An Evening With Diana West – July 10, 2013 – Luxe Hotel, Los Angeles

As this post goes live, I'm on the road to Diana West's book signing tonight in L.A., "EVENT: American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character – An Evening with Diana West – July 10, 2013."

It should be interesting. I'm reading the book now, an excellent read: American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.

And don't miss Ed Driscoll, "Interview: Diana West on the Cold War and American Betrayal."

I should be back online late tonight.

The United States of America No Longer Exists

From Diana West, "No Constitution, No Borders, No USA":

At what point does it become clear that we no longer inhabit America?

When we “Press 2,” not “1,” for English?

When a national Social Security Number syncs an electronic identity that the government hospital provided us at birth to track us till death?

When borders are no more, but the Surveillance State always knows where we are?

Ours is the age of dislocation before realization: The United States of America no longer exists. Why? How? The answer is simple, tragic and outrageous: Government officials, elected and unelected, with precious exceptions, no longer preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they do whatever it takes to beat it, flout it and ignore it. Worse, We, the People, let them.

This can’t go on. Otherwise our-country-’tis-of-thee becomes a melody to be forgotten, a mirage of a tradition more storybook than real every day. Nowhere is this more the case, of course, than in Washington, D.C., where absolute unaccountability corrupts absolutely, where echoing down the cool, white marble halls of power, hollow men and women trample sovereignty and citizenship in a pathway to American betrayal. And I haven’t even gotten to Congress, busy “reforming” the illegal-alien crisis they antiseptically refer to as “immigration,” while considering passage of a $940 billion “farm bill,” 80 percent of which will fund food stamps. These two laws alone can institutionalize the lawlessness of the land and make countless more Americans wards of the state.

Meanwhile, there is in Washington a faceless power-mongery that lives and works in the shadows. City by city, rural state by rural state, its mechanisms of “immigration,” “refugee resettlement” and socialist government programs overwhelm a near-impotent citizenry with alien cultures, religions, languages and traditions.

There is no “melting pot” out there, nor is there even residual belief in one – particularly not on the part of the State. Most of our new peoples will never embrace American constitutional virtues en masse to perpetuate them because their own sponsor, their own lifeline, is the mega-state that brought them here and supports them.

Wow.

Continue reading.

HAT TIP: Blazing Cat Fur.

WSJ Tells Rand Paul to 'Calm Down'

It's subscription only, but here's the key part, "Rand Paul's Drone Rant":

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

The editors fail to note that the administration killed Anwar Awlaki's 16-year-old son without designating him as an enemy combatant. He wasn't on a kill list. He was just killed. A boy. An American boy.

As I always say, I really don't care that the U.S. is killing terrorists with drone strikes. What is interesting hilarious is the hack partisanship of it all, especially now that this president has declared himself judge, jury and executioner. And of course, if it had been President George W. Bush...

Added: From Diana West, "THE FILIBUSTER HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD?":

One of the stranger results of the popular Paul filibuster was the instant coalescence of an ad hoc “Calm down, Rand” (read: shut up) effort. This political eruption loosely and overlappingly linked “surge” and Arab Spring diehards, neocon-esque conservative journals and blogs, and establishment pooh-bahs such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

I think the common ground here is that these groups basically favor the Bush-Obama drone wars that allow them to believe we are winning, or at least fighting, the war on terror, even if the unacknowledged reality is that we are losing the free world to what we might call “noncombatant” (or pre-combatant) Islamization. Maybe they think deep inside that if drone wars were deemed unconstitutional in any way – or, worse, ineffective – the hollow offensives the U.S. continues to support would eventually collapse, giving rise to panicky paralysis. In such an event, the absurdity of picking off terrorist leaders worldwide as a national strategy to fight “terror” might emerge with distressing clarity, while the Islamic law and money that have almost wholly engulfed Western institutions might become frighteningly apparent.

Maybe that’s why it seems as if blind trust in presidential discretion now trumps the bounds of the Constitution. But I hope not.

Hey, I just like killing terrorists. But if it were me, we'd be putting boots on the ground, in Syria, Africa, you name it. Take it to the terrorists, I say. And don't be hypocritical about it.

The Surge in Afghanistan Ends With Whimper

The New York Times has the MSM angle, "Troop ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan Ends With Mixed Results."

But see the utter truth at AoSHQ, "September 17, 2012: The Day We Gave Up In Afghanistan."

Folks like Diana West, and later Pamela Geller, argued long ago that we should get out of Afghanistan. Americans weren't fighting to win but attempting to build a nation not ready for democracy. And that was during the Bush years. Under Obama there was hope that we'd finally make some progress, but it's been a half-hearted policy there from the beginning of this administration.

Here's West's analysis from the other day:

Sniping over withdrawal dates is no substitute for grown-up discussion of the utterly and completely failed COIN strategy of nation-building on the backs of the US military, of strapping leftist, Kum-bay-a theories of "world peace" to the body armor of Americans and Australians and Brits and the rest, and sending them out into the IED-mined field of jihad. Really get to the know the people, said their commanders. Take off those ballistic glasses, and protect them from everything that can hurt them, said the generals. And dump hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain while you're at it.

The defective linchpin of this "strategy" is that there exists an imaginary Islam to which Americans and other Westerners must show fealty in order to win hearts and minds of "good" Islam, thus isolating the "bad" Islam of the fighting enemy. This is a defilement of reality that requires the widespread and permanent corruption of the thought process itself. The main result of this brainwashing has been to bring, as chronicled in this space for years now, the US military under the rules of Islam in our increasingly desperate efforts to win Afghan "hearts and minds."

I'm a bit of a wild-eyed optimist on democracy promotion, frankly. But even the best intentions will be for naught if you're just going through the motions, looking toward the next presidential election. And that's what happened during the Obama years. It's been an enormous case of moral bankruptcy, but then again, that's the story of the entire record of this administration.

British Progressives Allege Melanie Phillips Took 'Part in the Norway Massacre'

Well, no surprise, as they say.

See Melanie's blog, "A wider pathology." And she writes on Twitter:

Dozens of writers cited in Norway psychopath's ravings. So why am I being singled out? Atrocity ignites left pathology.

Yep, pathology. So clearly obvious by now. Progressives are having a psychotic field day attacking conservatives who've been standing up for freedom and democracy. And Melanie responds:

... Breivik name-checks a vast number of mainstream writers and thinkers, including Bernard Lewis, Roger Scruton, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Hannan, Diana West, Lars Hedegaard, Frank Field, Nicolas Soames, Keith Windschuttle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Hayek, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Ghandi, George Orwell and many others; indeed, it’s a roll call of western thinking and beyond, past and present.

