http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/28/stormfront-founder-ron-pauls-views-coincide-with-ours-on-most-issues/

Storm­front founder: Ron Paul’s views ‘coin­cide with ours’ on most issues

By Eric W. Dolan
Wednes­day, Decem­ber 28, 2011

Texas Rep. Ron Paul ® received an unwant­ed endorse­ment on Tues­day when Don Black, the founder of the white nation­al­ist group Storm­front, told The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur that he sup­port­ed Paul’s pres­i­den­tial can­di­da­cy.

Paul has recent­ly been plagued by racist, hate-filled newslet­ters that were pub­lished under his name. The newslet­ters were pub­lished about 20 years ago and con­tained a num­ber of incen­di­ary com­ments about African-Amer­i­cans, gays and Israel. All of the newslet­ters fea­tured his name, but Paul has said he did not edit or write the con­tro­ver­sial lan­guage, and dis­avowed it.

“He’s clear­ly not a white nation­al­ist, he does not have the same world­view we do,” Black told Cenk. “But we agree with his stand on the issues, which we believe are heart­felt, coin­cide with ours. I might pre­fer that he under­stand the racial issues that we deal with a lit­tle more than he does.”

“We believe that white peo­ple in this coun­try and all Euro­pean coun­tries, Aus­tralia, Cana­da are fac­ing a form of geno­cide through assim­i­la­tion.”

http://globalcomment.com/2012/palling-around-with-nazis-how-republican-rhetoric-obscures-ron-pauls-white-supremacist-base-and-undermines-democracy/

Palling around with Nazis: How Repub­li­can rhetoric obscures Ron Paul’s white suprema­cist base and under­mines democ­ra­cy

JANUARY 3, 2012

Through­out the Oba­ma pres­i­den­cy, mem­bers of the GOP have been quick to com­pare the Pres­i­dent to Hitler. Many of the party’s cur­rent pres­i­den­tial hope­fuls have engaged in this kind of inflam­ma­to­ry rhetoric. In 2009, Michele Bach­man enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly endorsed a fundrais­er with Maria Anne Hirschmann, who has com­pared Obama’s poli­cies to those that brought about the rise of the Third Reich. In 2010, Newt Gin­grich described Democ­rats as a “sec­u­lar-social­ist machine” that posed as much of a “threat” to Amer­i­can democ­ra­cy as the Nazis posed in Ger­many. He lat­er backed down from the claim, but there it was, part and par­cel of the GOP’s para­noia machine. Just yes­ter­day, Rick San­to­rum defend­ed a state­ment he made in Decem­ber in an address to the Repub­li­can Jew­ish Coali­tion Can­di­dates Forum. He’d alleged that Obama’s for­eign pol­i­cy amount­ed to World War II-style Nazi “appease­ment.”

Nazi para­noia has reached epic pro­por­tions among influ­en­tial mem­bers of the GOP over the past few years. So, you’d think they’d be quick shut down actu­al Nazi sym­pa­thiz­ing when it emerges with­in their ranks. But they’re doing quite the oppo­site. Rather than speak­ing out about Ron Paul’s extrem­ism, they’ve most­ly been crit­i­ciz­ing him as a “mod­er­ate” because he’s against impe­ri­al­is­tic war poli­cies.

Not one Repub­li­can can­di­date has men­tioned this pho­to­graph, cir­cu­lat­ed via social media by an #occu­py protest group last week:

(con­tin­ued at link)

@R. Wil­son: The one thing that scares me about Ron Paul, more than any­thing else, is the fact that he may choose Chuck Bald­win as his V.P. as he did in ’08.....on the oth­er hand, Paul is like­ly to run as an Indie may very well split the GOP vote. If that hap­pens, the Estab­lish­ment would be like­ly to go into full freak­out mode, I sus­pect, and then the real pro­pa­gan­da would start show­ing up. You ain’t seen noth­ing yet, I don’t think.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/14/iowa-republican-says-government-illegitimate-declares-herself-u-s-senator/

Iowa Repub­li­can declares her­self Sen­a­tor, announces that cur­rent gov­ern­ment is ille­git­i­mate

An Iowa woman who was run­ning for a state Sen­ate seat has dropped that bid after decid­ing the U.S. gov­ern­ment is a sham, and has instead uni­lat­er­al­ly declared her­self a U.S. Sen­a­tor from the Repub­lic of Iowa in an alter­na­tive gov­ern­ment, the Repub­lic for the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca.

