The Colorado Confederatarian

From Charlestown, th' capitol of West Virginny.  Saw us sum pretty country today, travellin' down th' West side of Upstate NY, through Pennslvainy 'n finally down t' WV.   It is definitely home to a Southron, despite th' faict that a bunch-a treasonous WV Yankees 'n "Honest Abe" wrested it away from a lawfully seceded state.  I weren't in WV but 15 minutes whin I saw a Confederate flag a-hangin' in th' back winder of sum ol' boy's truck.   Traveled paist th' birthplace of Stonewall Jackson, Clarksburg but din't haive time t' go pay respects 'n take pitures.  Plan t' do so ohn our way baick.

This is very hilly, remote country.  Ol' boy cud set himseff up a still reaaaal easy.  Dreamin'.

'L, tawk t' y'all agin whin I git baick t' Ft. Jones next week.

S. Jones

Goin' out t' Yankeedom t' visit kin.  But also takin' a little side trip down t' West Virginny.  Next time  I blog, shud be bloggin' at y'all frum thar.  It is always a pleasure t' be in Dixie, even if'n it's a parta Dixie att wint Yankee.  Lotta Rust Belt Rebels in W NY, W PA, E OH 'n West Virginny.

Ol' Jones n' Mrs. Snaggle-Tooth r' gohnna retire in Dixie sum day soon.  Cain't wait.

See y'all in a few days.

S. Jones

Hew Hughitt ohn David From

David From ohn Hew Hughitt

Meanwhile a new populist, Middle American conservatism, sumtimes dubbed th' "Tea Party" movemint, passes 'em both by.

Gotta love it.

S. Jones

It had floundered about frum its Southron roots in th' 50s through the early 70's, like a drunk bouncin' ohff the walls of th' corridor 'n a stumblin' tward th' light.  But it found it's way back South, 'n wuz redeemed, fir th' Confederacy redeems everthang. 

The cause of th' South is th'  cause of us all.

'N th' Allman Brothers Band rocks.

S. Jones

Pernounced "Aint" down in th' South.

S. Jones

S. Jones

While Lee was more of a "low church" Anglican, this video from the 400th anniversary of the first Anglican Eucharist in Virginia bespeaks the gravitas of Southron culture and of the Confederacy, but more importantly of the gravitas and grace of Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh and Life Eternal, and whom the Confederacy worshipped.

You're welcome to your thin, desacralized, dumbed down, ahistorical, half educated, modernist religion, Yankees, whether its of the heretical forms, such as Unitarianism, or the orthodox and hence acceptable forms, such as any number of "contemporary" Evangelical churches and "neo-Catholic" Roman ones.

DeGrow probably knows what I'm talking about.  Right, Ben?

I know a Lady from Virginia, a consummate "neo-Confederate", whose family belongs to this seceded Virginian Anglican communion.  Her husband and kids chant this Gloria.  The precious little brown-eyed girl wth the head covering is one of her daughters.

We're headed out that way to live very soon.  We may very well end up belonging to it as well:

S. Jones

But ignore th' last line 'bout votin' GOP in 2010 - unless they's urned it.

S. Jones

Th' November 2009 issur-a Chronicles magazine (y'all subscribe here, hear?) has featured an article entitled Father Abraham: Conservative?, which all y'all no-account neocons, "Reagan" conservatives, "movement" conservatives 'n wutnot need t' read.  It is writtun by one John Vella, who wuz th managin' editor of Modern Age: A Quarterly Review from 1995 - t' 2008 'n who is now pursuing a Master's degree in His'try frum Villanova University.  (Ain't that right, Prof. Krannawitter?) I will post th' article in its entirety below.  I hope Chronicles'll understaind wut I'm a-doin' here, 'n won't threten t' sue me.  In ALL my widespread internet activity ohn behaff-a tradishnul conservatism, I have freekwently advertised Chronicles as a "must read" publikashun.  (Note: I did an OCR scain from a pdf, 'n I tried t' edit it best I cud, bit thar mite still be sum punkshuahsun errors 'n wut not.)

