Saturday, November 22, 2008

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "Center-right Moral Crusades: 'Get mad, get mad dog mad'"

NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

Today, from November 2008, "Center-right Moral Crusades: 'Get mad, get mad dog mad'":

Too often those on the right are content to give charts, statistics and pristine figures for our arguments. We let the other side roll out fake grandmothers, women lying about recycling cans for food, fake claims of hate crimes and wonder why, even when these incidents are proven wrong time and time again, we keep losing to people. 
 
Only when one confronts a leftist who is screaming about the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd and points out that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality and everything to do with a drug deal gone wrong, does one understand the mentality of the other side. When they learn the truth they simply don't care, they keep screaming about hate crimes. 

So this isn't a claim to become as irrational as the other side, or merely to parrot back opposing moral outrage to our issues somewhat artificially. No, we ought to set our own real priorities, examine how the proposals on our side and theirs affect real people, and then apply real instances that have a strong emotional appeal for those who are not well educated on our topics. 

The emotional appeals can become a hook from which they learn the facts and the figures and statistics that show that our side is truthful and honest about these problems, but we can't forget that crucial middle point of attracting people in the first place through emotional appeals to become interested in our topics and solutions.
- issue - normal appeal - emotional appeal - leftist rebuttal - addressing their rebuttals
Affirmative Action
"fairness" and "merit"
Whites are pushed out; all races are taught to look down to blacks; blacks are set up to fail in jobs or in colleges they aren't ready for
minorities suffered through slavery, and now suffer through unequal access to advancement
slavery is about controlling someone's destiny, and now we have the state controlling and managing people's destinies due to race








Abortion
"Rights" of the unborn
The girl who survived an abortion: Gianna Jennssen
Back-alley abortions
Gianna survived a back-alley abortion, what does that make her?








Bureaucracy
Inefficiency
the
the
the








Business Regulation
"Overregulation"
the
the
the








Christian Assaults
"Freedom"
Attacks on nuns, hurting nuns
"Separation of Church and State"
The state is busy separating the Church from the people, hurting nuns and suing nuns








Taxation
"Individual rights" and "Capitalism"
Business owners who can't afford daycare
Poor people need our help
If poor people had jobs, they wouldn't be poor, and would be taxpayers








Environmentalism
High regulatory costs
Suffocation of new industry and the creation of new jobs for immigrants, minorities, the uninsured and poor people
the
the








Foreign Wars
Usually a mind-numbing pro-war, pro-bombing mentality that does us no good.
National bankruptcy; military deaths that will only lead to more future conflicts and, sadly, more deaths
Body bags
These wars come about because of Democrat policies, and Democrat weakening of the military








Immigration
"Border Security"
Crimes by immigrants, victims of border insecurity, sex crimes
Javier who "does the jobs white people won't take" and is just trying to earn money to send back home to Tijuana
the








Healthcare
"Socialism"
Deaths due to bureaucracy; elderly deaths due to rationing; denial of care
The "Uninsured"
the








Tuition
Needless bureaucratic growth
Tuition slavery as undergraduates spend ten years paying off debt
Student "services" the
topics we ought to be worked up over:

Abortion
Abortion activism
Abortion healing
Academic standards
Alternative media
Courtship
Homosexual therapy
Marriage
Tuition
Unionism

and we should develop ways to do grassroots organizing around these topics

leftists organize around:
Domestic violence
Racism
Sexism

Pro-life activists not ashamed to use the tactics of the Left against them


By James O’Keefe

In February 2008, Lila Rose and I released our second undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood. We were able to donate money to the organization for the explicit purpose of reducing the number of black babies born in the United States – in line with the intentions of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.We carefully chose a dozen or so “one party consent” states, where it is legal to audio record someone without their consent. Not a single Planned Parenthood employee we spoke to was disinterested in the prospect of a donation for our stated purposes. We asked that our donation to be earmarked for minority mothers only. Autumn Kersey, vice president of development for the Idaho division of Planned Parenthood, actually confessed she was “excited” about the donation. We received nationwide news coverage for our sting operation and put Planned Parenthood on the defensive because of its advocacy of black genocide.

