Scott Hicks, a member of the local Oath Keepers chapter and a leader of the Sugar Pine Mine effort, lamented to Santilli that the county sheriff had not joined their cause as a “constitutional sheriff,” a county sheriff who considers his or her authority to be superior to the authority of federal laws and federal agents.
Hicks told Santilli that since the county sheriff is “the one that has the highest law here,” he should have been “deputizing” the Oath Keepers to protect the gold mine from federal authorities. The county’s former sheriff, he said, is “a constitutional sheriff,” and “his words were, ‘You know, if I would have been in office I would have deputized every single one of you guys so you could do the job.’ If they didn’t have enough people to do the job, hey, deputize the ones that are willing to do it.”
Abbott has since tried to distance himself from the conspiracy theory, but Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., has demanded — and apparently received — a meeting with military leaders over the matter.
Jade Helm 15 is just the latest in a litany of far-right conspiracy theories about President Obama planning a military takeover of the country. While none of the theories has ever actually panned out, far-right pundits and activists keep inventing new ones, insisting that whoever doesn’t agree with them either doesn’t see the truth or is enabling Obama’s dictatorial agenda.
Remember: Obama’s plot against America goes all the way back to his birth…
1) Barack the Baby Communist
Faith 2 Action founder Janet Porter, who recently worked with Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and several GOP candidates on a film about how the gay rights movement will “criminalize Christianity,” revealed to WorldNetDaily readers just two weeks into Obama’s first term that she had learned through a chain email that the president had been planted as a baby by Russian communists who would use him to take over America.
“I can’t prove whether it’s true or not, but in light of all that is happening, it just doesn’t seem that far-fetched anymore,” Porter wrote, claiming that the letter was “not some e-mail scam” and that she personally reached out to its source to confirm the details.
According to the email’s author, during the early 1990s he met two Russian scientists, spouses “V.M” and “T.M,” who told him that “you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist” … named “Barack.” The Russians continued:
This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.
It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America
The female scientist seemed to know a lot about this young man: “She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the Legislature. ‘Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet …. [H]e will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.’ She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.”
As it turned out, every single word in this chain email was true! Maybe. And now, Obama is on the brink of taking over America with his secret squads of Obamacare militias, immigrants, African Americans and/or foreign troops.
2) Obamacare Squads
Before joining the Family Research Council, retired Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin released a video with the far-right group the Oak Initiative suggesting that Obama is leading a “Marxist insurgency” in the U.S. He claimed that Obama inserted into the Affordable Care Act a measure that would create a personal army reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s Brownshirts, warning that the president was “laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.”
Porter joined in in 2012, claiming that FEMA Corps, which trains young people to work in disaster response, might actually be “a standing army to stifle dissent” and “part of a new civilian security force that President Obama has called for in speeches.” WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, who once alleged that Obama sent a secret signal to Muslims to “finish” the Holocaust against the Jews, similarly warned that Obama would soon “move to shut down and destroy all independent media” and would make sure that “his biggest critics will be rounded up in the name of national security.”
3) About That Executive Order…
In 2012, when Obama issued an emergency preparedness executive order similar to ones issued by presidents since Dwight Eisenhower, some right-wing commentators went ballistic since this time, the president was Obama!
“He is openly implementing martial law in this country,” InfoWars host Alex Jones said about the executive order. The executive order, Jones claimed, declared that administration officials would have the power to “secretly arrest Americans and disappear us any time they want” and build “the domestic security force that’s just as big and just as strong as the military Obama’s always talked about as the ‘FEMA Corps.’”
One congressman, then-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, suggested that the president would use the executive order to seize total power. In fact, Stockman speculated that Obama may have deliberately brought Ebola to America in order to create a crisis to justify the implementation of his order granting himself “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything.”
4) Ebola! Remember That?
Last year, four people were diagnosed with Ebola while in the U.S., two after travelling from West Africa and two after caring for an Ebola patient at a hospital in Texas. In the eyes of conservatives, this was a widespread pandemic that was all Obama’s fault.
According to Stockman, Obama may have had an “intentional” plan to bring Ebola into the U.S. “in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth…. [T]here may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen. I hope that’s not that case but, as you know, this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda.”
Another far-right radio host, Laurie Roth, predicted that Obama would deliberately fuel an Ebola outbreak in order to “create a guise to declare martial law due to created outbreaks,” giving him the power to “control speech, food, travel and health care” and even “demand adults and children take some sort of mandated/mystery vaccination that kills off even more people”:
My prediction is that a forced vaccination plan from Obama and his administration is on its way. This will not only allow someone put in control (so Obama can’t be blamed) to release something potentially fatal into our system, but also act as a tracker – the complete end of our privacy and freedom.
