Friday, April 16, 2010

The Midknight Review Strikes Again With Baseless Assertions, Incorrect Information, And Numerous Contradictions

Updated April 17th, 2010.

Recently, this website, The Midnight Review, has come under attack from a "conservative activist" who has a blog by a similar sounding name - The Midknight Review.  The author of the blog, John Smithson, of Sanger, California, had made numerous baseless accusations against this blog, claiming I, Kevin, have plagiarized his website's name in an attempt to propagate a "Marxist obstructionist" agenda.  To prove such, Smithson asked several questions of me in a recent comment on a blog post of my own, and then followed by posting my responses and commentary on his own site.  Smithson had also stated that he desired "intelligent dialogue," but apparently that desire was only one-sided, considering Smithson's follow-up to my answers.

Here are the questions asked of me:
  • Kevin, you favor the overthrow of Roe vs Wade? 
  • Did you vote for Obama?
  • Think Huffington and Think Progress are not socialist rags?
  • You deny support of MSNBC and its support of a spocialized State? 
  • What is there about the Republican Party that separates it from the Democrats? 
  • Do you see Marxist/Socialism as the curse it is? 
Here were my short responses:
Regarding Roe v. Wade? Yes, but I do not believe the banning of abortion should be absolute. Certain circumstances may permit the use of abortion.

Obama? I voted for him. Proudly. What was my choice? Elect McCain and Palin? The thought of having Palin as VP and a heartbeat away from the presidency was scary. I read about her. I saw her interviews and watched the debates. She had no place on the national scene, let alone as a head of our government.

Now the next few questions are weighted, and the answer isn't as cut and dry as you would make them out to be.

Huffington Post and Think Progress? They are not "socialist rags," and while I may not agree with everything found on their sites, I find them to be informative.

Not quite sure what exactly your asking about MSNBC? Are you asking me if I support them? I hardly support them. They are another news agency.

The differences between Democrats and Republicans. They, in many ways, are very similar, but I see no need for me to answer that question. All one needs to do is look at each others political platform side by side.

As for Marxist/Socialism being a curse? The two are different. Our economy has been a mix of socialism and capitalism, and has been since the creation of this nation. Just review the laws passed by Congress dating back to the 1700s, such as the federal government taking over state debts. To denounce aspects of socialism as evil would in fact attack the American economic system in it's entirety as evil. As for Marxism, I do not believe the entire economy should be controlled by the government. I believe that too great a portion of the economy is already controlled by the government, in the form of military spending, and reductions should take place.
This was apparently enough information Smithson needed to make a conclusion, and in the true fashion of revisionism, Smithson "declared [himself] the victor," but what exactly were Smithson's thoughts?

Smithson had expressed previously that he desired "intelligent dialogue" and debate, but what he is engaging in is nothing more then a right-wing smear job.  He took my short answers and translated them to prove that he was correct, and no matter what I wrote, the response would have been the same - that I was a Marxist obstructionist and Smithson was a God-loving capitalist.  Because Smithson had felt the need to continually publish these smears against me, like his continued libelous accusations that I plagiarized his site, I feel obligated to correct what Smithson has made wrong, and that includes pointing out the idiocy of his assertions.  This is exactly what he told his readers of my answers:
In the case of the plagiarist, "Kevin," he aligns himself with those at MSNBC and finds that network of greater value as a news agency than Fox News. More than this, he uses the services of Think Progress, an obvious Marxist/Socialist rag that stands in support of Media Matters and the openly Socialist, George Soros. Kevin calls this compromise "moderation" and, hence, refers to himself as a "moderate Republican."
I would like to go down the list of questions in order to make things more easily understood.  I will list my response to each of the questions, followed by Smithson's commentary, and then end with a rebuttal of my own.
Regarding Roe v. Wade? Yes, but I do not believe the banning of abortion should be absolute. Certain circumstances may permit the use of abortion.

Smithson: This issue, alone, is important enough an issue as to drive folks away from anything "Progressive." Kevin has informed me that he has never written anything on the subject of abortion. As you read his answer, above, the door is open as to whether he supports the dismantling of Roe vs. Wade. My question was "Do you favor the overthrow of Roe vs Wade?" I maintain that he did NOT answer that question. You see, Progressive Socialists actually believe that we Conservatives can be fooled when it comes to such rhetorical maneuverings.

Smithson had asked me if I supported the end to Roe v. Wade and my response was "yes," but as I indicated, certain circumstances should be considered, such as when the life of the mother is in jeopardy or in instances of rape. Smithson translates this to mean that I am for the unlimited murdering of babies. I favor legislation banning the practice of abortion except in extreme cases.  To Smithson, the rights of a rapist trump that of anyone else's.

Obama? I voted for him. Proudly. What was my choice? Elect McCain and Palin? The thought of having Palin as VP and a heartbeat away from the presidency was scary. I read about her. I saw her interviews and watched the debates. She had no place on the national scene, let alone as a head of our government.

Smithson: Well, there you have it - a man who claims to be a "Republican," standing in compliment with the GOP political platform, seeing Obama and his Marxists/Socialist agenda as being in line with his political views. The notion that Palin would somehow be a worse choice than what we have in Barry Obama is as laughable as it is ridiculous. Under Obama's watch, our enemies have been emboldened and Israel is in fear for its very life. Obama has taken over 52% of the American economy including the healthcare industry [18 % of the economy] , half of the mortgage industry, all of the student loan business, the banking industry via the Fed and increased regulation and a huge part of the auto industry. Under Obama, Venezuela is becoming a military power in South America, receiving more than 5 billion dollars in military aid from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russia. He has no clue what to do with Iran or --- even worse -- may approve of Iran becoming a nuclear power. He has overseen the spending of 1 trillion dollars a month since becoming "President" and has taken this country to the verge of financial collapse. His spending policies will be responsible for 26.4 trillion in debt by 2018 compared to a Bush 10 year projections of 4 trillion dollars. Midknight Review suggests to the readership that it is not possible for Palin to have acted in a more incompetent way ---- not possible.

This response is laughable.  Smithson is part of the population that believes Sarah Palin to be an extremely intelligent person.  While I admit she is business savvy, quitting halfway through her term as governor to milk the publicity of being the vice-presidential candidate, I maintain the position that in 2008, as well as now, that Palin did not have the competence to govern at the national level.  Must I remind Smithson of her interview with Charlie Gibson.  During that interview, Gibson had asked Palin if she was prepared to address matters of international affairs at the national level, and Palin responded that she was without a doubt prepared to serve, yet just shortly after her response, Palin failed to describe her views of the "Bush doctrine," which had been the dominating foreign policy during the previous administration.

During that interview, I also found interesting her response to when Gibson quoted her as saying "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God," and then asking her if America was in a "holy war."  Palin tried to backtrack her statement by attributing her comments to Abraham Lincoln.  While it is unclear what Lincoln quote Palin was referring to, one thing is clear - Palin lied.  She states that her original statement meant one cannot interpret the will of God, but by stating that the nation's leaders were "sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God," Palin was in fact interpreting the will of God, which is impossible. 

I also feel need to mention Katie Couric's interview with Palin as well, and more notably, her response to Couric's question as to whether or not she had been involved in trade negotiations with the Russians, in which it seemed to allude to some sort of Russian activity over American soil.
We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
Palin had made numerous hawkish statements in both the Gibson and Couric interviews, and throughout the campaign trail, Palin was the source of countless other soundbites and slogans, but all in all, it was empty rhetoric, and McCain had made a poor decision in selecting Palin as his running mate, seeing that there were far more qualified candidates out there, like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or even Mark Sanford.  Palin was not completely to blame for my decision.  McCain had made some serious blunders, and in my opinion, it appeared as if McCain lacked the understanding to tackle the economy.  While I knew the principles that McCain stood for, he showed to be too distant from the electorate, and especially considering his suspension of his campaign, he showed me evidence that he lacked certain qualities of leadership.

I agreed with the conservative attacks against Obama's experience, but then again, I felt it to be a double standard to exclude Palin from those same criticisms, and I also held the belief that while Obama may have lacked executive experience, he entered the contest with an experienced vice-presidential candidate and a promise to establish a bipartisan cabinet.  I had felt the same way when Presidennt Bush, another relatively young candidate, took office and surrounded himself with highly qualified people while he himself may not have had a shining track record.

Huffington Post and Think Progress? They are not "socialist rags," and while I may not agree with everything found on their sites, I find them to be informative.

Smithson: At this point, Kevin [over]exposes himself. If Huffington and Think Progress are not socialist rags, such does not exist in this country. The denial is impossible to defend and condemning in its very wording.

Smithson does not even offer debate. Reading Smithson's poor, and grammatically horrendous response, he only offers a simple "your wrong."

Smithson is the one who is horribly mistaken. While The Huffington Post and Think Progress may offer original articles that may appeal more to liberals, those sites also offer links to corresponding material, and The Huffington Post links to many of the same articles that conservative news sources, which I have also included on my "links" page, do. As I had stated before, I find them to be informative. Should I visit either site, or any for that matter, I take into consideration where I am getting it, I read all corresponding articles and references, and then I seek out other articles on the same topic to formulate an opinion. I simply do not utilize these websites as a one-stop-shop for news, and anyone who would do so would be irresponsible and ignorant.

Not quite sure what exactly your asking about MSNBC? Are you asking me if I support them? I hardly support them. They are another news agency.

Smithson:
But of course, I was not asking if he sent them money, for crying out loud. You cannot get more Marxist in your commentary or socialistic in your sense of national appointment than what is broadcast at MSNBC. The "socialist state" is openly supported on that network. Who Kevin thinks he has fooled is beyond what I can imagine.

First off, Smithson starts by making fun of my answer, despite the fact that his question specifically asked if I "deny support of MSNBC and its support of a spocialized State?"  Smithson was the one who wanted intellectual debate, yet he can hardly formulate a sentence, and then when those, such as myself, do approach the discussion with a certain level of intelligence, Smithson balks and lets the condescension fly.

Like my response regarding The Huffington Post and Think Progress, I consider MSNBC to be just another news source, and offer the same amount of scrutiny to the stories they present as I do to any other source.  I do not know if MSNBC has a particular agenda that they are trying to advance, but when receiving my news, I assume that everybody has some sort of agenda they are trying to push.  It is up to me to learn the truth for myself.
I would also like to point out Smithson's claim that I "align" myself "with those at MSNBC and finds that network of greater value as a news agency than Fox News," but as I have pointed out, Fox News had themselves admitted that they are only a partial news network, playing opinion programming during certain hours.  I find Smithson's assertion that Fox News is a more reliable source, despite countless examples of bias and misrepresentation of facts.  I wonder what shows Smithson gets his "news" from - the "news" programs or the opinion programs.
The differences between Democrats and Republicans. They, in many ways, are very similar, but I see no need for me to answer that question. All one needs to do is look at each others political platform side by side.

Smithson:
Of course, I had in mind HIS description of the differences. I can read the "platforms" for myself. I have spent a descent amount of time reading his blog and cannot see significant differences between his views and the Marxist/Socialists at Think Progress. In fact, after comparing his commentary to that of the Marxist driven Huffington Post, I really see no reason for him to be identified as a "Republican" at all except to confuse and compromise the message of that party. Kevin is a part of the Socialist assault on capitalism and true Constitutional values. He will not agree, of course, but actions speak mush louder than his denials, in this case.

Smithson again attacks my answer as deceptive.  Smithson asked what separates the Republicans from the Democrats.  I saw this question as irrelevant, and should one want to understand the basic principles that these national parties are based upon, all one would need to do is read their party platforms.  Smithson was just upset because I did not offer a description of my own of the differences, for which he could then attempt to dissect and frame.  When you consider the philosophies and actions of each party, they appear to be very similar, and popular "conservative" pundits have made the same argument, including none other then Glenn Beck.

Another reason why my answer is irrelevant is because on Smithson's website, he claims that "the Republican Party has been overtaken by Progressive minded Leftist," so logically speaking, no matter what I say, it would be "progressive" and "leftist," which would be wrong.

As for Marxist/Socialism being a curse? The two are different. Our economy has been a mix of socialism and capitalism, and has been since the creation of this nation. Just review the laws passed by Congress dating back to the 1700s, such as the federal government taking over state debts. To denounce aspects of socialism as evil would in fact attack the American economic system in it's entirety as evil. As for Marxism, I do not believe the entire economy should be controlled by the government. I believe that too great a portion of the economy is already controlled by the government, in the form of military spending, and reductions should take place.

Smithson: Lets see - guess I missed his denial of the notion of Marxism or Socialism being "a curse." In his commentary, Kevin confuses the issue on the one hand and , on the other, he cites examples of socialist advances as evidence that socialism is a good thing, i.e., the Feds "taking over" state debt. First, that has not happened here in California but allowing for the correctness of his statement does not mean the idea is a good idea. Take Social Security. It was never going to cost more than 3% of payroll. It is now systemic to personal economy and in debt to the tune of 38 trillion dollars.If is such a good idea that it is not longed for this world -- a true financial disaster. But who cares about the "dollar " argument, right? Well, what about education? Its free and therefore, an example of "socialism." Not exactly. It was originally financed with local dollars and supervised via local governance. The idea, in the beginning, was a great social consideration. Then the Feds took over, eliminated religion from the school campus, controlled the teacher unions, rewrote science and history, controlled the political debate on campus, and is about to take parent controls out of the picture altogether.

Here is another example of Smithson's stupidity.  Smithson asked for me to admit that "socialism" was a curse, which would violate the spirit of intellectual debate.  Smithson does not want debate - only testimonials that support his claim.  The problem with Smithson's question is that it attempts to sum up a complex economic system into a single sentence, positioning capitalism, which represents good, on one side, and socialism, which represents evil, on another.  The problem with that argument is that the American system has never been completely capitalist, and so to attack the concept of socialism would be a false dilemma.


Smithson also ignores the fact that I actually stated that I am against Marxism, and I believe government should not control the means of production and that the free market is better equipped to handle such economic requirements.

To illustrate my point that America was never a truly capitalist society, I pointed to the fact that the federal government had always intertwined itself in the economy.  To be more specific, on January 14th, 1790, Alexander Hamilton delivered his "Report on Credit" to the House of Representatives, outlining that the federal government should assume the debts of the states.  Smithson argues that I offered an example of "socialist advances," despite the fact that socialism was developed in the late 1800s in what many believe to be a reaction to industrialism and capitalism.  This development of social and economic theory would take place almost one century from the creation of this nation, and Smithson's assertion that my citation is proof of "socialist advances" is just evidence of his ignorance of what he preaches. 

I would also like to point to Smithson's examples listed in his rebuttal.  Smithson states that the federal government had not assumed California's debt.  This is a strange comment.  While Smithson only mentions it to contrast my mention of the "Report on Credit," he also states that the federal government's past actions were not a good thing, so one could come to the conclusion that the federal government not assuming California's debts would be the good, capitalist thing to do.  Why would an alleged Marxist president do something so capitalist in nature?

