The Dangerous Mr. Paul? Part III
The Escalation of Words
By Chasse Rehwinkel
Congressman Paul’s story does not end with his failure to earn the Republican nomination.
His unsuccessful run actually drummed up wider support for the Congressman’s non-mainstream ideas.
As a write-in candidate Paul received around 20,000 votes even without his personal support, his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” which detailed his campaign’s points, reached number one on the New York Times bestseller list and continued economic problems and President Obama’s stimulus packages have led to Paul’s appearances on multiple political talk shows due to his differing ideas; all of these occurrences demonstrated to me how strong Paul’s voice had become.
However, it wasn’t all cherries and ice cream for the diminutive congressman.
In early 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center or MIAC, a state police intelligence agency, issued an internal report, which listed being a supporter for Paul as a possible sign of membership in an anti-government militia.
It was a report that honestly took me by complete surprise.
Was this right? Were some of those supporters that I had witnessed with Paul clackers, pins, posters and temporary tattoos also members of anti-government militia groups?
MIAC’s report defined modern militia groups as being subscribers to an ideology that “creates a threat to law enforcement officers” and that these groups “view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.”
The report listed radical Christian identity groups and white supremacist factions alongside so-called “sovereign citizen” organizations, groups that subscribe to a somewhat constitutionalist ideology similar to the one outlined by Paul.
Missouri officials maintained that the report was meant to remain an internal police document and that it was “designed to provide background of possible criminal activity, enhance officer safety, and educate police officers to trends.” They also added that it was, however, “not a basis upon which to take enforcement action.”
Upon learning about the report, Paul along with former Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr and former Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, both of which were also mentioned in the document, issued a letter to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, demanding that the report be removed from distribution and adaptation.
Predictably, the Missouri Department of Public Safety issued an apology, stating that it was regrettable Paul, Barr and Baldwin supporters had been included in the report and that the pamphlet would be recalled for reediting.
In spite of this seeming neat conclusion, the question of whether MIAC was justified in including Paul in a report on dangerous militia movements still seems to me to be left unsettled.
Was I previously correct in thinking that Paul supporters were simply devoted fans in the same vein as those who look-up to athletes or entertainers, or were some supporters actually taking Paul’s ideas to the next, arguably logical, extreme?
In searching for an answer I came across a Paul newsletter entitled “The Ron Paul Survival Report,” which was written and distributed by a group called Ron Paul and Associates.
A 1995 issue of the newsletter contains an article citing the known Alabama militia group The Sons of Liberty and their ten commandments for avoiding federal detection, including how to hide weapons, organize secret meetings and avoid FBI inquiries. The article’s author states in the piece’s opening that militia groups are, “the backbone of real America” and that the increasing number of militia groups is “one of the most encouraging developments in America.”
More recently, in 2007, another Ron Paul newsletter called “Ron Paul’s Freedom Report,” issued by the Paul founded F.R.E.E. organization, stated, “Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.” The article goes on to cite movements led by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi as prime examples of successful yet peaceful revolutions.
So, on the one hand you have a description of how to stockpile weapons and on the other a call for peaceful protest. Can you see where it might be easy to become confused?
For a better understanding let us look at an interesting comparative example, something similar in nature with evolved consequences. And for that, we need not to look far.
No comments yet.
