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.)

Carrie Prejean Interview with Megyn Kelly

Here's the video of Carrie Prejean's interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News this morning, "Traditional Values Under Fire."

See also, "Pro-Gay Marriage Hollywood Piles on Miss California."

Why Meghan McCain Is Wrong

From Kim Priestap, at Pajamas Media, "Why Meghan McCain Is Wrong":

“I love you. Now, please change.”

That is the message Meghan McCain has for the Republican Party. Ms. McCain said she fell in love with the GOP while campaigning for two years with her father, John McCain. However, in spite of her newly minted affection for the Republican Party, she believes that in order for the party she loves to attract more young people like her, the party needs to be reshaped to reflect the views held by the hip generation of which she imagines that she is a part.

What changes does she think the GOP needs to make? It needs to be hip and edgier. She laments the perception that there are no Republican politicians who are exciting enough that anyone would want to wear his or her likeness on a piece of clothing. What a short memory she has. Her father’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, inspired the creation of numerous t-shirts, sweatshirts, and pins with her face on them. She also attracted crowds of tens of thousands at campaign appearances. However, that must be of little consequence to Ms. McCain, since those tens of thousands were the regular folks from the heartland of America who make this country work. They were not the Hollywood types or MTV crowd who wore Barack Obama adorned dresses at mutual admiration societies masquerading as video music award shows.

Ms. McCain also has a dim view of ideological conservatives. She thinks the Republican Party gives too much attention to Ann Coulter, whom she described as “offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing.” Rush Limbaugh is also unacceptable to Meghan, because he is the “extreme right-wing” and “dangerous” for the party — perhaps an unsurprising description in view of Rush’s hesitant and belated endorsement of her father in 2008. So whom does Ms. McCain think Republicans should turn to for political and cultural advice? None other than Russell Brand. A British “comedian,” Brand took time out of his MTV Music Awards hosting duties in September of last year to beg Americans to vote for Barack Obama. He also decided to insult and malign not just Sarah Palin, but her entire family

A thoughtful essay, with more at the link.

Youth for Western Civilization - UPDATED!

I just learned about a young conservatives' political action group, "Youth for Western Civilization." Here's the group's agenda:

1. Inspire Western youth to organize on the basis of pride in their American and Western heritage, and counter radical multiculturalism on campus.

2. Counter and ultimately defeat leftism on campus by pushing the activist agenda, changing college policies in a conservative or right wing direction, and restoring a curriculum that focuses on Western history, not political correctness.

3. Create a social movement on campus where a right wing subculture - similar to the left wing subculture that currently exists - will provide a healthy alternative to a poisonous and bigoted left wing campus climate.

Hey, I'm down with it brothers!

Except, the only problem is that if I identify with these values, I'm going to be attacked by the Southern Poverty Law Center as affiliateing with a "extreme white nationalist hate group." And just think, I've been working on my tan!

It turns out that Youth for Western Civilization (YWC) is the campus club that organized the planned Tom Tancredo talk last week at the University of North Carolina, which of course got shut down by a mob of radical leftist protesters rejecting the free speech rights of conservatives.

It turns out that YWC is sponsoring a talk tonight by former U.S. Representative Virgil Goode. But the folks over at Ordinary Gentlemen don't approve. Speaking of YWC, William Brafford claims that "the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been invaded by white supremacists."

Yeah. Right.

But note how Mr. Brafford has no problems with the leftist brownshirts refusing to let Representative Tancredo have his say.

See also, Saber Point, "The Southern Poverty Law Center: A Leftwing Propaganda Machine, and Dan Riehl, "Note To Libertarians."

**********

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee reports on the leftist brownshirting at UNC's Virgil Goode talk tonight:

6 people, presumably students, have been arrested protesting Virgil Goode's speech against illegal immigration at UNC-Chapel Hill. They seem to be every bit as tolerant as the Carolina blue fascists that violently ended Tom Tancredo's attempted speech last week.

The Daily Tarheel covered the speech via Twitter, and described juvenile protesters that simply don't understand that the freedom of speech hinges on the free exchange of ideas, not drowning out those that oppose your own.

It's a sad commentary on the state of education and intellectual discourse at Chapel Hill, but sadly a kind of intellectual bullying that has become a favored tactic on the political left.

A protestor at the Tancredo event sums up the thuggish behavior with daring honesty when she admitted, "I don't believe a lot of change in this country have come through debating and being happy and talking to people."

Presumably one day in the future this protestor or another one like her will brag about having the university with the cleanest-burning ovens.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

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 ...