The Madness of King Charles

Pamela Geller provides this screen capture from Little Green Footballs:

It's obvious that anti-jihad conservative bloggers now have another jihad to deal with: Charles Johnson's pathological obssession with folks like Pamela and Robert Spencer, and now Michelle Malkin and Robert Stacy McCain.

This conflict is not really about Geller and Spencer's alleged ties to neo-fascist groups.

This story is about Charles Johnson losing his mind. If you check Robert Spencer's response to LGF yesterday, "Charles Johnson's latest libels answered," you'll find that Johnson has blocked the outgoing hyperlinks coming from Jihad Watch. As Robert suggests, "paste the link into your address bar and it will work."

So much for the free exchange of ideas and debate?

It's one thing to disagree with others on the issues, and to defend your positions vigorously. It's quite another to have some psychological syndrome that demands the elimination of competing information that might cause cognitive dissonance. Charles Johnson's a bloody tyrant.

I keep seeing notes at various blogs from former LGF commenters who've been banned. I had one last week at my page, but Always on Watch jumped into my thread the other day with this update:

Despite my having taken a strong and public stand against ethnic supremacism, the same stand as Charles Johnson took (See this post I did back in 2007), I was banned at LGF some time back, around the time I interviewed Robert Spencer on The Gathering Storm Radio Show. As far as I know, nothing in that interview was in any way directed at Charles Johnson, nor had the great rift between Spencer and Johnson yet occurred.

Charles Johnson bans commenters based on those bloggers' blogrolls. Link to anything of which he disapproves, and out you go. I wonder if he bans bloggers who link to Christian sites? LGF has taken a decidedly anti-Christian turn in the past several months.

Also, check out this commenter from Atlas Shrugs from a couple of weeks ago:

Ok, I just got banned from LGF. I'm sure I'm one of many. Actually, it wasn't that hard to do. Simply posit an opinion different from the "Lizard King" and you're "Banned".

So much for.....

"Welcome, newcomers. Our community is enriched by numerous differing points of view and perspectives. Those who are unable to obey the rules will find the deletion and banning sticks wielded rather quickly. Those who can follow the rules will find that we can have lively discussions, so long as the rules posted above are followed. No personal attacks, and no advocacy of violence."

You never get a chance to explain yourself. They take your post out of context and immediately you get banned, before you can even clarify what you're talking about. Over the past few months, his site has been getting really weird. All this evolution crap and bashing Talk radio.... not what I expected from a conservative blog. I'm sure it's going down hill very quickly. Personally, I'm done with LGF.

Pam, your site is great. I read it everyday! Thanks for letting me speak my mind.

Robert Stacy McCain has a post up on the controversy, and he notes:

Charles Johnson seems determined to travel the same road that took David Brock from being a famous investigative reporter to being the hack-in-chief at Media Matters. It saddens me.

More later...

**********

UPDATE: McClatchy Watch was just banned at LGF yesterday. See, "Weird ... erratic blogger Charles Johnson blocks my account at Little Green Footballs."

Israeli Women Soldiers

Via Glenn Reynolds, Rachel Papo offers a compelling photo gallery of Israeli women soldiers:

Americans Split on Obama's Interrogations Policy

From the new Washington Post survey, via (Memeorandum):

Barack Obama's performance in the first 100 days of his presidency draws strong public approval in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, but there is decidedly less support for his recent decision to release previously secret government memos on the interrogation of terrorism suspects, an initiative that reveals deep partisan fissures.

Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects. About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Barely more than half of all poll respondents back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques. A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it. Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision.

The release of the documents, which was fiercely debated at high levels within the government, met with quick fire from former vice president Richard B. Cheney, who said last week that companion memos showing the "success of the effort" should be declassified as well, arguing that the methods had "been enormously valuable in terms of saving lives, preventing another mass casualty attack against the United States."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who served in the same position in George W. Bush's administration, supported the release of the documents but said it made him "quite concerned with the potential backlash in the Middle East and in the theaters where we are involved in conflict -- that it might have a negative impact on our troops."

Hmm, a "negative impact on our troops?

Let's see what Cop the Truth says about that:

To me, the question is a simple one: if your family was in immediate danger, your friends and neighbors, wouldn't you do everything possible to protect them? What if it was thousands of your countrymen whose lives could be saved? Wouldn't you throw their would-be murderer into a cold room and blare Barry Manilow at him for a few hours? Or dunk him repeatedly in water, with medical personnel standing by to make sure that he wouldn't be permanently injured?

Of course you would! If you wouldn't, you're a coward who doesn't deserve the freedom that others have purchased for you with their blood. Run along and stick your head in the sand and pray that better people than you are running this country.

Related: Rasmussen Reports, "58% Oppose Further Investigation of U.S. Torture Allegations." Also, Nice Deb, "Most Americans Want Obama To Move On."

