My final statement in response to the Okelberry Crusade (assault) entitled Glenn Beck: Hung By the Neck at KVNU
April 17th, 2009 at 09:29
Tyler,
Agreed. We should probably close this thread…after I get a last word.
Okelberries quoted me accurately.
I’m interested in decapitating people who think their religious opinions belong in government.
The operative (dependent) clause here is “who think their religious opinions belong in government.”
I do not speak of religious people, but rather ‘people who…’ I am of course referring to the once powerful moral majority who swept Bush into office and proceeded to invent a new interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
I refer to Republican politicians most of whom were not religious at all but who began associating themselves with God and the religious right when it became expedient.
I refer to the brave people who hold up signs like “God Hates Fags” at political rallies and the spineless ones who sympathize with them. And and of course I refer to the gentle Christian flocks across America who only came to hear of the Separation Clause for the first time a few long years ago when ‘Freedom of Religion…’ was twisted into “…but not freedom from…”
I refer to the people who ignoring 300 years of American History, suddenly began chanting ‘Christian Nation.’
I refer to the uninformed and well-informed who out of personal insecurity, religious confusion and political expedience, blurred the lines in this great democracy between religion and government.
I refer to those shrill and hysterical voices who would when asked to SHUT UP, thrust their morality-powered, religion shields before all the world and cry victim, quote Hitler and claim discrimination and bigotry until they turn purple.
This is not about religion at all. This is about posers and monsters who have sacrificed whatever grace religion had in this country and pimped it for political power.
OFF With Their Heads!
Peace, Cliff
This follows Okelberries final response archived below the fold.
By Richard Okelberry, April 17th, 2009 at 08:25 | #7Let’s see, I publish a post exposing hate speech and the potential of terroristic threats being produced by a self professed member of the inner circle of the Democratic Party here in Utah. The purveyors of such speech respond by using sophomoric name calling by referring to me as Okelberries, Berries For Brains, Yokelberries, Yokeschlockberries, Okelnuts and let’s not forget Cliff Lyon’s new personal favorite Okelfairy where Cliff attempts to insult me by basically calling me a homosexual. Why a progressive liberal would think to use homosexuality as an insult is truly beyond me.
Even so, one of the individuals who took part in this playground name calling bully session, Beck Stauffer (she’s the one that called meYokelberries) now appears miffed that I have made the honest mistake of leaving one ‘f’ out of her name. For this I apologize.
This brings me to conclude that perhaps Tyler is right and this thread has run its course. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a conference call will suddenly put away the years of built up religious bigotry at OneUtah. What is certain is this is not the end of the story for the crew of OneUtah.
As I’ve alluded to before, I am in the process of contacting both law enforcement and various religious and political leaders in our communities to get their response to some of the materials collected from the primary authors at OneUtah. I am doing this to place their opinions of such speech along side the individuals who would seek to divide our communities in hate.
One thing is certain; it truly will be interesting to see which political leaders are willing to take a stand against such verbal tyranny. I am expecting that there will be those who simply won’t want to get involved and there may even be others who will be apologetic for such speech calling it their right, privilege and freedom. One thing will be certain, we will see which of our political leaders take such hate speech seriously.
So until later, I will close with this…
“If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!” - Adolf Hitler, London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.116
This quote was considered by many at the time to be a mere Metaphor…
“…I’m interested in decapitating people who think their religious opinions belong in government… …One of the Greatest American Traitors is a Mormon. This pitiful scum sucking pig needs to be hung by the neck.” – Cliff Lyon
It’s almost as if you didn’t need a break between these quotes isn’t it?
If you discover hate online the Anti-defamation League has these strategies to fight back… Please notice that turning a blind eye is not one of the strategies. While people may have the right to preach such hate, we all also have the right and I would say the duty to strongly oppose it.
Flag. Many sites, such as YouTube, allow users to flag offensive content for review. Many also allow you to say why you thought something was offensive. If so, make sure to include detailed comments as to why you thought the item was hateful.
Speak.Post videos, counter-points of view, or comments that oppose the offensive point of view. Let the social networking community see a competing perspective.
Think. Perspective is crucial. Think before you respond, and try to respond in a thoughtful, careful manner.
Applaud. Don’t forget to post positive comments on content that shares positive messages.
Talk. Talk to your friends, teachers, or family about what you’ve seen.
Learn. Many groups publish information about combating particular kinds of prejudice, such as the Anti-Defamation League’s resources on anti-Semitism.
E-mail. Notify groups like the Anti-Defamation League, which keep track of trends in hate speech.
Act. Take active steps to combat prejudice online and offline.
Know. Know the community with which you are dealing. Look for a site’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines and find out about the kind of site the company wants to run – many say that they do not wish to host hateful content – and hold the site accountable to it.
A word about free speech and censorship. ADL is a leading advocate for free speech and does not believe in government suppression of hateful speech merely because it is hateful. However, many websites and social networking sites voluntarily agree to exercise good corporate responsibility and limit the hateful content they purvey. In such cases, we believe that users should speak out firmly against the hate they encounter on those sites, and in turn the sites should live up to their stated Terms of Service or Community Guidelines.
#1 by Martin Luthers Strumpet on April 17, 2009 - 9:12 am
This is what happens when Mother’s don’t begin bitch slapping their sons at an early age.
…They age but they don’t grow up.
#2 by Richard Warnick on April 17, 2009 - 9:18 am
R.O. implied that “Cliff Lyon of the hate organization One Utah” made a bona fide death threat against Glenn Beck, in a post a month ago. “I think it would be a good idea for law enforcement to keep a close eye on the One Utah hate group,” R.O. wrote.
I asked R.O. to look at several examples of Glenn Beck alluding to violence, and tell us if he would judge those remarks the same way he did Cliff’s.
R.O. replied that he didn’t know, he would have to research the context of Glenn Beck’s statements and get back to me. That was yesterday. Maybe he’ll have an answer today.
#3 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 10:09 am
For the record. My decision to refer to Okelberry as Okelfairy was taken reluctantly and not without some deliberation and some reluctance.
The rhyme was of course irresistible.
I rue the possibility that someone will insinuate a purposeful or implied connection between an hysterical, hyper-religious, pseudo-political, self-proclaimed, pundit and the diminutive, fictional characters of lore and childrens’ literature.
#4 by cav on April 17, 2009 - 11:20 am
Since the present owner of this blog is clearly worse than Hitler, with his promotion of the un-armed – Gai – Sharia – abortion agenda, Richard Oklewhatever should take up the gauntlet, purchase the blog (as it has been offered – practically for a song), and begin, finally, to bring us irreligious, uninformed, lefties back into the fold.
Sorry Cliff, we know it time.
Snark-motor off-switch broken.
#5 by Becky on April 17, 2009 - 12:36 pm
RO,
(I know you’re reading this) I called you Yokelberries in response to Tyler’s parental-style admonition to Cliff. It was just too much for me to resist. Gosh some of you guys are straight-laced over there at forthepeople.
Just to make amends, RO, you can, henceforth, spell my last name with one ‘f’ if you’d like, but my first name is Becky not Beck (only my closest friends, my sisters, and OneUtah authors may call me Beck).
But RO, why do you hate me? Is it because I correct your spelling and grammar?
(I had to comment here as you have closed the comments at forthepeople. Took your football and went home, so to speak.)
#6 by Larry Bergan on April 17, 2009 - 3:01 pm
KVNU plays radio broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh, who tried to incite violence at the Democratic Convention. Of course the REAL violence broke out at the Republican Convention where accredited journalist, Amy Goodman and her crew were literally mowed down by armed police who confiscated their press passes and tried to charge them with crimes.
KNVU also plays Sean Hannity, who once accused Dustin Hoffman of treason for coming out against Bush. Hannity also threatened me on the air twice because I had disrupted a war rally he sponsored at the university and went on the air to lie about what took place that night.
Nobody associated with KNVU wants to answer questions about those things, or about outrageous and violence-invoking comments made by Ann Colter. They just want to project the appearance of civility while purposely trying to make our side lash out. When we do, they threaten police action.
