I do like Fidler.

But let me be clear.

Storobin is special.

His literary legacy rivals that of Jimmy Mcmillan.

How can I put this so you can understand?

If there were an election between Storobin and Dan Squadron, I would be knocking on doors for Dan Squadron.

Marty Conor might be knoecking on doors for Dan Squadron.

If this were an election between Bob Turner and David storobin, I would be knocking on doors for Bob Turner.

Turner is conservative.

Storobin is a beyond the pale far right kook.   

Gatey, If Storobin was running against the Jig, who would you be knocking on doors for?

I think what he wrote should be judged on what he wrote, more than what websites repost them.

If I did an interview with Charles Barron on his Congressional race, it's possible that an unsavory website would post a link to what I wrote, but that doesn't mean what I wrote was necessarily bad.

1) It's not one unsavory site linking one article. It is a continuous flow of unsavory sites continuously linking his articles.

When you start becoming a favored link of skinheads, again and again, it might be time to reflect.

2) The substance of the article, whitewashing an unsavory scumbag, whose objetives are directly in opposition to Storobin's own community, is baad all on its own. However, the fact that it attracts the audeince it does is further proof of the article's problems. herefore, he

3) The basis of Storobin's entire campaign is that Democrat's are guilty by association, he has conceded guilt by association as a legitimate form of discourse. He who lives by GBA, will surely die (metaphorically) by GBA.

Most of your readers are Democrats, and yet the response to you is almost uniformly negative (I won't be impressed if pro-Gatemouth, anti-Storobin comments suddenly appear).

The reason is that your attacks are not just on Storobin, but on journalism as a whole. Any journalist who interviews anyone other than Mother Teresa immediately becomes subject to a witch hunt if your standard is used.

I just searched for: nytimes stormfront and got this on the very first page: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t756371/

Does this prove that the NY Times is a racist outfit? Of course not. Nobody can control who links to you. You mentioned that he has dozens of articles. You listed a couple that were linked to some of them from unsavory characters. That proves nothing other than your desire to destroy a Republican.

There is a smarter way to do it. What you are doing is just too blatant, and any journalist or even blogger will be afraid to support your "standard" because if they write anything, they will have to live in fear of who will link to them.

Stop writing apologias for apartheid advocates and immigrant bashers.

Real interviewers are capble of asking one tough question now and then.

Storobin condems liberals for all manner of non-existent fantasies. But he cannot come up with one critical word to say about white supremacists trying to re-instate apartheid.

WTF?

There is a difference between interviewing and writing opinion pieces. In 8 years of his writing, did he ever write any opinion pieces that were positive about these people? Seems to be no based on your reporting. His interest in this seems to be solely that someone was willing to do an interview with a blog for which he wrote, which isn't exactly the New York Times. They publish interviews with random people on random subjects because no real newsmakers do interviews with blogs.

But in any event, interviewing someone isn't the same thing as supporting them. Did he write anything to support apartheid? If not, just drop the subject. It merely proves your own bias and hate of Republicans. You are really turning your column into a hate blog that people are laughing at. Look at the comments.

Of the comments above or in your last 2-3 entries on the Republican candidate, who here thinks what you have to say is a legitimate story? It seems that everyone agrees that you are engaged in a character assissination just because you see a competitive race and afraid that the Republican may win.

Your bias is a little too obvious for your own good, for the goal you are trying to achieve.

...i talked about Strorobin writng with espcape hatches, whereby he gave hilself plaubible deniabilty. Yet the dog whistles are so loud that all can them loud and clear.

Read each peace spearately, and you can make your argument. Read them all in each other's context and it is quite clear exaclt ywhere he is gong.

In adiition, no dog whistle is even necessary here. He states his opinion loud and clear:

"Today I spoke to Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project. The most striking part of the interview was how mild his views on immigration truly were. The man has been vilified by most of the Left and even much of the Right, including the White House. He’s supposed to be an immigrant-hating vigilante who dreams of dead Mexicans at night. Instead, he’s an intelligent, mild-mannered person with very reasonable proposals..."

The most obvious example of dishonest propaganda that people give is cutting up quotes to leave the wrong impression. If you ask people to give an example of dishonest propaganda, that's the example they will always give.

That is exactly what you are doing. I just looked up the Gilchrist interview. Gilchrist said that he supports 200,000 legal immigrants plus more H1B guest workers. Strobin, an immigrant himself, found that to be a reasonable proposal. You may agree or disagree, but that's not how you presented it. Personally, I like this proposal also. I guess that makes me a far-right racist?

You cut up quotes in a way that is blatantly unfair and dishonest. You don't give proper context. You blame people for someone else linking to them, something nobody has control over.

Don't you think there's a reason why everyone, including your fellow journalist Colin Campbell, thinks that your attacks are unfair, unwarranted and dishonest?