Prior to the Ebola scare, Porter took to WorldNetDaily to predict that Obama would use swine flu to “round up American citizens” and force them into FEMA concentration camps. She also told WorldNetDaily readers that the president, emulating Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, would create “a food shortage” to see that people are “starved to death.”
5) Obama’s Race War Ruse
Since predictions about Obama’s dastardly plan to infect all other Americans with the Ebola virus in order to seize power didn’t exactly come true, conservative activists have turned to recent demonstrations over issues such as racial profiling as another Obama-orchestrated plot to take control of the country.
Others in the right-wing media took similar views. Wiles claimed that protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were all part of a plot to enable “Emperor Obama” to “start a civil war,” which would give him a reason to implement stringent gun control so people could no longer “protect themselves from tyrants.” His fellow conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson said that Obama brought “chaos” to Baltimore just so “he can federalize the police departments around the country.” WorldNetDaily columnist Morgan Brittany claimed that the Baltimore riots were “planned” by the government, which she said is bent on “stirring up unrest” in order to give Obama the justification “to institute martial law to preserve order, form a national police force and postpone the 2016 elections.”
Savage, the conservative radio host, even went so far as to allege that Obama started the riots as a way to send arms to gang members under the pretext of preserving order: “It’s a race war. These are their shock troops, they don’t have the brown shirts yet, they don’t have the armbands, but soon Obama could deputize them. Isn’t that a natural army for him? Take the Crips and the Bloods, give them a green uniform and give them a weapon and they’ll keep order in the streets.”
In another interview, Pratt accused Obama of hoping to “bring violence” and “some kind of social implosion to America” as a way to keep power, with Solomon warning of “an explosion of attacks on haves by have-nots” and “more specifically on white haves by black have-nots; more specifically on Christian, heterosexual white haves by black, Muslim and/or atheist — not that there’s much difference — black have-nots.”
6) Bundy Ranch Standoff
The short-lived standoff between federal law enforcement and Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher and Fox News darling who refused to pay grazing fees for his cattle or to recognize the legal authority of the U.S. government, gave another opportunity for right-wing commentators to warn of an imminent federal takeover spurred on by Obama-instigated violence.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush pointed to the Bundy standoff as proof that “the federal government intends to control everything,” including “our food supply.” Denouncing President Obama as a someone who “embodies the diabolical Manchurian President, clandestinely working to destroy America,” Rush warned that the Bundy standoff might have been a test case for imminent FEMA camp internment.
“Do we wait until a family is slaughtered because they opened fire on government agents executing an illegal raid on their home?” he asked. “Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest ‘domestic terrorists’ as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?”
Televangelist Gordon Klingenschmitt, who has since been elected to the Colorado legislature, said that the federal government dug “mass graves” near the ranch to hold the bodies of the “cowboys” they planned to murder. Wiles had a similar theory:
Civil unrest is brewing, the Obamanistas have tried a number of tactics to insult and infuriate the American people to respond with violence…. I expect dirty Harry Reid and his Washington sidekick Barry Soetoro will send federal agents back to Nevada this summer and my fear is that federal snipers will take out a bunch of cowboys and militia men.
Not only will Obama have loyal armies of doctors, AmeriCorps members, black protesters and gang members, but he will also, according to several conspiracy theorists, create a force of undocumented immigrants — specifically young Central American refugees escaping the drug war — to do his bidding.
Anti-immigrant activist William Gheen offered his own version of this prediction, alleging that the federal government was “going to give the illegal immigrants badges, they’re going to give them guns, and they’re going to put them in positions of authority over Americans in every way imaginable. So when you step out your door and there’s a knock at the door, you’re going to be looking at the new face of the state, which is the prior illegal immigrants that now have a badge and a gun and dominion over you.”
Gheen added that the Obama administration was “supporting the organized and well-funded illegal alien invasion of our homeland” and therefore has “the blood of many thousands of Americans on their hands that have been killed, injured raped and robbed by illegal immigrants,” warning that “center-right, Christian, heterosexual” men were particularly at risk.
Gheen even told Jones, the “InfoWars” host, that the young immigrants were the pawns and child soldiers of U.S. “elites” who want to subjugate patriotic Christians: “They’re willing to literally say and do anything that their new masters call on them to do to protect their position. Once Obama rams these ‘kids’ in, gives them their Obamaphone, enrolls them in Obamacare, puts them in a public school, pays for their housing, pays for their food…these people will do anything that their leaders call on them to do and I do mean anything.”
