John Cole on Republicans

I'm keeping my promise to bone up a bit on the budget negotiations. The Wall Street Journal, for example, endorses Bill Clinton's recent suggestion to cut corporate tax rates in exchange for an elimination of business loopholes. That might get a deal in the near term, and later the administration and Congress could work toward a more substantial reform of the tax code. See: "A Debt-Limit Breakout." But as I was surfing around I clicked on John Cole's Balloon Juice, where we have a long post with this conclusion:

And anyone who still calls themselves a Republican is just an asshole. Really, you’ve had ample time to figure out your party is run by maniacs. If you’re still sticking around because the “Democrats are worse” or you think the party can turn it around or because you fancy yourself a small “c” conservative or you are a glibertarian or because you hate taxes or you think Dennis Kucinich is weird (he is), you’re just an asshole. And incredibly stupid.

Wow. A whole post on Republcans as "hostage takers" just to conclude with a nasty jab at Republicans as "assholes."

Takes one to know one, I guess.

ROBAMA!! President Uses Autopen to Sign Patriot Act Extension

Glenn Reynolds disapproves (as does Jonathan Turley at the clip).

And see NYT, "Making Legislative History, With Nod From Obama and Stroke of an Autopen":

WASHINGTON — Generations of children learned the basics of the American legislative process from a “Schoolhouse Rock” cartoon, in which “Bill” sings, “If he signs me, then I’ll be a law.”

But now, apparently for the first time in United States history, a bill has been signed into law by autopen, at the direction of President Obama, who is in Europe on a weeklong trip.

Congress on Thursday passed legislation extending the Patriot Act for four years. With the existing terror-fighting authorities set to expire at midnight Thursday, the White House concluded that a mechanical signature would have to do.

With that, Mr. Obama turned the autopen, a machine that reproduces signatures and is ubiquitous in government and business for routine transactions — letters, photos, promotional materials — into the ultimate stand-in.

He and his lawyers also found a way around a routine but costly tradition, in which White House staff members fly, unsigned legislation in hand, to wherever the president happens to be.

That tradition dates back decades.

Well, ROBAMA wouldn't want to preserve tradition, especially something traditional dealing with the Constitution. No surprise here at all.

BONUS FAIL: Asshat No More Mr. Nice Guy cries foul, but comes up short anyway. That said, Xeni Jardin concludes with the appropriate skepticism.

Progressives Claim Credit in Osama Bin Laden Killing

Little Miss Attila snarks:

A lot of the people celebrating this victory would have impeached Bush for doing the same thing; some of them didn’t even want us to collect some of the intel that helped us accomplish this.

And Michelle's got it, "All About Obama: Who’s politicizing bin Laden kill?":

Leftists are swarming Twitter to chastise any conservatives who dare give any credit to President Bush for his resolve and role in leading the post-9/11 counterrorism/national security response to the worst attack on American soil.

Meanwhile, Democrat hacks are burning the midnight oil making this All About Obama.

Steve Benen's first update appeared after he Googled around a bit, and found: "On March 13, 2002, George W. Bush said of bin Laden, 'I truly am not that concerned about him'."

The Obama White House acted and that is good. But the killing of Osama should be a victory for America and Americans. Politics is never far behind, but the left's sheer dishonesty in claiming credit on this --- after nearly ten years of the most intense demonization of GWOT hawks --- is no doubt digging deep for some news depths of progressive depravity.

Image via Markos "American Taliban" Moulitsas' Daily Kos.

'Antiwar' Protesters Call for Revolution in U.S. — Nationwide ANSWER Rallies Ignored by Mainstream Media Organizations

This isn't news to me, although I'm glad that a growing number of bloggers and citizen journalists are paying attention. The Los Angeles ANSWER organizers held their annual march in Hollywood on Saturday, March 19th. I had my taxes done that day and missed it, but veteran protest photographer Ringo was on the scene, and he reports: "Anti-War Demonstration, Hollywood, CA - March 19th, 2011." I've been focused lately on Israel and the rising tide of global anti-Semitism, and recall the ANSWER folks are at the forefront of the campaign for a new Jewish Holocaust. Naturally, the "push-the-Jews-to-the-sea" crowd was well represented in Hollywood. I'll have more on this in continuing coverage here. Meanwhile, Rebel Pundit has an excellent report from the event in Chicago on March 19th: "Exclusive: Chicago Media Covers Up Socialist Revolution Extravaganza!!" (also at Breitbart and Memeorandum).

