Posted on | November 2, 2013 | 51 Comments
It’s kook stuff: “calculated sabotage by Republicans,” a phrase redolent of Stalin-era Soviet propaganda blaming problems on “saboteurs,” and then totally throwing down the rhetorical gauntlet:
The GOP faithful then kept up their crusade past the president’s reelection, in a pattern of “massive resistance” not seen since the Southern states’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
Whoa! Hold on there, Sparky! The Department of Bad Analogies just issued a recall on that sentence, which is part of an emerging pattern of Wrong History as Political Journalism. First it was James Fallows invoking John C. Calhoun, then it was Colbert King invoking Jefferson Davis, and now Purdum goes all Brown v. Board on us?
Instead of trying to gin up invidious racially charged comparisons like this, maybe liberals could actually enlighten their readers by making the apt comparison to FDR’s National Recovery Administration, an unworkable anti-competitive price-fixing scheme that was eventually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
But Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States isn’t taught in schools the way Brown v. Board is taught, and our nation’s press corps is full of clever half-educated liberal fools like Todd Purdum who can’t distinguish between their partisan prejudices and objective fact.
By the way, you may be wondering, who is this Todd Purdum guy?
The name rang a bell, and he only joined Politico three months ago, but he had a long, rich history of liberal bias before then. Of course, he’s an Ivy Leaguer (Princeton, ’82) and worked for the New York Times, becoming White House correspondent in the 1990s before marrying Bill Clinton’s first press secretary, Dee Dee Myers. Purdum left the Times in 2005 and joined Vanity Fair as national editor, where he established a reputation for blatant unfairness. His savage attack on Hillary in 2008 inspired Bill Clinton to denounce Purdum:
“He’s a really dishonest reporter,” Clinton said during the tirade that followed, according to Fowler’s report. “And I haven’t read (the article). There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy.”
Reminded that Purdum is married to his former press secretary Dee Dee Myers, Clinton responded in part: “That’s all right — he’s still a scumbag.” The former president added: “He’s just a dishonest guy — can’t help it.”
Clinton went on to observe: “It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it. But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away — because they know exactly what it is — this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history — and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”
The Slimy Dishonest Scumbag Todd Purdum — hey, just quoting a Democrat because I’m all about bipartisanship, see? — went on to publish one of the most hateful Palin Derangement Syndrome outbursts ever to make print, notorious for this paragraph:
More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy” — and thought it fit her perfectly.
Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she’s a paragon of humility compared to our thin-skinned self-regarding Narcissist-in-Chief.
As I’ve previously noted, however, in career fields where liberalism enjoys hegemonic dominance — including academia, the entertainment industry and especially journalism — being a liberal is an acceptable substitute for any virtue. In such environments, if a coward wishes to be praised for “courage” or a liar wants to be lauded for his “honesty,” he need merely be a dutiful outspoken liberal, and he will be showered with encomiums. Just as the wretched drunken womanizer Ted Kennedy was awarded laurels as a heroic champion of women’s rights — Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment — so it was that Politico‘s hiring of the utterly despicable Todd Purdum was celebrated in July by editor-in-chief John Harris:
Todd S. Purdum, who over 30 years in journalism has fashioned a deserved reputation as one of the most perceptive reporters and elegant stylists of his generation, is coming to POLITICO in September. . . .
Todd will maintain a strong affiliation with Vanity Fair. As a contributing editor, he will continue to write longer profiles and historical essays on its pages. POLITICO will be his home for the wealth of more in-the-moment reporting and observations that are in Todd’s head and his notebook at any time. Todd, Graydon Carter at Vanity Fair, and I all believe this will be a winning arrangement from every perspective.
It’s magic: Any mendacious scumbag can be transformed into a “perceptive reporter” and an “elegant stylist,” merely by being liberal.
Posted on | November 2, 2013 | 33 Comments
The long-awaited movie version of Orson Scott Card’s classic science fiction tale Ender’s Game hit the theaters today, and since I’ve been waiting to see it since the short story was first published, I went to see it this afternoon.
tl;dr: Beautiful and sad and horrifying and wonderful.