Att sed, th' reason y'all need t' read this here article is so y'all understaind why, for us palecon folk,  th' dividin' line between historic American conservatism 'n wut passes as conservatism these days is found in th' historical figgur of ol' "Honest" Abe Lincoln.  That ol' boy may have "unified" th' states, but as far as his signifcance t' conservatism is concerned, he ain't nuthin' but a divider, 'n not a uniter.

Sed division is reflekted in how periodikals like Chronicles and The American Conservative came t' be.   Before Buckley handed it over t' th' usurping neocons in the 80s or so, National Review wuz known t' host articles written in th' same vein as Father Abraham: Conservative?, 'n sum of th' paleocon writers who came t' be associated with Chronicles 'n The American Conservative were previously associated with National Review.  No more.  Th' closest thang t' a palecon-att writes fir NR is Derbyshire, 'n I'm guessin' his days thar are numbered.  Att's OK; Chronicles might could welcum him.

As an aside, th' division y'all'll see in Father Abraham: Conservative?  will also be reflected in ol' Jones' debate with Claremont Fellow Richard Reeb, which has occurred here ohn-iss blog.  Stay tuned for th' latest response to Mr. Reeb, 'n my consolidatin' all the blog entries 'n commints boxes exchanges inta one page y'all kin link to, so it'll be easier t' foller.  Hope t' have-att dun in the next couple-a days or so.

So, without further adoo, Father Abraham: Conservative?  (Subscribe t' Chonicles here.)

___________________________________________________________

The bicentenary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln has seen the publication of a host of new books and magazine articles celebrating the legacy of the 16th president. Lincoln's popularity is probably at its highest point thus far, and Honest Abe is defended by writers on both ends of the political spectrum. Liberals have been happy to offer praise of the first Republican administration, for empowering the federal government at the expense of the states. In his recent biography of Lincoln, George McGovern declares that the war transformed a ^"union of states" into a ^'nation.^" He suggests that the widely shared Southern notion of a republic in which a government of limited powers defended the interests of property owners and a social order based on ^"family, kinship, and tradition^" was replaced by the idea of "a strong centralized government that promoted industrial development, competition, and free-labor capitalism."

It has become increasingly difficult for Lincoln critics to get a hearing in mainstream conservative media. Conservative magazines such as National Review have made it political heresy to discuss the failures and shortcomings of the first Republican president. After all, such criticism could invite the charge of racism and thus undermine the latest GOP presidential candidate's ability to win the minority vote. Instead we find, for instance, in the February 23 issue of National Review, a cover story by Allen Guelzo praising Lincoln.  Like the students of Leo Strauss who have appeared in those pages over the years, Guelzo denies that Lincoln had anything to do with the expansion of the federal government. He sees no connection between Lincoln^'s interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and the growth of federal power in later decades. There is an assumption shared by defenders of Lincoln that his interpretation of the Declaration's preamble, particularly his definition of equality was the same as that of the Founding Fathers. Thomas L. Krannawitter defends this view in his new book, Vindicating Lincoln. In it, the views of West Coast Straussians, Harry Jaffa and his acolytes-are recycled .to defend Lincoln against recent charges by libertarian critics.

Decades ago, distinguished conservatives such as M.E. Bradford and Wilmoore Kendall debunked Lincoln's 1861 claim that "The Union is much older than the Constitution."  Until recently, conservatives denied that the role of government was to impose upon states the egalitarianism that Lincoln attached to the preamble of the Declaration or that these words of Jefferson had any constitutional force. Without referencing the arguments of either Bradford or Kendall, Krannawitter attempts to defend Lincoln's dogma without conducting a close examination of the Declaration itself. Like the Straussians before him, Krannawitter never bothers to read past the preamble to where the colonies declare their right:

to be free and independent states ... and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war ... and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Undaunted by the historical facts, Krannawitter doggedly defends the meaning Lincoln gave to the Declaration that ^"all men are created equal,^" by simply stating that the "timeless and universal idea of human equality is the central idea from which the precepts of American government and citizenship flow^" Yet soon after the states wrote their own constitutions, they instituted strict voting qualifications that excluded most of the adult population. This fact alone calls into question their commitment to Lincoln's meaning of the Declaration. Indeed, there were many different meanings of equality in 1776. Men could be equally bound by moral duties or enjoy equality before the lane, which did not apply to women or children at the time, let alone slaves. Krannawitter does not bother to ask himself how the representatives of slave states who signed the Declaration could have done so if they shared Lincoln^'s understanding. We are led to believe that they must have been hypocrites.

A less ideologically colored reading of early American history would offer a more accurate conclusion. Jefferson, Madison, and Mason may have disapproved of the peculiar institution in principle_; but they were slow to free their slaves. Most slaveowners among the Founding Fathers, and even some who owned no slaves, refused to fret over the institution because they did not think the words of the Declaration carried the meaning Lincoln would give them. To impose a meaning on an historical document that was not intended by its authors is to act precisely as liberal judges do when they interpret the Constitution. In this regard, Lincoln is not at all the conservative his Straussian apologists believe him to be.

During the heyday of American intellectual conservatism in the 1960's, William F. Buckley, Jr., permitted vigorous debate in the pages of National Review. In the August 24, 1965, issue, Frank S. Meyer challenged the uncritical hero worship of Abraham Lincoln, eliciting a rejoinder from Harry Jaffa. Jaffa objected to Meyer^'s claim that Lincoln violated the Constitution when he strengthened federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. By weakening the ability of states to resist federal tyranny, the delicate balance of power established by the Constitution was lost, resulting in the loss of political and economic liberty-. Meyer claimed that "no political body in the constitutional structure could accrete to itself sovereign power." Jaffa responded that this view was the very deficiency of the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution was intended to remedy. In Federalist 45, however, Madison denied that the Constitution was transferring any more powers to the federal government; it simply "substitutes a more effectual erode of administering them.^" The wording of the Articles that "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence"-- remained in force. Jaffa further argued in the September 21, 1965, issue that the loss of state sovereignty had more to do with the judicial "doctrine that the Federal Government has many more implied powers than those enumerated in the Constitution." He is ^"convinced^" that this doctrine is in The Federalist but fails to offer any evidence. Madison, however; was very clear in Federalist 45 that the "powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Defined powers are not implied powers.

By defending a liberal doctrine of jurisprudence, which would necessarily transfer more power to the federal government, Jaffa could not object to the comparison Meyer made between Lincoln and latter-day architects of big-government liberalism:

Were it not for the wounds that Lincoln inflicted upon the Constitution, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Franklin Roosevelt to carry through his revolution, for the coercive welfare state to come into being and bring about the conditions against which we are fighting today.

Jaffa made no attempt to discredit this charge except to say that the ^"aggrandizement^" of federal power was entirely constitutional.  (Indeed, several years earlier; Jaffa made that argument in an essay entitled ^"The Case for a Stronger National Government.^")

However; a more recent disciple of Strauss has taken up Meyer^'s challenge. In The American Enterprise, Dinesh D'Souza came to the defense of Lincoln against the charge of accelerating, if not inaugurating, the growth of federal power to the detriment of state sovereignty. The growth of federal power; he argued, was simply an expected-and presumably justified result of war. D^'Souza also acknowledged the suspension of habeas corpus and the arrest of Northerners who sympathized with the South. "But where is the evidence for neo-Confederate insistence that Lincoln can be blamed for the bloated welfare state?^" History, once again, provides an answer. James M. McPherson, no ^""neo-Confederate^" defender of the South, documented in Battle Cry of Freedom the detrimental impact of the Civil War on our liberties:

The old federal republic in which the national government had rarely touched the average citizen except through the post-office gave way to a more centralized polity that taxed the people directly and created an internal revenue bureau to collect these taxes, drafted men in the army, expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts, created a national currency and a national banking system, and established the first national agency for social welfare- the Freedmen's Bureau. Eleven of the first twelve amendments to the Constitution had limited the powers of the national government; six of the next seven, beginning with the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, vastly expanded those powers at the expense of the states.