What a bunch of cowards! Fight your own damn battles, we’re not going to hurt anybody. I don’t even own a gun, but when somebody in my country actually does commit treason, I will loudly call for the harshest legal action.
#7 by Larry Bergan on April 17, 2009 - 3:07 pm
Answer Richard’s question!
#8 by Richard Warnick on April 17, 2009 - 3:14 pm
Larry–
Hannity sponsored a war rally? I’d love to hear that story. I am sorry I missed it.
Of general interest–
Steve Schmidt, McCain Campaign Manager: Religion Could Kill The GOP
I don’t want the GOP to die, I like the two-party system (when it works).
#9 by Rich ********* on April 17, 2009 - 4:08 pm
******* Warnick,
I tell you what, I will take a moment here shortly and look into your allegations of terroristic threats on the part of Glenn Beck contingent on a bit of quid pro quo.
In all fairness, Cliff has levied a rather serious charge against me and asked for a retraction after I stated that you in the past had misquoted / taken out of context a source to serve your argument that would have been impossible to make without the alteration in question. I’m certain you probably remember that it was me who caught you in the ruse. So, I would appreciate if you would admit to Cliff and everyone else which incident I am speaking of? (Hint: I believe it involved the definition of terrorism under US Law.) It was your essay so I will let you put up the link to it.
Then if possible, I would appreciate an apology for not correcting Cliff when you say him coming to you defense while keeping quiet about the truth.
BTW: are you simply arguing that Glenn Beck made terroristic threats or that he is simultaneously also a bigot and may also be guilty of a Hate Crime?
#10 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 7:11 pm
Don’t do it Warnick! Tell him to F&*^ off.
Your record speaks for itself. You don’t need to defend yourself.
If I am guilty, Glenn Beck is guilty 10 times over. Okelberries is suffocating in a bad argument and an overdose of hypocrisy.
He and his arguments have withered on the vine as fast as Tom Delay’s carcass began to stink.
The key is to keep Okelberry away from Becks legs so he can twist in the wind alone for treason.
#11 by jdberger on April 17, 2009 - 7:57 pm
Yeah, Richard.
Your record speaks for itself….
#12 by Becky on April 17, 2009 - 10:23 pm
Rich *********,
You’ve certainly got, um, guts, asking Rich W to apologize to you for the very same thing you did to me when you took my innocent statement about herbal tea out of context in an attempt to prove that I “hate”. Remember that, RO? Does this mean you’ll be apologizing to me?
#13 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2009 - 1:20 am
Richard:
It was actually a book signing/war rally. He was promoting his first book. I didn’t know it was going to be a war rally until I got there, and I don’t think any of the people at the meeting had any intention of going to war themselves, but Hannity was definitely drumming up the crowd and promoting a war in Iraq intensely on this tour before we went in. No doubt about it!
Also, just look at the title of the book. The war/s he was promoting were a twofer.
#14 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2009 - 1:36 am
Here’s the Dustin Hoffman statement that got Sean Hannity’s shorts in a wad just before the war started and caused him to accuse Hoffman of treason on the air. I guess they decided Hoffman might be too big a fish to keep pursuing even after making such a statement, on foreign soil. The Dixie Chicks weren’t so lucky. Hannity tried to destroy them the minute their story broke, and the entire media played along. I wonder what KVNU was doing, if they were around at the time?
Of course, the Hannity quote is nowhere to be found and has disappeared into the digital void.
#15 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2009 - 8:23 am
Larry–
They ought to have an Armed Forces recruiting table at every Sean Hannity event– if only to underscore what chickenhawks he and his supporters are.
R.O.–
Are you not able to find the State Department definition of terrorism that I quoted? I’ll give you a hint, I linked to the full text on Glenn Greenwald’s blog. That’s what I normally do, I pull out the essence of an argument and provide a link to the source.
As for Glenn Beck, I’m asking whether you will apply the same standards to his over-the-top rhetoric that you apply to Cliff’s over-the-top rhetoric. Simple question.
#16 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2009 - 2:33 pm
Yeah Richard, I’m sure something of great interest would catch and divert the eyes and attention of those walking by a recruiting table at those events also.
Since I can’t find it, I have to admit I can’t be sure whether Hannity said Hoffman was guilty of treason or if he called him a traitor, but I’m absolutely certain it was one of those two things. I don’t like to throw things out there like Hannity, just to cause trouble.
#17 by jdberger on April 18, 2009 - 9:25 pm
Are you two suggesting that one cannot advocate for war if they don’t go themselves?
What exactly does this “chickenhawk” thing mean?
May only those who’ve served in combat comment on such?
#18 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2009 - 12:18 am
Hard to believe you missed the chickenhawk controversy jd, but it’s probably run it’s course anyway since the republican warmongers-for-the-sake-of-warmongering crowd is out of power. Fact is, the only one in Bush’s cabinet who did serve is Rumsfeld, and it’s dubious to say he wasn’t just a desk jockey.
Take a look at this list, and tell me which party you think might be able to make a better decision on whether to jump into combat without a just cause.
Jessie Ventura said he didn’t think you should advocate war unless you were willing to send your own son, and that’s not really a bad take when you think about it. Sure would cut down on the waste of human life.
But then you wouldn’t even condemn this idiot for avoiding a war and then actively promoting it under Bush. You never even denied that’s how he got out of serving. Yeah, Nugent wants Bob S’s son to fight them “over there” so HE won’t have to fight them “over here.” Even Bob thinks that’s OK.
Did I serve? No, and I’m not claiming enough knowledge to even debate the subject. I’ll leave that to Richard, who did.
#19 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2009 - 12:29 am
Who is Rich *********, and why won’t he just answer one simple question?
#20 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 7:27 am
So Abraham Lincoln….chickenhawk, eh?
Hillary Clinton voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. When is Chelsea Clinton going to enlist?
John Edwards voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.. His daughter is in college. Will she be joining the military?
Barack Obama did not vote for the war, but he’s calling for more ground troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and threatened to send ground troops into Pakistan. When the Obama children turn 18, will they be enlisting? Does he have any family members in the military? Any in-laws or distant cousins? Isn’t he every bit of a “chickenhawk” to threaten U.S military force in a distant Muslim country without serving himself, or having his children wear the uniform?
Of course, by your logic, Richard, Obama isn’t fit to command American troops – but his opponent was.
Who’d you vote for?
Do you have the courage of your convictions?
#21 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 10:18 am
jd–
Actually, Abraham Lincoln served as a captain in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War, although he never saw combat. Lincoln did not start the Civil War, the Confederacy did.
You can call Hillary a chickenhawk if you want, I won’t object, but the term is usually applied to men. John Edwards, unlike Hillary, admitted he made a mistake voting to authorize military action against Iraq. Democrats who voted for the Iraq AUMF assumed that Bush would not violate international law by invading without UN Security Council authorization– they were wrong.
President Obama hasn’t started any wars, he’s trying to finish two unwinnable wars Bush got us into. I didn’t vote for him, I don’t like all his decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan either.
I called Sean Hannity a chickenhawk because his childish enthusiasm for war far outweighs his nonexistent military experience. I want adults calling the shots on our national security, not idiots like Hannity.
#22 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 10:43 am
Yes. For a couple weeks (he also served as a private). GW had more military experience. And Lincoln pushed aggressively for military action, against the advice of his General, George McLellan. Who made the better decision.
This is a pathetic canard and you know it. They changed their tune when it became politically expedient. Otherwise, they would have been marching in the streets with the ANSWER folks the day the bombings began. Frankly, I’m shocked that you buy their bullsh*t.
No. You want military men calling the shots (or else you have to abandon the Chickenhawk canard).
I don’t see the same condemnation of FDR. George Marshall opposed sending arms to Britain in 1940. His boss thought otherwise. Whose judgment was better?
Face it, Richard, “Chickenhawk” isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.
The cry of “chickenhawk” is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of “chicken hawks” ought to be just as dismissive of “chicken doves.”
So, are you ever going to comment on Clarence Thomas?
#23 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 10:52 am
jd–
I definitely do not want the military calling the shots on national security. That’s why we have a commander in chief. I think military experience can be a plus for a commander in chief, but not always. During the 2008 campaign, Senator McCain turned out to know almost nothing at all about foreign and military affairs despite his long career. I was shocked.
