Following

I'm tivoing the Iranian revolution. I have people right now gathering the information into book form, and in a few months I will purchase the paperback.

That's my way of saying it's great the the Iranians are dissatisfied with Ahmedicatedad, but I don't have to spend my day following it. It's not like I can affect the situation.

On the other hand, it does show once again that the global connectivity in general and the Internet in particular make it hard to keep tyranny going. Just as the PC and fax machine are said to have helped bring down the former Soviet Union, it appears that the Iranian revolution is being broadcast on Twitter.

But that presupposes that this is a revolution. It's impossible for me to know whether that is true or not -- are the protests against Ahmedinnerjacket, or against the Islamic regime itself?

And if they are against the Islamic regime, with what form of government will the revolution replace it?

I guess Barack Obama thinks maybe the revolution will bring something worse than totalitarian dictatorship - capitalism.

Sphere: Related Content

The President Is Not the Leader of the Free World

To the extent that the world has a leader, it is not free.

I should end this post there, but something else occurs to me.

Obama, by virtue of his international and liberal upbringing, Muslim father, and not least his African lineage, may be tempted to see Southwest Asian and African leaders as more like himself than not.

Perhaps that will be a net positive for civilization in the long run, but there remains a distinct possibility that he will presume a false familiarity. Like an undercover agent trying to infiltrate a criminal operation, there are shades of loyalty and of distrust that no American can ever cast aside, as long as he remains such. Will the mullahs and warlords play on his heritage, and if so, will he play along as the cat or as the mouse?

Sphere: Related Content

I Stand With Israel

American and European liberals are of course complaining about Israel's attempt to root out the terrorists in Gaza. The response is "disproportional", they say.

But while that implicitly acknowledges that Israel is defending itself (being in response to mortar attacks by Palestinians against civilian Israeli targets), it also presupposes that a response must be proportional. Why?

War is not about fairness. War is about defeating the enemy so thoroughly that he gives up and admits he was wrong to attack you in the first place. It's about discrediting him with a giant argumentum ad baculum, the appeal to force, because none of your valid arguments appear to work. Like all such appeals, it must be accompanied by the valid arguments or it will not prevail.

Because while the appeal to force and its direct application in the form of military attack is not a reasoned argument, it is not an invalidating one. That is, the application of force doesn't mean the side using it disproves its point; it simply doesn't prove it.

In practical terms, the use of force will fail as long as the opponent fails to internalize defeat. If reason is on his side, he will fail to be defeated, no matter how badly he's beaten on the battlefield.

The true danger therefor in the use of force is not using enough to win. And when the opponent is using it, not using force is a sign that you don't believe in your own position.

From AoSHQ:

It's been said before but it is worth repeating a thousand times: if Hamas, Hezbollah, and most of the Arab states (and Iran) laid down their weapons tomorrow and forgot about their plans to dissolve Israel, there would be peace in the Middle East. The Israelis could forget about the fences and the Palestinians might one day have something approximating a Western standard of living. On the other hand, if Israel laid down its weapons tomorrow, the country would be utterly annihilated, the Israelis killed to the last man, woman, and child.

- Gabriel Malor

------------------
Update (20081229 0848): Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs does a more thorough job of defeating "proportionality":

To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Rubin Nails Islamism

Writing at The Corner, Michael Rubin takes on what is so troubling with the Western response to Islamic terrorism. Are terrorists good Muslims? Who cares! Read the whole thing, as it's only a couple of paragraphs. The money (my emphasis):

While it’s fashionable to argue that terrorists in Mumbai do not act out of religion, but are simply misguided, the fact of the matter is that they justify their actions in Islam. For the purposes of policy and security, religion should be what its practitioners believe it to be rather than what academics or outside commentators say it is. It is much more important to determine how terrorists are brainwashed in madrasas, then passing judgment on whether what they believe conforms to what academics believe Muslims should believe.

All the talk about whether Al Qaeda practices Islam, or whether we should avoid a backlash against Muslims, misses the point. There should be a backlash against anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, who excuses or condones terrorism.

Further, as Rubin says, forget the question of whether it's based in religion or not. Because terrorism catches hold somewhere in the maturation of these devils, and it is foolish to cast aside a potential source as politically incorrect.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama: Let the Terrorists Win One For a Change

Apparently the only way that Barack Obama can figure out to keep Palestinian terrorists from launching bombs on Israel is to give it to them.

