Paul Lemmen at 'An Ex-Con's View' Targeted For Writing About Brett Kimberlin

Popehat has a lengthy must-read essay on the left's ongoing campaign of lawfare: "Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin."

The latest blogger to be targeted is Paul Lemmen from "An Ex-Con's View."

I first learned about (and interacted with) Paul through Zilla Stevenson's blogging. Zilla has been organizing free speech blogbursts for awhile. And I exchanged a few emails with Paul after Zilla sent out some posts through her contact list. I was skeptical  about interacting with Paul at first. He's a felony ex-convict and one of his crimes was impersonating U.S. military personnel. I think that's too much for a lot of people to accept, but once I exchanged a few emails with Paul I found that he is a genuine man of repentance. And the more I read of Paul's opinions the more I'm convinced that his is an exceedingly necessary voice in the conservative battle against the left's totalitarian anti-free speech jihad.

Folks need to read the whole Popehat post at the link. The essay includes an interview with Paul, and I like this passage especially:

I asked Paul Lemmen what he felt he had to bring to the discussion of Kimberlin, and why he thought it was important that his voice be heard.

I believe that as a career con-artist, I have quite a bit of insight into what he is doing. . . . [I believe it is] necessary to show up the differences between myself, an ex-con that has accepted responsibility for his crimes and Brett Kimberlin, someone who has not, who has in fact, avoided his responsibilities as he has avoided paying the civil judgment levied against him. I feel that if there is to be future acceptance of ex-cons that have made the very difficult decision to adhere to the lawful conduct expected by society, those who resist in their unlawful conduct must be exposed and the public made aware of them.

And so Paul Lemmen will continue to write.

Following the link takes to Paul's most recent entry at the blog, "Brett Kimberlin’s Parole (or Lack Thereof)."

And for the record, Paul is on probation and under the supervision of an officer. His commitment to keep on blogging while under attack carries potentially grave consequences. And note that there is no hard evidence that Brett Kimberlin or his henchmen are the ones responsible for making threats to his freedom. Yet, as Popehat writes, the coincidental and inferential nature of the threats are overwhelming. This episode has the Kimberlin network written all over it. Whatever the case, this is one more example of what's at stake for people standing up for right.

And I want to reiterate my argument that this is indeed a partisan battle. Kerry Picket has a report on Florida GOP Congresswoman Sandy Adams, who has issued a new letter to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the recent SWAT-ting of conservatives. See: "PICKET: FLA Congresswoman leads 87 member effort demanding Swat-ting investigation from DOJ" (via Memeorandum). There are no Democrat signatories to the letter. And while some Democrats may still get on board, so far it's a Republican effort to bring attention to the matter. That is, it's a partisan response to what Republicans see is a left-wing attack on the freedom to blog. As always, I will update my views on this when I see evidence that the effort to expose the Kimberlin network has bipartisan support.

More this at The Other McCain, "Florida Rep. Sandy Adams Leads 85 House Republicans in ‘SWATting’ Letter."

IMAGE CREDIT: Michelle Malkin, "Bloggers under fire: Arizona conservative lawyer/activist targeted by left-wing Arizona State Bar."

Will People STFU About How Brett Kimberlin Affair is 'Non-Partisan'? This is an Epic Partisan Battle Over How 'Free Speech' Will Be Defined

Sorry to ruffle feathers here, but I'm going to dissent from some folks who continue exhorting bloggers "to resist the partisan urge" to turn the Kimberlin saga into a left vs. right political war. Patterico, bless him, has repeatedly stressed that right-wing activism against Kimberlin is not "a partisan issue." That's noble sentiment, but naive. Brett Kimberlin and his allies are attacking conservatives. With the exception of Seth Allen (who was one of Kimberlin's first victims) and a few sympathetic progressive voices online, the Kimberlin network has been silencing conservatives who have dared to speak out as a matter of free speech.

I'm not by any means discounting the importance of conservatives promoting the better angels of their nature.  It's simply that I see virtually no evidence, outside of the couple of random left-wing voices I mentioned, of progressives attempting to reciprocally elevate this battle to the preservation of everybody's rights to freedom of speech. More often than not, conservatives are being mocked mercilessly as whining little babies, or even blamed for organizing a lynch mob to terrorize "social justice" activists. Martin Longman made no attempt to hide his utter disdain for conservatives in a post this week, basically arguing that they had it coming. No More Mister Nice Blog has repeatedly argued that it was important to deny conservatives a political win. That's to be expected, right? These idiots are hardcore progressive partisans and to them it's high time for a comeuppance against the right. Okay, fine, but I'm hard pressed to find countervailing voices on the left championing the free speech rights of "everybody." It just ain't happening.

As I reported after Wisconsin, one of the major goals of the Democrat Party is the suppression of conservative speech. Such top figures as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are advocating for a constitutional amendment to limit political speech. I'm surprised it's necessary to say this, but PELOSI IS NOT KIDDING. And believe you me she's got plenty of backers for her bid to crush the voices of the right. The left will not tolerate dissent from its agenda. When it can't win using conventional political means, it resorts to thuggery, intimidation, and government extremism to silence dissent.

Since Aaron Worthing was arrested in Maryland (discussed by Matthew Vadum at the clip above), we've been seeing an outpouring of support for Brett Kimberlin on the left. If there was ever a chance to stand up for free speech, Worthing's case is it. Recall that Worthing's alleged crime was simply providing legal assistance to Kimberlin-target Seth Allen --- and then having the temerity to blog about it. Take a look at this piece from Legal Schnauzer, for example, "Liberal Activist Brett Kimberlin Engages Right Wingers In a Battle of High-Stakes Hard Ball."

One of my ongoing concerns with Democrats is that too many of them are timid, distracted, disorganized, and generally wussy.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin is none of those things, and that apparently is why the radical right has launched an extraordinary online jihad against him. In a delicious example of "turnabout is fair play," Kimberlin has used right wingers' tactics against them--causing the recent arrest of one thug, the outing of another as a criminal, and the transmission of a notice to others that they face possible legal action.

According to press reports, Kimberlin has some troubling incidents in his past. But by all accounts that I can find, he has served his punishment for any misdeed. And as a target of right-wing thugs myself, I can't help but admire Kimberlin's spunk--and his effectiveness.

Kimberlin actually has right wingers whining that he is using the court process against them. As a resident of Alabama who has held a front-row seat for the Bush-era political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, I can only marvel at the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming that the justice system is not working in their favor.

Right-wing bloggers have become so exorcised about Kimberlin that about 150 of them recently launched an "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day." They even got Fox News and ABC News to cover the story and enlisted the help of such conservative luminaries as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), author Michelle Malkin, and attorney Jay Sekulow in battling Kimberlin.

Anybody who can cause that many conservative panties to get into a bunch must be doing something right. So we decided to take a closer look at Brett Kimberlin and how he managed to rile the far right into a state of mass hysteria.

See what I mean? You can continue reading at the link, but the main point to note is that Kimberlin is the kinda fighter that progressives are looking for --- someone, not a "wussy," who can get conservatives "into a bunch." Never mind that Kimberlin's targets are not Democrat governors but generally small-time bloggers who must bear enormous costs to defend themselves. If someone like Kimberlin takes out people on the right, hey, let's pump it up as a model to emulate. For example, check out this diary at Daily Kos, "Profiles in Activism: Brett Kimberlin." You've gotta love it:

Brett Kimberlin is the founder of Justice Through Music, a non-profit organization that "uses famous musicians and bands to organize, educate, and activate young people about the importance of civil rights, human rights and voting".  This is a great cause and they're doing wonderful things over there with the young people.  The Justice Through Music website has some really powerful music videos on the subject of Bush torture and bigotry toward gay-marriage.

