Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #676 Sedition! (Part 2): Target, America!

MP3: Side 1 | Side 2

For sev­eral years, For The Record has pre­sented infor­ma­tion about efforts to break up larger coun­tries by empow­er­ing the independence/secessionist aspi­ra­tions of var­i­ous regional and eth­nic groups within those states. Included in this analy­sis are the efforts on the part of var­i­ous groups to secede from, and break up, the United States of America.

The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece in the Wall Street Jour­nalcall­ing for the breakup of the United States, seen as “eco­nom­i­cally ben­e­fi­cial” for those par­tic­i­pat­ing in the process! In con­sid­er­a­tion of the above-noted drive for seces­sion from the United States,  the broad­cast reit­er­ates that a bank­rupt United States could, fol­low­ing polit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe such as a ter­ror­ist attack with weapons of mass destruc­tion, disintegrate.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text are the move­ments of the Lakota, the Hawai­ians, the League of the South and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party–the first two cham­pi­oned by the Hapsburg-led UNPO and the lat­ter two strongly con­nected to neo-fascist and white suprema­cist par­ties. (Sarah Palin’s polit­i­cal career appears to be a front for the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party.)

Also worth not­ing is the fact that for­mer Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion func­tionary Christina Luhn is a major pro­po­nent of the dis­so­lu­tion of the United States. As dis­cussed is many pro­grams, the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion was staffed by Helene Von Damm, pro­tege of Otto von Bolschwing, one of Hitler’s top experts on “Jew­ish Mat­ters” and a post­war employee of the CIA.

After review­ing Friedrich List’s eco­nomic blue­print for Ger­man world dom­i­na­tion (for­mu­lated in the 19th cen­tury), the pro­gram reviews the Third Reich’s goals to real­ize List’s design, as well as the post­war Fed­eral Republic’s real­iza­tion of those goals.

The pro­gram con­cludes by com­par­ing the real­ity of the dawn­ing eco­nomic land­scape and the “cor­po­racracy” set forth in the “novel” Serpent’s Walk. Mr. Emory believes that, like The Turner Diaries (also pub­lished by National Van­guard Books), the book is actu­ally a blue­print for what is going to take place. It is a novel about a Nazi takeover of the United States in the mid­dle of the 21st cen­tury. The book describes the Third Reich going under­ground, buy­ing into the Amer­i­can media, and tak­ing over the country.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is the “cor­po­racracy” that the SS envi­sions will enable them to con­trol the world (in this “novel”). It is inter­est­ing to reflect on the poten­tial breakup of the U.S. and other nations large enough to coun­ter­mand the ini­tia­tives of trans-national cor­po­ra­tions. Such resis­tance might be the only poten­tial oppo­si­tion to the “cor­po­racracy” in a world of frag­mented [for­merly large] nation/states.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of links between Holo­caust Museum shooter James Van Brunn’s links to Rea­gan White House offi­cial Todd Blod­gett; review of National Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitaker’s role in vet­ting Rea­gan White House appointees; review of the con­ti­nu­ity between SS busi­ness pro­jec­tions for post­war Ger­many and the role in the Fed­eral Repub­lic played by SS pro­tege Lud­wig Erhard, pic­tured at right.

1. The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece in the Wall Street Jour­nal call­ing for the breakup of the United States! There are a num­ber of things to high­light in the arti­cle. For one thing, do not fail to note that the var­i­ous seces­sion­ist move­ments are those that have linked to those move­ments cham­pi­oned by the UNPO includ­ing the Lakota, (whose ter­ri­to­r­ial claims cover the Bakken for­ma­tion, rich in petro­leum strata) and the native Hawai­ians. Note also that fascist-linked seces­sion­ist ele­ments such as the neo-Confederate League of the South (whose flag is at right) and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party, for which Sarah Palin runs interference.

Note also that the story high­lights [briefly] poten­tial breakup of China (in which both the Tibetans and the Uighurs are push­ing for inde­pen­dence from the People’s Republic.)

Remem­ber that clas­sic Bea­t­les riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a rev­o­lu­tion?” Imag­ine this instead: a devo­lu­tion. Pic­ture an Amer­ica that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Wash­ing­ton autoc­racy but, in free­wheel­ing style, by an assem­blage of largely autonomous regional republics reflect­ing the eclec­tic eco­nomic and cul­tural char­ac­ter of the society.

There might be an aus­tere Repub­lic of New Eng­land, with a nat­ural strength in higher edu­ca­tion and tech­nol­ogy; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Repub­lic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin Amer­i­can econ­omy; and maybe even a Repub­lic of Las Vegas with unfet­tered license to pur­sue its ambi­tions as a global gam­bling, enter­tain­ment and con­ven­tion­eer des­ti­na­tion. Cal­i­for­nia? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emer­gency fed­eral bailout, but by a mer­ci­ful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own inge­nu­ity in mak­ing their con­nec­tions to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national-economic logic sug­gests a nat­ural mul­ti­lin­gual com­bi­na­tion between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s North­ern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seat­tle and Van­cou­ver in a megare­gion already dubbed “Cas­ca­dia” by eco­nomic cartographers.

Devolved Amer­ica is a vision faith­ful both to cer­tain postin­dus­trial real­i­ties as well as to the plu­ral­is­tic heart of the Amer­i­can polit­i­cal tradition-a tra­di­tion that has been betrayed by the creep­ing cen­tral­iza­tion of power in Wash­ing­ton over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an ani­mat­ing spirit for the future. Con­sider this propo­si­tion: Amer­ica of the 21st cen­tury, pro­pelled by cur­rents of moder­nity that tend to favor the lit­tle over the big, may trace a long cir­cle back to the orig­i­nal small-government ideas of the Amer­i­can exper­i­ment. The present-day Amer­i­can Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a wan­ing age of pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics as con­ducted on a super-sized scale-too large to make any ratio­nal sense in an emerg­ing age of per­sonal empow­er­ment that harks back to the era of the yeo­man farmer of America’s early days. The soci­ety may find blessed new life, as para­dox­i­cal as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.

This per­spec­tive may seem espe­cially fan­ci­ful at a time when the polit­i­cal tides all seem to be run­ning in the oppo­site direc­tion. In the midst of eco­nomic trou­bles, an aggran­diz­ing Wash­ing­ton is gath­er­ing even more power in its hands. The Obama Admin­is­tra­tion, while con­sid­er­ing replac­ing top exec­u­tives at Cit­i­group, is newly appoint­ing a “com­pen­sa­tion czar” with pow­ers to deter­mine the retire­ment pack­ages of exec­u­tives at firms accept­ing fed­eral finan­cial bailout funds. Pres­i­dent Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Trea­sury to take a major­ity own­er­ship stake in Gen­eral Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Indus­trial Age bron­tosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is get­ting in on the act: A rul­ing this past week awarded fed­eral judges pow­ers to set the stan­dards by which judges for state courts may recuse them­selves from cases.

All of this adds up to a fed­eral power grab that might make even FDR’s New Deal­ers blush. But that’s just the point: Not sur­pris­ingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jef­fer­son are tak­ing a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted cit­i­zenry yet more depen­dent on an already immense fed­eral power. The back­lash, already under way, is a prime stim­u­lus for a neo-secessionist move­ment, the most extreme man­i­fes­ta­tion of a broader push for some form of devo­lu­tion. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Gov­er­nor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech inter­rupted by cries of “secede.” The Gov­er­nor did not sound inclined to dis­agree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attend­ing the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”

Such sen­ti­ments res­onate beyond the lib­er­tar­ian fringe. The Daily Kos, a lib­eral Web site, recently asked Perry’s fel­low Texas Repub­li­cans, “Do you think Texas would be bet­ter off as an inde­pen­dent nation or as part of the United States of Amer­ica? It was an even split: 48% for the U.S., 48% for a sov­er­eign Texas, 4% not sure. Amongst all Tex­ans, more than a third-35%-said an inde­pen­dent Texas would be bet­ter. The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment claims that over 250,000 Tex­ans have signed a form affirm­ing the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

Seces­sion­ist feel­ings also per­co­late in Alaska, where Todd Palin, hus­band of Gov­er­nor Sarah Palin, was once a reg­is­tered mem­ber of the Alaska Inde­pen­dence Party. But it is not as if the Right has a lock on this issue: Ver­mont, the seat of one of the most vibrant seces­sion­ist move­ments, is among the country’s most politically-liberal places. Ver­mon­ters are espe­cially upset about impe­r­ial America’s for­eign excur­sions in haz­ardous places like Iraq. The philo­soph­i­cal tie that binds these oth­er­wise odd bed­fel­lows is belief in the birthright of Amer­i­cans to run their own affairs, free from cen­tral­ized con­trol. Their hal­lowed parch­ment is Jefferson’s Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, on behalf of the orig­i­nal 13 British colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion gath­ered for their con­ven­tion in Philadel­phia. “The right of seces­sion pre­cedes the Constitution-the United States was born out of seces­sion,” Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, put it to me. Take that, King Obama.

Today’s devo­lu­tion­ists, of all stripes, can trace their pedi­gree to the “anti-federalists” who opposed the com­pact that came out of Philadel­phia as a bad bar­gain that gave too much power to the cen­ter at the expense of the limbs. Some of America’s most vig­or­ous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia’s Patrick Henry, of “give me lib­erty or give me death” renown. The sainted Jef­fer­son, who was serv­ing as a diplo­mat in Paris dur­ing the con­ven­tion, is these days claimed by seces­sion­ists as a kin­dred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.

The anti-federalists lost their bat­tle, but his­tory, in cer­tain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they antic­i­pated how many Amer­i­cans have come to feel about their nation’s seat of fed­eral power. “This city, and the gov­ern­ment of it, must indu­bitably take their tone from the char­ac­ter of the men, who from the nature of its sit­u­a­tion and insti­tu­tion, must col­lect there,” the anti-federalist pam­phle­teer known only as the Fed­eral Farmer wrote. “If we expect it will have any sin­cere attach­ments to sim­ple and fru­gal repub­li­can­ism, to that lib­erty and mild gov­ern­ment, which is dear to the labo­ri­ous part of a free peo­ple, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.”

In the mid-19th cen­tury, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attach­ing itself to the cause of the Con­fed­er­acy, which was formed by the uni­lat­eral seces­sion of 13 south­ern states over the bloody issue of slav­ery. Lin­coln had no choice but to go to war to pre­serve the Union-and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and indeed retrograde.

But nearly a cen­tury and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slav­ery is dead, and so too is the large-scale indus­trial econ­omy that the Yan­kees embraced as their path to vic­tory over the South and to global pros­per­ity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, sur­viv­ing all the way through the New Deal and the first sev­eral decades of the post-World War II era, com­ing a crop­per at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the econ­o­mist John Ken­neth Gal­braith was hold­ing out “The New Indus­trial State,” the master-planned econ­omy, as a seem­ingly per­ma­nent con­di­tion of mod­ern life.

Not quite. In a glob­al­ized econ­omy trans­formed by tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tions hatched by happily-unguided entre­pre­neurs, his­tory seems to be dri­ving one nail after another into the cof­fin of the big, which is why the Obama plan­ners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one any­more expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the econ­omy, so should any­one expect the best think­ing to be done by the whales of the polit­i­cal world?

A notable prophet for a com­ing age of small­ness was the diplo­mat and his­to­rian George Ken­nan, a stew­ard of the Amer­i­can Cen­tury with an uncanny abil­ity to see past the seemingly-frozen geopo­lit­i­cal arrange­ments of the day. Ken­nan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he pre­dicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was get­ting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union col­lapsed, he sug­gested that a sim­i­lar fate might await the United States. Amer­ica has become a “mon­ster coun­try,” afflicted by a swollen bureau­cracy and “the hubris of inor­di­nate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Per­sonal and Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy.” Things might work bet­ter, he sug­gested, if the nation was “decen­tral­ized into some­thing like a dozen con­stituent republics, absorb­ing not only the pow­ers of the exist­ing states but a con­sid­er­able part of those of the present fed­eral establishment.”

Kennan’s genius was to fore­see that mat­ters might take on an organic, a bottom-up, life of their own, espe­cially in a soci­ety as dynamic and as cre­ative as Amer­ica. His spirit, the spirit of an anti-federalist mod­ernist, can be glimpsed in an intrigu­ing “mega-region” ini­tia­tive encom­pass­ing greater San Diego County, next-door Impe­r­ial County and, to the imme­di­ate south of the U.S. bor­der, North­ern Baja, Mex­ico. Elected offi­cials rep­re­sent­ing all three par­tic­i­pat­ing areas recently unveiled “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region,” as the “inter­na­tional mar­ket­ing brand” for the project.

The idea is to cre­ate a global eco­nomic pow­er­house by com­bin­ing San Diego’s proven abil­i­ties in sci­en­tific research and devel­op­ment with Impe­r­ial County’s abun­dance of inex­pen­sive land and avail­abil­ity of water rights and North­ern Baja’s man­u­fac­tur­ing base, low labor costs and abil­ity to sup­ply the San Diego area with elec­tric­ity dur­ing peak-use terms. Bilin­gual­ism, too, is a key-with the aim for all chil­dren on both sides of the bor­der to be flu­ent in both Eng­lish and Span­ish. The project direc­tor is Christina Luhn, a Kansas native, his­to­rian and for­mer staffer on the National Secu­rity Coun­cil in Ronald Reagan’s White House in the mid-1980s. Con­tem­po­rary Amer­ica as a unit of gov­er­nance may be too big, even the perpetually-troubled state of Cal­i­for­nia may be too big, she told me, by way of say­ing that the polit­i­cal and eco­nomic future may belong to the megare­gions of the planet. Her con­vic­tion is that large sys­tems tend not to endure-“they break apart, there’s chaos, and at some point, new things form,” she said.

The notion that small is bet­ter and even inevitable no doubt has some fla­vor of romance-even amount­ing to a kind of mod­ern sec­u­lar faith, girded by a raft of multi-disciplinary lit­er­a­ture that may or may not be rel­e­vant. Luhn takes her philo­soph­i­cal cue not only from Ken­nan but also from the sci­ence writer and physi­cist M. Mitchell Wal­drop, author of “Com­plex­ity: The Emerg­ing Sci­ence at the Edge of Order and Chaos.”

Amer­i­can seces­sion­ist groups today range from small star­tups with a few lap­top com­put­ers to orga­nized move­ments with meet­ings of del­e­gates from sev­eral states.

The Mid­dle­bury Insti­tute, a group that stud­ies and sup­ports the gen­eral cause of sep­a­ratism and seces­sion­ism in the U.S., has held three Seces­sion Con­gresses since its found­ing in 2004.

At the most recent gath­er­ing, held in New Hamp­shire last Novem­ber, one dis­cus­sion focused on cre­at­ing a new fed­er­a­tion poten­tially to be called “Nova­ca­dia,” con­sist­ing of present-day New Hamp­shire, Ver­mont, Maine, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Sco­tia. An arti­cle high­lighted on the group’s Web site describes Den­mark as a role-model for the poten­tial coun­try. In the months fol­low­ing the con­ven­tion, the idea “did not actu­ally evolve into very much,” says Kirk­patrick Sale, the institute’s director.

Below the Mason-Dixon Line, groups like the League of the South and South­ern National Con­gress hold meet­ings of del­e­gates. They dis­cuss seces­sion as a way of accom­plish­ing goals like pro­tect­ing the right to bear arms and tighter immi­gra­tion poli­cies. The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment claims that over 250,000 Tex­ans have signed a form affirm­ing the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

A reli­gious group, Chris­t­ian Exo­dus, formed in 2003 with the pur­pose of trans­form­ing what is today South Car­olina into a sov­er­eign, Christian-run state. Accord­ing to a state­ment on its Web site, the group still sup­ports the idea, but has learned that “the chains of our slav­ery and depen­dence on God­less gov­ern­ment have more of a hold on us than can be bro­ken by sim­ply mov­ing to another state.”

On the West Coast, elected offi­cials rep­re­sent­ing greater San Diego County, Impe­r­ial County and North­ern Baja, Mex­ico, have pro­posed cre­at­ing a “mega-region” of the three areas called “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region.”

Hawaii is home to numer­ous groups that work toward the goal of sov­er­eignty, includ­ing Nation of Hawaii. The group argues that native Hawai­ians were col­o­nized and forced into state­hood against their will and with­out fair process, and there­fore have the right to decide how to gov­ern them­selves today. In Alaska, the Alaska Inde­pen­dence Party advo­cates for the state’s independence.

There is also a Web site for a group called North Star Repub­lic, with a mis­sion to estab­lish a social­ist repub­lic in what today is Min­nesota, Wis­con­sin and Michigan.

A group of Amer­i­can Indi­ans led by activist Rus­sell Means is work­ing to estab­lish the Repub­lic of Lako­tah, which would cover parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Mon­tana, Wyoming and Nebraska. In 2007, the Repub­lic pre­sented the U.S. State Depart­ment with a notice of withdrawal.

Even for the hard-edged seces­sion­ist crowd, with their rapt atten­tive­ness to America’s roots, pop­u­lar texts in the future-trend genre min­gle in their minds with the yel­lowed scrolls of the anti-federalists. “The cor­ner­stone of my thought,” Daniel Miller of the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment told me, is John Naisbitt’s 1995 best seller, “Global Para­dox,” which cel­e­brates the entre­pre­neur­ial ethos in posit­ing that “the big­ger the world econ­omy, the more pow­er­ful its small­est players.”

More con­vinc­ingly, the propo­si­tion that small trumps big is pass­ing tests in real-life polit­i­cal and eco­nomic lab­o­ra­to­ries. For exam­ple, the U.S. ranked eighth in a sur­vey of global inno­va­tion lead­er­ship released in March by the Boston Con­sult­ing Group and the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Manufacturers-with the top rank­ings dom­i­nated by small coun­tries led by the city-state repub­lic of Sin­ga­pore. The Thun­der­bird School of Global Man­age­ment, based in Ari­zona, has called Sin­ga­pore “the most future-oriented coun­try in the world.” His­to­ri­ans can point to the spec­tac­u­larly inven­tive city-states of Renais­sance Italy as an exam­ple of the small truly mak­ing the beautiful.

How, though, to get from big to small? Seces­sion­ists like Texas’ Miller pledge a com­mit­ment to peace­ful meth­ods. His­tory sug­gests skep­ti­cism on this score: Even the Amer­i­can repub­lic was born in a vio­lent rev­o­lu­tion. These days, the Russ­ian pro­fes­sor Igor Panarin, a for­mer KGB ana­lyst, has snagged pub­lic­ity with his dystopian pre­dic­tion of civil strife in a dis­mem­bered Amer­ica whose jagged parts fall prey to for­eign pow­ers includ­ing Canada, Mex­ico and, in the case of Alaska, Rus­sia, naturally.

Still, the prece­dent for any breakup of today’s Amer­ica is not nec­es­sar­ily the one set by the musket-bearing colonists’ demanded depar­ture from the British crown in the late 18th cen­tury or by the crisis-ridden dis­so­lu­tion of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the 20th cen­tury. Every empire, every too-big thing, frag­ments or shrinks accord­ing to its own unique char­ac­ter and to the age of his­tory to which it belongs.

The most hope­ful prospect for the USA, should the decen­tral­iza­tion impulse prove irre­sistible, is for Amer­i­cans to draw on their nat­ural inven­tive­ness and demo­c­ra­tic tra­di­tion by patent­ing a for­mula for get­ting the job done in a grad­ual and coop­er­a­tive way. In so doing, geopo­lit­i­cal his­tory, and per­haps even a path for oth­ers, might be made, for the prob­lem of big­ness vexes polit­i­cal leviathans every­where. In India, with its 1.2 bil­lion peo­ple, there is an active dis­cus­sion of whether things might work bet­ter if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of auton­omy from New Delhi. Devo­lu­tion may like­wise be the future for the Euro­pean continent-think Catalonia-and for the British Isles. Scot­land, a lead­ing source of Enlight­en­ment ideas for America’s found­ing fathers, now has its own flour­ish­ing inde­pen­dence move­ment. Even China, held together by an aging autoc­racy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.

So why not Amer­ica as the global leader of a devo­lu­tion? America’s return to its origins-to its type-could turn out to be an act of cre­ative polit­i­cal destruc­tion, with “we the peo­ple” the bet­ter for it.

“Divided We Stand” by Paul Starobin; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 6/13/2009.

2. Cited as a pos­i­tive influ­ence in his advo­cacy of a “smaller” United States, George Ken­nan was in fact an an ante­dilu­vian reactionary.

“. . . A Wash­ing­ton Post obit­u­ary pro­vided an insight into the mind of one of the fore­most fig­ures of post-World War II U.S. for­eign pol­icy and his antipa­thy for the mod­ern world. ‘Wal­ter Isaac­son and Evan Thomas reported in their book The Wise Men that he sug­gested in an unpub­lished work that women, blacks and immi­grants be dis­en­fran­chised. He deplored the auto­mo­bile, com­put­ers, com­mer­cial­ism, envi­ron­men­tal degra­da­tion and other man­i­fes­ta­tions of mod­ern life.’ . . .”

Afghanistan’s Untold Story by Paul Fitzger­ald and Liz Gould; Copy­right 2009 by Paul Fitzger­ald and Liz Gould; City Lights Books (SC); ISBN 13: 978–0-87286–494-8; p. 270.