Obama's Post-American World

From Mark Steyn's Sunday column:

... 100 days into a new presidency Barack Obama is giving strong signals to the world that we have entered what Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post calls "the post-American era." At the time of Gordon Brown's visit to Washington, London took umbrage at an Obama official's off-the-record sneer to a Fleet Street reporter that "there's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." Andy McCarthy of National Review made the sharp observation that, never mind the British, this was how the administration felt about its own country, too: America is just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. In Europe, the president was asked if he believed in "American exceptionalism," and he replied: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Gee, thanks. A simple "no" would have sufficed. The president of the United States is telling us that American exceptionalism is no more than national chauvinism, a bit of flag-waving, of no more import than the Slovenes supporting the Slovene soccer team and the Papuans the Papuan soccer team. This means something. The world has had two millennia to learn to live without "Greek exceptionalism." It's having to get used to post-exceptional America rather more hurriedly.

It makes sense from Obama's point of view: On the domestic scene, he's determined on a transformational presidency, one that will remake the American people's relationship to their national government ("federal" doesn't seem the quite the word anymore) in terms of health care, education, eco-totalitarianism, state control of the economy and much else. With a domestic agenda as bulked up as that, the rest of the world just gets in the way.

You'll recall that, in a gimmick entirely emblematic of post-exceptional America, Hillary Clinton gave the Russians a (mistranslated) "Reset" button. The button has certainly been "reset" – to Sept. 10, to a legalistic rear-view-mirror approach to the "war on terror," in which investigating Bush officials will consume far more time and effort than de-nuking Iran. The secretary of Homeland Security's ludicrous reclassification of terrorism as "man-caused disaster," and her boneheaded statement that the Sept. 11 bombers had entered America from Canada (which would presumably make 9/11 a "Canadian man-caused disaster") exemplifies the administration's cheery indifference to all that Bush-era downer stuff.

But it's not Sept. 10. In Pakistan, a great jewel is within the barbarians' reach, the first of many. At the United Nations, the Islamic bloc's proscriptions on free speech will make it harder even to talk about these issues. In much of the West, demographic decay means the good times are never coming back: recession is permanent.

Hey, what's the big deal? Britain and France have been on the geopolitical downward slope for most of the past century, and life still seems pretty agreeable. Well, yes. But that's in part because, when a fading Britannia handed the baton to the new U.S. superpower, it was one of the least disruptive transfers of global dominance in human history. In the "post-American era," to whom does the baton get passed now?

Since January, President Obama and his team have schmoozed, ineffectively, American enemies over allies in almost every corner of the globe. If you're, say, India, following Obama's apology tour even as you watch the Taliban advancing on those Pakistani nukes, would you want to bet the future on American resolve? In Delhi, in Tokyo, in Prague, in Tel Aviv, in Bogota, they've looked at these first 100 days and drawn their own conclusions.

Full Metal Saturday: Kristen Dalton

With most of the attention on the Carrie Prejean controversy this week, it's been easy to overlook the accomplishments of the winner of the Miss USA contest, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina:

Actually Pirate's Cove reported on Ms. Dalton's win on Sunday, before the gay marriage brouhaha kicked up.

In any case, Ms. Dalton's a beautiful woman (with a family of beauty contestants), and she managed to remain on the sidelines all week without throwing any fat on the fire.

So with that, let's start hitting the links with our Saturday "Rule 5" roundup of greatest blogging hits.

Leading off, check out the impressive entry from Carol at No Sheeples Here!, "In Shameless Pursuit Of Rule 5 Sunday For April 26, 2009." See also, TrogloPundit's entry, "Rule 5, big-hearted entrepreneurism, and supporting the troops!"

For some hilarious anti-Rule 5 blogging, see the gruesome comparison of the "two Janets" at Snooper Report (Janet Napolitano and Janet Reno, and sorry, but, ughh!).

Also fun is Suzanna Logan's, "Torture a Terrorist for Less Than a Dollar!." And get some advice on coffee drinking from Stogie at Saber Point, "The Perils of Caffeine: or How Stogie Upped His Game."

For more subdued blogging, check Obi's Sister's, "Sad Saturday Georgia Round-up."

In political news, see Moe Lane, "Liz Cheney breaks Norah O’Donnell on ‘torture’ discussion," as well as Skye at Midnight Blue, "Pelosi Lied, Terrorists Died." And the related post from Darleen at Protein Wisdom, "The late great (free) America."

Plus, Joseph at Valley of the Shadow, "I do not believe the Democrats regarding the Torture Memos: Prove me wrong." And Dan Riehl, "Obama: Just Another Liberal Hack Politician."

And for great blogging news, Jimmy at Sundries Shack reports that Elizabeth Scalia of The Anchoress will now be writing at First Things. Congratulations!

