Independent media, news reporting, analysis, opinion, forensic historical research presentations. From a Libertarian to Anarcho-Libertarian Anti-Federalist perspective.
Remembering one of the few Democrats who was willing to stand up to Bill Clinton and to the International Bankers. A Tea Party favorite, former Sheriff and member of the House of Representatives who spoke out and exposed the #DeepState long before it was cool to do so. He met a tragic end after being removed from Congress, after being set up and imprisoned as a real #PoliticalPrisoner . He refused to remain silent and mysteriously had a tractor flip on him allegedly crush him to the point of not being able to breathe. He died of his injuries in the hospital. I don't care for most Democrats today, but this was one who broke the establishment mold and deplored Communists and war hawk fake big government progressive conservatives and liberals alike.
TruNews is the world’s leading news source that reports, analyzes, and comments on global events and trends with a conservative, orthodox Christian worldview. Our vision is to build a global news network that provides a credible source for world news, events, and trends while giving respect and honor to Christians of all major denominations — Evangelical, Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, and Protestant. We believe Christians need and deserve their own global news network to keep the worldwide Church informed, and to offer Christians a positive alternative to the anti–Christian bigotry of the mainstream news media. Like David vs. Goliath, Rick Wiles is a citizen reporter who decided to take on the Big News Media. Starting with a $7,500 donation in May 1999 to launch the first radio program, Rick’s faith in God and steadfast determination has overseen the growth and development of TruNews into an internationally recognized source of credible news and information in a world where nothing seems to make sense anymore.
Rick’s professional career was in media marketing and advertising sales. Throughout his early years, God’s hand silently guided him to be in employed in the latest new media. While in his early 20’s, Rick’s first media job was with a new FM radio station in the days when AM was still king. In 1980, he blazed a path as a pioneer in local cable television advertising when CNN and ESPN were new start-up channels on cable TV. As a sales manager, he launched one of the first cable advertising interconnects in the nation. He was hired in 1984 by the Christian Broadcasting Network as the first National Cable Marketing Manager for the new CBN Cable Network which later became the Family Channel. In 1995, Paul F. Crouch hired Rick as the Marketing Director for Trinity Broadcasting Network where Rick repositioned the TBN brand inside the cable industry — and played an important role in negotiating the early contracts to launch TBN on DirectTV, DISH, and the former PrimeStar DBS systems. Rick resigned from TBN in September 1998 after receiving a dramatic call from God to full–time ministry.
Have questions? Please send an email to info@trunews.com.
We are here to pray for you. Whatever may be on your heart, no matter how big or small the burden, someone is waiting to stand with you in prayer. https://www.trunews.com/prayer
An Israeli court convicted a Jewish Israeli man on charges including extortion for making a string of bomb threats targeting U.S. Jewish community centers, airlines and shopping malls — capping a case that had raised fears of a wave of anti-Semitism in the United States.
(Excerpt from the Chicago Tribune)
The Tel Aviv district court did not identify the man because he was a teen when he committed the crimes. But a separate U.S. indictment has identified him as Michael Ron David Kadar, a dual American-Israeli citizen.
Kadar's arrest in March 2017 followed a trans-Atlantic investigation with the FBI and other international law enforcement agencies.
Police said the 19-year-old, from southern Israel, used advanced technologies to mask the origin of his calls and communications to synagogues, community buildings and public venues.
In early 2017, there were dozens of bomb threats against Jewish community centers and day schools across the U.S. and in Canada, according to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group that battles anti-Semitism. The threats led to evacuations, sent a chill through local Jewish communities and raised fears of rising anti-Semitism.
The Israeli indictment said that besides the Jewish centers, Kadar also targeted airports, malls, police stations and Republican state Sen. Ernesto Lopez from Delaware. He also offered his intimidation services over the internet in return for compensation in Bitcoin.
In all, Kadar was accused of making over 2,000 threats.
Among the allegations in the Israeli indictment were making a bomb threat against an El-Al flight to Israel that sparked fighter jets to be scrambled, and threatening a Canadian airport, which required passengers to disembark on emergency slides. Six people were injured. He was also accused of threatening a Virgin flight that as a result dumped eight tons of fuel over the ocean before landing, and threatening a plane being used by the NBA's Boston Celtics.
Police had said he used sophisticated "camouflage technologies" to disguise his voice and mask his location. They said a search of his home uncovered antennas and satellite equipment.
The judge wrote that investigators had determined the young man enjoyed making people panic and putting them in fear and stress.
Prosecutor Yoni Hadad said Kadar was convicted on charges including extortion, publishing false information, money laundering and violations of computer laws. "He caused panic and terrorized many people, and disrupted their lives," he said.
COMMENTARY/RESPONSE in RED by RTR TRUTH MEDIA
In the U.S., Kadar also faces federal hate crimes, bomb threats, hoax and cyberstalking charges that could potentially put him behind bars for decades, according to an (So Israel can spy on us, steal from us, etc. but they are such a great "ally" that they refuse extradition.I wonder if they are afraid to reveal what real motivation or organization was behind this individuals actions or if he was any part of their Hasbara operations?)
An Excerpt from:
Mercer Island banker’s push for stiffer hate-crime penalties clears U.S. Senate - (Seattle Times)
The U.S. Senate has passed a measure expanding federal hate-crimes (thought crimes fused with an actual criminal act) laws to include threatening or defacing religious institutions, a victory for the Mercer Island banker who helped draft the measure after a bomb threat against a Mercer Island Jewish community center last year.
The bomb threat, which was called in to the Stroum Jewish Community Center (by an Israeli Jewish man) in February 2017, propelled Mercer Island resident Joseph Schocken — president of Seattle-based Broadmark Capital — to contact Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, and help draft legislation to amend federal hate-crimes laws and increase penalties for threats to deface, damage or destroy properties used by religious institutions and affiliated facilities. (While we at RTR agree that property crimes are despicable, no one should have extended rights or protections over any other, and certainly not when said crime that triggered the push comes from someone within their own belief system)
The Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act increases the penalty to five years in prison and a fine for threats that lead to damage. Currently, such crimes are a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum one-year jail sentence.