Next, Smithson mentions Social Security, stating that it was never to cost more then 3% of the payroll and is now in debt for 38 trillion dollars!  This argument is just ridiculous.  I assume Smithson means "unfunded liability", not "debt," meaning the debt does not currently exist.  The figures Smithson speaks of come from a calculation of the benefits promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in taxes and premiums, meaning if Medicare, or Social Security, are not fixed, then the funds will dry up.  If Medicare were to be currently in debt for 38 trillion dollars (almost 3 times the national debt), the nation would have already collapsed and Smithson would have gotten his wish.  The numbers Smithson speaks of is purely sensational propaganda.  I do not deny that the systems are flawed, but at the same time, nobody had been willing to fix them.  Any mention of the programs in the past would have been silenced by the Republicans who have always been critical of such programs, until last year, of course, when Republicans actually came out in defense of the programs.  Also, I had actually supported the proposal to privatize Social Security in the past.

Smithson then moves on to education as evidence of socialism gone wrong.  Smithson himself writes that education "was originally financed with local dollars and supervised via local governance," but then the federal government took control eliminating religion, taking control of teacher's unions, rewriting science and history, controlling debate, and will soon remove parental controls.  His assertion that education only became socialized when the federal government stepped in is just wrong.  By Smithson's definition, the original school establishment was a socialist endeavor.  As for Smithson's other claims, they make absolutely no sense.  Obviously he does not believe America to have been established as a secular nation that protected religious freedoms, but rather, he believes America is a Christian nation that tolerates other faiths.  I was also unaware that the federal government controls the unions, and how does one rewrite science?  Also, if you recall recent news, Texas conservatives have just approved one of the largest rewrites of history to suit their political and religious agenda.  I was also unaware of the federal government controls debate.  I guess I must have gone to one of the few colleges in the nation that defied the federal government and offered the student body actual debates, and as for "parent controls," I have no idea what Smithson means.

I also find it interesting that I am accused to be a Marxist when I have written plenty of articles advocating the protection of property rights, strongly criticizing eminent domain and homeowners associations.
Smithson's arguments against my comments made absolutely no sense.  As I have written above, he offers absurd generalities that can be easily disproved and when faced with facts, Smithson can do nothing but deflect.  It is also evident that there is no satisfying Smithson, as Smithson's beliefs will not permit open, intellectual thought.  Smithson's conclusions to my responses to his questions:
Midknight Review no longer supports public education and sees it as an arm of an existential drive to wholly secularize this nation and our children. It figures into the assault on our Constitution. and is proving to be more of an enemy of freedom than any might suppose.
Smithson goes on to state that my "political opinions are the problem and must not be allowed to continue as the dominate notion of the GOP." This closing thought is another contradiction. He attacks me for being Marxist but then claims my very political views to be the dominant force driving the Republican party. So which is it, Smithson? Am I a Republican, a Marxist claiming to be a Republican, or a Republican believes in Marxism?

I have a couple questions of my own for the self proclaimed conservative activist:
  • Do you deny being a racist, and accept those of African descent to be your equals?
  • Being that you openly define socialism as a "curse," are you prepared to rescind your support of Sarah Palin, who helped redistribute wealth from the private sector to the citizens of Alaska?
I doubt that Smithson would answer these questions, being that every time I have pointed out a lie or misrepresentation by Smithson, he is nowhere to be found, unless it is to call me a plagiarist, Marxist, or atheist.  

Check out the previous exchanges I have had with Smithson and The Midknight Review.  It does not take a genius to identify  the truth.  Smithson continues trying to spread falsehoods because he knows, when it comes to the truth, he will always lose.

UPDATE - April 17th, 2010 - I had decided to check Smithson's website to see if any mention was made of my blog post regarding his accusations, but it appears Smithson had already told his readers that I offered no rebuttal and that he will pursue a "cease and desist" against me for the use of my blog title.  When I tried to leave a response, Blogger would not complete the request, which leads me to believe Smithson had blocked my profile from leaving comments.  So much for intellectual debate.

    1 comment:

    1. Bob WehadababyitsaboyApril 18, 2010 at 12:04 AM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      ReplyDelete

    Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.