Newt Gingrich on the Tea Party Movement

Here's Newt Gingrich's comments from Human Events, via Memeorandum:

Liberal politicians and pundits did their best to discredit the Tea Parties by describing them, first, as a partisan Republican movement, and, second, as a revolt of greedy rich people who don’t want to pay more income tax.

But as ... anyone who went to a Tea Party with an open mind would have seen as well - the Tea Parties were not essentially Republican. People were as disgusted with big spending under President Bush as they are opposed to big spending under President Obama. This was a powerful movement of Americans fed up with the irresponsible politicians of both parties. In most cities they did not have a politician speaking. In some places, politicians were barred from speaking and forced to listen.

See also, Glenn Reynolds, "TEA PARTY RESULTS IN RHODE ISLAND ..."

Total Hypocrisy! MoveOn.org Needs to Move On

If there was ever a more clear example of the rank hypocrisy of the country's left-wing secular radicals, it's MoveOn.org's new ad campaign calling for torture investigations of former Bush administration officials:

The Huffington Post has the story, via Memeorandum:

MoveOn.org is set to launch an aggressive new ad campaign calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the use of torture during the Bush administration and even raising the specter of targeting former Vice President Dick Cheney.

The ad, to premier on the web and blasted out to the group's five million members, is the strongest push yet from the progressive group on this front. Set to a dark voice, the narrator asks whether a double standard is in place in terms of who has been punished for the authorization and use of torture.

I'm frankly tired of this fake debate. The release this week of the Bush Justice Department memos has shown the degree of judicious care with which U.S. officials sought to protect the rights of suspects undergoing interrogation.

As today's Wall Street Journal makes clear, "contrary to the claim that the memos detail 'brutal' techniques used by the CIA in its interrogation of detainees (including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), what they mainly show is the lengths to which the Justice Department went not to cross the line into torture."

Throughout 2008, we saw a huge buildup on the left for "toture trials" against top Bush administration officials (see, "From Impeachment to War Crimes: The New Revenge Against BushCo"). The latest push by MoveOn and all the other leftist "war crimes" extremists is simply the latest stage of this campaign. The place for this to end is in the current White House, and it's interesting that the Barack Obama administration is "now open to theoretical torture investigations," precisely when a majority of Americans backs Tea Party protests against Democratic big-goverment taxing and spending policies.

But we'll just let MoveOn's new attack campaign be a symbol of the total leftist hypocrisy on the Bush administration's policies on interrogations, and on American foreign policy in the Bush years altogether.

MoveOn.org was formed in 1998 as a lobbying group to support President Bill Clinton against GOP investigations into his personal conduct and corruption. "MoveOn" takes its name from the group's modus operandi. The organization "started by passing around a petition asking Congress to 'censure President Clinton and move on', as opposed to impeaching him."

So just behold the plastic standards and moral bankruptcy here. President Clinton was impeached for his controversies arising from the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones scandals; and the president was ultimately impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office. Irrespective of the motives or outcome of impeachment, there's no question as to whether President Clinton personal actions completely defiled and dishonored the office of the presidency. Perhaps the Clinton scandals did not rise to the level of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Reasonable people can disagree. But what's not in disagreement is that the George W. Bush administration's handling of terror investigastions is being held to entirely different standards of scrutiny and burdens of proof by relentless BDS sufferers

And the evidence is clear: The United States did not torture, while President Clinton did indeed have sex with that woman.

Why isn't MoveOn now calling on the Obama adminstration to move on?

Justice, fairness, and human rights are not at issue here. A rank power grab by one of America's greatest domestic enablers of terror is.

MoveOn.org needs to move on, for the sake of the country, if not for its own credibility, since it has very little of that worth preseriving.

Related: Kenneth G. Davenport, "Obama in Wonderland."

"‘Homophobia’ and Other Imaginary Evils"

Robert Stacy McCain, writing at Taki's Magazine, observes that the left-wing recriminations against Miss California Carrie Prejean represent "imaginary evils" drummed up in furthrance of the gay rights agenda:

We see this in the controversy stirred by Miss California Carrie Prejean’s dissent against same-sex marriage, which arguably cost her the Miss USA title. However much I sincerely admire beauty, there are few things that interest me less than who wins beauty contests. Yet in the case of Miss Prejean, we see a perfect example of the totalitarian thought-control impulse of modern liberalism, which marginalizes dissent by coercive approval: Disagreement with the liberal agenda disqualifies one from any position of social prestige, and invites the accusation of mala fides.

In the case of the liberal agenda on gay rights, those who disagree are diagnosed with “homophobia,” a mental illness apparently afflicting a majority of the electorate in 30-odd states which have approved measures prohibiting same-sex marriage. Beyond its implausibility as a psychological disorder—conservatism as a species of insanity being a favorite theme of the Left at least since Theodor Adorno’s “scientific” study of The Authoritarian Personality—the problem with the “homophobia” smear is that this allegedly dangerous tendency does not correlate with any actual evil.

Nearly all “homophobes” are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who treat the objects of their supposed “phobia” with civility and courtesy. It is the object of the Left to convince homosexuals that they suffer oppression as the result of the intolerance and prejudice of their fellow citizens, yet it is extraordinarily difficult to argue that homosexuals are oppressed—the annual income of gay households, calculated as a per-capita average, far exceeds the income of most married-with-children households—much less that their putative oppression is the result of discrimination at the hands of heterosexual bigots.

