "doing fantastic":

Your prayers have been answered, folks. Farrah Fawcett is not at death's door!

LA Now reports that her friend/producer Craig Nevius confirmed Monday to Associated Press that the 62-year-old "Charlie's Angels" star has been hospitalized for a blood clot, a side effect of treatment she underwent in Germany. But she's not near death.

"She's doing fantastic," Nevius said. "Her fight goes on ... She's not going anywhere anytime soon."

He added: "As previously reported by everybody, she's not unconscious. She is not on death's door. The family has not gathered to say goodbye."

This guy is producing Fawcett's documentary chronicling her fight against cancer, called "A Wing and a Prayer." The actress was diagnosed with the disease in late 2006. She had chemotherapy and radiation and was in remission in early 2007. However, a few months later, her cancer returned. She eventually pursued alternative therapy abroad.

Fawcett's doctor, Lawrence Piro, said that Fawcett had abdominal bleeding and a hematoma after undergoing aggressive alternative cancer treatments in Germany.

More at the link.

According to a USA Today report, "Fawcett, 62, was diagnosed in 2006 with anal cancer, which has since spread to her liver ..."

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Barack Obama’s European Apology Tour

President Barack Obama, on his European diplomatic tour, is aggressively apologizing for the last few years of American foreign policy - a direct repudiation of historic role of American primacy in world affairs, and an obvious slap at the Bush administration's policy of taking the fight to the terrorists. The video below features Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last Friday.

Soeren Kern puts things in perspective in his essay at Pajamas Media, "The Obama Doctrine: Europe 1, America 0":

U.S. President Barack Obama’s debut in European summitry has been good for Europe but bad for America. While a highly deferential Obama gave in to all of the negotiating demands established by the Europeans, the Europeans in turn exploited Obama’s naïveté and refused to concede to any of his. Indeed, Obama not only allowed the Europeans to set the agendas of the recent G-20 and NATO summits, but in his zeal to curry favor with the Europeans, Obama even apologized for American primacy. Obama’s diplomatic philosophy, which seems to put the interests of other countries ahead of those of the United States, could be called the “Obama Doctrine.” If it is carried out in practice to its logical conclusion, it will have the long-term effect of gradually transferring U.S. geopolitical power and influence to Europeans and other American rivals.

Obama started his trip to Europe by proclaiming that “I would like to think that with my election, we’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.” He then legitimized European anti-Americanism by saying that the United States was sorry for wrecking transatlantic relations, as if the Europeans were innocent victims of U.S. oppression; Obama told an audience of 3,000 giddy European students that “America has been arrogant and has even ridiculed” its European allies. Later, Obama followed up by declaring that “I believe in a strong Europe,” even though European integration is at base a project that seeks to counterbalance American power on the global stage. Obama topped it all off by offering pacifistic Europeans a utopian vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Maybe Obama thought his new “smart power” approach to U.S. diplomacy would woo his European counterparts into reciprocating their love for America. But defiant European leaders shunned Obama’s romantic advances, insisting instead on a redistribution of global power.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the international economic order dominated by the United States was finished. “The old Washington consensus is over,” Brown declared. “I think a new world order is emerging with the foundation of a new progressive era of international cooperation,” he said, referring to an incipient globalism that seeks to demolish American sovereignty.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Europe would no longer follow America’s lead on setting the global economic agenda. Sarkozy and Merkel called for a “new financial architecture” that would subject the U.S. financial system to European regulation. They added that their demands were not negotiable.

There's more at the link.

See also, John Hinderaker, "The Apology Tour: Will It Ever End?" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, don't miss William Jacobson's, "When Will The Europeans Apologize To Us?"

Today's Michele Bachmann Feeding Frenzy

The secular collectivists are piling on Representative Michelle Bachmann once again. It turns out that Ms. Bachmann appeared on Minnesota's KTLK-AM radio over the weekend, and she went off on the Obama administration for a number of its extreme left wing policies.

