American Policy Center » 2010 » April

American Policy Center » 2010 » April

  • Powerful Forces Now Calling for a Constitutional Convention

    • April 27, 2010

    By Tom DeWeese

    In December, 2008, my American Policy Center (APC) led a fight to stop Ohio from becoming the 33rd state to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). In the 1980’s 32 other states had passed Con Con resolutions for the specific purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had that resolution passed the Ohio legislature, we would have been just one state away from such an event. We argued then that one cannot call a Con Con to discuss just one issue. Once a Con Con is in place, there is no controlling the agenda.

    We fought to stop the Con Con because of fear. Today there is massive ignorance among the American people about the Constitution. Worse, there are powerful forces who consider that document to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all powerful government. These things, and more, make today the worst possible time in our nation’s history to mess with the greatest governing document of all time.

    We stopped the effort in 2008, but the battle is on again as an even more determined plan is under way to gather support from the nation’s governors and state legislatures to pass Con Con resolutions. Again, this is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government.

    The new plan making its rounds in state capitals is much more ambitious than the 2008 Ohio resolution to simply discuss a balanced budget. Now an entire package of ten amendments to the Constitution is being proposed and promoted to state legislatures through a powerful and well funded campaign.

    The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research

    While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators. The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled “10 Amendments for Freedom.”

    In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English-speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring “in God we trust.” Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.

    Arguing that Congress “will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land,” Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.

    Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, “Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years.”

    Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, “Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates sent to a convention who will propose amendments which ‘repeal the Bill of Rights’ or ‘legalize socialism.’ Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified,” concludes Fruth.

    Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980’s, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can “change the Constitution any way they want.” Argues Fruth, “We know that is not true.”  He says, “it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution.” And he says, “any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.”

    These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.

    The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget – or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group — is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table and the delegates can take a “scalpel” (pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.

    What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution: “…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

    Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…” Period.

    And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by any instructions or resolutions from the states.

    First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…”

    And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S. 9) “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) And, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)” The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W. 1149).

    Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.

    Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?

    Or could it be a plebiscite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,” allow all citizens, and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines and anything is possible.

    And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGO’s? Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, “extreme convictions” includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress – that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

    But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con.  William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two-thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

    There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some delegations were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

    However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

    Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Keep in mind, these are the people who just managed to ram through a health “reform” bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed. These are the same people who managed to pass the bailout package opposed (according to polls) by almost 80% of the American people.

    Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking?  Do you think for one minute that they would take any steps to protect our Constitution? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own laws are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. Barack Obama has expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Pelosi and her cohorts are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, once a Con Con is called, delegates (picked though a Pelosi process) can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.

    And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two-thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.

    And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It’s not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.

    These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn’t yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi’s of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con.

    No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition. Again, I call your attention to the continuing battle over health care. That’s child’s play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom-loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.

    The Freedom Movement, so necessary to end the growing tyranny in our nation is being destroyed from within. Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center and editor of the DeWeese Report gives a special report on whose behind it. Click on the image below to watch this powerful video featured on YouTube.

    Read the article Left-Wing McCarthyism, written by Tom DeWeese, reporting on the Sourthern Poverty Law Center.

    Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. TThe DeWeese Report is now available online, for more information click here.

  • Freedom Movement Faces Dire Threats From Within

    • April 20, 2010

    By Thomas DeWeese

    After more than forty years as an activist in the fight to restore the American Republic, I have never been more positive that the goal could now actually be achievable. The Tea Party movement represents the awakening of the great American sleeping giant of freedom. It is the most exciting change to take place in the last 100 years. Politicians are shuttering in its wake. Political strategists are trying to figure how to deal with it. Bad policy has been stopped or slowed. And massive change from the ballot box appears on the horizon of the next election.

    However, some very dark clouds are gathering over the movement. The freedom fighters and their precious movement are being stalked by clandestine predators, quietly creating discord and suspicion among their ranks. If not exposed and stopped, the only result can be the destruction of the movement, the end of the burgeoning freedom revolution and the solidifying of the tyranny they seek to end.

    The great threat to the Freedom Movement comes from a group of political extremists who have been around the U.S. political scene for decades. These operatives have been perceived at various times to be on the right and/or on the left. They have tried to work through the Democratic and Republican parties. Now they are trying to infiltrate and manipulate the Tea Party movement.