3. Not­ing that seces­sion advo­cate Christina Luhn was a vet­eran of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion, we review some of the Nazi char­ac­ter of that admin­is­tra­tion. Accused Holo­caust Museum killer James Van Brunn was linked to for­mer Rea­gan White House aide Todd Blod­gett. In this con­text, it is impor­tant to recall that the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion per­son­nel were selected by Otto von Bolschwing pro­tege Helene Von Damm.

“. . . Todd Blod­gett, a for­mer White House aide to Pres­i­dent Ronald Rea­gan who later became affil­i­ated with extrem­ist groups, said he spent a lot of time with Von Brunn in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Von Brunn is obsessed with Jew­ish peo­ple, Blod­gett told the Post. He had equal con­tempt for both Jews and blacks, but if he had to pick one group to wipe out, he’d always say it would be Jews.

Von Brunn went so far as to say he fought on the wrong side of World War II, accord­ing to Blodgett.

You’d get the impres­sion that he was intel­li­gent and a bit off, said Blod­gett, who worked as a paid FBI infor­mant on white suprema­cist groups. . . .”

“Holo­caust Museum Shoot­ing Sus­pect Had Been Grow­ing More Hate­ful and Des­per­ate”; Fox News; 6/11/2009.

4. Again not­ing the legacy of the Helene Von Damm/Otto von Bolschwing axis within the GOP and the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tions, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that Amer­i­can neo-Nazi Bob Whitaker held a sen­si­tive posi­tion within the Rea­gan White House. Again, avail­able evi­dence sug­gests very strongly that Von Damm served as a func­tionary of the Under­ground Reich. Notice the posi­tion of National Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitaker within the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­rity clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing. . . .”

It will be inter­est­ing to see if peo­ple infil­trated into gov­ern­ment by the likes of Whitaker and Von Damm play a role in the breakup of the United States.

” . . . KAS: When we intro­duced you for the first time to our read­ers in National Van­guard, we gave a cap­sule biog­ra­phy of you as follows:

‘Mr. Whitaker was born and raised in South Car­olina, and attended the Uni­ver­sity of South Car­olina and the Uni­ver­sity of Vir­ginia Grad­u­ate School. He has been a col­lege pro­fes­sor, an inter­na­tional avi­a­tion nego­tia­tor, a Capi­tol Hill senior staffer, a Rea­gan Admin­is­tra­tion appointee, and a writer for the Voice of America.”

So you’re a Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion appointee — what’s the story behind that?

BW: I was Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­rity clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing.

KAS: Why is some­one with such excel­lent estab­lish­ment cre­den­tials defend­ing the White race, as you do in your work, with­out apol­ogy or regret? Isn’t that some­thing that sim­ply ‘isn’t done’ these days by any­one who wants to retain his posi­tion in pri­vate or pub­lic life?

BW: Well, I did it. And they cleared me at the high­est pos­si­ble lev­els, so if you do it right, you can do it. And I’m good at it. . . .”

“A White Future is Com­ing: an Inter­view with Bob Whitaker” by Kevin Alfred Strom; Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voices; 7/3/2004.

5. Next, the pro­gram reviews the Nazi plans for Europe after their vic­tory. Writ­ing in 1943, author Paul Win­kler fore­saw that the Prusso-Teutonics would real­ize their goals through the cre­ation of a German-dominated cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union (bear­ing a strik­ing resem­blance to today’s Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union.) One of the prin­ci­pal influ­ences on List’s think­ing was the “con­ti­nen­tal” con­cept of Napoleon, who attempted to eco­nom­i­cally unite Europe under French influence.

The Lis­t­ian for­mula for Ger­man world dom­i­nance should be viewed against the back­ground of the mate­ri­als set forth below con­cern­ing the suc­cess­ful real­iza­tion of con­ti­nu­ity from the Third Reich to the “new” Fed­eral Repub­lic of Germany.

How will this cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union inter­act with a dis­mem­bered United States?

“Charles Andler, a French author, summed up cer­tain ideas of List in his work, The Ori­gins of Pan-Germanism, (pub­lished in 1915.) ‘It is nec­es­sary to orga­nize con­ti­nen­tal Europe against Eng­land. Napoleon I, a great strate­gist, also knew the meth­ods of eco­nomic hege­mony. His con­ti­nen­tal sys­tem, which met with oppo­si­tion even from coun­tries which might have prof­ited from such an arrange­ment should be revived, but, this time, not as an instru­ment of Napoleonic dom­i­na­tion. The idea of united Europe in a closed trade bloc is no longer shock­ing if Ger­many assumes dom­i­na­tion over such a bloc—and not France. [Empha­sis added.] Bel­gium, Hol­land, Switzer­land, will­ingly or by force, will enter this ‘Cus­toms Fed­er­a­tion.’ Aus­tria is assumed to be won over at the out­set. Even France, if she gets rid of her notions of mil­i­tary con­quest, will not be excluded. The first steps the Con­fed­er­a­tion would take to assure unity of thought and action would be to estab­lish a joint rep­re­sen­ta­tive body, as well as to orga­nize a com­mon fleet. But of course, both the head­quar­ters of the Fed­er­a­tion and its par­lia­men­tary seat would be in Ger­many. [Empha­sis added.]”

(The Thousand-Year Con­spir­acy; by Paul Win­kler; Charles Scribner’s Sons [HC]; 1943; pp. 15–16.)

6. A stun­ning mea­sure of the suc­cess of the Under­ground Reich and Ger­man Ost­poli­tik can be obtained by read­ing Dorothy Thompson’s analy­sis of the Third Reich’s plans for world dom­i­nance by a cen­tral­ized Euro­pean eco­nomic union. (In this, we can again see the plans of pan-German the­o­reti­cian Friedrich List, as real­ized by the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union.) Ms. Thomp­son was writ­ing in The New York Her­ald Tri­bune on May 31, 1940! Her com­ments are repro­duced by Tetens on page 92.

“The Ger­mans have a clear plan of what they intend to do in case of vic­tory. I believe that I know the essen­tial details of that plan. I have heard it from a suf­fi­cient num­ber of impor­tant Ger­mans to credit its authen­tic­ity . . . Germany’s plan is to make a cus­toms union of Europe, with com­plete finan­cial and eco­nomic con­trol cen­tered in Berlin. This will cre­ate at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned econ­omy in the world. In West­ern Europe alone . . . there will be an eco­nomic unity of 400 mil­lion per­sons . . . To these will be added the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Bel­gian empires. These will be pooled in the name of Europa Germanica . . .”

“The Ger­mans count upon polit­i­cal power fol­low­ing eco­nomic power, and not vice versa. Ter­ri­to­r­ial changes do not con­cern them, because there will be no ‘France’ or ‘Eng­land,’ except as lan­guage groups. Lit­tle imme­di­ate con­cern is felt regard­ing polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions . . . . No nation will have the con­trol of its own finan­cial or eco­nomic sys­tem or of its cus­toms. The Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of all coun­tries will be accom­plished by eco­nomic pres­sure. In all coun­tries, con­tacts have been estab­lished long ago with sym­pa­thetic busi­ness­men and indus­tri­al­ists . . . . As far as the United States is con­cerned, the plan­ners of the World Ger­man­ica laugh off the idea of any armed inva­sion. They say that it will be com­pletely unnec­es­sary to take mil­i­tary action against the United States to force it to play ball with this sys­tem. . . . Here, as in every other coun­try, they have estab­lished rela­tions with numer­ous indus­tries and com­mer­cial orga­ni­za­tions, to whom they will offer advan­tages in co-operation with Germany. . . .”

Ger­many Plots with the Krem­lin by T. H. Tetens; Henry Schu­man [HC]; p. 92.

7. Illus­trat­ing the real­iza­tion of con­ti­nu­ity between the Third Reich and the new Ger­man eco­nomic empire real­ized through the EU and the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union, the show fea­tures a recent Daily Mail arti­cle that bears out much of the line of argu­ment pre­sented in For The Record.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is Joseph Goebbels pre­dic­tion that ” . . . ‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’” Reflect on Goebbels’ state­ment against the back­ground of a dis­mem­bered United States.

“The paper is aged and frag­ile, the type­writ­ten let­ters slowly fad­ing. But US Mil­i­tary Intel­li­gence report EW-Pa 128 is as chill­ing now as the day it was writ­ten in Novem­ber 1944.

The doc­u­ment, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meet­ing at the Mai­son Rouge Hotel in Stras­bourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi offi­cials ordered an elite group of Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to plan for Germany’s post-war recov­ery, pre­pare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ’strong Ger­man empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

The three-page, closely typed report, marked ‘Secret’, copied to British offi­cials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Sec­re­tary of State, detailed how the indus­tri­al­ists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s econ­omy by send­ing money through Switzerland.

They would set up a net­work of secret front com­pa­nies abroad. They would wait until con­di­tions were right. And then they would take over Ger­many again.

The indus­tri­al­ists included rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Volk­swa­gen, Krupp and Messer­schmitt. Offi­cials from the Navy and Min­istry of Arma­ments were also at the meet­ing and, with incred­i­ble fore­sight, they decided together that the Fourth Ger­man Reich, unlike its pre­de­ces­sor, would be an eco­nomic rather than a mil­i­tary empire — but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intel­li­gence files, was the inspi­ra­tion for my thriller The Budapest Pro­to­col.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, dur­ing the elec­tion cam­paign for the first pres­i­dent of Europe. The Euro­pean Union super­state is revealed as a front for a sin­is­ter con­spir­acy, one rooted in the last days of the Sec­ond World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Ger­many did export mas­sive amounts of cap­i­tal through neu­tral coun­tries. Ger­man busi­nesses did set up a net­work of front com­pa­nies abroad. The Ger­man econ­omy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated mil­i­tar­ily, but pow­er­ful Nazi-era bankers, indus­tri­al­ists and civil ser­vants, reborn as democ­rats, soon pros­pered in the new West Ger­many. There they worked for a new cause: Euro­pean eco­nomic and polit­i­cal integration.

Is it pos­si­ble that the Fourth Reich those Nazi indus­tri­al­ists fore­saw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was writ­ten by a French spy who was at the meet­ing in Stras­bourg in 1944 — and it paints an extra­or­di­nary picture.

The indus­tri­al­ists gath­ered at the Mai­son Rouge Hotel waited expec­tantly as SS Ober­grup­pen­fuhrer Dr Scheid began the meet­ing. Scheid held one of the high­est ranks in the SS, equiv­a­lent to Lieu­tenant Gen­eral. He cut an impos­ing fig­ure in his tai­lored grey-green uni­form and high, peaked cap with sil­ver braid­ing. Guards were posted out­side and the room had been searched for microphones.

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. Ger­man indus­try must realise that the war can­not be won, he declared. ‘It must take steps in prepa­ra­tion for a post-war com­mer­cial cam­paign.’ Such defeatist talk was trea­so­nous — enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo’s cel­lars, fol­lowed by a one-way trip to a con­cen­tra­tion camp.

But Scheid had been given spe­cial licence to speak the truth — the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the indus­tri­al­ists to ‘make con­tacts and alliances with for­eign firms, but this must be done indi­vid­u­ally and with­out attract­ing any suspicion’.

The indus­tri­al­ists were to bor­row sub­stan­tial sums from for­eign coun­tries after the war.

They were espe­cially to exploit the finances of those Ger­man firms that had already been used as fronts for eco­nomic pen­e­tra­tion abroad, said Scheid, cit­ing the Amer­i­can part­ners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line ship­ping company.

But as most of the indus­tri­al­ists left the meet­ing, a hand­ful were beck­oned into another smaller gath­er­ing, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Arma­ments Min­istry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the indus­tri­al­ists that the war was lost, resis­tance against the Allies would con­tinue until a guar­an­tee of Ger­man unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strat­egy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the indus­tri­al­ists were to ‘pre­pare them­selves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go under­ground as a Maquis’, using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the gov­ern­ment allo­cat­ing large sums to Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to estab­lish a ’secure post-war foun­da­tion in for­eign coun­tries’, while ‘exist­ing finan­cial reserves must be placed at the dis­posal of the party so that a strong Ger­man empire can be cre­ated after the defeat’.

In stage three, Ger­man busi­nesses would set up a ’sleeper’ net­work of agents abroad through front com­pa­nies, which were to be cov­ers for mil­i­tary research and intel­li­gence, until the Nazis returned to power.

‘The exis­tence of these is to be known only by very few peo­ple in each indus­try and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,’ Bosse announced.

‘Each office will have a liai­son agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its con­trol over Ger­many, the indus­tri­al­ists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by con­ces­sions and orders.’

The exported funds were to be chan­nelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agen­cies in Switzer­land which bought prop­erty in Switzer­land for Ger­man con­cerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly send­ing funds through neu­tral coun­tries for years.

Swiss banks, in par­tic­u­lar the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the trea­suries of Nazi-occupied coun­tries. They accepted assets and prop­erty titles taken from Jew­ish busi­ness­men in Ger­many and occu­pied coun­tries, and sup­plied the for­eign cur­rency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss eco­nomic col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazis had been closely mon­i­tored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report’s author notes: ‘Pre­vi­ously, exports of cap­i­tal by Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to neu­tral coun­tries had to be accom­plished rather sur­rep­ti­tiously and by means of spe­cial influence.

‘Now the Nazi Party stands behind the indus­tri­al­ists and urges them to save them­selves by get­ting funds out­side Ger­many and at the same time advance the party’s plans for its post-war operations.’

The order to export for­eign cap­i­tal was tech­ni­cally ille­gal in Nazi Ger­many, but by the sum­mer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Sovi­ets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assas­si­na­tion attempt. The Nazi lead­er­ship was ner­vous, frac­tious and quarrelling.

Dur­ing the war years the SS had built up a gigan­tic eco­nomic empire, based on plun­der and mur­der, and they planned to keep it.

A meet­ing such as that at the Mai­son Rouge would need the pro­tec­tion of the SS, accord­ing to Dr Adam Tooze of Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity, author of Wages of Destruc­tion: The Mak­ing And Break­ing Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: ‘By 1944 any dis­cus­sion of post-war plan­ning was banned. It was extremely dan­ger­ous to do that in pub­lic. But the SS was think­ing in the long-term. If you are try­ing to estab­lish a work­able coali­tion after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the aus­pices of the appa­ra­tus of terror.’

Shrewd SS lead­ers such as Otto Ohlen­dorf were already think­ing ahead.

As com­man­der of Ein­satz­gruppe D, which oper­ated on the East­ern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlen­dorf was respon­si­ble for the mur­der of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly edu­cated, intel­li­gent lawyer and econ­o­mist, Ohlen­dorf showed great con­cern for the psy­cho­log­i­cal wel­fare of his exter­mi­na­tion squad’s gun­men: he ordered that sev­eral of them should fire simul­ta­ne­ously at their vic­tims, so as to avoid any feel­ings of per­sonal responsibility.

By the win­ter of 1943 he was trans­ferred to the Min­istry of Eco­nom­ics. Ohlendorf’s osten­si­ble job was focus­ing on export trade, but his real pri­or­ity was pre­serv­ing the SS’s mas­sive pan-European eco­nomic empire after Germany’s defeat.

Ohlen­dorf, who was later hanged at Nurem­berg, took par­tic­u­lar inter­est in the work of a Ger­man econ­o­mist called Lud­wig Erhard. Erhard had writ­ten a lengthy man­u­script on the tran­si­tion to a post-war econ­omy after Germany’s defeat. This was dan­ger­ous, espe­cially as his name had been men­tioned in con­nec­tion with resis­tance groups.

But Ohlen­dorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domes­tic secu­rity ser­vice, pro­tected Erhard as he agreed with his views on sta­bil­is­ing the post-war Ger­man econ­omy. Ohlen­dorf him­self was pro­tected by Hein­rich Himm­ler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlen­dorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the Ger­man econ­omy in the Twen­ties. Such a cat­a­stro­phe would ren­der the SS’s eco­nomic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war pri­or­ity was rapid mon­e­tary sta­bil­i­sa­tion through a sta­ble cur­rency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occu­py­ing power, as no post-war Ger­man state would have enough legit­i­macy to intro­duce a cur­rency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was intro­duced in 1948. It was an aston­ish­ing suc­cess and it kick-started the Ger­man econ­omy. With a sta­ble cur­rency, Ger­many was once again an attrac­tive trad­ing partner.

The Ger­man indus­trial con­glom­er­ates could rapidly rebuild their eco­nomic empires across Europe.

War had been extra­or­di­nar­ily prof­itable for the Ger­man econ­omy. By 1948 — despite six years of con­flict, Allied bomb­ing and post-war repa­ra­tions pay­ments — the cap­i­tal stock of assets such as equip­ment and build­ings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the arma­ments boom.

Erhard pon­dered how Ger­man indus­try could expand its reach across the shat­tered Euro­pean con­ti­nent. The answer was through supra­na­tion­al­ism — the vol­un­tary sur­ren­der of national sov­er­eignty to an inter­na­tional body.

Ger­many and France were the dri­vers behind the Euro­pean Coal and Steel Com­mu­nity (ECSC), the pre­cur­sor to the Euro­pean Union. The ECSC was the first supra­na­tional organ­i­sa­tion, estab­lished in April 1951 by six Euro­pean states. It cre­ated a com­mon mar­ket for coal and steel which it reg­u­lated. This set a vital prece­dent for the steady ero­sion of national sov­er­eignty, a process that con­tin­ues today.

But before the com­mon mar­ket could be set up, the Nazi indus­tri­al­ists had to be par­doned, and Nazi bankers and offi­cials rein­te­grated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the Amer­i­can High Com­mis­sioner for Ger­many, issued an amnesty for indus­tri­al­ists con­victed of war crimes.

The two most pow­er­ful Nazi indus­tri­al­ists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Indus­tries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group even­tu­ally owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serv­ing barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been cen­tral fig­ures in the Nazi econ­omy. Their com­pa­nies used slave labour­ers like cat­tle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp com­pany soon became one of Europe’s lead­ing indus­trial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European busi­ness empire. Friedrich Flick remained unre­pen­tant about his wartime record and refused to pay a sin­gle Deutschmark in com­pen­sa­tion until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a for­tune of more than $1billion, the equiv­a­lent of £400million at the time.

‘For many lead­ing indus­trial fig­ures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pur­su­ing Ger­man national inter­ests after the defeat of Hitler,’ says his­to­rian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jew­ish for­mer slave labourers.

‘The con­ti­nu­ity of the econ­omy of Ger­many and the economies of post-war Europe is strik­ing. Some of the lead­ing fig­ures in the Nazi econ­omy became lead­ing builders of the Euro­pean Union.’

Numer­ous house­hold names had exploited slave and forced labour­ers includ­ing BMW, Siemens and Volk­swa­gen, which pro­duced muni­tions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an inte­gral part of the Nazi war machine. Many con­cen­tra­tion camps were attached to ded­i­cated fac­to­ries where com­pany offi­cials worked hand-in-hand with the SS offi­cers over­see­ing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Her­mann Abs, post-war Germany’s most pow­er­ful banker, had pros­pered in the Third Reich. Dap­per, ele­gant and diplo­matic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthu­si­as­ti­cally ‘Aryanised’ Aus­trian and Czechoslo­vak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 direc­tor­ships, a quar­ter of which were in coun­tries occu­pied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised com­pa­nies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank’s wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the super­vi­sory board of I.G. Far­ben, as Deutsche Bank’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive. I.G. Far­ben was one of Nazi Germany’s most pow­er­ful com­pa­nies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and sub­sidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thou­sands of Jews and other pris­on­ers died pro­duc­ing arti­fi­cial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were ver­braucht (used up) in the Nazis’ chill­ing term, they were moved to Birke­nau. There they were gassed using Zyk­lon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good busi­ness­men, I.G. Farben’s bosses hedged their bets.

Dur­ing the war the com­pany had financed Lud­wig Erhard’s research. After the war, 24 I.G. Far­ben exec­u­tives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III — but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sen­tenced to prison terms rang­ing from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Far­ben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most impor­tant fig­ures in Germany’s post-war recon­struc­tion. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a ’strong Ger­man empire’ was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today’s Euro­pean Union.

Abs was put in charge of allo­cat­ing Mar­shall Aid — recon­struc­tion funds — to Ger­man indus­try. By 1948 he was effec­tively man­ag­ing Germany’s eco­nomic recovery.

Cru­cially, Abs was also a mem­ber of the Euro­pean League for Eco­nomic Co-operation, an elite intel­lec­tual pres­sure group set up in 1946. The league was ded­i­cated to the estab­lish­ment of a com­mon mar­ket, the pre­cur­sor of the Euro­pean Union.

Its mem­bers included indus­tri­al­ists and financiers and it devel­oped poli­cies that are strik­ingly famil­iar today — on mon­e­tary inte­gra­tion and com­mon trans­port, energy and wel­fare systems.

When Kon­rad Ade­nauer, the first Chan­cel­lor of West Ger­many, took power in 1949, Abs was his most impor­tant finan­cial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was work­ing hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to recon­sti­tute itself after decen­tral­i­sa­tion. In 1957 he suc­ceeded and he returned to his for­mer employer.

That same year the six mem­bers of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the Euro­pean Eco­nomic Com­mu­nity. The treaty fur­ther lib­er­alised trade and estab­lished increas­ingly pow­er­ful supra­na­tional insti­tu­tions includ­ing the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and Euro­pean Commission.

