William Gheen’s Americans for Legal Immigration PAC and James Neighbors of Overpasses for America, the crack team that brought us this summer’s sparsely attended and unabashedly xenophobic protests against Central American children, are back with another round this weekend, this time attempting to tie undocumented immigrants to the Ebola virus.
In an email alert that went out to Gheen’s activist list yesterday with the subject line “New National Wave of Protests Against Obama, Illegla Immigration, & Ebola,” Gheen and Neighbors announce that a “new twist to this next wave of events will be protesters wearing medical face masks to protest Obama allowing Ebola into America.”
In the email, Gheen implies that undocumented immigrants — including the longtime U.S. residents who would be affected by immigration reform — are bringing Ebola into the United States. “Obama won’t stop Ebola from entering America because to do so he would have to stop his immigration reform plans and illegal immigration!” he declares.
After making history in July with more than 300 protests nationwide in a 24 hour period, this next wave is designed to remind voters that Obama’s policies are on the ballot in the November 4, 2014 midterm elections and which may become American’s last chance to rebuke Obama and put a stop to his plans to decree amnesty for millions of illegal aliens before year’s end! A new twist to this next wave of events will be protesters wearing medical face masks to protest Obama allowing Ebola into America.
"We need a Democrat apocalypse on November 4 and then to go after the Republicans facilitating Obama’s dictatorial abuses of power and immigration reform amnesty, which are designed to permanently destroy America’s borders, the Constitution, and the Republic!" said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "Obama won’t stop Ebola from entering America because to do so he would have to stop his immigration reform plans and illegal immigration!"
Some protesters will carry signs opposing Obama’s plans to allow non American Ebola patients to be brought into America while refusing to stop non essential travel from Ebola infection areas. Others plan to wear face masks and bio suits in protest increasing the visual display attracting public attention with American flags and signs! [sic throughout.]
Not only have there been no cases of Ebola among undocumented immigrants in the United States, but there have been no cases in any of the top ten countries of origin of undocumented immigrants.
But, as we noted last week, the anti-immigrant movement has been hyping fears of Ebola in an attempt to tie the virus to immigration. Gheen is especially eager to tie his anti-immigrant activism to the right-wing issue of the day, including organizing rallies in support of the police officer who shot Missouri teenager Michael Brown.
Gheen and Neighbors are fringe activists, but they aren’t treated as such by many in the anti-immigrant Right. Their protests this summer were promoted by right-wing talk show hosts including Mark Levin and the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios, and one protest even included a birther-leaning speech by Rep. Steve King of Iowa.
The Center for New Community has posted a map of this weekend’s planned protests, with the note that many protests that Gheen and his allies announced this summer didn’t actually seem to take place at all.
h/t: Miranda Blue at RWW
Over the summer, Religious Right activist Janet Porter launched her very own competitor to Facebook, which she called “ReaganBook,” but quickly pulled the site after “those intent on the destruction of life, liberty, and the family” joined the outlet, which she bizarrely claimed was a threat to her freedom of speech.
Porter, the founder of Faith 2 Action, described ReaganBook as a “Facebook for patriots,” warning that Facebook has a pro-gay bias. She eventually took ReaganBook offline, telling members that “we’re under attack” from people who joined the right-wing social media website only to mock it.
Now, Porter has rebranded ReaganBook as FreedomBook and is only allowing people with invitations to join.
So far, FreedomBook only lists four members, including Porter.
H/T: Brian Tashman at RWW
— Meg Gorski (@MegGorski)September 18, 2014
The Facebook page for the militia has since been scrubbed.
The group plans to follow people from polling locations to their homes, according to a Facebook post viewed by The Capital Times.
"Please private message us names of people you know are active voters and wanted on warrants. We can get our agents to watch their polling location, identify the individual, and then follow them to their residence. A call the police and they will be picked up for processing," the Facebook message read.
The group is using the website Put Wisconsin First to identify petition signers who have outstanding arrest warrants and those with tax defaults.
According to Politicus USA, the Facebook page for the group featured pictures of African-Americans, but the group denied that they are targeting blacks.
"We can assure you that we will be targeting all democrats, not just black ones," a Facebook message read, according to the Capital Times. "If you think we meant blacks only it is because you are a racist who thinks the only people with warrants are black. We know better because we have a nice list of people who are wanted democrat activist types. Most are actually white. We will target everyone."
Larry Klayman is once again calling for the military to remove President Obama from office, telling Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association in an interview today that military leaders should “rise up” and “go to the president and say, ‘Your time’s up,’ just like they did to Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, ‘Take a hike guy, you’re destroying the country.’”
Klayman, who organized a White House rally last year that he hoped would lead to Obama’s ouster, insisted that the move would not be a coup d’état because Obama is “not a legitimate president” and is “having our people killed for no reason.”
Klayman added that Obama is an observant Muslim who wears a “ring that says my only God is Allah,” while Wildmon said he believes the president “is a Muslim in his thinking.”
His claim that Obama wears an Islamic ring is completely false and originated with a debunked WorldNetDaily article.
At another point in the “Today’s Issues” interview, Klayman said Obama “protects his Muslim brothers at the expense of Christians and Jews.”
“This president is anti-Christian, he’s anti-Semitic, he doesn’t like white people,” Klayman continued. “We’re taking strong legal action hopefully to get him removed from office as soon as possible before we go under for the count.”
