Conspiracy

The Age of Frank Gaffney

War, paranoia, and institutional power

|

Peter Beinart has a detailed article in The Atlantic about the anti-Islamic theories of Frank Gaffney, a man who thinks that Islam in itself is a subversive force and that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to turn America into a caliphate. Beinart's piece, which is convincing on most points, looks both at how Gaffney's views have grown more influential in the Trump era and at how they fit into the longer history of conspiracy theories about minority groups. I found this passage particularly interesting:

High Frontier

It was not September 11 that made conservatives receptive to Gaffney's theories. It was America's failed post-9/11 wars. Joseph McCarthy won a following in the early 1950s, when Americans were exhausted by the stalemated war in Korea, by arguing that the real communist threat could be vanquished cheaply and nonviolently by ferreting out traitors at home. Gaffney argues something similar. "We can kill as many semi-literate bad guys as possible in the world's most hellish backwaters," he declared in 2012, "but as long as we ignore, or worse yet, empower and submit, to the toxic ideology they share with highly educated and well spoken Islamists in this country and elsewhere, we are doomed to defeat."

Over the last decade, conservatives disillusioned by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and alienated from their party's interventionist elite, have found in Gaffney's theories an appealing alternative.

Beinart has overstated his case here. The grassroots right did see an increase right after 9/11 in Gaffney-style crank theories about Islam. (And for that matter, the postwar Red Scare began before McCarthy's antics, and indeed before the Korean War.) But the real growth in Gaffneyism did come later, and I think Beinart's theory helps explain why. War-weariness can express itself in many ways. Gaffney himself shows no sign of being war-weary—his organization, the Center for Security Policy, is constantly hyping one external threat or another—but his ideas about Islamic subversion have an obvious attraction for conservatives disillusioned both with Bush-era ideas about how to fight jihadism and Bush-era ideas about Islam as a religion of peace.

In any event, Beinart's piece is worth a read. But before you rush over to check it out, a couple of parting thoughts on the other fellow mentioned in that passage.

The McCarthy era is widely remembered—with good reason—as a time of conformity, with people feeling pressure to conceal dissenting views. But what makes the McCarthy period stand out from the rest of the postwar Red Scare is that the senator aimed his accusations at some of the central institutions of American life, finally crashing after he reached too far and attacked the Army. There is a tension between enforcing conformity and disrupting institutions, and that tension didn't disappear entirely with McCarthy's fall; the fiercest segments of the anti-Communist right continued to amp up their domestic distrust after he departed the stage. The John Birch Society, for example, gradually moved from seeing powerful Americans as agents of the Communists to seeing Communists as agents of powerful Americans.

If you seriously believe that the country's most powerful institutions are being infiltrated by the enemy, then there comes a point when you start seeing those institutions as enemies themselves. The fear of subversion itself breeds subversive suspicions. And that wasn't just true during the Cold War. Ask any Bush-era national-security conservative who today is overflowing with suspicion of the Deep State.

Yet this sort of fear can also have a de-radicalizing effect: A distrust of institutions can be displaced by a distrust of the people who happen to occupy the institutions at the moment. The Obama years didn't end with the election of a veteran Tea Partier; they ended with the election of a veteran birther. The noisiest Deep State–fearing conservatives are less interested in rolling back the intelligence agencies than in purging them. And on the other side of the spectrum, the opposition to Trump often seems less interested in constraining the power of presidency than in exposing the president as a puppet of a foreign government. Paranoid nationalism comes in many flavors.

NEXT: Gorsuch Stresses Independence from Trump in Senate Confirmation Hearings, Says 'No Man Is Above the Law'

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.

  1. a man who thinks that Islam in itself is a subversive force and that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to turn America into a caliphate

    Hoping the usual suspects offer their concurring opinions.

  2. A man who thinks that Islam in itself is a subversive force and that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to turn America into a caliphate

    Sounds familiar. Does Gaffney post here?

    1. Forget to hop handles?

      1. The squirrelzz got me. Note how much funnier my post is by misspelling “squirrels.”

  3. Two points.

    (1) McCarthy was right in most of his accusations. Unless you are one of those people who refuses to believe Alger Hiss was totally not a communist spy, despite the evidence that we now know. Not defending McCarthy or his methods, but to suggest that accusations made by McCarthy were all paranoid delusions is counter-factual.

