Mediaboss Marketing

New Hampshire Primary Source covers breaking and behind-the-scenes news and analysis on all things political in the Granite State. John DiStaso is the most experienced political writer in New Hampshire and has been writing a weekly column since 1982.

PROGRESSIVES UNHAPPY. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and many party leaders have been saying for more than a decade that the party should provide support financial and otherwise to candidates regardless of their positons on abortion.

As far back as 2006, then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel threw out the old playbook and recruited moderate Democrats some of them anti-abortion to run in red districts. The party picked up nearly 30 seats in a mid-term election.

That approach continues in 2017. In April, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee, said, I would encourage our candidates to be pro-choice candidates, but its also important that we have a big tent. I think we actually can do both.

In mid-May, a spokesman for DNC Chair Tom Perez said, The party does not believe in a litmus test. Two weeks earlier, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi voiced the same view in an interview with The Washington Post, adding, This is not a rubber-stamp party.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the former presidential candidate and progressive champion, recently campaigned along with Perez for an anti-abortion Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. Sanders said that despite his own staunchly pro-choice position, Democrats just cant exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.

Sanders' and Perezs endorsement of that candidate, Heath Mello, earned them criticism from NARAL Pro-Choice America, whose president, Ilyse Hogue, said it is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid.

Now, progressives are taking aim at DCCC chairman U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, who reiterated the leaders long-standing position in an interview with The Hill on Monday.

There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates, he said, adding that the party must make sure you have candidates that fit that district, that can win in these districts across the country.

Vermont-based Democracy for America which last year endorsed Sanders for president, by the way quickly pounced on Lujan.

It is profoundly disturbing to hear the person tasked with helping Democrats take back the House suggest that our party can credibly talk about confronting economic inequity, while turning a blind eye to candidates who want to limit women's right to control their own bodies, DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said.

Abortion rights are inextricably tied to the fight against economic and racial inequity, full stop, and until all leaders of our party fully understand that, we're going to keep losing.

Jennifer Frizzell, vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund, referred to the Democrats new A Better Deal for American Workers plan.

Last week, congressional Democrats unveiled a policy vision that centered on expanding economic opportunity, she said. At the Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund, we know that access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including safe, legal abortion, is central to expanding economic opportunity for New Hampshire citizens and all Americans.

This access is fundamental to womens economic security, health and well-being. We are fortunate that in New Hampshire, we have a full congressional delegation that is committed to fighting for all New Hampshire women to have access to quality reproductive care. They have always shown that access to safe, legal abortion is part of their core principles. They know that having the ability to plan, prevent and space pregnancies creates more stable families and increase economic opportunities.

Democracy for America, NARAL, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, EMILYs List and nearly a dozen other groups unveiled a Statement of Principles reiterating their pro-choice stand and strongly implying that anti-choice Democrats will face primaries in 2018.

Where do New Hampshires two strongly pro-choice House members stand on the litmus test question?

U.S. Rep. Shea-Porter is not with the party leadership.

Carol understands and respects every candidate's right to have his or her own personal views, anti or pro, but Democratic candidates should support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, her spokeswoman, Marjorie Connolly, said. This is one of many areas where Carol and DCCC leadership hold different views."

U.S. Annie Kuster said, Ensuring that women have the right to make their own reproductive health care decision is one of my top priorities. As long as Republicans control Congress those rights will be in jeopardy. Ultimately, we need to elect Democrats across the country who are going to fight to support hard-working families by defending access to health care, expanding economic opportunity and working to create good jobs.

But, she added, Democrats are not a one-issue party, and I respect that there is a diversity of opinions within our caucus.

Thursday afternoon, Aug. 3 update: AMERICAN BRIDGE GROUP LAUNCHES AD. American Bridge, a liberal pro-Democratic political committee founded by Hillary Clinton supporter David Brock, quickly jumped into the controversy surrounding President Donald Trumps description of New Hampshire as a drug-infested den Wednesday. Click here.

The original Thursday morning New Hampshire Primary Source column follows.

CANDIDATE PROTESTS HOUSE RECESS. Republican 1st District U.S. House candidate Eddie Edwards is ramping up his criticism of both parties now that his GOP House leaders decided to send members home on a five-week break. Click here.

GROW PAC LAUNCHED. Former House Speaker Terie Norelli said Wednesday that she and other top Democratic women launched a new political action committee called GROW out of concern that women are not as prevalent in New Hampshire offices as they were during her tenure in office from 1996 to 2014. Click here.