So why doesn’t [Sunny] Hundal refer to any of these people who have also been thus name-checked? Why has he singled me out in this way? It looks like yet another crude attempt to smear me by a writer who has long displayed an unhealthy obsession with my work (see here and here and here for example).

The Hundal reference goes to the progressive blog, Liberal Conspiracy, "Oslo terrorist cited Melanie Phillips in his manifesto." And then an update, "Compare Phillips now to her writing after 7/7." And then "Flying Rodent," another deranged blogger at Liberal Conspiracy, piles on, "What are people like Melanie Phillips calling for then?":

I think that now, more than ever, fingers need to be pointed squarely at those who have been disseminating this poisonous cack, and searching questions need to be asked.

First up – What the fuck did you think you were doing?

And back over at Melanie's blog, she concludes:

Already, through the selective and distorted use of this document and the amplification of such malevolence through Twitter and the net, a blood-lust is building. Thus I am receiving emails such as one from Carsten T Holst-Lyngaard who says:

I congratulate you on your part in the Norway massacre;

or this from Taper Collins:

blood on your hands. hope you’re happy with the effects of your anti-everyone vitriol. abhorrent.

Breivik may be one unhinged psychopath – but what is now erupting as a result of the Norway atrocity is the frenzy of a western culture that has lost its mind.

Word.

ADDENDUM: As I was about to hit publish, Melanie has just published a new essay, "Fanaticism, mass murder and the left."

The suggestion that Breivik’s behaviour resulted from political rage – let alone from reading thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Winston Churchill – is frankly itself an opinion in need of treatment.

Melanie notes Bret Stephens and "the millenarian mindset," which I cited as perhaps the best explanation so far as to what happened in Norway. But go RTWT. Now we're getting somewhere.

Obama Declares Afghanistan Victory Before It's Been Achieved

At WSJ, "Unplugging the Afghan Surge":

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background.

Not long ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about only a token drawdown this year, but he's now on his way out of the Pentagon. This time Mr. Obama overruled his military advisers and sided instead with Vice President Joe Biden and his political generals who have their eye on the mission of re-election. His real generals, the ones in the field, will now have to scramble to fulfill their counterinsurgency mission, if that is still possible.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will start to remove troops next month, returning 10,000, or three or four brigades, by the end of the year. The entire 33,000-soldier Obama surge will be gone by next summer, and withdrawals will continue "at a steady pace" after that. So the full surge force will have been in Afghanistan for only a single fighting season, and even the remaining 68,000 troops are heading out. Mr. Obama reiterated NATO's previously agreed on date of 2014 for the full transfer of combat operations to Afghan forces, but that date now seems notional.

The President rightly pointed to the coalition progress against the Taliban in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, in building up an Afghan army and eliminating terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. But the military knows these gains are tentative, and it pressed the White House to keep all the fighting brigades in Afghanistan to press the advantage.

Still more at the top link.

It really is cut and run. And too bad too. Afghanistan was the one area I'd given Obama credit. I thought it weird for so long that folks like Pamela Geller and Diana West were calling for an American withdrawal. But they were right. The president's never been committed to strategic victory. It's all been political, depressingly so, considering so many people of good faith and morals who placed trust in this man, this president. He's betrayed a lot of people, and when Taliban and Al Qaeda violence escalates, the blood with be on his hands, and Joe Biden's. Losers.

The Left's Big Lie: A Chronology of Progressive Deception in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11

I'm intrigued by the meme this weekend on the blame-righty progressive left. It turns out that Gateway Pundit mistook the closed-captioned "applause' text at the Phoenix Jumbotron for audience prompts at last Wednesday's Obama-Democrat Tucson exploitation rally. And then faster than you can despicable smear, Charles Johnson slams Gateway as a "dim bulb" troglodyte of the "wingnut blogoshpere." But Gateway's Jim Hoft came back with a withering reply: "Figures. Charles Johnson’s Crackpot Hero Arrested For Threatening to Kill Tea Party Leader on National TV." Heh. That's good.

And staying with it for a moment, compare these two screencaps from Little Green Footballs. When James Eric Fuller threatened some conservatives at this weekend's ABC News town hall in Tuscon, Johnson chalks that up to the "Wild West" atmosphere in Arizona. Completely understandable, no doubt.

But just the other day we had news that Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington State received death threats, but that was the work of raving right-wing "lunatic." And Charles chirps in with feigned superiority: "I wonder how the wingnuts will try to explain this one away."

That's typical for the morally bankrupt "husky pony-tailed blogger."

But there's more.

I cruised over to Althouse earlier, and she has a hilarious post picking up on Whiskey Fire's demonic ramblings at Firedoglake: "Hoft gets this through Instadouche and, unsurprisingly, Ann Althouse, who has been looking at pictures again, something that never ends well..." The Whisky Fire proprietor is Thers. He's a classic progressive and morally-bankrupt attack blogger from the TBogg "F*ck Me Pumps" school of racist misogyny and character assassination. Or, as Ann responds, "Heh. I got FireDogLake writing in the anti-Althousiana genre." The link goes to FDL:

Jim Hoft, The Gateway Gobshite, the Dollar Store version of Michelle Malkin, is very possibly the dumbest wingnut on this or any other Internet. To be sure, he has his competition (SASQUATCH ISRAEL!). But he is rather special!

Notice that? The "competition" is me, from last September and my "Sasquatch Israel" gaffe. I noticed some traffic coming in last night from the Sadly No! asshats, and I chuckled this morning at finally figuring out the source. Even better is that I'm lumped to not only with Jim Hoft, but the great Michelle Malkin. Now that's some bragging rights, yo!

But stupid is as stupid does, as they say. Or in this case, as evil does, and you can't touch the left on that. Because as I've been documenting, along with many other voices of moral clarity on the right, the aftermath of Tucson has revealed a depth of progressive depravity thus far unknown to man. I have yet to see a single progressive publish an apology or retraction for their baseless smears that came within minutes of the shooting on January 8th. It's been truly sickening. Here's Thers, for example, at Whiskey Fire, alleging "heated right-wing rhetoric" for the death and destruction at the Gabrielle Giffords event:

Busting wingnut rhetoric for these latest shootings wouldn't be like busting Al Capone for tax evasion. It would be like busting Al Capone for fucking jaywalking.

The reason the Tucson nightmare fearfully resonates is not because of a simple causal relationship between say Glenn Beck and direct incitements to murder, but because "conservatives" have an insatiable appetite for crazy bullshit.

Are wingnuts opposed to incitement to murder because, well, it's incitement to murder, or because they're afraid being caught out doing it might lose them Valuable Political Points?

Dunno! But once you've gone ahead and, say, made excuses for state-sponsored torture, if you want the benefit of the doubt, fuck you.