Now, I NEED TO PUT THIS IN CAPITALIZED ITALICS, because I owe my new friend Jehuda at The Rhetorican some big-time linkage!

Plus, check out my regular reader and occasional commenter, Chris Wysocki, who is blogging up a storm in New Jersey; and don't forget Dave at Point of a Gun!

Ken Davenport has been finding time between business and family for some quality blogging, so check him out! And Pundette's eschewed her Saturday roundup, but the "NASA image of Saturn" makes up for it!

Last but not least, check out Courtney at GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD!

E-mail me for inclusion in upcoming roundups, and if I missed anyone, just give me a holler!

Let the Hearings Begin!

It's hardly news that the secular collectivist antiwar forces would love to have Dick Cheney's head on a pike. With that said, let me make the obligatory references to the latest developments in the ongoing push for "torture trials" against former Bush administration officials.

Hilzoy actually offers an interesting perspective on things, dismissing the "revenge" meme, in her essay, "My Allegedly Vengeful Heart." She's responding to David Broder's column today, "Stop Scapegoating: Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions." As Broder notes, citing the left's need for revenge:

Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more - the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps - or, at least, careers and reputations.

I think that's exactly it, although I would add that leftists are in fact frightened that their electoral victory is fragile, and they bet that Soviet-style show trials will work to bolster their power by casting all sorts of vicious allegations and slander against their political enemies. It's diversionary politics at its finest. Even Porter Goss, the former Director of Central Intelligence, has stepped up to speak out against the witch hunts, in "Security Before Politics."

But let's check in with one of my absolutely favorite writers, Noemie Emery, in her essay, "Telling the Truth: Let the Hearings Begin!":

Some Democrats, from the White House on down, are pushing the idea of a "truth commission," à la South Africa, to deal with the "harsh measures" used by the Bush administration in interrogating al Qaeda detainees. Good. Let's have lots of truthtelling. Please bring it on.

Let's tell the truth about Bush's conduct of the war on terror, which is that it's been a success. His ultimate legacy hasn't been written--Iraq is improved, but not out of danger--but the one thing that can be said without reservation is that the country was kept safe. He delivered on the main charge of his office in time of emergency, in a crisis without guidelines or precedent. Attacks took place in Spain, and in London, in Indonesia and India, but not on American soil, which was the obvious target of choice. Bush couldn't say this before he left office, for obvious reasons, and after he left, attention switched to the new president. This little fact dropped down the memory hole, but with all this discussion, it will rise to the surface. Let the hearings begin!

Also dropped down the memory hole--along with the names of all the Democrats who thought Saddam was a menace who cried out for removal--is what the ambience was like in late 2001 and 2002, when fears of anthrax and suitcase bombs ran rampant, and people on all sides tried to seem tough. Let's tell the truth about all the liberals who went on record supporting real torture, not to mention the Democrats in Congress, when it was cool to want to seem tough on our enemies, who couldn't be too warlike. Then war and tough measures stopped being cool, and "world opinion" became more important. Nothing like statements under oath to revive ancient memories! And rewind the tapes.

Let's get at the truth too about the word "torture," which to different people, means different things. Some think "torture" means standing on the 98th floor of a burning skyscraper and realizing you have a choice between jumping and being incinerated. Some think torture is being crushed when a building implodes around you. Some think torture is not thinking you might drown for several minutes, but looking at burning buildings on television and knowing that people you love are inside them. They remember that being crushed, incinerated, or killed in a jump from the 98th story happened to almost 3,000 blameless Americans (as well as a number of foreigners), and that 125 Pentagon employees were killed at their desks, while many survivors suffered terrible burns. They think the choice between stopping this from happening again by slapping around or scaring the hell out of a cluster of brigands, or leaving the brigands alone and letting it happen again, is a no-brainer.

Not much polling has been done to date about attitudes on waterboarding and torture held by the general public (as opposed to MoveOn.org and the Washington press corps), but it would surely be done in the event of hearings and trials. Not many people think being slapped hard is the same thing as having to jump from a building. Democrats might find the truth about this to be inconvenient indeed.

Let's get at the truth, not merely about the administration before this one, but of all of the ones that came before that. If we prosecute people in government who try to save American lives by doing "harsh" things to America's enemies, why should we stop at 2001? There's President Truman, who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing and injuring tens of thousands of innocent people. Impeach him in retrospect, for the women and children. Talk about harsh. Go back before him, and impeach FDR: Without him, there would have been no Manhattan Project, specifically conceived to be "harsh" on the enemy. And why stop with them? There's Ike, and John Kennedy, who were in the armed forces, and certainly meant to cause harm to the enemy. They were all, of course, much too "harsh" to be president. Good liberals ought to be troubled by that.