    (2) I’m not sure what you are defining as ‘grass root conservative’, but I have never seen this guy’s name mentioned in any center right publication (I’m not sure about Brietbart, as I’ve never read that). Your presumption that Gaffney’s ideas is what explains fear of Muslims is all based on feelz. You don’t think that terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are far more persuasive that what some nobody says?

    1. I love people who think “based on feelz” is some kind of argument against something.

      You know your whole post was made based on your feelz, right?

      1. It’s a McCarthy apologist. What more can you say? He’s using material from Limbaugh,Savage and Levin for Chrissake.

      2. Hail Rataxes|3.21.17 @ 1:26PM|#
        “I love people who think “based on feelz” is some kind of argument against something.”

        Far better than a supposed argument based on nothing other than your ignorance.

    2. McCarthy was right in most of his accusations. Unless you are one of those people who refuses to believe Alger Hiss was totally not a communist spy, despite the evidence that we now know.

      You appear to have confused Joseph McCarthy with Whittaker Chambers.

      Your presumption that Gaffney’s ideas is what explains fear of Muslims

      I did not argue that Gaffney’s ideas explain the fear of Muslims. I’d say the causality flows the other way. (Though obviously, to the extent that Gaffney is influential he has intensified that fear.)

      1. I did not confuse to the two. I was using the His case as an example of people who refuse to accept reality.

        You should read the NYT piece written in the 90’s that showed that, after the release of declassified government documents it was shown that McCarthy was not making wild accusations after all.

        http://www.nytimes.com/books/f…..arthy.html

        In what way is Gaffney influential? That seems like a paranoid assertion

        1. You should read the NYT piece written in the 90’s that showed that, after the release of declassified government documents it was shown that McCarthy was not making wild accusations after all.

          My thoughts on the various left-wing and right-wing myths of the McCarthy era are in this post (also linked above). IIRC there was some further explication/debate in the comment thread.

          In what way is Gaffney influential? That seems like a paranoid assertion

          Beinart makes the case that he is. Here is an excerpt:

          America is led by a president, Donald Trump, who has frequently cited the Center for Security Policy when justifying his policies towards Muslims. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has called Gaffney “one of the senior thought leaders and men of action in this whole war against Islamic radical jihad.” Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions?who has said “Sharia law fundamentally conflicts with our magnificent constitutional order”?in 2015 won the Center for Security Policy’s “Keeper of the Flame” Award. Trump’s CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has appeared on Gaffney’s radio program more than 24 times since 2013.

          1. There’s more, but I ran into the cap on comment length. Click through & you’ll see.

          2. I am going to go out on a limb Jesse and say that the actions of Muslims themselves in committing multiple acts of terror against Americans has done more to cause the public to conclude Islam is incompatible with a free society than some guy that I doubt a thousand people have even heard of has done.

            Seriously, do you really think that people have become suspicious of Islam because of obscure conspiracy theorists? Isn’t it possible that things like watching the news might have contributed more?

            The other issue affecting American’s view of Muslims that no one ever talks about is the fact that we have had well over a million Americans serve in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. A good many of them did not come home with positive views of Islam or enthused at the prospect of America becoming “more Muslim” as the NYT breathlessly put it a couple of years ago. And all of them have friends and families who were likely interested in what they had to say about their experiences and about Islam and Muslim countries.

    3. (I’m not sure about Brietbart, as I’ve never read that

      Gaffney was a frequent guest on Bannon’s radio program, and he writes for the site.

  4. Ask any Bush-era national-security conservative who today is overflowing with suspicion of the Deep State.

    I always have to think a little harder when I read a Jesse Walker piece.

    The noisiest Deep State?fearing conservatives are less interested in rolling back the intelligence agencies than in purging them.

    Could it be said that that the fundamental difference between the Libertarian and the Conservative (in this context) is that the libertarian wants to roll back the intelligence agency where the conservative only wants to purge them? Because I know I harbor a lot of distrust over the Deep State and a huge distrust in the people that occupy them.

    1. Conservatives (are there any conservatives left?) seem to love government just as much as Democrats.

      1. Same turd, different peanuts.

        1. I like that one. An old boss of mine always said “two cheeks of the same ass”. But I like how yours looks past the bung hole and goes right for the poop.

