'They hate. Their whole personas are defined by unreasoning, unceasing, unhinged hatred. Hatred defines them. Hatred gives them purpose'

Well, yeah.

That's AoSHQ commenting, perfectly, on the progressive left: "Drunken Angry Cow Who Yells At Strangers In Public Won't Comment Further On Her Antisocial Behavior":

So: This woman was drunk, vile, and incompetent. If only she had been able to restrain her unreasoning, unquenchable hatred, perhaps if she were capable of being rational and cool, she could have avoided her little psychosexual cartharsis of confronting the guy she secretly wishes to have sex with, and maybe he wouldn't have put it on his credit card, and then maybe she'd have an actual story -- Paul Ryan drinks $700 in wine and illegally permits "friends" to pick up the check.

Could have happened! We have no way of knowing now, as Professor Drinky McCapillaryBurst tipped off her surveillance subject to the fact she was keeping a (googly, alcohol-bouyed) eye on him.

But she was too drunk, stupid, and emotionally florid to play that kind of cool let's-see-where-this-goes game. She needed to make a scene (drunks always do) and so she did.

Well, she's a progressive (cow). They don't think so much as emote. But enough redundancy. And ICYMI, this ANONYMOUS SFL (not ASFL because I'm not sure if this cow is adult), really goes off in the comments at SEK's.

These people are sick. I'm tempted to cuss, but my refined sense is in contol.

Family of Rachel Corrie Accuses Israel of Withholding Video Evidence During Civil Lawsuit

At Biased BBC, "Myths and Facts Part 1":

The initial lurid sensationalism is the part of a story that will always stick, never mind what emerges thereafter. Cindy Corrie’s piece in the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ (H/T Too True) reminded me how unfortunate that can be, especially if the story appears to confirm any of the commonly-held negative preconceptions about Israel.
Just as people still repeat the Al Dura lies unchallenged on the BBC, the myth of Rachel Corrie’s noble martyrdom remains untarnished despite the facts that have come to light following the regrettable incident in 2003.

The notorious legend of Rachel Corrie’s adventures in Gaza concerns her passage from youthful but misguided idealist, through useful idiocy, to her final, inevitable destination - being bulldozed to death.

Posthumously exalted, deified and immortalised by Israel-hating dramatists and propagandists, and further elevated by having the good ship Rachel Corrie named in her honour, (and seized by the Israelis during last year’s propaganda-stunt-flotilla) her media-fuelled journey from zero to hero bears out the adage that a little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.

It is understandable that Corrie’s family should take up her cause and exploit the unassailable position their bereavement affords them. To face the stark truth about her death would be to accept the futility of it and to rub salt into a painful wound.

More at the link.

The Cindie Corrie article is here: "US collusion in the Gaza blockade is an affront to human rights: My daughter's death shows the cruelty of an America that won't protect its own and is complicit in harming Palestinian civilians." And at the Guardian, "Rachel Corrie's family claim Israeli military withheld vital video evidence" (via Memeorandum).

John Cook, Dude Trying to Out CIA Agent Who [Helped Kill] Bin Laden, Married to Anti-Zionist Allison Benedikt*

Gateway Pundit has the story on John Cook, "Disgusting. Far Left Gawker Posts Photo of Suspected CIA Agent Who Helped Kill Bin Laden." And following the links takes us to The New Ledger, "Gawker’s John Cook Attempts to Out CIA Agent Who Helped Kill Bin Laden." Be sure to read the whole thing. It's juicy. But what's especially interesting is this snarky aside:

If Cook is correct or not, this individual is now a high value target for a group of terrorists who enjoy killing people and their families who have done them wrong. It’s pretty much all they do, in case Cook hadn’t noticed amidst ranting at his family members about how much he hates Israel.