The right-wing activist went on to say that Obama is a “socialist, a black Muslim in the mold of Louis Farrakhan” who wants people to “pay back African Americans” by “deconstructing the country, trying to bring the country down, in effect like revenge.”
“We can’t take it anymore, we just simply can’t take it anymore.”
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]
A self-described coalition of antigovernment groups is hoping to organize yet another attempt at shutting down the U.S.-Mexico border at major commercial crossings this weekend, calling the event “Shut Down All Ports of Entry”.
Previous attempts at shutting down traffic at key border crossings this spring have ended in spectacular failure—notably radio host Pete Santilli’s attempt to shut down the crossing in Tijuana with bikers, as well as the “Border Convoy” last month, which culminated in a only a brief interruption at Brownsville, Texas.
But this particular attempt, scheduled to take place Saturday, has set off warnings among law enforcement personnel, including a local sheriff’s office in Texas and Border Patrol officials, who say they are prepared for just such an attempt.
Sweden's 2014 Elections: The rise of the far-right Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) should frighten everybody
sometimes tumblr’s US-centric social justice makes me so fucking frustrated. Right now sweden’s third biggest party are literally neo-nazis and our elections couldn’t even get onto trending tags today, goddamit.
Okay, so the post is gaining notes and people are confused, so to explain what the hell is going on:
Swedish elections held were on last Sunday, 14th September. We’ve had a right-leaning government the past eight years and after this there will be a change of power. The new party, Socialdemocrats (S) gained a total of 31% percent. The old party, Moderaterna (M) gained 21%.
Sverigedemokraterna (SD) gained a total of 12.9%. Their policy is racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, anti-diversity, anti-LGBT+, and anti-feminist. Basically, they tick every box on the douchebag lottery.
If you’re here to argue that they’re ~not actually~ Nazis: 1) Fuck you. 2) Fuck the horse the you rode in on. 3) I hope you get stepped on by a moose, you ignorant asswipe.
- they literally started as neo nazis. They have used a Neo-Nazi movement as campaign slogans,
- party members have assaulted immigrants with iron pipes (tw for racialised violence),
- worn Nazi symbols
- supported and helped build Neo-Nazi group SvP.
There’s probably more, but I don’t have links on hand.
They’ve been having rallies and demonstrations all over Sweden, and people have shown up just to turn their back on them and protest (this post explains it better).
In the 2010 elections, SD were pretty much considered no better than neo-Nazis and only got 5.7% votes - it put them in 6th place and was just enough to get them into parliament. In the elections before that, they got about 2.9%. In the past four years, they’ve grown exponentially in Sweden.
They’ve also run extremely extensive PR campaigns, appealing to the youth, kicking out members “exposed” of being racist, (note: these members often end up in SvP) and picking up buzzwords from the Socialdemocrats’ ideology.
29% of votes they gained this year were from swing voters who previously voted M, and the biggest gain have been in the south, in small towns and the countryside:
This is not something that’s just going on in Sweden. Europe has seen an influx of extreme-right parties over the last decade or so, often thinly disguised as a party that puts ‘traditional values’ and ‘national interest’ first.
In Greece and Hungary they’ve already been in power. In Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Finland France and UK, extreme-right-wing parties have been voted into the EU.
Because here’s the thing: we’ve forgotten what it looks like. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve turned Nazism into a cartoonish lampoon of goose-stepping, uniforms and moral lessons that “we’ll never be like them~”, ignoring the fact nationalism is not as cut-and-dry two ends of an extreme but exists on a scale.
People have been apologising for SD’s actions for a while now because they’re not considered “extremist enough” to be neo-Nazis, because they don’t share the same beliefs, because they’ve “publicly denounced” SvP.
But the same people still get hurt. Still SD has the institutional and systematic power and privilege to oppress, degrade and humiliate people of colour, which they already have done. Stop making excuses for them. Stop making leeways for right-wing-extremists because that is how they gain tract.
Please spread this.
It was the same with the UK eu seats elections earlier in the year. We had UKIP, the uk independence party and as close to the tea party as we’ve ever seen in this country, get a majority of seats.
They once said that gay people cause bad weather, for a frame of reference, because i’m too tired to get all the relevant sources.
The group Two Million Bikers to DC organized its second annual rally on the National Mall yesterday, which, like its predecessor, fell far short of the goal expressed in the group’s name. Organizers said the event was meant to honor people killed in the 9/11 attacks as well as first responders and veterans – presumably that’s how they sold it to corporate sponsor Budweiser – but rally speakers also used the event to rail against President Barack Obama, Congress, and an array of right-wing targets, including gun control, Common Core educational standards, the EPA, regulation of small businesses, the destruction of free enterprise, the Bundy Ranch standoff between the BLM and armed protestors, and Obama’s purportedly fraudulent re-election.
Although organizers got pre-event press promising “thousands” of bikers – not 2 million – descending on the nation’s capital, I didn’t see more than a couple hundred at the event’s peak. Fewer than 50 were left to hear the final speakers. More than one speaker took note of the dispiritingly small crowd.
Those who made it to the Mall did get to hear some personal remembrances of 9-11 from a New York firefighter, a paramedic, and a clergyman who worked at Ground Zero, and a mother whose son joined the military in the wake of 9/11 and was killed overseas.
