Tuesday on their website BrietbartUnmasked, Kimberlin’s buddies promised to take the highroad and then immediately went on the attack:
I have studied the issues that the conservative right wing has with posting of personal information and or address information associated with the stories we do, and have come to the conclusion that this is not what we here at BU are all about. In the case of Ali Akbar, the posting of his business address was not meant to attack him, nor was it meant to have others attack him. It was meant to show a business address and how that company was operating. It would be no different than posting a business building or a business address of any other corporate entity. It was in that light that BU posted that information. It was not meant to harm him or cause him undue stress either. It was a post meant to show the youthfulness of the people involved in the National Bloggers Club, and to show that they did not seem to have their shit together when opening or operating their business. It was an opinion piece, not an attack piece. Of course the right wing spins it as if its meant to attack him, and that simply is untrue. The right wingers have always operated on the assumption that left wing liberals will not engage in attacks or will not defend itself against partisan attacks from right wingers. The joke has always been if a right winger punches a left winger the left winger will turn the other cheek. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Ali Akbar would think that any liberal left wingers would use his business address to attack him personally. It would be the same if one posted his office address if that address was in a building. Just because someone posted it doesn’t mean that it was meant to attack him personally.
Like the PLO, they followed up those “nice words with attacks.” The next they went with personal attack against Lee Stranahan. Lee’s crime–he organized blog about Brett Kimberlin day. The site claims that posting about Ali, Lee and me were not meant as personal attacks, but the truth is they were written to intimidate—it didn’t work! In fact all the attacks have done is grow the number of people determined to expose them. The difference between the Kimberlin army and “The Army of Davids” is we intend to do our work above board and legally, no exposing family, no swatting, no nasty internet rumors, just the truth.
With each passing day the Kimberlin crew is getting closer to being outed. Stacy McCain is doing some great work as he blogs from an undisclosed location by following the money:
We know that Brett Kimberlin’s tax-exempt non-profit organizations have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we furthermore know that Kimberlin is now a client of Neal Rauhauser, who in 2010 was accused of organizing a gang of foul-mouthed thugs to harass Tea Party activists on Twitter.
Is the “Not Brett Kimberlin” site part of Rauhauser’s operation? Whatever the strategic wisdom of this “brass knuckles reputation management” — as Professor Glenn Reynolds has called Kimberlin’s campaign of harassment and intimidation — one thing should be clear: Such activities are clearly not legitimate uses of tax-exempt funds.
Stacy goes on to ask some important questions:
How long has Neal Rauhauser been on Brett Kimberlin’s payroll at the non-profit Velvet Revolution? Were Rauhauser’s efforts to influence Mike Stack part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice?
To what extent were Rauhauser’s secretive poison-pen e-mails — including the spreading of defamatory disinformation about me, Patrick Frey and others — approved, authorized and paid for by Kimberlin and/or Velvet Revolution?
Go read that e-mail at Brooks Baynes’s site. Surely, what Rauhauser has been doing for the past 10 months cannot be defended as tax-exempt non-profit “activism.”
The questions Stacy didn’t as were “would a FBI that’s part of the Justice Department which dropped charges against the New Black Panthers really investigate, Kimberlin and his buddies for attacking some right wing bloggers? And would an IRS which refused to give not-for-profit status to Z-Street because it was a pro-Israel group really investigate Velvet Underground and other Kimberlin-run charities with the purpose of taking away their not for profit status? Sadly I do not think so, at least not until January 2013.
Until then we will be continuing to do our best to expose these internet-based terror squad, to prove who and why they are.