The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street

Anti facists have been passing this article around that details elements of OWS and the mechanisms of "infiltration" from fringe right groups.  Except that it's less infiltration after the fact and more they had their people in the planning groups from day one.   It's not as blatent a scam as the truth movement, but the elements are there:  let's build an ostensible progressive grassroots movement, the liberals will come, and we'll promote our sleazy agenda under the cover they give. 

Not everyone was fooled, as one anarchist expounds, but enough people got caught up to make one cynical about the next allegedly leftist revolutionary movement.

One note of caution: the website Political Research, was a haunt of Chip Berlet, who was almost certainly in on the Kennebunkport Hoax.   Mr. Berlet was oddly defensive when asked any questions about how he even knew about the hoax, and one owner of the SLC blog with a record of dishonest conduct was rather quick to push Tarpley's frame, that people were getting money from Berlet and the Ford Foundation.   It seems Berlet's association with Political Research Associates has ended, so that's something.

Excerpts relevant to the "truth movement" fraud are quotes below.  Read the entire article at the following link:  http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/02/23/the-right-hand-of-occupy-wall-street-from-libertarians-to-nazis-the-fact-and-fiction-of-right-wing-involvement/#

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street: From Libertarians to Nazis, the Fact and Fiction of Right-Wing Involvement

By Spencer Sunshine, on February 23, 2014

Spencer Sunshine, Ph.D. (associate fellow) is a researcher and activist. His research interests include U.S. white nationalism, post-war fascism (particularly Third Position and European New Right politics), left/right crossover movements, and left-wing antisemitism. As an activist he has worked on issues regarding anti-fascism, police misconduct, prisoner rights, global trade agreements, environmental issues, and bisexual and queer politics. Follow him on Twitter at @transform6789.
The most successful mobilization on the Left in recent years—the Occupy movement—had ambiguously defined enemies and used an organizing model that was easily replicated. These strategies were key elements of its success, but they also enabled a significant level of participation by the Right. Though it is tempting to gloss over or deny that reality, the Left would benefit from beginning to grapple with it.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has often been portrayed as the Tea Party’s ideological mirror image: a left-wing response to the global economic crises that began in August 2007. Initiated with a tent city in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park in mid-September 2011, spinoff “Occupations” soon spread across the United States and then to cities across the globe. These protests, which targeted the federal government’s cozy relationship with the banking interests that caused the economic collapse, channeled the mounting anger of those most devastated by the economic meltdown, especially debt-ridden students, the unemployed, and people who lost homes in the subprime mortgage crisis.

But this mainstream-media view tends to gloss over the involvement of right-wing and conspiracist groups in Occupy. In the perception of many participants, the Right’s presence was largely limited to a lone homeless man who paraded antisemitic signs around Zuccotti, which became the basis of a right-wing “smear” campaign. More recently, venture capitalists like Tom Perkins have slandered Occupy, absurdly comparing its attack on wealth inequality to the Nazi persecution of Jews.¹ Because of this, many progressives plug their ears when they hear about right-wing groups and Occupy. (In this essay, OWS refers to the New York City occupation, while Occupy refers to the movement in general.)
Certainly, Occupy was always a largely left-leaning event. But right-wing participation has been the norm rather than the exception within recent left-wing U.S. movements—including the antiglobalization, antiwar, environmental, and animal rights movements—and Occupy was no exception.² Right-wing groups inserted their narrative about the Federal Reserve into the movement’s visible politics; used Occupy’s open-ended structure to disseminate conspiracy theories (antisemitic and otherwise) and White nationalism; promoted unfettered capitalism; and gained experience, skills, and political confidence as organizers in a mass movement that, on the whole, allowed their participation.
Ideally, none of these things should have happened. Advocates for social justice need to assess the motivations, extent, and substance of right-wing participation in Occupy—just as has been done with past movements. Despite the painful feelings it might evoke, it is time for this process to start.

The problem of finance capital and ambiguous enemies

The original call for OWS from Adbusters magazine said the demonstrators themselves would decide on the “one demand” of the occupation, but this never materialized. Instead, the eminently populist slogan “We are the 99%” became their rallying cry. The one percent—often assumed to be those whose household incomes were over $500,000—was obviously associated with “Wall Street,” the focus of the demonstration.³ But many people with that kind of income were not associated with Wall Street at all. And, in any case, what exactly was Wall Street: the New York Stock Exchange? Banks? Bankers? Global corporations? The Federal Reserve? And who were the one percent: Crony capitalists specifically? Capitalists generally? The rich? Political elites? The Bilderberg Group? The Rothschild family? Jews? Or—as one popular conspiracy theorist had it—our reptilian overlords?