Much the same can be said of other thoughtcrimes alleged against conservatives, including “racism.” The chief objection to the routine accusation of “racism” is that it attempts to explain too much. Nearly every element of conservative politics—including support for school choice and opposition to higher taxes—is viewed by liberals through this prism: Conservatives support Candidate X or oppose Policy Y or are concerned about Issue Z because conservatives are racist. This oversold explanatory power of “racism” is similarly applied to the alleged oppression of the designated victims of prejudice: Minority Group A suffers from Social Malady B because of racism.

Thus, controversies such as the current furor over gay rights present a teachable moment, an opportunity to ask reasonable Americans whether the labels and categories of liberalism—“racist,” “sexist,” “extremist,” et cetera—meaningfully describe real dangers to the commonweal, or whether they are merely politicized pejoratives that serve as convenient crutches for weak arguments.

Earth Day: "One in Three Children Fear Earth Apocalypse"

Today's Earth Day.

Posting will resume after my morning and afternoon lectures, but readers should send along headlines from around the web, and I'll get them up ASAP.

Jill at Pundit and Pundette's got this one: "Earth Day: 'The whales are very delicious'."

But I like this one: "No Kidding, One in Three Children Fear Earth Apocalypse." (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

No doubt the administration's going to exploit Earth Day for all it's worth. Related: See, Kyle Trygstad, "Dems Pushing Comprehensive Energy Plan."

Seems we should be tying Earth Day festivities to the conservative states' rights agenda. As Laura Huggins notes, "On Earth Day, Think Thoreau":

Real change would be moving environmental management closer to home and providing incentives for private investment, both of which can be done without adding to a burgeoning federal debt. Because local communities bear the costs and benefits of resource management decisions, they manage resources in ways that make economic and environmental sense. And nonprofit groups are already using private resources to produce positive environmental results. Land trusts, for example, have conserved acreage equivalent to 16 1/2 times the size of Yellowstone National Park, according to studies. And for-profit firms are making unsubsidized profits by producing new services. As T.J. Rogers, chief executive of SunPower Corp., put it: "I want solar if it makes money, and I don't want solar if it doesn't make money."

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. Let's celebrate the environmental entrepreneurs and the people making decisions on the ground rather than Big Brother from Washington. As Thoreau observed: "The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished, and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

Send me those links, dear readers!

**********

HEADLINES:

* George Radanovich, "Carbon Cap and Tax: Environmental Oppression You Can Count On,"via Memeorandum.

* Suzanna Logan, "Save the Earth! Move to Mars!"

* With Both Hands, "Celebrate Earth Day - Eat a Critter - Al Gore Will!"

* The Bulletin, "Earth Day Philly Style: Environmentalist Loved Planet, Murdered Girlfriend" (via Memeorandum).

* Moonbattery, "Today's Celebrations Brought to You by the Unicorn Killer."

* Michelle Malkin, "Humans make Earth Day better."

* Midnight Blue, "Happy Earth Day (Protect the Earth and its inhabitants - Reject Kyoto)."

We Can't Get Enough of Miss California!

I'm borrowing the title of this post directly from Jammie Wearing Fool, but with an added exclamation piont! That's all there is to it! As Allahpundit says of Carrie Prejean, "Blonde, beautiful, and conservative." Be sure to watch the whole video. Miss California says taxpayer money shouldn't be used for bailouts or welfare! Man, that's smokin'!

Dee Vantuyl is also blogging, "Miss California Carrie Prejean has a moral backbone!" Dee echoes Tom the Redhunter, "Carrie Prejean: True Character."

See Jason at The Western Experience too, "More shameful intolerance from the tyrannical left and gay totalitarians."

Plus, Ms. Prejean gets results! She's converted my friend Stogie to Rule 5 blogging, "Miss California Carrie Prejean: A Class Act." And thus, appropriately, see Robert Stacy McCain, "Carrie Prejean bikini pics," and PoliGazette, "Miss California Under Fire First, Hero of the Right Now."

Also, Serr8d's Cutting Edge, "Carrie Prejean gets the left and the gays excited. And that's not a good thing for her Miss USA hopes ... but, who really cares what they think?", and Troglopundit, "Uh-oh…nobody tell Meghan McCain. She’ll write 1200 words on the upcoming 'war in the Miss USA Pageant'."

Readers: Please e-mail me your Carrie Prejean posts to be included in a weekend Carrie Prejean Full Metal Saturday!

*********

P.S. I just caught Ms. Prejean's interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox! You really can't get enough of this woman. She says of her faith in God: "I'm fearless. I'm going wherever He leads me."

More later ...

The Evolution of Socialist Strategies

Dr. Sanity has a big post up tonight citing Cliff May's piece at National Review, "Romancing the Jihad: Why Are So Many on the Left Enamored With Islamism?" But what I like at Dr. Sanity's entry is this graphic she grabbed from Stephen Hicks', Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault:

But check the post for the analysis and argument ... she's always a pleasure to read: "The Political Left: United in Hate With America's Foes."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Charles Johnson: "I Don’t Consider Myself Right-Wing"

David Weigel has an interview with Charles Johnson at the Washington Independent (via Memeorandum).