Alan Keyes wondered if Obama, whom he thinks wants to become America’s “Führer,” was “importing” immigrants “in order to facilitate what I think is an overthrow of our Constitution.”
WorldNetDaily’s resident health “expert” Elizabeth Lee Vliet claimed that the government would use a “flood of illegals” who carry exotic diseases to “overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems, in order to replace them with a ‘new socialist order’ under federal control.”
8) Obama’s Atheist/Islamic/Canadian/Alien Army
Building off the birther conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen and the general right-wing belief that he is not a real American, several conservative activists believe that the president will use foreign forces, outside of just immigrants and health care workers, to oppress Americans.
According to Bill Federer, a Religious Right “historian,” the Arab Spring was designed by nefarious forces who wanted to create a surge in Muslim refugees who would then settle in the U.S. in order to establish Islamic “sleeper cells.” Soon, these sleeper cells would “get a signal to have Ferguson riots in malls across America,” which would give Obama the justification to “restore order” by setting up a “militarized dictatorship.” Obama, Federer warned, could follow in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot in killing millions of Christians.
Federer cited a man named Avi Lipkin, who apparently heard from his wife, who heard from an unspecified Arabic-language broadcast, about a plot to bring millions of Muslim refugees into the country in order to bring about Sharia law. Lipkin alleged that Obama was “going to bring in 50 to 100 million Muslims” and settle them in national parks and “lands confiscated by Agenda 21” — a sustainable development initiative that is at the center of its very own right-wing conspiracy theory — ultimately forcing America to “surrender its Christianity” in the face of a new “Muslim majority.” Then, Obama would establish a “dictatorship” … with the help of “the Masons, the Illuminati [and] the Trilateral Commission.”
Lipkin and Federer, however, don’t hold a candle to Jim Garrow, a right-wing activist who believes that Obama tried to kill 300 million Americans with an EMP attack for the sake of enriching George Soros and giving him the chance to live in a luxurious bunker underneath the White House. Garrow also believes that Obama will try to improve his poll numbers by claiming that he is able to communicate with aliens, but if they plummet any further and Americans start to revolt, then Obama will “ask [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper to send troops into America to help quell the rioting and vice versa.”
Jones talked to another “real source” about the need to “brace for a nuclear attack in South Carolina,” who alleged that Charleston was the target because of the presence of U.S. submarines: “This is a false flag operation, a major false flag, that is about to occur because if they take out our naval base in Charleston, they will cripple about one-third of our fleet ballistic missile submarine force.”
“Everything they are doing is like trying to set America up,” Jones replied, wondering if “Obama is like a triple agent of the globalists, we know that, and they are maneuvering America towards a set-up to destroy us and then Homeland Security will then detonate nukes in all of our bases as an inside sneak attack.”
“This ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war,” Jones said in another commentary about the matter. “I just wish to God that this wasn’t happening,” he said.
This is the same Alex Jones who launched Jade Helm 15 into the GOP mainstream and led to such a fear that the governor of Texas ordered the National Guard to monitor the U.S. military during the drill.
Of course, when one conspiracy theory fails to materialize, radio hosts like Alex Jones just move on to the next one, and then eventually, Republican politicians just move along with them.
The co-owner of Sugar Pine Mine told the Medford, Oregon, Mail Tribune that an Oath Keepers camp near his mine has “taken on a life of its own” thanks in part to the “absolute bullshit” being circulated on social media.
"We don't need any more volunteers, we're not under attack, this is not the Bundy Ranch," he said, according to the paper. "Please stop calling the BLM and threatening their personnel."
The co-owner of a Josephine County mining claim at the center of a land-use dispute with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management says an armed security presence by members of the Oath Keepers movement has "taken on a life of its own," and he is pleading for calm after supporters apparently phoned in threats to BLM employees.
"We don't need any more volunteers, we're not under attack, this is not the Bundy Ranch," said Sugar Pine Mine co-owner Rick Barclay. "Please stop calling the BLM and threatening their personnel."
Barclay said the ranger's visit made him and Backes worried the BLM would remove or destroy their equipment before they could appear in court to appeal the order.
"So I went to the Oath Keepers (to ask for security) and they said, 'OK,'" Barclay said.
The Oath Keepers is a nationwide organization made up of former and current U.S. military and law enforcement personnel who have pledged to disobey all "unconstitutional" orders. The group received significant media attention for its participation in a 2014 standoff with the BLM over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle, which had been corralled by the agency for illegally grazing its lands. After Bundy's armed supporters confronted BLM rangers last April, the agency backed down and released the cattle.
