‘You Have Misled the Jury’

The three-day Walker v. Kimberlin lawsuit trial ended Friday. Although the jury reportedly found that Kimberlin had committed falsehoods, this was insufficient to find in Walker’s favor. Kimberlin “won” the case, but not before the judge lectured the “Speedway Bomber” in a conference that the jury did not hear, but which was transcribed by John Hoge:

Don’t tell me what to do. OK? You have made the fact of the bombing case admissible because you have misled the jury by saying you were never prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced for any crime that he blogged about. And one of the primary crimes he blogged about initially, the reason he refers to you as a terrorist has to do with this bombing. I kept it out because I felt that, potentially, it was more inflammatory that it was probative, although, frankly, I felt that probative because I felt that it explained why, as you say, he’s obsessed with you. That’s a fairly unusual crime. But in trying to be fair, I kept it out. You took the stand and told the jury, basically, you had never been convicted, as I say, you’d never been sentenced, never spent time. In addition to which, you volunteered in your statement to the jury when you’re describing yourself for your background that you committed or you had some trouble or you did some things wrong when you were a juvenile. But that’s sort of all, and you referenced the perjury, that’s sort of all behind you. So you leave the jury with the impression that as a young kid you made a false statement and did your time and there’s nothing else there, which also I think is potentially misleading. . . .

You can read more about the trial at Hogewash. This verdict in this case, more than four years after I first started covering the Brett Kimberlin saga, is a Pyrrhic “victory” for the convicted bomber.

As the pro se defendant, Kimberlin was forced to spend countless hours preparing motions, etc., in effect being compelled to repay the hours of legal effort that Walker and others (including myself) had expended in our defense when Kimberlin filed state and federal lawsuits against us in 2013. And what, we may ask, has Kimberlin gained during all these years of court proceedings? Nothing of value, and certainly nothing that would compensate for the many thousands of hours he must have spent on his pro se pettifoggery. If we assume that he spent at least 20 hours week working on his various lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant, over a period of more than three years, then his legal work has amounted to more than 3,000 hours. This is a low-end estimate, as any observer might suspect that Kimberlin has done almost nothing else except pursue such pro se pettifoggery the past three years. And why?

“For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976, they took vacations of a week or longer in Disney World, Mexico, and Hawaii. Sandi couldn’t get time off from work, so on these summer trips it was just the two of them — Brett and Jessica.
“Eyebrows levitated. A drug-dealing colleague had memories of conversations with Kimberlin that struck him as odd: ‘We’d see a girl, who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this smile and say, “Hey, what do you think? Isn’t she great?” It made me very uncomfortable.’ Another recalled Kimberlin introducing Jessica as ‘my girlfriend,’ and if irony was intended, it was too subtle to register. To a coworker . . . Sandi confided that Kimberlin was ‘grooming Jessica to be his wife.’ To another, Sandi explained that although Kimberlin’s relationship with Jessica was chaste, he intended ‘to wait for her and would marry her.’”

— Mark Singer, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, Page 78

In July 2012, after I had spent six weeks covering the Kimberlin saga, the question of motive had begun bothering me. Why was Kimberlin pursuing what appeared to be a personal vendetta against Aaron Walker? And why did Kimberlin (and his various associates, including Neal Rauhauser) lash out against anyone who called attention to Walker’s plight? People who became aware of the case as a result of “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” were proposing different theories to explain Kimberlin’s actions, but all of those theories were insufficient or factually flawed.

At that time, I was being harassed on Twitter by numerous troll accounts, making all sort of defamatory accusations against me, and my friends were being subjected to similar online harassment, and why? Stepping back from the swirling madness — as I was unpacking boxes, having relocated my family to the “Undisclosed Location” — I had time to contemplate what this was really all about. Then I published a relatively brief post entitled, “When ‘Jessica’ Was 10, 11, 12,” which quoted Mark Singer’s Kimberlin biography Citizen K. Singer used the pseudonym “Jessica” for Sandi Barton’s daughter Debbie, and I summarized the reporting that Joe Gelarden of the Indianapolis Star had done in 1981:

[Debbie Barton] was 10 years old when Kimberlin, 20 at the time, entered her life in 1974, and she was 14 when her grandmother, 65-year-old Julia Scyphers, was murdered — a crime that remains officially unsolved to this day.
[Debbie Barton] had an older sister who, according to Singer’s account, seems to have objected to Kimberlin’s weird interest in the younger Barton girl. It may have been the older sister who expressed concern to Mrs. Scyphers. As Gelarden reported, Mrs. Scyphers “violently objected” to the strange relationship between her daughter, her granddaughters and Kimberlin, a notorious drug smuggler. Mrs. Scyphers had the two girls move in with her, forbade them to see Kimberlin and, reportedly, Kimberlin became so despondent over this separation from the youngest Barton girl that he threatened suicide.
Then on the morning of July 29, 1978, a man shot Julia Scyphers dead, in a crime that investigators believed was a murder for hire.
Nobody ever said Kimberlin himself shot her, but his conflict with Mrs. Scyphers over the Barton girl made him the only person with a motive to wish her dead and he soon came under suspicion by detectives. A few weeks later, a weeklong series of bombings struck the small Indiana town and, when Kimberlin was apprehended for those otherwise unexplained explosions, police believed they understood the connection: The bombings had been a ill-conceived effort by Kimberlin to distract police whom he knew to be investigating the Scyphers murder.