Advised by every realist foreign policy adviser who has been on Meet the Press in the last 50 years to let the Palestinians have East Jerusalem, Obama has drawn on his vast experience as an executive to give it away while the giving's good.

Why does anyone think this is a good plan? Because it was drawn up by the King of Saudi Arbia? He's not in control of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbullah ... is he? If he's in control of Al Qaeda Hamas, and Hezbullah, then we have no business talking to him until he's in Gitmo. If he's not in total control of Al Qaeda Hamas, and Hezbullah, then he can't be sure that the terrorists won't use East Jerusalem as a close-in base from which to attack Israel.

The radical Islamists have sworn to the destruction of Israel. This looks like it brings them a step closer, and all they have to do is stop shooting rockets long enough to move the launchers to the Palestinian side of Jerusalem.

w/t the amazing Gateway Pundit.

Sphere: Related Content

Talking Points Memo Thinks LA Times Khalidi Tape Issue is About Race

Josh Marshall claims the LA Times Khalidi-Obama-Ayers Tape issue is about race, apparently because the people involved are not all white, and claims Khalidi is just a harmless professor.

But Khalidi was a spokesman for a terrorist organization.

And the LA Times Khalidi-Obama-Ayers Tape issue is not about race; it's about what Khalidi and Obama say and do on the tape, who else is on the tape, and why it isn't being shown.

Is the LA Times suppressing anti-Obama information?

Does Obama express or approve anti-Israel sentiment?

Were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn at the Khalidi going away party, and does the tape contradict Obama's claims of casual acquaintance and knowledge of Ayers' attitudes?

In short, it's all about Barack Obama's actions and Barack Obama's beliefs, not about Rashid Khalidi.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama on LA Times Video: Israel Has No God-Given Right to Palestine, Has Committed Genocide on Palestinians

Treacher quotes a source:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Alleging genocide may go over well at going away parties for Jew-hating friends, but it doesn't play well in Tampa. Or in anywhere else in the United States.

Ya see, Mr. Obama, Americans like Israel.

Sphere: Related Content

LA Times Suppresses Obama-Ayers-Khaliki Tape - Cites Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

It has been known since April that the LA Times had a videotape (or recording) of Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn at a party for Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi. The Times story said

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

First the Times refused to release the tape because they said they didn't want to unduly influence the election.

They said they would not reveal their sources. Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

Then they told readers who inquired about the tape that they'd already written a whole story about it -- wasn't that enough? Journalistic integrity, and all of that.


But the story is changing.

Now the Times reports that it received the tape from a source on condition that it not be released. Journalistic integrity, and all of that.

If they release it, why, their sources for tapes of messiahs heaping praise on anti-semites would just dry right up.

Sphere: Related Content

Islamabad Marriott Owner: "I am not scared."

When terrorists bombed the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, they probably thought they were striking a blow for Islam or some such crap. What they actually did was to alienate their customer base.

The idiot terrorists are going to turn the rest of Pakistan against their cause. What little sympathy they had will evaporate.

Pakistan is angry.

I am not scared. I have seen death very closely, this doesn't bother me. If I had been here I would have run after the bombers and caught them.

-- Sadruddin Hashwani, owner of bombed Marriott in Islamabad, Pakistan

Sphere: Related Content

Advice for the Would-Be President

Barack Obama continues to counter rumors the campaign claims it hears that he is a Muslim.

First, let me say that the only place I'm hearing these alleged rumors is from the Obama campaign. The cynic in me is led to believe that the campaign is trying too hard to keep these alleged rumors alive, because A) they are easily refuted and B) they can make it seem to the casual, non-partisan voter that the only reason not to like Obama is that he's a Muslim (which he's not), even though there are plenty of actual reasons not to like him.

So I think that if the campaign were really trying to quell these alleged rumors, and not merely wanting to be seen quelling the alleged rumors, that they should simply drop the alleged matter.

But if it is deemed necessary to put down these alleged rumors, Barack Obama should now be giving pressers to say "I do not wish to alienate peace-loving, mainstream American Muslims, but rather we Christians should be reaching out to all people of faith to build blah blah hopey, changey blah blah.

If he were really interested in dispelling all of these alleged rumors of his allegedly alleged Muslimicity, then stridently insisting on reaching out to Muslims would be the clearest way to do that. Embracing non-terrorist Islam is also good policy, regardless of the motivation for it.

If I, mere political hobbyist, can think of this strategy in 15 seconds, why can't the junior Senator from the great State of Illinois?

