Rovian Islamism? Sullivan Equates Bush Administration, Sarah Palin to Iranian Thuggery!

Recall my post from this morning, "Andrew Sullivan's Anti-Mormon Bigotry"?

Well, Sullivan's up to real nastiness again with, "The Rovian Islamist":

Ahmadinejad's bag of tricks is eerily like that of Karl Rove - the constant use of fear, the exploitation of religion, the demonization of liberals, the deployment of Potemkin symbolism like Sarah Palin ...

Think of this regime as Cheney and Rove in a police state setting, and you see what's been going on. (Of course, Rove and Cheney live within a democratic system utterly unlike Iran, and there's no evidence they would violate democratic norms as Khamenei just did. But their demagoguery, abuse of the state, dedication to conflict abroad, co-optation of the armed forces, and manipulation of rural and religious voters all have parallels in Red State Iran.) We keep expecting to see some kind of shame or some attempt at rational dialogue. They have nothing but contempt for that kind of talk. If they're going to lie, it's gonna be a Big Lie. Like this sham of an election.

This is a sick, awful man. I will continue blogging on Sullivan's totally bankrupt nihilism.

Spread these posts, readers. This is nothing short of journalistic terrorism. Sullivan's words are intended to injure, even kill, all under the cloak of the First Amendement.

Via Memeorandum.

Added: William Jacobson, "Ahmadinejad Stole The Election, Just Like Bush."

Twitter Out of Iran: #CNNFail

From Change_for_Iran on Twitter:

... in this photo: our beloved ex president Khatam arrested; I really hope this is fake ...

See also, the Mousavi photostream at Flickr, care of The Lede.

The rise of alternative media, amid the collapse of much mainstream reporting, is shaping events on the ground. See, Daniel Terdiman / Webware.com, "‘#CNNFail’: Twitterverse slams network's Iran absence." Also, "'Traditional media have completely failed us' (Iranians turn to brave citizen journalists)," and "#CNNfail: Twitter Blasts CNN Over Iran Election‎."

This shot from Getty Images, "The Protest Turns Bloody":

More at Memeorandum.

The Los Angeles Times has actually had decent coverage. See, Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi, "Iran election anger boils; Ahmadinejad defends results."

Also ...

* Betsy Newmark, "What Should We Do About a Rigged Election?"

* Gateway Pundit, "President Ahmadinejad Wears the Opposition's Colors at Acceptance Speech," and "Regime Unleashed - Gunshots & Beatings in Tehran (Video)."

* Gay Patriot, "Obama Administration: Where Reality Doesn’t Get in the Way of Foreign Policy."

* Hot Air, "At the brink: Ahmadinejad Refuses to Guarantee Mousavi’s Safety."

* Jihad Watch, "Obama Will Keep Trying to Appease Iran Despite Rigged Election."

* National Iranian American Council, "Election Uunrest, Day Two."

* Dan Riehl, "#CNNFail."

* Outside the Beltway, "Reality on Iran from Flynt Leverett."

* TigerHawk, "Is it 1956 or 1989 in Iran?"

* Yid With Lid, "Pictures and Latest News From Today's Iranian Protests."

Also, the left reacts, Think Progress, "The Right Wing Claims Ahmadinejad’s Reelection Was A Fraud, But Obama’s Responsible For It Anyway," and Newshoggers, "Still Confused About The Iranian Election."

Social Network Stalking? Grace Explosion Gone, Repsac3 Lurking...

Do you remove unwanted "friends" from Facebook? I just removed Grace Explosion from my network. Grace used to be a regular commenter here. But she's way over the top, into tin-foil hat territory.

