I kinda like Fred Phelps and his crew at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Their videos are edgy and provocative, and I agree with their opposition to the war.
I take second place to no one in opposition to socialism, but when Eugene Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for making an anti-war speech that a jury determined was designed to encourage illegal resistance to the draft, I would have been on Debs' side.
A jury recently determined that the Westboro picketers were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," "extreme or outrageous," and "intentional or reckless," and awarded the "brave" and "courageous" Americans who didn't like hearing Westboro free speech $10.9 million in "compensatory" and punitive damages. Whether the same jury would have awarded $10.9 million to the family of a racist bigot whose funeral had been picketed by the local chapter of the NAACP is doubtful. Too many people hear the Westboro "God hates fags" message and say "There oughta be a law!" I disagree.
Bob Enyart is a Denver talk-show host who appears to be a publicity addict like Fred Phelps. He supports U.S. mass murder of women and children in Iraq. He wants to abolish the U.S. Constitution and set up a monarchy. His talk-show is punchy, controversial, and every bit as entertaining as a Fred Phelps video. I'm a regular listener.
I'm concluding that Enyart may also be a pathological liar.
Most Americans won't listen to a single minute of either of these men's rantings. Most Americans are "lukewarm." I am an extremist. Of course, I don't agree with everything Phelps and Enyart say, and even when I agree, I may not like their style of communication.
Nor do I disagree with everything that Enyart and Phelps have to say. Even Adolph Hitler believed and said some true things. All three are above-average in intelligence, and way above average in intellectual consistency. Consistency is what I like best about these figures. They are willing to stand against the mainstream. They are willing to pursue their beliefs to their logical conclusions. I truly like that. (And it saves me a lot of time constructing an argument based on a reductio ad absurdum.)
Lies about Ron Paul
Enyart is now in the process of reducing himself to absurdity over Ron Paul. What I thought might be an aberration looks like it's becoming a full-blown crusade. Enyart has embarked on a campaign to destroy Ron Paul. "God hates Ron Paul" is a sign we soon expect to see in Denver.
Enyart has created a group to rival the National Right to Life organization, on the grounds that NRL is not as consistently opposed to abortion as Enyart would like. As usual, Enyart has some good arguments to make against his opponent. But his own new group, American Right to Life, has developed a pathological hostility to Ron Paul. A couple of months ago ARL was on the war path against Mitt Romney. With Romey out of the race, they have recently announced:
"American RTL ... is planning a surprise for libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul in his 14th congressional district of Texas!"
Like Phelps, Enyart travels the country engaging in street theatre against the enemy du jour. Enyart spent thousands of dollars on O.J. Simpson memorabilia and publicly burned it all on the courthouse steps. Enyart brought his team to Little Rock Arkansas to protest the opening of the Clinton Library. Apparently they are now headed to the 14th Congressional District in Texas.
Enyart says he "provides overwhelming evidence that Ron Paul ... promote[s] pro-abortion policies and that pro-life Christians should expose [Ron Paul] for being pro-choice."
This is bizaare, since Ron Paul has been one of the most courageous Congressional opponents of abortion, offering legislation to annul Roe v. Wade and declare the unborn to be legal "persons" protected by law, making Ron Paul a member of what Enyart glowingly calls "the personhood wing" of the right-to-life movement, that is to say, the most rigorous and fringe part of the movement.
I too agree that the unborn, the comatose, and handicapped, and other human beings, are "persons" under the law, but when Enyart invited me to appear on his talk show, it was for the same reason Sean Hannity invites someone with whom he disagrees: ambush. Interrupt the guest and eventually cut him off entirely. Alan Keyes has also mastered this tactic.
Ron Paul is clearly pro-life. Why does Enyart say that Ron Paul is pro-choice?
Enyart wants everyone to be intellectually consistent with Enyart's presuppositions. Enyart believes in monarchy, therefore he wants candidates for President to promise to exercise monarchical powers if elected. Ron Paul refuses to do this, so Enyart is on the war path against Ron Paul.
For months, Enyart had this in the banner at the top of his website:
Ron Paul: is pro-choice state by state: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06.
Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade is invalid because the constitution does not give the federal government authority over state abortion laws, either to strike them down, as the Roe Court did, or to impose them, as Enyart would. The federal government does not have the authority to amend state criminal codes on shoplifting, larceny, or kidnapping either. Obviously we agree that these things are immoral, but the states never gave jurisdiction over these sins to the federal government. Since Ron Paul does not believe that the President is a monarch, or that the states are colonies of Parliament, Enyart voices his frustration by claiming that Ron Paul is "pro-abortion."
There's a certain logic here, but Enyart could just as logically have said that Ron Paul was "pro-life state by state" (which he clearly is).
On a recent show, Enyart's co-host quotes the LewRockwell.com line from the banner above (on Roe v Wade being just as "invalid" as a federal anti-abortion statute) and then Enyart ostensibly quotes Ron Paul saying,
If we outlawed abortion nationwide that's invalid because of my view that the States should have the right to kill kids, kill blacks, kill Jews, and rape women.
This isn't just a cute "reductio," issued with a smile. Enyart is dead serious, and passionate in his "Ron Paul is pro-abortion" tirade. He calls Ron Paul an "ungodly," "immoral" "godless" "moral relativist." This is a truly pathological depiction of Ron Paul's views.
The purpose of Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" is:
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
In the bill,
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
The bill then removes the power claimed by the Roe v. Wade Court to strike down any state law that protects the lives of unborn children.
And for all this, making Ron Paul one of the most courageous pro-life Congressmen on Capitol Hill, Enyart calls him "pro-abortion."
But it all makes sense in Enyart's mind, because Ron Paul does not believe the President is a monarch.
If Ron Paul is "pro-choice state by state," is Bob Enyart "pro-choice, nation by nation?" What about China and its forced abortion policy? Shouldn't the President re-write China's pro-abortion laws? I asked Enyart this question when I was interviewed on his show, and he ducked the question, but on a more recent show, Enyart criticizes Ron Paul for being unwilling to "send the marines" to Canada if Canada allows abortions!
Apparently Enyart supports a global one-world monarchy.
I guess I'm somewhat attracted to such intellectual curiosities and the consistency from which they spring. But when they mutate into slander and lies which will mislead many people, and destroy a good man's reputation, I'm more than crestfallen. I have to admit I get pretty discouraged when Christians treat one another so disgracefully.
My opening paragraphs were plagiarized from The (Baltimore) Daily Record, Nov 5, 2007, Commentary: On Constitutional Law: "There ought to be a law" by Mark A Graber, just to show that I can be a good political candidate.
I have to confess that whatever affection I might have for Phelps and Enyart results from the fact that I dislike many of the same people they dislike (e.g., inconsistent Christians, atheists, anti-family advocates, abortionists, soldiers, etc.). I may not like their style, but I dislike their enemies more, and as long as they attack ideas I dislike, I don't pay close attention to their offensive style. That may be a fault of mine; I am repulsed at Enyart when he attacks me and Ron Paul. But I wanted to add (for those who might quote the above remarks out of context) that I have so few enemies in common with Hitler, and he opposes so many ideas and people that I support, that I am thoroughly repulsed by Hitler, and while I like a few things that Enyart and Phelps say, I believe their net contribution to society is negative.