In Reply: Avoiding torture and cruelty has nothing to do with who they are or what they do... It's about who we are...

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Anonymous says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:58 pm

You dolt. This barbarous:

“A jury found that on June 3, 1999, Clayton Lockett and two co-conspirators, Shawn Mathis and Alfonso Lockett, broke into the Perry, Oklahoma, home of Bobby Bornt. They assaulted Bornt before burglarizing his home for drugs. While they were at Bornt’s home, two 19-year-old women arrived. The men repeatedly raped and assaulted one woman, whose name is withheld as a victim of sexual assault, before loading Bornt, Bornt’s 9-month-old son, Stephanie Nieman, and the other woman into Bornt’s and Nieman’s trucks and driving them to a rural location in Kay County.

Bornt testified that he heard Clayton Locket say, “Someone has got to go,” before he put Nieman in a ditch dug by Shawn Mathis and shot her twice. He also testified to hearing the men laugh about “how tough [Nieman] was” when she did not die after the first shot.”

My reply:

The reason we avoid torturing our country's enemies and cruelly punishing those who break our laws--even when those enemies and lawbreakers have shown that they torture and are intentionally cruel to others--is because we are not them. Our American, religious, and human values and ideals prevent our giving in those animal instincts, and we've made laws to prevent our doing so when tempted. The people who don't do that--who can't control those base instincts and do torture and otherwise behave cruelly toward others...well, they're the very people whose eyes and teeth you're talking about pulling out, aren't they...?

Avoiding torture and cruelly has nothing to do with who they are or what they do, Dr. Douglas... It's about who we are... Who we are, and who we strive to be as Americans and as human beings...
—

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 6:26 am

In Reply: I condemn Cliven Bundy's racist remarks, Donald Sterling's racist remarks, and the commentary of those who try to explain away or excuse the bigotry of either of them.

Revised and extended, in reply to this untitled post at No More Mister Nice Blog:

Donald Douglas has been mad since Cliven Bundy exposed himself, and has been desperate to turn the tables ever since. How desperate? THIS desperate: Sick Leftist Jamelle Bouie Attacks Alleged Racist Rancher as Demonic 'Cloven' Bundy.

In Douglas's hate-filled partisan mind a simple typo becomes a demonization of Bundy. (Some may recall how he did the same thing when he saw a kid holding a "Sasquatch Is Real" "protest" sign in NY. Intentionally or not--and I'm willing to accept not, though that doesn't change anything--he misread the sign as "Sasquatch Israel," and then spun a myth out of thin air that this kid was an anti-semitic liberal, and that his sign was saying that like Bigfoot, Israel does not exist. For those who don't know or remember the story, yeah, this really happened.)

As with "Sasquatch Israel" of years past, bitter partisan ideology trumps reason and logic and even good sense. Jamelle Bouie's hitting the "o" instead of the "i" right next to it--typing "Cloven" instead of "Cliven"--is not just a typo, but the writer literally L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y demonizing the racist rancher. (Why he's not "cowing" the rancher, I don't know.) And as with this Donald Sterling story, Donald repeatedly sent tweets alleging this "Cloven = the Devil" meme to seemingly every single Slate employee he could find a twitter handle for, demanding that they respond. Then he sent more tweets to every one of his conservative allies, hoping that they'd back him up. And then for good measure, he did all that again. I don't think anyone bit on the "Cloven" smear, and so far it's only the real partisan hacks who're nibbling on this one too. (That may change, and it won't surprise me much if it does...but "Sterling as Dem torchbearer" is still just as ridiculous and desperate an allegation as "'Cloven' typo exposes Dem demonization.")

Donald Douglas is desperate to turn those tables and find some racist or bigoted Democrat with which to tar all Democrats. Personally, I think the donations from 20 years ago is kinda thin gruel on which to hang one's hat. (How's that for a mixed metaphor...) But even if Sterling is or ever was a Democrat, so what? Anyone who claims that any one Democrat or Republican represents ALL Democrats or Republicans is an idiot.

I condemn "Cloven" Bundy's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of those who tried (and are continuing to try) to excuse them or explain them away.
I also condemn Donald Sterling's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of anyone who tries to excuse them or explain them away...should anyone actually do that, that is…
And in both cases, I don't care which party or political movement the people saying or defending the bigoted remarks come from...

One set of standards for friend and foe alike...
---

Posted Sunday, April 27, 2014, 12:05 AM

In Reply: "However wrong some folks might've thought Ms. Zerlina's opinion was, laying into a black woman by saying she was "cry[ing] like a freakin' little black baby whose mom's too busy with a crack pipe to pay her any mind." is far more likely to cause people to defend her rather than to disagree with her."

In reply to American Nihilist: And Then I Met a Man Who Had No Feet, discussing this post.
---

Whenever I read blatently bigoted or offensive posts like his I wonder whether the people who write and post them realize that the only people applauding are other bigoted offensive people. Everyone else is disgusted.

And even if these people really believe what they're saying, and think they're speaking "hard truth"--and sadly, I suspect that some of 'em really do--I cannot believe that they don't realize how badly they're alienating themselves from everyone who isn't an offensive bigot...or alternatively, that they just don't care.