    I am talking about the dangerous Lyndon LaRouche cult. It is a cult because of the fanatical devotion of LaRouche’s followers to his peculiar brand of Marxism, which sees the British – not the United States – as being behind economic catastrophes and world conflicts and wars. LaRouche followers can often be seen manning literature tables outside political events, including and especially 9/11 “truth” conferences.

    Interestingly, one of LaRouche’s “former” high-level associates, Webster Tarpley, is now openly working with self-described “patriot” Alex Jones, who runs the infowars and prison planet web sites. Tarpley appears in two of Jones’ films, “The Obama Deception” and “Fall of the Republic.” Many conservatives have bought these films, thinking they have critical information about the threats to freedom that face us today. But the films are actually slick propaganda meant to deceive and distort the real situation.

    The Tea Party movement must wake up — and wake up fast — before these political extremists carry out a strategy that will divide and discredit the movement.

    Some History

    Lyndon LaRouche is a former member of the Trotskyite Communist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and his first political organization, the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) , began as a faction of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the same group that laid siege to college campuses in the 1960s. This is the same group that spawned terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.  The NCLC became the U.S. Labor Party.

    In the 1960s, LaRouche built a political intelligence network with about one thousand operatives stationed in North America, Western Europe, and South America. In a series of lectures in 1976, titled “What only Communists Know,” LaRouche described his network as the “world’s Marxist labor movement.”

    The network created a series of front organizations and publications that included the National Democratic Policy Committee, the New Solidarity International Press Service (NSIPS), the National Anti-Drug Coalition, the Fusion Energy Federation, and the Executive Intelligence Review – all designed to spread propaganda – all directed by Lyndon LaRouche. He ran for president under the US Labor Party banner; and then again in 1980 as a Democrat.

    In 1978, following the presidential election of Jimmy Carter, LaRouche began a new effort to spread his influence by attempting to create ties to the American Right. Through the US Labor Party, LaRouche followers began to fan out across the nation, contacting conservative leaders. One of their themes was that they possessed documentation that Carter had stolen the election and that there was a possibility the election results could be overturned.

    At the time, I was serving as State Chairman of Ohio Young Americans for Freedom and was contacted by the LaRouche operatives concerning the Carter story. I invited one of their representatives to attend our board meeting to give us the details. My feeling after the meeting (which provided little concrete evidence about a Carter election scandal) was that LaRouche was attempting to infiltrate the conservative movement.

    Beginning with the Carter effort, LaRouche stepped up his activities to reach out to conservatives. In the 1980’s, LaRouche operatives could be found in airports and in front of Post Offices collecting signatures on petitions calling Jane Fonda a traitor. Other petitions called for support of President Reagan’s Space Defense Initiative (SDI).

    However, in collecting the petition signatures, LaRouche’s people were strangely aggressive and obnoxious to airport passengers. That was part of the LaRouche strategy – use conservative issues to the extreme and get labeled as pests and radical fringe. Then, when a legitimate advocate for such issues spoke in public, the people who had been accosted by the LaRoucheites in the airports would instantly respond negatively, resulting in the discrediting of the entire movement as “just those kooks I saw in the airport.”  The motivation for LaRouche, then and now, is to discredit the Right.

    The LaRouche troops continued to press their efforts to take up pseudo-conservative issues through their communications network and publications. They spouted conspiracy theories about “Zionist” plots and that Wall Street controlled the Communist Party USA. And they claimed that the CIA was responsible for most of the world’s terrorism. They twisted issues around to make it look like conservative leaders were really communist spies and agents. They charged that the anti-nuke movement was run by the Council of Foreign Relations. They charged that communist China was the center of the world drug trade – conveniently leaving out drug trade involvement by the Soviet Union – the avowed enemy of communist China. They even charged that the conservative Heritage Foundation was a KGB front.  In every charge made by LaRouche followers, they included classic Soviet disinformation tactics designed to make the Soviets appear to be more victim than villain – while successfully helping to discredit the Right or promote Soviet positions.

    Back-and-forth went the conspiracy theories woven by the LaRouche propagandists. There were lots of the right catch-words for conservatives: Hate Rockefeller; Anti-Kissinger; expose the CFR; Jane Fonda is a traitor; and charges of hidden KGB spies in the government. Attacks on the Council on Foreign Relations made the LaRouche movement seem like it was on the right path in uncovering the source of a U.S. foreign policy that seems designed to intentionally fail. The pro-nuclear power theme was perhaps the most successful.

    Many on the Right fell for it and invited them to their meetings. The Conservative Book Club even took out ads in LaRouche’s Fusion magazine and the Freedom Foundation gave an award to Fusion for a series of pro-nuclear articles. Later, the Freedom Foundation did acknowledge that it had made a mistake in giving the award, but at the time, to them, LaRouche seemed to be a bona fide “conservative.”

    However, as investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid wrote in 1981 in Human Events, “The evidence is overwhelming, however, that LaRouche and his followers have not repudiated their Marxist beginnings. They push the Soviet line and, at the same time, smear some of the most effective conservative groups and individuals, who are exposing Soviet operations. Responsible conservatives should not snap at LaRouche’s bait.”

    According to the website LaRouche Planet, written by former LaRouche followers who have left him, he is an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and has spent years campaigning against what he called the “Zionist/Nazi Jewish Lobby.” The site also claims that LaRouche has had direct ties with the Ku Klux Klan and neonazis. LaRouche’s main conspiracy theory is that the British crown is plotting to take control of the world, helped in that endeavor by world bankers. British agents, he claims, are the source of much of the lies and havoc in the world. Somehow, into that conspiracy, he also manages to tie in the United States and Israeli “Zionists.”

    Same Tactics, New Target – Tea Parties

    Today, LaRouche has entrenched himself in the rising anti-government sentiment that has given birth to the Tea Party movement. He talks of “taking back the Republic” – an interesting statement from an avowed Marxist. He makes strong arguments about saving NASA and the space program, knowing it is one of the most popular government programs; and he has joined the chorus of voices (including mine) against the Global Warming scam, calling the environmental movement “green fascism.” Then, as usual, he goes overboard and calls it “green genocide.”

    These are all issues popular with freedom advocates who are joining forces in the Tea Party movement. Speakers at Tea Party rallies who speak of these issues and use similar catch phrases and language are instant crowd pleasers. So LaRouche operatives have become adept at endearing themselves to many in the movement simply by using the popular language. But always, LaRouche’s arguments come with a twist – that the evil comes from the British Empire or Zionist forces. Anyone he opposes, including Barack Obama, is labeled a “British agent.” The effect of rolling legitimate issues around outlandish conspiracy theories is to discredit the entire movement, just as LaRouche has been doing since the 1970s.

    According to his own publications, LaRouche is the one who created the poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache. His political action committee (LaRouchepac) takes great joy in describing how LaRouche followers appear at Tea Party rallies and pass out the pictures. The anti-Obama fervor in the crowd makes the images very popular.

    In an editorial published on the pages of one of his magazines Executive Intelligence Review, LaRouche relishes how the Obama/Hitler photo creates violence at the Tea Party rallies, reporting, “More than once, in the face of angry Obamophiles seeking to destroy the poster, groups of citizens have intervened to defend the LaRouche Pac organizers.” The poster, which many see as funny or appropriate, is used in two very effective ways if one wants to discredit the movement.  First, as LaRouche himself reports, it causes discord and even violence. Second, it is the image national news media cameras immediately focus on to present a negative image of the rally and its organizers. If that image is coupled with violence – so much the better. LaRouche has done his job.

    The strength of the LaRouche appeal to some Tea Partiers was dramatically demonstrated in a recent election when LaRouche-Democrat Congressional candidate Kesha Rogers won the nomination in the 22nd District in Texas. She campaigned on one main issue – impeach Obama. That message had great appeal to many in the freedom movement and they came across party lines to nominate her.

    She appeared to be the candidate who advocated, not only opposition to Obama’s drive for massive government buildup, but also the dedicated advocate to restore the American Republic. However, the freedom forces weren’t listening carefully. In a radio interview after her victory, she accused Obama of “spitting on the grave of Franklin D. Roosevelt.” The question begs to be asked – how can one who supports the American Republic speak in positive terms about the one President who did more to crush that Republic than almost any other – Franklin Roosevelt? That is a prime example of the LaRouche followers using double-speak mixed in with real issues. Another example of Rogers employing the standard LaRouche propaganda was a statement that her victory was part of the effort “to win a war against the British Empire.”

