At NewsReal, Kathy Shaidle has an early contender for Most Ironic Story of the Year: “Michael Moore says Fox News edited clips to make President look bad. (No, really.)”
blogosphere
RedState vs. Riehl World View on Rand Paul
Erick Erickson: disingenuous.
Dan Riehl: spot-on.
Rand Paul & the Civil Rights Act
Robert Stacy McCain’s point about Rand Paul’s partial opposition to the Civil Rights Act stemming from concerns over government overreach rather than bigotry is well taken. But I think he’d do well to familiarize himself a bit more with Rand’s record (and how it ties into his father’s) before proclaiming that “Having now crossed this bridge, however, conservatives must fight the fight we are in and not waste time wishing we had met the enemy on some other field.” Yes, conservatives will always be victimized by left-wing race baiting, but the Pauls are special cases, given how much they benefit from racists. (Hat tip: Lisa Graas)
Republicans Fiddle While Democracy Burns
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, free speech is one of America’s cornerstones. All sides sing its praises, and no politician can expect to safely voice disrespect or opposition towards it.
The underlings of politicians, on the other hand…
Cass Sunstein, appointed by Barack Obama to head the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, isn’t a big fan of free & unregulated political expression. In the past, he’s argued for new laws that would make bloggers and web-hosting services potentially liable for what their commenters say, as well as make it easier to sue people who “spread rumors” for libel.
For obvious reasons, these proposals would be logistical nightmares to implement, forcing bloggers to spend less time expressing their own ideas and more time policing their audiences, lest they risk liability for the words of others. The end result is a stifling of free speech, and make no mistake: that’s exactly what Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein intend.
Now, Sunstein has been caught proposing more regulation of the blogosphere, in the form of new federal mandates forcing websites to “provide links to sites of the other point of view…Or maybe a popup on your screen that would show you an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view.” An Internet Fairness Doctrine, if you will.
What do the Left’s premier guardians of free speech at the ACLU have to say about all this? Nothing.
Of course, I expect the Democrats to pull this garbage, and their foot soldiers on the Left and in the media to quietly go along. The real scandal here is the lack of strong, vocal Republican opposition. If they aren’t finally corrected, and fast, the cowardice and inability to lead that dominate the GOP are going to be the death of this country.
Update on Hamas Sympathy at UCSD (Updated with Fresh Lies)
Jumanah Imad Albahri, the UCSD student who refused to condemn Hamas in a Q&A session with David Horowitz and said she’d be “for” a second Holocaust, is now claiming that the Hamas question is too complex to simply condemn or endorse unequivocally (they say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but I say nuance is the first), and that she didn’t really mean “for it” in response to Horowitz’s question about a new a new Holocaust:
Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah’s credo of “rounding up” Jews in his last tangent. I could no longer contain my anger at being implicitly and improperly labeled a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a proponent of genocide. The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.
My answer, “for it,” in the context in which it was said does NOT mean “for” genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. “For it” was not a legitimization of Hezbollah’s or anyone else’s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated. In fact, Mr. Horowitz’s intent was to entrap me with his barrage of questions so that he could avoid answering my question, and construe any answer that I would provide as anti-Semitic, genocidal hate speech in order to further his political agenda.
The original video & transcript make clear that Albahri was not even remotely “entrapped” by anything Horowitz said. Everything Horowitz said was clear, and her reply of “for it” sounds composed and deliberate. Even if she didn’t really mean it (which seems questionable, given her Hamas apologetics), it’s telling that she cannot take responsibility for her own (supposed) failure to convey her “true” beliefs accurately.
(As for whether or not it’s reasonable to ask for a simple for/against judgment on Hamas, you tell me.)
David Swindle has another good question for our “victim”:
[I]f you oppose anti-Semitism and you oppose Islamists’ quest to instigate a second Holocaust what have you ever done to challenge these tendencies within the MSA itself and Islam as a whole? If you do not hold such views yourself, why are you a part of an organization who regularly hosts speakers who call for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews?
UPDATE: David exposes even more lies from Albahri, including an amateurish attempt to talk up her credibility AS SOMEBODY ELSE. Pathetic.
Rave Reviews 4!
You like me! You really like me!
“It’s much easier to call people who are smarter than you are names then it is to argue facts, thanks in no small part to our liberal educational system.” – Randy
“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal
“Enjoy that 100 trillion dollar currency debt you fools have mortgaged your children to them banksters.” – joe
“The author is another neocon Jew.” – Joseph Zrnchik
“…a man with a sheep’s brain…” – Bob
“Unintentionally Hilarious” – JB
“…just awful…” – More Stew
“What a sickening, hateful, sheltered, judgement, Friedburger brain bubble boy. He’s one of the the perfect examples of intelligent design. Cripes. What a creep.” – CJ
“…misinformed…” – Lord Howard Hertz
“Good God.” – Zach W.
“…dude if you are a polysci major I suggest you do a little more research before writing your blog because you lack any real depth of knowledge in the topics you discuss. Spend a little more time studying and less time dreaming up stuff.” – LeftofLiberal
“…desperation…illegitimate…” – annica2
“Boy you really are a fanatic nut head.” – RightWing
“Keep dreaming, but the reality is, you are the joke of this nation. The silent majority will just simply go back to the polls and vote Obama back in and you imbeciles can rant for another four long years. You will never learn. The dumbing down on the Right is almost totally complete!” – Liberallyproud
“…confused reasoning…” – PalmettoPatriot
“Trading insults gets you nowhere. It only benefits those who have nothing to say. As you mature you will most likely have a better appreciation for civil discourse and refrain from trading insults much less initiating such exchanges.” – The Inquisitor
“If you can’t win the debate, start name-calling, eh?” – John Galt
“Study history sometime.” – Elijah
“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal
“Not a good way to advance a cause.” – princeliberty
“…you and the neo-conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering liberals.” – freedomfor you
“You’re arguing against a premise you wrongly inferred from the quote you posted. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, if you can comprehend what you’re reading that is. In this case you can’t.” – ED
“Carl your embarassing egotistical remarks are astounding for someone writing a publication with how many readers? It seems half of them don’t even like your obviously biased and ethnocentric reporting.” – James
“Perhaps, Calvin, you should try another line of work.” – Rightwingarbage
“You are not in tune with America…” – truthbetold
“Thumbs down…extremely biased…You wrote a very poor article.” – sas473
“More incessant neocon babbling…” – Carpe Cerevisi
“…another lame attack from a RINO…” – delapaz
“This article is terrible.” – T. Evans
“Why did I just subject myself to the slandering overtones of a hyped up alarmist co-ed, which was expected prima facie by the name Calvin Frieburger, in order to get my intellectual fix this morning. It’s usually the poli-sci guys that cry the loudest when they’re getting the crap kicked out of them for bloviating to everyone. AAAAh!!!!!” – A Smith
“This is bad journalism.” – Joseph
“…you know nothing about the military.” – David
“One only has to read the title of this faulty hitpiece to know it deserves all the contempt possible and it simply 100% baseless misinformation.” – Stefan
“…Zionist…” – Edip Yuksel
“I could not read much more than the 1st paragraph or 2, Calvin, you are completely wrong on so many levels. You may have a few facts straight, but your inferences are miles off target.” – JR
“Hypocrisy thy name is JEW! So Paul is disqualified from being taken seriously in American politics for some ‘unacceptable’ connections with white ethnocentrists. Meanwhile having deep connections with Jewish activist organisations the ADL, AIPAC, AJC etc etc is just fine. Why on earth shouldn’t Paul be ethnocentric enough to stand up for the interests of the traditional population of the United States? You know – the ones who’ve died in their thousands in Iraq for Israel? I’m sick of hyper-ethnocentric Jews telling us who and who is not a legitimate participant in the American political process.” – Peter Mansfield
“…stupid sh**…” – Steve
“The author of this propaganda is a BLATANT IGNORANT IDIOT.” – freeme
“…basically neo con apologist…” – Hammer
“If a college kid getting the typical US socialist education thinks there’s a problem, it’s practically 100% certain that the opposite is the truth.” – Syd Barrett
“Totally twisting of facts!” – freedom lover in KY
Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?
Lincoln Derangement Syndrome
Somebody named JD Longstreet is very, very upset that Southerners and Southern history are not given the respect they deserve in the media, schools and commentary class (hat tip to Ol’ Broad). Given the Left’s infernal obsession with casting conservative views and traditional American values as racist, I would be inclined to sympathize with him…except for the fact that his post rapidly devolves into an unhinged, duplicitous tirade that is guilty of the very historical revisionism Longstreet claims to oppose.
Because I apparently didn’t have enough better to occupy my time with tonight, I decided to conduct a closer examination of this post. Click on through to check out my findings – if you dare: Continue reading
He’s Back…
Insufferable gasbag “Marcus Brutus” is once again plaguing NewsReal with his presence. Just like before, he’s whining about “slander” against the object of his most-unhealthy affection, Ron & Rand Paul, and just like before, his hubris is making him look like the lying buffoon, not me.
We’re Back!
After a longer-than-intended hiatus, all the kinks are worked out, and the t-shirt store is back online! There are lots of great designs — pro-life, anti-Obama, historical quotes, global warming, anti-Ron Paul, and more! Check out The Conservative Armory: The Official CFO Store!
How Not to Argue Abortion (Updated)
I initially figured Capper was a shoe-in for the “Most Embarrassingly Self-Defeating Blogger in Wisconsin” Award—misattributing comments to people based on nothing but a first name, then digging in your heels when called on it seems pretty hard to top. But we have a new contender for the crown: our old pal Scott Feldstein.
Veterans of Wisconsin blog debates know Scott well as a foul-mouthed, hypocritical leftist who would rather conjure up dishonest, unconvincing reasons for ignoring & dismissing opponents’ views rather than actually debating them. In December, this charade devolved into an even more pitiful form: not only rationalizing why he shouldn’t believe his opponents’ claims, but fabricating reasons to suspect that his opponents don’t even believe their own beliefs!
His “reasoning” was—you’re gonna love this—pro-lifers don’t really see abortion as a human rights issue, because if they did, they’d all oppose abortion in rape/incest/life-of-mother cases, too, and they’d also support the sex-ed and condom distribution policies Scott likes; but because they don’t, it’s really all about controlling people’s sex lives.
Of course, Scott was confronted (by me and others) with credible arguments against all of this (by the way, here’s the latest counter-example to his anti-abstinence studies), but remained “skeptical.” Mind you, he couldn’t offer any good reasons for his skepticism, but proceeded to flaunt the nonsense anyway, as if he’d done…well, something to prove any of it or refute his opponents’ objections. As Allahpundit once said of Dingy Harry Reid, “like a two-year-old who’s just crapped on the carpet, he’s curiously proud of it.”
(Oh, and he also demanded to know what Planned Parenthood lied about, then when I told him exactly what Planned Parenthood lied about in painstaking detail, he ignored it for a hundred-something comments. ‘Cuz he’s such a stickler for the truth.)
But it gets better, my friends. Oh, does it get better.
This week, abortion came up once more on Boots & Sabers. Allow me to quote verbatim, so we can all revel in the majesty that is Scott’s madness:
If you believe—as you say you do—that a 3 month fetus is the legal and moral equivalent of a toddler, then you would either a) be storming the abortion clinic like Rambo to kill the murderous individuals who work there, or b) you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death. Of course there is a third explanation: You do know that 3 month old fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of you and me.
So, lemme get this straight: unless you also believe in abandoning the political process and the rule of law and killing abortion doctors, you don’t really believe in an unborn baby’s right to life.
There’s really only one way to respond to that:
Make no mistake: These aren’t sincere questions that Scott would stop asking if only someone would give him a good answer. He’s simply displaying a common tactic of left-wing hyper-partisanship: the need to attribute the beliefs of one’s opponents, no matter how sincere or well-argued, to any sort of ulterior motive other than the stated motivation, no matter how specious the evidence.
If Scott truly believes what he’s saying, then his ideology has so fully warped his mind that his capacity for rational, objective thought is completely gone. But I suspect he does know better. I think it’s all propaganda: he’s supporting a heinous practice, recognizes somewhat the odiousness of his position, and will throw out whatever he can to deflect moral judgment and make the other side the villains. Indeed, he deployed this gem of a point as a way of not answering The Family Guy, who noticed he described abortion as “sad and distasteful,” and asked the obvious follow-up: “If it’s nothing more than a lump of tissue, then why is it sad? Are you sad when you have a wart removed? It too was alive.”
Either way…pitiful.
UPDATE: As if we needed another indicator of how messed up the left-wing, pro-abortion mind is, consider the following: Scott says that because humans develop incrementally, meaning that in the period between just-conceived zygote and just-delivered newborn, increasing moral consideration should go along with increasing complexity (he also voted for a guy who had a a problem with those just-delivered newborns, but I digress). He also says that “a 12 week pregnancy can be terminated for any reason at all.”
Okay, so at 12 weeks, it must not be very developed or person-like, huh? I mean, it’s not like it would have any of the biggies, like a heartbeat, a fully-formed brain, or the capacity to feel pain.
Oh, wait. It has all of those things.
Something seems to have failed rather significantly in Scott’s efforts at drawing “reasonable” distinctions. How do you think he’d respond to that? If you guessed “dodge & deflect,” give yourself a cookie.
Pitiful. And monstrous.
Conservative Standards 