The Republican Party was the product of 19th-century nationalism.  It favored Northern commercial interests and sought to expand the reach of federal power both domestically and internationally. In 1853,William Henry Seward, who would become Lincoln^'s secretary of state, spoke of the need to "exercise a paramount influence in the affairs of the nations situated in this hemisphere.^" His national-greatness policy constitutes what, "in the language of many, is called ^{`</sup>progress<sup>'</sup> and the position itself is what, by the same class, is called <sup>`}manifest destiny.^"' Applying the Monroe Doctrine to Cuba and Canada was insufficient. "You are al^ready," he told his audience, "the great continental power of America. But does that content you? I trust it does not. You want the commerce of the world, which is the empire of the world.^" In his Lincoln biography, George McGovern reminds his readers of the 1864 Republican Party platform, which called for the ^"vigorous implementation of the Monroe Doctrine.^" The grand nationalist ambitions of the Republican Party leaders could not be fulfilled without a strong central government. Gone forever was the memory of Washingtoⁿ’s plea for a humble republic that would avoid foreign entanglements. Republican plans were greatly, though temporarily frustrated by the departure of the Southern states from the Union.

Some neoconservatives find inspiration in the political rhetoric of early Republican Party leaders. Recall, for instance, the complaint of William Kristol and David Brooks in the Wall Street Journal that "today's conservatism" does not "appeal to American greatness.^" Yet we know from experience that "national greatness^" thinking usually results in the centralization of power and the loss of individual liberty And this goes hand in hand with the ^"big-government conservatism^" that is so often defended when Republicans are in power. When asked by E.J. Dionne whether he and Brooks thought the New Deal was a mistake, Kristol replied, ^"Are we willing to say that the country is worse off because of FDR or JFK or LRT? I'm not willing to say that." At least in the minds of some neoconservatives, Lincoln^'s principles do not conflict with New Deal liberalism. ^"Our nationalism is that of an exceptional nation founded on a universal principle,^" wrote Kristol and Brooks, "on what Lincoln called `an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times.^"' Kristol and Brooks represent the views of many in the Republican Party establishment. For instance, Republican presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson wants us to believe that our founding documents-as interpreted by Lincoln require our military to "fight for the liberty of strangers.”

Ultimately, the blame for this tendency to view Father Abraham as the initiator of the imperial presidency must he placed at Lincoln^'s feet. As Edward S. Corwin argued in his 1941 essay ^"The Aggrandizement of Presidential Power,^" Lincoln established two precedents. The president could respond to matters that he thought presented actual or potential violence and may endanger the nation^'s interests without undue concern for congressional or state objections. Thus, later presidents could use "Lincoln^'s acts as if they supposed the thesis of presidential autonomy-in other words, presidential autocracy-in other fields of presidential power.^" Lincoln exercised presidential power in ways the Supreme Court found illegal, yet the unconstitutionality of his policies has yet to tarnish his reputation among his ^"conservative^" devotees. To preserve the Union, Lincoln pursued an undeniably laudable end using immoral means that destroyed the Old Republic by removing with violent force obstacles to the centralization of federal power.

In National Review, another student of Strauss, Charles Kessler, tells us that conservatives, eager to take hack the Republican Party from its "liberal wing,^" were inspired by Jaffa^'s writings to employ “Lincolⁿ’s principles^" of "human equality, liberty, and natural rights-based constitutionalism." These abstract rights have not preserved conservative principles; they have compromised them. Liberal Republicans faithfully took Lincoln^'s abstract theories to their logical conclusion. Were the affirmative-action policies of the Nixon administration or the corporate welfare spending long favored by the GOP really unrelated to the founding principles of the Party of Lincoln?