“At the end of the day, hate crimes are crimes, and it is important that we have stronger laws to protect these institutions,” Schocken said. (Hate crimes is a Marxist concept and thought crime is Un-American)
If you choose to dismiss this, you are a fool. If it is too long for you, you are but an idiot. Wake up and learn the truth of what is going on around you.
British Intelligence through Albert Pike whose headquarters were in Charleston were progenitors of the Society of B'nai B'rith (what is now the Anti-Defamation League or ADL) and further historical accounts that most Americans are oblivious to the true cause of the War between the States. This is an historical account based upon the archives of that organization and more. Those who call themselves Federal, State and local law enforcers have been seduced by criminal conspirators in the cloak of good deed. Wake up America.
My life as was William Copper's life; who was gunned down in his own yard, is at stake bringing you this information on a platform that will expose their crimes and shatter the illusions they have built by Useful Idiots, and risk our safety in doing so. This is no laughing or joking matter. These are gangsters we are opposing.
#TheOfficialSoriesAreFullOfLies, when you find the truth, you will also find a lot of lies. I am going to do this until you either wake up or I die a martyr. If you don't wake up then I would rather be killed as this world will not be worth living in...
Project Veritas has released the second installment in an undercover video series unmasking the administrative state, ie ‘deep state’. Today’s video features Department of Justice paralegal Allison Hrabar using government-owned software and computers to push a socialist agenda. Also featured is Jessica Schubel, the former Chief of Staff for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the last Obama administration.
Both Schubel and Hrabar make admissions revealing that federal employees appear to be using their positions inside our government to resist or slow the Trump administration’s policies. It appears some laws have been broken in the process.
"It is my position that the Democratic Socialists of America are merely a watered down Communist Party USA activity to try and skirt the illegality of the CPUSA in America verified under Federal Law. We allowed this to pass a long time ago. It is time we took a hard stand." - Tom Lacovara-Stewart
Federal Employee for State Department: “Resist everything… Every level. F**k sh*t up.”
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Embedded in Federal Government Positions, Actively Resisting
Stuart Karaffa Does Work for DSA While on Taxpayer’s Dime: “I’m careful about it. I don’t leave a paper trail.” “I have nothing to lose. It’s impossible to fire federal employees.” Ethics Officer Fails to Recognize Breach on Ethics Form: “somebody just rubber stamps it and it goes forward…”
UPDATE: 3:48 PM | Project Veritas attorney Benjamin Barr filed a complaint with the Department of State regarding the findings of our video. See the complaint here. UPDATE: 2:22 PM | A Department of State spokesperson issued the following response to an inquiry from The Epoch Times: “I can confirm Stuart Karaffa is a Management and Program Analyst with the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations. We take seriously any allegation of a violation of the Hatch Act and financial disclosure rules and are closely reviewing this matter. This is a personnel matter that we cannot comment on further at this time.”
(Washington DC) Today, Project Veritas released the first installment in an undercover videoinvestigation series unmasking the deep state. This video features a State Department employee, Stuart Karaffa, engaged in radical socialist political activity on the taxpayer’s dime, while advocating for resistance to official government policies. In addition to being a State Department employee Stuart Karaffa is also a ranking member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (Metro DC DSA.) Metro DC DSA is a socialist group that works to advance progressive causes in the metropolitan DC area. Socialist Activism at the State Department Mr. Karaffa’s loyalties seem to be with DSA, not with his employer.
Karaffa told an undercover Project Veritas journalist that he performs DSA activism while at work for the State Department. He explained that he drafts DSA communications while on the job at State Department:
“… I’m careful about it. I don’t leave a paper trail, like I leave emails, and like any press s**t that comes up I leave that until after 5:30. But as soon as 5:31 hits, got my like draft messages ready to send out.”
Karaffa also admits that on behalf of DSA he monitors Virginia political news online while at work:
“You could put two and two together probably. With like web traffic…. So with web traffic, I mean I could make the case before a court of law that- I’m going to the Virginia sort of, campaign finance website- that I’m just interested in what people are doing politically. But if they also go and look at like DSA minutes and like Officer positions they’ll be like, ‘that’s weird, you were the co-chair of the electoral caucus, and you spent three hours on a Virginia campaign finance website.'”
RTR TRUTH MEDIA
by Tom Lacovara-Stewart
It is my position that the Democratic Socialists of America are merely a watered down Communist Party USA activity to try and skirt the illegality of the CPUSA in America verified under Federal Law. We allowed this to pass a long time ago. It is time we took a hard stand.
Communism
50 U.S.C. § 841 - U.S. Code -
Findings and declarations of fact
The Congress finds and declares
that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political
party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government
of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a
republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political
parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and
programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of
individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at
large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist
Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world
Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are
not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political
parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with
respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and
disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their
hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party
acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or
upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically,
and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful
political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its
numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of
its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present
constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to
ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding
that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its
existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United
States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the
world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and
controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services.
Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.
50 U.S.C. § 842 - U.S. Code -
Proscription of Communist Party, its successors, and subsidiary organizations
The Communist Party of the United
States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose
object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the
government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the
government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not
entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal
bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any
political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities
which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization
by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision
thereof, are terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall
be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [ 50
U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq. ]
50 U.S.C. § 843 - U.S. Code -
Application of Internal Security Act of 1950 to members of Communist Party and
other subversive organizations; “Communist Party” defined
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully
becomes or remains a member of (1) the Communist Party, or (2) any other
organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment,
control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States,
or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of
force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such
organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the
Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [ 50 U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq. ], as a
member of a “Communist-action” organization.
(b) For the purposes of this
section, the term “Communist Party” means the organization now known as the
Communist Party of the United States of America, the Communist Party of any
State or subdivision thereof, and any unit or subdivision of any such
organization, whether or not any change is hereafter made in the name thereof. The
Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party
regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the
Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory,
District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision
therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights,
privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the
jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision
thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore
been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws
of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated:
Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending
the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [ 50 U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq. ].