---------------------------------------

But in addition to this general, populist appeal for uniting the people against the elites, there was one specific piece of common ground. While few right-wing actors see capitalism as a system to be abolished, many are harsh critics of finance capital, especially in its international form. This critique unites antisemites, who believe that Jews run Wall Street; libertarian “free marketers,” who see the Federal Reserve as their enemy; and advocates of “producerist” narratives, who want “productive national capital” (such as manufacturing and agriculture) to be cleaved from “international finance capital” (the global banking system and free-trade agreements).

----------------------------------------------

In Occupy the most common demand of the various right-wing and conspiracy groups—especially those who openly called for Left-Right unity—was for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Whether this is an issue actually shared by the Left, or just an attempt to get the Left to support right-wing policies, is another question.
---------------------------------------------------------

The initial controversy over antisemitism

The Right’s participation was far from limited to a handful of antisemites, but it is nonetheless true that Occupy’s attacks on finance capital attracted many of them, since such attacks were easily integrated into their fantasies of Jews controlling the banking industry. (Rather than explicitly naming Jews as the villain, antisemites often instead demonize a subgroup that they identify as Jewish, such as Zionists, international bankers, neoconservatives, “the Frankfurt School”—or Wall Street.)
Adbusters, the magazine that initially sparked OWS, has an especially troublesome past. Its editor and co-founder, Kalle Lasn, published an article in 2004 criticizing neoconservatives by invoking numerous antisemitic narratives. The article included a list of prominent neoconservatives with marks next to the Jewish names. Responding to widespread criticism, Lasn denied that he was antisemitic but showed no understanding of why the narrative of the article was offensive. More recently, the magazine has published articles by antisemitic writer and musician Gilad Atzmon.⁵ This certainly raises the question of whether Adbusters’s choice of Wall Street as a target may have been shaped by narratives influenced by antisemitism.
Some mainstream right-wing media attempted to discredit OWS as being primarily antisemitic from the outset.

-----------------------------------


The result was that many Occupy protestors on the Left felt that they were being unfairly “smeared” as antisemites by the mainstream Right in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole, and, furthermore, that these claims were without merit.⁹ This fear of subversion created an atmosphere of denial and a general consensus that there was no involvement in Occupy by those further to the Right than Ron Paul.
Right-wing and conspiracist participation in Occupy was nonetheless real, and it involved more than 20 groups, prominent figures, and media outlets. These included Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones, Oath Keepers, David Icke, We Are Change, Tea Party members, National-Anarchists, Attack the System, the Pacifica Forum, American Free Press, LaRouchites, Counter-Currents, the American Freedom Party, American Front, David Duke, the American Nazi Party, White Revolution, and others. (A detailed account of their participation is available separately in my essay, “Twenty on the Right in Occupy.”)¹⁰ Their involvement included attending planning meetings, taking part in the encampments, making appeals directed to the Occupiers, and co-opting online resources. They fell into four overlapping categories: anti-Federal Reserve activists, conspiracy theorists, antisemites, and White nationalists/neo Nazis.

------------------------------

The “End the Fed!” factor and the conspiracy theorists

As Occupy Wall Street burgeoned, Ron Paul was campaigning for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Although there was no obvious mechanism organizing their participation, Paulists were at the OWS planning meetings, and they remained a fixture in the movement and appeared at almost all Occupations, though they were usually a small but vocal minority.

