Freedom Watch and Judge Napolitano Attacked

Keep in mind Freedom Watch gets (most / all?) its guests with online polls. Still, I find it fascinating how hit pieces reference other hit pieces as justification for their point- here referencing one 40+ years old no less as if nothing has changed within the JBS since then, even if it wasn't a hit piece.

BTW- according to JBS'er Congressman Larry McDonald in a 1983 interview the society never made any statement about Eisenhower calling the attack a strawman.

Of note, this came from an author who serves on the advisory board of the "Campaign to Defend the Constitution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Goldberg
 
"It also would have been better had she disclosed that her husband derived much of his 2008 income working on site design and management for the Obama campaign. Her failure to disclose that alone demeans her implied claim to be an honest journalist."

So Obama was paying off her husband. Great!!
 
BTW- according to JBS'er Congressman Larry McDonald in a 1983 interview the society never made any statement about Eisenhower calling the attack a strawman.

Here's Congressman Larry McDonald, JBS president, talking about Eisenhower and the JBS. You are correct, the JBS itself, had no position on the issue.

Larry McDonald on the New World Order


This is where they're pulling the JBS/Eisenhower comment, out of Context of course!

http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/the-politician.html

The Politician

Originally intended to be an unpublished letter to friends, "The Politician" became one of the most provocative books in American history. This handsome new 2002 edition has been completely re-typeset. A timely foreword explains the continuing significance of Welch's expose' of the forces that propelled Dwight D. Eisenhower into the presidency. (2002, 544pp, pb)


The-Politician.jpg
 
I completely agree.

And the blog actually had some honestly valid points. Associating ourselves with conspiracy theorists allows for an instant disqualification of credibility. I think the JBS does many great things and they are right on a lot of issues, but I am not a member nor will I be due to the current stigma attached to them. Alex Jones says a lot of very true things and he gets people to think outside the box (which is important), but he is a conspiracy theorist and thus has little, if any, credibility; he's sort of the Michael Moore of the right, but worse.


Of course the blog was an attack, but the attack may have been warranted to a slight degree. The liberty movement, if it wants to become mainstream and gain credibility, cannot be hoisting those who will turn people off as their main spokesmen.

AJ is not a conspiracy theorist. He reports the news and reads their own documents, you know the ones the 'main stream' (that you want to be such a part of) wont even touch. MIAC? No one believed that until it was proven. He operates in things that can be proven and has incredible insight... He called the swine flu hoax months before it happened. I contend that he's a valuable asset to the liberty community. Why people want to ninny and nitpick at fractions is beyond me, well... not really. Hell, we may even have a president that not legally allowed to hold office, and people are afraid of being labeled a birther because the MSM marginalizes them as such - it's unreal, why are we buying into an ad hominem system of crap?

I think a lot of people have this knee jerk to certain aspects of the Liberty movement, wanting to fit into a collectivist system, and are deathly afraid of any ridicule from the MSM. They are all paid shills designed or programmed to discredit... time to get over it.
 
Last edited:
AJ is not a conspiracy theorist. He reports the news and reads their own documents, you know the ones the 'main stream' (that you want to be such a part of) wont even touch. MIAC? No one believed that until it was proven. He operates in things that can be proven and has incredible insight... He called the swine flu hoax months before it happened. I contend that he's a valuable asset to the liberty community. Why people want to ninny and nitpick at fractions is beyond me, well... not really. Hell, we may even have a president that not legally allowed to hold office, and people are afraid of being labeled a birther because the MSM marginalizes them as such - it's unreal, why are we buying into an ad hominem system of crap?

I think a lot of people have this knee jerk to certain aspects of the Liberty movement, wanting to fit into a collectivist system, and are deathly afraid of any ridicule from the MSM. They are all paid shills designed or programmed to discredit... time to get over it.

Matt is obviously referring to Alex Jone's viewpoints regarding 9/11.
 
To those who think Alex Jones and McManus shouldn't have been on Freedom Watch, do you also object to G. Edward Griffin's appearance?
 
To those who think Alex Jones and McManus shouldn't have been on Freedom Watch, do you also object to G. Edward Griffin's appearance?

