There are a considerable number of conservatives currently camped out in social media who are painfully slow on the uptake. Before the fauxfended word-police begin chiming in, from thefreedictionary.com:
- A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
Now, with that bit of housekeeping out of the way we can proceed.
After the enormous gains in the 2010 elections and the equally embarrassing showing in the 2012 elections, one would think conservatives would have come away a little wiser. Alas many continue to engage in the same unproductive and unbecoming behavior that gave us progressives like George W. Bush and Barrack Hussein Obama.
I can think of no better example of this than the mindless drones of the Twitter Gulag Defense Network. (#TGDN) These folks aren’t just acting stupid, they’re ENTHUSIASTICALLY stupid. #TGDN is the contrivance of South Carolina lawyer and reprobate (but I repeat myself) Todd Kincannon. This single endeavor is like a diamond with its multitudinous facets of errancy.
Let’s start with the name “Twitter Gulag Defense Network.” The idea is to have conservatives get on lists and follow each other, thereby increasing a person’s follower count and rendering them immune to having their Twitter account suspended. Unfortunately follower count does absolutely NOTHING to prevent being one from being sent to the gulag. Conservatives should know this given the excellent series on #TwitterGulag posted on the Trenches website MONTHS ago.
Gosh. If hashtags, copious amounts of followers, and membership lists don’t prevent one from being sent to the gulag, why would Kincannon create #TGDN? Well, it does make for a spiffy crisis that an unsavory character could use to prop himself up as a savior, n’est-ce pas? Todd is in fact a small, vainglorious individual that constantly craves attention from others. Now he has it.
And why would so many people follow Todd without questioning his motives or the effectiveness of #TGDN? Clearly we what we have is a cult of personality. Todd is very careful to use his best photo in his avatar, position his motives as pure, and demonize and block anyone who dares to question TGDN. This type of narcissistic and charismatic authority has been well documented by Jerry Wilson’s writings regarding Ali Akbar. Principles be damned, Todd is exciting, bombastic, and bawdy. A perverse Pied Piper to lead the unquestioning masses.
If anyone would actually take just a moment to scrutinize Mr. Kincannon’s personal behavior I doubt very seriously that he would be selected to shepherd the conservative movement. A quick perusal of his timeline will find it laced with gratuitous profanity and sexual comments. Not that there aren’t plenty of boorish timelines on Twitter, but this just seems to be the tip of the iceberg with Kincannon. The Piper also appears to enjoy sexting young women photos of his “flute.” It doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident either.
Now that Todd has amassed an unthinking horde that would make ACORN proud, he is turning them against anyone he sees as a threat and purging his list of dissenters. Initially his calls were to spam-block the targets that he specified with the intent of sending the offending account to the Twitter gulag. (irony?) More recently in his benevolence he has called to simply block the offending accounts (selected by him of course) rather than spam-block them. How noble.
Ultimately one has to ask, how does any of this activity relating to TGDN help conservatism and promote our founding principles? If #TGDN is trending, does it reduce the deficit? If you block enough liberals or dissenting voices, will it balance the budget? Can you gain enough followers to repeal Obamacare? Can you play enough hashtag games to get the Federal Reserve audited? Of course not. You’re all just fiddling while the Republic burns.
Conservatives need to shed the current neocon paradigm, reconnect with their founding principles, and expand into other outlets to share those principles. They did it briefly in 2010 with the fleeting Tea Party movement and lost it again in 2012 when that movement was co-opted. It’s time to move on from the Tea Party and juvenile Twitter circle-jerks to bigger and better venues.
Unfortunately too many conservatives are back playing hashtag games, idolizing perverts and squelching free speech. None of which will restore the Republic. Retarded.
Earlier in the week, a fairly well-known blogger (@RBPundit) wrote two opinion pieces for a slightly less well-known blog (The Right Sphere) entitled “The End Game”. In the first, he pissed and moaned about the ‘fiscal cliff’, that Obama wants to leap off of it, that Republicans will be blamed for it, and about the ensuing ‘civil war’ within the GOP. In the second, which he posted a mere 4 hours later, he made some less than bold prediction about the near future and attempted to make the case that conservatives shouldn’t be bashing the ‘establishment’ or ‘mounting primary challenges’ against said establishment. I followed up with a hearty chuckle.
Ordinarily, I would engage a typical misguided neocon blogger on Twitter, where I was introduced to this garbage, but RB has long since blocked me. He made a few good points on the surface, but overall, is very off-target. (If, indeed, his target is a strong and prosperous America that is governed within the confines of the Constitution.)
