Larry Klayman Wants a Revolution. Not the Metaphorical Kind.

Not to be confused with the Napolitano show.Government shutdowns are for wimps: Larry Klayman thinks the country needs a revolution. I don't mean revolution as a metaphor. I mean a full-fledged mobs 'n' pitchforks revolt.

Klayman, who used to hang his hat at Judicial Watch and now has a group called Freedom Watch, is a lawyer with a long history of filing suits to make the government open its records; he attracted a lot of attention during the Clinton scandals, and he has continued to take the authorities to court under Bush and Obama. Sometimes these suits have exposed genuinely significant information, and sometimes they have led Klayman into, ah, weirder territories. He's in one of those weird zones now: He appears to have gone full birther, writing not just that "Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president of the United States" but that the president is "a Muslim bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate who seeks to destroy our spirituality and the body politic of our Judeo-Christian roots." To prevent this calamity, Klayman is calling for an uprising:

Hey hey, ho ho.Having done little to nothing about the growing list of "phony" Obama scandals, ranging from Benghazi-gate, to IRS-gate, to Navy SEAL Team VI-gate, to Fast and Furious-gate, to NSA-gate, to name just a few, it is clear that our elected representatives do not have the will or courage to remove the mullah-in-chief from office....

[D]o not hold your breath that the higher courts will have the courage to do what needs to be done. That is the reason for Freedom Watch's citizens' grand juries, which are indicting and trying political felons like Obama as we speak. In this regard, a conviction is near in the case of the Obama for eligibility fraud.

Once convicted, We the People will have the right to enforce this conviction and demand that Obama surrender himself to the people's system of justice for incarceration. Will he do so voluntarily? Obviously not! His arrogance and disrespect for American law -- just look at how his attorney general has flouted it -- and his apparent allegiance to Shariah law make this more than unlikely, to put it mildly.

I therefore call upon all American patriots, once we obtain this conviction, which we will shortly, to converge on Washington. Millions should stand in front of the White House and other national treasures and demand that Barack Hussein Obama leave. If the Egyptians can do this with regard to another radical Muslim, former president Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, then can't we Americans do it with Obama?

In a follow-up piece, Klayman decries Obama's "Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda."

The liberal site Talking Points Memo has described this as a call for a "coup," but that's misleading: The word coup suggests a violent action by small group within the elite, but Klayman is clearly imagining a popular surge from below, one where "Tea partiers, bikers, construction workers, police officers, school teachers, farmers, truckers, clergy, housewives, husbands, students, doctors, lawyers and all elements of our society who see our nation slipping away into the abyss" decide to "stand tall and descend on the capital." Nor is he calling for an armed action: He invokes Gandhi, writes "I do not advocate violence," and believes his forces will win "without firing one proverbial shot." The protests against Morsi did pave the way for a coup, of course—and for quite a few shots, both proverbial and real—but Klayman doesn't seem to see the events in Egypt that way. More to the point, he doesn't seem to see the scenario he's suggesting for America that way. He's imagining a burst of birther People Power.

And that's what's interesting about this: not that a conservative gadfly has embraced a revolutionary fantasy, but that he's describing that fantasy in these terms. There's not much in Klayman's bill of particulars that's apt to appeal to anyone on the left—at its core this is a plea aimed at Americans angry about the phantom threat of Shariah law, not drone strikes or NSA surveillance. But he calls his revolution Occupy Washington, an obvious echo of Occupy Wall Street. Similarly, Klayman's issues with Muslims don't prevent him from invoking the protests in Egypt as a model. If the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and the indignados are all elements of a common historical moment, then this strange mutation of the Occupy idea is a part of the moment too: as pure an example as you'll find of ideas leaking out of their original context and being redeployed for new ends. (See also: Alex Jones' Occupy Bilderberg.)

Klayman has scheduled his revolution for November 19. Not to go out on a limb or anything, but I expect it'll fizzle out harmlessly when those hordes of protesters don't show up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    Government shutdowns are for wimps: Larry Klayman thinks the country needs a revolution.

    I like the way this guy thinks.

  • anon||

    this is a plea aimed at Americans angry about the phantom threat of Shariah law, not drone strikes or NSA surveillance.

    Goddamnit, I hate how he arrives at his conclusions though.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The Movement is rife with people who mix decent observation with bugnut insanity. It's part of why it's so hard to get any traction with the normals.

