How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Rumors are floating around Twitter that proof of Brendan Eich’s donation was illegally leaked by people in government sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage. Not so. I’d forgotten about it, but friends reminded me that the LA Times obtained a list of people who gave, for and against, to the fight over the Prop 8 referendum in 2008. They put the whole database online and made it searchable. Search it today and, sure enough, there’s Eich with a $1,000 donation in favor. Under California law, that disclosure is perfectly legal: The state is authorized to provide certain personal information about anyone who donates more than $100 to a ballot measure. Why the state is allowed to do that, I’m not sure. The reason you want transparency when donating to a candidate is to prevent an elected official, who’s supposed to serve the public interest, from being secretly coopted by huge sums of money provided by a special interest. In a ballot measure, though, the money being spent is designed to influence the public itself. They’re the final arbiter of the public interest, no?

At the very least, if you’re worried about shadowy interests pouring cash into ads to sway a public referendum, the financial threshold to trigger disclosure should be way, way higher than $100. The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized; the Heritage Foundation issued a report chronicling cases of intimidation back in 2009. Either Eich didn’t know the law when he chipped in 10 times the disclosure amount or he assumed that giving to a political cause as a private citizen wouldn’t cause people he worked with for years to force him out of the company upon conviction of a thoughtcrime. Which, by the way, is what this was. Jonathan Last seizes on the significance of Mozilla chair Mitchell Baker admitting that “I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” If that’s the case, says Last, why exactly was Eich ousted?

So the problem isn’t with how he comported himself. It’s with what he thought

Now that we’re in the realm of thought-crime where Eich loses his job not because of how he behaved, but because he gave money to a cause which is deemed untouchable, let me ask you this: What if Eich hadn’t given $1,000 to support Proposition 8. What if, instead, the tech community simply found out he had voted for it?

By any reasonable chain of logic, voting for Prop. 8 is at least as bad–probably even worse–than merely giving money to support it. A vote for Prop. 8 is an affirmative action taken to directly advance the cause, rather than the indirect advancement of financial support. If Eich was a known Prop. 8 voter, would there have been a similar campaign against him? I can’t think of a reason why not.

If voting to ban gay marriage is grounds for dismissal, wonders Last, wouldn’t/shouldn’t voting against cap-and-trade be grounds? What about voting against tax hikes on the rich? Eich didn’t oppose gays working for Mozilla. He didn’t oppose them donating to pro-gay causes. He didn’t oppose gay employees from getting married. Or so I assume; if he did, his business partner Baker presumably would have mentioned it. He engaged in a private, perfectly legal act of expression, and now he’s out on his ear for it. Even Andrew Sullivan, who’s spent decades championing the cause of gay marriage, is horrified at his ouster.

Ultimately this guy was purged for two reasons. One: Boycotting someone just for holding an opinion is typically reserved for the worst, most outre opinions in society. If Eich had turned out to be a neo-Nazi, no one would have grumbled about Mozilla dumping him. The point of treating him like a Nazi, where a single donation to a single taboo cause constitutes grounds for dismissal, is to place opposition to gay marriage in the pantheon of opinions so terrible you dare not utter them aloud if you value your career. This guy never saw it coming, I’m sure, especially from “friends.” Two: There is, let’s face it, a revenge element in all this. To this day, it’s legal in many jurisdictions to fire someone for being gay. Having spent ages at risk of punishment for their own private, now perfectly legal conduct, some gay-rights activists might be happy to destroy someone like Eich — even though there’s zero evidence that he himself opposes gay rights in any respect save marriage, his definition of which is (presumably) guided by religion. That sort of revanchism is counterproductive since it only builds opposition among people who are otherwise well disposed to their cause, but that’s how it is. Now that they have some political power, they’re going to bloody some noses on the other side. Again, pour encourager les autres.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Why would anyone believe that post-Eich, the fascists aren’t going to target religious orgs?

Of course they are.