That "ranting at his family members" line links to Jeffrey Goldberg, "Giving Up on the Zionist Dream," which is of course Goldberg's response to Allison Benedikt's now infamous essay, "Life After Zionist Summer Camp." Folks might remember when I blogged this, but one of the most interesting things at Benedikt's piece is the account of her husband berating her family about the "evils" of Israel. I never bothered to search for the guy, and she didn't reveal the name, but The New Ledger has the goods, and a quick search shows that the same family that Cook slammed took the time to post marriage announcements with the major New York newspapers and magazines, like the New York Times and New York Observer:

That's quite a revealing puzzle in the end. John Cook, and his wife too, apparently, might was well move to Yemen to start their training with Al Qaeda. Never mind that Osama Bin Laden wasn't motivated to attack the U.S. because of Israel (think Saudi Arabia instead), for members of the anti-American, anti-Israel contingents, what matters is to be on the side of America's enemies. And with this latest news on Cook's efforts to out the CIA operative, I'd say these folks are getting into John Walker Lindh territory.

It's pretty bad. And given Benedikt's laudable upbringing in the Zionist youth movement, it's fundamentally sad that she met such a guy, who by her own account pulled her over the edge into pro-terror ideological affiliations.

*Fixed the title.

Los Angeles Times Shills for Communists on Business Section Front Page

That's longtime local communist and union activist Paul Krehbiel at the photo, where he's featured at the front page of the Los Angeles Times' business section: "Learning how to be a union activist." He's wearing a militant clenched-fist solidarity shirt, red, with the slogan, "Stand With Wisconsin."

Krehbiel is the author of a memoir, Shades of Justice, and his biography states:

Since 2003, he has been active in the campaign to end the war in Iraq, working with the Coalition for World Peace, US Labor Against the War, and the Iraq Moratorium.

Coalition for World Peace is one of the many groups closely aligned with the World Workers Party (WWP), a Marxist-Leninist apparatus that backed Moscow's invasion of Hungary in 1956 and the Soviet army's brutal suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968. The Coalition for World Peace is listed as an active affiliated group at the homepage of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). Here's this at the UFPJ at Discover the Networks:

UFPJ was officially created on October 25, 2002 in the Washington, DC offices of People For the American Way. Its initial membership consisted of approximately 70 organizations. Prior to UFPJ's founding, the anti-war movement had earned a reputation as a hodgepodge of radical elements. All the large-scale peace demonstrations to that point had been held under the auspices of International ANSWER, an organization aligned with the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party; Global Exchange, headed by the longtime pro-Castro communist Medea Benjamin; and Not In Our Name, a project organized by Ramsey Clark and fellow leaders of the Revolutionary Communist Party. United For Peace and Justice was created explicitly to put a milder face on the anti-war movement, although from its inception UFPJ shared with the aforementioned groups a passionate hatred for the United States and for capitalism.

The Co-Chair and principal leader of UFPJ is Leslie Cagan, an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence (a remnant organization created by the American Communist Party upon going out of business) and a strong supporter of Fidel Castro since the 1960s; Cagan proudly aligns her politics with those of Communist Cuba.

The breadth of UFPJ's agendas extends well beyond anti-war activism. Passionately anti-American, this group condemns virtually every aspect of U.S. foreign policy and domestic life. It impugns America's "daily assaults and attacks on poor and working people, on women, people of color, lesbians/gays and other sexual minorities, the disabled, and so many others." It asserts that "the government treats all immigrants as potential terrorist threats until proven innocent, in violation of the Constitution," thereby "expanding the scope and depth of racial injustice within the U.S." ...

UFPJ has campaigned against American support for Israel's construction of an anti-terrorist security fence in the West Bank, which it describes as an illegal "apartheid wall" that violates the civil and human rights of Palestinians.

UFPJ is a signatory to the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a hardline anti-Zionist (anti-Semitic) organization that attacks Israel as an "apartheid state."

And back over at the CFWP homepage, we see that Krehbiel's group was a leading organizer for the March 21, "Mass March and Rally in L.A.," and the link there takes us to the announcement at the ANSWER Coalition's page, "List of March 21 Organizing & Transportation Centers." (More on ANSWER here.)