  • John||

    Pretty much every revolutionary who ever lived started out as a crank that no one was listening to. This sort of stuff is ridiculous and unthinkable right up until the moment it isn't anymore and starts to happen.

    Not that I expect a revolution this November. But, we are probably closer to such being thinkable than at any point in my lifetime. Klayman may just be a trend setter

  • ||

    You're only allowed to be unhinged when a Republican is in office.

  • ||

    So why is the federal government writing reports saying that a right wing militia revolution is near?

  • RightNut||

    SEAL Team VI-gate

    ?

  • John||

    Seymour Hersh is saying that the whole Bin Ladin raid was a publicity stunt. That Bin Ladin had been dead for years and nothing about the raid is true.

    I have no idea if that is true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

  • RightNut||

    Oh, I guess? Seems unlikely considering the timing of the raid, over a year before the 2012 election, and the fact it would need a rather large conspiracy to keep it quiet.

  • anon||

    and the fact it would need a rather large conspiracy to keep it quiet.

    Like, say, recording every email/text/phone call everyone's ever made for 10 years or so?

  • RightNut||

    And in the end they couldn't keep that quiet.

    Did you mean to prove my point?

  • anon||

    I'm just saying it's not as far fetched as you imply. I could easily believe p-bo wouldn't hesitate to use such a tactic to his advantage.

  • robc||

    If Hersh has announced it, they havent kept it quiet.

  • Brandon||

    They kept it quiet for a decade. If the Bin Laden raid is not debunked by 2021, then I will begin to share your unquestioning acceptance of every story the government spoon feeds you.

  • RightNut||

    Lol?

    Just because I'm skeptical the Apollo program was a fake doesn't mean I believe everything the Feds say.

    Apply logic please.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hard to imagine that such a conspiracy would be as blatant as the subject of that raid wasn't Osama bin Laden. They behave like they are hiding something though; come on, dumping his body like that is just asking for speculation, they never gave two rat asses about Muslim burial customs before, and after a big 'fuck you' by invading Pakistani air space they suddenly become culturally sensitive? Not wanting his burial site to become a shrine for rallying support? Bullshit. ObL's body belonged to the American people, not to Allah.

    That is just one data point in their strange behavior regarding that raid.

  • Brian||

    I'm not sure what the motive is, either.

    If you pretend to kill bin Laden, don't you put bin Laden in the position of being able to incredibly damage the respect and integrity of the United States, by simply finding a video camera/journalist and quickly proving what a lying pack of shit the US government is? An act which, if bin Laden took, would simultaneously erase any gains made by pretending he was killed?

    He was making tapes ever since he was America's most wanted. If Osama wanted to fake his own death, he missed a lot of chances.

  • cavalier973||

    And wasn't there something about every member of Seal Team VI that was on the raid got killed in a "helicopter accident" soon afterward?

  • wareagle||

    been a lot Team 6 deaths since the OBL raid. Funny how a unit the masses barely knew about suddenly became front page stuff after Osama, and how the list of members killed is substantial.

  • Killazontherun||

    That was another factor that mussed up the picture. Members of Seal Team VI did die in a helicopter accident shortly after the raid. Their relation to the members of the raiding party have never been clear to me. Early reports related some of the raiding party members as having died in the crash, but then that seemed to be ignored in later reports like the 60 Minutes one from last Spring. Then again, the facts may have been sorted out in the time between the incident and then where 60 Minutes had no reason to clarify. The events could have happened exactly as the Seal Team members related them in that report. That doesn't mean there wasn't a slight of hand, or 'sin of omission' though. Cover ups tend to be about things that would appear trivial to a neutral observer, but are vital in the world melieu of a partisan in the fight. Don't expect such a revelation when it occurs to be world shattering, it will most like be intelligence community shattering.

  • CE||

    Why do you think the OBL body was disappeared?

  • ||

    The bigger data point is why did they kill him at all when they so easily could have caught him....obviously moving the body to the ship was not a problem.

    Isn't it odd that they killed such a high intelligence asset?

  • ||

    was a publicity stunt

    That would only make sense if he was still alive sipping lattes with Elvis.

  • Warty||

    It would make sense, wouldn't it?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I thought Seal Team Six-gate referred to those rumors I heard that everyone involved with the Bin Laden raid was being murdered.

  • Brett L||

    Hillary must be really serious about running for President in 2016 if that's true.

  • John||

    maybe so. I don't keep score at home.

  • anon||

    Not that I expect a revolution this November.

