Friday, July 31, 2009


“Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).
- Lewis Carroll

I just can't count the times that I have been absolutely perplexed by the behaviors of those whom I've run across on the racist right. This one really is strange...

Elisha Strom is the estranged wife of Kevin Alfred Strom. This is the woman who reportedly walked in on her husband who was masturbating while looking at pictures of very young female children. That whole case was really wierd. Elisha supposedly made Kevin sign a contract promising to get counseling and, although she knew of Kevin's penchant for children, never warned her friends - one of which was April Gaede the mother of the neo-Nazi singing duo, Prussian Blue.

Elisha later put an audio on the internet of one of her husbands counseling sessions for all of the doubting Thomases in the movement. Kevin plead guilty, did a little time and has since been released.

Well, some time back a friend of mine in the movement told me that Elisha was a very strange and, as he put it, "twisted" creature. I don't doubt that for a minute.


By Scott Leamon
WSLS10 Reporter
Published: July 28, 2009

A Bedford County woman who started a blog about an undercover police force is now behind bars.

Elisha Strom, 34, of Thaxton, is charged with one count of harassment of a police officer.

She’s currently in the Albermarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

A search warrant on file in Bedford County circuit court claims on July 3rd, Strom posted the home address of a Charlottesville police sergeant.

It also shows she posted a picture of the officer getting into his unmarked patrol car in front of his home.

The officer works for the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force, or JADE.

A check of Strom’s blog reveals she has posted head shots of many, if not all, of the task force members.

There is also detailed accounts of the task force’s comings and goings.

Strom also posted pictures of several vehicles that could belong to JADE officers.

Other pictures include a state police investigator pumping gas and riding a motorcycle.

Police say, since most JADE officers do undercover work, posting their names, pictures, and possibly home addresses could put the officers in danger.

A state police investigator executed the search warrant at Strom’s Thaxton residence on July 16th, the same day as her arrest.

Court records indicate the officer confiscated her computers, notebooks, and cameras.

In fact, Strom’s last blog entry, dated July 16, simply reads “they’re here.“

On July 10th, Strom posted the following remarks about the state police investigation: “I’m not trying to harass any of the officers. [My blog] is, and has been, a means to exhibit some of the things I’ve experienced because of my curiosity about, and interest in, the JADE task force.“

Strom wrote on her blog all the information she compiled was readily available through public records searches and other means on the Internet.

Strom’s next court appearance is scheduled for September 17th.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Dashfield ) on July 30, 2009 at 11:11 am

Elisha Strom’s blog is really quite interesting.

The whole site with every article can be seen as one big page if you go to;-results=1000

Leaving aside the legal issues, it’s a testament to a totally obsessed woman. Celebrity stalkers and John Hinckley’s “thing” for Jodie Foster are nothing compared with Elisha Strom’s obsession with Brian O’Donnell and the JADE Task Force. Apparently Elisha once had a close relationship with O’Donnell that went bad: See her post

That relationship, whatever it was, started when Elisha Strom was a star witness in the politically-tinged trial of her husband, in which O’Donnell was the lead FBI - Joint Terrorism Task Force agent:

It’s not clear how the relationship went bad, but Elisha says O’Donnell’s actions inspired her anti-JADE blogging and stalking, as she makes clear on her very first post at ../coming-soon_25.html

She also had what appears to be a sexual relationship with another unnamed officer linked to the JADE Task Force (who she nicknamed “Boomslang”), and was using him to get confidential information about other officers and about JADE operations. See her post

She also says O’Donnell (who she nicknames “Longhead” or “LH”) “bullied” her: See .../2008/11/longer-version-with-oodles-of_13.html

Right at the end of the above post, she implies that she’ll retaliate somehow if the FBI (probably meaning O’Donnell, who works with the FBI as well as the JADE and JTTF task forces) comes down on her.

It’s not clear what she means by retaliation, but revelations of inside information on agents - possibly including marital infidelity and law violations - seem the most likely: In other posts, she claims to have discovered a married agent’s mistress/girlfriend. She asserts she had close relationships herself with the possibly-married O’Donnell and “Boomslang.“ Maybe it’s a kind of blackmail, though money doesn’t seem to be a motive: “Leave me alone or I’ll tell all I know.“ Were there other demands we don’t know about?

It’s cosmically bizarre the lengths to which this woman went to stalk her prey: following agents into stores and gyms, finding out their pants sizes, tailing them within inches of their bumpers for miles into the country, going to the property rolls and then letting everyone know where their families live, where they do target shooting, what kind of cars they drive (even down to updates when something is added to or repaired on the vehicle), lying in wait for them at home, at work, at stakeouts, at court. When did she have time to work - or to raise the 12-year-old daughter she claims to have? Just the writing alone must have taken many many hours, to say nothing of the stalking.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Link to the Latest Show From Lunatic Fringe

Listen to Lunatic Fringe Usa on Blog Talk RadioJuly 30, 2009, Lunatic Fringe can be heard on your demand.


Yes, Neo-Nazi Turner Was an FBI Informant, His Lawyer Confirms

Posted By Sonia Scherr On July 29, 2009 @ 1:56 pm In Neo-Nazi | 7 Comments

Neo-Nazi talk-radio host Hal Turner served as a paid FBI informant, his lawyer confirmed this week.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has [1] previously reported that Turner was on the FBI payroll. In 2008, unidentified hackers posted E-mail correspondence between Turner and an FBI agent who appeared to be his handler. The FBI refused to comment at the time on Turner’s relationship with the agency.

Now, Turner’s defense attorney, Michael Orozco, has told Hatewatch that Turner served as an FBI informant for roughly five years beginning in 2002. “I think when it comes out in the future as to what kind of role he had, people will be greatly surprised,” Orozco said.

He said Turner revealed information about a possible assassination plot against Obama. Orozco said the same thing at a bond hearing for Turner in Chicago on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press. Turner is charged with threatening to murder three federal judges.




Thursday Night at 6pm Lunatic Fringe Radio
Some of the Stories LFRadio Will Be Covering:

Racial Confrontation In Texas

Neo-Nazi Belief played role in killing:


Man Guilty of Emailing Threat


Racist Hal Turner's Defense " I Saved Obama"


Who Gave Birth to the Birthers ? "Nikki Takes on the Birthers Movement


Can We Talk ?


The governor’s (Florida) office sent a letter to a white supremacist thanking him
for sending an anti-Semitic DVD


Join the Conversaation Thursday Night at 6pm

Lunatic Fringe Radio

Tuesday, July 28, 2009



Radio host denies threatening federal judges
July 28, 2009 12:59 PM | 3 Comments
An Internet radio host pleaded not guilty today to threatening to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago and then sought his release from custody, saying he has been an informant for the FBI.