There's more at the link, via Memeorandum. And God Bless Noemie Emery.

Mark Levin's Conservative Manifesto

Readers might be surprised, with my schedule and commitments, that I find the time to get a lot of reading done. I should be reading more, actually, but I have been able to sock away a few choice titles this last few months. I'll put up a little bibliography on the books I've read this year at some point, so keep your eyes peeled for that.

For now I just wanted to say a few things about Mark Levin's, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. I picked up a copy at the bookstore sometime after April 1st. I read it pretty quickly, but one thing led to another (especially the Tea Parties), and I put off reviewing until right now.

The book's currenty #2 on Amazon's best-seller list, so demand for conservative ideas is clearly robust. Recall we saw huge crowds of excited conservatives waiting hours in line to get a signed copy of the book last month. I too was excited about getting my hands on one of them. As so many others, I'm hoping and yearning for some direction and optimism that can lead conservatives - and perhaps the GOP - back to power sooner rather than later. While Barack Obama's election is generally not considered a relaligning one, we're certainly in a period of "public purpose" rather than "private interest" (to borrow from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's., typology), with long-term implications for American government and political culture.

At base, Levin's thesis is a call to constitutional principles. He advocates not just a return to conservative principles in the mold of Barry Goldwater's, Conscience of a Conservative, but also stresses a privileged emphasis on restoring the animating vision of liberty and individualism of the nation's founding. I was especially pleased with the book's strong reminder of God as the natural rights foundation of our political regime. Jefferson and the later delegates at Philadelphia in 1776 were diverse in religious denominations, but all had a distinct grounding in a universal power of goodness in the cosmos from which mankind was endowed with inalienable rights. Levin's discussion of this Natural Law tradition is powerful reading.

Surprisingly, I found errors in some of Levin's coverage of the key issues at the founding, or at least his interpretation seemed unorthodox from the perspective of a professor of political science. For example, speaking of the compromises of federalism and slavery in the Constitution, Levin writes:

The oppression of African-Americans was never compatible with the civil society, although some northern state delegates recognized this fact and sought to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention. The southern states would not unite behind such as constitution. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that certain compromises were reached with the Southern state delegates respecting slavery. The constitution they adopted empowered Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves to the United States in twenty years' time, which it did. It reduced the influence the southern states would have in the House of Representatives by counting slaves as three-fifths persons for the purpose of apportioning seats. Unfortunately, the southern states did succeed in inserting language requiring the return of slaves who escaped to other states. However, the Constitution did not, as some contend, compel the practice of slavery.

This passage is a bit strained. The compromises of 1787 legitimized slavey, if not compelled it. And rather than "reduce the influence" of the southern states, the "Three-Fifths Compromise" likely empowered the southern states to a greater degree than would have been true had slaves not counted for purposes of representation in Congress (the southern states held 45 percent of the seats in the House of Represenatives with slavery, and 35 percent without). And because each state's Electoral College vote is equal to that state's legislative apportionment, southern states would have more influence in the selection of the president than had slaves not been counted at all.

But issues like this are hardly damaging to the power of Levin's vision for a restoration of first principles of American constitutionalism. A look at the book's table of contents reveals a straightforward amalgamation of theory and practice. Levin examines federalism and economic liberty, the welfare-state and "enviro-Statism" (where Levin discussion the leftist agenda with the fervor of free-market economist), and immigration and national defense. The book's conclusion lays out a "conservative manifesto" which provides a simple road map and agenda for the restoration of an individual-maximizing polity of constitutional liberty.

As one who stresses strong national defense, I came to Levin's discussion of America's role in the world with a little trepidation. Because so much of the book's discussion would warm the hearts of libertarian-oriented conservatives, I had almost expected a "come home America" approach to American foreign policy under the Levin manifesto. But I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised with the discussion (I felt almost a transcendental affinity for the author). On Iraq, for example, which has been the focus of endless debates in American politics, between parties and within them, Levin comes down squarely in the "necessary war" camp. America should fight only when vital national security interests are at stake. Yet, as Levin clearly demonstrates, the national interest was deeply implicated in the Iraqi regime's violations of interational law and in the expansionist intentions of the leadership of the state.

Reviewing the debate on the right on the justification for the war (and especially the establishment critiques of William Buckly and George Will), Levin writes:

If the war in Iraq is understood as an effort to defeat a hostile regime that threatened both America's allies and interests in the region, the war and the subsequent attempts at democratic governance in that country can be justified as consistent with founding and conservative principles. Indeed, since the Will-Buckley exchange, when victory in Iraq appeared elusive to some, changes in military and political strategies dramatically improved the situation. Of course, Iraq is not necessarily a model for future engagements but nor can it easily be dismissed as unreasonable and imprudent. Saddam's Iraq had a history of aggressive behavior against America's ally Kuwait (and threatened Saudi Arabia) and had actively pursued nuclear weapons (such as Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, destroyed by Israel in 1981). The United States and its allies no longer face the prospect of a nuclear Iraq under the control of a megalomaniac. For now, at least, it is one less destabilizing threat to American interests.