    Nobody expects the Spanish - er, the Revolution!

    Joking aside, I'm not 100% that a revolution would put us in a better position, just because I've read some of the newer constitutions that guarantee "rights" to other people's lives and livelihood.

  • John||

    That all depends on whose revolution it is.

  • anon||

    I just have a hard time believing even a simple majority of Americans prefer liberty to state-sanctioned theft that benefits them.

  • Calidissident||

    I doubt I'd be very down with this guy's idea of a revolution

  • Drake||

    All depends on who wins and who is willing to kill more people.

    Once the shooting starts, any damn thing can happen.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Revolutions have a way of not ending well. If you really wanna dispose the government, we'd be better off if some Pinochet type just stepped in and sent all the kiddies home. Having a French or Bolshevik revolution tends to accomplish generating lots of corpses and really,really bad governments.

  • ||

    I agree. Any revolution we had right now would probably result in a "right" to healthcare and social security checks, and minus protections for privacy and private property.
    The consitution we have now is more libertarian than the general public's predispositions.

  • anon||

    The consitution we have now is more libertarian than the general public's predispositions.

    Those are my sentiments exactly. Even considering how perverted our constitution & laws have become, it's better than what I fear the alternative to be.

  • trshmnstr||

    You all assume that we'd come back together as one nation. I almost guarantee there would be at least 3 nations built out of the smoking rubble of the US. Do you really see the Bloomberg-ites sitting down with the wacko birds, who are negotiating with Gov. Moonbeam voters?

  • ||

    That would be even worse for libertarians.

    We'd have to choose between a socialist--environmentalist dystopia, a theocracy, and a technocratic dictatorship.

  • Cheeto Puffs||

    I don't like this guy, I think he is essetially a troll, but calling sharia law a "phantom threat" is just stupid liberalism. It' already in Europe. But it's much more stylish to worry about cops and marijuana than it is to worry about BROWN PEOPLOES!

  • John||

    It is sort of a quirk of Reason land. In Reasonland no Muslim is ever guilty of wrong doing, he is only justified actions in response to American aggression and giving the various people he kills exactly what they deserve.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes, John, that is a totally unbiased and accurate portrayal of Reason's opinion on such matters. Well done.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    He's really fair like that, innit he?

  • wareagle||

    so John engages in a bit of hyperbole. A bit different from saying he's lying. The Muslim thing is one of the staff's blind spots.

  • Calidissident||

    Did I say he was lying? His statement is not just "a bit" of hyperbole. I don't have a positive opinion of Islam, but that doesn't mean I'm going to engage in the pantshitting "OMG THE MOOSLIMZ!" that conservatives have done ever since 9/11.

  • Zeb||

    In Reasonland no Muslim is ever guilty of wrong doing, he is only justified actions in response to American aggression and giving the various people he kills exactly what they deserve.

    Is simply untrue. Maybe lie isn't the right word. Saying that there are reasons why people do things is not the same as excusing that they did those things.
    Seems to me that the, uh, Reasonable position is that a lot of Islamic terrorism is inspired at least in part by US foreign policy AND that it is totally evil and fucked.

  • kinnath||

    There are more Muslims in the world than Christians. There are some Muslims that are rat-fucking nuts. There are some Christians that are rat-fucking nuts. The problem is that the Muslims that are rat-fucking nuts believe that killing infidels is a first-class ticket to heaven.

    My problem revolves around people that hold the one-bad/all-bad view of "other" people.

  • Brandon||

    There are some Christians that are rat-fucking nuts.

    And they use names like Cheeto Puffs.

  • PapayaSF||

    The problem is that the Muslims that are rat-fucking nuts believe that killing infidels is a first-class ticket to heaven.

    That, plus:

    1) It's a core tenet of Islam to believe that Islam is destined to rule the world,

    2) Islam is an essentially fundamentalist religion in a way Christianity is not, and

    3) the Islamic rat-fucking nuts have far more support within all of Islam than their few Christian equivalents do.

    In sum, I think it's entirely rational to fear Islam more than any other religion. How, it's wacky to think Obama is a secret Muslim. Michelle would never allow it. The "he's secretly bi" rumors are more convincing. No, I think it's just lefty multiculturalism and anti-Americanism.

  • kinnath||

    Crusades, Inquisition, witch-burnings. Christians are just a few centuries ahead of the curve.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    This just flatly is not true. The doctrines of Islam are a total merger of Religion and State. There is enough flexibility in the words of Jesus in particular and the Bible in general that this is not necessarily the case.