But uniting them and other speakers was hostility toward the Obama administration and anger at the perception that the president will not clearly identify Islamist extremism as the nation’s enemy. Among the conspiracy theories heard from the podium were the claim from Second Amendment activist and self-described “gun chick” Jan Morgan that the U.N. small arms treaty was about disarming Americans, and the assertion by “Pope” Dan Johnson that “NATO came together in a meeting and this administration signed that NATO pact to tell Christians or to tell any religion what they can and cannot do.” Morgan said she didn’t believe Obama had actually won re-election because she knows about votes counted in Barcelona, Spain, and dead people who voted six times.
Johnson, a Kentucky coordinator for the biker group, contrasted his remarks with Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “I have a nightmare,” he yelled. America, he said, is living a nightmare at Ground Zero and a nightmare in the White House. The mother of a fallen serviceman said of President Obama, “We must get rid of him…we must get him out of our White House before he takes this nation down.”
Right-wing pundit Wayne Dupree railed against the media, which he said has given Obama a pass for six years. He complained that conservative activists have been demonized as racists. “This administration is racist,” he said. “Everybody in there is racist.”
“Entertainment” was provided by Madison Rising, a metal band that played songs they describe as patriotic. One in their first set contained the chorus, “We don’t want to have to bring out guns but we’re ready if it goes there.” That sort of rhetoric mirrors the theme of Larry Klayman’s failed revolutionary rally in D.C. last year, at which Two Million Bikers organizer Belinda Bee spoke. Manny Vega, a Marine vet and self-described “Three Percenter” also spoke at both rallies.
Vega, who as one of the final speakers faced a very sparse crowd, seemed bummed out by the small turnout. “There should be millions of people,” he said, recalling photos of Vietnam War protests filling the entire mall. “What are we doing? A couple patriots out here.” Vega said more truck drivers, waitresses, bikers, and mechanics need to get involved and get elected.
“I’ll be damned if I am 30 years old and I’m cursing the politicians in that Capitol Hill. My son’s going to be 30 years old gearing up, buying weapons, buying their armored vests. Who’d have thought that we’d live in a country where the American citizens are arming up to fight a tyrannical government, ‘cuz that is what it is. Who’d have thought? How many people here have aligned themselves with militias or are already prepping to go to war with the federal government? [Someone shouted ‘don’t raise your hands,’ but some folks did] To go to war? Who should go to war? No American citizen should go to war. I’ll tell you something, it’s changed. The relationship between the people and those bastards over there that are supposedly supposed to represent us. And they are not doing it.”
The event was also sponsored by Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her.” The day before the rally, D’Souza tweeted, “On 9/11 anniversary tomorrow I am speaking at huge biker rally on the national mall in Washington DC.” He sold some books — nothing close to the huge number that his optimistic publisher had brought– and took pictures with fans. Unfortunately, I missed D’Souza’s comments when I took a break, but based on the speaker who followed him, part of D’Souza’s speech was spent slamming President Obama’s recent remarks about ISIS/ISIL.
Did you know Michael Brown was a killer? Did you know he was a devoted gang member with an extensive juvenile record who routinely robbed convenience stores and committed acts of mayhem? And did you know that when Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown, he wasn’t using unjustified force, he was defending his life? The 6-foot-4, 300-pound 18-year-old fractured Wilson’s eye socket while reaching for his gun, and was killed while charging at Wilson to land another blow.
If this sounds suspect—if it sounds almost unbelievable—then your head is in the right place. Nothing in this narrative is true. Racist innuendo aside, there’s no evidence Brown was a violent gang member, nor is there evidence of any serious wrongdoing—as a juvenile, Brown was never convicted of a felony nor was he facing charges as an adult. And while Wilson was taken to the hospital after his encounter with Brown, he didn’t suffer serious injuries—the fractured eye socket is a myth.
But if you read websites like the Independent Journal Review, dive into far-right media, or explore the world of Darren Wilson support pages, you’ll find plenty of people who buy the fantasy. They reject the mainstream picture of Brown: A typical teenager, struggling to carve an identity and a life out of his beliefs, actions, and missteps. In their minds Brown was a budding criminal, and Wilson a hero. Or, as one Wilson supporter said during a demonstration for the officer, “We’ll all see this in the end that it was a good shooting. You know, it was a good kill.”
We know why the Brown family was quick to give a loving portrait of Michael. Like any parents in their situation, they wanted the world to see their son as they did—a decent boy who didn’t deserve to die.
The question is for the other side: Why attack Michael Brown’s reputation? After all, if the goal is an objective look, there’s no need to explore Brown or Wilson as individuals. Brown could have been Gandhi or he could have been the Unabomber; all that matters for the case is what happened in a few brief moments on the streets of Ferguson.
For anti-anti-racists, accusations of racism are a greater concern than actual discrimination against blacks.
At the same time, we shouldn’t be surprised by attacks on Brown. We know from all kinds of crime—and sexual assault cases in particular—that people are quick to blame the victim. It’s one reason sexual assault has such a poor reporting rate—many women (and men) don’t want to deal with the attacks on their character. We also see it in the particular instance of young black men killed by white figures (police or otherwise) in ambiguous circumstances.