And they’ll do it before Barry leaves office just to establish legal precedent.

budfox on April 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

But now that you are that administrator –
the entire student body and most parents and most alumni and staff object to you firing this teacher. Of course you still do it – because rules are rules.
But what’s changing is that you’ll be the one leaving your job.
Yes, even at a Catholic school.
Now…will that be ‘fascism’?
Or maybe you can think of another word for it.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

If I was an Administrator of a Catholic school, or that of a Madrasa, you’d be very presumptuous to assume I would be the one leaving. And if I would be leaving, it would be because of fascism – the pressure from the fascist agitators demanding that the ‘great and beloved gay teacher’s rights to be gay’ exceeded my rights to exercise my religious faith and beliefs.

Just because someone is gay, they do not have superior rights over someone else. They have EQUAL RIGHTS, not superior rights.

But it’s nice to keep seeing your ‘tolerance’ and ‘fairness’ on display….

Athos on April 4, 2014 at 1:16 PM

I love when this kind of stuff happens. It just isolates and inflames the two sides to what really needs to take place.

Take verbalace for example. I consider him and people of his type an enemy to the bill of rights and a greater enemy then any red threat across the pond. Since the union has not dissolved yet we can’t openly go to war, but must fight using other methods.

I hope all this escalates soon enough so that I can fight instead of my son.

ClassicCon on April 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Federal laws require disclosure of many contributions of $250 or more. Here’s a searchable database:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml.

You can also go to http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php as well as another database I can’t remember to see everyone who contributed.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Firstly socons have never boycotted the gays. Secondly do they even have the freedom to boycott? Last time I remember, bakers and photographers were not allowed to boycott gay weddings even though they were ready to serve on other occasions. If you are intellectually honest, you will understand the discrimination here.

CoolAir on April 4, 2014 at 11:43 AM

–Conservative groups did boycott companies (like Home Depot, Apple and Kraft) for their support of gay rights: http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231.

And Williamson County, Texas originally vetoed a tax benefit for Apple in the early 1990s because Apple gave its gay employees domestic benefits (mentioned in this article): http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-19/business/fi-58834_1_health-benefits

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM

–Conservative groups did boycott companies (like Home Depot, Apple and Kraft) for their support of gay rights: http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231.

And Williamson County, Texas originally vetoed a tax benefit for Apple in the early 1990s because Apple gave its gay employees domestic benefits (mentioned in this article): http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-19/business/fi-58834_1_health-benefits

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Please show me when ANY socon group claimed to be the group fighting for “inclusiveness” “love” “tolerance” “diversity” or “equality for all.”

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM

–Conservative groups did boycott companies (lke Home Depot, Apple and Kraft) for their support of gay rights: http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231.

And Williamson County, Texas originally vetoed a tax benefit for Apple in the early 1990s because Apple gave its gay employees domestic benefits (mentioned in this article): http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-19/business/fi-58834_1_health-benefits

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM

BTW, you are another one that doesn’t understand the difference between CONSUMERS boycotting a company for their PUBLIC POLICY by not buying their products or a victim right’s group boycotting a company for ONE EMPLOYEE’S PRIVATE political beliefs. One is withholding money because you don’t agree with the COMPANY’S PUBLIC stance one is in retaliation for a private political process.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Please show me when ANY socon group claimed to be the group fighting for “inclusiveness” “love” “tolerance” “diversity” or “equality for all.”

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM

–So I should be happy because the socon groups are fighting for exclusion, semi-hatred, firing senior employees because of their quasi-religious views and boycotts?

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

BTW, you are another one that doesn’t understand the difference between CONSUMERS boycotting a company for their PUBLIC POLICY by not buying their products or a victim right’s group boycotting a company for ONE EMPLOYEE’S PRIVATE political beliefs. One is withholding money because you don’t agree with the COMPANY’S PUBLIC stance one is in retaliation for a private political process.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

–Really? The boycott of United Airlines because the CEO chaired a Planned Parenthood event public policy was because of the CEO’s political beliefs.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

So I should be happy because the socon groups are fighting for exclusion, semi-hatred, firing senior employees because of their quasi-religious views and boycotts?

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

No, you should acknowledge that a movement who values itself on “diversity” “acceptance” and “equality for all” is a front for Totalitarianism. That gays are nothing but a bunch of perpetually aggrieved babies that don’t care about acceptance, diversity or equality for all.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Wrote too quickly:

Should have written: Really? The boycott of United Airlines because the CEO chaired a Planned Parenthood event was because of the CEO’s political beliefs, not United’s public policy.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback#

Quick, easy way to tell Mozilla what you think of this.