Like Abs, Lud­wig Erhard flour­ished in post-war Ger­many. Ade­nauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war eco­nom­ics min­is­ter. In 1963 Erhard suc­ceeded Ade­nauer as Chan­cel­lor for three years.

But the Ger­man eco­nomic mir­a­cle — so vital to the idea of a new Europe — was built on mass mur­der. The num­ber of slave and forced labour­ers who died while employed by Ger­man com­pa­nies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some spo­radic com­pen­sa­tion pay­ments were made but Ger­man indus­try agreed a con­clu­sive, global set­tle­ment only in 2000, with a £3billion com­pen­sa­tion fund. There was no admis­sion of legal lia­bil­ity and the indi­vid­ual com­pen­sa­tion was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accept­ing the deal had to under­take not to launch any fur­ther legal action.

To put this sum of money into per­spec­tive, in 2001 Volk­swa­gen alone made prof­its of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 Euro­pean Union mem­ber states vote in the biggest transna­tional elec­tion in his­tory. Europe now enjoys peace and sta­bil­ity. Ger­many is a democ­racy, once again home to a sub­stan­tial Jew­ish com­mu­nity. The Holo­caust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s pro­pa­ganda chief, once said: ‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’

For now, the nation state endures. But these three type­writ­ten pages are a reminder that today’s drive towards a Euro­pean fed­eral state is inex­orably tan­gled up with the plans of the SS and Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists for a Fourth Reich — an eco­nomic rather than mil­i­tary imperium.”

“Revealed:The Secret Report That Shows How the Nazis Planned a Fourth Reich . . . in the EU” by Adam Lebor; Mail Online; 5/9/2009.

8. The pro­gram com­pares the real­ity of the dawn­ing eco­nomic land­scape and the “cor­po­racracy” set forth in the “novel” Serpent’s Walk. Mr. Emory believes that, like The Turner Diaries (also pub­lished by National Van­guard Books), the book is actu­ally a blue­print for what is going to take place. It is a novel about a Nazi takeover of the United States in the mid­dle of the 21st cen­tury. The book describes the Third Reich going under­ground, buy­ing into the Amer­i­can media, and tak­ing over the country.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is the “cor­po­racracy” that the SS envi­sions will enable them to con­trol the world (in this “novel”). It is inter­est­ing to reflect on the poten­tial breakup of the U.S. and other nations large enough to coun­ter­mand the ini­tia­tives of trans-national cor­po­ra­tions. Such resis­tance might be the only poten­tial oppo­si­tion to the “cor­po­racracy” in a world of frag­mented [for­merly large] nation/states.

As noted by Joseph Goebbels more than 50 years ago [and quoted in the Daily Mail arti­cle above], no one will be talk­ing about nation states a half cen­tury after the Third Reich.

“It assumes that Hitler’s war­rior elite—the SS—didn’t give up their strug­gle for a White world when they lost the Sec­ond World War. Instead their sur­vivors went under­ground and adopted some of their tac­tics of their ene­mies: they began build­ing their eco­nomic mus­cle and buy­ing into the opinion-forming media. A cen­tury after the war they are ready to chal­lenge the democ­rats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Amer­i­cans, who have begun to have their fill of government-enforced multi-culturalism and ‘equality.’”

(From the back cover of Serpent’s Walk by “Ran­dolph D. Calver­hall;” Copy­right 1991 [SC]; National Van­guard Books; 0–937944-05-X.)


28 comments for “FTR #676 Sedition! (Part 2): Target, America!”

  1. Awww...Wyoming won’t get an air­craft car­rier after all:

    Wyoming Advances ‘Dooms­day’ Bill With­out ‘Air­craft Car­rier’ Provision

    Jil­lian Ray­field Feb­ru­ary 28, 2012, 11:28 AM

    If the world ends, Wyoming’s got you covered.

    The Wyoming House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives advanced a bill Mon­day that would cre­ate a task force to study “gov­ern­men­tal con­ti­nu­ity in case of a dis­rup­tion in fed­eral gov­ern­ment oper­a­tions,” or what the local press has nick­named a “dooms­day” bill.

    The task force would con­sider reme­dies in the event of national cat­a­stro­phes, includ­ing dis­rup­tions in food or energy dis­tri­b­u­tion, a con­sti­tu­tional cri­sis, or “a sit­u­a­tion in which the fed­eral gov­ern­ment has no effec­tive power or author­ity over the peo­ple of the United States.”

    It would also con­sider what to do in the event that the dol­lar rapidly declines, and whether Wyoming should estab­lish an “alter­na­tive currency.”

    The bill would have also allowed the task force to con­sider whether the state should insti­tute its own stand­ing army and mil­i­tary draft, and acquire strike air­craft and an air­craft car­rier (in a land­locked state). But the House struck that part of the lan­guage from the bill on Mon­day. It will now move for­ward to a full House vote.


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 28, 2012, 11:42 am
  2. etc., etc., ...

    US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

    UN’s cor­re­spon­dent on indige­nous peo­ples urges gov­ern­ment to act to com­bat ‘racial dis­crim­i­na­tion’ felt by Native Americans


    A United Nations inves­ti­ga­tor prob­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion against Native Amer­i­cans has called on the US gov­ern­ment to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward com­bat­ting con­tin­u­ing and sys­temic racial discrimination.

    James Anaya, the UN spe­cial rap­por­teur on the rights of indige­nous peo­ples, said no mem­ber of the US Con­gress would meet him as he inves­ti­gated the part played by the gov­ern­ment in the con­sid­er­able dif­fi­cul­ties faced by Indian tribes.

    Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of vis­it­ing Indian reser­va­tions, indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Amer­i­cans now liv­ing in cities, he encoun­tered peo­ple who suf­fered a his­tory of dis­pos­ses­sion of their lands and resources, the break­down of their soci­eties and “numer­ous instances of out­right bru­tal­ity, all grounded on racial discrimination”.

    “It’s a racial dis­crim­i­na­tion that they feel is both sys­temic and also spe­cific instances of ongo­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion that is felt at the indi­vid­ual level,” he said.
    Anaya said racism extended from the broad rela­tion­ship between fed­eral or state gov­ern­ments and tribes down to local issues such as education.

    “For exam­ple, with the treat­ment of chil­dren in schools both by their peers and by teach­ers as well as the edu­ca­tional sys­tem itself; the way native Amer­i­cans and indige­nous peo­ples are reflected in the school cur­ricu­lum and teach­ing,” he said.

    “And dis­crim­i­na­tion in the sense of the invis­i­bil­ity of Native Amer­i­cans in the coun­try over­all that often is reflected in the pop­u­lar media. The idea that is often pro­jected through the main­stream media and among pub­lic fig­ures that indige­nous peo­ples are either gone or as a group are insignif­i­cant or that they’re out to get ben­e­fits in terms of hand­outs, or their com­mu­ni­ties and cul­tures are reduced to casi­nos, which are just flatly wrong.”

    Close to a mil­lion peo­ple live on the US’s 310 Native Amer­i­can reser­va­tions. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casi­nos on reser­va­tions but most have not.

    Anaya vis­ited an Oglala Sioux reser­va­tion where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national aver­age, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

    The two Sioux reser­va­tions in South Dakota – Rose­bud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country’s poor­est liv­ing con­di­tions, includ­ing mass unem­ploy­ment and the high­est sui­cide rate in the west­ern hemi­sphere with an epi­demic of teenagers killing themselves.

    “You can see they’re in a some­what pre­car­i­ous sit­u­a­tion in terms of their basic exis­tence and the sta­bil­ity of their com­mu­ni­ties given that pre­car­i­ous land tenure sit­u­a­tion. It’s not like they have large fish­eries as a resource base to sus­tain them. In basic eco­nomic terms it’s a very dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion. You have upwards of 70% unem­ploy­ment on the reser­va­tion and all kinds of social ills accom­pa­ny­ing that. Very tough con­di­tions,” he said.

    Anaya said Rose­bud is an exam­ple where return­ing land taken by the US gov­ern­ment could improve a tribe’s for­tunes as well as con­tribute to a “process of reconciliation”.

    “At Rose­bud, that’s a sit­u­a­tion where indige­nous peo­ple have seen over time encroach­ment on to their land and they’ve lost vast ter­ri­to­ries and there have been clear instances of bro­ken treaty promises. It’s undis­puted that the Black Hills was guar­an­teed them by treaty and that treaty was just out­right vio­lated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recog­nised by the United States supreme court,” he said.

    Anaya said he would reserve detailed rec­om­men­da­tions on a plan for land restora­tion until he presents his final report to the UN human rights coun­cil in September.

    “I’m talk­ing about restor­ing to indige­nous peo­ples what obvi­ously they’re enti­tled to and they have a legit­i­mate claim to in a way that is not devi­sive but restora­tive. That’s the idea behind rec­on­cil­i­a­tion,” he said.

    But any such pro­posal is likely to meet stiff resis­tance in Con­gress sim­i­lar to that which has pre­vi­ously greeted calls for the US gov­ern­ment to pay repa­ra­tions for slav­ery to African-American communities.

    Anaya said he had received “exem­plary coop­er­a­tion” from the Obama admin­is­tra­tion but he declined to spec­u­late on why no mem­bers of Con­gress would meet him.

    “I typ­i­cally meet with mem­bers of the national leg­is­la­ture on my coun­try vis­its and I don’t know the rea­son,” he said.

    Last month, the US jus­tice and inte­rior depart­ments announced a $1 bil­lion set­tle­ment over nearly 56 mil­lion acres of Indian land held in trust by Wash­ing­ton but exploited by com­mer­cial inter­ests for tim­ber, farm­ing, min­ing and other uses with lit­tle ben­e­fit to the tribes.

    The attor­ney gen­eral, Eric Holder, said the set­tle­ment “fairly and hon­ourably resolves his­tor­i­cal griev­ances over the account­ing and man­age­ment of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of con­flict between Indian tribes and the United States.”

    But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.

    “These are impor­tant steps but we’re talk­ing about mis­man­age­ment by the gov­ern­ment of assets that were left to indige­nous peo­ples,” he said. “This money for the insults on top of the injury. It’s not money for the ini­tial prob­lem itself, which is the tak­ing of vast ter­ri­to­ries. This is very impor­tant and I think the admin­is­tra­tion should be com­mended for mov­ing for­ward to set­tle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed.”

    Guardian UK

    Posted by participo | May 5, 2012, 7:11 am
  3. Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 12, 2013, 5:59 pm
  4. Rick Perry is about to teach Texas a valu­able les­son in money-management: main­tain­ing your state’s bil­lion dol­lar gold hoard ain’t free:

    Wash­ing­ton Post
    Texas wants its gold back! Wait, what?

    Posted by Neil Irwin on March 26, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Texas has gen­er­ally been at the front of the pack of a cer­tain vari­ety of uber-hawkish, vaguely para­noid mon­e­tary pol­icy talk over the last few years. Recall it was the state’s gov­er­nor, Rick Perry, who while run­ning for pres­i­dent strongly sug­gested that Ben Bernanke would be com­mit­ting trea­son should the Fed­eral Reserve print any more money.

    But now some in the state, includ­ing Perry, are look­ing to put their money where their mouths are. Literally.

    Perry and some in the Texas leg­is­la­ture want to bring the roughly $1 bil­lion worth gold held by the state uni­ver­sity system’s invest­ment fund onto Texas soil, rather than in its cur­rent rest­ing pace in a vault in New York.

    “If we own it,” Perry said on Glenn Beck’s radio show last week, accord­ing to the Texas Tri­bune. “I will sug­gest to you that that’s not some­one else’s deter­mi­na­tion whether we can take pos­ses­sion of it back or not.”

    Here’s the thing. Perry’s push to relo­cate the state’s gold to a newly cre­ated “Texas Bul­lion Depos­i­tory,” in a strange way makes per­fect sense. It lays bare the ratio­nale for invest­ing in the yel­low metal to begin with, and is an excel­lent illus­tra­tion of the strange role that gold plays in a mod­ern econ­omy and investors’ psyches.


    If Texas moves its gold back home, it will deal with this in a very real way: What­ever it costs to build, main­tain, and guard a facil­ity secure enough to stash $1 bil­lion of gold in will essen­tially sub­tract from what­ever invest­ment return the hold­ings offer. (The law­maker advo­cat­ing the plan pointed out that only about 20 square feet of space would be needed for the gold as evi­dence that the cost shouldn’t be high, which kind of misses the point. It’s not the real estate cost that is expen­sive, it’s the tech­nol­ogy and man­power needed to pre­vent the heist of the mil­len­nium).

    Texas media out­lets have reported that the state’s gold is held at the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of New York, though it appears the gold in ques­tion is actu­ally at the vault of a pri­vate bank, HSBC, in New York (here is a 2011 arti­cle about the acqui­si­tion; an aide to Texas State Rep. Gio­vanni Capriglione con­firmed that this is the gold in ques­tion). Despite what you may have seen in Die Hard 3, in which thieves ran­sack the New York Fed, the secu­rity around major vaults is extremely sophis­ti­cated. Texas is con­sid­er­ing repli­cat­ing those secu­rity costs and giv­ing up the con­ve­nience of being able to sell gold eas­ily at the world’s finan­cial cap­i­tal. But why?

    The most com­mon rea­son to buy gold is as some­thing of an insur­ance pol­icy against some very bad events, like a bout of sig­nif­i­cant infla­tion. In the more plau­si­ble sce­nar­ios, like a return of 1970s-style period of 10 per­cent or so annual price increases, gold would indeed likely prove to be quite a good invest­ment. But in that sce­nario, the state of Texas would have no prob­lem get­ting access to its gold stored in New York. There would be no need to go to the trou­ble and expense of set­ting up a minia­ture Fort Knox in Austin.

    For it to make sense to go to all that has­sle of stor­ing your own gold, you have to be insur­ing against some much darker pos­si­bil­i­ties, like a col­lapse of the U.S. gov­ern­ment and mon­e­tary sys­tem, and/or Texas mak­ing a (sec­ond) bid to secede from the United States.

    In some episode of hyper­in­fla­tion and U.S. gov­ern­ment col­lapse, as the nation falls into a Hobbe­sian state of nature, paper dol­lars will be no good, and gold would likely be the medium of exchange for buy­ing food and guns and what­ever else is needed for Texas to pros­per amid the post-apocalyptic hellscape.

    Sim­i­larly, if Texas were to decide that enough was enough and it wished to no longer be part of these United States (a notion that Perry him­self seemed to joke about in 2009, say­ing “When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”), one could imag­ine the desir­abil­ity of hav­ing its gold sup­ply close to home. That would put New York banks, reg­u­lated by the U.S. gov­ern­ment, in the posi­tion of hav­ing to deter­mine whether the rebel repub­lic of Texas was the right­ful owner of the gold in its vault. In that sce­nario, it’s easy to imag­ine Texas would have a hard time get­ting ahold of its gold.

    In other words, if you think you need to hold gold as a hedge against a total col­lapse of the U.S. mon­e­tary and polit­i­cal sys­tem collapsing–not just as a hedge against higher-than-expected inflation–you had best store it close to home.

    Texas, it is worth not­ing, is not the only large, pros­per­ous econ­omy with a hard-money men­tal­ity to look to keep its gold close to home. Ear­lier this year, Germany’s cen­tral bank said it will relo­cate bil­lions worth of gold from vaults beneath the New York Fed and French cen­tral bank, guard­ing them in Frank­furt rather than entrust­ing them to cen­tral banks elsewhere.

    So there you have it: Texas, the Ger­many of America.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 9, 2013, 12:10 pm
  5. Lone Star Secessionist-lit: Romance nov­els for those that just can’t stop pin­ing for a civil war:

    May 12, 2013, 10:31 p.m. ET
    The Wall Street Jour­nal
    The Yel­low Prose of Texas? Seces­sion Move­ment Blooms in Fic­tion
    Alternate-History Authors Explore Putting The ‘Lone’ Back in the Lone Star State


    In the real world, Texas remains very much a part of the United States.

    But in the world of fic­tion, sev­eral authors have released books in the past year depict­ing the Lone Star State as a break­away repub­lic rebelling against shenani­gans in Washington.

    It’s the start of a lit­er­ary sub­genre: seces­sion­ist fan­tasy.

    “The Seces­sion of Texas” by Dar­rell Mal­oney of San Anto­nio envi­sions an inde­pen­dent Texas with its own bor­der patrol, guard­ing against peo­ple try­ing to sneak into the coun­try illegally—from Oklahoma.

    “Lone Star Day­break” by Erik L. Lar­son of Hous­ton tells the story of recruits in the Texas Defense Force, a mili­tia that pro­tects the sep­a­ratist state from Yan­kee armies. “Yel­low Rose of Texas” by Den­nis Sny­der describes a U.S. sad­dled with $22 tril­lion in debt, a defanged mil­i­tary and a left­ist pres­i­dent who promises to remove reli­gion from pub­lic life, prompt­ing an armed and eco­nom­i­cally vibrant Texas to declare that it has had enough.

    “It’s not a com­edy by any means,” says Mr. Sny­der, a pas­tor at a non­de­nom­i­na­tional church in Michi­gan who has never been to Texas. “The pres­i­dent basi­cally says he is going to rewrite the Con­sti­tu­tion when he takes office,” he says. “Texas real­izes he is going to take us into bondage and rebels.”

    None of the authors say they actu­ally sup­port seces­sion; they just think it makes for a provoca­tive story line. Texas seces­sion fic­tion falls into a long line of what-if books explor­ing alter­nate ver­sions of history.

    Win­ston Churchill con­tributed to a 1931 col­lec­tion of essays called “If It Had Hap­pened Oth­er­wise” with an entry envi­sion­ing how World War I might have been avoided—if the Con­fed­er­acy had won the Civil War.

    Newt Gin­grich added to the genre with a series of nov­els he co-wrote with William R. Forstchen, includ­ing “1945.” It sees the Nazis tem­porar­ily win­ning World War II in Europe, trig­ger­ing a Cold War with the U.S., which had fought Japan.

    Some alternate-history nov­els have envi­sioned a sep­a­rate Texas, notably 1990’s “The Dif­fer­ence Engine” by William Gib­son and Bruce Ster­ling, which explores what might have hap­pened to the world had com­put­ers been per­fected in Britain a cen­tury ear­lier. In the book, Texas and Cal­i­for­nia morph into inde­pen­dent nations.

    But the sug­ges­tion that Texas might break away has only recently become a com­mon plot­line. Some authors say their inter­est was spurred by recent events, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s remark in 2009 that “if Wash­ing­ton con­tin­ues to thumb their nose at the Amer­i­can peo­ple you know, who knows what might come out of that” (Mr. Perry has repeat­edly said he doesn’t favor secession).

    John Buescher, a researcher at the Roy Rosen­zweig Cen­ter for His­tory and New Media at George Mason Uni­ver­sity, has cham­pi­oned alter­nate his­to­ries as a way to teach real history.

    “For a his­tory geek, there are cer­tain moments when all sorts of things can hap­pen and the world would be totally dif­fer­ent,” Mr. Buescher says. Of the cur­rent Texas fancy, he adds, “Texas is feel­ing its oats eco­nom­i­cally these days, and there is a sense in the Zeit­geist that Texas would be pretty inter­est­ing if it really was its own nation.”

    Seces­sion fic­tion isn’t burn­ing up the best-seller lists. Mr. Snyder’s book, which came out in Feb­ru­ary, is pro­duced by a small Chris­t­ian imprint he owns called Con­cern­ing Life Pub­lish­ing. Mr. Mal­oney pub­lished his novel him­self in Jan­u­ary. Mr. Larson’s book was released by an Okla­homa com­pany called Tate Pub­lish­ing & Enter­prises last month. All are avail­able on Amazon.com.

    “I’m not get­ting rich off of it, that’s for sure,” says Mr. Mal­oney, who is retired from the Air Force. He says he is work­ing on a sequel.

    One book with a major pub­lisher, St. Martin’s Press, is “Don’t Mess with Travis” by Bob Smi­ley, which envi­sions a Texas gov­er­nor dri­ven to seces­sion after he dis­cov­ers a fed­eral plot to siphon off the state’s nat­ural resources and ship them to California.

    “We wanted to show the absur­di­ties on both sides of the aisle,” says Mr. Smi­ley, a tele­vi­sion writer in Los Ange­les and for­mer researcher for the late William F. Buck­ley Jr. Of seces­sion, he adds, “It obvi­ously remains some­thing peo­ple in Texas think could and maybe even should happen.”


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 14, 2013, 9:01 am
  6. Oh look, Rick Joyner — a leader in the Domin­ion­ist/“Lat­ter Rain” move­ment and ‘his­to­rian’ of the David Bar­ton-vari­ety — just called for a US mil­i­tary coup:

    Rick Joyner, Tel­e­van­ge­list And Pas­tor, Wants A Mil­i­tary Takeover Of The U.S. Government

    The Huff­in­g­ton Post | By Hunter Stu­art Posted: 10/02/2013 1:55 pm EDT

    No mat­ter how bad things are in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., right now, most peo­ple would prob­a­bly agree that a mil­i­tary takeover of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment wouldn’t improve the situation.

    But not tel­e­van­ge­list Rick Joyner.

    While on the show “Prophetic Per­spec­tive on Cur­rent Events” on Morn­ingStar TV on Mon­day, the noto­ri­ously con­ser­v­a­tive pas­tor implored God to save Amer­ica from being wiped out by the nefar­i­ous “forces” that are “at work right now to under­mine and destroy the republic.”

