NRB vs. FrumForum: Gee, I Wonder Who’s Telling the Truth?

David Horowitz and David Swindle have decided to can one of NewsRealBlog’s contributors, Alex Knepper. Knepper, who also contributes to David Frum’s FrumForum, claims that he was punished because “Horowitz is not interested in posts that take Ann Coulter to task over the war in Afghanistan,” and Frum eagerly repeats Knepper’s claims, taking them as—surprise!—more evidence that right-wingers are circling the wagons around their “extremists.”

David Swindle responds to Knepper’s allegations here, explaining that the tone of his Coulter critique, not simply the act of critiquing her, was the issue with his final NRB submission, and that either way, he wasn’t simply fired over a disagreement over tone—it was the last in a string of disappointments (including some, um, interesting views about sex) from Knepper. Knepper fires back here.

As NRB’s editor, Swindle is in a much better position to respond to the specifics if he so chooses than I am, so I’ll leave that to him. But I do have a couple thoughts about which side has more credibility.

First, the idea that NRB can’t take criticism of Coulter is preposterous. I should know—my very first post for the website did just that.

Second, the website is extremely comfortable with passionate disagreement among contributors on a lot of issues, many of which are arguably bigger than what somebody thinks about a particular pundit. A few examples:

• David Swindle vs. John Nampion, David Kaplan, David Forsmark, & me on abortion
• David Swindle, Michael Van Der Gailen, & Walter Hudson vs. Mary Grabar & me on drug legalization
• David Forsmark vs. John Guardiano on Afghanistan
• David Swindle vs. me on culture
• Me, David Swindle, & Michael Van Der Gailen vs. John Guardiano on David Frum
• David Forsmark vs. Alex Knepper on sex
• Me & Jenn Public vs. Amy Siskind on feminism

Third, as I pointed out last week, we already know that David Frum’s standards of honesty are scandalously low – up to and including REPEATING SLANDER against people if it supports Frum’s agenda. Until Frum owns up to his past misdeeds, every word that appears on FrumForum should be read with extreme skepticism by the handful of readers who still waste their time there.

Speaking of Ignoring the American Founding…

Concluding NRB’s recent drug legalization debate is a post entitled, “This is What Happens When the Founders’ Philosophy of Government Is Ignored.”  Setting aside the fact that just how the Founders would have treated drugs remains very much an open question, it seems to me that, given another recent NRB debate, a reminder of what else can happen when America’s founding principles are disregarded is in order. (Content Warning)

Conservatism Can’t Survive Without the Pro-Life Movement, Part II

In Part I, I argue that it would be politically foolish for the Right to further backpedal or abandon the pro-life cause. Here I want to make the case that the right to life truly is inseparable both from core conservatism and from any meaningful effort to advance conservative ideas—that, in fact, pro-abortion tendencies actually endanger the prospects of those who value limited government, the free market, and strong national defense.

As I explained on June 15, abortion is an affront to the Declaration of Independence. As the unjust taking of a human life, it is wrong for the same reason slavery, theft, assault, honor killings, rape, eminent domain abuse, and individual health insurance mandates are wrong: they are all violations of human liberty and natural rights.  Accordingly, society justly protects its citizens from them via law for the same reason.  As long as conservatism still “holds these truths to be self-evident” that all men have “certain unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and as long as conservatism still accepts that “governments are instituted among men” for the purpose of “secur[ing] these rights,” then philosophically-consistent conservatives have no choice but to oppose legalized abortion. Nobody can support abortion in good conscience without either honestly confronting this conundrum head-on, or asking himself what definition of “conservatism” he’s been operating under all this time.

That pro-choice views are an egregious exception to conservatives’ and libertarians’ pro-liberty rhetoric should be obvious. What may be less obvious—but is no less true—is that such dubious thinking cannot help but undermine other core conservative principles and efforts.

Pro-Life: Not Down, Never Out

As promised, here is my response to David.  However, he also made another point that needs to be addressed, so let’s tackle it here:

The Anti-Abortion Movement has had decades to convince people and change minds. It’s failed […] There isn’t some magical argument that the anti-abortion movement is going to stumble upon that’s suddenly going to change the tides.

John Nampion had a good retort:

Basically you’re saying the Pro-Lifers should just give up because they haven’t succeeded in their cause. Are you kidding? Israel hasn’t been very successful in swaying world opinion towards its side…so it should just yell “Uncle”? Please…if the fight is valuable, it must and will go on!

Excellent point!  One wonders if David thinks we should apply the “unless you win in X number of years, you must surrender” standard to any other political causes.  Dismantling ObamaCare?  Decriminalizing drugs?  Reforming the federal role in education?  Immigration policy? (24 years have passed since Reagan’s amnesty bill, and the border still isn’t secure.)  Israel? (62 years since declaring independence, they’re still persona non grata in the international community’s eyes.)

Indeed, American slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment until 1868—92 years after we declared independence! And it took another 96 years after that to pass the Civil Rights Act.  The 36 years since Roe v. Wade don’t look quite so definite now, do they?

As I pointed out in the article, abortion has on its side a tremendously powerful propaganda machine (plus plenty of self-professed “conservatives” and Republicans fixing to purge the Right of social conservatives).  And even so, American support for life is moving in the right direction.

I’ll take my chances with principle, thank you very much.

PS: David wraps things up here.

The Abortion Debate at NewsReal

David Swindle’s latest entry is here.  I didn’t know what to expect from his inevitable response, but honestly, I’m disappointed to see this argument resurrected once more.  Stay tuned to NRB for my response.

Around the Web

At NRB, I review Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One.

Also at NRB, Horowitz and Knepper tear apart Andrew Sullivan, Patron Saint of Fail, over the Gaza flotilla attack.  The outrage over Israel defending herself (with, er, paintball guns) drives home one important truth America should have learned years ago: “international opinion” is worse than worthless.

Speaking of which, you probably won’t hear much about the Turkish “peace” activists’ terror ties on MSNBC or NPR…

“As many as three million Chinese babies are hidden by their parents every year in order to get around the country’s one-child policy, a researcher has discovered.”  Yeah, but America has human-rights issues of its own, so really, who are we to judge?

Here’s LifeNews on the GOP’s dereliction of duty in letting pro-abortion zealot Elena Kagan slide.

Dan Riehl opines on Jim DeMint’s “telling inconsistency” on anti-war Republican candidates.

The Pope talks immigration.  Do his words actually bring anything useful to the debate?  They’re written in extremely general terms that don’t speak to whether or not any given voices are describing the issue’s various facets accurately.

ARE YOU BLOODY KIDDING ME?!

Here’s a new site conservatives should keep an eye out on (h/t David Swindle).

Pot, Meet Kettle

At NewsReal, Kathy Shaidle has an early contender for Most Ironic Story of the Year: “Michael Moore says Fox News edited clips to make President look bad. (No, really.)”

Update on Hamas Sympathy at UCSD (Updated with Fresh Lies)

Jumanah Imad Albahri, the UCSD student who refused to condemn Hamas in a Q&A session with David Horowitz and said she’d be “for” a second Holocaust, is now claiming that the Hamas question is too complex to simply condemn or endorse unequivocally (they say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but I say nuance is the first), and that she didn’t really mean “for it” in response to Horowitz’s question about a new a new Holocaust:

Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah’s credo of “rounding up” Jews in his last tangent.  I could no longer contain my anger at being implicitly and improperly labeled a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a proponent of genocide. The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.

My answer, “for it,” in the context in which it was said does NOT mean “for” genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. “For it” was not a legitimization of Hezbollah’s or anyone else’s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated. In fact, Mr. Horowitz’s intent was to entrap me with his barrage of questions so that he could avoid answering my question, and construe any answer that I would provide as anti-Semitic, genocidal hate speech in order to further his political agenda.

The original video & transcript make clear that Albahri was not even remotely “entrapped” by anything Horowitz said.  Everything Horowitz said was clear, and her reply of “for it” sounds composed and deliberate.  Even if she didn’t really mean it (which seems questionable, given her Hamas apologetics), it’s telling that she cannot take responsibility for her own (supposed) failure to convey her “true” beliefs accurately.

(As for whether or not it’s reasonable to ask for a simple for/against judgment on Hamas, you tell me.)

David Swindle has another good question for our “victim”:

[I]f you oppose anti-Semitism and you oppose Islamists’ quest to instigate a second Holocaust what have you ever done to challenge these tendencies within the MSA itself and Islam as a whole? If you do not hold such views yourself, why are you a part of an organization who regularly hosts speakers who call for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews?

UPDATE: David exposes even more lies from Albahri, including an amateurish attempt to talk up her credibility AS SOMEBODY ELSE.  Pathetic.

The Paul File Continued (Updated)

The following is an addendum to my recent NewsReal posts about Ron & Rand Paul’s disgusting relationship with radicalism and their dangerous misrepresentation of facts on all things national-security and foreign-policy related:

During the 2008 Republican National Convention, Ron Paul held a counter-event, & the campaign invited crackpot Jesse Ventura to speak there. Ventura’s tirade about what “really happened” on 9/11 was met with wild applause by Paul’s audience.

On 9/11 Truther Alex Jones’ show in 2007, Paul claimed, “if you have a 9/11 incident or something like that, they use that to do the things that they had planned all along.”

In January 2008, Paul’s Midland County, MI, campaign coordinator was one Randy Gray, who happened to moonlight as “a longstanding active and vocal organizer for the Knight’s Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.”  The campaign did not comment on the controversy, but did scrub all traces of Gray from their websites.

Rave Reviews 4!

You like me!  You really like me!

“It’s much easier to call people who are smarter than you are names then it is to argue facts, thanks in no small part to our liberal educational system.” – Randy

“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal

“Enjoy that 100 trillion dollar currency debt you fools have mortgaged your children to them banksters.” – joe

“The author is another neocon Jew.” – Joseph Zrnchik

“…a man with a sheep’s brain…” – Bob

“Unintentionally Hilarious” – JB

“…just awful…” – More Stew

“What a sickening, hateful, sheltered, judgement, Friedburger brain bubble boy. He’s one of the the perfect examples of intelligent design. Cripes. What a creep.” – CJ

“…misinformed…” – Lord Howard Hertz

“Good God.” – Zach W.

“…dude if you are a polysci major I suggest you do a little more research before writing your blog because you lack any real depth of knowledge in the topics you discuss. Spend a little more time studying and less time dreaming up stuff.” – LeftofLiberal

“…desperation…illegitimate…” – annica2

“Boy you really are a fanatic nut head.” – RightWing

“Keep dreaming, but the reality is, you are the joke of this nation. The silent majority will just simply go back to the polls and vote Obama back in and you imbeciles can rant for another four long years. You will never learn. The dumbing down on the Right is almost totally complete!” – Liberallyproud

“…confused reasoning…” – PalmettoPatriot

“Trading insults gets you nowhere. It only benefits those who have nothing to say. As you mature you will most likely have a better appreciation for civil discourse and refrain from trading insults much less initiating such exchanges.” – The Inquisitor

“If you can’t win the debate, start name-calling, eh?” – John Galt

“Study history sometime.” – Elijah

“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal

“Not a good way to advance a cause.” – princeliberty

“…you and the neo-conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering liberals.” – freedomfor you

“You’re arguing against a premise you wrongly inferred from the quote you posted. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, if you can comprehend what you’re reading that is. In this case you can’t.” – ED

“Carl your embarassing egotistical remarks are astounding for someone writing a publication with how many readers? It seems half of them don’t even like your obviously biased and ethnocentric reporting.” – James

“Perhaps, Calvin, you should try another line of work.” – Rightwingarbage

“You are not in tune with America…” – truthbetold

“Thumbs down…extremely biased…You wrote a very poor article.” – sas473

“More incessant neocon babbling…” – Carpe Cerevisi

“…another lame attack from a RINO…” – delapaz

“This article is terrible.” – T. Evans

“Why did I just subject myself to the slandering overtones of a hyped up alarmist co-ed, which was expected prima facie by the name Calvin Frieburger, in order to get my intellectual fix this morning. It’s usually the poli-sci guys that cry the loudest when they’re getting the crap kicked out of them for bloviating to everyone. AAAAh!!!!!” – A Smith

“This is bad journalism.” – Joseph

“…you know nothing about the military.” – David

“One only has to read the title of this faulty hitpiece to know it deserves all the contempt possible and it simply 100% baseless misinformation.” – Stefan

“…Zionist…” – Edip Yuksel

“I could not read much more than the 1st paragraph or 2, Calvin, you are completely wrong on so many levels. You may have a few facts straight, but your inferences are miles off target.” – JR

“Hypocrisy thy name is JEW! So Paul is disqualified from being taken seriously in American politics for some ‘unacceptable’ connections with white ethnocentrists. Meanwhile having deep connections with Jewish activist organisations the ADL, AIPAC, AJC etc etc is just fine. Why on earth shouldn’t Paul be ethnocentric enough to stand up for the interests of the traditional population of the United States? You know – the ones who’ve died in their thousands in Iraq for Israel? I’m sick of hyper-ethnocentric Jews telling us who and who is not a legitimate participant in the American political process.” – Peter Mansfield

“…stupid sh**…” – Steve

“The author of this propaganda is a BLATANT IGNORANT IDIOT.” – freeme

“…basically neo con apologist…” – Hammer

“If a college kid getting the typical US socialist education thinks there’s a problem, it’s practically 100% certain that the opposite is the truth.” – Syd Barrett

“Totally twisting of facts!” – freedom lover in KY

Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?