These people have no shame.

Whiskey Fire posted these lies on Wednesday, fully four days after the shooting. By then it was fully known of Jared Loughner's insanity. But the Democrat-rats smelled a political opportunity, and that night we saw crowds erupt in applause for President Obama at the progressive's University of Tucson progressive pep rally that should have otherwise been an evening of somber reflection. It was just that morning that Zach Osler, a "best friend" to the deranged Loughner, indicated at ABC News that the shooter "didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the left, he wasn't on the right":

But this is how it all works.

It's the big lie of the progressive-left, as I argued yesterday, as well as Diana West earlier, "Tragedy Exposes 'The Big Lie'":

The suppression of the facts is by no means the most dangerous aspect of any Big Lie. After all, facts don't go away even amid efforts to suppress them. All sorts of inconsistencies, impossibilities and clues remain behind, and sometimes in plain sight, for anyone who cares to look. The real threat the Big Lie poses to society comes when it is not stopped in its tracks, exposed and trashed for what it is -- a lie -- but rather accepted, accommodated and, indeed, treated as if it were the truth. At that point, a Big Lie is a big success, having created an alternate reality that turns its very targets into hapless accomplices.

Unfortunately, that last bit describes most Republicans' supine reaction to the reaction -- the Big Lie -- about the Arizona massacre ....

In the end, though, what's worse than the Big Lie itself is the failure to reject and expose it -- the failure, in this case, to identity the lie as a naked influence operation to mute conservative political expression. This failure is the crime Republicans are guilty of each time they stoop to defend themselves within the phony terms of the lie itself.

I'm not completely down with Diana's condemnation of conservative capitulation to the left's Big Lie. Politically, it would have been much worse to hold back a response in real time, just as the nihilist hordes were building up their deceits and distortions. But she's right to place the lies squarely in the longstanding tradition of leftist totalitarian utopianism. She illustrates her blog post with the image of Joseph Stalin above, and writes: "'Never mind, they'll swallow it', said Stalin, the 20th Century's first successful progenitor of the Big Lie."

Exactly.

I'll have more later.

Meanwhile, the Big Lie continues with the latest from Frank Rich of the New York Times, "No One Listened to Gabrielle Giffords" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: "The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11."

Navigating Past Nihilism

Back during the racist Pale Scot episode, BJKeefe rejected David Horowitz's equation of leftist ideologies with the doctrines of epistemological nihilism. Of course such references are common, so I responded in the comments:

The left has recycled Soviet Marxism-Leninism, giving a pass to the murder of 100s of millions. When those apologies for totalitarianism --- what leftist refer to as "actually existing socialism" --- become a defense of a failed ideology, all you have left is utter nothingness, hence nihilism.

In response, BJ babbled something about my attempting to "twist the definition of nihilism to fit your own preconceived notions."

Well, actually not, according to Merriam-Webster:

1a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

2a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

I tend to focus on the rejection of moralism (1b), which is clear in my longstanding discussion of the anarcho-socialist and the neo-communist left, but also the left's ideology of death and destruction (2b).

No doubt there's a long body of Western philosophy that examines the impact of nihilism on scientific developments and social thought. Thus, folks into these more refined discourses on nihilism --- that to which I suspect BJKeefe alludes, but does not elaborate --- may find the discussion from Sean Kelly interesting, at New York Times, "Navigating Past Nihilism":

“Nihilism stands at the door,” wrote Nietzsche. “Whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?” The year was 1885 or 1886, and Nietzsche was writing in a notebook whose contents were not intended for publication. The discussion of nihilism ─ the sense that it is no longer obvious what our most fundamental commitments are, or what matters in a life of distinction and worth, the sense that the world is an abyss of meaning rather than its God-given preserve ─ finds no sustained treatment in the works that Nietzsche prepared for publication during his lifetime. But a few years earlier, in 1882, the German philosopher had already published a possible answer to the question of nihilism’s ultimate source. “God is dead,” Nietzsche wrote in a famous passage from “The Gay Science.” “God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

There is much debate about the meaning of Nietzsche’s famous claim, and I will not attempt to settle that scholarly dispute here. But at least one of the things that Nietzsche could have meant is that the social role that the Judeo-Christian God plays in our culture is radically different from the one he has traditionally played in prior epochs of the West. For it used to be the case in the European Middle Ages for example ─ that the mainstream of society was grounded so firmly in its Christian beliefs that someone who did not share those beliefs could therefore not be taken seriously as living an even potentially admirable life. Indeed, a life outside the Church was not only execrable but condemnable, and in certain periods of European history it invited a close encounter with a burning pyre.

Whatever role religion plays in our society today, it is not this one. For today’s religious believers feel strong social pressure to admit that someone who doesn’t share their religious belief might nevertheless be living a life worthy of their admiration. That is not to say that every religious believer accepts this constraint. But to the extent that they do not, then society now rightly condemns them as dangerous religious fanatics rather than sanctioning them as scions of the Church or mosque. God is dead, therefore, in a very particular sense. He no longer plays his traditional social role of organizing us around a commitment to a single right way to live. Nihilism is one state a culture may reach when it no longer has a unique and agreed upon social ground.

More at the link, but that sounds fair enough to me, if a bit minimalist. Basically, societies that have lost an agreed upon consensus of the appropriate, of the boundaries of social mores and values, have become nihilist in the sense Sean Kelly offers. It's not just a matter of religious faith but the social construction of moral right and political order. To the extent today that radicals attack traditional values as extreme --- attacks on proponents of heterosexual marriage, for example --- we've clearly lost a good deal of the decency that derives from a more fundamental set of commitments. The left not only rejects those commitments, but is intent to literally destroy those who stand in the way. Recall Diana West's essay following the passage of Prop 8 in 2008: "The State is Being Set." And the left's dishonesty and anti-intellectualism continued in the federal courts. See Michelle's, "Judicial activism + far Left radical activism = Courtroom intimidation."

And of course this is true in so many other areas, on issues of war and peace, the science of climate change, and the existence of Israel. The anti-intellectual foundations of the today's left --- foundations that are in essence nihilist as discussed --- are destroying individuals and societies. Melanie Phillips' book covers much of this ground as well: The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power.

Back over at Kelly's essay, the discussion assesses whether societies can reach accomodation over values, perhaps so that the ideal of faith in God is not the sine qua non for a life of virtue. Specifically, we could reject the notion that non-believers are automatically nihilist, and Kelly cites the great American novelist Herman Melville for inspiration. So yes, the debate might continue. But for me it's not so much faith per se, but that of commitment itself to the pursuit of the good, and what we've seen repeatedly is how the left rejects that goodness, and when leftists can't win fair and square they resort to dishonestly, intimidation and violence. As Kelly notes earlier in the essay: "The threat of nihilism is the threat that freedom from the constraint of agreed upon norms opens up new possibilities in the culture only through its fundamentally destabilizing force."

