Saturday, February 7, 2015

Inside the Strange, Paranoid World of the Right-Wing Oath Keepers

Inside the Strange, Paranoid World of the Right-Wing Oath Keepers

The Oath Keepers claim to be the "guardians of the republic" -- but they're largely nuts.



My official Oath Keepers membership card is in my outstretched hand. With great power comes great responsibility: my duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. No compromise. I’m now a member of a controversial conservative group whose members make Ted Nugent look like a bleeding-heart Rachel Maddow. Our mission is to keep the government accountable. Just re2014 Was Quite a Year for the Oath Keepers
The Oath Keepers made one of their first appearances in the national news last April, when more than 100 members headed to the Nevada desert to support rancher Cliven Bundy. Their mission was to assist with an armed standoff against agents from the federal Bureau of Land Management, who were attempting to seize cattle Bundy had been illegally grazing on federal land. No shots were fired during the standoff, though it is virtually unparalleled in modern history to have armed American citizens using the threat of gunfire to force federal officers to back down. Controversy redux: Critics were concerned that the government's decision to withdraw in the face of armed resistance emboldens militia groups and sets a dangerous precedent. It didn’t help matters that Bundy went on a racist rant about African Americans during a New York Times interview, tarnishing his image. It seems that the anti-government movement always attracts a few bad eggs.
 Who the Hell Are These Guys?
The Oath Keepers were founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale-educated attorney, ex-army paratrooper and former staffer of Congressman Ron Paul. The “non-partisan,” yet libertarian-leaning organization claims to have active chapters in all 50 states, as well as an estimated 40,000 members—which, if true, would make the group one of the fastest growing far-right organizations in the world.
What separates the Oath Keepers from, say, the radical Michigan Militia and their well-armed members? The Oath Keepers' core membership is comprised of active duty and retired police officers, firefighters, EMTs, and military personnel. On paper, this sounds like a no-nonsense bunch.
“It’s ridiculous to disarm the people and tell them they have to rely on the police when the police cannot possibly protect you in some of these circumstances,”Rhodes has stated. “The United States is on the fast track to economic ruin and Americans need to learn to protect themselves because the government soon won’t be able to.” The Oath Keepers founder cites the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a warning. He fears a future where martial law will be instigated during future disasters and every American will be placed in a 24/7 government-run FEMA camp. But not on their watch! The Oath Keepers adhere to a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution and swear to fight back against overly militarized police and unconstitutional acts by the government. (Cue Nazi government comparison.)
“The whole point of the Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” Rhodes said. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them. We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”
Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism, sees the Oath Keepers as a radical anti-government group. In his words: “When you believe that you have to arm yourself in order to protect the people from the government, and you’re such a loosely organized group that anybody can join you, that’s a combination that can potentially create violent incidents in the future.”
Example of guilt by association: In 2013, Oath Keeper and former Giberton, PA police chief Mark Kessler formed a paramilitary militia group called the Constitutional Security Force to fight against proposed gun control legislation. Kessler posted a profanity-laced video that went viral: “Fuck all you libtards out there,” a heavily armed Kessler screams. In another video, Kessler calls Secretary of State Kerry a piece of shit: “Come and take it, motherfuckers!” he cries before blasting off an assault rifle. (Police Chief Kessler was soon fired.)member: Not on my watch.
Let’s rewind: The scene was Ferguson, Missouri. When riots broke out over the August shooting death of Michael Brown, armed members of the Oath Keepers took to the city’s rooftops, appearing out of the smoke and shattered glass of ransacked buildings. Their supposed duty was to secure the local businesses from looting. In the first days of the protests, demonstrators had broken out windows of storefronts, set arson fires, and torched a beauty supply store. ABC News reported that a number of business owners embraced the Oath Keepers’ armed presence. Group members boarded up storefronts and kept buckets of water and fire extinguishers handy in case nearby arson attacks escalated. This was the vigilante group’s moment in the media sun.
Still, rumors flew. Some protestors thought the armed men in camouflaged fatigues were members of the Ku Klux Klan. The St. Louis County police ordered the Oath Keepers to leave the rooftops of Ferguson, threatening them with arrest for acting as a security force without a license. This only added fuel to the right-wing group’s conspiracy that the government is not protecting its people. The volunteer security force packed up and left Ferguson, leaving people wondering exactly who these heavily armed mystery men were.