As Jason Noble of the Des Moines Reg­is­ter first report­ed, the can­di­date, Ran­di Shan­non, had been run­ning for the state’s 34th Sen­ate dis­trict. How­ev­er, she recent­ly came to believe that the real U.S. gov­ern­ment was replaced with an ille­gal one after the Civ­il War so, rather than con­tin­ue her state-lev­el pur­suit, she dropped that bid and named her­self a Sen­a­tor of the what she thinks is the true gov­ern­ment.

In a let­ter fit­ting­ly post­ed to her campaign’s Face­book page on July 4, Shan­non wrote that the coun­try was found­ed as the Repub­lic for The Unit­ed States for Amer­i­ca in 1787, and that it remained as such until the 1860s, when it was aban­doned dur­ing the Civ­il War. Once the war end­ed, she wrote, the gov­ern­ment was replaced by the, “UNITED STATES CORPORATION,” [sic] which has endured to this day as the nation’s far­ci­cal gov­ern­ing body.

In a state­ment rid­dled with curi­ous cap­i­tal­iza­tion meant to empha­size the government’s foibles, Shan­non derides the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment for, she claims, stomp­ing out entre­pre­neur­ship, infring­ing on per­son­al lib­er­ties, and just gen­er­al­ly being an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al enti­ty. Per­haps worst, she says, are the elect­ed law­mak­ers who have per­pet­u­at­ed this sys­tem and in doing so have, “com­mit­ted the most egre­gious acts against ‘We the Peo­ple.’”

“There­fore, in order to affect the most good on behalf of The Peo­ple of Iowa’s 34th Dis­trict and in keep­ing with my con­science, I have accept­ed the posi­tion of U.S. Sen­a­tor in The Repub­lic of The Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, where I may bet­ter serve You and All of The Peo­ple of Iowa,” Shan­non wrote. “I want you to know I have tak­en an Oath to Uphold, Sup­port and Defend The Con­sti­tu­tion of The Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca. This I will do to the best of my abil­i­ty, So Help Me God.”

Shan­non, who describes her­self as a Ron Paul sup­port­er, backs many of the same pol­i­cy posi­tions famous­ly espoused by the Lib­er­tar­i­an-lean­ing Texas con­gress­man. She advo­cates elim­i­nat­ing the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion (fol­low­ing its trans­fer to the Repub­lic of the Unit­ed States) and dras­ti­cal­ly cut­ting tax­es while end­ing for­eign occu­pa­tions and stop­ping the Afford­able Care Act. And, since she believes the gov­ern­ment has been a false one for a cen­tu­ry and a half, she con­sid­ers all amend­ments to the Bill of Rights from the 14th on to be invalid.

“Again, Remem­ber, where the de jure Repub­lic of The Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca exists the de fac­to UNITED STATES CORPORATION, hav­ing no stand­ing, must go away!,” Shan­non wrote.

And the hits keep com­ing:

Rightwing Watch
Klay­man: ‘Rebel­lion’ Nec­es­sary to Stop ‘Oba­ma’s Mis­sion to Enslave the Nation’
Sub­mit­ted by Bri­an Tash­man on Mon­day, 3/11/2013 10:45 am

In what­ev­er world Judi­cial Watch founder Lar­ry Klay­man inhab­its, Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has “unleashed black heli­copters in our major cities to intim­i­date peo­ple and set up com­mit­tees to deter­mine who in its esti­ma­tion is a ‘sub­ver­sive’ and may have to be elim­i­nat­ed.”

Klay­man, once again call­ing for armed rebel­lion, writes in World­Net­Dai­ly that Pres­i­dent Oba­ma is try­ing to crush an “immi­nent rebel­lion by the informed mass­es” against his “mis­sion to enslave the nation in his brand of Marx­ist ide­ol­o­gy” by “remov­ing the people’s Sec­ond Amend­ment right to bear arms.”

He dubs Oba­ma a “mod­ern-day dis­ci­ple” of King George III and laments that he won re-elec­tion by “pit­ting the poor and mid­dle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Lati­no against Anglo, gay against straight, and Mus­lim against Jew and Chris­t­ian.” He con­cludes that if “all non-vio­lent means” to depose Oba­ma are exhaust­ed, con­ser­v­a­tives must fol­low the exam­ple of the Found­ing Fathers and stage an armed revolt.

The First Despot, King George III, raped the rich colonies with high tax­es, ignored their griev­ances, sub­vert­ed their legal sys­tem and as a final stroke seized and destroyed the colonists’ caches of guns and oth­er means of self-defense when it became appar­ent that the cit­i­zens could stand no more tyran­ny from the Crown. Even worse, 236 years after the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence was signed in 1776, trig­ger­ing the first Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion, the mod­ern-day dis­ci­ple of the king, dem­a­gogue Pres­i­dent Barack Hus­sein Oba­ma, has oner­ous­ly raised tax­es, engaged in class war­fare, pit­ting the poor and mid­dle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Lati­no against Anglo, gay against straight, and Mus­lim against Jew and Chris­t­ian, in order to win re-elec­tion.

To insure that Obama’s mis­sion to enslave the nation in his brand of Marx­ist ide­ol­o­gy suc­ceeds in the face of immi­nent rebel­lion by the informed mass­es, his gov­ern­ment has armed itself to the teeth, unleashed black heli­copters in our major cities to inti­mate the peo­ple and set up com­mit­tees to deter­mine who in its esti­ma­tion is a “sub­ver­sive” and may have to be elim­i­nat­ed with drone and oth­er strikes on Amer­i­can cit­i­zens on U.S. soil. [See “Oba­ma pre­pares to kill 2nd Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion”]. And, last but not least, to this end, Oba­ma has also issued exec­u­tive actions as the first step to remov­ing the people’s Sec­ond Amend­ment right to bear arms to defend them­selves against “his” gov­ern­ment and its evil designs.

With the excep­tion of a few, like Sen. Rand Paul, no one in the Repub­li­can oppo­si­tion has the will or guts to oppose Obama’s dic­ta­to­r­i­al quest to remove our free­doms and civ­il lib­er­ties and poten­tial­ly assas­si­nate those Amer­i­can cit­i­zens who resist his and the rest of the gov­ern­ment establishment’s claim of total “sov­er­eign­ty” over us.

We the Peo­ple, ini­tial­ly using all non-vio­lent means, must our­selves rise up! But if in the end it means fol­low­ing the lead of our First Found­ing Father, Patrick Hen­ry, we reserve our God-giv­en rights to defend our­selves and to restore lib­er­ty to our shores.

As in colo­nial times lead­ing to the birth of a free coun­try, we will nev­er sur­ren­der! Instead, must be pre­pared to use all legal­ly right­eous means to restore the coun­try to great­ness!

Give us lib­er­ty or give us death! God did not for­sake our Found­ing Fathers, and He will not for­sake us!

Some ear­ly info on the LAX shoot­er:

Sources: Alleged LAX gun­man had ‘new world order’ con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry tract

By Pete Williams and Andrew Blankstein, NBC News, 11/1/2013

The man who alleged­ly killed a TSA work­er and wound­ed three oth­ers at Los Ange­les Inter­na­tion­al Air­port on Fri­day had anti-gov­ern­ment lit­er­a­ture in his pos­ses­sion out­lin­ing an alleged con­spir­a­cy to cre­ate a sin­gle glob­al gov­ern­ment, law enforce­ment sources tell NBC News.

The sources, who spoke on con­di­tion of anonymi­ty, said the mate­r­i­al recov­ered from Paul Antho­ny Cian­cia, 23, after the shootout at LAX appeared to have been pre­pared by a group called “New World Order.” One source said it also expressed ani­mus toward racial minori­ties.

There is no record of a rad­i­cal group by that name and the term “New World Order” is often used by con­spir­a­cy-mind­ed groups and indi­vid­u­als to describe an alleged secret plot to estab­lish an autonomous world gov­ern­ment that would replace sov­er­eign nations and put an end to inter­na­tion­al pow­er strug­gles.

Accord­ing to Con­spir­a­cy­Wi­ki, an Inter­net site devot­ed to con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, the doc­trine was pri­mar­i­ly lim­it­ed to mil­i­tant anti–government and rad­i­cal fun­da­men­tal­ist Chris­t­ian groups until the ear­ly 1990s, but has since been embraced by some left-wing groups.

Very lit­tle was known about Cian­ci, who had lived in the Philadel­phia area before mov­ing to Cal­i­for­nia.

His broth­er told police in New Jer­sey he had received a text mes­sage from the sus­pect Fri­day morn­ing say­ing he was think­ing about tak­ing his life.

...

