Libertarian congressman from Texas. I mostly support the parts of his ideology that involve sovereignty and opposing the corrupt establishment; mostly oppose his domestic agenda regarding things such as social welfare spending; and mostly don't take a position on his foreign policy. I'm willing to defend him against those who are even worse, such as Reason Magazine, James Kirchick, Dave Weigel, and a long list of other establishment and/or Koch family-linked hacks. Support him or not, Paul is a lightning rod for establishment hacks, and defending him against their lies, misleading statements, and smears can be an effective way to oppose the corrupt establishment. One certainly interesting thing about Paul is that he isn't willing to go after the establishment on immigration, the area where they're the weakest. He apparently believes in the libertarian fantasy of loose or open borders, even if he's been willing to make pro-borders noises.
And, I have no time for his glassy-eyed followers, most of whom put other cultists to shame and who have no idea about how to do things that are effective.
Republican Presidential Debate January 8, 2012 (NBC News, Facebook, New Hampshire, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, David Gregory) - 01/08/12
The second worthless GOP debate of 2012 starts today, January 8 at 9am Eastern. This is apparently the first morning debate of this presidential campaign season, but don't expect it to be any different from all the others. You can watch the debate live on Facebook, but it will also be shown on NBC later in the day depending on your location (reportedly the same time slot as Meet the Press).
NETWORK: NBC News
CNN Republican Presidential Debate October 18, 2011 (Las Vegas, GOP, Romney, Cain, Perry, Ron Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum) - 10/18/11
Tonight CNN will be conducting yet another of their worthless debates, this time a GOP debate in Las Vegas in conjunction with the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC). Show time is at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Tonight Bloomberg and the Washington Post will be conducting yet another worthless GOP debate. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others.
Tonight Fox News will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with Youtube, with some of the questions to be asked having been submitted via Youtube. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others, especially considering the involvement of Youtube.
One of the main reasons I oppose the tea parties is because they're useful idiots for loose borders hacks: libertarians, fiscal conservatives, corporate tools, and so on. A good example comes in an open letter that a group of Teaparty, conservative, and libertarian groups published in Politico opposing HR 2885, the Legal Workforce Act.
Last year, Teapartiers threw dollars bills at and mocked a Parkinson's victim (see the video on tea parties). Their encore was at last night's GOP debate where at least two teapartiers shouted "Yeah!" on whether to allow the uninsured to just die. Video below. Yes, it was just two or three teapartiers, but it's an illustration of the teapartier mindset and where libertarian policies lead.
Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Tonight at 8pm Eastern, seven declared or possible GOP presidential candidates will debate at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College. Feel free to leave your comments about the debate below; some live coverage might also be provided. When a transcript is available I'll highlight the immigration-related parts in an update.
Those debating are (see each link for more):
Ron Paul's latest book ("Liberty Defined") shows that his position on immigration is not only bad, but in the book he uses some of the same old immigration talking points as other Beltway hacks. People don't use canards like jobs Americans wont do naturally; either Paul has been compromised, or he's corrupt (selling out his principles for political gain), or someone else wrote the immigration chapter for him and he never saw it (ha!) For an example from another politician, remember this Meg Whitman speech. She didn't create what she said herself, she got it from someone else. And, that's clearly what Paul did: he got the lines he's using in the book from someone else, and now he's retailing it under his name.
While in the past Paul has been someone OK on immigration-related matters, this isn't that surprising to me. During the 2008 election he had a chance to become a top-tier candidate by highlighting immigration (note: that's from 10/08/2007) and how his major opponents were weak on it. While he did point out that illegal immigration is a subsidy in one debate, he mostly ignored the topic. Instead of going after the establishment where they're weakest (immigration and trade-related issues), he went after them where they were able to easily mock him (the gold standard or whatever wacky libertarian ideas). If I recall correctly he put out just one ad about immigration which he quickly pulled after it got pushback from Dave Weigel and other hacks. The great majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration and, instead of giving them a voice, he decided to appeal just to his libertarian base (which, of course, is much smaller because few people support full libertarian lunacy).
Excerpts from the book and more Ron Paul backstory are here. Compare what the book says to the immigration canards page. He uses the deportations false choice just like every other loose immigration hack has, from George W Bush to Obama immigration to Tamar Jacoby to Frank Sharry and all points in between and beyond. He decries family separation just like the National Council of La Raza and dozens of other far-left groups. He says "deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico" which is a similar argument to that used to promote the anti-American DREAM Act.