What a PR nightmare. This was clearly not what the Yale-educated Rhodes envisioned for his group. The Oath Keepers quickly tried to distance themselves from America’s scariest police chief, insisting that one bad assault-weapon-toting lunatic did not reflect their entire group.
Thanks to incidents like this, surely the Oath Keepers must now have some sort of screening process to keep out the racists, radicals, Mark Kesslers and lone wolves—those who might give respectable members a bad name. It was time for me to become a member of the Oath Keepers and find out.
Time to Join
The Oath Keeper raison d’etre can be found on their website, under “Orders We Will NOT Obey":
  • We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
  • We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  • We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  • We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  • We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
While this sounds like fodder for conspiracy theorists, the Oath Keepers see themselves as freedom’s last defenders, standing up for the Constitution and American liberties.
I follow the banner link that reads, “Join the Fight to Defend the Constitution,” which takes me to the Oath Keeper membership page. It features images of soldiers from the Revolutionary War along with the mission statement: “Guardians of the Republic. Honor your oath. Join us.” And their catchphrase: “Not on our watch.” 
My Oath Keeper-joining parade is rained upon: “Full membership is open to currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, police, fire-fighters, other first responders (i.e. State Guard, Sheriff Posse/Auxilliary, Search & Rescue, EMT, other medical 1st responders, etc.) AND veterans/former members of those services. Those who are not current or prior service can join as an Associate Member—as a citizen who supports our mission.”
So that’s how they filter out the crazed extremists; the Oath Keepers have a stringent process for full membership that keeps out imposters. But I want to dig deeper, not just be a “citizen member.” Why be a tourist when you can be a local? What if I lie on my membership application, create a pseudonym, and simply fabricate a background in law enforcement to become a full member? But since full members of the Oath Keepers are comprised of current and former law enforcement and military, surely they must conduct some sort of background check to sift out imposters (like myself, extremists and racists)?
Along with my fake name and background, I add to my application vague rhetoric they might enjoy hearing: “The greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our federal government.”
Can you be prosecuted for lying on an Oath Keeper membership application? Let’s hope not.

A woman named Cindy emails me more information about my Oath Keeper membership package: “We ask that you give us 4-6 weeks, but we try to get them out in 3...however much depends on the volume at the time and it's very high currently.”I PayPal the Oath Keepers $40 of my cold hard American cash for a one-year full membership. Other price plans include $1,000 for a lifetime membership (payable in $50 monthly increments).
I fall asleep each night with dreams of full Oath Keeper membership and Constitutional defense. Where the hell is my goddamn Oath Keepers membership packet? So much time goes by I even forget that I’m soon to be an official full member of the Oath Keepers. Maybe the background check found too many red flags? For the safety of future armed showdowns, that’s probably a good thing.
Then the clouds part and the skies open up. Late in January, I open my mailbox to find a nondescript manila envelope mailed from a PO box in Georgia. A computer label reads: “Membership Fulfillment.”  
I rip open the envelope. Within seconds, my jaw drops with complete disappointment. Am I missing something here? Here’s what I got for my $40 full Oath Keepers membership:
-A bunch of bumper stickers that say: “Guardians of the Republic” and “Not on our watch.”
-A paper copy of the Constitution.
-10 Oath Keeper business cards, with the Oath Keepers oath on the back and the words “Not on our Watch!” I assume these are to hand out to 10 people who also want to defend the Constitution, but might not know how to go about it.
-10 Oath Keeper brochures. I’m told in the introduction letter to pass these on at local gun shows and Tea Party rallies, 9-12 rallies, etc. to at least 10 people I come across. 
-A laminated Oath Keeper membership card with my fake name, stating I’ve been an official Oath Keeper since the year 2015.
-A membership certificate with my fake name and declaration that “As an Oath Keeper, the member has pledged NOT to obey the ten specific unlawful orders listed in our “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey.” I have no idea what that means (too many double-negatives).
-A homemade Oath Keeper DVD on a generic disc with an Oath Keeper sticker on it, featuring speeches with pull-quotes such as “They hate people who speak the truth.”
My estimated cost of the entire Oath Keeper membership pack (including shipping): $2. The Home Depot folder for my official membership Certificate leads me to believe that a very old person put all this together. I’d almost describe the entire Oath Keeper membership package as “cute.” But if I were living in a cabin in the woods—which I declared as my own sovereign nation—I would feel pretty fucking ripped off.
Regardless, now I’m an official member of the Oath Keepers. It’s time to take to the roof of my building armed with a rifle to make sure no one is violating the Constitution while screaming, “Fuck all you libtards out there!” And if there should be some ill-fated confrontation, the first thing police officers will find in my wallet is my Oath Keepers membership card. The misguided media will attribute my lone wolf actions to my affiliation with the Oath Keepers. Perhaps they shouldn’t let just anyone join their group after all.