And one of those agreed commitments is that we treat those of different races with respect --- that is, we don't abuse them with racist attacks and, even worse, defend those attacks with the most reprehensible evasions and distortions of truth imaginable. But unfortunately, that's the going program at RepRacist3's dungeon of nihilist hatred, where folks there think of me as the opposite of albino Johnny Winter. Nope, no colorblindness at RepRacist3's stalking nihilist asshat central:

These are bad people, well outside the accepted normative commitments of decency and right in society.

Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)

This article has got me thinking, so I'm just going to come out and admit it: I'm tired of it. I'm tired of standing up for my principles and then having to turn around to be attacked as a "hater." No one who knows me as a dedicated family man would call me a "hater." No one who knows me and my work with students and communities would call me a "hater." Not one my own students -- gay or straight, man or woman, black, white, or hispanic -- would call me a "hater" (at least not one of those students who has really worked with me, and benefited from my teaching and mentoring). But after supporting Proposition 8, and then blogging the hell out of the gay marriage issues for months after the November 2008 election, I'm even more frustrated by the left's campaign of vilification of cultural traditionalists. So, I'll be clear: I believe marriage exists for the fundamental purpose of child-rearing and the biological regeneration of society. In no way can a same-sex couple do what a man and woman can to reproduce the essential unity of physiological oneness of children and procreation. This is simply what I understand as constitutive of the marriage union. And thus, I don't consider same-sex marriage as equal to the historic struggles for civil rights, for example, the reversal of the historic wrongs of discrimation against interracial couples. There's no need to provide links. I've blogged all of these issues time and again, and there's not much more to prove. I love all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, national orgins, and religion, etc. And I really don't want to fight with people because of my traditional values. All along, throughout the debates on Proposition 8 in California, and in the recent politics of gay marriage in the states across the union, I've accepted the notion that majority rule should decide the issue -- even if that means gay marriage should prevail. We need to observe the people's will on this crucial question of society. Should the courts authorize a blanket right to same-sex marriage, we'll have decades of cultural wars along the lines of the politics of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973. There are some issues so fundamental to the stability of society that the deep emotions and partisan battles are never quite resolved. I don't see the question of gay marriage fading away if the Supreme Court eventually decides the issue in favor of the radical left. Too many people of both religious and secular standing see the historic family of husband and wife as the pillar of the community. Without that, America will never be the same, and our nation will almost certainly not be as strong as we've been as a people over time. We must decide the controversy over same-sex marriage at the state level and as a question of federalism and the rights of states to organize the legal status of the family according the local norms and community standards.

Okay, why am I'm I moved to write this? No one has ever made compelling arguments on the facts to rebut what's been written here over time. Indeed, it almost always ends up, the responses I get, as leftist namecalling and the politics of radical hatred and demonization. It's really sick sometimes. You think Andrew Sullvan's just recently gone off? Whatever he's said of Scott Brown this week is all of a piece. You're "Christainist" (and thus a fanatical terrorist) if you're into the historical conception of family unity and regeneration. But I'm afraid it's getting to the point that even people of strong values have capitulated to the demonization of what's good. If it's gotten to the point where the Cindy McCains and the Meghan McCains of this world are the arbiters of what's an acceptable Repubican, I doubt that party will ever regain any credibility on the right, no matter how many Scott Browns we elect. I know, I know: Lots of top Republicans favor so-called "marriage equality." Dick Cheney comes to mind, one of the most forceful critics of the Obama administration, but one who has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. For all of Dick Cheney's wisdom, I don't think he gets it on this issue. Once conservatives concede marriage to the radical left, it's all downhill -- there's not going to be much to uphold regarding fundamental values of goodness and social preservation. It's all up in the air at that point. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to the folks who Cindy McCain and Meghan McCain have joined in the "NO on H8" campaign, "Meghan McCain is Redefining Republican"

Teabaggers are definitely getting all the attention these days when it comes to the Republican Party. Look no further than Massachusetts, where Republicans have graciously told their candidate, Scott Brown, to shove a curling iron up Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's butt, or to Oklahoma, where teabaggers have prayed for Senate Democrats to die.

Talk about a civility FAIL. Is there any hope left for the Republican Party? Maybe some sort of superwoman? Or, well, at least a super Tweeter and/or blogger?

Enter Meghan McCain, the daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has grown tired of childish kvetching and teabaggers. She's ready to redefine Republican, and for her, that starts with increasing the number of Republicans supportive of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

McCain is scheduled to speak at George Washington University's "Marriage Equality Week," scheduled for February 9. That is, unless a civil war among students breaks out. A student gay rights group is thrilled that she's coming. But a student Republican organization feels like they were duped. They wanted Meghan McCain to speak about the new face of the Republican Party, and now they're miffed that she'll be talking about marriage equality ...

I can't hold back in my intense resentment at being attacked as a "teabagger" by these freakin' gay marriage ayatollahs. Meghan McCain is too stupid to realize these she's simply the most colossal tool of the neo-Stalinist gay rights lobby (including the International ANSWER cadres and Code Pink traitors who've long supported the killing of American troops overseas). Put it all together and it's just plain grotesque. It's really time for conservatives to take a stand (and if you don't think so, read Diana West's, "The Stage Is Being Set"). Will Meghan and her mother define the agenda of the GOP? Take a look at that article: "Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign." It's hard to believe that John McCain's wife would be sucked into this by the same groups that worked to destroy her husband in 2008. But they are one and the same. John McCain as a candidate supported marriage traditionalism. I don't know where he stands now, but his wife and daughter certainly don't represent what the McCain presidential campaign stood for at the time.

Anyway, it's all coming to a head again this week. Court's back in session in San Francisco, and the left's campaign of lies and distortion is picking up steam. See, the Los Angeles Times, "Documents Show Links Between Prop. 8 Campaign and Church Leaders" (via Memeorandum). And the San Jose Mercury News, "Prop. 8 Trial Day 7: Live Coverage From the Courtroom."

RELATED: The Advocate, "Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8." And the Washington Post, "McCain's Wife, Daughter Back Gay Marriage Movement."

The Coming Prop 8 Show Trial

Some folks might remember Diana West's phenomenal post on gay marriage totalitarianism from November 2008, "The Stage Is Being Set." As Diana writes there, on the campaign of intimidation and harassment against El Coyote's co-owner Marjorie Christoffersen:

The mainstream media have so far failed to get across the intensity of the ordeal that supporters of Prop 8 may now be subject to--something I realized on coming across this extraordinary blog account of a meeting at the legendary restaurant El Coyote in Hollywood, not far from where I grew up in Laurel Canyon. The meeting was between the elderly Mormon owner, who donated $100 to support Prop 8, and Prop 8 opponents, who are threatening a boycott, and it is as soul- grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

I remind readers of this to highlight how the radical left's campaign of intimidation has now moved all the way to the U.S. federal court system. Michelle Malkin has the details, "The Anti-Prop. 8 Mob Strikes Again":

Yesterday, liberal California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued an unprecedented ruling that will put the trial involving a challenge to the Prop. 8 same-sex marriage ban on YouTube ....

I generally support more sunshine in all government proceedings. But the judge’s unusual method of securing video coverage is extremely troubling. This isn’t a sincere educational effort to provide transparency to the public. It’s a flagrant attempt at making Prop. 8 a show trial — and intimidating Prop. 8 backers who will be called to testify.

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos lays out Walker’s agenda thoroughly. Start here, then go here, and here. Writes Whelan: “Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus. And, whether Walker desires the effect or is somehow blind to it, televised coverage would surely also heighten the prospect that witnesses and attorneys supporting Proposition 8 would face harassment, intimidation, and abuse. In his eagerness to stack the deck against Proposition 8 and its defenders, Walker has resorted to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality.”

Former federal district judge Paul Cassell weighs in: “Without getting into the merits of Proposition 8 or the legal challenges to it, I agree with Whelan that it seems highly unusual for a judge to authorize televised proceedings for this particular case as part of some new “pilot” project to see how televised proceedings work. Surely if there were going to be a test run of a new idea, it should be in a more run-of-the-mill case rather than this particular highly controversial one. Moreover, it does appear that public comment process has been completely short-circuited.”

More at the link.

Freedom or Tyranny: Toward Ideological Reckoning

From Melanie Phillips, "The Clash of Uncivilizations":

The frenzy over the participation of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time this week has been a classic case of failing to identify the real elephant in the room. By fixating on the ‘far right’ as the supremely evil force in British public life, the mainstream political class has failed to grasp that a half-baked neo-Nazi rabble is not the main issue. There is another more lethal type of fascism on the march in the form of Islamic supremacism.

The Islamists, or jihadis, are intent upon snuffing out individual freedom and imposing a totalitarian regime of submission to religious dogma which erodes and then replaces British and Western values. Now these two types of fascism are doing battle with each other — and with the white working class and lower-middle classes caught between them. For it is the intense anger of these people with the fact that — as they see it — they are the ignored victims of the jihadis that is driving them into the arms of the BNP.

There are, of course, many factors fuelling BNP support. Most broadly, increasing numbers at the lower end of the social scale feel the mainstream parties are ignoring their most pressing concerns. Most of these anxieties involve British national identity: uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, the loss to the EU of Britain’s ability to govern itself. Most toxic of all, however, is the threat from Islamic supremacism and the concern of the disenfranchised white voters that the political establishment is supinely going along with the progressive Islamisation of Britain.

All around them they see the establishment responding to Islamist bullying with acts of appeasement. Jihadis parade on the streets threatening to behead infidels — but it is white objectors whose collars are felt by the police. The mainstream political parties are all petrified of saying anything about either the steady encroachment of Islam into Britain’s public space or the linked phenomenon of mass immigration.

So the BNP have been handed an extraordinary electoral advantage: it can tell voters that it is the only party prepared unequivocally to denounce such things. The rise of Nick Griffin is intimately related to the unchecked march of Islamism in Britain. The BNP is, in one sense, merely the other side of the jihadi coin.

It is highly relevant that Griffin is an MEP for North West England — and did not stand in the old National Front power base around London. His party’s new appeal is based on a new power base — the north-west and Yorkshire. Research by academics at Manchester University reveals that support for the BNP is highest in areas of high Pakistani and Bangladeshi concentration — but significantly, not where there are concentrations of Indians. Strikingly, BNP support actually falls away steeply in Afro-Caribbean areas.

So to try to damn the BNP as racist misses the point by a mile. Not that the accusation is untrue — despite its attempt to rebrand itself, the BNP remains a racist party with strong neo-Nazi overtones. But it attracts votes talking about religion and culture. Crucially, it is cynically using the Islamisation of Britain as cover for its animus against all Muslims and non-white people.

There are many British Muslims, after all, who are a threat to no one, who want to enjoy the benefits of a secular society and human rights and are themselves potential victims of Islamism and sharia law. But the BNP seeks to elide this distinction. It hates not just Islamism but all Muslims; indeed, it has seized upon the widespread concern over Islamic extremism to morph seamlessly from Paki-bashing into Muslim-bashing.

The fears it exploits are those of ordinary white folk in areas of high Muslim immigration who have watched the transformation of their neighbourhoods from communities of people like themselves into a landscape they no longer recognise. The voters the BNP are seeking are bewildered and distraught that no one in authority seems to notice or care — and that they are dismissed as ‘racists’ for expressing such concerns.

It is this asymmetry of anger which helps the BNP so much. Those who this week seemed to be risking an aneurysm over Griffin’s TV appearance either dismiss the jihadis as an exaggerated problem — or, on occasion, even march behind their incendiary and hate-driven banners. There is no Griffin-style outrage over the regular appearances in the media by the fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas supporters or Iranian-backed jihadis, even though they endorse terrorism and the extinction of human rights.

Liberal society cannot see them as a threat because, under the prevailing doctrines of multiculturalism and moral relativism, minorities can never be guilty of prejudice or bad deeds. Only the ‘far right’, it appears, can be racist. It is not hard to demonstrate that Islamism is a real and present danger not just to democracy, but to groups such as women, gays, Jews, apostates and liberal Muslims. Yet liberals appear to recognise fascism only if it has a white face.

There's more at the link, but that comment above -- "There are many British Muslims, after all, who are a threat to no one, who want to enjoy the benefits of a secular society and human rights and are themselves potential victims of Islamism and sharia law" -- perfectly captures my thinking on assimilated, even functionally secular, Muslims. In Britain right now, but really no less in this country, if one follows the reporting from anti-Jihad bloggers, a conservative would immediately be denounced as a Nazi by protesting Islamist terrorism with a sign like the one above. The sorry implication is that the radical Islamization of society goes unchecked (for fear of alienating "minorities"); and further, far-right groups become even more extreme in their reciprocal denunciations. That then feeds the media's infatuation with "racists," and the cycle continues on once more. But frankly, those who are doing the best work to combat the true racist Muslim fanaticism are those most willing to speak out against it -- and I would argue that in respectable company it's mainstream neoconservatives who're most willing to call it like they see it. And that includes Melanie Phillips, who when speaking out against "Londonistan," is most likely lumped in with the BNP by her opponents nevertheless, no matter what anti-racist clarity she presents.