The Times article gushes about the workshop Kreibiel was offering at Pasadena City College, where young students attending "munched on the free chocolate chip cookies and potato chips they were provided..." (Right. Free, of course.) The article notes a couple of times how organized labor is trying to match the energy and effectiveness of the tea parties, and quotes a Teamsters union hack agitating to take back the streets: "Those are our streets, that's where we need to be."

And buried on page B4 we find this bland acknowledgement and evasion:

The Troublemakers School in Pasadena and five others like it held this year across the country were organized by Labor Notes, a Detroit nonprofit funded by membership dues and course fees, as well as donations from pro-labor individuals. There's no question this group leans heavily left: One student carried pamphlets about a meeting for anarchists.

Leans left? You think?

Here's the Labor Notes' manifesto from its 1993 conference, hosted at the Encyclopedia of Trotskyism Online (Marxist.org).

The bottom line is that we see yet again another mainstream media outfit reporting rapturously on the organizing activities of hardline communist cadres. It'd be nice if the tea parties got a fraction of such fawning reporting by the nation's media establishment.

Typical.

Linked at The Rhetorican, "Oxymoronic Juxtaposition of the Week." Thanks!

The Gay Hate Campaign

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Man!

Read this post at Uncoverage, "“Gay Mafia” Threatens, Vandalizes Traditional Marriage Supporters in Washington State."

As I've said many times, it's lies, violence, and intimidation that's putting the gay agenda over the top. You gotta call these people out for what that are: Homosexual criminals, mobsters, perverts, and thugs. And that goes as well for the hetero progressives who're enabling the hate.

Chasing the Dying Memories of Soviet Trauma

There's a retrospective on the fall of the Soviet Union at the new Foreign Policy. I'll be reading and posting more from it, but this essay from Orlando Figes is fascinating, "Don't Go There":

In November 2004, Nona Panova was being interviewed by a researcher from the Russian human rights organization Memorial, working under my direction on an oral history project about private life in the Stalin era. Nona, a 75-year-old woman whose father had been arrested during the purges of the 1930s, had been talking for several hours about her upbringing in St. Petersburg and her family when she saw the tape recorder with its microphone. The conversation went like this:Panova: So that's how it was.… [Notices the tape recorder and shows signs of panic.] Are you recording this? But I'll be arrested! They'll put me into jail!

Interviewer: Who'll put you in jail?

Panova: Someone will.… I've told you so much; there's so much I've said.…

Interviewer: [Laughs.] Yes, and it was very interesting, but tell me, who today would want to put you in jail?

Panova: But did you really make a recording?

Interviewer: Yes, don't you remember? I warned you at the start that our conversation would be recorded.

Panova: Then that's it. It's all over for me -- they'll arrest me.

More at the link. Ms. Panova thought she'd be killed. Here's another part this was gripping:

For years, what the world knew about the Soviet Union was limited entirely to the public sphere. Apart from a few memoirs by great writers caught up in the repressions of the 1930s, particularly Evgenia Ginzburg and Nadezhda Mandelstam, there was little from a personal perspective coming out of those years. More representative testimonies began to emerge only in the glasnost period, when victims of Stalin's repression were encouraged to come forward with their stories. Organizations like Memorial helped them look for information about their missing relatives, took interviews, and organized archives from the mass of documents, letters, photographs, and artifacts that people brought into their offices in plastic bags and boxes following the Soviet regime's collapse.