Chickenhawks are people who are way too happy to send others to their deaths, unable to distinguish between wars of necessity and wars of aggression. Warmongers without any skin in the game, in other words.
I commented plenty on Clarence Thomas (in another thread). He is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Nothing more to say.
#24 by cav on April 19, 2009 - 11:03 am
Two of my best comments to date _ FAILED _ I guess my commenting carrier is complete.
Now three?
#25 by cav on April 19, 2009 - 11:04 am
Wouldn’t you know.
#26 by Becky on April 19, 2009 - 12:10 pm
Cav, I’m not sure what you just said, but do keep on commenting. We need your wry contributions.
#27 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 12:14 pm
So it’s political, eh? Chickenhawks are the ones you disagree with?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Regarding your comments on Justice Thomas, they were woefully inadequate.
You can’t (or refuse) to name any opinions you disagree with, and can’t or are unable to explain specifically why you would disagree with them.
You further refuse (or are unable) to explain how you would like to apply stare decisis to the Plessy and Bowers decisions.
Your “extensive commentary” fails.
#28 by cav on April 19, 2009 - 12:21 pm
Thanks Becky.
Nutshelling: Drone attacks, directed by children video-gamers, further fuzzify the disconnect from real – blood – on – the – hands Not-chickenhawks and politicians. Compassion slips through the cracks. This is the direction the military is taking.
#29 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 12:26 pm
So, Cav? Do you think we should return to the days of clubs and spears? When tens of thousands fought and were killed in battles?
The truth is, war has become less violent.
50,000 dead in one day at Waterloo.
50,000 dead in 3 days at Gettysburgh
50,000 Americans dead in 12 years in Vietnam.
#30 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 12:48 pm
jd–
Read what I wrote about Justice Thomas in another thread.
I disagree with all of Justice Thomas’ opinions (thankfully, he was in the minority on Hamdi). All of them. Isn’t that obvious? The reason I disagree with Thomas is simple: he wants to get rid of the Bill of Rights, and I support it.
FYI, stare decisis does not mean Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned later. However, Justice Thomas believes there is no such thing as precedent, and approaches every Supreme Court case without regard for anything the Court has said on the subject previously.
Thomas is an absolute disgrace. He has no idea what he’s doing. I have supported my opinion with facts. OTOH your opinion that Thomas is a “brilliant jurist” is supported by nothing.
#31 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 4:37 pm
This is an interesting statement. Are you suggesting that Justice Thomas is always in the minority on the court?
Do you have any research to support your statement?
Do you agree or disagree with Justice Thomas when he states that growing marijuana for personal use was an intrastate issue and outside the reach of the interstate commerce clause?
Just curious.
#32 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 4:45 pm
jd–
Justice Thomas was in the majority for Bush v. Gore, and I disagree with that decision.
I disagree with Justice Thomas’ interpretation of the commerce clause, because we all know that marijuana grown “for personal use” in California is being sold on the Internet.
Once again, I ask you to cite an example of Justice Thomas’ brilliant jurisprudence.
#33 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 8:57 pm
It’s ok for you to acknowledge that your knowledge of ConLaw is … limited, Richard.
What part, of Bush v. Gore were you unhappy with, Richard? Would you have voted with the 2 dissenters? Who were they? Why did they dissent? Please be specific.
Are you sure about your facts re the marijuana matter, Richard?
Are you sure that you’d agree that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) gave a regulatory agency the power to overrule a state’s decriminalizaton of marijuana for medical purposes.
Justice Thomas disagreed.
Now is the time to admit that you really don’t know what you are talking about, Richard.
It’s ok.
You’re not a SCOTUS follower. I’m sure that your knowledge of it is limited to what people tell you. You’ve never been to law school.
It’s ok.
#34 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 9:30 pm
jd–
Still waiting for you to elaborate on your unsupported declaration concerning Justice Thomas:
You need to know that the commerce clause of the Constitution is the foundation of most of what the federal government does. If you undermine the commerce clause, as Justice Thomas wants to do, that’s a radical revision of settled law.
We can discuss everything you don’t know about Bush v. Gore another time. It could take hours.
#35 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 9:59 pm
So, Richard? Are you suggesting that the Federal Government can do whatever it wants under the penumbra of the Commerce Clause?
Regulate whatever they want? Tax whatever they want? Regulate the way the States approach Medical Marijuana? Abortion?
Are you really serious?
(You might want to go over this with James Farmer real quick before you answer.)
As far as the “brilliant jurist” thing – I’ve already pointed you to the Volokh Conspiracy. Not that their opinion would carry any weight….
You did spend a little time over there, didn’t you?
#36 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2009 - 10:07 pm
jd–
Are you seriously suggesting that Justice Thomas is a brilliant jurist? Because that’s what you wrote.
#37 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 10:14 pm
For fucks sake, Richard.
YES.
Justice Thomas is a brilliant jurist.
Are you daft?
#38 by cav on April 19, 2009 - 10:26 pm
Someone is!
#39 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2009 - 11:46 pm
cav:
There are some weird things going on with the comments getting moderated. It’s very annoying, but don’t you dare give up commenting here!
These problems pop up every now and then, but nobody is moderating anything. Then again, I wonder if John Poindexter is up to something
#40 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2009 - 5:41 am
jd–
And the evidence for Justice Thomas’ alleged brilliance is… ????
#41 by Rich Okelberry on April 20, 2009 - 7:08 am
Larry,
In response to your question, “Who is Rich *********, and why won’t he just answer one simple question?
Rich ****** is me, Rich Okelberry. I apologize but my Virus Protection blocked my browser from posting my last name to this site. In my hurry I didn’t notice the mistake till later but figured most would figure it out.
Now to your question of why I have not issued a lengthy response to Richard Warnick’s request. First, I already have issued a response, just not the detailed explanation that Mr. Warnick was searching for. In what seems to be becoming a habit with Mr. Warnick his paraphrasing failed to tell the whole story.
Mr. Warnick characterized my initial response to his request as follows:
Now if Richard Warnick wanted to be upfront he would have included the fact that my initial response to his request was to concede that if Glenn Beck had made threatening statements then he too should be investigated by the authorities.
I then in response asked Mr. Warnick the following question;
I should note that Mr. Warnick refused to respond to this question. Also, in my original essay I laid claim that IF Cliff Lyon’s speech is considered a terroristic threat then his included and past pattern of religious intolerance might then also compose a violation under Utah’s Hate Crimes legislation which is designed to also protect religion.
Let me also say that the secondary reason why I have refused to answer Mr. Warnick is because he has repeatedly failed then outright refused to correct Cliff Lyon after issuing the following demand at KVNU:
Because Richard Warnick is unwilling to step up and correct Cliff even though I have repeatedly asked him to do so, it appears that I will have to set him straight on this issue. On January 14th 2009, in his essay, NYT Columnist Tom Friedman Accuses Israel of Terrorism, Richard Warnick made the following statement:
Unfortunately for Mr. Warnick’s readers he left out a crucial part of Title 22 that made his argument about Israel being guilty of Terrorism under US law. Therefore I responded with the following correction:
Following this Richard Warnick went on to admit his purposeful admission saying,
I hope this helps to clear everything up, Larry…
I should also be noted that it was during this post that Richard Warnick exposed his Anti-Semitic side when he published his list of dual citizen Israelis that hold positions in the government.
#42 by Becky on April 20, 2009 - 7:33 am
RO,
I read that clause differently than you do. You are reading it to mean subnational groups or subnational clandestine agents. But I read it to say subnational groups or any clandestine agent (whether or not associated with a nation).
#43 by Cliff on April 20, 2009 - 8:04 am
Thats IT Okelberries?
Richard chopped the quote before ’subnational’? That’s how you get out of admitting your hypocrisy?
Becky nailed it. You read it wrong. Thats what happens when emotion and hate cloud your brain.
As for the claim that Richard is a bigot; I suppose a school teacher could be considered a bigot for yelling at a kid who wants to talk in class…by your standard.
The mention the dual citizenship is meant to highlight the potential conflict of interest. Again, cloudy, cloudy cloudy.
#44 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2009 - 8:13 am
Actually, I did respond to R.O.’s loaded question about “abortionists.” Here is what I wrote:
Also, as you can see, I indicated that I think “If Glenn beck truly has broken the law” was a non-response.
Later in the thread, R.O. promised to get back to me once he had a chance to examine Glenn Beck’s statements in context [here he says "your statements" in reference to my Beck quotes which are repeated above in this thread].
As for the definition of terrorism, as anyone can see in the original post, I linked to the full text on Glenn Greenwald’s blog post– which I was summarizing. It was my prerogative to leave out the weasel words.
How is it anti-Jewish to point out that top Bush administration officials and prominent neocons hold dual Israeli citizenship? That is a legitimate issue, especially in light of today’s news about Rep. Jane Harman and the AIPAC spy case.
It amazes me that people like R.O. can get so exercised over rhetorical flourishes and free speech, while serious crimes and even crimes against humanity fail to attract their attention.
#45 by Shane Smith on April 20, 2009 - 8:27 am
“So, Cav? Do you think we should return to the days of clubs and spears? When tens of thousands fought and were killed in battles?
The truth is, war has become less violent.
50,000 dead in one day at Waterloo.
50,000 dead in 3 days at Gettysburgh
50,000 Americans dead in 12 years in Vietnam.”
It couldn’t possibly be that medical science has anything to do with this, could it? Or that tactics other than ‘have the men charge!’ might come into play? Or that those wars might have any kind of mitigating circumstances?
Roughly 70,000 died in a single day when Hiroshima was bombed, and the effects of the bombs may have killed as many as 150,000 depending on what you consider “effects” to mean, and that wasn’t one day, that was a single action that took only a few seconds.
So jd, the truth is, you are talking out of your ass again….
#46 by Rich Okelberry on April 20, 2009 - 8:51 am
Becky,
How fortunate for you that you had the opportunity to apply your interpretation to the actual title. Unfortunately, Richard Warnick was not willing to even give his readers that opportunity and never made that argument in his defense. He likely did not make such an argument because he knew as I do that it is wrong. This is why we use the term State Sponsored Terror rather than State Terror. Sorry Becky, good try but there just isn’t enough straw in this haystack to justify the omission regardless of interpretation.
So how about my assertion that Warnick’s propagation of The List of dual-citizen Israelis is in essence Anti-Semitic? Do you agree with Cliff that it merely highlights a conflict of interest? Do you find anything at all dubious about republishing such a List?
Also note that Richard Warnick just claimed, “As for the definition of terrorism, as anyone can see in the original post, I linked to the full text.” Unfortunately for all of us Richard Warnick is omitting again a key piece of information. He only provided the link to the full text after I had pointed out that it was omitted:
“…Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d): [Link to USC provided for context, after comment pointed out the omission]”
The hyperlink for the “comment” takes the reader directly to my post.
#47 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2009 - 9:07 am
R.O.–
If she chooses, Becky can answer the questions you pose to her. But here’s a point of information:
The link to Glenn Greenwald, which is the first link in my post, was there all along. Greenwald quotes the law in full. I later added an additional link to the U.S. Code to refute any perception that I was taking things out of context.
Now, here’s my question to you. Can you acknowledge that what happened in Gaza last December was terrorism directed at innocent civilians? If not, would you say it was the moral equivalent of terrorism?
I’m more interested in having a substantive discussion of the war crimes issue than continuing to debate what I wrote on a blog post three months ago.
#48 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 9:31 am
Yes, Shane. You are correct. Additionally your comment really helps to illustrate my point.
However, the tactics are influenced by the weapons. It wouldn’t make much sense for soldiers to “form squares” with AKs against tanks, would it? Nor would lines of marching massed infantry make much sense against the accuracy of the M16.
So, the advances in weaponry have made war less violent.
Regarding attacks on civilians or “strategic” bombings, Hiroshima was a spectacular display of force, but if you go back to the days of “sticks and clubs” it wasn’t uncommon for entire cities to be put to the torch and sword. The sack of Samarkand is an excellent example of this.
So, despite your lone example, Shane, I’ll stick with my premise that as weapons have advanced wars have become less violent and have generated fewer casualties.
#49 by Becky on April 20, 2009 - 9:50 am
RO,
As Richard says, his original post linked to the Greenwald article which provided the full quotation (even more than what you quoted, RO). Your statement that he only provided a link to it after your comment is plainly wrong.
I do not agree that your interpretation of that phrase is the correct one. If you will read it carefully, you will see it is too ambiguous for us to know for sure whether or not the clandestine agents might be nationals or sub-nationals or both. So shout all you want about this, but I continue to disagree with your view of it.
Finally, as to your claims of anti-Semitism, I think you confuse Judaism (the religion) and the Israeli government. Anti-Semitism refers to a “hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism”. However, it does not mean if one criticizes the actions of the Israeli government, that person is automatically an anti-Semite any more than criticizing Utah’s Governor Huntsman means a person is anti-Mormon. I do see Rich’s point that those with dual citizenships might not be entirely objective about military actions taken by a country where they hold citizenship, and as Cliff points out, may also have a conflict of interest in their official duties serving the U.S.
Now RO, how about that apology you owe me for taking my words out of context in order to call me a hater?
#50 by cav on April 20, 2009 - 10:15 am
jd believes: “… as weapons have advanced wars have become less violent and have generated fewer casualties.”
This sense of removal from the bone and flesh grinding, while enabling ‘jds’ throughout the land to pursue their consumerism unaffected by it, is the very point I was trying to make.
Button pushing mass death is no less punishing for those on the receiving end. Rationalize that however you will.
Further ALL this bs is contrived to continue the palatability of WAR for those of us ’so disconnected’. Compassion slipping through the cracks. Shock, Awe and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as entertainment.
You can have (and may you choke on) it.
#51 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 11:23 am
cav – I’m willing to further postulate that with the advancement of weapons that (big “W”) Wars have become less frequent.
No – I can’t prove it (or maybe I can – I just don’t really have the time). However, it seems to me that with the advent of bigger-badder weapons systems, we’ve seen less Nation on Nation conflict.
War is never palatable for those who’ve fought, cav.
#52 by Shane Smith on April 20, 2009 - 4:52 pm
“Now RO, how about that apology you owe me for taking my words out of context in order to call me a hater?”
If he apologized each time he did that, he would never have any time to get anything done! Be fair Becky….
#53 by Shane Smith on April 20, 2009 - 4:57 pm
Yes jd, we have less war, less death, and the wars are cleaner and more polite and less dangerous. And it is the weapons, not the medicine, and not the fact that the militaries involved don’t do body counts and civilians don’t matter….
Smart bombs really are smart, they really only hit their targets, and they really kill with laser like precision. We don’t bomb wedding parties, we don’t torture, we don’t break the law, they hate us because of our freedoms, we didn’t create the monsters, and America is always good.
…and we have always been at war with eastasia.
#54 by cav on April 20, 2009 - 5:54 pm
I’m really aware of only one bigW(ar)…it seems to have started sometime before I was born and will probably continue til long after I’m dead. I know that’s the case for alltogether too many of us, but there’s money to be made so…
#55 by Cliff on April 20, 2009 - 6:17 pm
Becky,
As one with about 15 Israeli cousins and deep experience in the Israeli middle -east thing, I would re-state:
…with, ‘you confuse Judaism with Zionism. Okelberries is clearly a Zionist.
American Evangelicals (apocalyptic) are the worse kind of Zionist, (and generally racist) not to be confused with Jewish Zionist who have some semblance of empathy for the Palestinians.
So the apocalyptic Zionist always cry antisemitism in defense of overzealous Jewish Zionist.
So transparent. Pitiful.
#56 by Becky on April 20, 2009 - 6:41 pm
Thanks for clarifying that Cliff. Apocalyptic Zionist is a perfect description of our friend RO.