For those of you who have not read the book, well, shame on you. On the other hand, you’ll be surprised by the endings, so you have that going for you…to boil it down to its essence, the plot revolves around young Andrew “Ender” Wiggin, third child and (so far) most successful trainee in a program that seeks out pilots, commanders and other crew for the International Fleet, a global effort to strike back against the Formics (commonly referred to as “Buggers” in the book, but not in the movie) who attacked Earth some fifty years ago, destroying most of China and killing millions before being driven off. Ender is selected for Battle School by Colonel Graff, where he learns to fight and lead in zero gravity as training for his future role: commander of the IF’s attack fleets. Graff drives him mercilessly, manipulating Ender and his classmates so that Ender becomes a lonely but razor-sharp player of the Battle School games…at which point Graff orders him to Command School and introduces him to his enemy: the legendary Mazer Rackham.
Anyone who’s read the story (or its expansion to novel length) will not be surprised by anything in the movie, although extensive cuts were clearly made to keep the length down to two hours while still preserving the essential elements of the plot – and I suspect changes were also made to avoid blowing the whole budget on special effects. So we miss amusing moments like Ender’s transfer to Rat Army and his introduction to his new commander “Rose The Nose”; we miss the whole political subtext largely carried by his brother Peter and sister Valentine; we miss a lot of the battles that make Ender the hard, manipulative, lonely commander that he becomes. Changes are also made to the Command School portion of the story, but I’ve probably ruined enough of the movie for the purists as it is. The cast does an excellent job, from Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff and Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham down to Asa Butterfield as Ender, and whoever cast Viola Davis as Major Anderson deserves a medal. Nonso Anozie as Sergeant Dap is another excellent casting choice, and the kids all turn in good performances.
Unlike the regrettable Starship Troopers Ender’s Game is mostly true to its source, and if you go in with the expectation that it will largely reflect that source, then I think you’ll probably be happy. Me, I think I’m going to try and see it again while it’s still in theaters, though if the 4 PM show I attended was any indication, it’s going to be around for a while.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | 59 Comments
Multiple sources have confirmed Paul Ciancia, 23, of Pennsville, New Jersey, has been identified as the gunman in the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport. Pete Williams of NBC News characterized Ciancia as motivated by “strong anti-government views” and a lot of us who have seen this media pattern for years just rolled our eyes.
Subsequent reports indicate the young gunman was suicidal, and left a note referring to police as “pigs.” We’ll see. Patience.
UPDATE: From NBC’s Philadelphia affiliate:
Paul Ciancia, 23, grew up in Pennsville, Salem County, N.J., according to Pennsville’s Police Chief. He’s been living in Los Angeles recently, but authorities are not sure for how long. . . .
Police say the shooter’s brother got a text message from Ciancia on Friday saying he was thinking about taking his life.
The brother contacted Pennsville Police and around 1 p.m. Pennsville’s police chief called Los Angeles Police to do a well-being check on Ciancia, police said.
Los Angeles Police went to Ciancia’s apartment. The man wasn’t there, but his roommates told police everything was fine, authorities said.
UPDATE II: More than two hours after the last update here, and the stream of information has slowed to a trickle. The latest Associated Press account has the fact that the shooter’s father owns an auto body shop in New Jersey. Hours have passed since Pete Williams of NBC reported that Ciancia had “strong anti-government views.” This characterization evidently came from an FBI spokeswoman named Lourdes Arocho. But reports compiled at The Daily Mail don’t indicate any real political motive.
This seems to have been just another quiet weird kid who flipped out on a suicide-by-cop trip — except he wasn’t killed.
He was shot several times, but survived. The general media silence about the gunman’s motive suggests to me that Ciancia’s reported “anti-government views” were, basically, just crazy-talk.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | 20 Comments
As Twitter prepares to issue company stock to the public, investors are trying to size up its future in the social media universe. The microblogging site has a critical flaw anchoring its prospects. Unlike Facebook — which requires members to submit their real names and email addresses when joining — Twitter lets anonymous louts romp through otherwise intelligent conversations.
Thus, it’s become a haven for “trolls” leaving false, nasty and/or moronic comments. Would advertisers want to go near an often foul user experience? . . .
[A]bout 85 percent of the nastiest stuff . . . would simply disappear if participants had to attach their real identities to their words. Numerous news organizations have already banned anonymous comments. Twitter can do likewise.
Harrop is very close to the target, but not quite on it. The problem is not anonymous accounts, per se. The problem is a failure of Twitter to identify and permanently ban certain users from their service, despite repeated and specific terms-of-service violations.