The Minnesota Independent is hammering Ms. Bachmann's attack on the administration's AmeriCorps program in its essay, "Bachmann fears ‘politically correct re-education camps for young people’." Read the post for the context, but Ms. Bachmann's comments make perfect sense to me, considering the mindless left-wing indoctrination currently the rage in schools and colleges today. And for some reason, the "Dump Bachmann" blog thinks the following comments are controversial:

I feel like I have a front row seat on history right now. I cannot believe what I'm seeing. This is our country. We love our country and I'm watching our freedoms slip out the door every day. Just this week with the G-20 and what President Obama is wanting to do to cede American sovereignty to transnational global authorities makes your head spin and we as members of congress have to bind him down with that authority, we cannot agree to these things that he is wanting to do, because it will continue to take away freedom from individuals in the United States.

*****

It is a dream come true for people who want to transform our country from a free-market economy to a centralized government planned economy. It is completely different and antithetical to what our founders gave us and I think people should be shocked, they should be stunned with what is happening and the speed at which it's happening and in particular, what is happening with the G-20 and the transnational aspects of what our President is committing our nation to.

There's absolutely nothing in these comments out of the ordinary for conservative political discourse. Indeed, we need more folks like Michele Bachamann standing up for what's right, and telling it like it is for this president, who is now travelling the world over putting other nations' interests ahead of our own.

What's Wrong With Rod Dreher?

A few weeks back Robert Stacy McCain wrote an extremely interesting post umasking Rod Dreher, the "crunchy conservative," for his abject surrender to the forces of postmodern cultural nihilism.

More on that below. For now, it turns out that Dreher, in the wake of his recent gay marriage debate with Damon Linker and Andrew Sullivan, has a new essay at Real Clear Politics discussing the "tyranny of liberalism" in contemporary culture (where he cites the new book by James Kalb). The article's generally a pleasure to read. It lays out clearly Kalb's case for leftist cultural totalitarianism, but I'm taken back by the conclusion:

Conservatives find it hard to articulate a case for traditional marriage in terms acceptable in liberal rights discourse, as well as in the shallow rhetoric of contemporary debate. Defending traditional marriage requires burrowing deep into the meaning of the human person, sex, gender, society and law - and that's just for starters. Life in community is a mysterious and complex thing that cannot be radically remade to suit a preferred outcome.

"If you can redefine [marriage] so that the sex of the parties has nothing to do with it, then you can redefine anything in human life any way you want," Kalb told me in an interview. "Man becomes the artifact of whoever is in power."

This, I think, is what scares ordinary people the most about the swift attempt to kick the foundation out from under traditional marriage. They intuit that there is something, well, tyrannical in the idea that virtually overnight, the long-settled meaning of marriage could change in a vast social experiment without historical precedent - and that any attempt to resist this radicalization stands condemned as God-intoxicated bigotry.

Trads are on the losing side of this argument, at least in the short run, given the cultural conditioning of latter-day Americans. Still, it is instructive to ponder the fate of modern Western societies that have cast out the biblical god as the source of moral reality. Wrote eminent historian Paul Johnson, "The history of modern times is in great part the history of how that vacuum has been filled."

For those fearful of despotism, it is not a happy tale.

This is poppycock. 

"Trads," which is short for "traditionalists," don't have problems "articulating a case" for the historical and normative foundations of marriage. In fact, huge majorities in Iowa and nationally not only discern the stark cultural revisionism in the left's hegemonic same-sex marriage discourse, but they reject it as well. See my recent essay at Pajamas Media for more on that, "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa." 

The problem for Dreher is he's totalitarian himself. In his debate with Linker and Sullivan, he was easily pigeonholed as a bigot because he apparently rejects loving same-sex partnerships altogether, not just gay marriage. But note that the data show that that position violates popular sensibilities just as much as does the left's gay marriage extremism.

Conservatives have no reason to fear the "tyranny of liberalism." We live in a democracy of majority rights under the rule of law. The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling last week was deeply flawed on the both the merits and the result. But what's worse is for allegedly "crunchy cons" to throw in the towel on the penultimate battle of today's culture wars, the right's "hill to die on." In any case, here's Robert's conclusion at his post taking down Dreher: 

We are now a mere 18 months from Labor Day 2010, when that climactic political battle will be fully engaged. There a lot of important work to be done -- and done now, over the next three to six months -- if there is to be any hope of anything but the abomination of desolation. Our utter destruction is at hand unless good men rally to the colors, and we no longer have the luxury of indulging in these petty playground feuds and the children who enjoy them.

To the extent that conservatives need a philosopher now, I'd say we need to be studying Sun-Tzu.