I did a blanket approval of all my pending "friend" requests when I joined Facebook. My bad. It turns out that about 80 people had submitted my e-mail for approval. Ominously, in addition to Grace Explosion, Repsac3 was approved at the time. While I think Grace means well, Repsac3 has an unhinged obssession with conservatives - and with my blogging especially. As some readers know, he's started an entire blog to harrass and ridicule me, American Nihilist. He's also got about three other blogs devoted largely to me and a few other conservatives. The man's sick. He and his fully-clinical co-bloggers have published my work information to initiate a campaign of intimidation, for example:

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President Eloy Oakley at (562) 938-4122 or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz at (562) 938-4127 and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).

If there's a genuine "case file" in progress, I haven't heard anything about it. This is mostly about intimidation. (O)CT(O)PUS, the author of that post, is now mounting a jihad against traditionals and Christians, "Revelations: Who Are the Hate Groups and Why We Should Be Very Afraid."

Well, (O)CT(O)PUS is getting over into the Frank Rich unhingeness zone.

I'm attacked because of my views. I don't threaten. I don't harrass. And I certainly don't advocate killing anyone (in fact I've denounced the recent murders repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms). As always, I speak out against racism and bigotry in all its forms. But for my neoconservative traditionalism, I'm attacked as a "hater."

On that note, I can't help feeling for Pamela Geller, who routinely gets attacked for her advocacy. See this unhinged anti-Semitic mysoginist screed, for example, from Jerry Marlow of the Hayner Hoyt Corporation, "Conservative woman as a whole are dumb fuckers, you fit right in you stupid bitch. I saw [sic] burn the whole lot of you at the stake as heretics."

By the way, regular readers might take a look at this piece from the Wall Street Journal, "Bloggers, Beware: What You Write Can Get You Sued."

It's truly the Wild West out there, folks. But never give in. Fight the good, moral fight. Not one of us has anything to do with the recent wave of violence, but the Charles Johnsons, Frank Riches, and Andrew Sullivans of the world would shackle us to the village stocks and leave us to die faster than you can say Carrie Prejean.

Andrew Sullivan's Anti-Mormon Bigotry

There's never any consistency to Andrew Sullivan. But that's to be expected from a man who may well be suffering from HIV-related dimentia. Here's a guy, after the passage of California's Proposition 8, who told anti-Mormon rioters to "chill." He's also recently written that his passion for gay-blogging arises not out of "a sense of victimhood." But on the Obama administration's recent defense of the federal DOMA, Sullivan sent this tweet:

This is typical for Sullivan's extremist attacks on "Christianists."

See also, William Jacobson, "Anti-Mormonism Again In Gay Marriage Debate."
Related Hypocrisy: Frank Rich, "The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers," via Memeorandum. And don't miss Dan Riehl's response, "Frank Rich In The New Pravda Times."

Conservatism and the University Curriculum

Here's Peter Berkowitz, at the Wall Street Journal:

The political science departments at elite private universities such as Harvard and Yale, at leading small liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore and Williams, and at distinguished large public universities like the University of Maryland and the University of California, Berkeley, offer undergraduates a variety of courses on a range of topics. But one topic the undergraduates at these institutions -- and at the vast majority of other universities and colleges -- are unlikely to find covered is conservatism.

There is no legitimate intellectual justification for this omission. The exclusion of conservative ideas from the curriculum contravenes the requirements of a liberal education and an objective study of political science.

Political science departments are generally divided into the subfields of American politics, comparative politics, international relations, and political theory. Conservative ideas are relevant in all four, but the obvious areas within the political science discipline to teach about the great tradition of conservative ideas and thinkers are American politics and political theory. That rarely happens today.

To be sure, a political science department may feature a course on American political thought that includes a few papers from "The Federalist" and some chapters from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America."

But most students will hear next to nothing about the conservative tradition in American politics that stretches from John Adams to Theodore Roosevelt to William F. Buckley Jr. to Milton Friedman to Ronald Reagan. This tradition emphasizes moral and intellectual excellence, worries that democratic practices and egalitarian norms will threaten individual liberty, attends to the claims of religion and the role it can play in educating citizens for liberty, and provides both a vigorous defense of free-market capitalism and a powerful critique of capitalism's relentless overturning of established ways. It also recognized early that communism represented an implacable enemy of freedom. And for 30 years it has been animated by a fascinating quarrel between traditionalists, libertarians and neoconservatives.