At the risk of arguing circuendo, let me suggest that perhaps the campaign finds greater value in swatting straw rumors of its own propagation, and appearing to be the victim of some alleged whispering campaign, than in behaving as would the President of the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

Barry Facts -- Obama Family Edition

Barack Obama's parents met because they needed medical insurance to get to Selma.

Michelle Obama's parents met because they resented not having a personal trainer who knew the value of fresh fruit.

Jesus once had a Come To Barack moment.

When Barack Obama comes, he will make the oceans salty again.

When Barack Obama comes, children will like going to school again.

When Barack Obama comes, frog legs will taste like chicken.

When Barack Obama comes, judges will know how to write laws.

Barack Obama's uncle grandfather great uncle imaginary friend helped free Auschwitz and Treblinka Buchenwald.

Barack Obama fosters a workplace that is open and sensitive to the personal needs of staff before they are unceremoniously fired for the candidate's mistakes.

Barack Obama feels that it's important to shield his wife from criticism, which is why he asks her to make campaign speeches critical of America.

Barack Obama didn't even know Tony Rezko before they bought a house together.

Barack Obama's birth certificate doesn't say he's not a Muslim.

Barack Obama doesn't wear a helmet when he rides a limousine.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama Is a Muslim?

Obama denies being a Muslim. Who says Barack Obama is a Muslim? Who has any proof that Barack Obama is a Muslim?

What kind of Muslim is Obama, if Barack Obama is a Muslim? That's an important question, if the goal is finding out if Barack Obama is a Muslim. If we knew the kind of Muslim Barack Obama were, then we would certainly know for certain that without any doubt Barack Obama is a Muslim.

If Barack Obama is a Muslim, then so is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

From the evidence we have, it is not clear that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Barack Obama has never been proved to be a Muslim, and Barack Obama denies being a Muslim.

I think everyone who says Barack Obama is a Muslim should reconsider whether Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Oh, yeah, Barack Obama sucks.

Sphere: Related Content

The Nation in Resurgence

It seems that geography is making a comeback in its battle with ideology.

In Iraq, tribal forces have risen up to reclaim control of their territory from the transnational terrorists. Now, via Ace, they would like to show their Afghan counterparts how to do the same.

They would also like to supplant the sectarian Sunni vs Shiite electoral map in Iraq with one based on tribal association.

Some might question the philosophical underpinnings of such a shift, being a move away from using differences in abstract beliefs for political grouping and toward using ancestry. But religious beliefs will still play a big part in Iraqi politics, just inside the tribal system. Arab culture places a high value on paternal authority, and failing to include the tribal organization in the political structure of the country creates at best a dual power structure, and at worst invalidates the democratic one.

In the United States, the Democratic Party primary saw both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama use protectionism in an attempt to curry favor with the voters. But what they are really tapping in to is not some economic theory of harm in selling our products overseas. The source of protectionism's appeal is the fear of globalism, that we will be at the mercy of foreign powers, especially foreign corporate and banking interests.

The world over, it seems the pendulum is swinging away from the imagined, and back to the real. I doubt it will swing very far.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Are These People Our Allies?

One of the foundational principles of my philosophy is the inseparability of the freedoms, including but not limited to liberty of thought, speech, religion, press, self defense, private property, travel, assembly, and the use of the secret ballot. Violate or eliminate any, and the others are at risk, and must be employed to restore those violated.

And I would greatly prefer a foreign policy which allied us with those who agreed with our esteem of those freedoms, rather than with those whose economic or military interests align with our current strategy. Label me a foreign policy idealist, and tar me with the neocon brush if you will, but this diplomatic strategy by which we strike alliances with those who share only a passing acquaintance with the principles we hold most dear can lead only to eventual betrayal, by one party or another, with ourselves the likely loser.

And so I was somewhat off-put to read at MEMRI:

Muhammad Al-Munajid: "Some of these heretics say: 'Islam is not the private property of anyone.' So what do they want? They say: 'No sect has a monopoly on Islam.' So what do they want? They say: 'We want to issue rulings.' Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?!

OK, not so bad so far, right? A cleric wants control of his own religion. It's to be expected, as that is what religions do. So what got under my fingernails?

Al-Munajid is a Saudi, and speaks on behalf of the official religion of Saudi Arabia. The edicts of his mouth are backed by the full weight of law, which is backed, if we are honest with ourselves, by the full power of the United States.

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it.

"It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

"They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

That is what happens when a religion is made official. An official religion cements in place the authority of those who adhere to it most zealously over those who merely tolerate it or agree not to fight against it, setting up an alternate power structure to that underpinned by the ballot box.