And yet even these documents were difficult to interpret. Take diaries, usually regarded as the most direct expression of an individual's private thoughts and emotions. Diarists of the 1930s and 1940s, however, faced serious obstacles. When a person was arrested, the first thing to be confiscated was the diary, which was likely to be used as incriminating evidence. Many diaries that came to light during the glasnost years express conformist political ideas. Should we take their words at face value, as expressions of a genuine yearning to belong to the Soviet collective, which was no doubt felt by many people insecure about their place in the system? Or should it be assumed that fear drove more to hide themselves behind a mask? Two major finds have been translated from Russian: the 1930s diary of Stepan Podlubny, a kulak son fashioning a Soviet identity for himself in a factory school, which was published in Germany as Tagebuch aus Moskau (1996) by historian Jochen Hellbeck; and Nina Lugovskaya's schoolgirl diary from the same decade, published in English as I Want to Live (2006). For Hellbeck, the Podlubny diary shows how the individual was practically unable to think outside the terms defined by Soviet politics. In this vision of the "Soviet subject" -- developed by Hellbeck from several newly discovered Stalin-era diaries in Revolution on My Mind (2006) -- there is little space for private life at all, if we take that to depend on independent thought. Yet the Lugovskaya example shows that even a schoolgirl subjected to the full array of propaganda about the "radiant Soviet future" was not only capable of dissenting, pessimistic, and even "anti-Soviet" thoughts, but eager to confess them to her diary as an expression of her individuality.

Living in fear as a direct result of communist totalitarian control. This is where today's progressives seek to return. They're communists, and just take a look across the radical left establishment today. To simply speak out against the PC commissars is to risk a termination of employment, personals attacks, threats of violence, or even possible jail time in country's like Canada and the Netherlands. Progressives are communists. Like Soviet citizens under Stalin, there is no dissenting from the progressive line without threat to life and liberty.

Anti-Israel Dyke March in Toronto

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Jew Haters Crash Dyke Parade."

Also, "Video: Suicide Pride - Pride allows QuAIA to march in Dyke Parade."

Not the kind of coverage available at Toronto Sun, "Dyke March takes a stand."

RELATED: At Vlad Tepes, "Toronto’s fourth Journey of Faith Conference. Where you too can find tolerance through Islam’s Revelations and Prophetic Traditions!"

Greece Arrests Captain of Gaza-Bound 'Audacity of Hope'

At New York Times, "Greece Jails U.S. Captain in Gaza Flotilla."

At the video, Communist Party member Angela Davis and Professor Rashid Khalidi, former PLO advisor to Yasser Arafat. Oh, and anti-Israel propgandist Noam Chomsky, the intellectual rock star of today's Jew-murdering left. And so many more:

Israel is the only country in the world held out for this kind of visceral hatred. It's anti-Semitic. Prominent people, shilling for terrorism. It's perverted.

Violent Austerity Protests in Greece

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent slideshow, "Protesters clash with riot police in Athens strike." Also: "Greece OKs austerity bill as protests rage."

The scene's extremely violent, and the most menacing images are of those protesters clad in black, apparently identifying or affiliating with the Black Bloc anarchist movement. See Paul Mason, at BBC, "Greece: what’s burning is consent."

The Billions Behind 'Cultures of Resistance' Filmmaker

An excellent essay from Dave Swindle, at FrontPage Magazine, "The Flotilla Jihadists’ Artsy Propagandist and Her Billionaire Husband." And propaganda it is. A sample:

And she's affiliated with this premiere group of communists and anti-Semites:

Melanie Phillips Quits Britain's Spectator Magazine

She has two announcements, "Why I left the Spectator," and "My blog's new home."

There's very little written regarding an explanation why, although Phillips writes: "Those interested to learn more can do so in the update on this CiF Watch post, the original quote from which led to this apology." The apology issued was to Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum, "an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly ..."

Given Mr. Crooke's background, folks probably have an inkling as to what happened: Melanie blogged about Crooke, he got mad, launched legal action, harming the Spectator financially, and Melanie Phillips felt it necessary to resign.

That just the line of logic, but let's see if I can piece some of this together. For one thing, reports indicate that Alastair Crooke, a former member of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, had direct and ongoing contacts with Hamas as part of his official business at the British consulate in East Jerusalem. A 2007 blog post by Israeli Eliyahu m'Tsiyon has the details, including a quotation from Melanie Phillips which is no longer available elsewhere. And London's far-left Guardian reported on this, "UK recalls MI6 link to Palestinian militants." These are some really sinister dealings, and Phillips wrote about them. See Jihad Watch, "Melanie Phillips on Alistair Crooke." And following the links takes us to FrontPage Magazine, "Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin." I don't see the exact date of Crooke's departure from MI6, but even left-wing sources report on his deep ties to global terrorism. See Mother Jones, "The Spy Who Loved Hamas. And Hezbollah. And Iran."