While ignoring conservatism, the political theory subfield regularly offers specialized courses in liberal theory and democratic theory; African-American political thought and feminist political theory; the social theory of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school; and numerous versions of postmodern political theory.

More at the link.

Added, Kenneth Anderson, "'If They Can Find Time for Feminist Theory, They Can Find Time for Edmund Burke' " ..., via Memeorandum.

Election Turmoil Complicates U.S. Overture to Iran (VIDEO)

From the Los Angeles Times, "Iran Election Result Makes a U.S. Overture More Difficult:

The reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a stinging setback to the Obama administration's hopes of cultivating a better relationship with the Islamic Republic.

U.S. officials insisted Saturday that they intended to press forward with their effort to engage Iran, despite their misgivings about the outcome of the election. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said U.S. officials were "watching and waiting," and hoping that "the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."

Yet the disputed victory by Ahmadinejad was clearly a disappointment for the administration, coming one day after President Obama hailed the public debate in Iran as a sign that its people were open to "new possibilities."

Former U.S. officials and other experts said the outcome could make it even harder for the United States to work with Iran.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran U.S. intelligence official now at the Brookings Institution think tank, said that if the divisions from the election lingered, Iran would be less able to begin diplomacy.

"Iran in turmoil will not be ready to engage Obama," he said.

If the world comes to see Iran's government as illegitimate, diplomatic outreach and new incentives from the United States will come to look like a questionable idea.

More at the link.

Daniel Pipes has an updated analysis, "Assessing the Iranian Election." This is key:

Ahmadinejad symbolizes the rejection of Barack Obama's overtures to Iran and, as such, his selection represents a slap in the face of the American president's pro-Islamist policies.

Meanwhile, here's this from CNN, "Ahmadinejad to Hold Victory Rally Amid Protests." And from the Washington Post, "Ahmadinejad Vows New Start As Clashes Flare."

See also, "Reformists Arrested Following Street Clashes in Iran."

And check Memeorandum for updates.

Riots in Iran: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

Here's Borzou Daragahi's report from Tehran:

Huge swaths of the capital erupted in fiery riots that stretched into the early morning Sunday as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in his quest for a second four-year term amid allegations of widespread fraud and a strident challenge of the vote results by his main challenger, who was reportedly placed under house arrest.

As Ahmadinejad promised a "bright and glorious future" for Iran in a televised address, supporters of his reformist rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi clashed with police and militiamen in riot gear and throughout Tehran in the most serious clashes in the capital since a student uprising 10 years ago.

Searing smoke and the smell of burning trash bins and tear gas filled the night sky. Protesters poured into key squares around the capital, burning tires, erecting banners and hurling stones at riot police on motorcycles, who responded with truncheons.

In the same streets and squares where young Iranians were dancing and waving green banners in support of Mousavi days ago, baton-wielding police chased and beat mobs of hundreds of demonstrators chanting, "Down with dictatorship!" and "Give me my vote back!

Official results released by the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of the incumbent president, showed Ahmadinejad with more than 63% of the vote, a surprise performance given turnout figures of 80% and city dwellers mostly opposed to Ahmadinejad massing in lines for hours. Mousavi received 35% of the vote, according to the results.

Both Mousavi and fellow reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi strongly disputed the results in public statements.

Karroubi, a former speaker of parliament, called the results "engineered" and "ridiculous."

Mousavi, after security forces prevented journalists from attending an early afternoon news conference he tried to hold, released a statement alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the vote results, which he claimed showed he was the winner. "I will not submit to this dangerous charade," he insisted.

