MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Lumi · Mar 2, 2010

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 2, 2010
Anti-patriot propaganda has reached a fevered pitch in the corporate media. In the MSNBC segment below, Contessa Brewer interviews Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Brewer prefaces her interview with Potok ? who is now a fixture of the ongoing propaganda campaign ? by stating that opposition to the government is ?fueled in part by anger over the troubled economy,? the fact Obama is African-American, and ?immigration issues? (in other words, illegal aliens streaming across the border).

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SmnCTdqAk3M&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SmnCTdqAk3M&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Brewer?s subtext (undoubtedly written for her and read from a teleprompter) is that people upset with the government are a bunch of racists. Of course, if she was a real reporter instead of an info babe put before the camera because she is attractive and can read a teleprompter, she just might elaborate on this and say people are upset with the government because it is increasingly authoritarian and violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on multiple fronts ? from Obamacare at gunpoint to illegal wars and the pervasive surveillance grid intruding upon our lives.
Dead-pan Potok is amazed at the ?scope? of the growth of groups on the ?radical right? (that is to say anybody who is not a Republican neocon or Democrat). Potok conflates the patriot movement with the ?militias from the 1990s? (does he mean the government created militia at Elohim City, including the government agent Timothy McVeigh, or the militia operatives dispatched by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI?). Potok says 363 new ?radical right? groups have formed in the last year. Is it possible these new groups include those created by the Republican compromised Tea Party movement? Potok does not say.
Potok tells Ms. Brewer patriot groups see the federal government as their primary enemy and believe ?the government is involved in all kinds of nefarious plots to bring us into the New World Order, so called and so on.?
So called by Henry Kissinger, Gordon Brown, Bush Senior, and no shortage of economists and assorted establishment politicos over the last one hundred years or so. (and so on).
Patriot groups, Potok insists, are responsible for criminal violence. He then effortlessly connects Joe Stack to the patriot movement, but for some reason neglects to mention that Stack?s alleged manifesto referenced communism, hardly considered a ?radical right? philosophy.

In addition, Potok says the widely held belief that the income tax is unconstitutional has ?raised a lot of havoc? (and so did strapping British tax collectors to Liberty Poles in the 1770s by American revolutionaries).
Ms. Brewer then says the attack on the IRS building in Austin was similar to the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City. She may be right ? evidence indicates the latter attack was staged by the government and it may eventually come out that Stack?s attack was too. Ms. Brewer would not report this in a month of Sundays, not if she values her career.
Potok concludes by stating his concern that ?hate groups? (the ticker below him exclaims) may engage in violence, mostly because there is a black man in the White House and the ?demographic change? in the country. He stops short of demanding anybody who believes in less government and adherence to the Constitution should be rounded up and thrown in a re-education camp.
It seems Potok and Brewer were reading from the Department of Homeland Security?s ?rightwing? extremism report because their conversation came off like a carbon copy of the now infamous report (especially Potok?s assertion that patriot groups hate Obama because of his skin pigmentation).
It is indeed surreal that such nonsense about violence should be aired on a network that is jointly owned by a corporation founded by a eugenicist (Bill Gates, the former CEO of Microsoft) and the notorious death merchant General Electric (manufacturer of military aircraft, tankers, helicopters, surveillance aircraft and bombers used most recently to subdue recalcitrant Muslims).
I mean, talk about a hate group.

Lumi · Mar 3, 2010

Lumi · Mar 3, 2010

SPLC Report: Heavy On Smear, Thin On Facts

SPLC Report: Heavy On Smear, Thin On Facts

SPLC Report: Heavy On Smear, Thin On Facts

Conditioning For Terror Attack To Be Blamed On ?Right Wing Extremists? Reaches Fever Pitch

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010

The preparatory conditioning for a domestic false flag terror attack to be blamed on ?right-wing extremists? has reached fever pitch, with the Southern Poverty Law Center issuing yet another lurid report which smears their mainstream political opposition as violent extremists.
?The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation,? states the SPLC report, which goes on to mention the OKC bombing and warns that there are, ?Signs of similar violence emanating from the radical right.?
The only examples of such violence include a vague reference to the murder of six law enforcement officers, which presumably includes the Richard Poplawski incident, an event that arose not as a result of Poplawski?s political bent, but because of a domestic dispute with his mother.
As a USA Today report reveals, Poplawski?s slaying of three Pittsburgh police officers was prompted not by some kind of fanatical political belief, but as a consequence of the somewhat more mundane explanation that his mother was trying to kick Poplawski out of the house because his dog had urinated on the floor.
Other examples of violence as a consequence of ?right-wing extremism? cited in the report are thin on the ground, but the scope of the hit piece is not about exploring actual facts, its almost exclusively about tarring increasing opposition to big government as a portend of domestic terror.
The intent is clear ? when a domestic terror attack does take place ? which from all indications is unfortunately inevitable ? those smeared in the same breath as the perpetrators will be blamed for instigating the violence, which will lead to more laws and more restrictions on free speech and political activism.
Though the political left is often eager to jump on board with the SPLC and smear ?right wing extremists? as a deadly threat, be forewarned, the measures introduced in response by the government won?t distinguish between partisan viewpoints ? everybody?s free speech will be crushed, whether you?re an anti-war activist or a Tea Party member. Though they will invoke the supposed danger of fringe groups, the purge will impact everybody

The smear attack seamlessly blends fringe minority groups, racist skinheads and militias with even mainstream political activists like Sheriff Richard Mack and Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt, people who have never advocated violence against anyone.
Even Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is thrown in for good measure. The fact that the SPLC is going to such lengths as to equate a sitting Congresswoman with mass murdering terrorists reveals the true purpose of the smear ? another advancement of the effort to silence political opposition by demonizing peaceful political adversaries as violent extremists.
The SPLC couldn?t give a damn about preventing domestic terrorism, indeed, their funding and prestige will only increase if such attacks were to take place. The SPLC is begging for an incident that can be blamed on their political opposition which they will then exploit to silence dissent, so don?t be surprised if such an attack is dutifully provided by the network of federal government provocateurs who are routinely caught steering rag-tag terror groups in every major case.
The SPLC report predictably throws in the name of mass murderer and domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, strongly implying that the groups demonized in the piece are intent on similar acts of slaughter.
The report even floats a potential flash point for when violence could possibly erupt ? April 19th ? the anniversary of both the Waco massacre and the OKC bombing, adding that the Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. also takes place on this date.
While the SPLC, the ADL and similar organizations are happy to play the Timothy McVeigh card over and over again, they are less enthusiastic to mention the fact that McVeigh planned his deadly assault on the Alfred P. Murrah building under the intimate direction of a high-level FBI official, according to McVeigh?s co-conspirator Terry Nichols, a claim voluminously backed up by a plethora of evidence that has been presented in court on several occasions.
The fact that there are loosely affiliated gangs of semi-retarded racists dotted around rural America who occasionally make idle threats is a pathetically flimsy foundation on which the SPLC props up its feigned concern for the supposed threat of domestic terror in the United States, a threat that in every instance has been fostered, prodded and provoked by the only entity that ever benefits from acts of domestic terror ? the federal government

Lumi · Mar 4, 2010

Playing the Race Card Against Freedom Loving Americans

Playing the Race Card Against Freedom Loving Americans

Playing the Race Card Against Freedom Loving Americans
http://madjacksports.com/forum/#comments_controls
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 3, 2010
The establishment is desperate to discredit the Tea Party movement. In order to accomplish this objective, it will twist the truth and invent hatred and racism where none exists.
Example du jour: Bob Cessa over at the Huffington Post.

In a blog post Mr. Cessa claims the Tea Party movement is all about racism. He writes that ?when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that?s left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race.?
In order to make his point, Cessa points to Dale Robertson, a man he fallaciously claims is some kind of mucky-muck in the Tea Party movement.
Robertson was photographed back in February, 2009, at a Tea Party rally toting a placed that read: ?Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.?
Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society told The Washington Independent that Robertson was booted out of the event for the offensive sign. Cessa, however, does not mention this.
As it turns out, Mr. Robertson is not affiliated with any of the Tea Party organizations in Texas or anywhere else.
Felicia Cravens, writing for the Houston Tea Party Society, explains that Robertson has no affiliation with her group. ?A search on Google yields plenty of information about Mr. Robertson, and a search of the various leadership teams among legitimate national tea party organizations show him nowhere to be found,? she explains.
In other words, Robertson is either a poseur or an operative tasked with making the Tea Party look like a class reunion of Ku Klux Klan members.
Next, Cessa reveals his ignorance of the Tea Party movement. He tags it as a spin-off of the neocon Republican party and its fellow travelers in talk radio:

The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It?s an extension of Fox News Channel. It?s an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party ? the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, the White Hands ad and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It?s an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres.

In fact, the Tea Party concept was invented by Libertarians, not the Republican party, although Republican neocons have since hijacked the concept and declared it their own.
?The Libertarian Party of Illinois got the idea to hold an April 15, 2009 anti-tax ?Boston Tea Party? in Chicago way back in December of 2008. On February 10, 2009 they started a Facebook page and began promoting the website throughout the Illinois media,? writes Donny Ferguson of the Libertarian National Committee.
The establishment hijacking of the Tea Party is common knowledge. Even the liberal website Raw Story wrote about it in December, 2009. MSNBC stalwart Rachel Maddow talked about it several times on her show. ?People are trying to do the right thing, but GOP organizations and campaigns are effectively taking over the Tea Party movement in some places in the country,? Stephen Gordon told Maddow.

?As Raw Story reported last month, the firm?s [Russo, Marsh, and Associates, a Republican Party-affiliated political public relations firm] apparent goal is to channel populist Tea Party discontent into Republican electoral victories in 2010 and 2012. Members of the more genuinely grassroots Tea Party Patriots have been expressing their anger over this for months,? David Edwards and Muriel Kane wrote on December 30, 2009.
Tis a pity Mr. Cessa is unable to tell the difference between Libertarians and establishment Republicans who are mostly state-loving neocons addicted to mass murder and staggering deficits. A bit of schooling is in order.
From the Libertarianism website:

The core idea [of Libertarianism] is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life ? as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

?Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis,? writes David Boaz. ?Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people ? to women, to people of different religions and different races ? is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.? (Emphasis added.)
I will stop short of accusing Mr. Cessa of acting as a cynical disinformation agent with his talk of racism. Unfortunately, far too many liberals believe the propaganda handed down by the left side of the establishment. (And as any sincere Libertarian will tell you, there is little difference between the left and right permutations of the establishment.)
Cessa claims the Tea Party movement only ?freaked out? after Obama was elected and prior to this ignored the ?massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism? present during the Bush era. Cessa claims supporters of the Tea Party movement were only moved to anger after a black man was elected to be president. (In fact, he was appointed, but that is an argument for another day.)
This Libertarian vociferously opposed Bush and Clinton before him. In fact, I opposed Reagan too. He was sold to us like putrid snake oil as a small government Libertarian. He wasted little time cranking the national debt up to a historically stratospheric level and attacking small and defenseless countries, either directly (as in the case of Grenada) or indirectly through proxies (his support of mass murder in Nicaragua and Latin America is legendary and endlessly fawned over by neocons).
It is true many wishy-washy folks who fancy themselves Libertarians were fooled by George W. Bush?s small government and ?compassionate conservatism? rhetoric during the 2000 election. Many subsequently supported Ron Paul, the only viable real Libertarian candidate in 2008 (it should be noted that Paul?s campaign was sabotaged by forces on both the so-called right and left, thus demonstrating the six alarm threat he posed to the establishment).
Anthony Gregory, writing for the Libertarian website LewRockwell.com, concisely states the essence of principled opposition to Bush or for that matter any other establishment statist: ?For those who love liberty, it is crucial to be anti-Bush. He is, after all, the head of the state, the parasite on our production, the enemy of our freedom.?
No doubt, for the foreseeable future, we will endure more of this shameless race baiting from not only apparently clueless (and politically under-educated or maybe it should be mal-educated) bloggers at the Huffington Post but the larger corporate media as well. Many so-called liberals are finally coming around to the horrid (although entirely predictable) reality of Obama ? he sold them a bill of rotten goods and has continued uninterrupted the wars, torture, bankster bailouts, and other predations of the state.
Short of Mr. Cessa jumping off Arianna Huffington?s state-loving bandwagon, there will likely be no hope for him. He will continue to push this fallacious nonsense about his fellow Americans. He is blinded by the false right-left paradigm and the Bizarro world (up is down, war is peace) of establishment politics.
In order to better understand reality, Mr. Cessa should read Carol Quigley, a historian of the American establishment and mentor to Bill Clinton. In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Quigley wrote:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ?throw the rascals out? at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.? Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

Short of understanding this, I am afraid Cessa is but another liberal lost in the political wilderness.