In 1955, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam kidnapped and killed 14-year-old Emmett Till after he reportedly spoke to a white woman—Bryant’s wife Carolyn—in their Money, Mississippi, grocery store. After the two were acquitted by an all-white, all-male jury, they told their story to Alabama novelist William Bradford Huie. In their (improbable) version of events, writes historian Philip Dray in At the Hands of Persons Unknown, Till was “sassy and unrepentant.” “He showed me the white gal’s picture! Bragged of what he’d done to her,” said Milam, “I counted pictures of three white girls in his pocketbook before I burned it. What else could I do? No use lettin’ him get no bigger!” Black observers were furious:Olive A. Adams, who authored a booklet called Time Bomb: Mississippi Exposed for the Mississippi Regional Council of Negro Leadership in 1956, denigrated the “white girlfriend” story repeated by whites as “vicious propaganda, aimed at fitting Emmett Till into the ‘sexually depraved’ category among the stereotypes into which Negroes are so often cast. It was an obvious attempt to dream up a crime to fit the punishment.”
A half century later, you saw a similar dynamic with the killing of Trayvon Martin. And while countless Americans were sympathetic to the Martin family, many others were eager to smear the deceased 17-year-old, and they found voice on Fox News and conservative talk radio. “You dress like a thug, people are going to treat you like a thug,” said Fox host Geraldo Rivera, referring to Martin’s hoodie sweatshirt. Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze website published a list of crimes Martin may have committed while he was alive (the evidence was … sparse), and right-wing websites passed around a photo called the “real Trayvon Martin,” which was quickly debunked as a photo of The Game, a 33-year-old rapper. Something similar happened with Brown: After his death, photos circulated of a young man with a gun, labeled Michael Brown. In reality, it was Joda Cain, a murder suspect in Oregon.
There’s no doubt about the genesis of these memes. When people see black men,they think crime, and that cognitive link is so strong that some people will create “proof” to justify the association. Rather than treat Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown as typical teenagers turned victims, they’ll work to dismiss them as “thugs.” But this says little about the proliferation of those memes in right-wing media. Fear of black men is a bipartisan problem—not something unique to conservatives—and it’s unfair to say otherwise.
It’s worth noting that the loudest voices in these events—figures like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly—are also people who dismiss the significance of racism. In his corner of the media, O’Reilly denies the existence of racial disparities in the criminal justice system—calling it a problem of “culture” in “ghetto neighborhoods”—and denies that there’s any kind of systemic advantage for white Americans. Limbaugh is more crude, alleging “reverse racism”—“In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, ‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on’”—and denouncing the president for “race-baiting” when he speaks on race and racial injustice.
For these anti-anti-racists, accusations of racism are a greater concern than actual discrimination and prejudice against blacks and other minorities. It’s not that they support racism, but that they see it as largely irrelevant to contemporary life—any problems with minority communities, in their eyes, have more to do with cultural dysfunction, not racial inequality. Moreover, if there’s a racial problem in America, it’s not against minorities, it’s against whites: “Caucasian is not one of the colors getting helped,” said Fox contributor Todd Starnes, attacking the president’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative.
As rhetoric, anti-anti-racism is popular in the conservative movement. You saw it in Andrew Breitbart’s obsession with ACORN and Shirley Sherrod and Fox News’obsession with the New Black Panthers, and you see it in some attacks on Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging discrimination against whites. Against that backdrop, the memes against Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown make sense.
Victim mentality is key to the existence of the conservative movement. More…
In other words, to dismiss racism as a general concern is to also stand against the claim that in the deaths of Martin and Brown, race matters. Indeed, you have to deny that discrimination mattered for either victim. And to do that, you have to challenge their victimhood. If Michael Brown was a thug, if he was violent and aggressive, then Officer Wilson was justified. Suddenly, it’s a “good kill,” not a deadly case of profiling.
Put another way, if countless people believe in the myth of the thuggish Trayvon and the dangerous Mike, it’s because they have to—without the monsters, their worldview couldn’t stand.
POSSIBLY THE MOST DISGUSTING SHIT YOU'LL SEE ALL DAY, NONE OF WHICH I AGREE WITH, THIS IS SOME DISGUSTING SHIT: This Is Why Darren Wilson Supporters Are Rallying In St. Louis [TW: Racism, Ethnocentrism, White Privilege, Criminalization of African-Americans, Offensive Content, Assholism, Right-Wing Extremism]
On a blazing Sunday afternoon, about 60 people showed up outside a bar in St. Louis to show support for the officer who killed Michael Brown.
St. Louis sizzled Sunday, with relentless heat and crushing humidity driving nearly everyone indoors. Nearly everyone, that is, but a group of demonstrators who sweated beside a busy road for hours to say one thing: “I am Darren Wilson.”
The gathering began gaining steam in the early afternoon outside Barney’s Sports Pub in south St. Louis — a place many described as a popular police watering hole. At it’s peak, between 50 and 70 people crowded around a table as organizers said they had raised thousands of dollars for Wilson, who killed Michael Brown on Aug. 9. A brief press conference ended with the group reciting in unison, “we are Darren Wilson.”
Participants were not always anxious to talk to the media. An organizer named Mark — who said he was a police officer but declined to give his last name — explained that the point was to let Wilson know people “think he’s a good officer” and “have his back.” Many others at the rally also were reluctant to give last names and in some cases to appear in pictures. Only one man who spoke with BuzzFeed claimed any personal connection with Darren Wilson, but he did not provide his name and said only that he knew Wilson and knew that he was not a racist.
Still, many people were willing to speak about their participation. This is what they had to say:
“We’ll all see this in the end that it was a good shooting. You know, it was a good kill.” — Tina MorrisonJim Dalrymple II
Morrison, who used to live in Ferguson, said Wilson was trying to protect himself because he believed his life was in danger. “And had I been terrified for my life I would have killed him too,” she explained, adding later that “I totally believe what he did was the right thing.”