Hal Turner, who was arrested last month at his home in New Jersey, shook his head after being handed a copy of the indictment.

Turner is charged with calling for appellate judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer and Richard Posner to be killed after they affirmed a lower court decision June 2 to dismiss challenges to Chicago's handgun ban.

Turner allegedly used his web site to put out the message that all three were "cunning, ruthless, untrustworthy, disloyal, unpatriotic, deceitful scum."

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," he allegedly said.

A federal judge from Louisiana will be brought in to preside over the case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin Ashman gave Turner 10 days to subpoena an FBI agent who Turner contends acted as his handler as he supplied the government with information. Turner's lawyer, Michael Orozco, said Turner prevented military equipment from being sold on the Internet and even tipped off the U.S. Marshal Service to a threat against President Barack Obama.

"So you're saying he's an American hero," Ashman said somewhat sarcastically.

As for the charges, Orozco said Turner was only giving his opinion on the judges' ruling and that he has a Constitutional right to free speech.

Assistant U.S. Atty. William Hogan said a magistrate judge in New Jersey had already ordered Turner detained before he was sent to Chicago, finding that he was a threat to the community. He has continued to air threatening radio messages on the Internet since his arrest, including a call placed from custody in New Jersey, Hogan said.

Hogan said Turner may have had some contact with the FBI as an informant but that it was quite some time ago. He said he had no idea about any action Turner supposedly took to thwart an attack on the president.

-- Jeff Coen

Monday, July 27, 2009



The Case of Hal Turner: A Blog Post About Violence Tests the First Amendment

Monday, July 27, 2009

Earlier this month, the prominent First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus wrote an interesting editorial for The Huffington Post regarding a case that is likely to test the bounds of the First Amendment. Despite his strong pro-First Amendment beliefs, Garbus notes that for him, this is "a very troublesome and difficult case." I agree.

The reason the case troubles me – and likely the reason it troubles Garbus as well – is that it raises the question whether someone in our society has impunity when he uses words on the Internet that put particular, named people in serious peril of losing their lives.

The case began when criminal charges were filed against Hal Turner, a radio talk show host. The charges are based on the fact that on his blog, Turner named three federal appeals judges who had together upheld a handgun ban; opined that each judge "deserve[d] to die"; and provided the judges' addresses, their phone numbers, and the locations of their workplaces. On his blog, Turner also wrote of (and perhaps to) the judges, "Observe the Constitution or die." When arrested, Turner possessed four guns and 150 illegal hollow-point bullets.

Garbus admits that Turner's language "may push some people over the edge" someday, and refers to Turner's "long history of attempted incitement" – a history that includes other blog posts suggesting other individuals should be killed – but also to the fact that it seems that no person has actually been incited to violence by Turner's words.

Garbus notes that Turner is now facing charges ranging "from death threats to attempted assault to attempted murder." He opines that a First Amendment defense should be available to Turner, but does not opine as to whether, on the facts, Turner will be able to establish that defense. (To give an opinion on that point would likely be premature, since other evidence – such as Turner's private writings, or testimony about comments he may have made to others, or at rallies, or on talk radio -- may be relevant to drawing the line between speech and planned action.)

Garbus also expresses concern that cases like this one will lead to changes in the law that will weaken the traditional requirement, imposed by the Supreme Court that a speaker, to fall beyond the protection of the First Amendment, must be inciting "imminent" lawless action – not lawless action that may occur sometime further off in the future.

In this column, I'll consider why defendants like Turner may fall through gaps in the law, and whether that result is an inevitable cost of our enjoying First Amendment freedoms.

I'll focus upon the threat charge, as Garbus has, rather than on the attempt charges -- for the attempt charges cannot be proven unless Turner took a "substantial step" toward actually killing or more one of the judges. If there were evidence that Turner bought the hollow-point bullets with this objective in mind, for example, that would certainly suffice. But Turner's comments alone could not, consistent with the First Amendment, be a "substantial step." The question on which I will focus, then, is whether his comments can be prosecuted as threats – not the role they will play in the attempt charges against him.

A Clear Parallel to the "Nuremberg Files" Case

This case is strongly reminiscent of the "Nuremberg Files" case, about which Sherry Colb wrote a prior column for this site. There, the American Coalition of Life Activists created a website that gave the names and addresses of abortion providers and supporters, along with their photos. When a person on the list was killed, his or her entry was crossed out; if he or she was wounded, the entry was grayed out. But the attacks were accomplished by third parties, not the Coalition, and without the Coalition's aid.

Some of the doctors on the list sued the website's authors, and obtained a $107 million jury verdict. However, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the award on First Amendment grounds. The panel refused to allow political speech to be punished simply because it "makes it more likely that someone will be harmed at some unknown time in the future by an unrelated third party."

The Turner case is somewhat parallel to the Nuremberg Files case because Turner's comments, too, surely make it at least somewhat more likely that the three judges he named, and whose information he provided, will someday come to harm.

Moreover, Turner's blog – like the Nuremberg Files site – included information that would make it easier for readers to personally confront the people listed on the site, either to attempt to change their minds through peaceful protest, or to attempt to harm or kill them.

But in some sense, Turner went further than the Nuremberg Files site, too. His comment that the judges "deserve[d] to die" says implicitly what the Nuremberg Files site only implied – but implied very strongly, as Colb pointed out in her column.

In addition, there is an element here that was totally missing in the Nuremberg Files case: a particular statement that could itself be characterized as a threat. Turner's comment "Observe the Constitution or die" closely resembles a classic threat such as a robber's "Your money or your life." And since, in Turner's view, the judges had already failed to observe the Constitution (in particular, the Second Amendment) when they issued the decision he disliked, the meaning of his words become even more ominous than the hypothetical robber's.

Surely, too, if Turner had made that same comment directly, in person, to one of the three judges, his words would have been seen as a prosecutable threat. Yet, in contrast, imagine if the Nuremberg Files authors had held up a poster of their online list, with its names of deceased abortion providers crossed out, in front of abortion doctors who were walking into their clinics; they still likely would have been held by the Ninth Circuit panel to be protected by the First Amendment. For this reason, too, Turner's speech seems more threatlike than that of the Nuremberg files.

Thus, it seems likely that the Turner case will raise even closer and more difficult First Amendment questions than the Nuremberg Files case did.

Threat Law, Attempt Law, and the Imminence Requirement

In some ways, this case can be seen as among the many examples of instances where old legal doctrines fit very poorly when applied to the Internet. Often, I think it's useful not only to contrast pre-Internet with post-Internet circumstances in such cases, but also to envision what legal rules we might devise if we were writing the law anew, taking into account post-Internet realities. Obviously, the Constitution may limit our ability to put the results of that exercise into place, but I think it's still a valuable thought-experiment.