    2. What good would it do to roll them back if you don’t purge them as well? A smaller CIA manned with the same people would likely be just as dangerous.

  5. . . . a man who thinks that Islam in itself is a subversive force and that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to turn America into a caliphate.

    Well, is he actually wrong? Are there not some aspects of Islam that are pretty incompatible with Western values? Are there not a large number of Muslims seeking to change the culture (even peacefully!) to something that they find more in line with their current values? Is that not ‘subversive’? Was not the rise and spread of the European ‘enlightenment’ and the Scientific Method subversive from the POV of the existing powers?

    And do we not do the exact same things to their countries? What was the invasion of Iraq if not a massive attempt to destroy the existing Iraq and rebuild it in the image of Western Democracy?

    Is the difference because ‘we’re the good guys’?

    1. Was not the rise and spread of the European ‘enlightenment’ and the Scientific Method subversive from the POV of the existing powers?

      I guess when most people talk of ‘subversion’ they’re talking about a focused, deliberate act to undermine a current regime, institution or establishment.

      1. Aren’t the tenets of Islam pretty clear about not tolerating anything other than an Islamic government?

        1. I would cautiously agree with that, in a certain context. If people in a faraway land have no use for bourgeois notions of freedom, democracy, then more power to them. I don’t feel we need to invade them or even block people emigrating from that country to the US. Ie, there are lots of tyrannies around the world, that doesn’t make them a defacto existential threat to the US.

  6. The noisiest Deep State?fearing conservatives are less interested in rolling back the intelligence agencies than in purging them. And on the other side of the spectrum, the opposition to Trump often seems less interested in constraining the power of presidency than in exposing the president as a puppet of a foreign government. Paranoid nationalism comes in many flavors.

    Very well put.

  7. the Trump era

    Oh, shut up already.

    Reason once prided itself on pointing out that the world outside the political is actually where most of the interesting stuff happens.

    Now it seems de rigeur to pretend along with everyone else that the poles of the universe have re-aligned simply because someone unpopular with journalists won an election.

    1. Diapers are in Row 7.

      1. What size do you take? Don’t want to presume.

        1. Eww, a glib infestation!

    2. Now it seems de rigeur to pretend along with everyone else that the poles of the universe have re-aligned simply because someone unpopular with journalists won an election.

      Yes, Gilmore. A post that’s explicitly about a process that began long before Trump came to power is actually claiming that “the poles of the universe have re-aligned simply because someone unpopular with journalists won an election.” You can tell because at one point, in a specific context, it uses the phrase “the Trump era.”

      1. You have yet to show that Gaffney has any influence anywhere. He’s right in saying that post of this post is quite delusional

      2. So two months in and we already get to call the happenings in that span of time a result of the “Trump era”. From what I’ve seen the Islamophiles have gotten more influential rather than less influential since the beginning of this era. Upon Trump taking office the mainstream jurisprudence on presidential authority to control immigration went from basically “no holds barred” to “all is verboten” and the virtue signals about Islam and Muslim migrants are raining down on the land like snow in nuclear winter. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

      3. You can tell because at one point, in a specific context, it uses the phrase “the Trump era.”

        it wasn’t a dig on your post, it was a dig on that expression. which is used constantly of late. (along w/ “Trump’s America”)

        1. OK, but it seems like a pretty reasonable phrase for “the period when Trump is president.” Not unlike “Reagan-era pop culture” or “Edwardian England” or what-have-you.


          1. Foreign Policy Confusion in the Age of Trump
            Feb. 27, 2017

            Reason and Libertarianism in the Trump Era [Reason Podcast]
            Feb. 21, 2017

            Terrorism and Liberty in the Trump Era
            February 3, 2017

            The Trump Years: New at Reason
            January 4, 2017

            5 Republicans Liberals May Learn to Love in the Trump Era
            January 3, 2017

            I’m sure its all just my imagination.


