The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

It’s about Fascism: Why Everyone Should Eat At Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday

Sorry for the blog absence.  Non-blogging life has kept me busy and some illness didn’t help.  But I want to make time to say this.  You need to eat at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday.  Liberal, conservative, you need to do this.

Liberals had been complaining that Chick-Fil-A is too conservative for a while now.  The first hint is that they are actually closed on a Sunday.  Seriously, who does that anymore?  Most retail and dinner establishments are open at least for a while every day of the week, but not those rebels at Chick-Fil-A.  And then its President, Dan Cathay, poured kerosene on that slow burning fire by saying that

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

Cathy explains that the company that his father created and the one that he now runs is possible because of family and the support that families offer.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that … We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy said.

Well, that needless to say infuriated many gay rights advocates, and even fairly conservative or libertarian types I respect deeply like Gabriel Malor.  And while I just kind of wish we could choose where we eat based on what tastes good at a good price, a boycott like this is part of the ordinary ebb and flow of politics.  Each person decides what is important, what is worthy of boycott and they carry it out.  A boycott is a form of protected expression that I only wish we had more respect for, even if I am sick of every meal being a matter of a cause.

But then things went further than that.  Chicago City Alderman Joe Marino said more or less, “that’s a nice restaurant chain ya got there.  Shame if something happened to it.”  Okay, what he actually said is contained in this passage:

On Wednesday, Moreno did not dispute that Cathy had the right to say what he said. But, Moreno said, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you’re not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.”

Chick-fil-A has obtained a zoning permit for the restaurant but needs approval from the City Council to divide the land, Moreno said. And in a city where the City Council rarely go against the wishes of the alderman, Chick-fil-A needs Moreno’s help.

Got that?  You have a right to freedom of speech, but then if you do, we will use the law to harm your business.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to dress this up as a simple matter of economic management:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel expressed similar sentiments to the Chicago Tribune, which first reported Moreno’s efforts this week. He said the comments “’’disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents,” and therefore building the restaurant in Chicago “would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

Really, Rahm?  You think that you know the market better than the people at Chick-Fil-A do, who are actually gambling their money on this?  Doubt it, and I doubt that this was based on any study, but instead based at best your gut reaction and at worst a cheap attempt to dress up punishment for speech as something else.  And even if it was based on the most scientific study, the reality is the whole thing is based on the estimated effects of speech on sales, and thus it is still viewpoint-discrimination.

Which means that this attitude goes as high as the White House level.  Or do you think he just gained this lack of appreciation for the First Amendment since he left his job as Chief of Staff?

And while Alderman Moreno then tried to dress it up as a concern for discrimination, that is post hoc rationalization.  When he first discussed it, he clearly was angry at Cathay’s expression.  And do I have to point out that these men are angry at Cathay for... agreeing with the state of Illinois?  Gay marriage is not recognized in that state, you know.  So right now as we speak surely gay people are arguing that they should have the right to get married in Illinois, and Rahm and Moreno want to punish people economically when they say gay shouldn’t have the right to get married.  Well, that is one way to win the debate, isn’t it?

Meanwhile in Boston “Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city.”  I suppose that since gay marriage was forced down the people of Massachusetts’ throat on a ridiculous claim that the founders of their constitution intended to require gay marriage, at least Menino has the virtue of disliking Cathay’s disagreement with official state policy.  But that doesn’t mean that Cathay doesn’t have a God-given right to disagree with that state constitution (however twisted by their supreme court).  Thankfully Mayor Menino has since backed down but if his city ever denies a single permit to Chick-Fil-A, he has opened his city to obvious First Amendment litigation.  Meanwhile I myself saw the Mayor of San Francisco tweet out the following:

Some have complained when I highlighted this that there was no direct threat to take official action, but the law and ordinary people are not that stupid.  When the mayor of a city tells you tell you to stay out of town, it carries a threat of official action.  That is why public officials have to watch what they say.  It’s the price of the job and the power they have eagerly sought.

Of course I kept waiting for the ultimate fascist mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to say something stupid, and...  amazingly he didn’t:

Bloomberg, meanwhile, took to the airwaves in Gotham and said he’d welcome Chick-fil-A into Manhattan with open arms. The billionaire businessman-turned-New York mayor said Menino, along with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee, are wrong “to look at somebody’s political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city.”

Which is weirdly...  exactly the right thing to say.  So for a moment I was impressed by Bloomberg finding a limit to his fascism.  Then I remembered: among fast food restaurants, Chick-Fil-A is probably one of the healthiest places to eat by my estimation.  So my guess is his fascistic desire to regulate your heath overcame his general fascism.  I mean this is a guy who goes beyond the nanny state to the full-on nursing state, so I think it is fair to say that is where his true obsession lies.

So a number of conservatives have suggested that we do a “buycott”—essentially the opposite of a boycott—where everyone intentionally goes to Chick-Fil-A and gives them their business to show their support this Wednesday.  I admit I wasn’t terribly interested in that when the only issue was Cathay’s support for traditional marriage, going back to my belief that every meal shouldn't be a cause.  But this isn’t about that any more.  This is about Mr. Cathay’s freedom of speech, and well, that’s kind of an issue with me.

So whatever you think about gay marriage, I ask people that believe in freedom of speech to come to Chick-Fil-A and order something this Wednesday.  Show these petty fascists that this kind of bullying actually helps the businesses they seek to punish.  In other words, give them the benefit of the Streisand Effect.

And the good people in those communities need to run these people out of office.  They need to show less tolerance for those who are intolerant of differing views.  Because it is elementary but apparently too many people just don’t get it: freedom of expression is essential to democracy itself.

They syllogism is simple, but it bears repeating:

1.         The right to vote implies the right to choose freely on every subject relevant to that vote.
2.         The right to choose implies the right to receive information and hear arguments about that choice.
3.         We cannot receive information and arguments about the choices we make in our democracy unless people are free to express themselves.
4.         Therefore freedom of expression is essentially to democracy.

And so when an official seeks not only to regulate behavior but even opinion and expression, then that person is seeking to create a very real tyranny, to strike at democracy itself.  And we should have absolutely no tolerance of that.

So yes, even if you support gay marriage—hell even if you are gay—get a sandwich at Chick-Fil-A.  Because this isn’t about gay marriage anymore.  This is about freedom of speech.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  As you will see by the time I am done telling my story that this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.


  1. It's now about freedom of speech, thanks to the idiot mayors. But it's also still about gay marriage as well. And a boycott is reasonable not because those are the views of Chik-Fil-A management, but because they do make donations to political entities that fight against gay marriage so every time you spend money in one of their restaurants a few fractions of a penny go towards what I strongly consider to be the wrong side of that fight.

    My plan was to boycott, but I can't stay away. It's just too yummy. So this Thursday (not Wednesday) I will go get me some Chik-Fil-A for lunch, and then I will also donate exactly that same amount to Equality Texas and thus eat my sandwich without the side of loathing with which it would otherwise be served.

  2. I still don't get how anyone thought it was a good idea to move from general boycott (something people usually agree is a legitimate tactic, in principle, but may not agree with in this particular case) to using the force of government to silence and punish speech (something no one should agree is a legitimate tactic). You think politicians would be better at politics.

  3. First of all, let me say that I don't agree with what the various city politicians are threatening to do. Obviously, censorship via withheld permits (etc) by local (or state, or federal, for that matter) isn't kosher. That said, Chick-Fil-A is a big company with (undoubtedly) a legion of lawyers, and is more than capable of taking care of itself. Yes, it may be more expensive and cumbersome having to go through the motions, but it can create just as much mischief for these politicians if they are delving into the shady side of things. Particularly since it seems to be fairly partisan (and make no mistake, for the most part gay rights is more partisan than any other social issue I can think of except for abortion) vote-mongering. If any of these politicians were to follow through on their threats (extremely unlikely), then I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon to crucify those politicians.

    However, I don't think that Chick-Fil-A should get special consideration otherwise. Frankly, even though I have no dog in the fight (read, I'm not gay, nor do I know anyone personally that is openly gay), I consider the fights over gay marriage and other gay rights to be a human rights issue. Ten or fifteen years ago, the same groups that are actively fighting gay marriage were actively fighting to make homo-sexual rights illegal (as in, commit sodomy, and go to jail) and legitimize older laws to this effect. I think Chick-Fil-A should be vilified by the public for their stance, and more specifically the stance of the owner. Boycotts are legal just as legal as other forms of expression, and if the CEO/Founder of Chick-Fil-A wants to speak out (in both speech and donations to anti-homosexual crusaders) about his beliefs that people of a certain sexual orientation should have less rights then the public is entitled to give less business (and money) to his organization. That is the way the country works.

    In short, vilify any government agent that tries to follow through on threats, but in the absence of anything more than threats I hardly think that Chick-Fil-A or Cathy deserve support from opponents of their speech. If you want to support such distasteful (in my opinion) speech, or just don't care enough about it to let it affect your fast-food buying decisions, then so be it. I will probably buy Chick-Fil-A less often, but I don't care enough about the issue to completely cut them out unless/until Cathy says something more offensive.

    To a certain extent it is analogous to my thoughts on your situation. I come from the moderate independent section of the political spectrum, and tend to lean conservative on economic issues and liberal (more libertarian, to be honest) on social issues. As such, I highly disagree with a ton of your views and political ideals as you seem to be a staunch social conservative. However, you have the right to say/think what you want and I find Kimberlin's tactics abusive and thoroughly reprehensible. So, even though I disagree with you on virtually every stance, I support you in your battle vs Kimberlin (which is why I poke my head over to this blog once a week or so). Even though I support you on that, doesn't mean I hold up your thoughts and ideals as worthwhile.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

  4. How I wish we had a Chick-Fil-A here..

    Glad to see you up and around..

  5. I couldn't agree more. As a regular diner of the Christian Chicken, I'm doing my own "buycott". I will eat at CFA every day this week, and twice tomorrow. I'm thinking about going for the tri-fecta though, since they serve breakfast. I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but I am with you in standing up for freedom of speach.

  6. I'm with you on the Boston and Chicago incidents, but I think that to lump Mayor Lee in with them, one has to read too much into what he says. Whatever meaning he intended--and I agree that he might've intended to be threatening official Mayoral action to block Chick-fil-A from locating in San Francisco, and even that if he was intending to threaten the use of Mayoral power, he intentionally chose his words carefully so as not to be held accountable for the threat he was making--he did not make a threat clear enough to warrant lumping him in with the other two officials in the other two cities. There are other possible meanings, and you're choosing the most damning one, and attacking him for what you think he meant, probably.

    Mostly this is a disagreement of opinion--you read one thing into his tweet, and I read another, and neither of us has any definitive proof--or will ever have any, unless the Mayor says something more to clarify the meaning of that original tweet (and even then, he could be walking back his original statement, right?)--but you're also suggesting that what he said--what you believe he said--is a violation of law.

    I don't think so. I don't think there is any law under which one can be prosecuted for what folks believe a person meant in a statement as unclear as his. (And even if there were some way to prove he actually meant he would take official government action, I question whether there would need to be some overt act--or some showing that Chick-fil-A suffered some quantifiable damage, at least--before a case could be brought against Mayor Lee.) But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...

    And while we're on the subject of law, I'm still perplexed by your cite of Virginia v Black, and your suggestion that one can find "the law of what counts as a threat" as a part of that decision. As you may've read, all I found when I perused the thing was the cite about "true threats," which involve clear expressions of the intent to commit unlawful violent acts. And if you're reading THAT into what Mayor Lee said, well, I'd be very surprised.