Annielou on April 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM

–Really? The boycott of United Airlines because the CEO chaired a Planned Parenthood event public policy was because of the CEO’s political beliefs.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM

You do realize that he actually co-chaired that event as the CEO of American Airlines. The equivalent would be the CEO of Mozilla co-chairing an event for Prop 8 in public. Again, you do not understand the difference between Company Policy/Private politics or Public Company/Private individual.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Christians just want everyone to treat their imaginary magic-man as some sort of inviolable deity.

How can you get so outraged when you know damn well ten years ago Christians would have and certainly did gladly use their concerted majority stranglehold on the culture to pressure companies to remove executives who may have been insufficiently deferential to their imagined gods in public?

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 4, 2014 at 3:48 AM

Ten years ago? You can’t even provide a citation proving that this happened 50 or 100 years ago. Note that I used the word prove, which would require proof, rather than just a blathering restatement.

Offer up a proof, and we’ll evaluate it.

massrighty on April 4, 2014 at 1:52 PM

I did not call for his firing and do not support the call for it.

Lie. You supported it, you endorsed it, and now you’re spinning for it.

You fully endorse and support firing people for their political views. This is the mental sickness of liberalism, and it shows why you and your fellow Obama supporters are incompatible with a free and democratic society.

I welcome your posts. Couldn’t ask for a better illustration of a nastiness that seeks comfort amongst socons. But I know that most of them are decent enough to pay you little mind.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Lie. You and your fellow losers call for all Republicans and conservatives to be murdered.

Everyone here knows you’re a sick and malicious pervert who wants anyone who doesn’t worship Barack Obama like you do dead.

They know you are indecent and disgusting.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Again – this guy’s opinion was so rabidly intolerant that it was reflected by 53% of CALIFORNIANS and a SITTING DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT.

CycloneCDB on April 4, 2014 at 12:36 PM

“Really, Hispanic and black voters in California passed Proposition 8,” said Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, which backed the amendment.
“Inner-city black neighborhoods voted stronger for Prop. 8 than the Republican suburbs. An amazing analysis,” Mr. Pugno continued.
Blacks voted 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8, and slightly more than half the Hispanic voters backed the measure, according to exit polls released by the National Election Pool.

70% of blacks and over 50% of Hispanics. And yet we are all bigots.

monalisa on April 4, 2014 at 1:59 PM

You do realize that he actually co-chaired that event as the CEO of American Airlines. The equivalent would be the CEO of Mozilla co-chairing an event for Prop 8 in public. Again, you do not understand the difference between Company Policy/Private politics or Public Company/Private individual.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 1:43 PM

-He did not mention his United Airlines connection in the official invitation, apparently, or any public announcement. The following is from Jill Stanek’s blog. She had to search to connect him (and his wife) with the airline.

“So, back to the attention-getter. I always like to see the names of the high rollers who are listed as the “co-chairs” of the event. These are donors who give tens of thousands of dollars to the affiliate and are therefore asked to put their name down on the invitation. They usually have some sort of status among the elite local community. Name recognition is important when you are trying to raise over a million dollars at one event. I scrolled through the invitation and there it was, a name that was very familiar to me. Jeff Smisek.

That name may not ring a bell to you. But I know it well. I spend most of my life on airplanes. Before every take off we get a little safety demonstration. If we are lucky enough to be on a decent sized plane, that demonstration is shown on a video. I personally prefer to fly on airlines that are in the “Star Alliance.” Some of those include United, US Airways, and Lufthansa. I am a million mile flyer with this program, which comes with a few perks. Because of this, I try to stick with United when I travel. When the United safety demonstration video begins, a message from the CEO comes on first. He is thanking us for traveling on United and talks about how image is so important to his airline. That man’s name? Jeff Smisek.”

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

What if an employee went to a demonstration that his company found objectionable? Would that be a reason to fire him? What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I can barely believe the fanaticism. – Andrew Sullivan

Sums up my view perfectly, I don’t have anything to add to this quote.