    “Raise up those who will save us,” Joyner said. “Because the sys­tem is so bro­ken... I believe our only hope is mil­i­tary takeover. Mar­tial law.”

    Joyner seems to gen­uinely believe the United States is on the brink of anni­hi­la­tion. Ear­lier in the seg­ment, he warns that the coun­try “may not last through [Pres­i­dent Barack] Obama’s sec­ond term.”

    Those famil­iar with Joyner, who is the exec­u­tive direc­tor of Morn­ingStar Min­istries, may not be sur­prised by his remarks. The web­site for Morn­ingStar Min­istries is pep­pered with ref­er­ences to Armaged­don, a topic Joyner fre­quently returns to in his ser­mons and dur­ing round­table discussions.


    Note that, while it’s prob­a­bly the case that Joyner was call­ing for a coup by the US army, he may have been refer­ring to a dif­fer­ent army. Don’t for­get that Rick Joyner is also appar­ently an mem­ber of the Knights of Malta and was appar­ently a spir­i­tual cat­a­lyst for fel­low Knight Kurt Wald­heim...it turns out being a Catholic isn’t a require­ment for join­ing the order. So maybe Joyner’s coup call also included an unspo­ken ref­er­ence to a dif­fer­ent kind of mil­i­tary force?

    And then there’s his friends in Joel’s Army. Rick hangs out with a lot of scary folks spout­ing scary stuff so who knows what this was all about.

    In other news...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 2, 2013, 8:09 pm
  7. It worth not­ing that de facto seces­sion might look a lot like sedi­tion:

    TPM Cafe: Opin­ion
    Let’s Call The Shut­down What It Is: Seces­sion By Another Means

    Bill Moy­ers – Octo­ber 8, 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

    Repub­li­cans have now lost three suc­ces­sive elec­tions to con­trol the Sen­ate, and they’ve lost the last two pres­i­den­tial elec­tions. Nonethe­less, they fought tooth and nail to kill Pres­i­dent Obama’s health care ini­tia­tive. They lost that fight, but with the cor­po­rate wing of Democ­rats, they man­aged to bend it toward pri­vate interests.

    So, we should be here on this: Oba­macare, as it is known, is deeply flawed. Big sub­si­dies to the health insur­ance indus­try, a bonanza for lob­by­ists, no pub­lic option and, as the New York Times reported this week, “Mil­lions of Poor Are Left Uncov­ered by Health Law” — largely because states con­trolled by Repub­li­cans refused to expand Medicaid.


    Despite what they say, Oba­macare is only one of their tar­gets. Before they will allow the gov­ern­ment to reopen, they demand employ­ers be enabled to deny birth con­trol cov­er­age to female employ­ees; they demand Obama cave on the Key­stone pipeline; they demand the watch­dogs over cor­po­rate pol­lu­tion be muz­zled and the big bad reg­u­la­tors of Wall Street sent home. Their ran­som list goes on and on. The debt ceil­ing is next. They would have the gov­ern­ment default on its oblig­a­tions and responsibilities.

    When the pres­i­dent refused to buckle to this extor­tion, they threw their tantrum. Like the die-hards of the racist South a cen­tury and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giv­ing up their slaves, so would these peo­ple burn down the place, sink the ship.


    At least, let’s name this for what it is: sab­o­tage of the demo­c­ra­tic process. Seces­sion by another means.

    Well, the GOP maybe have devolved into a state of child­like ter­ror over the prospect of a gov­ern­ment pro­gram pos­si­bly work­ing, but at least they’re still win­ners.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 8, 2013, 11:47 am
  8. @Pterrafractyl and Atlanta Bill–

    What we are look­ing at–under all the flow­ery ide­ol­o­gized rhetoric–is fas­cism and a fun­da­men­tal rejec­tion of not only demo­c­ra­tic process, but of Amer­i­can nation­hood itself.

    Oba­macare was a bill that was passed by both houses of con­gress, signed by the Pres­i­dent and upheld by the Supreme Court.

    The GOP is reject­ing leg­isla­tive democracy.

    The Lud­wig von Mises Insti­tute and “Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­ian Orga­ni­za­tion” rejct Amer­ica, endorse the Con­fed­er­acy, seek to have the South “re-cedede,” and favor SLAVERY.

    What I have been warn­ing of for decades is now tak­ing place before our eyes.



    Posted by Dave Emory | October 8, 2013, 7:28 pm
  9. @Dave: With the GOP now offer­ing a six-week rise in the debt ceil­ing (and a six-week exten­sion of the gov­ern­ment shut­down), in exchange for the promise that the Democ­rats will sit down and nego­ti­ate a long-term enti­tle­ment “Grand Bar­gain”, the ques­tion gets raised of just what kind of pres­sure Wall Street is going to be apply­ing to the dif­fer­ent sides if the six-week deal is accepted. It’s widely assumed that Wall Street must be get­ting wor­ried about dam­age the GOP is doing to the econ­omy and the banksters are going to qui­etly urge the GOP to back away from their demands. And who knows, maybe there was some Wall Street involve­ment in this recent debt ceil­ing retreat. But if there’s one thing that could tempt Wall Street into court­ing an eco­nomic cat­a­stro­phe it’s the pos­si­bil­ity that the cat­a­stro­phe will result in Wall Street get­ting their hands on all that social secu­rity money.

    Just imag­ine how much money will be made if one of the GOP’s long-standing enti­tle­ment pri­va­ti­za­tion schemes are put into place.

    So the ques­tion of what type of pres­sure Wall Street is going to apply to the GOP going for­ward is par­tially a ques­tion of whether or not enti­tle­ment pri­va­ti­za­tion is more, or less, likely when the government’s finances are seen as unsta­ble. Sure, a dam­aged econ­omy might make the pop­u­lace a lot less inclined to throw their future finan­cial safety-net into the giant stock mar­ket money-pit. But at the same time, part of the argu­ment we hear in favor of pri­va­tiz­ing social secu­rity is that there’s just no way the gov­ern­ment will be able to afford to pay out enti­tle­ments decades from now so the youth should take pri­vate accounts to pro­tect against that future gov­ern­ment fis­cal uncer­tainty. So is Wall Street likely to be all that con­cerned about the GOP ter­ror­iz­ing the mar­kets and con­vinc­ing the pub­lic that the gov­ern­ment is on a doomed path of unavoid­able insol­vency? There’s a pretty mas­sive pay­out for all those finan­cial giants if the GOP suc­ceeds and they’ve been pin­ing for such a gift for quite some time.

    The next few weeks should teach us quite a bit about how inter­ested the big banks and plu­to­crats are in just drop­ping the mask and aggres­sively sub­vert­ing democ­racy. Fas­cist dystopias don’t build them­selves, I sup­pose, so they have to make a move at some point. Now sure feels like one of those points.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 10, 2013, 12:02 pm
  10. @Dave: With another round of bizarre “nego­ti­at­ing” end­ing in fail­ure and the dwin­dling prospects of the US busi­ness com­mu­nity reign­ing in the Tea Party kamikazi squads, it’s worth ask­ing whether or not cre­at­ing a hope­less sit­u­a­tion that ends in mass dis­as­ter for the econ­omy and the GOP is a per­fectly accept­able and desir­able result for the far-right oli­garchs. As Krug­man points out, while the GOP has long been a dis­as­ter for the broader US busi­ness com­mu­nity, the GOP’s poli­cies have still been great for those at the very top. So while the busi­ness community’s pro­les might be freak­ing out about the eco­nomic dam­age, it’s pos­si­ble the oli­garchs really would love to see the kind of per­ma­nent dam­age done to the US econ­omy that a default could bring about. Espe­cially if the dam­age is per­ma­nent, at least for a few decades. Because few things could fuel the decades-long far-right drive to undo the New Deal and elim­i­nate the notion of a pub­lic safety-net bet­ter than dethron­ing of the dol­lar as the world’s reserve cur­rency and send­ing the US econ­omy into a deep, extended depres­sion. So there’s obvi­ously going to some seri­ous eurozone-crisis envy at work in the minds of the US’s elite.

    But here’s the best part, from an oli­garch per­spec­tive: The polit­i­cal repur­cus­sions may not really mat­ter. Sure, it’s entirely pos­si­ble that the GOP could sim­ply out-message the Democ­rats so maybe they’re still bet­ting that Obama will get more of the blame in the event of a default. But there’s another pos­si­bil­ity that involves win­ning by los­ing. The more dam­age the GOP does to itself, the bet­ter this could end up being for far-right move­ments that truly want to want to desta­bi­lize the US. Why? Because what could be more use­ful to the far-right than con­vinc­ing one of the most heavily-armed and rad­i­cal­ized seg­ments of the pop­u­lace to poten­tially just give up on the demo­c­ra­tic process. And what could con­vince that seg­ment of the pop­u­lace to give up on democ­racy bet­ter than an utter eco­nomic dis­as­ter that the rest of the coun­try blames on the GOP? In other words, if the GOP screws up so badly that they do per­ma­nent dam­age to the econ­omy and GOP itself, we’re going to be left with a deeply depressed econ­omy and an utterly hope­less and dejected far-right com­mu­nity that sees no sal­va­tion in elec­toral pol­i­tics. That’s the per­fect sce­nario for seces­sion­ist move­ments and worse.

    And, of course, if Obama caves to their demands they can claim ulti­mate vic­tory and rinse and repeat.

    So it’s poten­tially a “Heads I win, Tails You lose, unless I lose, in which case I lead an insur­rec­tion­ist move­ment fueled by blind rage that destroys the coun­try and Your children’s future and there­fore I still win”-situation.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 12, 2013, 5:22 pm
  11. @Dave: Speak­ing of seces­sion and sedi­tion, check out today’s event at the WWII memo­r­ial. It’s appar­ently going to be a “game-changer”, accord­ing to the House GOP­ers, because of all the enthu­si­asm being whipped up to oppose the tyranny of clos­ing war memo­ri­als dur­ing gov­ern­ment shut­downs:

    TPM Editor’s Blog
    Rage & Per­for­mance Art
    Josh Mar­shall – Octo­ber 13, 2013, 6:04 PM EDT

    In case you missed the day’s events, while high level nego­ti­a­tions sput­tered on, a Tea Party rally includ­ing Sen. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin suc­ceeded in cap­tur­ing some of the essence of the polit­i­cal world the rejec­tion­ist rump of the GOP is now inhab­it­ing in scenes rem­i­nis­cent of 2009’s Sum­mer of Teh Crazy.

    Spurred by out­rage at the clo­sure of fed­eral war memo­ri­als they demanded be closed along with the rest of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, the crowd sym­bol­i­cally ‘stormed’ two closed memo­ri­als and then headed to the White House where at least one Con­fed­er­ate Flag proudly flew and far-right gad­fly Larry Klay­man, who has of late been call­ing for an upris­ing to unseat the Pres­i­dent (sched­uled for Nov. 19th), told the crowd to “demand that this pres­i­dent leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to fig­u­ra­tively come out with his hands up.”


    Despite the fact that the num­ber of par­tic­i­pants seem to have num­bered in the low hun­dreds, House con­ser­v­a­tives report­edly see the event as a “game changer” which will turn the tide against the Pres­i­dent next week and allow them to move on to victory.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 13, 2013, 4:49 pm
  12. The promi­nent place­ment of the Oath Keep­ers flag at Sunday’s “Mil­lion Vet March” at the WWII Memo­r­ial in DC might seem like poten­tially dis­turb­ing news when Larry Klay­man is also speak­ing there. But keep in mind that this could be an exer­cise by the Oath Keep­ers’ “Civ­i­liza­tion Preser­va­tion” units. Maybe they thought the war memo­ri­als needed pre­serv­ing. And why not? Learn­ing about the his­tory of war­fare — all the sac­ri­fice and hor­rors involved and why we absolutely have to avoid war­fare in the future if we’re to truly pre­serve civ­i­liza­tion — is a pretty impor­tant com­po­nent of “Civ­i­liza­tion Preser­va­tion” so it’s hard to argue with orga­ni­za­tions focused try­ing to pre­serve war memo­ri­als. Espe­cially if the orga­ni­za­tion is also offer­ing FEMA-like ser­vices in the event of dis­as­ters. That sounds quite help­ful, actu­ally. That may or may not be what the Oath Keep­ers have in mind for the future but it would be nice if it was.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 13, 2013, 11:16 pm
  13. It looks like we have a win­ner!

    TPM Livewire
    Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party Sen­ate Chal­lenger Attended Neo-Confederate Gath­er­ings
    Daniel Strauss – Octo­ber 23, 2013, 11:40 AM EDT

    Mis­sis­sippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel ®, the recently announced pri­mary chal­lenger for Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss) Sen­ate seat, spoke at a neo-Confederate con­fer­ence in Lau­rel, Mis­sis­sippi in August, accord­ing to Mother Jones.

    The con­fer­ence was hosted by the Jones County Rosin Heels, a local chap­ter of the Sons of Con­fed­er­ate Vet­er­ans. Invi­ta­tions for the event described it as a “South­ern Her­itage Con­fer­ence” intended for “polit­i­cally incor­rect folks.” Actu­ally, Mother Jones also noted, that event was the sec­ond Jones County Rosin Heels event he recently attended. In June McDaniel was the keynote speaker at the Divi­sion Reunion in Jack­son, also hosted by the Jones County Rosin Heels.

    The Jones County Heels have been pretty clear about its seces­sion­ist sen­ti­ments, Mother Jones fur­ther noted. The group’s newslet­ter said in Sep­tem­ber said that “we are liv­ing in the times that Jef­fer­son Davis pre­dicted would one day come” where the dis­agree­ments that resulted in the Civil War arose again.

    McDaniel is con­sid­ered a top-tier chal­lenger to Cochran. Almost imme­di­ately after he entered the race, he was endorsed by the Sen­ate Con­ser­v­a­tives Fund, The Madi­son Project and the Club for Growth.


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 23, 2013, 7:07 pm
  14. The GOP’s civil war between the overtly crazy Tea Party wing and the not quite as overtly crazy estab­lish­ment wing can man­i­fest in all sorts of dif­fer­ent ways. Some­times, this con­flict can take on his­tor­i­cal res­o­nance with the US civil war itself. For instance, in Mis­sis­sippi, the GOP’s civil war is about whether or not the party should be seek­ing out the sup­port of seces­sion­ist and seg­re­ga­tion­ists. It’s a reminder that his­tory can come alive in con­tem­po­rary con­flicts. Espe­cially when you’re try­ing to repeat:

    TPM DC
    Tea Partiers Livid State GOP Wants Clar­i­fi­ca­tion On White Supremacy Affiliation

    Daniel Strauss – April 16, 2014, 10:58 AM EDT

    Mis­sis­sippi Tea Partiers want the state’s Repub­li­can Party chair­man to resign for call­ing on state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) to clar­ify whether he planned to be the keynote speaker at a pro-Second Amend­ment event and tea party rally that fea­tured a seg­re­ga­tion­ist vendor.

    The call for state party chair­man Joe Nosef (pic­tured) to resign comes in response to Nosef telling MSNBC that McDaniel needed to clar­ify whether he had planned to attend the event or not. Nosef, on the Paul Gallo Show, also sug­gested that McDaniel could cost Repub­li­cans a Sen­ate seat. McDaniel is run­ning to unseat Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS).

    “It is inap­pro­pri­ate for Nosef to make such claims given his role as Chair­man of the MS GOP. Accord­ingly, Joe Nosef should resign from his posi­tion as Chair­man of the MS GOP effec­tive imme­di­ately,” the Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party said in a statement.


    As TPM pre­vi­ously reported, McDaniel had been slated to be the keynote speaker at a com­bined Firearm Free­dom Day/ Tea Party Music Fes­ti­val in Gun­town, Mis­sis­sippi. That event fea­tured a ven­dor who sold Con­fed­er­ate mem­o­ra­bilia and founded the Coun­cil of White Patriot Vot­ers and the Con­fed­er­ate Patriot Vot­ers United, which the South­ern Poverty Law Cen­ter listed as an active white nation­al­ist group. Orga­niz­ers said McDaniel had been the con­firmed speaker since February.

    When TPM reached McDaniel cam­paign offi­cials they denied that he was sched­uled to speak and pushed the orga­niz­ers to remove McDaniel’s name from posters adver­tis­ing him as the keynote speaker.

    McDaniel’s asso­ci­a­tion to neo-Confederates has been called into ques­tion before. Last year he attended at least one neo-Confederate event in Mississippi.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 16, 2014, 1:14 pm
  15. Back in Feb­ru­ary, the news about Mississippi’s Sen­ate pri­mary was look­ing like this:

    Wednes­day, Feb 19, 2014 09:21 AM CDT
    Tea Party Sen­ate can­di­date Chris McDaniel retweets white suprema­cist
    The Mis­sis­sippi state sen­a­tor already has a his­tory of asso­ci­at­ing with neo-Confederates
    Elias Isquith

    Chris McDaniel, a state sen­a­tor from Mis­sis­sippi and pri­mary chal­lenger of GOP Sen. Thad Cochran, has already got­ten into some trou­ble for hang­ing out with neo-Confederates, but accord­ing to ea Par­tyer and for­mer radio host’s cam­paign. Here’s a screen shot from TPM:, it would appear the blow­back wasn’t suf­fi­cient to put McDaniel off the prac­tice altogether.

    Per TPM’s report, McDaniel’s Twit­ter account (which is unver­i­fied but fre­quently tweets mate­r­ial sug­gest­ing it is being run by McDaniel or a mem­ber of his team) retweeted on Sun­day a mes­sage from RRSmith #WR (@rrsray) urg­ing oth­ers to sup­port the Tea Par­tyer and for­mer radio host’s cam­paign. Here’s a screen shot from TPM:

    The @rrsray Twit­ter bio describes the user as “Nation­al­ist, staunch pro­po­nent of 2nd & 10th Amend­ment, Gold­en­Dawn & South­ern Nation­al­ism.” (Golden Dawn is a greek neo­fas­cist party, recently embraced by many polit­i­cal white suprema­cists in the U.S.)

    A bet­ter sense of @rrsray’s polit­i­cal racism, how­ever, can be found by perus­ing their tweets, which are fre­quently and unsub­tly big­oted. @rrsray tends to retweet the most vir­u­lently racist mate­r­ial (which we’ll spare you) but their racism is nev­er­the­less apparent:


    The most recent poll we could find of the race between Cochran and McDaniel shows the lat­ter trail­ing by more than 20 points.

    Being down by 20 back point against the six term incum­bent Sen­a­tors isn’t an easy posi­tion for any­one, even if you’re the neo-Confederate can­di­date of choice. But times change:

    Mis­sis­sippi Ugly

    Will a con­ser­v­a­tive blogger’s blun­der bring down a Tea Party favorite and give Thad Cochran six more years in the Sen­ate?
    By David Weigel
    May 29 2014 7:09 PM

    JACKSON, Mississippi—On the drive in, it’s easy to miss the trailer that Tara Kelly shares with her hus­band, Clay­ton. Two cars, one of them busted, are parked in a short dri­ve­way. A patio is hap­pily clut­tered with the toys and bikes of the couple’s autis­tic daugh­ter. The only indi­ca­tion that a polit­i­cal activist lives here is a sign for Sen­ate can­di­date Chris McDaniel, shoved mostly out of sight, under some stairs.

    “Yeah, we’re sort of try­ing to get that out of the way,” Tara Kelly says, refer­ring to the cam­paign sign as she invites me to sit on the porch. She’s just returned from her reg­u­lar 30-minute visit with Clay­ton, who’s in prison on a $200,000 bond. (He will only be freed on Thurs­day, after the bond is reduced.) Ten days ear­lier he was arrested for allegedly gain­ing access to the nurs­ing home where Sen. Thad Cochran’s wife lies bedrid­den with demen­tia, and tak­ing video of what he saw. The video briefly appeared on his YouTube account, Con­sti­tu­tional Clay­ton, before McDaniel’s cam­paign asked (via an email to other activists) that it be taken down.

    “I told him not to do it,” says Tara Kelly. “I wouldn’t want any­one tak­ing a pic­ture of me in a hos­pi­tal! But he really wanted to get his name out there as a jour­nal­ist. And he has got­ten his name out there. Just not the way he expected. He thought he was get­ting the scoop.”

    Instead, Clay­ton Kelly made a deci­sion that roiled the year’s tight­est race between an incum­bent Repub­li­can and an avatar of the Tea Party. McDaniel, a state sen­a­tor and for­mer talk show host, entered the race in Octo­ber 2013, after the Club for Growth had already gone on the air trash­ing Cochran, and after he’d hud­dled with con­ser­v­a­tive PACs that wanted fresh Republican-In-Name-Only scalps. He out­raised and out­cam­paigned a sen­a­tor who’d won his first con­gres­sional cam­paign a few months after McDaniel was born. The first polling on the race gave Cochran a single-digit lead; the last poll, paid for by one of the many McDaniel-endorsing con­ser­v­a­tive groups, gives a slight edge to the challenger.

    That poll was taken after the Cochran cam­paign and media out­lets from Mother Jones to the Wall Street Jour­nal “vet­ted” McDaniel. The can­di­date had endured weeks of sto­ries about his radio days, and Repub­li­can pri­mary vot­ers did not clutch their pearls and flee after they learned McDaniel had crit­i­cized rap culture.

    The only prob­lem: The poll was also taken before the arrest of Con­sti­tu­tional Clay­ton. It was also taken before police charged three more activists, one of them the vice chair­man of the Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party, Mark May­field.

    “He didn’t even know them when he was sit­ting in the same cell as them,” says Tara Kelly. “My per­sonal opin­ion is they were just using him as the fall guy. He didn’t know them other than over Facebook.”


    The race will be decided, by peo­ple who don’t know any of these activists, don’t know or want to know what hap­pened at the nurs­ing home, and don’t know why the whole imbroglio began. Why was Cochran a tar­get in the first place? On Tues­day, after talk­ing to Kelly, I stop by the biweekly meet­ing of the Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party, where there’ll be a lec­ture on Oba­macare and a hud­dle about how to beat the senator.

    “One way to mea­sure how suc­cess­ful we are is by secur­ing votes for our can­di­date,” says Janis Lane, the pres­i­dent of the group. “Chris McDaniel is the man of the hour. He is cho­sen for a time such as this. He is our current-day Esther. He is what we need in Mis­sis­sippi to make a change in the polit­i­cal process of this state.”

    What “process” is that? Lane explains, with­out get­ting into specifics, that an accused child moles­ter is cur­rently being held on a $50,000 bond. Twenty-odd activists mur­mur at that—they do not need to be told that sev­eral of their awk­ward polit­i­cal allies are being held for much more. Lane refers obliquely to McDaniel’s “will­ing­ness to put him­self and his fam­ily in this sit­u­a­tion,” and at how the Tea Party has had “some chal­lenges thrown in our way, and some obstacles.”

    After the meet­ing ends, the activists hang back to explain. “About three weeks ago, we knew there’d be an ‘Octo­ber sur­prise,’ ” says Don Hart­ness, a vet­eran who often stands at the side of a road in Jack­son wav­ing an Amer­i­can flag and rais­ing money for the wounded. “We just didn’t know what it was going to be. Mark [May­field] is a per­sonal friend, and this is just so out of char­ac­ter for him.”

    And the whole story has let Cochran slide. Accord­ing to Tea Party activists, Cochran’s alleged con­ser­vatism is not backed up by his votes. Any Repub­li­can who voted to fund Oba­macare in last year’s con­tin­u­ing resolution—which, in Wash­ing­ton, was seen as the inevitable out­come after a dis­as­trous con­ser­v­a­tive feint—is suspect.

    “When I watch TV,” says busi­ness­woman Kay Allen, who’s wear­ing only red, white, and blue, “whether it’s Fox or who­ever I watch, I watch for which peo­ple are step­ping out and putting bills on the floor and say­ing what they believe. Peo­ple like Rep. Jason Chaf­fetz, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Trey Gowdy.”


    This sort of easy open­ness has been McDaniel’s approach since he started run­ning, and it never hurt—it made a nice con­trast with Cochran, actually—until the video­tap­ing story. He spent a week field­ing lead­ing ques­tions about how he surely must know more than he was let­ting on. By the time I get to McDaniel, and ask whether the TV ads spot­light­ing the video­tape will back­fire, he has per­fected a nonan­swer answer.

    “Here’s the thing,” he says. “What mat­ters in this race are the issues. Sen. Cochran has been avoid­ing the issues. There’s a rea­son he’s avoid­ing the issues.”

    What fol­lows is a recita­tion of the cam­paign plat­form. The video­tape story is a “dis­trac­tion,” he says, and then says again. Cam­paign man­ager Melanie Sojourner, who called the Cochran cam­paign to denounce Clay­ton Kelly and was rewarded by hav­ing her voice­mail leaked, stands nearby tap­ping on her phone. “The vot­ers of Mis­sis­sippi, they’re not going to let any dis­trac­tion take away from the busi­ness at hand.”

    Less than two hours later, Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party lead­ers assem­ble in Jack­son to face the press and reit­er­ate why they sup­port McDaniel. They can­not offi­cially coor­di­nate with McDaniel, but they are speak­ing his lan­guage. Jenny Beth Mar­tin, the pres­i­dent of Tea Party Patriots—its “Cit­i­zens Fund” is spend­ing half a mil­lion dol­lars on McDaniel ads—refers cryp­ti­cally to a “dis­trac­tion” that should not affect the race. Lead­ers from Tupelo in the north to Biloxi on the Gulf Coast lay out just how untrust­wor­thy Cochran is. Why, he even allowed the Senate’s immi­gra­tion bill to pro­ceed to a vote—what else can the Cham­ber of Com­merce coax from him if he wins?

    The event is opened up for ques­tions. None of the assem­bled press asks about immi­gra­tion, the debt, or even the Tea Party’s ground game. The ques­tions are all about the videotape.

    “I think I know just about every one of you in the press here,” says Roy Nichol­son, who founded the Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party. “I think I have met just about every one of you. I have to tell you, I’m very dis­ap­pointed in you. You keep going after the sen­sa­tional. Go after the facts that are crit­i­cal of the lives of people!”

    More Tea Party lead­ers grab the micro­phone. “The press is sup­posed to be the Fourth Estate,” says Laura Van Over­schelde. “It is your respon­si­bil­ity, it is your job, to report what is impor­tant to every Mis­sis­sip­pian. Not some sen­sa­tional story you might be inter­ested in!”

    The press con­fer­ence sput­ters to a close, as some activists decamp to a nearby Chick-fil-A and some stay to plead their case. They remind the press that this is a race about issues and the “scan­dal” alba­tross is draped around the wrong guy. Why did any­one even bother to snoop around Thad Cochran’s wife? Because she’s been there for more than a decade, and since then, as metic­u­lously reported at Breitbart.com, Cochran has taken dozens of jun­kets with his exec­u­tive assis­tant Kay Web­ber. One activist, who doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily want to get into it and lower the tone of this race any fur­ther, muses about how Web­ber has been pic­tured trav­el­ing on side-junkets, with the con­gres­sional wives.

    Had the race shaped up dif­fer­ently, the rumor mill might be churn­ing about this. While the Tea Party is ral­ly­ing in Jack­son, Cochran is storm­ing the state on his own cam­paign bus, stop­ping off in Hat­ties­burg. It’s there, accord­ing to two sources, that a group of suspicious-seeming young vot­ers start ask­ing Cochran about Web­ber. Cochran coun­ters that the cam­paign rec­og­nizes these “vot­ers” from their mem­ber­ships on a pro-McDaniel Face­book page.


    Yes, times changed. Specif­i­cally, the race was almost tied going into yesterday’s pri­mary, and was after an inde­pen­dent blog­ger and Chris McDaniel sup­porter, Clay­ton Kelly, decided to break into Thad Cochran’s home to video­tape his bedrid­den wife suf­fer­ing demen­tia. Why? In order to some­how sug­gest that Cochran has some sort of unseemly rela­tion­ship with his cam­paign man­ager since he’s never seen on the cam­paign trail with his bedrid­den wife suf­fer­ing demen­tia. And, unfor­tu­nately for McDaniel, he can’t eas­ily dis­tance him­self from this scan­dal because one of the peo­ple that appears to have been push­ing Kelly to do this was Mark May­field, then the head of the Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party, and the Tea Party is the pri­mary move­ment back­ing McDaniel. Uh oh. For­tu­nately for McDaniel, GOP pri­mary vot­ers don’t really seem to care:

    The New York Times
    Runoff Appears Cer­tain for Six-Term Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor
    Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel Tied in Primary


    WASHINGTON — The hard-fought Mis­sis­sippi Repub­li­can Sen­ate pri­mary appears cer­tain to go to a runoff in three weeks, with both the six-term incum­bent, Sen­a­tor Thad Cochran, and his Tea Party-backed chal­lenger, State Sen­a­tor Chris McDaniel, each gar­ner­ing less than 50 per­cent of the vote in the achingly close first round of bal­lot­ing Tuesday.

    With 99.5 per­cent of the vote counted on Wednes­day morn­ing, Mr. Cochran and Mr. McDaniel each had about 49 per­cent, with a third can­di­date pulling in less than 2 per­cent. Mr. McDaniel had a lead of just over 2,000 votes accord­ing to the tally com­piled by The Asso­ci­ated Press. But Mr. Cochran’s cam­paign claimed overnight that remain­ing bal­lots from the Jack­son area not yet included in that count had given their can­di­date a nar­row advantage.

    Cam­paign offi­cials said it might take until Thurs­day for final results, given the need to count absen­tee votes and sort through con­tested ballots.

    A runoff, sched­uled for June 24, would present a seri­ous chal­lenge to Mr. Cochran. The senator’s back­ers have been deeply con­cerned about such an even­tu­al­ity, fear­ing that Mr. McDaniel’s ardent Tea Party sup­port­ers would be more likely to show up at the polls a sec­ond time.

    In a state­ment issued early Wednes­day morn­ing the National Repub­li­can Sen­ate Com­mit­tee reit­er­ated its sup­port for Mr. Cochran, say­ing, “We look for­ward to him emerg­ing vic­to­ri­ous in the runoff.” But the big ques­tion that now hangs over the next three weeks will be just how much money the Com­mit­tee is will­ing to put behind Mr. Cochran, and whether national Repub­li­cans and establishment-aligned groups go back on the air in Mis­sis­sippi on Mr. Cochran’s behalf.

    Among Mr. McDaniel’s sup­port­ers, the best financed of the out­side con­ser­v­a­tive groups, the Club for Growth, indi­cated Wednes­day that they would con­tinue to help the chal­lenger in a runoff. Chris Chocola, the group’s pres­i­dent, pledged to vig­or­ously pur­sue this race to its con­clu­sion, and we will look for­ward to the elec­tion of Sen­a­tor Chris McDaniel.”

    Con­ser­v­a­tive hard-liners were hop­ing that Mr. McDaniel would give them their first major vic­tory over an estab­lish­ment can­di­date this year. Sen­a­tors Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­olina, Lamar Alexan­der of Ten­nessee and Pat Roberts of Kansas still face pri­mary oppo­nents, but the chal­lengers in those states are under­funded and little-known. Tea Party-backed can­di­dates have already lost in Ken­tucky, North Car­olina and Georgia.

    In Mis­sis­sippi, though, Repub­li­can lead­ers expressed anx­i­ety even before the polls closed about just how much money and effort Democ­rats may put behind their Sen­ate can­di­date, for­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Travis Childers, should Mr. McDaniel be the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee. And in Wash­ing­ton, top Repub­li­cans plan­ning a runoff strat­egy will have to con­sider how aggres­sively they want to tar­get Mr. McDaniel — a man who could be their standard-bearer in Mis­sis­sippi in three weeks.

    Among all the Repub­li­can Sen­ate races this year, Mr. Cochran, 76, was the most vul­ner­a­ble old-guard Repub­li­can, and Tea Party groups spent more than $5.2 mil­lion against him, flood­ing the state with anti-Cochran advertisements.


    If Mr. Cochran was unable to adjust to the neces­si­ties of Repub­li­can pol­i­tics in 2014, Mr. McDaniel seemed well-suited for the moment. He aligned him­self with Tea Party-backed sen­a­tors like Ted Cruz of Texas and seized on the con­tempt that con­ser­v­a­tive activists have for Mr. Obama by assur­ing them he would fight for them in Washington.

    The race was the most bit­ter pri­mary face-off this year. In a bizarre turn that seemed like some­thing out of a John Grisham or William Faulkner novel — if either of those Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans wrote such gothic polit­i­cal tales — a blog­ger who backed Mr. McDaniel was arrested and accused of sneak­ing into a Mis­sis­sippi nurs­ing home in April to take pic­tures of Mr. Cochran’s wife, Rose, who is bedrid­den and has dementia.

    The blog­ger posted video of Mrs. Cochran, but it was quickly taken down. Mr. Cochran’s cam­paign seized on the inci­dent and broad­cast a pair of com­mer­cials link­ing Mr. McDaniel to the episode. That Mr. McDaniel was still able run so strong in the face of such a story illus­trated the inten­sity of his sup­port and the favor­able envi­ron­ment in which he was running.

    McDaniel was able to over­come a 20 point deficit AND a bizarre video-taping break in scan­dal and is now poised for a pri­mary run off against a six-term incum­bent sen­a­tor. “That Mr. McDaniel was still able run so strong in the face of such a story illus­trated the inten­sity of his sup­port and the favor­able envi­ron­ment in which he was run­ning.” Yep!

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 4, 2014, 10:54 am
  16. Ummmmm...there’s going to be an inves­ti­ga­tion, right?

    TPM DC
    Why Was Miss. Tea Partier In Locked Cour­t­house With Bal­lots On Elec­tion Night?

    Dylan Scott – June 4, 2014, 4:58 PM EDT

    A Mis­sis­sippi tea party offi­cial with close ties to U.S. Sen­ate can­di­date Chris McDaniel appar­ently ended up inside a locked and empty county cour­t­house late Tues­day night after pri­mary elec­tion results had come in.

    Hinds County Repub­li­can exec­u­tive chair­man Pete Perry told TPM that he received a phone call around 2:00 a.m. CT on Wednes­day from Janis Lane, pres­i­dent of the Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party, who said she was locked inside the Hinds County cour­t­house. That would be where the cir­cuit clerk and elec­tion com­mis­sion offices, and the pri­mary elec­tion bal­lots, are located.

    The inci­dent seemed to mys­tify Perry, a sup­porter of Sen. Thad Cochran, whom McDaniel is chal­leng­ing for the GOP nom­i­na­tion. The bal­lots had been secured prior to the intru­sion, accord­ing to local authorities.

    “I don’t know. I know I wouldn’t walk into a cour­t­house at 2 o’clock in the morn­ing by myself or with some­body else and just walk around inside the build­ing,” Perry said. “I’m not going to go into a pub­lic build­ing just because some­how or another I hap­pened to find a door that was unlocked.

    “Espe­cially if it’s going down to where a bunch of elec­tion mate­ri­als were and I’d been deeply involved in a cam­paign,” he added. “I am 64. I was involved in pol­i­tics when I was real young, and I remem­ber peo­ple break­ing into a hotel in the mid­dle of the night.”

    Con­nie Cochran, a sister-in law to Sen. Thad Cochran and one of the county’s elec­tion com­mis­sion­ers, told TPM that she left the cour­t­house at 11:30 p.m. CT, the last per­son to leave, more than two hours before Lane called Perry.

    Lane said that she and a friend had wanted to observe the elec­tion process, Perry told TPM. Accord­ing to Perry, she told him that they had been walk­ing out­side of the cour­t­house and were directed by a police offi­cer to an unlocked door. It’s unclear at what time they entered the cour­t­house or how much time they spent inside the empty build­ing. Some­how, the door through which they entered got locked behind them, it appears.

    Con­nie Cochran told TPM that, to her knowl­edge, no mate­ri­als had been dis­turbed or removed from the build­ing. But Perry said that he was skep­ti­cal of Lane’s story.


    The Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party endorsed McDaniel in his fight to unseat Cochran in the Repub­li­can pri­mary, which is headed for a runoff on June 24 after Tuesday’s elec­tion. One of the group’s board mem­bers, attor­ney Mark May­field, was arrested in May in con­nec­tion to the break-in by a McDaniel sup­porter, who allegedly took pic­tures of Cochran’s wife at the nurs­ing home where she lives.


    Lane had called Perry ear­lier in the night, Perry said, ask­ing about elec­tion results. He said she appeared to be at either a McDaniel cam­paign event or at its headquarters.

    Lane did not return TPM’s request for com­ment. A spokesman for the Hinds County sheriff’s office told the Clarion-Ledger that the office had taken a report on the issue, but no inves­ti­ga­tion was ongoing.

    Ok, no inves­ti­ga­tion. So who knows what was going on, but it’s worth point­ing out that Hinds County didn’t exactly have an easy time vot­ing back in 2011 either when the county’s vot­ing machines encoun­tered a num­ber of “tech­ni­cal glitches”:

    Vot­ing Machine Fail­ures in Mis­sis­sippi Pri­mary
    DoJ deploy­ing elec­tion mon­i­tors in 11 coun­ties today...
    By Brad Fried­man on 8/2/2011, 4:42pm PT

    It’s Pri­mary Elec­tion Day in Mis­sis­sippi and so, in a pre­view of next year’s night­mare to come, a quick look at the early reports of vot­ing machine prob­lems com­ing out of the Jack­son metro-area as reported by the Clar­ion Ledger who, as is required by law for MSM report­ing on such things, refers to the reported vot­ing machine fail­ures as lit­tle more than “tech­ni­cal glitches.” That, even in one case where 3 out of the 4 vot­ing machines in use at a sin­gle precinct had failed. Good thing they had paper bal­lots on hand — and that this wasn’t a Pres­i­den­tial election!

    So here’s a quick roundup, from the Clarion-Ledger’s run­ning blog ear­lier this morn­ing, of some of the tech­ni­cal “glitches”, “hic­cups”, “snags” and “sna­fus” reported before noon near Jack­son where, unless they break down, fail, won’t start up, have the wrong names on the “bal­lots” or fea­ture other prob­lems that keep vot­ers from being able to cast their vote on any­thing but a ver­i­fi­able paper bal­lot, they use 100% unver­i­fi­able touch-screen vot­ing machines.

    Oh, and the Dept. of Jus­tice is deploy­ing mon­i­tors to 11 coun­ties in the state today for some reason...

    10 a.m.: Woes at Hinds precinct

    Bal­lot prob­lems have forced vot­ers at Wyn­ndale Pres­by­ter­ian Church on Terry Road to use paper bal­lots because some of the can­di­dates were left off bal­lots.

    Gov­er­nor and sher­iff can­di­dates were left off the Demo­c­ra­tic bal­lots, and gov­er­nor and lieu­tenant gov­er­nor can­di­dates were left off the Repub­li­can ballots.

    House Dis­trict 73 Demo­c­ra­tic can­di­date Gay Polk was upset after sup­port­ers informed her they were given the wrong bal­lot at the precinct.

    “...One of them was told maybe 50 peo­ple were given the wrong ballots.”

    “I prob­a­bly shook those 50 people’s hands and told them their vote counted” while cam­paign­ing, “but it did not count,” Polk said.
    “We’re using mod­ern tech­nol­ogy and these things hap­pen,” [Vir­ginia Terry, Demo­c­ra­tic man­ager at the precinct] said. “We’ve gone to paper ballots.“

    10:15 a.m.: Trou­ble in Madi­son County

    The encoders on the vot­ing machines at Twin Lakes Bap­tist Church at Lake Cav­a­lier in Madi­son County would only read Demo­c­ra­tic bal­lots ear­lier today. Repub­li­can pri­mary vot­ers were forced to use paper bal­lots. Tech­ni­cians were able to get the machines work­ing around 10 a.m.

    “It slowed down peo­ple vot­ing a lit­tle bit, but this is some­thing you can’t fore­see hap­pen­ing,” Pres­i­dent of the Madi­son County Repub­li­can Party Mary McLau­rin said.

    Yes, who could pos­si­bly have ever fore­seen such a thing?

    Noon: Mishaps in Clinton

    Poll watch­ers and man­agers are all smiles at the Clin­ton YMCA precinct — despite the fact three of four Repub­li­can vot­ing machines have bro­ken down on them.

    “Even though we had three machines down and only had one machine, we never had a line of more than three peo­ple,” said David Har­ring­ton, Repub­li­can precinct manager.

    This year, a new state law requires that at least 75% of the avail­able elec­tronic vot­ing machines be deployed dur­ing all elec­tions, after reports in pre­vi­ous years of long lines in some areas, for some strange rea­son. “Dur­ing the 2010 con­gres­sional elec­tions, some coun­ties put out fewer machines, and vot­ers in sev­eral precincts encoun­tered long lines,” AP reports. We won­der which precincts those were.


    100% unver­i­fi­able touch-screen vot­ing machines. Uh oh. But don’t worry. While Hinds county was the only county in the state using its par­tic­u­lar brand of vot­ing machine the county upgraded its machines last year to ES&S opti­cal scan­ner vot­ing machines last year. So if there was any med­dling with the machines, the prob­lem would be ES&S machines and at least there should be a paper trail. Which again raises the ques­tion: WTF was going on in that cour­t­house last night?

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 4, 2014, 2:58 pm
  17. Too bad they didn’t know some­one with expe­ri­ence break­ing into and out of build­ings. Oh well:

    TPM Editor’s Blog
    Cour­t­house Story Get­ting Weirder
    Josh Mar­shall – June 5, 2014, 12:00 AM EDT

    Late this after­noon Dylan Scott reported on the quite odd story of how a close ally of Sen­ate chal­lenger Chris McDaniel had ended up locked in the Cour­t­house where bal­lots are stored at around 2 am the morn­ing after pri­mary night. Well, things seem to have got­ten a good deal more inter­est­ing over the last six hours or so. Now it turns out that one of the two other peo­ple with Janis Lane, Pres­i­dent of the Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party, was none other than an actual cam­paign offi­cial with the McDaniel cam­paign. And there’s more.

    Accord­ing to a late report from the Clar­ion Ledger, the cam­paign offi­cial is Scott Brew­ster, for­mer state cam­paign coor­di­na­tor for Newt Gingrich’s pres­i­den­tial bid in 2012 and now the McDaniel campaign’s coali­tion director.

    More notably, the Hinds County Sheriff’s office seems a good deal more sus­pi­cious than it did this after­noon. At the time, they had taken a report but that there was no inves­ti­ga­tion of the inci­dent. They weren’t given clean bills of health but their state­ments and actions gave some cre­dence to Lane’s claim that the whole thing was just an unfor­tu­nate misunderstanding.