And as always, stateside the race card is being slapped down more than ever. If you missed it, go over right now and read Diana West's analysis of the recent Rush Limbaugh controversy -- "Blackballing Conservatism," an essential analysis.

(And by the way, Larisa Alexandrovna continues to pimp out the scourge of "racism" so aggressively she's got race-baiting rug burns to show for it).

So to be clear: I don't hate Muslims, and I don't wish Islam to go to hell. I do think that folks should be to willing to say uncomfortable things about Islam -- like, at its fundamentalist base, it's a "religion of victory." And also, if we're going to fight the Islamists, we're going to need way more clear thinking and differentiation on the threat if the West is to win the battle of public opinion (and the battle over demonic, debilitating political correctness).

Image Credit: Saber Point, "Europe's March to Cultural Suicide."

Eight U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan: Aggressive Attack Shows Insurgents Gaining at AF-PAK Border

It's the big foreign policy story this morning. Both NYT and WaPo have major reports. The fighting took place in the remote eastern section of Afghanistan, in Nurestan province. The news reports describe a brazen offensive featuring tribal militias making cross-border raids. From the Washington Post's report:

The U.S. military said it was not immediately clear how many insurgents were involved in the fighting. The attack involved Taliban fighters and appeared to be led by a local commander of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgent group, which is run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former mujaheddin leader during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

The attack took place in a sparsely populated area of forested mountains near the town of Kamdeysh. The deputy police chief of Nurestan province, Mohammad Farouq, said the insurgents intended to seize control of the Kamdeysh area and that hundreds took part in the fighting. He said more than 20 Afghan soldiers and police have gone missing since the fighting began and may have been taken hostage.

"Americans always want to fight in Afghanistan," said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, who took credit for the attack by telephone. "If the Americans want to increase their troops, we will increase our fighters as well."

He said the battle began about 6 a.m. Saturday and involved 250 Taliban fighters. He claimed that dozens of American and Afghan soldiers were killed, along with seven Taliban fighters. Mujahid also claimed that the district police chief and intelligence chief were among the hostages, but that could not be confirmed.

I'm reminded of how I felt in November 2006. Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek's liberal but respected foreign policy analyst, published a heavy-duty essay entitled "The Drawdown Option." The piece threw down the gauntlet on the Iraq war. Go all in or get out. My response, amid the frustrations, was to give the U.S. a year to turn things around. We had face over two years of catastrophic danger in the war, and the radical left had long declared the conflict a debacle. I'm not quite there yet on Afghanistan, but the way the media's spinning this conflict - and the way the Obama administration is positioning itself for a cut-and-run -- I may well soon be.

I wrote of the stakes in Afghanistan last week, following a New York Times report indicating that the Mumbai terrorists were gearing up for a new round of conflict. See, "Another Mumbai? Qaeda-Taliban-Lashkar Ready to Strike Again." It turns out that Dan Twining, at Foreign Policy, wrote a report last week as well, "The Stakes in Afghanistan Go Well Beyond Afghanistan":

The problem with the current debate over Afghanistan is that it is too focused on Afghanistan. There is no question that the intrinsic importance of winning wars our country chooses to fight -- to secure objectives that remain as compelling today as they were on September 12, 2001 -- is itself reason for President Obama to put in place a strategy for victory in Afghanistan. But the larger frame has been lost in the din of debate over General McChrystal's leaked assessment, President Obama's intention to ramp up or draw down in Afghanistan, and the legitimacy of the Afghan election. In fact, it is vital for the United States and its allies to recommit to building an Afghan state that can accountably govern its people and defeat the Taliban insurgency -- for reasons that have to do not only with Afghanistan's specific pathologies but with the implications of failure for the wider region and America's place in the international system.

The facts are lost on congressional Democrats and the hardline antiwar left. But as I noted at my report above, a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will invite another attack on America on the scale of September 11. And both security experts and military personnel agree: "This is a moment in history we must not miss." What's missing is a committed and resolute civilian leadership to see to it that America gets the job done.

*********

UPDATE: There's now a thread at Memeorandum. Jules Crittenden's suggests an "Afghan Tet," which means that the insurgents were in fact decimated, but the press is reporting an American debacle:

Sounds a little like the Taliban would like to pull off an Afghan Tet. Rack up some bad headlines, drive down the poll numbers and panic Congress while the president dithers. You’ll recall that in the original Tet, the Viet Cong and North Vietnam won a Pyrrhic political victory. Though decimated, severely compromed as a fighting force going forward and having failed to hold any ground, they managed to turn American public and political opinion. And won.

Either way, American lives were lost, and the stakes are high, as noted above.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "The Deadly Siege at Kamdeysh." And Weasel Zippers, "Afghanistan: Eight More Heroes Die In Day-Long Taliban Attack ..."

Added: Pamela at Atlas Shrugs links, "EIGHT MORE US SOLDIERS DEAD IN AFGHANISTAN, Obama consults Mother Goose for strategy." Pamela questions not the need for the deployment, but the administration's will to fight it:

Obama has no intention of destroying jihad. He just doesn't. The man grew up in a Muslim country, with a Mulsim father and stepfather and does not reject the Islamic view but prefers it. Hence all the outrech to slaughterers.

So why would I want our most precious resource, our finest Americans, slaughtered in a sloppy, ill-conceived, fairy tale war strategy where our girls and boys can't help but end up dead. Under Obama's reckless, feckless anti-commandership, we have experienced the highest number of deaths in Afghanistan month after month since the inception of the defensive military actions in Islam's war on the US.

Interestingly, but I just saw this yesterday from Diana West, " Losing' Our Way to Victory" (via Baldilocks):

This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. Secure the borders, for starters, something "war president" George W. Bush should have done but never did. Eliminate the nuclear capabilities of jihadist nations such as Iran, another thing George W. Bush should have done but never did -- Pakistan's, too. Destroy jihadist actors, camps and havens wherever and whenever needed (the strategy in place and never executed by Bill Clinton in the run-up to 9/11). But not by basing, supplying and supporting a military colossus in Islamic, landlocked Central Asia. It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to "let Afghanistan go." It is not in our interests to civilize it.

Both Pamela and Diana want to win, but they don't see much sense in trying to nation-build Afghanistan, and especially under a Democratic administration that's uncommitted.

To repeat, I'm not there yet. I'm with Dan Twining above who warns of the larger dangers to the international system found in continued AF-PAK insecurity. We're going to fight, sooner or later. (For more on this, see Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home, "McChrystal's Folly.")