 --------------------------------


The ambiguity of Occupy attracted a substantial number of Paul’s supporters, who in turn attracted a fair amount of media coverage for themselves. They gained general traction within Occupy because of their objection to the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the major banks after the financial collapse, and sometimes focused on its role in the subprime mortgage crisis. Counterintuitively for many, the lesson of the crisis for Paulists was the need for less—not more—federal involvement in the banking system.
Many others who wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve also became involved in Occupy; most supported Paul’s candidacy. Alex Jones, one of the most popular U.S. conspiracy theorists (although not a consistent supporter of Occupy), attempted to crash the movement by calling for a national event on Oct. 6, 2011, to “Occupy the Fed.” Jones said that, contrary to media portrayals of Occupy as left-leaning, “The people on the ground … understand the Federal Reserve is the central organization empowering this world government system. This is a revolt against banker occupation.”¹²
At the same time, the Oath Keepers organization, in concert with Jones and others, concocted a national push to insert “End the Fed!” rhetoric into Occupy under a call to “Occupy the Occupation!” (Oath Keepers, which holds armed marches, recruits current and former military and law enforcement employees who swear to “uphold the Constitution,” and is driven by conspiracies about the coming One World Government.) It also helped establish an encampment in Occupy Los Angeles and attempted to recruit there.¹³
Another Fed critic was David Icke, known for his metaconspiracy theory that the global elite are descendants of reptilian aliens who seek to enslave humanity—a story that weaves in classic antisemitic narratives. His “Essential Knowledge For A Wall Street Protestor” video, which promotes anti-Federal Reserve and related economic conspiracies, has about 350,000 views. He also made an hour-long “ad-lib documentary” in Zuccotti Park just after the encampment was evicted by authorities.¹⁴ Icke’s followers were active in both U.S. and U.K. Occupations.
Other conspiracists who worked in Occupy include We Are Change (WAC), an international 9/11 “Truther” group. Luke Rudkowski, the group’s founder, is a prolific video blogger and is well-known for his paparazzi-style interviews. On site at OWS from the first day, he did extensive video coverage at Zuccotti Park and is also featured in David Icke’s videos.
Members of WAC New York City, a splinter faction, were also active in OWS, including Danny Panzella, a Tea Party activist who ran for state office in 2010. Even before OWS, Panzella organized demonstrations against the downtown Manhattan Federal Reserve, and he worked hard to refocus Occupy on an “End the Fed!” agenda. He appeared on the Fox News show Freedom Watch, in one of a number of the show’s broadcasts that encouraged libertarians to attend Occupy events.¹⁵ Other members of the group who worked with OWS included Craig FitzGerald, a “National-Anarchist” who promotes Holocaust denial and endorses White separatism.

------------------------------

Online, antisemites have continued to be connected to Occupy projects. The most popular is an imposter Facebook page that mimics the “real” main one—and posts blatantly antisemitic content. It has attracted nearly 650,000 followers. (By contrast, the page affiliated with the organization that arose from the Zuccotti encampment has fewer than 500,000 followers.) It is unclear who the secretive administrators of the imposter site are, or why it became so popular. Attempts to remove it have so far been unsuccessful.¹⁷

One of the Far Right’s most enthusiastic Occupy champions was the American Free Press, an antisemitic weekly newspaper that is heir to Willis Carto’s media empire. It promoted Occupy even before the initial action, and for months it printed numerous articles supporting the movement, including firsthand reporting from various Occupations.¹⁸

Lyndon LaRouche’s Far Right sect was initially involved in OWS. It has long pushed for restoring Glass-Steagall, a New Deal-era act that limited the kinds of investments that banks could make, which was repealed in the late 1990s. Many believe that it would have prevented the housing crisis had it remained in effect. During Occupy, two bills were in Congressional committee that would have restored its provisions, and it was a priority for many Occupy protestors on the Left, as well. LaRouche’s followers were active in the OWS planning meetings, where Glass-Steagall’s restoration was one of six initial proposals for the never-realized “one demand.”¹⁹ LaRouche’s organization even claimed credit for making its reinstatement “a leading demand of the movement.”²⁰ Staff at Counter-Currents, a leading U.S. publisher of intellectual fascism and White nationalism, claimed to have attended the San Francisco and Oakland occupations, and they described the events as a valuable experience
---------------------------------


The most prominent figure on the Far Right to endorse Occupy was David Duke, a former Republican state representative from Louisiana and an elder statesman of the U.S. White nationalist movement. In a video from October 2011, “Occupy Zionist Wall Street,” Duke denounced the “Zionist thieves at the Federal Reserve” and “the most powerful criminal bank in the world, the Zionist Goldman Sachs, run by that vulture-nosed bottom feeder, Lloyd Blankfein.” The video has received more than 100,000 views to date. Duke later wrote on the White supremacist web forum Stormfront that “OWS is an opportunity. … Grab this opportunity!”²²
White nationalists also participated in some of the movement’s less high-profile iterations, such as Occupy Indianapolis (OI). Matt Parrott of Hoosier Nation—the local branch of the White nationalist American Third Position Party, now called the American Freedom Party—attended OI, and made a video interviewing participants. He wrote: “Our experience was peaceful and positive, affirming my suspicion that the majority of the Occupy Indianapolis attendees were fed up with the same corporate and federal abuses the majority of the Tea Party protesters are fed up with.”²³ His colleague “Tristania” [Nazi lover and Libertarian operative Jaenelle Antas] posted a comment on Stormfront saying that “it was a very good opportunity for outreach” and that “it’s about cherry picking people from those audiences and recruiting them to our side.”²⁴
  [That is a nutshell is what the "truth" movement con was for--recruiting people from the left to push a Nazi agenda]
 ---------------------------

Why did they participate?