(End of article)

_________________________________________

Look, y'all "Teaparty" kinda conservatives who've jus' read this:  ye need t' understaind wut th' hell underlies iss here blog entry.  So, once more, I'll enjoin y'all t' subscribe t' Chronicles, even if it's jus' for one year.  But give it two.  If'n ye do, I'll jus' bet that mosta y'all'll keep ohn subscribin', but wut's more importunt, y'all'll come around t' our way-a thankin'.  We are th' true conservatives, 'n as such, we ain't so much concerned with gittin' conservatives elected t' Fed'rul posishuns-a power as we are with a deep revolushun of thankin' 'n bein' which will in God's time produce just th' kinda culture 'n gummint all true conservatives say they want.  

We are supposed t' staind on th' shoulders of giants, gentlemen.  Wut giants do th' neocons boast in at that regard?  Strauss?  Jaffa?  Kraut Hammer?  Podhoretz?  Goldberg? Kristol?  Gaffney? Boot? Medved? Hewitt?  Limbaugh?  Hannity?   

C'hohn, ye so-called "conservatives"; strike that, ye conservatives who ain't yet sold out:  in yir hearts-a hearts, y'all know somethin' is very wrohng with this crowd of so-called "conservatives."  Come join us.

S. Jones 

I decided t' reveal my Sharp Dressed Eyeedentity.  No shit: att's me in th' flesh, 'n them 'r my translucent eyeballs shinin' thru my shades 'n a-lookin' ohff t' yir left:

'N jus fir th' new folk t' this blog, who are streamin' in in hordes frum ever' corner of Earth, 'n as a refresher t' th' reglars here, this here is wut ol' Jones sounds like.

P.S. We likely got some Claremontistas a-lookin' in t' this here blog today.  Hope they'uns haive fun peruzin'-iss site.

Ain't that right, Joshua?

S. Jones

BTW, whin th' Palmetto Patriot refers t' th' origins of th' pledge of allegiance, here's wut he's tawkin' 'bout.

S. Jones

Here they be:

"Lincoln's war implied, and the Gettysburg Address set to words, a firm message to the States of the Union - I love you, and if you leave me, I'll hunt you down and kill you.  The Address was not the sagely comments of a wise statesmen, rather the vain, obsessive ranting of a power-hungry demon engaging in a blood-thirsty mission of self-aggrandizement, no matter the volume of corpses required to attain it."  (Lewis Goldberg, author) 

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." (Charles Dickens, noted literary figure.)

"Were it not for the wounds that Lincoln inflicted upon the Constitution, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Franklin Roosevelt to carry through his revolution, for the coercive welfare state to come into being and bring about the conditions against which we are fighting today." (Frank Meyer, paleolibertarian political filosofer)

"(As a result of the War Between the States), the old federal republic in which the national government had rarely touched the average citizen except through the post-office gave way to a more centralized polity that taxed the people directly and created an internal revenue bureau to collect these taxes, drafted men in the army, expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts, created a national currency and a national banking system, and established the first national agency for social welfare- the Freedmen's Bureau. Eleven of the first twelve amendments to the Constitution had limited the powers of the national government; six of the next seven, beginning with the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, vastly expanded those powers at the expense of the states."  (James M. McPherson, damn Yankee historian, but quite honest here)

S. Jones

Here.

Yeh, well Mr. Musall, you 'n wut army?  While yir at it, why dohn't ye go "check" th' hind end of a cougar?

Better git used t' it boy.  If th' gummint don't enforce th' Constitution, we will.  'N th' popular miliitia is here t' stay.

UPDATE: It wud appahr-att Mr. Musall has deleted all th' commints at his blog-att were critical of his remarks.

How's-att echo chamber over thar, son?