After arriving at the protest, we began to notice a trend in the message of the day. The message was transitioning back and fourth between ‘Anti-War, and ending the occupation of Iraq’, to a ‘blatantly obvious and proud Communist/Socialist revolutionary’ message. Threats of taking to the streets, with directives to become ungovernable and to mimic the revolutions spreading across the Middle East and North Africa were prominent in the speeches, most of which were given by radical left wing socialist activists and organizers.

There was clearly no intent on anyone’s behalf at the rally to cover up their radical views. However, in each case of the local mainstream media coverage, (CBS 2 News, NBC 5 News and ABC 7 News) it appears there may have been a deliberate intent to conceal this prominent message, that was delivered loud and clear by the protesters and speakers, or perhaps they decided to just simply ignore it, hoping it wouldn’t be noticed. In ABC 7 Eyewitness News’s coverage, they didn’t even mention the words; socialist, communist, or revolution once. However our footage reveals this was a prominent and consistent theme present during the entire march, and to no one’s surprise, considering the radical ties of those who organized it.

Rebel Pundit argues for a media cover-up of the revolutionary agenda, but that's pretty much standard operating procedure. Some of the first days of the Wisconsin budget protests saw the exact same comparisons between the U.S. and the Middle East (Mubarak), although it was mostly bloggers that brought the news to the wider audience. Last year's pro-immigration march in Phoenix was dominated by communists calling for revolution and the destruction of nation-state borders. I specifically highlighted mainstream coverage of the march at the Arizona Republic and the Los Angeles Times. They treated the event, with dishonest reports and photos of children protesters, etc., as a "civil rights" march. Meanwhile, we've got leftists who continue to insist that revolutionary agitation --- not to mention the left's global anti-Israel campaign of annihilation --- is "imaginary" and the product of a "persecution" complex. It's thus all around us, the lies and subterfuge relentlessly grinding away at the basic fabric of society, warping young minds with anti-American, pro-Holocaust propaganda. Add on top of this the growing black bloc movement of anarchist violence, which despite the "anarchist" label is really about state destruction to prepare for the communist takeover, and folks can get a pretty good picture of the current revolutionary agenda on today's progressive left. Also reporting: Another Black Conservative, The Blast, Left Coast Rebel, and Weasel Zippers.

'Abortion is Black Genocide'

At PuffHo, "Obama Featured On Chicago Anti-Abortion Billboards Targeting Black South Siders."

Also, at Jill Stanek's, "Breaking: New “abortion is black genocide” Chicago billboard to feature Obama." And Moral Outcry, "New Billboard Campaign against Abortion Features President Obama."

RELATED: At That's Abortion, "Life Always Rebuttal to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar":

U.S. Progressives Endorse Anarchist Violence at London Budget Protests

More excellent coverage of the violent demonstrations in London, from the Daily Mail, "200 arrested as anarchists fight police after 500,000-strong anti-cuts march... and cover Trafalgar Sqaure in graffit." It's a pretty pathetic sight all around. Conservatives have alternated between bemusement and outrage, but radicals on the U.S. progressive left are offering throaty endorsements of the mayhem. According Steve Hynd at Newshoggers:

Exactly this kind of protest is what the US needs to [sic] - aimed bi-partisanly at the corporate-serving conservatives and neoliberals who can find endless money for endless warfare, but none for nation building at home.

And No More Mister Nice Blog hesitates to endorse the violence, but ends up doing it any way:

I don't want to see it happen in England or in any other country. But what I do want to see happen -- a real reckoning for the worst abusers in the global financial system, accompanied by "shared sacrifice" that's actually shared, all the way to the top -- apparently will never happen through peaceful means.

Commenting at the post, CUND Gulag, a regular fixture of the demonic progressive fever swamps, offers an endorsement:

Maybe if we had some of this in NYC, Connecticut, Palm Beach, Rodeo Drive, Dallas, Houston, etc., some of the wealthy will realize that all of the security on the planet can't protect them if there are enough of us angry out there. I love Ghandi, and have followed his principles for over 30 years. The same 30 years that have seen our countries steepest decline. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, like beating my head against the wall, I'm willing to try beating someone else's head up against that wall.

And from a commenter at AMERICAblog:

The only way we, the ordinary people, will get a decent chance at a decent life again is by rising up against our oppressors: The powerful, wealthy, neo-feudal authoritarians.