Johnson blows off claims that he's switched partisan allegiances during his recent Obama-era blogging. He simply attacks conservatives agressively resisting Islamist terrorism as hooking up "with racists and Nazis." Here's more from the interview:

“I don’t think I’ve changed,” Johnson said. “I’ve always been pretty independent. This is something I’ve really tried to put out there on my blog. I don’t consider myself right-wing.”

The problem here, as I've noted previously, is the main beneficiaries of Johnson's blogging (besides the terrorists) are "progressive Republicans" looking to turn the GOP into the party of gay marriage, and the secular progressives who are seeking legitimation for their program of licentious nihilism from an erstwhile top conservative blogger (the leftists, by the way, are the same folks who are in fact in league with the Islamists, if you can figure that all out).

In any case, T.R. left this comment at my recent post, " Charles Johnson 'Explodes'":

I have to say, I once was a contributor in good standing at LG, back in the days before Charles spun a gear or whatever it was that happened to him. His membership has deteriorated to the point that the pure hate and utter disgust isn't even tempered by common decency and some semblence of respect and/or manners ...

His blog members are a seething ocean of hate and vitriol if one dare not walk lock-step with the 'Lizard King'. Rate one of Charles' threads down because you disagree, you get banned. Rate another member's lock-step comment down, you get banned. Dare not disagree with anything at LGF if you want to particpate in the comments for long. There is no civil discourse of any kind at LGF.

To top it off, Charles has become one of the most, if not the most, narcissistic 'conservative' bloggers out there. The stars and the heavens revolve around Charles. Don't dare imply it is not so though, if you care to be a commenter there. He's walking the precipice and I fear it won't be much more time before he goes head long full blown over the edge.

The so-called 'Lizard King' and his so-called 'Lizard Army' are a despicable and hateful lot. If anything, the interior of Charles' head will actually explode and the end of LGF will come. I don't hope for Charles' head to finally explode, he was once a kind, considerate, and thoughtful blogger. But the 'Conservative blogosphere' will be better off if LGF did whither and die on the vine, in the long run.

See also, Gates of Vienna, "The Gettysburg of the Counterjihad."

Note: Typographical errors at the comment have been corrected.

"Racist Rednecks": What the Radical Left Thinks of You

Check out Janeane Garofalo's ugly but representative leftist rant against the great outpouring of democractic action by hundreds of thousands of Americans excercising their First Amendment rights to protest the policies of the Barack Obama administration:

Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks ... The limbic brain inside a right-winger or a Republican or a conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their, in their head space than in a reasonable person and it's pushing against the frontal lobe, so their synapses are misfiring ... it is, it is a neurological problem that we're dealing with.

Pretty unreal, but not unlike anything we normally hear from the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Perez Hilton, Steve Hynd, Markos Moulitsas, Pam Spaulding, TRex, Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, or ... well, the list goes on.

Janeane Garofalo's a classic spokesperson for the ignorance and intolerance that just oozes from the warped depths of the nation's secular progressive redoubts. And look at Keith Olbermann just lapping it up!

It's amazing, too. As Byron York notes today:

These should be happy times for liberals and the Democratic party as a whole. They control the White House and both houses of Congress, while opposition Republicans are leaderless and lost. So why do some Democrats, particularly those farther to the left, appear so angry?

If you doubt it, just watch a few minutes of MSNBC, where the recent nationwide series of "tea parties" to protest federal spending and taxes set off an angry, almost manic response. The most telling came on Keith Olbermann's program, during which the actress Janeane Garofalo, who plays an FBI computer geek on “24,” denounced the tea parties as "racism straight up."

"Let's be very honest about what this is about," Garofalo said. "It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes…This is about hating a black man in the White House."

Garofalo linked the tea parties to what she described as a peculiar feature of the conservative brain. "The limbic brain inside a right-winger, or Republican, or conservative, or your average white power activist -- the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person," she explained. "And it is pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring." (The limbic brain is the deep portion of the brain that mediates, controls and expresses emotion.)

Now, it's possible Garofalo was joking; she used to do comedy. But she didn't seem to be joking, and her comments were consistent with a long and dishonorable history of attributing political conservatism to mental abnormality. And as she spoke about the alleged anger on the right, Garofalo herself seemed visibly angry. Why were she, and Olbermann, and many others on the left, so apparently troubled by a virtually powerless opposition?

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."

Again, the tea parties could represent a threat. What if the protesters weren't racists, weren't violent, weren't mentally defective? What if their point was legitimate, or even partly legitimate? Those are questions better batted down than answered.

Finally, there is the sense of anxiety and fragility that stems from the liberals' newly-won power. They control everything in government, and some fear what the responsibility of governing is doing to them.

There's more at the link.

It's of course always de rigeur for leftists to blow off folks like Jeneane Garafalo as anomolies. But look at Olbermann again. The guy's just nodding in total agreement, asking Garofalo, "what can we do about this," in a casual Joseph Goebbels sort of way.

Note, for example, the comments from "Tim" on my earlier post on Carrie Prejean: "Donald only adds fuel to the fire as he trolls for negative comments about those who make uh, negative comments based on fear and ignorance."

Actually, those "negative comments" constitute the bulk of the left's repertoire. But check back here later for Tim's cockamamie dismissal of Jeneane Garofalo's representive scourging of everday Americans as "racist rednecks." It's all just the fruits of extensive trolling for "negative comments."