This brief passage is so simple and clear. Just reading it is like a breath of fresh air after years of recriminations over every possible angle of political conflict related to war, peace, and domestic civil liberties.

In articulating a realistic case for the exercise of military force, Levin echoes not only Barry Goldwater's discussion of a robust Cold War foreign policy as the sine qua non for the preservation if liberty at home, he's also in sinc with more neoconservative-oriented analysts who place a priority on national defense and forward strategic doctrines of hard power (see, especially, Peter Berkowitz, "Constitutional Conservatism).

The flip side of Levin's realistic embrace of America's forward world role is that "libertarian" conservatives in the mold of Patrick Buchanan or Ron Paul will find little to agree with on foreign policy. Indeed, Levin's likely to be attacked mercilessly by these folks as a "faux" conservative and an imperialist warmonger.

Leven finds no fault with me, however, other than the small quibbles I mentioned above. On questions of faith and culture, liberty and markets, and the security of our borders and our national interests abroad, Tyranny and Liberty is a commanding achievement. I hope it's widely read as the conservative/small government movement consolidates the wave of Tea Party demonstrations that have swept the country in recent weeks.

2,974 Reasons For Supporting "Enhanced Interrogation"

The "torture" debate continues tonight, with articles at the Washinton Post and The Plum Line (via Memeorandum).

Cartoon Credit: Investor's Business Daily.

Art Posters: The Cotton Pickers, 1876

Via Maggie's Farm, Steve Sailor has posted some cool information on the most popular art posters: "Painters: Scholarly eminence vs. 'Will this go with my couch?' popularity":

The ten top painters who do best among the poster-buying public relative to their more moderate historical prominence (i.e., their influence on subsequent artists) are:

Claude Monet
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
Vincent Van Gogh
Salvador Dali
Camille Pissarro
Edgar Degas
Henri Rousseau
Fra Angelico
Marc Chagall

These are definitely not unimportant figures in the history of art - they're just even more popular now than they were influential then.

Basically, to sell a lot of posters in the 21st Century, you will have wanted to have been in Paris in the late 19th Century.

All of this is even more interesting in my case, as I've been talking (e-mailing) with Rusty Walker about my favorite artists. As I was telling Rusty, I just love Winslow Homer, and especially the painting above, The Cotton Pickers, 1876.

The piece is in the permanent collection at the Los Angeles County Museum of art. I first say the painting in about 1988, on my first visit to LACMA. Then, a couple of years back when I visited the museum for the temporary exhibit of "Gustav Klimt's 1907 masterpiece 'Adele Bloch-Bauer I'"(see Wikipedia's entry for the painting's image and background drama).

I picked up the poster for it after my second visit to the showing. My other favorite painting at LACMA - and one of the most breathtaking pieces of art I've ever seen upon my first viewing in person - is Julius L. Stewart's, The Baptism, 1892. I post a photo image of the Stewart masterpiece soon.

Bill Maher's Angry Tea Party Rant

Here's Mary Kate Cary on Bill Maher's essay at today's Los Angeles Times:

Bill Maher, following behind Janeane Garofalo and Robert Shrum earlier this week, continues the left's angry diatribe against the tea party protests in today's L.A. Times. His column is one big, ugly, name-calling screed, moving past the tax day protests to call all Republicans "a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand.

Ms. Cary quotes Maher at length (he claims Tea Partyers are attacking the "black guy" in the White House), then adds:

Somebody's got to stand up to this kind of attitude, so here it goes. Maher's belittling tone, pervasive sarcasm, and nasty one-liners are just plain mean. The "black guy" line is offensive on a number of levels. Bill Maher has shown himself to be arrogant, snide, and completely outside of the mainstream. As I asked earlier this week, why is the left so angry? What's going on here?

What Maher doesn't seem to get is that while most Americans—including many Republicans and conservatives—personally like President Obama and wish him well, there are plenty of people with legitimate concerns about some of his policies. I find it deeply disturbing that reasonable people who stand up and say they're worried about the amount of taxing and spending are being called racists. There is a battle of ideas going on in America right now—from tax policy to torture memos—and it doesn't have anything to do with the color of anyone's skin.

Exactly.

Janeane Garofalo's San Francisco Values

From Burt Prelutsky, "Janeane: An ‘I Hate Myself’ Production":

“Our country is founded on a sham. Our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, ‘Oh, my god, you’re insulting me.’ That you can have a gay pride parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float, cheering, ‘We’re here and we’re queer!’ — that’s what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride.”