And from Sarah Jones, in a lengthy economic analysis at Politicus USA, "London Protests Echo Wisconsin Anger At Conservative Class Warfare":

I have yet to meet an honest conservative accountant who would not stress revenue as a crucial part of any balanced budget. And so the question really becomes why are conservatives so averse to doing the one thing they know will help the economy? If conservatives were serious about deficit reduction, they would raise revenue by taxing corporations while making careful budgetary cuts. The worldview of the modern day conservative is that everyone should fend for themselves, except for corporations and the uber wealthy, who are entitled to tax breaks and bailouts. This is not an honest ideology; and therefore, the debate is not about conservative financial approaches versus liberal. If we allow ourselves to have a debate over the deficit or over public sector employees “deserving” their pay, we are being manipulated.

And from the comments there:

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of further enriching the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else is made even clearer by the protests in London. It looks like there are various rebellions going on around the world against that kind of ideology. The uprisings in Middle Eastern countries, while more bloody and violent against dictators who have been in power for decades, are a pushback against tyranny. Although this country and Great Britain are not nearly at that point, we are seeing threats to rights we have enjoyed and taken for granted for a long time. The common enemy is fascism, which is disguised as patriotism here and in Great Britain. As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party in this country has forfeited its credibility with the unabashed power grabbing of both the House of Representatives and these Republican governors. In their pursuit of power at any cost, they seem bent on alienating almost all American constituents. People like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are their foot soldiers in selling the kind of propaganda that induces Americans to vote against their own interests and look at other Americans as the enemy. The potential GOP candidates are a bunch of court jesters who are trying to outdo each other in mouthing the kind of lunacy that will get their base to vote for them, and who will willingly carry out the destructive agenda of the Koch brothers and their ilk. That’s why they are trying to dismantle any institution that stands between them and their efforts to reduce us to serfdom.

The comparison to Wisconsin is telling. So far progressives at home have resorted to thuggery, threats and intimidation, but frustration is building, obviously, and all it takes is one spark to set off a larger conflagration of violent unrest. Dan Riehl sees it coming:

We're not that far away from the freeloaders and Marxists taking to the streets in numbers like this in America.

And John Hinderaker issues a warning:

The first duty of any government is to maintain order. Peaceful demonstrations are fine, but mob rule is incompatible with civilization. Any government that cannot maintain order deserves to fall, and will. Napoleon had his faults--well, to be blunt, he was crazy as a loon--but he had the right prescription for dealing with mobs: a whiff of grapeshot.

RELATED: Telegraph UK has the rogue roster: "TUC march: The militants behind the violence":

A ragtag army of anarchists, squatters, student militants, environmental activists and radical academics planned the spin-off protests that led to violence during Saturday's march against cuts.

Coming to America.

The Controversy Over 'Miral'

I'm hoping to head up to the Landmark tonight, in West Los Angeles, to catch "Miral," the new pro-Palestinian film from director Julian Schnabel. I'm skeptical of the review at the Los Angeles Times, which quotes Schnabel in defense of his movie:

Using the touch-points of 1967's Six Day War and 1987's intifada, when teenage Miral is galvanized into action by the sight of Israeli bulldozers razing Palestinian homes, Schnabel paints a convincing picture of displacement and life under occupation. Without undue emphasis, he and cinematographer Eric Gautier use the parched landscape — they filmed in Jerusalem — and its checkpoints to eloquent effect.

The film works best in its depictions of everyday negotiations, as when Miral's cousin begins dating a Jew (played by the director's daughter, Stella Schnabel).

"Miral" doesn't aim to present every point of view, only that of its characters. There's nothing "anti-Israel," as some have claimed, about its earnest, if simplistic call for compassion and peace. One of the strongest scenes involves a would-be act of terrorism by a Palestinian and unequivocally identifies with the intended victims. And Miral's journey leads her back to her gentle father (Alexander Siddig) and to Mama Hind, voices of patience, moderation and love.

Right.

Moderation and love. I doubt it, but I'll have more after I see the film.

Schnabel's full interview is at Boston Globe, "Schnabel describes 'Miral' using fine brush strokes."

