Obama's Post-American World

From Mark Steyn's Sunday column:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full Metal Saturday: Kristen Dalton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the Hearings Begin!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Levin's Conservative Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,974 Reasons For Supporting "Enhanced Interrogation"

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

Cartoon Credit: Investor's Business Daily.

Art Posters: The Cotton Pickers, 1876

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Maher's Angry Tea Party Rant

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

Janeane Garofalo's San Francisco Values

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

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

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

Yeah. Right.

Dick Morris: Obama in Bed With Our Enemies

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

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

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

Rule 5 Rescue: Jennifer Love Hewitt

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

Also "Rule 5" blogging:

* Fausta, "When Van meet Monie."

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

* James Joyner, "Susan Boyle Gets Makeover."

* Moe Lane, "Tina, not Dusty."

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Wellywanger, "Early Bedtime Totty ..."

Previously:

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Ashley Swearengin."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Scarlett Johansson."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Katy Perry."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Helen Mirren."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova."

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

Concerning the "Anti-Jihadist" Blogosphere

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

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

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

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

Well, the battles continue to escalate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftists Want Blood, Not Memos

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

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

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

Yeah. Right.

(More at Memeorandum).

How to Get a Blogger Content Warning

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

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

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

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

Strongest Possible Content Warning! Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops

STRONGEST POSSIBLE CONTENT WARNING!

NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

What is the Definition of Marriage?

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

Prager exclaims:

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

And he also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Research Rally at UCLA

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

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

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

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

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

H. Winet
Pasadena

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

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

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

I'll have more later ...

Palin-Prejean 2012

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

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

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.