E. M. on April 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM

You are only “sorry” you got caught. That is the extent of your sorrow. The last time you were “sorry” that you made up false and defamatory info about me, you then expressed your “sorrow” by defending Muslim death/rape/torture threats against me and my family as “making very valid points.” You knew what you were doing. You read the threats and praised them. You did intend to defend violence against me, which is why you praised it after you read the threats on my site.

Now, again, after you’ve lost your job over it–you “resigned of [your] own accord” because you were forced to, at the end of the week-long investigation following my letter to your boss–you, again, claim on this site that you are “sorry,” while on your own site (and with your friend John Hawkins on his site), you continue to mock me and claim that your defense of death threats against me was “snarky.” Riiight.

You’re sorry? Uh-huh.

Janette on April 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Another phony coming to the defense of a serial fabricator, pathological liar, and Muslim jihadist death threat defender. Talk about puke.

If it is not clear from the earlier posts, I am sorry and I apologize. I did not intend to defend violence against anyone in June of 2006, and am truly sorry that it appeared that way. Again, I am very sorry.

And yes, I did resign, of my own accord.

Thank you.

E. M. on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Your defense of Muslim rape, torture and death threats as “making very valid points” remained on your site until last week, after it lost you your job. Your former employer, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, informed me, in writing, that he would investigate you (and the fact that you blogged all day long at work–instead of actually working) and asked me to give him a week. At the end of the week, you suddenly “resigned” six months into your first post-law school job in a bad Michigan economy where such jobs are scarce. Coincidence? Right. It’s quite obvious you were given a respectable out and asked to resign.

Mr. Thompson also told me that after he showed you my letter about your obessive, defamatory behavior toward me and your support of violence against me and my family, that you immediately removed the time stamps from your website so that he could not see that you spent your time at Thomas More, not working, but blogging in support of anti-Semitic death threats. He also told me that you claimed not to have read the death threats to me that you linked to, which you called “very valid points,” and wrote about. Another lie. Maybe you can suggest it to Kwame Kilpatrick in his upcoming trial, as in “I never read those text messages to which I was responding.” Don’t think it will work for him, though, as it didn’t for you.

You have never apologized to me for defending violence against my family, and you admitted you deliberately made up defamatory information about me because you were upset that I attacked incompetent ICE chief Julie Myers and Hezbollah supporter Stephen Murphy. In your “apology”–which you only sent to avoid a victorious lawsuit against you for defamation–you told me that you have “multiple graduate and post-graduate degrees.” Another lie–at the time, you were a college graduate. Period.

Clearly, you have at least two problems: pathological lying and anti-Semitism. Get help soon.

Again, I am sure that your resignation was “unrelated” to any of this, right?

As for your other claims, your unrequited obsession with me remains. Not only have you continually written about me, but you’ve attacked Michelle Malkin for citing me. And you frequent my site regularly. I don’t care that you do these things. But when you deliberately defame me, admitting–as you did–to making up negative information about me–and when you defend Muslim threats of violence against me and my family, you will pay the price, as is now happening.

Yesterday, my buddy Cassy Fiano wrote a piece called Poor Little Female Bloggers that was linked on Hot Air. The piece mentioned, in passing, my friend Emily Zanotti, from the American Princess which prompted Debbie Schlussel to write the following……

Poor thing.

Again, if you had just left matters alone, no one would consider your behavior to be obsessive. But this is at least the third time in approximately 30 days that other bloggers spoke highly of Miss Zanotti and you felt it was necessary to chastise all of them for it (Malkin, Hawkins and now Morrissey). All of this effort on YOUR part was for a matter that happened nearly 2 years ago and for which Miss Zanotti has apologized and explained repeatedly. This is why your behavior is juvenile, catty and yes, obsessive.

Is there some part of forgiveness and letting it go that you aren’t able to comprehend?

Oh, and where is your apology to Mr. Morrissey for reprimanding him erroneously for quoting someone else? At the very least, you could stand correct. Tsk. Tsk. Rise above, my dear.

The comment I made, in error, was in June of 2006. It was very wrong of me to make the comment, and I did not at all intend in any way to imply that I condoned or defended that woman’s remarks or her threats. I did not know the extent of her behavior and am disgusted at it now that I have researched the matter. I am very sorry that I ever said that smart remark. I have made every effort to remove it from my site, and have gone so far as to remove it from the server. It only remains the cache, which I have requested to be removed. Again, I am very sorry. I have not written, nor had contact with you at all for at least a year and a half, if not nearly two years.

Thank you.

Also, as I understand are aware, I left my position with my former employer voluntarily (I was certainly not forced to resign) and for very personal reasons unrelated to these allegations.

ConservativeBelle on April 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM

bamapachyderm on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Hmmm . . . so let’s see: 1) A Muslim supporter of terrorism whom I’ve never contacted and don’t know sends me six death, rape, and torture threats and admits to FBI agents to sending them. And she has relatives in Hezbollah. I’ve never had any contact with her.

2) A pathological liar (Zanotti) with severe mental problems whom I’ve never contacted (other than to demand a retraction, per Michigan defamation law) and don’t know (and never heard of) starts making up completely false and defamatory info about me, is forced to retract it and admits she made it up, then starts defending the Muslim Hezbollah woman’s death, rape and torture threats against my family. I’ve never had any contact with her, but she continues to read my site several times a day.

But these women are “not stalkers,” I am? Hilarious. Someone needs to get back on meds, and it ain’t me. And they sorely need a dictionary.

Oh, and let’s see a woman who is obsessed with me (that’s you, Beth) writes about me on her site umpteen times, trolls on my site, and has a crazy unrequited obsession with me. Again, dictionary sorely needed. And the meds, too.

themediansib on April 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Um, all of that is a complete lie. But glad to know that the defense of Muslim death, rape and torture threats against me and my family–which is recent and remains–is okay by you. So sad to see the death of outrage.

Also Ed, you forgot an important one: The Anchoress.

She does a great job on all things Catholic, moral, and otherwise.

Or is that sexist, too?

Sisterwise, I’ll go with bodies by luck of the draw and brains by Malkin & Fiano, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Do yourselves a favour folks and wander over to those sites. Not a day goes by that Kate does not have me laughing or screaming about something.

This further reflects the fact that all men are rapists: they rape us with their minds, with their dicks, with their hands, with their political web sites—and, when we’re lucky, with their tongues . . . Oh, wait. I had……

I couldn’t possibly care less what people read, as long as they’re reading.

Hee. Redbook? You’re really comparing “tips for organizing your sock drawer” to exposed genitalia?

Tanya

For years, every issue of Redbook has had a sex story featured on the front cover, usually on the left just below Redbook. Articles like ‘The Forbidden Things He Wants You To Do’. Just because men and women prefer different forms of sexually explicit materials doesn’t mean that they aren’t both titillating to their respective readers/viewers.

I note, also, that you said nothing about Cosmopolitan. It would be interesting to compare the amount of sexual content in Cosmo with Playboy, which never has been exclusively about sex, has a serious interview ever issue, covers clothing, cars and tech toys, and regularly has published some quality fiction and non-fiction. I’m not saying it’s the Saturday Evening Post, but “I subscribe to Playboy for the articles” cliche has some basis in reality.

Ann Althouse
Clarice Feldman at American Thinker
Michelle Malkin
The Anchoress
Mary Katherine Ham
Zombietime