Republicans have “lost the public relations battle” on the ‘fiscal cliff’ nonsense. That much is absolutely true. Republicans loose virtually EVERY PR battle. This is not rocket science.
Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff. Again, one doesn’t need a high school diploma to figure this out. Personally, I don’t think he really cares one way or the other about some imaginary cliff, so long as he maintains control over the electorate. To a narcissistic tyrant, all that matters is the result, not how it’s achieved.
We’re going over the cliff, the GOP gets blamed, and then middle class taxes will be lowered early next year. A very logical prediction.
It doesn’t take a blog to make those points.
But then these articles take a sad turn. (Sad turns are common when you’re running in circles.) The overall tone, of both pieces, is one of “Party First”. Phrases like “avoid the civil war within the GOP…”, “bashing John Boehner and attacking the establishment…” are a “waste of time…”, and “instead of mounting primary challenges…” only serve to cement that. And then he jumps on the Marco Rubio bandwagon. Great.
I beg your pardon, WHAT?! The Republican Party NEEDS a civil war, as it were. At least if it wants to be anything besides a slightly less bad version of the Democrat’s version of progressivism and socialism. Right now, you’ve got old-school Republicans who want nothing more than to stay elected. And you’ve got conservatives. You know, the average Joe who respects the Constitution and desires a free and prosperous country for his kids and grandkids to grow up in. Also, there are the Libertarians, most of whom have become so disgusted with Republican progressivism that they fight the GOP just as hard as the Democrats do. Ladies and gentlemen of the establishment, you are fighting a losing battle.
And what’s this nonsense about not challenging the mushy squishes of Republicans who were sent to Washington to oppose progressivism? Not push some watered-down version of the same bullshit? Every single elected official needs to be held accountable, and the most effective way (only way?) of doing that is by removing them from office, either in the primary or the general elections. As it is, we are far more likely to see a conservative challenger in the primaries than in the generals. Similarly, term limits. Since the likelihood of Congress imposing term limits on itself, that onus is on ‘we the people’. When we keep voting for the same ineffective failures, we become ‘sheeple’ rather than people.
For the record, we won’t go over the imaginary fiscal cliff. The GOP establishment will cave, I suppose with the hope of not being seen as the bad guys, and a deal will be made, most likely before Christmas. And every single congressman who supports this deal deserves to be harassed until they can give a reasoned answer as to why they abandoned their constituents. And then they’ll have at least two years to attempt to redeem themselves (depending on when they’re up for re-election), and if they continue with their Democrat Lite bullshit, they deserve to be removed from office. Congress’ job is easy: budget the nation’s expenses in such a manner that they align with federal revenue, and only pass laws that are clearly within the constraints of the Constitution. If they can’t do that, they can go find another job. The Wendy’s down the street from me is looking for kitchen help.
In case you haven’t noticed, butt-hurt people abound online, particularly on Twitter in “conservative” circles. If you haven’t been paying attention, you may be wondering what it is that offends their sensibilities and causes them to lash out en masse. Surely there must be concrete reasons for their collective wrath. Certainly the facts must support their righteous rage. You’d be wrong. Nothing. Just a cult of personality and conflicts with infidels who dare to question their golden calves. Facts be damned. It’s all about the personalities.
I don’t pretend to get along with everyone and let’s face it, why should I or anyone else? What kind of individuals would we be if we all marched in lockstep? If you don’t like someone, fine. If you hate someone’s guts, fine. If you don’t like their modus operandi, fine. You’re free to do your own thing.
Now, if you don’t like them and you want to lie about them, not fine. You want to cherry pick their timeline to fit a particular meme, not fine. You want to make wild accusations and place the onus on them, not fine. You want to use Twitter, your blog or your paid writers to libel them, not fine.
Unfortunately that is precisely what is happening. The fauxfended do not suffer dissent lightly. Once you draw their ire you can expect to be labeled and marginalized in ways that would make Saul Alinsky blush. “How do I smear thee? Let me count the ways.”
- Pointing out someone using minority status as a crutch becomes bigotry or anti-Semitism.
- Question the facts in a shooting and you’re a conspiracy kook.
- Stating a lawsuit is unproductive means you’re a criminal’s ally.
- Considering census numbers transforms you into a holocaust denier.
- Disagreeing with a conservative blogging icon makes you anti-capitalism.
On the flip side, many devotees are so enamored with big name “conservatives” that they’re willing to ignore any facts and rationalize their hero/heroine’s actions. Lie about your involvement in a felony…no problem. Shoot some rape-fetish art…who hasn’t? Hire people to attack other conservatives…completely understandable. These rationalizations are so Clinton-esque it’s downright frightening.
