Saturday, April 4, 2009

Left wing blogger implies Ron Paul supporters are "edgy" and could resort to violence

Dave Neiwert attempts to link Ron Paul supporters and militias with the shooting of 3 police officers in Pittsburgh

by Larry Simons
April 4, 2009

In the wake of a shooting in Pittsburgh today that involved a man who was recently fired from his job and opened fire and killed 3 police officers in a 4-hour stand-off, it has provided left-wing blogger Dave Neiwert the perfect opportunity to do what he does best: bash opponents of Obama’s anti-gun record and what he does quite frequently on his blog; equates Ron Paul supporters with "edgy" people who are prone to erupting with violent behavior and going on shooting sprees.

In his recent article, here, Neiwert says this:

We've been reporting for awhile on the surge in gun sales, and how the paranoia around guns is making the more unstable elements of the right particularly edgy. Inevitably, that edginess is going to break out into actual violence -- as it appears to have done today.

Ironically, this is exactly the kind of incident that law-enforcement intelligence-gathering is supposed to help prevent -- intelligence like the Missouri State Patrol report so hysterically attacked by these same paranoid right-wingers. I tried to explain at the time that these kinds of extremists are in fact a very real danger to people in law enforcement, but all anyone on the right wanted to talk about was Ron Paul bumper stickers. Well, there you go

First, let it be pointed out that every single link in the above portion of his story links right back to Neiwert’s own stories posted on the left-leaning site Crooks and Liars. Neiwert does this quite often. He posts stories on either Crooks and Liars or his own site, Orincus, and he attempts to prove his point by linking readers right back to previous stories posted by him! What does this prove other than letting his readers know that he knows how to use the link function on his site?

It’s clear that whenever Neiwert provides a link in his stories, it is an attempt to show his readers that he actually researches his facts enough to provide an external source to back up his claims. In reality, most of the time the external source is just himself, and it’s passed off as "investigation".

This time around, Neiwert laughs off stories and even documented, on-record evidence that Barack Obama is anti-gun and has attempted to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, despite the fact that it is on record that Obama has indeed voted against and has openly expressed his disdain of guns. In fact, in a story Neiwert did on March 19, he does not even deny that Obama has been anti-gun, but says that Obama only opposes the guns that would fall in the hands of Mexico.

Neiwert states, "What's inspiring the recent gun moves? Drug-gang violence on the Mexican border", but yet Neiwert provides no links, no sources (not even from his own articles) to prove that Obama was only talking about guns belonging to criminals or to only crack down on Mexican drug cartels.

To be fair, I did my research and did find on Obama’s webpage ( this statement:

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

OK, so it’s on his webpage. Big deal. Nowhere in that statement does it say the guns kept from criminals and children will be the only guns Obama bans. Those of us who are well informed know that just because certain information being on a webpage is there one day, does not mean it will be there the next.

Last November, Obama’s website had changed in a matter of days concerning information regarding Obama’s call for "mandatory" service of all Americans as a part of his promised "civilian national security force."

The text went from:

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

Here’s the proof


(click to enlarge)


(click to enlarge)

Besides, even if Obama really does mean he’s banning guns from criminals only, it does not mean that recent shooting tragedies in New York and now in Pittsburgh could not serve as pretexts for Obama to change his plan, as he did (above) with the mandatory service plan. Of course, Neiwert doesn’t show you the altered screen shots from Obama’s own website, does he? Of course not.

What Neiwert also does not show his readers are the facts and sources that show that Obama has been very anti-gun from the beginning. As Paul Joseph Watson brilliantly reported on Nov. 7, 2008:

Obama’s disdain for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is clear - though he later denied it, in 1996 during his run for the Illinois State Senate, Obama told non-profit organization Independent Voters of Illinois that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a de facto national annulment of the second amendment.

For example, in April 2008 Obama stated, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right."

During the 2004 debate over the assault weapons ban, Alan Keyes chided Obama, stating, "I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into."

Obama also cosponsored a bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month in 2000, supported the 2008 D.C. gun ban, voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection, and has consistently supported measures against concealed carry.

Obama is also a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which funds gun control groups in the U.S.

Kurt Nimmo reported in February that Obama’s USA service website advertised a gun "buy back" event that was held on February 15, 2009, in Chicago. I guess Neiwert wants us to believe that Obama expected the Mexican druglords and the criminals to show up and sell their guns out of the high respect they have for the community.

Getting back to the Pittsburgh shooting, Neiwert did report correctly that the man who shot the 3 Pittsburgh police officers was saying that he was fearful of the Obama administration taking away his guns. What Neiwert left out of the story, naturally, is that the man was also upset over losing his job. Not that this justifies the shooting, but it’s clear that Neiwert conveniently left this part out as to trick his readers into believing that the shooter’s fears about Obama was the only motive, so as to only focus on that angle in his story.

To reiterate, Neiwert says, "Ironically, this is exactly the kind of incident that law-enforcement intelligence-gathering is supposed to help prevent -- intelligence like the Missouri State Patrol report so hysterically attacked by these same paranoid right-wingers. I tried to explain at the time that these kinds of extremists are in fact a very real danger to people in law enforcement, but all anyone on the right wanted to talk about was Ron Paul bumper stickers. Well, there you go."

One thing Neiwert conveniently leaves out is the fact that according to reports so far, there is no evidence that the shooter, Richard Poplawski, owned the guns illegally, was involved in any militia group, was a far-right extremist or was ex-military. In fact, the article I read, here, said he tried to get into the Marines once but was kicked out of boot camp for throwing a meal tray at a drill sergeant.

So, how was this to be prevented, Neiwert? The man had his guns legally and supposedly, even if the Pennsylvania police had adopted the exact same report that the Missouri police did, they would not have found any signs that this man was one of the people on the "look-out" list in order to gain intelligence and to prevent the crime!

Besides, the MIAC website even declares:

"Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner….. MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region."

If the Pennsylvania State Police had this same type of report enforced, there still would have been no stopping this shooting. The Missouri report clearly says that it "reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within (the state)…"

Neiwert completely avoids explaining to his zombies that if you have no criminal record, no terrorist suspicions, no militia symbols or Ron Paul bumper stickers on your car and you just happen to own guns legally and decide to go off the deep end one day and shoot cops, how that would have been prevented even if the Pennsylvania State Police implemented the same procedures outlined in the Missouri report?

One interesting fact in this story is that Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper said that police had responded to several calls from the Poplawski home in the past but the incidents were still being investigated. And Neiwert wants to know so desperately how this could have been avoided? Hmmm, maybe if police investigations were done a tad quicker, that might help.

Neiwert does a little guilt-by-association name trickery in his article incase it was not evident at first glance. Notice how Neiwert does not come right out and say point blank that Ron Paul supporters would snap and go on shooting sprees? Notice closely what he does do. He mentions preventing shooting sprees, support for the Missouri State Patrol report (which says State police are to be on the lookout for people with Ron Paul bumper stickers and Constitutional/liberty paraphernalia), the dangers of right-wing extremists and that cops should fear them…and then, Ron Paul’s name.

So, at the very least, in a non-direct way, Neiwert is implying that Ron Paul supporters are a danger to cops and should be viewed as "extremists" who would most likely go on a shooting rampage, despite the fact that not only has there not been one documented case of this, but Neiwert is making this reference in an article on gun violence where there is not one shred of evidence the shooter had any characteristics of a right-wing extremist.

Neiwert saw a story about gun violence and immediately had thoughts of militias, Ron Paul supporters and attacking Obama opponents for his anti-gun record (that Neiwert calls imaginary, despite providing no evidence that it's imaginary).

Another thing that Neiwert conveniently leaves out is the fact that since the Missouri MIAC report was exposed, an apology was issued by Department of Public Safety Director John Britt last week when he issued a letter that said, "Portions of that report may be easily construed by readers as offensive to supporters of certain political candidates or to those candidates themselves, I regret that those comments were ultimately included in the final report issued by the MIAC."

Britt also said, "Unfortunately, in the course of preparing this report, some regrettable information was included in the report on militia groups in Missouri. While the intent of the report was only to identify certain traits that are sometimes shared by members of militia organizations, this report is too easily misinterpreted as suggesting that militia members may be identified by no other indicator than support for a particular candidate or political organization. I have ordered that the offending report be edited to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin."

Although the portions that mentioned Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr were edited out of the MIAC, there was no indication or mention that the entire report was scrapped.

I wonder why Neiwert left this out? Hmmmm.

The bottom line here is this. And this message is mainly for you, Dave Neiwert, and your ilk:

We are Constitutionalists. We don’t recognize right wing or left-wing paradigms or support for the two-party system. The two-party system has been a thorn in America’s side for 150 years and we are tired of people like you, playing guilt-by-association games when it comes to advancing your own false agenda. We care about one thing only, the Constitution. If you want to attack a particular person or group, you are free to do so, since most of us still believe in freedom of speech (which you do not, since I have been banned from your site and Crooks and Liars), but your lying and lack of backing up your claims will not be tolerated. We are not terrorists, nor do we support terrorists.

