I talked to the three filmmakers at PennyWisdom. They covered the march/protest too and I grabbed their take:

They also interviewed me but I can’t find their stuff online might not be up yet. I wish them the best of luck.

I’ll be continuing to put up the various interviews but for now we have a series of short clips of the lead up to and the actual march in question with my commentary and some photo links.

First there was the revving up of the crowd:


Before anything else I want to say the two speakers there gave me access to the Gazebo to take some shots and were extremely polite to me. I may disagree with them but they get full marks on that. Here is a pan of the crowd:

It was pretty small at that point but small contingents kept showing up during the day, here is the second to last that came:

By the time the final batch came the total was about 300 or maybe a bit under. Here is the second Pan after the contingents showed up. It still added up to maybe 3% of the Tea Party crowd.

In a few minutes they were about to Watch, I checked with the Police and asked if I could walk ahead and take pictures, they smiled saying it was a free country. So they started to line up to do their march through the streets:

The Crowd started down the street with the police clearing the way. The public watched with some amusement and some bemusement as they continued on.

They basically marched a block down, two or three blocks over then back up toward city hall. Their cry was “education not deportation”. I would highly recommend education particularly on the subject of economics which was sadly lacking in this group. I would suggest for that they begin with Don Boudreaux, a bit of history perhaps, I would recommend Anne Applebaum’s book Gulag to reacquaint people with all the good that Che and socialism did for people and perhaps some current events with Byron York as none of these people seem to be actually have read it. Maybe even a lesson in English like the difference between “immigration” and “illegal immigration” which the entire march seemed to try to blur rather dishonestly.

The March then stopped near city hall where the Big Apple Circus was in town. It gave me a chance to show the entire crowd.

It was not the brightest idea of the marchers to stop in front of a large tent with the word Circus on it where one could take pictures. From there they marched by the graveyard where James Otis, Sam Adams and the dead from the Boston Massacre are buried. That would have been the place to stop and talk but they didn’t think of that.

The Democrats on the Sunday shows like Al Sharpton who said: “Nobody is talking about Open borders” certainly wasn’t talking about this rally nor was Katrina Vanden Heuvel who lionized these rallies as significant while minimizing the tea party rallies that not only in Boston drew 33x more people but did so on a Wednesday rather than on a weekend. It was blatantly dishonest. And I’m sure they would have loved some of the things said about the military in front of the recruiting center where it ended.

The truth is this march and movement has absolutely no chance of convincing average Americans of anything if their ideas are presented unfiltered. A great example of this was Diane a black woman who was working one of the two jobs she had worked for the last 20 years. She was unimpressed with the march, the marchers and their cause. Media outlets should be ashamed of themselves for pretending they are something they are not.

Update: Apparently the low Boston turnout wasn’t unique.

Update 2: Smitty provides links to other coverage in LA and NY and Charlotte NC.

I predict that this story via Glenn at Yid with Lid will not get airtime tomorrow morning on Morning Joe

Was the Joke Anti-Semitic? Well, the White House must have thought so. The White House transcript sent to reporters after the event conveniently began a couple of minutes into the speech. The video of the event posted on the Washington Institute Web site started right after the Joke, you can even hear the end of the laughter.

Its interesting that the same President that see racism in the legitimate actions of the Cambridge Police and the State of Arizona, hides the anti-Semitic prose of its National Security Adviser.

Now you would think that the national security adviser making a racially charged joke might draw some attention, but apparently this took place on Friday and nothing has happened. Will the show pick it up?

Exit question, what will happen first? This story being reported or a guest remarking on the lack of racial sensitivity among tea party attendees? Anyone want to make the odds?

If you read this blog at all you know that I consider Byron York one of the finest reporters in the United States. I was very flattered that he gave me a few minutes of his time at the Tea Party Express Rally.

His latest is here.

I was even more flattered that he had heard of me. Very nice guy.

And now a word from the press specifically the Japanese press’ Yushin Sugita:

He is a very nice guy but I had bad luck with him, my initial interview was corrupted and his business card seems to have disappeared.

…it would be necessary to invent him:

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,”

York document’s Matthews deep distress at the use of the word “regime” and how it so bothered him, then of course finds over 6000 uses during the Bush years including this gem:

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

the left’s abiding belief that people on the right are so foolish that they don’t know how to do a google, Nexis search nor our ability to see video tape never ceases to amaze me.

The are so used to the concept that they are the gatekeepers that mere mortals like ourselves could not possibly catch them beclowning themselves.

Update: And of course Glenn saw this early this morning, He must type like lightning!

So lets take another trip around that wonderful place that is my blogroll:

At the Hermeneutic of Continuity Fr finds a wonderful thing, a balanced story about the Pope:

It is by no means a hagiography and I wouldn’t agree with everything he says, but it is a relief to read something from a commenter in the secular press who knows what he is talking about. John Hooper has done us a service with this objective appraisal which is a welcome contrast to the Catholic baiting of the Times.

The article in question is here.

You know for the first time ever I actually fell asleep at the keyboard in mid post so I’m continuing this post 6 hours later…

Over at Robert Stacy’s he reports on Ann Coulter’s First amendment demonstration for our Canadian neighbors.

Assuming that Dudley Do Right doesn’t catch her first, tonight Ann speaks at the People’s Republic of Ottawa. Should she escape from that Stalinist gulag, on Thursday she will speak in Calgary, and then return to America to hang out with me at Saturday’s Vegas Tea Party.

Between the time I started this post last night and now (4:53 A.M) Dudley do Right and co demonstrated why our Canadian friends today would no longer be trusted with a beach at Normandy.

Meanwhile it’s a good thing we have Tim Blair to take a closer look at environmental law in the Illinois:

Wind, solar, burning thousands of tyres … it’s all good:

With just five words quietly slipped into legislation, Illinois lawmakers are moving to include tire burning in the state’s definition of renewable energy, a change that would benefit a south suburban incinerator with a long history of pollution problems.

Hey Illinois? Isn’t that where the president came from. I wonder how many words like these were quietly slipped into the healthcare bill that was just signed?

Next time I’ll try to be more awake when I’m posting.

Looking at this story about Anne Hathaway leaving the church I simply shake my head realizing how lucky we are she didn’t head for holy orders, as she is very unclear on the nature of sin. So lets review a little:

First lets remind her of what the church actually says about homosexuality

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

As is clear, the church differentiates between homosexuality and homosexual acts. What the church doesn’t accept is the sin, not the orientation.

And that is no different than the church not accepting breaking one’s wedding vows, or spreading calumny about another, or shoplifting, or not honoring father and mother or rejecting God, or drunkenness, or porn, or any of a bunch of other sins that the church has always talked against.

One mistake that people of religion often make is the “holier than thou” bit. There are people who never take a drink that burst out into anger at the drop of a hat. There are people who are absolutely faithful to their wives who dip into the till at work, there are people who are drug dealers, who wouldn’t think of missing mass, and there are people who would happily swindle their partner but wouldn’t ever think of gossiping about a neighbor.

The bottom line is we all have our own sins to deal with, that’s what confession is for. If people obsess about homosexuality but ignore their own sins it is their souls that are in danger.

One week at confession I mentioned to the priest that I was frustrated because I seemed to be repeating the same sins week after week. He had an interesting answer:

What do you want to be committing new sins?

Anne’s brother like everyone else has a particular sin that he is vulnerable to, by removing himself from the church and the sacrament of confession he instead of confronting his sin chooses to celebrate it.

Tell me Anne, if your brother liked to steal, if he enjoyed it, would you leave the church because the church refused to “accept” his thievery?

Your brother’s homosexuality is something he has to deal with, but the real dangerous sin that both he and you are dealing with is PRIDE. The departure from the church is a sign of narcissism, it’s the same mistake that Andrew Sullivan makes, instead of doing one’s best to fight one’s sin (and no matter what the sin is, it can seem to be a losing battle believe me I know) they choose to re-define what sin is and condemn the Church. And with the number of denominations out there you can always find one that will celebrate whatever particular sin you want to keep doing without guilt.

Thus does sin multiply. Christ was pretty explicit about this on two occasions:

He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” Luke 17:1-4

There is a warning to those who lead others to sin, but also a reminder to those that we MUST forgive sin when one asks. Both ARE explicitly said by Christ, If Anne ignores the first two verses and those who condemn her ignore the second two then both are in danger, but remember the words “if he repents” those words actually mean something.

And remember this applies to any type of sin. Those who try to use this only against homosexuality are deluding themselves as it was said in the Screwtape letters #12:

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,

However there is an even more explicit message that Anne and her family might want to take note of:


“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10:34-39

Anne you may realize that there are some differences between the Catholic Bible and the one that the Episcopal church uses, but none of those differences are in the New Testament.

If you and yours decide to discard your cross rather than bear it you will be celebrated. You will be feted at the best parties. The media will love you, it will lead to prestige for you in Hollywood and everywhere on the talk show circuit. And if you choose to keep on this path, when your obituary is written the style and media writers will mention how brave you were to defy the church. The media will celebrate you for all the rest of your days…

…after that you’re on your own.

I’ll say a rosary for you, I invite others to do the same or whatever prayers you prefer.

Update: Linked by Adrienne’s corner. Thanks

The LA times article on “What if TMZ was wrong” is mostly forgettable but there is one line that says a lot about the MSN.

Jeffrey Seglin is quoted saying the following and it is treated as gospel:

“Few people expect TMZ or Drudge or the National Enquirer to get things right or to report on issues of substance.”

I must confess I’m not an expert on TMZ but DRUDGE? DRUDGE? Few people expect DRUDGE to report on issues of substance of get it right?

This stands in stark contrast to a decade of reporting by Drudge. In addition due to the rise of blogs Drudge is not as often the “first source” for many stories that it covers.

It’s almost a Pauline Kael moment but the MSN has a lot of them.