Couldn’t ask for a better illustration of a nastiness that seeks comfort amongst socons. But I know that most of them are decent enough to pay you little mind.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Andrew Sullivan… evil so-con? Or is it everyone who doesn’t want a society where ANY private political view or action is acceptable cause for a firing?

Have the right done this? On a few occasions; but note Eich wasn’t making a corporate policy, or lecturing others, or being public with his views… they hunted for a head to scalp and chose his.

Verbulace, what is someone outed you by name, and told your employer your online nick, and sent them (and all customers of your company) quotes of what you said… and you got fired for potential lost customers?

Would you consider that a “social good” or would that be a terrible path for society, and something that we should not encourage and reward?

No, I’m NOT saying anyone should do such a thing, it would be another horrible limiting “thought crime” ideal that shouldn’t be part of society… but I don’t want a society where this is something accepted and praised.

Why do you? You think you can let this genie out of the bottle, and it’ll never turn on you?

Don’t mind me when I laugh as this inevitably turns on your side… I’ll be thinking of a joke I heard earlier that day and not laughing at your inability to see the inevitable consequences.

gekkobear on April 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

No, I’m NOT saying anyone should do such a thing, it would be another horrible limiting “thought crime” ideal that shouldn’t be part of society… but I don’t want a society where this is something accepted and praised.

Why do you? You think you can let this genie out of the bottle, and it’ll never turn on you?

Don’t mind me when I laugh as this inevitably turns on your side… I’ll be thinking of a joke I heard earlier that day and not laughing at your inability to see the inevitable consequences.

gekkobear on April 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Unfortunately, gekkobear, you’re talking to a leftist.

Verbaluce and its fellow leftists are incapable of long-term or principled thought.

They see, they grab. They are toddlers.

Hence you’re talking gibberish. Verbaluce can never see this being used against it because that wouldn’t be “fair” and it would go screaming to the Obama Party to save it.

Or, if verbaluce is a 1%-er on the liberal IQ chart, it takes the more malevolent view that conservatives are decent schmucks who would never do such a thing.

We are dealing with children and Taliban here. They either have no moral compass or see others’ morality as something to be turned against them.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Moreover, melle, you should realize that jim56 is an Obama “progressive”, which means it has no intention of ever following the rules it is screaming that you’re not following.

As we can see, deluded and mentally sick bigot jim56 wants people fired for their political donations and their beliefs. So it projects that onto you and screams for you to do piety dances so you will be tied up in knots.

Confront the bigot. Point out that the bigot jim56 wants people fired for their political donations and their beliefs, and that as a result any attempt it makes to criticize conservatives for doing the same proves that it’s a lying and malicious hypocrite.

You must fight Taliban with Taliban tactics. Jim56 does not respect decency or civility. It only respects pain and punching back as hard.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

He was the CEO of the company at the time. Again the equivalent is if Eich held a gala for Prop 8 while was the CEO of Mozilla. He gave ONE PRIVATE donation SIX years ago. He was not the face of a company. He did not represent Mozilla at the time. Again, if you cannot understand the difference between a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, and a PUBLIC COMPANY- I can’t help you. And there was ALOT more going on with United Airlines and Planned Parenthood DIRECTLY than just the CEO’s gala:

On January 11, 2007, a corporation named Fuller 38 LLC bought the property at 7155 E. 38th Ave. in Denver from United Airlines for $1,350,000 according to this HomeInfoMaxReport. Fuller 38 LLC was created two weeks before, on December 27, 2006. See deed to property and Fuller 38 incorporation papers here (pages 3-5). On August 20, 2007, the Denver Post broke the story of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ stealth purchase of the United Airlines Denver property with this map acknowledging the purchase was made “under a different name”: – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2007/11/denver-planned-parenthood-has-front-company-weitz-falsifies-permit-documents/#sthash.jhEuM9U8.dpuf

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM

As we can see, deluded and mentally sick bigot jim56 wants people fired for their political donations and their beliefs. So it projects that onto you and screams for you to do piety dances so you will be tied up in knots.

Confront the bigot. Point out that the bigot jim56 wants people fired for their political donations and their beliefs, and that as a result any attempt it makes to criticize conservatives for doing the same proves that it’s a lying and malicious hypocrite.

You must fight Taliban with Taliban tactics. Jim56 does not respect decency or civility. It only respects pain and punching back as hard.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM

–I’m glad that you must also think the Catholics at Catholic Vote are bigots for demanding that the CEO of United Airlines must stop his participation in Planned Parenthood events, even though he didn’t mention where he worked in the event materials.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:29 PM

The hyphen is just to set off what I’m responding to. People in the past have said there wasn’t
enough difference between the two, so I’ve tried to do better.

Murphy9 on April 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Again, if you cannot understand the difference between a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, and a PUBLIC COMPANY- I can’t help you. And there was ALOT more going on with United Airlines and Planned Parenthood DIRECTLY than just the CEO’s gala:

On January 11, 2007, a corporation named Fuller 38 LLC bought the property at 7155 E. 38th Ave. in Denver from United Airlines for $1,350,000 according to this HomeInfoMaxReport. Fuller 38 LLC was created two weeks before, on December 27, 2006. See deed to property and Fuller 38 incorporation papers here (pages 3-5). On August 20, 2007, the Denver Post broke the story of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ stealth purchase of the United Airlines Denver property with this map acknowledging the purchase was made “under a different name”: – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2007/11/denver-planned-parenthood-has-front-company-weitz-falsifies-permit-documents/#sthash.jhEuM9U8.dpuf

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM

-There is no difference, melle (or should I say Jill?). Your own blog, Jill, said that there was no mention of United Airlines on the Planned Parenthood event materials and that you had to make the connection yourself.

And you apparently now think a company should be boycotted because it sold land it didn’t need to Planned Parenthood?

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:32 PM

–I’m glad that you must also think the Catholics at Catholic Vote are bigots for demanding that the CEO of United Airlines must stop his participation in Planned Parenthood events, even though he didn’t mention where he worked in the event materials.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Apparently you didn’t read, stupid bigot.

Point out that the bigot jim56 wants people fired for their political donations and their beliefs, and that as a result any attempt it makes to criticize conservatives for doing the same proves that it’s a lying and malicious hypocrite.

Now, bigot, you can either state that it’s always wrong to want people fired for their donations, in which case you are wrong for wanting Eich fired, or that it’s OK if you don’t like them, in which case you are wrong for attacking the Catholics.

Tnhe reason you’re spinning is because you’re cornered. But this is no surprise; you scream about Catholic pedophiles, but you support and endorse gays and lesbians and Hollywood Obama supporters raping and sexually molesting children. So what we’re seeing again is that you demand a standard of morality that you will never apply to yourself, and that makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Didn’t waste any time getting back to your anti-christian bigot ways didja jimbo3?

The mask will slip and you will threaten someone’s kids with violence again. That stalinist rage cannot be contained forever.

Murphy9 on April 4, 2014 at 2:36 PM

What if an employee went to a demonstration that his company found objectionable? Would that be a reason to fire him? What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I can barely believe the fanaticism. – Andrew Sullivan

Sums up my view perfectly, I don’t have anything to add to this quote.

Couldn’t ask for a better illustration of a nastiness that seeks comfort amongst socons. But I know that most of them are decent enough to pay you little mind.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Andrew Sullivan… evil so-con? Or is it everyone who doesn’t want a society where ANY priv

ate political view or action is acceptable cause for a firing?

You’re mixing up many things here, and yet still not addressing my point. It is simply that the righyt are hypocrites in their damning of what went down here with Eich. I do not at all support the effort or the outcome there.

Here’s more Andrew Sullivan…since he’s your guy today:

If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:32 PM

The Weitz Co., a nationwide construction entity hired to build Planned Parenthood’s newest mega-abortion clinic in Denver, has listed United Airlines as the property owner on city permits for work on the 52,000-square-foot project, documents assembled by pro-life activists reveal.

Officials for the Weitz Co. declined to respond to WND’s request for comments. But both Denver and United Airlines confirmed that the property was owned by United, then sold to a company set up by Planned Parenthood in January 2007.

United’s Megan McCarthy issued a terse: “United Airlines sold the building in question to a real estate firm on January 11, 2007. We do not own this property.”

And Sarah Moss, with the city, said her initial inquiries showed United sold the property to Fuller 38 LLC at that time.

Neither the city nor United commented immediately on the appropriateness of listing United as the owner when it no longer was connected to the property, or whether there would be penalties for providing incorrect information.

The apparent deception follows by only weeks the revelations that Planned Parenthood set up a front company, Gemini Office Development, in Aurora, Ill., to conceal from city officials and neighbors the nature and operations of what has opened as a mega-clinic abortion business there.

According to documentation from WND columnist Jill Stanek as well as leaders of Colorado Right to Life, in Denver Planned Parenthood set up a front company called Fuller 38 to assemble its mega-clinic. But the permits obtained by the Weitz company from the city of Denver listed United as the property owner.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44390/#OfUvCKYYiZeB0rSJ.99

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM

The mask will slip and you will threaten someone’s kids with violence again. That stalinist rage cannot be contained forever.

Murphy9 on April 4, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Especially since it’s normal for the Obama Party leaders and the gay and lesbian community that jim56 is defending to threaten children.

Shows you something that the Obama Party and jim56 actively endorse harming the children of political opponents. They are violent and psychotic individuals who will hurt and kill peoples’ family members for power, just as their leaders threatened to do in Wisconsin.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I do not at all support the effort or the outcome there.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Lie. You are screaming and spinning and desperately trying to justify the behavior of your fellow gay-sex bigots by blaming Christians.

Not realizing, of course, that you are condemning Christians for allegedly doing what you endorse, or acknowledging that gay-sex bigots like you are intolerant fascists as you claim Christians are.

Furthermore, verbaluce, you are nothing more than filth that calls for the murder of conservatives. Everyone here knows that you will lie, cheat, and steal for power, and that you and your fellow Obama supporters want conservatives killed for their beliefs.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Brendan Eich has now assessed an economic hardship, so he could possibly sue the Campaign for Human Rights, who disclosed his name.

J_Crater on April 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:32 P

BTW, when is GLAAD and OKCupid going to boycott javascript or are they just lip service bullies?

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM

According to documentation from WND columnist Jill Stanek as well as leaders of Colorado Right to Life, in Denver Planned Parenthood set up a front company called Fuller 38 to assemble its mega-clinic. But the permits obtained by the Weitz company from the city of Denver listed United as the property owner.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44390/#OfUvCKYYiZeB0rSJ.99

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM

–Jill, it looks like the property was sold by United in 2007 so United should have applied for the demolition permit in 2006.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM

–Jill, it looks like United owned the property until January, 2007 so United should have applied for the demolition permit in 2006. I don’t see the sale of a property to Planned Parenthood being something to boycott over.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Should I call you Obama since you seem to be as obtuse as he is.. Well Barry, United was still listed on the permits. Futhermore, can you tell me where there was an active call to FIRE the CEO of United?

BTW, idiot Jill is a wonderful lady, so you calling me her is a compliment.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I do not at all support the effort or the outcome there.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Lie. You are screaming and spinning and desperately trying to justify the behavior of your fellow gay-sex bigots by blaming Christians.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM

You are a dingbat.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM

im56 on April 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Should I call you Obama since you seem to be as obtuse as he is.. Well Barry, United was still listed on the permits. Futhermore, can you tell me where there was an active call to FIRE the CEO of United?

BTW, idiot Jill is a wonderful lady, so you calling me her is a compliment.

melle1228 on April 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM

–I think Jill is a mentally ill idiot unfit to be a nurse.

jim56 on April 4, 2014 at 3:21 PM

1) If it was leaked illegally, find out who did it and punish them.

2) Who cares what he spent his money on? IT’S HIS MONEY!

3) Anyone remember when people were entitled to their own opinion, when you might not agree but you respected that opinion, and it was the norm to agree to disagree?

Liberals have gotten as bad as Islamic Extremists…you have to believe and see everything the way that they do or you are demonized, attacked, and – like in this case – are forced out of your jobs or are otherwise punished!

Will the last American out please bring the flag?!

easyt65 on April 4, 2014 at 3:43 PM

That’s the hypocrisy I object to.

verbaluce on April 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM

So in other words, you acknowledge that everything people are saying about the topic is correct, you’re just choosing to criticize them personally based on (real or perceived) reactions to other issues.

You want to know where the hypocrisy is, take a good hard look at the people who knock on my door and want me to sign petitions because we live in a state that “can fire someone for being gay”, and so forth.

As I pointed out in a previous example regarding Chic Fil A, the left goes beyond boycotting companies based on corporate behavior, and instead extort action from them based on the actions of individual employees. OFF THE CLOCK. With NO REGARD for the policies they actually employ WITHIN THEIR COMPANY.

By contrast, are people calling for a boycott of all of Comcast/NBC/Universal, unless and until Bob Costas is gone, when he BROUGHT his politics INTO his workplace? NO. And that’s to say nothing of the countless other actors and musicians and so forth, largely of a liberal bent, whom people are quite content to watch as they do their job, so long as they don’t stand there and beat you over the head with their politics.

The Schaef on April 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM

First, people should make donations assuming it will become public. Secondly, let’s make all donor lists public because the left has much more to hide than the right. I’d be willing to bet the left would fight any disclosure rules that required their donors to become public knowledge. Any Takers?

bflat879 on April 4, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Wow homosexuals are a rather tolerantly intolerant group. Well GLAAD anyway…

sorrowen on April 4, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Firefox taking a hit.

Bmore on April 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM


This whole episode indicates that it is no longer safe to use Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird.
.
This incompetent fascist boob values PC above solving bugs, security risks and improving the product by ousting the smartest guy they have for having his own private opinion.
.
Google must be happy.
.
After using firefox and thunderbird since version 1.0 , I am dropping these products since at Mozilla people who think differently, an absolute crucial characteristic to build safe and secure systems, are no longer tolerated.
.
I can tolerate some spying from Google. I cannot tolerate my computer compromised.

huntingmoose on April 4, 2014 at 7:26 PM


It shows they can be manipulated by some thuggish gay fascists.
.
So they are corruptable .
.
Imagine how bad it will be when the maffia tells them to inject some malware in the code…
.
security risk anyone?

huntingmoose on April 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Those that want to destroy 35,000 lives with their “Blacklist” should really remember that those that contributed to the other side are also public record.

Brooklynman on April 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM

IRS must be held responsible for leaking National Organization for Marriage donor list

Shortly after HRC posted the illegally-obtained tax returns on its website, NOM demanded an investigation by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

We know that an investigation occurred – NOM was given a case number, and its principal officers were interviewed.

And we know that the tax return on HRC’s website originated from within the IRS because it had been redacted to hide internal codes that are placed on documents only after they are received by the IRS.

But eighteen months later, no criminal charges have been filed, and the IRS now takes the position that the release of the identity of the culprit is itself barred by the same federal statute that the culprit violated.

See also: Marriage group to sue IRS over donor leak, says list went to political enemies http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/marriage-group-to-sue-irs-over-donor-leak/?page=all

petefrt on April 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

petefrt on April 6, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Dude, you wrote what I was about to write!!

Come on Allahpundit. At least tell the whole story. And why we are so concerned about the increasing fascist bent of our government and the new Brownshirts (I will not try to imagine how they got them brown, but the old joke about curtains comes to mind….)

deadite on April 6, 2014 at 10:30 AM

deadite on April 6, 2014 at 10:30 AM

But I just ran across this at NRO in an Ap 6 column by Kevin Williamson: The Liberal Gulag: The Brendan Eich case brings out the nature of liberal fascism.
By Kevin D. Williamson

CORRECTION: The original version of this piece contained a factual error: The disclosure of Mr. Eich’s Proposition 8 donation was not part of the IRS leak of NOM’s tax records. NOM organized the Proposition 8 campaign, and its records were indeed leaked by the IRS, but Mr. Eich’s donation was to Proposition 8 itself rather than to NOM, and therefore was not part of the IRS’s recent campaign of lawlessness and political retribution.

Who knows?

petefrt on April 6, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3