It is a mistake to view these right-wing groups and people as “infiltrating” Occupy, since in some cases they supported and helped organize it even before it started. Others were simply participating in a demonstration that loudly proclaimed that it was open to everyone and refused to define even its most basic concepts or demands.
Yet some on the Right did view their work as intentional co-optation. This is an intrinsic problem with the “franchise activism” model, or the practice of setting up a name and format that anyone can adopt and act under. While it allows for ease of replication and flexibility in action—one of Occupy’s great strengths—it also allows a variety of political visions to be pursued under its banner. For example, almost no mechanisms are available to deem the “imposter” Facebook page as illegitimate in relation to the “real” one.

-----------------------
 The point it is not so much that the Left was significantly damaged by the Right’s presence in Occupy—though its presence did open the movement up to attacks in the mainstream media, which wasted the time and effort of organizers while turning off potential supporters. The deeper problem is that right-wing groups benefited from the Left’s willingness to give them a stage to speak from and an audience to recruit from.
[The problem with any "big tent" strategy in a nutshell]

 ----------------------------------------
 As a result, the involvement of right-wing groups in Occupy raises questions about the dilemma of creating a movement that is open to “everyone” but must exclude certain elements if it is to avoid becoming a forum for right-wing populist protest. The basic format of the demonstrations—a populist attack on finance capital with ambiguous formulations—harmonized quite well with the political vocabulary and framework of the Right and conspiracy theorists.

-----------------------------------------

Are there any practical steps, then, that activists on the Left can take to minimize participation by the Right?
The administrators at the OccupyWallSt.org forum, the main online location of internal discussions, took one small step after they were deluged by conspiracy theorists and Far Right propagandists. In October 2011, they banned anyone who posted about Icke, LaRouche, Duke, or Jones.³¹
A more proactive first step would be to endorse an anti-oppression platform at the very start, such as the one created at Occupy Boston. Unlike the relatively vague statement from Zuccotti, Boston’s statement explicitly named the types of oppression that it opposed, including White supremacy, patriarchy, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Arab sentiment, Islamophobia, and anti-Jewish sentiment.³²
A member of the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement pointed out that if such a platform had been in place in Occupy Indianapolis, when racist sentiments were expressed towards people of color, there would have been an existing agreement to point to—and a basis for asking the larger group to intervene—rather than relying on nonexistent cooperation from the majority of the largely White participants. The HARM member also said that if racists had been confronted and expelled from the physical occupation, they likely would not have posted a positive video of their experience, felt welcome to continue to participate in the group’s social media, or written about their warm reception.³³ Not taking a proactive stance against antisemitism at Zuccotti led to significant bad press and much time and energy invested—often by Jewish participants—in putting out fires.

-------------------
[From the DUH files.   Let's see if the next mass left movement learns from Occupy's mistakes.]

Cindy Sheehan, Davie Duke and blaming Israel or Oh, How We Have Fallen

On the other hand, can one really "fall" if they weren't what they claimed to be to begin with?

Cindy Sheehan was a celebrity in the anti-war movement during the Bush years, and her politics  appeared unequivocally to be from the left, for social justice, human rights, women;s rights, etc, etc.  How far left was she assumed to be?  If you'd told people back in 2003 that Sheehan would be endorsed by David Duke, at best you'd be laughed at, at worst you'd be assumed to be some sort of Republican operative.

Sheehan anti-war work begin soon after her son's death in 2004.  And while one wants to be sympathetic, one is annoyed when facts emerge that seem to support the conservative belief at that time that Sheehan had a dishonest political agenda:

Almost everyone in the media is afraid to address this issue. After all, Cindy Sheehan has had her son torn away from her forever, and as a society we see any attacks on a grieving mother as beyond contemptible. However, while sorrow from the loss of a child makes many parents seek out the help of the clergy and councilors, Cindy Sheehan’s grief led her to seek out a public relations firm connected to Moveon.org. While the parents of fallen soldiers usually use the opportunity to speak out in support for what their departed son or daughter believed, Cindy Sheehan has chosen to attack it. And while most other parents of fallen soldiers limit their comments to the War, Cindy Sheehan has not just attacked President Bush and the United States’ presence in Iraq, but hurled anti-Semitic comments about Jews instigating the War, her son not enlisting in the Army to die for Israel, and demanding that Israel pull out of the Occupied Territories. What does this have to due with the loss of her son? Absolutely nothing other than verifying the fact that Cindy Sheehan is using the death of Casey as free publicity to promote her personal agenda.

