[This post is written in response to Michelle Malkin’s call-to-arms, Free Speech Blogburst: Show Solidarity for Targeted Conservative Bloggers ]
I’ve been reading all of the posts and articles concerning the convicted bomber and known con man, Brett Kimberlin, aka “The Speedway Bomber”, who has become since leaving prison a leftist activist/ blogger. (See: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist) Now, it seems Kimberlin is abusing the justice system to harass his critics. (See these links: Summary/Preview of my Post “How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime (And How You Can Help!)”, Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism, and Domestic Terrorist Now Using ‘Lawfare’? Convicted Felon Kimberlin’s 501(c)3 Raised $1.8 Million in Six Years )
After reading all of these articles (and more) three questions came to my mind. The first was “If some idiot tried this crap with me, which lawyer would I call first?” The second was “If someone were foolish enough to threaten me or mine, which would I go for first, pistol or shotgun?” The third was “Don’t liberals have a better way to waste their money?”
In addition to being one nasty character, Kimberlin also seems to be screwing his generous donors, such as Barbara Streisand and the Tides Foundation. Kimberlin runs his “non-profit” organizations, Velvet Revolution and Justice Through Music, out of his mother’s home. The web sites of his organizations don’t seem to be very active. So, what are these donors getting for their money? It seems the only thing is an easy lifestyle for Kimberlin, who evades a court ordered payment for damages to the family of one of his victims. (See: Leftist Blogger’s Criminal Past Raises Questions About His Real Intent )
If the purpose of these donations is supposed to be leftist activism, then they may be disappointed. (Looks like the funds may have been misappropriated.) His donors have most definitely not been doing their due diligence. They might just want to change that. I know if I give money, I want results, or at least some evidence of actual activity.
So, if these donors don’t really care about political results, but still feel the need to continue giving away their money, may I make a suggestion? Instead of giving money to this criminal, to underwrite his life of leisure, why not give that money to the truly needy? I say give that money to a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a no-kill animal shelter or some other non-political charity. Any or all of these could most definitely use the money.
[Hey, Babs! If you want to give money to someone for political activity, I’ll be more than happy to take it. You’ll get results… just not the kind you like.]
We’ve been waiting for more than four years for the then Senator Obama to release his high school, college and law school transcripts and papers. I cannot think of any politician seeking high office who has simply ignored this legitimate request. He has been able to do this while we’ve had to hear about how ‘wonderfully intelligent” he is. No one in the “MSM” asks him why he refuses this standard request.
This situation reminded me of Senator John Kerry’s claim of “war hero” status from his short period Vietnam-era service. He, too, wouldn’t release his service record. The only people who could legitimately question his service were other Vietnam War veterans. So, the “Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth” were the perfect organization to question Kerry’s claims of heroics. Well, in a word, “mission accomplished”…
Well, what’s to stop a group of President Obama’s contemporaries to begin calling for the release of his school records? We know how the Democrat-Media Complex operates. So, the group must be large enough and leaderless to avoid “gotcha” media tricks. The group must be made up of people who will readily present their undergraduate and graduate/ professional school records. Finally, the group must be “diverse” in all the approved ways, to avoid claims of bigotry.
This “Graduates for Truth” organization will have a single, easy to understand message: “Show us your records President Obama! What are you hiding?” The group can send out speakers to events to create “earned” media. As well, it can purchase billboards and low-cost media ads to help spread the message.
I know the GOP Establishment wants us to concentrate all of our attention and focus on President Obama’s dismal economic record. However, there is no reason the right-of-center coalition can’t do more than one thing at a time. Let the Romney Campaign push a positive message. Let other Super PACs slam Obama on his record in office. I think we need at least one group to push Obama to release this information, or at least remind the voters that he won’t.
Just a thought for the Mensa members out there who think they can counter every argument against their candidate by saying it has been covered in the past. That only works for the national media’s favored Democrat candidates. If it pertains to a Democrat, reporters will yawn when shown something which has previously been covered. “That’s old news.”
Unfortunately, the same standards do not apply for Republicans. For Republicans, there is no “old” news. When did they bring up G.W. Bush’s arrest for DWI? The weekend before the election. When did they bring up the fake AWOL papers? During the convention. Nothing ever goes away for Republicans, and when it is brought back up, reporters treat the story as if it has never been seen before.
So, the primary season is our only opportunity to completely vet our candidates. We need to go over every questionable action as if it happened today. For every one of those actions we need to demand satisfactory answers, and not settle for excuses. If we know about it, then so does the Democrat opposition, and their friends in the national media.
So, if not now, we know when. When it will do the most damage.
If you don’t like the answers, don’t ask the questions.
If you don’t like the questions, maybe it’s because your answers aren’t good enough.
If you don’t like your candidate being questioned, maybe you should get another candidate.
If your candidate doesn’t like being questioned, maybe he should get a new career.
When I ask a string of questions, they are all valid. You don’t get to answer one and go home. If you do so, you lose. One good point doesn’t make an argument.
If you can’t answer the question, better to not reply.
Just because you gave me AN answer, doesn’t make it THE answer.
Responding to my question by asking another question is not an answer. It is avoidance. You are not Jesus.
If you don’t like the free exchange of ideas, go hang out on your candidate’s site. It’s nice and pretty and no one ever disagrees. Just like in Castro’s Cuba.
“Thank you!” goes to everyone who has expressed an interest in my well being since I became absent from Twitter. No, I am not dead. I have just taken a hiatus from social networking (and NO, those are NOT the same thing). I truly do appreciate all of your tweets, from the immediate to as recently as a week ago, asking about me.
To be honest, I really didn’t think anyone would miss me, nor did I know I would be gone this long. Most tweeters follow, and are followed by, hundreds of others who probably post more frequently than did I. So, it would be understandable if my absence were to go undetected. However, it seems that wasn’t the case. I really do appreciate all of you.
Here’s what happened: I like to take off work at the end of the year. This last December was no exception. A few days before Christmas, my wife asked if I was going to “spend the entire day ‘twittering’… again?” Well, being very attentive to my spouse, as I am, I took the 101st time she had said this as a hint, and being passive-aggressive I told her “No, I will not.” I haven’t been back on since, until today.
After a while, I began to realize how much time I had been spending on Twitter. I began to be able to read all of my news sites and to get ahead on take-home work and to keep up with the “honey does” and to do all the stuff I should have been doing all along, but for “some reason” I never had enough time to do. There are only so many hours in the day.
Also, during this time, I had an attack of pancreatitis and had to go to the emergency room. I was in the hospital for almost a week before my enzyme levels were low enough for me to have my gall bladder removed. In the hospital, I realized the friends and family who came to see me and who sent flowers, cards and gifts were the same people I had, on many an occasion, grudgingly socialized with while tweeting on my phone. I selfishly wanted to talk about those things which interested me, and to not pay attention to those who love and care about me, regardless of my position on a given issue of the day.
While I was away, I found out that a couple I know almost ended their marriage. One of them had been on that MyFacePlace-whatever, and had become reacquainted with a person they had known twenty-plus years before. It had started out innocently enough. Unfortunately, it didn’t stay that way. They are still dealing with the repercussions of the emotional, and almost physical, infidelities which resulted. (Calm down! I’m not giving anything away. If you don’t know, this ain’t gonna tell you. If you do know, I thought you didn’t read my blog?)
During my couple of years on Twitter, I’ve usually kept my personal information “close to the vest”, so to speak. I’ve never said if I was married or not, gay or straight, or black or white (except for that picture). I’ve liked to keep it all about politics and issues. Because of this I may have attracted some followers who made their own guesses about my status on any of these, and may have made decisions based on them. I do tend to be polite, friendly, and sometimes “flirtatious”, but my page has always been open and my wife has my passcode. She could check it any time she wanted. I always thought this meant I was keeping it “above board”, as far as my marriage was concerned.
I’ve been gone from Twitter for a while now. I’ve seen improvements in my productivity and my relationships. I’ve seen how I’ve been selfish with my time and my interest. I’ve witnessed an example of what could go wrong, and it honestly scared me.
In case you’re wondering, I haven’t quit Twitter because my wife wanted me to quit. She never asked me to quit. As a matter of fact, she chuckled and shook her head when last she asked me about it. When you think about it, that only makes it all the better, she’s not checking up on me, and I’m doing it because it seems the right thing. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but being trusted while you do the “right thing” just feels good.
Maybe that also means I can begin tweeting again. Everything’s good in moderation, right?
Thanks again, guys.
An anti-leftist, anti-big government wave of popular opinion began rolling early last year. It has been growing steadily ever since. There seem to be no signs of it slowing down. Unless there is an abrupt change in the public mood sometime during the summer the Democrats in Congress are going to get thumped, big time come November. The Democrats are in for considerable losses in the House and the Senate. These predictions are assuming Republicans are able to block so-called “Health Care Reform.”
The Democrat leadership seems determined to get its health care plan passed. It doesn’t matter to these “leaders” that the people are opposed to it, with opinion growing only more against them. The way it is looking, they can only get their plan passed by going “all in” and forcing their members to vote in favor. If that happens, particularly if they use undemocratic tactics (i.e. faux reconciliation, the “Slaughter” rule), then all bets are off. We may see a change in control of one or even both Houses of Congress before this is all said and done.
So, using the most conservative predictions of the November elections, Republicans will winnow down the Democrat majorities in both Houses to a bare minimum. What contingencies are in place for being in a close-to-parity minority? The Democrat leaders may be completely unchastened by their losses and continue pushing forward with their present agenda. Most of these leaders are from unbelievably secure districts. They have used (or entertained using) undemocratic tactics in the past to pass legislation. What will we do? How will we forward our agenda?
If the most optimistic predictions for this fall’s results are realized, the GOP will gain narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. Sure, the majority can easily move measures through the House, but passage in both chambers is necessary to go to the President. Sixty votes are required in the Senate to get a floor vote on non-budgetary legislation, and reconciliation will have to be done. Assuming Republicans are able to get legislation passed, the President must still sign it. Do you think he will have any compunction against vetoing bills which repeal his agenda items? What’s the plan? Is anybody even working on one?
The “mainstream” media has of course been less than “fair and accurate” in its coverage of the growth in conservative/ populist opinion, the self-described “Tea Party” movement. Just get ready for the barrage of media reporting about the “Do Nothing” Congress. Big media already has a built-in statist bias. Additionally, reporters in D.C. are there to cover the news which means “action.” If nothing is moving forward, then there is no action. Something has to be reported to justify their existence. The story then becomes about what isn’t being done. It’s already been written – Young, Idealistic Leader Opposes Reactionary Forces.
We’ve lived through this before in ’95 after the Republicans took control of Congress. The big difference this time is the man in the White House. There is no denying Bill Clinton’s left-of-center pedigree; however, he was a politician in the worst sense of the word, one who’s biggest worry was being re-elected to office. Clinton could read the political winds and saw his best course was best to tack to the right. He may have fought for certain of his programs and against some of the Republicans, but he always followed the polls when push came to shove, such as eventually signing welfare reform.
We’re dealing with a completely different political animal this time. President Obama may have run as a moderate, but he has shown no signs of moderation during his time in office. As examples, where Clinton dropped health care and compromised on gays in the military, Obama has pushed forward with both in the face of growing opposition. I don’t think we can expect Obama to accept a little thing like an election as a reason to change his priorities. He will go forward with his agenda and undermine Republican initiatives at every opportunity, and the “old” media will be with him every step of the way, singing his praises.
So, the right-of-center coalition, which represents the views of the majority of Americans, goes into November and beyond knowing how the story will be played. As usual, we will be portrayed as against the poor, minorities, children, women, aged, sick, et al. We will have a President and a media opposed to everything we propose. We will have a movement whose agenda will be stymied and efforts will be impotent. We will be in the worst of possible worlds, except we will have stopped the worst of his plans.
The media will try to take advantage of one of the American people’s strangest habits, the practice of tearing down those we’ve built up, and its converse. Obama’s acolytes will begin to rehabilitate his reputation by blaming all that went wrong during his first two years on the Democrats in Congress. His fingerprints are nowhere on any of the health care legislation or anything else done in Congress. If you’ve noticed, he has assiduously distanced himself from all the machinations of Reid and Pelosi. Like Carter, and unlike Clinton, he has stood back in the White House and let all of the legislative activity and horse-trading take place on Capitol Hill.
We need to be prepared for this eventuality. We need strategies in place to counter the full court press of the pro-Obama media. Every news story must carry our message. Every Obama press event must have its opposite from us. Our leaders must be everywhere. Our take on events must be publicized. We have to get our word out.
The moderates in the Party must be steeled against the seductive influences of the media to cooperate with the Administration. They must know that any sliding into the mushy middle will result in a primary challenge from their right. Many of them will have already been replaced (Lord willing), but some will have made it through. They have only survived thus far by pulling right. They have to know there is no going back.
Once the immediate danger of further socialization of the economy is past, we will begin to lose the feelings of fear and urgency which have motivated many of those newly active in the movement. Like all those new to politics they will begin to feel frustration and anger with the slow pace of change in the direction of government. They will feel used and tricked, as have many in the past, if those they have supported fall back into the old, comfortable habits of Washington. The mistakes made by Republicans during the Bush years, whether they see it that way or not, cannot be repeated without risking an additional four years, at least, of a Democrat running the Executive branch of government.
Some of you may think I’m getting a bit ahead of where we are. What am I doing raising these kind of concerns with the elections over six months away? Then you are the exact ones to whom I am speaking. How do you propose to keep a fractious movement of populists, libertarians, conservatives, and anti-socialists together beyond this fall? Don’t you realize Obama, the Left, and fellow travelers in the media are not about to roll over even in the face of defeat? Look at their behavior now? Think it’s going to be any better in six months?
These questions and others need to be considered. Plans must be made. For over a year now, we’ve been flying by the seats of our pants. Yeah, we’ve had protests, meetings and convocations. We’ve done polling, blogging and tweeting. Beyond just winning elections, how much thought has been given to actual governance? The future is almost here. Will we be ready?
One can quickly grow weary attempting political discussion with those on the political left who continually spout meaningless, or definitionally “fluid,” words in my direction when describing the political landscape. This isn’t Edwardian England. So, when I say Socialism, I’m not speaking of Fabianism, unless I’m specifically discussing Fabian socialism (but why would I?). In everyday life, these fine distinctions, like those between corporatism and syndicalism, are pointless and a distraction.
When someone uses the word “anarchism,” they are most probably using the dictionary meaning, “lack of a formal ruling authority.” However, a leftist may be speaking of any one of a number of proto-socialist political movements which have existed, off and on, to bring down the “existing order,” whatever that happens to be, or have been. They seek to replace current society with an individualistic form of communalism. It’s all very Rousseauan, natural man in voluntary associations without private property. This usage of the word is much too broad, ill-defined, and, of course, completely fantastical.
What else would you expect from the left? They insist on having an endless number of names for the slightest variations of political philosophy. To them the political divisions are found in the minutia. It’s not the ultimate outcome that matters most. It’s about methods.
The left gets all wound up over ‘how’ the power is accumulated, and the good intentions of the organizers. They don’t seem to realize the result is the same, the accumulation of power by the state. List off the ideologies: communalism, syndicalism, corporatism, fascism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. The ultimate result of all of these “different” ideologies is the concentration of power in the government to the detriment of individual liberties.
If I say I’m opposed to socialism, I’ll hear from innumerable assholes with too much free time and unnecessary educations. They will hector me to death talking about the U.S. system and its mixed economy. They will “educate” me on the level of government involvement of which I must be ignorant. I’m obviously an idiot who doesn’t realize Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, et al is socialism.
Hey, Einstein, I know all of this and I’m saying, “I’M AGAINST SOCIALISM! OK?” I know all your little knit-picky arguments. I’ve been to college. Hey, I even have degrees. Do I think I will ever see the day where government stops picking winners and losers, or transferring income from those who produce to those who don’t? Hell no! It ain’t ever going to happen. But it should.
Unless you’re a Political Scientist, or just weird like me and enjoy this crap, these fine distinctions are nothing more than static. The true debate is over the possible outcomes, not intentions, theories or methodologies. It doesn’t matter who is “nicer,” smarter” or “better.” The only important question is: “Are we to be Free or Slaves?”
If I’m traveling to Lisbon, but I arrive in Madrid, the trip was messed up, regardless of the good intentions of the travel agent. Well, somehow I’ve ended up in Stockholm. Can I have my money back? Please?
Why can’t I post an opinion, anywhere, without some jerk attacking me?
I understand somebody commenting on my blog or replying to my commenting on their blog site. That’s what I’m seeking, a dialogue. Here’s my idea(s). Here’s what I think of your idea(s). What’s your response? There’s my reply. A conversation! Yippee!
I’m pretty much expecting some sort of response if I write something in a chatroom or I use certain hashtags on Twitter. I know I’m putting red meat out there. I would be stupid to not expect some possible reaction. A straight guy in a gay bar shouldn’t get mad if someone makes a pass. You’re putting yourself out there. Y’know what I mean?
However, if I’m simply tweeting to my followers or using a like-minded hashtag, why the vitriol? Don’t these guys have anything better to do with their life? Do they actually think they’re going to change minds and hearts attacking or belittling others, or using offensive language? What kind of satisfaction are they getting from this sort of behavior?
Funny thing is… I’ve learned that there are people who get off on this stuff. When I was a newbie, I thought people were actually seeking an exchange of ideas. I would join discussions, make comments, point out factual and logical mistakes. Boy, did I learn the truth… and quickly.
People are out there “troll hunting.” They are laying bait for trolls and hoping for a bite. When I would point out the problems with their arguments, they would think I was agreeing with the premise of the trolls’ opinions. When I finally got it into their head that I basically agreed with their conclusions (just not with their rhetoric), they would get angry with me for “cutting their line.” I would have to block them because they wouldn’t stop arguing, or I would be blocked because I was being “disloyal.”
Obviously, I have opinions. Why else would I be writing this? However, I don’t believe in attacking others or engaging in fruitless arguments. I’m not one who enjoys banging my head against a wall. The wall always wins, and all I ever get is a headache. So, a pox on both of their houses. They can have each other. Just leave me out of it.
Don’t forget, though, I’m open to true discussion. It’s just that I’m always right. Heh!