RAISING MONEY FOR HOUSE DEMS. WMUR reported in July that U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, will visit New Hampshire on Aug. 16 to appear at the New Hampshire Young Democrats Summer Cookout in Hampton. For more on that visit, click here.

MORE SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON TAP. Democrats are looking to parlay the momentum of recent legislative special election victories into wins in upcoming contests in several Republican districts. The NHGOP, meanwhile, is hoping to rebound. Click here.

LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Marchand said this week that he has hired a fourth campaign staffer someone with a last name familiar to followers of Granite State politics. Click here.

(John DiStaso can be reached at jdistaso@hearst.com or distasoj@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jdistaso and on Facebook: Facebook.com/JohnDiStasoWMUR.)

Excerpt from:
NH Primary Source: Progressives hit DCCC's 'no abortion litmus test' stand - WMUR Manchester

Clovis is currently serving as the senior White House adviser to the USDA, but as his old blog posts highlight, his background is strongly rooted in the politics of conservative talk radio. His nomination requires Senate confirmation.

Clovis did not respond to an email from CNN's KFile requesting comment. A spokesperson for the USDA said, "Dr. Clovis is a proud conservative and a proud American. All of his reporting either on the air or in writing over the course of his career has been based on solid research and data. He is after all an academic."

A spokesperson for the White House did not return a request for comment.

In his writings, Clovis directed most of his ire at then-President Obama and the progressive movement.

In a post from September 2011, Clovis wrote in reference to Obama, "He was brought up by socialists to be a socialist. His associations were socialists or worse, criminal dissidents who were bent on overthrowing the government of the United States. He has no experience at anything other than race baiting and race trading as a community organizer."

The month before, Clovis said the 2012 Republican primary candidates needed to call out progressives for what they were "liars, race traders and race 'traitors.'"

At times, Clovis adopted a conspiratorial tone in his blog postings, openly pondering whether the Obama Administration would place conservative activists on a kill list that included terrorists like Anwar al-Awlaki and accusing Obama-era czars of using taxpayer money to buy the support of academics who would claim science was settled.

In one blog post in April 2011, Clovis contrasted the successful recovery efforts following the 2008 floods in Iowa with the chaos in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, attributing the difference to Iowa's culture "focused on family, community and the primacy of faith in life."

"The president, like the rest of us, is clearly a product of his upbringing, his associates, his education and his experience," wrote Clovis. "He was brought up by socialists to be a socialist. His associations were socialists or worse, criminal dissidents who were bent on overthrowing the government of the United States. He has no experience at anything other than race baiting and race trading as a community organizer. He has never run anything. Finally, his education at some of the best colleges in America was deeply influenced by socialists or worse on those campuses. He supposedly earned degrees in political science and law, but his actions reflect a shallow education and chronic underachievement in nearly every thing he has done."

"My caller was most concerned about the fact that our candidates seem to be afraid of taking on the race baiting," Clovis wrote. "I could not agree more. The current crop of candidates need to get that titanium spine we keep hearing about and call out the progressives for what they are -- liars, race traders and race 'traitors.'"

In the same blog post, Clovis said Democrats were attempting to keep minorities "enslaved" to the government. He said progressives wanted to eliminate people of color from America but saw government enslavement as a second option.

"We can go back 100 years and trace how the progressives, socialists and fellow travelers have done everything possible to keep minorities in this country enslaved to government. This is particularly true in the African-American community. The progressives have systematically attacked the individual, the black family unit, the black female and the black male to essentially eliminate people of color from the American landscape. Because elimination has become impractical, subservience to government is an acceptable second option.

"After the Civil War, African-Americans voted almost en masse for Republicans," wrote Clovis. "That all changed in the election of 1912 when first term governor Woodrow Wilson was able to convince WEB(sic) DeBois to back his candidacy. That year, 60% of eligible African-Americans voted for Wilson. This loss of a small but homogeneous voting block to the other side hurt the Republicans and would continue to hurt them until the present day. DeBois was the first race-trader and did a magnificent job of convincing his fellow blacks to back a southern racist for president. What ever was the deal that would allow someone of DeBois's stature to side with such an incredibly flawed individual? To this day, I have not been able to find adequate scholarly work to explain this remarkable shift in allegiance. Wilson was a progressive and a racist. In my books, the two were, are, and will remain, synonomous(sic)."