What seemed to be happening in 2012, it occurred to me, was a continuation of the same pattern. Since his conviction on federal charges in 1981, Kimberlin had undertaken extraordinary efforts to depict himself as the victim of an unjust prosecution. At first, Mark Singer had been deceived by Kimberlin, but eventually recognized the truth, and it is a matter of record that Brett Kimberlin sought to prevent Singer’s book Citizen K from being introduced as evidence in court.

Everything that was happening in 2012, I concluded, went back to Kimberlin’s attempt to conceal the nature of his interest in Debbie Barton. This in turn had made him a suspect in the death of Julia Scyphers which, detectives told Joe Gelarden at the time, was what they believed had inspired the “Speedway Bomber” to commit the acts of violent terrorism for which he was convicted in federal court.

So I published “When ‘Jessica’ Was 10, 11, 12” and, whenever the Twitter trolls popped up (“participating in targeted abuse”), I would just tweet quotes from that with a link to the post, and guess what? The harassment ceased, at least in that particular form. You see, what I had deduced was that the troll attacks, intended to discredit me by defamation, had the effect of drawing attention to my Twitter account and, if I responded by using this to highlight the very information that Kimberlin wished to suppress, this would defeat the purpose of the troll attacks.

Later, I was targeted by different harassment tactics, but the fact that the Twitter troll-swarm tactic could be stopped by brandishing the story of Debbie Barton and Julia Scyphers seemed to confirm my hunch about what led to this controversy. Kimberlin had spent years convincing his “progressive” supporters that his federal convictions were the result of wrongful prosecution. Yet the people who contributed to Kimberlin’s 501(c)3 non-profits had obviously never researched the question of what inspired “The Speedway Bomber.” And then, in 2010, Kimberlin made the mistake of targeting Andrew Breitbart:

Using two popular leftist blogs, the 56-year-old from Bethesda, Md., has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public and left-leaning foundations by promising to put conservatives he disagrees with in jail, often with offers of large rewards. So far — without success — he has called for the arrest of Karl Rove, Andrew Breitbart, Chamber of Commerce head Tom Donohue, Massey Energy Chairman Don Blankenship and other high-profile public figures.
A review of tax filings for Kimberlin’s blogs, “Velvet Revolution” and “Justice Through Music,” raises troubling questions about whether his “nonprofit” operations are dedicated to public activism — or are just a new facade for a longtime con artist.

Those questions led Mandy Nagy to write an October 2010 article at Breitbart.com, “Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist,” and thus set in motion a series of events — including Kimberlin’s threat to file lawsuits — which has played out over the past five years. Kimberlin evidently saw the exposure of his criminal past as a threat to his non-profit, tax-exempt livelihood, and it seemed that Kimberlin especially disliked any attention to the Debbie Barton/Julia Scyphers element of the story as reported by Joe Gelarden and Mark Singer. If Kimberlin was hoping to airbrush out of existence certain unflattering facts about himself, his hopes were in vain. Although some online materials have disappeared, and the numerous legal wranglings that Kimberlin has gone through during the past few years have produced mixed results, there is still an abundance of available information about Kimberlin’s criminal history and, the courts have been consistent in finding that it is entirely legal (not defamation, harassment, etc.) to cite the known facts. Truth always defeats the liar.



 

 

Crazy People Are Dangerous (and @scaramouche2017 Is Deb Frisch)

“WARNING: Debbie Frisch has criminal convictions for assault, stalking, harassment and threatening (while intoxicated) . . . If she grows threatening or tries to stalk you, contact San Diego Sheriff’s Department (858) 565-5200 (she now resides in their jurisdiction Encinitas / Olivenhain, California).”
— Teh Internets Are Forever, Debbie

When last we took notice of Deborah Frisch, Ph.D., the former psychology professor had been arrested again, shortly after her March 2015 release from jail in Eugene, Oregon, on charges of making a false police report. For those who don’t remember, Dr. Frisch is the moonbat whose online harassment of Protein Wisdom blogger Jeff Goldstein in 2006 got her fired from the University of Arizona. One of the terms of her 2015 conviction in Oregon was that Dr. Frisch “must complete a mental health evaluation,” and I’m sure we’d all love to see that report, if it ever becomes part of the public record.

Dr. Frisch has reportedly moved to San Diego County, California, in the past year, and I’d forgotten all about her until she decided to CC me on a series of weird emails she sent Friday, making false accusations against Instapundit and PJMedia. Why did she CC me? I don’t know, but considering that 12 other people were CC’d on Dr. Frisch’s email, and given the potentially injurious nature of her false claims, I felt obliged to reply, CCing to all, informing them of who Dr. Frisch is:

Why Doctor Frisch CC’d me on this message, I am not sure, but I reply to it (with BCCs to knowledgeable parties) to inform you that Doctor Frisch’s habit of stalking and harassing her “enemies” (as she imagines them) is a matter of public record. You may consult some of the links at this page — http://www.debfrisch.com/ — to get an idea of Doctor Frisch’s known pattern of behavior, which many observers have suggested is symptomatic of serious mental illness. While I am not qualified to make a professional diagnosis, it has long been my personal opinion that Doctor Frisch is deranged, demented, bonkers, wacky, off her rocker, and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. — RSM

Now you might suppose that, after I had thus undermined whatever credibility she might have had with the dozen CC’d recipients of her email, Dr. Frisch would have desisted from her harassment. Ah, but obviously you don’t know her kind of cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs craziness! The demented ex-professor replied with what I interpreted as a threat to make a false police report against me, and this is what I wrote in reply:

Doctor Frisch:
The wreck you have made of your life because of your paranoid pseudo-political vendettas is, as I say, a matter of public record. What inspired you to make this bizarre accusation against Professor Reynolds, et al., I do not know, and I am equally mystified as to why you would CC me on your correspondence. Were you to solicit my advice, I would tell you to stop hunting around for “enemies” to blame for your problems, which are entirely of your own making. The last time I had to give advice like this to someone, it was Barrett Brown, who subsequently flipped out, threatened an FBI agent in a YouTube video rant, and is now serving time in federal prison.
You will bring only further humiliation upon yourself, and quite possibly be subject to criminal prosecution, if you continue doing the kind of things that have caused you problems in the past.
— RSM

Notice what I did not say — at no point did I express any intent to take action against Dr. Frisch, and I have no such intention. However, it can be predicted that if Dr. Frisch continues this lunatic behavior, pretty soon someone will report her to California authorities, and put them in touch with authorities in Oregon (where Dr. Frisch’s probation doesn’t expire for another six months), and it’s going to be handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit for the kooky professor, IYKWIMAITYD.

Why is she posting this stuff on Twitter? I don’t know. Crazy is as crazy does. But if she doesn’t cease and desist from her craziness, Dr. Frisch may soon find herself visiting Metropolitan State Hospital.

 


#FreeStacy: Email to My Samoan Lawyer: Taylor Swift Is Decadent and Depraved

 

Regular readers know Bert the Samoan Lawyer, an old college buddy of mine who is now one of the leading Asian/Pacific-American attorneys in Alabama. Some people say Bert doesn’t look Samoan, but if Shaun King is black, Bert is Samoan, and he could sue you for saying otherwise. It might even be defamation to call a Samoan “white,” no matter how pale he may be, and Bert has keen legal skills that strike fear in the hearts of potential defendants. No one would dare insult Bert by calling him a cracker, and if America ever elects another Republican president, I’m certain Senator Sessions will suggest Bert as a Supreme Court nominee, right after I get that ambassadorship to Vanuatu. But I digress . . .

The #FreeStacy insanity led my old friend to send me an email today:

Totally anecdotal, but I’ve noticed that no matter how many times I visit wattsupwiththat.com, Google Now never puts anything from that site into my “stories to read.” Contrast that to I once clicked on a story about Taylor Swift because my daughter is a huge fan and now she is in my feed constantly. Also, Salon, Slate and Huffpo are always there in abundance even though I never click them.
Also notably absent despite multiple daily visits: theothermccain.

Fear and Loathing in the Information Age, so to speak. The whole world has gone crazy, I’m the subject of international news, and Google is conspiring to keep people from reading my blog. This makes perfect sense in 2016, you see, that someone like me would become a First Amendment cause célèbre, a 21st-century Dreyfuss. Was this my career goal when I was a long-haired rock-and-roll freak circa 1983? Of course not. Nobody could ever possibly plan anything as crazy as my life, even if they wanted to, which no sane person ever would. So while the #FreeStacy hashtag campaign continues, I have had some communications with leading legal minds who have become interested in the free-speech issues involved.  I’m not the litigious sort, you understand, but some of my lawyer friends are the type who would be happy to go to federal court to seek an emergency restraining order first thing Monday morning, if I just gave the word. But that’s not how I roll. My correspondence with Bert the Samoan Lawyer was just two old college buddies talking. Here’s what I replied:

Well, my Samoan friend, did you ever think back in the day that my gonzo methods would have such consequences as this? As I told my kids, “Congratulations, your Dad is a hashtag.” Of course, the #FreeStacy hashtag won’t autocomplete — although the bogus misspelled version does. No “e” in Stacy, as you know, and “blah blah girl’s name blah blah,” said every idiot who wanted to start a fight on the elementary school playground. When the going gets weird, the weirdos get me banned from Twitter.
Do I want to describe my experiences with Google? Not in writing. The NSA and DHS will have to monitor my phone calls if they want that information. Nixon was a piker compared to these Obama goons, and I’ll bet you $20 Sidney Blumenthal has Jack Dorsey on speed-dial.
Face it, Bert, we live in an Age of Fear and, as a concerned father myself, I have to warn you that Taylor Swift is down for The Agenda. Every feminist on Tumblr is certain that Taylor is dating lesbian supermodel Karlie Kloss. As a Neutral Objective Journalist, of course, I’d have to see video proof before I’d believe that bizarre rumor, but if Cara Delevingne can be gay, everybody is gay, and in 2016, any self-respecting feminist would be embarrassed to admit she is heterosexual. These young fellows can’t get their mojo working and, therefore, phallocentric domination is in a steep decline. Oh, what wonderful jargon! But I digress . . .
If your daughter is a Taylor Swift fan, you may need to intervene, Bert. A sort of “tough love” approach is recommended. Seize her laptop and cellphone and demand passwords for every app she’s got. And if she’s on Tumblr? Bad news, pal — no grandkids for you. Tumblr might as well be called the Crazy Cat Lady Training Academy. Every teenage girl on Tumblr has a mental illness (anxiety, depression, PTSD) and is either a pansexual genderqueer or a nonbinary lesbian. Dye your hair green, pierce your nose, get more tattoos than a sailor and tell your Mom that your pronouns are “xe” and “xer.” This is what it means to be a feminist in 2016, a dystopian nightmare meets pornographic fantasy. If Orwell were writing “1984” now, it would begin: “Dear Penthouse Forum …”

Taylor Swift Is Decadent and Depraved. Seriously, Bert, keep your kids away from those degenerate showbiz freaks. You never know what kind of insanity kids will stumble into, if you let them wander around unsupervised in the Internet sewer. Just a few weeks ago, I had a long  phone conversation with a fellow whose daughter turned 18, announced she was transgender, repudiated her parents as hateful bigots, and moved to another state where she was able to get free testosterone “treatment” from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Could either of us have imagined such a thing in 1983? Hell, I never could have hallucinated anything that crazy when I was tripping out on psilocybin in ’79.
Well, I’m babysitting my 5-month-old grandson, who is crying for a bottle, so I’ll have to wrap this up for now. Remember: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. And also elect Hillary Clinton, but I repeat myself.
— RSM

 

What a strange irony it is, that I am the Last Sane Man in America.