If the GOP wins the Sen­ate this Novem­ber it’s pret­ty much a guar­an­tee that the GOP base will absolute­ly demand that Con­gress attempt to impeach Pres­i­dent Oba­ma. But that would also be a guar­an­teed polit­i­cal dis­as­ter for GOP, espe­cial­ly if Hillary Clin­ton gets the Democ­rats’ nom­i­na­tion in 2016. Maybe there’s anoth­er way the GOP can sat­is­fy that hunger for a big showy show­down with the pres­i­dent while avoid­ing a giant nation­al reminder of the Clin­ton impeach deba­cle. Maybe...

Boehn­er to sue Oba­ma in exec­u­tive author­i­ty dis­pute
Susan Davis, USA TODAY 2:03 p.m. EDT June 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — House Speak­er John Boehn­er con­firmed Wednes­day that he intends to sue Pres­i­dent Oba­ma in the long-run­ning dis­pute between the admin­is­tra­tion and con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans over the scope of the admin­is­tra­tion’s exec­u­tive author­i­ty to enforce laws.

“I am,” Boehn­er told reporters, when asked if he was going to ini­ti­ate a law­suit. “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.”

Boehn­er added: “Con­gress has its job to do and so does the pres­i­dent. And when there’s con­flicts like this between the leg­isla­tive branch and the admin­is­tra­tive branch, it’s in my view our respon­si­bil­i­ty to stand up for this insti­tu­tion in which we serve.”

Boehn­er can use his author­i­ty as speak­er to con­vene the Bipar­ti­san Legal Advi­so­ry Group, a five-mem­ber legal pan­el appoint­ed by GOP and Demo­c­ra­t­ic House lead­ers, but weight­ed towards the major­i­ty. BLAG has author­i­ty to direct the U.S. House Office of Gen­er­al Coun­sel, to par­tic­i­pate in lit­i­ga­tion and rep­re­sent the U.S. House itself.

The impend­ing law­suit has the poten­tial to test the con­sti­tu­tion­al bal­ance between the leg­isla­tive and exec­u­tive branch­es. Repub­li­cans have long main­tained that the White House has over­stepped its legal author­i­ty by sub­vert­ing laws approved by Con­gress on a num­ber of mat­ters.

It is unclear which exec­u­tive actions Boehn­er would chal­lenge, but in recent years Repub­li­cans have protest­ed exec­u­tive actions halt­ing the depor­ta­tions of immi­grants ille­gal­ly resid­ing in the Unit­ed States, delay­ing enact­ment of cer­tain pro­vi­sions of the Afford­able Care Act and rais­ing the min­i­mum wage for fed­er­al con­trac­tors, as well as exec­u­tive actions to expand gay rights and close the gen­der pay gap.

...

Democ­rats also say the law­suit is a polit­i­cal maneu­ver to appease the con­ser­v­a­tive base, which has called for impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings against Oba­ma for any num­ber of offens­es. Boehn­er dis­missed that Wednes­day, and said the law­suit was not a step in that direc­tion.

“This is not about impeach­ment,” he said. “This is about his faith­ful­ly exe­cut­ing the laws of our coun­try.”

A lot of ques­tions are going to be raised by the law­suit. Some of them were already worth ask­ing.

Here’s anoth­er reminder of Lar­ry “let’s have a coup!” Klay­man’s sta­tus as the unof­fi­cial id of the Repub­li­can Par­ty:

TPM Livewire
Mis­souri Offi­cial Meant ‘No Ill Intent’ When She Called For Mil­i­tary Coup

By Caitlin Mac­Neal
Pub­lished Octo­ber 14, 2014, 2:28 PM EDT

This post has been updat­ed.

A Repub­li­can Mis­souri offi­cial said that she meant “no ill intent” toward Pres­i­dent Oba­ma when she asked on her Face­book page if the U.S. mil­i­tary was able to oust the pres­i­dent.

In a Face­book post last week, Jef­fer­son Coun­ty Recorder of Deeds Deb­bie Dun­negan referred to Oba­ma as “our domes­tic ene­my,” accord­ing to a screen­shot pub­lished by Progress Mis­souri.

“I have a ques­tion for all my friends who have served or are cur­rent­ly serv­ing in our mil­i­tary … hav­ing not put on a uni­form nor tak­en any type mil­i­tary oath, there has to be some­thing that I am just not aware of. But I can­not and do not under­stand why no action is being tak­en against our domes­tic ene­my. I know he is sup­pos­ed­ly the com­man­der in chief, but the con­sti­tu­tion gives you the author­i­ty,” she wrote in the post. “What am I miss­ing? Thank you for your brav­ery and may God keep you safe.”