A week ago, Melissa Brewer abandoned her @catsrimportant Twitter account after victims of her harassment exposed Brewer’s 2006 prostitution conviction, which involved a 19-year-old sex offender who was arrested and charged with being her pimp. This was newsworthy because Brewer had been involved in the “Stop Rush” boycott against Rush Limbaugh, had put out a “hit list” against conservative bloggers including Sister Toldjah and Darleen Click and, in June 2012, had encouraged deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt’s harassment of Kimberlin target Aaron Walker.
Brewer quit her Twitter account, and Neal Rauhauser evidently took it over, using it to smear, harass and threaten various of his enemies, including the defendants in [convicted bomber Brett] Kimberlin’s lawsuits.
What’s bizarre and perplexing about this is that most people simply cannot imagine someone as dishonest as Neal Rauhauser — the digital sociopath who is adept at deception, and who is especially skilled at creating falsehoods intended to discredit those who expose his malicious activities. Unless and until you have been targeted by Rauhauser, it is difficult to understand what he does, and because what he does is so complex and objectively crazy, any attempt to explain it to others tends to make you sound like a paranoid lunatic.
- June 17, 2012: ‘Scrubbed’ Writings Show Kimberlin Associate Neal Rauhauser’s Obsessions
- June 20, 2012: ‘Person Management’ for Wackjobs: Rauhauser’s Methods of Deception
Those two posts include Rauhauser’s explanations of his own motives and methods and I urge you especially to pay attention to Rauhauser’s writings about “persona management”:
We often feel we’re being clever in constructing a persona but we generally fail miserably due to time constraints. We’re always goal oriented when in character and that is an instant tell to those with situational awareness. If you don’t have time to “be” someone else and remain in character your results will be limited. . . .
Commit to trying to run a persona for a while if for no other reason than to understand what will and won’t work; your situational awareness will be dramatically enhanced. Stick to it until it becomes second nature and you can simply disappear when needed, or protect your friends from unwanted attention with a fog of disinformation.
Simple question: Who does this, and why?
The complex deception involved in creating an online “persona,” the statement that Neal is “always goal oriented when in character,” and the advice to “simply disappear . . . with a fog of disinformation” certainly raises questions of motive: If you’re doing something legal and honest, why the need for such elaborate deception?
True to his sociopathic personality, however, Rauhauser creates news lie to conceal his old lies, explaining his actions by reference to the alleged malice of his enemies. If you do not understand how profoundly dishonest he is, or if your political sympathies are such that you buy into the accusations Neal makes against his enemies, you may be tempted to believe his cover stories. If you keep in mind what Rauhauser wrote about creating a fog of disinformation,” however, you know his explanations cannot be trusted.
With that in mind, then, look at what Neal Rauhauser wrote in August on Twitter’s development bulletin board:
I have a serial harasser who has had four accounts over the last three years. She’s directly mentioned my unique combination of first/last name at least two thousand times and most of the rest of her tweeting involves organizing others to harass me. This isn’t just name calling — I’ve deleted a Twitter account with a Klout in the mid 70s, changed careers, moved twice, faced frivolous criminal charges in two states from other crackpots she’s manipulated into believing I did something to them, a group I used to volunteer for faced an intrusion late last year, and last fall one of my neighbors was swatted. I’m pretty sure I was the target of the false report, as they had the right apartment number, but had transposed the last two digits, causing the raid to hit a guy across the street from me.
Gee, why would a totally innocent person be targeted by “a serial harasser”? A bulletin board commenter helpfully explains:
No, what Neal Rauhauser did was use Twitter to manipulate elections in 2010 and three people busted him doing it. Now he’s blaming everyone who knows about it or talks about it as being the one name he can’t find. The other two have already been SWATTED, harassed, employment screwed with and this man even followed one guy’s wife to work and video-tapped it. Then he put the video up on Youtube but quickly privatized it after someone told an FBI Agent on LA Weekly when that guy made an appearance to tell everyone that the FBI is not Neal Rauhauser’s boogeyman.
In my own case, Neal Rauhauser first mentioned me because I’m a friend of Patrick Read, who busted Neal in 2010. Again, he accuses his target of being someone he has stalked in the past and justifies that as a reason for mentioning me. He then gets his buddies to repeat it, over and over and over, no matter how untrue it is, because repeating it 10,000 times must make it true.
Remember Twitter, this is Neal Rauhauser, the man who falsely accused Mike Stack of hacking Anthony Weiner and embedding his privates into the former Congressman’s YFrog account. Mike Stack was then SWATTED and could have been killed.