Despite ongoing conflicting reports about what happened during the shooting, many at the rally shared Morrison’s view that Brown was in some way the aggressor, and that Wilson would ultimately be vindicated.
“He deserves to be innocent until proven guilty.” — Sara WilsonJim Dalrymple II
The call for due process was a common one at the rally, and Sara Wilson (who is not related to Darren) said almost no one is “seeking justice” for Darren. Sara Wilson added that Darren had been “crucified” before the facts had come out.
“It was derailed with race. Michael Brown could have been white. It didn’t matter, Darren Wilson was doing his job.” — Mary KourikJim Dalrymple II
Few, if any, at the rally believed race was a major factor in Brown’s killing. Many also believe others — protesters, the media, etc. — had incorrectly pushed race to the forefront. Kourik said that it was sad that Brown died, but that it was also sad Wilson had been treated unfairly. “I am Darren Wilson,” she said. “That could have very well been me the other day. It could have been any of us in that position.”
“It seems kind of one-sided. I mean the other side’s already got him convicted and he hasn’t had a say.” — Louie PuderJim Dalrymple II
Many at the rally, including Puder, were frustrated by the media coverage of Brown’s death and the ensuing fallout. Puder said Brown may have been unarmed, but “he’s six foot four, 300 plus pounds, that’s a pretty lethal weapon there.”
Puder wore a blue shirt with a police-style logo printed on the front. It was common attire Sunday in St. Louis; the shirts were a fundraiser, and in the back of the bar near a pool table organizers Sunday were busy ironing logos on more shirts to meet high demand. Despite the ongoing DIY operation, the shirts still sold out, several attendees said.
“This is who I stand for, the people who stand for me.” — Robin ClearmountainJim Dalrymple II
Clearmountain was among those at the rally who cited the danger of police work as a reason to afford officers respect. Her connection to police goes back a lifetime; according to Clearmountain, 59, her father worked as a police officer who came to St. Louis to desegregate the department. She especially lamented a lack of respect for police among younger generations.
Clearmountain, who is black and Native American, was one of two people at the rally who was not white. The other person, a black man, declined to be interviewed.
“We’re out here to support Darren Wilson because he don’t have a voice.” — Ed ChambersJim Dalrymple II
Chambers and others at the rally said that Wilson had been driven into hiding by threats and fears for his safety. “He’s in hiding and that’s not right,” Chambers said. “That’s why we’re out here.” Chambers also agreed with others at the rally who said Brown was the aggressor. “There’s evidence showing that it’s more in support of the officer,” he said.
Toward the end of the day, Graham Stewart showed up with a sign with the words “end police brutality” written in large words. He stood across the street from the rally, which he called “upsetting.”Jim Dalrymple II
Stewart fought back tears as he described the rally across the street. “It’s really upsetting to me that this rally is taking place in my neighborhood,” he said. “It’s really upsetting to me that they seem to have the support of many of the people who live here, or who are at least driving by.” Graham went on to argue that those who are upset about Brown’s death want to make sure there’s an impartial investigation but aren’t sure that would happen under the current authorities. He added that he came out to show that not everyone in the neighborhood has a knee-jerk reaction to support police officers simply because they’re police officers.
Source: Jim Dalrymple II for Buzzfeed News
AUDIO: Officer Who Pushed CNN’s Don Lemon Claims There’s a Military Plot For One-World Government | Political Research Associates
St. Louis County police officer Dan Page is best known for shoving CNN host Don Lemon while the journalist was covering the Michael Brown protests in Ferguson, Missouri. Page has since been suspended after video of his speech to a right-wing militia group, Oath Keepers of St. Louis and St. Charles, was brought to the attention of his superiors. In his speech Page claims to inside knowledge of a grand conspiracy against “Caucasian Christians.” However this is not the only time Page has expressed such views, as PRA has learned, he forcefully touted his claims on the TruNews radio show with Rick Wiles on July 10, 2014.
Wiles’ popular radio show is a combination of end-times prophecy and right-wing conspiracy theories. For example, this past week Wiles interviewed Walid Shoebat, who claimed, “Obama is destroying Christian America. That’s his assignment as a jihadist, it is to destroy Christian America.” Shoebat is a popular speaker on the end-times prophecy circuit, celebrated for his claimed inside knowledge of a Muslim jihadist infiltration of U.S. government. PRA has also reported extensively on Shoebat and his claims, including in our 2011 research report, “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace.”
According to a USA Today interview with St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, Dan Page joined the police force in 1979, but spent about nine of the last twelve to fifteen years deployed with the Army. Throughout the TruNews interview, embedded below, Wiles addresses Dan Page as Sgt. Major and discusses only his military career. Neither Wiles nor Page mentions Page’s tenure with the St. Louis County Police.
The TruNews radio show starts with a dramatic opening introducing, “Trunews, the only newscast reporting the countdown to the second coming of Jesus Christ, and now for the most powerful hour on radio, here is the end time newsman, Rick Wiles.” Following the introduction, Wiles launches into an introduction of Page as being in charge of U.S. Army special forces in Africa and having inside knowledge of a plot to create a global regime.
Page follows with an equally grandiose and unbelievable account of his military career, recounting military exploits including Vietnam, paratrooper training, training in Germany for psychological and asymmetric warfare, and a recent assignment as the senior enlisted adviser to the commanding officer of Africom. Page mispronounces the names of places and countries with which he is supposedly familiar, while claiming that his military experience has provided him with inside knowledge of a grand worldwide plot to end American sovereignty and a one-world government and military takeover.