    In the new Clar­ion Ledger story, how­ever, the tune has changed markedly. Now there is an inves­ti­ga­tion and appar­ently con­flict­ing sto­ries from the three in ques­tion about just how they ended up in the cour­t­house. Othor Cain, a spokesman for the Sheriff’s depart­ment told the Clar­ion Ledger: “There are con­flict­ing sto­ries from the three of them, which began to raise the red flag, and we’re try­ing to get to the bot­tom of it. No offi­cial charges have been filed at this point, but we don’t know where the inves­ti­ga­tion will lead us.

    And it gets bet­ter: Brew­ster was actu­ally the one on the one on the McDaniel cam­paign who seemed to know the most about the “Con­sti­tu­tional Clay­ton” nurs­ing home break-in.

    I con­fess it’s dif­fi­cult to know what’s going on here. It’s plenty sus­pi­cious for polit­i­cal fod­der and an actual inves­ti­ga­tion def­i­nitely gives the story legs. But is it actu­ally con­ceiv­able that they were try­ing to tam­per with the bal­lots? It’s hard to imag­ine just what they would have been try­ing to accom­plish or what they thought they were going to get away with. But again, these folks are out of the same milieu as the folks who thought the nurs­ing home break-in was a hot idea. So there’s really no telling.

    Con­flict­ing sto­ries? Yeah, that might be a red flag. And then there’s the fact that the McDaniel cam­paign is acknowl­edg­ing that the three were sent there on the campaign’s behalf:

    TPM Livewire
    McDaniel Cam­paign: Trio Locked In Cour­t­house Were Sent By Campaign

    Daniel Strauss – June 5, 2014, 10:32 AM EDT

    Mis­sis­sippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel’s cam­paign said in a state­ment that three peo­ple who found them­selves locked in a Mis­sis­sippi cour­t­house were sent there by the cam­paign to observe the tal­ly­ing of bal­lots in the Repub­li­can pri­mary of the Mis­sis­sippi race for U.S. Senate.

    The cam­paign sent out the fol­low­ing state­ment to local after news broke that Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party Party Pres­i­dent Janis Lane as well as McDaniel coali­tions direc­tor Scott Brew­ster and another man, Rob Cham­bers, ended up locked in the Hinds County Cour­t­house on elec­tion night, where the elec­tion com­mis­sion offices and the cir­cuit clerk are located. The pri­mary elec­tion bal­lots were counted there as well.

    Below is the state­ment from the cam­paign late on Wednes­day, via the Sun Her­ald of Biloxi, Mississippi:

    Last night with an extremely close elec­tion and Hinds being one of the last coun­ties to report, our cam­paign sent peo­ple to the Hinds cour­t­house to obtain the out­stand­ing num­bers and observe the count.

    In doing so, they entered the cour­t­house through an open door after being directed by uni­formed per­son­nel. They were then locked inside the build­ing. At this point they sat down and called the county Repub­li­can chair­man, a close Cochran ally, to help them get out. Even­tu­ally a Sheriff’s offi­cer showed up and opened the door to let them out.

    Keep in mind that the phone call was at 2 am and the last elec­tion offi­cials had left at 11:30 PM.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 5, 2014, 8:34 am
  18. Well that set­tles that, in a most unset­tling man­ner:

    Cour­t­house lock-in case closed with­out arrests
    Therese Apel and Jim­mie E. Gates, The Clarion-Ledger 10:29 p.m. CDT June 5, 2014

    The Hinds County Sheriff’s Depart­ment has con­cluded no crim­i­nal activ­ity took place when three peo­ple, includ­ing a staffer for state Sen. Chris McDaniel’s U.S. Sen­ate cam­paign, ended up locked inside the county cour­t­house hours after every­one had left fol­low­ing the count­ing of votes from Tuesday’s primaries.

    Scott Brew­ster, Janis Lane and Rob Cham­bers were found locked inside the cour­t­house early Wednes­day. They allegedly entered some­time shortly after 2 a.m. and, after real­iz­ing they were locked in, called for help.

    Note that one of the three, Scott Brew­ster, tweeted at 11:16PM that he was “Going to come down to Hinds county”, so based on this time­line, the three look over two and a half hours to meet up and enter the cour­t­house. Per­haps they entered earlier?


    A mem­ber of the Hinds County Board of Super­vi­sors is ques­tion­ing the three being alone in the building.

    “There is not a cir­cum­stance where any indi­vid­ual that doesn’t work for the county should be in a county build­ing not accom­pa­nied by a county employee after hours,” said Dis­trict 1 Super­vi­sor Robert Gra­ham. “Specif­i­cally, not accom­pa­nied by an elec­tion com­mis­sioner on elec­tion night. If you’re in the build­ing and you have to do with elec­tions, you should be with a commissioner.”

    The sit­u­a­tion took on added sig­nif­i­cance because of the hotly con­tested U.S. Sen­ate Repub­li­can pri­mary pit­ting McDaniel against incum­bent Sen. Thad Cochran. McDaniel led Cochran statewide by a slim mar­gin, but in Hinds County, Cochran held a 2–1 mar­gin over McDaniel. The two will face off in a June 24 runoff.

    Brew­ster is McDaniel’s cam­paign coali­tion coor­di­na­tor. Lane is pres­i­dent of the board of the Cen­tral Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party. And Cham­bers is a con­sul­tant with the Mis­sis­sippi Bap­tist Chris­t­ian Action Commission.

    “Our inves­ti­ga­tion revealed that the three indi­vid­u­als were able to enter the cour­t­house through a side door marked for employ­ees only,” Sheriff’s Depart­ment spokesman Othor Cain said Thurs­day after­noon in a state­ment. “This door was either propped open or was mal­func­tion­ing at the time of entry.”

    Cain said the three had access only to the com­mon areas of the cour­t­house, includ­ing the hall­ways and restrooms.

    “Based on our find­ings, the door in ques­tion closed behind them upon entry and they pro­ceeded to look for indi­vid­u­als that were count­ing bal­lots in an effort to assist. After not find­ing any­one in the build­ing it is then they called for assis­tance to get out,” the state­ment said.

    Bal­lot count­ing had ended for the night, and every­one left the cour­t­house approx­i­mately three hours before the trio was locked in.

    The Sheriff’s Depart­ment refuted ear­lier state­ments by the McDaniel camp that “uni­formed per­son­nel” let the three into the building.

    Brew­ster, Lane and Cham­bers didn’t respond to requests for com­ment by The Clarion-Ledger.

    “The McDaniel cam­paign, they seem to always be on the wrong side of a door,” said for­mer Gov. Haley Bar­bour. “Have you ever heard of a group of peo­ple who were in places they weren’t sup­posed to be more often?”

    Bar­bour referred to the recent con­tro­versy in which con­ser­v­a­tive blog­ger Clay­ton Kelly allegedly went unin­vited into a nurs­ing home in Madi­son and took pho­tos of Cochran’s bedrid­den wife, Rose.

    Kelly and three oth­ers have been charged in that case.

    McDaniel said his cam­paign had no role in tak­ing pho­tos of Cochran’s wife. There are no alle­ga­tions that McDaniel’s cam­paign had prior knowl­edge of plans for the photo to be taken.

    In the cour­t­house inci­dent, Cain had said incon­sis­ten­cies in state­ments given by Lane, Cham­bers and Brew­ster led to the open­ing of the inves­ti­ga­tion late Wednesday.

    The Sheriff’s Depart­ment works secu­rity for the cour­t­house, but only dur­ing busi­ness hours, Cain said. Dur­ing an elec­tion, the elec­tion com­mis­sion hires off-duty deputies to work secu­rity, but at the time Lane, Brew­ster and Cham­bers allegedly entered the cour­t­house, all secu­rity staff would have been gone.

    On Thurs­day, Hinds County Board of Super­vi­sors Pres­i­dent Dar­rel McQuirter sent a let­ter to Sher­iff Tyrone Lewis thank­ing him for the quick action in launch­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion. McQuirter asked the Sheriff’s Depart­ment to pro­vide the board with updates and a final report on the find­ings of the investigation.

    “With­out the ben­e­fits of all the facts, we con­sider the events that have report­edly tran­spired in this past elec­tion process to be a poten­tial breech in pro­to­col,” McQuirter said. “This is a great con­cern for the board. Inci­dents such as these could com­pro­mise the integrity and valid­ity of the Hinds County elec­tion process tremendously.”

    Hinds County Cir­cuit Clerk Bar­bara Dunn says it would be vir­tu­ally impos­si­ble to tam­per with bal­lots after they make it to her office.

    All bal­lots, includ­ing absen­tee bal­lots, were placed in a vault in her office, which was locked when every­one left between 11 and 11:30 p.m. Tues­day, Dunn said.

    “It would be very hard for any­one to get into my vault,” Dunn said. “And I have an alarm sys­tem that is turned on that would make a loud sound if any­one opens the vault.”

    Precinct boxes con­tain­ing pen­cils and pens, but no bal­lots, would have been the only things left unse­cured in the hall­ways of the cour­t­house, Dunn said.

    Cain said there are attor­neys and cour­t­house employ­ees with access to the cour­t­house but they are not “uni­formed personnel.”


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 6, 2014, 12:29 pm
  19. Here’s a new fun twist in the ongo­ing spec­u­la­tion about the nature of the GOP’s new plan to defeat Obama with friv­o­lous law­suits over ‘exec­u­tive over­reach’: When GOP rep­re­sen­ta­tive Bob Good­latte was asked if the law­suit would just be a waste of time because it would get dragged out past the end of Obama’s term, Good­latte replied that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months. So once John Boehner finally fig­ures out what the law­suit will be all about, it should just be a few months before free­dom is free again and power has been rebal­anced:

    TPM Livewire
    GOP Rep. Insists Law­suit Against Obama Not Political

    Caitlin Mac­Neal – June 29, 2014, 10:41 AM EDT

    Rep. Bob Good­latte (R-VA), on Sun­day defended the GOP’s plan to sue Pres­i­dent Obama over his use of exec­u­tive actions.

    “It’s not about our want­ing to stop him from doing his job. It’s our want­ing to do the job the con­sti­tu­tion pre­scribes,” Good­latte said about the effort on “Fox News Sunday.”

    “It’s very impor­tant,” Good­latte con­tin­ued. “And this should be bipar­ti­san — peo­ple stand­ing up to pro­tect the bal­ance of power.”

    Host Chris Wal­lace then ques­tioned how Repub­li­cans could jus­tify a law­suit when there are other reme­dies that could be used to curb the president’s power.

    Good­latte again insisted that Con­gress had the author­ity to sue Obama.

    “We also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the Pres­i­dent of the United States is exceed­ing his author­ity,” he said.

    And when Wal­lace asked Good­latte if the law­suit would be point­less since it would prob­a­bly be dragged out past the end of Obama’s sec­ond term, Good­latte said that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months.

    Part of what makes the lan­guage being used by the GOP so inter­est­ing is that it’s highly rem­i­nis­cent of the strat­egy put forth by GOP dirty trick­ster Floyd Brown in 2010. Accord­ing to Brown — who brought us the infa­mous Willie Hor­ton ad and Cit­i­zens United — the grow­ing impeach­ment talk of 2010 was per­fectly legit­i­mate even though there were no actu­ally grounds for doing so being dis­cussed (beyond the Birther stuff) because, “Our Found­ing Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the pres­i­dent for actions which include: gross incom­pe­tence, neg­li­gence and dis­taste­ful behavior...For those who mis­tak­enly hold the illu­sion that impeach­ing Barack Hus­sein Obama would be a sim­ple mat­ter of ‘play­ing pol­i­tics,’ the founders fully intended that the impeach­ment of a sit­ting pres­i­dent be a polit­i­cal act.”

    And when you lis­ten to John Boehner, the clos­est thing to a ratio­nal that he gives is that “The Con­sti­tu­tion makes it clear that a president’s job is to faith­fully exe­cute the laws. In my view, the pres­i­dent has not faith­fully exe­cuted the laws,” and also that Obama has asserted “king-like author­ity.” Now, Boehner’s clearly try­ing to make this more of a ‘con­sti­tu­tion crises’ stunt than Brown was advo­cat­ing back in 2010 by talk­ing about exec­u­tive over­reach and “faith­fully exe­cut­ing” laws, but he’s still only barely try­ing to make that case. It’s half-assed even by the GOP’s stan­dards. So is Boehner really even try­ing to come across as seri­ous or is this intended to seem like trolling? Don’t for­get that trolling the pres­i­dent (and the coun­try, really) is pretty much the GOP’s pri­mary cam­paign tac­tic these days. That’s the ‘red meat’ the base craves: trolling the pres­i­dent as an expres­sion of some sort of polit­i­cal pri­mal scream. Irra­tional move­ments require pri­mal screams for main­tain­ing moral so irra­tional pri­mal screams via trolling does make sense in a twisted way. Could that be what Boehner has in mind? Ral­ly­ing the GOP going into the elec­tions with one more pri­mal scream as a moral booster? It might be needed right about now.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 29, 2014, 7:27 pm
  20. Uh oh. It’s look­ing the GOP is hav­ing dif­fi­cul­ties just say­ing no to its most trea­sured vice:

    Top House Repub­li­can Won’t Rule Out Obama Impeach­ment (VIDEO)

    By Caitlin Mac­Neal
    July 27, 2014, 11:19 AM EDT

    House Major­ity Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sun­day did not rule out impeach­ing Pres­i­dent Obama after he was asked three times by “Fox News Sun­day” host Chris Wallace.

    When first asked whether he would con­sider impeach­ing Obama, Scalise dove into a response pin­ning impeach­ment talk on the White House.

    “This might be the first White House in his­tory that’s try­ing to start the nar­ra­tive of impeach­ing their own pres­i­dent. Ulti­mately, what we want to do is see the Pres­i­dent fol­low his own laws,” Scalise said. “The Supreme Court unan­i­mously said 12 times the Pres­i­dent over­reached and did things he doesn’t have the author­ity to do.”

    Scalise gave a sim­i­lar response the sec­ond time Wal­lace asked if impeach­ment was on the table.

    “Well, the White House wants to talk about impeach­ment and they’re try­ing to fundraise off that, too,” he said.

    “I’m ask­ing you, sir,” Wal­lace quickly responded.

    Scalise dodge the ques­tion for a third time.

    “The White House will do any­thing they can to change the topic away from the President’s failed agenda,” he said. “The pres­i­dent isn’t solv­ing the prob­lems. We’re going to try to solve prob­lems for every­day peo­ple. I would like to see the Pres­i­dent engaged in that, too, that’s his job, but he wants to change the topic, talk about things like this.”


    Ide­ally, soci­ety could cre­ate an Ayahuasca-like exemp­tion for the GOP: Since the party’s reli­gion man­dates the imbib­ing of ‘impeach­ment’, the party will be allowed to use its drug of choice for reli­gious cer­e­monies for the true believ­ers. But that would only work if their reli­gious cer­e­monies weren’t going to heav­ily impact the rest of soci­ety. If only that was an option...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 27, 2014, 7:29 pm
  21. Oh geeze: First, we have Alex Jones and far right immi­gra­tion activist William Gheen are claim­ing that Obama is giv­ing Obama­phones to all the cen­tral amer­i­can child refugees in order to lure them hear to cre­ate a child army. That’s not good. And con­gress­man Louie Gohmert is claim­ing that the chil­dren aren’t really fac­ing threats of vio­lence and abuse back home and are just lying in order to get into the coun­try (Obama­phones are extremely tempt­ing after all). So that’s a rather chill­ing por­trayal of the child refugee cri­sis at on the Texas border.

    Even more alarm­ing is the sug­ges­tion by Michelle Bach­mann that Obama is plan­ning using these kids for med­ical exper­i­men­ta­tion.

    Con­nect­ing all these dots, we can only come to one con­clu­sion: Obama is cre­at­ing a pri­vate army of cyber­net­i­cally enhanced super sol­diers! Super sol­diers capa­ble of trav­el­ing vast dis­tances at incred­i­ble speeds while still reciev­ing a clear phone signal.

    A far right fan­tasy you say? Well, many would have said the idea of the GOP suing Obama in an elec­tion year over exec­u­tive orders when he’s issued the fewest in over a cen­tury was a com­plete fan­tasy when Michelle Bach­mann was float­ing the idea back in Jan­u­ary, but they aren’t say­ing that any more:

    Suing Obama: GOP-Led House Gives the Go-Ahead
    WASHINGTON — Jul 31, 2014, 10:14 AM ET
    By ALAN FRAM Asso­ci­ated Press

    A sharply divided House approved a Repub­li­can plan Wednes­day to launch a campaign-season law­suit against Pres­i­dent Barack Obama, accus­ing him of exceed­ing the bounds of his con­sti­tu­tional author­ity. Obama and other Democ­rats derided the effort as a stunt aimed at toss­ing polit­i­cal red meat to con­ser­v­a­tive voters.

    Just a day before law­mak­ers were to begin a five-week sum­mer recess, debate over the pro­posed law­suit under­scored the harshly par­ti­san tone that has dom­i­nated the cur­rent Con­gress almost from its start in Jan­u­ary 2013.

    The vote to sue Obama was 225 to 201. Five con­ser­v­a­tive Repub­li­cans voted with Democ­rats in oppos­ing the law­suit. No Democ­rats voted for it.

    Repub­li­cans said the legal action, focus­ing on Obama’s imple­men­ta­tion of his prized health care over­haul, was designed to pre­vent a fur­ther pres­i­den­tial power grab and his decid­ing uni­lat­er­ally how to enforce laws.


    Some promi­nent con­ser­v­a­tives includ­ing for­mer Repub­li­can vice pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Sarah Palin have called for Obama’s impeach­ment, and some House GOP law­mak­ers have not ruled it out. Boehner has said he has no such plans and has called Demo­c­ra­tic impeach­ment talk a “scam” to raise money.

    So are we going to see another far right dream come true now that the GOP has exposed the secret cyborg child army plans? Maybe, but if not, there are plenty of other far right dreams.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 31, 2014, 11:50 am
  22. Some­one might need to check in on the Uni­ver­sity of Texas researchers that are work­ing on an Ebola vac­cine to make sure that noth­ing has escaped the lab. There’s a nasty fever sweep­ing Texas and it looks incred­i­bly painful:

    Tues­day, Jul 29, 2014 06:30 AM CST
    Texas GOP’s plat­form is an Ayn Ran­dian fever dream
    Cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment? You bet. Guns? Yes, please, more! Com­pas­sion­ate con­ser­vatism looks *pro­gres­sive* by com­par­i­son
    Michael Win­ship, BillMoyers.com

    Imag­ine the offi­cial pre­sen­ta­tion of a world­view con­cocted by con­spir­acy the­o­rists and an assort­ment of cranks and grumpy peo­ple. Con­jure a doc­u­ment writ­ten by scribes pos­sessed of poi­son pens soaked in the inkpots of Ayn Rand and the Broth­ers Grimm, caught in the grip of a dark dystopian fan­tasy of drag­ons and specters, in which everyone’s wrong but thee and me and we’re not sure of thee.
    In the spirit of the Alamo, this is a work straight out of the 19th cen­tury with no option for surrender.

    No, this is not some “Game of Thrones” spin­off. Ladies and gen­tle­men, we give you the offi­cial 2014 plat­form of the Repub­li­can Party of Texas, 40 pages of unre­strained, right-wing blus­ter against you name it — women, minori­ties, immi­grants, Mus­lims, gays, Oba­macare, the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice, red light cam­eras, the EPA, the World Bank, vac­ci­na­tions — well, you get the pic­ture. In the spirit of the Alamo, this is a work straight out of the 19th cen­tury with no option for surrender.

    Pick a page, any page, and you’ll find your­self pitched through the rab­bit hole into an alter­nate real­ity. Homo­sex­u­al­ity? “… Cho­sen behav­ior that is con­trary to the fun­da­men­tal unchang­ing truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible… Homo­sex­u­al­ity must not be pre­sented as an accept­able alter­na­tive lifestyle, in pub­lic pol­icy, nor should fam­ily be rede­fined to include homo­sex­ual couples.”


    As for pub­lic schools, who needs them? “Since data is clear that addi­tional money does not trans­late into edu­ca­tional achieve­ment, and higher edu­ca­tion costs are out of con­trol, we sup­port reduc­ing tax­payer fund­ing to all lev­els of edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tions.” And Social Secu­rity – let ‘em eat pork rinds: “We sup­port an imme­di­ate and orderly tran­si­tion to a sys­tem of pri­vate pen­sions based on the con­cept of indi­vid­ual retire­ment accounts, and grad­u­ally phas­ing out the Social Secu­rity tax.”


    All of this is dis­turb­ing enough, but what may be the most trou­bling are the plat­form planks urg­ing the elim­i­na­tion of vir­tu­ally any fed­eral author­ity, the repeal of cer­tain parts of the Con­sti­tu­tion or insist­ing on archaic inter­pre­ta­tions that most of us thought were put to bed more than a cen­tury ago. Exec­u­tive deci­sions by any agency would have to be approved by Con­gress and as for all “unelected bureau­crats” – you mean civil ser­vants, too? – “…we urge Con­gress to use their con­sti­tu­tional author­ity to defund and abol­ish these posi­tions and return author­ity to duly elected offi­cials.” Fur­ther, the FBI, DEA, ATF, immi­gra­tion offi­cers – ANY fed­eral enforce­ment activ­i­ties within Texas “must be con­ducted under the aus­pices of the county sher­iff with juris­dic­tion in that county.”