Meanwhile, from Solomonia, "An Open Letter to Harvey Weinstein":

On the same day that a family of five were being murdered in their home in Israel, Harvey Weinstein ran a self-congratulatory promotional piece for his company’s terrorist propaganda flick, Miral. The photos stand out. The fat smirking face of Harvey Weinstein contrasted with the sleeping baby, the smiling little boys and the earnest couple who were their parents. They are all dead, and a Harvey Weinstein lives on to smirk another day. So it is with perpetrators and victims. The innocent children and the fat ugly men who profit from trafficking in the narrative of their killers.

Harvey Weinstein denounces Peter King and urges him to go watch Miral. But perhaps it is Harvey Weinstein who should drive to a small town lost in the Samarian Mountains and retrace the steps of the murderers in the name of the nationalistic mythology that movies like Miral glamorize. To fit himself through the living room window where the two terrorists entered, moving quietly in the dark, not seeing the six year old boy sleeping peacefully on the couch. That six year old boy who survived because like so many other little boys during the Holocaust, the men who were coming to murder him went right past him without seeing him. The six year old boy who was being orphaned around the same time that Harvey Weinstein and his PR people were conferring on a final draft for their Miral puff piece.

More at the link above, and also, "Elder of Ziyon: Miral, the Posters."

More on this later ...

Obama is Awesome!

"I don't care!"

Hey, cool and awesome, like JBW!!

Violent Clashes in Egypt — VIDEO

I'll have more theoretical analysis later.

Meanwhile, The Other McCain updates: "Crisis in Cairo Continues: Egyptians Ignore Obama, Resort to Violence." And at The Lede, "Latest Updates on Day 9 of Egypt Protests."

And don't miss this, at Israel Matzav, "Mark Levin interviews Caroline Glick on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood." Also, a general blog roundup at Reaganite Republican, "Perusing the Conservative Blogosphere..."

State Lawmakers Pushing Aggressive Campaigns to Limit Abortions

This is what freaks out the utterly demonic pro-choicers, and I couldn't be more pleased.

At NYT, "Conservative Lawmakers in Dozens of States, Energized by Midterm Electoral Gains, Are Working Aggressively to Limit Abortions."

And don't miss Michelle's essay, "The Philadelphia Horror: How Mass Murder Gets a Pass" (via Memeorandum):

The mainstream news reports about Philadelphia’s serial baby-killer Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad only scratch the surface of his barbaric enterprise. You must, must, must read the entire, graphic, 281-page grand jury report (embedded after my column below) to fully fathom the systematic execution of hundreds of (not just seven) healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable babies — along with an untold number of mothers who may have lost their lives in his sick, grimy chamber of horrors as well. It is explicit. It is enraging. It will haunt you.

Ask yourself why you are not hearing about which root causes and whose rhetoric are to blame for this four-decades-long massacre — just the tip of a blood-soaked iceberg defended by the predators of Planned Parenthood. You know the answer: If it doesn’t help the Left criminalize conservatism, it’s not worth discussing.

Also, The Other McCain has a great post and roundup, "Feminism Is to Honest Debate What Kermit Gosnell Is to Humanitarianism."

RELATED: "Kermit Gosnell, Phila. Abortion Doctor, Seems Confused by Murder Charges, Shocked by No Bail."

The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Liberals Progressives

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

Now here's John Hawkins, "The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Liberals":

You gotta love it. I've been harping to John about how he calls these folks "liberals." They're not. The founders were liberals, actually, "classical liberals," to be precise. And what best way to illustrate how un-liberal the progressives are is to take a look at Sadly No!'s recent attack on none other than John Hawkins, "There Will Be No Apologies Here Either":

The irony to which Hawkins is referring is that CNN apologized for the use of the word “crosshairs.” “Ha, wussies,” Hawkins harumphs:

Just for the record, we here at Right Wing News don’t apologize for using the word “crosshairs.” Other words we don’t apologize for include job killing, kneecapping, firepower, shotgun, cut, campaign, brass knuckles, slaughter, eviscerate, obliterate, fire, snipe, carve, kill, reload, targeting, gut, bombed, terminate, axe, attack, and of course, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious murder-go-round. We also don’t apologize for calling CNN an embarrassing bunch of weenies who should man up, try to develop some testicular fortitude, and stop acting like such a bunch of little girls.

And, just for the record, we here at Sadly, No! don’t apologize for using the word whale, leviathan, behemoth, hippo, big fat candyass and, of course, mother-fricking ginormous. We also don’t apologize for calling Hawkins an embarrassing mound of man-boobed lard who should back away from the fried food buffet, lace up some tennis shoes, and take a run around the block, particularly so that he could become aware that almost any “bunch of little girls” could outrun him in heels and without breaking a sweat .