I mean, I guess we on the left should be happy... This is no way to get normal, decent people to join the conservative movement, or even the Republican party. However wrong some folks might've thought Ms. Zerlina's opinion was, laying into a black woman by saying she was "cry[ing] like a freakin' little black baby whose mom's too busy with a crack pipe to pay her any mind." is far more likely to cause people to defend her rather than to disagree with her. To the extent people outside of the bigoted Right read posts like these, it's probably a small win for the Left, but speaking for myself, I'd rather not win at the expense of the individuals and groups these bigots verbally beat up on...
---

Posted March 11, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Links:
American Nihilist: And Then I Met a Man Who Had No Feet

@ZerlinaMaxwell Should Never Be Threatened for Making Stupid Comments, But That's No Excuse for Stupidity (Read the comments. Wow.)

X-Post: Someone Call The Right-Wing Metaphor Police

link

I'm sure they'll all be suitably outraged... (or not).
---

Links:
Ben Shapiro's New Book 'Bullies' Out Tuesday

Twitter / benshapiro: Tomorrow, #Bullies is available in stores. Left about to get punched in the mouth. http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998 …
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

X-Post: that guy sez -- "It's just a good teaching thing"

link

1) I don't want to cast any aspersions here...but I'm virtually certain that the ad service Lawyers, Guns and Money uses targets the ads to the reader... (there was even some chat about it in the comments there, recently). The fact that this guy saw what he calls "Southeast Asian jailbait" when he went to the site probably says more about him and the cookies on his computer than it does the bloggers at LGM. I'm just sayin'...

2) Does the guy really not understand the difference between the ads added to a post by a third party advertising service and pictures added by the blogger himself, or is this just another bit of willful ignorance? This isn't his first foray into this particular kind of stupidity. (which was suitably answered at the time by fellow nihilist, brother Kevin: Hypocrisy, Thy Name is [that guy's name].)

3) Contrary to LGM or Roy, the guy himself posted the risqué shots on his own blog--a blog that--at the time--he was recommending that his students read, saying "I recommend my blog for students to read, on a voluntary, non-assignment basis. Occasionally I'll pull up an academic post in class as a lecture launcher -- and actually, THAT'S A GOOD TEACHING THING!!" (He seems to think that the fact that he has since stopped recommending that his students read his blog--perhaps because of the incident where someone contacted the college about the photos on his blog, though he does not ever actually say so--somehow absolves him of the argument against posting college-age girls in skimpy outfits to a blog you send your college-age students to read, rather than suggesting that it was not, in fact, appropriate behavior. I leave it for the reader to decide for themselves...)

[his blog]: National Security Expert Thomas Ricks Gets 'The Best Defense' Intel at GSGF

“Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” - Lawyers, Guns & Money

[his blog]: The 'Hotness Gap' Just Too Much for Illiterate English Professor Scott Eric Kaufman!

4) And that's to say nothing of the fact that "Courtney" was running a "scam" on "her" readers (including our guy, who obviously took it kinda hard), and wasn't exactly who she said she was, even...so who knows whether "Lauren" even knows "Courtney" or that either really was of age at the time the pix were taken... (And holy shit... I don't remember those 2 comments (#1, and #2) from "Courtney" herself, s-l-a-m-m-i-n-g the guy hard at that post, either... Damn... That was some kinda take down, and right in keeping with how he treats conservatives--and especially female conservatives (to the extent we can even trust that much about ol' "Courtney")--who don't adhere completely to his ridiculous ways of thinkin'. I'm kinda surprised he even dared to leave those comments posted...)

5) And finally, there's this:

(Yeah, he added the "The owner of this blog neither necessarily uses nor endorses the products advertised on this site" disclaimer, since--which to me, kinda proves he understands the difference between blog owner content and ad service content, though your milage may vary on that point--but it was there, then...and without any disclaimer...)

I'm sorry, but the behavior and thought processes of that guy makes it very hard to take anything he posts very seriously...

...and yes, this is a post discussing something he said that isn't about me... The first I've posted in quite awhile. (I wonder if he will now think he has PROOF!! that I'm harassing him, finally, and get on the internet to complain go to his lawyer to sue call out the feds to arrest me for hurting his feelings... I wouldn't be surprised...by any of it)
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Asshole, indeed.

"Right. It's what they always do, because we wouldn't want to make any "sweeping generalizations" or anything. Assholes."

When you know you're making an asshole of yourself (and even say so in your post), but do it anyway, you leave little doubt that you are an asshole. But at this point, does anyone expect anything less from this crazy fuck?

Yes, there is a possibility that maybe these two drug addicts may've walked through an occupy site once, twice, or even camped out for awhile. But Occupy didn't call for or encourage drug use or bomb making, either explicitly or implicitly. Whatever illegal or outrageous things a relatively small number of possible Occupy participants or hangers-on said or did, at no time did the Occupy movement call for or encourage violence, vandalism, or bigotry. And yes, it is a sweeping generalization to attribute whatever crimes these two drug addicts may've committed to everyone in the Occupy movement, especially seeing as no one is even accusing them of committing any crimes at or on behalf of the Occupy movement. The guy knows all this...but in his zeal to attack everyone and everything with which he disagrees, he simply does not care that he's making a fool of himself by trying this cheap rhetorical dodge. In fact, he seems kind of proud of it, actually pointing out his own sweeping generalization.
---

You know... I do suspect that there may be something different going on with [this guy]... Several of his posts from late December seemed ripe for one of these obsessed mentions of his, but didn't include any...almost conspicuously didn't include any. Even the crazy post above doesn't mention me by name.