50 US
Code 781 was repealed, however in the "et seq.", find:
Title 50. War and National
Defense § 783. Offenses
a) Communication of classified information by Government
officer or employee
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the
stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to
any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe
to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of
a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any
such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as
affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know
that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee
shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the
department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is
employed, to make such disclosure of such information.
(b) Receipt of, or attempt to receive, classified
information by foreign agent
It shall be unlawful for any agent or representative of
any foreign government knowingly to obtain or receive, or attempt to obtain or
receive, directly or indirectly, from any officer or employee of the United
States or of any department or agency thereof or of any corporation the stock
of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, any information of a kind which shall have been
classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or
corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of
the United States, unless special authorization for such communication shall
first have been obtained from the head of the department, agency, or
corporation having custody of or control over such information.
(c) Penalties for violation
Any person who violates any provision of this section
shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000,
or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such
imprisonment, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office,
or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.
(d) Limitation period
Any person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any
violation of this section at any time within ten years after the commission of
such offense, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute of
limitations: Provided, That if at the time of the commission of the offense
such person is an officer or employee of the United States or of any department
or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole
or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, such
person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any violation of this section
at any time within ten years after such person has ceased to be employed as
such officer or employee.
(e) Forfeiture of property
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section
shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law--
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any
proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such
violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be
used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of,
such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant
forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation
to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of Title 28
, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 10601 of Title 42
all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any
State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or
possession of the United States.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT can monitor journalists under a foreign intelligence law that allows invasive spying and operates outside the traditional court system, according to newly released documents.
Targeting members of the press under the law, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, requires approval from the Justice Department’s highest-ranking officials, the documents show.
In two 2015 memos for the FBI, the attorney general spells out “procedures for processing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications targeting known media entities or known members of the media.” The guidelines say the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or their delegate must sign off before the bureau can bring an application to the secretive panel of judges who approves monitoring under the 1978 act, which governs intelligence-related wiretapping and other surveillance carried out domestically and against U.S. persons abroad.
The high level of supervision points to the controversy around targeting members of the media at all. Prior to the release of these documents, little was known about the use of FISA court orders against journalists. Previous attention had been focused on the use of National Security Letters against members of the press; the letters are administrative orders with which the FBI can obtain certain phone and financial records without a judge’s oversight. FISA court orders can authorize much more invasive searches and collection, including the content of communications, and do so through hearings conducted in secret and outside the sort of adversarial judicial process that allows journalists and other targets of regular criminal warrants to eventually challenge their validity.
“This is a huge surprise,” said Victoria Baranetsky, general counsel with the Center for Investigative Reporting, previously of Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press. “It makes me wonder, what other rules are out there, and how have these rules been applied? The next step is figuring out how this has been used.” READ MORE...
The NSA has tripled its surveillance of Americans’ phone chatter, collecting over 534mn phone call records and text messages last year, despite pressure for more restrictions and transparency, a new official report has revealed. Monday, February 26, 2018 - Newly Released Documents Prove FISA Surveillance Court Spying on Innocent Americans
Newly released court orders show that the secret FISA court violates innocent Americans’ privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has acquired formerly classified court orders from the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) which detail how the court violates the privacy of innocent Americans caught in the crossfire of federal surveillance. Thursday, February 1, 2018 - Intelligence Agencies Join FBI in Push Against Plans to Release FISA Abuse Memo
Whistleblowers, Republican congressional members, and some former intelligence officials cite mounting concern that the White House may not release the House Intelligence Committee’s FISA abuse memo as the FBI pushed against plans to make it public based on false allegations that the memo contains information that would harm U.S. national security, sources tell this reporter.
Russia has said Syria shot down one of its military planes - but laid the blame for the deaths of the 15 personnel on board with Israel.
The defence ministry said Israeli jets put the Il-20 plane into the path of Syrian air defence systems on Monday after failing to give Moscow enough warning of a strike on Syrian targets.
The Il-20 disappeared off the radar at about 23:00 local time (20:00 GMT).
However, in a statement released on Twitter, it added: "Israel holds the [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad regime, whose military shot down the Russian plane, fully responsible for this incident."
It went on to say its jets were back in Israeli airspace by the time the missiles were launched.
Israel - which also blamed Iran and Hezbollah - rarely acknowledges carrying out strikes on Syria, but an Israeli military official recently said it had hit more than 200 Iranian targets in Syria over the past 18 months.
BLACKSTONE INTEL REPORT
The Israeli government is concerned by what it calls Iran's "military entrenchment" in Syria, as well as shipments of Iranian weapons to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is fighting alongside Syrian government forces.
What exactly happened?
The details are murky, and Russia's account of the incident has yet to be verified.
Monday's incident is reported to have occurred about 35km (22 miles) from the Syrian coast as the Ilyushin Il-20 aircraft was returning to Russia's Hmeimim airbase near the north-western city of Latakia.
Russia's Tass news agency says the Il-20 plane "disappeared during an attack by four Israeli F-16 jets on Syrian facilities in Latakia province".
Reports on Syrian state media spoke of an attack in the area shortly before the plane disappeared. According to Sana news agency, the military said it had intercepted "enemy missiles coming from the open sea towards the city of Latakia".
Syrian television also reported explosions over the sky in Latakia just before 22:00. Thirty minutes later, the Sana Facebook page reported that Syrian air defences had responded to enemy missiles.
What does Russia accuse Israel of doing?
In a statement, Russia said Israel's "irresponsible actions" were to blame, saying it was given less than a minute's warning ahead of the strikes, which was not enough time to get the military surveillance plane out of the way.
"The Israeli planes deliberately created a dangerous situation for surface ships and aircraft in the area," a defence ministry spokesman said.
The plane, the spokesman continued, was shot down by a Syrian missile.
"As a result of the irresponsible actions by the Israeli military, 15 Russian servicemen have died," the spokesman said.
It is not possible to verify any of these claims.
What has Israel said?
The IDF said its jets were targeting Syrian military facilities "from which systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons were about to be transferred on behalf of Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon".