 While the writer's implication that no other parents of dead soldier ever  grieved by questioning the war is simply incorrect, facts do emerge showing Sheehan to be less than honest about her agenda:

Claim:   Casey Sheehan's grave is unmarked with a standard headstone.

Status:   Multiple:

• Casey Sheehan's grave lacked a headstone for the first two years after his death:   True.
• Casey Sheehan's grave is not now marked with a headstone:   False.

Read the complete Snopes article for more.

More disturbing and inexcusable:  blaming Israel in this letter she approved to be forwarded to Nightline(quoted in full, because if I don't, someone will disemble):

  ----- Original Message -----=20

  From: SCINDY121@aol.com=20

  To: tersch@mweb.co.th ; bullyard@googlegroups.com=20

  Cc: skeeter@ksc.th.com ; jwal8C@cox.net ; hibbs@bfranklin.edu ; steppenwo=

olf@msn.com ; KurniaP@netscape.net ; mshea@loxinfo.co.th ; TQMNICK@aol.com =

; zpbrown@cox.net ; sharinparis@hotmail.com ; vince@netium.com.br=20

  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM

  Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005



  That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a let=

ter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:

  Love

  Cindy Sheehan

  March 15, 2005


  To Whom it May Concern:


  Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was conf=

ronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq=

 on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story th=

at you presented to the American public.


  I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. A=

fter I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being =

"emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emoti=

ons, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was n=

ot fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was forego=

ne.


  The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives =

being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard wo=

rk" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you=

 think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this =

"wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives =

call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The=

 last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left=

 behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if yo=

ur loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were t=

he hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday l=

ast year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?


  A distraught father who lost his son was shown telling how much his life =

was so adversely affected. Why wasn't a mother (like me) who has been an ou=

tspoken critic of this war and of the President's policies interviewed for =

this piece? Why wasn't I given a chance to talk about 04/04/04 and the seri=

es of lies, mistakes and miscalculations that led to my precious oldest chi=

ld's death??


  General Chiarelli was quoted as saying that 04/04/04 was a "wake up" call=

 to the 2-5 Cavalry. If he thinks it was a "wake up" call, let me tell you =

how having 3 Army officers come to my door on 04/04/04 and tell me that my =

darling son was KIA. I have learned so many details of that day and of my s=

on's experience in Iraq.


  The very first thing that went wrong happened in November at Ft Irwin, Ca=

lifornia...the 2-5 Cavalry went for desert training. They received open des=

ert warfare training and my son was killed in an urban guerilla attack, whi=

ch he hadn't been trained for. Also, he was wearing an inadequate helmet an=

d a Vietnam era flak jacket. Casey was stationed in a very dangerous place,=

 like the General said: FOB War Eagle. I have subsequently learned that the=

 soldiers of the 2-5 Cav who were stationed outside of Baghdad had Kevlar b=

ody armor. I have also found out that Casey slept in the back of his Humvee=

 for the last 2 weeks of his life because there wasn't any room on post for=

 him to have a cot. How tired and overworked was he before he went into tha=

t battle on 04/04/04?


  In addition, my son was killed after L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi'a by=

 taking away their tv station and newspapers. The Abu Ghraib scandal was ab=

out to break in America...but it was well known by the Iraqi people that th=

eir citizens were being tortured and defiled in the prisons. My son was a s=

itting duck by the time 04/04/04 rolled around.


  The very worst thing of all, is that my son was sent to rescue some fello=

w soldiers trapped in an ambush in the back of a LMTV..which is basically a=

n open air trailer. It would be the equivalent of driving through Dallas on=

 11/22/63 in a Convertible. The troops stationed at FOB War Eagle were sent=

 ahead of their tanks and Bradleys!!! They had to go into battle in the bac=

k of LMTV's and non-armored Humvees. This is just proof to me that our troo=

ps are as important to their leaders as bullets are. It is a small miracle =

that only 7 of them were killed in the ambush. Luckily for the rest of the =

moms, it was dark. After my son's murder, there was an article in Stars and=

 Stripes that quoted one of Casey's superior officers as saying. "04 April =

taught us a lesson. We won't send soldiers to battle without their armor an=

y more." How do you think that made me feel? It was like "OOOPS, your dear =

son was killed. Life happens. Oh well, you live and learn." The General was=

 also quoted as saying that the insurgency "surprised" them. Why? Has there=

 ever been an invasion/occupation of a sovereign country that hasn't been r=

esisted? Anyone with half a brain and an even rudimentary understanding of =

history would know that all occupations are resisted. The Pentagon and the =

Army brass did not plan adequately for an occupation.