 

+ o + o +

BANNED BY TWITTER!

The #FreeStacy movement, a grassroots response to Twitter’s Feb. 19 decision to suspend my popular @rsmccain account, has received international attention. You can help support this movement by including the #FreeStacy hashtag on your Twitter messages, by retweeting messages in support of this movement, and by signing up at PublicStatus.org, which is dedicated to defending free speech rights on social media. Thanks to everyone who has helped spread the word.

— Robert Stacy McCain




 

PREVIOUSLY:

Notes on Survival Amid the Madness

 

We live in an Orwellian dystopia, where the Thought Police constantly monitor our every word for evidence of any tendency we might have to think for ourselves. We are supposed to think only what government school officials teach us to think, and expected to believe whatever the Democrat-controlled entertainment/media industry wants us to believe. If we begin to doubt — if we “Question Authority” as the old hippie bumper sticker urged us to do — we find ourselves confronted with insanity. Without a quasi-religious faith in liberalism, an hour’s worth of watching CNN becomes an ordeal, psychologically traumatizing, and MSNBC is like shock therapy, or perhaps a lobotomy.

Mental toughness is necessary to withstand the constant psychic assault we must daily endure in a world gone mad. Having spent years diving head-first into the swirling cultural vortex of a society descending into chaotic lunacy, I’ve learned the secrets of survival:

  • Focus — Keep your mind on your chosen or assigned task. You cannot cover every story or worry about every problem in the world. If you let yourself be constantly distracted by whatever Big Story is headlined on the Drudge Report or getting wall-to-wall coverage on CNN, you will find yourself whiplashed back and forth, and risk becoming disoriented and overwhelmed by it all.
  • Objectivity — No one is ever actually objective about anything. We all have our opinions. However, if we are to survive inside the 21st-century asylum, we must maintain some kind of emotional distance from the events and people we write about. I once said that, in the news business, objectivity is just a way of saying “I don’t actually give a damn about these people.” You have to imagine the daily work I did as a news editor years. Six people killed by tornados in Oklahoma? Grab the AP story off the wire, cut it down to two paragraphs, stick it in the National Briefs column and move on to the next story. “File it and forget it,” as they say. There is no time to mourn the dead or become emotionally involved with the suffering of those Oklahoma tornado survivors. Your job is not to care about them, your job is to put their stories in the newspaper. Murder, mayhem, war, famine, disease — these are just so many column-inches of news copy with which to fill the pages. Fit the headlines, write the captions, crop the pictures, and get it all done by deadline. The news business is not the Red Cross. It’s not the Peace Corps. Learning not to care is part of the job.
  • Reality — The problem of the 24-hour news cycle and the constant connection of the online environment is that we are easily tempted to think of that (the stories in the news) as “real life,” so that our own actual flesh-and-blood existence seems unimportant. More than once during the 2012 presidential campaign, I noticed how reporters at rallies were glued to their iPhones. Instead of observing the event they were assigned to cover, they were checking their emails or scrolling their Twitter feeds. To be at a major rally and see political reporters all staring into their phones was disturbing to me. What’s the point of being “on the scene” if you’re not paying attention to the scene? By the same token, now that I’m back home doing the blog thing,  I find it necessary to remind myself that real life (my home, my wife, my children) is actually more important than, for example, the problems of queer feminist artists on Tumblr. That is to say, blogging is what I do to pay the bills, thus enabling me to enjoy real life. It’s important to be able to tell the difference, or else you can’t enjoy real life at all.

All of this is preamble to discussing the #cuckservative furor that has erupted in online warfare in recent days. This is a distraction to me — at a time where I’m racing a book deadline next month — even though, on the other hand, it involves subjects which I am perhaps uniquely qualified to address as a conservative journalist. I am personally familiar with many people on what is called the “New Right” or the “alt-right.” In the past couple of days, I’ve made phone calls to some of these sources/friends, and one of them informed me of the proximate origins of the #cuckservative swarm. In the past six months, there was a bitter schism among the so-called “neo-reactionary” (NRx) online community, with purges and counter-purges. It was a multi-faction quarrel. Certain ultra-traditionalist Catholic/Orthodox activists were involved, as were various European nationalist types and futurist “singularity” devotees.

After months of this factional infighting, somehow the Donald Trump presidential candidacy — especially Trump’s controversial remarks about immigration — became a rallying point for many of these “alt-right” people and, amid this, the slur “cuckservative” was coined to describe the cowardice of mainstream Republicans.

Frankly, I’ve been paying as little attention as possible to the 2016 campaign, because (a) I spent 18 months covering the 2012 campaign so it’s “been there, done that,” (b) I’ve been busy working on the Sex Trouble project, and (c) my gut hunch is that, when the dust settles, Scott Walker will be the Republican nominee. I like Walker, who thrice defeated the full power of the Left in Wisconsin, and think he will be good enough to beat to Hillary next fall. If my hunch is correct, therefore, it will not be necessary for me to become directly involved in the fight for the GOP nomination. Walker obviously knows a thing or two about winning tough campaigns, so that if he wins the 2016 Iowa caucus, it should be green lights all the way to the nomination for him, and I don’t have to worry about it at all.

So I’ve made up my mind to ignore the campaign to the greatest possible extent and, if my hunch is correct, the Trump candidacy will ultimately prove to be a flash in the pan except for this: By proving how popular a blunt-talking “get tough” approach to immigration enforcement is among GOP primary voters, Trump is pushing the borders/sovereignty/culture discourse onto center stage. The sheep will be separated from the goats, and the Open Borders candidates (e.g., Jeb Bush) will be flushed out of their hiding behind vague talk about “comprehensive reform.”

Well done, Mr. Trump. Well done, I say.

This has happened without me having to lift a finger, and I’ve barely even commented about it. Yet this #cuckservative thing sprang up, Ace of Spades commented on it, and when I took notice, people started attacking me, as if I were some kind of Chamber of Commerce shill or RINO Establishmentarian. So I blogged about it, and the comments exploded with trolls, and among the comments I offered this explanation:

You see that racialists (of whatever persuasion) must always impute dishonorable motives to their critics. This is a mirror-reverse of the way that the Left is forever accusing the Right of racism. The fact that I have been hate-listed by the SPLC does nothing to defend me from the accusation by racialists that I am, somehow, insufficiently aware, lacking “racial consciousness.”
Caught between the Devil of the SPLC and the “deep blue sea” of racialism, I have no answer except to say that (a) I am profoundly interested in facts, and (b) I consider the conservative cause to be a defense of American liberty. On the latter point, I consider that our liberty is threatened both by cultural decline and by the remorseless expanison of federal authority. These are related, because as immorality flourishes, the people are less able to govern their own passions and to provide for their own material needs, so that government expands to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of organic institutions, i.e., faith, family and community.
As to point (a), we ought to be able to candidly discuss the facts regarding human behavior without being required to endorse any particular theory to explain these facts. For example, liberals look at facts about racial groups and attribute observable differences to discrimination, prejudice and historical oppression. Conservatives, while not denying that any of the factors cited by liberals are relevant, insist that what is important are the (equally real) opportunities available to individuals in a free and prosperous society. Even before the civil-rights revolution of the 1960s, many black Americans were remarkably successful, even in the segregated South. As a matter of fact, Thomas Sowell has pointed out that many socioeconomic measures show the black community was (generally) advancing more before the mid-1960s than afterwards. Sowell attributes the problems that affected the black community after the 1960s to the vast expansion of the Welfare State that began under LBJ’s “Great Society.”
Of course, Sowell’s analysis is more complex than that brief summary suggests, and we are under no obligation to endorse Sowell’s analysis. My point is that the Left/Right argument over the causes of racial problems in America is about ideas — it is a debate over public policy — and is not (as the Left claims) a matter of the Right’s “racism.” And really, why should it matter whether or not anyone is “racist” in any sense of that word? This word has become a mere epithet, a slur used to silence critics of liberalism, so that liberal policies can be enacted without any real debate over the efficacy of those policies.
Perhaps I am more “racist” than some people and less “racist” than others, but what does this have to do with anything in terms of debating public policy? Why are we expected to subject ourselves to a sort of public psychoanalysis where it is to be determined (by whom?) whether we pass the Not-a-Racist Test?
The attempt to debate public policy (or to discuss social and cultural problems) is not helped when you have a swarm of avowed white racialists insisting that any conservative who does not adopt racialist rhetoric (and subscribe to whatever theorythis rhetoric expresses) is a coward, a “race traitor.”
Three words: Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Just as I will not let feminists dictate to me what I can or cannot say about sex, neither will I let anyone (Left or Right) tell me what to think about race. I will say, in concession to the “New Right” (or “alt-right” as they sometimes style themselves) that they are essentially correct that discourse about race is hemmed in by artificial constraints imposed by Cultural Marxism. Anyone attempting to talk about race relations is required to tiptoe around a minefield where any false step produces explosive accusations from the Left that one has exposed his own racism. The mainstream Right frequently cooperates with the Left in this project by periodically purging someone (e.g., Sam Francis, Trent Lott, John Derbyshire) who has transgressed the boundaries of permissible racial discourse. I myself was targeted for such destruction, and miraculously survived, because I had watched what happened to Sam Francis (whom I knew personally) and learned a lot about the tactics of the Left.
Notice this: I have never apologized for anything, and this drives the Left insane. How could someone hate-listed by the SPLC manage to continue a career in conservative journalism with such remarkable success? The Left’s theory, of course, is that my success proves that everybody on the Right secretly endorses the racism of which I am accused. Yet the truth is that my friends on the Right know I was unjustly accused — that I am not the hateful bogeyman depicted by the SPLC — and so the Left is confronted with its failure to destroy me. Grant that I have been harmed by the Left’s attack, it was my destruction they had in mind, and I am manifestly not destroyed. This example of the Left’s impotence might encourage others to defy the Thought Police, and I hope this possibility troubles their sleep.

People need to calm down and get a grip. Either we are doomed, or else the American people will come to their senses. Either way, the Cuckservative Crisis is a controversy ginned up by people with too much time on their hands, and my plan is this: File it and forget it.

I am an objective journalist. I don’t give a damn about these people.




 

CASE DISMISSED!

Just got the news that Brett Kimberlin’s federal lawsuit against myself and 20 other defendants has been dismissed with prejudice.

UPDATE: For reasons I don’t understand, the court has ruled that one count of Kimberlin’s case against Patrick “Patterico” Frey can proceed to discovery. Troubling.

