Apr
21
2014

Why I no longer support full disclosure of political donations.

It’s because of things like this:

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.”

Speaking as a same-sex marriage supporter: I find it ‘disturbing,’ too.  Except that in my case when I say ‘disturbing’ I mean ‘deadly dangerous to the Republic.’ It was bad enough when Proposition 8 opponents (I make no secret that I would have voted against it), having lost a legal referendum, decided to ignore the state legislative process and successfully managed to get a state constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional. But this is even worse. This is the road that you go down when you eventually hope to set up proscription lists*.

So forget transparency.  If you can’t trust the Left to respect your right to publicly disagree, then for damned sure you need to make sure that you can still effectively disagree at all.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Moe Lane

PS: Folks are going to discover that there are a lot of people on the Right who have come to the same conclusion as I have.  Fair warning.

*This would be a deadly insult aimed at the Activist Left, except that I don’t think enough of them are sufficiently educated to understand why.  Which is why I have to footnote it.

12 Comments

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    I’m just waiting for the day when the people in Hollywood actually set up official persona non grata “blacklists” based off support of conservative/libertarian issues, and in so doing, reveal themselves as the ultimate intellectual heirs of Joe McCarthy.

    No, I know the blacklists are probably already there. I just can’t wait for the day they’re PUBLIC.

  • acat says:

    I see your point. I do not entirely disagree with it .. and I suspect that enough of the left will agree to pass appropriate laws.
    .
    I find what’s happened to the True The Vote folks to be the more damning, but .. meh.
    .
    Mew

  • BigGator5 says:

    Hey Moe, since you support SSM, would you also support legal protections for churches/temples/mosques who do not wish to marry gay couples?

    • Phil Smith says:

      Can’t speak for Moe, but I suspect his reasoning is a principled conservative stance in favor of freedom of association, freedom of contract, and robust property rights – which are pretty much the only reasons why the state should be involved in marriage at all. If I’m correct in my surmise, then of course he supports legal protections for those who refuse to participate in what they deem sacrilege. Of course, I could be very wrong, but the above is the basics of my reasons for supporting gay marriage.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Well, I called for precisely that in 2012; and I do not believe that I have said anything different since then. Not that I expect anybody to memorize all of my posts, given that I don’t…

  • Jeff Weimer says:

    Took you long enough, Moe. I made up my mind back in ’08 when these pinkshirts went after lesser folks.

  • qixlqatl says:

    “…hope to eventually set up….”?
    .
    Their lists are compiled, and the proscriptions are being implemented….

  • midwestconservative says:

    There are still a bunch of idiot populists on the Right who hate people who are moderately wealthy and thus think Citizen’s United somehow “corrupted” the Republic.
    They are still for Full Disclosure.

    They’re currently crafting the rope with which the Left will hang us.

  • Texas 1911 says:

    These sort of “in your face” front door confrontations only occur in blue states or cities. Think of the young teen terrified by the mob in DC at his parents house because of a political attack. They do not occur in Texas or any other red area. I double dog dare the homo-facist wing of the democratic party to spread this vile practice here. If these people want to sin and ruin their lives, fine by me, but not on my nickel or at my forced expense. I do not care what they do in private. They get to pay the consequences, they can marry if they can find a minister so lost to God and the bible to do it, but no one should be able to force me to approve, pay for it or participate. If the left thinks they can force us, well, our side does have all the firearms.

  • garfieldjl says:

    I’ve been in a debate with a liberal over the IRS scandal, and he continues to insist that no crime was committed even though the unauthorized leaking of confidential IRS information to parties that have no business obtaining that information is a crime.

    I think that’s a pretty good example of why this information should not be accessible to the public.

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com