Dun­negan, who is up for re-elec­tion in Novem­ber, said that her ques­tion was tak­en out of con­text, accord­ing to the St. Louis Post-Dis­patch.

“Some­thing inno­cent and sim­ple got twist­ed into a dis­as­ter because it’s an elec­tion,” she said. “I meant no ill intent toward the pres­i­dent. I meant no ill intent toward any­body.”

Her Face­book account is pri­vate, but Dun­negan said she has not delet­ed the post and does­n’t seem wor­ried how it might impact her re-elec­tion bid.

“I think it could hurt it as much as it could help it,” she said.
...

Ok, at least this is just a Coun­ty Recorder of Deeds call­ing for a coup. It’s not like those were the words of a sit­ting Con­gress­man:

Raw Sto­ry
GOP con­gress­man: ‘I’m not talk­ing about guns nec­es­sar­i­ly’ to fight a Bible-based rev­o­lu­tion
David Edwards
14 Oct 2014

North Car­oli­na Rep. Wal­ter Jones ® said recent­ly that it was going to take a “rev­o­lu­tion” that did not “nec­es­sar­i­ly” need to involve guns so that the Unit­ed States would be in line with the val­ues of the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Bible.

In an appear­ance on Lau­ra Ingraham’s radio show late last week, Jones said that he was upset with the Repub­li­can Par­ty for allow­ing Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma to spend mon­ey on send­ing troops to help with the Ebo­la cri­sis in Africa.

“I want peo­ple to under­stand that the peo­ple must take back the gov­ern­ment because this is a prime exam­ple of the con­tin­ued spend­ing, and my par­ty, the Repub­li­can Par­ty, is doing absolute­ly noth­ing about it,” he explained. “I am just sick and tired of see­ing what is hap­pen­ing to this coun­try, and it’s not accept­able.”

Ingra­ham point­ed out that Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans agreed on many things, includ­ing that Con­gress did not need to autho­rize mil­i­tary actions in Iraq.

“They agree on Com­mon Core, they agree on open bor­ders, they agree on immi­gra­tion amnesty,” she not­ed.

Jones said that as a “Ron Paul-type Repub­li­can” he believed that sav­ing the coun­try was going to take lead­ers who “under­stand that we have a bible and we have a con­sti­tu­tion. And if we do not fol­low the Con­sti­tu­tion then we will con­tin­ue to go down this road of col­laps­ing.”

“That’s what we need to do is to have a rev­o­lu­tion in this coun­try, and not talk­ing about gun nec­es­sar­i­ly,” he added. “I’m talk­ing about a rev­o­lu­tion of peo­ple get­ting out of their offices and get­ting into the streets let­ting their voic­es be heard.”

“Greed has destroyed Amer­i­ca,” Jones opined. “The Bible talks about greed, and when this coun­try start­ed mov­ing jobs out of the man­u­fac­tur­ing indus­try of Amer­i­ca to oth­er coun­tries so they could pay peo­ple 70 cents an hour instead of $18 an hour, this was the begin­ning of exact­ly what you just said. And if we don’t take back this coun­try then I don’t know what our grand­chil­dren are going to have to look for­ward to.”.

...

Yes, Wal­ter Jones, the same guy that said the loss of tax-exempt sta­tus for church­es that endorse polit­i­cal can­di­dates is like com­mu­nism, does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly want to see an armed rev­o­lu­tion. That makes it all bet­ter, although it would be inter­est­ing to learn more about what kind Bib­li­cal­ly-based Amer­i­ca Jones and his fel­low Domin­ion­ists might have in mind.

And giv­en the frus­tra­tion Jones feels over the GOP’s will­ing­ness to allow the Oba­ma to send troops to help Ebo­la-hit coun­tries (because let­ting those coun­tries col­lapse and spread Ebo­la across the world is both pru­dent and the Chris­t­ian thing to do) it would be be inter­est­ing to hear more about his views on the GOP’s approach to turn­ing 70 cents an hour over­seas jobs into $18 an hour US jobs. Real­ly real­ly real­ly inter­est­ing.