Ron Paul says:
Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they ‘take’ are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered.
That's one of George Bush's favorites, the jobs Americans wont do canard. And, of course, if there were fewer illegal aliens in the U.S. many of those jobs would become more attractive to Americans due to higher wages and better working conditions. As with all other loose borders hacks, Ron Paul is supporting a foreign serf system.
In the book, Ron Paul also seemingly comes out against sanctioning employers who hire illegal aliens who use counterfeit identification, and he also comes out against Arizona's SB 1070.
Ron Paul also runs down American workers, claiming that immigrants "have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits."
He also supports formalizing the foreign serf class via a "'green card' with an asterisk" where former illegal aliens would be legalized but couldn't become citizens. See guest workers, and recall how well a similar setup has worked for Germany. And, of course, the far-left and the Democrats would not at all be satisfied to have millions of potential Dem voters kept in Ron Paul's "limbo". They'd do everything in their considerable power to turn them into voters.
To make it all even worse, Ron Paul then plays the race card on those who want to enforce our immigration laws. See the link above.
If you trust the Southern Poverty Law Center to tell you the truth - and to be interested in getting the truth in the first place - please see the following as well as the other posts at the last link. The latest example of how you can't trust them comes from "Meet the 'Patriots'" (splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots?page=0,0) which lies about at least two of the people on the list. They also show little interest in real journalism. (Note: there's also another possible lie by them here, and there are probably other lies on the list about people I'm not familiar with).
1. The SPLC falsely accuses Al Garza of the Patriots Coalition of wanting to "[keep] Mexicans out of his country" and refers to him being "[a]sked about the irony of a Mexican American leading efforts to prevent Mexicans from setting foot on American soil". Both of those imply that Garza doesn't want any Mexicans to come here, period. Yet, Garza's group is actually in the "illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good camp", and the quotes the SPLC attributes to him refer to the illegal variety of immigration. That runs counter to the SPLC's claims. See the following page (note: this is direct link to a shockwave movie): link; that says: "The mission of Patriots Coalition is to influence the national debate on border security and illegal immigration. We support reasonable and orderly legal immigration but oppose amnesty for those millions who are currently in our country illegally."
2. They discuss Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and say that that site, 'spices up its "news" reporting with "WorldNetDaily Exclusive" articles like this March's "Girl Scouts Hiding Secret Sex Agenda?"' Now, go take a look at the article: link. Would you say that's an example of "spice", or do you think - even if you're on Planned Parenthood's side of the fence - that there might be some sort of story there? Why would the SPLC seek to minimize the concerns of parents about such issues? Why wouldn't they encourage some sort of follow-up?
Of Farah they also say:
"He is a leading fomenter of the baseless claim that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Africa, and so is not qualified to be president. Farah has repeatedly demanded that Obama release a full-form birth certificate. "It'll plague Obama throughout his presidency," he said. "It'll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration."
While there's an excellent chance that Obama was born in Hawaii, where he was born hasn't been definitively proven (see the Obama citizenship page). All the evidence so far provided is full of holes; the SPLC has no interest in trying to actually prove it, but instead simply smears those who have questions.
Their use of "fomenter" is certainly interesting, because as far as I know Farah has not said that he believes that Obama was born in Kenya. He's run articles about that, but his position is to demand the birth certificate and to ask whether Obama is eligible based on various possibilities (their article archives on this topic here). Many people might miss the word "fomenter" and think that Farah holds a position different from what he appears to hold.
3. Of Orly Taitz, they say:
As one judge wrote in dismissing one of Taitz's lawsuits: "Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."
Once again, the SPLC shows a great willingness to push the official line and a complete unwillingness to do anything remotely balanced. If they were interested in the latter, they would point out that the judge in question (Clay Land) showed a good deal of bias in that case, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt while not extending the same to Taitz. I don't have a high regard for Taitz, but even those who don't should support judges being impartial rather than showing favoritism.
The SPLC also says: "Taitz has called for an insurrection to remove the president", when in fact she didn't go that far. Before making such an outrageous claim, a reputable organization would be sure to have a clear, unambiguous statement backing it up. Instead, even TalkingPointsMemo was confused over what she meant. See "Orly Taitz Seems To Suggest Call To Arms Against Obama" in which they say: "It's not entirely clear what Taitz means here, though it does sound a lot like a call for armed militias to rally against the president." (link). This is the quote, aren't there other explanations besides the SPLC's claim?
Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias.
4. Rep. Michelle Bachmann lucks out and is only called an "enabler" of the others on the list. Of her they say:
While some people might complain about answering Census questions, Bachmann sees a sinister plot hearkening back to World War II. "They used the U.S. Census information to round up the Japanese and put them in the internment camps," she said during an interview with Fox News' Glenn Beck last year. "Americans were told that they wouldn't have their information used against them. They did."
Whether Bachmann's fears are well-founded in this case or not, Census Bureau data was used in the case she describes and others (link). See also July 30, 2004's "Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans" (link) from the scaremongers at the New York Times.
They also say:
The AmeriCorps community service program? There's much more to it. "The real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward," Bachmann warned. Never mind that her son joined an AmeriCorps program.
You can hear the April 2009 audio where she said that here: peekURL.com/vghoc7w . The SPLC conveniently leaves off the last part of the quote:
"It's under the guise of -- quote -- volunteerism. But it's not volunteers at all. It's paying people to do work on behalf of government... I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."
Indeed, it's hard to imagine the Obama administration supporting programs that wouldn't be politically correct, and it's easy to imagine the Obama administration arranging programs so that they're more in line with the administration's agenda. Not to mention the fact that the bill in question originally included a provision to investigate mandatory public service (factcheck.org/2009/03/mandatory-public-service) and the November 2008 questions surrounding that issue.
Ron Paul was right: Federal Reserve had involvement in Watergate, money sent to Saddam Hussein (Ben Bernanke) - 02/25/10
Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul quizzed Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve about that group's involvement in relation to Watergate and to the funding of Saddam Hussein of Iraq (video: peekURL.com/vqxfnme ). Bernanke called that questioning "absolutely bizarre", and several sources (some listed below) joined in.
As it turns out, the Fed in fact did have some sort of involvement with both Watergate and with money that was sent to Saddam, as documented in the book "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank" (link). From the blurb:
...Robert Auerbach, a former [U.S. House of Representatives] banking committee investigator, recounts major instances of Fed mismanagement and abuse of power that were exposed by Rep. Gonzalez, including: * Blocking Congress and the public from holding powerful Fed officials accountable by falsely declaring--for 17 years--it had no transcripts of its meetings; * Manipulating the stock and bond markets in 1994 under cover of a preemptive strike against inflation; * Allowing $5.5 billion to be sent to Saddam Hussein from a small Atlanta branch of a foreign bank--the result of faulty bank examination practices by the Fed; * Stonewalling Congressional investigations and misleading the Washington Post about the $6,300 found on the Watergate burglars. Auerbach provides documentation of these and other abuses at the Fed, which confirms Rep. Gonzalez's belief that no government agency should be allowed to operate with the secrecy and independence in which the Federal Reserve has shrouded itself. Auerbach concludes with recommendations for specific, broad-ranging reforms that will make the Fed accountable to the government and the people of the United States.
See also hnn.us/blogs/entries/123737.html and this.
Here are some of those who reflexively supported Bernanke without doing even a little bit of research. The reader is encouraged to add more in comments. Unless otherwise noted, all of the following mock Paul in one way or other, none of them even hint that the Fed was in fact involved in some ways with both issues, and none of them have corrections at post time:
* AllahPundit hotair.com/archives/2010/02/24/ron-paul-grills-bernanke-
wasnt-the-fed-involved-with-saddam-and-in-watergate (no correction at post time)
* NPR npr.org/blogs/money/2010/02/
* Huffington Post huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/24/ben-bernanke-snaps-at-ron_n_474874.html (Note that one of their contributors posted a link to the book at huffingtonpost.com/j-bradley-jansen/bizarre-bernanke_b_475230.html)
Please add more in comments.
UPDATE: Paul has read into the Congressional Record a statement he received from Auerbach (link):
I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response...
Lindsey Graham: GOP isn't going to be "party of angry white guys" (+more ineffective townhall ranting) - 10/13/09
An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.
Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn't succeed without the political coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress.
"If you don't like it, you can leave," he said...
...One man told Graham he had "betrayed" conservatism and made a "pact with the devil" by working with Democrats, and asked when Graham would switch parties.
Graham said he's not going anywhere and instead would grow the party, defending his conservative credentials on such issues as abortion and guns, and calling the view of Libertarians who believe President Bush was a war criminal "nuts."
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.
You can see videos of it at peekURL.com/vg48dmi peekURL.com/vacmnj1
There are a couple components of this story:
1. Some of the people doing the heckling were apparently libertarians who support Ron Paul. I only watched the first part of the videos above, but based on that and the story above, I'm going to guess that Graham completely "p0wned" those in attendance. Instead of asking him questions designed to make him look bad, they just ranted, chanted, and in general threw a rolling tantrum. In other words, they were not effective. They just acted out, and Graham won. If any of them had found a couple smart people and had had those smart people ask tough questions, Graham would have ended up looking bad.
2. Someone has to represent non-rich southern whites and other "angry white guys", and obviously it's not going to be Graham. They shouldn't vote for him and they should try to take effective steps to oppose him (once again: throwing tantrums isn't effective). For a video example of Graham's alternative to representing "angry white guys", see peekURL.com/vbqpzid Make sure and stick with that at least until he starts discussing uniforms, even if your skin has already begun crawling long before that point. There's an alternative between Graham's "vision", or just becoming the White Party (link), or just becoming the Pure Conservative Party. That would involve becoming an American alternative to the far-left over-reach of the Democrats when it comes to supporting illegal activity, globalism, and Gramscian concepts.
And, for your dose of stupidity, Allahpundit of HotAir links to the videos (hotair.com/archives/2009/10/13/
video-lindsey-graham-heckled-at-south-carolina-town-hall) and says "So why am I on his side? Watch the first clip and see for yourself who it is that’s heckling him and what they think about, oh, say, George Bush. I’ll take Grahamnesty over these tools [Ron Paul fans] any day of the week." That's a false choice, and - while it's not clear that he means "Grahamnesty" in the amnesty sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Allahpundit now supports or would support in the future amnesty.
And, for even more stupidity, Glenn Reynolds links to the HotAir page (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/86703) and just says it's "not a surprise" that Graham would be heckled. Yes, it's not a surprise. But, that doesn't make it effective. Both Instapundit and Allahpundit are great with the cutesy quips, but not so great with the thinking.
Later today, one or two million (maybe less) extreme fiscal conservatives will be marching on Washington DC demanding that the government listens to them and their Randroid concerns. And, we'll be there - virtually speaking - offering coverage of this momentous event featuring millions of people throughout the day. Literally thousands of busloads of true patriots - as opposed to the other, non-patriotic Americans - will be bussed in (at their own expense) by FreedomWorks (run by the corporate lobbyist Dick Armey). Hopefully many will be wearing period costumes and playing fifes, since we know that playing dress-up games is in their DNA.
Will there be a blimp? Wait and see!
To prepare yourself for the
Ron Pa Patriotic March By The Only True Patriots In The United States, watch this video of corporate lobbyist Dick Armey supporting illegal immigration, see our coverage of Citizen Journalist Glenn Reynolds, and make sure and see our extensive tea parties coverage. Also, ask yourself why your leaders encouraged you to go to townhall meetings unarmed (intellectually speaking). They just wanted you to act out in public and throw a tantrum; they didn't encourage you to ask questions like these despite how really pressing a politician on that could have quashed Obamacare.
UPDATE: OK, maybe the estimates were a bit high. You can see a traffic cam here and here. CNN has a live feed of the speakers at cnn.com/live, and a live feed looking at the crowd is here. For your dress-up games entertainment, see this.
UPDATE 2: This official page has a list of speakers: 912dc.org/agenda. They include at least three people from FreedomWorks (supports massive immigration), at least one from the Cato Institute (ditto), and Rep. Mike Pence (ditto). The "star" power is provided by a Baldwin brother: Stephen (apparently Mickey Dolenz wasn't available). And, from the libertarian side of things, they've got speakers from Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty", the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and the Free State Project. They've also got speakers from two race-based groups: Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund and Hector Barreto of the Latino Coalition. The latter was a signatory to an infamous letter demanding amnesty for illegal aliens. That and all the rest illustrates the stupidity of these people: they're supporting race-based power and massive immigration and think that by doing that they're going to lower their taxes.