#57 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2009 - 6:55 pm
I don’t know about R.O., but some evangelicals value Israelis only for their supposed role in prophecy– which is to get wiped out in the “mother of all holocausts.” The 144,000 survivors will then convert to Christianity, according to the evangelicals.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
#58 by Joseph Ririe on April 21, 2009 - 8:41 am
“Okelberries is clearly a Zionist”
Takes one to know one eh Cliff?
#59 by Joseph Ririe on April 21, 2009 - 8:44 am
Don’t forget Hannibal’s pummeling of the Romans at Cannae, it is said some 60,000 Romans were slain in a day. Where there is a will, there is a kill.
#60 by Rich Okelberry on April 21, 2009 - 8:46 am
Cliff & Becky,
I have indicated on more than one occasion that is am Lutheran LCMS. In fact I am also the elected vice-president of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church here in Logan. You have both affirmed that you each believe that I am an “Apocalyptic Zionist.” Logic would then dictate that you two also believe that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and all of its congregants are also such “Apocalyptic Zionists.”
It is terribly apparent that neither of you were actually interested in discovering what I believe but were instead attempting to purposely discredit me through Libel.
If either of you had been interested in anything other than defamation, you might have actually attempted to discover first what Lutherans actually believe about the apocalypse or millennialism.
Finally, I hope all three of you, Cliff, Becky and Richard Warnick have had a chance to read my most recent post at KVNU titled, The Rise of Religious Intolerance.
#61 by Becky on April 21, 2009 - 9:19 am
I stand corrected, RO. You are not an apocalyptic Zionist. Just a run-of-the-mill one.
#62 by Shane Smith on April 21, 2009 - 9:36 am
“I have indicated on more than one occasion that is am Lutheran LCMS. In fact I am also the elected vice-president of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church here in Logan. You have both affirmed that you each believe that I am an “Apocalyptic Zionist.” Logic would then dictate that you two also believe that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and all of its congregants are also such “Apocalyptic Zionists.””
Hrmmm, I like this new logic. Let me see if i can give this a try.
Obama is a black male. He is also the elected president of America. Logic would dictate that all Americans are black males. Becky is an American. Becky is black male.
Holy Jeebus on a fricking stick RO! After the dumb ass inversion comments and the mindless abortion magical 12 day limit i knew you had issues, but seriously? That is logic to you? Did you eat paint chips as a child? Where you repeatedly dropped on your head?
And we should all read what you think about religious intolerance? Oh I am sure you are expert there! You are the most intolerant religious person I have read in a long time…..
#63 by cav, on April 21, 2009 - 10:08 am
I too, see the light!
#64 by Cliff on April 21, 2009 - 11:23 am
Professor Steve Siporin,
I wonder if you are aware of your role as a ruse in Richard Okleberry’s personal and dishonest attacks.
I don’t imagine you have time time to read enough of my writing support the use of the word hate to describe it.
My criticism of religion is of it substance, but its corruption at the hands of zealots like Richard Okelberries who peddle their ideologies in public and political debate.
As a Jewish historian, you can most likely appreciate the grace of keeping mostly private, ones spirituality and relationship with God.
You might also appreciate that Richards belief in the preeminence of his doctrine over politics, law, and the Constitution (1st Amendment) would in an earlier time, be the impetus for exterminating the Jews or at least the motivation for a bit of Crusading and pillaging.
I welcome an exchange with you and invite you to become a OneUtah author and post freely as the spirit moves you.
#65 by Rich Okelberry on April 22, 2009 - 4:46 am
Interesting… Something tells me that Professor Siporin is not going to be very willing to author for OneUtah. Still, I will be sure to pass the offer along with his recent description of me as an “Apocalyptic Zionist.”
#66 by Becky on April 22, 2009 - 6:08 am
RO,
Something tells me Professor Siporin isn’t going to even know for himself what we think unless he finds his way over here, inasmuch as some chickenshit won’t allow comments on his post at KVNUFTP. Anyone can win a debate, RO, when only one side is talking.
I do hope the good Professor S will visit us and he can see for himself that you have presented a most slanted view.
#67 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 8:57 am
Once again Okelberries, you and your resident hate scholar may post here freely.
OneUtah.org is an open forum.
#68 by Rich Okelberry on April 22, 2009 - 11:40 am
Cliff,
I am far more interested in seeing OneUtah disbanded and shut down. In fact you can save a lot of time and money by simply shutting it down today and refrain from peddling your bigotry any further online. Already, the wheels are in motion to bring together religious and civic community leaders to publically oppose you and your creation. Understand Cliff, I have long forgiven you many times for your Libelous attacks but can stand by no longer and allow you to fuel such bigoted hate which only serves to divide us as a people.
Claiming that this site is for the free exchange of ideas is wholly inaccurate. This site is a construct created to become a venue from which bigoted remarks and whole sale religious intolerance can flourish under the guise of free speech and public discourse. This site only invites in various authors to give it’s self the appearance of legitimacy. In fact, I am convinced that when many authors that are listed here are confronted with the graphic forms of hate the spew from this site they will be demand being removed as a listed contributor and publically denounce what has been happening here.
Just look at how, when confronted with the opinion of one of the worlds foremost leaders in Jewish history that support for an unfounded list of dual citizen Israeli / Americans in the government is Anti-Semitic your response was to label me an Apocalyptic Zionist and to call the respected Professor Siporin a “resident hate scholar.”
#69 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 12:07 pm
Okelberries,
I’m not sure who the arbiter of ‘legitimacy’ but you are certainly welcome to add to our legitimacy in your eyes by becoming an author. If you would please just register on the site, I will give you author rights.
Let me remind you, this site has no moderators, editors and has never even been accused of moderating, it is by any definition and contrary to your baseless assertion, a free, public exchange of ideas.
As free as it gets anyway.
How can you argue against that when Paul Mero is posting as an author?…at least with a ’straight face?’
I should also note that there are at least 4 other Admins each of whom have the unfettered ability to assign author rights to anyone.
It would be virtually impossible to describe even in the hypothetical, a site that is more free and open.
I think you are confusing the ‘free exchange of ideas’ with the hope an prayer that anyone agrees with you. In case you hadn’t noticed, no one, even on KVNU supports your accusations, argument or ideas.
Thats not my fault. I must also challenge your presentation of the professor as agreeing with you. I don’t believe he condones anything you’ve claimed he has and I would not be surprised if you simply stole his name and persona.
Richard, just register on the site and let me know so you can post all you want all day long (unless you are afraid of actually being exposed to a large audience).
#70 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 12:12 pm
btw: Okleberries. Oooops!!!! Your MLK quote is a farse perpetuated no doubt by apocalyptic Zionist.
#71 by Probes on April 22, 2009 - 12:20 pm
Very strong back peddle, for a zionist Cliff.
#72 by Shane Smith on April 22, 2009 - 12:41 pm
“Already, the wheels are in motion to bring together religious and civic community leaders to publically oppose you and your creation”
Are those the wheels of religious intolerance? The wheels of people who are against free speech, as opposed to the people on this site who keep pointing out that you are free to post here? And what exactly will they do when they “publically (sic) oppose ” the site? Stand in the corner and pout? Stomp their little feet at the pulpit and talk about the evil secular people that believe in free thought and speech rather than doing what you are told and obeying?
“I am far more interested in seeing OneUtah disbanded and shut down”
At least you finally openly admit to being an un-American anti-free speech bigot, fascist and censor at heart. Baby steps RO. Baby steps.
#73 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 1:02 pm
Shane,
I chose not to address the most obvious hypocrisy of Okelberries comment – his threat to attempt to squelch free speech “refrain from peddling your bigotry any further online.” – for fear of confusing him.
I thought we discussed this in our editorial meeting this morning.
You’re gunnin’ for a pink slip buddy! Don’t be surprised if your next OneUtah paycheck doesn’t come.
FYI. He still hasn’t registered.
#74 by jdberger on April 22, 2009 - 1:05 pm
Cliff – you’re an idiot.
From your source:
RO’s quote is:
With the exception of “Don’t talk like that…” the quotes are identical.
#75 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2009 - 1:05 pm
Rich Okelberry is working to nuke OneUtah?
The poor, picked on religious and civic community leaders say:
“We are so weak, and OneUtah is so strong!”