Alicublog brings us pre­view of 2016 via a recent post by Roger L. Simon over at the right-wing Paja­mas Media, where Simon asks “will there be civ­il war if Hillary Clin­ton becomes pres­i­dent?” and con­cludes that, yes, it is very pos­si­ble, since a mass tax-avoid­ance protest could eas­i­ly hap­pen because every­one hates Hillary, which could lead to a social-melt­down, ter­ror­ism, and even­tu­al­ly civ­il war:

alicublog

DOGS AND CATS, LIVING TOGETHER!

Post­ed by roy edroso
Thurs­day, Sep­tem­ber 03, 2015 at 1:29 PM

We’ve seen the oth­er Repub­li­can can­di­dates, fad­ing in the face of Trump, going “Look at me! I can be crazy too!” What might be the jour­nal­is­tic equiv­a­lent?

It would seem a tad over­heat­ed to spec­u­late that Hillary Clin­ton being elect­ed pres­i­dent could trig­ger an Amer­i­can civ­il war. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it’s not. If not an out­right war, mas­sive civ­il dis­obe­di­ence would like­ly be in the off­ing.

If our chief exec­u­tive is assumed to be dis­hon­est by the major­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion — a sol­id plu­ral­i­ty and pos­si­bly even a major­i­ty believ­ing her actu­al­ly to be crim­i­nal — before she takes office, what would be the nat­ur­al out­growth to soci­ety, if not a break­down of one sort or anoth­er?...

Just kid­ding — while I’m sure PJ Media could use the atten­tion, this is not real­ly new for Roger L. Simon, he’s been total­ly men­tal for years. Any­way: Simon thinks “the chances of Hillary’s nom­i­na­tion are decreas­ing on a near-dai­ly basis,” so I guess she would have to win on a third-par­ty tick­et, or maybe just ride into the Oval Office singing Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, and when that hap­pens –

Almost no one who vot­ed against her would be giv­ing her the ben­e­fit of the doubt. Why should they? They would be look­ing for ways to reject her pres­i­den­cy.

Not like now!

Tax avoid­ance would be endem­ic. Why give mon­ey to a coun­try where the pres­i­dent abjures the rule of law? (Yes, that’s already hap­pened but this would, after a polit­i­cal cam­paign, be a force mul­ti­pli­er.)

Maybe these patri­ot­ic tax cheats will be sup­port­ed by Charles Mur­ray’s Honky Free­dom Rid­ers. Then Simon dons sack­cloth and sayeth the sooth:

With the nation­al trea­sury under threat, all sorts of results could occur — a stock mar­ket melt­down beyond what we are expe­ri­enc­ing now, full scale depres­sion like the 1930s, urban riots that make Bal­ti­more and Fer­gu­son look like Kid­dy­land, non­stop demon­stra­tions of all sorts from all sides, mil­lions of peo­ple opt­ing out á la John Galt (most with­out know­ing who he is), an Amer­i­can decline beyond recog­ni­tion (if you think things are bad now, you haven’t seen any­thing), lit­tle bor­der con­trol with giant Islam­ic spillover from Europe, ter­ror attacks rou­tine, and, yes, remote a pos­si­bil­i­ty as it may be, a vio­lent civ­il war between between sides in a huge­ly split soci­ety.

The Go Galt schtick is the tip-off: This is every­thing these guys pre­dict­ed for the Oba­ma Admin­is­tra­tion, stuffed into one big bag of crazy for the next poten­tial Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­dent. They did this when de Bla­sio got elect­ed, too, and you could con­ceiv­ably con­vince the rubes that the may­or real­ly is turn­ing New York into a grit­ty urban dra­ma out of the 70s because most of them don’t live there; get­ting them to believe the elec­tion of Hillary Clin­ton will lead to armaged­don, as opposed to the syl­van glade that awaits under Pres­i­dent Cruz (or the woman Simon appar­ent­ly favors, Car­ly Fio­r­i­na, who wants to bring the skills that near­ly destroyed Hewlett Packard to nation­al gov­er­nance), may take a bit more doing. Per­haps Simon would like to revis­it dur­ing Hal­loween? I hear haunt­ed hous­es can make a good bit of mon­ey, and they don’t have to be con­vinc­ing.

Wow, so Roger Simon is basi­cal­ly pre­dict­ing that Pres­i­dent Hillary Clin­ton is going to inspire some sort of Tea Party/Maidan rev­o­lu­tion, but unlike the cur­rent anti-Tax Tea Par­ty, this one is going to be so mas­sive that the econ­o­my will col­lapse (so pre­sum­ably the bil­lion­aires and cor­po­ra­tions all stop pay­ing their tax­es and ‘Go Galt’), ter­ror­ism will spread, and a vio­lent civ­il war might erupt. And this will all be Hillary’s fault because of Beng­hazi or email servers or some­thing.