Here are a few clips of the interview (the full and unedited version is at the bottom of this article):
Page claims (at about 21 minutes in) that the definition of terrorism has been changed by Homeland Security. Page states:
“It is a Caucasian male 18-65, one who supports the second amendment, one who believes in the second coming of Jesus Christ, one that is against illegal immigration and is against homosexuality and has a definition of traditional marriage. That is their definition of a terrorist.”
Wiles responds, “It has appeared for several years that the Obamanistas are purging the military of the patriots. Is that the case?”
Page then responds, “Yes, that’s absolutely true.” He also gives an account of “four-star generals and above” who he claims were removed by the Obama administration because “of their refusal to support military involvement in domestic affairs.” When Wiles asks Page why none of these generals have spoken out, he implies it is because they don’t want to lose their pensions. Wiles then asks if something significant is in the works for the year 2015. Page claims that he sat in on briefings from very high sources and learned that there is a timeline for orchestrated events that will create havoc worldwide and allow for the supposed globalist takeover.
Wiles also brings up the current influx of refugee children from South America into the United States, and asks Page if it is one of those orchestrated events. Page says it is, and that the wider scenario includes nuclear suitcase bombs, a planned North American Union, and, of course, further “demonization of Caucasian Christians.” Page expresses his belief that the flood of immigrant children is a clandestine operation with the purpose of programming American citizens for the eventual rounding up and imprisonment of their own children. In terms of the timeline for this conspiratorial takeover, Page states that he believes the takeover will be completed by 2017.
The interview closes with the following exchange (at 56:13 in the audio) about the inevitability of the coming one-world government takeover and loss of American sovereignty:
Dan Page: You have to put that [fear] aside] and make some decisions. God put the man in charge of his household to do two things—provide and protect his family. The males in this country are not doing that, they’ve abrogated that to the police department and somebody else to take care of it. It really grieves me to say, no, it can’t be stopped.
If we could get the men mobilized, to get politically active and hold the local and state officials responsible, we could change this. But I would give you some suggestions on this. Focus your attention at the county and state level, such as the sheriff’s office and things like that. Do not give any support to any federal, career politician. Do not donate to the Republican faction or the Democratic faction of the socialist party that we have in charge. Do not contribute anything to them. Stay at the state and local level. Then I think we have a chance.
Rick Wiles: The bottom line is Jesus Christ is our only hope.
Dan Page: I agree with that.
Rick Wiles: Unless this nation turns to Jesus Christ, nothing we do is is going to work.
Dan Page: Absolutely.
The St. Louis/St. Charles, Missouri Chapter of Oath Keepers has tried to distance the organization from the video of Page’s speech to them now that it has received national attention. However, the video rant, as well as the above interview, is compatible with the ideology voiced by leadership in the organization as well as a spin off of the group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association or CSPOA. Both groups have a mission of organizing their members to refuse to enforce federal laws that they believe are unconstitutional.
The St. Louis County Police department is one of the few county-controlled police departments in the nation. Most county departments are headed by elected sheriffs, who are viewed by the Oath Keepers and CSPOA as the supreme law of the land, with a constitutional mandate to counter the federal government, particularly concerning gun laws. Oath Keeper Richard Mack, the head of CSPOA, has described his organization of county sheriffs as the “army to set our nation free,” and claims to have about 500 county sheriffs who have signed on in agreement with their mandate .
Mack himself is a former sheriff, as well as a former lobbyist for Gun Owners of America (GOA). The CSPOA 2013 convention was held in St. Charles, the county seat of St. Charles County, Missouri. Over an hour of the highlights of that convention can be watched at their website.
These highlights and other media of the Oath Keepers and CSPOA focus on the role of county sheriffs to stand against “executive orders to derail the Second Amendment,” as described in a letter sent to sheriffs around the country by the the Liberty Group Coalition (comprised of the CSPOA, Oath Keepers, GOA, John Birch Society, and the Tenth Amendment Center).
I have written previously about the CSPOA as part of the national movement promoting nullification and secession in a profile of the organization and in a longer article titled Nullification, Neo-Confederates, and the Revenge of the Old Right. As I wrote in the profile, the May, 2013, CSPOA conference featured religion-infused rhetoric against “tyranny” of the federal government. Speakers included former Constitution Party leader Michael Peroutka, GOA’s Larry Pratt, Joe Wolverton of the John Birch Society, U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), and Mike Zullo.
Zullo is Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s chief “birther” investigator. Part of the conference was dedicated to his latest revelations in this ongoing pursuit. Conference speakers also included several county sheriffs and Tea Party leaders. The highlight video opens with one of the few people of color in the movement, Sheriff David Clark of Milwaukee County.
PRA Fellow Frederick Clarkson has also written extensively about one of the speakers at the St. Charles CSPOA event, neo-Confederate leader and 2004 Constitution Party candidate for president, Michael Peroutka, who switched parties (presumably to gain credibility) and is currently a Republican nominee for the County Council in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Peroutka is joined on the ticket by longtime ally and graduate of Peroutka’s course on the Constitution, Joseph Delimater, who is running for county sheriff.
Peroutka’s race for county council has already drawn national attention. Paul Rosenberg, writing at Salon, casts the Peroutka race in terms of the Republican Party’s race problem, as racist outbursts undermine the party’s efforts to become more diverse.