But, of course, Garofalo's not "representative of the whole group" of extreme left-wing America-bashers.

Yeah. Right.

Dick Morris: Obama in Bed With Our Enemies

Check out Sean Hannity's interview last night with Dick Morris, "Torture vs. Interrogation":

Morris goes down the list: "If you're an enemy of the United States - Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Hamas - he's in bed with you."

Catch all the latest on the "torture" debate at Memeorandum, especially, Powerline, "Voters Unimpressed By Dems' "Torture" Theme."

Rule 5 Rescue: Jennifer Love Hewitt

I just dropped off my oldest boy at school. I picked up a cup of coffee at 7/11 on the way home, and the latest edition of Maxim was in the racks at the cash register. Jennifer Love Hewitt sure is sexy!

Also "Rule 5" blogging:

* Fausta, "When Van meet Monie."

* HotMES, "Rule Five Sunday: More KP Action."

* James Joyner, "Susan Boyle Gets Makeover."

* Moe Lane, "Tina, not Dusty."

* Nikki Richards, "Here's a Couple of Big Reasons to Celebrate Earth Day ..."

* No Sheeples Here!, "A Tale of Two Women."

* PoliGazette, "Berlusconi’s Secret for Success Revealed: Sexy Ladies."

* Saber Point, "Miss California Carrie Prejean: A Class Act."

* Suzanna Logan, "Hot (?) Conservative non-Blonde from Alabama?"

* TrogloPundit, "Another day, another 500 people searching for Yuri Fujikawa."

* Wellywanger, "Early Bedtime Totty ..."

Previously:

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Ashley Swearengin."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Scarlett Johansson."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Katy Perry."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Helen Mirren."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova."

Honorary Rule 5 inclusion: Jules Crittenden, "The Pink Lady."

Concerning the "Anti-Jihadist" Blogosphere

I need to set out some positions regarding the flame up that's been roiling the conservative blogosphere in recent weeks.

As readers know, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has taken something of a rigidly intolerant turn in recent months, attacking any vestige of robust right-wing activity as "extremist." A number of Johnson's own commenters have begun to ignore him, being burned out on the "Lizard King's" attacks on Christian traditionalists and neoconservatives as "fundamentalist wackos."

I first wrote about this a month or so back, in "On Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs." My initial inclination was mostly fascination at how Johnson could turn off so many people who were previously intensely loyal followers. What happened? Who changed?

Well, despite his protests to the contrary, it does seem that Johnson's lost some of his raison d'etre with the Democrats in power, and now he's attacking bloggers on the right as the new enemy.

Well, the battles continue to escalate.

Here's Johnson's latest: "Pamela Geller: Poster Girl for Eurofascists." And Robert Stacy McCain responds to Johnson: "Pam Geller: 'Poster Girl for Eurofascists' or Just Another 'Rightwing Extremist'?"

And a couple of days ago, Michael van der Galien commented with his post, "Civil War Raging in the Right-Wing Blogosphere."

That one caught my attention, since I'm identified, along with Stacy, not as "anti-jihad," but as a "foreign policy hawk":

Let one thing be clear: in the battle between Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs on the one hand (I do not count Donald Douglas as truly being on their side for he is much more than an “anti-Jihad blogger” and he is not a xenophobe) and LGF on the other hand, I stand by the latter. I do not always agree with Charles - I’m pro-tea party for instance - but he meant such a great deal to the (international) conservative movement in years gone by that turning against him would be a sign of despicable ungratefulness.

Furthermore, GoV and AS have gone off the deep end, and Charles is right to point out that they have and continue to associate with far-right parties and individuals. “Anti-Jihad” bloggers, as they call themselves, have become Anti-Muslim, Anti-Islam, Anti-Tolerance, and Anti-Equality. Reading the comment sections of these websites is a horrific experience for all who care somewhat about common decency and tolerance. These people - again, I am not talking about people like Donald or Robert S. McCain for they are not “anti-Jihad bloggers” but simply conservative bloggers who are also foreign policy hawks - have become radicals in their own right. Associating with them does not merely destroy one’s credibility, it is also a crime against decency.

To conservative bloggers like RSM and DD I have only this to say: make no mistake about it, AS and GoV are not ‘conservative blogs.’ Nor are they websites you should be associated with. They are ignorant radicals driven by hate. Conservatives everywhere are wise to distance themselves as much as possible from them.

I don't know Charles Johnson, but I'm friends with all the other parties to this debate. I communicate with Pamela Geller by e-mail every few days. Robert Stacy McCain is the coolest "blogfather" out there, and we talk by telephone in addition to e-mailing. And I've been friends with Michael van der Galien for a couple of years now, sharing blog posts and what not.