He had submitted a long list of alleged irregularities, including thousands of his poll monitors being barred from the voting stations, the previous night. Iran allows no independent observers to monitor the vote.

As the day drew to a close, both campaigns reported that the candidates were under house arrest. The offices of Mousavi and Karroubi had been shuttered earlier, as were affiliated websites that had emerged as critical information tools in the face of the Ahmadinejad camp's sway over state-controlled broadcasting.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, ignored the dispute over Friday's vote and hailed the 80% turnout as a great victory for the nation against the plots of its enemies.

"Your epic Friday was a striking and unprecedented event, in which the political growth, determined political visage and the civic capability and potential of the Iranian nation were beautifully and splendidly displayed before the eyes of the world," he said in a speech broadcast on state television.

Even as the results were released and effusively praised, demonstrators allied with Mousavi defied Iran's restrictions on unauthorized public gatherings and began setting fire to garbage bins and assembling in rowdy protests.

Many young protesters, some wearing surgical masks to guard against tear gas attacks, set fire to garbage bins and blocked traffic along several major streets as older Iranians stood along the sidelines cheering them on, occasionally joining in the chanting.

Passing drivers honked in support. A woman with her head scarf ripped off screamed defiantly at the stunned security officers who had just beaten her. Riot police chased demonstrators and some passersby down streets, beating and bloodying those who refused to move, and running off as the demonstrators fought back with rocks.

Shopkeepers urged panicked pedestrians into their stores for protection, in one instance locking the gate as a group of black-clad truncheon-wielding riot police approached menacingly.

The blogosphere has erupted in response to the news.

Check the New York Times, "Protests Roil Tehran After Disputed Vote." And especially, Fox News, "Iran's Controversial Election Results Raises Questions Over Its Relations to U.S."

John Podhoretz discusses the implications:

For more than a decade, we’ve been hearing about the real Iran—the one whose youth is Westernized, desirous of connection with the United States, and tired of living in a theocracy. It’s too soon to know whether the protests today in Iran represent the fruition of the ideas about popular sentiment and the possibility of an uprising. But it is clear that this is a time of testing for the idea that the mullahcracy can be shaken to its foundations by an aggrieved populace. If it can’t, then the regime will prove itself stronger than some of its most heated critics say it is, and the world will have to adjust accordingly. If this is Tienanmen II, and the regime crushes it, there will be no easy approach to regime change. And there will be no pretending any longer that Iran’s regime isn’t a unified, hardline, irridentist, and enormously dangerous one.

See also the Foreign Policy blogs, especially The Cable and Passport. Wayne White writes:

I question the prudence of simply plowing ahead on engagement as if nothing has changed the potential state of play between Tehran and Washington ...

Meanwhile, while American officials* are "shocked" at the results, the administration will continue full steam ahead, "Obama Administration Officials Say Efforts to Engage Iran Will Move Forward."

* Correction appended.

Understanding Ideology

James Joyner provides a very useful post for understanding the recent wave of ideologically-motivated murders, "Right Wing Extremists." Especially good are these diagrams, drawn from Conservative-Resources.com, "Right Wing vs. Left Wing":

I teach ideology, and most textbooks in comparative politics include some version of the graphs above.

That said, for various reasons I worry less about the extreme right wing in American politics. As I noted previously, "it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today."

That said, we'd probably have less confusion over who's on the left or the right if folks better understood the various ways to graph the ideological continuum. James makes a good point below, although he needs to clarify this point about "racism is neither right-wing nor left-wing ..." Textbook definitions of Nazi ideology distinguish it from fascism with respect to theories of racial millenarianism. That said, it's true that anti-Semitic ideology today is found on both the extreme left and extreme right:

I prefer to think of ideology as a circle, rather than a line. Left and Right have meaning but, as one gets to the extremes on either side — depicted as anarchism in the top chart and “Everyone Against Everyone” in the second — the views diverge.

