Outraged at Rand Paul's poor performance on the Rachel Maddow program last week, during which Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act's ban on racist discrimination by public facilities, Ron Paul advisor Michael Scheuer has written a bizarre screed which actually goes so far as to make the case for armed rebellion against the U.S. government. (Read here: Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of hope, spurs of rebellion | Michael Scheuer's Non-Intervention.com.) Scheuer writes that Maddow's interview of Paul was an "attack", then goes on to describe Maddow as an "extremist" and an advocate of "a warmed over version of the 1920s’ Bloomsbury ideology: effete, secular, socialist, pacifistic, elitist, and libertine." He writes that "(a)nyone disagreeing with her ... is not just wrong but perverse, racist, badly educated, antiquarian, and could only come from the scum of the earth". (I suppose he means that these anti-Maddow anti-elitists are regarded or portrayed in this manner, not that he believes this to be true.) He also writes that Maddow advocates that the U.S. "lap up humiliation from Israel and Mexico".
Scheuer goes on to oddly single out Michelle Obama for condemnation as an "elitist", citing as evidence only Mrs. Obama's statement that she was proud of her country for nominating a black candidate and the fact that she attended ivy league universities.
Typical of the tea party right and Ron Paul supporters, Scheuer goes on to make much of the fact that some presidential appointees are referred to as "czars", although Scheuer seems to mistakenly believe that this is an innovation of the Obama administration. In fact, this harmless term of art for an appointee who heads some significant office but does not require congressional approval, was an innovation of the FDR administration. It doesn't refer in any way to elitism, arbitrary exercise of power, socialism (!), or any of the other absurd imputations made by the teabag right. In fact, the George W. Bush administration had far more "czars" than the Obama administration does. (Read here.)
Scheuer then runs through a laundry list of far-right talking points, along the way calling the American Medical Association "murderers for hire" because its members "have murdered... more than 47 million unborn Americans".
He calls upon private citizens along the border with Mexico to take up arms, writing that they should
arm themselves to protect their kith and kin against the brigands flowing across the southern border and the federal officials eager to prosecute U.S. citizens and defend the brigands.
Don't be distracted by Scheuer's antique vocabulary. He's saying that private citizens should take military action against people they believe to be illegal immigrants, and, astoundingly, against federal officials! How Scheuer expects federal authorities to protect the border while under attack from his band of amateur border agents, he doesn't bother to explain.
After running through his extremist bill of particulars against the "elitists" he thinks are ruining this country, singling out both the federal government and "Hollywood" for particularly strong approbation, Scheuer offers a modest proposal for a solution. Revolution. He recruits two of America's greatest revolutionaries as posthumous (and therefor involutary) supporters for his cause: Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.
So what can Americans do when words, appeals, patience, demonstrations, elections, and petitions have long lacked impact; have no current impact; and appear to have no chance of future impact? That question is yet to be decided. But in thinking about such things, one can fruitfully turn to the Founders. In the great stock of wise guidance they left for posterity, for example, one finds powerful and sobering words written by John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson in 1775. After describing Britain’s flagrant violation of the colonists’ rights, and recounting the King’s refusal to hear and rectify the colonists’ repeated and peacefully presented grievances, Dickinson and Jefferson wrote a paper that, in part, said:
“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of [the king's] irritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness that inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. …
With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, [and] the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ [them] for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die Free-men rather than live Slaves.”
As Americans move forward, then, their heritage as free men; the responsibilities imposed by their duty to posterity and the Declaration of Independence (1776); and the Founders’ wisdom together constitute a formidable arsenal for fueling a campaign that seeks peaceful political change by any and all possible means, or – as a very last resort — armed redress of grievances. It also is an arsenal that is timeless and indestructible; it cannot be invalidated by the words or actions of our coercive political elites and their media and academic apologists. Whether and when Americans draw on this repository of sanity, self-reliance, courage, and liberty to restore the constitution is up to them.
And, by the way, Dickinson and Jefferson entitled their paper “A Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” And far from being the conclusion of just the two men, the paper was published by the Continental Congress on 6 July 1775 — in the name of all Americans.
I guess that Scheuer was pretty upset by Rachel Maddow's interview of Rand Paul if he resorts to calling for the armed overthrow of the government in reaction.
Interestingly, this extreme, irrational reaction has garnered support among a certain sector of the electorate who are more comfortable with doctrinaire explosions such as this than they are with rational political discourse. I refer of course to Ron Paul supporters. At the official forum of the Ron Paul presidential campaign in exile, known alternately as the "Ron Paul Forums" or "Liberty Forest", Scheuer's column has gotten raves. (Read here.) It's a special breed of patriot and "Constitutionalist" who calls for the overthrow of the government when their candidate performs badly on television.
Following up on my earlier post about mutual support between the Hutaree Militia and the Ron Paul / Rand Paul campaigns, here's something that should have been included in that post. The video below is from last Saturday's pro-gun rally at the State Capitol Building in Frankfort, Kentucky, at which the featured speaker was Rand Paul who's running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator. The video features a speaker accompanied on the dais by several men heavily armed men dressed in camouflage fatigues with Rand Paul stickers. They are not with the police or military. They are members of the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters Militia ("OVFF"). The speaker describes himself as a "colonel" of that organization. Watch this:
"This latest forced health care bill, which is really about people control, the same thing as gun control, is the modern day equivalent of the 1765 Stamp Act, its only more disastrous to our freedom, living, way of life, etc… History it seems is ready to repeat itself. After a long and costly civil war that is imminent and sure to be forced upon us, we are taking note of those who are responsible for the treason, and they will be held accountable. I advise the press to start getting it right from this moment on, and stop aiding and abetting un-American activities. Like the Tories of old, the worst shall be hung,"
The "Freedom Fighters" cite as a hero and inspiration Charlie Puckett. (Read here.) Puckett was the leader of the Kentucky Militia and one of the key figures in the militia movement until he was brought up on weapons charges for possessing machine guns and pipe bombs. He later threatened a witness and was charged with felonious witness intimidation. He copped a plea, went on the lam briefly, then turned himself in to serve a 30-month sentence. (Read here.) In spite of his crimes, the OVFF still boast of having worked with Puckett. (Read here.)
In 2001, Puckett told his followers to learn "where every socialist lives, works, etc.," adding that "sooner or later, they will need a big hug and kiss as in Waco." (Read here.) That same year, Steve Anderson, one of his followers, opened fire on a cop who had pulled his car over for having a broken tail light. After a car chase, Anderson escaped and has been at large, considered armed and dangerous, ever since. Searches of his abandoned car and home revealed pipe bombs and a vast arsenal of other weapons. Anderson is an adherent of the Christian Identity movement, which teaches that Jews are descendants of Satan. Prior to his escape, he promoted these beliefs in a radio program called "The Milita Hour". He also used that radio program to advocate killing federal agents. (Read here.)