    However, the Rogers victory has caused massive harm to the freedom movement by giving LaRouche the one thing he lacked – his own political foothold on the elective battleground. He has used the Tea Party movement to give him what he never had before – legitimacy.

    The 9/11 “Inside Job” Conspiracy

    Lyndon LaRouche became the first public figure to challenge the story that the 9/11 attacks were executed by Bin Laden’s, Al Qaeda. The LaRouchePlanet website reports that LaRouche was actually live on the radio during the Twin Tower attacks, being interviewed by Dr. Jack Stockwell. He immediately blamed the Israeli government, telling Stockwell, “I know the Arab governments. I’ve been talking to them directly or indirectly over some time period. At least key ones. And they don’t want this kind of thing. But I know who does want it.” Stockwell suggested he was talking about the Israeli government and LaRouche replied, “Or certain factions within it.”

    The claim that Israel – or the U.S. government itself – brought down the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon soon developed into a full-blown conspiracy designed to make the U.S. not the victim but the perpetrator. Some reasonable questions about how the buildings collapsed were used to further undermine the obvious fact that a foreign attack on America did indeed take place. These accusations of Israeli spy networks in the U.S. were then broadcast over Arab government-funded Al Jazeera television network, taking LaRouche’s unfounded charges onto the world stage and the 9/11 “truth movement” was born.

    Indeed, all of this was a gift to Al-Qaeda’s main propaganda outlet, which jumped on the conspiracy theory that Muslim terrorists were not really behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Al Jazeera even covered a 9/11 “truth” conference in the U.S. which suggested that 9/11 was “an orchestrated U.S. attempt to incite world war.”

    One of the speakers at that conference was none other than Webster Tarpley, a long-time associate of Lyndon LaRouche who wrote the book, 911 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. One of the lead propagandists for the 9/11 Truth campaign, Tarpley insists that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks, never bothering to explain how the plot was hatched in just several months and how the cover-up was staged without one of the “insiders” blowing the whistle.

    Taking the theory one step further, Tarpley has insisted that planes hijacked by Muslims did not strike the Pentagon and that one of the planes in question landed in Ohio.  When asked what happened to the people, he answered, “We just do not know,” indicating some vast conspiracy in which people who had phoned loved ones from the planes to say goodbye, simply disappeared.

    When other terrorist incidents happen in the U.S. and Britain, Tarpley is also quick to get the Muslims off the hook. He claims that the Islamic terrorist plot to bomb planes leaving Britain for the US was a “false flag” operation sponsored by British Intelligence and that the massacre of 331 people in Beslan, Russia, was really instigated by the U.S. and British governments.

    As noted by Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival, Inc. (www.usasurvival.org) and Accuracy in Media, Tarpley wrote a book about Barack Obama insisting that the President’s childhood mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, was not a true Marxist and that Karl Marx himself was a British agent.

    As if Tarpley isn’t strange enough, other leaders of the so-called 9/11 “truth” movement include several people who make a living claiming that the United States is a rogue or “imperialist” government that has covered up its own diabolical role in the events of 9/11. They include:

    • David Ray Griffin, who insists that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane – but by missiles – ignoring the question of what happened to the people on that particular flight that, if not hitting the Pentagon – just disappeared into thin air. Griffin is a prominent liberal theologian who advocates a world government under the UN.
    • Richard Falk, a former Princeton University Professor and advocate of a world government under the UN.
    • Byron Belitsos, co-author of the book “One Planet: a Progressive Vision of Enforceable Global Law” andan advocate of “global democracy,” has written a call for “the need for a genuine global legislature that can pass enforceable global laws.” He uses 9/11 as the excuse for destroying national independence, replacing it with a global world government.
    • Van Jones, appointed by Barack Obama to be the “Green Jobs” Czar, left the administration after he was exposed as a communist who had signed a 9/11 “truth” petition. Jones is on record denouncing America for its supposed imperialism as he regularly condemns capitalism.

    These are some of the people who suggest that 9/11 was designed to kill thousands of Americans in a cold blooded scheme to start an imperialistic war with the Arab world.

    Lyndon LaRouche’s tactics are all over the message of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It’s fact mixed with lunacy, designed to discredit anyone involved. There are many freedom activists who passionately support and advocate the 9/11 Truth issue. In fact, they are beginning to dominate the Tea Party effort, with some rally organizers screening speakers, demanding to know if they support the 9/11 Truth movement before they are allowed to take the stage.