UPDATE II: From Judge Hazel’s ruling:

For the reasons stated above, the Court will GRANT all of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, except that it will DENY Defendant Frey’s motion to dismiss as to Count II, which will proceed into discovery. Thus, Count I (RICO) and Count III (§ 1985) are dismissed, with prejudice, as to all Defendants. The remaining state law claims (Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) are also dismissed as to all Defendants, without prejudice to Kimberlin’s right to re-file in state court, should he so choose.

So, no RICO, and all defendants except Patterico dismissed, he still at jeopardy on one count. As for the rest of us, Kimberlin could still sue everybody in state court. The problem there that Kimberlin has already sued four of us in state court and lost. Without the conspiracy claim to tie us all into a bundle of racketeers (absurd, I know, but such was the theory of Kimberlin’s RICO claim), we would all be individual plaintiffs. I doubt very seriously state court action will follow, but who knows what the Perjuring Pro Se Pipsqueak might do next?

UPDATE III: One of John Hoge’s commenters scanned through the judge’s ruling and culled out the following highlights:

he has failed

Kimberlin has failed

his § 1962(c) claim would still fail

Kimberlin has failed

Kimberlin has failed

his § 1962(c) would still fail

Kimberlin has failed

Finally, Kimberlin has failed

Kimberlin has therefore failed

and, as a result, has failed

he has failed

As discussed, Kimberlin has failed

Kimberlin has not been prejudiced in any meaningful way by his failure

Because Kimberlin has failed

Yeah. I think you get the point.




 

‘Sickening Desires’

Shakyla Wilson is charged with aggravated sexual abuse.

Political correctness is bad for the news business. Cops and prosecutors give you quotes that are solid gold? Headlines, baby.

Lesbian Coach ‘Preyed on the Innocence
of Young Girls,’ Police Chief Says

Alternately:

Prosecutor Condemns Accused Lesbian
Molester’s ‘Sickening Desires’

Do you want to sell newspapers or don’t you? The late Hunter S. Thompson said, “Nothing grabs an editor’s eye like a good rape.”

Here you have public officials offering Headline Gold, but political correctness prevents editors at the Chicago Tribune from making the most of this lurid and lucrative material:

A Naperville volunteer youth basketball coach has been charged with having inappropriate contact with one of her players at a sleepover, according to DuPage County prosecutors.
Bail was set Friday at $100,000 for Shakyla Wilson, 22, of Naperville, who is charged with one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, authorities said. . . .

(In my mind, I hear the voice of a grizzled city editor: “What the hell is this ‘inappropriate contact’ bulls–t? Stop dancing around the facts and write the g-dd–d story!”)

Wilson is charged with having sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl from Hill Middle School, where Wilson was volunteering as a girls basketball coach.
The abuse allegedly occurred Feb. 20 during a sleepover at a player’s residence, according to police. Wilson accompanied some of the girls on the team to a movie that night, and she then spent the night with them at the sleepover, authorities said. . . .

(OK, so we have now reached the fourth paragraph of the story. What then follows are another 10 paragraphs in which school officials discuss their policies for screening employees and we get all the details of Wilson’s basketball career. It is not until the 15th paragraph that we get to the good stuff.)

Naperville police Chief Robert Marshall said he was “deeply disturbed” by the allegations.
“Ms. Wilson purposely put herself in a position of influence and trust in order to prey on the innocence of young girls,” Marshall said.
State’s Attorney Robert Berlin called the allegations appalling.
“A coach’s role is to motivate and inspire athletes to be the best they can be, both on the court and off it,” he said. “Coaches are there to help athletes attain their goals, not to take advantage of the trust their position holds just to satisfy their own sickening desires.”

Read the whole thing. Never mind the sarcasm — and set aside the lesbianism for the minute — it infuriates me to see such confounded laziness in journalism. Writing is re-writing. Back in the day when I was working as a news editor, it wouldn’t have taken me maybe 20 minutes to completely re-write a story like that, which looks like the first draft submitted by a college intern. Here, try this:

A Naperville volunteer youth basketball coach satisfied her “sickening desires” by molesting a 14-year-old girl on her team during a sleepover at the player’s house, police and prosecutors say.
Shakyla Wilson, 22, “purposely put herself in a position of influence and trust in order to prey on the innocence of young girls,” Naperville Police Chief Robert Marshall said after Wilson was charged Friday with aggravated criminal sexual abuse. . . .

And so forth. Maybe the phrase “college dropout” would have appeared somewhere in the fourth or fifth paragraph. After editing the story, I would have taken a smoke break with the reporter — if I was in charge of the newsroom, smoking would be more or less mandatory — and told him to compare his original draft with the edited version. You don’t become a better writer without that kind of instruction from experienced editors when first you’re starting out. Most newsroom staffs have been stripped to the bare minimum by layoffs during the past decade, but there is no reason why shoddy efforts should be tolerated.

Now, what about the words “lesbian” and “gay” in such a circumstance? Are these words an accusation, or merely a description? Is it ethical to use such words in a headline to describe a sex crime? Ethics, shmethics. Stop pretending journalism is a Priesthood of Correct Thought. Try to remember that you are in the business of selling newspapers. Good crime reporting doesn’t have to be sensational, but there is no reason it has to be boring. The purpose of a headline is to get the reader’s attention.

‘SICKENING’ LESBIAN SEX CHARGE: COACH
PREYED ON ‘INNOCENCE’ OF GIRL, 14, COPS SAY

Law Professor Urges ‘Teach Women Not to Rape’

Obviously, you won’t win any GLAAD awards for that kind of headline, but you might sell some newspapers. Just sayin’ . . .