S. Jones

Secund band's better:

S. Jones

UPDATE, 10/21/09, 8:52 in the AM: Ol Jones has jus' been informed that Anthony Surace no longer runs Rocky Mountain Right, so pardon all references him in th' previous version of-iss here blog entry:

________________________________________________

Now it's come out 'ginst Denver Ballot Inishutive 300, which'd put teeth inta existin' law that'd allow th' POleece t' impound cars of folks drivin' 'em who ain't got no driver's license.  'Course, ever'one knows-att th' measure is directed t'ward illegal aliens, 'n that's a gud thang, since thar are so miny here in Colorader and they drivin' down th' roads endangerin' th' citizenry.

Well, th' blogger at RMR seems th' type-a Republican who wants t' kowtow t' th' Hispanic community in general 'n th' illegals in particular, in th' vain hope, I suspekt, of gittin' more votes fir his ailin' Republican Party.  Y'all know th' type of Republican ol' Jones is tawkin' 'bout here, who ohnly cares 'bout gittin' the party baick inta power, who bends over fir corporate America 'n "state capitalism" 'n who accordin'ly supports sum sorta "path to citizenship" like-att one proposed sum time ago by John McCain (aka Juan Mequeno) and Dead Kennedy.  

Here's wut RMR sed in  this here entry a few days ago:

The other major issue on the ballot that all Denver voters will have to decide on is Initiative 300, a bone-headed move to "fight illegal immigration" by impounding your car if you forget your driver's license and opening you up to extensive fines. Initiative 300 is intended "give teeth" to a weaker version of the law already on the books that has been most notable so far for forcing a Iraq War veteran who forgot to renew his license to pay $4,000 in fines. From KDVR: 

Brian Furman spent the past 13 months on dangerous duty in Iraq. He just got back, stationed at Buckley Air base. He says he didn't realize his Missouri driver's license had expired while he was in Iraq, until a Denver Police officer pulled him over for a broken headlight. 

The officer impounded Furman's car under a law passed by voters last summer. It allows police to impound a car if the driver is not carrying a license and requires them to pay a $2500 bond plus hefty storage fees in order to get the car back. 

Furman argues, he was under a grace period to renew his license and the court dropped all charges. But the city still refuses to release the car. And Furman says they told him unless he comes up with nearly $4000, they are going to sell the car next month.I

I'd like t' see RMR git ahold-a Mr. Furman 'n aisk him wut he thanks-a Ballot Initiative 300, cuz my guess is-att Mr. Furman supports it regardless of his own experience gittin' his car impunded, based ohn certain thangs I know 'about him.  Why dohn't ye do that, RMR, 'n report bacik t' us, hmmmmmmmm?

Fact is, this here's just th' kinda thang we need t' start effectively fighthin' illegal immigration, 'n if'n th' price-a that is-att some fool citizens firget they driver's license, happin' git pulled over fir sum reason 'n thin get they car impounded, well so be it.  We need t' start convincin' illegal Mexicans-att they need t' go baick t' Mexico.  If'n 'em illegals wanna become Republicans, they kin git here t' this country th' legal way 'n thin join th' GOP.

Ha, ha.  Right, Rocky Mountain Right?

S. Jones

"What are 'little green footballs'? Boogers?"

S. Jones

"There is no Liberty in the Void.  Only Hope and Change."

(Snapshots from Mordor on the Potomac.  H/T to Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars for the first image.)

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."   (Pure "Black Speech" of Mordor on the Potomac)

English Translation:

"I would have to...investigate more of Bill's dancing abilities, you know, and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother."

"I am The One we've been waiting for."

"Never let a good photo op go to waste."

"Yo, they's juss a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of K's, Holmes.  But we gohn leave medical dank alone.  Speakin' a-which, I got eighths.  For $60,  I'll hook you up, Bro."

"Pro-lifers, returning war veterans, gun owners and supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and/or Bob Barr should be considered potential terrorists."