    The Texas GOP sup­ports repeal­ing the 17th Amend­ment, which in 1913 estab­lished the direct elec­tion of US sen­a­tors by the vot­ers, tak­ing that power away from state leg­is­la­tures, which famously could be bought for pret­zels and cheese. In the Gilded Age, in part because of the ease of whole­sale bribery at the state level, cor­po­ra­tions like Stan­dard Oil and Union Pacific had the US Sen­ate in their pocket (not that it’s much bet­ter these days).

    In their fren­zied dream­land, what’s left of the Vot­ing Rights Act would be repealed and more strin­gent restric­tions on who’s allowed to vote would be put in place, fur­ther dis­en­fran­chis­ing minori­ties. What’s more, Con­gress is to “with­hold Supreme Court juris­dic­tion in cases involv­ing abor­tion, reli­gious free­dom and the Bill of Rights” (!) and the Texas state leg­is­la­ture is to “ignore, oppose, refuse, and nul­lify any fed­eral man­dated leg­is­la­tion which infringes upon the states’ 10th Amend­ment Right.” State nul­li­fi­ca­tion of fed­eral law has been con­sis­tently for­bid­den by the Supreme Court since 1809 and, with slav­ery, was at the core of the los­ing Con­fed­er­ate cause 150 years ago. Then it was again used unsuc­cess­fully by those opposed to the civil rights move­ment of the six­ties. Still, it refuses to go away, like an antibiotic-resistant strain of strep.

    No won­der the cur­rent slo­gan of Texas’ offi­cial tourism cam­paign is, “It’s like a whole other coun­try.” They ain’t just whistling “Dixie.”

    But for all the platform’s Texas-style bravado, there is no men­tion of Gov­er­nor Rick Perry’s much touted “Texas mir­a­cle,” his and other state Repub­li­cans’ boast that since 2009, “about 48 per­cent of all the jobs cre­ated in Amer­ica were in Texas” due to low taxes and lit­tle reg­u­la­tion. There is in the doc­u­ment a gen­eral oppo­si­tion to taxes, a call for the elim­i­na­tion of the min­i­mum wage and this: “We believe that a favor­able busi­ness cli­mate and strong econ­omy emerges when gov­ern­ment is lim­ited by low tax­a­tion, sen­si­ble reg­u­la­tion, and tort reform. The Amer­i­can pri­vate sec­tor pow­ers our econ­omy and is the true cre­ator of jobs.”

    Maybe the brag­ging was back­burnered because, as Phillip Long­man points out in Wash­ing­ton Monthly mag­a­zine, the state may have no income tax, “But Texas has sales and prop­erty taxes that make its over­all bur­den of tax­a­tion on low-wage fam­i­lies much heav­ier than the national aver­age, while the state also taxes the mid­dle class at rates as high or higher than in California…

    And unlike in Cal­i­for­nia, middle-class fam­i­lies in Texas don’t get the advan­tage of hav­ing rich peo­ple share equally in the cost of pro­vid­ing gov­ern­ment ser­vices. The top 1 per­cent in Texas have an effec­tive tax rate of just 3.2 per­cent. That’s roughly two-fifths the rate that’s borne by the mid­dle class, and just a quar­ter the rate paid by all those low-wage ‘tak­ers’ at the bot­tom 20 per­cent of the fam­ily income dis­tri­b­u­tion. This Robin-Hood-in-reverse sys­tem gives Texas the fifth-most-regressive tax struc­ture in the nation.

    Mid­dle– and lower-income Tex­ans in effect make up for the taxes the rich don’t pay in Texas by mak­ing do with fewer gov­ern­ment ser­vices, such as by accept­ing a K-12 pub­lic school sys­tem that ranks behind forty-one other states, includ­ing Alabama, in spend­ing per student.

    In the words of “Texas on the Brink,” the annual report writ­ten by the pro­gres­sive Leg­isla­tive Study Group, a research cau­cus in the Texas House, “In Texas today, the Amer­i­can dream is dis­tant. Texas has the high­est per­cent­age of unin­sured adults in the nation. Texas is dead last in per­cent­age of high school grad­u­ates. Our state gen­er­ates more haz­ardous waste and car­bon diox­ide emis­sions than any other state in our nation. If we do not change course, for the first time in our his­tory, the Texas gen­er­a­tion of tomor­row will be less pros­per­ous than the gen­er­a­tion of today.”


    Wait, so Con­gress is to “with­hold Supreme Court juris­dic­tion in cases involv­ing abor­tion, reli­gious free­dom and the Bill of Rights”?! OK, some­one get the patient in a bath­tub and grab the ice.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 31, 2014, 2:31 pm
  23. Rea­son # what­ever for why we can’t have nice things:

    Talk to Action
    A Talk to Action Anthol­ogy on Neo-Confederacy, Nul­li­fi­ca­tion and Seces­sion (Updated)
    Fred­er­ick Clarkson

    Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 10:54:44 PM EST

    A num­ber of posts over the past year have addressed the grow­ing Neo-Confederate move­ment, the advo­cacy of nul­li­fi­ca­tion of fed­eral laws, and even the seces­sion of states from the union. Below is an anthol­ogy of about 30 posts — a list that we will con­tinue to update from time-to-time. — FC

    Ron Paul Cur­ricu­lum Launched by Recon­struc­tion­ist Gary North and Neo-Confederate Thomas Woods
    by Rachel Tabach­nick April 9, 2013

    Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and the Neo-Confederate Catholic Right
    by Frank Cocozzelli May 1, 2013

    Why Nul­li­fi­ca­tion Mat­ters
    by Frank Cocozzelli May 12, 2013

    Refut­ing Nul­li­fi­ca­tion, Part One
    by Frank Cocozzelli May 19, 2013

    Refut­ing Nul­li­fi­ca­tion, Part Two
    by Frank Cocozzelli June 1, 2013

    Thomas E. Woods, Jr. And the Right to Oppress
    by Frank Cocozzelli June 17, 2013

    Thomas E. Woods, Jr.‘s Long and Wind­ing “Yawn“
    by Frank Cocozzelli July 8, 2013

    The Meth­ods in the Men­dac­ity of Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
    by Frank Cocozzelli August 2, 2013

    A Point About The Paul Temp­ta­tion
    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son August 24, 2013

    Yes, Mr. Woods, You Advo­cate the Right to Oppress
    by Frank Cocozzelli Sep­tem­ber 12, 2013

    Shin­ing a Light on the Right in the States
    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son Jan­u­ary 17, 2014

    Mudsill By Any Other Name
    by Frank Cocozzelli Feb­ru­ary 21, 2014

    Two Neo-Confederate Lead­ers Join Repub­li­can & Demo­c­ra­tic Par­ties to Run For Office

    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son March 2, 2014

    A Theo­crat in Democrat’s Cloth­ing
    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son March 05, 2014

    Neo-Confederate Tweets ‘Kill the Jews’ After Expo­sure of League of the South Polit­i­cal Can­di­date
    by Rachel Tabach­nick March 06, 2014

    Neo-Confederate Democ­rats: Oxy­morons?
    by jhut­son March 19, 2014

    Don’t Be April Fooled by Far-Right Activists Dressed Up as Demo­c­ra­tic Can­di­dates
    by jhut­son March 31, 2014

    Can­di­dates Expose Theo­cratic Agenda of Their Neo-Confederate Oppo­nent
    by jhut­son April 22, 2014

    Meet the New White Nation­al­ist ‘David Duke’ GOP Can­di­date
    by jhut­son July 9, 2014

    The Creep­ing Risk of Theo­cratic Vio­lence
    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son July 3, 2014

    GOP Leader Ques­tions Can­di­date About Hate Group That Advo­cates Death Squads — Updated
    by jhut­son July 25, 2014

    Not Just Whistling ‘Dixie’: Per­outka Stands Up for South­ern Seces­sion — UPDATED x2!
    by jhut­son July 30, 2014

    White Hot Con­tro­versy for a White Nation­al­ist GOP Can­di­date
    by Fred­er­ick Clark­son July 31, 2014

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 5, 2014, 8:03 am
  24. Given the inevitable growth in for­eign financ­ing of US elec­tions now that we’re liv­ing in the Cit­i­zens United/McCutcheon era of unlim­ited secret polit­i­cal spend­ing, you have to won­der how much anal­o­gous far right inter­na­tional financ­ing is tak­ing place in the US at this point since there’s really no rea­son to believe that the kind of for­eign financ­ing of far right agen­das described below is lim­ited to France:

    TPM Livewire
    Kremlin-Backed Bank Is Loan­ing Money To France’s Far-Right Party
    By Dylan Scott Pub­lished Novem­ber 28, 2014, 12:50 PM EST

    A Moscow-backed bank has pro­vided a multi-million-euro loan to the far-right French polit­i­cal party, Time reported this week, which is lead­ing some to won­der if Russ­ian pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin is try­ing to inter­fere with West­ern Europe’s domes­tic affairs.

    Marine Le Pen, who runs the National Front party in France, announced that she had received a loan of 9 mil­lion euros ($11.1 mil­lion) from the First Czech Russ­ian Bank, which has ties to the Krem­lin, accord­ing to Time.

    “At this stage, Rus­sia is try­ing to influ­ence French domes­tic pol­icy,” Jean-Yves Camus, a polit­i­cal researcher at France’s Insti­tute of Inter­na­tional and Strate­gic Rela­tions, told the mag­a­zine. “In this respect Putin is pretty much in line with the for­mer USSR. It is the same pol­icy all over again.”


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 28, 2014, 2:18 pm
  25. Police in Fer­gu­son threat­ened a group of Oath Keep­ers with arrest on Sat­ur­day after “more than five, less than 500″ vol­un­teers showed up to pro­tect local busi­nesses with armed street patrols and and rifle­men on rooftops:

    The New York Times
    On Rooftops of Fer­gu­son, Vol­un­teers Patrol, With Guns

    NOV. 29, 2014

    FERGUSON, Mo. — When Sam Andrews awoke on Tues­day morn­ing, he found his wife watch­ing a tele­vi­sion inter­view with a woman whose bak­ery had been van­dal­ized dur­ing the vio­lent unrest here on Monday.

    “She said, ‘You’ve got to go help her,’ ” Mr. Andrews said in an inter­view on Sat­ur­day morning.

    And so Mr. Andrews, a for­mer Defense Depart­ment con­trac­tor who is now a weapons engi­neer in the St. Louis area, set to work. Under the aus­pices of a national group called the Oath Keep­ers, Mr. Andrews accel­er­ated plans to recruit and orga­nize pri­vate secu­rity details for busi­nesses in Fer­gu­son, which are receiv­ing the ser­vices for free. The vol­un­teers, who are some­times described as a cit­i­zen mili­tia — but do not call them­selves that — have taken up armed posi­tions on rooftops here on recent nights.

    “It’s really a broad group of cit­i­zens, and I’m sure their moti­va­tions are all dif­fer­ent,” said Mr. Andrews, who is in his 50s. “In many of them, there’s prob­a­bly a sense of patri­o­tism. But I think in most of them, there’s prob­a­bly some­thing that they prob­a­bly don’t even rec­og­nize: that we have a moral oblig­a­tion to pro­tect the weak­est among us. When we see these vio­lent peo­ple, these arson­ists and anar­chists, attack­ing, it just pokes at you in a deep place.”

    Mr. Andrews declined to say how many peo­ple were assist­ing in the effort, say­ing only that the num­ber was “more than five, less than 500.” He esti­mated that men make up about 80 per­cent of the vol­un­teers. About 80 per­cent are white, and 10 per­cent are black.

    But on Sat­ur­day, with the county police said to be threat­en­ing the Oath Keep­ers with arrest, the vol­un­teers decided to aban­don their posts and instead protest against the author­i­ties. Dur­ing the evening, Mr. Andrews and some of his col­leagues appeared on South Floris­sant Road, con­duct­ing a protest of their own. They ate pizza and stood beneath a hand­made sign crit­i­cal of Chief Jon Bel­mar of the St. Louis County police.


    Their pres­ence is a sym­bol of the con­tin­u­ing crit­i­cism of Gov. Jay Nixon’s han­dling of secu­rity before and after the grand jury’s deci­sion became pub­lic. In the days before the announce­ment, Mr. Nixon declared a state of emer­gency and sent the Guard to Fer­gu­son. Yet, in the ini­tial hours fol­low­ing word of the grand jury’s deci­sion, the Guard played only a lim­ited role. Troops pro­tected a police com­mand post and other facil­i­ties, but they were not posted along the main com­mer­cial cor­ri­dors where prop­erty destruc­tion was rampant.

    After the destruc­tion that night, Mr. Nixon ordered hun­dreds more sol­diers to Fer­gu­son, say­ing, “We must do bet­ter, and we will.”

    But for peo­ple like Mr. Andrews, the governor’s vow was of lit­tle solace. So while the New Chi­nese Gourmet restau­rant at the end of a block of South Floris­sant Road appears to have lit­tle in the way of defense beyond the painted wooden boards that cover its win­dows, armed men and women on recent nights have roamed the rooftop it shares with a den­tal prac­tice and a law office.

    “When they’re here, there’s def­i­nitely a weight lifted off of our shoul­ders,” said Davis Vo, whose fam­ily owns New Chi­nese Gourmet. “I’d be lying if I said otherwise.”

    On its web­site, Oath Keep­ers released a recruit­ing mes­sage to “all skilled vet­er­ans and patri­ots” and asked them to “grab your gear and start rolling toward Fer­gu­son.” The post listed nine types of peo­ple the group was seek­ing, includ­ing para­medics, police offi­cers, “pri­vate drone oper­a­tors” and video­g­ra­phers who could “film any encoun­ters with looters.”

    Mr. Andrews said he researched the qual­i­fi­ca­tions of each vol­un­teer, as well as whether any might have racially based moti­va­tions to participate.

    “I don’t want any racists in my group,” he said. “I don’t want any peo­ple who want to visit vio­lence on any group. I only want pro­fes­sion­als with real cre­den­tials that can be ver­i­fied and have expe­ri­ence in deal­ing with violence.”

    But the St. Louis County police, Mr. Andrews said, and other law enforce­ment offi­cials have expressed misgivings.

    “When we hear infor­ma­tion that some­one, or a group, is pro­vid­ing secu­rity with­out a license, our depart­ment has to inves­ti­gate the issue,” a police spokesman, Shawn McGuire, said in an email on Saturday.

    Mr. Andrews said that the warn­ing on Fri­day was tan­ta­mount to a tem­po­rary shut­down order, and he said he did not expect his vol­un­teers to defy it.

    I don’t want any racists in my group...I don’t want any peo­ple who want to visit vio­lence on any group. I only want pro­fes­sion­als with real cre­den­tials that can be ver­i­fied and have expe­ri­ence in deal­ing with vio­lence.LOL. Well, at least if any racists do get kicked out of the mili­tia patrols they prob­a­bly won’t have to go far to find a new home.

    So, in the last year or so alone, we’ve found the Oath Keep­ers at the WWII Memo­r­ial with Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Larry “put the Koran down, get of your knees and come out with your hands up!” Klay­man. And then there was all their fun and games at the Bundy Ranch. And don’t for­get the fun and games at the US-Mexican bor­der. And now they’ve brought that same Oath Keeper flair to Ferguson.

    So what’s next for the Oath Keeper’s brand of reac­tionary “Fight the Power (of specif­i­cally the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, unless it involves the mil­i­tary)!” vig­i­lante activism? That next step is very unclear largely because that next step is likely to be as reac­tionary as the all pre­vi­ous steps. That said, the final des­ti­na­tion of the Oath Keep­ers and their fel­low Koch-fueled trav­el­ers shouldn’t really be in doubt.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 30, 2014, 6:45 pm
  26. It looks like Daniel Miller and his Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, which was one of the seces­sion­ist move­ments fea­tured in that 2009 WSJ piece on the break up of the US, con­tinue to refuse to secede from their vision of the Lone Star state going solo

    The Texas Tribune

    Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment group wants seces­sion on GOP pri­mary ballot

    By Luq­man Adeniyi, The Texas Tri­bune
    15 Sep 2015 at 09:09 ET

    Texas already seceded once — in 1861, by pop­u­lar vote in a statewide election.

    But the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment wants a repeat a cen­tury and a half later, and thinks the March GOP pri­mary is the place to start.

    The Nederland-based Texas inde­pen­dence group is cir­cu­lat­ing a peti­tion aimed at get­ting a non-binding vote onto the GOP pri­mary bal­lot over whether “the state of Texas should reassert its sta­tus as an inde­pen­dent nation.”

    Their goal? 75,000 sig­na­tures from reg­is­tered vot­ers by Dec. 1 — more than the 66,894 the Texas Sec­re­tary of State’s office says the group needs to get the lan­guage on the ballot.

    Even if the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment gets enough sig­na­tures, such a vote would be lit­tle more than sym­bolic. Aca­d­e­mics agree that Texas can­not secede from the United States, and point to a post-Civil War Supreme Court rul­ing, Texas v. White, as evidence.

    But that hasn’t stopped the Repub­li­can Party of Texas from rolling its eyes at the seces­sion­ists. Texas GOP com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor Aaron White­head said the Repub­li­can party cer­tainly doesn’t wel­come out­side groups try­ing to doc­tor the party ballot.

    “His­tor­i­cally the exec­u­tive com­mit­tee of the Repub­li­can Party has cho­sen what goes on this,” White­head said, “and it’s party pref­er­ence that it stays that way.”

    The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, which hasn’t yet ver­i­fied how many sig­na­tures it has, doesn’t buy the argu­ment that the state can’t secede. Daniel Miller, the group’s pres­i­dent, points to the state Con­sti­tu­tion, and in par­tic­u­lar, the pro­vi­sion that gives Tex­ans the right to “alter, reform or abol­ish their gov­ern­ment in such man­ner as they may think expedient.”

    Miller said the group is going around the state party because past inter­ac­tions with the GOP weren’t fruitful.

    “We have had our hand slapped,” Miller said. “We have been rebuffed, and not just us as an orga­ni­za­tion, but essen­tially any­one in any posi­tion inside the party that has advo­cated for this posi­tion has been rebuffed.”

    White­head said there is zero rela­tion­ship between the GOP and the seces­sion­ists, and added that his response to such a bal­lot pro­posal would be the same if it were “a res­o­lu­tion giv­ing every­body a uni­corn or a res­o­lu­tion for secession.”

    If the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment does get the sig­na­tures it needs, the Sec­re­tary of State’s office says it will be the first time a ref­er­en­dum from a cit­i­zen group is put on the Repub­li­cans’ statewide pri­mary bal­lot. Miller acknowl­edges a major­ity vote for the ref­er­en­dum wouldn’t be bind­ing, but hopes it would be enough evi­dence of sup­port to get state lead­ers to take the issue seri­ously long-term.

    “The end game for us is to have a bind­ing ref­er­en­dum on Texas inde­pen­dence, much like the peo­ple of Scot­land had in Novem­ber of last year,” Miller said.

    The 2014 vote over Scot­tish inde­pen­dence from the United King­dom failed.

    Vol­un­teers from the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment are at work across the state, scur­ry­ing to get sig­na­tures. Miller is opti­mistic; he says the orga­ni­za­tion itself has over 200,000 members.


    So we’ll see how many sig­na­ture the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment actu­ally gets, but if they do reach their 75,000 goal it wouldn’t be all that shock­ing given that ~25% of Amer­i­cans seem to be inter­ested in seces­sion in gen­eral. For­tu­nately it sounds like this par­tic­u­lar seces­sion­ist group is ded­i­cated to non-violent means, so if they don’t end up mod­i­fy­ing the Texas GOP plank we pre­sum­ably won’t have to worry about the Texas Nation­al­ist Insur­gency. Although it’s worth point­ing out that the propen­sity for non-violence is prob­a­bly going to be heav­ily depen­dent on whether or not enough Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment are per­ceiv­ing that the US has adopted a ‘Gestapo Gov­ern­ment’, because as one mem­ber put it back in 2013, “We’re liable to fight the Alamo all over again...We’re not inter­ested in leg­is­la­tion; we’re inter­ested in bul­lets, body-bags and bay­o­nets. If the ‘Gestapo Gov­ern­ment’ starts try­ing to take away our guns, we’re going to have another rev­o­lu­tion.”:

    The Inde­pen­dent
    We want to be alone: The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment wants America’s sec­ond largest state to leave the Union

    Tim Walker Author Biography

    Tues­day 12 Feb­ru­ary 2013

    At noon on 8 Jan­u­ary, the first day of the 2013 leg­isla­tive ses­sion, around 200 Tex­ans stood stub­bornly in the rain on the north steps of the capi­tol build­ing in Austin. Some car­ried state flags, oth­ers plac­ards bear­ing mes­sages such as “I want off the sink­ing ship”. To cries of “Remem­ber the Alamo!” and “Lib­erty or Death!”, Daniel Miller, the leader of the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment (TNM), stepped for­ward to speak.

    The 39-year-old in the suit and cow­boy boots has been the leader of the TNM, which organ­ised the rally, since 2001. His recent book, Line in the Sand, is the movement’s core text. Miller turned and pointed to the fig­ure of Lady Lib­erty at the sum­mit of the capitol’s domed roof. “You’ll notice,” he joked, “that Lib­erty has her back turned to the North.”