(Hat-tip: Aaron Walker on Twitter.)





 

Hmmm …

During a Friday hearing in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Brett Kimberlin tried and failed to persuade a judge to grant a peace order against John Hoge. During the course of that proceeding, Kimberlin introduced as “evidence” what would appear to be a deliberate misrepresentation — a printed fascimile of a Tweet by Lee Stranahan, presented as though it had been sent by Hoge, who in fact had merely RT’d Stranahan’s message.

Aaron Walker discusses the hearing and the evidence. As readers may have noticed, I haven’t blogged much about the Kimberlin case lately. (My most recent post about the case was Sept. 25.) The explanation is simple: I’ve been up to my eyeballs in radical feminism and resolved to pay as little attention as possible to the Perjuring Pro Se Pipsqueak. My motion to dismiss Kimberlin’s absurd federal RICO suit is among several such motions pending, and we await the court’s decision.





 

Well, This Happened

Readers may recall @HollyRFisher as the mom whose Facebook image holding a Chick-fil-A iced tea in front of Hobby Lobby made liberals’ heads explode in July 2014. Her stand for religious freedom made her the target of rape threats from “tolerant” liberals, and conservatives responded with the #IStandWithHolly campaign.

She was soon appearing on national TV as a conservative heroine. Suddenly being thrown into the spotlight was apparently a disorienting experience that nearly destroyed her family. Her personal problems were entirely private, however, until somebody decided that gossip should be news. For reasons known only to himself, Chuck Johnson of GotNews.com applied his skills as an investigative reporter to expose Mrs. Fisher’s affair with a videographer named Joel Frewa.

Really, Chuck? Was this necessary? Did this serve any legitimate journalistic purpose? At a certain level, I can understand the logic here. Democrats are the party of lies and perversion and, as antagonists of such evil, conservative journalists are quite eager to report the typical Democrat behavior of Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Terry Bean, Joe Morrissey, et al. So when we become aware of Republicans behaving like Democrats, conservative journalists are thrown onto the horns of a dilemma, faced with two choices:

  1. Do we report the story?
    or
  2. Do we ignore it, cross our fingers and hope that the misbehavior of these Republicans doesn’t turn into a damaging scandal?

The answer is almost always Number Two, and we sometimes feel like awful hypocrites for staying silent. More than once, I’ve become aware of shady behavior by people on “our side” and kept it to myself, only to see the scandalous truth subsequently blazoned in headlines at Politico or some other liberal outlet. Well, OK, this is how the partisan game is played: Liberals expose Republican scandals and conservatives expose Democrat scandals, and it is not my job to help liberals do their work.

Is that cynical? Sure, but a certain amount of cynicism is necessary to be able to maintain your sanity in this crazy business.

The world if full of misery and wickedness, and if you let it get inside your head — if you start taking the news too personally — you’ll end up either in a looney bin or lost in the bottom of a whiskey bottle.

One of the best investigative reporters I ever knew drank himself out of a job and, after he’d wrecked his own personal life and professional career, he decided to blame his misfortune on his former colleagues. I had never thought of him as anything other than a friend nor ever did him any wrong, and I knew nothing of his problems (divorce, alcoholism, etc.) until he popped up on the Internet falsely accusing me of anti-Semitism (!!!) as part of his misguided quest for vengeance. My friends knew better than to believe that fool’s spiteful lies, but real harm resulted from his heinous libels against me and others.

Chuck Johnson’s erratic judgment reminds me of that guy, and also reminds me of myself. Having a “loose cannon” reputation as a journalist can be a lot of fun, and I know that one of the reasons this blog has been so popular (about 3 million page-views annually) is that gonzo factor: “What kind of dangerous craziness is McCain going to get himself into today?” When I dive into a whirlpool of insanity — the Kentucky census worker story or the Kaitlyn Hunt story — people know that I’ll not only find the facts, but I’ll report the facts in a way that is entertaining.

Chuck Johnson is an arrogant young hotshot, and I recognize something of myself in him, both good and bad. His story about Holly Fisher is the bad side, a serious error in judgment that a lot of people will probably never forgive. Here’s the key point: In the war of politics, Holly Fisher is a civilian volunteer.

Until July 2014, she was just a mom with a Facebook page. Thrust onto the stage in the middle of a national controversy, she could not have anticipated how the semi-celebrity world of political activism can make people think that the rules don’t apply to them.

Oh, the stories I could tell if I ever decided to start telling stories. Let’s put it this way: Drunk people act like drunk people, without regard to partisan affiliation or political ideology. Furthermore, the Law of Large Numbers applies here. If you send X number of political activists out on the road for Y number of days — traveling to conferences and campaign events, staying in hotels, going to bars and restaurants together — it is inevitable that, as the numbers X and Y increase, so also will the number Z, representing the amount of non-marital sexual activity. Avoiding temptation in such environments is an acquired skill and as for resisting temptation when people fail to avoid it? Oh, the stories I could tell.

BREAKING: REPUBLICANS HAVE SEX
Developing . . .

Fortunately, you’ll never click that banner link at Drudge and find my byline on the story, because my sources trust me to know the difference between gossip and news. There are stories that I can never report, because my sources swore me to secrecy. Gonzo journalism can’t work any other way. Sane people are always suspicious of reporters, and if you want to get close enough to the story to learn the real truth, you have to demonstrate to the people involved that you can be trusted not to report everything you know. There is an implied contract between a reporter and his sources in that kind of situation, as simple as four words:

NEVER BURN YOUR SOURCES.