Dude, honestly, you are just discrediting yourself.

The harshest characterization of Storobin when I initally linked the Afriakner articles did not come from me. My comments about them were initially pretty blase. It was the the journalists who read my article and did their own investigations, at CHN and elsewhere, who made the harshest comments.

You say I strip Storobin's quotes from their context, but it is Storobin who deprives us of context in two impoertant ways.

First, he has stripped his content from the web. When I began this endeavor, one could find a list of virtually everything Storobin wrote at "Global Politican." One could find a somewhat less comprehensive list at "International Analyst" Each of those lists linked every article in its data base.

Those lists are now gone.

It is no longer possible to examine Storobin in context, and it is entirely his doing, since he controls both sites. He could easily rectify this situation. That he has not done so begs the question of "why?" 

To search Storobin's work now requires either a Google search ("Global Politician" + Storobin) which yields 2400 results, or going through the Wayback Machine, which yields every article ever written by  every writer at those sites, which is like burying them. Then one must go through the process of actually recovering the articles themselves. A process already invovling reading dozens of long pieces now requires an astronomic time commitment.

But, as a result, I cannot illustrate the other context problem

It is impossible make sweeping statements like, "in his interviews with far right wing extremist, Storobin lobs soft balls and never subjects them to tough inquiry," even though I believe this statement to be true. 

I can, upon opinion and belief, opine that Storobin takes no such attitude towards the concerns of liberals, leftists, or of racial, ethnic and religious minorities, often turning their views into caricatures, making those caricatures into straw men, and subjecting them to ad hominem attacks. 

The thing I can no longer do is document this. It has become impossible to comprehensively review Storobin's writings, and this is entirely the fault of Storobin.

There is a reason why Storobin is linked again and again by extremists, but one can no longer show why, because Storobin has blocked the road. 

The other context problem I alluded to is in the individual pieces. When Storobin examines the views of groups he does not like, he is unstinting. While I cannot say I agree with each and every syllable of everything he says about Palestinian nationalism, he does outline in voluminous detail the context. He shows that the argument that only Palstininan Arabs have an historic claim to the land is nonsense. He shows the fascistic underpnnings of much of Palestinian Nationalism. While I might take issue with some of his conclusions, one can say that Storobin laves no stone unturned in placing Palestinan claims in a context too often ignored.

By contrast, Storobin just gives the fringy, white supremacist Afriakners a forum for their grievances. The sins of the aparthied socieity which met Jeanne Kirkpatrick's definitintion of a totalatarian ideology, are never even raised. The great achievement of South Africa in abandoning the rigid apartheid society structure while avoidng bloodbaths and show trials, and creating an imperfect democratic capitalistic society are ignored. The white supremacists are just lobbed soft balls and given a forum for their unfettered hate propaganda.

Nowhere, either in the interviews or commentary, or in any other article, does Storobin condemn them. Contrast this to the way Storobin treat countries, movements and religioins he does not care for. I have to conclude that this is because Storobin sympathizes with the Afrikaner's cause. 

A similar pattern infects all Storobin's writing about race. It is always the white man and only the white man who is beleagured by oppressive political correctness. If there is one article in existence where Storobin empathizes with racial minorities, I cannot find it.

He has the means to prove otherwise, if he can. He can just restore all the articles to the two sites he controls. He will not do so, because he knows what is there.

Similarly, in this article, Gilchrist is not subjected to tough questions about his ideoology, or the human garbage he attracts as followers. He is just given a place to show how "reasonable" he is, with commentary that reinforces that message. As I have illustated, this is a whitewash of The Minutemen movement and its allies.        

StormFront is a bigger load than Hal Turner was.

Below, please see the screenshots posted by the idiot William White:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nazi-white-screenshotCU.gif , so that everyone reading this can see for themselves that this kind of manipulation does exist.

Every time the Israeli lobbyists in the United States demand more money or more special legal protections, they wave about these so-called "Neo-nazi" or "White Supremacist" groups like Stormfront and the American Nazi Party. AIPAC, ADL, JDL, and their ilk raise tons of money by waving these boogie-men around as a real imminent threat and danger!

Yet no matter what laws get passed and no matter how many millions ADL, JDL, etc. raise, Stormfront and the American Nazi Party remain strangely unmolested by either criminal or civil actions.

How very strange!!!

So, earlier today, the Commander of the American Nazi Party, one Bill White, posted an article on the official American Nazis website an article accusing rising Presidential candidate Ron Paul of being a "Secret" White Supremacist.

Now, one might suppose that the American Nazi party would be happy to have a candidate who shares their views, and one might assume that Bill White is smart enough to know that making such a public accusation is going to be quite harmful to the candidate he claims shares his philosophy. Indeed it does appear that Bill White's accusation is intended to cause as much harm to Ron Paul as possible.