Indeed, irony does seem to be made out of ice cream.

Check the Sadly No! freaks for the full post.

And to repeat, they're not "liberals."

RELATED: "Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn't Know)."

On Hannity's, Sarah Palin Speaks Out Against Left-Wing Hate and Lies

Nice Deb has the commentary, "Video: Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin."

And I'll just add that it's a great interview. Sarah Palin has been exhibiting tremendous leadership and poise over this past week or so. She's an immensely needed voice of moral clarity, and especially so in these difficult times of progressive un-reality.

RELATED:

* "CNN Poll: Majority Says Palin's 'Crosshairs Map' Not to Blame in Arizona Shooting — 49 Percent Say 'Harsh Rhetoric' Not a Factor."

* "Dana Loesch Gets Death Threats in Wake of Arizona Shooting."

* "United States Flag at Half-Mast at Sunset on MLK Day in Laguna Beach."

* "'Heated Rhetoric' Not to Blame in Arizona Shooting, Poll Finds."

ALSO: There's lots of commentary at Memeorandum. I'll link Nate Silver, who's amusing if not fully competent at political analysis.

Sarah Palin is Right About 'Blood Libel' — UPDATE!! Jonah Goldberg Walks Back 'Very Modest Objection' to Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

From Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, at WSJ, "Judaism Rejects the Idea of Collective Responsibility for Murder":

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel ....

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

Great piece.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: The Knoxville Metro Pulse is libeling Instapundit, "Is Glenn Reynolds Getting Sarah Palin in Trouble?":

... Reynolds is no stranger to overheated rhetoric himself. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, he famously called anti-war skeptics "objectively pro-Saddam." (And of course, if you're looking for rhetoric that did help lead to a whole lot of violence, all of the war-drum beating that people like Reynolds did in late 2002 and early 2003 is a fine example.)

All the war-drum beating that "people like Reynolds did" led to a "whole lot of violence"?

Well, there's some more collective guilt for you. Asshats. "Rhetoric" isn't to blame for the violence last weekend, or in 2003. See, "Tucson and the Failure of the Political Class" (via Glenn).

UPDATE: Here's Goldberg, "‘Blood Libel’ and Beyond" (via Memeorandum):

As for the “blood libel” flap, I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. Moreover, she’s hardly the first person to use the term outside the bounds of discussions of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t even talking about “the blood libel” but warning against the creation of “a blood libel,” which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing. The “controversy” was a red herring and little more.

And this just isn't going away. At Politico, "Some Say 'Blood Libel' Signaled Base":

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

Taegan Goddard, founder of nonpartisan news site Political Wire, floated the idea after the release of Palin’s video remarks Wednesday, writing that “… while it’s not entirely clear what Palin intended, it’s possible she was trying to use dog whistle politics to speak to her religious base who often feel they’re an oppressed minority.”

Commentators have adopted the phrase “dog whistle” to describe Palin’s use of certain words and ideas that will be immediately heard and understood by conservative Christians, but often will not be picked up on by the broader public.

Evangelicals relate to the phrase “blood libel” because they view themselves as a religiously persecuted minority - much like the Jews.

Well, I love the smell of desperation in the morning ... or the evening, be that as it may. The left's "dog whistle" is simply a dishonest ideological construction to facilitate racist smears when there is no real racism in the first place. In this case, I'm not quite sure what utility Palin would have in dog whistling: She is embattled. Before folks in Tucson even knew what happened the progressive-left erupted with despicable allegations of Palin's complicity to murder. It doesn't get more sick than that, and as Goldberg's walk-back indicates, some in the conservative Jewish community may be realizing that criticisms of Palin only work to embolden those who aren't their friends. It's pretty straightforward actually. Progressives are the new anti-Semites, and the right's pushback against Palin is having an enabling effect on the far-left. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Krauthammer updated some of his remarks in the near future. He certainly agreed Palin was libeled. He simply suggested that she'd have been better off remaining above the fray.

The Methodology of Contemporary Progressive Argumentation

I'm catching up on some of the reaction to Colman McCarthy's essay on ROTC at yesterday's Washington Post.

iOWNTHEWORLD's commentary is here (and a McCarthy's mug shot as well). Warner Todd Huston is here, and CSPT is here. And William Kristol hearts Allahpundit here.