Yeah. Right.

See also, Protein Wisdom, "'In time of victory, why is the left so angry?'"

America's Newest Profession: Blogging

I'm not one to take Mark Penn too seriously, but he does provide an interesting take on blogging as a profession, at the Wall Street Journal (via Memeorandum).

Penn cites all kinds of statistics on the numbers of bloggers making money online (an extremely small number of elite bloggers make a living at it, but apparently 1.7 million people earn some income from online publishing).

But I'll turn it over to Pat in Shreveport for an interesting perspective on "Blogging for Bucks?":

I'm rather new to blogging - this blog started in August of last year. I still have a lot to learn and I see, probably better than most, my own flaws. I don't always proofread as well as I should and I make punctuation errors. I'd prefer to be more journalistic than I often am. I've never figured out how to use "Digg" and those other sharing things. I can't figure out how to make my Technorati authority move up - I currently have "no authority." I know people have to link you, and they do, but ... still "no authority." That's a real blow to your self-esteem - "You currently have no authority." God.

Oh well. I have ads and I have a tip jar, but I suspect I will never make a living from blogging. I do it because it's fun, I enjoy it, and to be honest, I've "met" a lot of really nice people. So, I'm grateful for my readers and I'm going to keep on blogging even if I never make a dime. It's like teaching - you don't do it for the $$$.

Well, as much as I love it, I do teach for the money! I just recently monetized my blog, and I'm betting it's going to be a little while yet before blogging pays the bills!

I think Pat strikes the right note on doing it for fun, of course. If you're not enjoying your blogging, you're not likely to make any money from it.

In any case, readers might like my recent post on some of this, "How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger."

But see Robert Stacy McCain's takedown of Mark Penn, "Don't believe the blog hype!"

More later ...

Miss California Not Backing Down on Gay Marriage

Miss California stands firm on her moral position that marriage is between one man and one woman. See Fox News, "Carrie Prejean Says Answer to Gay Marriage Question Cost Her Miss USA Crown":

Carrie Prejean told FOXNews.com that she had "no regrets" and was happy with the answer she gave when a Miss USA judge, the gossip blogger Perez Hilton, asked about her stance on same-sex marriage.

"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

One person who was offended was Keith Lewis, co-director the Miss California competition, which Prejean won to make it into the Miss USA pageant. Lewis told FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"I am personally ... hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement.

Co-director Shanna Moakler, best know as Travis Barker's wife in the MTV reality show "Meet the Barkers," said that she fully supported Lewis' condemnation of Prejean's views.

Blogger Perez Hilton was also enraged, calling Prejean a "stuipd b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog.

But the backlash is having little affect on Prejean, 21, she says.

"I wouldn't have had it any other way. I stated an opinion that was true to myself, and that's all I can do," she told Billy Bush, who hosted Miss USA, on his radio talk show on Monday.

"It did cost me my crown," Prejean continued. "It is a very touchy subject and [Hilton] is a homosexual, and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything."

"I feel like I won," she said. "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do."

The quotes from Lewis, Moakler, and Perez perfectly encapsulate the left's hatred and bigotry toward people of traditional values. You just can't hold an opinion contrary to the secular progressive hordes in this country: They want her DEAD! They want her family DEAD! They want her house burned to the GROUND! They wanna go there in the middle of the night and PISS ON HER ASHES!

Majority of Americans Backs Tea Parties

A majority of 51 percent of Americans views the "Tax Day Tea Parties" positively, according to a new Rasmussen survey. Just 33 percent hold "unfavorable opinion of the tea parties."

But check this out:

While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.

I think it's a little soon to gauge the implications of the tea parties, although if the planned tea party events for July 4th demonstrate a sustained level of popular anger at government, it'll be clear that this grassroots movement may have substantial implications going into the 2010 midterm elections. As Chris Cillizza notes this morning, the "battle between growing and shrinking government" is likely to be the main axis of partisan division going into next year.

Michael Van der Galien has some thoughts on the poll's "good news" for Republicans:

While 83% of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated Americans have a favorable view of the tea party protests, only 28% of Democrats say the same.

Republican voters and Independents sympathize with the anger felt and expressed by the protesters. That is great news for the Republican Party because the independent-vote is decisive in elections. If the tea parties result in more independent support for fiscal conservative government and politicians, well, the GOP could stage a grand comeback in 2010.

I think Michael needs to write a follow-up post to his comments here: How can we reconcile that large bloc of independents supporters with the attacks on the tea parties by some "conservatives" as "really deranged stuff."

The Challenge of Change: Conservatives Gather in Orange County

I just received notice from my meet-up group that there's a major gathering of conservatives scheduled for Saturday May 9 at the Calvary Chapel, in Costa Mesa, California. The event is being organized by the Eagle Forum of California, and Phyllis Schlafly is scheduled to speak. Glenn Beck will give a video presentation:

From the announcement:

This will be a major gathring and has some impressive appearances and speakers including Chuck DeVore and Glenn Beck:

America, We Have a Problem
Randy Brogdon
Oklahoma State Senarto

Change: Ready or Not!
Phyllis Schlafly
Eagle Forum Founder and President

Media Malpractice
John Ziegler
Filmaker/Author/Director

The Truth Behind Our Financial Crisis
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman & Candidate for US Senate

Protecting Our Religious Fredom
Brad Dacus
Pacific Justice Institute Founder and President

Islam in Our Schools
Orlean Koehle
California State Eagle Forum President /Author

America's Diversity Addiction
Georgiana Preskar
Author/SPeaker

Can We Save the U.S. Contitution?
Joseph Andrews
Author/Teacher

Are We Sinking Into Socialism?
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Founder and President of BOND Action, Inc.