This is the same guy who is threatening @Bullyville in DMs that he may also be SWATTED if he doesn’t back off people Neal likes.
If any criminal or civil charges are happening here, they are against this perp. He has outstanding warrants and an FBI Investigation on him. But instead, he’ll come here and have the balls to ask Twitter to help him harass people some more.
Maybe Twitter should go look up the complaints made to them about this guy and if my feeling is correct, they’ll find a long TRAIL of abuse reports.
You can and should go read the whole thing, including the comments from other people testifying to Rauhauser’s activities. The claim that Rauhauser used “Twitter to manipulate elections in 2010″ is an exaggerated description of the episode known as “TwitterGate.”
What is true is that Tea Party activists were obscenely harassed on Twitters by a group of accounts that were in communication with Rauhauser. Neal referred to the harassers as his “beandogs.” At the time, Rauhauser was part of a Democrat campaign consulting firm, and boasted that his speciality was “solving problems in the social media work space for political campaigns and causes.”
After the “beandogs” harassment was exposed, Rauhauser started deleting accounts and — can you say “fog of disinformation,” boys and girls? — convinced Adrian Chen of Gawker that it was just a harmless prank: “Hahaha, silly paranoid teabaggers!”
Unfortunately for Neal Rauhauser, there are people who were witness to the “beandog” harassment, and one of them is “Zapem,” the person Neal describes as “a serial harasser.” This is the exact opposite of truth: It is Neal who has relentlessly harassed her.
In the three years since “TwitterGate,” Rauhauser has gone on to other equally notorious activities (you really should investigate that “Gaped Crusader” episode) creating new enemies for himself, all of whom wonder why Twitter can’t just ban this creep. And considering the nature of his activities, including connections to the Anonymous hackers that Rauhuaser has boast about, others wonder why the FBI can’t do something to stop his online harassment.
So I put @FromaHarrop’s Twitter handle in the headline, knowing that she would see multiple re-postings of this — a sudden burst of activity in her “mentions” timeline — and wonder, “Who is Neal?” Last time I checked, he was using the @catsrimportant account, but whatever you do, Ms. Harrop, don’t listen to that sociopath.
“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)
Those who have withstood Neal Rauhauser’s harassment for months, or even years, know what good advice that is. In a characteriztic symptom of a disturbed personality, when Rauhauser is exposed as victimizing others, he invariably claims that he is actually the victim, and then proceeds to allege all manner of evil against those who have exposed him. It is inaccurate to say that Neal Rauhauser doesn’t give a damn about the truth. In fact, he actively hates truth.
“Facts don’t matter, that’s the perception of the situation, and the world is going to act on that basis.”
— Neal Rauhauser (“Gaped Crusader”), Nov. 26, 2011
Pray that someone can do something to stop his war against truth.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | 41 Comments
You can’t keep your insurance if you like it under Obamacare because you’re too ignorant to understand what’s good for you.
That’s the argument we’ve been hearing from a lot of folks on the left; an argument that pivots from “common good” to soft authoritarianism.
Obamacare is about coercion not choice . . . It was forced on Americans even though a majority opposed it. . . . Obamacare is about crushing the choice we have in health care.
What’s happening is an “end justify the means” argument that is, as usual with such argument, fundamentally flawed. If the end you seek to achieve is genuinely beneficial, you should be able to persuade people to achieve it via honest, peaceful and lawful means.
The very fact that people resort to dishonest, coercive or unlawful means to achieve an end should cause us to question whether the end they seek to achieve is actually beneficial, or whether there is some ulterior motive — a hidden agenda — to their policy.
The minute you say “ulterior motive” or “hidden agenda,” it sounds like you’re proposing a paranoid conspiracy theory, which isn’t what I mean at all. Rather, I believe the basic motive of Democrat support for ObamaCare was not a matter of policy, but politics. The arguments made for it were dishonest because they were motivated by politics, rather than by actual concern about health care.
When people are willing to lie persistently and routinely to achieve their objectives, you can be sure their objectives are not good.
Some people hate freedom. Some people hate America.
We call these people “Democrats.” Don’t vote for them, ever.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | 40 Comments
Talking dirty to minors, just like Miley Cyrus “twerking” on MTV or Janet Jackson having a “wardrobe malfunction” during prime time, is constitutionally protected free speech, the highest criminal court in Texas ruled Wednesday.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a section of a 2005 law that banned adults from sexually explicit online communication with children.