  Then Gen. Chiarelli said the thing that upset me the most. He said that t=

he loss of life was terrible, but at least Iraqis had elections on 01/30/05=

. With the continuuing insurgency and with Iraqis and Americans losing thei=

r lives everyday there, how can he be proud of that? I may remind you and t=

he General, that Iraqi elections was not the reason that our President and =

his Neo-Con war mongers invaded Iraq with our precious human resources. I w=

ill give the two reasons given for the invaseion here: Saddam had WMD's and=

 he was an imminent threat to America. Saddam could have WMD's on our shore=

s within 45 minutes. Condoleeza Rice used fear as a factor when she said: D=

on't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell poi=

nted out to us where the weapons were on a map.


  The second reason that America was given before the invasion was that Sad=

dam was the biggest sponsor of world terrorism and he supported Osama Bin L=

aden! Oh really??? The hijackers were predominantly Saudi Arabian as was Os=

ama (who is still at large, by the way). The theory that Saddam had anythin=

g to do with 9/11 was disproven by the 9/11 commission's report. A huge fac=

tor in Americans believing all this bull is that our media..the Fourth Esta=

te didn't do any research and expose the lies for what they were: justifica=

tions for invading a country that posed no imminent or long-term threat to =

America.


  One reason that the President DID NOT give for the invasion and occupatio=

n of Iraq was so that Iraqis could have elections. As a matter of fact, tha=

t was Ayatollah Ali al Sistani's idea..not Bush's. If the president in his =

lying and betraying in the lead up and rush to this insane invasion had tol=

d the world that we were going over there to give Iraqi's elections, would =

we the people have gone along with the invasion? Would we as compassionate =

Americans have thought that it would have been worth billions and billions =

of dollars; hundreds of our amazing children dead; tens of thousands of inn=

ocent Iraqi women and children dead: a country lying in ruins? I don't thin=

k so. I certainly didn't raise my son to be an outstanding citizen of the w=

orld to go and die so some people could have ink-stained fingers!!! If anyo=

ne reading this has children, would you think it was worth it?? Instead of =

some Congress leaders showing ink-stained fingers at the SOTU address they =

should have held up blood soaked hands.


  Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was =

killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joi=

ned the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-w=

ell that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a =

George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We we=

re told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freed=

oms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who a=

ttacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed sinc=

e America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.

  It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who l=

ost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to h=

ave just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. T=

hat would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exh=

ibit these qualities.


  I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was tr=

eated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on li=

es and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war w=

as based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice.=

 He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of =

a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies =

of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and p=

raised by the panel.=20


  Also, another aspect that Mr. Koppel refused to acknowledge was when a ma=

n walked up to a microphone and asked Richard Perle to explain PNAC..he was=

 rudely ignored.=20


  I am so glad the First Cavalry came home from this senseless and needless=

 war based on the imaginations of Neo-Cons and fought with ignorance and ar=

rogance by the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon. I am thrilled for the m=

others whose children didn't come home under the cover of darkness in flag-=

draped boxes like my son did. I am sure that some of Casey's buddies were a=

ble to walk off the plane because of his sacrifice. I am just so deeply sor=

ry that my son's blood had to be their leaders' lesson in how to occupy a c=

ountry and fight an insurgency. My son is dead forever and my joy has been =

robbed from me for the rest of my life.


  Your show needs to show both sides of this debate and stop being a propan=

da tool for this administration. This is my challenge to you from a true pa=

triot who wants the lies exposed.


  Love and Peace!!!

  Cindy Sheehan

  Mother of Hero: Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04

  Casey's Peace Page

  Co-Founder of Gold Star Families For Peace

  http://www.gsfp.org/

 Relevant passages in bold red.   

Sheehan later denied mentioning Israel,  dissembling  in this CNN transcript:

 COOPER: You were also quoted as saying, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?

SHEEHAN: I didn't say that.

COOPER: You didn't say that? OK.

SHEEHAN: I didn't -- I didn't say -- I didn't say that my son died for Israel. I've never said that. I saw somebody wrote that and it wasn't my words. Those aren't even words that I would say.