But more important is his Activist organization, Velvet Revolution. This is Change you can believe in!  Just two days ago, he won another victory, jailing right-wing hate spewer Aaron Walker for his venom. Kimberlin helped create Brietbart Unmasked, a fantastic website about what a piece of shit asshole motherfucker he was.  Velvet Revolution is also geared toward young adults of the Occupy generation, the future of this country.

Kimberlin has been very effective at countering the right-wing hate spewing machine.  Robert Stacey McCain (no relation but just as fascist) decided to attack him for his Activism with children for Justice.  Lets just say Robert Stacey McCain is on the run these days.  Erick Erickson of CNN fame got a nice little knock on the door. Seth Allen get the message as well.  This is what Activists do, shutting down hate speech one individual at a time.  If Brett Kimberlin can make a difference by himself, we all can.

Of course, with success comes more attacks, and of course the racist GOP is attacking Kimberlin for teaching Civil Rights to children.  On June 6, Senator Saxby Chambliss requested that Attorney General Eric Holder investigate Kimberlin and his non-profit education organization.  Activists should expect such attacks from racists when teaching Civil Rights, but you can trust the masters like Kimberlin to handle it.

Like Activists such as Brandon "Skabby" Baxter and Bill Ayers, Brett Kimberlin began his Activist career with explosives.  Being a true master of Alinsky's wise advice of "using your enemies rules against them", Kimberlin actually bought explosives while impersonating a DOD official (wow).  In 1978, he was accused by the fascist corporate police of murdering a co-worker.

Activists act. Kimberlin began a string of six bombings over the next few days, eventually taking a man's legs off.  He was convicted of bombing, attempted murder, perjury, drug trafficking, and impersonation of a federal officer, and sentenced to 51 years in prison.

An Activist's job is constant, and imprisonment was no obstacle for Kimberlin.  In 1988, he made news on NPR, admitting that he had sold marijuana to then Vice President Dan Quayle, a major revelation sending shock waves through the highest levels of the racist GOP.  From prision, ce coordinated with other Activists to continue the bombings to prove his innocence.

He studied how to use the system against his enemies, and used the legal system to his advantage.  By 1992, he had filed over 100 motions and lawsuits against his hate-spewing opponents, including some people he bombed. In 1994, after 13 years of unjust imprisonment, a wise Judge recognized Kimberlin for his Activism and released him on parole.

Continue reading.

For progressives, Brett Kimberlin's entire life of crime and deceit is justified in the name of destroying political opponents. For this Daily Kos diarist, even a campaign of domestic terrorism is justified --- and the "SWAT-ting" of folks like Erick Erickson is described as a "nice knock on the door." Even the innocents Kimberlin bombed are ridiculed as "hate-spewing opponents"

So I'll say it again: Folks need to just STFU about how this is all about "everybody's" free speech. It's not. It's ultimately a war over how "free speech" is defined and who's speech will be protected. Conservatives advocate fidelity to the First Amendment on principled grounds. Free speech is a birthright as an American, for friends and foe alike. For progressives, protected speech is advocacy that advances the leftist agenda, the agenda of state-building and raw power. Anyone who speaks out against that is branded a racist and criminal. This is someone who has to be silenced. The left will wage "lawfare" to do it, and if they have the power they'll change the laws to criminalize dissent and incarcerate opponents.

Does that sound extreme? It's not. Just take a look at Michelle Malkin's report out today, "Bloggers under fire: Arizona conservative lawyer/activist targeted by left-wing Arizona State Bar." (Via Memeorandum.) Folks can read the whole thing, but Michelle nails it at the conclusion:

Make no mistake: This is just another nasty battle in the Left’s long war to marginalize, demonize, and criminalize conservative dissent. The selective protection of free speech is unconscionable. The freedom to blog is under assault on so many fronts. It has to stop.

It is unconscionable. And I think it's equally unconscionable for people to minimize the partisan implications of the fight by holding progressives to a "better angel" standard that is not in their nature. I'll update my views when I see some of the heavyweights on the left standing up for people like Aaron Worthing and Patrick Frey. Maybe we'll see a few Democrats come out next week in favor of a Justice Department investigation of the SWAT-tings. I'll make note of it if they do. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath.

California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

Okay, this has gone on long enough.

I am herewith setting out my policy on harassment and stalking and I'm affirming for the record that I'm playing for keeps.

For some reason racist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III thinks this is all fun and games. I warned him not to comment here and that if he does comment I will approve those as a record of harassment, which I will report to Google. Casper's contacts here at this blog are unwanted and unsolicited. I am within my free speech rights to post commentary and criticism on politics and ideology. And I am particularly within my rights to identify and highlight criminally derogatory and racist speech directed against me. And thus I will continue to monitor Casper's hate blog American Nihilist. Importantly, since Casper sponsored workplace attacks against me, and since he has contacted me personally by email with threatening statements, I ceased all direct contact with him at his blog or elsewhere online. And I have also repeatedly warned Walter James Casper III not to contact me or to comment at this blog. It's all on the record.

As is within my free speech rights, I highlighted Casper's dishonesty and stupidity in an essay today: "Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again!"

Comments are closed at that post to prevent harassment. Casper commented at an unrelated post, against my wishes, since he is banned from commenting here. After I updated the post, Casper ignored the admonitions yet again with another comment in violation of my rights:

repsac3 said...

"Walter James Casper is now in likely violation of Google's terms of use. He is banned from commenting here and he is abusing his Google privileges. I am now approving all of hate-blogger Walter James Casper's comments and submitting them to Google as a record of the harassment."

I'll get around to the rest of Dr. Douglas' nonsense if / when I have the time, but I did want to briefly comment on this bit...

There is no "term of use" that forbids anyone from submitting comments to any blogspot blog, and I find it awful hard to believe that anyone at Google is going to reprimand a person for one for one [sic] comments in response to posts where that person is called out by name, no matter how vociferously the blog owner asserts his right to malign a person at his blog without being called on it at that same blog. (I'm willing to bet I could submit a comment or two in response to every post at this blog, and Google still would not act -- Dr. Douglas should consider himself lucky I only submit comments to some of the posts where he attacks me by name.)

That said, if Google does agree with Dr. Douglas, and contacts me pointing out the term I am violating, I will most certainly stop doing so. I suspect, however, that should Google respond to Dr. Douglas' specious "Mommy, he's making faces at me!! Make him STOP!!!" pleas at all, it will be to tell Dr. Douglas that he ought to grow up and stop whining. One cannot throw the first punch, and then scurry to hide behind his mother's skirt complaining about the return punch.

And seeing as he intends to approve of my comments, anyway, perhaps Dr. Douglas would be so brave as to not delete the comment sections on posts mentioning me--or maybe, just not moderate his blog in the first place. (though the latter'd prolly take more guts than Dr. D. has, anymore... Golly forbid folks actually disagree with him on his own blog...)

Say hi to our Google overlords for me... ...and thanks for approving my comments...

January 27, 2012 5:53 PM

Actually, there are indeed "'terms of use' that forbid" Casper from harassing me in the comments. According to Blogger's "Terms of Service":

2. Proper Use. You agree that you are responsible for your own use of the Service, for any posts you make, and for any consequences thereof. You agree that you will use the Service in compliance with all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations, including any laws regarding the transmission of technical data exported from your country of residence and all United States export control laws.

Walter James Casper is engaged in a malicious, persistent, and willful pattern of abuse that is prohibited under California state law (see below). As such, Casper's comments here are a violation of Blogger's terms of service. Moreover, here's the statement from Google's "Reporting abuse - Blogger Help" page:

We strongly believe in freedom of expression, even if a blog contains unappealing or distasteful content or presents unpopular viewpoints. We realize this may be frustrating, and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this person to have the content in question removed or changed.

Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court order:

Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Parody or satire of individuals
Distasteful imagery or language
Political or social commentary

Thus, this is to inform Walter James Casper III of my effort to "work directly with this person" to stop his comments on this blog. THIS IS A FORMAL LEGAL WARNING TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMENTING AT THIS BLOG. Hereafter, I will consider any new comment posted here a "personal attack" within the purview of the terms of service and I'll append the comment to this post and send it to Google as a legal complaint and report on abuse, harassment, and cyberstalking.

Here's California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking:

646.9.

(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.  

(c) Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years.

(d) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.

(e) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.  This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.  

(f) For purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

(g) For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.  It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat.  The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.  

(h) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

See the full text here or here.

I will also report new instances of abuse and harassment to the Irvine Police Department and the Long Beach Police Department. Here is the record of harassment published previously, with one of Casper's emails warning me to "reconsider" or else: "Continuing Lies by Cowardly Hate-Blogger W. James Casper in Left's Demonic Workplace Intimidation Campaign." And American Nihilist's long pattern of abuse, intimidation, and workplace harassment is chronicled at this post as well.

The harassment stops now. Walter James Casper III has no right to comment on this blog. If he feels he has been maligned or libeled he can take proper legal recourse. I have legal representation and I am prepared to defend my free speech rights in a court of law.

And folks might weigh Ann Althouse's comments policy in relation to the policy I'm setting forth here. She writes:

I have started deleting all the comments of one of our most conspicuous commenters for reasons I am not going to discuss. I ask all of my commenters to take some extra care with your comments now. Don't be a troll and don't feed a troll. If you are a troll, I may target you for deletion next. If you feed a troll, you may soon find that your comment refers to a comment that has been deleted. Let's raise the level of discussion around here. I have many great commenters that I love having as my guests. Others are being destructive and need to stop. If you're someone I'm targeting for deletion -- and I'm deleting all your comments regardless of content -- you need to go away permanently. You are on notice that I consider you to be harassing me, and I will contact Blogger about your account if you do not desist.

Althouse is a professor of law, so she certainly knows something about harassment and stalking. And recall that Walter James Casper III has long been trolling my comments. Indeed, I went to comment moderation to help prevent his trolling. But comment moderation has not been effective, and I have had to disable comments to some posts on occasion to prevent malicious attacks. When I did that, Casper then started harassing me by email. These emails I consider personally threatening to me and my family. And as such they're considered criminal activity under California state law. Hereafter I will update this post with any comment here from Walter James Casper III, or with any other form of unwanted personal contact, and I will submit a complaint of abuse and criminal harassment to Google and to the proper legal authorities.

Walter James Casper III is hereby notified under the law.

Comments on this post are closed.

UPDATE: (1-28-12 8:20am PST) Walter Jamers Casper III is on record that he wants to be known as a criminal harasser. Here's is his comment in violation of this policy:

repsac3 said...

In reply to: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

Sorry, Dr. Douglas, but I will not allow you to attempt to intimidate me with specious threats. My answer now is the same as it was the last time you made this kinda noise, back in September (and probably before that too, though it ain't worth the search):

If you really believe I am in violation of any federal or state law or ISP/Google/??? term of service because I submit a comment or two to your moderated blog against your expressed wishes, often in reply to American Power blog posts where you discuss me by name, I cordially invite you to make your reports to Google, the Irvine / Long Beach police department, Homeland Security, or whoever you feel you need to.

The time has come to fish or cut bait.

January 28, 2012 4:22 AM

UPDATE: (1-28-12 8:45am PST) Here's the complaint sent through the Blogger help page:

A man named Walter James Casper III used to be a commenter on my blog years ago. He became obsessed and abusive and started an entire blog to attack me personally and to threaten me with harassment. His co-bloggers at the blog, called "American Nihilist," have contacted my workplace to complain about my blogging, trying to get me fired. These attacks are violating my free speech rights and causing me and my family personal strife and emotional duress. Walter James Casper has also sent me personal emails of a threatening nature. These are completely unsolicited, as I have never exchanged emails with him at any time. I have written about the harassment and threats at my blog and Walter James Casper claims he has a right to respond in the comment section at my blog. While I have moderated comments, or even disabled comments, Casper continues to harass me with additional attempts to comment, with threats, and by email. I will also be filing police reports and contacting my attorney about these issues. My complaint is in no way an attempt to suppress Casper's free speech rights. This is only to notify Blogger of a terms of use violation, since Casper's threats are illegal under California state law, Penal Code Section 646.9, which makes cyberstalking and online harassment a crime. Casper's Blogger profile name is "Repsac3" and this is his Blogger profile URL: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I will also be notifying the police of Walter James Casper's harassment next week.

Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again!

Newsbusters has the story, "Rachel Maddow Sniffs in Disdain at Belief in America as 'Shining' City on a Hill."

I've been avoiding the racist anti-Semitic hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, but he and his progressive attack posse continue to stalk this blog --- and the comments at the American Nihilist shithole are filled with deranged screeds demononizing yours truly. And since I've been carefully documenting Casper's racist, hate-Israel pro-Occupy agenda, it's worthwhile to further expose his classic anti-Americanism and bankrupt lies about America's founding culture of American exceptionalism.

Recall first that I posted on Callista Gingrich's paean to American exceptionalism last week. Walter James Casper's hate-addled commenters freaked out over that (see the top Google result here). These nihilist goons were especially pissed about my comparison to First Lady Michelle Obama, who in 2008 admitted that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." That got Casper all lathered up like a mule, and he writes:

Like too many republicans, mrs newt #3 is trying to sell a meme about the left that is a lie. I agree with 99% of everything she says in that video. There is no "great debate" about what American exceptionalism" means except in a few folk's divisive, partisan, fevered imaginations.

Whether one believes man was endowed with inalienable rights by a Christian God or by human nature, the end result--the form of government that makes America exceptional--is the same. It is our American ideals that make us unique in the world, and it is our desire and ability to sell our ideals to others--both immigrants who come here to seek a better life and become a part of this country, and to a lesser extent, those foreign nations who have incorporated some of our American ideals into their governments--that make we Americans unique.

Too often, however, there IS a certain degree of arrogance when talking about American exceptionalism. There are too any who believe that America was a nation chosen by God from among all (or most) others, and that we Americans are a chosen people. They are often nativists who don't want to share and expand American exceptionalism. Immigrants and other groups are demonized and deemed unworthy. "All men are created equal." Except Muslims (American or otherwise.) Except gay folks. Except liberals. That kind of American exceptionalism isn't worth the breath with which it's spoken...

I believe in American exceptionalism... But unlike too many on the right I'm not particularly threatened if the citizens of some other country feel the same about their ideals and way of life (though I do think they're wrong.)

This is classic denialism and dishonesty from epic hate-blogger Walter James Casper III.

First, actually, there is a "great debate" about American exceptionalism, and it's perfectly encapsulated by the contrast between Callista Gingrich and Rachel Maddow. And as is true with any other examples of the left's socialist program, Walter James Casper III is confronted with facts that are simply too difficult to acknowledge. So he lies about them. He's a pathological liar.

Here's Maddow at the video above:

Chris, I have to, I have to put it to you because you're the only person I know in the world to whom I can complain about this, but the city on the hill does not shine. The city upon a hill with the eyes of the world, with the, with the, right, the eyes of all people upon us, the city on the hill never shined. I don't understand why it always has to be shining.

One can't be more clear than that. Maddow's statement is a complete and total rejection of the historical vision of America as a light unto the nations. Progressives can't stand that, because they want to bring America down. Progressive ideology posits racist imperialism and implacable oppression as the hideous marks of an nation allegedly founded upon genocidal conquest. Thus for Maddow, "the city on the hill never shined." And when progressives are called out for such anti-Americanism, they simply deny the essential goodness of America's founding, and they revise the historical narrative to fit their collectivist agenda. We see that with Walter James Casper's dismissal of American exceptionalism as not "worth the breath with which it's spoken."

Now, secondly, Walter James Casper idolizes Rachel Maddow --- he's a huge fan of her poorly-rated show and he tweets regularly that he's tuning in to the program. And now --- rubbing hands together with hilarious glee! --- we have Maddow's own words proving --- beyond a shadow of  doubt! --- that Walter James Casper's a despicable liar. It's pretty rich.

Some time back, President Obama dissed American exceptionalism, announcing that "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Picking up on that and more, Victor Davis Hanson responded to left's attacks on America last Fourth of July, at the New York Post, "What makes America exceptional":

 ...there has never been any nation even remotely similar to America. Here's why. Most revolutions seek to destroy the existing class order and use all-powerful government to mandate an equality of result rather than of opportunity -- in the manner of the French Revolution's slogan of "liberty, equality and fraternity" or the Russian Revolution's "peace, land and bread."

In contrast, our revolutionaries shouted "Don't tread on me!" and "Give me liberty or give me death!" The Founders were convinced that constitutionally protected freedom would allow the individual to create wealth apart from government. Such enlightened self-interest would then enrich society at large far more effectively than could an all-powerful state....

Individual freedom in America manifests itself in ways most of the world can hardly fathom -- whether our unique tradition of the right to gun ownership, the near impossibility of proving libel in US courts, or the singular custom of multimillion-dollar philanthropic institutions, foundations and private endowments. Herding, silencing or enfeebling Americans is almost impossible -- and will remain so as long as well-protected citizens can say what they want and do as they please with their hard-earned money.

Race, tribe or religion often defines a nation's character, either through loose confederations of ethnic or religious blocs as in Rwanda, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, or by equating a citizenry with a shared appearance as reflected in the German word "volk" or the Spanish "raza." While America was originally crafted largely by white males who improved upon Anglo-Saxon customs and the European Enlightenment, the Founders set in place an "all men are created equal" system that quite logically evolved into the racially blind society of today....

The Founders' notion of the rule of law, coupled with freedom of the individual, explains why America runs on merit, not tribal affinities or birth. Most elsewhere, being a first cousin of a government official, or having a prestigious name, ensures special treatment from the state. Yet in America, nepotism is never assured. End that notion of American merit and replace it with racial tribalism, cronyism or aristocratic privilege, and America itself would vanish as we know it...

And note something about "all men are created equal." The Declaration of Independence sets forth the ideal that all of those born, under God, are endowed with equality of opportunity and with basic natural rights, that among these, is the right to pursue happiness. American equality is equality of birth, not equality of outcome --- not the forced equality of the socialist state. See Ralph Benko, at Forbes, "Gingrich vs. Obama: American Exceptionalism vs. The Reconquest of America By Europe":

America — rooted in Democratic Capitalism — defines itself by equality of opportunity. Europe — rooted in Social Democracy— defines itself by equality of results. One of [Newt] Gingrich’s three key tenets is American exceptionalism. The 2012 election likely will determine whether America remains exceptional or, finally, is, culturally, reconquered by Europe.

Exactly.

Simply put, progressives hate American exceptionalism, and when confronted by proud assertions by conservatives about America's goodness, they react with visceral demonology. Rachel Maddow can't stand the country as it is, so she promotes an entirely different model --- the unexpectional collectivist welfare state of the kind now dragging the European democracy into purgatory.

And Walter James Casper III hates America too. His classic play is to attack conservatives who stand up for fairness and moral right as bigots and racists. The truth, however, is that Walter James Casper's a vile racist and Israel-basher, and when called out on it he lies and distorts reality in a never-ending attempt to hide from the facts. But as we see with his creepy idolatry of Rachel Maddow, Walter James Casper can't stand America. He's a liar and a stump of a man. His ideology has driven him to destroy others, with attacks, harassment and threats against the safety of his enemies.

What a disgrace.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Walter James 'Occupy' Casper Continues Campaign of Lies: Childishly Whines About 'McCarthyism' While Endorsing Anarchists and Anti-Semitic Communists."

* "Racist Walter James Casper III Doubles-Down on Endorsement of Revolutionary Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street."

* "Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III and Progressive Evil: Denial of Israel-Hatred Enables Exterminationist Anti-Semitism."

* "Manifesto: Occupy for the Revolution."

UPDATE: Stalking hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, who is banned from commenting at this blog, nevertheless commented at a different post because comments are closed at this entry explicitly TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF HARASSMENT.

Racist Walter James Casper III writes:

1 comments:

repsac3 said...

Sorry, Donald... but your "american exceptionalism" attack is nonsense. I never said that exceptionalism was not worth the breath with which it was spoken; I said there are those who use it as an excuse for nativism and divisiveness, and it is those excuses that are unworthy... Even your readers will be able to see the difference, Donald...

As for Rachel, I don't really know what she was trying to say (unless it was that America isn't perfect, maybe), but your guilt by association attack, as though I agree with or have to answer for every word the woman speaks, is pretty lame. I said my piece... Attack that... Don't just call it denialism and dishonesty... Show that it is either of them...

I feel bad for you Donald... Your need to lash out at others makes you a pathetic excuse for a man.

But thanks for "stalking" my blog and Twitter stream enough to launch this kind of ridiculousness... It shows how much of a hypocrite you really are...

January 27, 2012 1:52 PM

Racist Walter James Casper continues to harass this blog. He can't stand being called out for his anti-Americanism so he simply ignores the argument (progressives hate exceptionalism), ignores the evidence (undeniable and substantiated), ignorantly waves away Maddow's statement in dishonest non-acknowledgement of her America-bashing (the city on a hill "never shined"), and continues his lies and derangement.

In fact, contrary to stupid f-king racist asshat Walter James Casper, there is indeed a debate over exceptionalism. Seriously, stupid liar Walter James Casper perfectly represents it with his own claims that, "There are too [m]any who believe that America was a nation chosen by God from among all (or most) others, and that we Americans are a chosen people. They are often nativists who don't want to share and expand American exceptionalism."

Well hello progressive asshat!

That IS American exceptionalism. AMERICA IS A NATION CHOSEN BY GOD AMONG ALL (OR MOST) OTHERS.

Duh, if God didn't choose America as a light unto others we wouldn't be exceptional.

AND THEY ARE NOT "NATIVISTS WHO DON'T WANT TO SHARE" IT BECAUSE EXCEPTIONALISM HOLDS THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH NATURAL RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.

RACIST WALTER JAMES CASPER IS AGAIN LASHING OUT WITH ATTACKS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AS "RACIST" IF THEY DON'T KNUCKLE UNDER TO THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN SOCIALIST AGENDA.

The stupidity! The denial! It burns!

America was chosen by God and that IS what Callista Gingrich affirms at her video. And that IS what John Winthrop declared in 1630, that the United States IS a city on a hill. And that IS what Rachel Maddow denounced as "never shining."

Racist Walter James Casper is beaten, beaten badly. What an epic loser and piece of shit progressive tool.

And racist hate-blogger Walter James Casper is now in likely violation of Google's terms of use. He is banned from commenting here and he is abusing his Google privileges. I am now approving all of hate-blogger Walter James Casper's comments and submitting them to Google as a record of the harassment.

British Progressives Allege Melanie Phillips Took 'Part in the Norway Massacre'

Well, no surprise, as they say.

See Melanie's blog, "A wider pathology." And she writes on Twitter:

Dozens of writers cited in Norway psychopath's ravings. So why am I being singled out? Atrocity ignites left pathology.

Yep, pathology. So clearly obvious by now. Progressives are having a psychotic field day attacking conservatives who've been standing up for freedom and democracy. And Melanie responds:

... Breivik name-checks a vast number of mainstream writers and thinkers, including Bernard Lewis, Roger Scruton, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Hannan, Diana West, Lars Hedegaard, Frank Field, Nicolas Soames, Keith Windschuttle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Hayek, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Ghandi, George Orwell and many others; indeed, it’s a roll call of western thinking and beyond, past and present.

So why doesn’t [Sunny] Hundal refer to any of these people who have also been thus name-checked? Why has he singled me out in this way? It looks like yet another crude attempt to smear me by a writer who has long displayed an unhealthy obsession with my work (see here and here and here for example).

The Hundal reference goes to the progressive blog, Liberal Conspiracy, "Oslo terrorist cited Melanie Phillips in his manifesto." And then an update, "Compare Phillips now to her writing after 7/7." And then "Flying Rodent," another deranged blogger at Liberal Conspiracy, piles on, "What are people like Melanie Phillips calling for then?":

I think that now, more than ever, fingers need to be pointed squarely at those who have been disseminating this poisonous cack, and searching questions need to be asked.

First up – What the fuck did you think you were doing?

And back over at Melanie's blog, she concludes:

Already, through the selective and distorted use of this document and the amplification of such malevolence through Twitter and the net, a blood-lust is building. Thus I am receiving emails such as one from Carsten T Holst-Lyngaard who says:

I congratulate you on your part in the Norway massacre;

or this from Taper Collins:

blood on your hands. hope you’re happy with the effects of your anti-everyone vitriol. abhorrent.

Breivik may be one unhinged psychopath – but what is now erupting as a result of the Norway atrocity is the frenzy of a western culture that has lost its mind.

Word.

ADDENDUM: As I was about to hit publish, Melanie has just published a new essay, "Fanaticism, mass murder and the left."

The suggestion that Breivik’s behaviour resulted from political rage – let alone from reading thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Winston Churchill – is frankly itself an opinion in need of treatment.

Melanie notes Bret Stephens and "the millenarian mindset," which I cited as perhaps the best explanation so far as to what happened in Norway. But go RTWT. Now we're getting somewhere.

Melanie Phillips Quits Britain's Spectator Magazine

She has two announcements, "Why I left the Spectator," and "My blog's new home."

There's very little written regarding an explanation why, although Phillips writes: "Those interested to learn more can do so in the update on this CiF Watch post, the original quote from which led to this apology." The apology issued was to Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum, "an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly ..."

Given Mr. Crooke's background, folks probably have an inkling as to what happened: Melanie blogged about Crooke, he got mad, launched legal action, harming the Spectator financially, and Melanie Phillips felt it necessary to resign.

That just the line of logic, but let's see if I can piece some of this together. For one thing, reports indicate that Alastair Crooke, a former member of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, had direct and ongoing contacts with Hamas as part of his official business at the British consulate in East Jerusalem. A 2007 blog post by Israeli Eliyahu m'Tsiyon has the details, including a quotation from Melanie Phillips which is no longer available elsewhere. And London's far-left Guardian reported on this, "UK recalls MI6 link to Palestinian militants." These are some really sinister dealings, and Phillips wrote about them. See Jihad Watch, "Melanie Phillips on Alistair Crooke." And following the links takes us to FrontPage Magazine, "Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin." I don't see the exact date of Crooke's departure from MI6, but even left-wing sources report on his deep ties to global terrorism. See Mother Jones, "The Spy Who Loved Hamas. And Hezbollah. And Iran."

Now note that the Spectator published an apology to Alastair Crooke, cited by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian:

A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on Jan 28 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from Government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.

Again, I'm piecing things together, but it looks like Spectator issued the apology as part of a legal settlement, which has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan jumping for joy:

... was this a voluntary or enforced departure? The blogger Guido Staines beat me to it, but I can't help but notice how the Spectator has had to apologise to Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, on its website this week, after a blogpost by Phillips made "false" allegations about Crooke's past. Phillips's decision to move on might just be a coincidence but a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator "tens of thousands of pounds" and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil "furious" with her.

So we're now back to Melanie Phillips' blog entry, where she writes, "For legal reasons, I cannot go into the details."

The legal reasons appear to be (further) threats of legal action, but Melanie Phillips has rejected the premise of the apology. And CiF Watch says Phillips made "no such" allegation regarding threats from Alastair Crooke.

Well, we know that Alastair Crooke's collaborating with terrorist organizations, and as Melanie Phillips was writing about it, my sense is that someone made threats, and since this controversy involves people at the highest levels of British power, clearly some pro-jihadists had strong incentive to destroy Melanie Phillips. And what's more fascinating is that so called right-wing outlets are simply crippling under threats and apparent litigation. Indeed, Mehdi Hasan can't contain his glee:

Blinded by their monomaniacal obsession with Islamists under every British bed, members of the UK media's neoconservative faction have been the subject of other (successful) legal complaints and libel actions in recent years.

These legal complaints look sketchy, "successful" or not, given all that we know about Alastair Crooke. Clearly, if Melanie Phillips was speaking truth to power her own health and livelihood became increasingly at risk. And this is something I've been writing about quite a bit, since Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen launched campaigns of workplace intimidation against me, including libelously false allegations of sexual harassment, with potentially very damaging personal consequences, simply for speaking truth to their evil deeds. And while I'm not an author of such prominence as Melanie Phillips, some allegations against me have gone all the way to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat. So the similarity is to the lengths at which progressives will go to literally destroy those who speak the truth. Remember, for radical leftists and jihad enablers, "truth is the new hate speech." And I want to remind people of my report on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who announced on Canadian television:

The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.

Neither will I.

Professor Charli Carpenter Quits Lawyers, Guns and Money! — UPDATE!! Repsac = Racist = ASFL = Lying Asshat!!!

And I'm claiming credit for forcing her to abandon that demonic progressive stinkhole.

I noticed that Charli's name had been removed from the blog's masthead, and then new LGM blogger Erik Loomis introduced himself a few weeks ago, noting, "... how intimidating it is to be replacing someone as superb as Charli Carpenter. Those are some big shoes to fill. I know I’ll miss reading her posts."

Charli quit immediately following the publication of my essay, "Dr. Charli Carpenter and the Laws of War." I had long suggested to her that blogging at LGM was harmful to her academic reputation, and of course Charli's ambitious within the field of political science. She dismissed my advice and admonished me not to involve her in flame wars. But I offered legitimate criticism at "Dr. Charli Carpenter and the Laws of War," and she nevertheless ignored the post and then fled the scene of battle. Maybe it was the Serr8d Photoshop of Charli in a bikini, sporting what looks like to be a terrorist's bombing set-up. Feminists hate that stuff. (The bikinis, that is. The pro-Palestinian terrorism? Not so much.) And note how plugging "Charli Carpenter and International Law" or "Dr. Charli Carpenter" into Google pulls up my post at the #1 and #2 ranking. That's gotta hurt.

And that tells you something. Charli was listing Lawyers, Guns and Money at her biographical information on her Foreign Affairs articles, and she's still blogging at The Duck of Minerva, more than ever it seems. Charli likes blogging and wouldn't have quit LGM on a whim.

Frankly, it must have been damaging to be associated with a hate dump like Robert Farley's Lawyers, Guns and Money. And especially so now that LGM has emerged as a big outlet for progressive anti-Semitism in recent months, led by the idiot juvenile Scott Lemieux and his ill-considered blogging on Israel-bashing playwright Tony Kushner.

It's telling all around. Not only had blogging at LGM become a liability for Charli, but it goes to show that when challenged, progressives are cowardly when forced outside of their demonic cocoons.

I'm going to have lots more on the bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money. They've been attacking me and this blog for years, and recently those attacks took a very personal turn, which required me to retain an attorney. I'm still holding off on reporting on that, but it's going to be blockbuster when it comes out. One of the bloggers over there is going to be outed as evil once and for all. He'll be even more discredited than he already is, and while this has been costly, it's nothing that I initiated. Cheap kicks while it lasted it, but not anymore. Basically, don't fuck with me, assholes. You reap what you sow and it's very ugly. And you deserve the ignominy that's coming your way.

Stay tuned.

*****

UPDATE (2:25pm PST): I've been out taking my kid skateboarding, so a little late getting back to the blog. Not only that, I'm trying desperately to pull myself up after ROTFLMFAO, because REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL has responded to this post, and writes hilariously that Charli Carpenter is "paying little if any attention to Donald Douglas." Perhaps not, but stalker REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL sure the hell is!!

See: "Professor Donald Douglas is Envious of Professor Charli Carpenter."

And more lulz. Note how Charli Carpenter quit blogging precisely while coming under withering fire at this blog. Yep, perfect timing. The so-called "Grad Director" gig is a convenient out for pulling her name off the masthead at LGM, and totally transparent. God, that's pathetic, but expected, since she no doubt found she could no longer blog at a premier progressive anti-Semitic hate dump. It's pretty self-explanatory. And she's meanwhile blogging up a storm at Duck of Minerva. Yep, that "Grad Director" gig sure is taking up a lot of time, yuk yuk!!

And wrong, not envious in the least, RACIST REPSAC3 ASFL. I'm a tenured professor at a college without a grad program, so "Grad Director" is not something I'd be doing. And I have no need to publish, since community colleges are teaching institutions. But WE KNOW progressives like you hate teaching and denigrate those who do, cuz ur a typical asshat. And I'm raising two kids myself, not to be demonic left-wing terrorist wannabes, of course. Unlike you, freaking stalker.

Plus, I'm not "outing" anyone's identity, you idiot. I plan to report and document the moral degeneracy and evil of one of the bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Murder. Still waiting for the go-ahead from the attorney, but you've got skills in this area, so it'll be interesting to demonstrate a past pattern of collaboration on your part. See: "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE --- Another year, another UPDATE: 2/17/2011." At the update, that's where hate sponsor RACIST = REPSAC = ASFL denies that he had anything to do with the campaign of workplace intimidation directed against me at my college, which of course is a lie, because RACIST = REPSAC = ASFL personally administers the blog and he personally recruited the progressives who published all of my workplace contact information, with the exhortation:

We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at The Swash Zone; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President **** ****** at (562) ***-**** or Executive VP of Academic Affairs ****** **** at (562) ***-**** and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).

This was published at REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL's blog, American Nihilist, Feb 12, 2009. (See here.) And REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL is fully implicated in this initial campaign of workplace intimidation, and he's now even doubled-down about how he thinks I should be fired for practicing my First Amendment rights to freedom of the expression, the right to be free in my private personal affairs. It's pretty bad, but this is what progressives do. And when I'm able to report fully on recent legal developments with my blog, REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL may well be implicated in the moral deviance, evil, and libelous activities that have been recently launched to destroy the moral clarity of myself and American Power.

Obama Defends Plan for Mosque Near Ground Zero — 'Friends of Terror' Attend White House Ramadan Dinner

At Wall Street Journal (via Daily Caller):

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama defended the plan to build a mosque near the site of the 2001 terror attacks in New York, telling Muslim guests at a Ramadan dinner at the White House that the nation's commitment to freedom of religion "must be unshakable.''

RTWT.

The White House has been wary of entering this debate, and I can't see how this is going to help Obama politically. Emotions are just too raw. It would take time, but folks might want to go down the list of those attending the Ramadan dinner and figure out how much support Obama's got in the Islamist jihad community. I mean seriously. The very first name I checked (with no prior familiarity) is Ms. Dalia Mogahed, who is Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. But as Jihad Watch points out, "Obama's Muslim adviser Dalia Mogahed 'is herself an Islamic ideologue who supports Islamic Sharia'." And the link there is to Nonie Darwish, "Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood." Also, checking another name, Mr. Salam Al Marayati of Muslim Public Affairs Council, it turns out that Al Marayati and his group are "Friends of Terror." That piece links to "Marayati Suggested Israel Carried Out 9/11 Attacks," which reads:

Salam Al-Marayati, head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which has praised the Hezbollah terrorist group —which is on the U.S. terrorist list— and publicly called for Israel’s destruction, has been invited to deliver a lecture at the State Department’s “Secretary’s Open Forum” on January 28, 2002.

Ironically, Marayati is scheduled to speak on “Rising Voices of Moderate Muslims”—even though his voice is the voice of a Muslim extremist, and his disgraceful attempt to blame Israel for the September 11 attacks was a bizarre effort to divert attention from the real perpetrators of these heinous acts, who were all Muslim extremists.

Well there you go, and that's just a couple of those in attendance at the White House Iftar dinner on Ramadan. And check Pamela's post, "Obama Backs 911 Ground Zero Mega Mosque at Ramadan Celebration":

Obama came out for the Islamic supremacist mosque at the hallowed ground of 911 attack. He has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists and told the ummah (at an Iftar dinner on the third night of Ramadan, of course) that he believes in and supports a triumphal mosque on the cherished site of Islamic conquest.

If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 911, there can be no doubt in our minds now.

Warner Todd Huston offers an analysis of the speech. But by now the lid's totally blown off the scam. The administration has turned its back on defending this country from Islamic jihad.

**********

UPDATE: Linked at Astute Bloggers, Left Coast Rebel, and NewsReal Blog.

Thoughts on Blogging and Freedom

I'm past the point of writing "tips for bloggers" essays. I did that last year, and the advice is still pretty good over there.

No, I was thinking about a little update on blogging after see John Hawkins' post last week, "7 Things Every Blogger Should Know How To Do (Besides Write)." John has a comment about making money from blogging, but the more basic thing here is the traffic numbers he cites:

#5) How to make some money doing this: Here's an unpleasant truth. You can have 2,000 or 3,000 people a day reading your blog and make almost nothing off of it. In fact, from what I've seen, until you get big enough to stand out a little bit from the crowd, say at 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 people reading you a day, you will have great difficulty making enough money to do more than pay your bills for your blog. Then, even when you do get big, if you don't know what you're doing and dramatically underprice your ads, you can still make a lot less money than what you should. I've seen people who could DOUBLE their ad rates and probably not lose any ads.

While I'd love to make a little more money than I'm getting now (mostly from Amazon and the ad at the sidebar), I blog mostly to make a contribution to the debate (and we need more regular folks in new media, so hopefully I can hold out for a while). American Power has been doing well. My traffic has doubled since last year, and I'm co-blogging at both Right Wing News and Theo Spark's. (And that's something to think about, for the newer bloggers just getting started. Get going on the networking and seek high-traffic blogs to post essays and increase exposure.) I'm closing in on a solid average of 2000 visitors per day. A good chunk of that is from SEQ, but more and more it's due to the relentless promotion that's integral to serious blogging. As I've said previously, don't be shy about pimping your stuff (although adhere to some limits, naturally). In addition, I suspect one should think pretty carefully about making blogging a career. I'll be honest: If in a few years from now I'm able to find a way to make some serious, long-term money from blogging, I'll be no doubt looking to speed up retirement from my college. After ten years of teaching at LBCC, I've realized I probably don't have the ideological temperament for academe. It's my career, and I'm a professional, but I think I'd like to leave college teaching sooner rather than later. Maybe I can write books, or something. But that's a matter I'll discuss more another day.

There's one more thing: the frequency of recent "babe blogging." I posted a ton of "Rule 5" last week. Linkmaster Smith has the roundup:

American Power went on a bit of a Rule 5 rampage this week, NTTAWWT:

• Esti Ginzburg
• On location in Lisbon
• Jennifer Love Hewitt
• Brooklyn Decker
• SI Swimsuit Teaser #1
• Wednesday Diversions
• Canada Day
• Marisa Miller
• Friday Diversions
• Victoria’s Secret: Splash!
• Zoe Duchesne

This is mostly experimentation, especially the frequency of the hotness. I may or may not post Rule 5 in the future, or at least at regular intervals. There's clearly a demand for it. But what's important is that I CAN POST HOTTIES whether I want to or not. IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM. So if you like this kind of thing, enjoy it while it lasts. Meanwhile, maybe we'll see some increased blog frequency over at Swedish Meatballs Confidential!

Sarah Palin at CSU Stanislaus

Video c/o Sissy Willis:

I'm late to this story, but it's a pretty big one. Some unidentified dickheads dissed Palin on live mic, and Fox40 Sacramento's' freakin', since they were the only network doin' a live feed. Best thing to do is read Sistah Toldjah's post, "Fox40, Multiple journo-dudes slam Palin after CA speech (UPDATE 8: FOX40 RESPONDS TO ST)." Sistah's got the audio of the unidentified, unprofessional slams on Palin, and Fox40 actually responded in the comments at the blog. Jennifer Cubachi also covered the story, "About Fox40 and the Sarah Palin Controversy." Interesting how bloggers broke open a big scoop. The network's repsponse is here, "Statement Regarding Comments Overheard On FOX40.com Stream Following Sarah Palin Speech."

BONUS: Ed Driscoll at RWN, "Fox40 Covers Sarah Palin at Cal State, Forgets ‘All Mics are Hot’ Rule."

And check the thread at Memeorandum. And also, at Merced Sun-Star, "Sarah Palin discusses education and freedom at CSU Stanislaus banquet: She pokes fun of Jerry Brown and controversy over her speech, which raised $200k."

WikiLeaks Update: How the Leftist Media Massacres Truth and Helps America's Enemies

Doug Ross and Rusty Shackleford are my heroes.

In just two separate blog posts, Doug and Rusty have put the left's media-industrial-complext to brutal shame, they've exposed for all to see the alliance between America's MSM and the enemies of freedom across the globe.

Spend a couple of minutes with Doug's post, "Cleverly-Eited Video Becomes Anti-Military Infomercial for World's Dumbest Blogger and His Traditional Posse of Useful Idiots." The evidence is right before your eyes. No murder. Nothing to cover up. (The "dumbest blogger" is Matthew Yglesias, but he's joined by Glenn Greenwald as perfect representatives of the mindless anti-Americanism that's encroaching deeper into what were once great national institutions.) And see also Rusty Shackleford's post, "Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq." Plus, in a follow up, "MSM Continues False Reporting of Reuters 'Murder' in Iraq," Rusty explains simply:

My biggest problem with this whole story is that it's a story at all. It took me no more than two minutes of watching Wiki Leak's video to realize that not only was their nothing to the accusations, but also that the video did exactly the opposite of what the Left Wing conspiracy theorists over at Wiki Leak claimed it did: fully exonerated those involved, proved that the investigation into the matter was spot on, and that there was no "cover up" as they alleged.

Seriously, this whole thing didn't even deserve a "debunking" story. The evidence that the US soldiers acted well within the rules of engagement and that Reuters stringers were embedded with enemy combatants is that overwhelming.

But we have to debunk, because with the exception of Fox News I've yet to yet a MSM report that's genuinely critical of WikiLeaks' jihad against America and our military in Iraq. See Fox News, the single source pushing back, "Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video":

WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.

The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.

All I can say is DAMN! It's about time someone's shifting the MSM meme. (And RTWT at the link.)

And I'm surprised at this, but in an otherwise fawning report, "Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory," the far-left Mother Jones dishes some pretty damaging dirt. Apparently Julian Assange lists bigshot names as members of WikiLeaks' "advisory board," but then Noam Chomsky, who's cited as a member, says he's never heard of the joint. And then there's this:

Digital security expert Ben Laurie laughs when I ask why he's named on the site. "WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it," he says. "I don't know who runs it. One of the things I've tried to avoid is knowing what's going on there, because that's probably safest for all concerned" ....

John Young, founder of the pioneering whistleblower site, Cryptome.org, is skeptical. Assange reverently describes Cryptome as WikiLeaks' "spiritual godfather." But Young claims he was conned into registering the WikiLeaks domain when Assange's team first launched (the site is no longer under his name). He fought back by leaking his correspondence with WikiLeaks. "WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote to Assange's list, hinting that the new site was a CIA data mining operation. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy."

Amazing that a far-left journal of opinion provides more balance than a typical report at the New York Times, although they could have gone a lot further by linking Jawa Report and others who're uncovering the scam. Still, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' founder, left an angry comment at the thread there:

I am Julian Assange, and the subject of this article, which is full of errors and was not shown to me, even in part, prior to publication.

The article is full of extremely irritating tabloid insinuations of the type that might be expected from a poor quality magazine which is unsurprising, since the content is recycled from an old article that even Wired refused to publish.

My interview with the author was 12 months ago. I have not spoken to him since.

There plenty of gutter journalism insituations [sic], some examples:

1. The article very irritatingly goes for the "fear" angle, but contains not a single example of any of our publications causing harm related to their content. Not a single example! The whole thesis is pure invention. There is a reason no example was given. No one knows of any case where this has occurred and we have a 4 year publishing record.

2. The article, despite the insituations [sic], does not mention a single example of us ever having released a misattributed document. There is a reason no example was given. It has, as far as can be determined, never happened. Compare our record unblemished record to, say, the New York Times.

3. The article outrageously tries to insinuate that the tragic death of two very public human rights lawyers in Nairobi is related to some failing of WikiLeaks. The insinuation deplorable and it is false. The men were not confidential sources. They were public sources and very brave ones at that.

4. The article states that I believe all leaks are good. I have never stated this. The claim is an idiotic and false.

There are many others, but Mother Jones can do its own damn research.

Assange protests too much:

(Image Source.)

The media's toally enabling WikiLeaks' domestic and global propaganda efforts. Below, the first video shows hack Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responding to questions on the non-murders and non-cover up, and second is Al Jazeera's video showing family members of the Reuters journalists, where one of the sons pledges to "take up the camera" in his father's name (and thus embed with terrorists).

Also, Atlantic does a roundup, but excludes sources debunking the murder/cover-up myth: "The Focus Falls on WikiLeaks." And I e-mailed leftist gossip rag Gawker after seeing this story, which offers the appearance of objectivity but omits the key details as well: "Wikileaks Video Demonstrates Conclusively That Innocent People Get Killed in Wars." Haven't heard back yet ...

Finally, scum Glenn Greenwald continues his push for war crimes trials, "Follow-Up Points on the WikiLeaks Video." And communist Laura Flanders at AlterNet, "The Wikileaks Tape — How War Poisons the Soul."

Tea Partiers and Terrorists: Weighing Moral Equivalence

Okay, here's a follow up to last night's entry: "Disgusting: New York Times Crops Weathermen/Tea Party Mash-Up Pic for Sunday 'Week-in-Review' Hatchet Job!"

I sent it out by e-mail, and got picked up by Jim Hoft, "Outrageous!… NY Times Sunday Hit Piece Pictures Tea Party Protesters With Weathermen Terrorists." Jim in turn got picked up by Glenn Reynolds, "JIM HOFT IS UNHAPPY THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES CONFLATES TEA PARTIERS WITH weathermen terrorists. But I think they’re saying that Tea Partiers will be close friends with the next President ...."

Sometime this morning Jim's entry got picked up as a Memeorandum thread, and after that, naturally, a lot of folks saw it, some checking the link to my blog. Here's a roundup, with some picking up my post directly by e-mail, some from Gateway Pundit's at Memeorandum, or at Instapundit, etc.:

**********

* Atlas Shrugs, "The Left Destroy Machine in High Gear: New York Times Declares War on America."

* Doug Ross, "Larwyn's Linx."

* Free Republic, "New York Times Crops Weathermen/Tea Party."

* Gun-Toting Liberal, "A Conservative Resurrection."

* Left Coast Rebel, "Another Fresh New 52 Week Low for the Press, the New York Times Sunday Pictures Tea Party + Weathermen Terrorists."

* Lonely Conservative, "New York Times Compares Tea Parties to the Weathermen."

* Maggie's Notebook, "New York Times Compares Tea Partiers to Weathermen."

* The Other McCain, "One of These Things Is Not Like the Other."

* The Radio Patriot, "Just to show you how serious this is ..."

* Right Wing-Nut, "NYT Depicts Tea Party As A Rising Political Force!"

* Saber Point, "The False Analogy of the New York Times: Tea Party Members vs Weather Underground."

**********

All of that for a NYT essay that ran March 28th!

And there's more: It turns out that Ann Althouse took a crack at it with some lawyer's analysis, "Is it a "hit piece" if the NYT parallels Tea Partiers and 60s radicals?" Where I focused on pictorial accompaniments and editorial discretion, Ann goes straight for the textual analysis of the author. Here's her introduction, but check the link for her bottom line:

It was the front-page teaser for this "Week in Review" piece by Benedict Carey. Carey is a medicine and science writer for the newspaper, and his topic is the public display of anger in American politics. He's looking at the long history of demonstrations, and it's a great concept to put up a 60s "Days of Rage" photograph with a man yelling and gesturing along with a present-day Tea Party photograph with a man yelling and gesturing in just about the same way. That the man in the 60s photo is Bill Ayers is a fabulous bit of irony. It's a perfect illustration for Carey's topic, Carey's topic is a good one, and the newspaper succeeds in attracting readers.

Now, I understand the right-wing anger — hmmm — at the juxtaposition. The 60s protesters are Weathermen, and the Weathermen advocated and practiced violence. They murdered people. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are engaging in the highest form of freedom of expression: assembling in groups and criticizing the government.

But people on the left admire and respect the 1960s protests. They wish there was more expressive fervor on their side today. To have the passion and vitality of the 60s is a good thing. And the air of potential violence, especially in the absence of any actual violence? I think lefties love that. They may not admit they do. But there's a frisson. Remember, the NYT readers are aging liberals. They — we — remember the 60s as glory days. Yes, there was anger, and yes, it spilled over into violence sometimes, but the government deserved it, and these young people were idealistic and ready to give all for their ideals. They are remembered — even as (if?) their excesses are regretted — in a golden light.

This is something of a, "well, you kinda had ta been there" approach. And I don't discount it. Except I read Carey's piece as well, and his larger sensibility toward comparative terror is to dismiss jihadis like Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan as "lone gunmen," which was the exact MSM meme emerging after Fort Hood, and which shortly became a major public relations fiasco. The "righties" won that media framing battle, although by the time of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Janet Napolitano's hee-hawing that "the system worked," it was clear the administration learned absolutely nothing. And there are more red flags at Carey's piece, for example, where he says:

So far, experts say that the discontent pooling on the right (anti-Washington and anti-Wall Street) and to a lesser degree on the left (anti-Wall Street) has some, but not yet all, of the ingredients needed to foment radicalism.

There's a huge fallacy of ubiquity here (or error of omission). Folks are seeing the tea parties all the time, 24/7 and despite the media spin, these events are virtually 100 percent peaceful (any violence we've seen has been instigated by SEIU thugs, etc.) In contrast, we've got an anarcho-communist revolt brewing on college campuses, especially in California, that's increasingly militant and violent (UC Berkeley Chancellor Roberrt Birgenau's house was attacked by a torch-bearing mob). And Carey's calling stuff like this a "lesser degree" of anger?

In any case, in contrast to Ann is Neptunus Lex, who sees things a bit more from the "righty" angle, "Precipice":

All change provokes reaction, but it seems disingenuous at best for those who initiate change to impugn the motives of those that react to it. Conservatives, after all, take it as read that not all change is progress, and that things – no matter how bad – can always get worse. Non-violent protests were until recently seen as the “highest form of patriotism,” but now the very right of people to peaceably assemble and register their displeasure with government is sneered at by the “paper of record.”

There’s real anger in this country at the direction that the political class is dragging the majority against their will, but it has been up to now peacefully expressed. Where violence has occurred, the guilty parties have much more often than not been those agitating for change, rather than against it.

Well, ahem, there you go ...

P.S. If I missed anybody in the roundup, leave your link in the comments and I'll update ...