That means soliciting a person under the age of 17 for sex remains illegal, but talking dirty with a child is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
(In other words, perverts can send anything they want to minors, as long as they avoid a narrow definition of “solicitation.”)
Judge Cathy Cochran, who penned the ruling, said the law “may protect children from suspected sexual predators before they ever express any intent to commit illegal sexual acts, but it prohibits the dissemination of a vast array of constitutionally protected speech and materials.”
The opinion centered on a Harris County case in which a 53-year-old man was accused of sending sexually explicit text messages to a teenager with an intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire.
(And we all know that protecting this stuff is exactly what the authors of the First Amendment had in mind, right?)
“It’s unclear whether the messages are serious or whether he was joking around,” said attorney Grant Scheiner, who represented the man. “Nevertheless, he got charged with a crime.”
Because the court tossed out the law, the charges against the man have been dismissed.
(Perverts who like talking dirty to teenagers are all moving to Texas now. Anthony Weiner could not be reached for comment.)
The court’s ruling said the 2005 law makes illegal a “whole cornucopia of titillating talk or dirty talk” but would also outlaw online discussions of other sexually explicit content including famous works like “Lolita” “50 Shades of Grey” “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” and Shakespeare’s “Troilus and Cressida.”
This absurd false equivalence — comparing a pervert’s text messages to works of literature — is indicative of how a devotion to intellectual abstraction has corrupted the legal community. The intent of the legislature was both clear and legitimate: To protect minors from the corrupting influence of perverse adults.
As with any other law, police, prosecutors and trial courts all have discretion in regard to enforcement of such a law. At each step of the way, from the moment potentially illegal communications are brought to the attention of law enforcement until a trial jury renders a verdict, officials and citizens are empowered to exercise their own common-sense judgment about whether the communications violate the law, and whether the person sending these messages acted with criminal intent. Sure, the defense attorney says his client was just “joking around” and, not having seen the messages at issue, let’s stipulate that the content was ambiguous. But doesn’t the fact that someone (the teen or the teen’s parents) complained to the cops indicate that whatever this 53-year-old creep said to this kid was something the average Texas citizen wouldn’t want someone saying to a kid?
This is not literature. This is not a novel, a play, a movie or a TV show. These are private messages between an adult and a teenager. Does the Texas court mean to prohibit the exercise of common sense?
Legal beagles among our readers can examine the court’s decision in Ex Parte John Christopher Lo and explain, in common-sense terms, why the court ruled unanimously to strike down the law.
The court seems to be making an argument that other laws, presumably constitutional, could be applied against genuinely harmful communications with minors, and that the specific law the court is striking down has some particularly erroneous provision.
Please discuss this in the comments.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | 10 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Big victory for AG Greg Abbott, pro-life movement
Internal Notes Show Only Six People Signed Up For Obamacare On First Day
CMS “war room” notes released by House investigators
Amid NSA Spying Revelations, Tech Leaders Call For New Restrictions On Agency
Facebook, AOL, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple sign letter to Senate
25% for schools and enforcement, or 8% like beer?
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Crude Oil Off Slightly In Asian Trade From Weak US Demand, Additional Libya Supply: NYMEX $96.34, Brent $108.87
Manufacturing Strengthens From PRC to ROK
Time Warner Cable Loses Subscribers, Open To Deals
Fannie Mae Sues Banks Over Alleged LIBOR Manipulation
Treasury Loosens Rules For Health Savings Accounts
Wall Street Ends Session Lower But Posts Gains For October
Google, Samsung, Others Sued By Holder Of Nortel Patents
Google Mum On Mysterious Floating Barge Project
Apple Confirms iPhone 5S Battery Problems
Ubisoft Follows EA’s Lead, Axes Online Passes
Google, Oracle Workers Enlisted For Obamacare Tech Surge
“This is a great city to cover baseball in because of you.”
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Katy Perry “Wants a Normal Relationship” With John Mayer
“I’m going to go on dates and movies and dinners and when I do it’s not because I’m trying to garner any kind of publicity, it’s because it’s something that is just an inevitable byproduct of this life.”