Maybe this president will actually come around to his senses and suppport America, and I'm not saying that to be Pollyanna-ish. At the least, Obama wants to be reelected, and I'm confident -- and as I've said many times already -- success mattters, and increasing progress on the war will keep public support high.

The ball is in the president's court. See, "Success Matters: Public Opinion and the War in Afghanistan."

See also, Common Sense Political Thought, "To Fight or Fold, or Let Fester?"

'Ask God What Your Grade Is' ... Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage

From the Los Angeles Examiner, "Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage":

A California court has ruled in favor of a Los Angeles Community College student who said he was called a "fascist bastard" by his teacher for defending traditional marriage.

The court also ordered LACC to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.

Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom, the Los Angeles Times reports.

U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.

Lopez said his professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to “ask God what your grade is,” the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code, according to the LA Times.

King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

See also, Los Angeles Examiner, "Student Wins Court Ruling After Being Slandered for His Spiritual Morals: Ask God Your Grade."

This is great news.

My question is how come this story's not plastered across newpapers nationwide? Not a toughie. Obviously, Judge King's decision violates the left's "gay marriage is inevitable" meme, and the liberal media-commissars wouldn't want to deviate from the program. Seriously. A Google search right now turns up paltry results (look here, here, and here).

It's fascinating, really, since a look over at Volokh Conspiracy pulls the mask off of the "rights" program of the radical left. Judge King has enjoined the LACC district's policy on sexual harrassment, and check out the language highlighted by the court:

It is important to be aware that sexual remarks or physical conduct of a sexual nature may be offensive or can make some people uncomfortable even if you wouldn’t feel the same way yourself. It is therefore sometimes difficult to know what type of behavior is sexual harassment. However the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive. It’s important to clearly let an offender know that certain actions are unwelcome. The four most common types of sexual harassment are:

1. Sexual Harassment based on your gender: This is generalized sexist statements, actions and behavior that convey insulting, intrusive or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men. Examples include insulting remarks; intrusive comments about physical appearance; offensive written material such as graffiti, calendars, cartoons, emails; obscene gestures or sounds; sexual slurs, obscene jokes, humor about sex ...

I like the part that says "the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive."

Man, that's broad. Who's to say what's "unwanted," much less "pervasive." On that standard, my class lectures include a lot of "unwanted" comments that would be deemed as "harrassment" by the left's gay marriage ayatollahs.

And get this, from an update at Volokh, "A Footnote You Wouldn't Want to See in a Court Opinion":

This case is likewise not mooted by Defendants’ recent revelation that the Policy was supposedly repealed in 2007.[2] First, the Policy continues to appear on the District’s and LACC’s websites.... Thus, Plaintiff, and other students and employees, can reasonably believe they are subject to the Policy and experience a chilling effect.

[2] We are chagrined that defense counsel and Defendants’ representative who were present at the oral argument on June 10, 2009 were apparently ignorant of the status of a policy they purported to defend. This lack of preparedness is viewed with great disfavor.

It's important to remember that the First Amendment is central to the debate over same-sex marriage. After Californians passed Proposition 8 last November, the gay radical lobby launched its infamous outing and shaming campaign to intimidate and silence those who exercised their First Amendment rights to contribute to the intitiative measure (see, "Outing Liberal Blogger – Bad; Outing Prop 8 Donors – Good"). In the immediate aftermath of the election, Diana West described the chill in California as "soul-grinding" and akin to "something out of Soviet show trial history."

There's no word on the District Court's ruling at some of the big gay radical blogs, for example, Joe. My. God., Pam's House Blend, or Towleroad. The ever-so-prodigious Andrew Sullivan is on vacation from The Daily Dish, but hot-shot stand-in Conor Friedersdorf missed this story as well.

Pretty interesting, you think? Recall that these folks are quick to shout down "unwanted" speech they deem offensive (see, "Pam Spaulding Falsely Accuses Christians of Inciting Violence — But What About Her Own Behavior?").

No comment on the Volokh post at Memeorandum either.

It's a big news week, but not that big. The Sotomayor hearings are winding down, the administration's trying to keep the health reform story alive in the press, and folks have pretty much forgotten about authoritarianism in Iran. One might think even the Los Angeles Times would run a piece on the story, but I'm not holding my breath.

(Now, if the court would have upheld the LACC District's policy, THAT would have been big news!)

For additional background, see Eugene Volokh, "Professor in Speech Class Refuses to Grade Student's Presentation."

**********

UPDATE: Patriot Room links! See, "Court Rules 'Ask God What Your Grade is' Prof Violated Student's 1st Amendment Rights."

Public Consistently Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Pew Research has published a new report, "The Gay Marriage Debate: Where It Stands":

Most supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the legal principles of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry -- from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Most social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex marriage argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they contend, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble as a result of high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, many predict that giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

See also Pew's primary report, "Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters."

I'm struck by that tailing uptick of opposition to same-same marriage in the chart above. It's not large, but the 5 point increase of those opposed coincides with the extreme left-wing demonization and outing campaign following the passage of Proposition 8 last November. Diana West argued that the brutalization inflicted on supporters of the initiative was as "soul-grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history." And if we recall what's happened in the last 8 months, no state has voted by popular majority to define marriage as including two men or two women. It's just not how it's done. Meanwhile, the survey data show that Americans favor some kind of civil unions for same-sex partners. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Further as we can see, there is some bedrock of marriage traditionalism that transcends partisanship, race, and gender. And the reality is that the radical left has been intent to virtually crucify those not kowtowing to the nihilist agenda.

Interestingly, today's New York Times features the latest example of an enduring traditionalism that rises above the stereotypical categories of radical identity politics. It turns out that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is looking to remove the Rev. Eric P. Lee, its Los Angeles chapter president. Rev. Lee is a gay marriage activist and thus out of step with not just the SCLC, but with the 70 percent of black voters in California who voted to preserve the historic conception of marriage last year. Responding to this, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, the black radical law professor at the American University, attacked the SCLC as a bigoted organization that has betrayed its "rich history of progressive advocacy."

Actually, the old-line civil rights groups have become key constituencies in the fight for the preservation of moral values in society today. Black folks know that it's a slap in the face to equate same-sex marriage rights to the horrors blacks faced through the battles of the freedom struggle. It's kind of sad to see a black professor, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, so deeply ignorant of that element of the civil rights legacy. For more on this, see Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Graphic Credit: Pew Research.

Same-Sex Hate-Seekers

I had a long and extremely interesting exchange with Alex Knepper yesterday. Alex is a member of my Facebook community. He's a young conservative who thinks the GOP needs to moderate its social conservatism. He sent me an e-mail after finding an old essay of mine on Sarah Palin at RealClearPolitics. We debated Palin for a little while, and then our discussion turned to gay marriage.