It added the Syrian anti-aircraft missiles were "inaccurate" and "extensive". What's more, it claimed its jets were back in Israeli airspace by the time the missiles were launched.
The statement also accused the Syrian military of failing "to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air", adding it would share the relevant information with Moscow.
In an earlier phone call on Tuesday, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told his Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman the blame "fully rests with Israel", adding that Russia "reserves the right to take further steps in response".
Russia later summoned the Israeli ambassador to its foreign ministry.
A search-and-rescue operation is under way.
Cover Image - Image copyright GETTY IMAGES
The Il-20 aircraft was returning to a Russian base on the north-western coast of Syria (file photo)
On April 5, 2014, the Bureau of Land Management commenced an operation to impound rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle. In the run-up to the operation, no less than five separate threat assessments were conducted to ascertain the threat that the Bundys may pose to law enforcement officers during the roundup. Each and every one of the assessments conducted by the FBI, JTTF, BLM, et.al., showed that the Bundy’s propensity for violence to be virtually nonexistent. With these findings, an appropriate course of action pertaining to a law enforcement presence should have been a few Las Vegas Metro PD officers on scene ensuring the safety of all involved. If that had been the case, the impound operation would likely have been completed without incident. Nevertheless, that would not be the case.
The BLM brought in Special Agent in Charge (SAC), Daniel P. Love, who began to stage a small army at his incident command post in the week leading up to the scheduled impoundment. The list of men and material he brought in included: At least 138 heavily armed agents with level IV body armor, Kevlar helmets and assault rifles. Two FBI Swat Teams, one from Los Angeles, and one from Las Vegas with attached sniper teams and a F.L.I.R. equipped helicopter. A U.S. Park Service Special Event Tactical Team (SETT) with an attached sniper team. Multiple BLM sniper teams A Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicle Drones and Airplanes Multiple German Shepherd attack dogs
The BLM also set up two “First Amendment Areas” miles away from the impound operation for protesters to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. These areas were monitored by cameras and under cover agents who documented the license plates of people in the area.
On April 6th, the second day of the gather, agents encountered civilians taking pictures of the gather from the side of the road. For over an hour, BLM agents harass these citizens and attempt to herd them into the “First Amendment Areas.” They threaten them with citations and arrest until they are informed by the United States Attorney’s Office that they have “no arrest authority.” After Just a few short hours later, Dave Bundy is parked on the side of the road filming the gather with his Ipad. A BLM sniper team is deployed on the hill behind him and aim rifles at his back. Agents then approach him, body slam him, grind his face into the gravel and haul him off to jail, all with “no arrest authority.” He is released the next morning with no charges. His Ipad is confiscated and when it is returned, three years later, all video had been erased. As the impoundment continued, BLM agents began to shoot the Bundy’s cattle from helicopters, leaving many valuable bulls dead. They also systematically shot cattle they had corralled at the ICP and bury them in a mass grave. Simultaneously, the BLM and their contractors began to destroy Cliven Bundy’s State of Nevada deeded ‘waters’ that have been in his family for over a hundred years and are protected by Nevada State Law. It’s understandable why they wanted no pictures taken.
Killing his cattle and destroying his waters are crimes under Nevada law.
On April 9th, a spontaneous protest occurs whereby citizens were curious as to why a dump truck and backhoe are involved in gathering cattle. As the protestors attempt to look into the back of the dump truck, an attack dog is released on Ammon Bundy and he is tased three times. His fifty-nine year old aunt is grabbed from behind and violently body slammed to the ground. In the dump truck, they find torched pieces of their water tanks, evidence of BLM criminal activity. When SAC Dan Love is asked by reporter Pete Santilli, if the government is killing cattle, Dan Love states, “we are not killing cattle!” Multiple videos and photographs show different. (All of the information listed above was not allowed to be presented at my trial) On April 12th, a tense protest occurs with armed and unarmed citizens in a wash a few miles from the Bundy residence. As unarmed protestors arrived in the wash, the BLM immediately aimed assault rifles at them and stated over the loudspeaker that they would use lethal force. This precipitated a response from armed protesters who moved down the freeway towards the wash to defend the people from the BLM. During this protest, multiple agents are recorded saying such things as: “This is another Waco,” “This is a shoot first ask questions later type situation,” and after the protest is over, an agent says, “ Not one shot fired. They’re all fucking mouth. We should have ran units in there, smashed em and killed em.” Almost two years after the impound op, nineteen of us would be arrested and put on trial in three separate tiers. The first tier went to trial on February 6th, 2017, of which I would be included in. Just six weeks before trial, due to my court appointed attorney being incompetent and unprepared, and not wanting another postponement by replacing him, I chose to represent myself pro se. During trial the Judge, Gloria Navarro, in open bias against the defense would not allow me to say the words “U.S. Constitution”, “1st Amendment Right”, “2nd Amendment Right”, “Right to keep and bear arms”, and in a moment of total frustration I asked her if I could say “freedom of speech” in her courtroom. She looked at me and said, “No, you may not.” When the defense got the case and attempted to call our first witness, the prosecution stated that all of our witnesses were “unindicted co-conspirators” and threatened to arrest and indict them if they testified. As a result, only two took the stand in our defense.
Just prior to trial, it was discovered that SAC Dan Love had participated in some nefarious activities of which he was under investigation for and was ultimately relieved of duty. In a blow to the government’s case, they removed him as their star witness. No worries though as we would call him to the stand. When the defense attempted to call him, the government fought it and the judge ruled in their favor. The Special Agent in Charge of the entire operation and that agent whose Grand Jury testimony resulted in our indictments, would never take the stand. With Dan Love in a protected status and me completely discouraged at the ongoing conspiracy between the prosecutors and the judge, I asked a witness a single question about Dan Love and was immediately stripped of my pro se status and the ability to defend myself. My standby counsel took over but was completely clueless, knew nothing of the discovery, and continued to take his daily catnaps and e-bay shopping during the trial. As the trial came to a close, we were not allowed jury instructions of “self-defense,” “defense of others,” or “justification” as the judge stated we were unable to prove the presence of BLM “intimidation,” “provocation,” “over aggressiveness,” or the presence of “snipers.” Our only defense would be, “we didn’t do it.” I was ultimately convicted of Count 12, “Obstruction of Justice” and Count 16, “Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion.” Seven months later, during the third trial in which Cliven, Ryan, Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne were defendants, a bombshell memo was sent to the prosecution, the Department of Justice, and Congress. The memo was eighteen pages of outrageous conduct by the BLM, FBI, and USAO and was written by the government’s own lead investigator, Larry Wooten who investigated this incident for almost three years. Wooten stated that on February 17th, 2017, two weeks into my trial, A.U.S. A. Steven Myhre, the lead prosecutor, entered into a conspiracy with Wooten’s direct supervisor, Kent Kleman, to have Wooten removed from the investigation because they didn’t like his findings. All records of his investigation were confiscated from his office and he was told not to discuss the case with anyone. His investigation reports have never been found. This is a classic example of witness tampering and is a crime of “obstruction of justice” as Wooten was on the witness list for my trial. In the spring of 2018, Wooten wrote a second eighteen-page report memo that is so revealing of the governments’ corruption that the judge placed an exceptionally strict protective order on it and to date, it has not been released. In December of 2017, the judge declared a mistrial due to over three thousand pages of ‘Brady’ material (information likely beneficial to the defense) was finally turned over. The new ‘Brady’ material showed: Five separate threat assessments that showed the Bundy’s were not a threat for violence. The BLM’s threat assessment showed that (the BLM) were looking to “face-off” and provoke the Bundy’s into a confrontation. An FBI Operations Order in which the FBI had deployed snipers. An aerial photograph showing the positions of at least two sniper teams perched above Cliven’s home on the nights of the 5th and 6th, prior to the arrival of protestors or militia. It also showed that the snipers had ranged the distance to his house, carried intermediate range rifles, night vision, thermal imaging devices, and infrared spotlights. A six man Quick Reaction Force two miles away on stand-by prepared to assault the Bundy residence on the nights of the 5th and 6th. The presence of live feed cameras above Bundy’s residence feeding real time video back to the ICP and Dan Love. Evidence that Dan Love, pre-operation, gave a pep talk to his agents telling them to go out there and “kick Cliven in the teeth.” Evidence that Dan Love sent an email telling his agents how to become “warriors.” Evidence that Dan Love carried a “kill book” wherein he bragged about being responsible for three suicides in Operation Cerberus Action in Blanding, Utah.
FBI Agent Joel Willis, according to the judge, “hid” exculpatory evidence in his agency vehicle. He stated that he “finally found a thumb drive”, after three years, “on the floor of his vehicle”. On January 8th, 2018, the judge dismissed the case “With Prejudice” against Cliven Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne due to “Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct, Due Process Violations, and multiple Brady Violations.” The government filed a motion asking Judge Navarro to reconsider her decision and on July, 3rd, 2018 she denied their motion and stated that the ‘Brady’ material withheld was at least relevant to Count 5, Count 12, and Count 16; two of the charges of which I was convicted. Shortly thereafter, the government dismissed all charges on the defendants that had not gone to trial yet. My luck for being in the first group! We filed a motion for a new trial due to the multiple ‘Brady’ violations revealing new evidence, a motion for a “Judgement of Acquittal” as the elements of the charges were never met, and a motion to depose Larry Wooten under oath in order to get his story on the record and add additional new evidence to the mountain that already existed. On the day of my sentence hearing, just minutes before going into the courtroom, Judge Navarro denied all three motions stating that the ‘Brady’ violations were not relevant to me and that the new evidence did not reach the threshold for a new trial and deposing Larry Wooten was “moot.” The government had stated, in the indictment, that there were NO government snipers at the Bundy Ranch and therefore Cliven’s assertion of snipers was “false, deceitful, and deceptive” and that his call to the militia for protection was an “unnecessary escalation of tensions.” At trial, I contentiously argued that snipers were present but was continually objected to by the government and sustained by the judge. We now know that as I argued at trial, the government had, in it’s possession, reams of evidence showing that from April 5th through April 12th, snipers were present and active at the Bundy Ranch.
On July 19th, 2018, I was sentenced to fourteen years in Federal Prison. But I was not sentenced for Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion or Obstruction of Justice but was sentenced for actual Extortion, Assault on a Federal Officer, Threatening a Federal Officer, and Use and Carry of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence; all of the charges I faced at trial but was not convicted.
So why was it so important and why so much effort to remove Cliven Bundy from his land? It certainly was not delinquent grazing fees of $1.3 million, as a government attorney testified in the third trial that Mr. Bundy only owed $8800 in back fees. The answer is quite simple really and could have been found on the BLM’s own website before they removed it. During the impoundment, the website stated that the “Gold Butte Solar Project was not compatible with feral cattle.” There it was for the whole world to see and it had nothing to do with grazing fees. So who were the main players behind this massive land grab? Evidence shows that Senator Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, had formed a partnership and signed contracts with a Chinese solar company to install this solar project in Gold Butte. But they still needed Bundy and his cattle off the land. Harry Reid had a plan. He took one of his high level advisors, Neil Kornze, from his staff and had him moved over to the BLM. From 2009 to 2014, Kornze moved up the ranks until in April 2014 he became the Director of the BLM. To anchor this conspiracy and ensure he had the courts in his pocket, Harry Reid recommended to Barack Obama the appointment of none other than Gloria Navarro as Chief Justice for the District of Nevada. I tremble to think what the outcome of this rogue operation may have been had protestors, armed and unarmed, not heeded the call of this besieged rancher and converged on his ranch from across the country. Would Dan Love have killed this family and burned their house down around them as they assaulted them with snipers and armored vehicles? I thank the Lord that we will never know that answer. From inside a Birmingham, Alabama jail, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.” From inside a prison in Pahrump, Nevada, I couldn’t agree more.
In the days after 9/11, while Ground Zero continued to smolder, millions heard Dan Rather and various media outlets repeat vague and unconfirmed reports of arrests that took place that day. These rumors held that Middle Eastern men, presumably Arabs, were arrested in explosive-packed vans in various places around the city on September 11th, and that some had even been photographing and celebrating those events. What most do not realize is that those reports were not mere rumors, and we now have thousands of pages of FBI, CIA and DOJ reports documenting those arrests.
Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began. This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
Adam Green of Know More News faces off with Owen Shroyer of InfoWars in a first time ever debate on topics not covered on InfoWars. Adam Green has been an opponent of Zionism for quite some time and makes the case that Zionism is an area that InfoWars gives a pass to covers for, while Owen defends that position. Adam brings up the supremacist views of the Zionists and how bad U.S. Foreign policy and Hollywood and Media are overcome by control of it, while Owen deflects.
ADAM GREEN on Resurrect the Republic / RTR Truth Media
“We were told by the army’s military censor to remove that part of the story,” David Brinn, the managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, told RT as he replied to a request for comment. The report, ‘IDF confirms: Israel provided light-weapons to Syrian rebels’, which claimed that the Israeli military acknowledged for the first time that it had provided money, weapons, and ammunition to the Syrian militants, was removed just hours after being published without any explanation.
The Jerusalem Post article was removed shortly after being published, but a version of the article can still be read using Google cache.According to Brinn, the story was removed “for security reasons evidently.” The IDF told RT that it would not comment on the issue.
It claims that regular supplies of light weapons and ammunition to the Syrian militants holding the territories near the Israeli border were part of Operation Good Neighbor, which Israel portrayed as a humanitarian mission focused on providing Syrians with “food, clothes and fuel.”
Israel has been arming at least seven different armed groups in Syria’s Golan Heights, the report said. It added that the Israeli military believed that providing weapons to the militants was “the right decision” as they sought to keep Hezbollah and Iran away from Israel’s Golan Heights by such means.
The deleted report comes on the heels of another major disclosure. On Monday, the IDF announced that Israel has carried out more than 200 strikes on Syrian targets in the past year and a half.
Christopher Bunch, 14 years old, died on Aug. 14, 2018 of complications from a rare neurological disease called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM). The teenager began experiencing symptoms, including headaches, nausea and vomiting, on Aug. 6. He spent much of the next two days sleeping.12 On Aug. 8, Christopher’s parents became concerned that their son’s health had seriously deteriorated. “His progression went from zero to one hundred in a matter of four hours,” said Elijah Mendoza Bunch, Christopher’s father.12
Christopher was taken to University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital in Iowa City for treatment. Soon after being admitted to the hospital, the boy began to lose the ability to breathe on his own and suffered complete paralysis on the left side of his body. He was put on anti-seizure medication. On Aug. 11, Christopher underwent surgery to relieve swelling in his brain, but he remained in critical condition and was placed on life support until he passed away two days later.123
Physicians diagnosed Christopher with ADEM—a disease that causes inflammation of the central nervous system and. ADEM “typically affects children and may be preceded by a viral or bacterial infection.” It can also “occur after a vaccination, with symptoms ranging from confusion, drowsiness or coma, unsteadiness, vision issues, trouble swallowing or weakness of the arms and legs.”123
Christopher had apparently received the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine Gardasil three weeks prior to his death. ADEM is a reported side effect of Gardasil. It is listed in the Gardasil package insert.4567
Intellectual Conservative | Dan Phillips
Posted on 12/10/2006, 3:34:41 PM by Luis Gonzalez Paleoconservatism is informed by certain philosophical presumptions that differ markedly from the presumptions of neocons and most modern conservatives.
Have you ever noticed how enthusiasts of all sorts frequently speak a language that is completely unintelligible to the rest of us? For example, computer geeks . . . err . . . enthusiasts have their own language as do gear heads . . . err . . . hot rod enthusiasts. Wonkish political obsessives like me are guilty of the same thing, I am afraid. I don’t know a gigabyte from RAM or a header from a flathead, but I can rattle off the various shades of conservatism in Rainman-like fashion.
I was reminded of this tendency recently when I published an article on paleoconservatism and abortion. The article was originally published at Intellectual Conservative, and later published at several mainstream, GOP-oriented conservative websites. It made some very controversial assertions so I expected to get feedback. Well I did. Most of it was positive. Some of it was not. But what surprised me was that most people weren’t taking issue with my controversial assertions. Instead, many seemed to be unfamiliar with the term paleoconservative. I was surprised because my article appeared on conservative oriented political websites. I assumed paleoconservative would be a term familiar to those who frequent such websites. Well you know what they say about assuming. I was also disappointed. That many conservative internet surfers didn’t know what a paleoconservative is is an indication that my side seriously needs a marketing campaign.
As a result, I have decided that a little Conservatism 101 is in order. I will attempt to explain the origin and history of the movement now called paleoconservatism, and how it differs from “regular conservatism,” for lack of a better term. But perhaps more importantly, what does this movement have to offer us that regular conservatism does not?
First of all, this is a topic about which a book could easily be written, and some have. It is not my intention to be exhaustive or to reinvent the wheel. For a more exhaustive treatment, see the Wikipediaentry on paleoconservatism. I know Wikipedia can be a bit hit and miss, but the paleoconservative entry is fantastic. (No I did not write it.) It was updated recently, and the first half is particularly well done. Several other books and magazines have been written that address this subject, and I will provide internal links to helpful resources.
Since most readers will be familiar with the tenants of “regular conservatism,” it may be easiest to describe paleoconservatism by how it differs from the more mainstream variety. First a little history.
Prior to World War II, there existed a coalition often referred to now as the Old Right. The Old Right was a collection of traditionalist and libertarian politicians, writers, businessmen, scholars, etc. who composed the loyal opposition to the Left which was ascendant at the time. The ascendant Left was represented most obviously by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Perhaps nothing resembling a “movement” as we know it today existed back then, but the Old Right did what it could given the tenor of the times.
NeoConservatism Defined -
The Old Right differed from the modern conservative movement in that it opposed foreign military intervention and favored a policy often derisively referred to as isolationism. The Old Right opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. On that note, the most prominent organization of the Old Right was the America First Committee (AFC) which was organized to prevent US entry into WW II. (The AFC was populated by a lot of anti-war leftists as well.) The conservative argument for opposing foreign intervention and entanglements is that it is not America’s responsibility to be a global policeman. Foreign adventuring necessitates big government, big spending, the sacrificing of liberties at home, and of course places American troops in harm’s way.
