'Iowa Nasty' menaces Infowars reporter Kaitlin Bennett. Something larger, more sinister at issue.

From Liberty Hangout

"Iowa nice" is a pleasant-sounding descriptor our state's people embrace. But what Infowars reporter Kaitlin Bennett recently got here instead was "Iowa nasty."

"I was attending a @PeteButtigieg rally when two of his supporters violently attacked my camera crew and I for simply being conservative,"  Bennett tweeted, after the assault." I am calling on Mayor Pete to denounce the violence from his supporters so conservatives know they can feel safe at his rallies."

Cedar Rapids ABC affiliate KCRG said it, too, had reached out to the Buttigieg campaign for comment on his supporters' videotaped violence against a woman reporter.

One attacker was an older man, the other looked to be college aged. "NO BODY IS ILLEGAL" was the slogan on the flush-cheeked kid's white t-shirt.

He swiped at the camera, and knocked it off balance; his attempted blocking of a reporter recalled 1980s South African forces that defended apartheid. Blocking cameras was standard for them. 

The attack illustrated what has become usual for anti-Trump terrorists. Shutting off reporting and open view of public activity is de rigueur for wrongdoers. The Resistance and apartheid-era South African police share hostility toward open reporting and free speech.

From the KCRG report:

"The video that has been shared thousands of times, shows two men approaching Bennett and her film crew while giving them the middle finger. Bennett can then be heard asking, 'Do you usually treat women like that?'

"What follows, one of the men can be seen making physical contact with a camera, another man standing nearby and Bennett. The video posted online appears to have been edited.

"Cedar Rapids police tell TV9 the two individuals in question are believed to be from Illinois and that there were three victims in all..."

According to a page later posted at Bennett's Liberty Hangout site:

"The two men that attacked Bennett are believed to be Ethan Buhrow and his father Michael Buhrow, who traveled out of state from Illinois to attend the Buttigieg rally. Ethan is a political science major at Arizona State University and lists on his Facebook page that he was a Field Organizer for failed Democratic candidate Nancy Zettler, who ran for Illinois State Senate, last year and lost. Michael Buhrow produced videos for Zettler's Democratic campaign through his freelance video Company Edge Editorial, and appeared to have a camera bag slung over his shoulders when he and his son attacked Bennett in Iowa."

Bennett notes that she has filed a complaint against Ethan Buhrow with Cedar Rapids police, and that they are seeking a warrant for his arrest.

The Liberty Hangout page features numerous photos of Ethan Buhrow with national-level Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Eric Holder.

Ethan shared numerous tweets by violent domestic terrorist group Antifa. Per Bennett's page, Buhrow made his Twitter account private. But a cached image of it showed Buhrow's bio claimed "all cops are class traitors and pigs."

(While preparing this piece, I contacted Edge Editorial for a statement from Michael Buhrow or that company itself. None was received by post time. Should a response eventuate, I'll include it in a future post.)

Among the ugly features of the emergent left that throngs city streets and rails against President Trump is hostility toward openness. Intellectual liberty, free speech, and a press able to present pictures of the world without limitations have inherent values.

That used to be understood. 

All of those are fundamentally important to citizen-directed government. People can't cast informed votes if they're unable to learn about situations and players as they really are, and speak their opinions as to what they've seen. Or voice unique perspectives and debate with fellow citizens.

Liberals once advocated for press freedom. They endorsed sunlight and transparency over secrecy and shadowy machinations. That the public had a legitimate right to know, was a cherished principle. 

But given progressivism's perpetual-movement nature, and the relish with which speech, assembly, and press freedoms are today under attack, I expect repression will soon become a mainstream fancy. Perhaps even a Democrat Party plank.

Today's Resistance isn't a logical extension of JFK/MLK-era liberalism. It is a sharp and hideous deviation from that path. The thinking seems to be: When out of power, agitate for minority rights. But once in authority, deny all minority rights and 'counter-revolutionary' liberties.

Hands thrust over camera lenses to shut out public witness was once rightly reviled as inimical to a free society. It was a dirty tactic employed by totalitarians aware that their ideas were unpopular. 

Its perpetrators were considered to be of the miserable variety. Nazi, communist, socialist, and apartheid troops that enforced oppressive rule at the barrel of a machine gun. Enemies of the people.

I recall Fidel Castro executing a 1990s dissident on the rationale that Cuba's interest in self-preservation made it just. Similar quack reasoning is probably already bubbling in America's academia and fringe political enclaves. 