We went back and forth for a few iterations. Alex got a little agitated when I mentioned a continuing controversy in the literature over the biological basis for sexual orientation. He turned at that and said, "if you actually think that homosexuality is not a choice, then you're accusing me of being a liar and a con artist. All of those feelings toward boys that I started having at the ages of 11 and 12 - were they fake?" I then wrote back calmly, "I'm not doubting your feelings, Alex. All I'm saying is that biological determination is still controversial in the literature." (See, for example, "Current Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality.")

Alex mellowed out a little later, especially after I told him that he'd be my friend irrespective of his sexual orientation. As some may know from my writing, I get along fine with homosexuals. Indeed, I lost friends during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. A good friend of mine now lives in San Francisco. We used to party on the weekends. He graduated from high school with my older sister. As much as I liked him, I declined his offer to perform oral sexual favors. "I'm straight," I told him, "and not interested." So much for "not knowing a single gay," as leftists always allege.

I mention all of this since we're seeing the gay marriage debate pick up again this weekend. The California Supreme Court will rule tomorrow on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The Court is expected to uphold the will of the voters, and gay activists have planned massive statewide demonstrations to protest the "hatred."

In my discussions with Alex, he mentioned that he'd written a lot on all of this, and he linked to his essay, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." But while doing some research last night, I found Alex's piece, "Gay. And Republican. And Not Confused." According to Alex:

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be "proud" of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they're just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society ....

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay — their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person's sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is "supposed" to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I asked Alex if I could share our exchange with readers, so it's not like I'm "dishing dirt." Indeed, Alex has grappled with these issues more than most people. And I especially appreciate Alex's identification of gay radical leftists as those who evince the most vicious intolerance on these issues.

I've been blogging gay marriage regularly since last November. As I've noted repeatedly, the same-sex marriage agenda is the capstone to the nihilist revolutionary program that's sweeping the country. Leftists constantly impute "bigotry" to their conservative enemies. The truth of the matter is it's become politically incorrect to stand for traditionalism in America today. As Diana West argued after the radical gay protests last year:

Conservatism isn't simply in political retreat, it is fast travelling beyond the pale, fast becoming anathema in America. And not just "conservatism" - any bumper sticker sentiment that denies due reverence for the precepts of progressivism as exemplified by the leftward evolving sensibility of the media and cultural mainstream ... It is anything that smacks of the traditional that is under assault now in the public sphere, in the cultural mainstream, and sometimes literally.

And it's coming again. One of the most incredible memes on the left right now is that conservatism - especially as seen in faith-based opposition to the homosexual marriage program - is essentially a violent militia movement that's spring-loaded to erupt in a last-gasp violent backlash against the "inevitable" political success of same-sex marriage.

Check out Sara Robinson's essay at Orcinus, "Decision Day on California's Prop 8." This is really a mind-boggling piece of gay marriage advocacy. The tone is not just of political inevitability, but of outright moral condescension toward anyone who deviates from the radical same-sex marriage party line. If you read it close enough, the piece is essentially a propaganda précis justifying mayhem in the streets if the California Court upholds the will of a majority. It's extremely interesting, since these are the same people who are all about constitutional rights and due process, and what not. But when those same legal and political processes leave them on the short end of the stick, all bets are off. It's now "Mormon bigotry" or "extremist Dominionism." In fact, some of Robinson's assertions are truly out there in left field. I mean really, we're talking 9/11-trutherism type stuff:

In the worst case, this decision could become the catalyst for a new round of large-scale domestic terrorism from the right. As I've noted, everything I'm seeing points to a subculture that is gearing up for this kind of heroic last stand in defense of a lost cause. And this time, it's not going to be just a few white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos. The new crop of right wing militants is better connected, better trained, better armed, and absolutely determined to go down fighting. And, as the SPLC keeps telling us, there may considerably more people motivated to support them than there have been in the past. It’s not unthinkable that between 15 and 20% of the country could be inclined to start - or at least support - a civil war over this.

You really have to step back for a second to catch your breath. Just 31 percent nationally support full-on same-sex marriage rights when given a choice between that or civil unions. And in the allegedy "liberal" Iowa, only 26 percent support unequivocal gay marriage given the same choices. But majorities like this, seen as standing athwart the radical left's agenda, are excoriated as "white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos."

I imagine leftists are in fact so insecure that such demonological conspiracy discourses are necessary to sustain whatever momentum they've got. Frankly, most people I've talked to don't really want to deal with allegations of "homophobia" and "racism" toward "marginalized" minorities. The attacks get old, and people have lives. The media plays along, and today's youth aren't acculturated to traditionalism and American exceptionism. So the leftist demonization seeks to gain traction.

Alexander Cockburn, in a recent Nation essay on the decline of the GOP, ridiculed the notion that "there's a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with legions of haters ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other ..." According to Cockburn, folks like Morris Dees at the Southern Poverty Law Center are "hate-seekers" barking up the wrong tree. The truth, for Cockburn, is that the true "haters" are right under our noses: "The effective haters are big, powerful, easily identifiable entities. Why is Dees fingering militiamen in a potato field in Idaho when we have identifiable, well-organized groups that the SPLC could take on?"

According to Discover the Networks, Cockburn is an "unreconstructed Communist." As strong as that sounds, what's interesting is how close Cockburn's "legions of haters" meme tracks with the claims of the gay radical agenda.

I mean, really. Check out Pam Spaulding's post on Sara Robinson's, "Decision Day on California's Prop 8." The leftists are now gearing up for cultural Armageddon: "Folks, arm yourselves. Get training, buy a gun and a good personal safe, get a carry permit, and protect yourselves."

People often talk of how polarized is American politics today. Leftists see traditionalists as racist militia members out to defend their culture in a final battle of righteousness. But in making such arguments, the radicals transmogrify into a caricature of the very enemy they seek to destroy.

Meanwhile, the regular workings of the democracy will function tomorrow. The California Court will rule on the constitutionality of a ballot initiative supported by a mainstream majority of the people. The fact is, the real "wackos" we'll likely be seeing in the next few days are the gay marriage extremists who take to the streets to protest the legal affirmation of the popular will.

This is the battle for America's future. It's hardly any longer a fight for gay marriage "rights." No, we'll see the battle lines drawn at the landing grounds of America's partisan culture wars this week. The stakes are extremely high. The left will continue to browbeat and bully those slow to get in line. Boycott lists will be circulated once again, and show trials will be mounted for the "collaborators." We saw the countours last November. The next phase is about to begin.