Clovis said the minority community would some day "wake up" to their enslavement.

"Like putting the frog in the pot then turning up the heat, minorities have been enslaved by government operatives who care nothing for the nation and everything for power," wrote Clovis. "Someday, men and women of color will wake up to the incredible deception that has been visited on their communities. Someday, these wonderful, courageous Americans will rebuff collective dependency and will embrace individual accountability and the covenant we find in our Constitution.

In other blog posts, Clovis repeatedly argued that progressives were attempting to enslave citizens to the government.

Clovis pushed this sentiment repeatedly.

Clovis also expressed a deep disdain for former President Obama, who he said hated American greatness and had an "anti-American mentality."

"Barack Obama is inherently dishonest, a pathological liar and a person who has surrounded himself with sycophantic, co-dependent people who are more clearly identified by their association with him than by their own accomplishments," wrote Clovis. "He is a Maoist, anti-colonialist who is also a pathological narcissist. This is a very dangerous combination."

He wrote a week later, "We need to make sure we have done everything we can to beat Barack Hussein Obama and his progressive, Maoist, anti-colonialist followers."

"Though it comes as no surprise, headlines today reveal that the National Education Association, the largest union in the United States, public or private, has asked its rank and file to support the re-election of Barack Obama. Similarly, the Service Employees International Union came out of the communist closet over the weekend, letting the world know that they are fellow travelers in pursuit of seizing the means of production and irradicating(sic) personal property rights in our market system. When one examines the reach of unions in America, one is startled to find out that some 15 million foot soldiers stand ready to march into battle for the socialist we now know is Barack Hussein Obama."

"Over the past three days on my radio show, we have been having a great discussion of the policies and consequences of the administration's latest actions in assassinating Anwar Al Awlaki. Along with Al Awlaki, Samir Khan, an American citizen as well, died in the Predator attack that killed Al Awlaki while he was in Yemen. What is not at issue is that Al Awlaki was a despicable human being who was bent on carrying out his jihad against America. He was likely the individual behind the underwear bomber and the Fort Hood shootings. Was he bad? No Question. However, he was an American citizen and he should have been extended his Constitutional protections. What is frightening is that a panel of mid-level bureaucrats is determining who gets killed and who doesn't. Are you comfortable with that? I am not, particularly when this administration wants to Mirandize enemy combatants on the battlefield and wants to try foreign-born, non-citizen terrorists in federal court with all the protections of our most sacred civil document. What am I missing here? This situation is not only indicative of being on a steep, slippery slope, but that we are sliding down this slope at breakneck speed. We already have documentation that this administration thinks that returning veterans, pro-life advocates and small government advocates are all potential terrorists. This is written down in Department of Homeland Security policy documents. Is it such a stretch to think that at some point that those who pose a threat to this administration might not move up the list generated by this secret panel? Possible? You bet. Probable? Who knows."

"Mapleton suffered the worst of the damage," Clovis wrote. "A large part of the town of 1200 was devastated by a F3 tornado that blew through about 7:30 pm. The little town was shut down by law enforcement until around 2:30 in the morning so that power lines could be restored and gas lines could be secured. By sunrise on Sunday morning, much of the situation had been contained and folks were already moving out into the little town to start the clean up. By the time the governor showed up--before noon--the streets were clear and people were out in force cleaning yards and policing up the debris around town. The power is back on but the gas lines will take a week or so to repair. Not to worry, this is Iowa. This type of resilience is so typical of this part of the country. From Texas to North Dakota and across the western part of the Midwest, the culture of this society is focused on family, community and the primacy of faith in life. Each episode like this seems to end the same way--neighbors helping neighbors get back to life as close to normal as possible. Thus, the difference in the reaction of the people in Iowa to the floods of 2008 to that of the nation during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

Read more here:
Trump nominee Sam Clovis blasted progressives as 'race traders ... - CNN (blog)

A coalition of pro-abortion-rights and progressive groups is uniting behind a statement of principles to push back against Democratic leaders who say they would welcome antiabortion candidates in 2018. Its the latest response to an issue that has repeatedly sparked infighting among progressives since the start of the year, with a new round of recriminations after Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said there was no litmus test to run as a Democrat.

Themedia has been framing this as a split between Democrats, and thats not what it is,said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL, a pro-abortion-rights organization. Among the rank-and-file groups that make up the majority of the Democratic base, there is really no split on abortion rights.