We do not believe in gunning down police officers or anyone for that matter, and your desire to associate Constitutionally-motivated American citizens with potential terrorists or violent madmen just to divert attention away from your own unconstitutional beliefs and agendas and then post them on the internet will not only not be tolerated but be prepared for legal action if you persist on this. You are free to call the shots like you see them, but back up your claims, as I did in this story. My conclusion is: you are a big fraud who takes delight in holding one man/one party above your sincere love for the founding documents of this great country.

One post on Neiwert's blog under this story, here, written by a Dan M., reads (bold-type added to indicate emphasis):

It's not 'paranoia' to note what the government is doing. When the State Department and the Attorney General push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban, and when the website talks of using the federal government to tighten child access laws, then it's justifiable to worry about what the government is doing to take our rights away. Especially when they do so using a false pretext like the lies that Mexican gangs are getting automatic weapons and grenades from the US civilian market.

But it's obvious that this guy was a New World Order conspiracy type. You're a terrible journalist if you don't realize that these people don't get their info from Fox News or the NRA. The Alex Jones types and the Truthers have been railing against the Bush administration right along with the lefties, and those same people dislike Obama just as much as they disliked Bush. You want to blame Fox News and Glenn Beck, but if you'd actually do a little research, you'd know that the true conspiracy kooks don't trust Glenn Beck or Fox News. Do some real research into where the conspiracy kooks get their info and check out Infowars or PrisonPlanet.

And as crazy as Alex Jones is, if the federal government weren't constantly trampling on our rights and usurping local authority and personal liberty, the conspiracy kooks wouldn't have any reason to lash out. Of course, none of the media ever actually advocates violence against the police, and at the very worst advocates resistance if they come after our guns. This guy just wanted to kill some cops and is no more or less crazy than the guy in Oakland who killed 4 cops for no apparent reason.

I find it hilarious that Dan M. appears to agree with Alex Jones on several issues (being suspicious of government, government trampling on our rights and usurping local authority and personal liberty), but yet calls him "crazy" and refers to people that frequent and as "conspiracy kooks", but yet does not reveal how he knows about these websites and does not refute anything Alex Jones or the "truthers" claim.

Dan M. also says "it's obvious that this guy (the Pittsburgh shooter) was a New World Order conspiracy type." Oh really? What evidence does he have of this? Why would it be obvious if not one story I have seen on this even implies this?

Then Dan M. contradicts himself when he ends his post by saying, "This guy just wanted to kill some cops and is no more or less crazy than the guy in Oakland who killed 4 cops for no apparent reason." But Dan M., you just said it was obvious the Pittsburgh shooter was a "New World Order conspiracy type", and then you said conspiracy people are "kooks" and Alex Jones is "crazy" for being a conspiracy guy, then you went back to saying the shooter is no more or less crazy than the shooter in Oakland? Is the shooter crazy or not?

I would have responded to this post but I have been banned from posting on Neiwert's site as well as Crooks and Liars, for simply just stating facts.

What people like Dan M. and Neiwert continually fail to realize is, is that if you get your facts straight, research thoroughly and actually know what you are talking about and what you believe, then contradicting yourself and telling lies is not possible.

Dan M. must love Dave Neiwert's style of "investigative" reporting....where personal opinion trumps researched facts.


Messianic Akratist said...

a couple of points -
1) the 2nd Amendment does not make exceptions for children and criminals - it says "shall not be abridged." Check the dictionary if you're not sure what abridged means.
2) "Assault Weapons" is a technical term meaning fully automatic weapons. What 'O' and many others are trying to renew is a ban on "assault weapon look-a-likes." Access to fully automatic weapons has already been "abridged" for law-abiding citizens.
3) The weapons being used in the Mexican theater of the War on Drugs are "assault weapons." They are not coming from legal channels. See 2) above.
BTW, I recently got a new car, and do not yet have a Ron Paul sticker on it. But it's not because I am ashamed of supporting him.

Anonymous said...

this guy reminds me of the asshole you desroyed on crooks and liars. he says his point and says look at the article i wrote on my own site. this guys a dick to prove it check out the paper i wrote on my own site. see how that looks? another neocon you schooled. hes almost as bad as mr willlis.

Free Background Check said...

hey now-a-days it is really necessary for us to know everything about the new person staying next to our home or apartment for the security reason. and now it is easy to know about any person, Here we provide you free service for criminal records check and background check...

Free Criminal Records Check