But some of the best commentary is at National Review, for example Jonah Goldberg, "The Moral Mush of Pacifism." And especially Victor Davis Hanson, "I, I, Me, Me, My, My — for Pacifism!":

Somehow Colman McCarthy included almost every leftist trope possible in his Washington Post op-ed opposing ROTC on campuses in the post–“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era. Jonah has covered the main points, but the essay should be taught in schools as an example of the methodology of much of contemporary liberal argumentation.

1. Self-referencing narcissism? McCarthy in a brief essay references himself — I, me, my — in the first person 13 times. He has outdone even Justice Sotomayor and Barack Obama on that count. When I began the piece I wondered whether he would, as is the practice these days of an aging generation, actually reference life on the ramparts in the 1960s — as in, what I did in those days. And lo and behold, then it appeared: “To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s . . .”

*****

3. Historical ignorance? McCarthy seems to suggest that U.S. action in WWII, including and especially bombing, was a crime. One can enter into legitimate arguments over the morality and efficacy of leveling Hamburg and Tokyo, but it is just a faculty-lounge bull session without commensurate discussion of how else were the Allies, largely disarmed by the 1930s, to stop Hitler or the Japanese militarists who by 1944 were murdering off the battlefield several thousands a day in eastern Europe and Asia. I am not sure 1930s pacifism was going to appeal to Herr Hitler. Voting against the war after Pearl Harbor was not going to bring remorse from the Japanese for the several million butchered in China over a near decade (1931-41) of unopposed bloodletting. McCarthy does not seem to realize that organized murdering in the death camps, in the purges and collectivizations, in the Communist revolution and subsequent Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution — much of it far away from the battlefield — by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao accounted for perhaps 100 million dead in the 20th century: more than WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

4. Moral equivalence? Note McCarthy’s passing admiration for the spirit of the U.S. military as well as that of the Taliban (“I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s”). One force is trying to create consensual government, the other executes gays and non-believers, blows up cultural monuments, hangs and stones women, and on and on. For McCarthy, both are reduced to the same moral plane by virtue of similarly using arms. One could say the same abhorrent thing about the Waffen SS and those who landed at Normandy.

5. Special pleading? Colman invokes Martin Luther King. King certainly urged non-violent protests against Jim Crow and the Vietnam War; but was he a pacifist? Did he oppose in retrospect, say, the Civil War? That is, did he deplore Lincoln’s military decision to restore the Union without slavery? Perhaps non-violent protests might have won a secessionist South back into the Union by the 1920s or 1930s without slavery. After all, what is a mere 60 or 70 years more of slavery? Did King think that non-violent marching and protesting might have far better thwarted the racist dreams of a Hitler or Tojo?

6. Infantilism? We are lectured about “the impracticality of maintaining a military that has helped drive this country into record depths of debt. The defense budget has more than doubled since 2000, to over $700 billion.” The military still accounts for about 19-20 percent of the budget. Record depths of debt are far more attributable to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures that have grown astronomically and are unsustainable, despite steady increases in payroll tax rates. The recent military budgets of the last two decades fluctuated between 3.5 percent and 4.9 percent of GDP, far less than at any time since World War II. A graph of U.S. military spending both in budgetary percentages and as a share of GDP from 1940 to the present will show a general decline.

7. Self-serving self-righteousness? ...

RTWT.

Progressives Again Call for 'Revolutionary Justice' After GOP Comments on Unemployed

An update to "Progressives Cheer Mark Madoff Suicide as 'Revolutionary Justice' ."

Turns out that the DownWithTyranny! progressives are invoking revolutionary appeals again. A ten-point roster of GOP quotes on the unemployed and public benefits actually ends with Marie Antoinette's famous line, "Let them eat cake." And then the progressive response:

Now we know that Marie Antoinette was expressing the modern-day Republican philosophy centuries in advance. And what happened to her?

This is another one of those times where I take progressives at their word. Republicans aren't Bourbons, but radical leftists would love the same dénouement:

Via Memeorandum with more progressive extremism at Digby's.

Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory

I knew this was going to happen. Indeed, one of the reasons I haven't extensively engaged the debate on gays in the military is because while supportive, the overall agenda dovetails with the militant same-sex marriage movement to which I'm opposed. Aggressive lobbying for it would be basically helping the other side, and I draw the line at gay marriage, which is against both nature and moral right. This is something that's been discussed here many times. And just today I added an important update on the debate, "Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife." And now with the DADT repeal, we'll be seeing not just a flurry of activity in the militant gay community, but a campaign of gay marriage cheerleading in the left's Democratic-Media-Industrial-Complex. We have this at the New York Times tonight, for example, "One Battle Won, Activists Shift Sights" (via Memeorandum).