Does that mean that the government should persecute religion? Quite the contrary, for Al-Munajid's words would be even more galling spoken in favor of atheism or some enshrined scientific dogma as for any other more traditional religion.

Rather, the government must remain agnostic, completely ignoring the religious beliefs of its citizens. It should no more praise one religion over another than it should ignore what would otherwise be illegal performed under religious auspices.

By supporting the government of Saudi Arabia, we add for the citizens of that country the fear of fire from the sky to that of being stoned in the street for exercising the rights for which our forefathers went to soldiers' graves.

Sphere: Related Content

When Anti-Semites Come to Dinner

Rafael Medoff at NRO notes that the State Department purposefully watered down a report on human rights abuses, especially in China, North Korea, and:

Now it is the Palestinian Authority’s turn to benefit from the State Department’s excessive generosity. On March 13, State released an 84-page report [PDF] on “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism.” While describing anti-Semitic incidents in various countries around the world, the report was oddly reticent when it came to the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Searching the report, I could find scarce mention of Palestine, and yet by all accounts this is the region of the world in which enmity for Jews and Israel is at its sharpest. Could this possibly be part of an effort to appease Mahmoud Abbas, in preparation for his May visit to the White House? After all, Abbas is not just a noted Jew-hater, he got a Soviet Phd in Jew hating.

President Bush wants to achieve something in his final days in office: peace in Palestine. To achieve that goal, he appears willing to overlook not only past sins, but current ones as well. For instance, in the wake of the murder of eight rabbinical students, Israeli group Palestinian Media Watch says that the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper (under Mahmoud Abbas' control)

... describes the murderer of eight yeshiva students in Jerusalem as a "groom" and his burial as his "wedding celebration." The story in Mahmoud Abbas's Al Hayat Al Jadida goes on to evoke the neighborhood Jabal Mukaber's "week of anticipation... preparing themselves for the wedding procession."

The term "wedding" is the expression commonly used in PA society, and in PA schoolbooks as well, to describe the death of Shahids - Martyrs for Allah. According to Islamic tradition, they will wed the 72 Dark- Eyed Maidens (Virgins) of Paradise. [emphasis PMW]

Until, and not before, the PLO. Dr. Mahmoud Abbas, and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority renounce acts of violence by civilians against civilians to achieve political ends, and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, they should not be allowed to set foot on American soil, and a fortiori, should not receive the public relations benefit from being seen hugging and shaking hands with the President of these United States.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Hell Week

So you want to be President. So do a lot of other people, but its popularity notwithstanding, I view the desire to be President as sufficient proof of some yet undetermined chemical imbalance. As circular confirmation, I present two stories from the news of the day.

Someone else with a clear chemical imbalance is the leadership of Hamas, who believe that the way to win friends is to cheer when you kill their friends. But appearing in the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter from last summer (during the Presidential race) was an article by Mousa Abu Marzook of Hamas, claiming that Israel has no right to exist.

'Splain me that, Senator Obama. Square that with your public support of Israel. Which is it? Is Israel an ally, or is their existence yet another detail about which you'd be willing to negotiate with terrorists? Hamas claims not to be part of a larger struggle, but the players in the larger struggle make no such claims about Hamas.

In other news, Erick Erickson reports that Rev Jeremiah Wright has been invited to speak in Macon, GA. The mayor of Macon, an Obama supporter, calls Wright's sermon style "Socratic". Perk my ears! Like Socrates, Wright is pilloried for asking the wrong questions, for challenging the status quo, according to His Honor the mayor.

There is a clear difference between the two, however. Socrates' questions were always intended to winnow, never to incite. If he asked a question which was out of bounds, he knew it was out of bounds and was expecting an answer to bring the focus back in bounds.

But since it's Friday, I tried to imagine what a typical Wright-as-Socrates session would be like:

Wright: Do you suppose that white people invented AIDS?

SANE ANSWER: I thought it came from monkeys.

Wright: Suppose they did.

SANE ANSWER: OK, suppose they did.

Wright: Then you're saying they did it to kill black people?

SANE ANSWER: No, you said that.

Wright: Suppose they did.

SANE ANSWER: Well, that question presupposes that all white people act in concord, when in the United States AIDS has mostly killed whites.

Wright: Well, what about in Africa? Could there not be white people in Africa who invented AIDS to kill black people?

SA: I suppose there could be.

Wright: So since white people invented AIDS to kill black people, that is why they are giving out needles to also addict them with drugs.