While many pro-life organizations across the country continue focusing on development, this investigation was far more effective, as it managed to expose Planned Parenthood’s original intentions and raise awareness using telephones and a public university’s video editing program.

This kind of political technology needs to be further utilized by young conservative activists. When I was editor of The Rutgers Centurion, the conservative newspaper at Rutgers University in New Jersey, I convinced administrators to ban Lucky Charms cereal on the grounds it is offensive to Irish Americans. This was done to satirize political correctness on campuses, using what legendary leftist activist Saul Alinsky called the most effective political tactic of all – mockery. It was a win-win scenario: If they did not ban Lucky Charms, they would appear to be biased against Irish Americans. If they did, they would be branded as ridiculously sensitive, as was the case. Likewise, either Planned Parenthood accepts donations from racists, or they must reject the view of their founder, Sanger, as racist.

We framed the issue in a creative way. We did not tackle abortion conventionally but from the racism angle. Because leftists believe that racism is a cardinal sin, we used their rules against them.

Alinsky believed in doing whatever necessary to disrupt and annoy power structures, applying constant pressure and opposition. Applying some of his tactics from “Rules for Radicals,” we (a) never went outside our own experience, (b) went outside our opposition’s experience, (c) used enjoyable tactics and did not spend too long on any particular one and (d) made people believe we were a 1,000 member coordinated conspiracy when there are really only three of us. Many in the pro-life movement criticize using deceit in exposing the racism and absurdity in the abortion movement, but are willing to condemn Planned Parenthood for what we exposed utilizing those tactics.

Many students around the country have nodded in agreement with my theories on activism, but they fear doing what it takes to make them happen. The movement dies when it becomes boring and risk-averse. The hardest part about being a leader is getting people to focus on action in addition to philosophy. If you must spend time “convincing” anyone of anything, it is that they owe it to their philosophy to take action. In the pro-life movement it has been particularly difficult to find people to believe in these tactics, or have the courage to use them.

Leaders taking on power structures need to be raw, confident, fearless and impermeable. Lila received a letter threatening to prosecute the group for violating wiretapping laws, but it did not stop her from continuing the investigation. After the investigation aired nationally on Fox News, Planned Parenthood could no longer press charges, as Lila would appear the victim.

Activists should always be forward thinking and compound successes immediately. For example, pro-life activists across the country could easily replicate our racism project locally by demanding Planned Parenthood be banned from their respective community or campus. “Shut down Planned Parenthood because abortion is murder,” simply will not work. The demand should frame the issue in leftist terms, making it harder to say no. It could be something like “We strongly oppose racism at Springfield State. To honor Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, we demand that Planned Parenthood be disaffiliated from campus.” It will be very hard for a town or campus bureaucrat to say “no” to anything that claims to honor MLK Jr.

Most importantly, conservative activists need to be their own media, and use their independent media to obtain their goals. In our situation, You Tube decided to arbitrarily ban Part II of our investigation, which had received tens of thousands of views, because it violated the “Terms of Use.” To my knowledge there was nothing in our videos that constituted a violation. We were more likely targeted due to our message, considering that there are millions of other videos that break copyright laws or contain sexual or violent material that are ignored. It is crucial to maintain independent broadcasting capabilities in print and online to get the word out.

The media coverage gained from our investigations is fun but fleeting. Media is unfortunately thought to be an end, but it should be a means. The purpose of our investigation was not just to get on Fox News but to get Planned Parenthood banned from UCLA. If we are successful, this story will likely make the Los Angeles Times and Larry King Live. This would, in turn, encourage others and lead to results so significant across the country that the mainstream media will not be able to ignore them.

Through all of this, your purpose and goal must be clear. We are not doing this just for fun or to embarrass Planned Parenthood; we want to stop them from continuing their murderous activities once and for all. 


NJO: This was originally posted at newguardmag08.blogspot.com.

 

Friday, November 21, 2008

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language"


NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

On this day, "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language [sic]":


If you read enough leftist literature, especially college-oriented texts, you find a variety of words that only make sense in context, ones that you've never heard in normal conversation. Such gems as "heterosexist" and "pseudovalues" or "moral pathologies" or "neocolonization" are bandied about as though, well, as though they're real words.
 
And God bless these leftists, they are incapable of producing one dollar worth of real value, or "value" to our postmodern readers, to the economy but are remarkably creative and productive when it comes to making up words, or, bear with me, "pro-neovernacular construction."

And while these leftists are busy making up new words, we're faced with the challenge of figuring out what the hell they mean, and also dealing with the inherent connotations that these new words bring. We're always playing defense! We ought to go out of our way to define their crazy thoughts with the same flair that they obviously enjoy ridiculing our principles.

This exercise is also pertinent to the longer discussion about the tactics of pivot-point and also the Leesburg grid.

So, in the pro-neovernacular constructionist spirit, we've listed out some fancy new words to describe leftists on the left and would love to hear any input or suggestions that you might have to add to, amend or correct any of the words and phrases. As you can see, we could always use the simple answers to describe them, but the fancy language just makes it sound so much better.


- their fancy language - normal language - our fancy language -
Marxist Thief neocollectivist rationalizer
Queer Pervert anal-centric hypersexualist
Pro-"Choice" Pro-Abortion infant termination apologists
Clinic Doctor Abortionist infant terminator
Feminist Man-hater Woeman - antiphallic gender discriminator
Postmodernist Idiotic pro-definitionless
Relativist Coward subjectivist
Deconstructionist Whiner academically intolerant
Religious Hater Atheist deistiphobic
Communist Red Bastard Genocidal communitarian
Lesbians Dykes vaginal hypersexualist
Pornographers Degenerates sexual addict and social sexual infector
Neoconservative Liberal Democratic Imperialist
Radical Blacks Uppity Afrikan reinventionist
Racial Instigators Outside Agitators Corporate racialists
Modernists Modernists Ageists - elderly intolerant

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Non-Gay Men with Girlfriends get Married to Each Other



NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.

Uploaded on Nov 16, 2008
Two Heterosexual men obtain three marriage licenses in Auburn, Worcester and Southborough, MA. They tell the county clerks they're marrying for benefits sake, they have girlfriends, and they will soon get divorced.

In James' speech to the American Chesterton Society in 2010, he offers some insight into the thinking behind the video:

"When I visit these government bureaus in my investigative videos I find that nothing shocks people anymore. Nothing shocks a bureaucrat. There's a sense of soullessness in the way they conduct their affairs. In other video I got married. Now I am heterosexual, and I got married to a male friend of mine. I got a marriage license saying I want to get married and get divorced in a week; I just want the benefits. And they married me. They didn't blink an eye."

Also the Washington Examiner had a short article about the video in 2010 which has since been scrubbed. This from the archived page:

Say what? O'Keefe tried to marry a man in 2008

[...]

Like a scene out of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" O'Keefe and his friend Ben Wetmore attempted to legally marry in the commonwealth of Massachusetts for "insurance purposes." But unlike the 2007 film, the two made it clear to city workers and O'Keefe's hidden cameras that they were not gay, and had girlfriends. They said the marriage was merely for benefits and the two intended to divorce.

"I just want to make sure, is it OK that we're not gay?" O'Keefe asks in the video.
When Yeas & Nays asked O'Keefe for comment on the video, he said, "Ben and I were investigating the way soulless government bureaucrats treat the institution of marriage in Massachusetts. 'It's just a piece of paper, right?'"

Minions / fellow culture warriors involved:

Ben R. Wetmore

Ben Wetmore













Ben Wetmore and James O'Keefe are both former students and employees of The Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia. Wetmore was the Institute's Director of Student Publication Workshops 2004-2006, and O'Keefe was one of its Field Coordinators in 2007.

Friday, October 31, 2008

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "One recent crazy night"


NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

Today, from November 2008, "One recent crazy night":

A friend asked me to go record a meeting of radical homosexuals at a public meeting, and so I went. It was held at a government high school, after-hours, and the discussion of choice was on how best to structure homosexual activities in middle and high schools. I drove up and parked, walked inside and had a hard time discerning where to go. I saw a man walking with purpose, and decided to ask him. I asked him if he knew where the meeting was being held, and he prompted me to give him which one it was. I told him it was the GLBT one, and he prodded further. It seemed as though he wanted to screen me to see if I was actually going to the meeting or if I was an outsider. After I passed his informal test, he said he was going that way and that I could walk with him.