As my law school First Amendment professor Owen Fiss often emphasized, the classic First Amendment doctrine was modeled on the streetcorner speaker in the public square, or the activist stirring up a crowd at a rally. The doctrine is still much the same. But the setting is worlds away from the way we live now.

Fiss pointed out that these examples were outdated even in the age of television, when the paradigm began to focus on CBS, not the streetcorner speaker. They are even more outdated now, in the age of the Internet, where there is no selecting funnel to screen out certain speakers. That editing funnel was pernicious in many ways; for instance, it was notably elitist. And overall, I think it's good that the funnel is partly gone, thanks to the much more democratic Internet. But First Amendment doctrine was built, in part, on the existence of a funnel – as opposed to today's Internet free-for-all.

While that selective funnel was in place, extremists could only reach a relatively limited and often local audience. As a result, given evidence of plotting, conspiracy, or planned attempts at violence within an organization, undercover police officers could personally monitor or infiltrate the organization. That reality imposed serious First Amendment costs for legitimate protest organizations, especially during the Civil Rights Movement, but it also had benefits when it came to would-be offenders, organizations, and groups of persons whose real purpose was violence, not speech -- such as the Klan.

In that earlier context, the "imminent lawless action" requirement Garbus is worried about protecting made sense: If speakers were not actually convening a mob and sparking it to imminent violence, then their crowd would eventually dissipate. Moreover, undercover law enforcement might have seen who attended, and could then monitor their doings. In some sense, the authorities could afford not to arrest speakers, since they could have some reasonable sense as to who the speakers' listeners might be, and what those listeners might do. They did not just have to wait to see if someone was killed.

In contrast, on the Internet, it is virtually impossible to track the identity of anyone's readers, let alone assess the readers' capacity for violence or track whether readers may take steps to make that capacity a reality. Put another way, in the Internet age, there often may be no suspected conspirators – only completed crimes, sometimes with a crime being done by a stranger who has never seen or met the speaker who urged it. That leaves us in the helpless position of having to wait until someone is, in fact, killed – if we do not punish the speech that may well incite violence, and thus deter similar speech.

If we were writing the law (and Constitution) for the first time now, with the Internet in mind, it seems quite unlikely that we would use an "imminence" requirement in criminal statutes relating to speech, since much of the material on the Internet is long-lived, yet still pernicious. Messages can be read years after they are written and there is no record as to who has read them – a reality that is both wonderful and terrible.

It is wonderful in that it can give rise to valuable and truthful speech, and it is terrible in that it can give rise to speech that urges – and perhaps eventually accomplishes -- the perpetration of violence upon specific people.

Questioning the Imminence Requirement: The Need for a Reasoned Defense of It in the Internet Context

No wonder, then, that Garbus is worried about the possible demise of the imminence requirement: There will always need, in the law, to be some proven nexus between speech suggesting that violence should occur, and the actual violence itself, for the First Amendment to be preserved. But there are many possible nexuses here, and imminence is just one of them.

Other concepts from the law – foreseeability, particularity, reasonableness, and more – could be put into service, and Garbus's piece suggests that scholars have proposed doing just that, with a fresh "true threats" doctrine.

With the Internet showing that speech can linger forever, the argumentative burden may be on defenders such as Garbus to explain why imminence is so important. After all, when Internet speech does incite violence, a significant amount of time may have passed between one person's posting and someone else's action. Thus, imminence is a test that Internet speech, no matter how dangerous, may virtually always fail – which seems troubling.

Of course, legally, the formal burden will be on would-be legal innovators, who also need to explain why they think timeworn constitutional tests for the advocacy of violence should be junked. But with other concepts available that could also cabin speakers' liability and/or criminal responsibility, the defenders of imminence should explain what their choice of a cabining concept has, exactly, to recommend it – above and beyond simple tradition and precedent.

Julie Hilden, who graduated from Yale Law School, practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99 and has been writing about First Amendment issues for a decade. Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, is also a novelist. In reviewing Hilden's novel, 3, Kirkus Reviews praised Hilden's "rather uncanny abilities," and Counterpunch called it "a must read.... a work of art." Hilden's website,, includes free MP3 and text downloads of the novel's first chapter.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Roanoke Not Bound By Chicago Ruling


White's life on fringe puts him at center of storm
The Roanoke neo-Nazi's ideological leanings were foreshadowed by his early feelings of "innate superiority."
By Laurence Hammack


Roanoke case
By Laurence Hammack

From today's paper
White's life on fringe puts him at center of storm
When William A. White returns to Roanoke, he will face more federal charges of using the Internet to make racially inspired threats.

Last week in Chicago, a federal judge dismissed a charge that White solicited violence against a juror who had voted to convict a fellow white supremacist. White had posted the juror's name, photograph, address and telephone numbers on his Web site,

Although White made no direct threats, prosecutors maintained he meant the juror harm by publishing his whereabouts, knowing that his online audience included racists prone to violence. White's intent was shown by other passages from in which he advocated violence, the government argued.

U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that because White did not provoke "imminent lawless action," his writings were protected free speech.

However, a district court opinion from Chicago will have no binding impact on additional charges that await White in Roanoke, according to Wat Hopkins, a communications law professor at Virginia Tech.

In Roanoke, White faces a different charge of making threats by interstate communication. And unlike in the Chicago case, he is charged with contacting his targets directly and using what might be construed as more threatening language.

White is accused of using e-mail, the Internet and the telephone to threaten various people: a bank employee in Kansas City, Mo.; a human rights lawyer in Canada; a newspaper columnist in Maryland; a university administrator in Delaware; a small-town mayor in New Jersey and a group of apartment complex tenants in Virginia Beach.

In one case, White became angry over a column that Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts wrote about black-on-white crime.

"I look forward to the rapidly approaching day when whites once again rise up and slaughter and enslave your race to the last man, woman and child. Itz coming," White wrote in an e-mail to Pitts.

White refused to remove Pitt's address and telephone numbers from his Web site, according to the indictment. "Frankly, if some loony took the info and killed him, I wouldn't shed a tear," he wrote in an e-mail to the newspaper's editor. "That also goes for your whole newsroom."

Brian Levin, a California lawyer who heads the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, agreed with Hopkins that Adelman's ruling will not affect the Roanoke case.

"However, that doesn't mean the Virginia case is wholly immune from First Amendment attack," Levin said. "While the law is reasonably clear, the facts of each case simply allow wiggle room that allows each side to make a plausible argument."

White remained in a Chicago jail Friday, waiting for a bond hearing to be scheduled.