#76 by Shane Smith on April 22, 2009 - 1:10 pm
Cliff: My next check? Waiting on the first one still…
Larry: Help Help were bein’ repressed!
#77 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 1:24 pm
Hearsay JD,
And a little history for ya. Back in the late sixties when Israel was still struggling for her existence against significant international backlash, antisemitism was much more institutionalized and visceral around the world and Zionism was much more closely equated with being Jewish.
There was little distinction between Zionism and being Jewish. It was unsusual for a non Jew to call himself a Zionist and all Jews were considered Zionists.
So IF MKL said that, then, he was right.
I assure you, MLK would not have said that today.
You should know this stuff Berger (Good Jewish name)
Btw: I believe Israel has the right to exist but I oppose the exploitation of that idea to justify the behavior of the Israeli gov’t…and I am a certain God does not exist.
#78 by Becky on April 22, 2009 - 1:40 pm
Okes,
Let’s go back to your original premise, that by listing names of U.S. officials who hold dual citizenship the writer is anti-Semitic. Rich W succinctly responded to your hate-filled spew at KVNUFTP as follows:
RO, you don’t even understand the distinction in that statement, do you? Or is it you don’t want to accept the truth? And why would that be? I have my own theories. Would you like to know them?
#79 by jdberger on April 22, 2009 - 1:45 pm
The quotes are identical, Cliff. Nice weasel, though.
There is a VERY large distinction between Zionism and being Jewish, Cliffy. Not all Zionists are Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists. This has also been historically true. For instance, most Orthodox Jews are not Zionists (particularly Hassidim).
But thanks for the attempt. I’m pretty good on 20th Century Middle Eastern History, the Diaspora and the creation of Israel.
What’s a “bad” Jewish name, Cliff?
#80 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 2:02 pm
JD,
You do realize that this statement is a defense of the accusation in question and if true effectively extinguishes as BULLSHIT the words you claim MLK uttered just before his death?
See what anger does JD? In your rush to defeat me, you shot your argument in the foot. Better stick with gunpowder and lead for ammo.
btw: Reading Exodus does not an expert make.
#81 by Richard Warnick on April 22, 2009 - 2:06 pm
OK, I just got caught up reading this thread but I’m mystified. Can anyone explain what R.O. is upset about? Every weekday, his hero Glenn Beck spews hateful rhetoric on Faux News, which has an exponentially bigger audience than this little blog.
I think tomorrow I’m going to post about Israeli war crimes again, just to clarify the issue.
#82 by jdberger on April 22, 2009 - 2:28 pm
It was your quote, Cliffy.
I’m not angry.
I’m simply correcting you.
#83 by Shane Smith on April 22, 2009 - 6:49 pm
Richard, I think it is just his nature to be upset. I mean what good is (faux) moral outrage without the “outrage” part?
#84 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 7:17 pm
I think Okelberries is just gunnin’ for one of our lucrative OneUtah author positions. His blog at UtahFreePress is floundering pretty badly.
At last check it was getting an average of 1.2 unique visitors per day including Okelberries himself.
I’m convinced Okelberries doesn’t really understand the merits of an open free blog as it relates to our most cherished right of free speech.
Sometimes I wonder if he even understands the actual concept of free speech.
#85 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 7:22 pm
On second thought, lets just disband OneUtah.org.
I hereby order all OneUtah authors to disband. I want Warnick on bass. Shane. You take lead guitar. Becky is lead vocals. I’ll take rhythm guitar. Larry on drums and Glen is on dulcimer.
Everyone else can do backup vocals.
Cav of course is our songwriter.
JD and Bob S. are our roadies security at concerts. And yes, Bob, I will ask JD to let you hold the gun…sometimes.
Can you live with that JD?
#86 by Shane Smith on April 22, 2009 - 7:23 pm
First of all Cliff, I play bass. Or did. If you want me on lead you are just asking for crap music.
I second the spot for cav though…..
#87 by Becky on April 22, 2009 - 7:47 pm
Get us a gig, I’m ready. I’ll add some keyboards when needed. I’d better hurry and do one more top post before we are ordered to shut down by the “religious and civic community leaders” who obviously either have the authority or will shame or intimidate us into it.
#88 by cav, on April 22, 2009 - 8:28 pm
‘Stop Torturing Me Ethl’…
And we’ll need to bump our unit by bringing aboard the aqua-arkestra.
No prob, eh, Cliff?
It has been a long hard road and while I was seriously toying with the idea of throwing up my hands for the LAST time, it occurred to me that surrender doesn’t seem to be an option. They’ll just revive us and insist on an encore…then another…and still another.
I would like to commend all of you, with the possible exception of RO (and dog knows that if there’s hope for Ken – there might be hope for R as well) for all the thought and expression that help to dis-establish such crooked workings.
Nao, get some rest.
#89 by Cliff on April 22, 2009 - 9:18 pm
Cav,
While it is clear, our work here is done\ by any measure. After all, a Black family moved into 1600 PA Ave a couple of months ago.
I feel myself a new voyeur feeding a growing addiction, unable to turn away from the spasmodic jerks of vanquished and the televised cannibalism of the ‘finalist’ trampling one another for the last portions of live flesh.
…and of course our fine friends on 1U who must be among the few still waiting in line for the promise of vindication that will never come.
#90 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2009 - 10:49 pm
I actually have a Fender Jazzmaster guitar, but you sure don’t want me playing that or a set of drums. I make a heck of a good liverwurst sandwich though.
#91 by Rich Okelberry on April 23, 2009 - 6:58 am
Amazing… Shane Smith seems to think that I have the ability to take away his freedom of speech and Cliff Lyon believes that if I don’t turn off my belief in God before walking into the voting booth that I am some how going to turn our government into a theocracy. Fortunately, I believe that the Constitution works and is able to protect speech and guard against theocratic rule.
Quite the opposite of squelching free speech, I plan to use it. I plan to use the free expression of hate regularly emitted by some of the authors here and my freedom of speech to pass those often bigoted bits or religious intolerance onto whoever will listen. I wonder for example how many bigoted writers here have policies at their work regarding intolerance toward religion…
Ultimately it is not my goal to take away anyone’s right to speech but to use that speech to make every bigoted writer here infamous. I want every coworker and family member to know exactly what each of you believe in and stand for.
Also, I plan to use the courts as necessary to seek proper and just compensation for the regular acts of Libel against me and will encourage others to do the same. If you have written something derogatory about me here you better hope and pray that you can prove it to be true! You see make knowingly false statements about someone, especially to purposely defame them is not a form of protected speech.
Of course anyone here who would like to bow out can do so by simply posting an apology along with any needed retractions and by abdicating authoring rights here at OneUtah. As I understand it, as of last night Paul Mero has already abdicated his authoring rights here even if Cliff Lyon has yet to be notified. Hopefully other authors here will see that is serves the greater good to do the same.
Please understand that I am not simply posturing on this issue.
———————–
ADL has long empowered bystanders to become allies in the fight against hate. The same holds true online: fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry requires all of us to act decisively. When you discover hate online, here are some strategies to fight back …
__________
Flag. Many sites, such as YouTube, allow users to flag offensive content for review. Many also allow you to say why you thought something was offensive. If so, make sure to include detailed comments as to why you thought the item was hateful.
Speak. Post videos, counter-points of view, or comments that oppose the offensive point of view. Let the social networking community see a competing perspective.
Think. Perspective is crucial. Think before you respond, and try to respond in a thoughtful, careful manner.
Applaud. Don’t forget to post positive comments on content that shares positive messages.
Talk. Talk to your friends, teachers, or family about what you’ve seen.
Learn. Many groups publish information about combating particular kinds of prejudice, such as the Anti-Defamation League’s resources on anti-Semitism.
E-mail. Notify groups like the Anti-Defamation League, which keep track of trends in hate speech.
Act. Take active steps to combat prejudice online and offline.
Know. Know the community with which you are dealing. Look for a site’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines and find out about the kind of site the company wants to run – many say that they do not wish to host hateful content – and hold the site accountable to it.