Now note that the Spectator published an apology to Alastair Crooke, cited by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian:

A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on Jan 28 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from Government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.

Again, I'm piecing things together, but it looks like Spectator issued the apology as part of a legal settlement, which has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan jumping for joy:

... was this a voluntary or enforced departure? The blogger Guido Staines beat me to it, but I can't help but notice how the Spectator has had to apologise to Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, on its website this week, after a blogpost by Phillips made "false" allegations about Crooke's past. Phillips's decision to move on might just be a coincidence but a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator "tens of thousands of pounds" and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil "furious" with her.

So we're now back to Melanie Phillips' blog entry, where she writes, "For legal reasons, I cannot go into the details."

The legal reasons appear to be (further) threats of legal action, but Melanie Phillips has rejected the premise of the apology. And CiF Watch says Phillips made "no such" allegation regarding threats from Alastair Crooke.

Well, we know that Alastair Crooke's collaborating with terrorist organizations, and as Melanie Phillips was writing about it, my sense is that someone made threats, and since this controversy involves people at the highest levels of British power, clearly some pro-jihadists had strong incentive to destroy Melanie Phillips. And what's more fascinating is that so called right-wing outlets are simply crippling under threats and apparent litigation. Indeed, Mehdi Hasan can't contain his glee:

Blinded by their monomaniacal obsession with Islamists under every British bed, members of the UK media's neoconservative faction have been the subject of other (successful) legal complaints and libel actions in recent years.

These legal complaints look sketchy, "successful" or not, given all that we know about Alastair Crooke. Clearly, if Melanie Phillips was speaking truth to power her own health and livelihood became increasingly at risk. And this is something I've been writing about quite a bit, since Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen launched campaigns of workplace intimidation against me, including libelously false allegations of sexual harassment, with potentially very damaging personal consequences, simply for speaking truth to their evil deeds. And while I'm not an author of such prominence as Melanie Phillips, some allegations against me have gone all the way to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat. So the similarity is to the lengths at which progressives will go to literally destroy those who speak the truth. Remember, for radical leftists and jihad enablers, "truth is the new hate speech." And I want to remind people of my report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who announced on Canadian television:

The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.

Neither will I.

Israeli Actor Impersonated Activist in Video Attacking Gaza Flotilla

At New York Times, "Israeli Video Blog Exposed as a Hoax."

The funny thing about this is that for progressives to denounce what's apparently a hoax, they also have to reject the message at the video, and the Israel-hating left is all too ready to do that. Indeed, Max Blumenthal, that conspiracy-driven self-hating Jew extraordinaire, was the first to point out the discrepancies. Check the link, in any case. Progressives are eating this up, so you know they're jonesin' for some PR victories.

'Heck of a First Week for Bill Lueders'

According to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism on Twitter:

Well, as I reported earlier, Lueders may be the one who "should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack," according to Ann Althouse.

And that's because not only is Lueders the author of the main hit piece against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, but he's also now basically pulled his initial report on the alleged altercation, replacing it with a version featuring a disclaimer:

10:15 p.m.: This story is updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations.

Yet there is no "update" at the bottom of the report. It's been airbrushed, and Althouse is demanding answers this morning, "How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders's attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?"

The first thing I want to note is the common sense angle. The story's extremely fishy, mainly because it's impossible to envision Prosser administering a deadly choke-hold to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. As I noted before, "The idea that Prosser got Bradley in a 'choke hold' is outlandish, and perfectly suited to the left's progressive thuggery agenda." And as Althouse writes today, agreeing with progressives that Prosser should resign if the allegations were true:

But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.