Maybe it's just coincidence...but maybe it's not. I opted not to say anything at the time, hoping the creep was choosing to turn his life (or at least, his bile-fueled cannon) around, but now that he's lashed out again, I see no reason to refrain from speculation. Either way, I'll keep documenting the guy's obsession for as long as he keeps lashing out...but his behavior of late do seem odd...

Occupy American Power!! (because this blogwhore is still obsessed with 1 "occupy" tweet I posted November 23, 2011.)
— J. Casper (@repsac3) January 3, 2013

ADDED: [his blog] Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Aaaaand, the all-too-predictable double-down, wherein he cites one other supposed "Occupy" tweeter (speaking against capitalism, this time, as though that has ANYTHING to do with his previous post about the two drug addicts and potentially violent criminals who--according to Murdoch's New York Post, anyway--may've somehow had something to do with an Occupy protest somewhere somehow, maybe...), and pretends that that one tweet somehow proves everyone who supports the Occupy movement is a criminal I mean, communist, and thus substantiates his earlier crazy-assed post. (Maybe the guy really doesn't understand what a sweeping generalization is... These posts sure make it look like he doesn't... Maybe I'm overestimating the poor guy's intelligence...)

---
Links:
Harvard Grad, Occupy Wall Street Activist Busted on Bomb-Making and Weapons Possession Charges

Occupy wherever you are

"occupy wherever you are"

Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Obsessed much?
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

A Dishonest [blogger], Smirking

"Should he be fired for this? Of course not."

Bravo. Well said.

Perhaps I'd be more bothered by efforts to get Loomis fired if I hadn't been on the receiving end of identical efforts by his co-bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money and by his ideological allies in the progressive ASFL fever swamps.

Isn't that exactly why [that guy] should be EXTREMELY bothered?

Isn't he espousing one set of standards for himself and another for those with whom he disagrees, or are--in his mind--guilty-by-association with those who have wronged him in this way?

And putting the two quotes together, is the saying it's alright (or "alright, so long as it's someone in some way associated with someone else who did a similar thing") to attempt to get someone fired for what they say online, so long as the attempt is ultimately unsuccessful?

"And as regular readers know full well, Walter James Casper III used his blog, with his co-bloggers, to post my contact information and exhort his readers to contact my college."

Still, as always, factually untrue. I have never posted the guy's college contact information (though I may've linked to posts where others have--including posts at the guy's own blog--in the course of discussing why it's ethically wrong for others to post or use it against him), and have repeatedly spoken out against every single person--no matter their political ideology--who has posted his workplace contact information, used his workplace contact information to complain about anything he's ever done online or off, or suggested that anyone else use his workplace contact information to do so, either.

I did not delete the post (or any/all comments expressing similar themes, or those posts or comments expressing other ideas or behaviors with which I may've personally disagreed, or indeed much of anything ever, aside spam), because I believe(d) that everyone speaking here is an adult who can string together and then defend their own words and the ideas they convey, and doesn't need a metaphorical mommy or daddy to make decisions on their behalf.

If I didn't like or agree with something posted here, I either starved it of my attention by ignoring it, or commented about it, saying why I disagreed or didn't like it. That [the guy] refuses to comprehend this simple concept (willfully, I suspect) continues to amaze me.

"Screw these people. They reap what they sow. When they start calling out the workplace harassers among their own partisans maybe I'll give a f-k about stooges like Loomis."

Demonstrably untrue, just based on the paragraphs above (and many, many more like them posted by me over the years). But par for the course.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged

Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

Obsessed much?

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Tragedy and Exploitation – The Way of the Lying Ass

The man is pathological.

First he lashes out at me for RT'ing a tweet from early in the day that said the Bushmaster rifle was used in the Newtown massacre when--unbeknownst to me, obviously--subsequent reporting said that it wasn't. According to him I was "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre," and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," and like that...

BUT THEN...

It turns out that the reporting the ass was relying on for his absurd attack was wrong, and the Bushmaster rifle WAS used during the massacre. So of course, the lying ass wrote a post apologizing for his "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre" just to launch an unprovoked attack on me and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," right?

No, of course not.

When our friend over there posts information during a news story that later turns out not to be true, it's completely different than when someone else does. And without so much as a blink--or ANYTHING at all in the way of support or evidence--the guy continues to say it is me to whom the actual facts of the story don't matter.

Which brings us to today. Another post where the lying ass breathlessly accuses me of "lies and disinformation," and by still linking back to that first absurd attack post where HE got the facts wrong, and damned near 12 hours after HE himself POSTED that the information in that first post was incorrect. (He never went so far as to say he was wrong, of course.)

Literally --L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y-- Un-fucking-believable.