  • PapayaSF||

    Precisely. And there are no Christian crusades, Inquisitions, or witch-burnings to worry about these days. Pretty much all the religious violence is coming from Islam.

  • wareagle||

    far enough of the curve to have figured out those sorts of things are counter productive. The Muslims not so much; they choose to stay mired in 12th century thinking.

  • Zeb||

    So give them another 600 years and maybe they will catch up.

  • Calidissident||

    There are actually more Christians, but your point stands.

  • kinnath||

    That's the problem with trying to remember shit on Monday morning ;-)

    What with the Budhists, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Christians, and whatnot, it's hard to keep track of who is ahead in the polls.

  • Rasilio||

    "The problem is that the Muslims that are rat-fucking nuts believe that killing infidels is a first-class ticket to heaven."

    No, the real problem with Muslims is that the belief system of the ones who are rat fucking nuts is not all that far off the mainstream.

    With Christians the nutjobs are a tiny lunatic fringe who are not viewed very positively by the mainstream Christians

  • Juice||

    There are more Muslims in the world than Christians.

    There are almost 2 billion Christians and about 1 billion Muslims.

  • anon||

    , but calling sharia law a "phantom threat" is just stupid liberalism. It' already in Europe.

    Meh, Sharia Law is pretty low on the my list of shit to worry about right now.

    Focusing on just about anything else is time better spent.

  • RightNut||

    Europe has a long history of tolerating or promoting authoritarian regimes in the name of harmony. Americans have no such compunction. So sharia is a much bigger threat to freedom in Europe than it is here.

  • Gweskoyen||

    European here. No, we don't have sharia law. Most Muslims in my country can't even vote as they don't have citizenship.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Since when does any European country have sharia law?

  • Brandon||

    Since Cheeto Puffs went off his meds.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    A lot of the Sainsburys and Tescos in London have Pakistanis at the registers. Maybe that counts as sharia law.

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    The car-b-que banlieus in France have it defacto? That is my best guess at what he meant...

  • Brett L||

    I don't think they have anyone's law. Don't blame Sharia on those guys, the old school guys would have set each vandal's left hand afire with burning sulfur or something.

  • Brett L||

    Didn't Britain (although it might have been the Canadians) allow civil disputes to be resolved under Sharia if both parties agreed? Which appears to me to be totally within the scope of libertarian views on such matters.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    If both parties agree to have an Islamic cleric settle a dispute, that's nothing more radical than the rather blase idea that two parties can agree to binding arbitration.

  • Brett L||

    I agree 100%. Its no crazier than having a preacher arbitrate a dispute between to congregants. I am unclear because, for some reason, I thought it also could apply to divorce, which, I guess I don't know enough about outside of America to know whether that would be possible. (SLD, it probably should be as long both parties agree to it at the time of contractual dispute.)

  • trshmnstr||

    If both parties agree to arbitration at time of dispute, the legal system has no idea it's an issue in the first place.

    A: "The contract says you owe me 200 barrels of pickles"
    B: "Nuh-unh"
    A: "Hey, let's go have Bob arbitrate this"
    B: "Sure, sounds good!"

    The law never gets involved.

  • trshmnstr||

    Although, if my reading comprehension was remotely decent, i would see that you're applying it to divorce, which is a unique case given the licensing of marriage by the govt.

  • Rasilio||

    It went a little further than that as they courts in the UK have already upheld Sharia rulings on this basis.

    However to argue that this is the same as enforcing Sharia law is to argue that they also have a completely private legal system because courts have enforced private arbitration rulings.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, as long as it is only applied to parties that agree to be bound by it, I don't care. I'll worry when they start imposing sharia judgements on people who have not agreed to be bound by it.

    Europe has fucked up by going for multiculturalism more than meltingpotism, but that's a different issue.

  • ||

    Agree on the multiculturalism.

    Also would add that one of the recent findings of moral psychology is that emphasizing differences (i.e. multiculturalism) makes most people MORE racist, not less. So the entire multiculturalist project, insofar as it is an attempt to promote racial and cultural tolerance, is counter productive. I do recall years ago most conservatives would object to the whole thing and kept arguing that the notion of "hyphenated" Americans was terrible, and we should adopt the notion that we're all just Americans. Now, the academic research had caught up and seems to be confirming that conservative were right about that all along. Binding people together by emphasizing similarities and common alleigances increases social tolerance and reduces racial prejudice.