    There has been enthu­si­asm for the notion of inde­pen­dence at the far fringes of Texan pol­i­tics for decades, but the re-election of Barack Obama has sig­nif­i­cantly broad­ened the TNM’s base. The organ­i­sa­tion claims more than a quar­ter of a mil­lion mem­bers, and has reg­is­tered more than three mil­lion hits on its web­site since Novem­ber. It even formed its own Polit­i­cal Action Com­mit­tee, or PAC, to back can­di­dates that share its goals.

    As the Pres­i­dent pre­pared to deliver the State of the Union address, he will have been aware that some in its second-largest state would rather leave the Union alto­gether. Last month, the Obama admin­is­tra­tion rejected a peti­tion call­ing for the state’s seces­sion from the US. Posted on the White House web­site in Novem­ber by a stu­dent from Arling­ton, the peti­tion drew 125,746 sig­na­tures in just eight weeks. Sim­i­lar appeals emerged from all 50 states, but the Texan’s was by far the most-signed. In his response, the direc­tor of the White House Office of Pub­lic Engage­ment, Jon Car­son, claimed the US Con­sti­tu­tion, “enshrined… the right to change our national gov­ern­ment through the power of the bal­lot – a right that gen­er­a­tions of Amer­i­cans have fought to secure for all. But they did not pro­vide a right to walk away from it.”

    The peti­tion was rejected, but this week Texas got its first taste of inter­na­tional diplo­macy – and its first ally – in the shape of the for­mer Soviet state of Belarus, ruled by bru­tal dic­ta­tor Alexan­der Lukashenko. Appar­ently fed up with con­stantly being crit­i­cised for abus­ing human rights, the Belarus Min­istry of For­eign Affairs lev­elled the same accu­sa­tion at Wash­ing­ton for reject­ing Texas’s call. Whether Minsk’s inter­ven­tion will help the seces­sion­ist cause is open to debate.

    Texas was briefly a nation, between secur­ing inde­pen­dence from Mex­ico in 1836 and annex­a­tion by the United States in 1845, dur­ing which time it had embassies in Lon­don and Paris. Alone, the state would boast the world’s 15th-largest econ­omy. At a Tea Party rally in 2009, Gov­er­nor Rick Perry gave hope to seces­sion­ists by sug­gest­ing, “When we came into the nation in 1845… we were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. So we’re kind of think­ing about that again.” (Last year, Perry’s office informed the Dal­las Morn­ing News that the Gov­er­nor, “believes in the great­ness of our Union”.)

    One per­son who could rea­son­ably expect sup­port from the TNM PAC is Larry Kil­gore, a 48-year-old telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions con­sul­tant, who changed his mid­dle name to “SECEDE” in Decem­ber. Kil­gore received 250,000 votes when he con­tested the Repub­li­can Sen­ate pri­mary in 2008, and has announced his inten­tion to run for Perry’s job in 2014. His aim, he told The Inde­pen­dent, is to become Gov­er­nor and then imme­di­ately hold a ref­er­en­dum on inde­pen­dence, before step­ping down. “I don’t want peo­ple to think I’m just inter­ested in power,” he explained. Kilgore’s rea­sons for advo­cat­ing seces­sion are partly eco­nomic. He resents pay­ing social secu­rity and fed­eral income tax. Also, “We’re not even allowed to exe­cute peo­ple who molest chil­dren,” he said. “We don’t want the US com­ing in and say­ing, ‘You can’t per­form this judi­cial punishment.’”

    Soon after the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, Peter Mor­ri­son, trea­surer of the Hardin County Repub­li­can party, wrote in his reg­u­lar Tea Party newslet­ter in favour of the state’s “ami­ca­ble divorce” from the US and from the “mag­gots” who’d voted for Obama. “When cit­i­zens of Czecho­slo­va­kia decided to peace­fully sep­a­rate into the Czech Repub­lic and Slo­va­kia,” he explained in an email, “it was not a case of a sore loser, but rather two free groups decid­ing they wanted to gov­ern them­selves independently.”

    Mor­ri­son believes there is a “seri­ous pos­si­bil­ity” of Texas gain­ing inde­pen­dence in sim­i­lar fash­ion dur­ing his life­time. Daniel Miller grew up in White Oak, a town of around 6,000 in north­east Texas. His father was a unionised iron­worker, his mother a sec­re­tary. When he grad­u­ated from high school in 1991, he imme­di­ately ran for mayor. He lost, and resolved to give up pol­i­tics. But three years later, he recalled, an acquain­tance, “handed me a copy of the US Con­sti­tu­tion and a copy of the Com­mu­nist man­i­festo. They said, ‘Read both of them and tell us what you feel like you’re liv­ing in right now.’ I saw a lot more of Marx in soci­ety than the Con­sti­tu­tion. That flipped a switch for me.”

    The TNM leadership’s post-secession aims sound rea­son­able – small gov­ern­ment; low taxes; a bal­anced bud­get – and their cho­sen means are peace­ful. “Our mem­bers must be com­mit­ted to the peace­ful, non-violent approach,” said Miller. “Like the SNP in Scot­land, or Gandhi in India. We look at the SNP as a model for modern-day independence.”

    But not all their mem­bers agree. Alan Daves, 70, an insur­ance and real estate bro­ker who calls him­self “The Texas Mob-Father”, wore a military-style pon­cho to the rally, to pro­tect him­self from the driz­zle. “We’re liable to fight the Alamo all over again,” he said. “We’re not inter­ested in leg­is­la­tion; we’re inter­ested in bul­lets, body-bags and bay­o­nets. If the ‘Gestapo Gov­ern­ment’ starts try­ing to take away our guns, we’re going to have another revolution.”

    The TNM also has ide­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences with the other lead­ing inde­pen­dence group: the Repub­lic of Texas, which won’t dis­cuss seces­sion, on the basis that Texas was never “ceded” to the US in the first place. Bob Wil­son, 76, is one of eight sen­a­tors in the Republic’s shadow leg­is­la­ture. Unlike the TNM, he’s unwill­ing to nego­ti­ate with the US or Texan gov­ern­ments. “There’s noth­ing to nego­ti­ate. We’re right; they’re wrong… The Texan state is just a sub­sidiary of US Incor­po­rated.” Miller, Wil­son claimed, “is a prof­i­teer who won’t change a thing.”

    If any­thing, the Repub­lic of Texas is less rad­i­cal than it used to be: its for­mer leader was involved in a week-long armed stand-off with Texas Rangers in 1997, which left one of its mem­bers dead, and a num­ber of oth­ers in jail. The group now has its own cur­rency, minted in Dal­las, which it claims is accepted by more than 20,000 mer­chants. Wil­son, a mechan­i­cal engi­neer by trade, says he’s design­ing a seat of gov­ern­ment in Waco. “It has become abun­dantly clear that we’ll be receiv­ing for­eign dig­ni­taries,” he said. What Wil­son and the TNM share is a con­vic­tion that inde­pen­dence is com­ing, and sooner than any­one else expects.

    “The likely sce­nario is that Obama’s gov­ern­ment will col­lapse some­time in 2013 or 2014,” Wil­son claimed. “Then peo­ple will look to who’s best equipped to take over.”


    “The likely sce­nario is that Obama’s gov­ern­ment will col­lapse some­time in 2013 or 2014...Then peo­ple will look to who’s best equipped to take over.”

    In other news...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 15, 2015, 3:06 pm
  27. The Texas Nation­al­ist Movement’s quest to get its pro-secession ini­tia­tive on the GOP 2016 pri­mary bal­lots in March got a big boost on Fri­day when the bal­lot ini­tia­tive, pushed by Texas GOP exec­u­tive com­mit­tee mem­ber Tanya Robert­son, passed the Texas GOP’s Res­o­lu­tions Com­mit­tee:

    The Hous­ton Chron­i­cle
    Texas seces­sion res­o­lu­tion passes GOP com­mit­tee, headed for Party vote Saturday

    By Dylan Bad­dour Updated 4:43 pm, Fri­day, Decem­ber 4, 2015

    A pro­posal to put Texas seces­sion to a non-binding vote in March passed a state GOP com­mit­tee vote in Austin on Fri­day after­noon, clear­ing the way for a vote Sat­ur­day by the Party’s full exec­u­tive assem­bly, party offi­cials reported.

    Party lead­er­ship has said the inde­pen­dence item won’t likely be approved in a full-body vote. An infor­mal poll of exec­u­tive com­mit­tee mem­bers con­ducted by the Chron­i­cle showed the assem­bly was split on the issue.

    The res­o­lu­tion would put a breakup with Uncle Sam to a non-binding vote, which would essen­tially serve as an opin­ion poll and wouldn’t legally com­pel Texas to secede.

    It was intro­duced by State Repub­li­can Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee mem­ber Tanya Robert­son, who rep­re­sents parts of Har­ris, Galve­ston and Bra­zo­ria coun­ties. In Novem­ber, she told the Chron­i­cle that many of her con­stituents had voiced sup­port for a reborn Repub­lic of Texas, the short-lived nation of the mid-1800s.

    The res­o­lu­tion reads, “If the fed­eral gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to dis­re­gard the con­sti­tu­tion and the sov­er­eignty of the State of Texas, the State of Texas should reassert its sta­tus as an inde­pen­dent nation.”

    The SREC is the gov­ern­ing body of the Repub­li­can Party of Texas, and it decides what will appear on the March 1 Repub­li­can pri­mary bal­lot. The Party is cur­rently assem­bled in Austin to author the bal­lot. On Fri­day, the inde­pen­dence res­o­lu­tion passed the Res­o­lu­tions Com­mit­tee, which selects items to go before the full 40-member assem­bly on Sat­ur­day. Of 12 res­o­lu­tions pre­sented at the com­mit­tee Fri­day, five were approved, includ­ing inde­pen­dence, mem­bers said.

    Of the 40 SREC mem­bers polled by the Chron­i­cle this week, 13 responded. Six said they would sup­port a vote on inde­pen­dence, six said they would not and one declined to comment.

    Sup­port­ers of the res­o­lu­tion argued that the Party should not pro­hibit the cit­i­zens from voic­ing their opin­ion, while oppo­nents argued that seces­sion was unpa­tri­otic and unconstitutional.

    Sev­eral polls have explored seces­sion before. A 2009 Ras­mussen sur­vey found 18 per­cent of Texas would opt to secede, while seven per­cent were undecided.

    In Sep­tem­ber 2014, Reuters reported “1 in 4 Amer­i­cans are open to seces­sion,” with the high­est sup­port for seces­sion—34 per­cent–in the three-state South­west region that includes Texas.


    Wow, so the Texas GOP’s exec­u­tive committee’s 12-person res­o­lu­tion com­mitte approved tak­ing the pro-secession mea­sure to the 60-member assem­bly vote (not 40, that’s an error) which takes place today. And based on an infor­mal poll by the Chron­i­cle of 40 of those 60 mem­bers, 13 responded and sup­port is split:

    The SREC is the gov­ern­ing body of the Repub­li­can Party of Texas, and it decides what will appear on the March 1 Repub­li­can pri­mary bal­lot. The Party is cur­rently assem­bled in Austin to author the bal­lot. On Fri­day, the inde­pen­dence res­o­lu­tion passed the Res­o­lu­tions Com­mit­tee, which selects items to go before the full 40-member assem­bly on Sat­ur­day. Of 12 res­o­lu­tions pre­sented at the com­mit­tee Fri­day, five were approved, includ­ing inde­pen­dence, mem­bers said.

    Of the 40 SREC mem­bers polled by the Chron­i­cle this week, 13 responded. Six said they would sup­port a vote on inde­pen­dence, six said they would not and one declined to com­ment.

    And note that the exec­u­tive com­mit­tee mem­ber that put forth this mea­sure, Tanya Robert­son, rep­re­sents areas like Galve­ston. That’s also one of the areas once rep­re­sented by Ron Paul, who asserted that “we should be like 1900″ when there was no FEMA (a state­ment he made hours before hur­ri­cane Irene made land­fall on the East Coast). Aside from the fact that fed­eral dis­as­ter assis­tance was com­mon­place before the cre­ation of FEMA, also note that Texas receives more fed­eral dis­as­ter aid than any other state. It’s a reflec­tion of the men­tal­ity at work in the Texas GOP’s lead­er­ship these days (although given polls that show 53 per­cent of Tea Party mem­bers nation­al­ity would sup­port seces­sion, it’s not a men­tal­ity lim­ited to the leadership).

    So did the seces­sion mea­sure pass the 60-member vote and make it onto the GOP’s pri­mary bal­lot in March? No, it didn’t pass, although we can’t actu­ally be sure it wouldn’t have passed if left up to a recorded vote since they used a voice vote instead:

    The Texas Tri­bune
    Texas GOP Votes Down Seces­sion Proposal

    by Patrick Svitek
    Dec. 5, 2015

    State GOP lead­ers, in a pre­dictable but closely watched vote, have defeated a pro­posal to ask Texas vot­ers whether they favor secession.

    In a voice vote Sat­ur­day after­noon, the State Repub­li­can Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee rejected a mea­sure that would have put the issue on the March 1 pri­mary bal­lot. The bal­lot lan­guage would have been non-binding, amount­ing to a for­mal sur­vey of vot­ers on whether they would like to see Texas declare its inde­pen­dence from the United States.

    While the proposal’s defeat was expected, the mea­sure had sparked some heated debate on the 60-member exec­u­tive com­mit­tee, the gov­ern­ing body of the Repub­li­can Party of Texas. Seek­ing to avoid a pro­tracted fight, the exec­u­tive com­mit­tee voted ear­lier Sat­ur­day after­noon to cap dis­cus­sion of the issue at 30 min­utes then put it to an up-or-down vote.

    Tanya Robert­son, the SREC mem­ber who intro­duced the pro­posal, argued at the exec­u­tive com­mit­tee meet­ing in Austin that the mea­sure would have been “harm­less,” allow­ing vot­ers to reg­is­ter an “opin­ion only.” She also sug­gested the bal­lot lan­guage would have helped “get out the vote” among some Texas Repub­li­cans who have been sit­ting out recent elections.

    “The goal of these is to take a ther­mome­ter of how Tex­ans feels about an issue, and what bet­ter issue for Tex­ans to do that with?” she asked.


    Oh well, bet­ter luck next time! And hope­fully they’ll actu­ally record the votes next time so we get to know just how many Texas GOP exec­u­tive com­mit­tee mem­bers want to start dis­man­tling the US. It would be inter­est­ing to hear an audio record­ing of the voice vote too. It would also inter­est­ing to hear what Texas Sen­a­tor Ted Cruz, who is now in sec­ond place nation­ally in the GOP pres­i­den­tial pri­mary, thinks about such a pro­posal. Prob­a­bly scary and dis­turb­ing too, but also interesting.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 5, 2015, 4:24 pm
  28. The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, the ‘usual sus­pect’ in call­ing for for Texas to secede, is get­ting quite a bit of help from the ‘usual sus­pect’ for dys­func­tional pol­i­tics in gen­eral, the GOP. So every­thing is as it should be, at least in the sense that things aren’t as they should be but the groups we should expect to be mak­ing things not as they should be are doing what they should be doing to ful­fill their role as the groups that do that which shouldn’t be done. In other words, it’s just a nor­mal year for the Texas GOP in that things are all f*#@ed up, although this year it might be a lit­tle more nor­mal than nor­mal:

    The Hou­son Chronicle

    In Texas, some local GOPs call for statewide vote on secession

    By Dylan Bad­dour Updated 7:32 pm, Fri­day, April 15, 2016

    A hand­ful of Texas Repub­li­can dis­trict or county con­ven­tions in March passed res­o­lu­tions call­ing for a vote on seces­sion, paving the way for a poten­tially awk­ward debate at the state GOP con­fer­ence in May.

    A Nederland-based pro-independence activist group, the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, said at least 22 of the hun­dreds of con­ven­tions passed seces­sion items. Texas GOP chair­man Tom Mech­ler said he “would be very sur­prised” if that many had indeed passed the conventions.

    The Hous­ton Chron­i­cle reached out to GOP offi­cials in the coun­ties listed by the Nation­al­ist Move­ment. Ten responded and all con­firmed pas­sage of the res­o­lu­tions. An offi­cial count should be avail­able from the Repub­li­can Party of Texas in early May.

    A party com­mit­tee will con­sider the res­o­lu­tions for debate on the floor of the state GOP con­ven­tion in Dal­las May 12–14. The vol­ume of inde­pen­dence res­o­lu­tions — from which party lead­ers are quick to dis­tance them­selves — increases the pos­si­bil­ity they could be approved for dis­cus­sion, though the notion of seces­sion would cer­tainly be shot down swiftly on the con­ven­tion floor.

    Still, the res­o­lu­tions rep­re­sent a sig­nif­i­cant mile­stone in the growth of a fringe move­ment in the Texas GOP, which drew atten­tion last year when mem­bers of the party’s State Repub­li­can Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee pushed for a vote at a Decem­ber meet­ing.

    “I hadn’t really heard of this in any orga­nized way until this past year,” said Paul Simp­son, chair­man of the Repub­li­can Party of Har­ris County. “It’s cropped up in a major way just in this last year.”

    The Nation­al­ist Move­ment recently has led the push for a con­ver­sa­tion on inde­pen­dence, and SREC offi­cials cited it as inspi­ra­tion when they intro­duced a res­o­lu­tion for a vote in Decem­ber. That res­o­lu­tion was voted down overwhelmingly.

    Mech­ler said the Nation­al­ist Move­ment was not a Repub­li­can group, and was using the state party appa­ra­tus to push its cause.

    “Repub­li­can is not even in their name,” Mech­ler said.

    Last year, the Nation­al­ist Move­ment made head­lines for a statewide tour of speak­ing events, aimed at gar­ner­ing enough sig­na­tures to get seces­sion on the GOP pri­mary bal­lot. They came up short, but the group’s pres­i­dent, Daniel Miller, said he recruited and “trained” vol­un­teers from Amar­illo to San Anto­nio to Beau­mont.

    “There’s no coin­ci­dence that a lot of peo­ple who attended those train­ings were some of the very minds respon­si­ble for cham­pi­oning these res­o­lu­tions in dis­trict and county con­ven­tions,” Miller said.

    The cause also has a few sym­pa­thiz­ers in the Repub­li­can ranks. Tanya Robert­son, SREC mem­ber of Sen­ate Dis­trict 11 in the Greater Hous­ton area has led the drive for an inde­pen­dence vote within the party, with help from a hand­ful of allies includ­ing Bon­nie Lugo of SD 13 in Har­ris and Fort Bend Counties.

    Even Houston’s Jared Wood­fill, a tea party activist run­ning to unseat Mech­ler as state party chair­man, has been an ally.

    “I absolutely think the peo­ple should have an oppor­tu­nity to vote on this issue,” he said.

    The num­ber of seces­sion res­o­lu­tions this year con­trasts with 2012, when Nation­al­ist Move­ment activists fanned out at county GOP con­ven­tions but were only able to pass their item in one, Miller said.

    Last month in SD 11, a res­o­lu­tion passed urg­ing a statewide vote on “whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its sta­tus as an inde­pen­dent nation.”

    A sim­i­lar res­o­lu­tion passed in Har­ris County SD 6, said State Repub­li­can Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee mem­ber Glenda Bowles. Offi­cials con­firmed res­o­lu­tions also passed in Jef­fer­son, Tar­rant, Webb, Lee, DeWitt and Guadalupe counties.

    “The res­o­lu­tion in ques­tions appears to have orig­i­nated from the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment,” said Guadalupe County GOP chair Karen Hale.

    Lub­bock County GOP chair Carl Tep­per said two seces­sion items passed his county con­ven­tion: one call­ing for an inde­pen­dence vote, and the other call­ing for seces­sion in case the con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion sug­gested by Gov. Greg Abbott fails to right the ways of the fed­eral government.

    The county con­ven­tions are “kind of a place for peo­ple to vent,” he said.

    Sup­port­ers of and inde­pen­dent Texas allege over­reach, cor­rup­tion and exces­sive spend­ing by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, and argue that Texas is large and pros­per­ous enough to get by on its own.

    Talk of Texas seces­sion has long sim­mered in Lone Star dis­course, flar­ing up peri­od­i­cally. It has raised tem­pers in polit­i­cal set­tings before. At the Decem­ber SREC meet­ing, oppo­nents of the notion hotly said it shouldn’t even be dis­cussed, and one offi­cial scoffed at the notion of send­ing Tex­ans to fight the U.S. military.

    Miller said that in Jef­fer­son County, where he spoke at a Repub­li­can con­ven­tion, another attendee angrily accused him of “sedi­tion” for advo­cat­ing secession.


    For the record, the Supreme Court ruled ruled in 1869 that states do not have a right to secede. Seces­sion­ists con­tend that the nation’s laws are irrel­e­vant once a state declares inde­pen­dence. How­ever, they would com­pel the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to use force against any Texas rebel­lion, evok­ing rec­ol­lec­tions of the state’s last dis­as­trous attempt to secede.

    “Sup­port­ers of and inde­pen­dent Texas allege over­reach, cor­rup­tion and exces­sive spend­ing by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, and argue that Texas is large and pros­per­ous enough to get by on its own.“
    This might be a good time to remind the seces­sion­ists that Texas is actu­ally a net recip­i­ent of fed­eral dol­lars. If it’s not a good time for that reminder, just wait. It’ll get bet­ter.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 18, 2016, 2:39 pm

Post a comment