That's a big point for me, because it's not just an age thing, but that here are two people who essentially represent the epitome of the legal profession at the state level. It's inconceivable to me that a sitting judge would try to choke a judicial colleague in her chambers, but again, leftists don't think logically, despite endless claims to being "reality-based."

Another thing to note is that the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is funded by George Soros, the messianic multi-billionaire behind such neo-communist attack outfits as the Center for American Progress. These people do not "report." They destroy. And that's the context for understanding Bill Lueders, whose deed pushes the evil meter way over to the right.

But read Althouse's entire indictment. For example, Althouse reads the various news reports and determines that two independent sources say Justice Bradley came at Justice Prosser with "fists raised." That's a lot of information to be left out of initial reports, and Althouse notes:

Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.

I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?

More discussion, and then she continues:

In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.

Well, actually that did occur to me when I quoted Althouse last night, and I went to sleep knowing that truth would come out. And the truth is still coming out, but of course it's no surprise that we're finding apparently evil deeds here: Progressives are evil!

And more at Althouse:

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Precisely.

And again, read the full post, because Althouse is going Alinsky on the left, especially Ian Millhiser's, "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office." Check the link, but Althouse turns the table:

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

More at Memeorandum. And Instapundit.

'I am a Democrat because I believe that government should take care of its citizens...'

Seriously?

Check the homely one at about 55 seconds.

I was once a Democrat. It hasn't been that long ago since the party turned neo-communist, but back in the day my sense was that government would promote equality of opportunity. It's shocking to me that young people have learned somewhere that it's the government's job to take care of them. These are the same type of people who argue that the Constitution's preamble, which calls in part to "promote the general welfare," actually means that government would establish a welfare dependency state. It's kind of astonishing. "Welfare" simply means "well-being." But in the minds of the progressives, "welfare" means government handouts, kind of like Peggy Joseph who swooned when Obama was elected, saying how he was going to pay her gas and mortgage. I write about America's relative standing in the world, the balance of power, and so forth, which is more in the realm of international relations. But nation-states can rot from within, from decadence and sloth, and when I see these young people here, most of whom can't speak intelligibly, well, I'm going to have to adjust my theories a bit. Sheesh.

In any case, Robert Stacy McCain has a different takeaway, "Good News: College Democrats Succeed in Recruiting Stupid Ugly Losers! (Video)." And yeah, there's that alright.

Too Hot for Huffington Post: 'The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla'

I first read of Huffington Post's censorship of David Harris at Power Line, "Too Hot for HuffPo."

Harris is the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and his essay's posted at AJC's website. An excerpt:

George Orwell, where are you? You could have a field day with this story.

Actually, you anticipated it when you wrote about the Ministry of Truth in your classic book, 1984. What were the ruling party's slogans on the outside of the 1,000-foot-tall building housing the ministry? Weren't they "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength"? And didn't the ministry rewrite history at will to ensure it always served the party's interests?

The Gaza flotilla spokesmen are inverting the truth and rewriting history at will to serve their interests. And what are those interests? To prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza and delegitimize Israel.

While they are entitled to their own opinions, however misguided, they are not entitled to their own facts.

They cannot separate Hamas from the equation. Much as they might try, the central fact is that Hamas is key to understanding Gaza today.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Don't take my word for it. Check with the United States and European Union, both of which have designated Hamas as a terrorist entity.

You can see why that's an "Oops!" Doesn't jibe too well with the neo-communist narrative.

More at Ron Radosh, "The Huffington Post Censors AJC’s David Harris, for Telling the Truth about the New Flotilla."

And linked there, Howard Jacobson, "Why Alice Walker shouldn't sail to Gaza."

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

Allison Benedikt's 'Life After Zionist Summer Camp'; or, The Mysterious Evolution of a Dumb Hadassah Youth Activist to Hip Progressive Israel-Basher

With apologies to Susan Strange for the title.