If Rod Dreher wants to join Andrew Sullivan and David Brock (yes, I said "Brock," not "Brooks") in the ranks of the vaunting army outside the camp, let him go over and be gone. But don't sit pouting inside the camp, giving aid and comfort to the adversary by your demoralizing pronouncements. If that stuff is going to be tolerated among conservatives, there won't be enough left of a constitutional republic after Nov. 3 for anyone to bother trying to "conserve" it, and no hope at all that it might be restored.

As always, I'll have more on this in upcoming posts ...

Abortion Extremism: Babies as Physical Intrusions

An essay from Sherry Colb, a Professor at Cornell Law School, has been making its way across the conservatives blogosphere, so I thought I'd share it with readers: "Why a Botched Abortion Case Should, and Does, Inspire Outrage: The Sycloria Williams Story."

Professor Colb retells the story of Sycloria Williams, who was induced for a late-term abortion procedure, and delivered a live baby when the doctor failed to arrive on time. An owner of the clinic, Belkis Gonzalez, threw the baby in a toxic waste bag with gauze and other debris. The baby's remains were found by police a week later in a cardboard box.

Now, here's Professor Colb's analysis:

An important feature of the facts that distinguishes what occurred here from abortion more generally is that if the narrative alleged by the prosecution and by Sycloria Williams is accurate, then Belkis Gonzalez – the woman who is said to have placed a live fetus into a biohazard bag – did something that goes well beyond what can be called "terminating a pregnancy."

Indeed, Gonzalez apparently had nothing to do with the termination itself: She did not dilate Williams's cervix or induce labor or otherwise play any role in removing the fetus from Williams's body. It was only after Williams had given birth to her fetus that Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and deposited the allegedly live, writhing, breathing infant into a biohazard bag, along with gauze and other garbage.

One might argue, as some pro-life advocates have, that there is no meaningful difference between what Gonzalez did and what an abortion provider does, because in both cases, a fetus is killed. This argument, however, ignores one of the main premises of the right to abortion – the bodily-integrity interest of the pregnant woman. Particularly at the later stages of pregnancy, the right to abortion does not protect an interest in killing a fetus as such. What it protects instead is the woman's interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will, the same interest that explains the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to stop a rapist. Though the fetus is innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and the rapist is not, the woman's interest in repelling an unwanted physical intrusion is quite similar.

Once the fetus is no longer inside the woman's body, though, killing it is not necessary to preserving the woman's bodily integrity. If Gonzalez had, instead of suffocating the infant in a garbage bag, placed it into an incubator with a respirator, for example, Williams would not have been any more pregnant than she was in the circumstances that actually unfolded. And once Williams was no longer pregnant, and thus no longer occupied by an unwelcome intruder, she had no more right to procure the death of her fetus than did anyone else, including Belkis Gonzalez.

You can read the rest of the article at the link, althought I can't resist including another passage, from the conclusion:

Most women who terminate their pregnancies do so in the first trimester, when there is no question of viability and when the developing fetus does not yet evidence the capacity to experience pain or pleasure. Such abortions understandably do not generate the same revulsion and outrage as the later ones do. Late-term abortions are morally complicated, because the later-term fetus may experience pain and may therefore plausibly be described – without any need for a religious gloss – as truly being a victim of the procedure. This does not, as some claim, necessarily mean that a woman should not have the right to terminate a pregnancy. It does, however, counsel in favor of measures that will move desired abortions up to as early a point in pregnancy as possible.

This is where laws intended to reduce the incidence of abortion by placing obstacles in women's paths may exacerbate the situation. To cite one example, thirty-four states currently have "parental involvement" statutes that require pregnant minors to notify or obtain consent from a parent before obtaining an abortion. Laws like these are very popular and strike many people as intuitively attractive. The Guttmacher Institute recently published findings, however, showing that such measures "delay access to the procedure, reducing safety and resulting in later, more costly abortions." When an abortion is delayed, moreover, not only is the procedure more physically risky and challenging to the woman, but it also involves a more developed and possibly sentient fetus.

