cb.blog

I know I’m a few days late in responding to this story, but it has taken me a while to put my response together.

Mere weeks after the MIAC terrorism report came to light (and was subsequently rescinded due to public outrage), The Liberty Papers and Roger Hedgecock broke the story about an eerily similar report out of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF report from Michelle Malkin).

Generally speaking, the issues with the Rightwing Report, which the DHS has confirmed and stands behind, can be grouped as follows:

1. Overly broad definition of “rightwing extremism” (RWE) that conflates right-wing ideology/socio-political views with extremism/violence (i.e. MIAC II)
2. Failure to identify RWE groups or individuals, identify any evidence of risk of impending rightwing extremist violence, or specify/quantify assessments
3. Downplaying the differentiation between mainstream rightwing groups and lone wolf fringe extremists, and the relative risk of each
4. Conflation of militia movement with extremism/voilence (i.e. MIAC II)
5. Conflation of disagreement with liberal policy changes with racism
6. Conflation of racism (and anti-semitism) and “rightwing extremism”
7. Conflation of racist beliefs with anti-government beliefs
8. Conflation of economic downturn/poverty with rightwing radicalization
9. Failure to cite sources for assessments/assertions

Each of these points will be addressed at length, below.

Very quickly, the story exploded on the right, including Michelle Malkin, Red State (including Moe Lane, Warner Todd Huston, and Hogan), WorldNetDaily, The Anchoress, Legal Insurrection, HotAir, and PowerLine (to whose post I will return shortly).

The outrage hasn’t been limited to the blogosphere. This Ain’t Hell, Michelle Malkin, and Gateway Pundit reported on the American Legion’s response to the report’s implications toward returning military veterans. Likewise, Michelle Malkin and RedState (including Warner Todd Huston and E Pluribus Unum) report that seven U.S. Senators have sent a letter to Janet Napolitano demanding that she produce the evidence used as the basis for the report. Also, Designated Conservative reports that the Thomas More Law Center has filed a request with the DHS challenging the report.

Apparently, though, some don’t seem to understand the problem. Charles Johnson of LGF has deemed outrage at the report to be the stuff of the “black helicopter” crowd. Informed Speculation (the erstwhile Decision ‘08) fails to understand the indignation. Strata-sphere calls the response “hemming and hawing”, and “shrillness.” Likewise, “moderates” are dismissing the outrage.

The primary argument of those who dismiss this outrage is that DHS has issued similar reports regarding leftwing extremism. The secondary argument appears to be that DHS should be concerned with potential acts of violence, whether they originate from the left or from the right. The final – and most particularly asinine – argument is that the report originated with the Bush Administration.

(Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin smack down the latter argument. Napolitano was in such a hurry to get the report out that she failed to address internal civil liberties concerns regarding wording of the report’s definition of “rightwing extremism.”)

Since the story first broke, the Leftwing Extremism report has surfaced: Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade (PDF report from FOX News). Unfortunately, the Leftwing Extremism report in no way resembles the Rightwing Extremism report, as I will address shortly. Also, a reading of the two reports provides the response to the latter argument. Real, hard evidence of past and continued leftwing extremist violence exists and provides the basis and support for the Leftwing Extremism report; however, baseless conjecture provides the basis and support for the Rightwing Extremism report, which even states that no evidence whatsoever exists that rightwing extremist violence represents a current threat.

(Note: The Rightwing Extremism report was prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division and coordinated with the FBI. The Leftwing Extremism report was prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group, Homeland Environment and Threat Analysis Division.)

Rather than the mere existence of a Leftwing Extremism report quelling the expressed concern regarding the Rightwing Extremism report, a reading of the Leftwing Extremism report actually confirms much of that concern:

First, the Leftwing Extremism report provides a very narrowly focused definition of leftwing extremism, including in the definition not just ideology but also that such extremists display a willingness to violate the law to acheive their objectives.

Second, the Leftwing Extremism report specifically names the extremist groups to which the report applies. The report differentiates between animal/environmental rights extremists and anarchist extremists. The report lists by name such animal/environmental groups as Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, elements of Animal Defense League, and Earth First; and such anarchist groups as Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68.

Note: oddly, the report includes not merely “anti-government” but also the following ideologies under “anarchist”: anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, and socialist, anti-Western-government, and anti-large-business. Regardless of the “anarchist” designation for these ideologies, the report – rightly so – includes them as leftwing (further putting the lie to the Rightwing Extremism report that attempts to lump some of these ideologies under rightwing extremism).

Rather than imagining some perceived risk or threat of violence where no supporting evidence exists, the report identifies concrete examples of recent leftwing extremist violence, and bases its assessments on those examples.

Third, rather than implying that all ideologically similar groups fall under the extremist definition, the report clearly states in its definition of Leftwing Extremists that these such groups tend to be composed of lone wolves, small cells, and splinter groups, rather than being hierarchally organized.

Fourth, the Leftwing Extremism report provides a source summary statement, explaining its methodology and sourcing of information from which the report’s assessments are derived.

Each of these points is in direct, stark contrast with the Rightwing Extremism report, as I will explain. (Related: Jonah Goldberg posts quite a few reader comments making similar points comparing and contrasting the two reports.

The critical point that the nay-sayers appear to be missing is that such a report has consequences. Already, (via Liberty Papers) the report has led to tea party protesters in southern Maryland being labeled as a potential concern. And as the NRO Corner points out, the report is part of a pattern for Obama.

Now, on to the report itself. Here are my issues with the report, point by point.

#1 Overly broad definition of “rightwing extremism” (RWE) that conflates right-wing ideology/socio-political views with extremism/violence (i.e. MIAC II)

Unlike the Leftwing Extremism report, which differentiated between ideology and proclivity toward acts of violence, the Rightwing Extremism report makes no such differentiation.

A footnote on page 2 of 9 of the report provides the report’s definition of “rightwing extremism”:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This definition of “rightwing extremism” is the foundation for the report, and the assessments made thereafter reflect this foundation – including its inherent problems and incorrect conflations. Both this definition and the report itself incorrectly conflate racism (including anti-semitism) with rightwing extremism, racist beliefs with anti-government beliefs, the militia movement with extremism/violence, right-wing ideology/socio-political views with extremism/violence, and disagreement with liberal policy changes with racism. In so doing, both this definition and the report itself fail to identify RWE groups or individuals and fail to offer any specification or quantification of the assessments made.

Later, having implicated the “militia movement” and white supremacists as falling within its definition of “rightwing extremists”, the report identifies the ideological issues of these entities. Under Revisiting the 1990s on page 4 of 9 of the report:

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.

The report’s definition of RWE also includes the following:

Rightwing extremism in the United States …may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Of course, the report takes a page from the MIAC report – and typical liberal obfuscation – by claiming rightwing opposition to “immigration”, when in fact rightwing ideology is opposed not to immigration but rather to illegal immigration. Opposition to illegal immigration is generally a rightwing issue; however, xenophobia – which is far more likely to lead to anti-immigrant (illegal or otherwise) violence – is by no means a rightwing ideology.

Anti-abortionism is clearly a rightwing ideology, and abortion clinic bombing and other similar acts of violence are rightly considered to be rightwing extremism. Oddly, the report neither discusses the past trends in, nor assesses the future risk of, such anti-abortion extremism.

Thus, putting together all of the above, all of the following ideologies are included as potentially related to “rightwing extremism”:

• hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups
• antigovernment
  • rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority
  • rejecting government authority entirely
• abortion
• (illegal) immigration
• opposition to gun control efforts
• criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico)
• “perceived” government infringement on civil liberties
• inter-racial crimes
• and same-sex marriage.

This definition of “rightwing extremism” is so overly broad that it actually includes leftwing ideology. The report frequently references and discusses racism and white supremacists; however, white supremacists (National Socialists, Aryan Nation, etc.) generally adhere to socialist – i.e. leftwing – ideology. Likewise, most criticism of free trade agreements has come from not from the right but rather from the left.

Worse, having made an overly broad definition of “rightwing extremism”, the report later asserts that “rightwing extremists” are, as a group, mutually exclusive from “law-abiding Americans”. On page 6 of 9, under Judicial Drivers, the report states:

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists – as well as law-abiding Americans – to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

Not once, but twice in the same paragraph, the report indicates that “rightwing extremists” are not law-abiding Americans.

Whether intentional or unintentional, the implication being made by the report is unmistakable: rightwing extremism is defined by ideology devoid of proclivity toward violence, and rightwing extremists are by definition not law-abiding citizens.

#2 Failure to identify RWE groups or individuals, identify evidence of risk of impending rightwing extremism violence, or specify/quantify assessments

Unlike the Leftwing Extremism report, which explicitly names the leftwing groups to which the report applies, the Rightwing Extremism report fails to identify any rightwing groups explicitly. Further, unlike the Leftwing Extremism report, which identifies explicit acts of violence committed by leftwing extremists (as well as communications indicating intent to continue such acts) and bases its assessments on those acts, the Rightwing Extremism report indicates that no evidence exists that rightwing extremists are intending to commit any acts of violence – and then proceeds to assert baseless speculation of an increased risk of rightwing extremists committing acts of violence. The Rightwing Extremism report consistently references “extremist groups” and “militia members”, but likewise consistently fails to identify any such groups or militias by name. The report identifies only two entities by name: Timothy McVeigh, and Christian Identity.

On page 2 of 9, under Key Findings, the report states:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report asserts that “rightwing extremists” may be gaining new recruits, but fails to identify any such groups. Nor does the report offer any statistics on increase in numbers of recruits.

The first bullet point under this paragraph indicates:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

Again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of some sort of rhetoric, yet fails to identify the groups for which this rhetoric is known.

The second bullet point makes a similar assertion:

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Once again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of some groups capitalizing on the election of the first African American president, yet fails to identify any such groups.

On page 3 of 9, under Exploiting Economic Downturn, the report states:

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.

Again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of extremist Internet “chatter”, yet fails to identify the source of or the groups participating in such chatter.

On the same page, under Historic Presidential Election, the report states:

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of RWEs harnessing the election as a recruitment tool, yet fails to identify any such groups. Nor does the report offer any statistics on increase in numbers of recruits.

The subsequent bullet point states:

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

Again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of some sort of rhetoric, yet fails to identify the groups for which this rhetoric is known.

The bullet point continues:

In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

And again, the report references specific incidents, yet fails to identify the involved parties (much less, any group to which they may have belonged).

On page 5 of 9, under Illegal Immigration, the report states:

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.

Again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of militias and white supremacists adopting the illegal immigration issue, yet fails to identify any such groups. Nor does the report offer any statistics on increase in numbers of recruits.

On page 5 of 9, under Legislation and Judicial Drivers, the report states:

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.

Once again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of groups increasing weapons and ammunition stockpiling and renewing participation in paramilitary training exercises, yet fails to identify any such groups. Nor does the report offer any statistics on increase weapons/ammunition stockpiling.

The report offers the same treatment of so-called disgruntled military veterans; however, this discussion is addressed previously and not repeated here.

On page 8 of 9, under Outlook, the report states:

• Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
• Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.
• Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.

And once again, the report apparently has some specific knowledge of a decline in number of militia groups as well as a decrease in militia group membership rolls, yet fails to identify the groups or offer any statistics on that decline. Likewise, the report offers no statistics on the asserted slight growth in white supremacist groups and fails to identify those groups. Perhaps most interestingly, the report asserts both that militia membership has been in decline for more than a decade, and may now be increasing – yet offers no statistics whatsoever to support either assertion.

#3 Downplaying the differentiation between mainstream rightwing groups and lone wolf fringe extremists, and the relative risk of each

The report consistently references (and maligns) militias as “rightwing extremist” groups, and associates a risk of potential violence with such groups; however, the report downplays its conclusion that the greatest risk comes not from militia groups, but rather from “lone wolves” and “small terrorist cells”. Even worse, the report actually concludes that the greatest risk comes not from militia members at all, but rather from white supremacists.

From a sidebar titled Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells on page 7 of 9, the report states:

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent – and, in some cases, the capability – to commit violent acts.

• DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy – separate from any formalized group – which hampers warning efforts.
• Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.
• Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

On the same page, under Disgruntled Military Veterans, the report conflates the risk of lone wolves and small terrorist cells with militias:

[Returning veterans' military training and combat] skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists – including lone wolves or small terrorist cells – to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

If the real threat comes from lone wolves and small terrorist cells, why does so much of the report focus on the militia movement and militia groups – groups that have repeatedly and consistently repudiated the extremist viewpoints and ideologies of those lone wolves and cell groups?

#4 Conflation of militia movement with extremism/voilence (i.e. MIAC II)

In a near carbon-copy of the MIAC report, the DHS report conflates militias and the militia movement with extremism and violence. Going even further, the report implies that militias are part of the “domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups” designation. To wit, on page 2 of 9, under Key Findings, the report indicates:

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

• During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
• Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

This assessment under Key Findings does not specifically address or identify militias; however, the Key Findings section is a summary of findings that are further discussed and elaborated in the rest of the report. Compare that summary statement with the following assessment found on page 8 of 9 of the report, under Outlook:

A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.

• Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
• Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.

Comparing these two assessments clearly indicates that the report is implying that DHS considers the “militia movement” as (at least part of) the “domestic rightwing terroriswt and extremist groups” that saw a decline in membership as a result of increased government scrutiny following the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing.

Having established this implication, the report then uses the possible correlation of issues of concern in order to conflate even further militias and extremism/violence. Under Revisiting the 1990s on page 4 of 9 of the report:

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,and infrastructure sectors.

The report asserts that, somehow, the militia’s issues of concern (gun control, free trade agreements, government infringement of civil liberties) relate to white supremacists’ issues (abortion, inter-racial crimes, same-sex marriage – though why abortion and same-sex marriage would be issues for white supremacists I have no idea). Having made this assertion, the report then makes the blanket statement that “these issues contributed to the growth in number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.”

Lest any pretense remain, the report then directly calls militias “rightwing extremists.” Under Illegal Immigration on page 5 of 9 of the report:

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.

And again, under Outlook on page 8 of 9:

DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, …as well as several new trends, …may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.

Having thus grouped militias (as a whole) under the “rightwing extremist” designation, the report then attempts to correlate militia membership with violence/extremism. Under the same Illegal Immigration section, the report lists three examples of violence directed toward illegal immigrants, two of which involve militia members:

• In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
• A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

The problem, of course, is that (once again) the report fails to demonstrate an understanding of the principle that correlation does not prove causation. As with the MIAC report, the DHS report fails to address whether or not the militias of which these criminals were members sponsored or condoned their criminal actions. Further, the report fails to indicate that such occurrences are not the norm, but rather the extreme exception for militias and militia members. Oh, and JustOneMinute (h/t Transterrestrial Musings) uses some “open source reporting” of his own to debunk both points.

The report goes on to conflate further the actions of fringe extremists with militias. On page 6 of 9, under Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries, the report indicates:

• Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military facilities in past years.
• Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

(Note that the first bullet point includes the report’s only reference thus far to a potential differentiation between militias and extremists.)

Once more, in a sidebar titled “Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells” on page 7 of 9 of the report:

Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

Again, in all cases, the report still gives no indication of whether or not any militia sponsored or condoned such extremist activities.

However, perhaps the most insulting assertion in the report’s conflation of militias with extremism and violence is the report’s association with military veterans with extremism and violence. On page 7 of 9, under Disgruntled Military Veterans, the report states:

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists – including lone wolves or small terrorist cells – to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

• After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans – including Timothy McVeigh – joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
• A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
• The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Allow me to digress for a moment, on the matter of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh – rightly so – is the poster child for extremist violence and domestic terrorism. He is not, however, an example of rightwing extremism. Timothy McVeigh associated primarily with neo-Nazis. The book that influenced his bombing, The Turner Diaries, was written by a neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazis – that is, National Socialists – are leftwing, not rightwing. Socialism is a leftwing ideology (an issue that I will address in a later post). McVeigh was not a member of any militia, nor did any militia support, endorse, or condone his actions. Even the ADL – no friend of militias – admits frankly that Timothy McVeigh was not connected to the militia movement:

No, [Timothy McVeigh] was not [connected with the militia movement]. He was not really connected to any particular movement. On the “hate” side, he obviously loved “The Turner Diaries” by William Pierce and read The Spotlight, the publication of the extremist and anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby. On the “anti-government” side, he attended a couple of militia meetings and half-heartedly attempted to start a militia group in Arizona, which came to nothing. He never really joined anything, either as a card-carrying member or even an explicit endorsement. This is also one reason why there was little support for McVeigh, simply because no one viewed him as one of “their own.”

Also, as Gateway Pundit points out, McVeigh was military trained not as a bomb-maker, but as a gunner. He did not get his terrorist training in the U.S. military.

It is striking to note that, in a report released in 2009, the only (and, ostensibly, best) example of a military veteran/militia member/terrorist is someone who committed a terrorist attack almost fifteen years ago and one whose alleged militia association has been thoroughly disproven. As the American Legion points out, Timothy McVeigh is one of several million military veterans of contemporary warfare.

I could address these obvious insults to our military veterans, but the American Legion and others did a much better job already.

Also, the good folks at PowerLine (linked above) have already addressed and debunked the source information to which the report alludes, regarding extremists joining the military and returning veterans joining extremist groups.

On the report’s assertion that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces” [emphasis mine, links in original]:

The “prominent civil rights organization” is the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. But what support is there for SPLC’s assertion that there are “large numbers” of “white supremacists” serving in the armed forces–as opposed to, say, a “tiny handful”? The SPLC’s full report is entirely anecdotal; the closest thing to data is this:

[Scott] Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, said he has identified and submitted evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year.

But even this alleged statistic appears to be false. Barfield was a gang investigator, and what he actually said was: “I have identified 320 soldiers as gang members from April 2002 to present.” So we now have the Department of Homeland Security defaming our servicemen on the basis of a press release by a left-wing pressure group that misrepresented the principal empirical support for its claim. Nice.

On the report’s assertion that “[the] FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups” [emphasis mine, link in original]:

So, how many are “some”? You can read the FBI report, titled “White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11,” here. Notwithstanding the deliberate vagueness of the Homeland Security document, the FBI was actually very specific:

A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period. This number is minuscule in comparison with the projected US veteran population of 23,816,000 as of 2 May 2008, or the 1,416,037 active duty military personnel as of 30 April 2008. …

According to FBI information, an estimated 19 veterans (approximately 9 percent of the 203) have verified or unverified service in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There you have it: a whopping 19 actual or alleged veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan have joined the “extremist movement.” (The FBI notes that some of these “may have inflated their resumes with fictional military experience to impress others within the movement.”)

#5 Conflation of disagreement with liberal policy changes with racism

The report’s definition of “rightwing extremism” includes “those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)”. The first paragraph under Key Findings (page 2 of 9) lists “the election of the first African American president” as a “unique [driver] for radicalization and recruitment.” The first bullet point under this paragraph references “white supremacists” as one group of such RWE.

On pages 3 and 4 of 9, under Historical Presidential Election, the report states:

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them a drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

The bullet point that immediately follows (on page 4 of 9) states:

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeard to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

The problem with conflating racism with RWE is that racism, bigotry, and other “hate-oriented” ideologies are not a right-or-left political matter. The right/left political spectrum involves the level of government involvement in and control over the life of the individual. The right favors individualism/federalism and the left favors socialism/statism. One can adhere to an ideology of bigotry while ascribing to a right or left political viewpoint.

Right-wing ideological groups do not inherently support or condone racism. With respect to racism against “African Americans”, it was the right that led the abolitionist movement, fought for an end to slavery against the southern Democrats (figuratively in the legislature and literally in the Civil War), issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and introduced the Equal Rights Amendment. With anti-Hispanic racism and violence, the issue is mostly apolitical and manifests in inner-city/gang violence between “African Americans” and Hispanics.

Consider also that the report defines not only racists as “rightwing extremists”, but applies the broad “hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups)” description. Much of this type of bigoted ideology belongs to leftwing extremists.

On page 5 of 9, under Illegal Immigration, the report “notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.”

The problem with this statement is that the “prominent civil rights organization” is (once again) the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the SPLC’s “observation” is an intentional misrepresentation of FBI crime statistics. As this press release from FAIR (h/t 24Ahead) explains:

When examined responsibly, the FBI hate crime data show a dramatically different story than the one the SPLC portrays. First, in order to suggest an artificially large increase in the raw number of hate crimes, the SPLC selects 2003 as its base year, one of lowest years on record for hate crimes against Hispanics. If one compares the number of hate crimes between 1995 (the earliest report available on the FBI’s website) and 2006 (the most recent statistical year available), one would see that the number of hate crimes has increased only 17 percent.

But even this is not the whole story. The SPLC conveniently forgets to index the raw hate crime data with the population, a step always taken by the FBI to more accurately depict an increase or decrease in crime. Thus, when one indexes a 17 percent increase in hate crimes against Hispanics with a 67 percent increase in the Hispanic population between 1995 and 2006, it becomes clear that the rate of hate crimes against Hispanics has in fact dropped dramatically — by about 40 percent.

#6 Conflation of racism (and anti-semitism), anti-government beliefs, and “rightwing extremism” (RWE)

On page 3 of 9, under Current Economic and Political Climate, the report indicates that “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recriutment and radicalization.” As an example of this threat, the report references the recent Pittsburgh police shootings, and stating (among other things) “The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to …a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’” On the same page, under Exploiting Economic Downturn, the report states, “Anti-Semitic extremists attribute [U.S. job] losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish ‘financial elites.’”

With respect to anti-semitism, this ideology is found predominantly on the left.

Returning to the report’s definition of “rightwing extremism”:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The report conflates hate-based groups, movements, and adherents with antigovernment groups, movements, and adherents, without offering any reasoning whatsoever for why these two ideologies should be grouped together. The only example offered of such reasoning is the previously mentioned Philadelphia police shooting incident. According to the report, “[t]he alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.” The report conflates the ideologies but fails to observe the fundamental concept that correlation does not prove causation.

In reality, leftwing extremist groups (including white supremacist groups) tend to be racist, anti-Christian, and anti-government, and tend to favor violent opposition to and overthrow of government. The militia movement – from which rightwing extremism ostensibly comes (and with scant evidence to support the assertion, at that) – tends to be race-agnostic, Christian, and vigilant toward government, and tend to favor defensive readiness in case of government oppression.

Note also that for leftwing white supremacist groups extremism is the norm, while for rightwing militia groups extremism is the (incredibly rare) exception.

#7 Conflation of economic downturn/poverty with rightwing radicalization

The report asserts that economic downturn and poverty is a driver for rightwing radicalization. On page 3 of 9, under Current Political and Economic Climate, the report states:

DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.

Further on the same page, under Exploiting Economic Downturn, the report states:

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

(Strange, but I don’t remember the G-20 protesters being particularly rightwing; quite to the contrary, such protesters have been traditionally leftwing.)

On page 4 of 9, under Economic Hardship and Extremism, the report states:

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty.

On the same page, in a sidebar titled Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization, the report states:

Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children – specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals.

Oddly, the unemployment lines and welfare rolls swell with people who generally adhere to leftwing ideologies. Further, 50 years of welfare state have led to a class of citizens who adhere to and who vote for candidates who adhere to leftwing ideologies. If poverty and unemployment were drivers for formation of rightwing extremist beliefs, then our major metropolitan areas and inner cities would not be the liberal bastions that they have become.

On page 5 of 9, under Illegal Immigration, the report states:

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

Later, under Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries, on page 6 of 9, the report states:

Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

The report obfuscates the issues of illegal immigration and domestic job losses to illegal immigrants with the issues of free trade agreements and domestic job losses due to outsourcing. The former are indeed rightwing issues, and have led to almost no extremist activity or violence; however, the latter are generally leftwing issues, and have led to several instances of extremist activity and violence. Further, given recent news, it is clearly no longer merely a perception that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens.

#8 Failure to cite sources for assessments/assertions

The report repeatedly asserts potential outcomes (things that may happen, or are likely to happen, etc.), and fails to cite even one source.

The most significant of such assertions may be the first sentence of the report (page 2 of 9) [emphasis added]:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

Summarizing other such assertions, page by page, starting with page 2 of 9 [emphasis added]:

Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Page 3 of 9 [emphasis added]:

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.

DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

Page 5 of 9 [emphasis added]:

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

Page 6 of 9 [emphasis added]:

It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists – as well as law-abiding Americans – to make bulk purchases of ammunition.

Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right.

Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a adicalization tool.

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s.

Page 7 of 9 [emphasis added]:

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.

These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists – including lone wolves or small terrorist cells – to carry out violence.

Page 8 of 9 [emphasis added]:

DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, …as well as several new trends, …may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.

To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.

Of the few statistics to which the report alludes, sources are referenced but not cited properly or even named specifically. To wit:

On page 5 of 9, under Illegal Immigration, the report states [emphasis added]:

DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

On page 6 of 9, under Legislative and Judicial Drivers, the report states [emphasis added]:

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists – as well as law-abiding Americans – to make bulk purchases of ammunition.

On page 7 of 9, under Disgruntled Military Veterans, the report states [emphasis added]:

The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans – including Timothy McVeigh – joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

And as was shown previously, failure to disclose sources for such statistics prevents the reader from discerning any potential bias in the source material. Considering that one of the “prominent civil rights groups” referenced in the report is the Southern Law Poverty Center, a well-known liberal activist group, conclusions drawn from such a source must be buffered against the inherent bias of the source. Likewise, failure to cite the specific FBI report facilitates the report’s out-of-context use of the source to mis-construe its results.

Under intense pressure of citizen outrage, the Missouri State Highway Patrol has rescinded the MIAC report that linked the threat of domestic terrorism to the modern militia movement, conservative political beliefs, and (right-wing) third-party political candidates.

From the KC Star report:

The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

The Highway Patrol’s announcement followed a news conference in which Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a Republican, suggested putting the director of public safety on administrative leave and investigating how the report was produced.

More ’sphere coverage: Lew Rockwell, St. Louis Council of Conservative Citizens, Doctor Bulldog, AnnaZ, The Blue Eye View, Webster’s Blogspot, WorldNetDaily, Visionary Womanhood

(H/T: Drudge, Lucianne)

Scary; truly scary.

Via Gateway Pundit (with h/t to American Thinker), the Missouri Information Analysis Center – part of the Missouri State Police – has compiled a report ostensibly intended “to help Missouri law enforcement agencies identify militia members or domestic terrorists”. According to this report, yours truly now fits the profile of a potential extremist.

Here is a PDF scan of the report: The Modern Militia Movement

So what are my issues with this report? First, the report conflates the so-called “militia movement” with both “right-wing” ideology and domestic terrorism; second, the report socially and politically profiles potential terrorists according to its conflation of the “militia movement” and domestic terrorism. In so doing, the report libels and falsely accuses innocent Americans as being potential terrorists.

The report indicates that, at its peak, the “militia movement” included some 850 groups; yet, it identifies only 10 “noteworthy” militia events between 1995 and 1999, 8 “noteworthy” militia events between 2000 and 2008, and indicates that only 60 “rightwing extremist” plots were uncovered between 1995 and 2005.

Clearly, such plots represent not the mainstream of such groups, but rather the extreme. Therefore, the conflation of the “militia movement” with any risk of domestic terrorism is clearly unjustified. Thus, the report doesn’t even have standing for the specious correlation-causation profiling of militia members as potential terrorists.

By comparison, compare the 60 militia plots uncovered between 1995 and 2005 with worldwide Islamic terrorism since September 11, 2001:

(Further diminishing the report’s faulty conflation, two of the “noteworthy” incidents aren’t applicable: the 1996 bombing of Atlanta Olympic Park by lone-acting Eric Rudolph, and the 2008 mailing of anti-New World Order propaganda to National Guard/Reserve facilities, with which the report fabricates a whole-cloth connection to hoax-anthrax mailings to state governors’ offices.)

The report then proceeds to detail various “militia” causes and ideologies as potential motivators, as well as training and communication/recruitment methods.

• Causes include ammunition registration, the potential economic collapse of the US, a possible Constitutional convention, national sovereignty (a “North American Union”, and presumably NWO), a compulsory national service program, and mandated human RFID.
• Ideologies include Christian Identity, White Nationalist, Sovereign Citizen, militant anti-abortionism, tax resistors, and anti-(illegal-) immigration.
• Training methods of the “militia movement” include Military Simulation training and survival training.
• Means of communications implicated include short-wave radio, internet (forums, groups, blogs, social networking sites, websites), and talk radio, and various recruitment venues including gun shows.

The report goes on to describe the various organizational methods of the militia, and in so doing, implies that even the most open and public of militias that claim to exist solely to assist local law enforcement and service organizations act to encourage underground and otherwise subversive activity.

Then, under “Implications for Law Enforcement”, the report states that all militia organizations operate under a “Law Enforcement is the Enemy” philosophy.

Then, perhaps most chilling of all, the report identifies various symbols and forms of political speech associated with the militia:

Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Anti-Government Propaganda: Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers taht contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and “The New World Order” in a derogatory manor (sic). Additionally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, material may be displayed by militia members.

Militia Symbols: Gadsden Flag [ed: "Don't Tread On Me"]: created by General Christopher Gadsden and utilized in colonial America. This is the most common symbol displayed by militia members and organizations.

Literature and Media Common to the Militia: Zeitgeist the Movie and America: Freedom to Fascism.

Interestingly, note that the report includes the UN and NWO as organizations subject to “anti-government propaganda”, as well as racist, anti-(illegal-)immigration, and anti-abortion material.

Throughout, the report belies an obvious left-wing bias. (Note the ample references to “right-wing”, the mis-identification of anti-illegal-immigration beliefs as “anti-immigration”, and the report relies heavily upon information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).) The report also falsely associates all causes and ideologies, universally, to “right-wing” extremists. In fact, the socialist and anti-semitic beliefs of the referenced White Nationalist group are clearly left-wing ideologies.

Most critically, this report to law enforcement has conflated many perfectly innocent and inherently constitutionally protected viewpoints with the terrorist actions of some extremist militia groups, putting adherents of those viewpoints at risk by endangering their relationship and interaction with law enforcement.

To the extent that this report is internalized by Missouri Law Enforcement, lawful militia members will be assumed “armed and dangerous”, and innocent Missouri citizens will be (at a minimum) under suspicion simply for exercising their constitutionally protected rights with respect to various social and political causes.

More on the report: Smoking Argus Daily, Lucianne, Libertoad, Bob McCarty, Justbkuz, Bungalow Bill (with a follow-up), Kayak2U, Rip On Politics, Lew Rockwell, Red Pills, Right Side News (will update to add more as I find them).

These statements should be an impeachable offense – or at the very least, subject to Congressional censure:

Via Lucianne and Michelle Malkin, Nancy Pelosi tells a partially illegal-immigrant comprised crowd that enforcement of US immigration laws is “un-American”:

“Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?” Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony’s Church in San Francisco.

“It must be stopped….What value system is that? I think it’s un-American. I think it’s un-American.”

…

Referring to work site enforcement actions by ICE agents, Pelosi said, “We have to have a change in policy and practice and again … I can’t say enough, the raids must end. The raids must end.

And to add insult to injury, Pelosi called those who are in our country illegally patriotic:

“You are special people. You’re here on a Saturday night to take responsibility for our country’s future. That makes you very, very patriotic.”

And no, the claim that these statements should be an impeachable offense are not hyperbole. Please refer to the Congressional Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Calling enforcement of duly enacted Federal law “un-American”, and actively calling for that enforcement to be stopped, is clearly dereliction of duty for a US Representative, and clearly demonstrates a failure to uphold the oath of office to which that Representative has sworn.

Nancy Pelosi: you are un-American.

Apparently, our education system has been dumbed-down sufficiently that the entire concept of our country’s founding as a federation of sovereign states is becoming lost.

Via Lucianne, the Colorado House passed legislation that would award the state’s electoral-college votes not to the state’s popular-vote winner, but rather to the national popular-vote winner:

Currently, whoever wins most of the country’s 538 electoral votes becomes president. Under Tuesday’s bill, Colorado would send its nine electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes nationally.

“Basically, whoever receives the most votes for president in all 50 states should become president,” said the sponsor, Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood.

Basically, Andy Kerr is an idiot, and has no business holding elected office. Basically, Andy Kerr needs to go back to school and take a basic American History/Civics course.

Though, I have to imagine that the people of Colorado won’t look too kindly on having their votes for President completely ignored.

The last paragraph in the article belies the underlying motivation for such legislation:

Had the scheme been in place in 2000, Colorado would have sent its electoral votes to Al Gore, who won the national popular vote, even though the majority of Colorado voters chose George W. Bush.

Apparently, some Democrats are still trying to get Al Gore elected in the 2000 presidential race.

It’s coming: the Hitler Obama Youth program.

Via Lucianne, the US House Education and Labor Committee moved the GIVE Act legislation, that would, in addition to expanding AmeriCorps, create a “Congressional Commission on Civil Service” [emphasis added]:

The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including “whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation.”

I’m waiting for Dear Leader to start sprouting a little moustache any day now.

The Vatican recently issued a statement on bioethical issues, entitled Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person), which serves as the authoritative ruling for the Catholic Church in condemning, among other things, embryo-destructive stem-cell research and human cloning.

The foundational tenet for the ruling is, as astute readers may surmise, the inherent dignity of the human being. The statement makes this point explicit in its opening sentence (pg. 1 of 23):

The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death.

The statement attempts to differentiate between human dignity, which has inherent moral value, and scientific research, which does not have inherent moral value apart from the moral implications of the applications of that research. The statement goes so far as to reiterate the church’s support for and participation in such research (pg. 2 of 23):

The church therefore views scientific research with hope and desires that many Christians will dedicate themselves to the progress of biomedicine and will bear witness to their faith in this field.

Having made clear this differentiation, the statement lays out the foundation of its ruling: 1) all human life has inherent dignity and moral worth, 2) life begins at conception, therefore 3) human life at the embryonic stage of development deserves all the dignity and respect due human life at all other stages of development (pg. 3 of 23):

The body of a human being, from its very first stages of development, can never be reduced merely to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well-defined program with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby.

It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the Instruction Donum Vitae in order to evaluate all moral questions which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: ‘Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.’

From this foundational position, the statement makes the logical conclusion that embryo-destructive pursuits (including embryonic stem cell research) are immoral.

So, given this position, I would expect a headline such as “Vatican document condemns cloning, stem cell research“, just as a matter of course. But how do the ostensibly upstanding journalists at the Honolulu Advertiser portray the ruling? Why, “Vatican condemns modern science research“, of course.

Contrast that gem of journalistic integrity with the (Minneapolis/St. Paul) Star-Tribune’s take: “‘Dignity of a person’ reinforced in Vatican bioethics document.”

Well now, that sounds just a little bit more accurate.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reversed a lower court’s decision that laptop searches by border agents are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. From the WSJ law blog:

The backstory: In July of 2005, Michael Arnold, who was 43 at the time, was pulled aside for secondary questioning upon arriving at LAX from the Philippines. Customs agents checked out his laptop and, according to the ruling, found “numerous images depicting what they believed to be child pornography.”

Arnold was later charged with possessing and transporting child porn and with traveling to a foreign country with the intention of having sex with children. But lower court Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles suppressed the evidence after finding that customs agents didn’t have reasonable suspicion to search the contents of Arnold’s laptop.

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion penned by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, reversed on Monday, holding that “reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border.”

In reading the decision, my initial reaction is that while the conclusion is ultimately wrong (opening files on a laptop without reasonable suspicion is clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what precedent rulings exist), the defendant chose an absolutely absurd defense. It is that absurd defense that is the basis of the court’s decision.

Arnold based his defense on two arguments: one, that the laptop is an extension of the human body (since it contains data in the same way that the human mind contains ideas) and thus is protected from unreasonable searches, and two, that the laptop is analogous to a person’s “home” (due to the capacity of the data storage and thus is protected from undue damage or destruction during a search.

Given the two prongs of this defense, I can understand how the Ninth Circuit would reverse.

I’m no lawyer, but in my opinion, a much more sound defense would have been that viewing personal data without cause or suspicion is an unreasonable search, even at the border. The Ninth Circuit’s decision references United States v. Tsai (border searches of briefcases) and United States v. Ickes (border searches of vehicles, and electronic devices contained therein) as precedent that the defendant was not subject to unreasonable search.

Recall the words of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apparently, the courts have ruled that “searches made at the border…are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border”, under the justification that “…the United Stats, as Sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity” (United States v. Flores-Montano). Similarly, the Supreme Court (United States v. Ramsey) has held that:

The authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers is based on its inherent sovereign authority to protect its territorial integrity. By reason of that authority, it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.

The issue, however, is that these searches are not appropriately bounded. While it is reasonable for a border agent to require a passenger to turn on a laptop to ensure that all its components are legitimately part of a laptop (e.g. the battery is not actually some sort of bomb), it is in no way reasonable for that border agent to rummage through the files contained on that laptop without reasonable cause.

Essentially, the justification by the courts here is that, since some things are illegal in the US but are legal elsewhere, any traveler could have legally obtained something that is illegal in the US, thus everything is subject to search at the border, and that the search takes place at the border establishes that such searches are reasonable.

Basically, this justification completely guts the Fourth Amendment. It is as if the courts are saying, “check your Constitution at the border.”

Arnold should have challenged the unconstitutionally broad application of conferring reasonableness on searches simply by virtue of their occurrence at a border entry.

Another reasonable argument would have been the court’s equation of a laptop to a traveler’s luggage. The contents of luggage is in no way inherently analogous to the contents of a laptop (or of an MP3 player, a digital camera, or camcorder).

Oh, and as others have said: TrueCrypt. Either encrypt your entire drive, or put all private data inside an encrypted partition. If the courts won’t uphold the Fourth Amendment, then perhaps the Fifth Amendment will still apply, and you’ll still be protected from being forced to divulge your password for your encrypted data.

Volokh Conspiracy has a lot of interesting commentary. Dailybreeze also covers the story.

(H/T: PCWorld)

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision in Baze v. Rees, confirmed that lethal injection does not violate the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.

As relieved as I am to note that SCOTUS has not lost all common sense (it does not take a Constitutional Law degree to come to the conclusion that a) the Constitution explicitly permits the death penalty, and b) lethal injection is neither cruel nor unusual, therefore c) lethal injection does not violate the 8th Amendment), I was particularly impressed by Justice Scalia’s takedown of Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion, in which he argues that in his experience the death penalty has not benefited society and that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Here’s an excerpt of Scalia pointing out Stevens’ judicial activism and illogic:

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ . . . I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional.”

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience that reigns over all.

I take no position on the desirability of the death penalty, except to say that its value is eminently debatable and the subject of deeply, indeed passionately, held views—which means, to me, that it is preeminently not a matter to be resolved here. And especially not when it is explicitly permitted by the Constitution

God bless Justice Scalia!

(H/T: RedState, which you should read for the full, color commentary.)

The bone-headed lawyers for Universal Music Group (UMG) are now claiming that throwing away a promotional CD is a form of unauthorized distribution, and is therefore a copyright violation, and thus illegal. UMG makes this ridiculous claim in a lawsuit filed against an eBay seller for selling promotional CDs [links in original]:

In a brief filed in federal court yesterday, Universal Music Group (UMG) states that, when it comes to the millions of promotional CDs (”promo CDs”) that it has sent out to music reviewers, radio stations, DJs, and other music industry insiders, throwing them away is “an unauthorized distribution” that violates copyright law. Yes, you read that right — if you’ve ever received a promo CD from UMG, and you don’t still have it, UMG thinks you’re a pirate.

This revelation came in a brief for summary judgment filed by UMG against Troy Augusto. Augusto (aka Roast Beast Music Collectibles, eBay handle roastbeastmusic) buys collectible promo CDs at used record stores around Los Angeles and resells them on eBay. UMG sued him last year, claiming that the “promotional use only” labels on the CDs mean that UMG owns them forever and that any resale infringes copyright.

The music industry, apparently, will never learn…

(H/T: TSDgeos)

On the campaign trail over the weekend, Barack Obama tried to assuage the socially conservative democrats of Western Pennsylvania regarding his pro-abortion stance. He starts with the typical, liberal, stance when confronted by an admonition to stop abortions:

“This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue,” he said. “I have two precious daughters — they are miracles.”

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

“This is an example where good people can disagree,” the Illinois senator said. “The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.”

This response is, of course, the typical liberal approach of ignoring the biological reality that an abortion impacts not just the woman carrying the unborn child, but also the separate, unique life that is that unborn child. Note also the canard about adoption (the viability of which is a non-issue, but ostensibly sounds good when making such deflection).

Unfortunately for Obama, he continued on with his comments in an attempt to persuade the audience regarding sex education – and in so doing revealed his true beliefs.

Somehow, I don’t think his comments will have their intended affect (emphasis added):

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

There you have it: babies are a “punishment” resulting from a mistake – the moral equivalent of contracting an STD.

Of course, what else would one expect, from such a radical proponent of abortion such as Barack Hussein Obama?

(H/T: RedState)

Are you in need of web hosting services, but your web site may in some way violate the ever-so-fragile sensibilities of Muslims? If so, don’t even think about using Network Solutions.

Dutch lawmaker and filmmaker Geert Wilders made this mistake when developing a website for his forthcoming Fitna movie, which he describes as a “last warning for the West.” The movie is critical of the Koran – which means that the adherents to the “Religion of Peace”, when not calling for his death and threatening worldwide retaliation, are actively pushing for the movie (and the website) to be censored.

Apparently, they have been successful in that censorship, since Dutch broadcasters have refused to air the movie, and Network Solutions, the company that provides Wilders’ web hosting services, has suspended the website. The FitnaTheMovie web site currently has the following notice:

This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp

In case you’re curious, the only potentially relevant section of that Acceptable Use Policy is the first clause under the “Prohibited Uses” section (emphasis added):

Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, “Trojan Horse,” corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

One little catch, though: the web site, at the time of being suspended, had absolutely no content other than the words “”Geert Wilders presents Fitna, 23 March 2008.”

Network Solutions, say hello to Dhimmitude, and say goodbye to business, because you’re about to be mass-boycotted.

(H/T: LGF. More from Jihad Watch, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Kyros.)

P.S. Apparently, hoax sites and movie trailers are popping up, in an apparent signal-to-noise attack strategy to keep people from seeing the real thing. Don’t be fooled. The real site is registered to Geert Wilder. This UK hoax site is registered to one Los Bol. These “trailer” videos on YouTube are also all either fakes or fanpics.

This just in, from Newsbleat: Network Solutions’ actions are even more insidious. These coward Dhimmis are not merely doing the bidding of their Islamic overlords; they are also bought and paid for by terrorists. Network Solutions hosts the hizbollah.org website.

Imagine, if you will, a blogger who decides to focus his work on exposing the inaccuracy of the mainstream media’s photojournalism. In order to do so, this blogger would need to post the photos to be discussed (be that discussion editorial, critical, or corrective in nature). Certainly, any rational person would understand that such action would constitute fair use of copyrighted works.

Such a blogger exists, and his blog is Snapped Shot.

The AP apparently disagreed with his fair use of their photos, and sent him a cease-and-desist letter. (The fair-use defense in this instance is pretty cut-and-dry. Snapped Shot has a run-down of the blogosphere’s reaction, so there’s no need for me to re-hash it all here.) After some consultation, Snapped Shot decided to comply rather than to place his family in jeopardy. After all, who can afford to fight the AP’s legal department?

Here’s the irony, though: the AP, who disputes Snapped Shot’s fair-use right to their own copyrighted photos for the purpose of discussing the very photos themselves, apparently finds a fair-use right to others’ copyrighted photos, even though the photos used were in no way related to the story (unless the AP can prove some link to a photo of a bikini-clad Ashley Alexandra Dupre in the Caribbean to a story about Eliot Spitzer’s use of her call-girl services in New York).

Oh, but the irony gets even thicker: CNN is in on the copyright violations, too.

Hypocrisy: good for me, but not for thee.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) enters the blogosphere, with their Evolution of Security blog.

From the tagline (”Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.”) it would appear that the TSA intends to have significant commenter interaction on the blog. From the response to the welcome post (some 700 comments), it would appear that air travelers (and TSA employees) have much to say.

Based on comments, the TSA appears to have reorganized the blog posts in order to emphasize responses to questions about various TSA policies (removing shoes, the much-vilified liquids restriction, searching grandma, etc.).

Personally, speaking as a fairly seasoned air traveler, I don’t have a problem with most security measures (sure, it is a minor annoyance to have to remove my shoes to pass through security – but the annoyance is just that: minor), but I do have a problem with others (e.g. the liquids restriction – especially with respect to water bottles and beverages) and think that many TSA agents would be well-served to take some inter-personal relations training. My general rule is to arrive at the airport two hours before my flight, and to take my time getting through security. I rarely have to wait more than ten minutes to pass through security.

But, if you’re interested in some of TSA’s thoughts or explanations for their various policies or other security issues – or just want to join the chorus of comment complaints (they seem to be solicited by TSA, after all) – go have a look!

(H/T: Slashdot, Ars Technica)

Slashdot posts about Sears installing spyware under the guise of the “My SHC Community” service. Instead of an innocuous service, users who agree to install the software get ComScore spyware, including a software proxy capable of tracking every transaction performed on the internet – from web sites visited, to login credentials, to emails.

More information from the CA Community Advisor Security Research Blog, which indicates that the spyware has been found on the sears.com and kmart.com websites.

If you see a pop-up window soliciting participation in “My SHC Community” do not pass go, do not collect $200, close the pop-up. Better yet, avoid doing business – if at all possible – with companies that would attempt to install spyware (especially companies that do so as deceptively as this).

Yesterday I wrote about an RIAA lawsuit against someone solely for ripping legally purchased music CDs. Engadget posted an update that the lawsuit is not for ripping CDs, but rather is one of RIAA’s garden-variety MP3 distribution lawsuits. A commenter on their previous post linked to the summary judgement that states as much.

While I pointed out in the previous post that the RIAA still states its belief that ripping CDs – even for personal use – is a copyright violation, they (thus far) have yet to make that argument in court. Here is a key statement from the brief (pg. 6, lines 11-20 – emphasis added):

Howell also objects to liability on the grounds that he owns compact discs (“CDs”) containing the disputed sound recordings and that he “translated” them to his computer for personal use. In support of this argument, Howell attached photographs of CDs and cases to his Response. However, the question is not whether Howell owned legitimate copies of some of the sound recordings on CD, but instead whether he distributed copies of the recordings without authorization. Howell’s right to use for personal enjoyment copyrighted works on CDs he purchased does not confer a right to distribute those works to others without Plaintiffs’ authorization. 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). As he admitted that the sound recordings were “being shared by [his] Kazaa account,” Howell is liable for distributing them in violation of the recording companies’ exclusive right.

That said, given the RIAA’s rumblings, don’t b e surprised when they eventually sue someone merely for ripping legally purchased CDs.

I would also point out something that may prove to be the impetus for not only the downfall of the RIAA’s war on consumers, but also for the application of current copyright law – and that is the application of current statutory damages for copyright infringement to MP3 distribution. Current law allows for damages from $750 to $30,000+ per infringed work.

Given that the going rate for an MP3 is on the order of $1 per song, awarding a statutory damage of even the minimum $750 per song is absolutely outrageous – especially considering that the lawsuit is a case of distribution-by-making-available claim. Here, the RIAA made no effort to prove any actual distribution, but only that the defendant violated laws against distribution of copyrighted work merely by making it available in a publicly accessible, “shared” folder.

Clearly, the RIAA here cannot show anything close to $750 per song in actual damages – and even if the award is considered punitive rather than statutory, the punishment far outweighs the crime. The RIAA’s continual pursuit of these statutory damage awards will not only result in a consumer revolt, but may actually lead to public outcry for a revision of the copyright law in question.

Of course, music labels – and thus, the RIAA – are on the verge of going the way of the dinosaur. More artists will produce and distribute their works independently, cutting out the middlemen represented by the RIAA.

IMO, it can’t happen soon enough.

There are lies, damn lies and anything uttered by Donn Rubin.

–Mark Twain, paraphrased

Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (sic) chairman Donn Rubin has already proven himself to be a spin master, but his latest screed is downright slanderous.

In this op/ed piece (h/t Secondhand Smoke), Rubin lauds recent advancements in stem cell research, in which differentiated (adult) stem cells have been induced to revert to a pluripotent (i.e. “embryonic”) state. He then goes on to claim that Missourians who oppose embryonic stem cell and cloning research (actually, he refers to such opponents as “stem cell research opponents” – as usual, intentionally obfuscating the difference between research with adult and embryonic stem cells) would have stood in the way of the research that led to these advances.

I think now is as good of a time as any for a good, old-fashioned, paragraph-by-paragraph fisking of Dehr Spinmeister.

Anti-stem cell groups would deter successes.

I defy Rubin to identify even one “anti-stem cell group.” To my knowledge, no such group exists. If it does, it is by no means mainstream, and is certainly no credible threat to ESC proponents in Missouri.

Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures lauds the stem cell advances occurring around the world as tremendous steps in medical science’s ongoing battle to cure disease, and we eagerly await further discoveries as scientists continue the ethical exploration of this new medical frontier.

An excellent example is last month’s widely covered advances in Wisconsin and Japan where scientists were able to reprogram an ordinary skin cell to assume much of the versatility of embryonic stem cells. And, even more recently, this month scientists in London used embryonic stem cells to develop a stem cell “patch” to repair scar tissue from heart attacks and American scientists used embryonic stem cells as a novel way to test the safety of drugs.

As the Secondhand Smoke post points out, the development of the “stem cell ‘patch’ to repair scar tissue from heart attacks” was in a Petri dish only.

All of these advances demonstrate how important Missouri’s constitutional protections are, ensuring that our patients and families have the same access as other Americans to whichever approaches prove most successful and lead to the best medical treatments and cures.

Amendment 2 provided no meaningful protection for either the research that led to these advances nor for any potential treatment derived from them. Neither the research nor derived treatments were or have been threatened. The debated has always concerned Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, a.k.a. cloning) in order to create viable human embryos for the express purpose of being destroyed in order to harvest pluripotent, embryonic stem cells. The research Rubin cited did not involve anything in that debate.

Moving on – all that was just Rubin’s wind-up; now we get to his screwball:

If stem cell research opponents had their way, none of this outstanding science would have been possible. Ironically, they would have blocked the very groundwork that led to the technique they now seem to embrace — the reprogramming of ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells.

Again, there are no such “stem cell research opponents” but rather opponents of human cloning and embryo-destructive research. In fact, many of us in that camp have very adamantly expressed that we must center our debate not on the ethical nature or efficacy of research involving embryonic stem cells themselves, but rather on the ethical nature and necessity of human cloning and the destruction of viable human embryos for the purpose of that research.

Further, “reprogramming of ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells” in no way involves either human cloning or the destruction of viable human embryos; rather, it involves induction of a normal, differentiated skin cell into a pluripotent state.

But Rubin doesn’t stop there:

For years, anti-stem cell groups in Missouri have discounted the unique lifesaving potential of embryonic stem cells, dismissing evidence presented by the vast majority of leading medical and patient organizations. We’re glad to see that they are beginning to accept this lifesaving potential.

(Still waiting for Rubin to identify one of these “anti-stem cell groups in Missouri”…) To the contrary, we have not “discounted the unique lifesaving potential of embryonic stem cells” – with the exception of the uniqueness of that potential. Again, we do not oppose research involving pluripotent (even embryonic) stem cells; rather, we oppose the cloning and/or destruction of human life in order to obtain those stem cells.

As for the “unique lifesaving potential” of ESCs, if that potential had been demonstrated sufficiently, the research would have support from the normal means of funding: the private sector; however, the private sector has indicated – by virtue of the direction of its funding – that it believes in the potential of adult stem cell research. Ironically, it is Rubin and his ilk that continue to ignore and discount the future potential and already proven efficacy of adult stem cells.

They may have joined the bandwagon in celebrating a single technique, but they fail to acknowledge that the advance with reprogrammed cells was merely an initial step that can only achieve its medical potential through additional embryonic stem cell research. The scientists who led these advances, James Thomson of Wisconsin and Shinya Yamanaka of Japan, have stated clearly and unequivocally that all stem cell research must continue. It would be a tragedy if their successes were misused to cut off other important avenues of medical research.

Rubin makes absolutely no sense here. Why would research that neither started nor ended with embryonic stem cells require “additional embryonic stem cell research”? And Rubin outright lies about Yamanaka’s beliefs on the subject of continued embryonic stem cell research. This International Herald-Tribune article (h/t ProLifeBlogs) quotes Yamanaka (emphasis added):

Yamanaka was an assistant professor of pharmacology doing research involving embryonic stem cells when he made the social call to the clinic about eight years ago. At the friend’s invitation, he looked down the microscope at one of the human embryos stored at the clinic.

The glimpse changed his scientific career.

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,” said Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. “I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.“

And again (emphasis added):

He said he had never handled actual embryonic cells himself, and the American lab uses them only to verify that the reprogrammed adult cells are behaving as true stem cells. “There is no way now to get around some use of embryos,” he said.”But my goal is to avoid using them.“

Far from having stated “stated clearly and unequivocally that all stem cell research must continue,” Yamanaka clearly and unequivocally wants to eliminate the need for the use of embryos for stem cell research – in fact, by his very words, it is his goal. Rubin’s misuse of Yamanaka’s research advances and intent in order to bemoan the alleged misuse of those advances moves beyond irony into audacity. It is simply beyond the pale for Rubin – who repeatedly dismisses embryos as “cells in a Petri dish” – to mis-characterize the intent of Yamanaka – who has stated that he sees little difference between a research embryo and his own daughters.

Not only has Rubin no respect for the sanctity of all human life, but he also has no shame.

In the following statement, Rubin hoists his over-used canard, in this case, a tripartite reiteration:

If those seeking to repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections get their way now, they would block the important research required to bring the new technique to its full lifesaving potential.

Those whose aim it is to ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to oppose the very research that is required to achieve the lifesaving goals that they now claim to embrace.

Those who threaten to repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research should step back and allow scientists to conduct the work necessary to achieve the goals that I hope we all share — to cure disease and improve the lives of patients and families.

There you have it: Rubin’s imagined opponents desire to “repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections,” to “ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri,” and to “repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research.”

We’ve covered this one, but one more time, for the sake of thoroughness: we do not wish to repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections (per se – I have no problems with protecting stem cell research, though I don’t believe such an issue has any place in a state constitution; it is a constructionist matter, not a moral one). We do, however, wish to repeal Missouri’s constitutional protection of human cloning. Further, the repeal of that protection would in no way whatsoever impact research such as Dr. Yamanaka’s, since his research neither began with nor resulted in an embryonic cell of any kind – much less, one procured through the destruction of a cloned human embryo.

Neither do we wish to ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. We do wish to ban all human cloning, and oppose the destruction of human embryos for such research. Further, we oppose public funding of such research – and therein lies the key issue, and the Stowers (and other ESC researchers) cannot get sufficient private-sector funding, and want the government to foot the bill.

Likewise, we in no way wish to repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research. We fully support research involving adult stem cells, and any other research not involving the destruction of human embryos. We also support their right to seek private funding for whatever legal research they wish to pursue.

Rubin shows his usual lack of honesty and forthrightness; however, in this piece Rubin displays outright slander of his “opponents” and an intentional misrepresentation of Dr. Yamanaka’s intentions.

Donn Rubin is a liar. I only wish I could see what Mark Twain would actually have said about him.

Recently, social networking site Facebook has undergone intense scrutiny and backlash for the implementation of its third-party advertising system called Beacon.

For those unaware of the Beacon application, here’s a brief primer. Beacon is a JavaScript application used by third-party web sites (such as epicurious, travelocity, blockbuster, etc.) in conjunction with Facebook. The third-party website implements JavaScript code that sends certain data to Facebook. These data may include movies rented at Blockbuster, recipes searched at epicurious, or travel plans booked on travelocity. The websites send these data to Facebook, and if the user of the third-party website can be identified as a Facebook user, the data are published in that user’s update feed.

Without re-hashing the explanations given elsewhere, see here for more technical details of the application. Others have listed the third-party websites that have implemented Beacon.

You may be asking yourself why you should care; well, here’s why: these third-party websites are sending your personally identifiable user data to Facebook – whether or not you are a Facebook member (as is demonstrated by the previous link explaining the technical details).

It appears that much of the scrutiny has been on Facebook’s implementation of the application, and the site’s publishing of user-identifiable data. That scrutiny was much-deserved, and Facebook has made significant changes both to the implementation of Beacon and to their privacy policy. In fact, Facebook users can now opt-out of the application entirely – at least on the Facebook side.

However, it appears to me that a lot of heat has been placed on Facebook, and not enough on the third-party websites. While it is somewhat more comforting to know that Facebook will not publish user-identifiable information without my approval, the fact remains that all those data are still sent from the third-party websites to Facebook. If those data are tied to a user who has opted out of the application, Facebook has simply indicated that it will discard, not save, and not publish those data.

While I think Facebook has handled the implementation of Beacon poorly, I have a far greater problem with the third-party websites, who have implemented the Beacon application without any notice to or prior approval from its users. (In fact, one lawyer has speculated that Blockbuster is in clear violation of a law that prohibits the release of movie rental data.)

Facebook would certainly be in the wrong for publishing such data without user permission; however, the third-party websites that gather and send those data to Facebook have committed a far more egregious wrong. Sending to a third party data about my purchases and other activities without my permission has to be a clear violation of any worthwhile privacy policy.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the Beacon application; I only oppose its current implementation. Websites should be free to implement the application, but it should be done openly, and in an opt-in manner. If BrandNameWebsite wants to implement Beagle, and send data about my purchases to Facebook, it should give prior notice to its users, update its privacy policy, and require users to opt-in to having their data collected and sent.

Fortunately, you have options to control your experience with the Beagle application. As mentioned previously, you can opt-out entirely on the Facebook side. You can also use various browser plug-ins to notify you of websites using the Beagle application and to block the application altogether. (Websites that use the application put a few lines of JavaScript code into their website. That code makes a remote call to a known directory on the Facebook website. The plugins work by detecting and/or blocking the URL for the JavaScript code on the Facebook website.)

Unbelievable:

Rush talked about the atrocity committed in Nebraska, in which the State removed a five-week-old baby from the home of his parents for a week, in order for the baby to undergo state-mandated blood tests. The parents objected to the testing on religious grounds, so the state prosecutors went to a judge and then sent armed sheriff’s deputies to the house to remove the baby.

The baby, still nursing from his mother, was placed in foster care not only for the blood to be drawn, but also to await the return of the results of the bloodwork.

Hey, Nebraska: do you remember the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Such blatant disregard for the First Amendment is the very reason we have the Second Amendment.

Here’s one for my mother-in-law: the fraternity house in which I lived while in college is haunted. The Terre Haute Trib-Star writes about it every so often; here’s the latest. Here’s a little background from the article:

[The] fraternity house was part of a several-building complex for the former Vigo County Home for Dependent Children, which was also known as the Glenn Home. The orphanage was created in 1903, though the “main building” was constructed in 1896, and still survives, a Web site dedicated to the Glenn Home’s history reports.

Several buildings were replaced through the orphanage’s tenure, which lasted more than 75 years. It finally closed in 1979, and many of the buildings later became part of Pi Kappa Alpha’s property.

And then the legends began.

Here is the Glenn Home History website.

I got a very pleasant surprise today when I came home for lunch and found out that my pre-order of Gary Taubes’ new book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, had arrived!

Here is the publisher’s description:

In this groundbreaking book, the result of seven years of research in every science connected with the impact of nutrition on health, award-winning science writer Gary Taubes shows us that almost everything we believe about the nature of a healthy diet is wrong.

For decades we have been taught that fat is bad for us, carbohydrates better, and that the key to a healthy weight is eating less and exercising more. Yet with more and more people acting on this advice, we have seen unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Taubes argues persuasively that the problem lies in refined carbohydrates (white flour, sugar, easily digested starches) and sugars–via their dramatic and longterm effects on insulin, the hormone that regulates fat accumulation–and that the key to good health is the kind of calories we take in, not the number. There are good calories, and bad ones.

Good Calories

These are from foods without easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars. These foods can be eaten without restraint.

Meat, fish, fowl, cheese, eggs, butter, and non-starchy vegetables.

Bad Calories

These are from foods that stimulate excessive insulin secretion and so make us fat and increase our risk of chronic disease—all refined and easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars. The key is not how much vitamins and minerals they contain, but how quickly they are digested. (So apple juice or even green vegetable juices are not necessarily any healthier than soda.)

Bread and other baked goods, potatoes, yams, rice, pasta, cereal grains, corn, sugar (sucrose and high fructose corn syrup), ice cream, candy, soft drinks, fruit juices, bananas and other tropical fruits, and beer.

Taubes traces how the common assumption that carbohydrates are fattening was abandoned in the 1960s when fat and cholesterol were blamed for heart disease and then –wrongly–were seen as the causes of a host of other maladies, including cancer. He shows us how these unproven hypotheses were emphatically embraced by authorities in nutrition, public health, and clinical medicine, in spite of how well-conceived clinical trials have consistently refuted them. He also documents the dietary trials of carbohydrate-restriction, which consistently show that the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

With precise references to the most significant existing clinical studies, he convinces us that there is no compelling scientific evidence demonstrating that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, that salt causes high blood pressure, and that fiber is a necessary part of a healthy diet. Based on the evidence that does exist, he leads us to conclude that the only healthy way to lose weight and remain lean is to eat fewer carbohydrates or to change the type of the carbohydrates we do eat, and, for some of us, perhaps to eat virtually none at all.

The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

Good Calories, Bad Calories is a tour de force of scientific investigation–certain to redefine the ongoing debate about the foods we eat and their effects on our health.

This book is destined for greatness, and will make waves in the world of nutrition. I will have a review, once I have finished reading.

For Joshy (and the rest of us, too): I’m sure you’re working on your math tables, memorizing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of numbers from one through ten.

Do you need a shortcut for multiplying by four, five, nine, or eleven, or squaring two-digit numbers ending in five? How about subtracting a large number from 1,000? Well then, see this list of arithme[em]tricks[/em].

(H/T: Lifehacker)

Despite alarmists’ cries about the shrinking arctic ice cap, Antarctica just set a new record for most total ice extent (links in original; emphasis added):

While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.

From the World Climate Report blog post linked in the quote above:

Incredibly, if you are interested in Antarctica temperature trends from the present back to 1982, the region has cooled. If you go from present back to 1966, the region has cooled. Like it or not, over the past four decades, and during the time of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases, Antarctica has been cooling!

Here’s the NASA Earth Observatory image of Antarctic temperature trending from 1982-2004:

Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004
Photo © NASA Earth Observatory, used with permission.

(HT: PowerLine)

The Stanislav Shmulevich story I discussed yesterday is beginning to go viral.

LGF updates with a report that Phil Orenstein of Democracy Project is getting involved, and also that many lawyers are lining up to help with the defense.

The mainline blogosphere is taking notice, as Michelle Malkin, Allah Pundit (who agrees with my legal analysis that the felony charges are baseless), Neal boortz, and others are beginning to weigh in.

More blog reactions: Infidel Terrorist, Side Effects May Vary, Jihad Watch.

Why is this case important? Consider that Omar Ahmed, the chairman of the board of CAIR – the group behind the escalation of the valdalism to the level of a hate crime – spoke the following (H/T Halal Pig) [emphasis added]:

“Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.“

This statement represents the true intent of CAIR, MSA student groups at college campuses across the country, and Islam as a whole. Islam is not merely a religion (if it can even be called that); it is a fascist socio-political movement, the goal of which is world domination and subjugation to Islamic law. We must stand together against Islam’s goals of conquest, or we will all fall together – and the Land of the Free will be no longer.

Completely, utterly, outrageous: Sharia law has now taken precedence in New York.

LGF reports (and follows up on) the story (with a hat tip to Purple Wombats) of Stanislav Shmulevich, who was arrested on felony counts of aggravated harassment and criminal mischief, for throwing a Koran into a toilet at Pace University. From the wire story:

A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

…

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department’s hate crimes unit.

Yes, you read that correctly: two felony counts, aggravated harassment and criminal mischief – classified as hate crimes – for throwing a Koran in the toilet.

According to this story, Stanislav was caught by a security camera as he was leaving a (Muslim) meditation room where the Korans were stored.

This incident is clearly a First Amendment, free speech and establishment challenge, and reeks of involvement by CAIR.

As has been pointed out in the LGF comments, burning the American flag, displaying a crucifix in a vat of urine, and displaying a painting of Mary covered in dung are all considered forms of protected religious or political speech. Flushing a Koran, however, is now considered a hate crime.

Here are the New York Penal code definitions of aggravated harassment (First Degree, Second Degree) and Criminal Mischief (First Degree, Second Degree, Third Degree, Fourth Degree).

Granted, I’m no lawyer, but the felony escalation of the criminal mischief charge appears to be specious, and the aggravated harassment appears not to apply whatsoever. On the former charge, no explosive was used (first degree, class B felony), the Koran was not worth $1,500 (second degree, class D felony), and the Koran was not worth $250 (third degree, class E felony). At best, Stanislav committed a class A misdemeanor (fourth degree).

On the latter charge, Stanislav neither communicated with a person via phone or any form of written communication nor physically touched a person (second degree, clauses 1-3, class A misdemeanor), nor did he damage premises used primarily for religious purposes (first degree, class E felony). That no actions (spoken or written communication, or physical contact) were directed at any person, the “hate crime” provision of the first degree charge is irrelevant.

If you value your freedoms as an American, you had better be absolutely outraged at what is happening here.

Personally, it makes me want to go buy a Koran, wrap it in bacon, throw it on the glowing charcoal of my Weber, and douse the charred remains in the toilet – and then post a picture so the intolerant, fascist scum at CAIR and elsewhere can choke on it.

After all, as has been pointed out on various comments threads:

The Koran is itself a hate crime against Jews and Christians.

Amen!

More coverage from Digg, Hot Air, Jawa Report, Texas Hold ‘Em, UrbanGrounds, Deep Thoughts, Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar, Riehl World View, JustOneMinute, Saber Point, Israel Matsav (twice), Relapsed Catholic, Dog Opus, 186K Per Second, Never Ye Melted, Hindu-Jewish-Christian Rightwing Conspiracy.