The Right-Wing Doesn't Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let's Talk About Christian Atrocities

The Right-Wing Doesn't Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let's Talk About Christian Atrocities

The right-wing's been freaking about Obama bringing up the crusades and the Inquisition, to show that Christianity doesn't have a blood-free history. Whether it's posting videos with skewed definitions of the Crusades or claiming Islam is still worse because reasons, they're in a blind rush to defend the tribe and, in the process, they're not orchestrating…

Dumping Palin

Al Qaeda's financial backer also backed Fox "News," which made a fortune promoting the War on Terror. Something smells rotten here.

BREAKING: al Qaeda's financial backer also backed Fox "News," which made a fortune promoting the War on Terror. Something smells rotten here.
New claims from the so-called "20th hijacker" have bolstered the almost-unthinkable scenario that the 9/11 terrorists were directly backed by a Saudi royal family with intimate personal and financial ties to the Bush clan, the U.S. intelligence community, and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.
Here's everything we know about the increasingly plausible case that the Saudis did 9/11.
The fabled "20th hijacker" says Al Qaeda and the Saudis worked hand-in-glove.
The latest bombshell claims come from Zacarias Moussaoui, a convicted Al Qaeda operative who's currently spending a life sentence in supermax prison in Colorado. Moussaoui was once fingered as a 20th hijacker for the Twin Towers plot, though no solid evidence of a connection between him and the attack has ever been revealed publicly. Moussaoui gave a two-day deposition last October in a civil lawsuit filed against Saudi Arabia by families of 9/11 victims.In his testimony, which only became public this week, Moussaoui claims that he met personally with several of Saudi Arabia's most famous and important leaders on Osama Bin Laden's behalf; that the kingdom's VIPs and its leading religious court backed Bin Laden all the way up to the 2001 attacks with tons of money and coordination; and that a Saudi diplomat based in Washington had even discussed a plan with Moussaoui to down Air Force One with a Stinger missile smuggled through the embassy.
Allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11 have long been rumored.
The general charges are nothing new; 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi, and had a remarkably easy time traveling through Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. The billion-dollar-plus lawsuit for which Moussaoui testified was first filed in 2002, but has moved slowly through the courts as Saudi representatives have fought it every step of the way. The 9/11 families behind the case have long maintained that Saudi officials "knowingly and directly" aided the terrorists.
Rumors have also swirled for years about 28 missing pages of the U.S. 9/11 Commission's final investigative report on the attacks. Those pages were redacted by order of the Bush administration on the grounds that their release would reveal "sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror." But critics and even many members of the 9/11 Commission say there's another reason for the redactions: Those pages delineate Saudi involvement in the terror plot that killed nearly 3,000 people. The Obama administration, perhaps just as concerned as its predecessor about maintaining good U.S.-Saudi relations, has so far declined to release the pages, too.
But new developments suggest the ties are deeper than we ever imagined.
Besides the new Moussaoui allegations, efforts to release the 28 pages have been gathering steam in recent weeks. Former Senators Bob Graham of Florida and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and John Lehman, ex-Navy secretary for Ronald Reagan, have also all filed affidavits in the 9/11 survivors' lawsuit saying that the Saudi terror ties need more scrutiny.
"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," Graham—who headed Congress' joint 9/11 inquiry and has seen the pages—wrote in his affidavit, as reported in the New York Times this week. Graham maintains there's a U.S. government "coverup" of the pages because they "point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier" of 9/11. "This may seem stale to some but it's as current as the headlines we see today," he told the Daily Beastearlier this month.
The new allegations are all about the money.
Moussaoui says that before 9/11, he was the only Al Qaeda operative who was fluent in English and computer skills and had a business background, which is why he was privy to so much of the organization's sensitive info.
The convict explained in halting English how he helped build Al Qaeda's first computer database of its finances in the late '90s, on a Toshiba computer in Kandahar not far from the Taliban's headquarters. Specifically, the job gave him intimate knowledge of Al Qaeda's donor base: "Shaykh Osama wanted to keep a record who give money because—who give money, who—who is to be listened to or who contribute to—to the jihad."
He insists that Al Qaeda regularly got infusions of cash from the Saudi Binladin Group, the source of the family's wealth, which also did business with American private equity firms like the Carlyle Group—a so-called "ex-president's club" whose partners include a Reagan-era defense secretary and intelligence operative and former Bush Sr. secretary of state James Baker.
Bin Laden's family allegedly lied about ever cutting ties with him.