I actually prefer the bottom figure best in that it groups authoritarian states — Communism, Theocracy, and Fascism — very tightly and depicts, for example, Socialism and Libertarianism are near opposites. Additionally, it contrasts all governmental/ideological forms with Anarchy, or the absence of government. Those who murder to carry out their political agenda are in that category; their particular ideas otherwise don’t much matter.

Finally, I should note that racism is neither right-wing nor left-wing (nor, for that matter, is it centrist or anarchist). It exists at all points on the spectrum and isn’t a political ideology at all. Von Brunn’s hatred of Jews isn’t what makes him a right-winger but rather his views on politics.

It Takes a Village to Debate Bill O'Reilly?

Yep, according to Joan Walsh, " It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!":

I was surprised when so many people I respect told me not to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." I'd attacked Bill O'Reilly for his jihad against Dr. George Tiller, and he asked me on to discuss my "accusations." I thought that was fair. I could explain my point of view to his face; to say no felt like being a punk. But smart and supportive friends, family, co-workers, Twitterers and media stars all over the country reached out and suggested I skip it.

I thought about it, but not for long. I like doing TV. I'm not terrible at it. I criticized him, I should have the guts to repeat it to his face. I also need to say that when I announced I'd said yes, every one of the doubters, and more, sent me great advice and good wishes. (Thanks to Media Matters who, unbidden, just had staff start sending me clips to watch, about O'Reilly's lies. And if you're not on Twitter, well, Twitter rocked for me.) My daughter coached me; so did my litigator ex-husband, so did my friend and Salon co-conspirator Kerry Lauerman. It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!

His producers also helped by doing that thing they do: "Hey, Bill really respects you for coming on the show! He wants to have a conversation! It'll be fine!"

More at the link. (Also, Digby calls O'Reilly a monster ... but really, for wanting to prevent late-term abortions, and being willing to stand up for his views? Kind of like how Carrie Prejean was treated, no?)

I've already said O'Reilly's pretty much a bully (see, "O'Reilly Hammers Pro-Choice Extremist Joan Walsh!"). But Walsh is as much an "extremist" as O'Reilly. She says he's "driven by demons. God bless him and save him." But really, if she believes in God, why does she think the unborn have no right to life?

This is a strange, even awful woman ...

Care of Memeorandum.

George H.W. Bush and the Bucket List

Anyone up for some skydiving:

Analyzing the Iranian Election?

Call me cynical, but I never thought the outcome of Iran's (disputed) presidential election was in doubt. Persian authoritarianism is alive and well, and no doubt Iran's ruling mullahs would do the old PRI in Mexico proud.

Dave Schuler pretty much sums up my thinking at Below the Beltway:

The election was illegitimate from the get-go. The “irregularities” didn’t begin yesterday. The Iranian system is one in which the elected officials have little or no real power, only candidates that have been approved by Iran’s actual rulers appear on ballots, and the mullahs, Iran’s real rulers, control the election process and the media from stem to stern.

All we can say now is than in Iran the people have spoken. The people that matter, anyway.

There's a huge buzz on the election, naturally, given the long-running hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. A particularly interesting take is found at Duck of Minerva, for what it's worth, "Estimating the Degree of Election Fraud in Iran: Nate Silver, Are You Out There?"

But see Daniel Drezner's related post, "Just Repeat to Yourself, "Obama is Not God," And You Will Feel Much, Much Better [UPDATED]."

What's Up With David Weigel?

You have to really shake your head at the ideological alliances of today.

Take David Weigel, who's got a piece up today on the GOP, "‘Right-Wing’ Rhetoric on Hold After Museum Shooting." It's a pretty strong attack on those who take exception to the left's smear against the conservative movement as a bunch of "Christian fascist eliminationists."