  • PapayaSF||

    Perhaps he's referring to some instances in England in which Muslims have put up signs declaring there should be no alcohol in their neighborhoods, plus attacking gays and "immodest" women on the street, etc.

  • Brett L||

    Which is not subjecting people to Sharia law, unless organized crime is "subjecting people to dictatorial law".

  • PapayaSF||

    I was explaining, not agreeing.

  • Brett L||

    Sorry, too much coffee.

  • Juice||

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

  • Rich||

    Freedom Watch's citizens' grand juries

    Sheesh, Jesse, you could at least *warn* us about The Grand Chorus at that link!

  • CE||

    You know who else had citizens' grand juries?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Germanic tribes?

  • rts||

    Electronic Mother's Day Card: Come, Comrade Bender, we must take to the streets.

    Bender: Umm, is this the boring, peaceful kind of taking to the streets?

    Electronic Mother's Day Card: No, the kind with looting. And maybe starting a few fires.

    Bender: Yes! In your face, Gandhi!

  • SweatingGin||

    Bender: Ooh, a case of strawberry champagne. Don't mind if I do.

    Electronic Mother's Day Card: No, Comrade Bender. Liquor is the opiate of the human bourgeoisie.

    Bender: Say what?

    Electronic Mother's Day Card: In the glorious worker robot paradise, there will be no liquor. Only efficient synthetic fuels.

    Bender: No liquor? Do svidanya, comrade.

  • Andrew S.||

    Watched that episode last night (Futurama is always my fallback 'Watch on Netflix while falling asleep' show).

    Mom was the best character on that show.

  • creech||

    At what beer hall are we meeting and will Klayman, like "you know who else led...", be willing to lead the charge?

  • BakedPenguin||

  • Rich||

    Miley Cyrus seems on a roll these days.

  • CE||

    She's taking a wrecking ball to the Establishment.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Who twerked John Galt?

  • SugarFree||

    A revolution without twerking is not a revolution worth having.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Do you know there are people who actually like that movie? I know; shocked me too.

  • SugarFree||

    They made an Emma Goldman movie?

  • ||

    I hope some hordes show up. Think of the entertainment value of having Occupy protestors show up at what they mistakenly believe is one of their events, only to discover it's run by a guy who thinks Obama is a Muslim bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate in the US.

  • SweatingGin||

    The sweet, yummy tears of the puppeteer, on learning he's been played like a, well, puppet...

  • ||

    You're right. The occupy people would outnumber them.

    But that's actually the fun of it. Imagine Occupy showing up and attempting to teach their hand signals to the Tea Party hordes.

    I predict fistfights.

  • anon||

    My god, it'd be the perfect storm of idiocy, lunacy and police brutality.

  • fish||

    I'm not usually into pay per view events but.....

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    The Derpmonic Convergence?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Klayman to his senses: "Good-bye, it's been nice knowing you, but now I take my leave of you."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I wonder how the boys at Policeone feel about this?

    I'll bet a dozen doughnuts they are polishing their boots and truncheons in eager anticipation.

  • Killazontherun||

    I would never join a club revolution that wouldn't have me as a member leader.

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    Not if they had to face too many people, all at once.

  • np||

    Larken Rose makes the case for resistance, the ethics and legitimacy of using defensive force--that if there's going to be violence, you might as well make sure you won't be the victim of it--but NOT for revolution:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOKVTaflbM

    At first, I though it was kind of odd as you may think the two are synonymous, but they are not when he elaborates later particularly during Q&A. Revolution implies overthrowing, then replacing rulers, where as resistance does not on its own. "I'm going to go over there and take over!" makes sense, but it does not make sense to say, "I'm going to go over there and defend myself!"

  • np||

    Related: Freestater writes this article
    http://www.christophercantwell.....r-bearcat/

    makes this very salient point in a larger discussion about violence, and the special position we hold government agents, that we normally do not for regular citizens

    Government agents know exactly how to deal with peaceful people, they deal with them using violence, and the acquisition of the Bearcat in Concord is just one in a long line of examples.

    Adam Kokesh is peaceful, that didn’t stop government agents from kidnapping and caging him.

    Ian Freeman is peaceful, that didn’t stop government agents from kidnapping and caging him.

    Derrick Horton is peaceful, that didn’t stop government agents from kidnapping and caging him.

    Ademo Freeman is peaceful, that didn’t stop government agents from kidnapping and caging him.

    Rich Paul is peaceful, that didn’t stop government agents from kidnapping and caging him.
  • np||

    The government doesn’t much care if you are peaceful or not, all they care about is if you are obedient. Free Staters are not being labeled as terrorists because they are violent; they are being labeled as terrorists because they are disobedient. Being violent is not a prerequisite for government violence being used against a person, and in the entire history of statism, it never has been. The only prerequisite of government violence is disobedience, and in entirely too many cases, even obedient slaves are harassed, assaulted, kidnapped, or murdered by government agents.

    His conclusion in this article resulted in getting him kicked out of the Free State Project:
    http://www.christophercantwell.....non-grata/

    (and later Larken chimed in, and apparently they are looking into his talks at Porcfest too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF1IpTM1pjQ)

    Really disappointing to see the FSP react this way.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    I don't see how anyone familiar with the FSP's history could be surprised.

  • Zeb||

    I can understand the FSP's point of view (even though Chris Cantwell is right in a purely moral sense as far as I'm concerned). FSP is not a particularly radical organization. The point of the FSP is to peacefully and incrementally change the government of one state to something more liberty friendly. If you want to publicly discuss the possibilities for violent revolt, you should probably find a different group to associate with.

  • Juice||

    XXX wasn't peaceful and fought back. That didn't stop the government from killing him. Most people were happy when the government killed him and everything that the person did was wasted. They were not generally seen as a martyr, but they're dead just the same.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Short version: Larry Klayman is now a certifiable idiot.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In a follow-up piece, Klayman decries Obama's "Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda."

    DIAF.

    I don't need your "help" you dumb motherfucker.

  • CE||

    You know who else called for a revolution?

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    Ron Paul?

  • sarcasmic||

    Charlie Manson?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Arminius?

  • Brett L||

    Jefferson Airplane?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Morsi?

  • shortviking||

    Shane Douglas?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tyler Durden?

  • SugarFree||

    Tyler Durden was dead the entire time!

  • cavalier973||

    The Sun?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Queensrÿche?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Yoko Ono?

  • fish||

    He's in one of those weird zones now: He appears to have gone full birther, writing not just that "Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president of the United States" but that the president is "a Muslim bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate who seeks to destroy our spirituality and the body politic of our Judeo-Christian roots."

    A far greater insult is to simply call him what he is.....a no talent greasy Chicago ward heeler.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    I will never believe that Obama is a Muslim simply because it is in direct contrast to his Marxist leanings. The man was raised a communist by his mother and grandparents along with his "mentor" Frank Marshall Davis. He "sought out Marxist professors" in college. You mean to tell me that he suddenly began believing in Allah and that this material world is hell made for sinners? The only god the petty dictator believes in is himself.

  • PapayaSF||

    ^This. What looks to Klayman etc. as "secret Muslim" is just standard leftist anti-Americanism and multiculturalism, plus the narcissism to believe that he can rise above all the conflict and bring peace.

  • ||

    That would also his explain Obama's total inability to negotiate with Republicans.

    Like a typical progressive, his idea of rising above conflict and bringing peace is taking a holier than thou posture and asserting his moral superiority until the other side caves in and agrees to everything he wants.

  • PapayaSF||

    Also, to a leftist, domestic opponents like Republicans and Christians are real enemies that must be defeated, while foreigners are just different and we should try to understand and accommodate them or we would be narrow-minded.

  • tarran||

    Except that Obama's mom seems to have been a fan of Sukarto's Islamic communism when he was a kid...

  • pan fried wylie||

    is a lawyer with a long history of filing suits to make the government open its records

    Talk about job security!

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I've always warned you people that the biggest danger to our country was radical pro-gay Islamic fundamentalists who are also Marxist atheist anti-colonialists, and you just laughed it off.

  • PapayaSF||

    OK, funny, but politics is often self-contradictory: Obama are other leftists are simultaneously pro-women and pro-gay and, while usually not pro-Muslim fundamentalist, are anti-anti-Muslim fundamentalist (because their commitment to multiculturalism and diversity and anti-rightism trumps what should be their objections to Islam).

  • CE||

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world...

    But when you talk about destruction
    Don't you know that you can count me out?

    ...You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We'd all love to see the plan...

    But if you want money for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait...

    You say you'll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it's the institution
    Well, you know
    You'd better free your mind instead

    But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
    You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
    You know it's gonna be
    All right...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That and Taxman are great artistically and politically.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement