In a long, meandering, barely-coherent screed against the pro-Israel, pro-peace group J Street published in Pajamas Media, former AIPAC researcher, Netanyahu adviser, and current West Bank settler Lenny Ben-David attempts to raise suspicion about the group by noting that some of its supporters are Arab:

Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.

Spencer Ackerman writes “You will notice that nowhere in Lenny Ben-David’s post is there any accusation that Rebecca has taken any sort of objectionable stand or made any sort of objectionable point. And that’s because it is impossible to do so.” Ben-David’s attack on is premised entirely on her Arab background, and on the presumption that it is impossible for those of Arab background to be both pro-Israel and pro-peace.

MJ Rosenberg, who worked with Ben-David when he was research director for AIPAC, writes that Ben-David “compiled files on everyone who criticized Israeli policies in any way and used the material he gathered to destroy careers.” Looks like Ben-David’s habits haven’t changed much — only now he’s going after people simply for the offense of having an Arab name. “The racist tribalism” behind Ben-David’s argument, writes Andrew Sullivan, “is surely part of the problem, not the solution.”

Even Jeffrey Goldberg, who regularly smears those with whom he disagrees on the issue of Israel, thinks Ben-David’s post was too much. That’s saying something.

Roy Beck, director of NumbersUSA — a group described as being part of a network of “anti-immigration” organizations — has released a video in which he claims to “stand up for Hispanics” by blasting Latino groups for promoting comprehensive immigration reform and supporting a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants:

“The thing that I really want to focus on today though is our need to stand up for Hispanic Americans…Well, I want to tell you that nearly all Hispanic advocacy groups are working against the interests of Latino voters…

Since so much attention is placed on how we need to have comprehensive immigration reform for the sake of the Hispanics — no that would be the most anti-Hispanic thing to do. We must speak with confidence about the fact that what we advocate: lower immigration — in fact an immigration suspension and no amnesty — is probably the most pro-Hispanic thing that Congress could do.”

Watch it:

Considering the fact that 89% of Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform which includes a pathway to legalization, Beck is essentially saying that Latinos don’t know what’s best for them. However, most research suggests they do. The Immigration Policy Center points out that “legalizing undocumented workers would improve wages and working conditions for all workers, and increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments.” In fact, had the comprehensive immigration reform bill of 2006 passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would’ve generated $66 billion in new revenue during 2007-2016. Beck also forgets that many “Hispanic Americans” have friends and family who are undocumented or who want to emigrate to the US to be with their loved ones, but can’t due to the government’s tight green card caps.

In fact, NumbersUSA attributes “America’s current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, [and] school overcrowding” to what they refer to as “family chain migration.” NumbersUSA also has no problem with separating mixed-status families. In fact, they support a policy of “attrition through enforcement,” which means deporting as many immigrants as possible and making life in the US unbearable for undocumented immigrants who stay. That’s despite the fact that a policy designed to deport the approximately 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the US would cost at least $206 billion over five years, or $41.2 billion annually.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) acknowledges that Beck “says he’s no racist,” but he certainly pals around with them an awful lot. According to SPLC, Beck worked under John Tanton for ten years as an editor of Tanton’s journal, The Social Contract, which frequently features the writings of white nationalists. Tanton is described as the wealthy “racist founder of many of the nation’s key nativist groups” who has also dabbled in eugenics and is known for his anti-Semitism and racist statements about Latinos. SPLC goes further to claim that the Beck and Tanton families vacationed together, despite the fact that Beck continues to “understate” his relationship with him. SPLC identifies NumbersUSA as part of the “Nativist Lobby,” a group of three Washington, D.C.-based immigration-restriction organizations conceived and created by Tanton himself.

One of the most interesting things about Christopher Hitchens’ latest argument for war — other than its extraordinarily bad timing, considering the positive news coming out of Vienna — is that he really seems to be under the impression that the Iraq war has gone well, and that he didn’t come out of it looking like kind of a fool.

Hitchens writes that opponents of the Iraq invasion claimed that “a military move against Saddam Hussein would incite him to saturate our troops with chemical weapons, ignite the oilfields, destroy Israel, inflame the ‘Arab street,’ and overthrow every friendly Middle Eastern government, etc., etc.”

Those of us who wanted to get rid of these hideous governments were bombarded with arguments that said, in effect, they are not only a threat but actually a lethal threat, and their forces are made up of people who are 10 feet tall.

Leaving aside how many of the war’s opponents did, in fact, make these specific claims, it’s pretty bizarre that Hitchens seems to consider it a vindication that all that did happen in Iraq was that the war attracted thousands of jihadists whose brutal attacks on civilians lit off a sectarian civil war which killed over 100,000 people and maimed many times that while functioning as an insurgent training ground for those who are now killing our troops in Afghanistan with tactics and tech developed in Iraq. Oh, and Iran also used that time to ramp up its nuclear program while trying not to laugh as the U.S. established Iran’s former clients as Iraq’s new rulers.

But Hitchens simply ignores this, as acknowledging it would make it difficult for him to portray opponents of forcibly liberating disarming Iran as a bunch of Nervous Nellies:

I have never been present for any discussion of any measures that could even thinkably be taken against Tehran that does not focus obsessively and exclusively on the possibly calamitous outcomes. Israel hits Iran and — well, you fill in the rest. The target sites are, anyway, too much dispersed and too deeply buried. You know how it goes.

And that’s how Hitchens simply waves away the concerns of people like Defense Secretary Gates, Anthony Cordesman, and Gen. Anthony Zinni, to name only a few who of those who have acknowledged that an attack on Iran — while setting back the Iranian nuclear program only temporarily — would “give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism,” as Cordesman wrote in a report earlier this year. But you know how it goes.

As for the “10 feet tall” argument, this is another straw man, an increasingly common one among the “bomb Iran” set. The key thing to understand in regard to Iran’s likely response to an attack, however, is precisely that Iran is not 10 feet tall, and Iran knows this, and has based its asymmetric retaliatory capability around this fact, building strategic depth through relationships with militant organizations throughout the region, which would enable it to cause trouble for U.S. interests and allies in various places and ways.

The bottom line here is that war is a serious, deeply consequential and unpredictable business, to be avoided whenever possible. Those who traffic in best case scenarios are simply asking to be ignored. It speaks well of Hitchens that he has the good sense to be uncomfortable with the label “neoconservative,” but as long as he persists in equating “a robust American attitude toward totalitarian and aggressive states” with “launching stupid and counterproductive wars,” the label will, alas, continue to apply.

Iowa businessman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong appeared before the Iowa Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) this past weekend, a self-proclaimed vigilante group. Fong, who describes himself as the son of a Chinese immigrant and Nebraska farm girl, urged Iowa minutemen to adopt a friendlier approach towards legal immigrants.

Fong agreed with the minutemen that immigration laws need to be enforced and public benefits to undocumented immigrants restricted, but reminded the crowd that “it’s important for the Republican Party to not sound so angry…otherwise, we lose that whole bunch [immigrant voters].” Fong is referring to the growing population of legal immigrants in Iowa who are becoming US citizens and exercising their right to vote. According to Fong, being inclusive and “sounding more welcoming” towards legal immigrants is simply “good politics.”

However, actions speaks louder than words. It’s doubtful that Fong somehow overlooked the fact that he was speaking to a group that has been repeatedly identified as a right-wing anti-immigrant militia. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the Minutemen as a loose network of local chapters whose primary goal is to keep undocumented immigrants from Mexico out of the country. Nonetheless, they often target anyone who looks like they fit that category. Though it was originally started as a border vigilante group made up of armed volunteers, many chapters — like Iowa’s — aren’t anywhere near the border and instead employ tactics such as videotaping dark-skinned people at their workplace who they believe are undocumented. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists 11 local Iowa MCDC chapters on its “nativist extremist group” list and warns that the group is a magnet for violent extremists. Its founder, Chris Simcox denies such warnings, despite the fact that someone like Shawna Forde — a woman recently accused of murdering a 9-year-old Latina and her father — was formerly associated with his group.

It’s wise of Fong to suggest Republicans cool down their anti-immigrant rhetoric, but headlining a MCDC event probably lost him whatever points his moderate tone might have won him within the community of immigrants who “use[d] proper channels” to come to the US. Also, approaching legal immigrants with a more welcoming attitude while shutting the door in the face of many of their undocumented friends and family members will only get Fong so far. Ultimately, Republicans can’t just expect a change of tone without a corresponding adjustment in their immigration platform is going to win them the critical immigrant and Latino vote.

During his speech before the Minuteman, Fong also compared President Obama to mid-20th Century Chinese Communists that promised “hope and change.” Bleeding Heartland asks Fong to “make up his mind” on whether he’s going to be “the GOP’s hopeful, inclusive-talking guy” or not.