Commentary by Linda: As history attests, the leftist canon (belief-system) has spawned evil---mass carnage, suffering, and destruction---on a scale never before witnessed in the long history of mankind. Put into practice, their ideas have caused the deaths of millions. In America and throughout the West, Leftists live in comfort and yet embrace monstrous psychopaths from dictators (ie., Lenin, Mao, Castro) to terrorist-revolutionaries (Che Guiverra, al Qaida) and pathologically-twisted antisocial groups such as the Frankfurt School, Weathermen, and others. The diabolically disoriented ideologies and policies they embrace leave only death, suffering, and destruction in their wake. In 'United in Hate," Dr. Jamie Glazov presents startling new insights into the spiritually-diseased and torturously contorted thought processes of the leftists who lust to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to exist. Glazov explains the Left's love for and deification of totalitarian ideologies, from Marxism (Bolshevism, Communism), to National Socialism (fascism), and radical Islam.
Briefly, Leftist canon (belief system) is revamped Gnosticism. In addition to promising a 'heaven on earth,' it declares man as sinless and his 'passions'---even the darkest---as natural and good. Leftist canon rests on a code of immoralism and lies, from small to Big. Because our Creator is viewed as the ultimate source of evil, Leftist insiders declared His death, usurped His power, and made pacts with the devil. With His death, so too died His immutable Truth, universal moral law, norms (ie., two sexes) and institutions (ie., marriage). Gnostics have liberated themselves from mankind's Creator and unleased chaos onto the West.
In effect, Leftism is a reenactment of Psalm 2:1-3: "The kings of the earth band themselves together, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bands, and cast their cords from us."
Evil, in the demonically distorted view of Leftism, is everything that America's founding Judeo-Christian worldview declares as true, good, right and normal. To defend immutable truth, moral absolutes, the immutability of the two sexes, individual rights, individual liberty, and so forth, is to demonstrate that you defend 'evil.'
In the following Wall Street Journal article, on display are examples of Leftist lies, distortions, doublespeak, scape-goating, and gross hypocrisy that oozes without end from the mouths and pens of Leftists, seen here in those Leftists cited by the WSJ.
The truth is that hard-core leftist sociopaths seek prosecution of Bush administration officials NOT because of concern for human life, for they have no such concern. Indeed, they don't see mankind as image-bearers of God but rather as expendable robots, weeds, insects, and pond scum---parasites for which Leftists seek every avenue of death, from abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and eugenics to disease (AIDs and other plagues) and famine to mass extinction (genocide).
No, they seek prosecution for one compelling reason: they are spiritually diseased. They are possessed and driven by a dark spirit of madness that compels them toward death, sadism, excrement, blasphemy, filth, destruction, and diabolical confusion. Leftism has all but buried America's bright, shining city on a hill under layer upon layer of lies, madness, filth, and hate.
Leftists seek to disarm Americans, not for peace, civility, and life, but for death and destruction. It's the Super-Force, what CS Lewis called 'that Hideous Strength,' that with barely leashed impatience, stands behind Obama, waiting to uncoil itself in fire, brimstone, and death.
As the sulphuric-power of that Hideous Strength began flowing freely through Bolshevik-conquered Russia, a shell-shocked Russian socialist, Yuri Martov, head of the Mensheviks wrote in August 1918:
"From the first day of their coming into power, having proclaimed the abolition of the death penalty, the Bolsheviks began to kill. (Their) wholesale murders...were followed by murders at the direct behest of the Bolshevik government." They have already murdered tens of thousands without trial. Anyone declared an enemy of Communism is murdered. "The beast has licked hot human blood. The man-killing machine is brought into motion." (The Black Book of Communism, p. 736)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ve Haf Vays of Making You Consent The authoritarian impulse behind the push to prosecute ex-officials.
By JAMES TARANTO Barack Obama's critics have long worried that his placatory attitude would project American weakness, thereby emboldening enemies and making real that impression of weakness. That may happen (or be happening), but what seems to have happened first is that President Obama's own weakness has emboldened his domestic allies on the Angry Left. As a result, the administration seems to be on the verge of a political crisis, and the country is at risk of a constitutional crisis.
Until this week, the White House had been clear in rejecting calls from left-wing Democrats to prosecute former Bush administration officials for their involvement in what the far left calls "torture" of terrorists. But on Tuesday the president effectively voted "present," as MSNBC.com reports:
"For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted," he told reporters.
But then Obama added that prosecutions for those who drafted the memos would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder. "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
This noncommittal response emboldened the Angry Left and has everyone else worried. Merely contemplating such a step poses dangers to the administration. Going through with it would pose a myriad of dangers for the country.
The most immediate danger is a political one, described aptly by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: His own party, not to mention the Republicans and the public, must now fight it out: criminalize the prior administration or not? Spend weeks or months with a parade of witnesses pointing fingers at superiors, subordinates, and even congressional leaders who knew and approved of the policies at issue?
And now the administration is frustrated, we are told, that everyone is so distracted and not paying attention to the economy and the president's domestic agenda.
This is one "distraction" that Obama cannot blame on his political opponents. Of course, depending on what you think of Obama's domestic agenda, a distraction from it may not be altogether a bad thing. But surely a weakened presidency at a time of war and economic crisis is the worst way imaginable to save us from socialized medicine and higher taxes.
Then there is the question of America's vulnerability to a terrorist attack. We tend to think that Obama's changes in policy, including the repudiation of enhanced interrogation, increase the likelihood of an attack. Even if you disagree, consider the case the Washington Post's David Ignatius makes about the effects of threatening prosecutions:
Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution. The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
Up to this point, Obama's actual changes in policy have been less drastic than the drama with which he has announced them--think of his promising to close Guantanamo after a year rather than doing so immediately. The threat of prosecution adds a new element of drama, which the reality of prosecution would heighten enormously. The drama itself will affect public perception if there is, heaven forbid, another terrorist attack. The more dramatically Obama is seen as having remade antiterror policy, the more inclined the public would be to interpret an attack as having resulted from his new policies--whether this perception is accurate or not.
Obama's willingness to take such a political risk may be foolish, or it may be to his credit. But his policies would be at risk as well. If abandoning "torture" is seen as having led to the deaths of American civilians on American soil, public opinion may well swing in the opposite direction. It's quite possible that the public would demand policies harsher not only than Obama's but than Bush's. This is a disturbing prospect to anyone who cares about civil liberties, this columnist included.
Further, as David Frum notes, the criminalization of policy differences can go both ways: Obama is musing about extending the political reach of the criminal law. If he does so, he will find he has opened a new front of political warfare that will not soon end. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush drew a curtain of oblivion against all the errors and mistakes that had led up to the attacks. There was accusation and counter-accusation in the media, but at the official level there was no recrimination against President Clinton's decision not to kill bin Laden when he had the chance, no action against those who had failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers from entering the country.
If Obama proceeds to take legal action against those who did what they thought was right to defend the country, all that will change. Prosecutions launched by Obama will not stop when Obama declares "game over." If overzealousness under Bush becomes a crime under Obama, underzealousness under Obama will become a crime under the next Republican president.
If officials pay for policy mistakes not only by losing elections but by losing their freedom, that would amount to a fundamental change in America's form of government. As The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial: At least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
What Obama is offhandedly contemplating, then, amounts to a step toward authoritarian government. The impulse behind the push to prosecute is an authoritarian one as well. Matthew Yglesias of the left-liberal Center for American Progress writes that "large-scale punishment for the perpetrators of Bush-era war crimes is less important than establishing some form of political consensus that torture is wrong for the future."
Yglesias blames this lack of "consensus" on "the existence of a large and powerful conservative media apparatus," including the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal (which publishes this column), and he quotes approvingly from a blogger called Neil Sinhababu:
I don't think that we're going to be able to establish any such consensus anytime soon. It used to be that we were worried about Fox News defeating us in elections, or beating the drums for another Bush Administration war. Winning by big margins is nice, because we don't have to worry about those particular horrors for at least a little while. But now we have to worry about how Fox and the rest of the right-wing noise machine are going to continually sustain a substantial minority of crazy people, preventing the formation of an anti-torture consensus, an anti-war-of-aggression consensus, and anti-warrantless-spying consensus. Even if there's majority support for these views, anybody scrapping for power within the Republican Party will find reason to oppose them, just to get a majority of Republicans. I think the impossibility of consensus on these issues is part of why nobody thinks about consensus and there's so much left-wing attention to judicial punishments for the perpetrators.
What troubles Yglesias and Sinhababu, then, is the existence of disagreement and debate--the essence of democracy. They seem to imply that prosecution is a method by which to force the consensus they would like to see. But a forced consensus is no consensus at all. If those now in power yield to the temptation to use authoritarian means--however well-intentioned their ends may be--they will set a precedent that their opponents, perhaps equally well-intentioned, may one day use against them.
To be sure, most of what we have written is speculative. Perhaps we will make it through the Obama years without being attacked, so that the dire consequences we imagine will never materialize. Perhaps, too, the current frenzy will blow over and will prove to have been only a distraction. But the president's noncommittal words have fueled the Angry Left's demands for recriminations.
It may be that the president can put out this fire only through bold and irreversible action--to wit, by issuing a blanket pardon of former officials and intelligence agents for their actions in the war on terror.
Tea'd Off Yesterday we noted that CNN's Susan Roesgen, reporting on a "tea party" protest in Chicago, had taken an antagonistic approach to the protesters and had complained that the event was "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox."