"He tends to defuse heated situations with humor and an ability to talk to anyone." That description of Des Moines police officer Ryan Mann was part of a 2016 profile written by Des Moines Register columnist, Daniel Finney. 

By Finney's account, Mann is a committed law keeper whose compassion and sense of justice make him the sort of police officer every community would want.

All of those fine attributes may show in other circumstances. But they were not evidenced by the treatment Mann accorded Bennett, when she attempted to interview participants in the Saturday Des Moines Gay Pride rally.

As seen in a video  available now on numerous sites, drunken mobs of rally attendees harassed Bennett. They sought to impede her activity and broadcasting by loudly chanting profanities. At least once, the Infowars interviewer was physically assaulted. 

(Some tipsy miscreants identified themselves as affiliated with the local Blazing Saddle bar.) 

Mann was featured in a 2014 episode of TV's Cops. Which may explain his seeming camera-conscious performance here. He appears purposefully rude and disrespectful of Bennett, and even of the concept of possible disagreement with the event's philosophy. 

Mann seldom allowed the Infowars reporter to even finish a sentence, so determined did he seem to seize the opportunity for camera time. His manner was that of a programmed machine. 

It seemed, from his brusque and condescending comportment, Mann sought to communicate both subtextual hostility to Infowars' Bennett and his personal sympathy to the event. 

At least as depicted by the clip, Mann evidenced no interest in objectivity or fairness. As if he were, not a neutral public servant responsible to all, but a private security employee retained by festival organizers, one bent on exploiting authority to intimidate outsiders.

A larger and more sinister possibility, too, must be considered.

Mann did seem to pursue discourteous treatment of Bennett with officious zeal. His prejudice may have been encouraged by city leaders' thinking that, for financial reasons, the peculiar desires of a political-cultural interest group of seasonal fancy and adverse publicity potential deserved elevation over the time-honored Constitutional rights of every other Iowa citizen.

Iowa municipalities, and the state, itself, have surely long been conscious of the Gay community and its allies' potential for impacting revenues. And certainly, no local office-holder or tourism agent would want a boycott. A boycott would be all over social media, and hurt stores and restaurants, employees, politicians, and journalists. 

Iowa's fast-approaching, quadrennial moment in the national media spotlight, the caucuses, would also be affected. As would all involved in them, from candidates to organizers to location owners to hotels to taxi companies to TV stations and newspapers. 

It's not unthinkable that bad publicity on this subject would inspire new calls to change the caucus schedule and leave Iowa behind. Our state would be derided as unrepresentative of fanciful national mores.

So, it may be that, for such reasons, celebratory events like the one in Cedar Rapids are granted exemption from respecting all others' Constitutional rights. 

It is a low grade of public official that would sacrifice the traditionally safeguarded Constitutional rights and liberties of millions of good residents, and dance on strings pulled by a relative few with bulging purses. 

Indulging fascistic forces for their dollars is a disgusting and unAmerican posture for elected officials and related bureaucratic functionaries. The American left long stormed against 'Profits Over People.' But they now seem just fine with that.

The Hill runs uncritical Rachel Frazin repetition of anonymous New York Times anti-Trump charge

On Saturday, The Hill ran a Rachel Frazin article "Mexico agreed to take action at the border months before Trump deal to avert tariffs: NYT."

You may see the highly dubious account shared, online. It is being breathlessly circulated by anti-Trump partisans for whom every scrap of propaganda harmful to America's chosen president, despite its flawed nature, must be rushed before voters without appropriate caveat.

Anything goes, in their unsightly crusade.

The Hill frequently confects biased and suspect commentary. Frazin's hit-piece follows in that vein. It is based entirely on a single article from the New York Times, a paper already notorious for calculatedly skewed reporting. (Following Trump's 2016 triumph, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, and Executive Editor Dean Baquet implicitly conceded their paper had faltered, in terms of fairness.)

The Times named no sources. It only credited anonymous "officials," who may exist in the real world or may only be the products of Times writers' fever-bubbled imaginings.

Now, reporting that another publication had printed something is legitimate. And exclusive use of anonymous sources doesn't necessarily make a story untrue.

But another way to consider Frazin's The Hill article is as an example of the anti-Trump echo-chamber so much a part of the mainstream media since a Trump candidacy seemed possible.

Frazin did not subject the NYT reporting to even light scrutiny, but merely regurgitated its partisan message. She didn't ask obvious and legitimate questions about what seemed flimsy methodology. Only blared the original allegation to The Hill's audience.

Readers need to be on guard. This case indicates Trump was onto something when he warned of "fake news."