I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved and it needs to be more fair and equitable but I never said my son died for Israel.

COOPER: OK, I'm glad I asked you that because, you know, as you know, there's tons of stuff floating around on the Internet on sites of all political persuasions.

SHEEHAN: I know and that's not -- yes.

COOPER: So, I'm glad we had the opportunity to clear that.

SHEEHAN: Yes, and thank you because those are not my words. Those aren't -- that doesn't even sound like me saying that.

 Of course, it's a conspiracy:

After Slate published an extract from a letter that she wrote last March to ABC Nightline, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her about the anti-Israel remarks the letter contained. She denied making them and proceeded in her blog to assert that someone had gotten hold of her original letter and somehow doctored it. This dark and murky allegation—evincing further paranoia on her part—has been easily and convincingly refuted, as can be seen in this sidebar. Cindy Sheehan, not content with echoing the Bin-Ladenist line that the president is the real "terrorist" and that he is the tool of a Jewish cabal, has dug a pit of falsehood around her own wild story.

The sidebar can still be viewed in wayback:

Cindy Sheehan has denied that she wrote certain parts of the March 15, 2005, letter that was e-mailed to Nightline in her name. This was the letter quoted in Slate's Aug. 15 Fighting Words column. Specifically, Sheehan claimed that her letter was doctored after the fact to include anti-Israel language. Here is the controversial passage:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

Was the letter doctored? Or did she write the anti-Israel language in it?

In March, after participating in a Nightline town hall meeting, Cindy Sheehan wrote a letter and e-mailed it to James Morris—an anti-Zionist activist—who forwarded it at her request to Nightline Executive Producer Tom Bettag. Sheehan admits this, and Nightline spokesperson Emily Lenzner has confirmed that Bettag received Sheehan's e-mail via Morris on March 15.

On Aug. 15, Anderson Cooper asked her about the anti-Zionist statements contained in the letter, and she denied having made them. Sheehan then claimed that Morris doctored her Nightline letter. On Aug. 17, she wrote in her blog:

Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag [sic] and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's [sic] address. I believe he changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda.

[Note: Sheehan misremembered when she said that she cc'd it. Nightline and Morris both confirm that she sent the letter to Morris, who forwarded it to Bettag.]

Sheehan subsequently implied, through a spokesperson at Fenton Communications, that Morris had hacked into her e-mail. Later, Fenton Communications and Sheehan backed off the hacking claim, but both maintain that the words in the letter about Israel are not her own. For his part, Morris denies having tampered with the letter and confirms that the version circulating is the same as the one she sent to him.

There is other proof that Sheehan wrote the whole letter. After she sent the letter to Morris, Sheehan also e-mailed it to several other people, including Tony Tersch, a retiree living in Thailand, and Skeeter Gallagher. Both belong to a small Internet bulletin board called Bull Yard. Tersch had become her correspondent after contacting her out of personal and political sympathy. At Gallagher's request, Tersch posted Sheehan's letter to Bull Yard on March 17. Here is the letter as it appears there. This is the version that has been circulating, and from which Slate quoted. Tersch has confirmed that he received the letter from Sheehan directly and has stated that he did not doctor the e-mail before posting it.

Unless Sheehan is the victim of an elaborate Morris-Tersch conspiracy quietly put in motion on March 17, months before she became famous, those are her words.—By Blake Wilson

Sheehan's excuses--someone hacked me, not my words, etc--echo Ron Paul's dissembling over his racist newsletter, but I digress.

It has taken years, but it's more and more obvious that Ms. Sheehan was never what she claimed to be, a left antiwar activist. In fact she appears to have, from the beginning had a sympathy for the fringe right politics,  thus explaining the support she garnered from that quarter, seen by leftists as anomalies in her activist career.  They weren't anomalies, they were flags:

Support  from Scientologist and Nazi Jamie Kelso:

Kelso is a senior moderator for Stormfront, a white supremacist website. He is also an aide to another nutbar, former KKK member David Duke. Pictured below are Duke and Kelso at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C. (photo from WorldNetDaily). Kelso is a supporter of the supposed Republican Ron Paul's (aka RuPaul) presidential campaign. A recent post from Little Green Footballs shows photos of Paul with the owner of the Stormfront hate site, Don Black and Black's son. The photos were allegedly taken by Kelso.

Duke and Kelso have been open supporters of Cindy Sheehan, something ignored by the liberal MSM.