Lies and disinformation for all, and to all a good night...


Links:
[his blog]: Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way

[Lying Ass] Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)

[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

Ghoulish [Ass] Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation

[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

Obsessed much?
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Ghoulish Blogger Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation

So, it turns out that facts make no difference to my dishonest, despicable far-right criminal stalker, who posted this bald face lie on his blog early yesterday:

LINK

As we now know,

link

There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at the same guy's blog.
---

Of course, the guy wasn't REALLY lying when he said the rifle wasn't used during the massacre (and attacking me as a liar spreading disinformation for a retweet saying it had been); he was simply working with the facts available at the time (a whole lot like I was, though of course, it's ALL DIFFERENT when he screws up.) He is a lying douchebag, but not for reporting facts that later change. No, he is a lying douchebag for failing to acknowledge the fact that my error was very similar to his, and that in these fast moving stories, reported facts do turn out to be wrong, sometimes, and that both his error and mine as regards whether the gun was used in the massacre were not the result of deliberate malice or disinformation. His attacks on me, on the other hand, clearly are.

This cannot be more clearly evidenced by what the ass says next in his post reporting that the rifle was used during the massacre (and that he reported bad information in saying that it wasn't):

"Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:"

That's right... This idiot gets "the actual facts" wrong in his earlier post, where he also cast all manner of aspersions on me for "being wrong," and in the very post saying I had it right after all and that HE was wrong, still lashes out at me as though I somehow lied.

In these posts at least, the guy doesn't care one bit about the kids who were massacred or about getting the story right. All he cares about is attacking me in any way he can.

I quote information that I believed to be true when I posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation.
Then he quotes information that he believes to be true when he posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he STILL accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation (only now, without any evidence, at all.)

"This is the evil that [I] posted yesterday in [my] utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate [my] lies. They know where it leads. They know that [my] dishonesty will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." [I] just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain."

This lying propagandist can kiss my ass. He's an obsessed, pathetic, desperate liar, and the more he lashes out at me and at "the left"--whatever that is--with this kind of crazy, easily debunked nonsense, the more he makes it obvious to everyone concerned.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

Obsessed Much?
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: That guy's ' "Raging Primordial Rage"

So, I've been trying to figure out how to respond to that guy's latest diatribe against me. Ostensibly, it's a post about free speech, but the argument the guy offers: 1) is primarily about me, not free speech, 2) is not based in fact or evidence, but is instead just another example of him ranting and raging away, and 3) displays a profound misunderstanding as to what the Jonathan Rauch video he features and the organization behind it (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE) are all about.

Let's go to the videotape, and then to the guy's "argument," such as it is:

"Rauch, who is a far-left progressive, nails it on who's the biggest threat to freedom of speech, thought and expression in the country today. What's surprising, though, is that harassment-blogger Walter James Casper III "liked" it on Twitter --- tweeting it out a couple of times in fact. And it's ironic too, since Repsac3 is the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing. From racism to anti-Semitism to the recent attacks on Ann Coulter at Fordham, Repsac3 is down with it. He never, ever speaks out against it, and in fact joins in with his progressive hate-commentariat in mounting campaigns of personal destruction against those with whom he disagrees. I've chronicled Repsac3's criminal campaigns of intimidation many times. If he truly "likes" the ideas of Jonathan Rauch he should in fact practice them. Sadly, the record shows that while the demonically hate-addled Repsac3 purportedly champions this kind of classical liberal thought, his actual political loyalties are with those who stand against it. It's not just that Walter James Casper III is a stupid man. It's that he's also been psychological corrupted by progressive evil. Where there's a bodily inclination in him that says leftist thought suppression is not just wrong but massively vile, his raging primordial rage at conservatives kicks in to advance the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates above. Repsac3 is a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse. Honestly, his only hope is to follow the words of people like Rauch and literally repent his ideology of hatred and secular demonology."

The first line isn't far off. Jonathan Rauch does believe that "the humanitarian impulse" to prevent bigots from saying bigoted things so as not to offend minorities, enforced via campus/workplace speech codes, (and yes, often put into place by progressives) is one of the biggest threats to free speech. While I still believe there should be time/place/manner standards for speech (and from what I can tell, FIRE does, as well), I'm inclined to agree. The answer to overt or implicit bigotry isn't legal/statutory rules and punishment, it's more speech--reasoned argument to persuade, and denunciation of the bigotry and those who engage in it to create a social penalty for such behavior. You don't prevent people from being attacked, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they are.

Sadly, therein ends the guy's engagement with the topic at hand or with reality. Everything after that first line is dishonest attack, and nothing more.

The guy labels me "the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing," but never offers a single example of my attempting to control speech in the manner that Rauch discusses. He accuses me of "advanc[ing] the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates," but fails to offer anything in support of his accusation. Mostly though, he just vents his spleen by calling me names and vomiting up meaningless epithets--(harassment-blogger, hate-commentariat, criminal, demonically hate-addled, stupid, psychological corrupted by progressive evil, raging primordial rage [my personal favorite, and thus the title of this post], a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse, ...)--and pretends that by doing so, he's actually saying anything.

The facts are very different. Who is the guy saying those things, if not a man who believes that the brand of conservatism he espouses is the one true answer, and that everyone else is wrong (and demonically evil) for believing in a different set of political ideals?

Which of us controls the ideas that are permitted to appear on our blogs, actively moderating for content, weeding out commentary that he doesn't like or agree with?

And which of us tried to shoehorn disagreement on the internet onto criminal laws against harassment and stalking, even going so far as to talk to his local police and his congressman.

Just recently the guy approvingly tweeted about a case in England where a conservative is using that country's anti-free speech slander laws to lash out at everyone who (falsely, as far as the available evidence is concerned) accused him of being a paedophile on twitter and other social media outlets. (And when I say "everyone," I mean it... According to the linked article "His lawyers are reported to have already discovered around 1,000 original offending Tweets and a further 9,000 re-Tweets." That's a whole lotta lawsuits...):

Lord McAlpine Twitter revenge: A watershed moment as the mob are finally taught a lesson bit.ly/TM1E1d via @melaniephillips

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 20, 2012

For all his blather to the contrary, the guy has no problem applauding legal enforcement to criminalize speech he disapproves of, even going so far as to attempt to do so himself...which is exactly what Jonathan Rauch and FIRE oppose.

And even aside that, the guy's scapegoating of progressives is wrong. FIRE co-founder Greg Lukianoff is a former ACLU lawyer and a progressive. And the guy himself admits that Jonathan Rauch is a "far-left progressive" (who apparently also "totally awesomely sucks the cock," by the way... I know how the guy likes to highlight that fact whenever he finds it, for reasons I leave to the reader to suss out.)

Sure, there are progressives who mistakenly believe that protecting minorities from offense by using speech codes on campus and in the workplace is a good idea. But it is also progressives (like FIRE, and like the ACLU) who're on the front lines protecting unpopular speech from those who would censor or criminalize it. That the guy tries to sweepingly generalize about progressives as though Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Rauch don't exist--while simultaneously using them to bolster his bullshit attack on progressives--is the height of hypocrisy, and shows that the guy has zero credibility.

---
Links:
Progressives Are the Biggest Threat to Freedom of Speech in America (& as of 11/25/12, Freedom to Blog Update November 25, 2012, which links back to the previous post, as though it hadn't already been fully discredited above four days earlier.)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

New FIRE Video: Jonathan Rauch ‘In Defense of Being Offensive’ - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

Twitter / repsac3: I liked a @YouTube video ...

Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga

California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses

'Isn't It Totally Awesome That Nate Silver Sucks Cock?'
---

Still more on Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempts at Lawfare: In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, that guy)
---

An x-post from a blog that was.

X-Post: That guy Pretends "NeoCon" Means "Jewish" in Yet Another Failed Attempt to Attack Liberals

Only one of us used the word "Jewish..." ...and it wasn't me.

In fact, if the guy were to've read the linked Mother Jones post, he might've read that the whole "Neocon" means Jewish" canard is what's actually anti-Semitic. (not to mention as phony as a three dollar bill, as that guy's own neocon self proves... Whatever he may be, it's pretty obvious that the guy is not Jewish. If he were, he'd be using it to claim every disagreement with him is proof of anti-Semitism.)

"Neocons exist. They're neither shadowy nor conspiratorial. They're part of an actual political movement with a very visible public profile. They tend to be hawkish, solicitous of Israel's right wing, hostile toward Arabs, and they played a big role in committing the United States to a disastrous war in Iraq. That's just reality, and the mere fact that many neocons are Jewish doesn't give them a magic shield that protects them from criticism.

There's nothing anti-Semitic in Dowd's column. She just doesn't like neocons, and she doesn't like the fact that so many of the neocons responsible for the Iraq debacle are now advisors to Mitt Romney's campaign. Pretending that this makes her guilty of hate-mongering toward Jews is reprehensible."

Like his "Octopus" freak-out back in January, that guy (by way of quote) says that "...depictions of Jews as snakes or puppeteers are classical anti-Semitic images, right up there with blood-sucking..." Now, anti-Semites have used octopuses, snakes, and puppeteers to individually or collectively attack folks who are Jewish. But it does not follow that therefore ALL references to octopuses, snakes or puppeteers are ipso facto anti-Semitic, and suggesting that it is--that one cannot say someone behaved like a snake without it being anti-Semitic--is itself kinda bigoted. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to refer to someone as an octopus, or a snake, or a puppeteer. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to criticize a Jewish person, EVEN by saying that person is a snake, or an octopus, or a puppeteer, any more than it's raaaaacist to call a black man a clown, that attending an anti-war demonstration makes one a socialist, or supporting the stated goals of the Occupy movement makes one an anti-Semite.

Guilt by association, sweeping generalizations--whether about folks you don't agree with, or folks that you do--or pretending that highlighting one attribute shared by two (or more) otherwise different individuals or groups makes those two (or more) individuals or groups practically identical (Take for example, pacifist priests who protest against war because they believe God opposed man killing man vs anarchists who protest war because they believe no government has the right to send people to kill and die, vs those who protest a specific war because they believe the reasons given for that war go against our American values. One can treat them as though they're all the same, and denigrate them all as anti-American, or whatever... ...but the bullshit in that approach is obvious.) While propagandists will employ one, two, or even all three of these tactics to lash out at those with whom they disagree, they are all plainly and obviously nonsensical ploys that cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

And all that aside, the only person equating neocons with Jews is that guy... My tweet and the article to which it referred specifically says neoconservatism is a political movement and NOT a substitute for the word "Jewish." If anyone is slandering the Jewish people by calling them neocons (or is it "slandering neocons by calling them Jewish"?), it isn't me...

And lest anyone forget, that guy is the one who created the "Sasquatch Israel" myth out of whole cloth, in yet another failed attempt to attack all liberals (or at least a whole lot of them) as anti-Semites. This is what desperate, despicable liars do...

More: American Nihilist: BTDT Files - Jew-Hating Anti-Semite

---
The Anti-Semitic Slur Surfaces Once Again | Mother Jones

First the guy Came For The Hominids, Now It's Anti-Semitic Cephalopods

Brain Rage: that blog And Anti-Semitic Hominids
---

If I'm not mistaken, the guy's last attack on me was August 6th... I was beginning to think he'd finally wised up... but of course not... He's that guy. He cannot resist lashing out with these lies. He's that guy. 'nuff said.
---

UPDATED: The guy finds a friend sycophant:

Antisemite Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/walter…

— WarEagle (@WarEagle8055) September 18, 2012

@WarEagle8055 never actually says why he calls me an "antisemite" --he didn't bother to respond when I pointed out a few of the flaws in his tweet, leaving me to surmise that rather than taking the time to think for himself, he just lapped up and regurgitated whatever the guy told him, thought unthunk...which kinda makes one feel sorry for the guy, given that guy's historical record with, well, facts...
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Partisan Propagandist Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda

In reply to: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'

In almost all political & social groups, violent & disrespectful members are the exception...despite what partisan propagandists say.

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

The meaning of the tweet--and the fact that it speaks against propagandists on the left and on the right, skewering ALL who engage in it--is obvious to all who read it, and speaks for itself.

The guy opines:

"The "partisan propagandists" are the creeps in the left-wing media who refuse to report accurately on what's going on. But as soon as there's any kind of gun violence, these same people are off the blocks with allegations of "the tea party did it!""

In defending political propaganda--and simultaneously providing an example of it--the guy would have you believe that only "creeps in the left-wing media" engage in this kind of dishonest bullshit.

Obviously that is not the case, as our guy himself so aptly proves day by day, post by post.

My posts and comments about vandalism, both involving the Chick-fil-A incidents and in general, are online and available to anyone who cares to read them. That all he could find to attack me with in this edition of his his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series was that tweet above--a comment on bad behavior, with no mention of either side being better or worse than the other--ought to tell you all you need to know, at least about the value and veracity of the guy's latest specious attack (though I would argue it kinda speaks to any / all of them. YMMV...)

I won't post them all--those interested can check my twitter timeline and blog posts--but I've been discussing this subject quite a bit lately, both on Twitter and in blog posts and comments. Allow me to add the tweet I posted right before the one the guy highlighted though, lest there be anyone left unclear as to where I stand:

If you can't follow the Golden Rule, even (especially) when in pursuit of human rights & equality, you're doing it wrong. #Respect4All

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

No, there is no way the guy could've missed it... His lies about me have never been more obvious, or more easily disproven.
---

Link: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
---

An x-post from a blog that once was
---

/

In Reply: Murder (for those who dare disagree) Is Just Alright With Him

In reply to the following quote from Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl

I'm sorry... But did this ass just say that there would be an upside of some kind (ANY KIND?!?) to having leftists killed by being beheaded the way Daniel Pearl was, and that such a thing wouldn't bother him? Fellow citizens of the USA being horribly murdered the way terrorists do in fundamentalist countries, and he'd be ok with it? What the fuck is wrong with him, that he could hate his fellow Americans so much just for having different political beliefs than he does.? (And of course, don't miss the sick puppy of a reader who agrees with him, also at that link.) No, douchebag... Chances are slim that God will forgive that, at least until you actually are sorry for thinking/feeling that way, anyway... You can't just say it; you actually have to mean it.

X-Post: In Reply: Them ignorant, illiterate, "Barack Obama supporters" (if ya know what I mean...)

In reply to [blog]: Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets

Unreal, but to be expected from Barack Obama supporters. As I've said many time, Obama really needs to work on his inner city education agenda. These be some illiterate mo-'fukers', yo!

Whatever you think of the guy's tweet*, his thoughts no more represent "Barack Obama supporters" than the few racists in the tea party (like the guy with the "niggar" sign, or the one who wrote the "Colored People" rant about the NAACP) represent "the American right."

*Me, I don't approve of calling women whores under very many circumstances... (Male and female, whores do exist, and naming it is appropriate, when that's actually what's going on... But as with other slurs, it does take on a different meaning, depending on whether the target is male or female. Just as comments about being "cheap" take on an added meaning when said about jewish folks, the shaming of women by calling their sexual habits into question make the term different for "girls" than for "boys"...) As for whether Malkintent is closed-minded, a racist, or a puppet is more up for grabs, however...