In the pre-Obama era, the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters Milita seemed to make silly dirty tricks a specialty. Their website boasts that (read here):
"We were involved in many operations in the 1990's, mainly PSYOPS, the most noteworthy was when we infiltrated the radical gun banning group, and the Ky. chapter of Handgun Control, Inc [Sarah Bradley’s people] .Two of our members was assigned to run their booth at the Ky. State fair, where we promptly turned it into a militia recruiting booth."
But they grew increasingly ugly in the Bush years, and have taken a turn toward armed demonstrations and veiled threats of violence since President Obama took office. In September, OVFF members roamed around a Louisville teaparty rally dressed in camouflage fatigues, reportedly armed with AK-47s and handguns. That rally was filled with racist images of President Obama, images of him as anti-Christ and tyrant, and placards and speeches charging that the country was becoming communist -- the ugly stuff seen at many if not most of the teaparties. (Read here.)
With the atmosphere of the teaparty movement in mind, let's remember what OVFF people advocate. They say that they have the constitutional right to take military action against the federal government when it acts in ways they define as tyrannical. Those ways include the normal business of the federal government. They take an oath to act on a war footing with the federal government, under certain conditions, in order to "to return America to the Constitutional Republic our forefathers envisioned". (Read here). Elsewhere, by publishing an absurd bill of particulars written by an Indiana militia leader, they say these conditions now exist (read here). That document, which calls state governments "quislings" of the federal government and warns that we are under the control of the "Bilderbergers", should be read to get a sense of the sheer insanity of this group. They also take an oath to resist federal and state enforcement of a wide range of laws, specifically those limiting weapons possession.
Now add to that the violent anti-Obama backlash of the teabag movement; the fear that their weapons will be confiscated, the fear of communism, or Muslims, or the Illuminati; and the Hutaree Militia arrests. Add to that the legitimization of paranoia by allegedly mainstream figures like Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, and now Rand Paul. Ominously, Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters Militia currently declare themselves to be on high alert for "imminent enemy action", prepared to do battle with the federal government or other enemy with only two hours warning, or as they call it, "Code Orange". (Read here and look for color code here..)
Watching this militia parade around Rand Paul's pro-gun, anti-Obama rally in Frankfort last weekend with their AK-47s, I get the sense that Rand Paul's senatorial campaign is so deeply irresponsible and reckless as to be a public menace. How can the front-running candidate for U.S. Senate from Kentucky work hand in glove with advocates of armed insurrection?
UPDATE (4/4/10): Members of the OVFF militia used a January 30 Rand Paul rally in Louisville to recruit new members. (Read here.) According to their internet forum, militia members attended the rally in their full militia regalia to seek new members by handing out literature and business cards. The rally took place at the Kentucky Fair and Expo Center, and included speeches by both Rand Paul and Ron Paul. (Read here.) According to the posting on the OVFF website, the militia contacted the Rand Paul campaign and got permission from them to pass out flyers at the entrance to the rally site, and to limit their recruiting inside the rally to passing out business cards.
Is anyone else going to this? If so the ORP (objective rally point) is throntons at 4309 crittenden drive, we need everyone at the ORP by 15:00 hours to meet up, tickets to get in are $25 dollars a piece, I talked to a guy from the Rand Paul campaign on the phone and he said we can't pass out flyers on the event grounds but thats fine off the event grounds so We'll probably pass out flyers outside of the event before it starts then go in when it starts. We can also pass out personal business cards on the premises (thats not flyers, but cards with your name and number)
Bring a pen and paper for this.
We need everyone in uniform and looking sharp.
More Details to follow.
A subsequent posting on the website indicates that OVFF members not only handed our flyers at the rally decked out in their militia uniforms and went inside dressed that way, they also met and were photographed with both Ron Paul and Rand Paul. (Read here.)
UPDATE (4/8/10): At 2:52 of the below-embedded video, Rand Paul comments on armed militia particiaption at the Frankfort gun rights rally at which he spoke. He claims that he didn't hear what they said there, and that he rejects their call for violence including hanging journalists who disagree with them. He fails to comment, however, on why he thinks it appropriate for them to participate in his campaign rallies, or for him to share a stage with them.
With respect to the OVFF militia's connections to the Hutaree Militia, look at the following screen shot of the OVFF myspace page. Note the friends listed in the lower right hand portion of the page.
David Brian Stone, the recently arrested leader of the alleged domestic terrorist organization the Hutaree Militia, was described by his former fiancée as a fanatic Ron Paul supporter. (At 1:30 of the below-embedded video.)
In an interview with Fox News' Shepard Smith, Andrea Harsh described her former fiancé's love of guns, violent opposition to President Obama, and support for Ron Paul as his three main preoccupations.
Meanwhile, Stone and his militia have gotten some support from fellow Ron Paul supporters. One, writing illiterately on a forum called the Gold is Money Forum (which is largely devoted to organizing support for both Ron Paul and his son Rand) writes (read here):
what did they do wrong .... all i have read was there in Jail ....... FOR WHAT ......... being arm and ready get you lock up now
At least they're doing something. What are you doing?
And, worse, this post claiming that the Hutaree Militia were guilty of nothing other than being critical of Jews, and that's not against the law.
Worse than that was posted on the Ron Paul Forums, a website maintained by Ron Paul's political organization (read here). The author calls himself "torchbearer":
So this is how the jews felt in germany when the jackboots were rounding them up.
torchbearer ends this and every other of his posts with a link to campaign material for the Rand Paul for U.S. Senate campaign.
Speaking of the Rand Paul for Senate campaign, I found the following video posted in the same Gold is Money Forum that had the supporive messages for the Hutaree Militia (read here).
Rand Paul gave that pro-gun, anti-Obama speech the day before the Hutaree Militia arrests to an audience some of whom were ostentatiously armed with automatic weapons. He said
I'm not armed today, but I feel pretty safe. I feel like I have a private security detail out there.
UPDATE (3/30/10 4:30pm): Another connection. The Hutaree's YouTube page is mutually linked to a Liberty Tree YouTube page maintained by a Ron Paul supporter and apparent Hutaree Militia supporter. (Read here.) That YouTube user, "LibertyTreeRadio", posts videos of Hutaree Militia training, Ron Paul speeches and lectures on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories given in front of a Ron Paul banner. In the video embedded below, which was taken from the LibertyTreeRadio YouTube page, the speaker will tell you that Jews are not actually Jewish but Satanists of Central Asian descent, and that they control the world through the banking system.