Weigel's a reporter at The Washington Independent, but previously he was a contributing editor at the libertarian Reason Magazine. In the latter position he'd be expected to advocate small government and the protection of liberties from the expansion of state power. On the whole, Reason would appear to support the libertarian wing of the GOP. But often the ideological lines get blurred, and some hardline libertarian activists are essentially "unpatriotic paleoconservatives" who veer over into hardline leftist territory - and, of course, some of that activity includes not just opposition to robust national defense, but even things like 9/11 trutherism and tin-foil hats.

So it's interesting that Weigel's moved from the Reason bench over to the hard-left Washington Independent, where such Bush-bashing nihilists as Spencer Ackerman also hold court. Such "libertarians" also include the America- and Israel-hating Daniel Larison, and the "liberaltarian" posse at Ordinary Gentlemen. These guys riff on (pothead) Will Wilkinson quite a bit. And they also gain sustenance from the likes of Andrew Sullivan. "Sully," of course, is a deranged Obamaton who feeds on the writings of Charles Johson at Little Green Footballs.

The respectable Matt Welch put the kibosh on these strange dalliances in a recent post. He notes:

The focus on political teams blurs one central, overriding truth: When it comes to bailout/stimulus/econ, there is no significant break in policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, no matter how much it benefits enthusiasts and detractors from pretending there's a sharp break between the two.

Welch, of course, is no fan of neoconservative foreign policy, so he naturally opposes the forward role of the U.S. in conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's good to distance himself from all the crazed left-liberal hoochy-kootchy.

Anyway, I mention all this just as hardline leftist Steve Benen is citing David Weigel in support of his attacks on the conservative movement.

Folks need to be careful about their allegiances.

I don't know David Weigel personally (although my blog-buddy Robert Stacy McCain calls him a good friend). No matter. Connecting the dots here - even with an admittedly broad brush - gives you some idea of what's really going on with the left-libertarian coalitions today: It's all anti-(neo)conservatism, all the time.

Thank goodness Sarah Palin's a neocon!

Politicizing Gun Murders

I was thinking about the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, when Collective Soul's, "Shine," came on the radio yesterday. Why didn't leftists call for a boycott of the band, or rock-and-roll altogether, in light of the killings? The band released a statement?

Well, Matt Lewis, in discussing the smearing of conservatives in light of George Tiller and James von Brunn, raises the Virgina Tech shootings in his post, "The Left Politicizes Gun Murders":

If we're going to look at using these events as a catalyst to change policy, perhaps we should consider talking about the issue of mental health. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was declared mentally ill in Virginia but was still free to attend classes, and ultimately kill his fellow students. Clearly, the failure here was a mental health issue - not a "gun" issue. If we are going to begin looking to pass legislation to curb these violent incidents, why don't we consider doing something that might actually work - like looking at changing laws regarding mental health issues?

Because taking up the cause of mental health does not advance the cause of liberalism.

Or changing the laws rergarding listenting to rock-and-roll?

See also, Dan Riehl, "The Hate Was of Bush and The Right."

Related: See also, "When Desperation Gets Ugly," and "‘Right-Wing’ Rhetoric on Hold After Museum Shooting," via Memeorandum.

Gay Radicals Pissed After Obama Defends DOMA

I just love the picture below, from CBS's, "Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense of Marriage Act." If anyone finds a larger copy, e-mail it to me.

I wrote previously on Barack Obama's utter fear of the Gay Rights Third Rail of American Politics: "Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military."

Basically, the president's a pussy when it comes to REALLY pushing for change - and hey, wasn't he supposed to be all about change?

This is good for conservatives. Go ahead, Obama, lose the far-left wing base. Right now leftists have constantly ridiculed the GOP for becoming a rump party of hicks and yahoos, but then the same folks who demonize the right can't even get the attention of their own "Lightworker"?