Classy use of dialect there... That guy does black folks proud at every turn...
(It's almost as though he don't know no better, yo...)
---

x-post from a blog that once was

Roundup and Commentary - 4/24/09

Commentary:

Judging many by a few: Strongest Possible Content Warning! Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops and another, same place: Strongest Possible Content Warning! Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops

It isn't the records, it's what the records show...: Sparks from the Anvil: This is the "Transparency" President Obama spoke of?!

That guy, off topic, and engaging in one of the most convoluted cases of guilt by association I've ever seen: American Nihilist: THE MOUTH LIES. BUT THE HAT ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH

That guy's Big Gay Malaysian Crush, or Weird and Wacky Guilt by Association, Take 2: How to Get a Blogger Content Warning

That guy: Glutes are bad, but Toe-suckers Rock His World: Dick Morris: Obama in Bed With Our Enemies

That guy and Sweeping Generalizations: Janeane Garofalo's San Francisco Values

In Reply: John McCain Sings Kumbaya...but some partisans refuse to join in

In Reply to: "Post-Partisan Obama Cult," a post discussing a website where Republicans and Democrats support coming together as one America after the election. (The author was not in favor, obviously.)
---

"I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." - John McCain

---

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:00 AM (his blog time)

In Reply: "Like marriage, sin is up to the church, not the state, to define & otherwise deal with."

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right:

Philip ... you are more honest than most. As an engineer, I am also quite aware of the sometimes-brutal honesty of mathematics.

And I won't say that I know what you went through on 11 September 2001.

But in my opinion, you have learned the wrong lessons from that act of war ... could it be because your antipathy for organized religion colors your view of the President who broke Leftist "tradition" and precedent, and acted to defend life and liberty?

We have seen it, time and time again in history ... without freedom and the respect for it, peace is just an illusion.

That abject lack of respect for freedom ... using Islam as justification ... is what drove those nineteen thugs to attack you.

And the most prudent defense was to go on the offense against them ... and others who were known to be of like mind and equal -- if not more -- capability, like Saddam & Sons.

Let's be honest here ... what really chafes y'all about Mr. Bush's approach to civil liberties is the lack of transparency. (Otherwise, you'd condemn Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus, instead of honoring him for emancipation ... and BTW the typical Leftist definition of "torture" is anything rougher than 3-hots-and-a-cot, much less something our own men are put through during SERE training.) But there is a reason for that ... for far too long, we allowed a very cunning and manipulative set of enemies to see what we were planning for them, in the event we went to war with them, in the name of "transparency".

And I am also aware of the religious roots of apartheid, and the use of religion to justify atrocity ... but I am also aware that the founding citizens of this nation believed that life and liberty were endowed to them by their Creator .... and therefore were not subject to even a majority vote for denial. Not a few of them wanted to abolish slavery in those early years, as well.

I am also aware of the believers who kept pushing against slavery, until it was eradicated ... and I would wager that other believers did similar yeoman work against apartheid.

And you need to be aware of the independent nature of the evangelicals that make up the vast majority of the Religious Right ... and how their independence is a powerful defense against the very theocracy you abhor.

Your brush is a little too broad, IMO, when it comes to condemning organized religion.

But that doesn't change the facts on the ground ... there are other ways to secure the blessings of liberty for those in GLBT relationships, that do not involve the codification of these relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage by force of law.

You ask, how does that affect me as a straight?

What it does is effectively close the public debate on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle ... and my, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my fellow believers -- along with others who oppose the practices on other grounds -- ability to publicly dissent from your viewpoint and have that dissent taken with even a pinch of seriousness.

In other words, in the eyes of the law, the question will be settled -- exclusively in your favor -- simply because you want it to be settled.

It is one more step towards making the secular fundamentalist worldview the ONLY acceptable view in our public discourse.

Again, we are not talking about immutable characteristics like skin color here ... we are talking about actions and choices.

Even as a believer, there are legal proscriptions against some actions I might take ... like say, handling venomous snakes in my Long Island church (not that I need/want/perform that kind of litmus test of my faith!).

What the gay community is asking for, is protection for behavior that goes beyond even the Constitutional protections for religious beliefs.
---

Reply:

"There are other ways to secure the blessings of liberty for those in GLBT relationships, that do not involve the codification of these relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage by force of law."

Separate but equal accommodation has been tried before... and found to not comport with American values. US morality is an evolving standard in the first place, and for many--including many who do not share your faith, as well as many who do--the morality of what is essentially a secular contract is not at issue, or within your balliwick to judge.

"What it does is effectively close the public debate on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle ... and my, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my fellow believers -- along with others who oppose the practices on other grounds -- ability to publicly dissent from your viewpoint and have that dissent taken with even a pinch of seriousness.

In other words, in the eyes of the law, the question will be settled -- exclusively in your favor -- simply because you want it to be settled."

Nonsense. You can still teach your children as you see fit. You can still discuss & debate your opposition to gay marriage anytime & in any setting you wish.