    I'm a little worried about the accusation of Mayor Lee in terms of free speech, as well. If your interpretation of his meaning is wrong, you're defining down what an attack on free speech actually is--and chilling the speech of those who would disagree with Dan Cathy, or with those who would defend him (I'm sure you recognize how being casually accused of a crime can put a crimp in one's speech)--and I think that's very dangerous.

    Finally, I'm certainly not going to agree that the verbal overreach of a couple of elected officials--which they already backed off from, in the face of a whole lotta pressure from, well, almost everyone--constitutes an attack on free speech that would cause me to advocate for eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the name of striking a blow for the first amendment.

    I'm pretty sure that Chick-fil-A will see a good size bump in their business for a little while (and on Wednesday, for sure). The thing is buycotts tend to be short-term. People do their duty and make a point of making those purchases for a little while, then life sets in, and the McDonalds is a half a block closer, and... people in the buycott start purchasing like usual, again.
    The customers Chick-fil-A gains will almost certainly give the company a bump, short term. The customers they lose over this issue will likely never come back.

    That said, I sincerely hope you enjoy your chicken, sir.

  7. It's safe to say that if Rahm and the liberal mob want to make Chick-a-fila a bad investment they can and will. Well-written, you should consider contributing to a new website my friend is building called:

  8. The real problem isn't with Rahm or Mereno; at least they've made their taste for tyranny plain. The problem is that it's a fair assumption that there are millions of Democrat elected officials and bureaucrats out there who aren't saying a word. But every time one of them has to decide on a license, or performs a health inspection, or exercises their authority over us in any of a myriad ways, we have to seriously consider that if we exercise our right to free speech or religion and it comes to their attention, they can screw with our lives in a myriad of ways.... and send men with badges and guns in the dead of night on no-knock raids with the right to kill us on any pretext they can come up with.

    And no one has to specifically tell them to do this in any given case, but once it's clear who's "the enemy", the knights are loosed on the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Don't think it can happen here? Gibson Guitars got raided over illegal Indian Rosewood; Martin Guitars didn't. Wonder why.....


    "When warrants as ridiculous such as these are issued and executed, there appears no other reason than because the company or individual at hand is being targeted, not because there is any sort of wrongdoing. As a company, Gibson is a legendary. They’ve done nothing wrong, except, apparently, deigning to have a Republican CEO.

    The plot thickens, however.

    One of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The C.E.O., Chris Martin IV, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the past couple of election cycles. According to C.F. Martin’s catalog, several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood.” In case you were wondering, that is the exact same wood in at least ten of Gibson’s guitars."

    Do you really think that any of Chicago's myriad of inspectors will be unaware of Rahm's remarks when they schedule and perform an inspection of a Chick-Fil-A.... or Farrakhan's restaurant?

  9. Two more questions for ya... Why are these few Democrat officeholders who overreached an example of "liberal fascism," especially given the far greater number of Democrats and liberals who spoke out against what they threatened? Why focus on the negative, and generalize about liberals based on them, rather than focusing on the many liberal first amendment heroes, and maybe generalizing based on them, for a change...

    And dude... You did away with my "link to this post," below... How come?

  10. I'm still shaking my head. Cathy's comments were so "not" controversial. He was clearly making a simple statement as to the reason Chikfila still closes its doors each Sunday. I seriously doubt he had any idea of the bomb his speech would ignite. Had anyone else said this, (not a strong Christian), it would not even have raised an eyebrow. Not a bit provocative! Boston's mayor is a moron. I don't het the LGBT agenda... Shove it down our throats..and why? Why do you (not you Aaron) give a damn what I think? I don't mug down with my husband in public. Why do LGBT? Why is it so important to force others to accept you? I think this was lame! Another marketing opportunity for LGBT to fly their flag and create dialogue..accomplishing...? Get a life guys! I get why conservatives had Appreciation Day..because the gay community leaders were attacking Chikfila and Cathy. They act surprised when idiotic plans backfire..