And also at this morning's Los Angles Times, "Gains Outweigh Setbacks in a Landmark Year for Gay Rights":

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?



In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.



Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."



Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.



Still, the wrangling in the halls of Congress, in courts and at ballot boxes about how gays are treated shows no sign of abating anytime soon.



"All social justice movements are two steps forward, three steps back," said Fred Sainz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "It's always been a lot of highs and sometimes more lows, but the highs tend to be more momentous than the lows."



Social conservatives, though disappointed with the Senate vote, disagree that there is a link between the military and marriage.



"It's a tragic day for America," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. "But I don't think this will really affect the marriage issue very much. It's been rejected by voters in 31 states."



Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.

RTWT.



RELATED: At Sense of Events, "What Makes Marriage, Marriage?"



And from the gay militant commentary: Pam's House Blend, Towleroad and, AMERICAblog Gay.

The Case for Faith

One of the commenters at this atheist website contacted my department chairman regarding my comments on Elizabeth Edwards. This was the second person to contact the department this week. A woman e-mailed on Monday or Tuesday, but I didn't mention it at the blog since I'm generally not writing about things that involve LBCC's servers, etc. But in the case of this second incident, the complainant bragged about how tough he was going be in sending "an email with a link to the blog post to the head of his department." This guy, named "Jeff," followed through and then posted my chairman's response at the thread. Not satisfied (mad even) with my chairman's brief (and perfect) reply, folks there get all enraged, and then another commenter, "Dan," takes to Google to find some information, and comes back to slam my chairman, saying he's "been in the dept for 20 years and lists himself as ABD, which is all but dissertation, meaning that he's likely a failure in his doctoral studies." It means no such thing. But that's not the point. These atheists are doing the devil's work. They'd like to destroy me for speaking truth to His power, and falling short of that they're out to impugn those who stand up for integrity and proper procedure. It's impossible for me to express the enormity of my contempt. But this is the radical left for you (Robert Farley's Lawyers, Gays and Marriage gets the appropriate citation at the thread.) I'll have more on this later, but I should mention that after talking with my chairman this week we shared our views on faith and strength in God, and he suggested I check out Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianiy. And so I picked up a copy on the way home yesterday, and I'm heading up right now to read and reflect for a while. I'll have some additional thoughts on the left's hatred and intolerance in due time. All in a day's work, I guess, God's work.

Who's Bashing Whom? UCLA's Kent Wong Attacks 'Racist' Opposition to DREAM Act With Racist Attacks on 'Old White Men'

This is perfect.

Which clip will the MFM show? The one on top, where Professor Kent Wong, Director of UCLA's Center for Labor Research and Education, lauds immigrant students for working hard toward their dream of education and opportunity in America, or the one at bottom, where he excoriates the racist "old white men" in the U.S. Senate, to wild cheers from the crowd. And note at the second clip all this talk about "displacing millions of Americans ... in their jobs, seats in college, and elections." That's a classic summary statement on the neo-communist left's reconquista revolutionary agenda:

"We will win the dream act soon -- very soon," he exclaimed. "When that day comes, we will celebrate with millions and millions of people of people across this country who are standing with you tonight. Who stand for justice, who stand for democracy and equal opportunities for all."

"When that day happens, the young people of the DREAM Act movement, will go on to accomplish and do great things with your lives," he said. "You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the US congress to replace those old white men... You are the hope and future of this country. You are hope and future of your generation."

If Dream Act Amnesty passes, millions of Americans will be DISPLACED and REPLACED in their jobs, seats in college, and elections.

RELATED: At Michelle's, "Operation Buck Up: Stop the DREAM Act illegal alien student bailout."

Added: Michelle's got more, "Video: UCLA open-borders prof/SEIU lawyer urges “DREAM”-ers to replace those “old white guys”."

Progressivism is Cruelty

From John Hawkins, "There’s Nothing Compassionate About Liberalism Progressivism."

Sing it brother:

Jesus Was a Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Socialist?

No wonder parents are mad, conservative parents that is. Progressive parents --- and their lefist allies in the school unions --- are the ones cramming this stuff down our throats: