Factivists

First, there was Attackwatch, then the Truth Team, and now there are the Factivists, the latest attempt by the Democrats to get the truth out about the good job President Obama is doing and helping us rebut attacks from those awful, shady Republicans. I just learned about the Factivists today when I checked my email.

Friend –

Think back to 2012 for a minute.

Thanks to supporters like you, we made sure that Americans knew everything there was to know about Mitt Romney before Election Day (well, almost everything — still waiting for the rest of those tax returns). Lately, we’ve been helping to introduce the next generation of Republican leaders, like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie, to the rest of the country.

And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from doing all this, it’s that we’re really damn good at it.

But here’s the thing: Republicans are tired of getting beat by us. So they have shady Super PACs and outside groups — the ones with anonymous donors and no accountability — run wild to attack Democrats. And when the President and Democratic leaders are under attack, so is everything that you and I stand for.

That’s unacceptable, so we’re going to push back with our two strongest weapons: The truth, and you. That’s why we’re launching the Factivists program — our new grassroots rapid response team — and we need you to say you’ll be a part of it.

As a Factivist, you’ll get exclusive updates with everything you need to share the facts with your friends and neighbors. With your help, we’ll keep holding Republicans accountable for what they say and do, and we’ll get out the facts when they attack Democrats.

Because at the end of the day, that’s how we win.

Become a Factivist today, and get ready to fight back:

http://my.democrats.org/Join-the-Factivists

Thanks, and I’ll see you in the trenches,

Mo

Mo Elleithee
Communications Director
Democratic National Committee

P.S. — I made a quick video to introduce the Factivists to our party’s leaders at our Winter Meeting. Check it out, then join us.

I have to wonder why they keep changing the name of the group they create to spread their talking points. It seems that as soon as people begin to make fun of the latest organization, they remake it and change the name. No matter what name they go by, this permanent campaign seems a little off putting.

Related articles

• Move over, Truth Team; Here come the Democratic ‘factivists’ (twitchy.com)
• DNC Unveils New “Factivist” Campaign So You Can Attack “Your Republican Uncle” With Pics of Obama’s Birth Certificate… (weaselzippers.us)
• Democrats Are Now Crowdsourcing Flacks (ivoter.com)

 

Who’s Laughing Now?

Back during the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney made the statement that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe. Obama and the Democrats laughed at Romney for this statement, saying that Romney was out of touch and still living in the Cold War. In 2008 Sarah Palin predicted that Russia might invade the Ukraine because of Obama’s indecisiveness. She was derided for being an ignorant snowbilly who couldn’t understand that Barack Obama was bringing forth a new era of smart diplomacy. During the 2012 Vice-Presidential debate, Paul Ryan emphasized that we live in a dangerous world, which thanks to President Obama’s actions, or rather inactions, was becoming more dangerous. Joe Biden giggled at such a foolish statement.

Well, it looks as though Russia is preparing to invade the Ukraine. We seem to be entering into a new Cold War with Russia. Russia is negotiating for access to bases for its ships and bombers in strategic spots throughout the world. Who’s laughing now?

The bad guys all over the world, that’s who. They know that a weakened America gives them more freedom to act, often in ways that do not promote the cause of peace and freedom. I hope that those who believe that America is what’s wrong with the world are paying attention to what is happening in the world. We have had several decades of (relative) peace and prosperity. Many people in the West have come to believe that this is what is the norm. It is not. If America is weak or fails uphold its responsibilities for helping to keep the peace in the world, things could get very bad, very quickly. Then, none of us will be laughing.

Related articles

• Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney were right about Russia – the media and Obama were wrong (fireandreamitchell.com)
• Sarah Palin: ‘I told you so on Ukraine’ (thegreatone22.wordpress.com)
• Remember When Obama Mocked Romney Over Russia With This Snide Comment During 2012 Debate? (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Did Sarah Palin Predict Russia Invading Ukraine If Obama Got Elected? (askmarion.wordpress.com)
• Cold War II? Obama legacy hangs on Russia (thenewstribune.com)
• Obama and the major media owe Sara Palin and Mitt Romney an apology (cryandhowl.com)

Hitler Was Not Evil?

One of the related articles that was suggested for my previous post was an article titled Hitler Was Not Evil by an anonymous writer. I chose not to include that article in the list of related articles but I think it might be worthwhile to go over it. The writer is not a Nazi, as you might expect, nor did the article make the argument  that Hitler’s actions were, in fact, virtuous. Anonymous’s problem is deeper than that. He does not believe there is such a thing as evil.

Unlike most of the rest of the world, I do not see Adolf Hitler as the “personification of evil” or the most “evil” person that has ever existed.

Hitler was simply a politician like one of the many politicians today. And just like almost all politicians today, his actions were defined by a core belief, greed, ego and a certain love for the country he ruled.

The more sensitive readers would react now with “whoa! whoa! Hitler and love?! Hitler is EVIL! EVIL!”

Evil does not exist, but is a concept of the human intellect. What do we define as evil? We tend to associate unjust things with evil, or things we do not agree with. Essentially, what we feel or think is evil is simply what we do not agree with.

“Who cares about a technical definition? What Hitler did was EVIL! ”

Aiming to wipe out the Jews, that must be evil, right?

No.

As I just said, no one does anything without a reason. And like I just said, any man’s actions are trigger by his own ego, greed, and his core belief.

Hitler believed that the Jews were harming Germany. Hitler believed that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust. Hitler believed that Austria and the Third Reich should become united.

These all came from his belief.

“His beliefs are EVIL!”

No.

Like I just said, we define something as evil when this something does not agree with our moral standards.

Americans defined Communism as evil during the Cold War because they did not agree with it. Everybody being equal and controlled by the State did not agree with the “freedoms” of America. And because it did not agree with these Freedoms, Communism was defined as “bad” and “evil”.

Now in retrospect, can it really be defined as evil? No.

Of course I am not saying that what Hitler did was right. Of course not. I am saying that Hitler was not evil, but simply a man who did what he believed was right for the German people at that time. Of course, just like any politician today, his actions were also motivated by greed, ego and more greed. But it is important to make the distinction that Hitler was not an exception. He was simply a statesman who didn’t get away with it.

For example, Mao Ze Dong got away with it. Stalin (kind of) got away with it. The leaders of Meiji Japan got away with it.

And as a history major allow me to assure you, when comparing what the Japanese Imperial Army did in the 1930s and 1940s in South East Asia, the gas chambers of Auschwitz can be considered merciful.

“But Hitler brought misery to all of Europe! He is Evil!”

This might be what the more persistent readers will be saying/thinking.

Perhaps why the perception of Hitler being evil is so deeply rooted in so many peoples’ minds is that after WWII, the Allies needed to have a focus. The Meiji leaders of Meiji Japan perhaps are not remembered as completely evil because after WWII, the Western powers sought peace in Asia and Japan was a great trading partner. This left Hitler and Mussolini.

And naturally, Hitler got the Spotlight of Evil in history textbooks.

Yet, Hitler is not an exception even by today’s standards.

America’s War on Terror may be justified by the core belief of 9/11 and that the American Way is right without question. It is ironic that it seems that very few people have ever thought about why there is this hate to begin with.

This is moral idiocy and historical ignorance. America’s War on Terror is usually justified by the fact that Islamic terrorist flew planes into the sides of buildings. I would not say that the American Way is right without question, but a society that values freedom of expression and equality is superior to one that values religious persecution and aggression against the infidel. A government that guarantees basic human rights is superior to one that suppresses all freedoms. Our Way is superior to Islam. It is superior to Communism.

While the atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army have not gotten the attention that they should have, perhaps because the victims were Asians, there were war crimes trials in Japan after World War II and several offenders were hanged. By the way, the Meiji period refers to the reign of the Emperor Meiji who reigned from 1868-1912, in which Japan moved from feudalism into a modern society. The leaders of Japan during the war were not the Meiji.

It is true that Mao and Stalin got away with their tyranny, while Hitler did not. So what? If I were to commit the perfect crime and never got caught, it would still be a crime. The fact that Mao and Stalin died peacefully and escaped punishment in this world, does not mean their actions were right, nor does it mean that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were statesmen or typical politicians. They were not.

Anonymous claims to believe that good and evil are simply human constructs and that what we regard as good or evil is simply a matter of personal preference. I wonder if he really believes this. If I were to go to his home and start taking his possessions, would he simply allow me, or would be try to stop me? What if I explained that his objection to my actions is simply because it is against his particular moral standards, but not mine, so that what I am doing isn’t wrong? I think he would go ahead and call the police.

I don’t thing anyone, or at least very few, really believe that there is no such thing as a standard of good and evil. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, people in a quarrel invariably appeal to some higher standard of justice when making their case. Even the worst criminals often try to justify their actions. The bank robber robbed banks because they cheat the poor. The rapist’s victim deserved it because of the way she dressed. The conqueror invades and despoils a country to bring the light of civilization, or the true faith to the hapless natives, or to avenge past wrongs. Even the sociopath, who lacks a conscience, is quick to recognize when an injustice is done to him. The fact that people often try to justify bad actions with pleasant reasoning does not mean that there is no standard of good or evil. I think this fact actually strengthens the case for such a standard.

