Lady Liberty is a blogger, but she is also a mother worried about her children. Greg Flynn (an editor at the left-wing blog BlueNC.com, a former employee of the state department of education and a Democrat Party activist) apparently decided that identifying Lady Liberty by name would be a good way to shut her up, exposing her family to harassment from his radical Democrat allies. Every conservative in North Carolina — no, by God, every conservative in America — should be mad as hell about Greg Flynn‘s vicious intimidation tactics.
(Note that Flynn is using the strategy of “Accuse the Accuser,” and claiming that his “bullying” of Lady Liberty is actually Lady Liberty being a bully-That is another fine, liberal tradition, and will be covered in a future post)
Is it hyperbole to say that Lady Liberty should be concerned for her children’s safety? Remember what Occupy Wall Street did to kids…
Twitchy jumped on the story about Greg Flynn’s attempt to intimidate North Carolina blogger Lady Liberty, featuring Sister Toldjah’s story of how she was targeted by North Carolina Democrat activist Jeanne Bond and her “front group” Moving NC Forward.
— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) September 18, 2013
— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) September 18, 2013
OK, why “out” Conservative bloggers? I mean, the founders wrote the Federalist Papers under pen names, so why out bloggers? Well, if you out a blogger, or any other political advocate, contributor, or even causal observer, they can be subjected to harassment until they decide to stop making political contributions or casual observations. Here are examples…
Systematic Harassment of Prop 8 Supporters:
A loophole in California election laws made public the identity of any person that made a financial contribution above a set level. That allowed Gay Rights activists to create a website called 8 Maps, that showed the names, addresses, and personal information on people that had contributed to the passage of Prop 8 in California. Prop 8, in case you were unaware, was California’s now overturned ban on same sex marriage. This is a small slice of the harassment meted out on the supporters…
That just oozes “tolerance” and “diversity,” doesn’t it? Then again, the gay rights crowd used campaign contribution regs to find out who contributed to Prop 8, and created a map to their homes.
More to the point, what Eightmaps intends to accomplish happened to me and my famly last year. And it was terrifying. Here’s the story:
Someone got my address from publicly available sources, made a malicious flyer with that information on it, went to the city’s homeless shelters and passed it around (the police told me that someone on staff at a shelter told them he saw a stranger distributing the flyers). The flyer told the homeless that if they came to my house, we’d give them money. This person did not care that it was summer, and he was tricking the poorest of the poor to a four-mile walk from the downtown shelters to my house. All he cared about was striking out at me.
We knew something was up after the second rough-looking person showed up demanding money, and got angry when he was told we had no idea what he was talking about. (All this happened when I was at work; imagine your wife opening the door to confront a homeless man who has just learned from her that he’d walked all that way in the heat for no reason). But we could tell they had some sort of flyer with our address on it. We called the police, who advised us to stall the next person who showed up, then call them on 911. That we did. Julie phoned me at work one day to say a scary-looking guy was at the front door with one of the flyers, and that she’d just called 911.
By the time I got home, the police were there questioning this guy, who looked like he’d wondered what the heck he’d gotten into. The cops said that this guy meant no harm, that he’d been the victim of this prankster just as we had. They also said he was a registered sex offender.
Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs
Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot” and using vulgar language. Sometimes harassers called at work. A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved. Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language and offensive labels like “gay hater.” Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.” One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.
Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8. In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church. At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.” A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted].” One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through Amazon.com, that contained “the greatest homosexual love stories of all time.”
I would encourage you to visit the links. Though I quoted extensively, there is far, far more to see. Death threats, violence, physical attacks, lost jobs, boycotts, and intimidation were used extensively. All of these come right out of the “progressive”/Alinsky playbook. And, as usual, the MSM didn’t say a thing about it.
The post went viral. It has been viewed more than 100,000 times on the site alone and has been picked up by multiple websites in less than 2 days. Though the issue is more of a Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue than it is a Second Amendment one, gun owners were enraged.
Joshua Cook tells us in an exclusive interview that he received a phone call from the Spartanburg, SC District 1 superintendent Dr. Ron Garner. According to Cook, Dr. Garner called him at work and demanded he retract the story. Abrupt and yelling, Dr. Garner threatened Cook that lawyers were now involved in the case.
“I just don’t understand how he got all my information. He told me where I went to College and the town I grew up in. He had been monitoring my social media sites too. He called me at work also, which was strange. How did he know I worked at this office? When I asked him where the teacher got the curriculum he refused to answer,” says Cook.
This is also why the Democrats wanted to pass a law known as the “Disclose Act,” which would identify every donor, and open up the Conservative ones to harassment…
Former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith lays out other arguments in favor of anonymous political speech in a contemporary context:
[Election] disclosure regulations are some of the most burdensome. Disclosure limits free speech because it allows the government to retaliate against people. The Supreme Court has consistently held that people do have a right to anonymous speech. The cases speak for themselves.
The most prominent one is probably NAACP v. Alabama (1964), when Alabama wanted to know who was funding the NAACP’s activities. We can see how that would be intimidating. Then there’s McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). McIntyre was doing anonymous brochures against a school tax, which all the school officials supported. She had children in the schools who needed grades and access to such things as athletic teams and bands. She didn’t necessarily want her name known, even though it was important for her to fight this issue. Another major case was Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982). The socialists rightly said, “If we have to reveal our donors, they won’t give us money. They will get harassed. Their businesses will get blackballed and that sort of thing.” Disclosure can be more inhibiting than people think.
Which is something to think about when people already in power push legislation such as The DISCLOSE Act, which would force groups to list donors and reveal their names in advertisements. The DISCLOSE Act is in part a response to this year’s controversial Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court. Hyperbolically likened by critics to the infamous Dred Scott decision, Citizen’s United dealt with a documentary film censored by the government and broadened the speech rights of corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Far from opening American politics up to undue influence by unspecificed foreigners (as President Obama has charged), the ruling makes it easier for smaller groups and individuals to spread their messages.
In other words, it is a long term pattern for liberal, “progressive,” or Democrat (or do I repeat myself) activists to identify, harass, and threaten Conservatives.
We’ve seen this in #FreeKate as well. We saw the #FreeKate admins try to silence people by identifying them, and digging up “dirt” on them. Rather than discussing the merits of an argument, they attempt to end the argument by eliminating the opposition.
Why do this? To silence dissent, of course. Sister Toldja has a great blog, and runs stories all over the Conservative spectrum. Lady Liberty was opposed to Common Core, the vile, garbage filled education curricula that the Obama Administration is forcing on the nation’s schools. And, since liberals are “reality deprived,” they are incapable of discussing their policies in a civil manner. So, they attack anyone who disagrees with them.
There is one snag with this methodology. It is based on the old Alinsky Method. In years past, liberals could do flyers in a neighborhood to shame or embarrass someone into silence. They could send protesters to harass the children of a target at their school. They could make threatening calls, show that they know all of the target’s information, and they make all manner of threats.
With social media, these activities are far less effective. In the past, people would suffer in isolation at the hands of liberal groups such as ACORN, who were well known for harassing family members, business associates, friends, and even the children of their targets. Now, with blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and others, a “target” can expose their tormentors to public scrutiny. 10 years ago, Flynn’s harassment of Lady Liberty might have silenced her. If she didn’t want Democrat/liberal goons harassing her, or her kids, she would have shut up. Now, instead, Flynn is now know by a far wider audience as a douchenozzle, who far fewer people will ever again take seriously. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for these kind of activities, and if one is willing to take a stand, they can successfully fend off this harassment.
In the end, the good guys can still win, if you are willing to take some lumps and persevere.
NOTE: The Conservative Hideout does not recommend direct contact, harassment, or making death threats towards any individual of group. We are not liberals. We have standards for ourselves, and it is important that we live up to them as best as we can. We have the truth on our side. If we use that, we have no need for thug tactics. -Matt