Pamela is passionate and vigilant in what she does, but to attack her as "fascist" is beyond the pale. I know fascists. I've been attacked by fascists. I've repudiated fascists. Pamela is no fascist. She points out that Michael van der Galien is a convert to Islam, however, which might explain why he's so quick to choose up sides (see, a bit on Michael's views at "'Pure Islam' and Michael van der Galien").

Now, to be clear: I'm not out to ruffle feathers, and not Charles Johnson's by any means. But sometimes you have to take a stand: I think Michael's wrong on this one: Little Green Footballs gives aid and comfort to the enemies of conservatism, or as The Educated Shoprat notes at this post, "He's done an Andrew Sullivan. No other way to put it."

But I'm going to let Robert Spencer have the last word on Johnson's latest screed:

Today he is once again attacking Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, whom he clearly fears a great deal (inasmuch as she tells the truth about him), along with Paul Belien and me for being invited to speak at an anti-Islamization conference by the group Pro-Köln. Pro-Köln, he says, is a neo-Nazi group, and he has a photo of some guy who is not involved with Pro-Köln but is wearing a Hitler-style overcoat to prove it. And if Pamela, Paul and I are speaking there, well, we must be Nazis too, right?

In reality, the fact that we were invited to speak indicates in itself that Pro-Köln is not a neo-Nazi group. We are known to be pro-Israel, and if I go I would speak in defense of Israel and against neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. Outside of Charles Johnson's fantasies, no one has ever actually seen a pro-Israel neo-Nazi. Racist parties such as the BNP and antisemites such as Jean Marie LePen's National Front are not welcome and have not been invited.

Moreover, as John Rosenthal reported in Pajamas Media last year, the German intelligence service in Hamburg has found that real German neo-Nazis despise Pro-Köln because it is ... pro-Israel.

And finally, this whole line of inquiry is absurd. The idea that if someone speaks somewhere, he must therefore hold all the same views that the other speakers hold, is not worthy of serious consideration. Question for Charles Johnson: as he well knows, since I met with him at the time, I once spoke at the same event at which the featured speaker was none other than Hillary Clinton. Does that make her a neo-Nazi as well? (Or does it make me a Leftist and a socialist?) After all, she spoke on a bill with someone who once spoke on another bill with someone who was accused of being in the same room with someone who was once photographed at a funeral with someone who...

For that matter, is Johnson a neo-Nazi as well, since he met with me then also? Of course not - because after all, he renounces all neofascism, race supremacism, etc., right? He sure does. And so do I.

It is astounding that otherwise reasonable people fall for his sort of "analysis."

Related: Gates of Vienna, "Expedition to Cologne."

Leftists Want Blood, Not Memos

From Abe Greenwald, "Obama and the Angry Mob":

Obama cannot capitalize on public hysteria because there is no orderly way to capitalize on public hysteria. It won’t behave; it won’t accept limits. There is no wisdom to the mob. You can’t satisfy it with a gesture and a follow-up call for reflection. You can’t make what the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich called “the mass psychology of fascism” work for you surgically or as the collective conscience of democracy. Crowds want blood, not memos. They want executives ruined, not protected. They want prisoners liberated, not shuffled around. Barack Obama is finding out that mobs can’t be organized as if they were communities.

Of course, to hear Paul Krugman, it's all about "Reclaiming America’s Soul."

Yeah. Right.

(More at Memeorandum).

How to Get a Blogger Content Warning

JBW at Brain Rage provides the reference to Alexander the Gay's blog, which has been flagged by Blogger with a "Content Warning", "despite 3 years plus of blogging with family in mind":

You can find some of Aexander's "family blogging" here.

No doubt that Big Boy Alex and his "fat" friends enjoy the full support of not only JBW, but also DLB, Dr. Biobrain, Capt. Fogg, (O)CT(O)PUS, Repsac3, Tim Gaskill, Truth101, and Libby Spencer! (All of the aformentioned are "followers" and allies of Andrew Sullivan, that paragon of moral virture!)

Oh, recall Perez Hilton saying gay marriage equality is all about family!

Strongest Possible Content Warning! Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops

STRONGEST POSSIBLE CONTENT WARNING!

NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED!

Via Jawa Report, "Horror: Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops in Swat Video:"

A video which claims to show Taliban troops in Pakistan's Swat valley murdering men accused of being "spies" for the government and the U.S. has emerged. It's really horrible and the only people who should watch it are Taliban sympathizers.

You'd think I'd be immune to the effects of these kind of snuff videos by now, but I'm not. The horror of Islamists beheading their victims in accordance with Islamic law for alleged "crimes" never really goes away.

So, if you think the Taliban are just a bunch of freedom fighters, watch this video.

If you think Islamic law is some kind of noble endeavor, watch this video.

Or, if you just need to be reminded of how brutal our enemies are, watch this video.

The truth is that bad things happen in war. Even our own troops sometimes make tragic mistakes and on rare occasions the occasional bad apple does something horrible.

But for Taliban apologists let me remind you of two key differences.

First, we do not produce these kinds of videos as badges of honor. You do. We are embarrassed and horrified when we learn that any of our soldiers ever operate outside the rules of war. Remember Abu Ghraib? As a nation, we were ashamed.

Second, we prosecute soldiers who murder prisoners while you celebrate them.

Like the Nazis and Communists before you, you are a bunch of barbarians. The sooner you are all dead, the sooner the world can rest.

Now, let me say something about the video. The video is new to me (I think). It shows a gang slowly sawing off the heads of several bound victims on a road. The second half is old footage of a young boy murdering a man as his Taliban mentors egg him on.

What is odd about the video is that during the opening credits the symbol of the al-Shabaab terrorist organization is shown. The al-Shabaab are in Somalia, not Pakistan or Afghanistan, and those doing the murdering in the video are clearly not from Africa. So, why the al-Shabaab symbol? It makes zero sense to me.

And as I've asked before: This is the religion of peace?

See also my post, "Religion of Victory: Understanding Islam."

Related: Long War Journal, "Taliban Advance Eastward, Threaten Islamabad," via Memeorandum. Also, Allahpundit, "Time to Start Freaking Out About Pakistan."

**********

UPDATE: Jawa Report now linked at Memeorandum. See also, Kenneth G. Davenport, "Peril in Pakistan."

What is the Definition of Marriage?

Here's the video from the exchange between Perez Hilton and Dennis Prager on CNN's Larry King Live. As noted at Political Vindication, "This one’s not really a contest from the get go ... Prager has command of the issue while Hilton looks a bit like a minor leaguer getting his first start in the majors":

Prager exclaims:

Every religious and nonreligious tradition, every major moral thinker in history, not one of them in any tradition has ever advocated for changing the definition of marriage to same sex.

And he also says:

I want gays to have every right. However, redefining marriage is not called for.

That's the key point, by the way. Not simply "civil rights" (which gays enjoy), but the interchangeability of language. Prager hammers Hilton on precisely this issue, and he held himself up quite well; while Hilton responded with same stale talking points from radical gay marriage ayatollahs.

Anyway, as I've blogged the gay marriage debate endlessly for months, let me link to what others are saying:

Laura from Pursuing Holiness is debating Robert Stacy McCain at The Green Room. See, respectively, "Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It," and "‘Forbidding to Marry’ (Reply to Laura)."

Cynthia Yockey's commenting on the indomitable Jean Prejean, and she links to Becky C.'s essay, "The Essential Republican Gay Strategy" (note that this blog was flagged with a Blogger content warning, perhaps for Becky's post, "A Gay and Libertarian Republican Restoration "). Click through to some of these posts for a glimpse into the Meghan McCain program of "Twenty-First Century Conservatism," which, frankly, I can do without.

Also, check out Little Miss Attila's thoughtful post, "Okay. Gay Rights, Gay Marriage," and the link to Darleen Click's post, "Thought Crime" (on the Hilton/Prager exchange).

Also, with reference to Perez Hilton's argument that interracial couples previously couldn't marry, see my early post, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Animal Research Rally at UCLA

This entry updates my earlier post, "J. David Jentsch Stands Up to Animal Rights Extremists."

The Los Angeles Times covered the attack on UCLA neuroscientist J. David Jentsch on April 13. This letter appeared in the Times on April 16, but is found only in the cached version, here:

The general public will remain unmoved by your story, and scientific research using lab animals will continue to decline - to the detriment of our health. How come? Animal rights organizations will continue to vilify the very research that our underfunded FDA requires to test the safety and efficacy of drugs, cosmetics and devices.

To these protesters and an ignorant public, we scientists are the enemy. Our work striving for humane treatment for animals grown specifically for research -- these aren't pets - is mocked.

The public does not fathom that this campaign will not stop until we are all vegans. Even journalists do not comprehend the extent to which scientific research is under fire. The ultimate target of animal rightists is the powerful food industry. Ironically, when they achieve their goals and bring it down, we will have no way to ensure that the vegetables we eat are safe.

H. Winet
Pasadena

The writer is a professor of orthopedic surgery and bioengineering at UCLA.

Actually, Winet is a lecturer, and the paper published a correction.

Now, today's paper reports on the competing animal research/animal rights demonstrations yesterday at the campus, "Scientists, supporters rally at UCLA for animal research."

I'll have more later ...

Palin-Prejean 2012

I don't know if the folks at Conservatives for Sarah Palin are on board, but wouldn't it be the conservative eye-candy dream ticket of 2012:

Source: Alan Jeffcoat. (P.S. To be clear, for all the crazed leftist demonologists, this is humor.)