SA: Sure, whatever. Look, I have to go ...

Wright: How can we avoid AIDS when white people are giving us needles, and I.V. drug use is one of the primary ways AIDS is spread?

SANE ANSWER: All someone need do is abstain from sex before marriage, and make sure his prospective mate did the same. But I have to ...

Wright: So you're saying black people can't do that?

SANE ANSWER: Your powers of understanding are unequaled. Good day.

Wright: I knew white people were racists.

I always thought "March Madness" was about basketball.

Sphere: Related Content

The Cheerleaders of Hate

You want hate crime? This is a hate crime. Palestinians cheer a massacre at a Jewish school. Eight students were killed, 35 others injured. The gunman, a Muslim and supporter of Hamas, was killed by a an off-duty Israeli Army officer who lived nearby.

The jihadist hate group Hamas probably planned the attack, and certainly praised it afterward. This is their modus operandi: stir up hatred and praise terrorism, lob bombs at the Israelis, and then become outraged when they retaliate on poor widdle Hamas. It's possible that Hamas didn't actually get involved in the attack until it was clear that it was popular with the Palestinians, at which time they opportunistically and cynically claimed credit.

Like the attack at Norris Hall at Virginia Tech in 2007, there was a Jewish hero. Unlike Professor Librescu, trapped in a gun-free zone, this hero was armed and stopped the killer dead.

Now that's a cause for celebration.

Sphere: Related Content

Why McCain? Why Obama?

It appears that the two major American political parties have chosen their candidates for President for the same reason.

The Republicans appear to have settled on John McCain as being a good compromise for their coalition of religious conservatives, war hawks, and free marketeers. The Democrats appear to have chosen Barack Obama as a good compromise for their coalition of religious liberals, doves, and socialists.

But I'm not being fair to either party with those descriptions. The Republicans are split between the country club elite and the church supper volunteers. The country clubbers want business stability, while the church supper volunteers want to see America stay true to its Christian heritage. Both sides of that split realize that they share a common enemy in Islamic terrorism, and that John McCain, American patriot, is the best man to deal with that threat.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are divided between the rich/intellectual posers on one side and the poor/uneducated mob at the other.

The Democrats for the last 100 years have been in love with socialism, but that is only a symptom of their true problem, which is an inability to face reality. They are in love with the fantasy that human goodness is all we need to have peace, love, and prosperity for all. Well, human goodness empowered by the State. But the leadership of the party know, in their elitist little hearts, that their socialist, pacifist pandering won't get them anywhere with those who have been freed from the clutches of the government-run education system.

That is why the Dems have this superdelegate business. They know that if they let their base choose, they'll always get an Obama, which would be a disaster for the country. It's patriotism, in other words.

So the answer for why McCain and why Obama is the same.

Sphere: Related Content

In Case You've Forgotten

The Islamofascists still want to destroy Western Civilization, to replace it with a 7th century utopia in which one either submits to their particularly rigid brand of Islam, or ... well, there is no 'or'.

There is an overlooked reason why victors write history: the defeated are discredited. Victory in war lends a kind of unspoken, superstitious respect. We must deny the Islamofascists any such credence.

Their ideas suck.

They still want women to be male property.

They still want homosexuals to be killed. As much as I hear about a theocracy in America from the Bush haters, we don't kill our sinners here.

They still want drinkers and gamblers to be whipped.

Under the Sharia Law they would implement, criticizing Muhammad or the Sharia law would be punishable by death.

And that is why we must utterly defeat them, so that those ideas are completely discredited.

The questions of how far we go to defeat them, and with which of our own ideals we will temporarily part to do so, I leave to another day. I simply say this: defeat them we must or ... well, there is no 'or'.

Sphere: Related Content

More Lunactivism

In my previous post on lunactivism I should have defined it: activism taking positions which are harmful to a central cause, usually from a desire to appear ideologically consistent.

Most lunactivists are liberals who get sidelined by the search for the approbation of a good cause defended, and fail to sanity check their own actions. Liberals tend to believe that integrity entails always "speaking truth to power" on every issue, where truth is whatever they feel and power is whichever tradition or institution they wish at the moment to destroy. Lunactivism occurs when activists get carried away with excitement over side issues, overreach, or choose the wrong fellow travelers.

My favorite early blogger, Ralph Waldo Emerson, said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Means: you don't have to conform for the sake of conformity, either in fashion or in substance. And if your zeal for conformance to the logical implications of an ideology puts you someplace doing something that you know is wrong, then you probably ought to reconsider that ideology, or at least your own zeal.