The notion that a viable baby is an "unwanted physical intrusion" reveals the stomach-churning indifference to life among those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. But there's a lot in this conclusion as well. I personally cannot conceive of "fetal viability" as a legitimate concept. What's important is life itself, and abortion kills, whether in the first few weeks after fertilization, or months later when pro-choice extremists are debating whether the "alleged" baby would survive outside of the uterus. But further, notice how the same abandonment of morality treats childhood pregancy as a surprisingly legitimate access point for state control, with state power usurping the authority and autonomy of parents. That is, the fact that voters and representative bodies in thirty-four states believe as a matter of public policy that parents rather than minors are in a better position to make the ultimate decision regarding the fate of an unborn child appears of little consequence to Professor Colb, and no doubt to her allies in the radical feminist abortion lobby.

Conservatives really have lost the culture wars if it's to the point that health professionals and legal experts can seriously argue that consent laws are dangerous. Children getting pregnant is what's dangerous. Once a baby is conceived the assumption of those thirty-four states is that the parents are in better position to advise their daughter on what should happen next. The parents, as well, are certainly going to be in a better financial position to assist in decision-making, and thus robust parental notification laws are more likely to preserve life and liberty of young girls and their potential offspring.

What is so hard about this?

Readers can see why I refuse to capitulate not only to the nihilist left, but to the "postmodern" conservatives as well, "pomo" nihilists who are busy enabling all of this death worship by arguing that conservatives should "take the libertarian route" when it comes to culture. Yeah, sure. Kids can smoke a couple of joints on the way to the abortion clinic.

I know I've been blogging quite a bit on the gay marriage question, but conservatives cannot abandon the protection of the unborn as a first principle of a vigorous and intellectually honest political agenda. Vote life ...

Hat Tip: Darleen Click.

Tough Economy Puts Pressure on "Grandfamilies"

Here's an interesting story, from the Wall Street Journal, on the strains facing grandparents raising children amid the recession, "'Grandfamilies' Come Under Pressure":

Until she lost her job last September, Wendy Nocar denied nothing to her granddaughter, Summer, whom she has raised since she was a baby. The blonde 6-year-old was plied with Barbie dolls, clothes, ballet lessons, trips to the mall, and outings to Broadway shows and her favorite restaurant, Red Lobster.

These days, Ms. Nocar, 57, unable to land a job interview much less a job, is worried about stocking the refrigerator and paying her mortgage. She is also fearful of being unable to support Summer, who she says was born addicted to heroin, and who has been in her custody since infancy.

Summer is anxious about her grandmother's situation. "We don't have a lot of money," says the first-grader, whose pictures adorn the cluttered three-bedroom house she inhabits with her grandmother, two cats, a dog and a rabbit named Whiskers. "We need a lot of money; she has to get a job," Summer adds.

"She seems to understand a lot more than children do her age," Ms. Nocar says.

Today, more and more children are being raised by their grandparents. These grandparents provide a crucial safety net, allowing children whose parents can't provide for them to remain in families, instead of winding up as wards of the state. But as the recession hits "grandfamilies," that safety net is under stress.

The unemployment rate for older workers is lower than the overall rate. But once they become unemployed, older workers find it harder to land a job and they tend to remain out of work longer than younger workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for those 55 and over has been climbing significantly in recent months; in March, it rose to 6.2% -- the highest it has been since September, 1949, according the bureau.

At the same time, the number of grandfamilies has been growing. In 1970, about 3% of all children under 18 lived in households headed by a grandparent. By 2007, 4.7 million kids -- or 6.5% of American children -- were living in households headed by a grandparent, according to Census Bureau data. This shift was driven by a variety of factors, including more parents hit by drug use, AIDS or cancer, and the large numbers of single parents who, if struck by tragedy, leave children behind.

Read the whole thing at the link.

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.

On Defending the Constitution: A Reader Writes

Here's the e-mail sent to me from Maj. Steven Givler, published by permission:

Sir,

Thank you for your blog. I’ve often wondered lately whether my more than 20 years of military service have been devoted to defending a constitution that is no longer recognized by the people who benefit from its protections.

Every once in a while something encourages me to believe that there are still Americans who understand what makes us different from other nations, and who are willing to preserve that difference. Your blog, which I found via RS McCain’s blog, is one of those things.

Thanks for the encouragement.

All the best,

Steven

STEVEN A. GIVLER, Maj, USAF
Assistant Air Attache
US EMBASSY Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Steven blogs at Steven Givler Online.

It's always nice to get letters from readers, and coming from a member of our armed forces, this one is extra special.

Thank you for your service, Steven.