"Pro-lifers, returning war veterans, gun owners and supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and/or Bob Barr, and Mel Gibson should be considered potential terrorists."

 S. Jones 

"Non-interventionism" is the more appropriate word, but we understand how you neocons feel the need to spin the issue.

Yes, get the hell out of the Middle East and figure out a way to become energy independent.

Yes, stop fighting Israel's proxy wars.  And if Israel falls, welcome what will hopefully be a repentant Zionist immigrant bunch into our midst, where they have always truly belonged.

Yes, secure our borders and return to a pre-1965 policy regarding immigration.

Yes, expel the illegals in our midst.  It can be done, if we put our minds to it.  Think "Operation Wetback."

Yes, let's once and for all put an end to the Federalist-Whig-Republican-Liberal dynasty, and pick up where we left off in the New England/Virginia Experiment.  Think, respectively, the Second Vermont Republic and The League of the South.

Yes, let's finally all seek to pick up where the Founders left off, and return to the perpetuation of a largely agrarian and truly Christian way of being that will be a beacon to, and not a ruler of,  the nations. 

It CAN be done.  We don't need to rule the world.  We were never meant to rule the world.  Read the damn  sources, you no-account neocons!

(Rest of rant deleted.  You missed a good one,)

S. Jones

Amember-att post-a mine whar I tawked 'bout that John Elway-narrated anti-terrorism videar?  Y'all know, th' one y'all ignored?   Amember how I sed-att th' videar wuz somethin' of a continurashun of-att notorious MIAC "fusion center" report which identified pro-lifers, soldiers returnin' from th' Neocon Wars, and supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin 'n Bob Barr as "potential terrorists?  Amember-att I sed I **smelt th' backside of th' anti-gun Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith(ADL)? **

'L, looky here:

Sum folks sent out FOIA requests in th' wake of th' MIAC report.   They recently got a response from th' State of Missoura.  The State of Missoura sed "no background materials that were used while the author drafted the report existed. And even more interesting was the claim that they have no record of who wrote the report."

'L ain't that speshul?

Here's a copy of th' response letter, dated 10-1-09.

Ohnly problem is, as the Race Against Time blog notes, th' report has th' fangerprints of th' ADL all o'er it.  Here is th' blog entry in full:

"The Modern Militia Movement" - the report written by Missouri law enforcement which lists support for Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr for president as a sign of involvement in the militia movement - is very troubling. While the report has drawn much criticism, little attention has been paid to where Missouri law enforcement got their information from. My immediate suspicion was that the report was written with the help of either the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. Minimal Internet detective work has shown that my suspicion was correct, and that the report was written with the assistance of the latter group.

While the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith purports to be a Jewish civil rights organization, in reality the ADL is a left-wing advocacy group which conducts extensive surveillance on individuals and groups across the political spectrum. The San Francisco district attorney accused the ADL of conducting a national "spy network" after a 1993 raid on the organization's San Francisco offices uncovered computer files [including stolen confidential police documents containing personal information] on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups. Noam Chomsky decried the ADL's "Stalinist-style mentality and behavior" after a detailed 150-page report on his activities was leaked to him by someone within the group. While the ADL denies engaging in illegal activities, they boast of their "nationwide fact-finding infrastructure." According to their web site, they specialize in gathering, analyzing and disseminating intelligence on extremism to law enforcement agencies in order for them to combat "serious threats".

The ADL regularly conducts "extremism training" classes for law enforcement, where they instruct officers on "extremist ideologies" and share effective investigation and prosecuting techniques to combat these ideologies. According to the ADL's web site, an extremism training class for Missouri law enforcement was held in Arnold, Mo. in March 2008, in which officers from 25 different agencies heard lectures from "ADL experts on right-wing extremism." It's likely that documentation provided to law enforcement officers at this meeting was the basis for the "Modern Militia Movement" report written by Missouri law enforcement.

Almost the entire Missouri report is composed of cursorily re-worded documents publicly available on the ADL's web site. The first similarity I noticed was this one below. See if you can spot the similarities between the two selections (compare the italicized text).