But the very existence of the statement has rankled some Democrats whove seen a sort of Groundhog Day debacle unfold over abortion rights similarstories in April, May and then July in which Democratic leaders put up a big tent for people who are antiabortion, only to be blown back by abortion rights groups.

As long as Republicans control Congress and the White House, a womans health care, her right to choose and her economic security are constantly at risk, and Democrats must continue to fight back every day, said DCCC Communications Director Meredith Kelly. The DCCC is working hard to take back the House so that Democrats can legislate on the values that our party has long held dear. Right now, that means finding candidates who are authentic and represent the values of the party, while fitting a wide variety of districts and connecting with those voters. Primary voters and local groups will ask candidates where they stand on the issues and select their nominees.

The Lujan flare-up, which began with an interview in the Hill, produced headlines such as Howard Dean to withhold support if DCCC funds candidates opposed to abortion rights,Of Course Abortion Should Be a Litmus Test for DemocratsandPeople Are Really Mad at the DCCC for Saying It Will Continue to Fund Pro-Life Candidates.

Similar stories appeared after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) campaigned for Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha who had co-sponsored antiabortion bills; more appeared after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told The Washington Postthatnot every Democrat needed to toe the line on abortion. According to Hogue, each instanceaccentuated the need for Democrats to reframe the abortion question instead of apologizing for the partys platform.

If they had given it more thought, they wouldnt be tripping up rhetorically, Hogue said. If theyd put in due diligence on the issue, thered be an easy answer.

The coalitions principles align closely with current Democratic Party positions. We know we cannot have a real conversation about economic security that does not include the ability to decide if, when, and how to raise a family, the abortion rights coalition writes. We recognize that over the last decade there has been a massive erosion of access to abortion and attacks on contraception and we cannot back away from this fight without abandoning people and undercutting core constituencies in our base.

Those sentiments were endorsed and hammered out by NARAL and Democracy for America; theyre endorsed as well by MoveOn.org, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Emilys List, the Working Families Party, Ultraviolet, Demos, the American Federation of Teachers, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the Indivisible Project, Social Security Works and Daily Kos, a blog that unendorsed Mello after learning of his abortion record.

In 2016, Democrats amended their platform to endorse more abortion rights positions than ever. For the first time, the party went on record against the Hyde Amendment, which Republicans and antiabortion Democrats pass every year to bar federal funding for abortion. But according to the only polling on the litmus test, few Democrats say theyre interested in a fight over whether individual candidates can hold antiabortion views. In a May poll conducted by YouGov, just 28 percent of Democrats said the party should back only candidates who support abortion rights.

Some Democrats, Hogue said, might be personally antiabortion without contravening the Democrats positions on legal abortion.

Data shows that lots of people who identify as pro-life believe in legal access to abortion, Hogue said. You have people like Mario Cuomo who were staunchly pro-life but never voted that way and who could speak eloquently about why. Sen. Bob Casey [a Pennsylvania Democrat] seems like a nice guy, but hes winning elections in spite of his pro-life views, not because of them. Voters really respond well to people saying to them, Look, we disagree, but heres why I hold this position.

The principles are reprinted below.

As progressives, we know we cannot have a real conversation about economic security that does not include the ability to decide if, when, and how to raise a family; that being able to plan a pregnancy has a powerful effect on educational attainment, career trajectory, and chance to define our own destinies.

As progressives, we stand united in understanding that policies that limit access to abortion and force medically unnecessary procedures are oppressive to women, especially low-income women and women of color.

As progressives, we stand united in the belief that a womans autonomy over her own body is not a secondary issue or a social issue, but rather a human right and a necessity in order to attain and preserve economic security in her life.

As progressives, we acknowledge that the current economic system is exceptionally punishing of mothers, single mothers, and mothers of color whose wages, job opportunities, and economic advancement suffer due to the motherhood penalty.

As progressives, we stand united in our belief that 21st century economic populism must include an understanding of how race and gender affect our economic reality and our economic opportunity.

As a progressive movement, we recognize that over the last decade there has been a massive erosion of access to abortion and attacks on contraception and we cannot back away from this fight without abandoning people and undercutting core constituencies in our base.

As we always have, progressives share our party with people who personally dont believe that abortion is an option for them. This includes self-identified pro-life legislators up until the moment they seek to impose those personal views on their constituents and the country. If they vote to restrict abortion access or contraception access, they then undercut the party platform and they undercut the welfare of women. We strive for and believe in personal evolution and growth so, if they have voted to do so in the past, the burden of proof is upon them through subsequent votes and/or public statements not in the heat of a campaign but prior to running for office or reelection.