UPDATE 4: Glenn Beck is now ranting about corruption and encouraging his audience to think of the country first instead of thinking of themselves as Democrats and Republicans. The latter I strongly support. Unfortunately, what he appears to want to fill the partisan gap is some pretty extreme libertarian concepts; see the first link in this post and note the speakers from libertarian groups. And, regarding corruption, who exactly does Glenn Beck think he's palling around with? Many of his fellow "patriots", as discussed above, support massive immigration and do so because they're paid off or because they want race-based power.
UPDATE 5: If you aren't sick of this already, Pajamas Media has pictures at pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/09/12/they-will-be-heard. Meanwhile, from the George Soros-funded side of things, there are pictures here and here.
UPDATE 6: In a few days, Glenn Beck will be the dinner speaker at a Michigan Chamber of Commerce gathering: michamber.com/mx/futureforum. The opening speaker will be Tom Donohue of the US Chamber of Commerce. The latter group is such a strong supporter of amnesty and massive immigration of any kind that back in 2006, Rep. James Sensenbrenner suggested that they should register as a Registered Foreign Agent. If Beck wants to oppose corruption, the US CofC would be a great place to start.
UPDATE 8: The page alan.com/2009/09/12/the-gop-corporate-push-behind-the-912-teabaggers reminds us that, in addition to several others who appear to have a "dog in the hunt" as they say, the "Bronze Co-Sponsors" of FreedomWorks' 912dc.com include the Club for Growth (doesn't care about or supports massive immigration), Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (whoa nelly: see this and this), and at least two groups linked to the Koch family (the "Kochtopus"): Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. If you oppose corruption and support our immigration laws, few of the people and groups listed anywhere in this post are your friends.
UPDATE 9 (9/13/09): The video here shows a group supposedly from ACORN being ejected from the DC rally. They were selling "Don't tread on me flags" and if the description is accurate, they were told to leave by the police. They didn't and someone from the rally followed them and encouraged them to leave, with someone from the supposed ACORN group swiping the tea partier with a flag and pushing his wife. Obviously, they shouldn't have done that, but it would also be interesting to know whether there are rules against vending or what was the original reason they were asked to leave (if they were asked to leave).
And, the tea partiers have a message for the millions of Americans who are unemployed: FU. Glenn Reynolds approvingly links (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/85089) to chicagoboyz.net/archives/9188.html which is happy to point out that - unlike millions of those with whom they supposedly share citizenship - the tea partiers are employed:
Getting hundreds of thousands of kids, the professionally unemployed and government workers to show up isn’t that hard (especially if someone buys the bus tickets). Getting two million middle-class, middle-aged people with jobs, careers, children and businesses is way, way more impressive.
When it comes right down to it, the great majority of tea partiers seem to have little or no concern for their (fellow?) American citizens: they only care about themselves. If anyone disagrees, provide some evidence of tea partiers making proposals that acknowledge there are people other than themselves living here. Even easier: find a non-Southern California tea partier who gives a whoop that what Dick Armey and the rest want would make Southern California's situation even worse. Coming up with "comprehensive" solutions isn't something they're interested in, with the "going Galt" types thinking it's the height of patriotism to turn their backs on the U.S. and run away.
UPDATE 10: ABC News calls out FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe by name (link) for falsely saying on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance. I don't think even FreedomWorks would do something like that intentionally, and I don't think that ABC would have called a Dem-friendly organizer out by name, but that's now a bit of a story instead of the flowering of Randrian principles that the organizers would have wanted.
UPDATE 11: In reply to the ninth update, in comments Ann says:
This seems to be based on a simple assumption: if you care about other people, you must therefore believe that more government involvement is the best way to help... Most of the tea partiers do not believe in that premise, and would point to a lot of disasterous government programs to back up their point.
Let me put it this way. The Dem solution to U.S. problems would be massive government programs that would - just as a coincidence - give more power to the Dems. The GOP solution would be slightly smaller programs that would - just as a coincidence - give contracts to their contributors. The solution offered by the tea party followers - those who aren't in on the game - is some combination of "what, me worry?", "I've got mine, Jack", and "get bent".
We've got two wars going on, millions of Americans are out of work, millions of foreign citizens are squatting here contrary to our laws taking jobs that Americans could be doing, and the tea partiers are consorting with those who support amnesty and massive guest worker programs and - ultimately - whining about completely self-centered financial matters.
A couple weeks ago this news broke (link):
Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled "The Modern Militia Movement' and dated February 20, 2009... The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as "militia" influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties...