Some of those Al Qaeda donor names, Moussaoui said, stuck with him. They included Abdullah bin Laden, a half-brother of the Al Qaeda founder who had lived in America, studied at Harvard, and sworn in the weeks after 9/11 that he had "no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities." Moussaoui adds that many of bin Laden's relatives, including his mother, came to visit him in Afghanistan, and claims by the family that they had severed ties with the jihadi were "a complete lie. An absolute lie." Moussaoui said he met Abdallah bin Laden, a prominent son of Osama, in Afghanistan, and that when Abdallah returned to Saudi Arabia — where he lives today — he made a public but superficial show of cutting ties with his dad: "[T]he Saudi tell him either you fit in publicly or we take your money away."
But the Saudi princes were stalwart patrons.
Moussaoui remembered other donors, though, because they "were known within the circle of the mujahideen, some of them extremely famous, like... Waleed bin Talal... Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud... Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, Prince Mohammed Al Faisal Al Saud, and Haifa Al Faisal Al Saud."
Those men include some of the most influential princes in Saudi Arabia's government, with deep ties to its intelligence service, and to America through tons of businesses and diplomatic posts:
  • Prince Turki Al Faisal recently served as Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and Great Britain, but before that, he led the Saudi intelligence services for 14 years—resigning on September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks.
  • Prince Bandar bin Sultan served as a telegenic Saudi ambassador to the U.S. for more than two decades until stepping aside for Prince Turki and taking control of the kingdom's National Security Council. Bandar is especially close to George W. Bush and is widely considered as a member of the Bush family—a relationship explored in the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11.
  • Waleed bin Talal, another Saudi royal, is widely considered one of the most influential businessmen in the world, at one time the largest shareholder in Citicorp and the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. In fact, his holdings in the parent corporation of Fox News—one of the biggest media beneficiaries of the post-9/11 war on terror—came under scrutiny in 2010, when it was revealed he'd given financial support to the imam of the proposed "ground zero mosque" while that proposed religious center was being blasted on Fox News. Worth at least $23.5 billion, he spent last year dumping nearly all of his News Corp stock—$188 million worth—in a move that was publicly acknowledged just this Wednesday, a day after the New York Times published Moussaoui's allegations. However, he still holds 6.6 percent of 21st Century Fox—which owns Fox News—so he still has a stake in the war-loving, terrorist-hating network's popularity.
Moussaoui also claims he traveled from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia twice for face-to-face meetings with Prince Turki on bin Laden's behalf. Moussaoui—who says he was picked because he was one of the few non-Saudis in Al Qaeda at the time, and less likely to be pressured by the princes—provided Turki and other Saudi VIPs with sealed letters from bin Laden. The trips, by private plane, had been arranged in the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, Moussaoui says.
The courier says he didn't know what was in the letters, but he suspected they pertained to the line of Saudi succession after the eventual death of King Fahd—a public enemy of Bin Laden's who was ill at the time. The meetings with Turki included many other Saudi princes, Moussaoui says: "there was Abdullah and there was Sultan, Bandar, and there was Waleed bin Talal, and Salman." On completion of the trips, Mouassaoui says, he received letters from Turki to deliver back to bin Laden in Afghanistan.
It wasn't just the playboys; it was the "priests," too.
Moussaoui also claims that Al Qaeda's donors included all of the men on Saudi Arabia's Majlis ash-Shura ulema—the religious council that promulgates and reviews all of the Kingdom's laws. Moussaoui says Osama bin Laden took a position "of complete reverence and obedience" to the ulema, likening it to a Catholic's obedience toward the pope.
Moussaoui says that in everything bin Laden did, he "was doing it with the express advice and consent and directive of the ulema." The implication is clear: Al Qaeda would not have risen as a terrorist organization, and 9/11 would not have happened, without the blessing of Saudi Arabia's political and religious leadership.
Saudi officials gave material support for terror and actively discussed terror plans.
The Saudis have had plenty of practice supporting jihad; in the 1980s, they helped Ronald Reagan's CIA funnel cash and weapons to mujaheddin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan—mujaheddin who included bin Laden and his future Al Qaeda partners. Moussaoui says his travel to Chechnya and the flow of fighters to Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan was made possible with Saudi dollars and work done through Islamic charities and other front organizations. Saudi government money bought bin Laden tanks, Kalashnikovs, bulldozers, salaries for fighters and their families—"everything," Moussaoui says.