            1. Reason’s Secret Recipe for Nutrient-Rich Coverage of the Trump Era

              How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?
              -Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch Debate

              and these are just *headlines*. Never mind the use of the stock phrase in people’s handwaving exercises over the imagined terrors and traumas of der Trumpenreich

          2. it seems like a pretty reasonable phrase for “the period when Trump is president.” Not unlike “Reagan-era pop culture” or “Edwardian England” or what-have-you

            Yes, I agree it would seem far more reasonable if it were being done in retrospect, years from now, by writers soberly reflecting on a historical body of evidence, rather than in a process non-stop fevered speculation based on 3 months of mostly hyped-to-death political non-events

          3. “Let’s compare political culture terms that were primarily used as descriptions after the fact to a phrase that was uttered in the first week of the Trump Presidency to clearly indicate some kind of horrible regime.”

            1. Not that any of you glibs are Republicans defending Dear Leader Cheeto.

            2. Let’s compare political culture terms that were primarily used as descriptions after the fact

              Enjoy.

              1. …And it’s incorrectly used there as well. In fact it doesn’t address mine or Gilmore’s points at all, that those terms are used largely as impartial historical analysis, whereas terms like ‘the Trump era’, ‘Trump’s America’, or yes, ‘the Obama Era’ are actually propaganda constructs designed to present the President as a monolithic influential figure on the period, often in way clearly designed to back the author’s position. Which your two second google search actually supports.

                Of course, it’s easier to just scream ‘PARTISAN’ at people (I don’t bloody live in your country) than actually address people’s arguments.

                1. Also, I’m sure it says nothing of the decline in Reason’s authorship that it has writers actively defending openly cultural authoritarian concepts like the President defining an era, and in such a poor manner.

                  Wait no, maybe I should do this in a really condescending way instead.

                2. Of course, it’s easier to just scream ‘PARTISAN’ at people (I don’t bloody live in your country) than actually address people’s arguments.

                  Your ability to detect the word “partisan” in a thread where literally no one but you has used it is on par with your ability to find an occult meaning in the phrase “Trump era.”

                  I mean, sure, sometimes people use it with the implications you lay out. Other times it is a neutral phrase in the manner I described; or a phrase deployed with irony; or even, as in most of the examples Gilmore picked out, a phrase picked because the author is specifically describing things that might change with a new administration. This is all obvious stuff, or should be.

                  1. Sure Jesse, all you did was snidely declare “Let me google that for you” for a former President and think that was sufficient to actually address the criticism provided.

                    to find an occult meaning in the phrase “Trump era.”

                    “How dare you point out that I’m regurgitating a propaganda term, I’ll accuse you of witchcraft in response.”

                    a phrase picked because the author is specifically describing things that might change with a new administration.

                    You used a term in exactly the context I noticed, i.e. you provide an undue amount of monolithic influence of the Presidency of defining the cultural discussion of the period, i.e. ” looks both at how Gaffney’s views have grown more influential in the Trump era…” and then suggest you’re using the term neutrally. It’s almost like an actual reading of the sentence supports my position and not yours.

                    Other times it is a neutral phrase in the manner I described

                    In the way ‘Stalinism’ or ‘kulak’ are used neutrally of course.

                    This is all obvious stuff, or should be.

                    Yes, you can’t actually defend your position properly, so you declare it a self-evident truth.

                    1. You used a term in exactly the context I noticed, i.e. you provide an undue amount of monolithic influence of the Presidency of defining the cultural discussion of the period, i.e. ” looks both at how Gaffney’s views have grown more influential in the Trump era…”

                      Let me decode those 14 words for you: Beinart wrote that Trump frequently cites Gaffney’s group and that Gaffney’s views have had a direct influence on members of his administration. Hence, they “have grown more influential in the Trump era.”

                      Both Beinart’s article and my post then go on to describe Gaffneyesque ideas gaining cultural currency before Trump became president. This is, of course, the exact opposite of proclaiming the “monolithic influence of the Presidency of defining the cultural discussion.”

                      So you’ve committed a pretty weird misreading there. But I guess it shouldn’t be surprising from someone who took my use of the word “occult” as an accusation of witchcraft. Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your bag.

                    2. Let me decode those 14 words for you:

                      “Let me continue to be a condescending ass.” Very well, I shall respond in kind.

                      Beinart wrote that Trump frequently cites Gaffney’s group and that Gaffney’s views have had a direct influence on members of his administration. Hence, they “have grown more influential in the Trump era.”