But don't take if from me. Check out all the commentary at Memeorandum, especially John Aravosis' post, "Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children." All of these blogs are on the case:

Political Punch, Ben Smith's Blog, Daily Kos, The Daily Dish, skippy the bush kangaroo, #gay, Hot Air, Polimom, Too, QandO, Pam's House Blend, The Bilerico Project, Pharyngula, The Atlantic Politics Channel, WyBlog, Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog!, Instapundit, The Impolitic, Runnin' Scared, MyDD and Stinque

Apparently, the administration is interpreting DOMA narrowly; and most explosively, the president has rejected the claim that gay rights are in the same class as interracial marriage (e.g., Loving v. Virgina). That's got to hurt (take that Pam Spaulding and Andrew Sullivan!). But frankly, I've made that very argument many times here. See, in particular, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

O'Reilly Hammers Pro-Choice Extremist Joan Walsh!

Bill O'Reilly hammered Joan Walsh today. It was great television, but does O'Reilly come off as a bully? Walsh was pathetic when pinned down on the right to life for late-term unborn babies, but liberals probably hate O'Reilly so much not just for his views, but for his in your face finger-pointing!

I love it:

It's Not in the Way That Your Love Set Me Free...

Some songs bring back very specific memories. Toto's "Hold the Line" reminds me of a partying buddy in high school. His name was John. He was a kind of hippy geek, but I loved him (and I was a skater geek, of course). We'd practically stop the car to play air guitar to this song ... Enjoy Toto:

TOTO - Hold the Line @ Yahoo! Video

Thoughts on Our Civil War

As regular readers well know, it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today. Leftist radicalism and demonology is manifested not just in the corrosive political discourse of the online fever swamps, but on television with the likes of David Letterman and Keith Olbermann. Most importantly, radical postmodernism has reached the apex of power, with President Barack Obama's post-structural presidency. In general, the present danger from the left isn't the potential for violence or rebellion, it's the slow erosion of right and wrong in politics, and the steady weakening of America's exceptionalism and moral resolve in the face of domestic and international crises. The United States will be just another nation, if the leftists have their way. Excellence will be prohibited. Everyone will be "equal." No foreign nations will threaten us, and in time the U.S. will go the way of all other great hegemonic powers.

That said, I do not discount the immediate crisis of violent political extremism. People are being killed. It's not good, obviously. But what's especially dangerous is the political opportunism that comes even before the blood is dry and the facts are known, and in recent weeks that despicable opportunism's been the bailiwick of the left.

I know what folks will say: "Both sides do it ... [insert extremist right-wing counter-example here]." Thus all of us are left to retreat back into the insular comfort-zone of our own partisan cocoon.

It's understandable. But in my opinion, in the context of the Holocaust Museum shooting, leftist commentators have refused to look at the facts. The most important essay written this last few days is Ben Johnson's, "Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist." James von Brunn is in no way representative of today's conservative right, and blaming Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative talking heads for the violence only feeds the divisiveness.

But readers can hash it out for themselves. Leftists are so invested in finding evil in the conservative movement that no amount of factual analysis will dislodge them from their "eliminationist" mindset. And I'll make no bones about it: Some of those mucking in the hate are generally evil in my estimation.

With that, let's look at a few recent commentaries trying to provide some perspective on all of this.

Here's Jeffrey Goldberg, via Memeorandum, writing on Judith Warner's idiocy. Goldberg campares the Holocaust Memorial attack to the killing of Private William Long:

The attacks in Arkansas and Washington are both manifestations of a radical type of intolerance, and they are linked in very deep ways. The left, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge Muslim intolerance, and the right, generally speaking, doesn't want to acknowledge white, Christian intolerance. But they both exist, and they should both be acknowledged.

Okay, here's John Hinderaker's effort at calmness:

Various media sources are referring to von Brunn as a "right wing" murderer, more or less as they refer to people like us as "right wingers." This is a dubious characterization, to say the least: anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the Left in today's world, and Leon Wolf, at RedState, points out that Mr. von Brunn's political views are typical of those commonly expressed at the Daily Kos. No surprise there.