Lumi · Mar 4, 2010

The Tea Party Is All About Race

The Tea Party Is All About Race

The Tea Party Is All About Race

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about.

This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "nigger, nigger, nigger!"

But they can't.

Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.

Most of the time, they merely imply the use of the word. Rush Limbaugh referring to the president as a "black man-child," for example. Every week, a new example pops up on the radio and somehow the offenders are able to keep their job while Howard Stern is fined for saying the comparatively innocuous word "blumpkin." Limbaugh, on the other hand, can stoke racial animosity on his show by suggesting that health care reform is a civil rights bill -- reparations -- and no one seems to mind. And no, the impotence isn't an adequate Karmic punishment for Limbaugh's roster of trespasses.

The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It's an extension of Fox News Channel. It's an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party -- the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, the White Hands ad and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It's an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres.

But unlike the heavy-handedness of Dale Robertson and others, the tea party followers are generally more veiled about why they're so outraged by our current president.

In the New York Times this past weekend, David Barstow profiled a teabagger from Idaho:

SANDPOINT, Idaho -- Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.

But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated -- even manufactured -- by both parties to grab power.

Now you might be saying to yourself, I don't see the racism here. But if you eliminate all of the reasons for Stout's participation in the tea party movement as being contradictory or nonsensical, all that's left is race.

Let's deconstruct.

She claims to be against the bank bailouts, but the tea party is against the president's bank fee designed to recover the TARP money. They also appear to be against financial regulatory reform. None of this makes any sense. If tea partiers are against the bailouts, basic logic dictates that they ought to be in favor of getting the money back. Or do they prefer that the banks keep the money and orchestrate further meltdowns? Honestly, I'm not even entirely sure they realize that the bailouts and the recovery act (stimulus) are two different things. But they're also against the recovery act -- you know, whatever that is.

She also told the New York Times that she's tired of politicians "manufacturing crisis."

Right. Three things here.

First, where was she -- where were the teabaggers -- when the far-right endorsed and supported a massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism? Crickets chirping. The odds of being killed in an airborne terrorist attack are literally 1 in 10 million. You're much more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by a terrorist.

Second, I refuse to believe that health care is a "manufactured crisis." People are going broke and dying every day. Even the most conservative estimates show that there are 9/11-level casualties each month due to a lack of adequate health insurance. The horror stories are readily available online. Just Google "health insurance horror story" and see how manufactured the crisis is.

Third, look at any bar graph of the economy as of one year ago or any basic jobs number and tell me if the crisis is manufactured. Hell, Pam Stout's son lost his house! How can she possibly suggest the economic crisis was manufactured?

I hate to single out one person, but Stout's incongruous anger is indicative of the entire movement.

From the outset, the tea party was based on a contradictory premise (the original tea party was a protest against a corporate tax cut). And when you throw out all of the nonsense and contradictions, there's nothing left except race. There's no other way to explain why these people were silent and compliant for so long, and only decided to collectively freak out when this "foreign" and "exotic" president came along and, right out of the chute, passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history -- something they would otherwise support, for goodness sake, it was $288 billion in tax cuts! -- we're left to deduce no other motive but the ugly one that lurks just beneath the pale flesh, the tri-corner hats and the dangly tea bag ornamentation.

Irrespective of whether the president passed a huge tax cut or went out of his way to bring Republicans into the health care process, the seeds of racial animosity from the far-right were sown during the campaign. In those lines waiting for then-vice presidential candidate and current tea party heroine Sarah Palin, their loud noises spread the pre-scripted lies, lies that entirely hinged on the president's African heritage. A white candidate would never be accused of being a secret Muslim. A white candidate would never be accused of being a foreign usurper. Only a black candidate with a foreign name would be accused of "palling around with domestic terrorists."

In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about.

By way of a postscript, one of the many faceless radio talk show wingnuts, Jim Quinn, this week called President Obama a "Kenyan wuss" who should be "slapped silly." The Kenyan lie and the "slap silly" insult aside, this president is no wuss. You know how I know? He's a black man who ran for president and won despite the growing mob of gun-toting militant white bigots like Jim Quinn who are sucking air in America. President Obama achieving this despite the hatred and threats against him takes serious guts. Guts that Jim Quinn and the tea party movement will never understand.

Search

Search

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

We value your privacy