Main Menu

Front organizations

When I was in school, they taught us to be on the look out for Communists, and they told us that one of the Communist tools was to use “front organizations.” The Wikipedia defines the term:

A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization, such as intelligence agencies, organized crime groups, banned organizations, religious or political groups, advocacy groups, or corporations. Front organizations can act for the parent group without the actions being attributed to the parent group thereby allowing them to hide from public view.

I’m extending my definition of front organization to include an individual trying to appear to be a group (see astroturfing).

I was just deleting 10 messages from my answering machine that were recorded while I was out this past Friday. Several of them were from organizations I never heard of, probably fronts for something or another. This article, however, was prompted by the web site of an organization called the North American Law Center. It’s an impressive sounding name that sounds like an offshoot of a bar association or a consortium of law schools. It’s not.

Both the web page, and the domain registration shows us that the North American Law Center is the creation of well-known birther JB Williams, and another front organization: US Patriots Union.  I got bogged down pretty quickly trying to sort all of the variations of the US Patriots Union theme on the web, although I found JB Williams at this one.

It seems that the North American Law Center is concerned with a single issue: impeaching Barack Obama. The notable conspiracist radio program InfoWars picked up on a story that a resolution of impeachment drafted by the North American Law Center would be considered at the January 13th meeting of the Republican National Committee. (A more comprehensive treatment of the RNC story can be found at Mlive.com.) The Michigan Republican Committee member who promised to introduce the NALC resolution is Dave Agema, whose web site touts the impeachment articles. Most of the reporting on this resolution appears on web sites which themselves look like fronts.

So what are the articles of impeachment against Obama? The number one article is: “false personation and identity theft.” Yup, it’s forged birth certificate and stolen social-security number all over again. The other two articles contain a mix of real and imagined actions by President Obama, a few of which are legitimate issues that a reasonable person might argue warrant impeachment.

The impeachment resolution was killed by a unanimous vote of the Resolutions Committee at the RNC meeting in Charleston, SC.

, , ,

13 Responses to Front organizations

  1. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    I remember that birthers argued Obama couldn’t be impeached, since he was ineligible, but, rather, had to be removed by a special super-secret process that is found only in the Birther Constitution. So, I suppose this is progress…

    Anyway, since the Republicans believe Obama is no longer President, performing the duties of that office, such as appointing Justices to the Supreme Court, they can’t impeach him, can they?

  2. avatar
    Joey February 22, 2016 at 2:06 pm #

    Anyone who mentions impeachment should be asked to name the 14 Democratic Senators who they think would vote guilty in a Senate trial. It takes 68 votes in the Senate to remove a president from office and there are 54 Republicans (including the RINOs) in the Senate.

  3. avatar
    CRJ February 22, 2016 at 8:54 pm #

    The preference would be Amendment 14 Section 3, based on the fact Obama had previously taken an oath and then given engaged in insurrection/rebellion and offered aid to the enemies of the U.S. as an unqualified he could be removed as a ‘disability’.

    [No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    If Obama were proven ineligible by the terms of the Constitution and damages were awarded to a Candidate standing up for the [natural born Citizen] qualification clause, as a separate Legislation action in Congress after said Judicial Action, I don’t think it would be hard to find the 14 Democratic Senators as any not voting would be seen as criminals offering cover for those engaged in rebellion and insurrection.

  4. avatar
    bob February 22, 2016 at 9:06 pm #

    CRJ:
    Obama . . . engaged in insurrection/rebellion and offered aid to the enemies of the U.S. as an unqualified he could be removed as a ‘disability’.

    Even for Judy, that’s some industrial-strength crazy talk.

    If Obama were proven ineligible by the terms of the Constitution and damages were awarded to a Candidate standing up for the [natural born Citizen] qualification clause, as a separate Legislation action in Congress after said Judicial Action, I don’t think it would be hard to find the14 Democratic Senators as any not voting would be seen as criminals offering cover for those engaged in rebellion and insurrection.

    It would appear “if” is again doing all the hard work. But given the volume of the word salad, it is difficult to say.

  5. avatar
    Rickey February 22, 2016 at 9:07 pm #

    CRJ: I don’t think it would be hard to find the14 Democratic Senators as any not voting would be seen as criminals offering cover for those engaged in rebellion and insurrection.

    So your idea of democracy is to jail people who don’t vote the way you want.

    How many delegates did you get in the Nevada caucuses?

  6. avatar
    bob February 22, 2016 at 9:34 pm #

    Rickey: So your idea of democracy is to jail people who don’t vote the way you want.

    Even worse: Judy appears to not even know that congressional votes cannot be the basis for crimes. (Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1.)

  7. avatar
    Rickey February 23, 2016 at 2:26 am #

    bob: Even worse: Judy appears to not even know that congressional votes cannot be the basis for crimes.(Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1.)

    bob: Even worse: Judy appears to not even know that congressional votes cannot be the basis for crimes.(Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1.)

    He knows the Constitution about as well as he knows the rules of the Supreme Court.

  8. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 23, 2016 at 4:56 am #

    It seems that the North American Law Center is concerned with a single issue: impeaching Barack Obama.

    The “National Black Republicans” also come to mind (as trotted out by WND recently).
    => http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/what-national-black-republican-association

  9. avatar
    John Reilly February 23, 2016 at 8:40 am #

    bob: Even worse: Judy appears to not even know

    Fill in blank.

  10. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2016 at 9:02 am #

    CRJ: Obama had previously taken an oath and then given engaged in insurrection/rebellion and offered aid to the enemies of the U.S.

    I’m always astounded to read such garbage when in fact one of Obama’s most serious “sins” IMO has been an increase in drone use that has resulted in an indiscriminate slaughter of innocents which, was the world a better place, would result in your President being dragged before a Human Rights court — the very opposite of what CRJ is complaining.

  11. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 23, 2016 at 9:29 am #

    CRJ: The preference would be Amendment 14 Section 3

    Except that 14A.3 explicitly does not mention the office of President or VP. You cannot argue that he falls under “any office” when even Senators are explicitly included.

    CRJ: I don’t think it would be hard to find the 14 Democratic Senators as any not voting would be seen as criminals offering cover for those engaged in rebellion and insurrection.

    Only a vanilla tyranny would force its representatives to vote in a certain way (or at all) in order to not get criminally prosecuted.
    Funny how you birthers always favour highly oppressive, undemocratic, dictatorial measures as long as those help you have your way.

  12. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 23, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

    The depths of Judy’s ignorance are vasty and deep, and truly unplumable.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

    BTW, somehow JB Williams was omitted from Birthers A to Z. Fixed now.