If somebody is giving you the inside lowdown on a story, not only must you give them an ironclad guarantee of their anonymity, but you cannot report the story in a way that hurts your source. There are professors of journalism who would certainly be horrified at the kind of ethical compromises that are sometimes necessary to the day-to-day business of finding the truth, but to hell with professors of journalism. My sources quite often are also my personal friends, and my personal friends know that it’s against my religion to pay a bar tab.

Ethics, schmethics: As long as what I am reporting is factual, how I get the facts is my own business. It’s certainly nobody else’s business who’s paying for my beer, but if I have any say-so in the matter, you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll be gone before the bar tab arrives.

The journalistic ethics of free beer is, however, only tangentially related to the grievous wrong Chuck Johnson has done here.

As Donald Douglas says at American Power, “we’re all fallen. We’re human.” One thing that keeps conservatives from getting involved in politics is because they know that the liberal media will use anything — e.g., Michelle Duggar’s lesbian sister — to try to undermine the reputations of patriots who stand up for American values. Democrats have no compunction about using character assassination or terroristic intimidation tactics to silence their opponents. Should conservative activists also have to fear such tactics from Chuck Johnson?

Why on earth would a political “civilian” like Holly Fisher be considered a fair target of this kind of treatment? Ethics has nothing to do with this. Johnson’s story cannot be justified as journalism because it cannot be justified as morality. Who was Chuck Johnson’s source for this story? Who tipped him off? You can search Twitter and make a few guesses, but Chuck Johnson is obligated to protect his sources, which means that if anyone manages to figure out where Chuck Johnson got this story, that is also Chuck Johnson’s fault.

Once upon a time, I was on the phone with someone who asked my advice on whether they should publish a sex-scandal story.

No, you can’t report that, I told them, and explained why: It’s a one-source story. Even though you know it’s true — your source provided you with documentation that confirms their story — you can’t report it, because the person whose reputation you would destroy will immediately be able to figure out where you got it. Your “anonymous” source will lose their anonymity as soon as you publish this story. Unless you can get another source who is able to confirm the facts (and it would be helpful if at least one of your sources was willing to have their name in the story), you’ll just have to let this go. Such was my valuable advice.

Anonymous sources are a two-edged weapon, and reporters have to think very hard about these things. The more serious the accusation involved, the more important it is to be able to obtain independent verification of what the source tells you. And there are inevitably going to be occasions when you invest a lot of time developing a story — a story you know is absolutely factual — that you can’t publish because you just can’t get it sourced properly.

Now, some of my friends will criticize me for even noticing Chuck Johnson’s story about Holly Fisher, much less linking his story, but I’m going to link it here just once so that if readers want to go see for themselves, they can learn why you don’t publish a story like that.

Once upon a time, I had a story that was nailed down cold, but I never contacted the subject of that story until after I decided not to publish it. If I had decided the other way, the damage to this person and their family would have been irreparable, but I had the facts nailed down cold and I was this close to clicking the “publish” button when I stopped. I realized that as evil as this person was (and trust me, the left-wing evil was strong in this one), innocent people would also be harmed if I clicked “publish.” So I decided against it, and sent them an email explaining my decision.

What was the result of my kindness? This person told their friends that I had “threatened” them, when in reality I’d done them a favor and had offered them some friendly advice.

See, if I could find this particular set of scandalous facts — confirming the scandal so clearly that I didn’t even need to ask this person for an explanation — certainly any other good reporter could confirm it, as well. You keep doing what you’re doing, I told them, and somebody else is sure to discover these scandalous facts and decide to report the story. I didn’t click “publish,” because I’m a Christian. On the other hand, I explained, some people in this business are not Christians, and I sure would hate to get scooped on a story this juicy.

Not a threat, just an explanation. If the person on the receiving end of that email told their friends they had been “threatened,” so they could pretend to be a victim of right-wing malevolence, so what? Let them save face by claiming victimhood, because I knew the truth, and there wasn’t a damned thing they could do to stop me from clicking the “publish” button if I ever changed my mind. Plus, I know a lot of reporters who would have run with that story in a heartbeat if I had sent them my copious files of documentation. I’ve still got those files, and the draft version of that story I didn’t publish? Yeah, one click is all it would take.

The decision not to publish a story is one that every journalist must learn to make. It’s frustrating to spend hours or days chasing after a story and then have to decide that you’ve just wasted your time in pursuit of a story that either (a) can’t be properly confirmed, or (b) just isn’t worth reporting. Chuck Johnson made a bad decision on his Holly Fisher story. This is certainly not the first bad decision he’s made lately, but it’s likely to hurt him worse than any previous bad decision he’s made.

The world has gone crazy: Islamic terrorism in Belgium, civil war in Yemen, Miss Israel taking selfies with Miss Lebanon, and yet Chuck Johnson has nothing better to do with his time than to report on the private lives of Tea Party moms? Are you kidding me?

Holly Fisher writes about her experience:

My life crumbled. My marriage crumbled. I lost my faith in God. . . .
I have suffered from depression and anxiety most of my life, only recently telling my family about it, but after being at my lowest, my darkest, and literally about to end it all, my daughter started laughing. My sweet, angelic baby girl toddled into the room while I was sitting on the edge of my bed, and she was squealing with delight.
Right then and there I knew I needed to get off my butt and get on my knees. My daughter, along with God, saved my life. I regained my ability to pray after a few long nights of my husband squeezing me tight and helping me realize that we are a team, we are best friends, we are partners, and no matter how lost we’ve been in the past, we can survive anything.

God bless you, ma’am. And thank you for your graciousness as we are all reminded of some very valuable lessons about life.