I'm going to dispute "ignored".  More like had no idea it was going on or where to look. 

I know for a fact when the fake antiwar truther brigade recruits, they try to hide as long as possible their racist connections.  I don't know what the theory is: that by the time you know, they can blackmail you?  It never occurs to them one will be so pissed at being tricked by Nazi apologist they won't care?  Dunno.  Racism clearly makes people stupid.

Here's even a photo-op of Kelso and Sheehan:

And one of Kelso and Duke, who also supports Sheehan.

Support from KKK David Duke.  (Craig Lazo also had an association with David Duke through the APFN board).

 David Duke Gets Behind Cindy Sheehan
Posted by Rob Port
Published: August 14, 2005 - 8:14 PM

From the blog of David Duke, America's best-known racist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan:

    Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.

    Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other's sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

    Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.

Read the whole thing.

The conclusion to draw from this is not that being against the war is racist or anything like that. The conclusion to draw is that Cindy Sheehan's anti-war views or so off-the-wall nutty that rabid anti-semitic kooks like David Duke agree with her.

This speaks to the validity of Cindy Sheehan's reasons for opposing the war, which seem to have more to do a vague distates for Israel than a lot of the leftist demagogues trumpeting her cause would like to admit.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.

This is not a coincidence.  A left anti war activist does not magically get support from the racist right unless the racist right has reason to believe that activist really supports one of their agendas.  An left anti war activist never supports an agenda of the racist right.     

A lesson can be taken away from all this for naive leftists who thought the could make alliances with conservatives over the Iraq war:   if your "alliance" includes anyone with any connection to racist groups or fringe right politics, you CANNOT make an alliance and stay true to your principles.

Sheehan fooled people for a long time.  Her Wikipeidia page still reads like she a mover and shaker in liberal(Americal definition) politics, but the truth is she's embraced the far right, Tea Party, libertarian fringe.  After all, that's how they're going to take roll call, with Sheehan 2014 Gubernatorial publicity stunt:   www.cindy2014.org/

I'm calling it:  whatever the turnout is, it will be used as "proof" of a silent majority. 
Variation:   if Sheehan doesn't even run a real campaign, the turnout will be used as "proof" of a vast grassroots effort.  Actually all that proves is these lying,  scammy, closet racists use private email lists and internet boards to organize. 

This also gives some insight into what was really happening during Webster Tarpley's Kennebunkpport Hoax, supposedly attacking Sheehan and three other activists.  One has to look as the predictable result of that hoax:  the few truthers committed to the antiwar movement rallied around her.  Nice way to keep track of them.   Now years later, someone pointed out to me Kevin Barrett, a supporter of the Kennebunkport Hoax and and who, to this day, supports Tarpley's ridiculous COINTELPRO accusations,  interviewed Cindy Sheehan this year.

It took 7 years but the cat's out of the bag.  Sheehan is a fraud using the antiwar movement to gain credibility and push ridiculous anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.   A bit like she's using her son's death as a weak anti-tax platform:

Sheehan is being sued by the IRS for failure to pay taxes. "I feel like I gave my son to this country in an illegal and immoral war. I'll never get him back," Sheehan said. "And, so, if they can give me my son back, then I'll pay my taxes. And that's not going to happen."

The way these things play out is usually some sort of stand off/publicity stunt orchestrated by the Patriot/Tea Party/ Militia crowd to "prove" we are living in a "police state".   Ed and Elaine Brown are perfect examples, as their loudest fan was a man called Fred Smart, active in the Libertarian Party and patron of Rosalee Grable aka Webfairy.  

It's hard to tell if Sheehan is a pasty or a player.  She dissembles like a player, someone who knows she's lying.  But she acts like a pasty in other ways.  Like not paying taxes that I assume she can  pay.  Really?  How does she think that's going to end well?    It could be Sheehan has worked herself into a position where she quite literally can't do anything else for a living but be an "activist".   I expect most of her liberal contacts have distanced themselves from her and she's surrounded by Tea Party, "truthers" and fringe loons.  I would be a little sympathetic except....I find it hard to believe she doesn't know the 911 truth movement is all a con by now.

Postscript: some of us have not forgotten Sheehan, sometime in 2009ish, unfriended a Facebook user and Sheehan supporter while spreading lies he was "stalking" or involved with "stalking" her. As far as I know, Sheehan has never apologized for this.  It was the first time I started to wonder about her trip and how she could be so gullible.  Turns out she knew what she was doing all along.

It took some of us a while to see the con.

Better late than never.