Others have done all the hard work on this, so I’ll skip the appetizers and go straight to the main course.

The Redstate blogger known as “Augustine” and Ben Domenech are apparently one in the same:

Later that p.m., a RedState post titled “We Need John Shadegg” was posted by “The Directors” — Krempasky, Ben “Augustine” Domenech, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar — urging in bright red oversized letters: “Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader. This matters.”

More after the flip . . . .
The folks at Your Logo Here put out a call for those who are interested to come up with an “Augustine’s Greatest Hits,” if you will, a highlight loop of the best of Domenech’s neo-fascist ramblings. They certainly came up with a few gems:

Perusing an old blog of Ben’s, here’s some wisdom from Ben Domenech, the college years:

Hopefully today’s military action will be the first of a long campaign, though I’ve always preferred drop teams to smart bombs.

Peace Through Superior Thermonuclear Capability.[10/7/01]

Never trust a male cheerleader. [12/12/01] (You know, Ben, Bush was a male cheerleader)

If I was two or three years younger, I would at this very moment be emerging from the warm smells of popcorn and ju-ju bees to the air outside, fresh from the glory of the first showing of The Lord of the Rings. [12/19/01]but wait, Ben, I thought “Red Dawn” was the greatest movie ever…)

Post-9/11 TV Host of the Year: Jon Stewart
Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas
Winner of the Year (uncontested): God [1/4/02]

“It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,” [NARAL President Kate] Michelman said. “I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn’t need anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person.”

How about the fact that having an abortion would result in the death of a person, Kate? Did you need a sonogram to remember that? [2/2/02]

Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]

Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is a man of deep spiritual intelligence, a modern St. Augustine of jurisprudence. [2/5/02]

I don’t know about you, but the more Colin Powell insults the French, the more I like him. [2/20/02]

On Protest: It’s totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile. [3/24/03]

I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don’t think we’re going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad. [3/30/03]

Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq — and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow. [3/28/03]

And here is my absolute favorite find so far:

Claude Allen is as clearcut as a razor’s edge. He’s a stand-up, principled Virginian. [5/13/03]

Claude Allen, of course, was recently arrested for a felony theft scheme.

These quotes are pretty stupid, needless to say. Today, however, Steve Gilliard uncovers a whopper, in which Augustine appears to endorse the genocide of African-Americans:

People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: “Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

Click the link to Gilliard’s site and be sure to drink some Maalox before you do so. There’s much more.

So why the hell is the Washington Post hiring this person?  He has absolutely no experience which would warrant giving him such a position, and his demographic is a cross-section of some of the most virulently-racist right-wing nuts this country has to offer.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m going to give L’il Debbie a piece of my mind.

Here’s the email address for those who wish to do the same: ombudsman@washpost.com

0 0 votes
Article Rating