Right now, the issue is settled largely in your favor. When it is settled as Phillip & I believe it should be, it will be because the masses have evolved, or because the courts have recognized that the rights are already written into constitutions in various states. It will be settled because rights are not given to you by the state, but are granted to you at birth (or conception, if you prefer), and cannot be taken away by law or statute.

"It is one more step towards making the secular fundamentalist worldview the ONLY acceptable view in our public discourse."

In an effort to create religious freedom, as well as freedom from religion for those who wish it, America is a secular & religion-neutral society. While your particular faith & denomination is the one true path for you, we allow the shinto buddhist, the hassidic jew, and the non-believer to also believe that their religious path--or lack of it--is the way to everlasting light & harmony, as well. In an effort to do so, we do not enshrine the morals & values of your religion, my religion, or any other religion into law.

There are many sins in this world, but relatively few are discouraged or criminalized by law, anymore. Like marriage, sin is up to the church, not the state, to define & otherwise deal with. (Do you really want the state defining such religious matters?) To do otherwise would be to impose one religious institution's set of morals on all Americans, including those who do not share that (& in some cases, any) faith.

We were born on the idea that the Puritans could do their thing, and the Penn Dutch could do theirs, and neither had to convert to & assume the faith of the other... Nothing's changed...
---

Posted November 9, 2008, 11:00 PM

In Reply: "...religious beliefs should not be the basis for US law..."

In reply to various comments (noted below) at the post Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
---

Response to the original post: Wingnuts and Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?

Paco has it right. One's religious beliefs should not be the basis for US law.

bluespapa asks a good question about polygamy, in light of the two gentlemen's (& by implication of his quote, Nero's) citing of "thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice".

@ Nikki "A few months ago I did a post on whether or not gay marriage advocates would be willing to extend their argument to include polygamy...not one would give it the same importance as gay marriage."

Of course they didn't. Very few people are asking for any such thing, and reducing an argument to the absurd does nothing to speak to the issue at hand. Should folks wish for & want polygamy, respond to it then... In the meantime, it's no better than counting the angels one imagines can dance on pinpoints....

@ That guy: "Proposition 8 takes away no rights from gay Californians. It simply overturns the rule of 4 state judges, and returns the law to the majority position as it had been prior, with a state constitutional amendment."

You say that as though you have no respect for our American system of justice and law. Those four state judges read the state Constitution before them as written, saw that there was no basis to deny equal protection to gay couples wishing to marry, and ruled that it was against the CA Constitution to do so.

"The majority of Americans agree with "these views," so why should they be beaten into submission by a crazed radical minority, many of whom are Godless and detest the very traditions that are the strength of this country?"

First off, if you're not gay, nothing will change for you. You're not being beaten into submission to anything.

Second, belief in God has little bearing on American rights & law. The Godless deserve as much protection under US law as the faithful.

Traditions are nice, but they are subject to change over time, as are the one's folks view as "the strength of this country"... Just ask those blacks who're descended from slaves (once viewed as the backbone of this country, and impossible to do without...), or the women who once had no right to vote, own property, ... Things change.

I believe Phillip Chandler has your number, dude. Please reply to him with the same thought he offered in his comment, as to do less would only increase the offense your post is offering him.
---

Posted November 9, 2008, 12:16 AM

In Reply: Useless Cartoon Notions of the "Other" Side

In reply to Can the Democrats Fight the War on Terror?

At Real Clear Politics, John Leo's got a nice reminder of the Democratic Party's difficulties in confronting the terrorist threat. Leo starts his discussion with "The Good Fight," the new book by pro-American liberal Peter Beinart. He then turns to Henry A. Wallace, and the difficulties the Wallace legacy presents for Democrats today.
---

It's interesting that the post author neglected to give the full title of Peter Beinart's book. It was actually: "The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again". And the notion that mainstream Democrats would have any problem prosecuting a legitimate war is laughable to anyone who doesn't believe that "the Left" consists of communists and terrorist symps. (and yes, that includes Beinart, apparently.) These cartoon notions that this guy and some of his friends on the right are wont to disseminate are fictions that leave their analysis of contemporary politics sorely lacking.

In Reply: I believe it's possible to work together toward a common purpose, even with people with whom you do not agree 100%

In Reply to Burkean Reflections: Should 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Be Granted Immediate Amnesty?

It's no surprise that the Google hit for "March 25 Coalition" pulls up the Marxist-Leninist vanguard page for International ANSWER, the American left's main hardline communist organization.

Please contact your Member of Congress at this link if the anti-American activities of these groups bother you.
---

ANSWER has communist and socialist organizations involved in the coalition, along with rights groups, environmental groups, religious groups, and other social and political groups. While I don't agree with everything every group stands for, I believe it's possible to work together toward a common purpose, even with people with whom you do not agree 100% on every issue. I do not fear people who believe different things than I do, whether they be Republicans, Methodists, Communists, or homosexuals. I understand why folks on the right wish to demonize people with this guilt by association nonsense, but that doesn't make it any less contrived and phony.

Here in America, it's ok to disagree with and dissent from our federal and state government, as well as from one or even both of the major political parties. While it's not mainstream, being a registered member of the American Communist Party (or a Muslim, or a Unitarian, or a Socialist, or a Libertarian, or...) is not anti-American.