The Old Right also opposed, generally with limited political success, FDR’s New Deal. They believed his New Deal programs were wasteful, not authorized by the Constitution, and ineffective and counterproductive to reviving the depressed economy.
Some elements of the Old Right also opposed what they saw as a trifecta of insults to freedom and the Constitution that took place in 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment which authorized the Income Tax, the Seventeenth Amendment which mandated the direct election of Senators, and the creation of the Federal Reserve. (Tax protestors don’t scold me. I am aware that many believe the Sixteenth Amendment was not passed appropriately by the States and/or doesn’t authorize an individual income tax. That debate is beyond the scope of this article.)
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor and American entry into the War, non-intervention fell out of favor. When the hot war ended, America was faced with a Cold War attempting to halt the global expansion of Communism and Soviet influence. The “modern conservative movement” (MCM) as it is often called arose after WWII and after the start of the Cold War. Unlike the Old Right, the MCM supported a strong internationalist foreign policy as a means of combating the Soviet menace. Some recognized foreign intervention as inconsistent with the traditional conservative support of small government, but felt the Soviet threat warranted a temporary alteration in principles. A small contingent on the Right, led by Murray Rothbard among others, continued to resist the call for an aggressive foreign policy to contain Communism, but they were in the minority. (The merits of their argument deserve an additional column as well.)
You might wonder, “If the Old Right is characterized as pre-WWII, then would it not be accurate to designate the post-war alternative as the New Right instead of the more cumbersome modern conservative movement?” There is a related movement called the New Right but it is not an entirely analogous term. The MCM is generally conceived as originating and coalescing in the 50’s especially around the issue of the Cold War. Seminal events in its genesis would be the publication of Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind in 1953 and the founding of National Review in 1955. The New Right refers to that coalition that flourished after the Barry Goldwater campaign. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but the term MCM seems to better encompass the decade or so before what is usually conceived of as the official beginning of the New Right. For the purposes of this article the MCM will indicate the post-war conservative movement that is to be distinguished from the Old Right.
Another element of the post-war anti-Communist, anti-Soviet forces were ex-leftists who had grown disillusioned with the excesses of Soviet Communism. Beginning in the 70’s they started to leave the Democratic Party in frustration over the emergence of radical liberalism, especially the counterculture, the perceived direction of the party with the McGovern nomination, and the perceived weakness of the Democrats on foreign policy. This group included Irving Kristol and others frequently associated with the advent of neoconservatism, a term I suspect the average reader is more familiar with.
Since they were ex-liberals, the neoconservative element of the MCM was generally supportive of a broad social safety net. They were comfortable with New Deal programs such as Social Security and FDR’s economic interventions. Most were supportive of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the Civil Rights movement, although most opposed quotas.
The Old Right was, as I already pointed out, hostile to Roosevelt and the New Deal. Some of the conservative elements that made up the original MCM did not support the New Deal or economic intervention either. This was true of both the traditionalist elements and the libertarian elements of the fledgling MCM. But by the mid-50’s it was generally assumed by most conservatives that the New Deal was a fait accompli, so serious opposition to it was dropped. This was partially based on pragmatic political concerns, but it was also felt that opposing the Soviets was the paramount issue, and they should not waste political capital or alienate potential allies with less urgent issues. A pragmatic consensus quickly arose that opposing settled leftist gains such as Social Security was a political loser, so they were essentially taken off the table.
The transformation from isolationist Old Right to interventionist modern right has been much observed and commented on. The de facto adoption of political pragmatism over rigorous adherence to principles as a defining component of modern conservatism has been less commented on, and I will devote a future article to discussing the far reaching implications of that decision.
So the neoconservatives were pro-intervention, supported a social safety net, were comfortable with some government intervention in the economy but supported free-trade and liberal immigration policies and were generally socially conservative. While the depth of their commitment to social conservatism has been questioned by some, they were clearly anti-counterculture which they saw as a radical and anti-American threat.
A question: does what the neoconservatives supported initially sound familiar to anyone? It actually sounds very much like the agenda of the MCM and the GOP of today. More on that later.
The MCM has always been a coalition of rather diverse elements who were united in their opposition to the radical Left as much or more than they were united in their common goals and philosophy. One element was the traditionalists personified by Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver. Another element was the economic libertarians personified by Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. Traditionalists placed less faith in free-markets and rejected economic reductionism. They denounced the libertarians as hidebound ideologues. The libertarians denounced the traditionalists as too friendly to the state and rejecters of reason. But both factions opposed federal government expansion although perhaps for somewhat different reasons, and both opposed the economic and cultural collectivists on the Left. The fusionists, whose main spokesmen at the time was Frank Meyer of National Review, tried to chart a middle course. Fusionism is described by Donald Devine of the American Conservative Union as advocating “libertarian means to traditional ends.” Whether fusionism was a coherent intellectual philosophy or just an attempt to reconcile a diverse coalition is a matter of much debate among partisans on all sides.
But whatever fusionism might have lacked as a coherent philosophy, you could argue that the MCM that emerged was generally fusionist in its orientation, socially and culturally conservative but libertarian on economics. All sides supported limited government, tax cuts, minimal government intervention in the economy, and a strong national defense. (Actually it could be argued that a strong national defense is neither traditionalist nor libertarian nor fusionist, but its support by most was a product of the Cold War times.)
Also holding the movement coalition together was near unanimous agreement on the strategy of political pragmatism mentioned above with the GOP as the chosen vehicle, and a fear of the Democratic Left. The near unanimous consensus that the GOP should be the vehicle of choice was facilitated by the slow but sure shift of once conservative Democrats in the South to the GOP starting with the Goldwater campaign in ’64.