So will Pres­i­dent Hillary Clin­ton be the cat­a­lyst that final­ly ful­fills decades-old far-right vio­lent insur­rec­tion fan­tasies? We’ll find out. She’s got com­pe­ti­tion.

Pres­i­dent Oba­ma sent long-await­ed plans for the clo­sure of the US mil­i­tary prison at Guan­tanamo Bay to con­gress today. And while it’s unlike­ly that Oba­ma will be able to get con­gress to agree to his plans, he can still use an exec­u­tive order to shut it down on his own. That is, unless the mil­i­tary just refus­es to close it down or some­thing crazy like that hap­pens. Sure, that’s an extreme­ly unlike­ly and insane sce­nario, but that did­n’t stop Con­gress­man Dar­rell Issa from open­ly encour­ag­ing the US mil­i­tary’s lead­ers to do exact­ly that. And he did it using a rather unex­pect­ed anal­o­gy: If Oba­ma shuts down Git­mo, it’s like when Andrew Jack­son forced the Chero­kee to walk the Trail of Tears:

Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire
Issa Com­pares Oba­ma’s ‘Unlaw­ful’ Git­mo Clo­sure Plan To Trail Of Tears (VIDEO)

By Caitlin Cruz
Pub­lished Feb­ru­ary 23, 2016, 10:23 AM EST

Rep. Dar­rell Issa (R‑CA) on Tues­day com­pared a pend­ing announce­ment from the White House on a plan to close Guan­tanamo Bay to the Trail of Tears.

Issa said on Fox News’ “Amer­i­ca’s News­room” that it was unlike­ly Con­gress would be able to con­test the clo­sure in a time­ly fash­ion.

“Our process is to go to the court. The court is like­ly not to rule quick­ly,” he said. “It’s an old exam­ple, but Andy Jack­son, the founder of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, in the Trail of Tears defied the Supreme Court and marched Native Amer­i­cans to their deaths.”

The Trail of Tears was the forced relo­ca­tion in the 1830s of the Chero­kee Nation to Okla­homa under for­mer Pres­i­dent Andrew Jack­son’s Indi­an Removal Act. The Chero­kee Nation says rough­ly 4,000 peo­ple died.

Issa said it was up to U.S. mil­i­tary lead­ers to decide whether to fol­low Oba­ma’s plan, which he said was unlaw­ful.

“Are they going to obey an unlaw­ful order, an unlaw­ful order to move peo­ple from Guan­tanamo, an unlaw­ful order to close the base?” he said.

The Cal­i­for­nia con­gress­man added that the deaths of thou­sands of Chero­kees occurred because the mil­i­tary fol­lowed a Pres­i­den­t’s order rather than the law. He fur­ther sug­gest­ed he’d sup­port mil­i­tary lead­ers who refused to imple­ment Oba­ma’s plan.

“Remem­ber the Trail of Tears was only pos­si­ble, the mur­der of those Native Amer­i­cans was only pos­si­ble, because the mil­i­tary obeyed an order in vio­la­tion of the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added. “So do I believe that the mil­i­tary may push back on the Pres­i­dent if he’s giv­en an unlaw­ful order? Actu­al­ly, I do. I can see flag offi­cers resign­ing rather than obey­ing a clear­ly unlaw­ful order.”

...

“The Cal­i­for­nia con­gress­man added that the deaths of thou­sands of Chero­kees occurred because the mil­i­tary fol­lowed a Pres­i­den­t’s order rather than the law. He fur­ther sug­gest­ed he’d sup­port mil­i­tary lead­ers who refused to imple­ment Oba­ma’s plan.”
Well, at least the Oath Keep­ers will be pleased to hear one of the most pow­er­ful fig­ures in con­gress open­ly sup­port the idea of the mil­i­tary refus­ing to fol­low the com­man­der-in-chief’s orders. Alarm­ing­ly, based on recent polls on the pos­si­ble US pub­lic sup­port for a mil­i­tary coup, it may not just be the Oath Keep­ers nod­ding in agree­ment. And, yes, it would be hilar­i­ous­ly iron­ic nod­ding in many cas­es. But still alarm­ing.