Armed volunteers affiliated with the Oath Keepers began arriving Tuesday and set up camp at a "staging area" on private property on Camp Joy Road. Now things have gotten out of control, Barclay said, describing the fervor surrounding their presence has turned the event into a "circus."
"What you're seeing is mostly a spectacle caused by social media and 'keyboard commandos' whooping it up," he said. "A lot of the stuff going around on social media is absolute bull----."
Barclay said the Oath Keepers' security presence is only intended to secure the mine and their property until he and Backes can be heard by a judge, and he blamed the BLM for creating the dispute.
"We are a constitutional republic — we are a nation of laws," he said. "The BLM would not be in this position had they followed the law."
Still, he expressed eagerness to put the matter to rest. "As soon as I get my court arrangements made, the Oath Keepers are leaving," he said. "It's OK. It's going to be OK."
This week, as far-right groups are celebrating the first anniversary of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management over his refusal to pay years’ worth of grazing fees, the anti-government group Oath Keepers is getting involved in another dispute with the BLM, this time in Oregon.
The Mail Tribune in Medford, Oregon, reports that members of the Oath Keepers are gathering in southwest Oregon to prevent the BLM from temporarily shutting down operations of a mine that is violating federal regulations, claiming that the BLM’s actions are “unconstitutional.”
A group of armed volunteers has descended on rural Josephine County in defense of a mining claim that's become the subject of regulatory action by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The federal agency says the Sugar Pine Mine, near Merlin, has been operating outside current mining laws and regulations, and the BLM recently ordered the claim's owners to cease operations until they file a plan of operations.
In response, the local chapter of the Oath Keepers, a group of former and current military and law enforcement personnel who've pledged to disobey any "unconstitutional" orders, says it was asked to defend the property from any encroachment by federal authorities.
Mary Emerick, a spokeswoman for the local Oath Keepers chapter, told the paper that she doesn’t want what’s going on in Merlin referred to as a “standoff” and that it has nothing to do with the Bundy anniversary:
She says the group doesn't want its security operation referred to as a "standoff," and says the event's timing coinciding with the one-year anniversary of Bundy's showdown with BLM agents was unintentional. "There's absolutely no relationship to that," she says.
But some of the national activists streaming to Oregon (Emerick says she’s “been contacted by people from Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, all parts of Oregon”) seem to see it differently. An article on the national Oath Keepers website promises a “brewing fight,” referring to it as a “potential standoff,” as does a piece in the popular far-right outlet Infowars and another on Glenn Beck's The Blaze.
The private mining consortium that includes the disputed mine is also promising to “do battle” with the BLM, posting a manifesto on its website that the non-standoff “presents what is probably a once-in-a-generation prime opportunity to strike at the heart of the very surface management authority of the DOI and USDA.”
Where is this all headed?
This case is headed in a direction that presents what is probably a once-in-a-generation prime opportunity to strike at the heart of the very surface management authority of the DOI and USDA and to restore the "as patent" rights of every mining claim owner in the United States by striking down the actual source of that intrusive authority.
Regardless, we intend to take BLM fully to task and will not feel sorry for any civil or criminal consequences that may be leveled upon any BLM employees who are found to be negligent of wrong doing. We are actively pursuing these individuals through a wide range of tactics with the intent to reign in these wrong doers.
Meanwhile, the BLM says it’s just asking for the Sugar Pine Mine to submit a “plan of operations” for the mine or appeal the decision. The local sheriff — viewed by many in the militia movement as the ultimate law enforcement authority in the country — says he’s trying to mediate the conflict.
In a special segment marking the anniversary of the Bundy standoff, which centered around the rancher’s refusal to recognize court rulings which ordered him to pay grazing fees, Jones claimed that federal forces were ready to “massacre” the activists at the ranch but didn’t because “if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won.”
Blaming the murder of two police officers by a couple who had spent time at the Bundy ranch on a government “falseflag” operation, Jones claimed that the government backed down in Nevada because they want to provoke a civil war by staging a false flag attack on a daycare center and blaming it on right-wing extremists.
“It came that moment of chicken, they backed down and it freaked the gangsters out like Harry Reid,” Jones said. “And they didn’t understand, when they blow up federal buildings and blame it on us or shoot a few cops and blame it on some loons that are upset with super hero stuff and into nihilism, we’re not going to buy you blaming us. We’re not here to be enslaved, we’re not here to be cannon fodder in your war, we don't want a physical war, but push comes to shove, it’s over.
“And if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won. That’s why they don’t want to have the revolution there and backed off. They want to have false flags to say we launched the revolution by blowing up daycare centers — guaranteed they’ll pick a place with kids, theme park, you name it — they’re going to blame us.”