Ultimately, after all the attention that you will have drawn to yourself, they will proclaim that you’re nobody anyway. Really? Because “nobody” has done more for the conservative movement than any of the big name charlatans or their acolytes. That’s a fact. And “nobody” is going to tell you about it in his next post…
I was born in Manitoba, Canada (that’s north of North Dakota), where my parents had a small farm equipment manufacturing company. In 1975, the company building burned down as the result of an accident. Hot sparks and paint do not mix! After a brief stay in temporary quarters, my family and I moved to North Dakota in 1978. I remember that my father was very impressed with the business- friendly attitude of the American banker and city officials who helped us get a new business set up in our new town (during the malaise at the end of the Carter administration). Of course, the fun came to an end a few years later when my dad’s business could not survive the recession of ’80-81.
After high school (‘81) and college (‘87), I was a casual observer of the political scene without becoming very involved, as I had life to live. Since employment was impossible with a B.A. in Sociology, I reverted to the training of my youth and became a welder. Many jobs, a lovely wife, a child, and 25 years later, I noticed that my adopted country was not the “Land of the Free” and the “Home of the Brave” to which my family first came.
The Bush 43 administration gradually woke me up, the final call coming when the housing bubble burst and the economy went into its slide into recession, with TARP and corporate bailouts along the way. Then came a Presidential election and Rick Santelli’s rant in Chicago. I realized that “We The People” needed to shake things up in Washington if we wanted life to be any better for us and our kids. I heard about a local tax-day event that was being planned and decided to check it out. The organization for that event turned into the local Tea Party, which I joined and subsequently met Ben Froland, a key contributor to the beginning of the Fox Valley Initiative (FVI).
It was through this association that I realized I needed to do some studying so that I could converse better with people about what our country means and how to put it back on the course that our Founders began. I started my education of the Founding Documents with a seminar sponsored by FVI and put on by the National Center for Constitutional Studies and its president, Dr. Earl Taylor. The primary lesson I learned from the seminar is that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have all of the answers we need today, if only we could get more people to study them and recognize the original intent of the great men who wrote the documents. As a Catholic Christian, I have an appreciation for documents that are “inspired.” I believe the people who came up with our Founding Documents were inspired.
I believe that if “We The People,” and the politicians who we hire to represent us, will turn back to the ideas enshrined in the Founding Documents, the U.S. will quickly return to being the “shining city on the hill” spoken of so eloquently by President Reagan.
The first idea we need to get back to is the sanctity of life, the first of the “unalienable Rights” listed in the Declaration of Independence, obviously held in high esteem by the Founders. Without this primary idea, our country devolves into a culture of death where we have little regard for anyone that cannot speak for themselves or anyone we deem not worthy of consideration.
Another of the primary ideas we need to get back to is the protection of personal property. This starts with the products of individual labor and extends to defining a national border and the enforcement of this border. Without this simple concept, we don’t have an identity as a sovereign country. In order to be truly free we must have both a respect for property rights and national borders.
As do many of you, I believe that the Obama administration must be replaced in order to have any chance of saving this once-great country from continuing its slide into Socialism and into crushing debt from which there will be no return. Are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan the answer? Gov. Romney was not my first (or second) choice and I would like to ask Rep. Ryan a few questions but Pres. Obama must be defeated! The challenge remains with “We The People” (as it always has) to get as many Originalists into positions of power as possible at all levels of government.
As important as our governmental leadership is, so too are our non-governmental institutions. These include our houses of worship, our schools and universities. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” He also said that “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” In the Progressive era of our society we have too many of our population abandoning religion and, therefore, faith and morality. Conservatives need to take back the institutions that educate and form our children into moral and productive citizens.
I believe sites like TheGraph.com and the TEA Party are vehicles to turn the USA back to the ideas and ideals enshrined in our Founding Documents and the key to all of it is education. We must educate ourselves and others and identify/support people and institutions that can help return our country to the confines and freedoms codified in those two documents that started the American Experiment and transformed a fledgling group of colonies into the world’s most influential society in a mere 130-140 years.
I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine who fancies himself a thoughtful conservative. We were on a boating trip and I was doing my best to avoid politics on a beautiful, sunny day. He was doggedly persistent and I’m not known for a lack of opinion. Now, this particular friend has a tendency to over-analyze a given topic and work himself in circles so I was prepared to try and steer him back. As the discussion got underway, I found that I was indeed prepared to champion America’s first principles. I just didn’t think I would have to defend them from a self-proclaimed conservative at a tiki bar today.
For starters he was starstruck by the perfect hair of the duo of Romney and Ryan. This is fairly typical of most casual conservatives who get into election mode and leave their scruples at the door. I burst his bubble by reminding him of the tandem’s history with Romneycare, TARP, Auto Bailouts, and Medicare Part D. Hardly conservative positions and hardly an indication that these men were the saviors he felt they were. Of course any criticism of the GOP ticket instantly draws the accusation that I want Obama to win. Hardly. I told him I would certainly vote for the Mormon over the Black Liberation Theologian.
Then he slid a little more to the left and began to talk about the health care legislation that the GOP should pass after repealing Obamacare. He had accepted the liberal premise that there was a health care crisis that must be dealt with at a federal level. I told him when you put out a fire, you don’t replace it with anything else. Just repeal it. This sent him into a tirade about all the poor, unfortunate people of this world that needed our help. Uh oh. He’s really going down the rabbit hole.
He stated that we had a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. As a practicing Christian, I wholeheartedly agreed. Just not via the Federal government. I asked if it was OK that he was holding gun to my head and forcing me to be “charitable.” This caused him great concern and he walked away only to return one drink later with his retort. It was no longer an obligation in his mind, but an “opportunity,” as if that was any more sensible. Things were really starting to slide.
I asked him what authority within the United States Constitution gave Congress the ability to pass such legislation? “General Welfare Clause” he responded. Ugh. Logic right out of a liberal playbook being played by a “conservative.” I tried in vain to explain the enumerated powers of Congress and the role of the General Welfare Clause as a modifier rather than a stand alone power. He responded that he didn’t know what the enumerated powers were. (Facepalm) Maybe I could use another drink myself.
I politely explained the limited powers of the Federal government and how the remainder was left for the states. He was fine with that as long as the Federal government could force the states to “uniformly” implement their own policies. What?!?! “If the Federal government can force the states to all be the same, you lose the ability to vote with your feet” I replied. “That’s not practical” he shrieked. “People can’t just pick up and move!” Of course they can and do. For jobs, relationships, lower taxes, etc… That freedom to escape poor policies and find greener pastures is a hallmark of American Federalism.
Ultimately our wives separated us and we went on with enjoying our day although the conversation continued to bother me. It is clear at this point that the left is winning. They have pounded their message so effectively over the last century that Marxism is now engrained in many facets of society. The uninformed and even the well-intentioned have been indoctrinated. The argument begins at the far left with the liberals and ends up compromised on the not-quite-so-far-left with the neo-conservatives.
We have a lot of work to do just to even begin to reverse this trend. Those who should be our allies are too wrapped up in politics and policies to realize they’ve been compromised. We need a revival of America’s first principles to cleanse its very soul. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get back to basics.
Over the past several months, there has been a lot of drama in the conservative circles on Twitter. If I had to pinpoint a timeframe, I’d say it all began when the news of Brett Kimberlin using SWATting and law fare against conservatives broke. You can read up on that story here: http://theothermccain.com/category/neutral-objective-journalism/the-kimberlin-files/ However, over the past month or so, sh*t has really hit the fan.
A lot of the sh*t being lobbed is aimed at one Brooks Bayne (@brooksbayne), his website, www.thetrenches.us, and his known “associates”. Why? A quick google of this man produces a mixed bag, if you will, of blogs by and about him. What we can gather is that he has been rather consistent with everything he blogs about and tweets about. He assisted in organizing the first Tea Parties and has been extremely vocal for quite some time in defense of America’s founding principles. Public perception, especially as seen by those who don’t know Brooks or haven’t interacted with him in any way, is that he comes off as “boorish”. But that’s hardly an excuse for intentional smears and defamation of him, his endeavors, and his associates.
People are out there in the twitter-verse ‘taking sides’, ‘defending’ so-and-so, ‘threatening’, ‘smearing’, etc., As for me, I am on the side of American Liberty, I am defending the truth and those so brave as to tell it plainly, threatening no one, and certainly not smearing anyone. It is not my intention to drag anyone’s name through the mud that has been slung from all corners. But I find it only fair, only appropriate, to make an attempt at clearing up some things that a lot of people seem unaware of or misinformed about.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Mr. Bayne founded this website, but no longer has any affiliation with it whatsoever, save for still being on a rarely-used email group. He did not ask me to write this. He has never paid me for anything I’ve written, nor has he had a direct hand in any of my content.
Let’s start with the website. Thetrenches.us has been up and running for less than a year. (I really don’t know exactly for how long. You know, because I’m not involved with it.) The staff at The Trenches has covered topics ranging from #twittergulag to Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser to exposing some ties that certain people have with certain other radical people. And for the most part, the group received no animosity for their hard work and diligence in holding people accountable. But when they posted this: http://thetrenches.us/2012/06/breitbarts-last-night-wherein-he-prepared-for-war-in-the-trenches-against-neal-rauhauser/ all Hell seemed to break loose. “Ooh! Did you see that?!” “What do they know about Andrew Breitbart?” “How DARE they mention Breitbart?!” And so on. That was the tipping point for a great many conservatives. This post, not even written by Brooks, ended up pissing a lot of people off. And for what? The point that was made was that Breitbart, despite everything else on his plate, was ready to combat the crazies behind the SWATtings.
Brooks Bayne, the individual, regardless of where he posts his blogs, has taken a lot of flack for far too long. The first instance that I can remember him taking any major “friendly-fire” for was his article on this site connecting Sandra Fluke to some pretty radical leftists who just happen to be big-time supporter of President Obama, and who also happen to be Jewish. And Socialist. Some Jews on ‘our side’ took great offense to the fact that there are other Jews out there who support and endorse socialism. And so Brooks became an anti-Semite overnight. I defended Brooks against those charges, and was subsequently blocked by @keder and @kesgardner, among others, I’m sure. I thought the conservatives were the tolerant ones? Sadly, Brooks seems to face a barrage of hatred from ‘conservatives’ on an almost daily basis. But when he defends himself, he’s the crazy, irrelevant, Twitter-terrorizing, anti-Semitic asshole.
Everyone associated with Trenches, or anyone who is even considered friendly with them, has been subject to varying forms of harassment, incivility, smears, and vitriol. Myself included, lately. I tried to avoid the sh*t-throwing at first. I’d chime in when someone told a blatant lie, but otherwise, focused on my own endeavors. I even went on a Twitter rant (#flbr) one day calling on ALL PARTIES involved to just walk away. Take a chill pill and call me in the morning, ya know? I have interacted, on and off Twitter, with several members over at The Trenches, and I am willing to vouch for their credibility and their characters. And so there came a point in time where I had simply seen enough.
Two people in particular have focused way too much time on smearing Brooks, The Trenches organization, and anyone who dare attempt to stand in the middle: Lee Stranahan (@stranahan) and Stevie J. West (@steviejwest). Both have gone so far as to to post libelous smears of Greg Howard, a United States Marine veteran, whose life was turned upside down a few years ago by none other than Neal Rauhauser and his ‘beandogs’.
So, why would these two have such animosity for Brooks and his pals? Well, both are former writers for The Trenches, for starters. I don’t know much about Lee’s departure, but I’ve heard that it was kind of messy, at least for him. As for Ms. West’s departure, she wasn’t happy with certain aspects of the organization, but she left on perceived good terms. She received well-wishes from all of the major writers there. It has always been The Trenches policy that writers may come and go as they please, barring the sharing of confidential information received during ‘employment’. Lee is a ‘former’ leftist while Stevie, as far as I know, has always been a conservative. No connection there. Maybe there is no connection between the two, and it’s just a coincidence that both have engaged in similar smear tactics after severing ties with The Trenches. We may never know.
Lee’s insidious behavior has been well documented, and you can see it here: http://thetrenches.us/2012/07/the-chronicles-of-strandedhan-part-1-of-n/ and here: http://thetrenches.us/2012/07/the-chronicles-of-strandedhan-part-2-of-infinity-the-dark-side/, so I won’t waste time rehashing that psycho.
For some reason, Ms. West found it necessary to to make it very public about her break-up with The Trenches. She tweeted it to public domain, and then began to play the victim card for some reason.
Now, Brooks and his pals at The Trenches were all under the impression that the break-up was mutual. She didn’t want to participate with them any longer, and they weren’t going to try to force here to stay. So, needless to say, they were completely taken aback when they saw her smears, as was I. I always had viewed her a strong independent woman who would not hesitate to school the Marxist lefties, so this was odd behavior. She began (as far as I know, this was the beginning) with accusing @foolishreporter of “bringing her kids into it”. Foolish is a father of one, and is expecting another, so he would know better than to stoop that low, right? Well, Ms. West is apparently so vain, so obsessed with her own popularity, that she assumed that this was about her, and lashed out because someone was “bringing her kids into it”.
Foolish naturally defended himself, and several others backed him up as well. But Stevie is unrelenting (just like Lee), and still holds to this day that he started it by even mentioning her kids, nevermind that as a father, he sympathized with her about what she was going through at the time.
Even an innocent observer understood what was going on.
Her attacks and smears have only escalated since. Anytime one of her followers asks, she is happy to drag every single one of these patriots through the mud. She has even stooped so low as to share a beandog-produced video with her followers, warning them to avoid Greg Howard. Greg’s only connection to the Trenches is that they have been ardent defenders of him when he is attacked by the Left, and now, even by some on the Right.
What could cause someone to carry such a grudge? Why the axe to grind, Stevie? Why do you continue to pursue this sick vendetta of yours? I asked Stevie to email me her side of the story over a week ago, before I even considered writing this. To date, she has made no effort to contact me, only to double-down on her malicious smears. It’s sad, really. I’ve always liked her. Truly sad.
Allen Ginzburg, a recent law school graduate who goes by the Twitter handle “@AG_Conservative,” penned a clumsy hit piece last week titled “Is @Brooksbayne a bigot? Here is the evidence, you can decide.” (Sorry Al, no link love for you.) In it, Ginzburg accuses The Graph founder Brooks Bayne of being an anti-Semitic bigot while making the worst attempt at feigning impartiality I think I’ve ever seen. I mean seriously, Al would make Andrea Mitchell blush.
Ginzburg’s title itself is a thinly veiled shot at Brooks that should remind us that there are no saints on Twitter. Everyone has a dog in some fight, somewhere. In this case Ginzburg has an axe to grind with Brooks, both for himself, and on behalf of his eunuchorn homies. Let’s see who our pal Al likes to hang with:
Fascinating. It looks like at least three of his #TCOT buddies also dislike Brooks tremendously and have had issues with him long before any of this “anti-Semite” nonsense ever occurred. Nothing like a little payback.
One might also come to the conclusion that there’s an agenda because Ginzburg clearly stated there was. Here he vows to squelch Brooks’ free speech and run him out of Dodge so to speak.
Interesting. Though I remember Ginzburg posting that tweet, it seems to have been deleted and only exists as RT’s. Hmm. Now we can leave the “concerned citizen alerting us to a potential threat” bullshit and move on to his further loathsome libel.
Al states in his article “Now that I have set up the background, here are some of the highlights of other things Brooks has said in the last few months that many would consider anti-Semitic along with some context for each…” I don’t know who “many” is and the larger problem here is that Ginzburg doesn’t post any context! The only thing that follows his cherry-picked excerpts is his own commentary on them. That’s not context, that’s improper characterization of evidence, Perry Mason. Context would be providing the entire conversation so readers can make their own decision, but that wouldn’t fit his narrative.
In the boldest of hypocrisy, Ginzburg lays this one on us:
Another irony is most of the people that Brooksbayne cited as his friends that prove he isn’t anti-Semitic are now some of the loudest voices regarding his offensive statements (see @JIDF…
So here we’re supposed to believe that the good, upstanding Jewish persons that once were fooled by Brooks have now seen the light and left his side. The problem is Ginzburg can’t identify anyone in this fictitious exodus so he chooses @JIDF who is a nutjob and Ginzburg knows it:
Holy deceiving dissembler Batman! First Al states that @JIDF “lies” and is “crazy” and “calls everyone an antisemite.” Then he writes about @JIDF’s loony behavior and defends Glenn Beck from charges of antisemitism in an article for RedState. Next, Ginzburg throws out every argument he just used to defend Beck and falsely attacks Brooks as an antisemite… using the EXACT same tactics he skewered @JIDF for. Finally, when Brooks jettisons the lying, crazy @JIDF from his own timeline, Ginzburg uses it as an example of antisemitism! What a casuist.
The lying and misleading continues with unsupported nonsense like this:
…you can just imagine how much more there is in his history.
…happened to several people I can think of.
…he is prone to make stuff up
(I can’t find this tweet now, and unfortunately it is the only one that I did not screencap.. but several witnesses were sent the tweet at the time and can attest to it.
Wow Ginzburg. That sloppy drivel would be called “assumes facts in evidence, hearsay, calls for speculation, and lack of foundation” Matlock.
Apparently Ginzburg also missed (during his lengthy due diligence) the post from Brooks’ Jewish friend Yaron Mordfin titled If Brooks Bayne Is An Anti-Semite, I’ll Eat My Kippah. Here’s a short excerpt:
Now, Brooks may be a lot of things, but I can say one thing for certain: he is not, and never has been, an anti-Semite. In fact, in my many debates about Israel with our mutual friends on the left, he has always been as staunchly pro-Israel as it gets. He even went out of his way to consult with a Rabbi so that he could better accommodate me and my strictly kosher diet (at the time) when I visited him for a few days.
Amazing. He consulted with a Rabbi to accommodate his Jewish friend’s kosher diet. What a monster.
I know Ginzburg read Brooks’ blog post My Savior is a Jewish Carpenter: A Mea Culpa because he refers to a few, very selective excerpts in his post. And although he may have read it, his comprehension is apparently lacking because he missed the following:
To my Jewish friends, and those in the community who’ve been observing these developments, I’m sorry if my referencing Kevin MacDonald’s book made you uncomfortable or offended. That was not my intention. However, I’m not going to give my detractors a reason to invent a false wedge of “anti-Semitism” between me and the Jewish community at-large. Counsel with my Jewish friends and family members has inspired my personal conviction in this matter, and, as such, I offer this: Mea Culpa. My war never was and never will be with you.
Gee, sounds pretty heartfelt and sincere. Might have been good material for Ginzburg to include in his post so his readers could “take this evidence into consideration.” Oh wait, that pesky narrative is wrong again. Al wants Brooks to be a one-dimensional He-Man Jew-hater. Truth be damned.
Brooks doesn’t hate anyone because of their religion or ethnicity. He does despise identity politics and using minority status to play the victim.
Wow. What a bigot. “Be individuals.” Stone him!
What would happen if Ginzburg actually read what Brooks writes, regularly, with context, and without a chip on his shoulder? He should be out defending him instead of trying to vilify him. Let’s take some of Al’s Redstate post and modify it a bit for illustration:
eight ofthe people happened to be Jews, but ALL of them were liberalsplaying the victim. More importantly they were involved with modern progressivismidentity politics either now or its start and several of them have renounced their religion. JIDFAllen Ginzburg of course is either unaware or ignores all of these facts. He refuses to consider that maybe BeckBrooks really does go after people he believes are hurting America, or ProgressivesEunuchorns. So is BeckBrooks not supposed to mention these people or his ideas if they happen to be Jewish.. this is like the Al Sharpton theory of anti-Semitism. It is hard to overplay the anti-Semite card because so much of it out there, but that is exactly what is being done in this case.
Oh the irony. Congratulations Allen Ginzburg! You are the Al Sharpton of faux anti-Semitism and @bethanyshondark is your Tawana Brawley. You make a lovely playing-the-victim-card pair.
Ultimately Ginzburg’s article that was supposedly written to expose Brooks as a bigot devolves into a tirade about pretty much anything Brooks says that Al doesn’t like.
Brooks has some very silly ideas about conservatism and the founders, most of which are untrue or very picky.
Brooks has attacked David Limbaugh several times now solely because Limbaugh has said some positive things about Romney once he had secured the nomination.
Brooks apparently doesn’t think much of bloggers
Brooksbayne also complained that neither the Obama eating dog story nor the attack on Ann Romney, two of our biggest messaging victories should be real topics.
Brooks, Brooks, Brooks, blah, blah, blah… It sounds like Al is arguing with his significant other and forgot what the fight was even about. And how dare Brooks disagree with David Limbaugh and harbor his own silly ideas. That’s Un-American! Obey!
So what does one call an individual who is prejudiced and uses falsehoods to malign people who they either don’t understand or don’t like? Hmm. I’ve got it! Allen Ginzburg is a b-b-b-bigot! In fact, Ginsburg is the worst kind of cowardly bigot. He wouldn’t have the testicular fortitude to make these baseless accusations in person so he hides behind his keyboard and tries to gun people down.
I have some advice for you Al if you’re reading this. There are a lot of differing opinions on Twitter and I will defend your right to say nearly anything you want. You can love Brooks Bayne or hate him. It doesn’t really matter to me and I’m sure it doesn’t bother Brooks either way. He can be a polarizing individual for numerous reasons but he is not in any way, shape or form a bigoted anti-Semite. Making such unfounded accusations is a tool of the left, and unbecoming of you. I suggest you publicly apologize and remove your smear post.
You’ll have to begin reading from the bottom. (It is a Twitter timeline after all)
Last night my Governor, Scott Walker, made history by becoming the first Governor in U.S. history to survive a recall election. Not only did he survive it, but he amassed even more votes than he did in the 2010 election. To do so in the state that is the birthplace of the progressive movement and hosts the “Fighting Bob Fest” is beyond impressive. Here are the takeaways:
Conservatives need to be fighters and fighters need to be sufficiently ruthless. “Sufficiently ruthless” is a term coined by Green Bay area talk show host Jerry Bader and it refers to having the will to do what is necessary. It doesn’t mean giving up your principles as the left does. Just do whatever you can legally and in good conscience to defeat the failed policies of Marxism/progressivism wherever you find them. Walker didn’t win because of position papers, he won because of the troops who went head to head with the unions and their minions.
The foundation for success hasn’t changed in over 200 years. Scott Walker reaffirmed this when he began his victory speech by thanking God and the Founders. With faith and wisdom like that, how could he loose?
Conservative politicians need to be aggressive. Walker didn’t wait to enact reforms, he immediately began implementing the changes necessary to return fiscal sanity to the state, and power to the taxpayers. But he didn’t stop there. Walker also signed bills protecting the unborn, providing lawful concealed carry, limiting unnecessary lawsuits, and establishing voter ID. Getting this work done early meant taxpayers started to realize the benefits and the left’s machine couldn’t keep enthusiasm up through the recall.
Push leftists to expose their true identities. When they finally reveal themselves it is not pretty and the average citizen will shy away from them. When feeling threatened, the left resorted to outrageous tactics such as interrupting Special Olympics ceremonies and blood drives dressed as zombies, occupying and trashing the Capitol building, fleeing to Illinois, shouting threats at fellow lawmakers, dumping drinks on politicians, and death threats.
The left is emotionally driven and dumb. They started the recall too soon, backed a loser in the primary, ran on nothing, and wasted millions of dollars. Nothing more than spoiled children having an unfocused temper tantrum. How conservatives ever let this minority group of codependent losers ever establish a power base baffles me. Be smart and be victorious.
The forces of collectivism are on the ropes here in Wisconsin and across the country. Let’s use this victory as a training tool and a springboard. Keep the heat on.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I had heard that Brooks’ recent Sandra Fluke piece caused a bit of an uproar, with people on both the left and the right flinging the anti-Semite label at him. It has taken me a little while to figure out the best way to address this, as it has clearly hit a nerve.
Over the 12 years that I have been friends with Brooks, I have heard him called all sorts of names. He also has a thick skin, so I have never seen him put any stock in what other people say about him. But, I can usually see where people are coming from. So I would say that Brooks is a bit of an acquired taste. You either like him, or you don’t. It is just that simple.
Now, Brooks may be a lot of things, but I can say one thing for certain: he is not, and never has been, an anti-Semite. In fact, in my many debates about Israel with our mutual friends on the left, he has always been as staunchly pro-Israel as it gets. He even went out of his way to consult with a Rabbi so that he could better accommodate me and my strictly kosher diet (at the time) when I visited him for a few days.
Looking at the various blog posts and tweets about the Fluke piece, it strikes me that the outrage is born of a misreading. I can see how one who reads the piece, and thinks that Brooks “is relying on the premise that there is something socialistic about Jewishness” (as Marc Tracy at Tablet does), concludes that the piece, and therefore Brooks, is anti-Semitic. In fact, I recommend you read all of Tracy’s post, as he makes a good point about how to discern the fine line of anti-Semitism.
However, this is not what Brooks has done. He is not saying that socialism is Jewish and socialism is bad, therefore Judaism is bad and anyone associated with Jews are bad. His reference to Tikkun Olam is also not proof of this. Coming to this conclusion is simply a misreading of the piece.
All Brooks has done is point out that there is a variant of socialism that has Jewish roots, and then proceeds to tie Fluke to the political circle of elite Jewish socialists. (As a side note, Jewish progressives have used the concept of Tikkun Olam to their advantage, as its literal meaning fits quite nicely with the tenants of socialism. This has been going on for a long time, and is really not new information). This does not mean that Brooks thinks that Jews are bad, etc. All it means is that a connection is there, and for all people in the political arena, connections and associations matter.
We cared that President Obama’s pastor was Rev. Wright, who is a radical that espouses anti-American sentiment, among other things, and associates with other Christians. Does this mean that we think all Christians are radical anti-Americans, and therefore that makes us anti-Christian? Of course not. It also does not make us racist, since Rev. Wright is black, although there are those who would have you believe the charge of racism.
As people in general, but as Jews specifically, we need to be vigilant when it comes to anti-Semitism. But we also need to be careful with the accusations that we make. Could the Fluke piece have been done differently and with less sarcasm (sarcasm being part of Brooks’ acquired taste)? Sure. Does that make it, and by extension, Brooks, anti-Semitic? Of course not.