Breitbart Unmasked’s Bigotry, Unmasked

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga^®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me since last December, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.  I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

For some time, the website and Twitter account Breitbart Unmasked (or Breitbart Unmask) has been part of the stalking campaign against my friends and I led by convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin.  Ostensibly set up to reveal all the supposed evil of Andrew Breitbart, it has dedicated itself almost exclusively to...  attacking Brett Kimberlin’s targets and serving as his press office as I noted in this post.  We have jokingly taken to calling this identity Not Brett Kimberlin due to his denials that he is Brett Kimberlin.

And as per my usual policy, I won’t be linking to his website.  If you decide to go to this site on your own, I suggest you use an anonymizer to do it, like this.

But it is worth taking a moment to examine the motives of this person.  And apparently a very prominent motive is, absurdly, anti-Semitism.

Passed Out at Church Today

This is from a D.C. area Catholic church, which shall remain nameless.  This represents the front and back of a little card they handed out—small enough to fit in my shirt pocket.  On the front is a specific prayer and the back is a message.

This seems obviously related to the recent concern and litigation over Obamacare.  I previously discussed the matter here.

---------------------------------------

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.

A Victory For the Free Expression Coming?

So all the legal nerds in the world tuned in to watch what Supreme Court opinions came down yesterday.  I made corny jokes on twitter, such as that “there is no truth to the rumor that the [Arizona] immigration case will be written entirely in Spanish, just to screw with us.”  But alas we didn’t get our Obamacare decision or even a crummy Arizona immigration decision (in any language) and a lot of people went back to their lives disappointed.

But there was one piece of news buried in one of the decisions that came down.  It was in FCC v. Fox, and reading over it, it had one passage that made my ears perk up.  But to understand it, I have to give you a lot of background.  Around 90% of this piece is going to be help you understand one measly paragraph in that decision, because I think it is potentially momentous.

So, to dive into that context, the Fox network and ABC had engaged in various acts of alleged indecency.  The Court explained these incidents in a way that bled all color or fun out of them, in the way only a court can:

It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the singer Cher exclaimed during an unscripted acceptance speech: “I’ve also had my critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** ‘em.” 613 F. 3d, at 323. Second, Fox broadcast the Billboard Music Awards again in 2003. There, a person named Nicole Richie made the following unscripted remark while presenting an award: “Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple.” Ibid. The third incident involved an episode of NYPD Blue, a regular television show broadcast by respondent ABC Television Network. The episode broadcast on February 25, 2003, showed the nude buttocks of an adult female character for approximately seven seconds and for a moment the side of her breast. During the scene, in which the character was preparing to take a shower, a child portraying her boyfriend’s son entered the bathroom. A moment of awkwardness followed. 404 Fed. Appx. 530, 533–534 (CA2 2011). The Commission received indecency complaints about all three broadcasts. See Fox I, 556 U. S., at 510; 404 Fed. Appx., at 534.

Of Rabbis and Gay Soldiers...

I touched on this in my last post discussing the opinion striking down Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), but one case that is particularly on point is Goldman v. Weinberger.  In that case, Goldman, an orthodox Rabbi ran afoul of regulations that would prohibit him from wearing a yarmulke.  As you may know, many Jews consider it a command from God to always keep one on, and so he was literally being asked to choose between obeying God or Uncle Sam.  We should be loathe as a society to force that kind of choice on anyone, as a matter of policy rather than law.  He sued to prevent enforcement of those regulations and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost.

I have already highlighted Stevens’ extremely deferential approach, but many on the left are claiming that in fact the judge was deferential in the DADT case as well.  Now there is no doubt she said she was, but that assertion does not withstand scrutiny.  It was lip service.  How do I know this?  Because all of the arguments she arrayed against DADT applied equally to the rule in Goldman.  Now you can read through it all and hear in excruciating detail how awful she thinks this is as a matter of police, but fortunately starting on page 74 she summarizes her points.  So let’s look at each and see how well they apply to Rabbi Goldman’s plight all those years ago.  She states that the Petitioners (the Log Cabin Republicans et. al.) have shown the following bulleted points to be true:

• by impeding the efforts to recruit and retain an all-volunteer military force, the Act contributes to critical troop shortages and thus harms rather than furthers the Government's interest in military readiness;

 Which applies applies to both orthodox jews and gay soldiers.  Check.