Angry Taxpayers Rally at Nationwide Tea Parties - UPDATED!

Well, tomorrow's the big day. Americans around the country will gather at civic centers nationwide to protest "the high-tax and deficit spending policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress," as the Washington Examiner puts it, in "Angry Taxpayers to Rally at Tea Party Protests":

The movement started with a “Porkulus” protest organized by Keli Carender, a blogger-mom in Seattle getting her first taste of political activism, three days before the now-famous Feb. 19 television news rant by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Carender was concerned about Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package. Blogger Michelle Malkin got wind of Carender’s activity and touted it, which led to similar protests in Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas. A national movement caught fire, organized by a bunch of mostly unconnected people who found each other via social networking on the Internet. These facts about the origins of the movement render especially goofy recent accusations from pro-Obama groups on the left that the Tea Party Protests are somehow part of an evil right-wing conspiracy funded either by CNBC or Fox News.

Part of the reason for the mean-spiritedness in some of the attacks from the pro-Obama groups is likely the failure of efforts to turn out large crowds in support of the chief executive’s $787 billion economic stimulus package and $3.6 trillion 2010 federal budget, with its $1 trillion deficit and comparable floods of red ink for a decade thereafter. The recent “New Way Forward” gathering here in D.C., for example, was heralded by organizers as the first of a wave of counter-Tea Party Protests, but barely a dozen people turned out. Similarly, much-publicized efforts to use the 13-million email addresses compiled by the Obama campaign to generate pressure on Congress barely caused a ripple, much less a wave of support for the Obama budget.

The piece links to Tax Day Tea Party and National Tea Party Day.

See "The New Tea Party and Revolution" for another tremendous resource.

Nice Deb has bumped up her post, "Who’s Going to A Tax Day Tea Party?", and she links to Luke America's resource, "101 Tea Party Sign Slogans."

See also:

* Adam Graham, "Why I’m Attending a Tea Party."

* Angry White Dude, "Liberals Fear Conservative Tea Parties."

* Astute Bloggers, "Pawlenty Slams Obama Taxes."

* Atlas Shrugs, "White House Distances Itself from ... Lovers of Freedom."

* Cheat Seeking Missiles, "Toast Krugman At Your Tea Party."

* Dan Riehl, "The New Battleground: Tea Parties And The Tenth Amendment."

* David Weigel, "Tea Party Activists: Tax Day Events Will Attract ‘Silent Majority’."

* Flopping Aces, "Homeland Security Report targets Flopping Aces."

* Glenn Reynolds, "MARK LEVIN’S LIBERTY AND TYRANNY is still #1 on Amazon."

* Liberty Papers, "The White House responds to DHS report."

* Liberty Pundit, "Gallup Poll: People OK With Level Of Taxation."

* Little Miss Attila, "The Jon Henke Smackdown of Tea-Trutherism."

* Lonely Conservative, "Liberals are Mocking the Tea Parties."

* Lynn Mitchell, "Tea parties going global."

* Michelle Malkin, "Where will you be for Tax Day Tea Party?"

* PoliGazette, "Are the Tea Parties A Delayed Reaction?"

* Protein Wisdom, "Tax Day Tea Parties."

* Repurblican, "Beware of Tea Party free-riders and saboteurs, Right and Left."

* Right Wing News, "I am Participating in my First Protest Tomorrow."

* Robert Stacy McCain, "Alabama, here I come!"

* Snooper Report, "You Throw It Out And Replace It."

* Stop the ACLU, "Gallup Poll Apparently Says Us Teabaggers Are Out Of Touch (?)."

* The Strata-Sphere, "The Threat Of Far Right Extremism - Updated!"

* Sundries Shack, "Ignore the JournoList Meme of the Week and Go to a Tea Party!"

* Wake Up America, "Watch For 'Men in Black' At A tea Party Near You Tomorrow."

* William Jacobson, "The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS."

Please e-mail to be added to this roundup. Patriots, to the streets!

*********

UPDATE: More Tea Party and related posting:

* The Anchoress, "DHS documents picking a fight? UPDATED."

* Andrea Shea King, "Tea Party Anthem Singer ... “This whole thing is Rush Limbaugh’s fault”."

* Critical Thinker, "Edmund Burke and a Progressive went to a Tea Party."

* Founding Bloggers, "Is DHS Writing Any Reports About ... Leftwing Extremists In Chicago?"

* Gateway Pundit, "St. Louis Tea Party Organizers Fight Back!..."

* Gayle's Place, "I'm a Rightwing Extremist, are You?"

* John Romano, "Tea Parties, Homeland Security and Silencing the Opposition."

* Maggie's Notebook, "AMERICAN LEGION: An Open Letter to Homeland Security ..."

* Mark Goluskin, "Of Tea Parties ..."

* Michelle Malkin, "Tracking the Tea Party crashers."

* The Next Right, "The Tea Party protests."

* Political Pistachio, "The Shadow Gallery."

* Power Line, "Watch Out For Those Crazy Right Wingers!"

* Pundit & Pundette, "David Shuster outdoes himself."

* Red State, "Obama ... Veterans, Pro-Lifers, Gun Enthusiasts ... are “Right Wing Extremists”."

* The Rhetorican, "Attack of the Anti-Tea Party Attack Poodles."

* Roger L. Simon, "Tea Party Derangement Syndrome - it’s here!

* Tygrrrr Express, "Events, Announcements, and Link Love."

**********

UPDATE II: From Dave at Point of a Gun: "I Am Going For The Pulled Pork Sandwiches And The Protests."

Spain to Indict Bush Administration Officials

Why on earth anyone would anyone want to put U.S. governmental decisions under the review of foreign governments and courts is beyond me, but Scott Horton, a classic left-wing transnationalist extremist, is pumping up the decision of Spanish prosecutors to seek criminal indictments against former Bush administration officials. Topping the list, of course, is former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but it's John Yoo, a former Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Justice Department, who is often an even greater target of today's left-wing antiwar extremists.

Last week the Los Angeles Times published an exchange on John Yoo between John Eastman, the dean at Chapman University School of Law, and Lawrence Rosenthal, who is a professor at the law school. Professor Eastman's analysis was one of the best defenses I've read of Yoo tenure, and frankly, one of the only defenses of the torture memos I can recall reading in a mainstream newspaper other than the Wall Street Journal.

Here's a snippet from Eastman's analysis:

In my view, the legal positions Yoo advanced in the post-9/11 memos are supported -- some well supported; others at least arguable -- by constitutional text, historical understanding and legal precedent. In fact, many of those positions were shared by Clinton administration officials now serving in the Obama administration.

For example, one memo argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to unlawful combatants, such as members of Al Qaeda, who target civilian populations and otherwise violate the rules of war. That position was shared at the time by Eric H. Holder Jr., now the U.S. attorney general. In 2002, in a CNN interview, Holder stated: "It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war."

Another controversial legal position advanced in the memos was that provisions of the Bill of Rights did not apply beyond the shores of the United States, particularly to wartime conduct. For authority, the memo cited the case of Harbury vs. Deutch, in which a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2000 that the 5th Amendment does not apply abroad to claims of torture by CIA-paid agents against foreign nationals.

At issue were allegations of torture that occurred over an 18-month period -- half of it during the first year of the Clinton administration and that, according to the complaint, included this: "They chained and bound him naked to a bed, beat and threatened him, and encased him in a fullbody cast to prevent escape."

The appeals court accepted the arguments made by Wilma Lewis, a U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, that the 5th Amendment does not apply to claims of torture involving "an alien rebel commander leading an attempt violently to overthrow a foreign government," even when the torture was alleged to have been committed by paid agents of, and at the request or at least full knowledge of, the CIA. The opinion was written by Judge David S. Tatel, a Clinton appointee, and joined by Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Carter appointee, and Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee.

And also:

After 9/11, the lawyers at the Justice Department faced unprecedented legal questions. They had been given the task of identifying the executive powers that could legally be brought to bear to prevent future attacks. That they were aggressive in their legal interpretations should come as no surprise, given the circumstances.

In the end, the president's options were more thoroughly vetted by lawyers than at any wartime era in our nation's history. There were no wholesale detentions based on race, such as occurred under President Roosevelt in World War II. No systematic suppression of antiwar speech, such as under President Wilson in World War I.

Leftists never mention the Roosevelt administration's counter example. The regular meme on the left is that the Bush administration's "shredding" of the Consitution was unprecedented in American history. Such claims are fradulent, and the pushback against the Bush administration is just one element in the larger program of the secular collectivists to grab power in the name of the international proletariat (see, for example, The Daily Dish, Matthew Yglesias, Crooks and Liars, At-Largely, and AfterDowningStreet.org).

Andrew Sullivan is No Conservative

Andrew Sullivan continues to claim he is conservative time and again (and of course, he is not), and then he has readers who send him e-mails declaiming anything to do with what are basic conservative views, like this one:

I celebrated Easter yesterday with my ultra conservative family. I love my family but they have gone so far to the right over the past 8 years that it is difficult to have any sort of discussion with them. I think they are typical of conservatives born in the baby boom. They are scarred by the culture wars and the hatred they have for the left is so strong that it becomes disturbing.

Another important point is that 9/11 pushed them away from any level of pragmatism. My family is originally from Manhattan, so 9/11 was taken as a very personal attack. My father worked on the 76th floor of the WTC for years, he lost a lot of friends that day...

So with this in mind I compiled a few themes from the days discussions that you might find interesting (or horrifying). None of this is ground breaking but it is interesting to see these generalizations about the current conservative movement be personified in ones family.

1. Total insulation from MSM.

Everyone refuses to read the New York Times or Washington Post. Sunday morning while getting ready for Church I put on "Meet the Press" and my father looked on with disgust and changed the channel to Fox News. At dinner I brought up an article in The Economist that was critical of Barack Obama and my uncle said that it was a socialist rag.

2. Distrust of centrists When discussing the future of the Republican party I suggested that we needed to create a bigger tent and avoid social issues that alienated us from younger voters. My GRANDMOTHER responded that we don't need the back benchers like Christopher Buckley dictating our principles. I think that line was straight from the Mark Levin show.

3. Neoconservative aspirations The most interesting part of the day, was that so much of the discussion focused on the Somali Pirate issue. It was the story of the day, but I didn't think their was that much to talk about. Surely, not as interesting as talking about Iran, Obama's budget, the economy etc. However we spent most of the day discussing Obama's lackluster response to the issue and the weakness he displayed in not acting quicker. My father was incensed that the media kept referring to this as a crime rather then an act of terrorism. His suggestion was to engage in a land war in Somalia...

It convinced me of one thing that if a new conservatism is going to flourish, it is going to have to be led by a younger generation. People born between 1947 and 1960 have way too much baggage.

I'll be travelling with my wife and sons to Fresno on Thursday to spend the weekend at my father-in-law's. Fox News will be on all morning, then most likely some History Channel in the afternoon. We'll have big dinners with the extended family on the weekends. The views expressed by Sullivan's reader will be bread and butter around the dinner table. I'll be very comfortable hanging out and rejoicing in the community of people who love America without having to think about it first.

Conservatism is alive and well in this country, and it makes me happy to see an example of regular folks (not "extreme") living their lives not much differently from how my family members live.

Memo to Andrew: I know conservatives. My family is conservative. You, sir, are no conservative.

Obama's DHS Warns of Right-Wing Extremist Threat

I wasn't taking it too seriously when I first saw it, but as Michelle Malkin indicates, the report from the Department of Homeland Security is the real thing: "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

As Michelle notes, the timing's perfect:

The “report” was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.

I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.

Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real.
They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

Michelle cites a number of passages from the report, but this one caught my attention when I read it this afternoon:

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

I was in graduate school, in the 1990s, when we had the big worries over right-wing militias following the Oklahoma City Bombing. The threats were obviously real. I read a number of articles on this, as well as James Coates', Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right.

This administration must be supremely spooked to have DHS cook up something like this cockamamie report. I know militias, and I know right wing extremist ideologies. And I can tell you, the Tea Party movement is no fringe groundswell. In fact, I have a feeling this report could cause major political damage to the White House, so expect to see some damage control in the next few days, particularly as we see Wednesday's massive citizens' anti-tax demonstrations sweep the nation. Leftists will continue to paint everyday Americans as fascist extremists. If the administration does so as well it will only be courting even greater grassroots mobilization.

Tea Parties Spark Conservative Insurgency Online

Via Glenn Reynolds, check out this Fox News report, "Move Over, MoveOn: Tea Parties Spark Conservative Insurgency Online":

Conservatives may be catching up with their liberal counterparts in building a Web-driven, grassroots campaign to push their agenda.

The online insurgency-in-the-making revolves around the so-called tea parties, the anti-tax protests popping up around the country that they expect to culminate Wednesday -- tax day -- with hundreds of rallies nationwide.

The movement, which expanded over the last two months via the Web, is now relying heavily on independent media Web sites to track and cover the campaign.

The digital evolution of conservative activists comes too late to help John McCain, whose new media arm was left in the dust by President Obama's campaign. But organizers are holding out hope that this movement has juice.

"It's thoroughly viral," said Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit.com blogger who hosts an online news show for the Web site Pajamas TV.

Pajamas TV is on the frontlines of new media coverage for the tea parties. The Web site already has covered some protests and is pledging to recruit an army of citizen journalists, working without pay, to cover the hundreds of protests on April 15.

Roger L. Simon, co-founder of the blog network Pajamas Media, which includes Pajamas TV, said the site went after tea party coverage because the mainstream media didn't.

He said Pajamas TV has more than 200 people registered to report on Wednesday's tea parties. He said they'll send in text reports, as well as videos and photos, to drive what he expects to be about 12 straight hours of online coverage.

"They'll be across the country essentially," he said, calling the operation a "big experiment."

"What will the quality of these reports be? Variable of course," Simon said. "But that's the nature of the beast."

The Web site currently features extensive footage of Tea Party protests, including interviews with activists and roundtable discussions.

From here, Simon wants to use the network of volunteer reporters for future assignments. Reynolds, who is also a law professor at the University of Tennessee, said he'll cover the protest in Knoxville and then return to co-anchor an online broadcast from his home.

There's more at the link.

See also:

* Common Sense Political Thought, "Mob Populism."

* Moe Lane, "I’d just like to note for the record ..."

* Nice Deb, "The Confused Critics of the Tax Day Tea Parties."

* Robert Stacy McCain, "Sully and the Tea Party Truthers."

* Paco Enterprises, "Protest is not a Leftwing Monopoly."

* Valley of the Shadow, "The Story of Icarus and the Democrats."

Gay Marriage and Young Republicans

Meghan McCain's in the news again with her comments on gay marriage and the GOP. According to Ms. McCain, for "progressive" Republicans, the gay marriage issue is "about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside."

Read the whole thing, here. Ms. McCain argues that Ronald Reagan, in 1978, championed gay rights during a California initiative battle what would have prevented gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

The problem for Ms. McCain, and other advocates of same-sex marriage, is that Americans do not hold discriminatory views of homosexuals. Polls repeatedly find widespread support for the extension of equal protections to gay Americans. The problem is not the extension of rights to same-sex couples per se, but the redefinition of marriage itself. And huge majorities are opposed to changing the historical conception of society's normative tradition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That's why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Interestingly, Kristen Soltis, at The Next Right, finds some empirical support for Ms. McCain's argument on gay marriage and young Republicans. But a careful look at numbers offered by Soltis, drawn from the General Social Survey, reveals that youth voters are not all that sold on the acceptablility of homosexual relations, much less gay marriage:

I recently completed research on the topic of young voters and the GOP: where the Republican Party is losing young voters, how serious the threat is to the party, and how the Republican Party should respond. And on this point, Ms. McCain has it right - the issue of gay marriage is one on which young voters and the Republican Party diverge significantly ....

Yet issues relating to homosexuality find vast differences between the young and older voters. In terms of the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is wrong, 44.3% of respondents to the General Social Survey 18-34 believe it is "never wrong" compared to 33.5% of respondents overall. Furthermore, 47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong" compared to 55.6% of respondents overall.

Eh, hello? "47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong ..."

That statistic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is 2008 data. If nearly half of those 18-34 think that homosexual intercourse is always wrong, it's not a particularly robust statement on youth support for gay rights, much less same-sex marriage. Futher, for all the talk of society moving toward more acceptance of gay lifestyles, that's got to be a troublesome statistics for the radical homosexual activists. Indeed, numbers like these explain precisely why the gay nihilists browbeat tradtionalists into submission: Radical leftists know that their agenda violates the deepest sense of social propriety, and so they must portray traditionalists as bigots and religious "extremists" to make the sale for their own licentiousness.

I just checked Google for my post from January on the radical gay of the political left: "Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations." At that entry I discussed the inaugural celebrations among gay activist groups, which included the deployment of "rimming stations" by those celebrating at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington. But note that a Google search for "rimming station gay" pulls up all kind of links to gay male sexual pornography. With all due respect to Meghan McCain, I seriously doubt these are the kind of "moderate conservative" views the GOP should be pushing. Or, at least, a look at young gay lifestyles reveals anything but a socially conservative outlook, and I'd wager Ronald Reagan would roll over in the grave at the thought of it.

Besides, as gay conservative Charles Winecoff argued recently, the gay rights agenda is really not about "inclusion" or "full acceptance." It's about social revolution:

Eight years after 9/11, the LGBT community gets its activism fix by indulging in nostalgic, anti-establishment indignation over petty domestic slights. Ganging up on an annoying little old lady carrying a cross at a Prop 8 rally satisfies the itch between workouts and White Parties. But wouldn’t it be genuinely awe inspiring to see masses of musclebound gay men taking on, say, a congregation of homophobic Islamic “thinkers” (who, BTW, love the idea of pushing gay men off cliffs to their death)? ....

Civil unions already offer gay couples the same basic legal status as married couples in several states, including California (and they’re a lot easier to get). But as a result of the gay community’s mass hissy fit to usurp marriage, the religious right has been re-ignited in its holy war against legal recognition of any gay relationships at all ....

40 years after the Stonewall Riots, it’s time for the LGBT community to reconnect with what made us rebel in the first place: the right to live not as conformist dhimmis, but as social, intellectual, and artistic pioneers. Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need - and setting back our cause in the process - we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.

There's a lot to think about for the GOP in acceding to the demands of "progressive" Republicans for a wholesale cultural change that is nowhere near supported by a majority of Americans. Not only that, the youth demographic is open to political persuasion toward more conservative ideals on lifestyle and families.

There's been some talk lately of the formation of third political party, which would in effect be a splinter movement breaking away from today's GOP. So far that chatter's been associated with the Tea Party protests springing up around the country, but if the national Republican Party capitulates to the Megan McCain's and David Frums, it's not unlikely that the push for a new conservative party outside of the traditional two-party system would pick up even more steam.

**********

Related: Gay Patriot looks at the same data from Next Right, and then adds:

I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote. I do think it needs [to] offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.

It's interesting that had Iowa taken the "federalist" route this last week, we would not have seen the approval of same-sex marriage in that state.

J. David Jentsch Stands Up to Animal Rights Extremists

I'm a little surprised to see this story at the Los Angeles Times, but check it out for some decent old-fashioned journalism: "UCLA professor stands up to violent animal rights activists":

As soon as he heard his car alarm blare and saw the orange glow through his bedroom window, UCLA neuroscientist J. David Jentsch knew that his fears had come true.

His 2006 Volvo, parked next to his Westside house, had been set ablaze and destroyed in an early morning attack March 7. Jentsch had become the latest victim in a series of violent incidents targeting University of California scientists who use animals in biomedical research.

"Obviously, someone who does the work I do in this environment expects that it's possible, indeed likely, that it would have happened," said Jentsch, who uses vervet monkeys in his research on treatments for schizophrenia and drug addiction. Before the attack, he had received no threats and had taken only limited precautions, including keeping his photo off the Internet.

"I've been as careful as you can be without being paranoid," he said.

After similar incidents, other UCLA scientists have become almost reclusive as security and public curiosity around them grew. Three years ago, another UCLA neuroscientist, weary of harassment and threats to his family, abandoned animal research altogether, sending an e-mail to an animal rights website that read: "You win."

But Jentsch has decided to push back.

Jentsch, an associate professor of psychology and psychiatry, has founded an organization at UCLA to voice support for research that uses animals in what he calls a humane, carefully regulated way. He is organizing a pro-research campus rally April 22, a date chosen because animal rights activists, who contend that his research involves the torture and needless killing of primates, already had scheduled their own UCLA protest that day.

"People always say: 'Don't respond. If you respond, that will give [the attackers] credibility,' " Jentsch, 37, said in a recent interview in his UCLA office. "But being silent wasn't making us feel safer. And it's a moot point if they are coming to burn your car anyway, whether you give them credibility or not."

The incidents have traumatized many professors and students on the Westwood campus, well beyond the circle of those directly affected, said Jentsch, who was not injured in the car fire.

This part's a little mind-boggling:

Two days after Jentsch's car was burned, a profanity-laced Internet message from the murky Animal Liberation Brigade took credit for the fire, as it had for past UCLA assaults.

"The things you and others like you do to feeling, sentient monkeys is so cruel and disgusting we can't believe anyone would be able to live with themselves," the message read. "David, here's a message just for you, we will come for you when you least expect it and do a lot more damage than to your property."

Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles-area physician and frequent spokesman for the animal rights movement, said he and fellow activists do not participate in the attacks and do not know who is behind them, although he sympathizes with the actions.

Jentsch, according to Vlasak, "is hurting and killing non-human primates every day. And if it took harming him to make him stop torturing, it is certainly morally justifiable."

Vlasak said that Jentsch's new group is a publicity stunt aimed at preserving researchers' federal funding and turning public attention from the nature of the researcher's own work, which involves addicting monkeys to methamphetamine. Vlasak and others said they want to meet Jentsch in a public debate, but the UCLA professor said he was willing to do so only with people who don't condone violence.

Jentsch (pronounced "Yench") has organized a counter organization affilliated with Britain's scientific progress group, "Pro-Test." On April 22, Jentsch will speak at a UCLA rally, "Stand up for Science, Research and the Medicines of Tomorrow." The event is scheduled for 11:30am at the UCLA campus. Click here for more information.

**********

Addendum: I just checked the archives for a previous entry on animal rights, "The Postmodern Culture of Animal Rights Activism."

It turns out that Professor John Sanbonmatsu of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in Worcester, Massachusetts, left a comment at the post. Professor Sanbonmatsu attacks my essay as "factually wrong on all counts," and he suggests that my writing is "a blogger's animus toward animal rights, based neither in logic nor reason, but simple prejudice."

Well, I beg to differ with this point of neither "logic nor reason"; and frankly, the good professor looks to be short of logic when he suggests that animal rights "is not a 'relativistic' moral position; nor are animal rights activists 'postmodernists'."

Any philosophy that elevates animals to a morally equivalent plane to that of humankind qualifies as a "postmodernist" ideological program in the general usage of postmodernism in political science (interesting related link is here). I'm not particularly interested in Sanbonmatsu's revisionist nomenclature, in any case. He can quibble with academic labels if he wishes (but don't miss the philosphically anti-modernist "about page" at the "Institute for Critical Animal Studies," which is apparently an animal rights academic thinktank.

But check Roger Scruton's identification of the animal rights program as a key element of the contemporary left's radical worldview:

Properly understood, the concept of a right—and the attendant ideas of duty, responsibility, law, and obedience—enshrines what is distinctive in the human condition. To spread the concept beyond our species is to jeopardize our dignity as moral beings, who live in judgment of one another and of themselves.

Interestingly - and highly relevant to this discussion - it turns out that Professor Sanbonmatsu did his doctoral training at UC Santa Cruz; and according to his biography, the professor's specialities are in "Political philosophy; critical theory (Marxism, feminism, ecological theory); ethics and animal rights; existentialism (especially phenomenology)."

Well, that explains a lot.

Recall that David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin, in One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy, identified UC Santa Cruz as "the worst school in America." The introduction to One Party Classroom is available here.

I'd be interested to know the membership of Professor Sanbonmatsu's dissertation committee, as well as some of faculty members who taught the graduate seminars he attended.

Perhaps I'll find out: Dr. Sanbonmatsu's e-mail is available at his Worcester faculty page, and I'll forward him this post just as a matter of professional courtesy.

Where Credit is Due: The Story of a Successful Rescue

I said last night that I'd update on the Richard Phillips rescue story when more information became available. Well, the story's now leading at Memeorandum. See, for example, Michael Shear, "An Early Military Victory for Obama," and Ann Scott Tyson's, "How SEALs Carried Out Their Mission."

But relating to Black Five's earlier piece, see Jeff Emanuel's, "The Story of a Successful Rescue (and the Obama Adminstration’s Attempt to Claim Credit)":

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

On Friday, April 9, as the standoff reached the end of its third day, I called on President Obama to take action to free the American hostage from his Somali captors. I outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so; number 1 was the following:

(1) 2 helos, 2 snipers each: pop the [pirates] in their heads, then drop a rescue swimmer to escort the hostage up to one of the choppers. This works best if the hostage is aware of what is happening and can help without getting in the way — say, by hopping overboard as the gunships near, to divert attention and get out of the line of fire.

(This was written before the USS Bainbridge tethered the life raft to its stern, an action which eliminated the need for helicopters.)

However, instead of taking direct, decisive action against the rag-tag group of gunmen, the Obama administration dilly-dallied, dawdled, and eschewed any decisiveness whatsoever, even in the face of enemy fire, in hopes that the situation would somehow resolve itself without violence. Thus, the administration sent a clear message to all who would threaten U.S. interests abroad that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no idea how to respond to such situations — and no real willingness to use military force to resolve them.

Any who think they weren’t watching every minute of this are guilty — at best — of greatly underestimating our enemies.

Like the crew of the Alabama, which took swift and decisive action to take back their own ship rather than wait for help from Washington that they knew could not be counted on, Captain Phillips took matters into his own hands for the second time in three days, leaping into the water to create a diversion and allowing the NSWC team to eliminate his captors. The result, of course, was the best that could possibly be expected: three pirates dead, the captain unharmed, and a fourth Somali man who had surrendered late Saturday night in custody.

See also, Red State, "Captive Captain Saves President Obama."

Obama's Post-Material Economy

I wanted to share this great Robert Samuelson essay with readers, "Obama's Economic Mirage" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama has made no secret of his vision for America's 21st-century economy. We will lead the world in "green" technologies to stop global warming. Advancing medical breakthroughs will improve our well-being, control health spending and enable us to expand insurance coverage. These investments in energy and health care, as well as education, will revive the economy and create millions of well-paying new jobs for middle-class Americans.

It's a dazzling rhetorical vista that excites the young and fits the country's mood, which blames "capitalist greed" for the economic crisis. Obama promises communal goals and a more widely shared prosperity. The trouble is that it may not work as well in practice as it does in Obama's speeches. Still, congressional Democrats press ahead to curb global warming and achieve near-universal health insurance. We should not be stampeded into far-reaching changes that have little to do with today's crisis.

What Obama proposes is a "post-material economy." He would de-emphasize the production of ever-more private goods and services, harnessing the economy to achieve broad social goals. In the process, he sets aside the standard logic of economic progress.

Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, this has been simple: produce more with less. ("Productivity," in economic jargon.) Mass markets developed for clothes, cars, computers and much more because declining costs expanded production. Living standards rose. By contrast, the logic of the "post-material economy" is just the opposite: Spend more and get less.

There's more at the link.

Related: Ari Fleischer, "Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes" (via Pundette):

Today, Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want the "wealthy" to pay even more so there is more money for them to redistribute. The president says he wants the wealthy to pay their "fair share" ... The economic and moral problem is that when 50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them and an increasingly smaller number of taxpayers foot the bill, the spinning triangle will no longer be able to support itself. Eventually, it will spin so slowly that it falls down, especially when the economy is contracting and the number of wealthy taxpayers is in sharp decline.

The Grassroots Tea Party Revolt

Paul Krugman's always an interesting character on the political left. As I've noted a few times here, throughout the market downturn, he's been the biggest economic fearmonger in American politics (for example, see Krugman, "What Obama Must Do: A Letter to the New President"). The scale of Krugman's proposed big-government interventionism is truly breathtaking. It's thus no wonder why he's a rock star to the hardline secular collectivists of the extreme left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Krugman's latest column at the New York Times goes after the conservative tea party movement. The piece is worth a good read as an indication of how truly clueless leftists are about what's really brewing among everyday Americans today. Beyond the boilerplate attacks on conservatives as "crazy people," Krugman's conspiratorial view of the Tea Party movement is worth highlighting: " ... it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects ... "

Man, that is some kind of denialism! Krugman's "AstroTurfing" is on par with Jane Hamsher's circus performance last weekend, where she made a fool of herself claiming that Fox News was orchestrating the nationwide Tea Party revolt - and that's on top of the 12 people who showed up for Hamsher's Washington "New Way Forward" demonstration. Krugman and Hamsher are no different from the idiot left-wing activists declaring that "The typical American is not a good citizen."

I tell you what: In my experience of 25 years of political participation and scholarship in political science, I can't really recall quite the phenomenon as this buildup for the April 15th Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Rallies. Oh sure, Fox News has been cheerleading from the sidelines, but whatever influence the Fox personalities have had is nothing compared to the genuine outpouring of grassroots patriotism that we're seeing today. This is the best I've felt about conservative politics since the Democrats won power last November.

For a flavor of what I'm taking about, check out this website I found yesterday, "The New Tea Party and Revolution." The front page of the site lists hundreds of scheduled Tea Party events all around the country. I counted at least 150 and that's before I scrolled even halfway down. This is the kind of interest and spontaneity that cannot be manufactured by a few conservative cable TV shock jocks. This is the Real McCoy! It's history in the making!

According to Glenn Reynolds, who discusses the grassroots nature of the movement in an essay today at the New York Post:

These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists.

And I think this is what's so frightening to those on the political left. As William Jacobson notes in his post today:

The disparate groups involved, the great variation from location-to-location, and the sometimes disorganized nature of the protests demonstrate the genuine nature of the movement. The fact that some have lent a promotional hand doesn't take away from this. The mainstream media practically elected Obama through its over-the-top cheerleading coverage and refusal to ask hard questions. And Media Matters and other liberal organizations are extremely well funded in their efforts, far more so than the Tea Party movement. Nothing any conservative organization is doing to help the Tea Parties even comes close.

But check out the description of the events at "Michigan Taxes Too Much":

There are many reasons why millions of Americans will take to the streets on April 15....

If you want to know more about us, look to the national figures, personalities and famous people who [are] leaders and organizers of this protest. Unfortunately, you won’t find any famous, rich or recognizable people. They don’t exist. Instead you will find the “Joe, the plumbers” and the millions of no-name people who are indeed, mad as hell.

Organizers are the guy who lives around the corner and you didn’t even know his name before. They are the secretaries, computer technicians, clerks, businessmen, salesmen and any other occupation you can think of. There are also retired people who remember what this country once stood for.

Notice the speakers are not politicians. In fact, party representatives and elected officials offering to take the podium at most tea parties are being rejected. Instead, the everyday Joe’s of this world will speak. There will be no teleprompter with carefully worded speeches that don’t say anything or words chosen to be interpreted differently by different groups.

Probably the best explanation for Krugman and Hamsher's frustration is pure jealousy, even panic. Leftists were the opposition for the last eight years. They had their run at power. What's interesting to me is that today's grassroots activism is not particularly partisan. Over and over again, on blogs and message boards, I see folks saying "we are not political." Many folks confess that this is the first time they've gotten involved politically. And that has to be the most frightening thing about this for the secular collectivists on the left. If you're a Democratic big-government backer of the current administration, a real movement of real people modeling themselves on the "Spirit of 1776" is just something that's too much to believe.

I can't wait for Wednesday, April 15th!

Andrew Sullivan Throws Hissy Fit at Amazon "Adult" De-Linking

The Los Angeles Times notes, "One of these books has been removed from Amazon's sales rankings because of "adult" content; the other has not":

"American Psycho" is Bret Easton Ellis' story of a sadistic murderer. "Unfriendly Fire" is a well-reviewed empirical analysis of military policy. But it's "Unfriendly Fire" that does not have a sales rank - which means it would not show up in Amazon's bestseller lists, even if it sold more copies than the "Twilight" series. In some cases, being de-ranked also means being removed from Amazon's search results.

Unfair? Perhaps ... But boy does this ever throw Andrew Sullivan into a hissy fit!

This has to be one of the weirdest and least defensible policy changes imaginable. Mein Kampf is fine. Jackie Collins is fine. But books about gay subjects are now "adult" on Amazon and so not included on best seller lists or rankings. Sure enough, "Virtually Normal" and "Love Undetectable" have been de-listed and stripped of customer sales rankings. Jackie Collins' "Married Lovers" hasn't. My books contain discussions of Aquinas and Freud and Foucault and Burke. I'm puzzled as to why those authors are more "adult" than Collins' adulterous couplings.

Hmm, "weird" and "indefensible"? Kind of like Iowa's same-sex marriage ruling. Go figure?

"Obama has passed his first test!"

The Daily Kos clowns are ejaculating, "Obama Approved Special Forces mission to save Captain!"

Well this will make the wingnuts' heads explode!

Apparently Obama approved the Special Forces mission to save the Captain! ....

As I have said in many diaries, Obama has to give the final approval for use of Special Forces. If this mission resulted in the Captain being killed he would have been blamed by the media as well as the wingnuts. Since this mission was successful, Obama is responsible for the success as well ....

I don't care what anybody says, Obama has passed his first test!

Actually, my head's not "exploding," and it seems the lefties can't make up their minds. Either this is a good thing, or the pirates were just acting in self-defense, considering the kind of neo-imperial aggression seeking to "stop any progressive movement or any form of good self-government." Yeah. Right. In Somalia, har, har...

In any case, check out Uncle Jimbo at Black Five, "How the Rescue Happened":

The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. Iti [sic] is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

I'll update when we get more information, but I was just e-mailing Rusty Walker about exactly this issue.

Related: Flopping Aces, "Somali pirates seek revenge on French and Americans."

Captain Phillips is a Hero

Well, I'm sure most folks have heard the great news that U.S. Captain Richard Phillips has been rescued from the pirates who hijacked his container ship, the Maersk Alabama. TigerHawk rightly points out that President Barack Obama deserves kudos for "signing off on the mission." I'd add that American naval forces also deserve high praise for playing it cool while the pirated lifeboat drifted off the coast of Somalia. In waiting out Captain Phillips' captors, U.S. forces showed a patient resolve, and then decisive action, that culminated in the best possible outcome.

That said, I checked some of the links at Memeorandum to get a feel for the blogospheric buzz, and many of those on the left aren't celebrating this event for the triumph of heroism that it is. Readers should check the comments at Think Progress, where some of the visitors there are scourging the United States, and suggesting that piracy is a legitimate response to Eurupe's "nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia." One of the commenters blames the Bush administration:

We are always interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and always trying to stop any progressive movement or any form of good self-government.

Putting aside the sheer stupidy of that comment, note that a couple of the visitors at the post have linked to a piece at Crooks and Liars, "What the International Media Aren't Telling You About Somalia Pirates."

Read the whole post. Crooks and Liars links to an anti-capitalist essay at London's Independent, and then concludes with this flourish, "I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?"

Well, I wonder which principled member of our (leftist) media will point out that this is the exact same kind of logic that we saw after September 11, 2001, when leftists claimed America deserved the atttacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Indeed, some widely-supported anti-Americans suggested that the "chickens came home to roost" on 9/11.

On this day, Easter Sunday, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a show of national unity upon the safe release of Captain Richard Phillips, who's being hailed as "a hero" by his own crewmates.

Unfortunately, even amid a moment when goodness and human spirit triumphs, those on the radical left continue their endless campaign of anti-Western demonization and destruction. It's a sad commentary on the state of politics in the country today.

Requiem for the Christian Right?

Let me direct readers to a couple of articles for contemplation this Easter ...

First, Monte Kuligowski, at The American Thinker, takes issue with President Barack Obama's claim that the United States is "no longer a Christian nation," but "a nation of citizens," in "Obama's 'Christian Nation'." Second, Tracie Powell, at CQ Politics, asks, "Is Political Rebound Ahead for Christian Right?":

President Obama raised a few eyebrows back home with his choice of words in Turkey, a Muslim nation, about religion.

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values,” the president said.

A few days before, a new report revealed that fewer Americans identify themselves as Christians. The American Religious Identification Survey said the proportion of Americans who claim to have no religion has increased to 15 percent today, from 8.2 percent in 1990.

Newsweek put a story based on the survey on its cover. Reaction from the Christian right was overwhelming. Thousands took issue with the story and some called for Editor Jon Meacham to be fired.

Meacham later wrote a second piece clarifying the original story, and emphasizing that the original piece is really about the weakening of Christian forces in partisan politics. He offers an indepth analysis about the decline of the religious right, which is further supported in a column by Kathleen Parker.

Still, I’m not ready to write an obituary for Christian conservatism just yet.

One only has to look at the response, such as in this video from groups like the National Organization for Marriage after Iowa and Vermont legalized same sex marriage and the Washington, DC council voted to recognize the unions to see how they are now shaping their message.

No, Christianity isn’t dead nor dying, neither is the Christian Right for that matter. It’s just slowing, perhaps temporarily, being replaced by a softer brand of religious expression, says David Roozin, Director of the Hartford Seminary’s Institute for Religion Research.

More progressive Christian leaders are making service, not condemnation, more in vogue.

One example of that soft side in action: a group of Christian leaders plan to converge on Washington later this month to discuss ways to end poverty around the world in 10 years.

Sounds pretty lofty, but it shows a shift in values and a shift in understanding about what makes a person moral and righteous.

Some are reconsidering separation between church and state, after seeing the movement get contaminated by secular elements such as lust of affluence and power, Roozin says: “They’ve been turned off and returned to a greater sense about the word of the Gospel and the church.”

The public has also grown weary of a harsh brand of Christianity, and view it as out of the mainstream and closer fit with conservative Republican politics, which is also out of favor at the moment.

“People are just tired of it. I think we saw that with the election of Barack Obama,” Roozin says. “And I think very definitely the harsh side of conservatism is on the wane. For better or for worse, that harsher side is connected with religion, whether it’s extreme Islam or extreme Christianity.”

But Roozin also points to the growth of Latino Catholicism in this country, and the rise of liberal or more progressive Christian leaders like Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen, who are increasing in prominence.

Warren pastors Saddleback Valley Community Church and prayed at Obama’s inauguration. Olsteen, pastor of the largest church in the U.S., Lakewood Church in Houston, incurred the wrath of Christian conservatives because he won’t outright condemn gay marriage.

Yes, with Obama’s election, religious conservatism suffered a setback. And when he, a constitutional scholar no less and a Christian to boot, said that America is not a Christian nation, that too might be seen as a step backward among conservatives.

It’s too soon to know whether Christian conservatism is fading.

With the flurry of activity regarding gay rights, it will be interesting to see if Obama and the Democratic Congress decide to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

Ask me then if the Christian Right is dead.

Also, for a very moving story of faith and redemption, see Matt Cassens' personal Easter story, "First Communion Tonight."

Here's wishing a wonderful Easter to all of my friends, my family, my students, and my readers.

Thousands Join Pittsburgh Tea Party Rally

I just had to share this beautiful picture from today's Pittsburgh Tea Party protest, via Glenn Reynolds and Memeorandum.

See also, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Several thousand jam North Shore for bailout 'tea party'."

On a related note, I'm not even going to link to the pathetic Jane Hamsher, who humiliated herself today at a "New Way Forward" copycat protest in Washington, D.C. (see video here). All the relevant links to the debate are at Memeorandum. Media Matters, it's worth noting, is attacking Fox News with "damning" new details of the network's "sponsorship" of the nationwide Tea Parties. What's funny to me about this outrage from Media Matters is that we simply do not have a non-partisan, objective press in the Unites States any longer, if we ever did. Frankly, all the power to Fox for covering the Tea Parties, and to their celebrity hosts for endorsing them. If we have media bias, it's really no different from what you'll find at the New York Times and CNN/MSNBC any day of the year. We have a Democratic administration now in the White House enabled largely by a national media establishment that showed demonstrable negativity towards the GOP ticket throughout late-2008. If Fox News is helping the conservative movement with heavy coverage and partisan cheerleading, thank God for that.

Speaking of Fox News, see the website's online report, "Organizers Give Recipes for Effective Tea Parties."