My article on nullification and Clarkson’s articles on Peroutka go into greater detail on the religious background of the philosophy behind organizing local and county leaders to lead a revolution against the federal government.
Unedited full version of Dan Page’s interview:
Dan Page was also interviewed on May 12, 2014 on the John Moore Radio Show. At about 24:50 in this interview, Dan Page states, “You’ve got Sen. Claire McCaskill right now beating the podium about assaults in the military and probably 99.9% of these things are bogus. One only need to look at a woman in a way she feels uncomfortable and that’s considered sexual assault in the military.”
On May 29th of this year, Officer Page appeared on the Caravan to Midnight radio program, and claimed that the public education system is full of Caucasian female school teachers who are teaching young Black males to hate White men. According to Page, those young Black men grow up to be willing to violently disarm White men.
The same St. Louis police officer who was seen on CNN earlier this week pushing Don Lemon back during a live broadcast from Ferguson, Missouri, has been relieved of his duty after video emerged of an hour-long speech he delivered railing against African-Americans, the LGBT community and President Barack Obama. CNN reported the news about Officer Dan Page, who made the controversial remarks at an Oath Keepers meeting just months ago.
“It’s wide-ranging inflammatory remarks about a lot of people, about women, about gay people,” Lemon reported. “He talks about the president of the United States. He speaks out against affirmative action, women in the military and on and on.”
In the video, Page discusses the “four sodomites on the Supreme Court,” talks about our “undocumented president” from Kenya, and much more.
“What do you say after that?” Lemon said after CNN aired clips of Page’s speech. “There’s much more of that. at least an hour’s worth of him ranting about different people, different situations.”
During Lemon’s live report on Monday from Ferguson, Page confronted the host, physically pushing him away from CNN’s camera. “Now you see why people are so upset here,” Lemon said at the time.
Watch video below, via CNN:
And you can watch Page’s full hour-long speech below:
UPDATE – 08/22/14 – 7:40 p.m.: The Police Chief has apologized. You can watch his remarks HERE.
[Photo via screengrab]
For much of the summer, right-wing militiamen have gathered near the Texas-Mexico border, many of them claiming that they are there as part of something called “Operation Secure Our Border.” They include members of a movement that President George W. Bush denounced as “vigilantes,” and they also include members of even more radical groups that promote wild conspiracy theories and that explicitly threaten violence against the government.
And now, they have the blessing of a sitting Texas lawmaker. After touring the Rio Grande Valley near the border, Republican state Rep. Doug Miller claimed that the militias “have a right to be there” and that they “are not currently a problem.”According to Miller, he was told that the militias “are on private property, helping ranchers and owners to keep illegals coming onto or through their property … and there haven’t been any problems.”
Miller is not the highest-ranking Texas official who has dismissed criticism of armed vigilantes patrolling the Texas border. Late last month, the 12 Democratic members of Texas’ congressional delegation penned a letter to Greg Abbott, the state’s attorney general and the Republican candidate to be Texas’ next governor. In it, the 12 lawmakers quote a militia leader who said that “You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between the eyes, and you say, ‘Get back across the border or you will be shot.’” They also ask Abbott to “denounce the actions of these militia groups and clarify the jurisdiction these militia groups have to patrol alongside local law enforcement and Border Patrol agents.”
A spokesperson for Abbott dismissed the letter as a “partisan political stunt.”
The militias Abbott would not denounce include a volatile mix of paranoid anti-government groups and potentially violent gun activists. According to the Dallas Morning News, the earliest wave of militiamen coming to Texas included members of the Oathkeepers, a group which describes itself as an “association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it.” Their website warns of government officials “disarm[ing] the American people,” “confiscat[ing] the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies,” and “blockad[ing] American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.”
The militiamen also reportedly include members of the “Three Percenter’s Club,” a group which claims that its “mission is give our members the capabilities and resources necessary to execute Military Strategies to defend against foreign and domestic enemies.” The Three Percenter movement takes its name from the “3% of the colonist [sic]” who allegedly “refused orders by the British Crown to surrender their firearms in the American Revolution,” and it was founded by a conservative activist named Mike Vanderboegh. On his personal blog, Vanderboegh explained that one of the Three Percenter movement’s core beliefs is a willingness to offer violent resistance to the government:
We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.
We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril.
To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone.
Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
Last April, a similar collection of militia organizations, including members of the Oath Keepers, gathered near the home of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to offer armed resistance to federal officials seeking to enforce a court order preventing Bundy from illegally grazing his cattle on federal land. Bundy briefly became a hero among conservative media figures such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity, and Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) labeled Bundy and his supporters “patriots.” Bundy’s moment as a Republican folk hero ended fairly abruptly, however, after he made racist remarks about “the Negro.”
What sets Bundy’s armed supporters apart from the militia members gathering in Texas, however, is that Bundy’s militia squared off against trained federal law enforcement officials. The militiamen in Texas, by contrast, have threatened to point their guns at desperate and often helpless people crossing the border.
"Gerald Ford said after the Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment that an ‘impeachable offense’ is whatever the Congress will vote for at a given time. We are not here to argue about what is impeachable, but to demand that this lawless, subversive and anti-American president be removed from office," the organizers wrote on the Impeach Obama Week website.
The groups offer a list of Obama’s impeachable offenses and call on other activists to organize rallies during the last week of August.
Only a few groups have endorsed the impeachment week so far, including the Tea Party Patriots of Brookhaven in New York and the Ventura County Tea Party in California.
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.
Cliven Bundy repeatedly said he didn’t recognize the authority of the federal government over the federally subsidized public land on which he grazed his cattle and urged the sheriff to arrest federal law enforcement officers.
h/t: Miranda Blue at RWW
As officers of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department withdrew from Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville, Nev., ranch on April 12, the question had to be asked: How could a scofflaw like Bundy, who owes more than $1 million in grazing fees but was backed up by hundreds of armed antigovernment zealots, manage to run off federal officials who clearly were in the right for seizing Bundy’s cows as payment for what he owes? The standoff very nearly ended in bloodshed, as large numbers of Bundy supporters pointed their weapons at law enforcement officials, a felony that is now under investigation by the FBI. The BLM wisely withdrew, avoiding possible violence.
The Bundy standoff has invigorated an extremist movement that exploded when President Obama was elected, going from some 150 groups in 2008 to more than 1,000 last year. Though the movement has waxed and waned over the last three decades, antigovernment extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement. Today’s disputes with federal authority, many long simmering, are an extension of the earlier right-wing Sagebrush Rebellion, Wise Use and “county supremacy” movements.
Since 2009, there have been 17 shooting incidents between antigovernment extremists and law enforcement. In 2010, a father-and-son team of sovereign citizens, who believe that the law doesn’t apply to them, executed two Arkansas police officers during a traffic stop, and a California extremist shot and injured two state troopers. Another extremist in Texas tried to kill two sheriff’s deputies. Similar incidents have happened since, some ending in loss of life.
For those harboring deep hatred of the federal government, the BLM pullout was seen as a dramatic victory, one instance where the armed radicals of the right stared through their own gunsights at the gun barrels of law enforcement officials and won. Rather than being condemned, their actions garnered the support of numerous politicians, including the governor of Nevada and commentators like Fox News’ Sean Hannity — a truly repulsive spectacle. This pandering to the far right by both politicians and media figures ended in a hurry, however, when Bundy engaged in racist blather about “the Negro.” Racism was crossing a line, apparently, but the calls from the ranch for revolution and outright defiance of federal law enforcement seemed to be just fine with the Hannitys of the world.
The fallout from the BLM stand down is very troubling: an even more emboldened antigovernment movement. Just in the months since the Bundy “victory,” tense standoffs between the BLM and antigovernment activists have taken place across the West — in Idaho, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. The scariest incident happened in Utah, where two men pointed a handgun at a BLM worker in a marked federal vehicle while holding up a sign that said, “You need to die.”
Although these situations have not yet led to violence, a recent encounter with two Bundy supporters ended with three dead.
In early June, two rabid government haters who spent time at the ranch, Jerad and Amanda Miller, strolled into a Las Vegas pizza parlor, walked past a pair of police officers eating lunch, turned and executed the two men. Leaving a Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, a note saying the revolution had begun and a swastika on the officers’ bodies, the couple went on to murder another man before dying in a shootout with police.
Not long after the shooting, we called Sheriff Richard Mack, a prominent anti-federal government activist who had been at the Bundy ranch, to ask him about Jerad Miller. Mack and Miller had been photographed together at a Feb. 8 debate for libertarian sheriff’s candidates held in Clark County, Nev. A surprised Mack told the SPLC, “Oh, no,” adding, “I was afraid that [Miller] might have been at the Bundy ranch. As soon as I heard about it, I was afraid of that.”
Why the surprise? Bogus political theories and conspiracy-mongering by the likes of Mack are clearly encouraging an increasingly enraged movement. That Miller would be drawn to the Bundy ranch — the movement’s latest flashpoint — should have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the movement’s tactics or its rhetoric.
What is puzzling is why the BLM allowed Bundy to get away for 20 years without paying grazing fees that all other ranchers pay. And what is equally surprising is the almost amateurish way the BLM finally moved against Bundy. What both point to is a failure of the federal government to come to terms with the true nature of the war in the West.
Cliven Bundy may have faded from public view, but the movement that spawned him is boiling. Government officials need to understand what motivates this movement because the Millers will not be the last to demonstrate their antigovernment rage with bullets. Law enforcement officials also need training on a movement that increasingly targets them. Two decades after the Waco debacle, federal officials continue to struggle with their approach to radical right extremists. What they learned from Waco was that a heavy-handed approach risks a major loss of life. Yet, allowing the antigovernment movement to flout the law at gunpoint is surely not the answer.
The recent announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department is reviving its Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee is welcome news. The committee was established after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was instrumental in bringing swift prosecutions that stemmed the tide of hardcore antigovernment activity; it should never have been allowed to become moribund after the 9/11 attacks. The militiamen and others who pointed their weapons at BLM and Las Vegas officers need to face criminal prosecution because the rule of law must be enforced or it will be challenged again.
But swift prosecutions are only part of the answer. The Justice Department is a law enforcement agency, not an intelligence-gathering one. To help law enforcement at all levels, the Department of Homeland Security must put more resources into assessing the threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism. The unit with the primary responsibility for that task was allowed to wither in the face of conservative criticism following the leak of a 2009 report on the resurgent threat from the far right. That, too, should never have been allowed to happen.
Finally, politicians and media pundits need to be called out when they troll for votes or ratings with irresponsible rhetoric. The standoff at the Bundy ranch was news. But Cliven Bundy was certainly no hero. Treating him as such simply emboldens others like him.
H/T: SPLC Publications