The Deception of the Green Agenda
Holly Swanson
Author

Why Vote/ Do We Still Have Honest Elections?
Robert Ming
Laguna Niguel Mayor

Video Presentations By:

Glenn Beck
Gary Bauer
Brigette Gabriel

I will be in attendance for the morning speakers. I'd be interested in meeting American Power readers from the O.C. area, so please send me an e-mail if you're interesting in attending.

We Didn't Torture

Check out David Rivkin and Lee Casey, "The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture" (via Memeorandum):

The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.

Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo describes the practice of "walling" -- recently revealed in a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which suggested that detainees wore a "collar" used to "forcefully bang the head and body against the wall" before and during interrogation. In fact, detainees were placed with their backs to a "flexible false wall," designed to avoid inflicting painful injury. Their shoulder blades -- not head -- were the point of contact, and the "collar" was used not to give additional force to a blow, but further to protect the neck.

The memo says the point was to inflict psychological uncertainty, not physical pain: "the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."

Shackling and confinement in a small space (generally used to create discomfort and muscle fatigue) were also part of the CIA program, but they were subject to stringent time and manner limitations. Abu Zubaydah (a top bin Laden lieutenant) had a fear of insects. He was, therefore, to be put in a "cramped confinement box" and told a stinging insect would be put in the box with him. In fact, the CIA proposed to use a harmless caterpillar. Confinement was limited to two hours.

And in case you missed it, see Scott Shane, "Torture Versus War":

WHEN the Central Intelligence Agency obliterates a dozen suspected terrorists, along with assorted family members, with a missile from a drone, the news rarely stirs a strong reaction far beyond Pakistan.

Yet the waterboarding of three operatives from Al Qaeda — one of them the admitted murderer of 3,000 people as organizer of the 9/11 attacks — has stirred years of recriminations, calls for prosecution and national soul-searching.

What is it about the terrible intimacy of torture that so disturbs and captivates the public? Why has torture long been singled out for special condemnation in the law of war, when war brings death and suffering on a scale that dwarfs the torture chamber?

I'm guessing anti-Bush hysteria, for starters ...

You Stay Classy, Perez Hilton

Gateway Pundit has the update to my post this morning on the beautiful Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

It turns out that Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., has mocked Miss Prejean's view that marriage "should be between a man and a woman" by attacking her as a "dumb bitch: "Radical Gay Activist Perez Hilton Calls Miss California a "Dumb B*tch" For Not Supporting Gay Marriage (Video)."

Check Gateway Pundit for the video. I'm not linking to Perez Airhead.

For the mainstream media's meme, see ABC News, "Perez Hilton 'Floored' by Miss California."

Linked: R.S. McCain, at Taki Magazine, "If You Could Ask One Question of Miss California ..."

Related: "Gay rights groups angry with Giuliani" (via Memeorandum).

Photo Credit: Australia's Daily Telegraph.

Hat Tip: The Blog Prof.

**********

UPDATE: Conservatives are picking up on the story.

Michelle Malkin notes that Perez Hilton has retracted an earlier apology for his attack Ms. Prejean as a "dumb bitch":

"... Hilton says he takes back his apology for calling Prejean a “dumb b*tch” and then pours on even more slime by laughing that while he called her that epithet he was really thinking of the “c-word.”

But don't miss Jammie Wearing Fool, "Dumb Bitch Calls Miss California a Dumb Bitch."

More at Memeorandum.

I Wish They All Could Be California Girls!

Just look at Perez Hilton's face at the end of the video, where he asks Miss California, Carrie Prejean, "whether she believed in gay marriage":

Here's the quote:

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Here's the first comment at the story from Australia's Daily Telegraph:

Can someone tell me what she said wrong? She was asked for her opinion and she gave it. Would they prefer it if she had lied?

Well, actually, they would have preferred that she toe the line to the secular progressive gay totalitarian agenda.

Go Miss California! Whoo!

I'm beating Memeorandum to this story, but we'll see some outrage later today, because this woman has got it going on!

********

UPDATE: There's now a thread on this at Memeorandum.

"Waiting Until 2012 is Not an Option..."

This is an overhead shot of the "Orange County Tax Day Tea Party," from Andrew Malcolm's post, "One protester's handwritten notes from behind the tea party lines."

Actually, Malcolm links to the Spokane Tea Party webpage, where organizers estimate 5000 demonstrators turned out for their event last Wednesday.

But let me share the letter from one of my local activists, sent to the e-mail group at "Orange County National Tax Day Tea Party":

It seems that the American progressive movement is at its peak in strength and influence in this county. A movement that started in the late 1800’s and gained a foothold in American politics with the election of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and drastically altered the course of our federal government in ways our founding fathers would never have imagined under Franklin D. Roosevelt, has reemerged in a new radical form and won a sweeping victory in November. While our political system has always had room for differing ideas and opinions, our country is now under the rule of a radicalized movement that is very much at odds with our countries Constitution and the vision of our founding fathers.

