Comments on: Conservative Magazine Writer Slurs Interview Subject Publicly

By: Vince Vinacelli

Vince Vinacelli — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:21:04 +0000

I was following your article and the comments with an open mind until I read , “Very clearly their concern over the Constitution is only aroused when there is a black man in the White House”. That is an unsubstantiated statement. It is the progressive policies that conservatives do not agree with. I would want a white O’Bama removed just the same, and I would want a converative to be the next President, regardless of race/color. Two of my best friends growing up were born in Lebanon and Thailand, moving to Texas in elementary school. My closest friend today is black. I am white, conservative and a “born again” Christian. Take me on with issues, not false class warfare and racial baiting. With Respect, Vince.

By: Hacalia de Chislegh

Hacalia de Chislegh — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:51:35 +0000

Ronald Reagan’s favorite magazine was NATIONAL REVIEW, not Human Events.

By: Gregory

Gregory — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:34:36 +0000

@Jonas Rand
“And to anyone who is against the Oath Keepers: Tell me, plainly, what the Oath Keepers have done wrong?”

What have they done right, I would ask. Where were they when Bush was in office? Suddenly they appear after Obama’s election, fueled by Birtherism, Islamophobia and barely disguised racism, not unlike the Tea Party. Very clearly their concern over the Constitution is only aroused when there is a black man in the White House.

By: Mitch Beales

Mitch Beales — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:57:50 +0000

Jonas my understanding is that the “Oath Keepers” refuse to obey orders that they consider unconstitutional. Morality, secular or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. The problem is that the Constitution spells out who has the authority to interpret it and it ain’t every Joe Blow soldier, sailor, state trooper, governor, or member of congress. It’s the judiciary branch and ultimately the supreme court. It is thus contradictory to refuse to obey an order that you consider unconstitutional after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is and has been acceptable and appropriate as far as I know to disobey an order that is illegal. You don’t need to join oath keepers to do that and if you are interested in acting in accordance with your own morality regardless of the law you probably shouldn’t get involved with the police or military in the first place.

By: jwd

jwd — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:36:20 +0000

Hatewatch, where were you four hundred years ago. Continue your tireless efforts to bring the ugly TRUTH to the misinformed. And prevent the past from repeating itself.

By: Jonas Rand

Jonas Rand — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:00:02 +0000

There is no clear indication that, while she was defending the Oath Keepers, she is affiliated with the group.

And to anyone who is against the Oath Keepers: Tell me, plainly, what the Oath Keepers have done wrong? What is morally wrong with disobeying orders that you feel are against your conscience? (By morally, I do not mean in any religious sense, only in the sense of being consistent with secular ethics)

How does dissent toward the government signal a terrorist threat? I thought SPLC was a leftist organization; that (the theory that Oath Keepers, a group that promotes refusal to obey orders that one considers unjust, presents a threat of extremist terrorism) sounds like Bushista rhetoric and right-wing neoconservative paranoia.

The Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, courageously spoke out against the imprisonment of whistleblower and US government torture victim Bradley Manning.

By: Aron Levy

Aron Levy — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:50:38 +0000

That’s some real classy behavior on the part of Human Events. And the fact that they’re unrepentant says so very, very much about their journalistic integrity.

Pathetic.

By: Linnea

Linnea — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:24:31 +0000

@Mark Potok: Consider it a compliment that this “Human Events” bunch insulted you and the SPLC. It must mean you’re doing something right!

If they’re too lazy/dumb/paranoid to do real research on a group like the Oath Keepers, then screw ‘em. They’re clearly not real journalists… they strike me more as writers for a cult newsletter. They may be worth keeping on your radar.

And Reynardine, you got it exactly right about the right-wing media in general. They don’t know jack about real journalism. Occasionally you do get decent reporters even at Fox, but it doesn’t happen often, and I’m willing to bet that they don’t stay very long.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:54:19 +0000

Par for the course: the right wing media demand absurd deference to “their” guys, but feel free to be completely contemptuous of their opponants, and if the latter complain of unprofessional or even abusive tactics, accuse them of being “politically correct” or “playing the race card”, and too often, the MSM and the public swallow this as uncritically as if they were public toilets.

Given the stunts pulled by Fox and the reaction they deliberately elicit, by the way, when are you going to label them a hate organization? The filthy malevolence expressed towards Breivik’s murder victims, Somali famine victims, and the First Family on their sites deserves no less.