Neiwert fails to even get basic facts right, like the identity of ex-IRS agent Joe Banister [calls him "Floyd" Banister and says he was ex-FBI], so how can he believed about anything else?
by Larry Simons
February 9, 2012
Wingnut liberal and douche Dave Neiwert is at it again: playing his typical game of guilt-by-association while linking to articles written by himself as his proof that he is correct about his claims. In his latest article, he denounces a movement called “sovereign citizens” for which he claims [parroting the FBI] poses a bigger threat to law enforcement officials than any other group, and praises the FBI for calling attention to them this week.
The article is brief but nowhere in the article does it draw a direct link between people who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and those who actually demonstrate violence toward law enforcement officials [nor does it prove the connection].
The article states:
“These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.
The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.
Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division.”
Notice how there is no proof provided in this excerpt as to how the FBI draws a link between people who turn violent “at the drop of a hat” and those who “refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations”. Absolutely none whatsoever.
The article continues:
“In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a "sovereign citizen" in traffic.
Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.”
Any proof the person pulled over was a “sovereign citizen”? The article does not say. Any proof the extremist in Texas was a “sovereign citizen”? Where is the proof they were even extremist? Omitted.
Then we get to the entire point of Neiwert’s article: The fact that a big gathering of “sovereign citizens” will assemble at an upcoming conference in Irvine, California and that…..are you ready?…..Ron Paul is scheduled as a keynote speaker at the conference! Noooo!
Neiwert’s guilt-by-association attempt is clear: “Sovereign citizens” are people who are a major threat to society because they are against government mandates like paying taxes. Any anti-government person is violent, angry and dangerous. Therefore, sovereign citizens are violent, angry and dangerous people. Ron Paul is going to speak to sovereign citizens. Therefore, Ron Paul is violent, angry and dangerous.
It is nothing more than an analogy that any third grader would use when arguing with another third grader, and it is, without doubt and question, the most pitiful example of responsible journalism one could imagine.
Am I denying there are not angry and dangerous people who are anti-government? Not at all. Am I denying that some of these people kill law enforcement officials in their bitter disgust with the U.S. government? Not at all. Am I denying that there have already been examples of angry, violent anti-government people who have not already killed law enforcement officials [including “sovereign citizens”]? No! Not at all. But for people like Neiwert to issue an across-the-board proclamation that every single anti-government person is violent, angry and dangerous is nothing but absurdity at its finest.
The reality is, that for every person who is angry at our government to the point of carrying out murder to law enforcement officials, there are probably 100,000 who are angry at our government but are law-abiding peaceful citizens who are not dangerous and would not think of committing murder [on anyone]. Neiwert and his ilk would have us all believe that if an individual thinks federal taxes are unconstitutional and that the Federal Reserve is a non-governmental agency, they either have already killed a law enforcement official or capable of it. Absurd.
Neiwert also has a big problem with the word “Patriot”. Here, he makes the connection that if one uses the word “patriot”, they must be connected to the Patriot movement.
“And in case there was any confusion about the political orientation of the gathering, they announce up front that this is a Patriot Movement event:
[then he proceeds to quote from the Freedom Law School website]
"Here at Freedom Law School we want to connect Patriots. If you want to attend, but are worried about the cost of a room, no worries! Freedom Law School will get you in contact with other Patriots attending so you can work out splitting the cost of a room."
Nowhere in that excerpt does it mention a Patriot movement. I only see the word “patriot”. In the warped mind of Neiwert, the word “patriot” should be on the government’s blacklist.
I guess in Neiwert’s mind, Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth are members of the Patriot movement as well, for continually saying the word “patriots” during the Super Bowl.
To make matters even worse for Neiwert, he fails to get even basic facts correct [failing to spend an additional ten seconds on research and investigation]. In his article, he mentions that Ron Paul will be sharing the stage at the conference with a “Floyd” Banister, who Neiwert claims is “an ex-FBI agent who now makes a very profitable living on the Patriot chicken-dinner circuit”.
Two things makes this one sentence of Neiwert’s undeniable proof that he is a colossal fraud and is not to be taken seriously on anything he writes about:
First, the man who is appearing at the Irvine conference is Joe Banister, not “Floyd” Bannister [the major league pitcher]. Secondly, Joe Banister did not work with the FBI, he worked with the IRS. Neiwert even includes a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center site that shows Joe Banister’s picture and the fact that he was with the IRS, not FBI. That still does not deter Neiwert from getting a basic piece of information [that a pre-school child could have got right] flat wrong.
How is Neiwert to be taken seriously if he gets basic information [that only requires about ten more seconds of research] painfully wrong?
[proof Neiwert can't get basic facts right and that he wrote "Floyd" Banister instead of Joe Banister and that he was with the IRS, not FBI. I included it incase he edits it later and makes the correction. Click to enlarge]
Where is his proof that sovereign citizens kill law enforcement officials? Where is the proof that it was sovereign citizens who actually committed the murders in Texas and Arkansas? Where is the proof that Ron Paul is violent just because he is speaking at their conference?
There is none. None whatsoever. This article is just one in a long list of articles [some of which I have debunked with ease] that makes one guilty by their association with a particular group, and then fails to make the case for the groups’ guilt in the first place.