The inmate recounts practicing with explosives and several terror plots that never came to anything, but his most sensational claim is "that he discussed a plan to shoot down Air Force One with a Stinger missile with a staff member at the Saudi Embassy in Washington," according to the TimesMoussaoui said he'd met with the diplomat and discussed scouting locations "suitable to launch a Stinger attack and, then, after, be able to escape." His contact also discussed the possibility of Moussaoui smuggling the Stinger into the U.S. through the Saudi embassy. But "my plan was not to launch the attack," he says, "it was only to see the feasibility of the attack."
The CIA's current head was pals with the Saudi princes while all of this went on.
John Brennan, tapped to be the CIA director by President Obama two years ago, has special expertise with the Saudi royals implicated in Moussaoui's testimony: the Arabic-fluent Brennan operated for the CIA in Saudi Arabia for years. In 1998, then-CIA director George Tenet appointed Brennan to be the agency's chief of station—its top spy and "liaison," as Tenet later put it—in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Brennan's counterpart in Saudi intelligence, with whom he met often, was Prince Turki al-Faisal—the same royal Moussaoui claims to have worked with on bin Laden's behalf.
Those facts lead to some uncomfortable questions: Was the CIA's top man in Saudia Arabia—and the current head of American intelligence-gathering efforts—so bad at his job that he was working with Al Qaeda supporters without knowing it? Or worse: Did he have an idea of the royals' pro-bin Laden activities, and not sound an alarm?
Moussaoui's testimony, while damning, deserves ample scrutiny.
"I swear by Allah that everything I say until the end of this testimony will be true," Moussaouitold his questioners, four times in a row. "May Allah curse the liar."
But it's unclear just how reliable the convicted terrorist really is. He's lied before—as when, after years of denying any involvement in 9/11, he claimed in a 2006 cross-examination that he and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid were supposed to crash a plane into the White House in the 2001 attacks. (Most experts discount that claim and say Moussaoui may have been angling for a death sentence to complete his martyrdom.) And a defense expert testified at Moussaoui's trial that he was mentally ill, diagnosing him as a paranoid schizophrenic with grand delusions, though the court found him fit to stand trial.
Ultimately, almost a decade and a half have passed since 9/11, plenty of time to embellish a narrative Moussaoui had never before revealed—a tidy narrative that names all of Saudi Arabia's most rich and famous players.
His story runs counter to the narrative that Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia hated each other.
One reason to question Moussaoui's account is that from the days immediately after 9/11 to the present, the prevailing theory has been that Osama bin Laden always hated the Saudi regime for cooperating with America, and he would never have done business with U.S.-friendly princes who publicly declared him an enemy in Saudi Arabia.
Moussaoui maintains that while bin Laden might have battled publicly with some of Saudi Arabia's ruling family members, including then-King Fahd, Osama enjoyed some of the family's support and never crossed the country's religious authorities: "Osama bin Laden went against Al Saud, but not all of Al Saud, he went against Fahd."
The royals who supported Al Qaeda did it for many reasons, Moussaoui said. It inoculated them against the anger that many jihadis felt toward King Fahd. It also kept the jihadis busy in far-flung, dangerous climes, preventing them from focusing on Saudi Arabia as a target. And it kept the donors in good standing with the religious authorities of the ulema, who could have condemned them for the country's "widespread homosexuality," financial practices, and embrace of American troops. The point, Moussaoui said, was to be able to say: "Look, see, we are not against Islam or the jihad, we finance bin Laden…You don't finance jihad if you don't believe in Allah."
Saudi Arabia says it's in the clear. Other insiders say that's bunk.
The Times says Saudi Arabia's embassy in the U.S. sent the paper a press release on Monday insisting "the national Sept. 11 commission had rejected allegations that the Saudi government or Saudi officials had funded Al Qaeda." The Saudis also have called Moussaoui a lying lunatic and lobbied for the release of the infamous 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, eager to prove they don't incriminate the government.
Their case is supported by the 9/11 Commission's former executive director, Philip Zelikow, who insists there's nothing more to investigate, and the 9/11-Saudi ties are nothing but rumor. "[W]hat we found is reflected in the commission report," he told the Times Thursday. (It's important to note, however, that some 9/11 families had questioned the appointment of Zelikow to the 9/11 Commission, since he had been a George W. Bush supporter who helped the president pick his cabinet—the very same officers whose relationships and job performance were supposed to be scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.)
Other respected bipartisans who served on that commission and Congress' joint panel disagree with Saudi Arabia—and, by implication, with Zelikow. Lehman and Kerrey have leveled fresh accusations against the Saudis. And then, of course, there is Graham.
The Saudis "have continued, maybe accelerated their support for the most extreme form of Islam," Graham told the Daily Beast recently. Al Qaeda? ISIS? Ideologically and logistically, he said they were all "a creation of Saudi Arabia."
[Illustration by Jim Cooke]