Cynthia McKinney, who in recent years has worked increasingly with the racist far-right, has said in an interview with Chris Hedges that
“It is time for us to stop talking about right and left. The old political paradigm that serves the interests of the people who put us in this predicament will not be the paradigm that gets us out of this. I am a child of the South. Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists... I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized."
I've written extensively about McKinney's connections to far-right racists (most recently here). McKinney has grown increasingly bold in making common cause with figures of the far-right, largely around opposition to Israel and promotion of conspiracy theories (read here). I believe that this is the first time that she has commented about such connections in an interview, albeit in vague terms to those unaware of her right-wing ties.
From reading his column, I doubt that Hedges is aware of McKinney's work with the far-right. He takes McKinney's statement to mean only that that the greatest threat Americans face comes not from "extremists", but from the government and "elites", a belief which is a focus of Hedges' current work. He sees McKinney using white supremacists merely as a point of reference for this relative threat, not attempting to justify actually working with them. Similarly, McKinney's renunciation of the distinction between left and right comes across in the column as arguing that our representatives are equally bad regardless of whether they're left or right. As for Hedges' view of McKinney's willingness to work across ideological lines, he has no comment. He lets the comment stand for itself as a sort of search for common ground across ideological lines.
I wonder how Hedges would feel about McKinney's statements if he knew that she has been happy to work with a number of supremacists in recent years, and that she shows every sign of believing that the distinction between left and right (including far-right) is unimportant? I suspect that, if he knew just how literally McKinney was speaking, he might have had a much different impression of her comments.
[CORRECTION (4/2/10): I've been in touch with Hedges since this was originally posted and he says he was aware of some of McKinney's work with far-right racists.. He also says that he supports working with far-right and racist groups and individuals when working against a more powerful enemy. I intend to write more about this soon.]
That's how Michael Scheuer responded to a question posed by the National Journal to a panel of experts on national security issues concerning U.S.-European relations. The question, headlined Can America Count On Europe Anymore?, asked:
"The demilitarization of Europe -- where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it -- has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared in a Feb. 23 speech to NATO officers and others at the National Defense University in Washington.
Is Gates right? What exactly does "the demilitarization of Europe" mean for U.S. national security interests? Should Americans care if Europe has to live in the shadow of a militarily superior post-Soviet Russia? Is NATO, alas, a lost cause?
Gates' perspective also suggests that, unless the United States is to go it alone in the world, it will need to cultivate partners among rising nation-states, such as India and Brazil, that are more or less U.S.-friendly (at least not enemies) and, unlike Europe, are rebuilding their militaries. In short, should the U.S. be planning for a post-Europe world? Does Europe still matter? Can we count on Europe any more?
Scheuer's answer to this bears the startling headline "Europe is a wheezing corpse". It demonstrates in stark terms that Scheuer's opinions about foreign policy have become extreme, ill-considered and, on several levels, xenophobic. He writes:
If there is anything for the U.S. to learn from Europe it is that we should leave all the Europeans home when we go to war. Notwithstanding the always expected portion of traditional American Europe-envy seen here -- "Oh, gosh, isn't Europe just so ...", fill in the blank with civilized, sophisticated, thoughtful, modern, and all the other fawning, puke-inducing adjectives -- Europe is a wheezing, expendable, near-corpse.
Europe is dying demographically; culturally sensitive and multicultural to the point of continental suicide; quaking in fear over a domestic Muslim problem they refuse to name; and above all a gang of cowards preening as moral paragons. We need these governments in wartime like we need a second Obama term -- that is not at all, ever. Go to war with the Europeans and you extend the war, don't kill a tenth of the number of enemy and their supporters that merit killing, and come home without winning and with the same war to fight over again.
We should get out of NATO as quickly as possible, surely before the bomb explodes that we madly lit the fuse to by helping the Europeans to rip Kosovo from Orthodox Serbia and make it into an Islamic state. When the Serbs exercise their perfectly legitimate right to reclaim their stolen province -- and they will and should -- we must have acted to make ouselves [sic] long gone from the Balkans. Likewise, the phone should be off the hook when the EU finds that it cannot "fix" Greece and calls Washington for help.
It is past time for the Europeans to grow up and fend for themsleves [sic], and it is likewise far past time for American presidents to learn that when we go to war we should depend on our own strong right arm and not cripple that arm by bringing along Europeans who are only good for whining about human rights, staying in their cantonements to avoid being shot at, and paying the enemy to shoot at Americans rather than themselves.
Gates' NATO speech was intended to show the other nations of NATO the importance of their military alliance with the U.S., to raise the spector of that alliance falling by the wayside, and to lobby and shame them not to abandon their commitment to it. By raising the idea that, should current trends continue, the U.S. would increasingly look outside Western Europe for military alliances, Gates attempted to put the fear of God in our NATO allies by implying that NATO is more valuable to Europe than the U.S. Scheuer's column takes this view to its extreme, arguing that the nations of Europe have nothing at all to offer the U.S. as military allies, then counters Gates by arguing that this is somehow a good thing. These ideas, and the others expressed by Scheuer in his column, are ill-considered for several reasons.
Scheuer, unlike Gates, belittles European contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and completely disregards the importance of both European counter-terrorism efforts and intelligence produced by European nations to our counter-terrorism efforts -- subjects with which Scheuer should be familiar from his work with the CIA. Rather than seeking greater support for the U.S. by our NATO allies, Scheuer spurns these allies, saying that we don't want them and don't need them. This assessment of NATO seems to be rooted more in ideologically based isolationist opposition to foreign alliances than in sound analysis of the risks and benefits of cutting off such alliances. Scheuer's ideologically based rejection of Europe, verging on hysteria, contrasts sharply with Gates' pragmatic, cagey approach. Instead of working to build real U.S. strength by strengthening alliances, as is Gates, Scheuer seeks to cut off alliances out of an illusory strength.
Scheuer's utter rejection of U.S. connections with Europe as somehow elitist is based in part on an archaic American cultural xenophobia. The United States is arguably the cultural capitol of the world, and has nothing to fear from cultural commerce with Europe. Scheuer's dismissal of Europe as culturally irrelevant to the U.S. is an echo of the isolationist past, rooted both in a fear of the alien and a sense of cultural inferiority. These views have no relevance at all to the current world which is characterized by ease of commerce and communication over international borders, diminishing the sense of difference. Such commerce has driven a shift of power from governments to corporations and individuals, something which a purportedly small government, laissez-faire conservative like Scheuer should support. Judging by the absurd terms with which he characterizes ties to Europe, Scheuer seems unable to see past his own prejudices to fully consider this issue in pragmatic or coherent ideological terms.
Scheuer goes on to make a series of shocking and false statements concerning Kosovo, citing these as a basis to argue that the U.S. should leave NATO. He writes that the United States tore Kosovo away from Serbia and created an "Islamic state", thus giving the false impression that Kosovo is an Islamist theocracy. Then, he asserts without supporting argument that the establishment of this purported "Islamic" Kosovo" lit a fuse which will eventually blow Europe up. Based onthese invented facts and on non-existent logic, he argues that U.S. must withdraw from NATO. Scheuer even goes so far as to say that Serbia (which he describes as "Orthodox Serbia") would be right to invade and retake "Islamic Kosovo". Such fantasies, veering between nightmares of Muslim killing Serb and dreams of Christian reconquest, would be more at home in Serbian or Russian far-right propaganda than in a sane argument about U.S. foreign policy. They of course have no bearing on a serious consideration of whether the U.S. should remain in NATO.
Kosovo is anything but the theocratic threat to secular democracy that Scheuer fears. Read what Michael Totten wrote about Kosovo in the Wall Street Journal (here): that Kosovo is "overwhelmingly pro-American", has excellent relations with Israel, and that most Muslims in Kosovo follow a modern, moderate Islam which sets it apart from most other Muslim nations. In fact, Kosovo has been shunned by most Arab nations for precisely these reasons. Scheuer seems to be following the Serbian nationalist party line in attributing incidents of anti-Serbian violence in Kosova to a government-sponsored jihad rather than to ethnic conflict and backlash for Serbian oppression. Beyond this, and at the heart of his logical fallacy, he also makes no argument whatsoever to support his contention that Kosovo is a tinderbox which will set off a continent-wide Christian-Muslim conflict. That sort of wild-eyed fear mongering does not argue persuasively for the United States to abandon its NATO allies.
Taking fear-mongering and xenophobia to a level approaching bigotry, Scheuer next makes a series of statements concerning Europe's Muslim population which attempt to argue that their presence makes European nations incapable of countering Islamist aggression. This argument (such as it is an argument at all -- it's merely an assertion) again ignores the efforts which European nations actually do make to counter such aggression. If anything, the Muslim presence in Europe makes prevention of terrorism a greater priority to Europe than to the U.S. It is true that European nations frequently accommodate Islamist intolerance in the name of countering intolerance of Muslims, but this in no way should diminish recognition of European efforts to balance, firstly, individual liberties with security needs, and, secondly, the interests of its minorities with the interests of the nation as a whole. These are balances to which Scheuer seems indifferent. Worse than that, Scheuer blames ethnic minorities, the vast majority of whom are innocent bystanders to conflicts about geopolitical issues, for decisions and trends far outside their influence. This is the stuff of the National Front or British National Party and has no place at all in a mainstream American forum. Whatever differences exist between the United States and its various NATO allies, attempts to blame European Muslims for such differences verge on bigotry and should be rejected.
Lastly, Scheuer says that United States government's "phone should be off the hook" with respect to Greece -- apparently referring to Greece's current fiscal crisis. The idea that Scheuer proposes -- ignoring the problem because it doesn't effect us -- is the sort of head in the sand approach to foreign crises that, again, seems to derive more from 1930's isolationism than from contemporary thinking. The U.S. and every other country need to pay close attention to economic crises on that scale wherever and whenever they occur -- no one's phone should be off the hook. The argument that we shouldn't care enough to help in any way is so vague and overly broad as to be both meaningless and dangerous. It derives from a fog of ideological bias, and ignores, much as opposition to government intervention to stave off the collapse of the U.S. financial system ignored, the very real risk that a second Great Depression could occur. While current economic conditions may prevent direct intervention by the U.S., the idea that it should not use its still considerable influence in any way to stabilize Greece's currency makes no sense even from the exclusively self-interested American standpoint espoused by Scheuer. The world's economies are simply too inter-connected to endorse the economic isolation he either believes still exists or advocates returning to.
Looking for a common thread in Scheuer's scatter-shot column, each item reflects defeatism with respect to NATO in particular and alliances in general. He frames issues in terms that make every problem seem insoluble, every goal seem unattainable and every common interest seem irrelevant. This school of isolationism is more interested in marshaling arguments in support of predetermined conclusions than they are in pursuing objective analysis and problem-solving policy recommendations. By instilling paranoia about alliances, isolationists such as Scheuer seek to create in the public mind illusory problems that only they can solve. It's a global con game.
Scheuer has previously argued at great length that Israel is "expendable", to use his word -- of no use at all as an ally to the U.S., and without even the right to exist. He has gone so far as to argue that Americans who differ with his extreme views about Israel do so out of disloyalty to their country, calling them "Israel firsters" and a "fifth column". He has recently taken this to a new level by publishing a column in which he argues that the threat to national security presented by Israel compels the U.S. to demand that those dual citizenship or other formal connections to Israel submit their names, addresses and information about their activities to the federal government. He also literally advocates that this information concerning every Israeli-American be published by the State Dept., shockingly singling out Israelis to be subject to an invasion of privacy which would certainly threaten their civil liberties and personal safety. (I hope to write something about that shortly.) Now he has also declared Europe to be "expendable". That he also considers disagreement with his views concerning Europe equivalent to being disloyal to the United States is reflected in the harshness of his language. All of us traitors who care about Europe and Israel just make him want to puke.
While it may be tempting to dismiss Scheuer's ravings as the stuff of talk radio or teaparty rallies, we shouldn't do so. By dint of his former position in the CIA, Scheuer is still regarded as an expert on national security and foreign affairs , writing books and columns, giving interviews to a wide range of media outlets (especially when bin Laden is in the news), and advising politicians, such as Ron Paul, in whose 2008 presidential campaign he played an advisory role. So long as foolish ideas such as his are taken seriously and have influence, they need to be countered.
About a year ago, I wrote a number of pieces on Cynthia McKinney's increasing connections to far-right bigots such as former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Mahathir; his chief aide, conspiracy theory author Matthias Chang (read here and here); and Islamic Party of Britain leader David Pidcock (read here). I also wrote about her anti-Semitic interviews with hate bloggers Daryl Bradford Smith and Noel "Ognir" Ryan (read here). McKinney's supporters and representatives of the U.S. Green Party have defended her work with this motley crew, sometimes stating that condemning McKinney's work with them amounts to "guilt by association", acknowledging by implication that this group has some troubling beliefs or worse. At other times, McKinney supporters have actually defended the extreme views of this group.
Now I've found two additional far right figures for whom McKinney has expressed her support and with whom she's made common cause. I've also discovered that she's done another interview with the two hate bloggers about whom I wrote last year.
Non-denial denials
The information about McKinney's ties to Chang and Pidcock which I published here last spring appears to have been the basis at least in part for an article written by Rob Waters which was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their December, 2009 Intelligence Report. (Read here.) For that article, Waters got Scott McLarty, a Green Party official, to go on the record to deny that McKinney shared the views espoused by her far-right associates, calling such a conclusion "guilt by association". However, McLarty failed to find any problem with a lengthy quote from Chang's book The Shadow Money Lenders which McKinney posted on a Green Party website, in which a long list of Jewish bankers were accused of plotting to destabilize the world in order to take control of it.
Anita Stewart, a Green Party official and staffer to McKinney (during the 2008 presidential campaign and, since then, with McKinney's Dignity Action Network), posted a gnomic comment to one of my articles about McKinney's ties to Chang. She defended McKinney's endorsement of Chang's conspiracy theories as intrinsically valid. Stewart's response, which, like McLarty's, failed to contend with the bigotry or far-right ideology of McKinney's allies, stated that, if McKinney agrees with them, they're probably right. (See comments here.)
As you read McKinney's praise of Chang, and McLarty's and Stewart's defense of that praise, keep in mind that Chang has written that he was inspired by "the American Free Press, The Barnes Review, The Spotlight, and the truth seekers that I have long admired, Harry Elmer Barnes, Willis Carto, Michael Collins Piper, Christopher Petherick, Eustace Mullins (whose life-long persecution by the Police State is a disgrace to the Constitution), (and) Col. Donn de Grand Pre..." That's a long list, and some of the names are obscure ones. Suffice it to say that there is a common thread of bigotry running through that list.
Also keep in mind that McKinney's connection to Chang is more than lip service. Chang, as chief aide to former PM Mahathir of Malaysia, runs a foundation purportedly devoted to the absolute pacifist position of making all war illegal. (Read here.) That foundation, far from actually campaigning to ban all war, focuses exclusively on falsely accusing Israel of crimes such as genocide. Cynthia McKinney has participated as a keynote speaker, presumably for pay, in at lest three of this foundations' international conferences (two in Kuala Lumpur and one in London) where she participated in this ritualistic hate in the name of peace.
Compared by her friends to Father Coughlin
While McKinney's supporters defend her by (falsely) claiming that she does not make anti-Semitic statements herself, the same defense cannot conceivably be made for those who interview her. In one of last year's "Ognir" interviews with McKinney, Ognir/Ryan introduced her with a lengthy discussion of "banking Jewry" having controlled the world for the past four centuries. In another, Ryan asked McKinney about Rahm Emanuel, saying "(h)e's got Jew nationality and Jew loyalties." Far from condemning this obviously bigoted remark, McKinney replied by saying "I think that what you're talking about is who controls the U.S. government". She went on to explain that she left the Democratic Party precisely because she believes it to be controlled by this conspiracy.
In last year's interviews, Ryan's questions to McKinney expounded elaborate, bizarre conspiracy theories concerning Jewish culpability for 9/11, the world financial crisis, capitalism, communism, and, absurdly, medical marijuana and gay marriage. McKinney failed to disagree with the interviewers' assertions once, sometimes going so far as to say that she knew what the interviewer meant by this drivel, thus giving her tacit support. On several occasions, she stated her explicit support. She also showed her own ties to reality to be a bit shaky, comparing herself to civil rights hero Rosa Parks. (Read my original posts on this for more details including transcripts.)
Since I last wrote about her interviews with Ryan and fellow hate blogger Daryl Bradford Smith, McKinney has returned to give them additional interviews. In one conducted by Smith and Ryan on January 14, 2010, Smith introduced McKinney as the best thing to happen in U.S. politics since the pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic radio preacher Father Coughlin. (Listen below at about 6:20.)
This comparison, which most people would consider insulting, is a high complement for Smith, who features portraits of both McKinney and Coughlin and recordings of Coughlin's infamous post-Kristallnacht broadcasts on his website. (Read here. Smith also features on his website the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and conspiracy theories about Jews causing the swine flu epidemic.) If one of McKinney's critics were to denounce her by comparing her to Coughlin, that person would be swamped with passionate denials and vicious denunciations impugning the comparison as somehow motivated by a conservative, "Zionist" or even Jewish bias. When the person actually interviewing McKinney makes that comparison, we hear the sound of silence.
from Daryl Bradford Smith's iamthewitness.com website:
McKinney says she's a fan of anti-Semitic author Michael Collins Piper, he dedicates a book to her
Cynthia McKinney has played the double-game of working with increasing brazenness with racists of the far-right, even as she says through her spokesmen that we shouldn't judge her by her friends. I wonder how they explain the fact that McKinney has declared herself, via Facebook, to be a fan of the anti-Semitic author Michael Collins Piper. Piper has worked for decades in the employ of Willis Carto, one of the United States' most infamous far-right racists.
Author Leonard Zeskind describes Carto as one of the two foremost leaders of the U.S. "white nationalist" movement in the latter half of the 20th Century, and Piper as Carto's "loyal assistant". (Read here and here. A Piper interview with Carto is available here. [Link goes directly to RAM file.]) Carto is the founder of a number of extreme right wing groups such as the Liberty Lobby (which "appealed to both anti-communists and arch-segregationists", read here) and the Holocaust-denial group Institute for Historical Review, among his countless other similarly oriented projects. Piper has worked for the newspaper founded and published by Carto, American Free Press, since that paper's founding, and has participated in a number of Carto's Holocaust-denial conferences. (Read here and here.) Piper has also been described as a "far-right emissary to the Islamic world", attempting to unite Islamists and the U.S. far-right around the common causes of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism . (Read here and here. My earlier article on Piper can be read here.)
Piper, along with David Duke and a rogue's gallery of others, participated in Holocaust denial conferences hosted by far-right Russian Nationalists (read here), and, infamously, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who invited Piper to the Tehran Holocaust denial conference as his personal guest (read here). It would be fair to say of him that Piper has made the production of books, columns and radio programs fabulizing Jewish conspiracies to control the world his life's work. He has, among other things, accused Jews of assassinating U.S. presidents, secretly controlling the government, financial system and media, and, literally, practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism.
McKinney supporters might be interested to learn that Piper's employer Willis Carto worked in George Wallace's segregationist presidential campaign as a leader of Youth for Wallace and subsequently set up an organization which morphed into the neo-Nazi National Alliance. Both Carto and Piper have for many years worked with former-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and continue to do so. (For a recent example, read here.) Carto was a key backer both of Duke's 1988 run for U.S. president (read here) and Duke's 2004 "New Orleans Protocol" outlining a political strategy for U.S. "European Nationalists" (i.e. white supremicists). (Read here.) The ADL says that Carto is "one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years... he has been associated with nearly every significant far-right movement in the country, from neo-Nazism to militias, segregationism to Holocaust denial." (Read here. For Searchlight Magazine's take on Carto, read here. Examples of Carto's racist letters to Verne Kaub, a Liberty Lobby board member and author, are available here and here.)
Not only has McKinney now declared her support for Carto's assistant, Michael Collins Piper, Piper has reportedly declared his support for Cynthia McKinney by dedicating his bookThe Judas Goats: The Enemy Withinto her as follows. (Read here.)
To the Honorable Cynthia McKinney
Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia
. . .For daring to speak out and raise questions about what really happened on 9-11 and about the dangerous U.S. policy toward Israel and the Arab world — a policy that has made America many enemies around the globe — Cynthia McKinney was driven from the U.S. Congress in 2002. Judas Goat — a former Republican, no less — was recruited to run against Miss McKinney in the Democratic Party primary.GOP organizers moved into the Democratic Party to assist the Judas Goat. Tons of Zionist money poured into Georgia to help Miss McKinney’s challenger. In the end, Miss McKinney was defeated.But two years later Cynthia McKinney made a comeback and she sits in the U.S. Congress today — a voice for sane policies and one who still does not hesitate to speak the truth. And as this is written, they are moving against her once again. Her voice is one for all good people. Dear God: Let there be more like Cynthia McKinney!
Piper's Judas Goats book alleges that the Jews control the world via dual Zionist and Trostkyite conspiracies, both under the control of the Rothschild family. Piper describes it as supplement to a book called Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, which Piper calls "an overwhelming detailed history of how Jewish power and influence -- particularly through the venue [sic] of the Rothschild banking dynasty -- how that influence came to rule supreme". (He's nothing if not consistent.) He talks about the book at length in an interview with far-right radio hate preacher Texe Marrs, audio of which is embedded below.
(Listen here at 6:30.)
Michael Collins Piper also has at least one connection to the previously discussed anti-Semitic blogger Noel "Ognir" Ryan. The below-embedded video, which I found on Ryan's website TheInformationUnderground.com (here), features audio from a recent Piper radio program. In that program, the administrator Ryan's internet forum and radio programs (under the name "LordLindsey" -- he goes by "Lindsey" here), tells Piper how pleased he was with Ognir's McKinney interview. (At about 3:20 of the video below.) The reason? McKinney alleged in that interview (at great length) that (in Lindsey's words) "Zionist Jews control more than 99% of the United States Congress". (You can listen here, at first link, to that McKinney interview.) [NOTE: Among the ever-growing list of incredibly offensive material available on the TheInformationUnderground.com, is a video which attempts to glorify Holocaust Museum murderer Jim von Brunn. View here.]
Considering that Michael Collins Piper does little else but promote the grossest bigotry, I would be very interested to hear from McKinney what it is about him that she supports. Maybe there's some aspect of his work that's escaped public notice that McKinney would like to draw attention to with her praise of him. I would also be interested in hearing the reactions of progressives to McKinney's support for this advocate of the racist far-right.
"I am in Turkey with Israel Shamir!!!"
That's how Cynthia McKinney giddily headlined her article on her meeting with Israel Shamir in Ankara last year (read here). She writes (here):
I can hardly believe this moment!! Israel Shamir has written about me and lifted my spirits when I was most down. Even from faraway Israel, he understood my plight and dared give voice to the truth. They say that sometimes distance gives clarity--and certainly in Israel's case, in observing my serial targeting, he saw what many inside the United States could not see. Despite his writings, I never met him until this moment, just a few minutes ago!! We are speaking together this afternoon in Ankara, Turkey. He has already sent his message out on his list and so I include it here for you. I will send my message to you later. I will bring these contacts from around the world that I have made on behalf of peace, home to the United States so that we can more easily achieve our objectives for justice and peace and dignity in the area of policy where we and the world need it the most. We are a part of something much bigger than us individually, and our moment is now.
I guess they hit it off. For those who don't know of Shamir, he's a shady character who got his start working as journalist for a prominent Russian, far-right, ultra-nationalist newspaper under the pen name "Robert David" . (His legal name has, at various times, been Jöran Jermas or Adam Ermash.) He spent some time living in Israel under the assumed name "Israel Shamir". After this, he Portrayed himself in the West as an Israeli and a leftist, and has focused largely on producing anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda. He has meanwhile continued to maintain an ideological double identity, publishing in Eastern European languages and Russian from an overtly far-right perspective. Although he is ethnically Russian and a naturalized citizen of Sweden, he touts the fact that he lived in Israel under his assumed name (read here and here and here and here), and is frequently cited as an "Israeli journalist" when used as source. This identity is useful to writers who either want to put an acceptable face on what they know to be anti-Israel disinformation, or are credulous enough to believe in the fairy tales he promotes. I wrote about one such instance, Alison Weir's reliance on Shamir's promotion of literal truth of the blood libel, here and here. Weir cited him as an "Israeli journalist" working to uncover what she and Shamir describe as Israel's campaign of murdering people to steal their organs. Both Weir and McKinney still work with Shamir and cite him as an authority in spite of his having been denounced as an anti-Semite by Hussein Ibish and Ali Abunimah (read here), and as an impostor and charlatan by countless others.
To cite one out of countless examples of Israel Shamir's extremism, he counts among his close ideological allies the infamous Horst Mahler, whom Shamir calls "(a) friend of Palestine and anti-zionist, an anti-imperialist freedom fighter". Read here. Mahler, formerly a leader of the far left Red Army Fraction, has been for many years a leader Germany's racist far right, largely motivated by extreme anti-Semitism (as evidenced here). In 2003, Mahler founded a Holocaust denial organization he called Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten. (Read their press release here. Co-signers of the organization's charter included Ernst Zündel, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, and Frederick Töben.) In subsequent years, Mahler has been convicted several times of crimes connected to his activism connected to denial of Nazi war crimes. In a 2007 interview with the German edition of Vanity Fair, an English translation of which "Shamir" makes available on his website (read here), Mahler said of Jews that they "are the embodiment of a god, who according to our understanding is Satan, and they play a tragic role in the corruption and negation of the life of all the other Peoples". (In that interview, Mahler greeted his interviewer by saying "Heil Hitler!”, and went on to praise Hitler, defend his own father's Nazism, and equate it with leftist opposition to "American imperialism".)
Horst Mahler and "Israel Shamir" in 2008
Mahler (second from left) with sign reading "There was no Holocaust"
"Israel Shamir" has found a very willing subject for his disinformation in Cynthia McKinney. With the instincts of a gifted con artist he found the sweet spot where her prejudices intersect with his agenda. Via McKinney, Shamir promotes the idea that Europe's neo-Nazis and Russia's ultra-nationalists are funded by Jews as part of a global war on Islam, and that this purported covert war is intrinsic to Israel's existence. This is a bit of misdirection that someone with Shamir's connections to Russian ultra-nationalists -- connections he has been careful to conceal -- might find very useful.
Shamir's writing style can be a bit diffuse, but while following his train of thought might be tricky, you can be certain as to its destination. Here's a portion of the text of his Ankara speech as posted by McKinney on her Facebook page:
The problem is the Jewish state. Not only does it besiege Gaza and destroy a football stadium in el Bireh. These are local problems, painful but local. The Jewish state (It is not a Jewish state. It is a Zionist state. S1000+) focuses Jewish power all over the world into action. Without a Jewish state, this power would disperse; it would remain local, it would remain chaotic, probably it would be subdued by the forces of assimilation. Israel focuses these chaotic forces and concentrates them into action.
This action is against Islam. Not only against Islam, but Dar ul Islam (the Islamic world) is a prime target. In the US , the Jewish Neocons led their country into a crusade against Iraq and Afghanistan ; now they are spearheading the push against Iran.
They have formed a powerful front against President Obama and have turned him into a laughing stock after he uttered a few words of wisdom about Palestine .
In Europe , if you inspect the coffers of anti-Muslim neo-Nazi groups, you'll find that they thrive on Jewish support. In Russia , Jewish nationalists and Zionists try to rally the Russians against their Muslim brethren. Sometimes they do it under cover of the Russian Church , or of Russian nationalism. I wrote about this recently, as I had discovered that the most fervently anti-Muslim forces in Russia are organised by crypto-Zionists.
Even if a Palestinian state were to be established and recognised, it wouldn’t stop Israeli attempts to undermine its neighbours, to bomb Iran , to sow the seeds of discord from Russia to France , from Turkey to India . Israel 's too powerful intelligence services would keep meddling. Neither would it neutralise the armed forces of Israel , and you know as well as anybody that the generals do not give up their toys, their privileges or their influence easily. The Israeli military machine is so powerful that it would seek to exercise its might.
Consider that the source for this incoherent conspiracy theory has been associated with precisely the far-right Russian nationalist movement most ardently connected to both anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic violence in Russia. I tend to believe that McKinney (like the rest of Shamir's audience in Ankara) is oblivious to this fact and is taking him at face value to be an Israeli leftist. But that sort of gullibility is no excuse for the promotion of this sort of deranged and hateful conspiracy theory. Regardless of whom McKinney believes Shamir to be, the intent of this string of lies is clearly stated: to drive further wedges between Muslims and Jews, to oppose a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel and to deny Israel's right to exist. In promoting these views, McKinney, like Shamir, should be regarded as an anti-peace activist.
"Guilt by association": a catch-all defense for supporting the indefensible
Cynthia McKinney and her supporters may call any condemnation of her work with Matthias Chang, Michelle Renouf, David Pidcock, Mahathir Tun, Michael Collins Piper, Jöran "Israel Shamir" Jermas, Daryl Bradford Smith and Noel "Ognir" Ryan guilt by association, but by doing so, they help legitimize racism, anti-Semitism and far-right extremism, as does McKinney herself. While guilt by association might be a legitimate defense to merely talking with, attending the same meetings as, or even belonging to the same organizations as bigots, it is quite another matter to support them politically, tout their writings, promote their views, or actually work in their employ. By doing this, and by doing this with increasing frequency, McKinney has made precisely her association with bigotry the centerpiece of her message.
More importantly "guilt by association" refers to a legal standard for criminal acts: people cannot be held legally responsible for the acts of others unless they criminally participate in those acts as well. The standard by which we judge the character of political figures should be much higher than that. McKinney's supporters, in defending her work with racists and extremists, say "only hold her to the standard by which we judge criminal acts". A political figure whose followers hold to such a low standard must be doing something wrong. Besides, as I have shown above and in my earlier articles, this defense ignores what is now painfully obvious. McKinney is not just associating with people who do and say bad things, she is actively supporting those malicious acts and participating in them herself.
Other McKinney supporters defend her differently, claiming that she is well-intentioned, but is recklessly making ill-advised alliances. As the number of these alliances grows, and the connections grow deeper, this defense becomes less and less plausible. The fact that Cynthia McKinney has made common cause with bigots of the far-right with at least some knowledge of who they are indicates that her actions are based on a malice she shares with them. Cynthia McKinney has done nothing to distance herself from the overtly bigoted views espoused by so many of those she works with, even when they espouse these views to her in public forums. On the contrary, she has gone out of her way to agree with many of these views, and even to publish them on websites maintained by her or by the Green Party on her behalf. While in the past she mostly avoided using the word "Jew" in favor of "Zionist", with her publication of Shamir's speech, even this thin veil of propriety has disappeared. If McKinney had sincerely wished to distance herself from these views, she would have denounced her friends' bigotry long ago; instead, she has repeatedly gone out of her way to support it.
The idea that her guilt is merely "by association" is laughable. Her guilt is sometimes that of a silent, grinning supporter of her friends' racist rants, and at other times that of an active promoter of those views herself. Sometimes she has couched her feelings about Jews in language vague enough to hypocritically disavow ill intent, but no one with any pretense of opposing bigotry should be deceived. Nor should they tolerate the fact that she claims to support peace for Israel and Palestine while campaigning against a peace settlement. Those who have supported McKinney or have been drawn to any part of her message owe it to themselves to speak out against this.
Screen shot from Cynthia McKinney's Facebook page.
(NOTE: I've revised this article to include a paragraph about Horst Mahler's connection to "Israel Shamir" and two additional photographs. Thanks to Karl Pfeifer for much of that information. Pfeifer's 2005 article on "Shamir" and Mahler can be read here. Thanks as well to Gene of Harry's Place for his kind words and his link to this article -- read here.)
A senior blogger at the Ron Paul supporter website "Daily Paul" has warned that the virulently racist content on Ron Paul's websites has been noticed by outsiders such as me. (Read here: rhino: What gets posted here ... matters a great deal. | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul.) The post links to examples of how Ron Paul supporters' wacky conspiracy theories, bigoted rants, Holocaust denial and sales pitches for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are viewed by others. Here it is, in its entirety:
Judging by the comments this post has elicited, it seems that this warning has fallen on deaf ears. They've taken this warning as an opportunity to double down on bigotry.
Submitted by quiltingsando on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 16:33.
spin it when we go to war with Iran because of Israel. When the war spreads and Russia and China take us on maybe these critics asses will be on the front lines. I can only hope.
Zionists will no more save the Iranian Jews from being bombed than *they* did the European Jews before and during WWII--
ah, well, time to take my break from trying to expose the Zionists--
—
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
One of my blog posts linked to a tribute to Eustace Mullins, America's most prolific anti-Semitic author, posted on the official Ron Paul Campaign Forum website. (Mullins was the author of "Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation" , "The Biological Jew" and "The Curse of Canaan", among countless other similar books and pamphlets.) The comments here respond to the implicit warning to cease praising Mullins... with additional praise of him.
I think Eustace Mullens passing has earned atleast a reposting...
Legendary author of scores of books and pamphlets demolishing the lies of warmaking mainstream media, historian Eustace Mullins died Tuesday, Feb. 2, at the home of his caretaker in a small town in Texas.
“He was absolutely BRILLIANT in his research, writing and verbal presentations, and as honest a man and scholar as our country has ever produced. In all the interviews I had the great honor of doing with Eustace, he never ceased to amaze me…and to teach all of us critically-important truths about our world and the evil, satanic group that is and has been dominating it for far too long. HIs knowledge and wisdom about the controllers was simply astonishing.” said Jeff Rense.
Mullins, who would have been 87 in March, suffered a stroke three weeks ago in Columbus, Ohio. He had been on an extended tour of his admirers for much of the past year, visiting and chatting with many of his thousands of fans who jumped at the chance to buy his books from him in person.
The author of such incendiary books as “Secrets of the Federal Reserve, “Murder by Injection, and “The Curse of Canaan, Mullins was harrassed by the FBI for almost a half century, and had one of his books burned in Germany in the 1950s. These stories are recounted in one of his books, “A Writ for Martyrs.
A protege of the imprisoned patriotic poet Ezra Pound, Mullins compiled a well-researched raft of works that detailed the passage down through time of a hereditary group of banker killers who have essentially ruled the world from behind the scenes since ancient times.
“Eustace Mullins was the greatest political historian of the 20th century, and not just because he was not beholden to the power structure that deters candid reports about significant events, but because, guided by the greatest poet of the 20th century who was imprisoned for broadcasting for peace, his meticulous research eventually uncovered virtually every significant political secret of the last 400 years. “It, is a pity so many people are afraid to believe what Mullins told them, because it was much more of the truth than has ever been seen in our schools or our media.
Funeral arrangements and appropriate memorial information have yet to be released.
for his courage.
Maybe the angels in heaven will let him go and make a mercy visit to the global bankers who are cooling their heels in the 'hot place'--
(sorry, couldn't resist that)
—
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
Maybe I'm misreading the intentions of the Daily Paul. Are they warning Ron Paul supporters to be more discrete about their bigotry, or are they mocking the idea that such a thing should matter?
UPDATE: Since I wrote this post, I decided to post a link to it in the comments to the Daily Paul post described above. Since my comment appeared there, the comment string has taken on a Lord of the Flies tone, with Paul supporters attacking each other (and me) viciously. Not surprisingly, those who frequent the Daily Paul are a bit paranoid about being observed, and have devised a web of conspiracies to explain the very obvious: that I found their post because it linked to my website. Through some sort of top secret illuminati technology, I'm able to tell how readers get to this blog. But, like 9/11, they believe that this blog post was an inside job. If you want a good laugh, go to the Daily Paul and check out how deranged these comments are. (Read here.)
Right wing politician, preacher and radio talker Chuck Baldwin has written a column sympathizing with Joe Stack, the Texas man who yesterday deliberately crashed a small plane into an office building killing himself and at least one other person and seriously burning two others. The column, entitled I Wish Joe Stack Had Not Killed Himself!, is posted on Baldwin's website. Baldwin expresses concern that the mainstream media will somehow distort the story to make Stack look bad. He writes:
By the time this column is released on Friday, however, I'm sure we will all have been inundated with copious references to this man, Joe Stack, as being "off his rocker," or similar assertions. Perhaps our friends at DHS will label Stack a "right-wing domestic terrorist." However, Mr. Stack apparently left behind a "suicide manifesto" explaining his actions. After carefully reading Stack's manifesto, I am quite convinced that he was not crazy, and he was not a "terrorist." However, he was angry.
A lot of us are angry--and for many of the same reasons that Mr. Stack was angry! While I would certainly take exception to some of the things Stack says in his manifesto, he said things that many of us are feeling.
...and...
My heart goes out to Joe Stack! The sentiments expressed above are shared by millions of Americans who are also fed up with Big Brother. We are fed up with our country being turned into a burgeoning police state, under the rubric of "national security." We are fed up with the harassments (sic) of the IRS. We know the "war on drugs" is merely the government's way of cutting out the competition (this is exactly what more than one retired federal law enforcement agent--employed in the drug war--told me). We know the "war on terror" is nothing but an excuse to trample our constitutional liberties. We are fed up with the voracious vampires known as the Federal Reserve sucking the lifeblood out of the veins of America's hardworking Middle Class. We are tired of the CFR, CIA, and America's State Department manufacturing perpetual wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives for the benefit of the global elite. We are fed up with an arrogant and oppressive federal government that is strangling the life and freedom out of our states. We all share Joe Stack's pain!
I really wish Joe Stack had not killed himself, however. We need each other. By taking his life, he reduced our strength. The global elites delight in our demise. As we grow weaker, they grow stronger.
But the fight is not over; the battle is not lost! Rumblings of freedom's revival can be felt across the length and breadth of this nation. The clanging of liberty's resolve can be heard in hamlets and villages from Montana to South Carolina. There are still millions of us--from virtually every walk of life--who will not surrender our liberties without a fight! And we have not yet begun to fight!
While Baldwin makes a great deal of agreeing with the contents of Stack's rambling suicide suicide, even going so far as to claim that everyone would agree with them, he makes no mention of the victims of Stack's horrible attack and utterly fails to explain why he does not consider the attack terrorism. In fact, Baldwin puts the term "terrorist" in quotes. Does he not believe that such a thing exists? (On the other hand, he also puts "suicide manifesto" in quotes. He may just like to use quotes where they aren't needed.)
Baldwin has twice run for high office. He ran for the vice-presidency in 2004 on the Constitution Party ticket, gaining endorsements from the Alaskan Independence Party, the League of the South, the Southern Party of Georgia, Samuel T. Francis, Alex Jones, Howard Phillips, Taki Theodoracopulos and Pat Buchanan. In 2008, Baldwin was involved in Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination. With Paul's defeat, Baldwin himself ran for the presidency, again on the Constitution Party ticket. Paul endorsed Baldwin's candidacy. (Read here.)
Baldwin got his start in politics in Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. He has been associated with the the militia movement, radical states rights/secessionism, and anti-tax, anti-immigrant and 9/11 truth movements. He has also said that he "believe(s) the South was right in the War Between the States". (Read here.) He preaches at a church he founded in 1975 (read here), and writes a column at the far-right VDare website (read here).