So is the Daily Kos to blame for von Brunn's insane murder? Earlier today I got an email with a link to an article claiming that Barack Obama is to blame, since Obama has legitimized hatred of Israel. Is that fair?

I don't think so. As hateful and misguided as many liberals may be, if they aren't actually advocating violence (like Randi Rhodes, say) they shouldn't be blamed if a lone nut takes their ideology to the extreme. Vigorous political debate is legal--as is bigotry, for that matter; murder is not. That's a very bright line, and all that needs to be said on the subject. Who is to blame for murder? The murderer.

Also, here's my friend Daniel Nexon's post, "Some Thoughts on the American Politics Topic du Jour":

There's no substantive difference between the attempts by right-wingers to define Nazism as a phenomena of the left and Marxist attempts to define Soviet Socialism as "state capitalism."

Anyway, I think the speed with which the right-wing blogsphere has circled the wagons over the shooting at the Holocaust museum speaks for itself.

It should be patently obvious that any disagreements your typical conservatives have with someone like Von Brunn are far more important than relative location on a one-dimensional political spectrum.

You see, everyone's got their spin, even if they're in roughly the same neighborhood.

But one more point: No matter how one situates themselves on this debate (the left's more awful than the right, blah, blah ...), I don't think there should be much debate that the mass media and the Democratic establishment are working in tandem with the fever-swamp radicals to exploit the violence for sheer partisan advantage. Explicitly or implicitly, the result is the same: The murder of George Tiller, for example, is a national calamity, while the death of Private Long was largely swept under the rug.

For more on this, see Victory Davis Hanson, "David Letterman, Rev. Wright, and Thoughts on a Creepy Culture."

See also, Frugal Café Blog Zone, "Obama Quick to Decry Abortionist’s Murder… Why Is He Still Mute on Soldier’s Murder by Black Muslim Terrorist?."

David Letterman: Washed-Up Left-Wing Pervert

Care of Americans for Limited Government, and William Warren: "The Top-Ten Washed-Up Lefty Hacks":

Also, see Michelle Malkin, "David Letterman: Perv" (via Memeorandum):

In November 2008, Letterman told tanking CBS News anchor Katie Couric that he was “aroused” by Gov. Palin.

In March 2009, Letterman attacked Bristol Palin and snickered about her being “knocked up” again.

You know, David Letterman reminds me of the lecher at the school bus stop.

Or the aging creep lurking in the dirty magazine section at the 7-11.

Attention, CBS: Get him help now.

Also, don't miss Dan Riehl's report, "A Personal Story About David Letterman."

Congresswoman Laura Richardson's Abandoned House Called Blight

From the Los Angeles Times, neighbors in Sacramento's affluent Curtis Park area claim that Congresswoman Laura Richardson's abandoned house is a blight on the community. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to look into the issue:

Here's the bullet-quote from next-door neighbor John Bailey:

"I wouldn't want anyone that irresponsible to represent me ... What I don't get is how she has the time to visit with Fidel Castro but doesn't have time for her own house. If you can't manage your own household, you probably shouldn't get involved in international affairs."

Some area residents, worried about their property values, paid for lawnmowing and upkeep on the house out of their own pockets. Talk about taxation without representation!

(Read the whole thing ... neighbors saw a dead bird inside the house, and rats were breeding in the backyard.)

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Carrie Prejean Interview on Sean Hannity, June 11 (VIDEO)

Say what you will about Carrie Prejean, she's firm in her beliefs. She also looks fabulous, and that's she's enduring endless abuse from the left's media-backed smear-machine:

See also, "Big Hollywood Exclusive: Miss California Speaks Out After Pageant Firing":

I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. I am proud to be the strong woman God has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, respectfully, and never back down.

Thank you and God Bless,

Carrie Prejean.

Added: Fox News, "Exclusive: Carrie Prejean Speaks Out for First time Since Losing Miss California Title."