Gawker.com has some interesting, and possibly relevant, background on Roesgen's relationship with Fox: Maybe she was angry because Fox turned her down for a job--twice! . . . Back in 2005, though, according to a Fox News source, Roesgen really wanted to work for that right-wing conservative network. She sent a tape of her on-air work to Fox's then-programming chief Kevin Magee in January 2005, and followed up with another reel to Magee's successor Bill Shine in September 2005. Needless to say, she didn't get the gig.
Roesgen didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment, and a CNN spokeswoman said, "I don't know anything about that."
Several readers wrote us to dispute our description of "tea-bagging," a sexual innuendo used by CNN's Anderson Cooper in reference to the protests, as "gay slang." Two of our correspondents tell us that they are gay and have heard the term used only in reference to heterosexual behavior, including in a 2003 episode of "Sex and the City," an HBO series about a group of New York women and their relationships with men.
As it happens, we heard the term years earlier, in the 1998 John Waters film "Pecker," in which it definitely was a gay reference. According to at least two contemporaneous news stories, Waters invented the term for that screenplay. Of course, if those reports were inaccurate and anyone can direct us to an earlier heterosexual usage of the term, we'd be happy to set the record straight.
Expensive Layoffs "General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks this summer because of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles," the Associated Press reports. This tidbit, mentioned only in passing, is fascinating: Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
Could it be that provisions like this are part of the reason GM is in trouble to begin with? Justice Specter? Sen. Arlen Specter, a five-term liberal Pennsylvania Republican, is one of the most endangered incumbents facing re-election next year. Not only has the Keystone State been trending Democratic, but Pat Toomey, a conservative former House member, plans a primary challenge. Toomey ran against Specter in 2004 and almost won the nomination.
Toomey's detractors, including some Republicans, argue that a conservative Republican cannot win in Pennsylvania. They note that former senator Rick Santorum received less than 40% of the vote in his 2006 re-election bid. Yet while Toomey is far from a shoo-in, this may overstate the case. Santorum did, after all, win two terms, and when he lost, it was in an overwhelmingly Democratic year and against the son of a hugely popular former governor, the late Robert Casey. If the Dems have a bad year or a weak nominee, a Sen. Toomey is not out of the question.
Dan Simpson, an associate editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, buys the Toomey-can't-win argument and offers an amusingly off-the-wall bit of advice to Specter: He should become a Democrat, "crossing the aisle to match his wayward political views with his party affiliation" and giving Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats (assuming Al Franken prevails, as expected, in the still-undecided Minnesota race).
Such defections are not unheard-of. Among current senators, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman were originally elected as Democrats. But here is where Simpson's scenario gets really bizarre: He says that President Obama should nominate Specter to the U.S. Supreme Court (assuming a vacancy, which is "expected"), so that Gov. Ed Rendell could appoint a Democrat to his seat.
It's not clear why Simpson would want a Democratic Specter replaced with a Democratic appointee, who'd have to seek election in 2010 anyway, presumably against Toomey and a united GOP. It also doesn't seem to bother Simpson that Specter is older than any current justice except John Paul Stevens. It may simply be that he made the plan this complicated simply to fill his 800-word quota.
If so, even that wasn't sufficient, so he adds this anecdote by way of showing that Specter is a "class act": The first time I met Mr. Specter was in 1974 as the state department desk officer for Rhodesia. The Nixon administration was trying to repeal the Byrd Amendment, which had America importing chrome from Rhodesia in opposition to most of the rest of the world.
Mr. Specter was representing a steel state and was not inclined to vote on the issue with the Republican president. I was told before seeing him that he was hard-minded and sometimes short-tempered. Nonetheless, he heard out the State Department argument, made no commitment and eventually avoided a vote. But he was fair and did not take the obvious position automatically. He was judicious.
We almost wish Simpson had 1,000 words, so that he could go on to reflect on how things turned out for Rhodesia--then a white racist state, now Zimbabwe, a brutal black-led autocracy. But we just love his lauding of Specter for having "made no commitment and eventually avoided a vote." What a profile in courage!
Reliable Sources An Associated Press dispatch on the suicide of David Kellerman, chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, manages to quote no fewer than four anonymous sources. Three of them are "a person close to the company," who "requested anonymity because the individual wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly"; a "law enforcement official familiar with the investigation," who "asked not to be identified because the investigation was ongoing"; "a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly." And then there's this:
Neighbors said Kellermann had lost a noticeable amount of weight under the strain of the new job. Some neighbors said they suggested to Kellermann should quit to avoid the stress, but Kellermann responded that he wanted to help the company through its problems. The neighbors did not want to be quoted by name because they didn't want to upset the family.
Because it's not at all upsetting when neighbors talk about a lost loved one, so long as they do so behind your back