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes told a gathering of “constitutional sheriffs” last month — which also featured Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas — that federal officials eventually backed down in the standoff at the Bundy Ranch earlier this because they knew that if they didn't the U.S. military would turn against the federal government, igniting a second civil war.
Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch, Rhodes said that “the politicians and the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C…have to worry if they go too hard, if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them. And I think it would. And same goes for the tip of the spear in the Army, Army Airborne, special forces, your Navy Seals, all of those groups out there, the more hardcore they are as warriors, the more likely they are to look at something like that and say, ‘that’s it, I’m done’ and join the resistance.”
“And so that’s why [federal officials] are careful about what they do,” he added. “It’s not out of charity or concern for your lives that the don’t drop the hammer.”
Citing a Washington Times report that the Obama administration “considered but rejected deploying military force” against the armed groups trying to stop the Bureau of Land Management from collecting decades of grazing fees from Cliven Bundy, Rhodes said, “Thankfully they did not, because if they had, that would have kicked off a civil war in this country. It would have.”
The only way to avoid a civil war, he said, was for sheriffs and other officials like those in the audience to refuse to be "the muscle for idiots like Cuomo or Obama or Holder who don't understand warfare."
"Do not open the door on U.S. soil for sheepdog and sheepdog violence," he warned.
Vanderboegh, who gave a notorious speech at the Bundy ranch promising “civil war on a vast scale,” was similarly unrestrained in his remarks to the Olympia rally, calling supporters of the background checks initiative “domestic enemies of the Constitution” and suggesting that “Second Amendment remedies” may be necessary to combat them if political negotiations fail.
Promising to “win this or die trying,” Vanderboegh warned that “when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote! So be careful what you wish for or you may get it.”
Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt is convinced that President Obama is destabilizing the U.S. military while lifting up undocumented immigrants, and Pratt thinks he knows why: the president is trying to create his own personal paramilitary staffed by undocumented immigrants.
“Bring them in from out of town, they don’t have any connectivity with the folks in the area and they’re only going to be loyal to the guy who brought him,” he explained.
Pratt also used the interview to address the Bundy Ranch standoff, calling it “one of the greatest moments in modern American history.”
“We saw our fellow Americans, probably with no more urging than an email informing them of what was happening on Cliven Bundy’s ranch, pick up, go out to the ranch, arm themselves before they left and just stood there as interposers between the feds and Mr. Bundy,” he said. “I thought that was incredible. It led to something that took most of us by surprise.”
He added that government officials are just waiting for a crisis in order to implement “special measures” to seize people’s firearms.
Yesterday, we asked why the anti-government “Patriot” movement that was so angry about perceived government overreach at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada was all but silent about the arrival of police officers in military grade gear to quell protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
Today, WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer demonstrated this very point for us in a column in which she says she will not stand with those protesting in Ferguson, even though she agrees with them on many issues, because they are trying to make it about race.
Mercer, who defended Cliven Bundy in his stand-off with the government, writes that she is very angry about “police brutality,” the “militarization of the police force” and the “rise of the warrior cop”; that she supports drug decriminalization; and that she thinks that the shooting of Michael Brown was “an unjustified use of lethal police force.”
Police brutality? Yes! Militarization of the police force? You bet! “A Government of Wolves”? Yes again! “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”? No doubt! But racism? Nonsense on stilts! So why have some libertarians applied this rhetoric to the murder-by-cop of black teenager Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri? The same people who would argue against color-coded hate-crime legislation – and rightly so, for a crime is a crime, no matter the skin pigment of perp or prey – would have you believe that it is possible to differentiate a racist from a non-racist shooting or beating.
Laws prohibiting the individual from purchasing, selling, ingesting, inhaling and injecting drugs ought to be repudiated and repealed on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. But statism is not necessarily racism. Drug laws ensnare more blacks, because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing in drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because cops are racists.
The following statements are, I believe, not mutually exclusive: Cops deal with the reality of crime. The culture of U.S. cops is that of a craven disregard for American lives.
By all means, argue against laws prohibiting victimless “crimes” on the ground that these disproportionally ensnare blacks. But do not err in accusing all cops of targeting blacks, when the former are entrusted with enforcing the law, and the latter violate the law in disproportion to their numbers in the general population.
The left-liberal trend continued on the libertarian LewRockwell.com, where white sympathy with the police was conflated with racism: “This doesn’t mean that racism is not also involved [in Ferguson]. Polls show that a majority of white Americans are content with the police justification for the killing.”
Could it be that ordinary Americans maligned as racists are honestly waiting for more information, or suffer an authoritarian, submissive mindset; are ignorant about “police state USA,” or have simply experienced “black crime” firsthand, or are fearful of experiencing “black-on-white violence” in all it ferocity?
Clearly, there are many reasons for the acquiescence of whites in what might seem to many of us – myself included – as an unjustified use of lethal police force.
MSNBC host Al Sharpton is that fellow whose intelligible spoken English is confined to the words “racial discrimination.” The country’s second-leading race agitator has been deputized by its first as liaison to the White House in Ferguson. With his choice of Sharpton as point man on the ground, President Barack Obama, who was to usher in an America in which “ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony,” is stoking more strife.
Like two pimps in a pod, Sharpton and Obama have collaborated to keep racial grievance going.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Anti-gay activists seem rather convinced that they are facing Nazi and Jim Crow-style oppression, while one Religious Right commentator hopes that Ebola will free them from gay persecution by “solving America’s problem” with homosexuality.
5) Gays Are The New Bull Connor
The Religious Right campaign to claim that they are facing horrendous, unspeakable persecution keeps getting more pathetic this week.
RedState blogger Erick Erickson, for one, is pretty sure that gay rights advocates want to transform America into a “society bent on suicide,” and have apparently adopted “the tactics of Bull Connor” to push their destructive agenda.
After channeling Bryan Fischer and Brian Brown in framing Christians in the U.S. as the victims of a new Jim Crow, the Georgia-based activist went on to say that American Christians will face dire persecution at the hands of gays: “a faith that survived its followers being used as torches to light the streets of Rome will survive a modern age hell bent on ruthlessly stamping it out.”
4) Michelle Nunn (And George H.W. Bush!) In With Islamic Terrorists
The pro-GOP group Ending Spending Action Fund is running a TV ad in Georgia blasting U.S. Senate candidate Michelle Nunn for leading a foundation that “directed grants to an Islamic group tied to radical terrorists.”
The advertisement refers to her time as CEO of the Points of Light Foundation, a group founded by former president George H.W. Bush.
Before Nunn even took the job, Points of Light ran a business called MissionFish that “allowed eBay sellers and buyers to direct all or part of the proceeds from a transaction to their favorite charity,” according to PolitiFact. One of the approximately 20,000 nonprofit organizations that eBay users directed proceeds to was Islamic Relief USA, a charitable group, which over a period of several years received $33,000 through the program.
Based on that damning evidence, Ending Spending’s advertisement accused Nunn of “directing grants to an Islamic group tied to radical terrorists.”
Since Bush founded the Points of Light Foundation, we wonder if Ending Spending believes the former president is also implicated in terrorism.
The Obama administration was just about to start taking away everyone’s guns and forming a police state until Cliven Bundy stopped them! Well, that’s what happened according to Cliven Bundy, who recently told a meeting of the Independent American Party, a Third Party to the right of the GOP, that his standoff with the federal government over his refusal to pay grazing fees was part of a spiritual battle against government tyranny:
"If the standoff with the Bundys was wrong, would the Lord have been with us?" Bundy asked, noting that no one was killed as tensions escalated. "Could those people that stood without fear and went through that spiritual experience … have done that without the Lord being there? No they couldn't."
Bundy also cited personal inspiration from God in establishing his course of action.
"The Lord told me ... if (the sheriff doesn't) take away these arms (from federal agents), we the people will have to face these arms in a civil war. He said, 'This is your chance to straighten this thing up,'" Bundy said.
In a radio interview this week, Bundy was even more explicit: “I have no idea what God wants done, but he did inspire me to have the sheriffs across the United States take away these weapons, disarm these bureaucracies, and he also gave me a little inspiration on what would happen if they didn’t do that…. It was indicated that ‘this is our chance, America, to straighten this problem up. If we don’t solve this problem this way, we will face these same guns in a civil war.’”
Rand Paul first said he fled an encounter with a Dreamer activist because he had to go to an interview, but now he claims it was because he’s “not interested in being filmed and berated by people who broke the law and are here illegally to try and convince me about policy.”
Tea Party groups join the purported Democratic conspiracy to impeach Obama!
Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times has come across an intriguing Facebook invitation for an event tomorrow in Scottsdale, featuring nullificationist sheriff Richard Mack, anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon….and Arizona’s current attorney general, Tom Horne.
Horne’s staff has confirmed to the New Times that the attorney general will be attending the “Liberty on Tap” event, so we can move on to questioning why Arizona’s top law enforcement officer will be attending an event that appears to promote the radical belief that the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the nation and has the power to ignore federal laws that he thinks are unconstitutional and to arrest federal law enforcement officers.
The invitation for the event notes that Horne will “talk on the concept of the Constitutional County Project.” This project seems to be a small effort to get nullificationists to take over one county in each state to run a system that ignores federal and state laws that they deem to be unconstitutional. The project is honing in on Navajo County, Arizona, which they hope to turn into “a self-sustainable county dedicated to advancing the proper role of Constitutional government, free market principles, and the defense of ‘life, liberty, and property.’”
In a radio interview in June, Mack discussed the Constitutional County Project, whose leaders he said he had met with, saying, "we have got to be able to sacrifice and move to where we can be united and take over a county politically."
Mack was a prominent presence at the Bundy ranch during the militia standoff with the Bureau of Land Management in April and is a regular at anti-government events. He leads the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association, which promotes the idea of the sheriffs as the supreme law enforcement officers.
In a radio program posted online Monday, Georgia pastor Jody Hice, the GOP nominee to replace Paul Broun in the U.S. House, linked the anti-government Bundy ranch standoff to anti-gay politics, saying that the militia groups that faced off against the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada were a symbol of Americans standing up against Big Government incursions on their liberties…like the legalization of same-sex marriage.
“There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up,” he said. “They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’”
I will never forget these ranchers on horseback continuing to walk slowly toward the BLM. They were prepared to die. They were ready for confrontation. They were saying, ‘Enough is enough. You’re not going to trample on our rights any more. You have gone far enough and no further will you go.’
I mean, that was the statement being made by the ranchers and they continued marching toward the BLM. You will remember what happened, eventually the BLM never fired a shot, instead they got in their vehicles and left. Again, one of the other reasons they did not fire a shot is because all these ranchers, the cowboys and many, many others around them were themselves armed and ready for action if it came to that point, thank God it did not, but they were prepared just in case.
Now, that’s the image that comes to my mind. There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up. They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’
And the examples are numerous. We could deal with different scenarios I don’t know how many times, they are abundant in the various ways in which this is taking place.
Now, I want to give you just what is the latest example: the whole battle over gay marriage, and in particular gay marriage as it relates to businesses, that businesses cannot remain committed to their personal religious convictions if there is ever a confrontation between those religious beliefs and same-sex marriage.
Calling the Bureau of Land Management “dirty rotten buggers,” Bundy told Santilli that the groups who faced off with the BLM at his ranch were “successful in bringing back freedom to America, at least in this area.”
Speaking of the militia groups gathering at the Southern border — including groups like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, who were strongly represented at his ranch — Bundy said that like at his ranch, federal agents are “pointing their guns at we the people” and not at the “enemy,” who he said is the “encroacher that’s illegally coming in here.”
In an April 26 interview with Gun Owners for America director Larry Pratt, Shea compared the fringe element supporting Bundy to the American colonists who revolted against Britain. He added that when it comes to the Bundy situation, Americans are divided between “patriots and loyalists”: “Are you a loyalist or are you a patriot? Are you a god-fearing, self-reliant, freedom-loving American, or are you a government-dependent, Constitution-ignoring socialist?”
“I don’t think it’s hyperbole or exaggeration to compare this to colonial America,” he said.
Pratt: I’m not sure it’s all that much different from what it was in colonial America, when our forefathers drew their line in the sand and fought off the world’s most powerful empire. The estimates that I’ve read of historians that have really done some digging is that maybe three percent were actively involved in the war for independence. Maybe another 10 percent, if I remember their guesstimates correctly, at least supported materially in some way –‘Use my pasture over there, you can take those crops over there,’ whatever they might have done to help. Then there was a body of opinion that was kind of undecided and there was another body, a small body probably, that was pro-Tory, pro-king. Maybe we’re not that much different than that estimated line of public opinion in colonial America.
Shea: I really don’t think we are. And I agree with the statement, you know, between three to five percent of the population is what gets actively involved to stand on that line, and then there’s just another huge swath of the population that will, you know, offer material support.
And I’ve been talking to folks recently about what really happened in Nevada, and I’ve really framed the question this way, which I think is the second thing that really relates to colonial America, and that is very simply: Are you a loyalist or are you a patriot? Are you a god-fearing, self-reliant, freedom-loving American, or are you a government-dependent, Constitution-ignoring socialist? And we really have to make that decision as individuals throughout the country.
And that’s really, I think, where we’re at and why I don’t think it’s hyperbole or exaggeration to compare this to colonial America.
Mike Vanderboegh, the militia group leader who warned in a speech at the Bundy Ranch last month that the United States is on the verge of “civil war on a vast scale” that will involve Sen. Harry Reid having his “balls ripped off,” joined Alan Colmes on Wednesday to defend his now-infamous comments.
“It’s funny, I’ve been warning about the possibility of civil war caused by government bad conduct for the past 20 years, but it wasn’t until I started mentioning the collectivist senators who were putting their own testicles at risk that people started paying attention,” Vanderboegh told Colmes. “I think I must have accidentally put my finger on where you fellows worship.”
He added that the “balls ripped off” expression was just a rhetorical flourish, and that he could just as easily have said “put a bullet in your head”: “I’m saying that if you push ordinary people enough, they will react. And whether they rip your testicles off or put a bullet in your head is sort of immaterial, assuming that you initiate the violence.”
When Colmes asked Vanderboegh if he really thinks Reid wants to “initiate violence,” Vanderboegh responded, “I don’t think there’s any doubt that he would like to do it.”
Completing the civil war picture, Vanderboegh told Colmes that there’s not “much of a difference” between Cliven Bundy’s stand against federal law and Dred Scott’s.
Vanderboegh doubled down on the comment, saying “you bet your ass” he called for window-breaking and claiming that the move was modeled on the “carefully calibrated violence” of the American Revolution (Vanderboegh’s organization, the Three Percenters, is named after the number of colonists he believes participated in the revolt against the Crown).
“Sons of Liberty tactics, fellow,” he said. “Read your history. Do you think that this republic of ours was born in anything other than very carefully calibrated violence that was counter to government violence at the time? How do you think we got here? Sons of Liberty tactics. We have not tarred and feathered yet, have we? Sons of Liberty did.”
“All I have been arguing is that people should understand that government violence will be responded to by counter-violence on the part of the people,” he continued. “That’s been exactly what I’ve been saying for the past 20 years. I’ve been warning that a civil war is coming. And you know why? It’s because idiots do not understand it’s possible.”
When Colmes asked how the health care bill represented “government violence,” Vanderboegh responded that “The violence was in the threat of the bill” because “you will do what this bill says or things will happen to you,” which he speculated would include an IRS “raid party.”
Larry Klayman insists Americans had “stopped thinking in racial terms” until Barack Obama was elected president, which is why Klayman says that Obama is to blame for recent racist statements made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling.
“While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause,” Klayman said.
“Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.”
We Americans had thought we had come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement lead by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades since his tragic death, freedom for African-Americans had been increasing, and their upper movement among all strata of society has been clear for all to see and experience. In effect, the American people by and large stopped thinking in racial terms; the words of Martin Luther King increasingly had taken hold in deeds.
While I for one did not vote for President Barack Obama in 2008 (nor in 2012), I felt good as an American that We the People had elected an African-American, something even our “enlightened” European white ancestors had never done. Indeed, while Obama obviously had received a large percentage of the African-American vote, it was white people who put him over the top and in effect elected him in both 2008 and 2012. As a result, both the African-American and Caucasian races had much to be proud of. They also had a right to expect that the new president would seek to represent all of us, not just his own people, in his new job.
But things did not turn out as hoped for. Obama and his cronies spent the next five years favoring African-Americans and people of color over all other groups of society, and it became painfully obvious that this socialist saw himself as the one person who could extract a pound of flesh for all the years of insidious discrimination against blacks, dating back to even the years before the founding of the republic. In effect, Obama and his friends – ranging from black Muslims, to anti-Semites, to anti-Christians, atheists and other ultra-leftists – saw his presidency as an opportunity to “settle the score” with not just conservatives but rich whites. If this meant bankrupting the country with higher taxes on rich whites and other means to extract what in effect were reparations, then this was the price that needed to be paid for past discrimination. It was time for “whitey” to pay up, and to hell with the economic and social health of the nation.
In this context, and as I have written before, the irony is that under the Obama presidency there has been a role reversal; whites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus. While it is not politically correct in today’s world for whites to raise this feeling in public, there has developed regrettably and tragically an undercurrent of deep resentment among whites, which is now starting to manifest itself in major ways.
While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause. Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.
These remarks are wrong and offensive and certainly not politically correct, but regrettably they may be understandable given the highly resentful mood among whites created by Obama and his friends.
The atmosphere of racial divide President Obama and his comrades have fomented is extremely unhealthy if not cancerous for the body politic of this nation. It runs counter to the words and deeds of the person he attributes for his rise to the presidency, Martin Luther King Jr. Obama has set back the civil rights movement to the days preceding King and the advancement in race relations that followed his death.
If Obama does not start to show that he represents all Americans, expect more Cliven Bundys and Donald Sterlings to reactively bring race into the national dialogue.