A lot of this is Jewish inside baseball, so I'm only partly competent to weigh in authoritatively, but my first impression while reading is that Allison Benedikt is, to be frank, a monstrously ignorant, enormously indecisive groupie/wannabe hipster. The essay's written in a kind of droll childish style. It reminds me of someone you might see walking down the street but looks like they don't have the slightest clue where they're going. Benedikt, a Jew from the Midwest, lived her entire life thinking she was going to make aliyah, only to decide that, nah, Zionism wasn't so cool after all. The clincher is that she met, and then later married, a "progressive" non-Jewish dude named Mark (not Marc, to the horror of her parents). Mark had been duly programmed as a zombified anti-Semite by some sections of the modern Jew-hating left. He obviously liked Allison, despite religious differences, and thus quickly went to work destroying her faith in Israel, and since she'd spent an entire life refusing to really learn about the country of her faith --- and her parents' enduring commitment --- she basically melted into a Hamas-defending self-hating American Jew who would be perfectly at home in the comment threads at Daily Kos. It's a long read, so find a few minutes before diving in. The main takeaway is how the piece is like catnip for the neo-communists now cheering the next Gaza flotilla.

Anyway, I saw this when it came out, and then William Jacobson wrote a pithy post, so I was reminded: "Least Shocking Blog Post Title Ever: “Village Voice Editor discovers she hates Israel, curses when challenged”." Check that entry, but the preview is that she told Israeli historian Yaacov Lozowick to f**k off on Twitter. Not surprising, I know. And check the Memorandum link as well. Benedikt gave a cryptic citation to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, and he felt obligated to comment, and at considerable length as well. And the debate devolved to include Andrew Sullivan, but I don't read him so you'll just have to check it out.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

At WSJ earlier this week, Geert Wilders mentioned that Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff wasn't as lucky as he was to be acquitted. She was convicted in February for "incitement to hatred" and "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for giving informational seminars on Islam."

This is another Ezra Levant interview that really crescendos with power. Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff concludes:

The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.

Ann Coulter Goes Canadian!

The good kind of Canadian.

Via Blazing Cat Fur.

I love this description at the YouTube page:

Ezra Levant and guest Ann Coulter discuss violent leftist retards.

Word.

It's a lengthy clip, but asked toward the end on what to do when besieged by the mob, Coulter nails it:

When faced with a mob you must smash it. You cannot reason with the mob. It is an irrational, violent organism. Rationality does not work. Calming the mob down does not work. You must always smash a mob. And whether that involves police activity, or pressing charges, calling the police --- engaging in serious self-defense, you don't back down to a mob. That only lets it run wild.

Exactly.

That's why I never back down to progressives, especially the evil mob attacks from the likes of Lawyers, Guns and Murder, or the Sadly No! freaks, people who've contacted my college in continuing campaigns of personal destruction. I'm a threat to these progressive mobsters. They can't touch my moral clarity, for they are immoral, demonic. Flustered and impotent, they've repeatedly demonstrated their violent mob tactics against me. I don't back down, and they hate it. It drives them crazy. They are dangerous. Yes, dangerous, personally to me. If I was a public speaker I too would need a body guard, like so many conservatives I've met in the last couple of years. The progressive mob is about one thing: shutting down those who deviate from and challenge the neo-communist agenda, by any means necessary. I don't cower. I don't relent in standing up for what's right. I stand up to the mob. Ann Coulter is awesome. Read her book! Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech

Some big news today on Geert Wilders' acquittal, at Telegraph UK, "Geert Wilders 'delighted' after being cleared of 'hate speech'."

And he writes about it at Wall Street Journal. A snippet:

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

RELATED: At Atlas Shrugs, "PAMELA GELLER, BIG GOVERNMENT: GEERT WILDERS VERDICT: WEST 1, ISLAM 0."

And EXTRA LULZ: Lizard Loser Charles Johnson is bummed that Wilders was acquitted: "Dutch Hatemonger Geert Wilders Acquitted of Inciting Hatred."