Thus, as progressives, we know to organize, mobilize, and win elections we must field candidates who understand the integral nature of these core values and bring the full power of our collective base to win.

Original post:
Progressives issue 'statement of principles' on abortion rights after Democratic leaders hint at softer stance - Washington Post

What if the South had won the Civil War? Thats the premise of a new HBO series from Game of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, called Confederate. The series will be set in a present-day America in which slavery is legal, the secession of 1861 was successful, and another civil war is brewing.

Although still in its infancy, the project has already drawn backlash from progressives who are offended at the idea of two white men producing a show about modern-day slavery. A grassroots effort to quash the series spring up on Twitter under the hashtag #NoConfederate, and some have called it slavery fanfic despite assurances to the contrary from Benioff and Weiss that the show wont be some kind of weird alt-right fantasy.

But progressives shouldnt be so quick to denounce dramatic depictions of a sci-fi Confederacy. After all, modern-day progressivism is one of the Confederacys most enduring legacies in America today. Whether they realize it or not, progressives themselves are among the inheritors of the political ideology that led to the Civil War.

Civil War historian Allen C. Guelzo wrote this week that the real-life Confederacy wasnt the caricature of a rural backwater so often in popular depictions of the Civil War but an economically vibrant, industrializing region that had more in common with the modern-day administrative state than most Americans realize. But Guelzo only hints at the deeper links between Confederate governance and present-day progressivism:

The Confederate government centralized political authority in ways that made a hash of states rights, nationalized industries in ways historians have compared to state socialism, and imposed the first compulsory national draft in American history. If Benioff and Weiss are successful in creating an alternative world in Confederate, it will shock us fully as much as Game of Thrones has not for how much of the Confederate future we avoided, but how little.

If that sounds crazy to you, its because the dominant narratives about the Civil War and the South are by now so familiar, even if theyre largely wrong. Adding to the confusion is the mainstream medias penchant for portraying Republican voters in the South as a bunch of Confederate flag-waving racists, while casting progressive Democrats as defenders of equality and sincere advocates for social justice.

The truth is more complicated and more uncomfortable for progressives, should they choose to face it. And no, Im not talking about the facile argument that the Civil War was really about states rights. The war was most certainly about slavery. So much so, in fact, that decades before the war came, southern leaders were thinking about how best to preserve it in a country that was expanding westward.

Chief among them was John C. Calhoun, who could see as early as 1846 that unless more slave states were added to the nation, a growing number of new free states would eventually make it impossible for southern states to veto antislavery legislation in the Senate, as they repeatedly had done to the Wilmot Proviso in the late 1840s. Eventually, free states would have a three-fourths majority to abolish slavery by amending the Constitution without the consent of any southern states.

Calhoun considered this a tyranny of the majority, and developed a novel political theory that would preserve the minority rights of the slave states: the doctrine of the concurrent majority. Stated simply, the doctrine maintained that within the framework of American constitutionalism, certain minority groups (like slave states) had the right to veto decisions of the majority, which could only act with the acquiescence of the minority. Hence, these minorities also had the right to secede from the union secession was merely a form of veto.

The late political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa wrote that Calhouns theory was the antithesis of the Founders and Abraham Lincolns understanding of the Constitution, which held that states could only secede for just causes they could alter or abolish a tyrannical government, essentially by making the same case the Declaration of Independence made. Secession on any other basis could only lead to anarchy.

The entire purpose of Calhouns doctrine was to undermine the philosophical foundations of the Constitution and replace them with a theory supposedly derived from science, albeit the junk pseudoscience of racial inequality and Darwinism. Calhoun believed he was correcting a fundamental error of the Founding Fathers. He rejected not just the principle that all men are created equal, but also the idea that political communities are rational and voluntary. Calhoun had a Darwinian view of human nature and society; he believed, in Jaffas words, that Constitutions are the result of mindless struggles in which chance adaptation to the constitutional forms results in the benefits which causes the form to be perpetuated.

Rather than base government on the tenets of natural law liberty, equality, consent of the governedas the Founders did, Calhoun thought government should be based on scientific principles. His aim was nothing less than to redefine the basis of the American constitutional order. Unlike Lincoln and the Founders, he didnt think it was possible for a majority to respect and preserve the rights of a minority because he rejected the idea that political justice arises from human reason informing human will. He believed politics was sheer will.