    There are many holes in the 9/11 “documentation” that honest grassroots activists must question. If government missiles, instead of planes, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, what did happen to the people, many of whom made frantic phone calls from planes they claimed were hijacked? If the Bush Administration really did orchestrate the attacks that fateful day (a remarkable feat considering they had only been in office less than eight months) why, then, couldn’t they also create the necessary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so vital to make the legitimacy of their war? And, why could they not make the connection to Al-Qaeda and the anthrax attacks, if federal authorities were so good at orchestrating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

    Finally, take a look at the abovementioned 9/11 “truth” spokesmen. All of them have one thing in common – all of them advocate the establishment of a one-world government under the United Nations. The solution to America’s “rogue” status, say these self-appointed 9/11 Truth “investigators,” is a new international order or world government, which would compromise American sovereignty by outlawing the United States’ ability to defend itself.

    Is there any serious activist in the Tea Party movement who advocates such policy – the destruction of the United States Constitution? To the contrary, the movement has come together to save the United States Republic and its founding documents.

    Why then do such patriots allow themselves to be manipulated by those who want to destroy the very country they are trying to save? The answer is that Lyndon LaRouche is a master at double-speak and deception and these good folks have fallen victim to it.

    The Alex Jones Connection

    One common link that threads through Lyndon LaRouche, conspiracy theories, and the Tea Party movement is bombastic radio personality Alex Jones.

    Jones, a self-described “aggressive Constitutionalist,” has worked to establish himself as the “true leader” of the Tea Party movement. A showman who regularly creates drama on his show or at Tea Party rallies with his famous bullhorn and loud, raspy voice, he personifies a “stick it to the man” attitude. The crowds love it. His followers are dedicated and loyal. The genius of Jones is that he weaves the outlandish claims with more serious commentaries on real and legitimate issues.

    The genius of Jones is that he is able to weave the most questionable conspiracy theories with more mainstream conservative issues to reach out to the Tea Party movement. On his show, he regularly rants about American imperialism and secret plots against him by the government (mostly CIA) allegedly because the government views his criticism of U.S. policy as dangerous. That makes him an instant martyr for “the cause.”

    As Jones postures himself to be a conservative spokesman, he relies heavily on former LaRouche associate Webster Tarpley. Jones has featured the avowed Marxist prominently in at least two of his videos, “Fall of the Republic” and “The Obama Deception.” The common ground between Jones and Tarpley is, of course, the 9/11 Truth Movement, of which Jones has become the most visible spokesman.

    Jones regularly accuses the U.S. government of promoting worldwide terrorism, especially through the CIA. Interestingly, so does Tarpley, who wrote of the Christmas Day underwear bomber, “The recent failed attack on a U.S. passenger jet traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit was a set-up provocation controlled by U.S. intelligence.” The message of U.S. plots on its own people is right out of the LaRouche playbook and serves only to stir up more distrust among followers of the freedom movement, helping to discredit it to a more mainstream audience.

    There is another common connection between Jones and Tarpley as both now regularly appear on Russia Today television to condemn American policy.

    It must be understood by freedom advocates that Russia, led in effect by former KGB spy Vladimir Putin, is using its state-owned media to blacken the reputation of the United States and to weaken our nation internationally – just as it did in the old Soviet Union.

    The difference today is that the Russians are using Americans to make their propaganda points. As Cliff Kincaid reports, Russian television, especially the Russia Today (RT) network is still quoting and featuring interviews with American communists.

    Alex Jones is now a regular, willing participant on the propaganda channel, described as “the U.S. investigative journalist.” He even appeared on Russia Today to defend the Russian invasion in the independent country of Georgia, a former Soviet Republic. In his August 26, 2008 appearance, Jones insisted that the U.S. “private international military industrial complex” had “launched a sneak attack” on the “Russian enclaves” in Georgia in order to support the “U.S.-backed Georgians (and) the Israelis – and NATO- backed Georgians.” Jones said the U.S. was guilty of “unprecedented crimes” and urged Russia to continue to occupy the regions it had invaded.

    Out of one side of his mouth, Jones encourages the Russians to invade and occupy a free, sovereign nation like Georgia, and at the same time condemns the United States for doing the same thing in Iraq. Again, this is right out of the LaRouche playbook of double-speak. The purpose is to get followers and gain access to a movement and discredit it in the process.

    Alex Jones has even used his bully pulpit radio show to shout down anyone who seems to disagree with him. In February, 2010, he stormed into a Tea party rally in Dallas with bull horn in hand, shouting down the speaker who was in the middle of his presentation. He stopped the rally, pushed and shoved organizers who tried to quiet him. He then told his radio audience that he was shouting down agent provocateur- radicals who were trying to infest the freedom movement. Incredibly, he was describing his own tactics and blaming it on others.

    Of course, his charges were simply not true. I personally know and work with the organizers of that rally; Catherine Bleish, Executive Director of the Liberty Restoration Project and John Bush, Executive Director of Texans for Accountable Government. I served with both of these passionate patriots in the Continental Congress 2009, held last November. Since then, they have spent almost every waking hour traveling to government-run fusion centers to investigate and expose possible violations and threats to personal privacy rights and government surveillance.  They are outstanding and dedicated freedom activists – but Alex Jones chose to attack them. Why? Perhaps they are too effective in the cause of liberty.

    The Possible Destruction of the Freedom Movement

    The result of Jones’ attacks and LaRouche’s manipulations has been a growing paranoia among the freedom movement about who can be trusted. Jones presents himself as the perfect patriot, accusing other movement spokesmen of being traitors, “neo-cons,” and infiltrators if they don’t toe his line. That “line” entails acceptance of conspiracies, hate and suspicion and leads to discrediting the movement and ultimately to its own destruction.

    The attacks perpetrated by Jones and LaRouche lead to manipulation of the Tea Party message. They use such tactics to shed doubt and suspicion on anyone they view as a threat to their agenda. If they want to get rid of someone in the movement they will find a way. Just start a rumor that they are a “globalist,” or a “neo-con.” The terms are used so often now that their meaning is becoming little more than a label that says “not one of us.” Today, when those in the freedom movement hear that label being cast about, they need to ask this question: “says who?”

    As a result of such diatribes, the tone of the freedom movement is changing rapidly. Paranoia and suspicion is growing. Attacks have been relentless against some, like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News, former Congressman Dick Armey and his group Freedom Works (which put together the largest freedom rally to date – more than one million in Washington, DC), and even Ron Paul, whose campaign was the launch pad for the Tea Party movement.

    No one in the freedom movement is an expert on every issue – that is next to impossible. And not everyone agrees on the exact position or action that should be taken.  That’s why the strength of the grassroots Freedom Movement is to have a mix of groups and spokesmen for a variety of issues. Some groups only focus on single issues. Others work on many.  Some make mistakes on certain issues and feel the heat from the “troops.” Others just see the issue differently.

    I’ve watched as newcomers to the movement struggle to comprehend the very complicated issues. Others like Beck and Palin have grown in their knowledge in a genuine desire to get it right. But none of these people are evil, racist or “neo-cons” simply because they have a difference of opinion. All advocate controlling the power and size of government – and that’s what the real freedom movement is about.

    No one person or group speaks for the movement. But Alex Jones insists he does, shouting into his microphone or bullhorn that “only I speak for you…only I tell you the truth…and anyone who attacks me is the real enemy.” Perhaps Lyndon LaRouche should transfer that Hitler mustache to a picture of Alex Jones.

    Most recently, it appears that some rallies have been infiltrated with thugs shouting racial slurs at black congressmen in the fight over health care. Violence has broken out a few times. The tea party movement is being successfully discredited as radical fringe – just as Lyndon LaRouche has planned. Coincidentally, that violence and racism falls right into the plans of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its government sanctioned reports that label our entire movement as potential terrorists. How convenient.

    I believe it all goes together – LaRouche, Jones, and the Southern Poverty Law Center – possibly leading to a government crackdown of our movement.

    This is a warning to the Freedom Movement: the growing anger and suspicion is being planted in order to destroy the most important grassroots effort in American history. Forces led by Lyndon LaRouche and, in my opinion, Alex Jones, are working deep inside our movement to see it implode into fights, caused by distrust and hatred. I believe they are manipulating the media to show the freedom movement as simply a band of nuts not to be taken seriously. It is by deliberate and calculated design. LaRouche’s tactics have always been to discredit lovers of American freedom and he is succeeding now, expertly. Today, with a powerful mouthpiece like Alex Jones, LaRouche is reaching greater heights than he could have calculated.

    The battle to preserve our precious rights and freedoms could disappear before our eyes, destroyed from within by committed Marxists like LaRouche, who hold no love for our Republic. It will happen unless we focus on this very real enemy and cleanse ourselves of these monsters who are playing on fear in order to stop our true mission – restoring the Republic.

  • Left-Wing McCarthyism

    • April 15, 2010

    By Thomas A. DeWeese

    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hates us. Who? According to several reports they have released over the past year, “us” is the following: One concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration (that it’s racist); criticism of free trade programs like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership; anti-abortion; oppose same-sex marriage; believe in the “end times;” stock pile food, ammunition and weapons; oppose illegal immigration; opposition to the new world order; opposition to the United Nations; opposition to global governance; fear of Communist regimes; opposition to loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; opposition to loss of US prestige; use of the Internet (or alternative media) to express these ideas.  Did this list miss anyone reading it? You are all haters and potential terrorists.

    The above list was published in a report issued last year by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entitled, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”  The report, while issued by the DHS, was in fact, written by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labels itself as a civil rights organization which “tracks the hate movement.” Ironically, SPLC is becoming one of the biggest purveyors of hate and discord in the nation. Worse, SPLC’s reports are often so inaccurate and misleading that they would be simply laughable if they didn’t have the support of the Federal government.

    Now, SPLC has issued two new reports aimed at the growing freedom movement and last November’s Continental Congress 2009, for which I was a delegate.

    In its latest report entitled, “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism,” issued March 2, 2010, SPLC sounds the alarm that the “patriot” movement is growing. They, of course, are alarmed about this. Again, SPLC lumps groups fighting such issues as healthcare with groups like the National Socialist Movement – the white supremacist group. The connecting issue between the true freedom movement and skin heads is opposition to illegal immigration. That’s enough, according to SPLC, to get anyone opposed to illegal immigration labeled as a white supremacist. You see, in their view, the reason we want the borders closed and the flood of illegals stopped is because they have brown skin – we’re racists, of course.

    Also, according to the SPLC, 2009 saw a dramatic rise in the growth of hate groups, from 926 to 932. Of course, they are the ones picking who the hate groups are. And what do they base the selection on? The growth was “driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period (2009) the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African-American president.”

    Fear and frustration were the fuel for the rise in hatred, according to SPLC. “The anger seething across the American political landscape…goes beyond the radical right,” the report said, adding that the rage was fed by “radical changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the RELATIVELY LIBERAL Obama administration that are seen as ‘socialist” or even fascist.” The report went on to say, “The ‘tea parties’ and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.” This, says SPLC, is giving rise to militant militia groups.

    Obviously, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is extremism to oppose any policy coming out of Washington, and only a hater of blacks would oppose Barack Obama.

    The most comical report yet to come out of SPLC is one entitled “Midwifing the Militias.”  That report attempts to reveal the root of the growing anti-government sentiment and places it on the Continental Congress2009 that convened in St. Charles, Illinois last November. Said the report, “Convened by long-time radical tax protester Bob Schulz, who had been attacking the Fed and the Internal Revenue Service for decades, this remarkable gathering appears to have played a key role in launching the current resurgence of militias and the larger anti-government “Patriot” movement.”

    I was a delegate to that Congress, representing Virginia. There were 115 delegates from 48 states. I certainly don’t want to downplay what I consider to be important work, specifically the creation of the Articles of Freedom that were the product of the Congress. The Articles are now being presented to every member of Congress and every state legislature. However, the fact is, to date, most in the freedom movement have never heard of the Continental Congress and, so far, have felt little impact from its efforts.

    There was absolutely no connection to militant militias and never were there words uttered indicating violence as a plan of action. To the contrary, Schulz is a lawyer and the purpose of the Congress was basically to state what we believed to be violations to the Constitution to be presented to our elected leaders. That was it. Now, he plans legal action in the courts of the United States to address the problem. That’s what lawyers do. But, according to SPLC, that is the act of an extremist.