A word about free speech and censorship. ADL is a leading advocate for free speech and does not believe in government suppression of hateful speech merely because it is hateful. However, many websites and social networking sites voluntarily agree to exercise good corporate responsibility and limit the hateful content they purvey. In such cases, we believe that users should speak out firmly against the hate they encounter on those sites, and in turn the sites should live up to their stated Terms of Service or Community Guidelines.
The Internet is Making Anti-Semitism Socially Acceptable
#92 by Rich Okelberry on April 23, 2009 - 7:02 am
Jdberger,
I hope that you don’t mind too much if OneUtah goes offline. You have been a good ally here in the fight against hate and bigotry and I hope you will take the time to stop by KVNUFRP.com occasionally.
Thanks again Brother!
#93 by Shane Smith on April 23, 2009 - 7:13 am
“Amazing… Shane Smith seems to think that I have the ability to take away his freedom of speech”
No RO, you think that.
“Already, the wheels are in motion to bring together religious and civic community leaders to publically oppose you and your creation”
“I am far more interested in seeing OneUtah disbanded and shut down”
But it gets better!
“Ultimately it is not my goal to take away anyone’s right to speech but to use that speech to make every bigoted writer here infamous. I want every coworker and family member to know exactly what each of you believe in and stand for.”
Why on earth do you think I am not already sending links to what i write here to them on a regular basis? Just because you think that every statement ever made that even indirectly references religion is hate speech, the majority of people I know are not that anal…..
#94 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 8:09 am
Holy Flippin Jesus Okelberries,
Look at what you caused. It was your idea to start disband The Bigots and already people are bickering over what instruments they’ll play.
I should have know better than to try to do get a bunch of bigots to do anything in a organized fashion.
OK. Fine.
Larry – Lead guitar
Shane – Bass
Becky – Lead Vocals
Warnick –
TBDTrumpet#95 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 8:21 am
Okelberry,
Seriously, you seem rather upset. Let me make 2 suggestions.
1. Pass me a list of all the libelous statements you feel rise to the level of libel, and I will let you know which ones I can prove so we can save as much money on the the law suit as possible.
2. Take this opportunity to link back to UtahFreePress and see if you can’t broaden that audience. Maybe it will make you feel better for people to read your opinions on YOUR blog…to the extent you think that may lend some authority to your position.
#96 by Richard Warnick on April 23, 2009 - 8:28 am
I can play the trumpet.
#97 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 8:39 am
Trumpet it is! I used to play trombone in marching band.
#98 by cav, on April 23, 2009 - 9:08 am
A marching Tuba ensemble would be just awsome.
#99 by jdberger on April 23, 2009 - 10:09 am
Cliff – you do realize that even if RO can’t/doesn’t win, a libel lawsuit would probably bankrupt you. He’s got enough information to survive summary judgment.
Just the cost of discovery would seriously dent whatever savings you have. Think about it. Logs, records, every post you ever made, edits, etc. That’s a lot of data. And then there are attorney fees.
You went after RO in a pretty personal way – much like you attacked Glenn Hoefer. Your words were clearly malicious. You wrote them with apparent zeal and glee. You’ve cleary pushed RO too far.
I realize that it chaps your hide, but you might want to consider an apology.
Ask James. Litgation is expensive.
It’s possible here that your mouth wrote a check that your ass can’t cash.
#100 by cav, on April 23, 2009 - 10:18 am
For mischief made, and any hurt feelings. I apologize. Like I said: “I too, see the light.”
Besides, how could we hook up with jd, if not for OneUtah?
#101 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 10:48 am
JD,
Thanks for your analysis curious as it is since Okelberries has yet to identify the comment(s) which he feels consitute libel.
As such, unless you know something I don’t know, I don’t see how you can predict “summary judgment”.
Somebody PLEASE tell me which comments constitute libel. Inquiring minds want to know.
#102 by jdberger on April 23, 2009 - 11:02 am
Well, that’s where you’d do your own prophylactic research, Cliff. I’d consider hiring counsel – I doubt that you could get pro-bono representation on this.
Again, it will be expensive. The last time I used an attorney, he charged just under $600/hr. And that was just him. He also had a couple of associates billing around $300/hr and some litigation technology and paralegal people billing around $200/hr, each. Costs add up in a hurry. God forbid you need forensic data recovery during discovery.
Really – I enjoy 1U.
I realize that it chaps your hide, but you might want to consider an apology.
#103 by Becky on April 23, 2009 - 11:11 am
So here’s what RO says,
So, if I understand you correctly, RO, the libel is directed towards those in the list you reference? So how exactly would you have any standing in such a case? And by the way, I notice that you published an even longer list including many more names. Does that make you a potential defendant as well in this case?
For all those who are wondering, yes I feel personally threatened by Richard Okelberry and feel it is a real possibility he may carry out his threats and come to find me personally. I don’t know this man and I have no idea what he is capable of. Believe me, I don’t take that lightly. That small incident at my door last night reminded me of how naive I can sometimes be about people’s intents.
#104 by Richard Warnick on April 23, 2009 - 11:47 am
Becky–
I’m trying to figure this out. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
(1) Quoting from a widely-available list on the Web with the names of public figures on it is libelous, unless your name is Richard Okelberry.
(2) Calling someone a member of a “hate group” and “anti-Semitic” is not libelous, as long as your name is Richard Okelberry.
BTW, I prefer not to use the “anti-Semitic” slur because it’s inaccurate. The term Semites also applies to Arab people, and several other ethnicities regardless of what religion they espouse. “Anti-Jewish” is what is meant, so why not say that? Of course, I’ll have to defer to whatever world-renowned expert on name-calling that R.O. consults next.
#105 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 2:37 pm
JD, I’m glad you like 1U. So do I.
And thanks for the legal advice. (I think you paid too much)
My legal team is world class and at the ready however, should Okelberries sue me which I invite him to do, I will represent myself.
I’ve always wanted to do that. In the past my legal advisors have never allowed that.
This case is different. They tell me its so bogus it will never get to court but if it does they will allow me to represent myself.
I’m told no upstanding lawyer would let his/her client file this case. Okelberries would have to find an ambulance chaser.
Why would I need data recovery? Isn’t libel about public statements?
Whats that saying tough guys use? “Bring it on”?
#106 by jdberger on April 23, 2009 - 3:08 pm
What’s the saying, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?
I didn’t give legal advice. Let’s make that clear.
Finally, though you, yourself might be prepared to go to court, is everyone else? 1U has a “board” doesn’t it? Are they prepared for your ‘representation’?
Never underestimate the value of a sincere apology. Much of litigation is a pissing contest. Sometimes, the party who realizes it first, wins.
#107 by Shane Smith on April 23, 2009 - 3:36 pm
A sincere apology is indeed a powerful thing.
…and I am awaiting RO’s apology so that I don’t have to sue him for calling me a bigot.
I wonder, given the nature of this claim by RO, if things that thin are grounds for legal action…
Cliff, i think jd just called you a fool. Or your client a fool, i am not sure. Shall we sue?
#108 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 4:28 pm
I do believe you are right Shane. JD has libeloused me. I’ll be filing in the am.
JD, You people really don’t get it. You think OneUtah has a board? Such an idea can only come from an authoritarian, a follower of orders.
I never even met any of my authors before they became authors except for Larry who I found walking down the street, Paul Mero, and the Firmages.
I met Warnick several years ago after he had begun posting, and Glen Brown much later.
I’ve never met Becky or Shane though I would like to and will someday.
We virtually NEVER speak and e-mail only when ’shit happens’
We did discuss Okelberries today by e-mail only because I am concerned about his stability and Becky’s safety.
OneUtah is an online community in the purest sense.
#109 by jdberger on April 23, 2009 - 5:05 pm
Ah, I understood this statement to construe that you had a ‘board’.
Did anyone take notes of your “editorial meeting”? Those might be discoverable. All those who participated might want to have counsel, too. Especially if RO was inclined to depose them regarding the discussion.
Finally, if Becky is so concerned about her safety, she should apply for a restraining order. I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that RO is a physical danger to anyone. I think that there’s a bit of paranoia and hyperbole going on. I also think that THOSE kind of accusations definitely rise to the standard of libel.
#110 by Rich Okelberry on April 23, 2009 - 6:36 pm
Becky,
If I where you I would think very seriously about speaking to an attorney about that last statement. And please advise your council that I will want all emails between you and Cliff Lyon preserved.
#111 by Rich Okelberry on April 23, 2009 - 6:37 pm
Cliff,
“We did discuss Okelberries today by e-mail only because I am concerned about his stability and Becky’s safety.”
Please preserve those Emails Cliff! In fact you may want to forward them to your world class legal team as soon as possible for safe keeping even if you plan on defending yourself.
Also, can you please give me the names of the candidates who campaigns you claim to have advised. I noticed they are missing from your bio. Also, if I could get the names of the 3 non-profit boards you serve on for kids; that would be great.
#112 by Rich Okelberry on April 23, 2009 - 6:42 pm
jdberger,
It is interesting that people have gotten themselves all worked up all of a sudden. Something tells me that everyone is going to discover why an un-moderated say whatever you want about anyone “public square” site only truly works in fantasyland. There is a reason that not s single corporate site doesn’t have an anti-defamation/moderation policy. Of course, any possible legal action is only secondary to exposing the intolerance on this site and compelling community leaders to take a stand against it. Honestly, I can’t imagine even Rocky Anderson, Cliff’s political benefactor being willing to condone much of what is said around here.
Regardless the C & D will be out the door shortly which I am sure will give everyone much to talk about.
#113 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 6:52 pm
Okster! I glad you asked about the candidates I help. If you search the word “ActBlue” on this site, you will get a bigger picture.
I help all the candidates and I ran a few campaigns.
Most recently, I am very proud of my influence on Beckers campaign, notice the similarities between his Campaign website and OneUtah.
http://ralphbecker.com/
ITS AN OPEN BLOG! Pure transparency…still.
Go back to the campaign days to see how it worked.
http://www.ralphbecker.com/page/24/
and you can see our strategy. In case you didn’t follow that race, Becker was trailing badly in third place and he ended up winning by a landslide.
I think the blog type website kept volunteers more involved.
Notice how active the blog still is. Very unusual for a sitting politico.
Okelmary, you can spend as much energy as you like trying to mess but you are wasting your time. Nobody really cares.
Why don’t you just become a OneUtah author?
#114 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 7:03 pm
RO, Its so interesting you said this:
Why is OneUtah fantasy land?
What about DailyKos?
#115 by Shane Smith on April 23, 2009 - 7:23 pm
“Something tells me that everyone is going to discover why an un-moderated say whatever you want about anyone “public square” site only truly works in fantasyland”
Because at some point a little napoleon comes along and tries to bully every one who says something he disagrees with.
I guess we now know even more about what RO thinks of free speech…
I am curious, what “community leaders” have you found that are taking a stand against the big mean people who won’t say only what you want? Do you have a list? Could you post it here?
Or is posting a list of people who are against free speech considered libel?
#116 by Becky on April 23, 2009 - 8:04 pm
RO,
I will not be bullied or intimidated by you. You remember, I’m sure, saying that you could show up with your film crew anytime anyplace and film me and you would be fully within your legal rights and I couldn’t do anything about it. Should I not take you at your word? Should I not at least wonder what you might do, since I don’t know you or know anything about you except from the inflammatory rhetoric you’ve directed at me and others? I was going to copy and paste some of your remarks to me here, but I’ll let you do your own research, RO, and save those for whatever action you are implying against me now.
#117 by Ken on April 23, 2009 - 9:29 pm
I’m glad Cliff does let anyone say anything, unlike the Daily Kos that allows no dissenting opinion. It makes Oneutah much more interesting to read and respond too.
It’s not exactly un-moderated. Try putting so&cial*ism in without the added characters. For some reason cliff has that word flagged.
#118 by Becky on April 23, 2009 - 9:49 pm
But as you know, Ken, even if a comment gets snagged, someone always releases it.
#119 by Cliff on April 23, 2009 - 9:57 pm
Heal Kenneth! What business have you with the King?
What is your evidence Dkos (The Church of Thinking) that they moderate?
Please.
#120 by Uncle Rico on April 24, 2009 - 5:58 am
Lets see how far the stupidity can be taken.
RO can sue Becky for publicly saying that she feels threatened by RO and fears for her safety. Becky can then counterclaim against RO for publicly saying that she libeled RO. Then they can both sue each other once again for malicious prosecution after their respective claims die the miserable death they deserve. Cliffy and RO and RW and RO can do the same thing.
Weeeee! Isn’t this fun?
#121 by Uncle Rico on April 24, 2009 - 6:06 am
Oh, whoops! It occurs to me that I may have offended the egg-shell sensibilities of some by use of the word “stupidity.” I sincerely apologize for any emotional trauma that may have caused anyone. It was not my intent to either directly or indirectly imply that any of the authors or posters here at One Utah are actually stupid. I chose my words in haste. By “stupidity” I meant to convey something that IMO is a gargantuan waste of time and not really productive. I hope that clarifies it for all involved. Please don’t sue me!
#122 by Becky on April 24, 2009 - 6:18 am
I’ll confess to stupidity. Cheers, Uncle Rico.
#123 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2009 - 6:54 am
Ken–
Just yesterday, Shane Smith put up a post here alluding to socialism. I wrote a comment about the ridiculous RNC resolution demanding that the Democratic Party rename itself the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
The right and GOP are so self-satirizing these days, it’s hard to think of original ways to make fun of them.
#124 by Ken on April 24, 2009 - 7:22 am
Richard, I just ran a test and put soci-ial8ism in her without additional characters and here is the result:
#125 by Shane Smith on April 24, 2009 - 7:29 am
Richard, please stop referencing that post immediately, as I have here a C&D order from the Libertarian party that is upset that the tea baggers are 1) stealing their shtick, and 2) making them look bad. It seems there is a libel case because the right is making libertarians look like republicans.
I will keep you all posted.
#126 by cav on April 24, 2009 - 8:46 am
U1 is dead! (or on the auctionblock / facing the judge) – Long live U1! (blatent cheerleading)
Rancid Odors Surround Free-thinkers, causing a fearful funk.
Debate over the true meaning / spelling of Socializmizm ensues.
First Dog sets off alarm at 3am. Level Red Pandamonium only barely thwarted.
UnkaRico’s correct, This is fun.
#127 by cav on April 24, 2009 - 8:49 am
Make that: Socialism.
#128 by cav on April 24, 2009 - 8:52 am
cav Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
As the bartender is wont to say, “Is this some kind of a joke?”
And Hello Ken. : )
#129 by Cliff on April 24, 2009 - 8:52 am
I can’t see any reason that the word ’socialism’ get trapped. It can’t be Askimet either because they go into a pending ques rather than the spam que.
It must be a right-wing conspiracy to block the inevitable.
#130 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2009 - 1:19 pm
John Poindexter is in the house!
#131 by jdberger on April 30, 2009 - 2:45 pm
This is a pretty interesting development.
I wonder how this would influence the banter from the bomb-throwers here on 1U? (yes – I’m sometimes in that catagory).
#132 by cav on April 30, 2009 - 2:48 pm
Cyber-bomb-throwers, thank you very much.
#133 by Becky on April 30, 2009 - 2:52 pm
JD,
You seem to have a legal mind. What do you think of the language of the bill? Is it overly broad, vague, ambiguous? Does it limit free speech? Is it enforceable? What problems do you see with it?
#134 by jdberger on April 30, 2009 - 3:05 pm
Beyond that it’s totally f*cking insane?
Hmmm….
In regard to blogs, they are private property. A blog owner can restrict speech all they want without running afoul of the First Amendment. However, the government is restricted by that old “Congress shall make no law” stuff.
From UCLA ConLaw professor Eugene Volokh who is way more experienced than I:
#135 by Becky on April 30, 2009 - 3:19 pm
If I were to venture a guess, I’d say this is probably a response to the true incident in which a little girl was harassed by her friend’s mother on MySpace and eventually committed suicide.
#136 by jdberger on April 30, 2009 - 3:22 pm
Probable.
It’s billed as the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in House)”
A perfect example of symbolism over substance.