Say goodbye to Sarah Palin as Alaska's Governor - but we're not out of the woods yet. Amid all of the rumors of multi-million dollar book deals and becoming a talk show host there is another one floating around - she's going to start her own party. Now, the good folks over at Mudflats have been keeping real close tabs on this little maverick, you betcha! And they have a poll running - just want to help her out a little. can go over there and help Name that Party. Right now, here is where it stands:

What's the Best Name for Sarah Palin's Third Party?

Conservative Republican American Party (CRAP) (29.0%, 418 Votes)
It's My Party (and I'll quit if I want to) (18.0%, 256 Votes)
The Party to Nowhere (17.0%, 243 Votes)
The Bitter Twitter Quitter Party (16.0%, 228 Votes)
American Sarah Society Holding America Together (ASSHATs) (14.0%, 206 Votes)
The Pity Party (13.0%, 186 Votes)
I Am Also Too a Candidate. Also. (11.0%, 155 Votes)
The Mavwreck Party (11.0%, 154 Votes)
The Know Nothing Party (10.0%, 139 Votes)
Point Guards for Jesus (9.0%, 135 Votes)
I Do it On Twitter Party (IDIOT) (9.0%, 134 Votes)
The Quittercrats (9.0%, 131 Votes)
The Party of Winkin', Twittin' and Todd (9.0%, 128 Votes)
The "Real" America Party (8.0%, 118 Votes)
The God, Guns, Gucci Party (8.0%, 114 Votes)
The Palinoscopy Party (7.0%, 105 Votes)
The Pit Bull Moose Party (7.0%, 101 Votes)
The Naughty Monkey Party (7.0%, 101 Votes)
The Quitter Twitters (7.0%, 96 Votes)
The Progress Palin Party (6.0%, 86 Votes)
The Palinista Party (6.0%, 82 Votes)
The Open Door Closed Mind Party (5.0%, 77 Votes)
The American Independence Party (5.0%, 71 Votes)
The Rapturarian Party (5.0%, 70 Votes)
The God Squad (5.0%, 69 Votes)
The Truth is for Dummies Party (5.0%, 67 Votes)
A Party in What Respect? (5.0%, 67 Votes)
The Ethics Shmethics Party (5.0%, 66 Votes)
The Party of One (5.0%, 65 Votes)
The Republican't Party (4.0%, 52 Votes)
The Party of None (3.0%, 49 Votes)
The Manifest My Destiny Party (3.0%, 48 Votes)
The Ditzy-crat Party (3.0%, 47 Votes)
The Wipin' Out Wildlife Party (WOW!) (3.0%, 47 Votes)
The Money for Nothing and Kids for Free Party (3.0%, 42 Votes)
Look, I Shrank the Republican Party! (3.0%, 42 Votes)
The Divacratic Celebrican Party (3.0%, 37 Votes)
The Screamin' Me Me Party (2.0%, 29 Votes)
The Lobotocrats (2.0%, 27 Votes)
Holy Elephant Leftovers Party (HELP!) (2.0%, 27 Votes)
The 7% Solution (2.0%, 26 Votes)
The Boomerang Party (We Keep Comin' Back Atcha) (2.0%, 25 Votes)
The "I Smell a New Wardrobe" Party (2.0%, 24 Votes)
The Twitterpated Party (2.0%, 23 Votes)
The Shredded Tweet Party (2.0%, 22 Votes)
The Arctic Crap Party (1.0%, 20 Votes)
The Labor & Delivery Party (1.0%, 20 Votes)
The Cow Moose Party (1.0%, 20 Votes)
The After Party (1.0%, 18 Votes)
The Rouge Coup d'Etat Party (1.0%, 16 Votes)
Party's Over (1.0%, 16 Votes)
The Craptastic Party (1.0%, 11 Votes)
The "Party, Baby, Party!" Party (1.0%, 9 Votes)
The Plumbers Union (0.0%, 7 Votes)
Cookies and Milk Party (0.0%, 2 Votes)

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Distractions and WHY-TEE

On the Obama front:

By lashing the Cambridge police for arresting Henry Louis Gates at home, the president seems to have upset basically everyone today, even supporters on the left. But at least Republican rage isn't aimed at health care!

Just look at Rush Limbaugh spinning his wheels on a dismissed, ridiculous police case; in the Fox News clip above, Limbaugh calls Obama is unpatriotic. Limbaugh, who publicly prays for the failure of the president of the United States, should know what that feels like. Anyway, he says Obama hates America because, "let's face it, President Obama is black." Beautiful. CONTINUED WITH VIDEOS

After Barack Obama said Cambridge cops "stupidly" arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates on the front porch of his own home, the police said they "deeply resent the implication" anyone would think they're racists. Maybe clue this Cambridge cop in.

At around noon today, the same time Sgt. Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, gave his press conference trying to push back against perceptions that the Cambridge cops aren't exactly racially enlightened, Harvard student Seth Bannon spotted this cop pull up to a deli on Massachussetts Ave. in what appears to be his personal SUV with a hilarious license plate: WHY-TEE.CONTINUED WITH PICTURES

Friday, July 24, 2009


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJoke of the Day


Story here

Hearing postponed for man accused of judge threats
Associated Press
10:25 AM CDT, July 24, 2009
CHICAGO - The arraignment of a New Jersey blogger accused of threatening three Chicago-based federal appeals judges has been postponed.

Former Internet talk show host Hal Turner's arraignment was rescheduled at the request of defense attorney Michael Andrew Orozco. The lawyer told the court hours before Friday's arraignment that he hadn't received notification to get to Chicago in time and was still in New Jersey.

The arraignment is now scheduled for Tuesday.

Turner is accused of posting a statement on the Internet that the three judges "deserve to be killed" for upholding Chicago's handgun ban.

He's also charged in Connecticut with inciting injury to persons for urging his readers to "take up arms" against two state lawmakers.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Lunatic Fringe Radio

July 23 Lunatic Fringe Radio first broadcast, you can here it here:

Tune in tonight at 11pm to Lunatic Fringe Radio - One of Tonight's Topics is Neo Nazi "Commander" Bill White Sell Out Racist Broadcaster Hal Turner ?
" Bill White is a rat..."

Tune in Thursday July 23 at 11pm est. as Lunatic Fringe Radio discusses the latest news and activities of the American Radical Right Wing.

This week some of the topics covered: Fed. Judge Dismisses Charges Against American Neo Nazi Leader;

Sarah Palin:Saint or Lunatic?;

Overview of right-wing crimes and trends;

Awarding the First "Lunatic Fringe Award" and Your Calls !