Israeli Air Force Hits Syrian base; Inspectors Seal Chemical Weapons
Five IDF Soldiers Wounded, Four Hamas Gunmen Killed In Gaza Tunnel Fight
German Lawmaker Says Snowden Willing to Testify In Merkel Snooping
Furious Jakarta Hauls In Aussie Ambassador Over Spying Claims
Russia Sees Syrian Peace Talks By End Of Year
Japanese, Russian Defense Chiefs to Meet On Security Coordination
Nations Fail To Agree On Antarctic Marine Reserve
Pumpkins “Stuffed With Cocaine” Seized At Montreal Airport
BLOGS & STUFF
First Street Journal: The “Ongoing Investigation”
Stephen Crowder: Obama’s Halloween
Dead Republican Party: Newspeak Translations For Conservatives
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Another Liberal Stooge Loses His Insurance Thanks To #ObamaCare
Proof Positive: Oh Say! Can You See?
Doug Powers: Megyn Kelly vs. Rep. Frank Pallone On Obamacare – If You Like Your Obfuscation, You Can Keep It
Twitchy: “The Definition Of Hate” – Sally Kohn Suggests Ted Cruz Is A White Supremacist
American Power: #Obamacare’s Ugly Authoritarian Problem
American Thinker: Stick A Fork In Obama
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Obamacare Watch – The Israeli Health System
Don Surber: Halloween Scoreboard
Jammie Wearing Fools: Judicial Watch – Obama Henchwoman Lois Lerner Illegally Gave Taxpayer Info To FEC
Pat Dollard: Top Hospitals Opt Out Of Obamacare
Protein Wisdom: Debunking The Debunkers – Yes, Obamacare Rate Shock Is Real
Shot In The Dark: Grounds For Panic
The Jawa Report: Ministry Of Boobies, Spooky Edition
The Lonely Conservative: Pelosi Says Getting Your Insurance Canceled Is For Your Own Good
Megan McArdle: Everyone Wants To Go To Export Heaven
Deadline to submit links for this weekend’s FMJRA is midnight tonight.
Posted on | October 31, 2013 | 33 Comments
Because the previous post strung out to 1,500 words — highlighting Neal Rauhauser’s role in the harassment of Mike Stack — I neglected to ask an important question about Rauhauser’s June 2, 2011, “Stranded Wind” post at Daily Kos: Why did Neal tell this lie?
Congressman Anthony Weiner was stalked, set up, smeared, and this was coordinated to protect Clarence Thomas from scrutiny.
You see that this is 18 words of pure, deliberate falsehood.
Neal Rauhauser tells lies like that habitually and routinely. This is just one randomly selected lie among thousands, but look at it again:
What could possibly be Rauhauser’s motive for telling that lie? I mean, we now know conclusively that Weiner was never “stalked,” “set up,” and “smeared,” right? Anthony Weiner was guilty, guilty, guilty.
Neal Rauhauser knew this, too. He is not stupid. He knew very well that Weiner sent the Tweets that Weiner was accused of sending.
There was no “set up.” There was no “smear.”
Neal just lied and made that up, but look at the second half of his lie:
. . . this was coordinated to protect Clarence Thomas from scrutiny.
“Coordinated”? By whom did Rauhauser say this was “coordinated“?
We see a steady flow of similar crimes – illegal taping, attempts to tap a Senator’s phone, now intrusion into a Congressman’s social media profiles, and the one thing in common? Andrew Breitbart, who is operating a continuing criminal enterprise as defined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act aka RICO.
And now this gang, this conservative media mafia, has done a hit on a U.S. Congressman, and it’s one carefully timed to protect corrupt Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from scrutiny, and the timing of the delivery was flawless.
This is obviously false, and obviously Neal Rauhauser knew it was false. The “timing” of when Anthony Weiner tweeted that photo of his bulging crotch was entirely up to Anthony Weiner, and so Neal Rauhauser’s deliberate falsehood is preposterous. Yet there it is:
“Andrew Breitbart . . . is operating a continuing criminal
enterprise . . . [which] has done a hit on a U.S. Congressman
. . . carefully timed to protect corrupt Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas from scrutiny.”
This is a lie, and the question is: Why?
No one has ever backed Neal Rauhauser into a corner and demanded that he answer for all the lies he told about WeinerGate, I have focused here on exactly one of those lies, for a reason: It was in that June 2, 2011, post that Rauhauser threatened Mike Stack.
Three weeks later, Mike Stack was SWATted.
A week after that, Patrick “Patterico” Frey was SWATted.
What do Mike Stack and Patrick Frey have in common?
Somebody needs to ask Neal Rauhauser a few questions.
« go back — keep looking »