G. Edward Griffin wrote the anti-Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theory book called "Creature from Jekyll Island" and is a member of the John Birch Society!


http://www.freedomforceinternationa...cfm?fuseaction=questionM06&refpage=membership

WAS MR. GRIFFIN A MEMBER OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, AND ISN'T THAT AN EXTREMIST GROUP?
A reply by G. Edward Griffin, updated 2007 October 28


I can understand how mention of my association with The John Birch Society may cause some people to raise an eyebrow. The general impression among many is that the Society is an extremist organization made up of kooks, McCarthyites, and racists. So let me jump to the bottom line.

I am a life member of The John Birch Society and, for several years in the 1960s, served on the Society's staff as a Major Coordinator and official spokesman. From over forty years of personal contact with its members and leadership, I can say with authority that the Society is an excellent educational organization promoting limited government and opposing collectivism in all of its forms. There is nothing about it that is contrary to the highest standards of morality and ethical conduct.

DID WELCH CALL EISENHOWER A COMMUNIST?
When its rapid growth in the 1960s caught the attention of the collectivists who dominate our nation's power centers, the press launched a massive attack against it and successfully demonized it in the minds of most Americans. The attack centered around a statement made by the Society's founder, Robert Welch. He had written a book, called The Politician, which was a critical view of President Dwight Eisenhower's career. The purpose of the book was to show that, although Eisenhower was widely regarded as a conservative due to his affiliation with the Republican Party and also because of the excellence of his speechwriters, his actual deeds demonstrated that he was a collectivist. He went further by stating that Eisenhower's actions were largely supportive of the goals of communism. There was not much controversy over that, because Welch included an abundance of examples to prove his point. But then, in choosing a word to politically describe him, Welch chose the wrong word. He said that Eisenhower was a Communist.

As everyone in Freedom Force knows, Communism is merely a variant of collectivism. Had Welch used the more generic word, had he called Eisenhower a collectivist, there would be very little in his book that anyone could fault. But he did not. He used the wrong word, and this was the handle the press was looking for. Welch was demonized and made to look foolish, which was all that was necessary to turn the public against him and the organization he founded.

I knew Robert Welch well. In preparation for writing his biography, The Life and Words of Robert Welch, (published in 1975) I had the privilege of examining his private papers and personal letters dating back to boyhood. I interviewed members of his immediate family, including his amazing mother who, as a former schoolteacher, was instrumental in sparking and nourishing his powerful intellect at a very early age. I spent many hours in conversation with him on a wide variety of topics: everything from religion to economics; from mathematics to philosophy. I did not agree with him on everything. For example, he believed that the Darwinian concept of evolution has been scientifically verified, whereas I think it is a theory that is no more scientifically verified than the theory of special creation, and that both theories are based on belief systems. But these disagreements were minor compared to the major issues involving personal freedom and the proper role of government, issues on which we were in harmony.
 
Oh god no ... not that conspiracy looney Edward G Griffin!! :rolleyes: /sarcasm

Matt is obviously referring to Alex Jone's viewpoints regarding 9/11.

I know. Neat discredit by association game. I don't agree with all Libertarians all the time either. We have an uphill climb with this, lets not splinter and divide like the opposition would like. Remember, its not about any one man.. but an idea who's time has come. Let's keep that in mind instead of getting caught up in ad hominem. AJ is a valuable asset, and that's why RP goes on the show.
 
uote=mczerone;2237082]That being said - the show is called "Freedom Watch" and it, AFAIK, is trying to be a broad-tent and allow as many people to freely associate with the Liberty movement as possible. Last I checked Judge Napolitano never endorsed any 911 theories, or mentioned his own membership in JBS.

The Liberty movement, if it wants to become mainstream and gain credibility, cannot be self-divisive and worrying about how our enemies will characterize our associates. Be your own spokesman, select your own associates, and let other people do the same. If you really don't like the choices that the Judge or any other program makes, you don't have to support their efforts.

It is "Liberty" that we are striving for, after all.[/quote]Unfortunately it is too easy to be marginalized and discredited "by association" to take a stance like that.
 
AJ is not a conspiracy theorist.
:rolleyes:Riiight. This coming from someone with a scree name titled after one of his films.



He reports the news and reads their own documents, you know the ones the 'main stream' (that you want to be such a part of) wont even touch. MIAC? No one believed that until it was proven. He operates in things that can be proven and has incredible insight...
Of course. But he also churns out a lot of conjecture, false conclusions, and unprovable innuendo.
 
I completely agree.

And the blog actually had some honestly valid points. Associating ourselves with conspiracy theorists allows for an instant disqualification of credibility.

Funny thing. I think allowing ourselves to be associated with Glen Beck and Foxnews did more damage to us than anything else.
 
Unfortunately it is too easy to be marginalized and discredited "by association" to take a stance like that.

Then you, as an individual, must be diligent in your own associations, and if something that you are involved in associates itself with Alex Jones or JBS or whoever else might have a 'bad public image', you should leave that group. For that matter, why are you still supporting Ron Paul, or Rand Paul, after frequenting Alex Jones' podcasts?


You are too worried about what the wrong people think. Stop trying to appease the people who are satisfied with the status quo - they are a hard market in which to work at changing minds. Further, it doesn't really matter at this point if AJ himself appeared on the Judge - there already existed strong links to the Libertry movement, so what is one more appearance that addresses a relevant point and ignores non-relevant beliefs?


Associating other people by jumping to conclusions is the result of colletivized group think espoused by central powers. By associating with people that necessarily diverge from our view points on issues outside the immediate strategic cooperation we can both advance specific goals and work to dispel the myth that brief associations with people can lead to an identification of all beliefs.

Or should we all only have one single opinion on any given issue, dissenters be damned?
 
:rolleyes:Riiight. This coming from someone with a scree name titled after one of his films.

Of course. But he also churns out a lot of conjecture, false conclusions, and unprovable innuendo.

1. Don't strawman me.. 2. You expect perfection and unison from all voices of Liberty? That's completely unrealistic and couterproductive.. Enough of the ad hominem.

Funny thing. I think allowing ourselves to be associated with Glen Beck and Foxnews did more damage to us than anything else.

Bingo. He's a questionable NeoCon that's paid 10 million a year by the MSM. However, he is a voice for individual liberty and small government and a voice that loud and reaching is valuable to Liberty.

But I'd rather stand beside someone calling for 9/11 truth than someone trumping war in the middle east. However, I will stand by both on the common issues and leave my personal baggage/differences with these individuals to myself.
 
An update: I found the following link in the comments section of the article (mine's still not published). It's a link to a 2004 article entitled "If at First You Don't Secede" by none other than the Ms. Michelle Goldberg. It sympathetically profiles the left wing secessionists and calls for decentralism. What a hypocrite!

Some key quotes:

These sentiments were so pronounced that they migrated into the mainstream. Speaking on "The McLaughlin Group" the weekend after George W. Bush's victory, panelist Lawrence O'Donnell, a former Democratic Senate staffer, noted that blue states subsidize the red ones with their tax dollars, and said, "The big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government."

A shocked Tony Blankley asked him, "Are you calling for civil war?" To which O'Donnell replied, "You can secede without firing a shot."


And instead of hysterics she mustered against conservative secessionist she sympathetically remarks of the movement:

"For now, of course, secession remains an escapist fantasy. But its resonance with liberals points to some modest potential for constructive political action"


And the conclusion could have been written by any decentralist:

Many of the people in that 48 percent are not content to be ruled by people who, beyond disagreeing with them, seem to despise them. They'll seek other ways to exercise power. "Over the history of this country," says Cannavo, "we have had states taking the lead on certain issues and then even banding together to sue the federal government. The Northeastern states have taken action on air pollution. Can this be magnified in terms of issues like health insurance? Yes. The question, though, is how far can this go. Would you eventually reach a point of a kind of loose federation where you have two countries pursuing their own domestic policies?"

That's essentially the idea. Clearly, it marks an attenuation of progressive dreams for America. But at least it means there's something liberals can do to further their own ideals in the face of Republican domination. For the next four years, Democrats will be forced to watch as the New Deal is dismantled.

The states can give them a place to rebuild.


The whole thing is great!

What A Hack!
 
Last edited:
Oops, looks like Epic and I saw that comment at the same time. Man it's amazing how one can be such a hypocrite. Not one time did she mention the left wing secessionists in her hit piece.

I don't know how these beltway journalists live with themselves. :rolleyes:
 
My oh my, the rabbit hole goes deeper. Ms. Goldberg supported NYC seceding from the state of New York. I think her whole piece was an exercise in projection.

Would you support the secession of NYC from NY State?
Yes, because it would give us two extra senate seats, and right now urbanites are vastly underrepresented in the senate. The remainder of New York State might elect a mix of Democrats and Republicans, but even the Republicans would probably be on the moderate side.

http://gothamist.com/2006/06/16/michelle_goldbe_1.php

She's a fellow secessionist!

Update: They let my comment go through this time
 
Last edited:
Back
Top