Selection on "Underground Groups" in the Missouri report
These groups primarily adhere to the principles of Louis Beam’s philosophy of leaderless resistance. This philosophy advocates small autonomous cells driven by ideology rather than by the direction of leaders. These groups are difficult to gather intelligence on as no one outside of the cell would be aware of the organization or its plans. Individuals or “lone wolves” have also been known to adhere to the principles of leaderless resistance in order to perform or plot acts of violence.

Selection on "Leaderless Resistance" (a.k.a. "lone wolf" theory) from the ADL
Beam called for an overhaul of the movement's tactics; he advocated the formation of small, autonomous underground groups driven by ideology rather than by the directions of leaders and membership organizations. Because those outside the cell would not be aware of planned attacks, Beam explained, leaks or infiltration became far less likely.

I thought I was pretty clever for figuring this out, but in fact nearly the entire Missouri edocument is a re-wording of documents available on the ADL's web site. Simon Jester, a poster at the ConnectMidMissouri forum, discovered that the entire section on the Christian Identity movement in the Missouri report was copied nearly verbatim from an ADL source.

The one exception seems to be the section of the Missouri report on "Political Paraphernalia" that mentions Paul, Barr, and Baldwin. The ADL has previously branded Ron Paul a "far-right conservative" with extremist views on taxes, but there's nothing on their web site associating him with the militia movement. Also, a search of the ADL's website returns no matches for either "Chuck Baldwin" or "Campaign for Liberty".

If the rest of the Missouri document was based on information provided by the ADL, you can be sure the section on Paul, Barr, and Baldwin was as well. We can safely assume the ADL has been closely monitoring the activities of Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty. Noam Chomsky's secret ADL file was 150 pages. Any guesses as to how long Ron Paul's file is?

It's worth noting that the ADL has been in the forefront of national and state efforts to pass hate crimes legislation. To date 45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes for bias crimes, many of which have been based on the ADL's model hate crimes legislation originally drafted in 1981. The David Ray Ritcheson Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (HR 262), which could pass in Congress this session, will construct a federal hate crimes command center in Washington, D.C. with an annual cost of $10 million to taxpayers. This command center will not be run by the federal government but by the ADL. Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty should aggressively combat the ADL and this latest hate crimes bill.

As I pointed out im own blog entry ohn-iss thang, Republican Colorader real estate developer Larry Mizel, th' main man behind th' videar, has demonstrable connekshuns with th' ADL.  The ADL is agin guns 'n jus'  'bout everthang rightist 'n Christian.  The videar instruks viewers t' be ohn th' lookout for, 'mong other thangs, people who buy guns 'n ammo:  th' militia connekshun.  Wuts more, nearly all of th' actors playing th' terrorists in th' videar are white American folk.   Ain't no Middle Eastern-lookin' actors wutsoever in th' videar, even though virtually all modern terrorists are brown-skinned Muslims.

Anyhow, 'em boys in Missoura are lyin' to us.  ADL's in-iss stuff big time (alohng with SPLC), 'n thar's sufficient reason t' suspect-att ADL was likewise involved in th' makin' of the Colorader anti-terrorism videar featurin' Mr. Elway.  Clearly, it's in they interest t' try t' conceal they involvemint, 'n th' lyin' respohnse frum th' Missoura only shows-att sum sort of concealment effort exists. 

Y'all Colorader "conservatives" oughta start payin' attenshun. 

Ain't that right, Joshua?

S. Jones

Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep

SURPRISE, Ariz. — An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on people who are in the country illegally launched a crime and immigration sweep in northwestern metro Phoenix on Friday, a half day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose sweeps have led to allegations of racial profiling, said the rebuff from Washington won't stop him. He said he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

"It doesn't bother me, because we are going to do the same thing," said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. "I am the elected sheriff. I don't take orders from the federal government."

S. Jones