                      Of course, you could have said Trump administration, or the Presidency, or the executive branch, which would have actually been more accurate in regards to the point you made. But instead you choose to use a propaganda term designed to invoke some idea of Trump being a defining element of the time, a culturally authoritarian concept. It’s almost like it’s not a neutral term at all, and invoking it and then claiming so is inaccurate. Boy, that era of two months is really substantial, isn’t it. Quite the ‘era’. Clearly you’re putting that history degree to good use.

                    3. But I guess it shouldn’t be surprising from someone who took my use of the word “occult” as an accusation of witchcraft.

                      It couldn’t possibly be I was mocking your cheap hackish tactic used to try to delegitimize my statement by claiming it is ‘occult’. Nope, strict literalism, that’s the winning move.

                      This is, of course, the exact opposite of proclaiming the “monolithic influence of the Presidency of defining the cultural discussion.”

                      It’s entirely possible to argue that and still use terms that deliberately invoke the opposite. But that would require you to actually look your own premises rather than snidely lecture others.

                      Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your bag

                      You know Jesse you can just drop the pretense and say “YOU’RE STOOPID LOL.” It’s about as effective and thought-provoking as this.

                    4. “Let me continue to be a condescending ass.” Very well, I shall respond in kind.

                      Were you under the impression that you had not been condescending from the beginning? If so, your self-awareness is on about the same level as your reading comprehension skills.

                      It couldn’t possibly be I was mocking your cheap hackish tactic used to try to delegitimize my statement by claiming it is ‘occult’. Nope, strict literalism, that’s the winning move.

                      I love how this knock on literalism comes right after you were beating your chest about whether two months can literally be an “era.” Anyway, not to be strictly literal or anything, but I didn’t say your statement was occult.

                      It’s about as effective and thought-provoking as this.

                      Well, it certainly doesn’t seem to have provoked much thought on your end. Anyway, I agree that this is going nowhere: You haven’t persuaded me that “Trump era” is a dangerous “propaganda term,” and I haven’t persuaded you to pull your head out of your ass. Let’s call it a day.

    3. What a random complaint. What are you talking about?

      1. I didn’t read GILMORE’s comment. Presumably bowties?

        1. It’s gonna be warm enough for sandals soon, as long as you wear them with wool socks.

  8. a man who thinks that Islam in itself is a subversive force and that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to turn America into a caliphate.

    He must have gone back in time to insert passages into the Koran and Hadiths providing instructions on how conquer and Islamicize infidel lands and asserting the moral duty to do so. It’s strange that you write this a week after the President of Turkey calls for the demographic conquest of Europe, citing the Islamic duty to do so. Then you have Imams, leftists and general public opinion among Muslims calling for the same thing and you want to tell me that Islam is not subversive or driven by ambitions for conquest? Take off the damn blinders.

    If you seriously believe that the country’s most powerful institutions are being infiltrated by the enemy, then there comes a point when you start seeing those institutions as enemies themselves.

    Except that McCarthy was right. In fact he was so fucking right, he had no idea that he grossly underestimated the level of infiltration in the federal bureaucracy. I know the documents definitively showing this were only declassified and disseminated 22 years ago but please try to keep up.

    1. Fun fact: Free Society is actually Ann Coulter.

      1. Ann Coulter is actually a collective being, a sort of self-directed, semi-sentient swarm, made up of the nuttiest yokels from each online forum or comment board.

      2. In the sense that I don’t have my head up my own ass about cultural and moral relativism, yeah sure.

      3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ona_papers

        Yeah, only a nut would think the Soviets ever infiltrated American government and society.

    2. demographic conquest

      Lame euphemism, or the lamest euphemism?

      1. So have you ever debated using actual argumentation or is your base trolling the most you’re capable of?

  9. the postwar Red Scare began before McCarthy’s antics, and indeed before the Korean War.)

    Jessee, the Red scare was real. The Soviets did have followers and agents within the country and government and they were trying to undermine the country. In the 1930s, they were a huge force behind the isolationist movement, that is until Hitler invaded Russia. Alger Hiss was guilty. Witticker Chambers was telling the truth. The Rosenbergs really were spies. There really were communists in Hollywood who were trying to run anyone who wasn’t a communist out.

    It wasn’t a “red scare”. It really happened. I don’t understand how people can act like the threat of communism in the 40s and 50s was some kind of John Birch conspiracy theory.

  10. I missed the line where Jesse said McCarthy wuz wrong.

    1. It may be tempting to put all the madness of the early Cold War on the shoulders of one Wisconsin senator, and then to cheer as Joseph Welch ritually exorcises him on the floor of the Senate and the TV screens of America. The truth, alas, is much messier and uglier than that. When it comes to the Red Scare, there’s plenty of shame to go around.

      https://reason.com/blog/2014/04…..carthy-era

      Try following the links and reading the article for its meaning.

    2. I missed the line where Jesse said McCarthy wuz wrong.

      The post deliberately avoided the issue of how wrong he was because it didn’t really affect the point I was making, but it’s a topic that people like to argue about anyway.

      1. What is there to argue about Jessee? Do you really deny there was pretty serious Soviet infiltration and influence in the US government during the 1940s?

        1. Do you really deny there was pretty serious Soviet infiltration and influence in the US government during the 1940s?

          You linked to my old post, so you know my views on that. Soviet espionage was real; McCarthy’s accusations were frequently false.

          1. And I agree. But then you shouldn’t call it the red scare. Calling it a scare implies that it was baseless. it wasn’t. Just because McCarthy lied and took advantage of the situation doesn’t mean there wasn’t a problem.

            1. And I agree. But then you shouldn’t call it the red scare. Calling it a scare implies that it was baseless. it wasn’t. Just because McCarthy lied and took advantage of the situation doesn’t mean there wasn’t a problem.

              Except that McCarthy wasn’t the only person levying unfounded accusations. Lots of people who never were part of Soviet operations ran into career trouble or other problems in the ’40s and ’50s.

              You can have a real phenomenon and still have a scare about it. It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s similar to how you can have a scare about a drug at the same time that some people genuinely abuse it.

              1. See The Crazies?the Romero original, not the remake.

      2. You trashed McCarthy several times in your post, if you think you weren’t implying that he was wrong, then I call you a liar.

        1. McCarthy deserves to be trashed. He was a demagoguery. But that doesn’t mean he hadn’t latched on to an actual issue.

          1. I don’t care if he was an asshole. I don’t care if his grandstanding was for electoral gain. He was right and the US stood to benefit from listening to him.

            1. The US stood to benefit by stamping on citizen’s constitutional rights? Is that really the argument you are making?

        2. if you think you weren’t implying that he was wrong, then I call you a liar.

          Lulz

  11. The Obama years didn’t end with the election of a veteran Tea Partier; they ended with the election of a veteran birther.

    One birther, running as a Republican, beat the Democrat who started the whole thing.

    1. And Trump was never a birther. He never claimed Obama was born in Keyna. He just said Obama should have to produce his birth certificate and put the issue to rest. After Obama did that, Trump stopped talking about it.

      1. Also:

        “You questioned his citizenship during his campaign, and you said afterwards if he produced that long-form birth certificate, you’d produce your tax returns. But you didn’t do it, did you?” asked Ireland TV3’s Colette Fitzpatrick in May 2014.

        “Well, I don’t know ? did he do it?” Trump said. “If I decide to run for office I’ll produce my tax returns. Absolutely. I would love to do that. I did produce a financial statement even though I wasn’t even running. I did produce a financial statement and it was shocking to some because it was so much higher than people thought possible.”

        1. I don’t see how Trump not releasing his tax records makes him a birther. That doesn’t make any sense. And none of the quotes above ever say that he thinks Obama was born in Kenya, only that others do.

          Howard Dean said basically the same thing about the truthers. He said, “a lot of credible people think it was an inside job”. Is that a sleazy thing to say? Sure. But, it doesn’t mean Dean is a truther. In fact, it says that he almost certainly isn’t one but is a typical sleazy politician and was happy to try and capitalize on the fact that some people were. Trump did the same thing with birtherism.

          1. He just said Obama should have to produce his birth certificate and put the issue to rest. After Obama did that, Trump stopped talking about it.

            He did not stop talking about it.

  12. This conversation between Crusty Juggler #2 & John is a fantastic microcosm of the internet. Two people just talking past each other. To be fair to Crusty, he quoted to the portion of the text that his posts were about. But pretty funny conversation to say the least.

  13. Meanwhile, they are banning larger electronics on airplanes because Muslims who want to establish a world caliphate are turning batteries into bombs

    But hey, point that out and you are a crazy paranoid.

  14. Let’s all agree on…Trump Watch, ‘mkay?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.