Of course, Bill White's claim did not do much more than incite a great deal of laughter. But in their haste to get this message out, one of Bill's minions slipped up.

Rather than cut and paste the text of Bill's accusations, one of the members of Bill's blog, apparently to prove the story's source, screen captured Bill's article, posted it to various newsgroups and in doing so, let slip a rather interesting secret.

Here is that screen capture.



Note the tiny little icon indicated by the arrow in the Windows toolbar. It's a megaphone. But not just ANY Megaphone, it is the icon proving that the member of Bill White's American Nazi group is ALSO a member of Megaphone, the Israeli propaganda communications network!

Here is what the Megaphone looks like when it is running.



More about Megaphone can be found at Wikipedia and more about Bill White and his many fronts can be found HERE.

But what we have here is what appears to be a group of self-proclaimed NeoNazis using the Israeli propaganda network!

... which goes a long way to explaining why they are never arrested or sued by those groups that raise so much money using them as scarecrows!"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesup...sraelishill.php

The above text is by Michael Rivero, a Sephardic Jew who created What Really Happened after the murder of White House Counsel Vincent Foster and the subsequent cover-up.

Don't take my word for it - do the research, dear readers.

So, Howie - are Charles Barron, Jimmy McMillan and David Storobin all equal in your eyes? I'm still waiting for that piece that you were going to repost that was so reprehensible - let's see it!

http://www.minutemanproject.com/reconsidered.php

Assumption No. 1 - Jim Gilchrist is nothing but a shameless self-promoter.

Gilchrist is a Rhode Island native who has been married to his wife, Sandy, for 14 years. They have two grown stepdaughters. He says his rise to the forefront of the immigration issue began in the 1990s, when he and Sandy wrote to Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and their congressman, Christopher Cox, on a regular basis, demanding action on the problem of illegal immigration. They were concerned about the use of taxpayer dollars to provide services for non-citizens and the government's failure to enforce the laws of the land. "All we ever got back were boilerplate replies from the politicians that [didn't] address the issue," he says. The issue took on new urgency for Gilchrist after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Outraged that most of the Saudi attackers were in the country illegally, having overstayed their visas, Gilchrist blamed the federal government for allowing the tragedy to happen. Deciding to get more involved, he says he "started reading everything I could find on the subject and doing a lot of research." The Minuteman Project, which Gilchrist describes as a multiethnic immigration law enforcement advocacy group, was born Oct. 1, 2004, when he stayed up all night composing an e-mail recruitment poster inviting people to join him on the Mexican border. "Within two weeks, that e-mail ended up in 400,000 mailboxes," he says. Gilchrist crossed the border of American consciousness six months later, on April 1, 2005, when he and his followers set up camp in the desert south of Tombstone, Ariz., to draw attention to the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States. "I knew if I could create the largest gathering of Minutemen since the Revolutionary War that it would have an impact on the issue," he says. During the next 35 days, more than 1,000 people from around the country participated in the controversial event, fanning out along a 24-mile stretch of the international border to look for and report undocumented immigrants slipping into the country. The gathering sparked a media frenzy, drew a charge of vigilantism from President Bush, and probably did more than any other single event to push immigration reform to the center of the American political stage. In the three years since then, Gilchrist has stayed relevant by advocating strict border control and immigration-law enforcement in city council meetings, on college campuses, at border events, and on more than 2,500 television and radio shows. His energetic agitation has helped make immigration one of the top issues in the 2008 presidential election season. Gilchrist also jumped into politics directly, running for Congress as an American Independent and campaigning for candidates who support his views. The run for Congress made him look good. After a whirlwind three-month campaign in fall 2005, he attracted a respectable 25.8 percent of the vote in a special election to fill the 48th District congressional seat vacated when Cox was appointed chairman of the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Republican John Campbell won the election, but Gilchrist says, "I had a big smile on my face ... the day after the election. There were four bills dealing with immigration chaos introduced in Congress that day. Ten weeks before, none of them were in the works. I have to give myself some credit for that." Others give him credit as well. "Gilchrist was very effective in exploiting talk radio to make illegal immigration a hot issue in the congressional campaign," says Michael Capaldi, chairman emeritus of Orange County's iconic Lincoln Club, a nationally influential group of Republican moneymen and power brokers. Adds Mark Petracca, chairman of the political science department at the University of California, Irvine, "Gilchrist's run for Congress in the open primary election probably compelled the other candidates in this and other local and county elections to focus more on immigration than would have been the case absent his candidacy." Local political blogs lit up recently with speculation that Gilchrist aims to unseat Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez in the 47th district in November, a rumor he doesn't deny. "There's a 50-50 chance I'll get in," he says. If he does, it's a safe bet that furious protesters will show up at every campaign stop accusing him of being a hateful nativist marching arm-in-arm with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation to trample the rights of Mexican immigrants.

Above emphasis mine - VN