More Information Here:

Call In Number: (347) 857-3972

Wednesday, July 22, 2009


Yesterday the charges against William "Bill" White were dismissed in Chicago. After reading the decision and the case law cited, I have to agree with the dismissal of the charges. There are a couple of things that really trouble me...

1) When Bill was arrested and the indictment was made public, I made a statement that is generally true. I said that usually the charges and evidence brought before a grand jury do not reflect everything they have on a person. Generally speaking, they usually have much more than they show.

Hence it is incomprehensible to me that the government did not have more than what they did when they arrested White. That really bothers me. From that, we can speculate on many possibilities - three of which are dominating the discussion surrounding this case:

A) Was this nothing more than a boondoggle on the part of law-enforcement and prosecutors?

B) Was this a clear-cut case of government harassment over unpopular opinions or speech?

C) Did Bill White give the government what they really wanted in exchange for the dismissal?

As previously stated, it is beyond my comprehension that the powers that be would bring such a flimsy and faulty case to the court.

Now, to say that I am disappointed would be a magnanimous understatement. Like many others, I had looked forward to the courtroom drama and the precedent that might be set. While there are several previous rulings that have emanated from prior cases involving Freedom of Speech, there are still many questions to be answered.

2) What happens now should concern all of us. Even though White still has to face similar charges in Roanoke, it would probably not be too prudent to assume anything less than another dismissal. I will take a wait and see attitude on that one.

However, should Bill White become free of all charges, it might be safe to assume that one of several things could transpire:

A) We will be subjected to endless months of Bill's lies, exaggerations, distortions, and self-aggrandizement. And/or...

B) We will be subjected to endless months of the racists among us saluting Bill White as some kind of "champion of the white cause." And/or...

C) We might witness the re-emergence of his American National Socialist Worker's Party attracting every misfit and miscreant in the white nationalist movement. Or..

D) Bill White might join forces with Frazier Glenn Miller given the propensity of both men for ratting out their comrades.

E) Of course, White could do the smart thing and try to rebuild his life sans the movement spending more time with his wife and daughter and reinventing himself into a decent husband and father. That would be the preferable, although the most remote, of all possibilities.

America is unequivocally the greatest country on Earth. It is unique and, without question, affords the most liberties to its citizens. No one - and I mean no one - wants to see that change.

In the case of Bill White, the judge was, in my opinion, absolutely correct. If all that was brought to the table was what was listed, then the case was faulty, lacked legal authority, and was very poorly prepared. Shame on them. Many of us believed that there was more evidence and more charges that would be forthcoming as the government "built" its case. That didn't happen.

How this might impact the Hal Turner case is, of course, anyone's guess. There are many similarities between the two. There are also some differences - fuel for another discussion.

As the white nationalists and constitutional purists celebrate what they believe is a victory for free speech, many questions are still left unanswered and will probably remain so for many years to come. The debate will continue. And we'll all wait for the next round. You can bet, "Juror A" won't rest any easier.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009




July 21, 2009
Federal charges dismissed against neo-Nazi leader Bill White

Bill White was charged with using his website to encourage violence.

According to authorities, White posted the name, address and phone number of the foreman of a Chicago jury that convicted a fellow a white supremacist in 2004.

Federal charges were dismissed against a neo-Nazi leader from Roanoke.

A U.S. District judge in Chicago says Bill White's actions were protected by the first amendment. But White's legal troubles are not over yet. He is still in custody and faces charges in Virginia.

Bill White was charged with using his website to encourage violence. According to authorities, White posted the name, address and phone number of the foreman of a Chicago jury that convicted a fellow a white supremacist in 2004.

The judge in the case ruled Tuesday that the First Amendment protects White's actions. His attorney applauds the decision.

"It's not about William White. It's about the first amendment. Sure he engaged in unpopular speech, but he, as I've said before, if the first amendment is at its best when it protects unpopular speech. If the first amendment only protected us from expressing opinions that everyone agrees with, it would become pointless," said Chris Shepherd.

Shepherd says the government filed a motion to stay Tuesday's decision.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago tells News7, "We are reviewing the opinion and we will consider our options."

White's attorney says there will probably be a hearing in the next week or so that would determine whether White will be transferred to Roanoke to face charges of making threats through his website here.

You Really Can't Make This Shit Up!

People, I just can't resist this - I just, simply can't!

Now, how I feel about Sarah Palin is no big secret. Everyone I know realizes that I absolutely, positively, cannot stand this woman! From the first time I heard her open her mouth right up till now - I find her insipid, vapid, superficial, and totally unqualified to have ever even been considered for the Vice Presidency.

Today, it came to light that she was facing more ethics charges in Alaska - just as she packs up her desk and makes her escape from the Governor's office from which she resigned over the July 4th weekend. Of course, that resignation doesn't necessarily mean that Palin's vacuous blather won't be coming at us from some other direction.

Who will ever forget that, according to Palin, Vladimir Putin raises his ugly head and invades Alaskan airspace. Well, lest any of us forget that the low-wattage bulb known as Sarah Palin was almost a heartbeat away from the highest office in country, please check this out:

And then come back and tell me how that is possible.


The trial of William A. White, a pseudo-Nazi out of Roanoke, Virginia is scheduled to begin next Monday, July 27th, in Chicago. White, a racist and anti-Semite who founded the American National Socialist Worker's Party after a stint with the National Socialist Movement and an enqually unsuccessful bid at being an anarchist is charged with threatening the head juror in the Matthew Hale case that was heard a few years back.

According to Laurence Hammack of, "Once White's trial is completed in Chicago, he will return to Virginia to face more charges. In December, a federal grand jury in Roanoke indicted White on seven charges of threatening people across the country, including a banker, a newspaper columnist, a civil rights attorney and a small-town mayor."

Harold Turner, the New Jersey racist shock-jock who is accused of threatening the lives of three federal judges was still sitting at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City awaiting transport to the same facility as Bill White in Chicago as of this afternoon. Turner's family is desperately attempting to raise funds to "protect Free Speech" -(both his and ours)- if you believe. By the looks of the website, I dpn't think they are being very successful.

Like White, once a disposition or a trial is over, Tuner will face charges elsewhere. He will be presented in a Connecticut courtroom will his fate will be determined on more allegations of threats and intimidations. It really hasn't been a very good year for blustering racist blowhards, you know.

Actually, bozo's on the far right have pretty much all been takin' a lickin', you betcha! Sarah Palin, John McCain's main squeeze, certainly hasn't been living up to that "pit-bull" label these days. She'll be tucking her hamster tail between her cheer-leading legs and looking for some place else to light at the end of this week but not without having to face new ethics charges brought against her - again!

According to a late-breaking report from the AP and Huffington Post:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees.