It is true that people do not always agree on what is good or evil. This doesn’t mean that that good and evil do not really exist, only that people that people can be mistaken. Slavery is almost universally regarded as immoral in the modern world, yet no one objected to slavery in ancient times. This does not mean that the question of slavery is simply a matter of social convention. The ancients also believed that the Sun went around the Earth. We have learned that they were mistaken about the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun. In like manner, we have learned that they were mistaken about the acceptance of slavery. Anonymous concludes:

So, do not brainlessly brand Hitler as pure evil. If you strictly judge, he was simply a man who did what he believed was right, along with greed and ego as motivators (just like any person today). Nothing more, nothing less.

Hitler was not pure evil. Like any human being, he was a mixture of good and evil. His actions were unquestionably evil. He may well have believed that he was doing the right thing. Most people do. That doesn’t change that he was mistaken. We need not adopt a stance of idiot moral relativism.

Yes, he was evil. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Related articles

• Hitler Was Not Evil (thoughtcatalog.com)
• Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Stop saying he was (prolecenter.wordpress.com) Yes he was. Look at the Nazi platform.
• Beyond evil and tyranny (chechar.wordpress.com)
• Reading Mein Kampf (robertnielsen21.wordpress.com)

TheElection of 1808

Thomas Jefferson’s second term was not nearly as smooth as his first. The war between Britain and France heated up again, and both nations seemed determined to draw the United States into the war. Once again both Britain and France seized American ships who traded with the other nation, ignoring America’s position as a neutral. The British began to impress American seamen into their navy, as they had while Washington and Adams were president. The United States had every right to declare war on one or both of the warring nations, but Jefferson professed to be a man of peace, and the still young nation was hardly capable of fighting one of the superpowers of the time, let alone both. Jefferson, instead, decided on a policy that would be called economic sanctions today. In December 1807, Congress established an embargo on trade with Britain and France, in the hope that their economies would be damaged enough to come to terms.

It didn’t work. It turned out that the still under developed American economy needed the manufactured goods of Europe more than Europe needed American raw materials. The only people the embargo hurt were American farmers who could no longer export grain and New England merchants who were ruined by the lack of trade. The Federalists were quick to attack the Democratic-Republicans on this policy, referring to it as the “Dambargo” and the embargo temporarily stopped the Federalists decline into irrelevance.

Under the circumstances, Thomas Jefferson had no desire to run for a third term. He had intended to follow Washington’s example all along and serve just two terms, and the increasingly tumultuous world situation led him to believe that the time was right for a younger man to take over. Jefferson had just the right younger man in mind, his friend Secretary of State James Madison. In addition to serving Jefferson as Secretary of State, James Madison had had a distinguished career in the Virginia legislature and the United States Congress. He had been one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and his influence on the proceedings was great enough for Madison to be regarded as the father of the constitution. He along with Thomas Jefferson had founded the Democratic-Republican Party so he was a natural successor to Jefferson. The Democratic-Republican caucus had little trouble selecting James Madison as their nominee for president. For vice president they nominated George Clinton, the sitting vice president.

James Madison

George Clinton

 

The Federalists went with their candidates from the previous election, Charles C.Pinckney and Rufus King.

George Clinton

Rufus King

The states held the election from November 4 to December 7 1808. In those days only six of the seventeen states selected their electors by a statewide popular vote, as is the way today. Four states were divided into electoral districts and seven states still had their electors appointed by the state legislature. The Federalists did better than they had in the 1804 election, but the Democratic-Republicans still won by a landslide. They won 112 electoral votes, winning every state outside of New England except for Delaware, although six delegates from New York voted for George Clinton for president. The Federalists won all of New England except for Vermont and won Delaware and a few votes elsewhere for a total of 47 electoral votes. The popular vote was 124,732 for Madison against 62,431 for Pinckney, although as I noted, not every state had a popular vote.

The Election of 1808

 

 

Related articles

• Thomas Jefferson (zimy315.wordpress.com)
• President’s Day Toast. Cheers to Jefferson! (lynfredwinery.blogspot.com)
• Some interesting tidbits about the signers of the Constitution (harpethview.com)
• Henry Lee & the War of 1812 (oldtowncrier.com)

 

Tunisia’s Constitution

 

 

Last week, while my computer was in the shop, I received a couple of interesting emails from Melanie Jones of watchdog.net. Here is the one she sent expressing her enthusiasm for Tunisia’s new constitution.

 

Dear David Hoffman,

This week, Tunisia passed a truly historic constitution widely heralded as a progressive and monumental document.

Here’s just some of what these brave elected representatives agreed upon in the face of strong pressure from the more extreme factions of their parties:

• Guaranteed equality between men and women
• A constitutional mandate for environmental protection, only the third country in the world to do so
• A declaration that health care is a human right, with preventative care and treatment for every citizen
• A democracywith civil laws that respects freedom of religion
• An established right to due process and protection from torture

In one stroke, Tunisia’s become more democratic than many Western countries have been for years.

This is a revolution of democracy and a great victory for human rights — and the more we recognize that, the more Tunisia can shine as an example for the Western and the Arab world!

MESSAGE FOR TUNISIAN LEGISLATORS: We , the citizens of the world, applaud your bravery in making a strong commitment to universal human values in your constitution. People deprived of democracy around the world look to you to set the example of human rights and democratic principle — hold true to the promises made in this revolutionary document!

Click here to sign — it just takes a second.

Thanks,
– The folks at Watchdog.net

P.S. If the other links aren’t working for you, please go here to sign: http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/4238?n=55842607.pQX7mf

 

Melanie Jones is more easily impressed than I am. A constitution is only a piece of paper. You can write in any rights or protections you might want, but if the governing class of a country is not willing to abide by the rules in the constitution, that constitution is worthless. The Soviet constitution promised freedom of expression, religion, assembly and others, but no one in the Soviet Union enjoyed such freedoms. The leaders of the Communist Party had no intention of ever allowing themselves to be restrained by the sentiments expressed by their own constitution. It is likely the same might be the case in Tunisia.

I know that Tunisia is one of the more “liberal” countries of the Middle East, but I have to wonder how well a constitutional guarantee of equality between men and women is going to work in a country that is 98% Muslim. Tunisia’s former government was aggressively secular and their law code is more influenced by the French Napoleonic Code than Islamic Sharia law. Unfortunately, enforced secularism by dictators in the Arab world often causes more radical Islamic movements to form, and since they are often the ones who most opposed the oppressive government, they are often the faction of the opposition with the most credibility with the people. This has happened in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is possible something similar will happen in Tunisia, although so far the Islamists have not gained much influence and the leaders of the new government have rejected  any proposal to make Sharia the basis for legislation.

It remains to be seen whether Tunisia will be able to fulfill the promises made regarding environmental protection and health care for its citizens.  Such thing are usually luxuries enjoyed by wealthy countries and Tunisia is not a wealthy country, although the Tunisian economy has been growing at a steady rate. We will have to wait and see.

 

 

Related articles

 

• Tunisia assembly prepares last vote on new charter (kansas.com)
• Good News from Tunisia (steakandabible.com)
• Tunisia: Tunisia a ‘Model’ With New Constitution – Ban (allafrica.com)
• New Constitution Tunisia omits Sharia Law, may protect religious minorities (theglobaldispatch.com)
• Tunisia – Egypt: who won? (newmeast.wordpress.com)

 

Carless Cities

Most people in Europe and America take it for granted that they can drive their cars wherever they want or need to go, but that could change if planners in some cities have their way. I learned about this development from CNBC via The Drudge Report.

Germany, home of the high-speed autobahn, is perhaps one of the few countries that has had as intense a love affair with the automobile as the U.S. But in an effort to go green, the country’s second-largest city is studying ways to eliminate cars by 2034.

The northern city of Hamburg has laid out an initial concept, named the Green Network Plan, that would expand public transportation and add more routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The most controversial aspect of the plan calls for a steady phase-out of automobiles in the center of the city over the next two decades.

And Hamburg might not be alone. The idea of banning, or at least reducing, the use of automobiles in city centers has become an increasingly hot topic among urban planners, especially in Europe and other industrialized countries dealing with issues as diverse as congestion and smog.

“Other cities, including London, have green rings, but the green network will be unique in covering an area from the outskirts to the city center,” Hamburg city spokeswoman Angelika Fritsch told The Guardian newspaper. “In 15 to 20 years, you’ll be able to explore the city exclusively on bike and foot.”

There are already a handful of car-free communities around the world, but they’re typically small and often focused on tourists seeking a quaint throwback in time. Examples include Michigan’s Mackinac Island or Sark island off the English Channel coast of the U.K.; perhaps the largest is Venice, which simply has no way to open up roads linking its network of small islands.

But a number of major cities, including the likes of Paris, London and even New York, have been exploring ways to reduce the number of vehicles on their streets, if not to ban vehicles outright.

London introduced a much-debated congestion charge for vehicles driving into the center of the city in 2003. The program had a dual purpose—reducing commuter traffic while also raising new funds to support the city’s expansive mass transit system. The charge is 10 British pounds per day.

Several other cities have adopted a similar approach, though former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bid to put one in place in crowded Manhattan was blocked by state lawmakers. Nonetheless, changes have been made in several parts of Manhattan, including a stretch near the theater district, to create pedestrian zones to absorb the mass of tourists.

Many urban planners accuse automobiles of killing street life, with roadways often dividing once-connected neighborhoods, and creating endemic air and noise pollution. They also cite them as as being a major factor in pedestrian deaths and injuries.

Lord Richard Rogers, a British architect and long-time advisor on urban issues, suggested last year that London should become “a people space rather than the car space it currently is.”

I’m glad Mayor Bloomberg didn’t get his way, for once. I wonder if Lord Richard Rogers or Angelika Fritsch have any intention of asking the people of London or Hamburg whether they would like to do without automobiles. I have a feeling that a great many of the residents of these and other cities consider that the benefits of being able to go where you want,when you want to outweigh the costs of smog and congestion.I also have a feeling that the urban planners and city spokespeople,as well as other members of the elite, will get some sort of special waiver allowing them to drive, or be driven, in otherwise carless regions.

What do planners and progressives have against the automobile anyway? They have been trying to get us out of our cars and into buses and trains almost since Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Is it the freedom that comes with being able to drive that they resent? Do they prefer it if everyone had to stay in one place? Maybe they think only the proper sort of people, the ones who are environmentally or socially enlightened. Those of us backward peasants should walk or ride the bus. Maybe they really are concerned about congestion or pollution. I agree that these are real problems, especially in older cities with narrower streets and if I lived in New York or Hamburg, I probably wouldn’t find owning an automobile as necessary as I do in rural Indiana, but I think I would resent being told I couldn’t have one, just because urban planners want to make the city where I live a “people space”.

 

Related articles

• A ban on autos? Major cities consider going carless (cnbc.com)
• Within 20 Years, Hamburg Will Eliminate Something We All Use Too Much. (urbantimes.co)
• Hamburg Announces Plans to Become a Car-Free City Within 20 Years (inhabitat.com)
• Hamburg’s Plan to Eliminate Cars in 20 Years (archdaily.com)

 

A Pattern

Looking over some of the news items on the Drudge Report, I notice a certain pattern which makes me wonder if I am still living in America. First there is the indictment of Dinesh D’Souza.

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, whose documentary 2016: Obama’s America took a critical look at President Barack Obama and was a surprise hit in 2012, will be arrested in New York on Friday for allegedly violating campaign-finance laws, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

Federal authorities accuse D’Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton but lost to now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Long, though, is not mentioned in an indictment obtained by THR on Thursday.

Insiders say D’Souza has been friends with Long since they attended Dartmouth College together in the early 1980s. According to the indictment, D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds. But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016, says the charge is politically motivated.

“In America, we have a long tradition of not doing what is commonly done in too many other countries — criminalizing dissent through the selective enforcement of the law,” Molen tells THR.

D’Souza first learned he was being investigated in the middle of 2013, several months after 2016 had earned $33 million at the box office and become the second-most-popular political documentary in U.S. history. The film included an interview with Obama’s half-brother, George Obama, who was mildly critical of the president.

Molen says D’Souza is being singled out for “an alleged minor violation” in the same way the IRS reportedly targeted conservative Tea Party groups for retribution. “In light of the recent events and the way the IRS has been used to stifle dissent, this arrest should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans,” Molen says.

D’Souza was in San Diego working on his next film and book, each to be called America, when he was informed he was about to be indicted and that he should fly to New York and turn himself in to authorities. The indictment came late Thursday, according to those with knowledge of the situation.

Maybe that long tradition is ending. Maybe not. But then there is the case of conservative activist James O’Keefe being investigated by the state of New York.

Conservative activist James O’Keefe is accusing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo‘s administration of targeting his group with document requests and a subpoena, claiming the Democratic governor’s recent comments critical of conservatives “aren’t simply words.”

O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas is behind a series of hidden-camera investigations against left-leaning groups and causes, made the claims on the heels of the controversy over a recent Cuomo interview. In it, Cuomo blasted “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” and said they “have no place” in New York. He later walked back his remarks, and said they were being taken out of context in the media.

But O’Keefe claimed that Cuomo’s government is acting on those words, revealing that the Department of Labor has hit his office in Westchester County, N.Y., with demands for financial documents for months. He compared it to IRS targeting of conservative groups nationwide.

Reached for comment, the Department of Labor said it was a routine request and a routine process.

“Every business that files in the State of New York that uses independent contractors is required by law to submit additional information to ensure that all workers are classified appropriately as either employees or independent contractors…” the department said in a statement.

“This helps to ensure workers receive coverage under unemployment law and businesses are not faced with unexpected charges at a future date if an individual files a claim against them.

“In this instance, as we did in 3,500 cases last year alone, the Department of Labor sought this additional information. After receiving no response, DOL issued follow up letters and phone calls. After 6 months of not receiving a response, as a matter of protocol, DOL issued subpoenas to obtain the requested information.”

For his part, O’Keefe said in a statement, “Governor Cuomo’s shocking words this past week aren’t simply words. Governor Cuomo and the New York Department of Labor are on a witch hunt, demanding all documents and financials since our founding. … His goal, of course, is to harass us and limit our effectiveness by tying us up in court. Just like President Obama used the IRS to target and suppress conservatives, Governor Cuomo is using his Department of Labor to do the same exact thing.”

O’Keefe, who repeatedly has been accused of deceptive practices by liberal groups, has built a reputation as a conservative provocateur. His hidden-camera investigations contributed to the downfall of advocacy group ACORN. With Project Veritas, his group continues to expose alleged fraud and misbehavior with the federal health care law, green jobs programs and more.

In accusing New York state of targeting the organization, Project Veritas released a subpoena issued on Jan. 9 from the Department of Labor. The document orders representatives from the organization to show up on Jan. 28 with a slew of documents, ranging from Social Security returns to unemployment insurance returns to check stubs.

The group claims its finances are “meticulously maintained to the penny” and calls the inquiries “meritless.” A statement said Project Veritas would be relocating to New Jersey.

Further, the group claimed that it complied with an earlier document request and showed up for a scheduled meeting on Dec. 13, but state labor officers “never showed up.”

“Just like the IRS, they are simply intimidating and targeting us,” Project Veritas said in a statement, while also trying to raise money off the allegations.

Surely, they are not. It must be a coincidence that the IRS is investigating Hollywood conservatives.

On Thursday, Megyn Kelly of Fox News reported on a developing story out of tinseltown where the group Friends of Abe — a networking group for Hollywood conservatives — had allegedly been targeted by the IRS.

The report began with Fox west-coast anchor, Trace Gallagher, who stated the following:

The group is called ‘Friends of Abe’, named after Abraham Lincoln, and its made up of 1500 conservative members of the entertainment industry. They gather for things like meals, drinks, and to learn about the political process. It is now seeking 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, so that donations could be tax deductible just like some progressive groups. Getting the exemption would prohibit the group from partisan activity. Now ‘Friends of Abe’ acknowledges having speakers like Karl Rove and Herman Cain, but they deny having a political agenda. ‘Friends of Abe’ says it doesn’t just suspect they were being targeted by the IRS, they say they were told they’re being targeted by the IRS.

Friends of Abe Executive Director and TruthRevolt Managing Editor Jeremy Boreing provided the following comment:

We understand through our attorneys that our agent at the IRS who was handling our file, specifically said we had been targeted on the BOLO list. So I think that probably the reason we’re being targeted is we filed as a conservative educational fellowship.

The struggle for 501(c)(3) status went on for nearly three years with no answer from the IRS. In the ensuing struggle, the group also received repeatedly very private questions about their members identities. In regards to the privacy violations, Boreing stated:

If we were the local chapter of the Lion’s Club, we would protect the privacy of our members. People who join the organization are not seeking publicity. We’re not advocating for anything. We’re not trying to accomplish any objective politically or even from a Hollywood business point of view.

The IRS has not yet commented on this revelation. Friends of Abe prefers to keep its members private for fear they will be blacklisted in what is generally considered a left-leaning industry.

Which might be why the IRS would like to know who its members are. Well, people wanted hope and change. I guess we have the change, though not in a direction I would like to see.

Related articles

• Cuomo proves he’s serious about conservatives; Attacks Project Veritas (grumpyelder.com)
• Cuomo Sics Bureaucracy on James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas (moonbattery.com)
• The New Progressive McCarthyism (askmarion.wordpress.com)
• A Lot of Targeting of Conservatives and Obama Opposition Goin’ On Out There… (theuniversalspectator.wordpress.com)

 

Hang Obama?

That is what Joshua Black, a Republican candidate for the Florida House of Representatives seems to think we should do. He responded to a tweet calling for President Obama’s arrest and execution by adding the word “agreed”. Here is the story from World Net Daily.

A GOP candidate for the Florida House of Representatives is under fire from his own party and said he’s been visited by the Secret Service after he tweeted Monday that President Obama should be hanged for treason.

Joshua Black, 31-year-old Republican candidate for Florida House District 68, quoted a tweeter, saying “I’m past impeachment. It’s time to arrest and hang him high.” Black added, “agreed.”

Chris Latvala, a Republican candidate for House District 67, shot back: “You aren’t seriously calling for the killing of Obama are you? I know you are crazy but good heavens. U R an embarrassment.”

Black then replied, “Execution is the appropriate punishment for traitors. Don’t you have a race? Don’t you have a primary? #MindYourOwnBusiness?”

Latvala responded, “I make it my business when so called GOP candidates become an embarrassment to my beloved party. You need to go take your medicine #TinFoilHat #Crazy.”

Black later expounded on his comments – even going so far as quoting Jesus – in a Facebook posting, saying:

“To everyone who was offended that I said that the POTUS should be hanged for treason. This is the man who droned al-Awlaki on ‘suspicion of terrorism’ – not proof – and later killed his 15-year-old son for nothing more than being his son. …

“This would be exactly what the president has done to others, and, as Jesus said, ‘the measure ye mete, it shall be meted to you again.’ I make no apologies for saying that the president is not above the People. If ordinary Americans should be executed for treason, so should he.

“So, don’t stop at impeachment. Remove him. Try him before a jury (the very right that he arbitrarily denied to al-Awlaki and his 15-year-old son), and, upon his sure convictions, execute him. Thus has he done, thus it should be done to him.”

 

Anwar al-Awlaki was a Yemeni-American Imam who was a recruiter for al-Qaeda and was linked to several terrorist attacks on the United States, including the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone in 2011, an action that has been somewhat controversial since he happened to be an American citizen. There are a lot of issues that people might want to impeach Obama over, but killing suspected terrorist doesn’t come up too often, at least among conservatives.

I think having the Secret Service visiting Mr. Black is something of an over reaction, considering that he didn’t state that he, personally, would execute the president. The first amendment has not been repealed and I can’t imagine the Secret Servicemen  really believing that Black really represented a credible threat to the president.

I can understand how Mr. Black feels. I don’t approve of much that Obama has done during his tenure in the White House. All the same, I feel that this sort of rhetoric is not very helpful.  Judging from the comments in the story, I suspect that Joshua Black’s words will make him very popular in some quarters on the right, but we ought to consider just how they sound to people who are not immersed in politics or not strongly committed to either party.To be blunt, calling for the arrest and execution of the president for treason sounds crazy, and if people get the idea that conservatives or the Tea Party want to see Obama hung, it will make it much easier for the mainstream media to paint them as crazed extremists, not that the mainstream media has had any hesitation in describing the Tea Party in those terms. I think we should leave the insane political rhetoric and the death wishes for public figures to the liberals. One side in our divided country has to be the sane side.

 

Related articles

• Republican: Obama should be hanged (wnd.com)
• Florida House Candidate: ‘I’m Past Impeachment. It’s Time To Arrest Obama And Hang Him High’ (patriotnetdaily.com)
• Obama Should Be Hanged, Says Black Republican (personalliberty.com)
• Republican: Obama Should Be Hanged (conservativebyte.com)

 

Honesty About Abortion

One of the peculiarities about the debate on abortion is that one side, the “pro-choice” side is unwilling to talk about just what the debate is actually all about. They like to speak in terms of “right to choose” and “women’s health” while trying not to even consider the possibility that a human life may be ended by abortion. Mary Elizabeth Williams believes that the time has come to end such evasions. In her article at Salon.com, So what if abortion ends life, she argues that pro-choice advocates should affirm that abortion really does end a human life, and that is irrelevant.

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

As Roe v. Wade enters its fifth decade, we find ourselves at one of the most schizo moments in our national relationship with reproductive choice. In the past year we’ve endured the highest number of abortion restrictions ever. Yet support for abortion rights is at an all-time high, with seven in 10 Americans in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand, allowing for reproductive choice in all or “most” cases. That’s a stunning 10 percent increase from just a decade ago. And in the midst of this unique moment, Planned Parenthood has taken the bold step of reframing the vernacular – moving away from the easy and easily divisive words “life” and “choice.” Instead, as a new promotional film acknowledges, “It’s not a black and white issue.”

It’s a move whose time is long overdue. It’s important, because when we don’t look at the complexities of reproduction, we give far too much semantic power to those who’d try to control it. And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they’ve repeatedly appropriated the concept of “life.”

Notice that Ms. Williams cannot credit the pro-life side with any sort of honorable motive, such as wishing to preserve human life. They are diabolical anti-choice fanatics who play sneaky dirty tricks with words. She is not trying to reach some middle ground.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

There is more about the evil tricks of the right wingers, such as showing ultrasounds to women considering having abortions to remind them that it is a tiny human being and perpetrating the sentimental fiction that abortion stops a beating heart. She concludes with this.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Such honesty is as refreshing as it is horrifying. The reason that most abortion advocates have not taken the step that Ms. Williams advises is that once you have accepted the premise that all lives are not equal and some are worth sacrificing for the comfort and convenience of others, you do indeed start to sound like a death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper. If you start to do away with the idea that human life is somehow special and should be preserved, then it is not easy to determine where to stop. At least now, they argue, somewhat uncertainly, that the fetus is not yet a human being. What if the argument turns to, yes,it is human and so what?

Consider the rising cost of healthcare. For most people, the medical costs of the final year of life equal or exceed the costs of the entire rest of their life. If we could determine when that final year is and cut off any medical treatments, except to make them comfortable, we could save a lot of money. Maybe Obamacare would actually work if that was part of the health care reform. We could also refuse to treat people with chronic illnesses or children with handicaps.Whatever contribution these people might make is not likely to justify the costs of keeping them alive.

Most people would consider such proposals abhorrent. Why? Because these are human beings we are talking about and human beings have a right to life. Civilized people do not let the sick die. One of the reasons that, despite what Ms. Williams believes, more people are turning against abortion is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that a fetus is indeed human. Changing the terms of the debate from the fetus is not human to the fetus is human but it is acceptable to kill it if you want to is not a step forward for any kind of rights. It is a step backward to a more savage past.

Related articles

• Guttmacher report affirms exploding pro-life trends in US (liveactionnews.org)
• Pope Francis Unquestionably Condemns Abortion As Wrong (heritage.org)
• Note To MSNBC: The GOP Will Keep Talking About Abortion As Long As It Kills Babies (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Nursing student witnesses abortion, rethinks pro-choice stand (liveactionnews.org)
• A Renewed Conversation About Reproductive Rights: The Moral and Spiritual Virtues of the Pro-Choice Movement (publichealthwatch.wordpress.com) This is an interesting one. They seem to argue that if a child will not be adequately fed and housed, it should be killed. Maybe they should ask the child if it would prefer to have never been born.

 

Gun Bullies

I have written several times about liberal bullies who threaten people who dare to question their ideals with the loss of employment, or worse. Most recently I have defended Phil Robertson’s right to express his opinion about homosexuality and other issues. There are some who do not regard this sort of thing as an infringement of the right of free speech because it is not a case of the police or government agents jailing anyone. I do not agree. If a clique of activists can pressure employers to blacklist anyone who dissents from politically correct orthodoxy, the effect is much the same as the threat of sending that person to prison. The whole point is to instill fear and compliance.

It is with a sense of disappointment, then, that I must now write about a case of conservative bullying , this time on the subject of gun control. I have been and still am a supporter of the second amendment right to bear arms. I do not own a gun and have never fired one. I am under no illusions that I could use a gun to defeat a criminal. I do not even like guns very much. I wish they had never been invented and that people still fought wars with spears and swords. My support for the second amendment is solely due to my support for freedom. I believe that if someone wants to own a gun, they should be allowed to own a gun and ought not to have to explain themselves to anyone. I agree with the NRA and others that this is a freedom issue.

For this reason, I believe that those who purport to defend freedom ought to play any role in restricting freedom, especially when it comes to a man who is on their side and has himself been a firm supporter of the second amendment. Such an action, however, can be found in the case of Dick Metcalf. Mr. Metcalf is a well-known gun writer who had a column in Guns & Ammo as well as a television show. He had the column and show, until he wrote a column suggesting that there should be some sort of regulations on gun ownership. This act of heresy got him fired. Here are more details from the New York Times. I realize that the Times is not the most credible source, being only one notch above the Weekly World News these days, but I think the article is worth reading.

he byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

“I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here, about 100 miles north of St. Louis, surrounded by snow-blanketed fields and towering grain elevators. “Now you see him. Now you don’t.”

He is unsure of his next move, but fears he has become a pariah in the gun industry, to which, he said, he has devoted nearly his entire adult life.

He is right, of course, in suggesting that the constitutional right to bear arms must have some limits. I don’t believe that even the most fanatic gun rights advocate would suggest that citizens be permitted to own rocket-propelled grenades, or surface to air missiles, then again I could be wrong.

His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.

“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

That is the problem, though. The people who call for “reasonable restrictions” to prevent “gun violence” often seem to believe that the only reasonable restriction is to ban private ownership of firearms. Still, I don’t think that it is necessary to circle the wagons as it were. Public opinion and political momentum are on the side of the defenders of the second amendment. Remember, the measures that President Obama wanted Congress to pass were very mild compared to the sort of proposals that were discussed a couple of decades ago, and it still didn’t pass. The Supreme Court has affirmed the second amendment grants individuals the right to own guns. We shouldn’t grow complacent, but there is no need to be defensive or set up an inquisition to ensure ideological purity. We don’t have to act like liberals.

What has happened to Dick Metcalf  and others is no different than what happened to Phil Robertson. Both men were fired after expressing an opinion which offended an activist group, in Metcalf’s case seemingly an entire industry. I would hope that the people who supported Phil Robertson’s rights would also support Dick Metcalf, even if they don’t agree with what he wrote. I am not very hopeful that will happen, though. These days, all too many people only support the right to express opinions they personally agree with.

 

Related articles

• Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns (nytimes.com)
• The Gun Industry Doesn’t Like to be Questioned: It Hates the First Amendment More than it Worships the Second (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• ‘I’ve Been Vanished’: Guns & Ammo Editor Who Wrote Column Suggesting Stricter Gun Laws Speaks (theblaze.com)
• The Editorial That Got a Longtime Writer at the ‘World’s Most Widely Read Firearms Magazine’ Fired (theblaze.com) I am glad to see that Glenn Beck’s network picked this up. Evidently some gun supporters think Guns & Ammo shouldn’t have fired Metcalf. Judging from the comments sections, however, all too many are glad to see him gone.
• Fired Pro-Gun Writer Speaks Out After Being ‘Banished’ From Guns & Ammo Magazine (businessinsider.com)