    A comical side-note in the SPLC report was an attempt to link me to the militias, something I’ve never engaged, in fact, I’ve never even talked to a militia member. But there was the attempt in the report. The exact quote was, “…Tom DeWeese, a co-founder in 1997 of United Truckers Defending the Constitution and an angry critic, like most on the radical right, of the United Nations…” The reference to the “United Truckers” dates back to an effort I made in 1997 to create a nation-wide protest against the Kyoto Climate Change Accord. I called the effort the “Strike For Liberty,” and asked Americans across the nation to take an hour that day at noon to protest the signing by the Clinton Administration of the global warming treaty. To help spread the word of the strike, I enlisted a character named the Desert Owl, a trucker who was the head of his own creation called the United Truckers Defending the Constitution. He didn’t do a very good job and I soon broke off contact with him At no time was I the “co-founder” and the group was a truckers association – not a militia! Such is the comical inaccuracies of the SPLC. Any wonder why these paranoid clowns think we are all terrorists? I do take full credit for being “angry” about the UN, however.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing but a mouth piece of the far left. It attacks honest people who are expressing concerns about the issues of our day – just as free Americans have done since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. In all of my participation with the so-called freedom movement, never have I heard any legitimate leaders express a need for violence against the government. To the contrary, activists like Bob Schulz had prepared items like the Articles of Freedom, precisely to be used as tools for legal, peaceful action.

    Nor have I ever heard a single person express racist attitudes against Barack Obama. It’s the policies we oppose — just as we did against Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson. And for that matter, we also opposed big government policies perpetrated by George Bush and Richard Nixon.

    Americans are growing more frustrated and angry by the day for one simple reason – our elected officials are not listening. More than 80% of Americans oppose illegal immigration, but Congress continues to try to force amnesty. More than 80% of Americans opposed the bailouts – but Congress did it anyway. More than 65% of Americans opposed the health care bill – but Obama and Pelosi played the dirtiest, rawest political power games in the history of Congress to get it passed anyway. As a result, many Americans rightly feel that our government is no longer representing the people and so they are fighting back through rallies and radio call in shows.

    Yet, when we try to speak out, as is our Constitutional right, the Southern Poverty Law Center calls us extremists? It’s nothing more that left-wing McCarthyism. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not about protecting civil rights, rather it’s a corrupt bully that fosters hate and fear mongering in its purist form.

  • Sam Rohrer is the TEA Party Candidate for PA Governor

    • April 8, 2010

    ACTION ALERT

    State Representative Sam Rohrer is running for governor of Pennsylvania. It is vital that all freedom loving Americans across the nation know that Sam is THE TEA party candidate.

    Sam is running against Tom Corbett, the current Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Corbett is a typical Republican insider trying to appeal to the tea party freedom movement. Of course Corbett’s campaign is doing everything possible to paint himself as the conservative candidate in this race – he even takes Sam’s issues as his own. But during debates between the two it is becoming obvious that Corbett has little understanding of the issues and passions of the freedom movement.

    Today, I personally and publicly endorse Sam Rohrer. He has been on the American Policy Center Board of Advisors for 10 years. He has been a close friend and we have fought side by side on many issues to preserve liberty to the American people.

    • Sam has been especially vocal in the fight to stop the national ID card and stands as one of the nation’s major spokesmen in the battle to expose and stop the growing government surveillance society.
    • He is leading the effort in Pennsylvania to enact legislation claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution over certain powers, which served notice to the Federal Government to cease and desist unconstitutional mandates.
    • He truly believes in and advocates limited government and individual liberty.
    • He has passion for the Constitution and our nation’s unique ideals of liberty.

    This alert is both an endorsement of Sam and a call to action. The freedom movement has a chance to elect one of its own as governor of Pennsylvania.  For that to become reality two things need to happen right now.

    Action to Take:

    First: For freedom fighters who do not live in Pennsylvania – now is the time to contact ANY friends, political contacts, anyone you know in Pennsylvania. Contact them and urge them to get behind Sam’s gubernatorial efforts!

    Secondly: The Primary for the governor’s race in Pennsylvania is on May 18th. The Rohrer campaign needs monetary support. As usual, Corbett’s campaign has a full war chest filled by the usual lobbyists and big government advocates. Sam is counting on us to step out and donate. Please donate and tell your friends to do the same – no matter where you live!

    Remember, the Primary is May 18th. It is fairly certain that the winner of the Republican primary will win the governor’s race in November. So now is the time to step up and elect one of our own.

    For more information on Sam and the issues go to: http://www.samrohrer.org/

    Please send this alert to your lists of freedom fighters across the nation and help spread the word for Sam Rohrer.