NYPD Wants To Take Away Your Right To Vote If You Don’t Obey Them

NYPD Wants To Take Away Your Right To Vote If You Don’t Obey Them

The NYPD wants to take away your right to vote if you don’t obey them. It sounds extreme, but the recent push from the New York City Police Department to reclassify “resisting arrest” as a felony amounts to just that.
On Wednesday, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton had the audacity to urge state legislators to increasing the penalty for resisting arrest from a misdemeanor to a felony.

NYPD-protest
He argued that this is necessary, because New Yorkers need to be reeducated so they can “get around this idea that you can resist arrest. You can’t.”
But police routinely slap the “resisting arrest” charge on anyone and everyone they don’t like. Some of our reporters have documented this at an array of protests we have covered. The Beavercreek, Ohio police even backed a police SUV cruiser into an elderly woman and then brutally twisted her arm, bent her over a second cruiser and continuously yelled “stop resisting” like a mantra, even though dozens were witnessing and filming the compliant woman who never once offered the least bit of resistance to the officers.
Law enforcement expert and retired University of Nebraska-Omaha criminal justice professor, Sam Walker, explained the situation to local WNYC as follows:
“There’s a widespread pattern in American policing where resisting arrest charges are used to sort of cover – and that phrase is used – the officer’s use of force,” said Walker, the accountability expert from the University of Nebraska. “Why did the officer use force? Well, the person was resisting arrest.”
Reclassifying resisting arrest as a felony would mean depriving those convicted of this charge of the right to vote.
The United States is one of the strictest nations in the world when it comes to denying voting rights to those who have felony convictions. Nearly 6 million people in the United States have been denied the right to vote in some of the most recent elections, due to felony disenfranchisement. That means if you have too much of a certain leaf in your possession, you can’t vote any longer. If you bounce a check for $501 then you can’t vote any longer. But bounce one for $499 and you’re good, you can still vote. Now, if you are slapped with the dubious “resisting arrest” charge – which is often about as vague and undefinable as the charge of “disorderly conduct,” then the NYPD would also see you stripped of your right to vote.
Some of the New Yorkers who the NYPD would have reclassified as felons, and stripped of their voting rights, are people like Chaumtoli Huq, the former general counsel to NYC Public Advocate Letitia James, was charged with resisting arrest, all for simply waiting for her family outside of the Times Square Ruby Tuesday’s restaurant. The NYPD’s proposal would prohibit her from voting.
Jahmil-El Cuffee, is another example who found himself charged with resisting arrest for nothing more than having his head stomped on by police, due to allegedly having rolled a joint. The NYPD want to take away his right to vote too.
Denise Stewart, was charged too after cops threw her half-naked into her apartment lobby. She “resisted” because they had the wrong apartment. She was completely innocent and was “resisting” being thrown naked into a public setting, as she had done nothing wrong whatsoever. The NYPD say that she should not be allowed to vote any longer.
Santiago Hernandez, was charged with resisting arrest due to being unconstitutionally “stopped-and-frisked” due to racial profiling. This “resistance” was simply a matter of Hernandez trying to survive being assaulted. “One kicks me, he steps back. Another one comes to punch me and he steps back…They were taking turns on me like a gang,” Hernandez explained to local reporters.
Eric Garner too would have been charged with resisting arrest, and deprived of his voting rights, if he had not been killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo first.
(Article by Moreh B.D.K.)

Friday, February 6, 2015

Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day

Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day

Yesterday was Reagan's birthday.  I share this post for with those who start dripping with sentimentality forgetting what he did, what his legacy is still doing, and worst of all, (for my conservative friends), that they wouldn't have liked him today anyway:
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan:  
No Scalia, No Rumsfeld, No Cheney.  No Bushes and all of their appointments and disasters.  No funding of dictators like Saddam Hussein (Reagan propped him up big time) or psychopaths like Osama Bin Laden (that worked out well).  
An America far less dependent on oil.  A superpower respected for skilled diplomacy in ending conflicts, instead of starting them. And a healthy economy with a strong middle class instead of a world where the labor movement has been viciously attacked, and the middle class is systematically being dismantled.  Under Reagan, corporations gained massive power to the point today where they have become "people".  Unions, the worker's last protection,  were severely weakened, and the socioeconomic gap exploded.  He also bankrupted us, pouring  hundreds of billions into wasteful spending, like the failed and ridiculous Star Wars missile-defense system.   All in just 8 short years.
Reagan created the modern plutocracy. He introduced us to the whole "take from the poor, give to the rich" supply-side economics that we still suffer today.  He turned compassion to the less fortunate to villianization...  created the mythical "welfare queen", mocked AIDS patients, and let his fellow "Christians" know it was okay to belittle the homeless.    
CEOs before Reagan made 78 times their minimum wage workers.  Today, its almost  3500 times!  Without Reagan, America might have had the same income distribution we had in the 1970s, which would mean we would be averaging $120,000 annually--not $40,000.  
Reagan was the realization of Barry Goldwater's failed dream that put the GOP on the path of crazytown where it is today.  He somehow managed to blend the selfish, plutocratic Ayn Randian economic philosophy with fundamental Christianity and wrap it all up into a cowboy, patriotic image that was as phony as this ranch.  Bottom line.  REAGAN WAS A BASTARD.
And we are still hurting.  So when I hear the idiot conservatives longing for him on social media, the radio and the "specials" on Faux News, I want them to hurt.  And the best way to do that?    HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS.  
Next time someone starts revising history or just starts a syrupy tribute, hit them with this.  Comparing their St. Ronnie with the man that literally drives them insane... Mr. O'Barry himself.  Shoot them the following information...then just watch them squirm and enjoy the fireworks:
REAGAN CUT AND RUN, OBAMA DIDN'T COWER
Remember when the GOP loved to say "cut and run" as an excuse to keep our troops in Iraq forever? Even after they said "Mission Accomplished"?  But who invented cut and run?  
The Gipper.
OBAMA:  
Our troops were repeatedly attacked in Afghanistan, yet when Obama came into office, he increased troop strength by 68,000.  (Along with an actual plan, unlike his predecessor.)  His track record of killing terrorists far outweighs his predecessors.
REAGAN:  
Reagan retreated from Lebanon immediately after the 1983 terror attack by Hezbollah that resulted in the murder of 243 Marines.  According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 96), Reagan's cut and run INSPIRED Bin Laden, who viewed the United States as a “paper tiger” because of its rapid withdrawal after the attack.
OBAMA KILLED TERRORISTS, REAGAN GAVE THEM WEAPONS
OBAMA:  
Gave the naval commander the go ahead to kill several pirates, which resulted in saving the life of Captain Richard Phillips.  (PS--Even though terrorists were killed and the captain rescued, f--king Rush Limbaugh, who originally accused Obama of dithering on saving Capt. Phillips, then cried that Obama killed teenagers when the snipers took out the pirates.  Obama-Derangement-Syndrome.)
OH!  And there was also that whole killing of Osama thing you might of heard about.  Obama went against the advice of his own vice president and Defense Secretary Gates and ordered the assault.  He is even responsible for ordering the two backup helicopters in case of problems, which was a good thing since one of the assault choppers crashed outside the compound.
I would also like to point out that Obama's military intervention thru a multi-state coalition resulted in the death of Muammar Gaddafi and ended his regime without the death of one American soldier.  Reagan tried a unilateral action against Gaddafi and failed miserably.  You're welcome.
REAGAN:  
Reagan APPEASED terrorists.  He ignored their atrocities and spent taxpayer dollars to train, arm, equip, fund and overall coddle Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan for his proxy war with the Soviets. He is directly responsible for making a terrorist kingpin out of Osama Bin Laden. Reagan loved him some Taliban:
 photo reagan-appeasing-terrorists_zps2db014fa.jpg
Reagan meeting with leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House 1985
But all I really need to say is two words:  IRAN-CONTRA.  Reagan was so bad he SECRETLY TRADED F*^KING arms for HOSTAGES!  DO I really need to say more??  Can you just imagine the wingnut explosion if Obama did that?
Reagan also met with our enemies without preconditions (1985, Soviet Union)... something that Obama was attacked for saying he just wanted to do.   But again, giving weapons to terroristspretty much takes the cake.  
AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS:
This drives the GOP NUTS when I point this out.  Who knew?  
REAGAN:  
I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.
-Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984
OBAMA:
No matter how  decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these law should be held accountable.
-Barack Obama  July 2010
Made that up, did I?  Watch it yourself
REAGAN RAISED INCOME TAXES 11 TIMES, OBAMA NEVER
OBAMA:
In fact, wound up being the largest tax-cutter in presidential history cutting $654 billion in 2011 and 2012 alone. He was in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE for the super wealthy, (which no, is not the same as a tax hike), but even that didn't come to pass.  Romney in 2012 even admitted Obama didn't raise taxes.  
REAGAN:  
He got through a big tax cut once he took office. But to hear conservatives talk, that's where the story ends. They forget he raised income taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
DEFICIT SPENDING
REAGAN:  
Whether you are looking at the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, reining in the deficit was clearly of no concern. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. Reagan soared the spending, Clinton brought in back down a bit, and W. took it way back up.  To be fair to the Gipper, NO ONE did deficit like W.  He spent the Clinton surplus like  a drunken sailor.  And by the way, Obama's spending initiatives were  less than half of his predecessor.  
OBAMA:  
Even though Obama inherited a huge debt from W., and focused on a stimulus that benefited the people instead of Bush's stimulus for Wall Street, he still has a much better record on spending than the Gipper and much better than W.  Obama did not triple the gross federal debt like Reagan did.  Obama is following the Clinton model of spending up front and then focusing on deficit reduction.  I predict at the end of Obama's term in 2016, the deficit will be cut drastically--but it can't be anywhere close to what Reagan or Bush had at the end of their two terms.  Why?  Because the GOP loves to throw money at their base...tax cuts for Big Oil and the wealthiest amongst us which add hundreds of billions to the debt but create nothing.  That ain't happening--you are welcome teabaggers.
ABORTION
OBAMA:  
Believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  And they are.  Abortions under Obama are at their lowest rate since 1973.  Granted, as the article says it has more to do with advances in birth control than anything a politician does, but once again shows conservatives to be liars when they claimed abortions would skyrocket under Obama.  Although Obama supports reproductive freedom, when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress, he proposed no legislation that would make abortion access easier (which would have been nice because of the constant assault from conservatives).
REAGAN:
Stauchly forced-birth.  Yet wingnuts never talk about his policies as governor.  Reagan signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" only six months as California governor. There were 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, and the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms.  This was more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade.  Just sayin'
GUN CONTROL
(I give Reagan props for this, even though it was only because he got shot.  But like his abortion law, conservatives sweep this under the rug:)
REAGAN:
COMPLETELY supported the Brady Bill, the holy grail of gun control.  Reagan even wrote an op-ed piece for it in the evil NY Times.
OBAMA:
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence flunked Obama on every single gun control issue.  Proposed nothing for federal gun control laws when he had a super majority Dem Congress.  When he had that Dem majority, in fact, federal gun rights EXPANDED by allowing guns on trains and in our national parks.  Yet the NRA still told their idiot members that Obama was coming to take their guns.... and gun sales skyrocketed.
So what's the verdict?  Conservatives love affair with Reagan and their hate affair with Obama seems to be bassackwards.
I submit it was REAGAN who was the illegal amnesty-supporting, gun control loving, deficit spending, tax raising, terrorist coddling coward.  (As for support of "traditional family values", Obama has a great relationship with his family--Reagan was the first divorced president and was estranged from his children.)
Challenge a conservative to disprove anything I mentioned here.  I supported it with the facts.  Just be prepared for all kinds of name-calling.
And just to turn the screws... presidential scholars think Obama outranks Reagan as president.  So in a few years I expect to be flying into Obama National in DC!  Oh, it is going to happen.
Happy birthday Wingnuts!

Visit SemDem
Follow
@TheSemDem
Like Us
Facebook
Get
Mobile App
Contact
Got a Tip?

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO SEMDEM ON FRI FEB 07, 2014 AT 06:27 AM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY DAILY KOS CLASSICS.