Let’s look at the basic idea of where our rights come from. Our Constitution is based on the concept of “natural law” which states that our rights are something we are born with, a product of our “maker” or our humanity. The Progressives, at odds with our countries values, reject the view that humans are born free. Influential progressive John Dewey wrote about freedom, that it is not “something that individuals have as a ready made possession”, but instead is “something to be achieved”. He believes, like most progressives, that rights are a product of the state. Dewey also wrote that “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.” If humans are not born free, there can be no natural law.

If we do not have natural law, we are a slave to our government.

How can civil libertarians and freedom loving men live with a ruling class that is at such odds with their core beliefs? How can a country whose greatness is due to its embrace of individual liberty maintain its heart and soul in the face of an ever expanding federal government? The answer to both is THEY CAN’T!

If you believe that the liberties and freedoms laid out and guaranteed to us in the Constitution are backbone of our nation and are worth defending, we can not stand idly by and watch are country be destroyed. Waiting until 2012 is not an option as it may be too late to save what is left of our Republic. It is our duty as Americans to defend our freedoms from its domestic threats. We must refuse our consent. We must try at all turns to undermine the efforts of our out of control federal government.

I'll have more later ...

Fresno Tea Party: Blacks Against Obama!

Glenn Reynolds, commenting on these wonderfully diverse demonstrators at Saturday's Fresno Tea Party, notes, "Hey, that’s not part of the narrative!"

I just got back from Fresno last night, and the Fresno Bee, amazingly, had great local coverage. See the additional photos at, "Thousands gather to vent at tax day tea party." See also, Jim Boren, the Bee's editorial page editor, "Democracy in Action Still Thrives."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

David Axelrod Attacks Tea Parties as "Unhealthy"

David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Barack Obama, suggested today that the Tax Day Tea Party demonstrations are an "unhealthy" reaction the economic downturn. Allahpundit has the video, but check out Stephen Hayes responding to Axelrod on CNN:

Also, Jim Boren, the Fresno Bee's political editor, has a great commentary about the role of demonstrations in the democracy, "Democracy in Action Still Thrives." This passage is especially good:

Last week we saw civics lessons in action. Critics say these protests were manipulated by Republicans and conservative radio commentators in the case of the Tea Parties and corporate agriculture in the case of the March for Water. That's hardly the point. What mattered is a lot of people showed up, and their anger is real.

Over at the Save Mart Center parking lot on the Fresno State campus, we were told that more than 7,000 people rallied against taxes and government spending. That's an impressive turnout, and they have a point that can't be denied: Taxes are way too high, and government doesn't always spend our money very efficiently. We all can tell personal stories of government waste.

Now if the Tea Party participants keep their organizations alive and turn them into a movement that has impact at the ballot box, the protest was a success. If you don't like the cause, organize a counter-protest.

The issues are never simple in government, and there's always another side to the tax-and-spend quandary. The question that must follow is what programs should be cut if government is going to get less money. The predicament is that every program has a constituency, and it's up to our elected officials to make the final determination of our priorities after assessing public sentiment.

Is Social Security going to be off limits at the federal level? Do we only protect public safety services and cut spending for parks at the local level? Is there too much money spent on roads and not enough on public transportation? Or is it the other way around?

But the Tea Party participants got the attention of politicians on Tax Day, and that's good. The last thing elected officials want is another Proposition 13, the 1978 California property tax reform that started a national taxpayer revolt.

Hmm ... a national taxpayer revolt? Just what the secular progressive statists fear most.

See also a new blog friend, Obi's Sister, "Atlanta Tea Party Pictures II."

Rule 5 Rescue: Ashley Swearengin

Today's Los Angeles Times features a big front-page story on President Barack Obama's first 100 day's in office: "Direct, assertive and utterly self-assured, Obama has used his broad popularity, a driving ambition and a sweeping agenda to move America in a wholly new direction."

Actually, I'm looking forward to Obama's last 100 days, so I thought I'd take this opportunity to share the success of Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin's first 100 days (with a politically-relevant Rule 5" entry, as per Stogie's request).

The Fresno Bee on Thursday ran an editorial commending Swearengin for her strong start in office:

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin completes her first 100 days in office today, and she has had a fairly strong beginning, although it's way too early to judge how successful her term will be. While getting a solid start is always a good thing, there are still several issues that can trip up a mayor over a four-year term.

The immediate challenge for Swearengin is the weak economy, and keeping City Hall on solid financial footing. Government agencies rely on taxes generated by economic activity, and sales tax receipts are down, as well as property taxes and fees from lagging development projects.

Swearengin has moved quickly to cut almost $9 million from this year's budget and has vowed to protect the city's core services, including public safety. Areas outside of basic services likely will be taking bigger budget hits. Expect more spending reductions at City Hall in the fiscal year starting July 1 because of continued decreasing revenues.

The mayor's budget moves shows that she understands that government must live within its means, and she's willing to tell bureaucrats that they must operate with less money, even if they are already running tight operations. It's a simple concept, but reducing spending to match declining revenues doesn't always occur in government agencies.

Swearengin will deliver her proposed budget to the City Council on May 18, and then council members will be able to weigh in with their priorities.

The 100-day mark gives us an opportunity to assess a politician's early performance. Swearengin's initial tenure is highlighted by a huge political victory that many critics said she couldn't pull off. The controversial independent police auditor position was finally passed by the City Council, even though it was opposed by the Fresno Police Officers Association, and others.

The mayor skillfully built support for the idea and ended up getting five of the seven council members to vote for it. Swearengin showed that good public policy must be accompanied by the political ability to make it a reality.

There's more at the link.

Check out Mayor Swearengin's biographical page at the Fresno County Republican Party's homepage. She's got great values. Married for 13 years, with two children, Swearengin's pro-life and supports marriage traditionalism. Progressives in Fresno can't stand her, naturally.

Previously:

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Scarlett Johansson."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Katy Perry."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Helen Mirren."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova."

How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger

I signed up for Facebook this week, and the first thing that a couple of "friends" said upon congratulating me was, "how you have time to do all this, maintain a great blog, and still teach is somewhat beyond me," and "just don't neglect the blog :) ..."

LOL!

Well, I'm on Easter break this week, so I've had time to get out to the Orange County Tea Party and to blog all about it, among other things. However, my term papers are due next week, so blogging will be lighter in the next few weeks! (And not only that: My wife's a sweetie who lets me blog more than I should!)

I also received a general question from Lance Burri about building blog traffic. Lance was basically wondering about the best way to get hits, from other bloggers, from Glenn Reynolds, or what? I don't know for sure, but I thought this might be a good time to take stock and throw out some thoughts and suggestions from my own experience blogging this last year-and-a-half since I launched American Power, as my second blog, in October 2007.

Mainly, I'm just going to add a couple of points in response to two recent blog posts on how to be a successful blogger and conservative writer online: Robert Stacy McCain's, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year," and John Hawkins', "How to Become a Full Time Conservative Blogger/Columnist."

Regular readers may have read Stacy's essay previously, as I've been applying a number of the "rules" he lays out therein, especially the "Rule 5" hottness method combined with massive "Rule 2" reach-around blogging. It's been a lot of fun, and it's going to continue. But there are limits, and that's why folks who are serious about being a successful blogger should also look over John's piece's carefully. He notes, for example:

Let me ... be very honest about something else: this is an over-saturated field. There is an abundance of talented, conservative writers out there competing for eyeballs and most of the successful people in this business aren't interested in helping them along. Moreover, the famous people that are interested in helping out fledgling conservative writers have so many people competing for their attention, that it's difficult to get them to help you.

That's strikes me as a pretty fair point, and actually political science research indicates that there's a tremendous "gatekeeper" effect to the blogoshpere, since by nature of "network" effects and hierarchies of prestige, blogging newcomers find tremendously high barriers to entry to a successful (and possibly materially lucrative) blogging career (for more on this, see "Blogging Politics: Network Effects and the Hierarchy of Success").

All of this gatekeeping can be extremely frustrating for those trying to break into the conservative blogosphere AND hoping to make an impact. And to be clear, in my experience, people who blog are hungry for exposure, so those who quit or just scale down operations have probably realized the limits of opportunity available to them.

But John notes a couple of interesting points at the essay, especially the notion that "it's not what you know, it's who you know ..."

Now, obviously, folks need to know something significant about politics to blog successfully, but other than just plugging away and getting noticed at Memeorandum or Google, it nice to have people higher up the network hierarchy helping you gain attention and opportunities. Over this last six months I owe a great deal of thanks to Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House. Rick's the Chicago editor at Pajamas Media, and I've published about an article a month since last October, and it's been both a lot of fun, as well as a chance to build some credibility as a top blogger.

And I say that with modesty. Actually, I still pretty much think of myself as a "9th tier" blogger, toiling away in obscurity, to whom no one pays attention. People like that just like to write, and a few hits every day and a comment or two is life-affirming. 9th tier blogging gets old, though, especially since most people crave recognition, as I mentioned above. So bloggers have to find a way to get noticed, and there's quite a bit folks can do on that score, so there's no need for discouragement as long as someone is willing to work hard.

So let me offer my own list of suggestions, adding a little perspective to what both Stacy and John have done already:

1) COMMITMENT: Don't kid yourself that you're going to become the next Michelle Malkin after publishing a couple of week's worth of Blogspot essays; and don't expect to make a fortune anytime soon. I've been blogging for three years, and I still average less than 1000 hits a day. I get thousands of visitors on some days, but that's often because Michelle or Glenn Reynolds has thrown traffic my way. It takes a long time to get noticed, and that's often after you've networked and made connections. My sense is that someone who works hard and puts out consistently good content will develop a readership. Some of those reading will have connections and will promote your blog. So, perseverance and output have to be first in order of importance to the successful blogging life. For some perspective on this, notice how Ann Althouse blogs. Blogging is her life and passion, and her means of communication and expression. She's now marrying a man she met through blogging. She's interesting and she's made a commmunity. Althouse is an outstanding model of success for up and coming bloggers.

2) BLOGGERS AND MASS MEDIA: In the beginning, the blogs I read were those of prominent people, academics like Daniel Drezner or media personalities like Virginia Postrel. Folks like this have written books and built name recognition prior to becoming popular bloggers. That kind of experience provides credibility and exposure. But prior establishment in the media's not available for everyone. I can't stand the views of Markos Moultisas, but he's a good example of someone who started a blog, Daily Kos, and who became successful and branched out into other media. Kos is a now television news talking head, and while Daily Kos' popularity has declined after the blog achieved most it set out to do with the election of Barack Obama, Moulitsas himself is going to be around for awhile. He's written two books and he's a regular on Sunday talk shows and in print media like Newsweek. No matter what you think of the guy, he's had success blogging that's worth emulation. Thus, many blogging neophytes might think of blogging as entree into a career in more traditional media. For example, check out my friend Doug at Political Pistachio. Doug started blogging because he wanted to be a published writer. He had the sense the blogging would get him productive and get his work into circulation. Now Doug's developed a popular Blog Talk Radio program, and he's been interviewing some of the most important conservatives working today. He has dreams to win a gig as an AM radio star one day. Doug's example provides a sense of synergy that comes with blogging, but he's also an example of someone with a passion who's turned blogging and radio into his life's work. That's what it takes to build a repuation and success.

3) DON'T BE SHY ABOUT SELF-PROMOTION: Although I've had the most fun with Stacy's "Rule 5" promotional tool (do some babe blogging), it's actually "Rule 1" that's been even more helpful: You've got to put yourself out into the realm without excessive worry of social niceties. Oh sure, be respectful and polite, but don't be afraid of forwarding your work to people who are essentially strangers. If you're writing on military issues of social welfare policies, shop your posts to people who write and have expertise in those areas. I probably wouldn't have gotten a couple of "Instalanches" had I not sent my posts to Glenn Reynolds. He probably gets hundreds of e-mails a day, but he must have liked something I had found and posted it at his blog. It's momentary attention, but it's confirmation and encouragement. Michelle Malkin likes readers to send her tips and blog posts, and she's really generous in publishing content provided by conservatives in the blogging community. I'm doing that a lot more myself, and I've published guest essays from readers at the blog. I too get e-mails from bloggers or journalists shopping their stuff for American Power, even big name people, so it just ends up as a form of networking. Thus, again, don't be shy about it (Stacy calls it "shameless blogwhoring"!).

4) DO ORIGINAL REPORTING: This last week I had a good amount of success with my posting on the "Orange County Tax Day Tea Party." That post was my first outing as a "photo-blogging" journalist. I've been wanting to do some photo-blogging for a while. Great influences here are Zombie Time and Looking at the Left. I first noticed the tremendous importance of photo-blogging as citizens' journalism during the campaign. Bloggers are going to publish stories and pictures that the left-wing media establishment won't touch. Hence, photo-journalism is not only on the wave of the media future, it's a tremendous opportunity for people to get out into the public realm, to interact and find stories that are in demand. If you're working on an exclusive story, and one with a particular angle, that's bound to generate some attention. Pump up the conservative volume!

5) LOVE WHAT YOU ARE DOING: For me, I'm simply combining my career as a professor of political science, and my love of politics, with blogging. Blogging has become a part of what I do. Frankly, I'm not so much interested in scholarly publishing, although because I maintain professional currency with the literature, I can blog on anything from the most sophisticated academic studies in international relations to the most ordinary stories in the news and popular culture. My enthusiasm comes and goes. Sometimes blogging's an addiction, but sometimes it feels like a chore. That's going to happen, so balancing the online life with all the other responsibilities is challenging. But you can't be successful unless you're willing to elevate the blog to a central place in your personality and being. It's back to my "Rule 1" above. Have commitment, and make it fun and personal. But also have a healthy understanding of the consequences of your work. As John Althouse Cohen put it recently, "Assume that anything you write will be seen by your family or your employer or your prospective employer or anyone. And once you publish it, it will never go away." The best way to approach that advice is to believe in what your write, and take full responsiblity for what you put on the page. Sometimes folks have asked me, "don't you worry about backlash as a conservative academic?" At first I did. For a year I held back my opinions, and I'm positive my blogging was worse for it. Say what you want and be ready to stand and fight for your principles. People will respect you for it, and you'll carve out a niche as someone of honesty, integrity, and true values.

*****

A FINAL NOTE: Take care for your safety and your family's safety as a blogger. In an announcement on his advertising program, Tiger Hawk mentioned the need to maintain his anonymity: "I have made many friends through blogging, and I have no reason to believe that anybody out there would do me harm."

Actually, I do.

If you battle the left, if you expose the secular progressives for the licentious nihilism that they're all about, they'll want to kill you. Look at what happens to any prominent conservative when they make public appearances, like Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina last week, and you'll realize that leftists have no concern for your safety nor your rights. As David Horowitz wrote yesterday, "Conservative speakers now have bodyguards when they visit universities."

I watch my back, especially when I'm on my campus, where I'm known publically by name and reputation as a conservative writer and activist. I also don't post personal information about my family online. I've been stalked by those who can't stand what I write, for example, one blogger found my home address by researching property tax records and used that to threaten me and my family. If you speak truth to power, you'll make some enemies, but be not afraid. The brighter your light of moral clarity, the more vicious will be the pushback from the totalitarians on the left. Be true to yourself and put truth and values first and foremost in what you do. I'm confident those who combine diligence with talent can make it as a successful blogger.