Ironically, in another Frazin piece The Hill ran the same day, the writer dismissed the president's press criticisms; she cast them as mere tools he wielded against "unfavorable coverage of him and his administration."

CNN's Don Lemon gettin' Jussie wit' it

On Thursday the 6th, the Hollywood Reporter ran a piece on an "industry conference" addressed by CNN host Don Lemon. The basement-rated anchor claimed "I was doing a shoot in the park the other day, and someone said 'We built this country. I can't wait for CNN to fire your black ass, you faggot.'"

It is regrettably true that people say foolish and sickening things. (Read the comment section of any news site.) So, Lemon's account is plausible. 

But reasons for suspicion await consideration. Let's not try their patience.

Lemon chose to issue his sensational allegation at a high-profile public venue, where reporters dutifully recorded his words. And he did so at a time when plummeting CNN viewership made attention crucial.

Remember, too, that when Jussie Smollett began his later-debunked hate-crime hoax, Lemon was in on the ground floor. During his Feb. 21 show, Lemon recalled appearing on Smollett's show, Empire, and striking up a friendship. 

By his own admission, the CNN host was called by a Smollett associate following the faked assault and visited the actor in the hospital.

Pumping up the specter of racism and related bigotries has long been part of CNN's larger Take Down the President and His Supporters mission. It's their religion, perhaps their only one. 

From the start, Lemon happily promoted Smollett's deceits to audience-members who hadn't yet drifted away. But when the hoax blew up in the faces of its promoters, as did the Russia-collusion hoax, change came. 

Lemon adopted a more measured approach to his Hollywood friend, cautioning circumspection. Lemon and CNN colleague Chris Cuomo agreed the real danger was that future alleged hate crimes might enjoy less sympathy. 

Intelligent observers understood their words weren't critical of hate-crime hoaxes in general. Lemon and Cuomo signaled inclinations to favor new allegations with similar receptiveness. 

The Smollett scam had by design smeared white, male Trump supporters with the bigot's broadbrush. a crude implement of defamation the giggly Lemon had himself wielded without care as to the social consequences.

So, when Lemon recently proclaimed supposed harassment, one half expected him to add his alleged hector had also bellowed "This is MAGA country!"

Fx/Disney Pose actor stomps on American rights, Trump support


Indya Adrianna Moore, of Fx/Disney's Pose, recently destroyed a 'Trump 2020 Keep America Great!' banner owned by a self-professed fan of that show.

The fan was said to be in line outside filming. Moore apparently felt 'woke' political/social prejudices outweighed others' speech and private property rights.

Video clip per Reddit.

Video of Moore's assaultive criminality spread across the digital world, including on Facebook and Twitter.

"Watch this thief @IndyaMoore," tweeted one critic. "Why do these @Hollywood @WeakSauce folks think they can steal our stuff? HELL NO. The days of not pushing back are over. This is a free country. We have a right to support @potus. If you don't like it, tough! #Trump2020."

Obviously, retaliatory violence (save for momentary self defense) is not desired. A society constantly in civil battle would be a terrible thing. But actions do produce reactions. What do miscreants like Moore expect?

An Instinct Magazine writer sympathetic to Moore claimed ignorance of the facts surrounding the incident. (The easier to avoid addressing Moore's guilt, I suppose.)

But he highlighted social media backers of the sign-owner Moore had victimized. "It's just another day in Trumpmerica" was how the writer ended the article headlined "'Pose' star Indya Moore assaulted by Man in dispute over Trump 2020 sign," which was in no way biased.

In the video, the man tells Moore he is a fan of the program. Moore responds, in part, by snarling "We don't want you to be a fan of our show!"

Perhaps someone at Fx/Disney hurriedly contacted Moore. The actor rushed to post a strange message that was (only partially) affirming of Americans' guaranteed right to intellectual diversity:

"Hey ya'll those of you with varying political opinions who also watch pose...Thank you for loving black trans women, please also love us in real life and make sure the love you have for us reflects your politics [Moore may have meant 'is reflected by your politics'] because our lives/welfare are at Mercy to your politics/"opinions."

That's what in 2019 show-biz Democrat world passes for an apology; a garbled tweet that concedes no wrongdoing but reiterates the original idiocy. 'Only those who share my prejudices really matter.' Moore seems to cast opposing views as inherently invalid by carefully placing opinions in quotation marks.

No one has the right to destroy someone else's property or squelch that person's speech. Point of view isn't exculpatory. Respect for others' liberties is basic. That should not be controversial or disputed in a civilized culture.