As part of the Law of Unintended Consequences, there is always a backlash against activism of any kind. The activism can be seen to be lunactive if negative consequences exceed the progress toward the intended goal.

Conservatives are also guilty of lunactivism, though on nothing like the same scale. I mention two examples below, and there may be others. Some examples of lunactivism:

Animal Rights

• Wanting to kill the baby animal who loses its mother, because growing up around humans is a fate worse than death.
• Not allowing human predation (so more animals suffer longer)

NAACP

Abortion is the leading cause of African American deaths, yet the NAACP supports it because that's the ideologically correct liberal position.

Anti-War activists

In 2006, opposition to the Iraq war led liberal anti-war activists to support Ned Lamont for Senator in Connecticut, eventually defeating Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman, however, is among the most liberal of Democrats on most issues, but happens to support the Iraq war. So the activists spent all of their effort to unseat a popular liberal Senator in a liberal State, a "safe seat", only to have him win the general election as an Independent.

This Spring (2007), Harvard College Democrats displayed on the school quadrangle 3,200 red bandannas "to visually illustrate the sheer magnitude of what Iraq has become", according to a piece in The Crimson.
"Unfortunately for the Dems, their Iraq display in the Quad looks nothing like a memorial for the lost soldiers and civilians in Iraq."

Prior to their installation of the Iraq Awareness Display, the Dems held a Candlelight Vigil at Tercentenary Theater. There were also a number of projects undertaken to physically support the troops (a phrase we invoke, but often don’t act upon), including a donation drive they co-sponsored with the Harvard Republican Club and ROTC. In other words, the Iraq Awareness Project was a series of solidly forward-thinking events. But the display–well that’s a prime example of how progressives lose focus at Harvard.

When Confronted By Contrary Opinion

Students at college campuses from Columbia to Berkeley have begun raising such a fuss against anyone who disagrees with the leftward agenda that they silence any contrary voice, often with violence and the explicit denial of the right to free speech.

The Sicko

By gushing over the wonders of the Cuban health care system, Michael M0ore undercuts his own message by choosing a tyrant as a fellow traveler. Viewers will draw the implication that America must emulate Cuba's totalitarianism if it is to achieve good health care.

Multiculturalism

Multiculty is an inherently contradictory dogma, which says that all cultures are to be valued and preserved, even ones which deny basic human rights. This principle trumps religious freedom, free speech, women's rights, and just about everything else when it comes to Islam. Liberals ignore the hatred pouring from the mosques, as well as the fact that Islam and liberal ideology simply do not mix.

As the Vanishing American put i:

Somehow liberal Christians and secular liberals and leftists alike believe that anyone who suffers or is 'oppressed' even if by their own fault is automatically to be exalted. This is what is at the core of the leftist/liberal reverence for the 'Other', the stranger, the outcast, the invader.

AIDS and Abstinence

Gay Pride and liberal correctness mean that abstinence is anathema. Even though abstinence education has proven effective against the spread of AIDS, activists will have nothing of it.

Fox News

Debates: Fox has a bigger audience than any other cable news outlet, and boycotting them only hurts the candidates in their efforts to become known.

O'Reilly boycott: Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative. He's a populist who explicitly distances himself from many conservative positions. Yet lunactivists are staging a boycott. Why? Could it be because O'Reilly points out the disproportionate and controlling influence of Moveon.org and George Soros on the Democratic Party?

Global Warming

The "Climate Crisis" and the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The UCS doesn't understand that their advocacy, following as it does a pattern of liberal orthodoxy, detracts from the authority their voice would otherwise have. People notice the pattern, and think "Oh, it's them again."

Vigilante Killing of Abortionists

Though it hasn't happened for about 10 years, right-wing anti-abortionists have murdered doctors who perform abortions. Again, this is taking ideology to the extreme, committing acts that are wrong and justifying them by the logical implications of ideology. The backlash against these killings continues today, typically in an application of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy ("And what of you?").

Traitors and Criminals

Finally, as Becker points out at Redstate.com, it is a misuse of language to call anti-war politicians "traitors". Contrarily, saying that the Iraq war is illegal and that the Administration is "criminal" is equally wrong. That kind of hyperbole does more harm than good. "Treason" and "criminal" have specific meanings, and throwing these words around without carefully considering those definitions is crying wolf. It allows the object of the name-calling to generalize and blur the lines, so that in the future some real traitor or criminal may go unpunished.

Sphere: Related Content