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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Typographical errors at the comment have been corrected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more at the link.

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

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

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

Yeah. Right.

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

America's Newest Profession: Blogging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later ...

Miss California Not Backing Down on Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority of Americans Backs Tea Parties

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

But check this out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Challenge of Change: Conservatives Gather in Orange County

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

From the announcement:

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

America, We Have a Problem
Randy Brogdon
Oklahoma State Senarto

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

Media Malpractice
John Ziegler
Filmaker/Author/Director

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

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

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

America's Diversity Addiction
Georgiana Preskar
Author/SPeaker

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

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

The Deception of the Green Agenda
Holly Swanson
Author

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

Video Presentations By:

Glenn Beck
Gary Bauer
Brigette Gabriel

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

We Didn't Torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Stay Classy, Perez Hilton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: Australia's Daily Telegraph.

Hat Tip: The Blog Prof.

**********

UPDATE: Conservatives are picking up on the story.

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

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

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

More at Memeorandum.

I Wish They All Could Be California Girls!

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

Here's the quote:

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

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

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

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

Go Miss California! Whoo!

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

********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll have more later ...

Fresno Tea Party: Blacks Against Obama!

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

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

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

David Axelrod Attacks Tea Parties as "Unhealthy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 5 Rescue: Ashley Swearengin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more at the link.

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

Previously:

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Scarlett Johansson."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Katy Perry."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Helen Mirren."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova."

How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger

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

LOL!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

Actually, I do.

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

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

Charles Johnson "Explodes"

Charles Johnson ran a disclaimer today at the introduction to his post on President Barack Obama and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. The two heads of state were being photographed together hanging out like old friends. Johnson's brief caption to the photo read:

I know some people think that because I refuse to jump on the bandwagon with some of the more ridiculous, exaggerated attacks against Barack Obama, I’m suddenly on his side.

But this ... is absolutely sickening.

The obvious problem here is that a genuinely conservative blogger shouldn't have to apologize for past comments when criticizing President Obama for his sashays with brutal Latin American dictators.

I've already noted that Andrew Sullivan's a big fan of Little Green Footballs, and that's a huge red flag to any traditionalist who's raised the battle standard against the cultural heathens on the left. But now Media Matters is on board the Johnson gravy train, for example:

Here's a key quote though, from LGF's Charles Johnson, surveying Fox News' militia media movement [emphasis added:

I just wish everyone would take a step back from this extremist brink. It can't lead anywhere good. At best, it will bring the right-wing blogosphere into disrepute, and at the worst it could lead to violence if you encourage these real nuts out there.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the unhinged anti-Obama rhetoric broadcast on so many right-wing blogs since January 21 has already drowned the community in disrepute. The Fox News-driven "tea parties" and the DHS nervous breakdown this week only cemented it.

Shorter version--as long as Michelle Malkin's at the head of any movement, it's going to be a joke.

That's not all.

Johnson's got a series of brief entries at the blog, trying to scruff off all the attention on the left to his own overboard obssession with the current outpouring of robust conservatism:

* "Heads Explode at Reddit.com."

* "Heads Explode at Daily Kos."

* "Heads Explode at Washington Monthly."

* "Heads Explode at Ace of Spades."

* "Heads Explode at Media Matters."

* "James Wolcott's Head Explodes."

* "Heads Explode at Fox News."

* "Heads Explode at Gawker.com."

* "Heads Exploding Everywhere."

As one who sees Johnson doing more harm to conservatism than the fringe elements he's scourging, I have to admit it's not like I didn't anticipate this. See my series of posts, for example:

* "On Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs."

* "Core Cultural Values."

* "Charles Johnson's Strange Alliance with Andrew Sullivan."

* "Glenn Beck Hammers Charles Johnson."

Something's going to happen soon. Maybe we'll see Johnson form a 527 organization with Sully and Markos Moultisas: "The Little Green and Gay Smear Merchants Coalition."

Mark Steyn: "Live Tea or Die!"

As always, Mark Steyn offers his inimitable analysis on the issues of the day, in "Tea Party Animals Not Boiling Over":

The American media, having run their own business into the ground, are certainly qualified to run everybody else's into the same abyss. Which is why they've decided that hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting taxes and out-of-control spending and government vaporization of Americans' wealth and their children's future is no story. Nothing to see here. As Nancy Pelosi says, it's AstroTurf – fake grass-roots, not the real thing.

Besides, what are these whiners so uptight about? CNN's Susan Roesgen interviewed a guy in the crowd and asked why he was here:

"Because," said the Tea Partier, "I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty, and had the right …"

But Roesgen had heard enough: "What does this have to do with your taxes? Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit?"

Had the Tea Party animal been as angry as these Angry White Men are supposed to be, he'd have said, "Oh, push off, you condescending tick. Taxes are a liberty issue. I don't want a $400 'credit' for agreeing to live my life in government-approved ways." Had he been of a more literary bent, he might have adapted Sir Thomas More's line from "A Man For All Seasons": "Why, Susan, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for a $400 tax credit?"

But Roesgen wasn't done with her "You may already have won!" commercial:

"Did you know," she sneered, "that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of this stimulus? That's $50 billion for this state, sir."

Really? Who knew it was that easy? $50 billion! Did those Navy SEALs find it just off the Somali coast in the wreckage of a pirate skiff in a half-submerged treasure chest, all in convertible pieces of eight or Zanzibari doubloons?

Or is it perhaps the case that that $50 billion has to be raised from the same limited pool of 300 million Americans and their as yet unborn descendants? And, if so, is giving it to "the state of Lincoln" – latterly, the state of Blagojevich – likely to be of much benefit to the citizens?

Amid his scattershot pronouncements on everything from global nuclear disarmament to high-speed rail, President Obama said something almost interesting the other day. Decrying a "monstrous tax code that is far too complicated for most Americans to understand," the Tax-Collector-in-Chief pledged: "I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interests."

That shouldn't be hard. A tax code that put my interests over any special interests would read: "How much did you earn last year? [Insert number here] thousand dollars? Hey, feel free to keep it. You know your interests better than we do!"

OK, to be less absolutist about it, my interests include finding a road at the end of my drive every morning, and modern equipment for the (volunteer) fire department and a functioning military to deter the many predators out there, and maybe one or two other things. But 95 percent of the rest is not just "special interests" but social engineering – a $400 tax credit for falling into line with Barack Obama and Susan Roesgen. That's why these are Tea Parties – because the heart of the matter is the same question posed two-and-a-third centuries ago: Are Americans subjects or citizens? If the latter, then a benign sovereign should not be determining "your interests" and then announcing that he's giving you a "tax credit" as your pocket money.

Doing the job the Boston Globe won't do, Glenn Reynolds, the Internet's Instapundit, has been posting many photographs of tea parties. For a movement of mean, angry old white men, there seem to be a lot of hot-looking young chicks among them. Perhaps they're just kinky gerontophiliacs. Or perhaps they understand that their generation will be the principal victim of this grotesque government profligacy. Like the original tea party, it is, in the end, about freedom. Live Tea or die!

Read the whole thing at the link.

Photo Credit: Orange County Register:

Demonstrators hold up signs during a Tax Day Tea Party in Pleasanton, Calif., Wednesday, April 15, 2009. Protests took place around the country to demonstrate against recent bailouts and excessive government spending. Protesters gathered at state Capitols and in neighborhoods and town squares across the country Wednesday to kick off a series of tax-day protests designed to echo the rebellion of the Boston Tea Party. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma).

Russell Dunham, 89, World War II Veteran Awarded the Medal of Honor

I noticed the guys over at Protein Wisdom posted a couple of obituaries last week, for Harry Kalas (with an update for Marilyn Chambers) and Mark Fidrych. Be sure to check all the links.

I normally post obituaries on those who seemed to touch me in personal ways. I think Paul Newman was like that, although I never met the man. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid had a huge impression on me when I was a kid, so it's hard to lose even people like that, strangers who've meant something dear to me at one time.

Yet I'm often moved by the loss of others with whom I've had no personal connection. And so it is with Technical Sergeant Russell Dunham, a World War II veteran of the European theater who killed nine Germans singlehandedly on January 8, 1945. Here's the obituary from the Los Angeles Times' obituary:

Russell Dunham, a World War II Army veteran who was awarded the Medal of Honor, the military's highest decoration for valor, after he assaulted three German machine gun emplacements, killed nine German soldiers and took two prisoners, died of congestive heart failure Monday at his home in Godfrey, Ill. He was 89.

On Jan. 8, 1945, Tech. Sgt. Dunham's company, part of the 3rd Infantry Division, was facing a formidable German force at the small town of Kaysersberg, France, on the Franco-German border. The men were issued white mattress covers as camouflage in the deep snow.

Heavily armed, Dunham scrambled 75 yards up a snow-covered hill toward three German machine gun emplacements. He took out the first bunker with a grenade.

Advancing toward the second, he glanced around to call up his squad and a bullet hit him in the back, leaving a 10-inch gash. As he struggled to his feet, a grenade landed nearby; he kicked it away before it exploded.

He then crawled through the snow to the machine gun emplacement and lobbed his own grenade into the bunker, killing two Germans. His carbine empty, he leaped into the foxhole and hauled out a third enemy soldier by the collar.

In excruciating pain, his mattress-cover overcoat stained a conspicuous red, Dunham ran 50 yards to the third emplacement and took it out with a grenade. As German infantrymen began scrambling out of their foxholes, Dunham chased them down the back of the hill. He and his elder brother Ralph, who was in the same unit, encountered a fourth machine gun; his brother took it out.

A German rifleman who shot at Russell Dunham at point-blank range but missed became the ninth German he killed that winter morning.

His back wound had yet to fully heal when Dunham returned to the front. On Jan. 22, his battalion was surrounded by German tanks at Holtzwihr, France, and most of the men were forced to surrender.

Dunham hid in a sauerkraut barrel outside a barn but was discovered the next morning. As the two German soldiers who found him were patting him down, they came across a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and began fighting over it. They never finished their search, so they missed a pistol in a shoulder holster under his arm.

Later in the day, his two captors transported him toward German lines. The driver stopped at a bar, the second soldier's attention wandered and Dunham shot him in the head. He set off toward American lines in subzero temperatures.

By the time he encountered U.S. engineers working on a bridge over the Ill River, his feet and ears were frostbitten. A medic working to save his feet from amputation told him that the commanding officer had intended to recommend him for the Distinguished Service Cross but had changed his mind. The young man from Illinois, the officer had decided, deserved the Medal of Honor.

Dunham was born in East Carondelet, Ill., on Feb. 23, 1920, and grew up in Fosterburg, Ill. After the war, Dunham worked for 32 years as a benefits counselor with the Veterans Administration in St. Louis.

His marriage to Mary Dunham ended in divorce. His second wife, Wilda Long-Bazzell Dunham, died in 2002.

Survivors include a daughter from his first marriage, Mary Neal of Cobden, Ill.; two stepchildren, Annette Wilson of Godfrey and David Bazzell of Jarreau, La.; three sisters; and three granddaughters.

What struck me about Dunham is not just his bulldog fighting spirit, but especially the businesslike manner in which he killed his captor before heading back to American lines. When we fight, we fight to survive. Dunham's valor on the battlefield demonstrates it, but few people today outside of the armed forces understand it.

Rosa Brooks, Antiwar Radical, Appointed as Top Pentagon Advisor

I just found this at Blonde Sagacity: "Rosa Brooks: the Pentagon’s far left adviser":

In what has to be one of the most extreme appointments yet by the Obama Administration, ex-Los Angeles Times columnist and Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks has just been made an adviser to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Fluornoy - a move Brooks describes as "my personal government bailout."Bailout is certainly the right word for someone who appears to have no relevant national security qualifications for the position. She does though have experience working as Special Counsel for George Soros's Open Society Institute in New York, and as a former adviser to Harold Koh, the hugely controversial nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department.

Brooks' new boss Fluornoy holds one of the most powerful posts in the Pentagon, and is already playing a key role in shaping the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan as well as the wider war against al-Qaeda. She will also be a central figure in shaping U.S.-UK defence cooperation and Washington's policy towards NATO. As an adviser to Fluornoy, Brooks will wield an extraordinary degree of influence in helping shape U.S. policy. Her extreme views should therefore be closely scrutinized.
Brooks' description of the previous occupant of the White House as "our torturer in chief" is hard to square with President Obama's call for bipartisanship. Nor is her ludicrous comparison of the Bush Administration's legal arguments on the war on terror with Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda.

She has also accused civilian White House and Pentagon officials from the last administration of being "eager to embrace the values normally exemplified by military juntas," while urging "military personnel to speak out, regardless of the cost, when they think our civilian leaders have gone beyond the pale" - little more than an open-ended call for the politicization of the armed forces.

Writing in the LA Times, Brooks has compared being a citizen in George W. Bush's America "to being a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver," and compared the Bush Administration ("our local authoritarians") to the leaders of North Korea or Iran. Quite what Defense Secretary Robert Gates makes of all this hate-filled talk remains to be seen, especially as he is himself a former Bush official.

Brooks, a fierce opponent of the Iraq War, mocked the White House's "desperate flailing" and arguably belittled U.S. sacrifices in Iraq in a sarcastic 2006 piece she wrote at the height of attacks on Allied forces by al-Qaeda backed insurgents. She condescendingly noted in her article that "it's a good thing our troops have The Google over there - like Bush, they can use Google maps to recall how their hometowns look and wonder if they're going to make it back before this administration sends them on any more misconceived missions." She further argued that "with so many thousands dead, and so many thousands more embittered, 'winning' isn't really on the table anymore. The only question now is whether we can mitigate the damage."

Let's hope this is isn't the kind of advice the new administration takes on for the war in Afghanistan. In fact it is hard to think of a more inappropriate political appointment at a time when America needs a hard-headed approach to winning a global war instead of defeatist, far-left rhetoric.

This is precisely why I opposed candidate Obama last year, and for me, this stuff is a major reason why I've joined the Tea Party protests.

This administration's in the pocket of the radical left in this country.

Rosa Brooks has no business being anywhere near the Defense Deparment. This is a disgrace.

**********

Interesting Note: All of Brooks' posts have been removed from Democracy Arsenal, a far-left wing "progressive" foreign policy blog. And that's telling: Brooks has even less credibility if she can't even stand behind her own leftist netroots opinions.

Also, I missed Brooks' last column at the Times, becuase I rarely read the editorial page anymore (and I'm a subscriber!), but she goes out with a bang in calling of a government bailout for th e newspaper industry: "Bail out journalism: Other democracies pay for accurate reporting, so why shouldn't the U.S.?"

God, leftist demands for more bail outs, bail outs, bail outs ... more evidence for the Tea Parties.