So what the heck is a paleoconservative and where do they belong in this grand scheme? Many paleos, whose beliefs coincide largely with the Kirk-style traditionalists, would gripe that they were really a barely tolerated part of the coalition from the beginning, but there was at least a general civility. The late paleocon, Sam Francis, claimed that the neocons were at first welcomed into the movement as useful allies, but tensions between the traditionalists and the newly grafted neocons soon rose. The traditionalists charged that the neocons were still unrepentant leftists. The neocons charged that the traditionalists were backwards looking reactionaries.
Things really came to a head at the start of the Reagan administration, as the spoils were being divvied up. Traditionalists, who had been a part of the MCM from its inception, expected a piece of the pie. The Johnny-come-lately neos were accused of trying to get all the spoils for themselves. Things really got ugly concerning the appointment of Mel Bradford to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mel Bradford was a traditionalist extraordinaire. He was also a proud Southerner. One aspect of the traditionalist element has been respect for the inherent conservatism of the Southern tradition. Russell Kirk recognized it, Richard Weaver recognized it, and Mel Bradford recognized it. The Southern Agrarians, who had been an element of the Old Right, had eloquently articulated it in their book I’ll Take My Stand. These men recognized that the South had always served as a traditionalist brake on the grand designs of Northern progressives. The neos did not want Dr. Bradford to get the job. To them he was hopelessly behind the times. Their choice was William Bennett, so they set out in a rather nasty way to tarnish Bradford’s reputation. They especially focused on his veneration of the South and his traditional Southern view of the merits or lack thereof of Lincoln. Of course accusations of racism were hurled, and this was an early harbinger of things to come. (Note the hysterical and hyperbolic reaction of the neocons to Trent Lott’s Strom Thurmond remark.) This incident among others confirmed to the traditionalists that their suspicions had been right from the beginning; the neocons really were a type of leftist instead of a type of conservative, since free and easy accusations of racism are too often the first recourse of the left.
The term paleoconservative was coined around this time by either Thomas Fleming and/or Paul Gottfried originally as a joke. Paleo, as a prefix meaning old or ancient, was to designate the opposite of neo meaning new. Even though it was initially coined as a joke, the term caught on. Some paleos have objected to the term, suggesting it invokes images of dinosaurs. It may well be true that the term was embraced and used by the paleos' enemies because they saw it as unflattering. At this point we are probably stuck with the term. It is now routinely used by both its proponents and its detractors. Personally, I kind of like the term. As a proud traditionalist, I am perfectly comfortable with a word that invokes ancient or old as opposed to a word that invokes the new. Such an attitude I’m sure appalls the progressives.
In the 80s, the term paleoconservative was still mostly used in-house by conservatives “in the know.” It began to be used by a broader audience during the lead up to the first Gulf War. The MCM had been characterized by support of foreign intervention in the struggle against the Soviets. With the Soviet threat diminished or eliminated, the paleos sought to revert back to the traditional conservative position of avoiding foreign intervention. The neos, however, saw America, as the lone remaining superpower, as having an international opportunity/responsibility to shape the world in America’s interests and ostensively in a way that would benefit all.
The paleoconservative movement as we know it today synthesized and galvanized around opposition to the first Gulf War. For the paleos, that war was not our fight. American foreign policy should focus on safeguarding America and protecting American’s vital national interests, not punishing acts of aggression around the world.
The most prominent paleoconservative public face was Pat Buchanan. He articulated for the masses the three areas where paleos are most commonly recognized as differing from “regular conservatives.” They were early strong opponents of immigration, a position which is now becoming in vogue. They were skeptical of the benefits of free-trade, and favored a policy of “economic nationalism.” They were particularly weary of free-trade deals that they believed sacrificed our national sovereignty such as NAFTA and GATT. And of course, they opposed most foreign intervention.
You can see how paleoconservatism came to be largely defined by its positions on issues where it was at variance with the neocons and the rest of the conservative movement and the GOP, especially on the triad of issues mentioned above. The paleocons believe the conservative movement has been nearly entirely co-opted by neocon ideology or “neoconized,” if you will. The less flattering characterization that is often used is that the movement had been “hi-jacked” by the recent interlopers. As far as the “official position” of the conservative movement, they are correct, although many grass-roots conservatives support the paleoconservative positions. They just lack an organized or effective voice. This is especially true on immigration, where the Establishment’s support of “comprehensive” (read “guest workers”) immigration reform and reluctance to support an enforcement only policy, is very much at odds with the conservative base.
In my paleoconservative article that inspired this follow-up, I wrote:
While paleos are often distinguished by their opposition to foreign intervention, immigration, and free trade, what really sets them apart from other conservatives is much deeper than just policy. They differ on significant underlying philosophical presumptions. One helpful way of looking at this difference is to ask where paleoconservatives draw the “it has all been down hill since then” or alternatively the “those were the good ol’ days” line in the historical sand. Paleos generally reject the Enlightenment in whole or in part. They reject Lockean “contract theory” and the concept of “natural rights” out right.
This essay has been an attempt to place paleoconservatives in a historical context, and to focus on how they differ from other conservative on important policy issues. In this light you can see that paleoconservatives are a continuation or recovery of the traditionalist element of the Right that has been there from the beginning. In many ways it has more in common with the Old Right, especially the Southern Agrarian element, than it does with the modern right. Many commentators have noticed this commonality.
However, as I stated in the passage above, the underlying differences are much deeper than mere differences on certain issues. Paleoconservatism is informed by certain philosophical presumptions that differ markedly from the presumptions of neocons and most modern conservatives. It is a hard concept to initially get your arms around for the uninitiated, but once you understand the presumptions the positions on issues naturally follow. It is not just a hodge-podge of policy differences. Likewise, the neocons have their own different set of underlying philosophical presumptions. While the modern Right generally takes positions on the issues similar to the neocons, it is not at all clear that all conservatives entirely understand what philosophy they are buying into.
It will be through trying to illustrate these core philosophical differences, not just debating the merits of free-trade vs. fair trade, that a broader understanding will be fostered of how the sides differ and what each has to offer with regard to addressing the problems we face as a nation today, and where we went wrong in the past.
I will leave the complicated and perhaps cumbersome discussion of each side’s underlying philosophy for later essays. I hope this essay has adequately laid the historical framework.