Now it appears that at least part of the document was based on material from the Anti Defamation League. See this for the details. As that link points out, language used in one of the sentences appears to have been slightly reworked from an ADL document, and in March 2008 the ADL conducted "Extremism Training for Missouri Law Enforcement". Another section of the MO documents may have been taken from ADL materials.
With that in mind, there's a clear difference between using the ADL/SPLC as a source, and their active involvement. I was unable to find anything in the scans mentioning the ADL, and there's apparently one mention of an attempted bombing of the SPLC. However, there doesn't appear to be any footnote or other indication that they were written by the ADL/SPLC, with their assistance, based on their documents, or the like. Note also that the writing style used in most of the Missouri documents is a bit different from that employed by the SPLC/ADL in their reports.
If anyone has a credible source indicating to what degree the SPLC/ADL were involved if any leave a link in comments.
There are scans of the document at the first link above, and what appears to be a transcript of the scans is here. Missouri has since withdrawn their report since the three politicians sent a letter complaining about it (link, link). At the last link, Baldwin says:
If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.
ALIPAC is issuing a national advisory to all local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies and officers, along with all DHS Fusion Centers, a warning against any reliance upon faulty and politicized research issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti Defamation League (ADL)... The Southern Poverty Law Center was cited as a research source for the 'Missouri Documents'. Furthermore, the attempt of these documents to cast suspicion of violent and life threatening behavior on millions of Americans who are concerned about these issues is consistent with the regularly released political materials of both the SPLC and ADL... Since the SPLC was listed as a source in the MIAC Missouri Documents, ALIPAC sent a letter of inquiry to the Missouri Governor Jay Nixon on March 20, 2009 asking for more specific sourcing information.
Apparently the response didn't indicate whether the SPLC and/or the ADL were involved, and to what degree.
Here is a video where the newly elected Chairman of the St. Charles Missouri Republican Central Committee, Tom Kuypers, claims credit for preventing properly elected delegates from being seated. It was recorded a couple of weeks before the November election...
...No delegates from St.
In March, [Ashley Todd] was asked to leave a grass-roots group of Ron Paul supporters in Brazos County, Texas, group leader Dustan Costine said. He said Ms.
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin to tour U.S. in "big Partridge Family-style bus" - 09/10/08
Earlier today at a press conference in a Beltway conference room far, far away, third party candidates Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin appeared with Papa Bear, aka Ron Paul, to sign on to four principles uniting all their disparate movements and to urge others to support third party candidates instead of the Democrats or Republicans. They also announced that all of them are going to be touring the U.S.
During his GOP convention speech, John McCain was interrupted by a protester named Adam Kokesh, someone who's a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a Ron Paul supporter, and a future Bob Barr voter. Kokesh held up a sign (per this interview with him) reading "McCain Votes Against Vets" and yelled "Ask him why he votes against vets!"
I have some very important tips for Ron Paul supporters who are going to "Ronstock '08" in Minneapolis, aka the Rally for the Republic. That's the competing event to the Republican National Convention (held in St.
Ron Paul has suspended his presidential campaign and will be transferring $4.7 million in donations to a new group to be called "The Campaign for Liberty".
Showing intense, heroic bravery, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr has denounced two white nationalists who endorsed him, including one who is just a commenter on a message board (reason.com/blog/show/126790.html). Barr's campaign manager says:
The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters.
Lindsey Graham denies NAU, smears Buddy Witherspoon (Beth Brotherton/WYFF; Robert Morris/Myrtle Beach Online) - 05/28/08
Rather than asking for evidence of plans for a NAU and doing research, Beth Brotherton from WYFF News 4 turned to Graham:
"I think most Americans would find it hard to believe, it is hard to believe, a baseless Internet rumor...
The results 0.2% of the country have been waiting for are finally in: Bob Barr has been nominated as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. It's unfortunate that the loons at the LP couldn't have nominated someone entertaining.
Now that it's apparently official, this means that Bob Barr can finally get a sane immigration position that would be different from John McCain's.
Libertarian icon Lew Rockwell - purported ghostwriter of some of the Ron Paul newsletters - supposedly spoke about his views on immigration on a radio program of some kind: bkmarcus.com/blog/2006/01/lew-rockwell-on-immigration.html I'm going to assume that the transcript is accurate and that those reflect his current views on the matter, but he might have other views or he might have changed his mind since then. In any case: