Calling out the Racism of Ron Paul & Alex Jones (Obama Deception) As Our Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

daveyd-raider2 A couple of weeks ago I wrote about this and showed an interview I did with right-wing terrorism expert Sara Robinson. With so much going on with this bad economy its hard for people to concentrate wrap their heads around this latest revelation. Nevertheless we have to. We also have to understand that these white extremist are very slick with their rhetoric. Many of think we’re gonna see folks running around in bed sheets and visible swastikas talking crazy. Folks know better in 2009. The rule of thumb is this ‘Not all police officers wear uniforms’.  Hence ‘Not all white supremacists wear sheets over their heads’.  Some of them might even be quite appealing.

Today white supremacists have pretty much accepted the fact that they live in a multi-cultural society and thus they hide their true colors in many social situations. In some instances they’ve made themselves attractive even to alot of  Black folks and younger people. This attraction comes because they  often reinforce their anti-government rhetoric which has across the board appeal. These White supremacists talk about being independent and fighting a corrupt Federal reserve.  They talk in such a way that they really sound like their bringing the heat.  The mistake many of make is by not asking who are ALL the people they intend to bring heat to? Yes, the they wanna smash on the police, and so do many of us. Yes, they hate the government and think its out of control and corrupt, and so do many of us.  They believe the federal reserve and the banks are out to economically enslave us and thus must be stopped- Again, we believe that as well. Then they may even go so far as to suggest that 9-11 was an inside job by elite government forces who are seeking to bring New World Order. Many of us go for that. We’re ready to ride with them because they’re essentially ‘sound like their bout it bout it’.

But what happens when they express their disdain with our Brown skinned brothers and sisters and use the flimsy excuse of being against  ‘illegal immigration’ as the cover?  What happens when they say things about hating Isreal and Jews who are controlling the media, and in the same breath express a zeal and desire to wanna go smash on all those Arab terrorists both here and abroad? For me the red flag should go up whenever white folks start talking about smashing on communities of color. We should all understand what that has meant historically. Sadly too many of us let that go for a variety of reasons. 

Is Ron Paul Shielding for Racists? Does he have a Zero Tolerance agenda for racism?

Is Ron Paul Shielding for Racists? Does he have a Zero Tolerance agenda for racism?

For example, when former Presidential candidate Ron Pauls ays he he has no problem collecting money from the white supremacist groups like Stormfront and the Ku Klux Klan, we find all sorts of excuses to justify it. They range from ‘well he can’t control who gives him money’ to ‘he’s doesn’t really feel that way he’s just using their money’to erroneous comparisons between the KKK and the Black Pather Party. (the Panthers have historically been about working with and being in solidarity with white allies-early on they recognized class struggle and the insidious role capitalism played in harming us all)  Huey Newtonand Bobby Seale were never ever about running around beating down and hanging white folks to keep the purity of the Black race in tact. That’s not the same as the Klan and white supremacist groups.

If a guy like Paul knowingly takes money from white supremacist organizations and knows that they are amongst his followers, then should we not be looking to see how this appealing figure is trying to aggressively disavow racism and build bridges between his racist and non racist supporters? What sort of tone is he setting?  Does his political agenda specifically call for zero tolerance for racism? Is he talking about class in a way that allows us to all find common ground the way way that slain Chicago Black party Chairman Fred Hampton sr did when he formed the first Rainbow Coalition and engaged the White Patriots or is Paul letting folks do what they do while he does what he does?

In the great state of Texas we’ve had a few racially motivated killings including last year’s killing of a Black man Brandon McClelland inParis, Texas where he was dragged to his death in the back of a pick up by two white men. Ten years earlier, the world was shocked when we heard about the horrorific killing of James Byrd being dragged to his death in Jasper, Texas. Was Ron Paul and his ilk out there demanding justice and pushing for racial harmony in those incidents or were they sitting back collecting money from White Power groups as they continued to talk about how corrupt the government is?

Also in Paris, Texas when 14 year Shaquanda Cottonwas sentenced to a whooping 7 years in jail for shoving a teacher’s aid, many saw her harsh sentencing as racially motivated and understood that this happened in the backdrop of racial tensions in the area. Was Ron Paul joining Civil Rights groups and using this well publicized incident as further proof that the government was inherently corrupt?  Did he make note that Paris, Texas had along sordid history of lynching Black people and putting Blacks in their place stretching back for almost 100 years? Where was all the anti-government rhetoric around that incident? Was there at least a press release of support for Shaquanda?

This past April, Hearne, Texas was the cite for the premierof the film American Violet which is about the outragous set of racially motivated incidents that led to to the jailing of almost 30 people after a mentally challenged man was beaten by police and forced to ‘finger’ people who the police felt were drug dealing. One of the people fingered was a mother of 4 named Regina Kellywho refused to plea bargin and go along with the hardball plea bargaining tactics of  of district attorney John Paschall. Kelly along with the ACLU fought this case and won sparking anger with the DA who is on record of calling people Niggers and beating his daughter for dating a Black man. Was the Ron Paul Revolution on the scene with the Kelly case? Do I hear crickets in the room?

Leading up to the screening in Hearne, Tx, the district attorney who was still allowed to keep his license was running around threatening store owners who advertised the film and doing his best to try and prevent the screening in Hearne, Tx was the Ron Paul Revolution on hand to point out how this was yet another example of government gone wild?

Should we be concerned when Obama Deception film maker Alex Jones calls meCHA and La Raza the new KKK and opposes the efforts of Latino grassroots organizers to shut down immigration detention prisons?

Should we be concerned when Obama Deception film maker Alex Jones calls meCHA and La Raza the new KKK and opposes the efforts of Latino grassroots organizers to shut down immigration detention prisons?

Many of these questions can be asked Alex Jonesthe inevsytigative reporter and film maker who put out the Obama Deception  documentary featuring KRS-One, who says he against  racism and  white supremacist groups but then turns around and calls Latino organizations like MeCHA and La Raza the ‘new KKK’.  Now, for some who have been caught up in the Black- Brown gang conflicts in Southern, Cali, such assertions may hit home, but for the rest of us his remarks should be more then disturbing.

How many of us doing peace and social justice work have found ourselves as allies to these Latino organizations?  When you see or hear about Jones opposing the efforts by Latino activists in Texas, to shut down immigrant detention camps, that should ring a bell? How can one say they are opposed to New World Order and then be in opposition to oppressed people who are victims to its long range policies-starting with the conquering and stealing of indigenous land?

 When he says the ‘pro-immigration movement’ is being used by ‘the elites’ to pulverize the middle class, how such rhetoric any different then the intolerance routinely expressed by the Lou Dobbs and Glen Becks of the world?  When we see and hear him brag about disrupting a news conference where the Austin police are being thanked  for not arresting undocumented workers and declaring Austin a sanctuary city of sort,   should that ring bells?

Keep all this in mind as you read the article below and understand that those with an racist end game have refined their approach. On one hand they’ll have beer with you and maybe share a joke, but behind the scenes their gearing up for something much more sinister and long term.

Also ask yourself as you read this article.. will the Ron Paul’s and Alex Jone’s of the world stand up and demand that our US Military be held accountable for recruiting Neo-Nazi’s until the fold?Will they be checking to see if big corporations or the ‘elites’ are funding their operations?

Some thing to ponder…

-Davey D-

 

“I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody”: Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis

By Matt Kennard, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. Posted June 17, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/140686/%22i_hate_arabs_more_than_anybody%22%3A_desperate_army_recruits_neo-nazis/?page=entire

On a muggy Florida evening in 2008, I meet Iraq War veteran Forrest Fogartyin the Winghouse, a little bar-restaurant on the outskirts of Tampa, his favorite hangout. He told me on the phone I would recognize him by his skinhead. Sure enough, when I spot a white guy at a table by the door with a shaved head, white tank top and bulging muscles, I know it can only be him.

skrewdriver-225-daveydOver a plate of chicken wings, he tells me about his path into the white-power movement. “I was 14 when I decided I wanted to be a Nazi,” he says. At his first high school, near Los Angeles, he was bullied by black and Latino kids. That’s when he first heard Skrewdriver, a band he calls “the godfather of the white power movement.” “I became obsessed,” he says. He had an image from one of Skrewdriver’s album covers — a Viking carrying a staff, an icon among white nationalists — tattooed on his left forearm. Soon after he had a Celtic cross, an Irish symbol appropriated by neo-Nazis, emblazoned on his stomach.

At 15, Fogarty moved with his dad to Tampa, where he started picking fights with groups of black kids at his new high school. “On the first day, this bunch of niggers, they thought I was a racist, so they asked, ‘Are you in the KKK?'” he tells me. “I said, ‘Yeah,’ and it was on.” Soon enough, he was expelled.

For the next six years, Fogarty flitted from landscaping job to construction job, neither of which he’d ever wanted to do. “I was just drinking and fighting,” he says. He started his own Nazi rock group, Attack, and made friends in the National Alliance, at the time the biggest neo-Nazi group in the country. It has called for a “a long-term eugenics program involving at least the entire populations of Europe and America.”

But the military ran in Fogarty’s family. His grandfather had served during World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and his dad had been a Marine in Vietnam. At 22, Fogarty resolved to follow in their footsteps. “I wanted to serve my country,” he says.

whitepowertattoo-225-daveydArmy regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos. Before signing on the dotted line, enlistees are required to explain any tattoos. At a Tampa recruitment office, though, Fogarty sailed right through the signup process. “They just told me to write an explanation of each tattoo, and I made up some stuff, and that was that,” he says. Soon he was posted to Fort Stewart in Georgia, where he became part of the 3rd Infantry Division.

Fogarty’s ex-girlfriend, intent on destroying his new military career, sent a dossier of photographs to Fort Stewart. The photos showed Fogarty attending white supremacist rallies andperforming with his band, Attack. “They hauled me before some sort of committee and showed me the pictures,” Fogarty says. “I just denied them andsaid my girlfriend was a spiteful bitch.” He adds: “They knew what I was about. But they let it go because I’m a great soldier.”

In 2003, Fogartywas sent to Iraq. For two years he served in the military police, escorting officers, including generals, around the hostile country. He says he was granted top-secret clearance and access to battle plans. Fogartyspeaks with regret that he “never had any kill counts.” But he says his time in Iraq increased his racist resolve.

“I hate Arabs more than anybody, for the simple fact I’ve served over there and seen how they live,” he tells me. “They’re just a backward people. Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I’m concerned. Their customs, everything to do with the Middle East, is just repugnant to me.”

Because of his tattoos and his racist comments, most of his buddies andhis commanding officers were aware of his Nazism. “They all knew in my unit,” he says. “They would always kid around and say, ‘Hey, you’re that skinhead!'” But no one sounded an alarm to higher-ups. “I would volunteer for all the hardest missions, and they were like, ‘Let Fogarty go.’ They didn’t want to get rid of me.”

Fogarty left the Army in 2005 with an honorable discharge. He says he was asked to reenlist. He declined. He was sick of the system.

Since the launch of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has struggled to recruit and reenlist troops. As the conflicts have dragged on, the military has loosened regulations, issuing “moral waivers” in many cases, allowing even those with criminal records to join up. Veterans suffering post-traumatic stress disorder have been ordered back to the Middle East for second and third tours of duty.

The lax regulations have also opened the military’s doors to neo-Nazis, white supremacists and gang members — with drastic consequences. Some neo-Nazis have been charged with crimes inside the military, and others have been linked to recruitment efforts for the white right. A recent Department of Homeland Security report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” stated: “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” Many white supremacists join the Army to secure training for, as they see it, a future domestic race war. Others claim to be shooting Iraqis not to pursue the military’s strategic goals but because killing “hajjis” is their duty as white militants.

Soldiers’ associations with extremist groups, and their racist actions, contravene a host of military statutes instituted in the past three decades. But during the “war on terror,” U.S. armed forces have turned a blind eye on their own regulations. A 2005 Department of Defense report states, “Effectively, the military has a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt they are likely to be able to complete their contracts.”

Carter F. Smith is a former military investigator who worked with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command from 2004 to 2006, when he helped to root out gang violence in troops. “When you need more soldiers, you lower the standards, whether you say so or not,” he says. “The increase in gangs and extremists is an indicator of this.” Military investigators may be concerned about white supremacists, he says. “But they have a war to fight, and they don’t have incentive to slow down.”

Tom Metzger

Tom Metzger

Tom Metzger is the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and current leader of the White Aryan Resistance. He tells me the military has never been more tolerant of racial extremists. “Now they are letting everybody in,” he says.

The presence of white supremacists in the military first triggered concern in 1976. At Camp Pendleton in California, a group of black Marines attacked white Marines they mistakenly believed to be in the KKK. The resulting investigation uncovered a KKK chapter at the base and led to the jailing or transfer of 16 Klansmen. Reports of Klan activity among soldiers and Marines surfaced again in the 1980s, spurring President Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, to condemn military participation in white supremacist organizations.

Then, in 1995, a black couple was murdered by two neo-Nazi paratroopers around Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The murder investigation turned up evidence that 22 soldiers at Fort Bragg were known to be extremists. That year, language was added to a Department of Defense directive, explicitly prohibiting participation in “organizations that espouse supremacist causes” or “advocate the use of force or violence.”

Today a complete ban on membership in racist organizations appears to have been lifted — though the proliferation of white supremacists in the military is difficult to gauge. The military does not track them as a discrete category, coupling them with gang members. But one indication of the scope comes from the FBI.

Following an investigation of white supremacist groups, a 2008 FBI reportdeclared: “Military experience — ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces — is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement.” In white supremacist incidents from 2001 to 2008, the FBI identified 203 veterans. Most of them were associated with the National Alliance and the National Socialist Movement, which promote anti-Semitism and the overthrow of the U.S. government, and assorted skinhead groups.

Because the FBI focused only on reported cases, its numbers don’t include the many extremist soldiers who have managed to stay off the radar. But its report does pinpoint why the white supremacist movements seek to recruit veterans — they “may exploit their accesses to restricted areas and intelligence or apply specialized training in weapons, tactics, and organizational skills to benefit the extremist movement.”

In fact, since the movement’s inception, its leaders have encouraged members to enlist in the U.S. military as a way to receive state-of-the-art combat training, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, in preparation for a domestic race war. The concept of a race war is central to extremist groups, whose adherents imagine an eruption of violence that pits races against each other and the government.

That goal comes up often in the chatter on white supremacist Web sites. On the neo-Nazi Web site Blood and Honour, a user called 88Soldier88, wrote in 2008 that he is an active duty soldier working in a detainee holding area in Iraq. He complained about “how ‘nice’ we have to treat these fucking people better than our own troops.” Then he added, “Hopefully the training will prepare me for what I hope is to come.” Another poster, AMERICANARYAN.88Soldier88, wrote, “I have the training I need and will pass it on to others when I get out.”

On NewSaxon.org, a social networking group for neo-Nazis, a group called White Military Men hosts numerous contributors. It was begun by “FightingforWhites,” who identified himself at one point as Lance Cpl. Burton of the 2nd Battalion Fox Company, but then removed the information. The group calls for “All men with military experience, retired or active/reserve” to “join this group to see how many men have experience to build an army. We want to win a war, we need soldiers.” FightingforWhites — whose taglineis “White Supremacy will prevail! US Military leading the way!” — goes on to write, “I am with an infantry battalion in the Marine Corps, I have had the pleasure of killing four enemies that tried to kill me. I have the best training to kill people.” On his wall, a friend wrote: “THANKS BROTHER!!!! kill a couple towel heads for me ok!”

Such attitudes come straight from the movement’s leaders. “We do encourage them to sign up for the military,” says Charles Wilson, spokesman for the National Socialist Movement. “We can use the training to secure the resistance to our government.” Billy Roper, of White Revolution, says skinheads join the military for the usual reasons, such as access to higher education, but also “to secure the future for white children.” “America began in bloody revolution,” he reminds me, “and it might end that way.”

When it comes to screening out racists at recruitment centers, military regulations appear to have collapsed. “We don’t exclude people from the army based on their thoughts,” says S. Douglas Smith, an Army public affairs officer. “We exclude based on behavior.” He says an “offensive” or “extremist” tattoo “might be a reason for them not to be in the military.” Or it might not. “We try to educate recruiters on extremist tattoos,” he says, but “the tattoo is a relatively subjective decision” and shouldn’t in itself bar enlistment.

What about something as obvious as a swastika? “A swastika would trigger questions,” Smith says. “But again, if the gentlemen said, ‘I like the way the swastika looked,’ and had clean criminal record, it’s possible we would allow that person in.” “There are First Amendment rights,” he adds.

In the spring, I telephoned at random five Army recruitment centers across the country. I said I was interested in joining up and mentioned that I had a pair of “SS bolts” tattooed on my arm. A 2000 military brochure stated that SS bolts were a tattoo image that should raise suspicions. But none of the recruiters reacted negatively, and when pressed directly about the tattoo, not one said it would be an outright problem. A recruiter in Houston was typical; he said he’d never heard of SS bolts and just encouraged me to come on in.

It’s in the interest of recruiters to interpret recruiting standards loosely. If they fail to meet targets, based on the number of soldiers they enlist, they may have to attend a punitive counseling session, and it could hurt any chance for promotion. When, in 2005, the Army relaxed regulations on non-extremist tattoos, such as body art covering the hands, neck and face, this cut recruiters even more slack.

Even the education of recruiters about how to identify extremists seems to have fallen by the wayside. The 2005 Department of Defense report concluded that recruiting personnel “were not aware of having received systematic training on recognizing and responding to possible terrorists” — a designation that includes white supremacists — “who try to enlist.” Participation on white supremacist Web sites would be an easy way to screen out extremist recruits, but the report found that the military had not clarified which Web forums were gathering places for extremists.

Once white supremacists are in the military, it is easy to stay there. An Army Command Policy manual devotes more than 100 pages to rooting them out. But no officer appears to be reading it.

Hunter Glasswas a paratrooper in the 1980s and became a gang cop in 1999 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, near Fort Bragg. “In the early 1990s, the military was hard on them. They could pick and choose,” he recalls. “They were looking for swastikas. They were looking for anything.” But the regulations on racist extremists got jettisoned with the war on terror.

Glass says white supremacists now enjoy an open culture of impunity in the armed forces. “We’re seeing guys with tattoos all the time,” he says. “As far as hunting them down, I don’t see it. I’m seeing the opposite, where if a white supremacist has committed a crime, the military stance will be, ‘He didn’t commit a race-related crime.'”

In fact, a 2006 reportby the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command shows that military brass consistently ignored evidence of extremism. One case, at Fort Hood, reveals that a soldier was making Internet postings on the white supremacist site Stormfront.org. But the investigator was unable to locate the soldier in question. In a brief summary of the case, an investigator writes that due to “poor documentation,” “attempts to locate with minimal information met with negative results.” “I’m not doing my job here,” the investigator notes. “Needs to get fixed.”

In another case, investigators found that a Fort Hood soldier belonged to the neo-Nazi group Hammerskins and was “closely associated with” the Celtic Knights of Austin, Texas, another extremist organization, a situation bad enough to merit a joint investigation by the FBI and the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The Army summary states that there was “probable cause” to believe the soldier had participated in at least one white extremist meeting and had “provided a military technical manual to the leader of a white extremist group in order to assist in the planning and execution of future attacks on various targets.”

Our of four preliminary probes into white supremacists, the Criminal Investigation Command carried through on only this one. The probe revealed that “a larger single attack was planned for the San Antonio, TX after a considerable amount of media attention was given to illegal immigrants. The attack was not completed due to the inability of the organization to obtain explosives.” Despite these threats, the subject was interviewed only once, in 2006, and the investigation was terminated the following year.

White supremacists may be doing more than avoiding expulsion. They may be using their military status to help build the white right. The FBI found that two Army privates in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg had attempted in 2007 to sell stolen property from the military — including ballistic vests, a combat helmet and pain medications such as morphine — to an undercover FBI agent they believed was involved with the white supremacist movement. (They were convicted and sentenced to six years.) It found multiple examples of white supremacist recruitment among active military, including a period in 2003 when six active duty soldiers at Fort Riley, members of the Aryan Nation, were recruiting their Army colleagues and even serving as the Aryan Nation’s point of contact for the state of Kansas.

One white supremacist soldier, James Douglas Ross, a military intelligence officer stationed at Fort Bragg, was given a bad conduct discharge from the Army when he was caught trying to mail a submachinegun from Iraq to his father’s home in Spokane, Wash. Military police found a cache of white supremacist paraphernalia andseveral weapons hidden behind ceiling tiles in Ross’ military quarters. After his discharge, a Spokane County deputy sheriff saw Ross passing out fliers for the neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Rooting out extremists is difficult because racism pervades the military, according to soldiers. They say troops throughout the Middle East use derogatory terms like “hajji” or “sand nigger” to define Arab insurgents and often the Arab population itself.

“Racism was rampant,” recalls vet Michael Prysner, who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. “All of command, everywhere, it was completely ingrained in the consciousness of every soldier. I’ve heard top generals refer to the Iraq people as ‘hajjis.’ The anti-Arab racism came from the brass. It came from the top. And everything was justified because they weren’t considered people.”

Another vet, Michael Totten, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne in 2003 and2004, says, “It wouldn’t standout if you said ‘sand niggers,’ even if you aren’t a neo-Nazi.” Tottensays his perspective has changed in the intervening years, but “at the time, I used the words ‘sand nigger.’ I didn’t consider ‘hajji’ to be derogatory.”

Geoffrey Millard, an organizer for Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in Iraq for 13 months, beginning in 2004, as part of the 42nd Infantry Division. He recalls Gen. George Casey, who served as the commander in Iraq from 2004 to 2007, addressing a briefing he attended in the summer of 2005 at Forward Operating Base, outside Tikrit. “As he walked past, he was talking about some incident that had just happened, and he was talking about how ‘these stupid fucking hajjis couldn’t figure shit out.’ And I’m just like, Are you kidding me? This is Gen. Casey, the highest-ranking guy in Iraq, referring to the Iraqi people as ‘fucking hajjis.'” (A spokesperson for Casey, now the Army Chief of Staff, said the general “did not make this statement.”)

“The military is attractive to white supremacists,” Millard says, “because the war itself is racist.”

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Armed Forces has long been considered one of Congress’ most powerful groups. It governs legislation affecting the Pentagon, defense budget, military strategies and operations. Today it is led by the influential Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain. An investigation by the committee into how white supremacists permeate the military in plain violation of U.S. law could result in substantive changes. I contacted the committee but staffers would not agree to be interviewed. Instead, a spokesperson responded that white supremacy in the military has never arisen as a concern. In an e-mail, the spokesperson said, “The Committee doesn’t have any information that would indicate this is a particular problem.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

What if Steve Jobs Took Over Clear Channel?

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

In the 12 years that Steve Jobs has been back running Apple, the company revolutionized the computer business, created the mobile device market and attacked traditional media as effectively as anyone ever has. Imagine if he brought his ideas to radio?

Steve Jobs Replaces John Hogan

Monday, June 15, 2009  

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/steve-jobs-replaces-john-hogan.html

Apple CEO-Steve Jobs-His innovativeness put APPLE on top. Imagine if he was to run Clear Channel?

Apple CEO-Steve Jobs-His innovativeness put APPLE on top. Imagine if he was to run Clear Channel?

In the 12 years that Steve Jobs has been back running Apple, the company revolutionized the computer business, created the mobile device market and attacked traditional media as effectively as anyone ever has.

Apple did eight great things in that time span that not only affected the geek end of their business but redefined the ego driven entertainment side.

Obviously, while record companies and radio groups slept, Apple was busy at work.

The return of Steve Jobs was in and of itself a remarkable feat. He was kicked out of the company he co-founded and Apple had a near death experience at the hands of CEO Gil Amelio.

Then in 1998 came the iMac that once again revolutionized the personal computer business and pressured the competition. Apple was back.

In 2001, the new Mac operating system was introduced – the one that’s cool, reliable and defies viruses.

That same year Apple created a new market for itself by inventing the iPod. You may remember that Mp3 players were all the rage before the iPod but they were clunky, unreliable and filled with potential — not consumer satisfaction.

One of the reasons the iPod worked where previous competitors failed is because in 2003 the iTunes Store came into full prominence. iPod customers had a cool place to plug in and fill up their devices. Nevermind that they had to pay 99 cents for the music, many were willing. Simultaneously, the filesharing market continued to grow and there was plenty of room for pirated music on an iPod.

In 2006, Apple switched from PowerPC chips to Intel – faster, better. Another improvement.

The iPhone was born in 2007 and the rest is history as the only thing holding the iPhone back from total domination is Apple’s agreement with AT&T (that will hopefully get modified soon).

Learning from the success of the iPod/iTunes model, Apple created the wildly popular App Store that resides in iTunes and helps consumers fill up their iPhones with neat and useful applications designed by all types of individuals and developers.

There is a rumor that Apple is getting ready to unveil a tablet-sized device – larger than an iPod Touch and able to play movies, videos, pictures, applications and some call it the Kindle killer because it will no doubt thrust Apple into the digital book market.

All during this time, Jobs led his company in the opposite direction of most digital businesses.

He started brick and mortar retail stores in high-end locations.

Keeping with the company’s image, the design of their stores was cool and artistically pleasing. The Apple store on Fifth Avenue in New York City is all underground with a big glass entrance leading to the escalators. The rest of the expensive real estate is “just” a plaza for pedestrians.

The new Apple store in Scottsdale – minutes from me – just opened a few days ago with high ceilings and glass walls on two sides so you can see through it. Take my wallet away, please!

This guy doesn’t quit – and during those 12 years Jobs’ health deteriorated, he fought deadly pancreatic cancer and currently is recuperating from the effects of his life saving surgery.

Now that’s putting meaning to the Apple motto “Think Different” with no excuses for personal health problems or low stock prices (remember, Apple stock was once very cheap).

In approximately that same time period, the radio industry and the record labels did what?

I’m waiting!

Let’s see.

HD radio that would revolutionize broadcasting and provide more channels to greedy consolidators.

And rather than gloss over this, remember the time, money and attention that was invested in the uncoolest consumer product since the Edsel.

Then there was satellite radio – the terrestrial killer.

Turns out satellite radio was not much better than over-the-air broadcasting and it cost $12.95 a month.

The radio lobby, NAB, made a fool out of itself by spending millions of dollars to try and kill satellite radio off when all it had to do was step back and watch. It’s like Iran. If you want to damage Iran, just let them hold elections and get out of the way.

Any new formats for radio?

Nah. Just the ninth generation hybrid of music formats that sounded similar to the eight others that preceded them.

Of course, there was new technology that made voice tracking possible, but didn’t this hurt the consolidators more than help?

How about a new generation of radio personalities.

No again.

Howard Stern changed addresses. Don Imus got more decrepit and talk radio pumped itself full of hot air pandering to the same aging audience that advertisers don’t seem to want.

I didn’t see anyone spending the fortune that it takes to start an all-news station.

How about the record labels, maybe they fared better?

Think again.

Suing consumers in their ill-conceived strategy to stand up to music pirating blew up in their face. In fact, the RIAA is about ready to have its lunch eaten – perhaps to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars – if Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described “huge music fan,” wins her rematch in a Minneapolis court.

This time instead of employing a “Sonny Bono” defense strategy, she has herself a couple of sharp young lawyers – one from Harvard that are working “pro Bono” (free!) to play pin the tail on the donkey. If she succeeds, the labels may find themselves actually owing the “sued” back pay.

What about digital initiatives?

No, while Jobs was thinking different, the labels were thinking the same. Trying to hold onto a shrinking CD market because, after all, record labels are just widget makers at heart.

They blew buying Napster. Sued them instead.

John Hogan runs the Huge Clear Channel empire-With it headed to bankruptcy obviously he wasn't able to bring fresh ideas to the table.

John Hogan runs the Huge Clear Channel empire-With it headed to bankruptcy obviously he wasn't able to bring fresh ideas to the table.

Tried to cram their misguided belief that labels actually could set prices for music even while Apple became the music industry’s de facto number one record label.

I could go on and on and you probably could insert mistake after mistake from both radio and the music during the same period of time that Steve Jobs was building a hardware and entertainment giant.

Same period of time.

Same number of recessions.

Same stock market and Wall Street piranas.

Same time frame.

Same next generation coming of age except Jobs embraced them while radio and music execs tried to change their demands.

All things being equal.

Apple won. They lost.

But it is deeper than that.

Imagine for a minute – as I have done in past pieces – that Steve Jobs ran Clear Channel.

I can guarantee you Clear Channel would be a public company with a stock price over $100 and no Mays children in site.

What would Jobs have done as CEO of Clear Channel?

Let’s use our imagination.

1. He would have sought a partnership with Apple or Sony or someone to help design new age “radios” – perhaps they were like iPods and they probably would not – I repeat not – carry the terrestrial signal. Jobs would have realized that young people listen to media on-demand. Hell, if you gave Jobs the talent of Clear Channel programmers and talent, he would make you forget about Ryan Seacrest by redeploying them to digital media.

2. Jobs would have hired not fired. Firing is what losers do. Hiring is what achievers do. He would have raided Citadel, Cumulus and some of the smaller well-run groups and created the nucleus for new age plans.

3. He would control the content for new podcasting and streaming using radio talent. As head of Clear Channel, we are presuming he would also not be working for Apple so he would get ready to revolutionize the radio and record businesses with other partners. You see, radio and records fit together. Apart, both industries are weaker.

4. Jobs might have created radioandrecords.com (by buying the newspaper) and turning the name into iTunes except it would be owned by Clear Channel and the record labels. That’s where consumers would buy music, watch videos, connect with each other and artists and contribute content – right there on the very site Steve Jobs built for Clear Channel. Can you imagine the Mays’ doing this?

5. He’d sell the outdoor division while it was still worth something, get additional funding and own the WiFi space in partnership with his manufacturing sources. Jobs would know that eventually WiFi would dominate and that content is what his Clear Channel should be doing. That terrestrial radio had a short shelf life in the future.

6. Jobs would start selling the radio stations off to local operators who recognize that analog radio works. It’s kind of like what he does right now with application developers. They create the content and he controls who gets to air what where. In this case, Jobs would turn the dying terrestrial radio business into a thriving one by renting out signals to entrepreneurs who promise his Clear Channel a clean percent of the cut.

I don’t know about you, but I am getting too excited to type.

Let’s say I’m wrong – still, this is more like it.

Imagine the difference that a smart, generationally-wise CEO could have made at Clear Channel.

Or at any other consolidated radio station or record label.

One that anticipated the digital future and aggregated talent instead of spending. It would then be possible to think differently about what “radio” could have become.

Instead, we’re all increasingly asking what went wrong and what could have been had even a semi-competent CEO ran but one consolidated radio group.

John Hogan.

Steve Jobs.

Lew Dickey.

Steve Jobs.

Fagreed Suleman.

Steve Jobs.

See what I mean, the radio industry didn’t die.

It was murdered.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry’s daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: Service doesn’t start until you verify an email from “Feedburner” immediately after you sign up (may have to check your filtered mail).

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.

 

Clear Channel is Done In the next 6 Months-But Will Radio Survive

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Radio After Clear Channel

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Clear Channel is done.

The next six to nine months will constitute what I believe will be their swan song as a consolidated radio company. None of us can take any joy in this.

The economy isn’t helping.

It’s killing over-leveraged radio owners on their debt repayment. Some stations are actually making money, but not enough to pay down huge corporate debt – the debt that was purchased when they put together their radio clusters.

This piece is about what radio will be like after Clear Channel is broken up.

But first, the reason why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

The investment companies of Lee Capital Partners and Bain Media made a mistake when they went through with the acquisition of Clear Channel (radio and outdoor) to the tune of about $20 billion. The banks gave them an out. Lee & Bain refused to take it.

They knowingly walked down a dangerous path acquiring a company in a declining industry with a recession bearing down.

I’ve asked financial analysts to try and explain to me how smart investors could do such a thing and the answer I received was – for the fees.

Lee & Bain profited by closing the deal. Perhaps they didn’t think things would get this bad, but they have.

Recent attempts to bully their lenders into a more favorable debt arrangement seems to be failing. Clear Channel could be in bankruptcy by the end of the year or the first quarter of 2010.

The company appears to be battening down the hatches for the inevitable.

Wall Street buyout companies are used to winning and losing. They have done plenty of both. It comes with the game. But the one constant – fees – is what drives the buyout market.

I believe that Lee & Bain will be uprooted from this situation if and when the company seeks bankruptcy protection.

Bankruptcy is a slippery slope to say the least.

The fate of the company is in the hands of a bankruptcy judge. Other interests, including those of the investors and creditors seeking to avoid a full haircut are also a factor, but…

It is more likely in my view that much or all of Clear Channel will eventually be broken up – sold off to raise as much revenue as possible.

The present management may also be kicked aside – again, a bankruptcy judge has a lot of influence here.

Clear Channel is already acting like there is no tomorrow.

What do you call gutting the stations, cutting every possible expense and using repeater radio content from national syndicators and their network to fill up the airwaves? Even Clear Channel Radio President John Slogan Hogan isn’t that dumb. He’s taking orders. I don’t believe he would do this without a gun to his head.

What employees are left when the end comes will not exactly be in a strong position. And former employees with severance agreements or retirees could have their futures jeopardized.

Again, the court makes the call.

It should also be noted that Clear Channel isn’t the only large radio group to face bankruptcy. I believe Cumulus and Citadel are goners as well. They may be lucky enough (or unlucky enough as the case may be) to turn more of their equity into debt repayment but eventually they will have to pay the piper.

And, there doesn’t seem to be a huge interest among debt holders to own more of these mismanaged, over-leveraged radio companies.

As an aside, I want to remind you that you and I didn’t cause this problem so when we discuss it — as depressing as it is — do not forget how radio got to this juncture. You could look the other way, believe the happy talk that radio associations and others try to peddle or you could deal with the inevitable.

Because ultimately, the decline of three of the biggest radio consolidators will affect many of you.

If Citadel goes down before Clear Channel, it would be less devastating than the number one consolidator going bankrupt. As we have learned from the past in strategic financial management, programming or sales, when Clear Channel gets a cold, the radio industry gets pneumonia.

Having said that, there is an interesting scenario I see ahead – not all bad or all good and certainly with many risks.

Let me take you through radio after Clear Channel, in my opinion, step by step:

1. There is unlikely to be a buyer for the entire Clear Channel radio chain.

2. There may be a buyer for the outdoor division – maybe.

3. Clear Channel’s radio stations will eventually be sold off to offset the massive losses incurred in advance of the bankruptcy filing.

4. Multiples for radio stations – please sit down here – will be for the best price offered in some markets and no higher than 4x cash flow on average in the largest markets. Radio is a damaged business thanks to consolidation and it will be reflected in the painful process of selling off stations that were once overpriced for a lot less.

5. Many stations will be returned to the marketplace where eager buyers – those who have radio in their blood – will be ready to put together a group to operate. This is a good thing for the audience and not necessarily a good thing for the buyers. Turning radio around will be tough.

6. As in the past, any new buyer who picks up stations in the Clear Channel bankruptcy will have a hard time making it work if they do not buy the station with debt they can handle in a recession and in a world where the next generation will not be their audience – ever.

7. Thus, good radio people who have been waiting for this moment may be the unwitting victims of consolidation one more time – the inability to build a growth franchise on only two generations – X and Baby Boomers, both aging.

8. There is an unintended consequence from Clear Channel’s eventual demise and that is the detonation of terrestrial radio in the eyes of advertisers and agencies. The way back is to build local stations with a local presence – and the next successful radio owners will probably know how to do this.

9. Then there is the legacy factor – Clear Channel will be leaving systems in place that new owners may end up embracing including voice tracking (hey, it’s okay on the all-night show and some weekend dayparts, right?) and no traffic directors. In other words, once an owner, some of these good-hearted radio operators may find it hard to undo less is more.

Radio after Clear Channel will not be radio as if Clear Channel never existed.

Reread that line because you can take it to the bank.

Our fantasy is that once rid of these evil consolidators, radio can return to its former position of prominence.

But it will be hard to simply go back 15 or 20 years before duopoly and consolidation.

It will take a Steve Jobs-type to say, “Mr. Hogan, tear down this wall”.

Some cost efficiencies will be retained in spite of the “unpeople-friendly” or anti-audience effects they may have.

And there is always the possibility that some “little” Clear Channel’s will emerge from the rubble and make you wish for the day the Mays boys were back in charge (let’s hope not, but it is possible).

So, the net effect is that many stations are about ready to come home to radio people in an industry drastically hurt by consolidators.

Some of them may buy the stations and over-leverage themselves and you know what will happen to them.

Others will find local niches and return to a model similar to but not exactly like local radio of the past and rebuild or grow good franchises in the short term.

Only owners who also know how to build new media businesses – podcasting franchises, new non-terrestrial radio streams, mobile content, capitalize on social networking and new media – will really be set for the future.

For the rest, the last insult may not be the demise of the Evil Empire but the lure of purchasing radio stations at long last for favorable prices at a time in history when an entire generation is not available to be a growth engine.

I would buy a radio station not because it makes money or could make money again, but because it has a brand — a real strong brand – that could lead into a digital media platform. A digital media platform is not defined as streaming the station on the web or having your morning personality do a podcast.

Without the strong brand, well meaning and good intentioned radio operators may wind up eventually being the victims of radio consolidators one more time – with the Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus groups out of harms way and new owners directly in it.

The best advice: buyer beware.

source:

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/radio-after-clear-channel.html

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Davey D article

We’re Outraged About Voter Fraud in Iran-But Are We Outraged Enough to Fix Voter Fraud Here at Home?

daveyD-blogbannershadow

Share/Save/Bookmark//

daveyd-raider2This weekend’s election results from Iran are back in. It looks like some glaring, real super shady stuff went down and folks are now rioting in the streets. They’re rioting not unlike the way we are in the aftermath of the LA Lakers winning the NBA championship. They’re rioting because they saw their freedom and votes snatched away. They’re rioting in spite of the fact they have a repressive government that has outlawed demonstrating. They’re rioting in spite of the fact that the government has placed a former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi who was the main candidate in the opposition party under house arrest. Can you imagine if we had placed Senators Al Gore or John Kerry under arrest after the 2001 and 2004 elections?

Yes they are rioting in the streets of Tehran. They’re rioting the way we should’ve when we saw elections stolen from us here in this country. They’re rioting the way we should’ve after the coup that took place last week in New York where some outrageous shenanigans occured and two Democrats were taken into a backroom, some things were said to them by a rich GOP backer and the next thing you know they came out and aligned themselves with the Republicans. The end result was  NY’s first African American speaker of the house, Malcolm Smith  being  ousted from his position and the GOP suddenly controlling the Senate.

Yes, they are rioting in the streets of Tehran and when I say riot, I don’t mean they went down to the police station, paid some money and got a permit to protest. They didn’t wait around to get a grant or funding for the demonstration. Folks were not distracted by petty rap beefs, Hollywood spats or Jay-Z announcing he’s bringing death to the autotunes. The riots in Tehran where dust is being kicked up is because people feel like wrong is wrong and right is right. It’s wrong that Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardliner who is repressive to women, says that Gays don’t exist in Iran and believes the Holocaust never happened suddenly beat a guy who is being depicted as a Barack Obama like challenger, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who awoke and inspired all these voters under 30 (1/3rd Iran’s voting population) to go to the polls in record numbers by the millions. It’s interesting to note that Mir Hossein Mousavi has been described as moderate but according to Iranian progressives he’s actually quite conservative, but nevertheless the news narrative we been treated to is that he’s gonna bring about change.

Going into the election it looked like Mousavi was gonna win and when the results came out and it was reported that Ahmadinejad beat him by a landslide, people were stunned. When Ahmadinejad took to the airwaves, declared victory and started announcing that Democracy is beautiful thing  and that we’ve seen it work, people yelled ‘fraud’ and have been going off ever since.

They’re rioting in Tehran the way they did this in Kenya last year when the elections were stolen. They did this in Mexico when the elections were stolen. Although I will admit, we seem to be getting more news coverage to the election uprisings in Iran then we did in neighboring Mexico. Maybe it’s because at the time our government ala George Bush was supporting the man and the party that stole accussed of stealing Mexico’s elections-Felipe Calderón. In fact US news coverage was so scare in spite of the massive demonstrations and riots in Mexico City the news blackout  made Project Censored Top Censored stories for 2006. Thank God for twitter and other forms of modern technology we are able to keep abreast the riots in Tehran

Vice Presisdent Joe Biden is speaking out about voter fraud in Iran, yet he didn't vote to investigate voter fraud here in the US after the 2001 elections

Vice Presisdent Joe Biden is speaking out about voter fraud in Iran, yet he didn't vote to investigate voter fraud here in the US after the 2001 elections

What I find most interesting and a bit ironic is the critical reaction and anger being expressed by folks sitting in our government who roam the halls of power. We have our own government officials crying foul. They wanna know how could such a thing like this happen? They are outraged and expressing disbelief.  How could Iran be so blatant in stealing an election?  All sorts of criticisms and insults are being tossed at a Ahmadinejad, a guy who Vice President Joe Biden once described as a ‘wacko’ and a ‘madman’. But sadly with each pointed remark and as more and more fingers are wagged at Iran and its fraudulent elections a mirror is raised up. It’s the proverbial mirror that forces us here in the US to look at ourselves. It’s the proverbial mirror that calls us into question. Lemme sums things up with this tweet I got the other day from popular Bay Area DJ Sake 1.

“Dear USA, u have no fucking right to question tha legality of other countries’ elections, nor to say they’re ruled by “religious fanatics” …u lost that right at inception BTW. But if u need a more recent reference point you got GW Bush”.

Yep, that about says it all. Remember we allowed not one, but two elections to be stolen from us. Sure people were angry for a quick minute, but after things died down sort of we went back to business as usual. By the time the next election cycle came around we went and re-elected people back into office people who didn’t lead a charge to correct the theft of our Democracy. For example, I find it ironic that Vice President Joe Biden who called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a ‘wacko’ is the same Joe Biden who didn’t raise his hand and demand that the votes be recounted and an investigation take place during the 2001 fiasco that led to George Bush being ‘selected’. He remained silent with all the other Senators even as member after member of the Congressional Black Caucus came before the them demanding rand begging for redress for the stealing of votes.

I find it ironic that Biden and others who are so vocal about what took place in Iran were dismissive when allegations of voter suppression emerged in the 2004 elections in Ohio. You didn’t see too many people in Congress or the Senate running around bringing attention and promoting documentaries like American Blackout which offered up some keen insight to the egregious flaws we have in our voting process.

Its ironic to hear some of our esteemed politicians yelling voting fraud in Iran while they never addressed the voter suppression that took place even when Barack Obama was running against Hillary Clinton. Yes, he eventually made it into the White House, but I haven’t forgotten the disturbing stories and all the madness that went down during the primaries. I have friends who are still paying a price for scandalous things that took place in in states like Texas, Nevada and even in California. The bottom line here is as we talk bad about Iran we need to get the shadiness out of our own elections.

Its great we are supporting the outrage going on in Tehran for elections being stolen, how supportive were we when Black folks in the US had their votes stolen in Florida and then Ohio in '01 and  in '04?

Its great we are supporting the outrage going on in Tehran for elections being stolen, how supportive were we when Black folks in the US had their votes stolen in Florida and then Ohio in '01 and in '04?

I’ll add one other thing,  I certainly hope those who are not in office who crying about the disenfranchisement in Iran were crying about the disenfranchisement of millions of Black folks in Florida. Again this comes down to what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. I realize there are some people who are new to politics and thus they weren’t up to speed back in ’01 and ’04, but there are a lot of folks who don’t fall into this category who were. up to speed.  Y’all know who you are. You’re the ones sending me emails and links to articles, getting all excited about riots in the streets and insisting that we go out and be in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Tehran but couldn’t do the same when similar things were happening here.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m down for that-100%  especially if its young people making noise and yelling something is wrong.  To me, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems crazy even though some of us backed him when he has stood defiant to the US and asserted that Iran has a right to develop its own nuclear weapons.  He’s disconcerting even when some of us backed him when he stood defiant to Zionist backed Isreal and gave money to Lebanon to rebuild after Isreal bombed her a couple of years ago. There are many who backed him when he asserted that Iran should be a major player in the Middle East and not just the countries we in the US are backing. 

So if we can back Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for standing up to imperialist US policies and  interests and we can back the students who are rioting in the streets because  they are standing up to the repressive policies of  Ahmadinejad can we at the very least stand in solidarity those communities of color who got votes stolen here in the US?

I mean it was just this year after Barack Obama got elected that the great state of Texas which has a long sordid history of thwarting votes attempted to pass a controversial Republican backed Voter ID bill which was gonna have all these stringent requirements for pictures and documentation that people would need to vote. Basically it was designed to intimidate voters in  Black and Brown communities and low income areas. With Texas’ voter population changing and the state on the verge of eradicating its super red state status, many had been working overtime to not let that power shift happen.  Passing a Voter ID was the Texas GOP’s number one priority over the economy, health concerns and a host of other issues.  This was their baby that they pulled out all the stops for. They wanted to hold on to power at all costs.

As this was happening we’re we in solidarity with those communities of color opposing this measure? Did we even know about it or care? It was voter suppression being legalized right before our very eyes without much fan fare being made by the Joe Bidens of the world as well as the folks sending me emails to be in solidarity with Tehran.  In any case lets keep our eyes on Tehran and see how things unfold and let’s keep our eyes on voter problems at home. Many of the concerns raised in American Blackout have not been resolved even with the election of a popular president. So lets strive to get rid our own flaws so we won’t appear to be hypocritical when we step to a country we allowed our own fraudulently selected ex-President George Bush call one of the Axis of Evil in our name.

That’s some thing to ponder…

 Davey D

Aren’t You Glad Orlando Lost Now That We Know the Owner is a Right-Wing Nutcase?

daveydbanner

As co-founder of Amway, the 83-year-old DeVos has amassed a fortune of more than $4.4 billion. Through Amway, he popularized the concept of what is known as network marketing, where salespeople attempt to lure their friends and neighbors into buying products. Sixty percent of what Amway salespeople traffic are health and beauty products.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lakers

By Dave Zirin

 June 5, 2009

Share/Save/Bookmark//

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/zirin

Sports writer Dave Zirin

Sports writer Dave Zirin

As the Orlando Magic face off against the Los Angeles Lakers for the 2009 NBA championship, casual hoops fans may wonder where their rooting interests should lie. If the players or teams don’t excite you, I humbly suggest that you choose your team based not on players, colors or coaches but on owners. Why? Because the victorious owner, whether Lakers boss Jerry Buss or Magic helmsman Richard DeVos, stands to make a fortune by winning, as well as elevate his personal profile. If you do choose to root for a team based on its owners, there is absolutely no contest for progressives: break out the lavender and gold and pray for a Lakers victory. It’s not that Buss is any great shakes; it’s the fact that DeVos operates the Magic like the sporting arm of a radical right- wing empire whose reach extends from makeup to militias.

As co-founder of Amway, the 83-year-old DeVos has amassed a fortune of more than $4.4 billion. Through Amway, he popularized the concept of what is known as network marketing, where salespeople attempt to lure their friends and neighbors into buying products. Sixty percent of what Amway salespeople traffic are health and beauty products. The rest of their merchandise is a veritable pu pu platter of homecare products, jewelry, electronics and even insurance. To put it mildly, DeVos doesn’t do his political business off company time. Amway has been investigated for violating campaign finance laws by seamlessly shifting from network marketing to network politicking. DeVos has used not only his company but his own epic fortune at the service of his politics. He could be described as the architect, underwriter and top chef of every religious-right cause on Pat Robertson’s buffet table. The former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, DeVos is far more than just a loyal party man. For more than four decades he has been the funder in chief of the right-wing fringe of the Christian fundamentalist movement. Before the 1994 “Republican Revolution” made Newt Gingrich a household name, Amway contributed what the Washington Post called “a record sum in recent American politics,” $2.5 million. In the 2004 election cycle Amway and the DeVos family helped donate more than $4 million to campaigns pumping propaganda for Bush and company, with around $2 million coming out of Devos’s own pocket.

Orlando magic owner  Richard Devos is abig player in the conservative far right Christian movement

Orlando magic owner Richard Devos is abig player in the conservative far right Christian movement

During the Bush years DeVos received a decent return on these investments, with tax cuts that saved him millions and tax exemptions for people who sold Amway out of their homes. He then used these extra gains to further empower his nonprofit, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, to direct millions to groups that support radical reparative gay therapy, antievolution politics and other “traditional” family values. The organizations they support include Focus on the Family, the Foundation for Traditional Values, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Media Research Center, among many others. They also supply grants to the Free Congress Foundation, which claims that its main focus is on the “Culture War.” It hopes to “return [America] to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture.”

DeVos is also a senior member of an organization called the Council for National Policy. Imagine the most shadowy right-wing organization, and CNP is the sort of group that rests in its shadows and inspires fevered talk of “vast right-wing conspiracies.” The CNP makes members of the Masons look like paparazzi-hungry starlets. Its membership includes the elite of the John Birch Society. Richard DeVos served on both the executive committee and the board of governors for the CNP.

Another leading member of the CNP was fellow Michigan-based billionaire Edgar Prince. In what Nation contributor Jeremy Scahill has described as a royal coupling in the tradition of feudal Europe, Prince’s daughter Betsy married Richard’s son Dick Jr. Scahill also writes, “[The DeVos family was] one of the greatest bankrollers of far-right causes in U.S. history, and with their money they propelled extremist Christian politicians and activists to positions of prominence.”

Betsy Prince’s brother, and Edgar’s son, Erik Prince, would become first a Navy SEAL and later founder and CEO of the infamous Blackwater corporation. Blackwater is the company of private mercenaries hired to help occupy Iraq, Afghanistan and even post-Katrina New Orleans. Famous for rolling through Baghdad in black SUVs, rock music blaring and making far more money than US soldiers, they are an outsourced army, unaccountable to the government and inciting resentment and anti-Americanism wherever they are stationed. Since 2000, Blackwater has received nearly $1.25 billion in federal contracts, of which $144 million came in small-business set-aside contracts. This isn’t a vast right-wing conspiracy: it has been an openly incestuous and highly beneficial coupling between the DeVos/Prince clan and the Republican Party.

None of this would matter to sports fans if the DeVos family kept its politics out of the Orlando Magic or if it didn’t rely on public funds for the team. Neither is the case. At Amway Arena, the DeVos hold Faith & Family Nights, multiple home-school nights and other events replete with Christian rock and player testimonials.

When you rooted for Orlando, were you rooting for Superman or the conservative policies supported by owner Richard Devos?

When you rooted for Orlando, were you rooting for Superman or the conservative policies supported by owner Richard Devos?

DeVos’s use of the team for his own profile and profit has spurred protests in Orlando. To get people to protest in Orlando, you have to know you’re doing something wrong. Outside Amway Arena, there have been demonstrations to raise awareness among fans of DeVos’s contribution of $100,000 to Florida4Marriage, a group that supports Amendment 2, which would add Florida’s existing ban on gay marriage to the state Constitution. Protesters believe the amendment could halt all domestic-partnership benefits for even straight unmarried couples. “He’s the biggest contributor to the amendment from Orlando,” protest organizer Jennifer Foster told the Orlando Sentinel. “And he’s getting $1 billion in taxpayers’ money to build the arena. That sends a bad message.”

It’s more than a bad message. The DeVos model is organized theft of public funds that then turns arenas into slush funds for radical right politics. As Foster mentioned, ground has now been broken for a $1.1 billion Orlando mega-entertainment complex, the center of which would be a $480 million new arena. DeVos and his people have publicly boasted about how much they are donating to the project. But as Neil deMause, co-author of Field of Schemes wrote, “The actual Magic contribution toward the $480 million price tag, then, is probably somewhere around $70 million.”

It’s a frighteningly effective political money-laundering scheme: our tax dollars are being funneled through a stadium and into the pockets of the DeVos family, where they are then spit out into think tanks, activist organizations and political efforts that most Americans would find noxious. For these reasons, I will do my political duty and root for the Lakers to win it all. We should all want to kick back, enjoy this series and keep politics and sports separate. Unfortunately, Dick DeVos won’t let us.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Why aren’t elderly white males being profiled and called Terrorists?

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Why aren’t elderly white males being profiled and called Terrorists?

by Davey D

daveyd-raider2All week there’s been lots of conversation about the rise of right wing  terrorism here in the US. Sadly most of this conversation has been sparked by the recent shooting of Stephen  Johnsby an 88 year old Neo-Nazi named James W. Von Brunn who entered into a Holocaust museum intent on causing carnage. While many of us are outraged by what took place, we have sadly missed some glaring points in our collective discussion.

First glaring point-How in the hell was this Neo-nazi allowed to be still walking around in the first place? Why was he not in jail? Why wasn’t his fellow Neo-Nazis in jail with him? Contrast that with the type of diligence that has been paid to America’s ‘other terrorist group the Black Panthers’  (Former FBI director J Edgar Hoover’s words not mine)

Early this week on Monday in San Francisco, over 300 people gathered in front of the courthouse in San Francisco to protest the jailing of the SF8.  For those unfamiliar these are 8 (now 7 cause one died ) former Black Panthers accused of conspiracy to kill a cop almost 40 years ago.  Initial confessions to this killing were gathered when police detectives tortured two of the defendents . We’re  talking torture far worse than waterboarding. We’re talking cattle prods to the groins. We’re talking being beaten with phone books. We’re talking being suffocated with hot blankets and plastic bags. You name it and it went down until the guys confessed. 

A trial was eventually held until word of the torture came out and the charges were dropped.  But 30 years later, the same detectives accused of torturing these men were promoted to federal law enforcement and were able to travel all across the country and re-arrest folks under conspiracy charges in January of 2007. Bail was set for 3-5 million dollars for each defendent. Last week was a huge demonstration because the state is spending millions to go after these men who are well into their 70s. Read about the torture here http://counterpunch.com/jacobs02082007.html

VonBrunnHow does this relate to Von Brunn? Well where’s the conspiracy charges against him and every other Neo-Nazi and Klansmen who made no bones about their disdain for Blacks, Jews, Gays and now Mexicans crossing the border?  Why was this 88 year old man walking around with a shotgun  in the nation’s capital which is supposed to be on extra high alert for terrorism, while 7 men who don’t run websites and weren’t in organizations that have a history of killing and attacking entire communities of innocent people because of their race? on trial?

 If we were gonna torture confessions out of people, lets ask ourselves how many white supremacists have been tortured till they confessed and gave up information for the tens of thousands of Black men hung on trees for no real crime except for being Black or looking at a white woman? Where’s the torture of white supremacists  till they confessed about the bombings of entire Black sections of town like Tulsa’s Black Wall Street or Rosewood or Black part of Cincinnati? 

Was Von Brunn’s crime somehow related to the horrific crime committed by the white kid named Richard Poplawski  from Stranton Heights which I believe is in Pittsburgh , Pa who woke up and shot and killed  3 police officers?  Was anyone rolling with any of these people, sat down and hemmed in a police station till they confessed?

We ‘re still chasing down the SF 8 but we ‘re not looking to see if there were 5, 6, 7 or 8 people connected to the Holocaust Museum shooting or the police shooting in Pittsburgh even though both perpetrators were known for their White Supremacist connections.

Many right wing extremist are out in the open? Are they being watched and profiled the way the police like to profile Ray Ray and Pookie in our Black neighborhoods?

Many right wing extremist are out in the open? Are they being watched and profiled the way the police like to profile Ray Ray and Pookie in our Black neighborhoods?

I know for many the answer to my question is more than obvious. People have grown cynical over the years so their response to my query is ‘what did you expect?-t’his is Babylon’-America will never serve out true justice?  It doesn’t mean we don’t try. That’s why 300 people were out fighting for the  freedom of the SF8. 

No matter how the wheels of justice work or don’t work here in America we should be directing the discussion around the Rise of Right Wing Domestic Terror?  We can start by calling it Terrorism. We can start by calling the people who committed it terrorists?  We can check to see if entire communities will be profiled. I mean we have entire divisions looking at all muslims and Arabs fearing they may be connected to terrorist cells. Are elderly white males under watch right now? Should we be fearing them?

Yesterday I saw this Holocaust shooting morph into a condemnation of President Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright because he’s supposed to have made some anti-semtic remarks by referring to Obam’as handlers as “jews who are controlling him’ . Thats’ become the discussion. That’s become the source of outrage and not a bunch of idiots running around with swatstikas making fun of and calling for the continuation of Jews to be baked in ovens.

We need to be directing the discussion and asking why are these right wing extremists collecting guns, building compounds, erecting websites and doing radio shows calling for the overthrow of government allowed such freedoms while everyone is under the gun?  I thought the Patriot Act and all this illegal spying Bormer president Bush was doing during his term and is now continuing under president Obama ,was supposed to keep track of the Von Brunns of the world. Apprently these laws seem to only apply to anti-war protestors, left wing organizations like Move On.org , outspoken celebrities like Danny Glover and Sean Penn and of course anyone who is of Arab decent or Muslim?

Again how does a known terrorist like Von Brunn get to walk the streets of America? That’s the 64 thousand dollar question? How does he walk the streets of Washington DC?   You think any of us Black folks who were calling for the overthrow of a ‘Jewish controlled government would even be allowed on a plane? You don’t think they would’ve been check tax records, parking tickets, overdue library book fines etc?

 5 years ago Bay Area rapper Paris found himself on a No Fly list after he spoke out and expressed his opposition to the lead up to the War and what he felt his was really behind the 9-11 attacks.  Paris is a rapper-Not a Neo-Nazis carrying out acts of violence.  I wanna know if Vonn Brunn a convicted felon was on a No Fly list?

I wanna know if Von Brunn was in someone’s data bank  because he was on record saying that the reason he went to jail was because of  a ‘Negro Jury’ was that a threat coming from the mouth of known terrorist? I know if Ray Ray down the street who was arrested for peddeling drugs said some stuff like that he’s have all sorts charges tacked onto his sentence. People on  Ray Ray’s  jury might even get a phone call from concerned law enforcement officials  warning them to watch out..

Why was Randall terry the head of operation rescue allowed to show up at a funeral for abortion doctor George Tiller and talk madness? Isn't that what gang bangers do?

Why was Randall terry the head of operation rescue allowed to show up at a funeral for abortion doctor George Tiller and talk madness? Isn't that what gang bangers do?

What’s also lost in this discussion on the rise of right wing terrorists are incidents involving people like so called Pro-Life advocate Randall Terry showing up at the funeral of slain abortion doctor George Tiller and saying he deserved to die. Was Terry snatched up, put into a room threatened with conspiracy charges until he gave up some names and he pleaded out?  Isn’t that what they do to drug dealers?  Isn’t that what they do in the hood for crimes far less egregious?  Why does TV commentator Bill O’Reilly who was on air egging on the situation and damn near calling for Tillers execution still has his job. How and why?

3 Days after the 9-11 attacks  I interviewed my Congresswoman Barbara Lee on my Clear Channel radio show about her lone No vote to George Bush’s call to war and I haven’t been inside a commercial station since.  I was unceremoniously let go. I known guys who have gone on air and played the wrong record who were bounced out. Here in the Bay Area wew had a popular DJ who left his mic open while commercial were on. People heard him curse. He came back apologized and was gone the next day. Meanwhile this O’reilly can call for the death of someone have it happne and he’s still be praised and paid? Why is that?  He can keep his job even though he had sexual harrasment charges levied against him?

Lets raise all these questions and more. We did in this two part interview with Sarah Robinson a reporter who’se expertise is the Rise of Right wing terrorism here in the US..

peace out for now

-Davey D-

Here are the two part interviews with Sarah Robinson about the rise of Domestic Terrorism

 

Reverend Wright Says Jews Are Controlling Obama-Causes Uproar

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

I first heard about this this morning when Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Baher of the View got on Reverend Jeremiah Wright. They did this in the middle of a discussion about the Holocaust shooting. It started off w/ Barbara Walterstalking about how rampant anti-semtism is.. I was disappointed that they kept talking about anti-semtism and never mentioned that the victim Stephen Johnswas an African American who had incurred the wrath of the 88 year old Neo-Nazi who shot him.

For folks who don’t know the backstory,  this crazed neo-Nazi  James W. von Brunnwas not only angry with Jews, but he was also angry with African Americans. he blamed a Negro jury for sending him to prison some years ago. hence you can only imagine what was going on through his mind when he shot Johns..

Anyway the conversation centered around anti-semtism, something that  Von brunn has dedicated himself to almost all his life, but when the conversation was done all we could remember was them smashing on reverend Wright and why President Obama had him as a pastor. Anyone watching the show would’ve thought Wright himself ran up into the Holocaust Museum. What was lost was the real challenge before us.. Fighting the rise of right wing white militants who have a clear agenda about smashing on a whole lot of us.. How Rev Wright became the poster boy for anti-semitism is beyond me.. Maybe it’s because he spoke a chilling realism. Obama does listen to and is beholden to the Zionist forces that run Aipac.. If Wright can be tossed in the mix and not all the crazy neo-nazi types running around guns, militias and a track record for carrying out their prejudicial and ideological threats, then perhaps we’ll forget that the Zionist have a messed up Human Rights track record themselves. Something to think about…

 -Davey D-

Rev. Wright Blames “Them Jews” for Keeping President From Talking to Him

June 11, 2009 11:45 AM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/rev-wright-blames-them-jews-for-keeping-president-from-talking-to-him.html

Gorman Gorman

–>jeremiah_wright-225A reporter from the Daily-Press of Newport News, Virginia, caught up with President Obama’s former mentor and pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, this week at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers’ Conference.

Asked if he’s spoken to his former parishioner since he become President, Wright told David Squires, “them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

Wright said he would tell the president, if he could, to stay true to himself.

“He’s gotta do what politicians do,” Wright said. “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza, “Ethnic cleansing the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel.”

Rev. Wright also said that “the Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that’s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they’re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is. “

(It should be noted that since his inauguration, President Obama has visited with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi King Abdullah, Jordanian King Abdullah, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It’s unclear what Rev. Wright would say to the President about the plight of the Palestinians that these Arab leaders would be unwilling to say.)

In his new book Renegade: The Making of a President, erstwhile Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe writes about a secret meeting then-candidate Obama had with Rev. Wright during that period in which the fiery minister threatened to derail his then-parishioner’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination.

jeremiahwright-BillClinton-“It was time to talk directly to Wright,” Wolffe writes. “Obama’s friends at Trinity tried to talk their pastor out of his comeback tour. But by now the church was deeply divided between Obama supporters and Wright supporters, and the conversation was going nowhere. So the candidate decided to go see Wright himself in secret, in Chicago. First came the dance over where to meet: one intermediary suggested a neutral location, but Obama said he was happy to go wherever Wright wanted. They ended up talking at Wright’s home, and Obama tried to adopt the tone of a concerned friend giving advice. He did not want to tell his former pastor what to do, but he did want to nudge him in the right direction by making him aware of what was about to happen. Wright wasn’t heading for vindication; he was heading for vilification.

“’Look, you’re a pastor, you have your own role to play,’ Obama said. ‘But I can tell you how politics in the cable and blog age works. Here’s what you need to anticipate: that it’s going to be a media circus. But obviously, you need to do what you need to do.’

“Wright felt embattled and wanted to tell his side of the story to the rest of the world. He thanked Obama for his opinion, but looked and sounded like the aggrieved party.

“After Wright’s disastrous appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, and Obama’s swift decision to sever all ties with his former pastor, the campaign’s polling numbers showed a steep decline in Indiana.

“On the night before Indiana’s primary, Obama’s senior aides were convinced they were headed for outright defeat. ‘How could someone I knew, someone I trusted, do this to me?’ Obama said.

“Obama and his aides were proved wrong. They won North Carolina by fifteen points, lost Indiana by just one point, and beat Reverend Wright once and for all.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

WTF??? BART Officers Involved w/ Oscar Grant Promoted

daveydbanner

As you read this well written excellent column keep in mind that this case is getting more twist and turns with each passing day. The latest insult to the Oscar Grant execution is thaty two of the BART officers who were on the platform that night have been promoted. Yes you read that correctly. People have been demanding they be charged with contributing and definitely covering up Grant’s murder and instead they have been promoted-Now sit back for this one folks.. They been promoted to train other officers in crowd control..Now if you been following the pre-trial we heard officer after officer claim that they were scared for their lives because hundreds of people were watching and taking pictures.. Now they have two bozos being promoted??? Only in Americ a folks-Only in America .

Wait  wait this gets even better. This story of the officers being promoted was the lead story on last nights evening news. They didn’t name the officers in the report so I went to see if its on line and guess what as of 7:15 am PST I can’t even find the story. Its as if it was never announced-go figure

-Davey D-

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Blaming Oscar Grant III for his killing is a poor defense

By Tammerlin Drummond
Oakland Tribune columnist

Oscargrantgreen-225Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay has said he has no doubt, based on the evidence presented during a preliminary hearing, that former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle intentionally meant to kill Oscar Grant III.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun and not a Taser,” Clay said Thursday after a two-week preliminary hearing. He ordered Mehserle held over for trial.

Judges are entitled to their opinions and it’s normal for them to make public statements after issuing a ruling.

Yet given the volatility of this case, Clay’s comments were ill-advised. In fact, he may have helped the defense’s case for moving Mehserle’s trial out of Alameda County — a strategy in the works at the moment.

I can hear the argument now: If you’ve got judges saying they think a defendant is guilty after the prelim, what’s the likelihood he can get a fair shake in the same courthouse during the trial? That, on top of the rioting and the rush to judgment in some sectors of the media?

Unlike Judge Clay, I have a lot of questions about this mess. The preliminary hearing shed no light on why Mehserle shot an unarmed man in the back while he lay facedown on the Fruitvale train platform.

The one thing that is clear, to me at least, is that the officers who responded to the call about a fight on the train have been embellishing events in an effort to cover their rear ends.

 Their intent clearly is to make the situation on the train platform appear more chaotic and life-threatening than it was in the moments that led up to Grant’s shooting. This is being done to justify their over-the-top response.

Yet this creative retelling is not corroborated by videos or statements from some of the passengers who stumbled upon this horrific event, which deputy district attorney David Stein did an excellent job pointing out.

Sure, it was New Year’s Eve. Yes, there was a train full of drunk people. As we learned during the preliminary hearing, some of them were shouting not very nice things at the BART officers, calling them fake cops and whatnot.

But there is no evidence that hordes of unruly passengers were rushing off the train to the platform, as some of the officers have said.

BART Officer Marysol Domenici testified she so feared for her life she would have liked to have had at least 100 other officers on the platform.

In fact, based on accounts from a number of witnesses, the situation leading up to the shooting was fairly under control. The BART officers had Grant, who had apparently been in a fight on the train, and his friends, against a wall.

What is beginning to emerge is a picture of inexperienced police officers who inflamed what should have been a fairly routine citation or arrest with unnecessarily aggressive, physical behavior.

Two female passengers testified that they began recording the events because they thought the BART officers were acting too aggressively toward Grant and his friends. One of their videos shows BART Officer Anthony Pirone charging toward Grant as he sat on the floor with his back against a wall.

Both Karina Vargas and Margarita Carazo testified that Grant never resisted arrest nor did he seem to be acting aggressively toward the officers.

BART Officer Pirone, whose story has gone through a few revisions, also testified that Grant posed no threat in the moments before he was shot. He first told investigators Grant had kneed him in the groin, but said on the stand he couldn’t remember the incident.

We still haven’t heard Mehserle’s explanation for shooting Grant. He did not take the stand, which is quite common in preliminary hearings.

We know from documents filed by attorney Michael Rains that Mehserle’s defense is this: He accidentally pulled his gun instead of his Taser.

That story would be much more believable if Mehserle had told it from the beginning, when he hired his first lawyer. And if Mehserle hadn’t said immediately after the shooting that he thought Grant was going for a gun.

Attempting to justify Grant’s killing by blaming him and his friends is not going to fly with a reasonable jury.

I do agree with Judge Clay on this point:

“These young men did nothing to warrant the use of deadly force.”

Tammerlin Drummond is a columnist for the Bay Area News Group. Her column runs Wednesdays in Metro and Sundays in Opinion. Reach her at tdrummond@bayareanewsgroup.com.

 

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

The Rise of Private Armies-People be Warned Its Happening As We Speak

daveydbanner

Journalist Jeremy Scahill warns against the growing power of corporate private armies and the “disintegration of the nation state apparatus.” His book the  Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army is a must read book abouyt a disturbing trend

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Bill Moyers: The Rise of Private Armies — Mercenaries, Murder and Corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal. Posted June 9, 2009.

The following is a transcript from the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, broadcast on June 5.

http://www.alternet.org/world/140526/bill_moyers%3A_the_rise_of_private_armies_–_mercenaries%2C_murder_and_corruption_in_iraq_and_afghanistan/?page=entire

There was good news and bad news about Afghanistan this week. And it was the same news.

That’s right. The Senate held confirmation hearings for Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, slated to be the next commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Here’s how two different news organizations reported his testimony:

The Associated Press headline read, “War in Afghanistan is ‘Winnable,'” but the “Washington Independent” reported that the general had, quote, “painted a bleak picture of the Afghanistan war” and that the United States “needed to show significant progress within ’18 to 24 months’ or risk the war spiraling out of control.”

What we know for sure is that the fighting in Afghanistan is escalating. At least 21 thousand more American troops are going in and the number of private security contractors working for the military there jumped 29 percent in the last three months alone. Get this: there are now more private security contractors in Afghanistan than there are U.S. soldiers. And as of next year, according to new Pentagon documents, the war in Afghanistan will be costing more than the war in Iraq.

Jeremy Scahill

Jeremy Scahill

It’s the job of experienced, knowledgeable investigative reporters to throw a monkey wrench into the spin machine and try to make some sense of all this. They’re an endangered species, but one of the best in the business is Jeremy Scahill, who’s been digging into Pentagon documents and thick congressional hearings for several years now. He’s twice winner of the George Polk Award for special achievement in journalism, and author of this best selling book, BLACKWATER: THE RISE OF THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL MERCENARY ARMY. Jeremy now runs the new Web site, RebelReports. Jeremy Scahill, welcome back to the JOURNAL…

Jeremy Scahill: It’s great to be with you Bill.

Bill Moyers: How do explain this spike in private contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Scahill: Well, I think what we’re seeing, under President Barack Obama, is sort of old wine in a new bottle. Obama is sending one message to the world, but the reality on the ground, particularly when it comes to private military contractors, is that the status quo remains from the Bush era. Right now there are 250 thousand contractors fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s about 50 percent of the total US fighting force. Which is very similar to what it was under Bush. In Iraq, President Obama has 130 thousand contractors. And we just saw a 23 percent increase in the number of armed contractors in Iraq. In Afghanistan there’s been a 29 percent increase in armed contractors. So the radical privatization of war continues unabated under Barack Obama.

Having said that, when Barack Obama was in the Senate he was one of the only people that was willing to take up this issue. And he put forward what became the leading legislation on the part of the Democrats to reform the contracting industry. And I give him credit for doing that. Because he saw this as an important issue before a lot of other political figures. And spoke up at a time when a lot of people were deafeningly silent on this issue. I’ve been critical of Obama’s position on this because I think that he accepts what I think is a fundamental lie. That we should have a system where corporations are allowed to benefit off of warfare. And President Obama has carried on a policy where he has tried to implement greater accountability structures. We now know, in a much clearer way than we did under Bush, how many contractors we have on the battlefield. He’s attempted to implement some form of rules governing contractors. And it has suggested that there should be greater accountability when they do commit crimes.

All of these things are a step in the right direction. But, ultimately, I think that we have to look to what Jan Schakowsky, the congresswoman from Illinois, says. We can no longer allow these individuals to perform what are inherently governmental functions. And that includes carrying a weapon on U.S. battlefields. And that’s certainly not where President Obama is right now.

Moyers: But many people will say of course, the truth, which is he inherited a quagmire from the Bush administration. What’s he to do?

Blackwaterriflebook-225Scahill: Well, there’s no question that Obama inherited an absolute mess from President Bush. But the reality is that Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan right now. And is maintaining the occupation of Iraq. If Obama was serious about fully ending the occupation of Iraq, he wouldn’t allow the U.S. to have a colonial fortress that they’re passing off as an embassy in Baghdad. Bill, this place is the size of 80 football fields. Who do you think is going to run the security operation for this 80 football field sized embassy? Well, it’s mercenary contractors.

Moyers: So we’re supposed to be withdrawing from Iraq. But you’re suggesting, in all that you’ve written, that I’ve read lately, that we will be leaving a large mercenary force there.

Scahill: Absolutely. In fact, you’re going to have a sizable presence, not only of U.S. forces, certainly in the region, but also in Iraq. These residual forces… I mean, Bill, you remember, during Vietnam, the people who were classified as military advisors. Or analysts. And, in reality, the U.S. was fighting an undeclared war. So, in Iraq, I think that we’ve seen reports from Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News’ Pentagon correspondent. He’s quoting military sources saying that they expect to be in Iraq 15 to 20 years in sizable numbers. Afghanistan, though, really is going to become Obama’s war. And, unfortunately, many Democrats are portraying it as the good war.

Moyers: Let me show you a snippet of what he said in Cairo on Thursday. Take a look:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Make no mistake. We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

Scahill: Well, I mean, we have two parallel realities here. We have the speeches of President Obama. I’m not questioning his sincerity. And then you have the sort of official punditry that’s allowed access to the corporate media. And they have one debate. On the ground though, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you hear the stories of the people that are forced to live on the other side of the barrel of the gun that is U.S. foreign policy. And you get a very different sense. If the United States, as President Obama says, doesn’t want a permanent presence in Afghanistan, why allocate a billion dollars to build this fortress like embassy, similar to the one in Baghdad, in Islamabad, Pakistan? Another one in Peshawar. Having an increase in mercenary forces. Expanding the US military presence there.

Blackwatersign-225Moyers: Walter Pincus is an old friend of mine, an investigative reporter at “The Washington Post” for, you know, 30 or more years now. A very respected man. He reported in “The Washington Post” last fall that these contracts indicate how long the United States intends to remain in Afghanistan. And he pointed, for example, to a contract given by the Corps of Engineers to a firm in Dubai to build to expand the prison, the U.S. prison at Bagram in Afghanistan. What does that say to you?

Scahill: Right. Look, we have President Obama making it a point, regularly, to say, “We’re going to have Guantánamo closed by early next year.” The fact is that, at Bagram, we see an expansion. They’re spending $60 million to expand that prison. You have hundreds of people held without charges. You have people that are being denied access to the Red Cross in violation of international law. And you have an ongoing position, by the Obama administration, formed under Bush, that these prisoners don’t have right to habeas corpus. There are very disturbing signals being sent with Afghanistan as a microcosm. Not to mention these regular attacks that we’re seeing inside of Pakistan that have killed upwards of 700 civilians using these robotic drones since 2006. Including 100 since Obama took power.

Moyers: Some people have suggested that the increasing reliance on military contractors in Afghanistan underscores the fact that the military is actually stretched very thin. General McChrystal said, this week, he admitted that he doesn’t even know if we have enough troops there to deal with the situation as it is now. Does that surprise you?

Scahill: No. It doesn’t surprise me. Because this is increasingly turning into a war of occupation. That’s why General McChrystal is making that statement. If this was about fighting terrorism, it would be viewed as a law enforcement operation where you are going to hunt down criminals responsible for these actions and bring them in front of a court of law. This is turning into a war of occupation. If I might add about General McChrystal, what message does it send to the Afghan people when President Obama chooses a man who is alleged to have been one of the key figures running secret detention facilities in Iraq, and working on these extra judicial killing squads. Hunting down, quote unquote, insurgents, and killing them on behalf of the U.S. military. This is a man who’s also alleged to have been at the center of the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death, who was killed by U.S. Army Rangers.

Moyers: But he apologized for that this week be before Congress.

Scahill: Well, it’s easy to apologize when your new job is on the line. It’s a different thing to take responsibility for it when you realize that the mistake was made, or that you were involved with what the family of Pat Tillman says was a cover-up.

Moyers: You know, you talk about military contractors. Do you think the American people have any idea how their tax dollars are being used in Afghanistan?

Scahill: Absolutely no idea whatsoever. We’ve spent 190 million dollars. Excuse me, $190 billion on the war in Afghanistan. And some estimates say that, within a few short years, it could it could end up at a half a trillion dollars. The fact is that I think most Americans are not aware that their dollars being spent in Afghanistan are, in fact, going to for-profit corporations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are companies that are simultaneously working for profit and for the U.S. government. That is the intricate linking of corporate profits to an escalation of war that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address. We live in amidst the most radical privatization agenda in the history of our country. And it cuts across every aspect of our society.

Moyers: You recently wrote about how the Department of Defense paid the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR more than $80 million in bonuses for contracts to install what proved to be very defective electrical wiring in Iraq. Senator Byron Dorgan himself, called that wiring in hearings, shoddy and unprofessional. So my question is why did the Pentagon pay for it when it was so inferior?

Scahill: This is perhaps one of the greatest corporate scandals of the past decade. The fact that this Halliburton corporation, which was once headed by former Vice President Dick Cheney, was essentially given keys to the city of U.S. foreign policy. And allowed to do things that were dangerous for U.S. troops. Provide then with unclean drinking water. They were the premier company responsible for servicing the US military occupation of Iraq. In fact, they were deployed alongside the U.S. military in the build up to the war. This was a politically connected company that won its contracts because of its political connections. And the fact is that it was a behemoth that was there. It was it was the girl at the dance, and they danced with her.

Moyers: Yeah. The Army hired a master electrician, I read, in some congressional testimony, to review electrical work in Iraq. He’s now told congress that KBR’s work in Iraq was, quote, “The most hazardous, worst quality work he’d ever seen.” And that his own investigation, this is not a journalist, this is an employee of the Army, had found improper wiring in every building that KBR had wired in Iraq.

Scahill: Right. And we’re talking about thousands of buildings. And so we’ve had, U.S. troops that have died from electrocution in Iraq as a result of the faulty work of KBR. This should be an utter scandal that should outrage every single person in this country. And, yet, you find almost no mention of this in the corporate media.

Moyers: Do you get discouraged writing about corruption that never gets cured?

Scahill: Well, I don’t believe that it necessarily doesn’t get cured. I think that I’m very heartened by the fact that we have a very vibrant independent media landscape that’s developing right now. You know, to me, I once put on the tagline of an article that I wrote early on in the Obama administration that I pledge to be the same journalist under Barack Obama that I was under President Bush. And the reason I felt that it was necessary to say that is that I feel like we have a sort of blue-state-Fox culture in the media. Where people are willing to go above and beyond the call of partisan politics to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. This is a man- it’s time to take off the Obama t-shirts. This is a man who’s in charge of the most powerful country on earth. The media in this country, we have an obligation to treat him the way we treated Bush in terms of being critical of him. And, yet, I feel like many Democrats have had their spines surgically removed these days, as have a lot of journalists. The fact is that this man is governing over a policy that is killing a tremendous number of civilians.

Moyers: You mentioned you mentioned drones a moment ago. I was impressed to hear our new commander of our troops in Afghanistan admit this week that the United States cannot go on killing civilians. He said, in fact, this is creating a dangerous situation for our own country.

Scahill: Well, that that I mean, on the one hand, that those words are true. I think that the fact is that, when you are killing civilians, in what is perceived to be an indiscriminate way certainly by the people of Pakistan you’re going to give rise to more people that want to attack the United States. They view themselves as fighting a defensive war. But never are the statistics cited that come out of Pakistan. 687 people are documented to have been killed. That the Pakistani authorities say are civilians since 2006. In the first 99 days of this year over 100 people were killed. And the fact is…

Moyers: By American military action?

Scahill: Right. By American military action with these robotic drones.

Moyers: 60 Minutes, on CBS News, recently got some very special access to the military. And came out with a report on drones. Let me show you a few excerpts from that.

This is the worlds biggest private army

This is the worlds biggest private army

LARA LOGAN: Right now, there are dozens of them over the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hunting down insurgents every minute of every day. The fight for the pilot is on the video screen. Here a truck full of insurgents in Afghanistan is being tracked by the pilot. When the ground commander gives the order-he first, hitting his target. The trigger is pulled in Nevada. Inside these cramped single white trailers of small offices.

COL. CHRIS CHAMBLISS: And that white spot that this guy is carrying is actually a hot gun. It’s been fired and already know that it’s been used. We’ve met positive identification criteria that these are bad guys. And so now we can go ahead and strike these targets.

Moyers: Now, many people are like that fellow. They say that these drones are new miracle weapons that enable the United States military to kill the bad guys, as he said, without exposing Americans to danger. There’s truth in that, right?

Scahill: Now, I have a lot of respect for Lara Logan, the CBS correspondent. She’s really put her neck on the line and been in the thick of battle, and has been injured in battle. But I think that this piece was propaganda. She allowed the military to make claims about the effectiveness of their weapons that are being contested passionately by the people on the ground in Pakistan itself. I recently did an article about “Time” magazine’s coverage of this. They said that the Taliban are using civilians as human shields. And that’s why so many civilians have been killed. Their source for that was an Air Force intelligence officer who was allowed to speak on as though it was a Pentagon press release. I think that this is sick. Where you turn war, essentially, into a videogame that can be waged by people half a world away. What this does, these drones, is they it sanitizes war. It means that we increase the number of people that don’t have to see that war is hell on the ground. And it means that wars are going to be easier in the future because it’s not as tough of a sell.

Moyers: You will find agreement on people who say war is hell. But you’ll also find a lot of people in this country, America a lot of Democrats and Republicans, who say Jeremy Scahill is wrong. That we need to be doing what we’re doing in Afghanistan because, if we don’t, there’ll be another attack like 9/11 on this country.

Scahill: I think that what we’re doing in Afghanistan increases the likelihood that there’s going to be another attack.

Moyers: Why?

Scahill: Because we’re killing innocent civilians regularly. When the United States goes in and bombs Farah province in Afghanistan, on May 4th, and kills civilians, according to the Red Cross and other sources, 13 members of one family, that has a ricochet impact. The relatives of those people are going to say maybe they did trust the United States. Maybe they viewed the United States as a beacon of freedom in the world. But you just took you just took that guy’s daughter. You just killed that guy’s wife. That’s one more person that’s going to line up and say, “We’re going to fight the United States.” We are indiscriminately killing civilians, according to the UN Human Rights Council. A report that was just released this week by the UN says that the United States is indiscriminately killing civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. That should be a collective shame that we feel in this society. And yet we have people calling it the good war.

Moyers: So, step back to that issue of military contractors. You’ve been you’ve been writing about privatization and military contractors for a long time. In the large scheme of things what do you military contractors represent to you?

Scahill: Yeah. Well, I think that what we have seen happen, as a result of this incredible reliance on private military contractors, is that the United States has created a new system for waging war. Where you no longer have to depend exclusively on your own citizens to sign up for the military and say, “I believe in this war, so I’m willing to sign up and risk my life for it.” You turn the entire world into your recruiting ground. You intricately link corporate profits to an escalation of warfare and make it profitable for companies to participate in your wars. In the process of doing that you undermine U.S. democratic processes. And you also violate the sovereignty of other nations, ’cause you’re making their citizens in combatants in a war to which their country is not a party. I feel that the end game of all of this could well be the disintegration of the nation state apparatus in the world. And it could be replaced by a scenario where you have corporations with their own private armies. To me, that would be a devastating development. But it’s on. It’s happening on a micro level. And I fear it will start to happen on a much bigger scale.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Rachel Maddow: Right-Wing Terrorism Must Be Stopped

daveydbanner

The tactics of anti-choice extremists are designed to change policy by terrorizing Americans. How do we stop them from committing violent acts?

Rachel Maddow: Right-Wing Terrorism Must Be Stopped

By Rachel Maddow, MSNBC. Posted June 8, 2009.

 Share/Save/Bookmark//

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/140501/rachel_maddow%3A_right-wing_terrorism_must_be_stopped/?page=entire

Editor’s Note: The following is an edited version of a transcript from the Rachel Maddow Show.

Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow

We begin tonight with another deadly act of domestic terrorism. The first time a doctor was murdered by the modern anti-abortion terrorist movement in America was March 1993.  Anti-abortion demonstrators were protesting at a clinic in Pensacola, Florida.  As Dr. David Gunn arrived at a clinic, a young man named Michael Griffin shot Dr. Gunn several times in the chest with a snub-nose .38 revolver.

Michael Griffin, the killer, became a cause celebre among anti-abortion extremists.  He was associated with the group called Rescue America, which said after Griffin killed Dr. Gunn that while they did not condone the killing, they didn‘t condemn it either.

Five months after Dr. David Gunn was killed, another doctor, George Tiller—yes, the same Dr. Tiller from today‘s headlines—was shot by a woman named Shelly Shannon.  Shannon had written letters of support for Michael Griffin, who killed Dr. David Gunn.  She called him a hero.

In 1992 and 1993, Shelly Shannon set fires and used acid to attack at least 10 abortion clinics in Oregon, California, Idaho and Nevada.  In 1993, she went to Wichita, Kansas, and used a semiautomatic pistol to shoot Dr. George Tiller in each of his arms outside the clinic at which he worked.

While she was in prison, Ms. Shannon signed on to a pledge of support for Paul Hill, the murderer of yet another American doctor.  In June 1994, Paul Hill shot to death Dr. George Britton and a 74-year-old clinic escort named James Barrett, and he seriously wounded Mr. Barrett‘s wife.

Six months later, a man named John Salvi walked into two clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts, and killed two receptionists and wounded five other people.  In January 1998, yet another murder—security guard Robert Sanderson was killed and a nurse named Emily Lyons was critically injured by a nail bomb that exploded at an Alabama abortion clinic at which they worked.  That bomb was planted by a man named Eric Rudolph.

Eric Rudolph had also bombed another abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta the year before and he had famously bombed the Atlanta Olympics the year before that, killing Alice Hawthorne and wounding 111 other people.  The Atlanta Olympics bombing was a terrorist act committed by an anti-abortion extremist.

In October 1998, another murder—in Amherst, New York, Dr. Barnett Slepian was standing inside his house when James Kopp shot and killed him with a sniper rifle.  Kopp was a member of an anti-abortion extremist group that calls itself the Lambs of Christ.

And [last Sunday], George Tiller was shot again.  This time, it was inside his church in Wichita.  He was killed instantly.  A man named Scott Roeder is the suspect in custody in this case.  He‘s known in extremist anti-abortion circles.  He has had writings published in a newsletter called “Prayer and Action News,” which promotes the idea of killing people who provide abortion services as justifiable homicide.

Someone calling himself Scott Roeder had participated in anti-abortion discussion at a Web site of the group called Operation Rescue.  The group‘s founder, Randal Terry, spoke at the National Press Club today and celebrated Dr. George Tiller‘s death.

RANDALL TERRY, FOUNDER, OPERATION RESCUE:  I stand before you today saying about George Tiller what I said in his life.  He was a mass murderer.  George Tiller was a mass murderer.  He killed tens of thousands of innocent human beings at his own hand.  George Tiller was a murderer and he was doing something that was literally demonic.

RACHEL MADDOW:  Another anti-abortion extremist group, Operation Save America, also put out a statement celebrating George Tiller‘s murder today, saying, quote, “He is now vowing before Jesus and confessing that Jesus is right and that he, George Tiller, was wrong.”

If you go to the Web site of the Army of God, you will find hagiographic websites for anti-abortion terrorist movement heroes, like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph and Shelly Shannon.  You can actually scroll through pages and pages of mug shots and descriptions of bombings and shootings and murders and attempted murders—all praising the perpetrators, and even suggesting ways to get away with the same types of crimes that these people committed but you could do it without getting caught.

Dr George Tiller

Dr George Tiller

On their front page today—there‘s Dr. George Tiller, just murdered, under the caption, “The lives of innocent babies scheduled to be murdered by George Tiller are spared by the action of American hero, Scott Roeder.”

There‘s an anti-abortion terrorist movement in the United States that operates relatively openly.  They advocate and their members commit acts of violence, including murder, against Americans who are not breaking the law, who are engaged in protected legal activity on American soil.

These acts of violence are politically motivated.  They are designed to change American policies and to terrorize Americans.  They have succeed in making providing abortion services to American women so dangerous, so intimidating that there are only a handful of doctors in the entire country who provide late-term abortions—as Dr. Tiller did—abortions late in pregnancy.

In other words, this terrorism is working.  Violence as a political strategy is working to make abortions so unsafe for doctors that they are unwilling to bear the risk of performing it so women can‘t actually get one regardless of whether or not it‘s legal.  It‘s the same outcome as if abortion had been outlawed.  They‘re winning.

What‘s the strategy to stop them?

Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

Professor Turley, thanks for joining us tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR:  Hi, Rachel.

MADDOW:  I‘m making these observations politically just as a citizen, but I wanted to ask you tonight if it‘s legally appropriate, legally useful, to approach this problem as terrorism?

TURLEY:  Well, in some cases, it is.  You know, some of these past cases have elements of terrorism.  Rudolph is a good example of that—although, you know, he was not just anti-abortion, he was anti-homosexual.  He was sort of at war with the world.  And that makes this definition a little more difficult.

Some of us, particularly on the civil libertarian side, are uncomfortable with using the terrorism label because, you know, the Bush administration expanded this definition to the breaking point.  I testified not long ago in Congress of how the Bush administration would classify what were rudimentary criminal cases as terrorism cases and use these laws against them.

The problem we have, as you know, is to deal with lone actors like this.  I don‘t believe that the man who killed Dr. Tiller was a classic terrorist.  I think that he was a murderer.  He assassinated him.

But I don‘t see the elements of an organized terrorist plot.  And in many ways, he‘s the most dangerous thing that we face.

I think the Clinton administration got this right when they really saw the danger as the McVeigh type—this lone actor who goes out there, who may be fueled by rhetoric, but who‘s acting alone.  In this case, it looks like he targeted this very doctor who had been demonized by many.

MADDOW:  To the extent that there is a movement that this man saw himself as part of, and I spent a lot of time in very dark corners of the Web today looking at the websites and publications …

TURLEY:  Yes.

MADDOW:  … of the organizations that identify themselves as part of this movement.  Famously in the 1990s, there was a statement put out in support of one of the people who was found guilty of killing an abortion provider, saying, “We, the undersigned, believe these actions to be justifiable” and encourage others to do them because—in order to save the unborn.

To the extent that there is something beyond the loner, the lone murderer here, to the extent that there is a rhetorical association, there are organizations that support this sort of thing, does it give law enforcement any additional tools to consider them while they prosecute this crime?  I‘m with you on the civil libertarian concerns about these things — freedom of association, freedom of the press are to be protected, freedom of speech are to be protected at any cost — but are there law enforcement tools that would be useful in these cases to acknowledge those ties?

TURLEY:  There are, Rachel.  I mean, you have the FACE Act, which protects access to abortion clinics.  There have been prosecutions under that.  It was upheld by courts.  And you also have standard prosecutions for intimidation.  In fact, the FACE Act has intimidation as one of the elements.

So, there are ways to prosecute.  The FBI‘s done a very, very good job, you know, for many years now at focusing on these domestic organizations.  But as you‘ve already noticed or referenced, we have this difficult line to walk between free speech and preventive law enforcement.  And it all—that line is often found on violent speech.

And the Supreme Court said in the Brandenburg case that violent speech is protected.  In fact, I‘ve represented people accused of violent speech, including terroristic speech.  And that is a very difficult line, because it is, in fact, protected, to say all abortion doctors should be killed.  And what the Supreme Court said was that we have to look where that violent speech raises an imminent threat of violence, and then, you can prosecute that person.

But it‘s obviously a very difficult line to walk.

MADDOW:  And it‘s an intelligence matter, oddly, as well.  We think of intelligence in terms of where our—in terms of where the dividing lines are within our own government about the tools that are available to people who work for the U.S. government.  That‘s an important distinction between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example.

We collect intelligence on foreign bodies.  In terms of what we do domestically to disrupt homegrown terrorist plots, to disrupt criminal enterprises, to break up organized crime in these efforts, there‘s—I mean, there‘s civil liberties concerns, there‘s also strategic concerns about how these things can be done legally on American soil.

TURLEY:  Yes, but I would also caution though is that no matter what we do—we‘re probably never going to be able to stop the lone actor, the McVeigh, or the individual today, without becoming a totalitarian regime.  I mean, lone actors are dangerous because they don‘t come up on the radar screen.

What we‘ve learned—ever since cases like Brandenburg—is speech isn‘t the problem.  In fact, you want them to speak.  You want the speech to be protected so they come up on the radar screen and you can watch them.  And the FBI has a long history and a very effective history and a commendable history of following these dangerous groups.

But we can‘t do what we‘ve done in the past and say, “Because there was an attack, our system must not be working.”  I think we have to accept that, unfortunately, we‘re not going to be able to protect against all attacks.  And this guy represents the greatest vulnerability in the law and in terms of law enforcement.

The guy who‘s out there, you know, some dark corner, filled with hate, against the world, and he takes it upon himself to personify it into one person—we may not be able to stop that.  And efforts to try to stop that, I think, are going to likely be fruitless.

But the reason I appreciate what you‘re saying is that you‘re very mindful that we walk this careful line …

MADDOW:  Yes.

TURLEY:  … in protecting speech and looking for that speech that presents imminent threats.

MADDOW:  And looking for the—yes, exactly, protecting our constitutional values, protecting the reason that it matters that we have an America, as opposed to any other country, but also taking these threats to security seriously.  It‘s what we‘ve been talking about in all of these different contexts for eight years now.

Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley, thank you so much for your time tonight. It‘s really helpful.

TURLEY:  Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW:  In the context of an extremist anti-abortion movement that has seen the murder of seven abortion providers and clinic workers in a five-year period during the course of the ‘90s, that saw another doctor shot by a sniper in his own home in the late ‘90s, a movement that publicly, openly celebrates the people who have killed these doctors as heroes—what should we make of it when figures in the media denounce other doctors already targeted by these groups as Nazis, as killers, as people with blood on their hands?

Back in April, the Department of Homeland Security was lambasted by conservatives for publishing a report on the potential for violence from right-wing extremist groups.  It was the Bush administration that had actually commissioned the report and they had done one on the potential for violence from left-wing groups, too, but that did not stop conservatives from getting very, very angry about that report.

At least three Republican members of Congress, Michele Bachmann, John Carter, and Michael Burgess said that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should resign for having issued that report.  Republican Minority Leader John Boehner said that report meant that Napolitano had an awful lot of explaining to do.

That report actually warned for the potential for violent behavior from far right-wing groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion.  DHS got even more specific in March, warning about, quote, “antiabortion extremism” groups and “sovereign citizen movement” such as a group called the “Freemen.”

We know now the man who is the chief suspect in the killing of Dr.  George Tiller was reportedly associated both, with extremist anti-abortion groups and with the sovereign citizen movement known as the Freemen.

Still think Janet Napolitano ought to resign for that outrageous warning about guys like Scott Roeder?

(START VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST:  Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted—acquitted today of murdering babies.  I wanted George Tiller, Tiller the baby killer, going—hey, I can‘t make more money killing babies now.  Tiller the baby killer.  As “The Factor” has been reporting, this man will terminate fetuses at anytime for $5,000.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What do you think about Dr. George Tiller?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY:  I don‘t think anything about Dr. George Tiller.

O‘REILLY:  She doesn‘t seem to be real upset about this guy operating a death mill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW:  Death mill.  That was FOX News host, Bill O‘Reilly then. 

During the life of George Tiller, for four years, he repeatedly accused Dr.  Tiller of murder, of infanticide.  He publicly compared him to everything, from Nazis, to pedophiles, to al Qaeda.  He described him as having blood on his hands.

Now that Dr. Tiller has been murdered inside his own church, here is Mr. O‘Reilly tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

Bill O'reilly's vicious slander of Dr Tiller caused him to be a victim to violence?

Bill O'reilly's vicious slander of Dr Tiller caused him to be a victim to violence?

O‘REILLY: 

Anarchy and vigilantism will ensure the collapse of any society.  Once the rule of law breaks down, a country is finished.  Thus, clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder of late-term abortionist, Tiller.  Even though the man terminated thousands of pregnancies, what he did is within Kansas law.

The 67-year-old Tiller had performed abortions for more than 35 years.  “The Washington Times” estimates he destroyed about 60,000 fetuses.  Very few American doctors will perform the operation.  None of that seemed to matter to Tiller, nicknamed “the baby killer” by pro-life groups, who stated he was helping women—Tiller stated that.

I report honesty.  Every single thing we said about Tiller was true.  My analysis was based on those facts.  It is clear that the far left is exploiting—exploiting, the death of the doctor.  Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller.  That and hating FOX News is the real agenda here.

Finally if these people were so compassionate, so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others, maybe they might have written something, one thing, about the 60,000 fetuses who will never become American citizens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW:  Do you think he‘s sorry that Dr. Tiller is dead?

Mr. O‘Reilly went on to claim he never tried to incite anything, he was just reporting.

Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer, who grew up in the religious far right, who made a documentary anti-abortion film series in the 1970s, and whose latest book is titled, “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elects, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back.”

Mr. Schaeffer, thank you very much for your time tonight.

FRANK SCHAEFFER, AUTHOR, “CRAZY FOR GOD”:  Thank you for having me on, Rachel.

MADDOW:  Writing at “Huffington Post,” you apologized, as a former member of the religious right, for what happened to Dr. Tiller.  Why did you feel the need to apologize?

SCHAEFFER:  Well, words have consequences.

And what we did in the ‘70s and ‘80s, my father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who became Reagan surgeon general, members of the Republican Party who worked with us to make abortion part of the Republican agenda, the Roman Catholic allies that we had in the church, various people—we talked and our talk got more and more extreme, and less and less democratic.  Until, finally, my dad actually went so far as to write a book called “A Christian Manifesto,” where he said the use of force to change Roe v. Wade and roll back the law legalizing abortion would be legitimate and he compared Roe and the American government to Hitler‘s Germany in the 1930s.

And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there‘s a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder.  And so, people, like me, are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds.  And so, when O‘Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against FOX or against him or trying to muzzle the debate, he‘s telling a lie.

I am not a member of the far right—until I voted for Barack Obama in the last election, I am lifelong Republican.  I am still pro-life.  I also believe abortion should be legal, but I agree with Barack Obama when he says we ought to find ways to help women, help children, give contraceptives, sex education, to lessen the number of abortions.  I think abortion is a tragedy.

But I also think that pretending that you can call abortion murder and Tiller the baby killer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera—and that these worlds don‘ words don‘t have an impact, is crazy.

So, this is what helps unhinge a society, talking like this.  And I was part of that, and that‘s why I apologize—and I would apologize again I am sorry for what I did.

And I think that people who say extreme things should stand up and take the consequences and admit when they were wrong.  And in this case, we were wrong.  We were wrong more really.  We were wrong politically.

And as a believing Christian, I was wrong in terms of someone who says he follows Jesus Christ.

MADDOW:  There are a lot of people in this country, obviously, who are part of the pro-life movement, the legal pro-life movement, and who hold pro-life views and who seek to change the laws of this country about abortion.  There‘s obviously what I consider to be a terrorist movement who believes not that the laws should be changed but that the laws should—but that people who are legally engaged in providing abortion services are legitimately targets of violence that they should be intimidated, harassed and in some cases killed.

Those two movements are not the same thing.  And it‘s important to me as an American that people who are pro-life feel that they can safely articulate those views and that they are not being attacked for what extremists have done.

SCHAEFFER:  Right.

MADDOW:  But I also don‘t want to excuse anybody who incites violence, or who, I guess, makes excuses for the violent wing of this movement, that has two very different wings.  How do you see the connection there?

SCHAEFFER:  Well, you know, the book you mentioned earlier, “Crazy for God,” has a number of chapters talking about the way we took the movement from its early stages when it was more a moral concern, not so much about politics and not so much about changing the law, and radicalized that movement.  I follow the step by step process.  Secret meetings with Pat Robertson down at the 700 Club, Jerry Falwell sending his jet up to me to bring me down to his church to speak a couple of times.

And what we did is we talked one game to the large public and we talked another game amongst ourselves.  And amongst ourselves, we were very radical.  And I don‘t think it takes much imagination to guess that, tonight, there are people who are publicly saying, “This is terrible, we never advocated killing, abortion is murder, but we didn‘t mean people to take us this seriously.”  But in private, you know, if these folks popped champion bottles, they would be drinking a toast to this murder tonight.

I know that this is the case because of the fact that I was part of the movement, but also understood very well what we were doing back then was to attack the political issue when we talked to people like Ronald Reagan and the Bush family and Jack Kemp—the late Jack Kemp that we were very close to in all this.  But on a private side, we also were egging people on to first pick at abortion clinics, then chain themselves to fences, then go to jail.

We knew full well that in a country that had seen the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther king, two Kennedy brothers and others, that what we were also doing was opening a gate here.  And I think there‘s no way to duck this.  We live in a country in which guns are all over the place.  We have plenty of people with a screw loose, plenty of people on the edge.  It only takes one.

And what scare me is that I see the rhetoric of the Republican Party right now—including the former vice president—about our newly elected African-American president has the same sort of coded stuff in it.  He‘s not a real American.  He‘s making America less safe.  He‘s a secret Muslim.  Some Christians in the same groups that are pro-life groups are running around saying he‘s the anti-Christ.

They also know full well that we have people out there who will take it to the next step and say, “Well, gee, if he‘s the anti-Christ, if he‘s anti-American, if he‘s a communist, maybe the best thing we can do is pull another trigger some other day.”

We live in a country where people get killed for their views sometimes.  We‘re a very divided nation coming out of this culture war.

It is irresponsible for people to make these wild statements—like Bill O‘Reilly does—and then step back after it happens and say, “Oh, I never meant that.”  Yes, they did mean it.  They meant exactly what they said.

And when you start calling people those sorts of names—the way I did back in the ‘70s and the early ‘80s—for which I am apologizing today, not just because of this but other incidents like this, if people don‘t stand up and actually take back these words, take back these angry word, they are still culpable for the next event that happens.  And we need to be able to just call it what it is.

MADDOW:  Frank Schaeffer is author of the book, “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elects, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back”—Mr. Schaeffer, it‘s just bracing testimony from you tonight.  Thanks for—thanks for being here on the show.

SCHAEFFER:  Thanks for having me on.

Copyright 2009 MSNBC

AlterNet is making this material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Return to Davey D’s Hip hop Corner