Posted on | February 4, 2014 | 16 Comments
Wow, time flies: The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is now barely a month away — it convenes March 6 at National Harbor near Washington, D.C. — which means it’s time for you to nominate your favorite blogs for the Blog Bash Awards.
In case you don’t know it, Blog Bash is the hottest ticket at CPAC. The whole buzz about New Media means that a lot of people who aren’t bloggers are eager to hang out with bloggers, so inevitably there is a crunch where (a) the need to make sure that all the actual bloggers are admitted intersects with (b) the ticket requests by VIPs and sponsors, and (c) fire code capacity of the venue. The Blog Bash committee has lots of headaches to deal with every year, but managing The RSVP List From Hell is arguably the worst of it.
OK, so the awards nominations: Last year, I won the Best Investigative Post award for “‘A Faint Whiff of Vigilante Hysteria’: Weinergate’s Kimberlin Connection.” In a sense, that June 2012 post was representative of the weeks I spent covering the Brett Kimberlin saga, but it was also my best one-stop effort to explain how all the pieces of that complex story fit together:
Kimberlin has been targeting Patterico since October 2010, and it was evidently [Neal] Rauhauser’s anti-Patterico blogging that brought him into Kimberlin’s orbit so that, by October 2011, Rauhauser seemed to be describing Kimberlin as his client.
As Investors Business Daily reporter David Hogberg observed at Aaron Walker’s hearing [May 29, 2012], Rauhauser is now accompanying convicted felon Brett Kimberlin to court.
Another coincidence: What do “SWATting” victims Patterico and Mike Stack have in common, other than the fact that, as Patterico himself notes, Rauhauser hates their guts?
Is Rauhauser being paid by Brett Kimberlin — with proceeds from tax-exempt non-profits — to pursue these vendettas? . . .
You can read the whole thing, just in case you forgot what kind of craziness Kimberlin and Rauhauser unleashed in 2011-2012. Notice that I was asking questions, rather than making accusations.
To this day, we still have not learned the details of the relationship between Kimberlin and Rauhauser, details that I suspect would explain a lot of what still remains mysterious.
Also, notice the use of the word “evidently” and the phrase “seemed to be.” You think I don’t understand libel law? There is a vast difference between (a) accusing someone of wrongdoing and (b) describing a reasonable interpretation of facts that anyone may observe. If there was some other explanation of the observable facts, it would behoove Kimberlin and Rauhauser to supply that explanation, rather than suing those who have reported and commented on the facts. But I digress . . .
Blog Bash award nominations are open, and this year, I would hope to be considered for my efforts in beating back the “Free Kate” movement in their attempt to create a “lesbian loophole” in Florida’s age-of-consent laws. When I first became aware of the Kaitlyn Hunt story on May 22, it seemed the Gay Victimhood Narrative was on the verge of prevailing. Mainstream media were lavishing sympathetic coverage on the accused sex offender, who was supported both by the ACLU and by Florida’s largest gay rights group. Yet key elements of the “Free Kate” narrative were false, and I took alarm at what appeared to be a sneaky attempt to use Kaitlyn Hunt as the photogenic poster girl for what Rush Limbaugh had called a movement to “normalize pedophilia.”
Less than five months later, however, Kaitlyn Hunt took a plea bargain and was sentenced to jail. This wasn’t the result of “investigative journalism,” I don’t think, but look at the criteria in the category of “Best Activism Post”:
Nominate a blog post that fostered significant activism — be it calls to Congress, people in the street, boots on the ground, etc.
Hmmm. Could the collective pushback against the “Free Kate” narrative be described as “significant activism”? If so, I think a lot of people would say I “fostered” the hell out of it, between my blogging here and my reporting at Viral Read. Indeed, I “fostered” it so well the Free Kate freaks threatened to “shut down” my blog! (Why does the Left so routinely resort to “shutuppery”?)
All right, if you want me to be recognized for that “activism,” which blog post out of the many should you nominate?
That was the fourth day (and the sixth post) of my coverage of the Kaitlyn Hunt story, in which I tried to make clear (a) how the facts of the case explained why Florida prosecutors were not willing to reduce Hunt’s felony charges to misdemeanors; and (b) why citizens should be alarmed by the misleading arguments made by Hunt’s supporters in the “Free Kate” movement:
People who care about America’s future should be angry about this case and, personally, I’m so angry I’m starting to get angry at other people for not being angry about it.
If we can’t draw the line here, folks, there is no hope at all.
Supporters of Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt are making flawed and dangerous arguments which, if we don’t argue back against them, could subvert the rule of law and bring about a culture of sexual anarchy, where school children are violated and corrupted “consensually” and parents have no legal recourse to prevent such outrageous behavior.
Are judges and prosecutors in Indian River County, Florida, reading this blog? Are the citizens of Florida reading it? Are readers concerned about the direction of our culture sharing these arguments on your Facebook pages and via e-mail with your friends?
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Will you let it be said that you did nothing?