That being said, I would not be surprised to hear some championing Moore's in-broad-daylight criminality. Because identity.

Moore's backers would grasp that there can be no defending violation of others' Constitutionally protected rights, so I don't suppose they'd try. Instead, they'd shout about self-imagery, fantasized historical imperatives, and 'marginalized communities.'

When people of varying political attitudes can't even agree on fundamental matters like free speech and private property rights, something very sinister and unlike America assumes being. And that's ultimately no good for any of us.

"Our current administration is the biggest threat to LGBTQ rights that I've seen in my lifetime," Moore recently told People. NBC reported last month Trump had marked LGBTQ Pride Month, and was the first president to do so.

But this was never about facts, realities, or truths. It is an exclusively political racket in which there are no guiding ethical or moral precepts. Absolutely anything goes, so long as it advances ideology.

Once that is understood, Moore's sign-destruction/speech obstruction -- and the applause some already accorded the legally actionable criminality -- can be accurately classed as childishly bigoted.

There was another TV actor who wrongly thought being 'woke' put him above the law. I think his name was Jussie.

Demolishing deceits with one arm behind my back                   

Some grim advocates of abortion also parade themselves as foes of religious faith. They deceitfully portray our opposition to abortion as exclusively motivated by personal faith. And they accuse pro-life voices of seeking to impose peculiar faith dictates universally.

God is the source of all man's medical knowledge, of course. And attempting to marginalize Him, that mankind's relatively tiny essence can assume the throne, is as pathetic an effort as trying to topple a stone castle with a papier mache sword.

To allow pro-life advocacy to go unchallenged must to some be considered counterproductive to their ugly anti-faith crusade.

But the pro-life position also enjoys hale support independent of religiosity. Biological evidence of indisputable nature is easily located.

Christopher Hitchens once wrote that anyone who spent five minutes with a biology text would understand that the fetus is an  individual, living entity. 

Many who deny that objective reality surely do so in the knowledge that medical truth (as well as Christianity) are against their favored mission. They are willing to turn blind eyes to biological facts and endorse infanticide in the name of a quixotic ideology. 

That illogical ideology asserts that only when men and women are recognized as invariably identical is justice realized.

Equality should certainly be the ideal. But men and women are not identical in all ways. Nature -- which is to say God -- created in women the ability to fulfill particular life-producing processes. And that is a special role and function in which great pride should be taken.

(And please, let's not have any of that "mansplaining" nonsense. All who live in this world are entitled to offer commentary on it, as well as on any and all of its inhabitants. Affairs affect all. The argument that only members of Community X can legitimately speak about Community X is a segregative device for debate-stifling.)

The innate capacity of females to carry babies and give birth makes them, in that regard, distinct from males; it is ludicrous to suggest identical considerations always be accorded the inherently dissimilar.

Women enjoy that particular utility and should celebrate it as a defining trait that distinguishes and elevates them to special status. That momentous role is by nature theirs alone. Attempts to legislate it into only occasional realization that turns on self-interest, and seeking to make males and females interchangeable, does dirt to the natural order.

Abortions have killing as their sole purpose. Advocates of abortion cannot reasonably claim the deaths of babies are not their ambitions. 

Not "choice" or "rights." Death.

In a recent social media exchange, I stated a simple truth: "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin."

Quickly came a standard scare-scenario: The eleven year-old impregnated by an uncle. Would I support the young victim's being "forced" to carry "the uncle's abomination," the challenger demanded. I was, they further railed, "forcing" my own religious beliefs on others.

I responded that, while the vile act itself certainly would be an abomination, innocent life produced by it would not be.

There are two ways the horrible, hypothetical uncle formulation can be viewed. One is as acid test. Anyone believing life is life must, to be consistent, believe that as unalterably in the foulest situation as in any other.

Should a pro-life advocate make even that solitary exception, they've given up the game. Now it's just a matter of where the line might be drawn.

The second way to consider the despicable uncle construction is as a signal by abortion-urgers that they realize the feebleness of their position. They understand biology is not in their corner, any more than the Christianity they so deplore.

All they have to wield against opponents is lurid moral shaming. Their implication is that those who don't champion the poor girl's ability to kill the unborn baby are effective allies of the perverse perpetrator.

Such scare propositions and attendent, hyperventilated terminology are more appropriate to dollar-grasping, Planned Parenthood postal appeals than serious debate. 

The truth of my original statement -- "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin" -- remained unmolested, despite opponents' tactical waving of that execrable scenario.