He was an older man, and the perfect expression of every stereotype of government school administration. He had an underlying personal tension, and his skin even had that awkward dark tint of a man in small authority. His short white hair were little yardsticks of his creativity, suffocated no doubt from years of bureaucracy. It feels awkward to write that, since I'm sure he's a 'good man' and 'everyone around him likes him' and it's uncouth to talk of people in such a way. However, he was also going to give the welcome to a group of people spreading perversion to kids, so I don't feel too bad about it.

As we walked, he asked me what all the initials meant. Never once in my life have I been hit on by homosexuals nor been confused for one, so I tried my best to play along. I avoided being too over the top with the lisp though, not because it's inaccurate, rather, I just didn't think I could pull it off.

I sat down in a cafeteria and tried to look busy. I had arrived early, and the head organizer approached me, surely I looked suspicious. She was nice, but was clearly probing for who I was with. I said half-truthfully that I was writing a story and a part-time journalist. She then left me, as I sat in this long awkwardly extended rectangular cafeteria and proceeded to deal with the refreshments.

Time passed and no one arrived. I thought it odd. Then I realized that everyone had left. The meeting was elsewhere and they decided to leave me in the cold. I wandered around the school for a while, pacing the linoleum, breathing in that strong cleaning agent that every school overuses, and passed the empty classrooms looking for the room I was supposed to be in. I covered almost the entire school, and was about to leave when I saw a very obviously gay man enter the building.

I decided to follow him.

He was lost as well, however, and he was even a speaker. We ran into the same principal and he gave us better directions. Together we walked to the right room, through the maze of the needlessly complex laid out school.

I arrived at the right room, finally, only about 15 minutes late. I entered a room full of homosexuals and transsexuals. They were of all ages, older, middle-aged, younger and even, sadly, high schoolers. I sat there as comfortably as I could, awkward from the environment and also from those tiny blue chairs that all schools buy. In a room full of perverts I started dissecting my own sexuality. A degree of introspection that I can't turn off kept racing in my head and I thought about my similarities to this group rather than my obvious differences.

They were fellow human beings, deserving of respect and rights. But they had serious problems as well. The several men dressed as women and women who had been surgically altered to be men clarified my mental confusion. But, strangely, even sitting there realizing that they were all perverted, I started identifying with them after a time. My own little Stockholm syndrome kicked on surprisingly fast. It's such an amazing topic to politicize and publicize, that I think it lends itself to conversions so easier.

These groups and these interests never promote stable sexual behaviors or lifestyles. The Theology of the Body, a popular Catholic teaching about sexuality, never enters their minds. If abstinence is taught, it's presented as a joke, as something totally unrealistic. Rather, one's taught to do whatever feels good, and to treat the symptoms later, never the disease. In the case of AIDS, that becomes literally true: don't adjust your behavior, agitate for cures to the disease because the behaviors can't be changed.

Which isn't even to say that homosexual behavior must be changed. But if homosexual partners were monogamous and faithful, there would be a next to zero chance to catch AIDS.

One's sexuality is at the core of their identity, and yet so unthought of, so taken for granted. Homosexuals say that and mean that one should 'question' it and eventually become homosexual. I mean that in the sense that stability and order exists because most of us don't question it, and probably shouldn't. So many questions have unfirm answers, and the process of asking a question can lead to doubt. For instance: if you trust someone 100%, and someone asks if you've heard that they've stolen from someone, even though you may still trust them, your trust was never the same. Simply the act of asking the question has changed your opinion. Such is the affect of suggestion, something this group has mastered.

I sat for 90 minutes as they talked about increasing the number of gay-straight alliance groups in high schools, middle schools, and further 'improving' the curriculum in elementary schools. The power of suggestion to tell 11 year old kids that perhaps they're "different" because they're gay.

No, I have nothing in common with these people. And after realizing and appreciating what was going on, it became quite easy to retain my resolve. 

Friday, October 10, 2008

Eric Kaiser Johnson: "Why do I have to vote a certain way?" and follow-up



Uploaded on Jul 24, 2008
You Catholics are all just one-issue voters! Why don't look at the big picture? Find out why we ARE looking at the big picture in this Young Catholic Minute!


Uploaded on Oct 10, 2008
Great comments, here's a little further clarification (based on leftbehind and bmwhvs's comments), and some book recommendations if you want MORE clarification.

NJO: Videos and captions from sometime Project Veritas culture warrior Eric Kaiser Johnson's YouTube channel Young Catholic Minutes.

Cecile Richards Sings Brass in Pocket



NJO: Video and blurb from James O'Keefe's personal YouTube account at http://www.youtube.com/user/featherofsteel.

Uploaded on Oct 10, 2008
Planned Parenthood President sings Brass in Pocket Celebrating her Career Killing Kids

Saturday, September 20, 2008

From the files of Ben Wetmore: Thoughts on beating Obama


NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

Today, from September 2008, "Thoughts on beating Obama":

Watching the news and reading stories, I have two thoughts on how to deconstruct Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Destroy the brand
As much as I hate the politics of personal destruction, Obama's been a master of it in the past getting his surrogates to unseal a divorce proceeding of a former opponent, Jack Ryan, from many years ago. His stature has been blown up so big, that it just needs one solid cut to make a terminal wound in his brand. He needs something that really has a burnt-tongue aspect to the narrative he's crafted. He's a community organizer? Then show somehow that he cheated a welfare mom. He's a Harvard Law Review editor? Show his legal inexperience. Do what it takes to show that the Obama myth is all hope, and in so doing change people's perceptions.

2. Attack his greatest strength: speeches
Disruptions, like this one where they interrupted his speech, are effective at taking apart that carefully constructed moment. If Republicans actually cared about winning, they'd unplug his teleprompter no matter what it took-- hell, get arrested but just make sure he's seen as the empty suit he is when the teleprompter goes dark. He doesn't know what he's saying, he's just reading the scripts.

Now, having said all this, of course I need to restate that I won't be voting for McCain under any circumstances because of stem cells and amnesty. It's important never to forget that Obama may be awful, but McCain still isn't worth voting for when he has no problem killing kids and keeping the borders open.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

UCLA Condoms


 
Uploaded on Sep 16, 2008
UCLA Condoms

NJO: Video and caption from James O'Keefe's personal YouTube account at http://www.youtube.com/user/featherofsteel. There are actually two copies of the video uploaded on the same day. If there's a difference between them I don't see it.

Another edit of the same video would be uploaded to anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek's YouTube account a year later. There are just a couple of small differences. One, this version is three seconds shorter, and two, where the first video featured Michael Bublé's "Save The Last Dance For Me" at the start and near the end, this edit features an original song by James and his friend Anthony Dini at the start, called "Hot Action":


James O'Keefe: UCLA Berkeley's Orgy Man


Uploaded on Sep 28, 2009
Many now know James O'Keefe for his undercover video sting of several nefarious ACORN outlets around the country. But this was not James' undercover video expose. In 2007 James portrayed himself to staff at UCLA Berkeley's Ashe Center and The Center for Women and Men, supposed student health groups, as a studly student about to embark on a Catalina boat orgy. Reported Live Action's The Advocate (http://is.gd/3Mpoj): In an awkwardly entertaining Live Action Films YouTube video, a student amasses over 100 condoms from the UCLA Ashe Center and the Center for Women and Men. He gets them by detailing his plans for an orgy to the front desk attendants. The receptionists tell him to take just three, but the condom man smirks and explains hell need a lot more for his weekend plans. Were going to Catalina on a boat-ride, he says enthusiastically. Ashe Center staff giggle off camera. Its understandable they might laugh. Less understandable is their encouragement. Can I come? Ashe staff workers ask. Are you going to have fun on the boat? Sex with multiple partners? As our student leaves, clutching his condoms, Ashe staff tell him to raise the roof! However, as health professionals, Ashes staff ought to know some sobering facts. Condoms have about a 12% failure rate, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council. That includes both condom breakage and errors in use. Having made off with 105 condoms in 1 run, the student can expect at least 12 rips and slips at his orgy. Failure could mean pregnancy or STDs. The health center staff mentioned none of these consequences. UCLA health services has failed to fulfill a basic responsibility. Song "Hot Action" copyright James O'Keefe and Anthony Dini. Used with permission. 

NJO: Video and blurb from Jill Stanek's YouTube channel.

"Hot Action", James O'Keefe and Anthony Dini (2008).
My transcription of the lyrics:

Look and you can find

A way to make it right
So you can get your sleep at night

Ohhhh


Listen to my basics
Open your mouth and taste it
Don't be afraid to face it
Give up your comfortable
Hundred K solution
Kickback contribution
For a truer use than
Once you come to know

We need a bit of action
That'll give this the traction
That's a matter of faction
Why don't you do, you'll bring us down (?)
Give some satisfaction
When you take civil action
Need to go and attack them
Need to shock and get the ground, ground, ground...

The song was later reworked to become "Landrieu Dance".

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Gospel According to O'Keefe

 

NJO: The following post was originally blogged at insurgentvisuals.blogspot.com on August 22, 2008.

(James sent me a note he wrote to a friend. I was so touched by its words that I felt compelled to post it here. It captures so much of what I've felt and thought lately, that I was shocked to read it from him. His words inflate, they command, they inspire, they move. I hope you feel the same way. As usual, I did this without permission, so I tried to remove things that would identify the intended recipient. -Ben)



Hey,

How are you doing? I got your message about the LGBT and the Lavender at <your college="">. Can you tell me me about that? I've specialized in dealing with these types of issues on college campuses. Recently I've asked God to use me in whatever capacity He sees fit, and I've been reading through the Bible, especially proverbs, as well as many other books about career choices and decisions.</your>

One thing that struck me in your email below was what you said :

"I fault people for focusing on this so much that it puts other issues (usually of greater importance) on the backburner. Politicians love the issue of abortion as it causes a deadlock. I believe this to be deception on the part of satan for his other agendas. This is just my opinion on the matter."

<friend>, Politicians may love the issue of abortion for their own selfish reasons, but abortion is THE priority of our time. As you know, If we can not all agree on the sanctity of innocent life, then there is nothing worth agreeing about. If it isn't wrong to kill innocent babies, then what could possibly be wrong. As my friend Dave pointed out to me last night, this is a holy war; a war between all the religions of the world and none. Between the sacredness of life, and the systematic destruction of life. If Satan is doing anything, he is preventing the Good people of the world from taking action to support the least of his fellow man. Many Christians I have met have shied away from this issue because it is a difficult, uncomfortable issue, but to me this is the issue of our time; and I believe Christ looks to our action on this abortion issue, and our courage in confronting it, yes, even at the sacrifice of other issues, at the sacrifice of our jobs, of our lives.</friend>

Keep in the mind the passage in Matthew:::

"For I was hungry and gave you Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink. I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me." Then they will answer, "Lord, When did we see Thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to Thee?" Then He will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of my brethren, you did it not to me."

Christ's words here in Matthew are radical— more radical than anything written in all the political books I've ever read. And they are more loving, infinitely more loving than the secular or perverted love presented to me by the masses – that says philanthropy or love of our fellow man is a thing to be distinguished from Christ. We must "Give." "Do." "Clothe." "Welcome." "Visit" for the Christ present in the least of our brethren neighbors. This will take more than chastity, it will take charity; it will take more than temperance, it will take action, practice, proactive struggle and the sacrifice of fame and status. It will take immediacy and prioritization. It will require us to make essential distinctions about what is important. In some cases loving will entail forfeiture of our life, liberty, or property for people that have none of the above. We must come to know and love God in all people and things, but especially in "the least of our brethren." Not just to those we have wronged, or to whom we were unkind, but on behalf of people we have neglected through lack of action; People we see and ignore; the miserable, the sorrowful, the defenseless, the diseased; the helpless, the physically weak, the spiritually devoid. We are tempted to call them rich or say they are undeserving of our love. But this doesn't change the fact we see they are poor. We know Christ has already given us this power to determine what is essential. When we neglect or ignore these starving, these sick, these naked, these imprisoned, we neglect or ignore Christ himself. Christ stands amongst his voiceless children in the Kingdom of heaven asking when we arrive "how much do you love me?" He will look to our faith. He will look to how we demonstrate that faith. Wherever there is suffering in humanity, Christ is calling. He is asking us to show Him how much we are willing to love. He is asking us to demonstrate our love by curing the people made in his image; after all, all of this is made in God's image. He tells us our eternity is at stake. Thus we must act, and we must act now because our judgment could come later today, and many of us will be left immediately begging for mercy and more time – to do the things that must be done.

I can imagine an infinite number of callings in which you all can practice your love for humanity. Perhaps philanthropy, perhaps missionary, civil rights, teaching, innovation, etc. Maybe all of the above. We (Myself and anyone else who comes forward) have found out calling, so God help us

But for me, applied love has seemed to be a resistance; I find myself wanting to show my love by being in radical opposition to the powerful institutions of today. First it was colleges which perverted truth. Then courts which have perverted law. And most recently a Planned Parenthood organization which has convinced arguably the most powerless black American class of human beings that killing their children will help that class' cause. God has opened my eyes to a holocaust; colleges that sponsor it, newspapers and magazines that willingly ignore proof of it , court justices making up laws to uphold it. And yet as I read Matthew, and thought about "what's wrong with the world" and asked earnestly what Christ meant, tears streamed down from my eyes because powerful forces within me reinforced what I already knew to be true. . Our world doubts its own capacity for love, distorts love, the most awful perversion. As evidence by calling a ban on killing "authoritarianism," – as evidenced by, for example, a pastor emailing the Advocate stating we are acting immorally in our investigation. The pastor, and millions of Christians who agree with him, might want to reread the book of Matthew, Christ's request, and what love means to them, in the deepest of places. Thousands of a deaths a day, and he chooses to attack us.

We, in our specific calling, refuse to apologize.

We, in our specific calling, make it our responsibility to change their spiritual leanings before judgment day. Abortion, birth control, premature legislation and a deceptive media have created a paradigm where most are convinced Planned Parenthood seeks to foster a supportive environment for black people when it destroys black children for the sake of a "better environment." In the womb, lay the strangers Christ spoke of, Margaret Sangers' "unwanted," "unloved," who will grow up "POOR" and therefore must be eliminated, for the sake of a better society and a better world. It was once possible, then it became inevitable. Now the question is how many lives can we save.

We, in our specific calling, have also learned that civil discourse accomplishes nothing; logic is no weapon against them, with discourse there is no freeing, no results, no clothing, no visiting, there is only killing. We can not "forgive" the perversion of love, the perversion of meaning, when we are all be subject to judgment and considered the purveyors of death. This truth will not disappear simply by Christians refusing to confront and stop injustice, or hide from it.

Nor will we allow someone who isn't Christian to prevent us from speaking to a non-Christian from our hearts. We may talk past them, but it is precisely when we do share the truth and talk past them, standing our ground we are on the path to helping our brethren, and setting others free. We will talk using our language until the death, so at least we can go to Christ, knowing we did not back down.

We, in our specific calling, can only get access to the abortionists' chambers and record the remark that will further harm their organization by deceiving them about my purpose, my age, her age, my intent.

We, in our specific calling, can only infiltrate the newsprint propaganda through alternative video. A thousand Christians trumpet how immoral or illwilled or inartistic or unstylized the video is. Some of the Christians praise the video style at length, and the media spotlights earned for its own sake, only to move onto another story, another day, another topic that is more stylized. A handful tally the 200,000 people and counting learning for the first time that Planned Parenthood was founded on Eugenics purposes. And of those how many see this the core motive and twisted ideology that abortion is even based on?

A pro-life Christian friend of mine, in our specific calling, will drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, while lying and pretending to be pregnant. Potentially, this psychological trick will permit us to make a Youtube video admist A group of Christians fresh from their bible study lessons on truth, eternity, and faith, will lament that we violated a campus policy of drinking

The question is not whether "the ends justify the means" The question is Saving lives (and thus God's image) justifies deceiving the very evil that is destroying those lives (and God's image).

Christ gives us the answer. And in the pit of my soul I must take a leap of faith and love my brethren.


- James



NJO: The above post was originally blogged at insurgentvisuals.blogspot.com on August 22, 2008. If you follow that link, you'll see that there are three names listed as contributors to that defunct blogspot: James O'Keefe, Bruce Bronson and ".", with the posts made by ".", as can be further attested in this article at Crooks and Liars. Here the person posting identifies himself as "Ben". The note from "James" that he presents is filled with telltale signs of sloppy editing, e.g. incomplete sentences, lack of correct punctuation etc. As Ben says, he "tried to remove things that would identify the intended recipient".

Okay, firstly... why do I think Insurgent Visuals James O'Keefe and Feathers of Steel James O'Keefe are the same person?

A number of reasons.

One, Insurgent Visuals James is ardently anti- a woman's right to choose abortion and so is Feathers of Steel James.

Two, Insurgent Visuals James talks about his "radical opposition to the powerful institutions of today", which he lists chronologically as colleges, courts, and then Planned Parenthood. This is consistent with Feathers of Steel James' trajectory through college to law school, and then while at law school, helping to form the anti-Planned Parenthood organization Live Action.

Three, Insurgent Visuals James is party to something called "the Advocate". Feathers of Steel James' history with Live Action and its publication The Advocate is well documented; also, the date of the post is concurrent with this chapter of his life.

Four, Insurgent Visuals James talks about making videos with the goal of harming organizations that provide abortions, just like what Feathers of Steel James has a history of doing.

Five, Insurgent Visuals James is happy enough to tell lies in furtherance of his goals and so is Feathers of Steel James.

Next, I think there's good reason to believe that the two other guys involved in this short-lived blog, identified as
"Ben" and "Bruce Bronson", are James O'Keefe's associates Benjamin R. Wetmore and Jonathon Christian Burns respectively. Ben Wetmore was a staffer and field rep for Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute circa 2002 to 2006. James (who attended some Leadership Institute courses in 2005 and was one of its field reps in 2007) would later refer to him as "a mentor of mine; a genius". Another reason to think "Ben" is Ben Wetmore is his fannish mention of artists John "Borf" Tsombikos and Banksy in another post on the Insurgent Visuals blog. This photo from Ben Wetmore's Picasa Web Albums account, in an album titled "My Place", has these two listed on a note as "Artists I like":


Jonathon Burns (a.k.a. John Burns) attended some Leadership Institute courses circa 2004 and would later be a founding member of the St Louis Tea Party. According to this blog post by Wetmore (mirrored here), his friend Jon Christian Burns is "soaked in the moral clarity of numerous Mr. Bruce Willis and Mr. Charles Bronson movies". This, along with Burns' resemblance to the grinning stencilized visage in the Insurgent Visuals logo and the Leadership Institute background he shares with Wetmore and O'Keefe, is what leads me to think that "Bruce Bronson" is he.

Both have collaborated with James O'Keefe on several projects; I've made use of tags on this blog to denote exactly which ones. Two examples of projects that involved all three of them are the CNN Caper (2010) and the Bailout Prize Patrol video (2009).

Now, all this fuss I'm making about the fascinating matter of who exactly was involved in making this one half-assed little blog in 2008 does actually have a conclusion that it's warming up to, so bear with me. See, some time later, in 2011, a journalistic group calling itself Insurgent Visuals would get its name mentioned in the Missouri press as the mysterious (ie. sketchy, fake, not a real journalistic group at all) purveyor and promoter of a series of videos culled from 30 hours of lecture footage from the University of Missouri St Louis downloaded by student Phil Christofanelli, as part of an Andrew Breitbart-backed smear campaign against the lecturers of a Labor Studies course. This incarnation of Insurgent Visuals had a short-lived website at insurgentvisuals.com (plus a new and similarly short-lived Blogger account, and a Facebook account, a YouTube account, a Vimeo account, and a Twitter), which listed staffers by the names of "Jim O." and "Bruce B.", featured some mock-Soviet-style graphics similar to what Ben Wetmore has a history of creating and posting on his websites, and which was registered, according to Whois Lookup, on April 26, 2011 by one Jonathon Burns. Furthermore, Jon Burns is from St Louis and James O'Keefe had spent some time in St Louis in late 2009, being involved in some Tea Party events along with Burns. So could it have been one or more of these three guys behind the 2011 smear? I would call that a distinct possibility.

(Updated 30th September 2015 to include the fake HTML tags that appear in the source code of the original page.)