A call seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Hal Turner - More Serious


Case against blogger transferred to ‘more serious’ division
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

By Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor

HARTFORD — Hal Turner, blogger and Internet radio host, Monday had his inciting injury case transferred to the division of Superior Court in Hartford that deals with more serious offenses.

The New Jersey resident’s attorney, Matthew Potter, said his client was not in court because he was still in federal custody.

Turner was free on $25,000 bail last month from the Connecticut charges when he was arrested in a separate federal case in which he is charged with threatening to assault and murder three U.S. judges in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Turner, characterized as an anti-Semite and white supremacist by anti-racism groups, is due back in Superior Court July 28 to enter a plea to charges he incited his followers to injure state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state ethics commission worker Thomas Jones.

The class C felony carries a maximum prison sentence of up to 10 years.

Potter also filed a motion seeking permission for attorney Michael Orozco, Turner’s s New Jersey lawyer, to assist in the Connecticut case. Orozco is not licensed to practice in Connecticut.

Turner was arrested by state Capitol police in early June after he used his Web site to urge people to “take up arms” against the three men over a bill that would have given Roman Catholic lay members more control over parish finances and over a lobbying issue.

Lawlor and McDonald are co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee where the bill originated. Jones was the person who notified the Diocese of Bridgeport it was being investigated over a possible ethics violation by not registering as a lobbyist when it organized a massive rally against the bill.

The bill was killed before it even had a public hearing, while the ethics inquiry was dropped this month on the recommendation of state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Turner, 47, called the three Connecticut men “tyrannical scumbags,” and advocated Catholics “take up arms and put down this tyranny by force.” He promised to release their home addresses at a later date.

“It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals, personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die,” he said.

On June 24, FBI agents arrested Turner at his home in North Bergen, N.J., charging him with threatening to assault or murder Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Richard Posner and Judge William Bauer when the 7th Circuit upheld a gun ban in Chicago.

He put the judges’ public work addresses and a map of the Dirksen Federal Building on the Web site and promised to post their home addresses.

In the same blog, he referred to a U.S. District case in Chicago where a gunman killed the mother and husband of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow Feb. 28, 2005, after Lefkow ruled in another church case.

“Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn’t get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed,” Turner posted, the affidavit says.

The FBI questioned Turner in the 2005 killings; he was not charged. Two years before the murders he had said on his radio show that Lefkow “was worthy of being killed.”

In January 2009, Turner railed against a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a specific ruling and said that jurist would do well to remember what had happened to Lefkow. “After I heaped scorn upon (Lefkow,) someone went to her house and gunned down her family,” Turner said, according to the affidavit.

Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp in New Jersey found Turner was a danger to the community, denied him bail a second time and ordered him sent to Illinois.

On June 26, Turner recorded a message to his followers seeking money, and broadcast names of the FBI agents who arrested him, judicial officials said.

Mary E. O’Leary can be reached at 789-5731 or

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

COMING SOON: BlogTalkRadio With Lunatic Fringe USA

COMING SOON From Lunatic Fringe USA
starting Thursday July 23 at 11pm Lunatic Fringe USA will be broadcasting a live call-in radio show via the BlogTalkRadio Network.

BlogTalkRadio allows you the listener to call in and join the conversation. If you should miss the live show you can always download and listen at your leisure.

11pm was the only open time slot, hopefully in a couple of weeks we will be able to get a earlier time slot.
Check out our BlogTalkRadio site here

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Don't Tread On Me

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures. (attributed to Abraham Lincoln).

(image found at Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

The above quote pretty well sums up the age old disagreement over the First Amendment which is in high gear these days. As defenders of free speech vent their endless litany of warnings against governmental infringement, right-wing extremists are trampling the rights of others to live free of fear and intimidation.

Calling for violence and murder, extremists have taken to the internet and the airwaves to exercise their "freedoms" and as they are being pulled from the throats of their victims they are crying foul. Cloaking themselves in the Constitution, they engage in the irresponsible acts of intimidation and incitement while claiming no responsibility for any possible end result of their indiscretion.

In 1999, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith went on a shooting spree killing two and wounding nine others. Smith was acting upon the "suggestion" that a racial holy war must be initiated because of a Jew-ridden, and unjust government. That "suggestion" came from Matthew Hale, the leader of the then named World Church of the Creator.

One month later Buford F. Furrow shot up a Jewish day care center injuring three children and a receptionist. He then shot and killed a postal worker. Buford Furrow was a member of Aryan Nations, and an adherent of Richard Kelly Hoskins, a Christian Identity author and member of the Phineas Priesthood which admits extremists only after they have committed an act of violence against a non-white individual.

Less than a year later, Richard Baumhammers, an immigration lawyer, went on an ethnically motivated violent killing rampage leaving five dead in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He was a frequent reader of materials published by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist and anti-immigration group.

The list of violence and acts of domestic terrorism is a long and well-documented one over the last ten years. In virtually every case, racist, anti-Semitic, or anti-government group literature, or hate-speech is directly involved.

Now, certainly, violent speech, much like violent music, doesn't "make" someone commit acts of violence. And this argument is often wielded by those on the radical, extremist right. Yet, such music and speech often foments an atmosphere of hate and antagonism that is conducive to violent acts, especially by those unstable and often criminal in nature. On that, most would agree.

Whether or not such speech should be legally curtailed is a horse of a different color. Not allowing dissenting or unpopular opinions would, most assuredly, spell the death of the First Amendment and I would dare say that few, if any, would ever want to see that happen. Yet, it is those who are the most vehement protectors of free speech who might very well hasten its demise.

An example might very well be found within some of our public school districts. As the gang culture crept into the halls of education and began to make public schools, especially in urban settings, more and more unsafe, officials met the challenge with more and more rules and regulations. Children who had been free and encouraged to express their individuality and differences have been finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their own distinctions.

Metal detectors line the entrances. Certain colors of clothing are often prohibited. Jewelry, insignias, sports logos, etc. are banned in some areas. Certain topics of discussion are discouraged and dress codes (including uniforms) are more strictly enforced. All of these things have transpired because the behaviors being engaged in result in disruption, violence, and sometimes death - because the behaviors are over-the-top and dangerous.

Speaking of extremes, the rhetoric of the right-wing extremists has been ramped up to almost full volume since last year and recent events suggest that freedom of speech may very well go the way of the individual liberties previously enjoyed by students in the public school system.

While, you might think "these are children," it is not so far-fetched to think that when you act like a child, you'll be treated like a child and to foreshadow a future in which the majority will, once more, fall victim to the antics of a minority.

Exercising what he believed to be his right to say anything he wanted, William A. White ran a toxic website and published a racist magazine. The operative word here is "ran," past-tense.