Calhouns political theory anticipates in nearly every important respect the science of twentieth century behavioralism, writes Jaffa, who notes that in many ways, Calhouns scientific political thought was a precursor to Marxism, which also rejects the philosophical foundations of American constitutionalism.

Calhouns political philosophy and his doctrine of the concurrent majority didnt die with the Confederacys defeat in 1865. It lives on not among southern racists but among progressive academics like Lani Guinier, a tenured professor at Harvard Law School. Guinier is a proponent of racially proportional representation, and has argued that no legislation should pass without a majority of minority representativesessentially an updated version of Calhouns minority veto. More recently, legal scholars like Eric Posner and Nicholas Stephanopoulos have advanced modified quadratic voting theories that would replace our democratic system of one man, one vote with a scheme designed to concentrate voters interested in certain issues.

More broadly, Calhouns general philosophy of government has been adopted nearly wholesale by todays progressives. Instead of a limited government that protects our natural rights, progressives want an active, pervasive government that doles out benefits, imposes vast regulations, and dictates our affairs based on scientific principles. Whats more, progressives today reject outright the idea that the laws of nature and of natures God shaped our Constitution, which is why they seem to have such little regard for free speech and the free exercise of religion, especially when these rights are seen to impinge upon the interests of a favored minority group, whether Muslims or gay couples or transgender people.

And no wonder. The purpose of a progressive scheme of governance is to circumvent the forms and restrictions of the Constitution so the government can do things they think need to be done. Such a framework does not recognize any natural limits on the governments authority because it denies that its authority arises from the consent of equal human beings. Its authority arises from the will to power. Calhouns ideas have such currency today, writes Jaffa, because they fit within the framework of the historicism and positivism that have dominated the intellectual world of the West in the intervening years.

Not that the creators of Confederate are likely to acknowledge or represent any of this in their show. But an honest depiction of a modern-day Confederacy would hit close to home not because slavery is rampant today, but because Calhouns progressive vision of government has endured.

Read the original:
The Confederacy Still Lingers Within The Progressivism That Birthed It - The Federalist

Opinion section staff editor Bari Weiss wrote Tuesday that while she considers herself to have been a supporter of the Womens March, it turns out there is a lot not to like about its leaders, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, who also have some chilling ideas and associations.

Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke, Weiss asserts.

She notes Womens March leader Linda Sarsour this homegirl in a hijab has a history of disturbing views.

Weiss continues:

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: Nothing is creepier than Zionism, shewrotein 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, likethisfrom 2015: Youll know when youre living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesnt it? She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali inthe most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is not a real woman and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Alis vagina this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.

Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right andmotivatedby Islamophobia. Plus, theyve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.

Weiss observes, however as did CNNs Jake Tapper that Sarsour has been spewing hate as recently as July 16, when the Womens March tweeted a birthday greeting to revolutionary #AssataShakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.s list of most wanted terrorists.

Subsequent to Sarsours reply to Tapper that he was now aligning with the alt-right against her, Weiss asks, Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.

She continues that Womens March leader and black activist Tamika Mallory is not only an admirer of Assata Shakur, but is also a fan of Fidel Castro who gave Shakur a safe haven in Cuba.

We have some nerve!

A post shared by Tamika D. Mallory (@tamikadmallory) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:53am PST

Similarly, Mallory and her colleague Carmen Perez are devotees of Louis Farrakhan, Weiss writes, who is notorious for his anti-Semitic comments.

The editor observes:

WhatisMr. Farrakhans truth? Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since he has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page hascalledtwisted, remain as appalling as ever.

And dont you forget, when its God who puts you in the ovens, its forever! he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. HecalledHitler a very great man on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a gutter religion.

Weiss points out some of Farrakhans other views that still are managing to endear him to progressive Womens March-ers:

Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950sviewsof gender: Your professional lives cant satisfy your soul like a good, loving man. Recently hetoldJay-Z that he should make Beyonc put on some clothes. He alsoopposesgay marriage.

Resist Trump Womens March supporters are likely toget their dander up when Weiss takes them to task, likening their antics to those of the populist, racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump the White House and are now hollowing out the Republican Party.

She acknowledges that, for her views, she will likely be tarred as Islamophobic, alt-right, or some equally heinous label by Womens March supporters.

But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships, Weiss asserts. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:
NYT Editor: Women's March Progressives Who 'Embrace Hate' - Breitbart News