In early 2007, Eric Hunt, a follower of Bill White, attacked and dragged famed Holocaust survivor, Elie Weisel, from a hotel elevator. Last year, Bill White, who had long been threatening public officials, journalists, and other activists with whom he was at odds, published his magazine with a picture of Barack Obama in the crosshairs of a rifle and with the caption, "Kill This Nigger."

Later, White went on a rant over what he considered to be the unjust verdict against Matt Hale from three years prior. He then located the former head of the jury that convicted Hale and published his personal information on his website. It was that which gave law-enforcement the impetus to arrest White who is currently awaiting trial.

The publication of personal information with the intent that harm come to that person cannot be misinterpreted as anything other than intimidation - an act which seeks to stifle the speech, expression, or opinion of another. That is the point of such an act. Whether or not violence follows is not at issue. What is at issue is the violation of another's rights - the very rights so cherished by the aggressor.

Keith Luke of Brockton, Massachusetts liked to watch videos and surf the net. He particularly liked racist websites and videos shown on Podblanc - run by long-time white supremacist Craig Cobb. As a matter of fact, he credits those places with his "awakening."

On January 21st of this year, the day after the Obama inauguration, Luke decided the time had come to begin the fight for his "dying race." He shot three black immigrants on that day, killing two. That night, he planned to attend a local synagogue for the purpose of "killing as many Jews as possible." Fortunately, he was arrested first.

Less than three months later, Andrew Poplawski, a frequent visitor to the Stormfront website, and heavily influenced by anti-government sentiments, opened fire on the police who had answered a domestic disturbance call, killing three and wounding a fourth. Believing that an Obama administration spelled death for the Second Amendment, Poplawski had learned that America was run by a "cabal of Jews."

Over the next couple of months more blood was shed. Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist shot and killed abortion doctor George Tiller. Roeder ascribed to dictates of the Freemen, a Christian militia group who reject the authority of the federal government and had close ties to Cheryl Sullenger who had been convicted in the 1980's of bombing abortion clinics in the San Diego area.

Eighty-eight-year-old James von Brunn opened fire on a security guard who was merely holding the door open for the octogenarian at the Holocaust Museum.

Shawna Forde, director of the Minutemen American Defense, an anti-immigration vigilante group, joined by two others, entered the home of a Latino couple, killed the husband and nine-year-old child, and wounded the wife. Forde and one of her accomplices have close ties to Aryan Nations.

Brothers Dennis and Danny Mahon were arrested for the 2004, mail-bombing of a diversity office in Arizona. Robert Joos was also arrested at a white supremacist compound and training ground in rural Missouri. Both the Mahons are members of White Aryan Resistance and good friends with neo-Nazi Tom Metzger. As a matter of fact, Dennis Mahon was the long time head of the Tulsa unit of WAR.

As one can readily see, the power of words - spoken or written - cannot be denied. The influence that an ideology built on a premise of violence cannot be diminished, simply because those spewing the rhetoric believe they have the right to do so and that they are Constitutionally protected.

Case in point - a right-wing extremist shock-jock was arrested a couple of weeks ago and currently awaits trial after posting what authorities believe to be threats against three federal circuit court judges. Hal Turner has infected the airwaves with threats of violence and vomited anti-government and racist sentiment for years with no consequences to his actions.

Speculation that Turner was operating as a federal operant has run rampant throughout both white supremacist and anti-racist circles largely because of the inconceivability of the lack of governmental intervention given the nature and severity of many of his exhortations.

One would be hard-pressed to find anyone as virulently vicious as Hal Turner has been over the years. He has called for assassinations and mass murders and shamelessly claims that the murder of the family of federal judge can be attributed to him. Yet, no arrest was ever forthcoming. Until now.

The right-wing extremist element is rallying around Turner as are some who simply believe that freedom of speech means the total and unabridged liberty to speak as one sees fit. That has never been the case with the First Amendment. While political dissent is one thing, total disregard for the damage that can be done through such freedom is not the intent. There are laws against libel and slander. There are laws against inciting others to violence. And with the signing of the Patriot Act even more infringements upon our liberties have been sanctioned.

Climates change. And the current climate in the United States has taken on an onerous and pernicious condition of danger and intolerance and one that may threaten the liberties of us all.

Climates don't change all on their own, however. Just as the ozone layer of our treasured planet has fallen prey to the very care-givers who have been entrusted with its protection, so has the First Amendment.
Hal Turner thought himself invincible. After all, he had been doing much the same for years without interference. Those who fancy themselves as constitutional purists and who blindly support free speech regardless of the possible ramifications, have been busily attempting to justify Turner's right - not just to speak, but to threaten. They seem to be oblivious to certain facts put into evidence by the government.

Those who are in support of Turner would have us believe that he said nothing more than the three judges in question "deserve to die," when, in truth, there was much more to his internet posting. According to the criminal complaint filed at time of his arrest, Turner made the following statements:

Government lies, cheats, manipulates, twists and outright disobeys the supreme law and founding documents of this land because they have not, in our lifetime, faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, told us "The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It is time to replenish the tree!

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.

This is not the first politically-motivated trash to come out of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, it was the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that decided in the Matt Hale Case, that a group which fraudulently trademarked the name the Trademark "World Church of the Creator" despite the fact they knew that name had been used by a Church for 30 years, could KEEP the name because the church who had used it for 30 years didn't challenge filing!

By not challenging the Trademark registration, the people who had used the name for years LOST IT. That decision lead to an order by a lower court for the Church to "surrender its Bibles for destruction because they infringed on the trademark" given to the fraudsters.

Shortly thereafter, a gunman entered the home of that lower court Judge and slaughtered the Judge's mother and husband. Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.

These Judges are traitors to the United States of America. They have intentionally violated the Constitution. They have now also intentionally ignored a major ruling by the US Supreme Court.

If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other Judges will act the same way.

These Judges deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die. (Emphasis added)

Now, if I were to be placed on a jury trying Mr. Turner, the emphasized portions of his statement would be the ones I would be looking at. Clearly, there is rage and clearly there is the intent to enrage others.

But, if there was any doubt about his intention for harm to be brought down on the judges, there should be none left after what followed.

From the Complaint...

Below the above text, it read: “Judges official public work addresses and a map of the area are below. Their home addresses and maps will follow soon. Behold these devils."

Below this headline, the entry listed a name, photograph, phone number, and the work address and room number of the three Seventh Circuit judges involved in the decision. Following this information about the judges, the entry displayed a picture of the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois, the location of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, along with a map depicting the location of the Dirksen Federal Building. The picture of the Dirksen Federal Building contained the label, “Anti-truck bomb barriers,” from which arrows pointed to three different parts of the building.

However, the federal government must still build their case against Turner - and build it, they very well might. Included in the complaint is yet even more evidence of threat and intimidation and they didn't have to go back too far into the archives to unearth the the following:

From the Complaint...

Posted on was an entry dated January
25, 2009, and titled, “A Tyrant in Garrison, NY.” Below this heading was a post about a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The entry included the following statements:
If Judge [Name] fails to start obeying the Constitution, she would do well to
remember what happened to another federal Judge that I chose to heap scorn upon:
US District Court Judge [Name] in Chicago. After I heaped scorn upon her, someone
went to her house and gunned down her family.

...Oh and if you dare try to do anything at all about MY freedom of speech in undertaking these activities, be warned: I will enforce my First Amendment freedom by making swift and
effective use of my Second Amendment freedom. The only thing you have to ask yourselves is whether or not you're willing to be on the wrong end of the Second Amendment when my finger is on the trigger. Be assured that I will not hesitate for even a fraction of a second to defend my freedom.

FBI Agents searched the archived history of the website Within the archived history of was an entry dated February 20, 2009, titled, "Fucking Federal Judges Never Learn - but I hereby WARN one of them." The entry addressed a Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning a temporary restraining order issued against a company in a lawsuit for discriminatory hiring practices:

Well, I've got news for the latest federal Judge, [Name] and the NAACP concerning
this latest hiring freeze spawned by the latest lawsuit: if your actions kill more people, don't expect to walk away unscathed this time. I don't give a shit about sovereign immunity or the US Marshal Service that protects
federal judges. I don't give a shit about laws preventing retaliation against parties to a judicial proceeding. I don't give a shit about US Attorneys bringing Indictments against me or securing court orders against me, because they won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Know now: the days of politically-correct Judges and race-hustling, poverty pimps
in the NAACP causing people's deaths without consequence, are over.

The course of action taken by the Judge and the NAACP will, at some point, endanger
my life, the lives of my family and the lives of tens-of-thousands of other Hudson
County residents. We have an absolute right to defend ourselves -- and this time, we
will. This time, if people die, the people responsible will either be brought to justice or justice will be brought to them.

Also within the archived history of
was a post dated January 4, 2009, titled, “Add 2 More Judges to the ‘Rope List.’” In
reference to a January 4, 2009, decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals that attempted sexual misconduct with a minor requires that the victim actually be a minor, the entry states, “You folks in Indiana who have been planning with me for our national cleansing of
government filth - scheduled for the not-to-distant future - had better go out and buy more rope. It appears we have to add two more Judges to a list of filth that needs to ‘swing.'"

This begs several questions, does Free Speech give carte blanche to terrorize, menace, and intimidate other citizens? Are there any limits? Is there such a thing as First Amendment abuse? At what point does stepping on the rights of others negate your rights?

Constitutional scholars and others debate while the victims of the unscrupulous pile up. As we, as a nation, grow and mature, so must our laws. Children who bully others on the schoolyard playground usually grow up and cease their childhood ways. Those who don't, generally end up on the wrong side of the law or very isolated. Just as we have seen in other areas, when a population does not control itself, liberties are stripped and rights no longer exist.

The threat to Free Speech does not lie in the delineation of that which is acceptable but in the abuses by those too selfish or too self-absorbed to act in an acceptable manner. To those I would say that your rights are no more important or valuable than my rights. Respect that and don't tread on me.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Diesel Therapy or SOP?

I have to address a discussion that is taking place on VNN - I just have to.

It seems that Hal Turner is in the process of being moved to Chicago and is currently at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City. Now, the paranoid and ignorant individuals at VNN have gone into another one of their meltdowns. Joe J started this fantasy tale by saying:

No reason for Hal to be there except that they are fucking with him. He's not convicted yet. Looks like Hal might have some diesel therapy in his future.

J3115 then added a little fuel to the fire with...

I've heard about "diesel therapy" I spoke with a guy who was on D.T. According to him - he was transferred from one fed prison to the next.

He said he spent his 18-months mostly in mini-vans with U.S. Marshals traveling from one prison to the next. Just as soon as you get comfortable in one place the marshals show up to send you to another prison.

Joe J is determined to make this into some great conspiracy on the part of the government so he adds...

They are fucking with Hal. He has no charges in Oklahoma and no reason to be there. They are trying to break him. No matter what anyone here thinks of Hal, ZOG are a bunch of motherfuckers whether they do this to Hal or someone else.

OTPTT bites - big time...

I don't know all of the facts of Hal's case. I know he's in the system and that I know. They may realize they don't have a case and are going to make sure he suffers cruel and unusual punishment whether he's convicted or not. And certainly just in case he isn't.

Definitely playing their sick and juvenile head games. They can only do such things collectively with like minded sick and sadistic bipeds and within the physical areas they control. Their buildings, buses, airplanes, etc. They lack the courage and integrity to live and work in the real world and even attempt to do 1/100 of the satanic acts perpetrate behind tall walls in open public. Their days are numbered as their system is on its death bed. This brings me immeasurable joy.

Remember White man this is what you have to look forward to if you do or say the wrong thing. You might consider that before you 'surrender' and decide to participate in their circus. Prior to that decision you may still have a chance for another alternative of your own choosing.

And, of course, the inimitibale and sometimes insipid, Alex Linder points out...

Jesse Trentadue was murdered in that place.

Well, I realize that unrealistic fear often accompanies white nationalism and frequently obfuscates rational thought. One WN who, apparently understands this added...

FROM REBELWITHACAUSE: They have to keep moving him around. If they left Hal in one place, he'd either try to shit out an earthquake on them or his vast army of neo-nazi skinheads and KKK-types would be able to launch an offensive to spring him.

The Federal Transfer Center is just that - a transfer center. Most all federal prisoners enter this hub when being moved from one place to another. Hal Turner is currently being moved from New Jersey to Illinois. When Bill White was moved from Virginia he was processed through the FTC as well.

This is NOT some head-game being played by an out-of-control government. This is standard procedure.

Should Hal Turner's case go to trial, and should he be convicted, he will be sent back there before being sent to his assigned prison.

So...for all of the histrionic purveyors of misinformation and the white nationalists who cannot overcome their fear of governmental persecution, for all of those who wish to make someone like Hal Turner into a martyr - sorry, but he just isn't that important. assured, they don't have to "sweat" information out of Turner. Remember, he just isn't "cut out for this."

Saturday, July 04, 2009



An anonymous person posted the following in the comment section of the previous article and I thought it worthy of being on the front page this Independence Day. Enjoy! And Happy Fourth of July to all!

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: Freedom is never free!