Steve G.

Barrett asks for removal of LP Political Director Sean Haugh

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on June 26, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Barrett Asks for Removal of LP Political Director Sean Haugh

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 19, 2008

Asks the National Libertarian Party to Remove Political Director Sean Haugh for Race-Baiting Smear Regarding the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and Implying that Dr. Barrett may deny the Holocaust

In a verified email sent by LP Political Director Sean Haugh to members of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin on May 14, Haugh wrote:

“He [Barrett] has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion.”

Haugh’s statements are reckless and false. There is no legitimate source documenting Dr. Barrett that ever “made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers”, nor has Dr. Barrett ever denied the existence of the Nazi Holocaust.

In fact, Dr. Barrett founded a non-profit organization called the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, which brings people of these three great faiths together. Dr. Barrett has also co-edited and co-authored an interfaith dialogue book with Jewish and Christian authors.

Haugh’s statements cheapen the genuine human horror and tragedy felt by the victims and survivors of the Holocaust, where the Nazis exterminated six million Jewish people. When Dr. Barrett compares Bush to the Nazis, it is not a compliment.

It should also be noted that the very concept of Holocaust Denial contradicts 9/11 Truth, as Holocaust Denial denies government mass murder while 9/11 Truth asserts it.

We are appalled that the national LP would be wasting member dues to pay the salary of someone who uses the despicable tactics of Sean Haugh. Haugh’s actions damage the credibility of the Libertarian Party and the Barrett for Congress Campaign.

A copy of Sean Haugh’s email will be made available on request.

We request that the national LP remove Sean Haugh from his position as LP Political Director and that an apology be sent to Dr. Barrett immediately.

Contact:

Dr. Kevin Barrett; 608-583-2132 or kbarrett@merr.com or http://www.barrettforcongress.us

Rolf Lindgren; 608-279-5889 or rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com

__________________________________

LFV Update: LP Political Director Sean Haugh’s response to an LFV query is here.

  1. The LP of Wisconsin can nominate whomever it wishes. And the LNC, through its employees, can and should act to denounce candidates who may bring disrepute to the Libertarian Party. If you don’t agree with the LNCs criteria then change the LNC (if you can) to one more to your liking.

  2. LNC employees, such as the Executive Director and Political Director, are not and should not be in the position to make statements about other candidates. Their sole job is to execute.

    If the LNC wishes to communicate its displeasure about a particular candidate, it can hold a vote and communicate its will through that vote.

    LP employees, as of the last six months, have been the proverbial tail wagging the dog. We have seen this both in the Ruwart smear orchestrated by now-departed ED Shane Cory, and in this latest news.

    REGARDLESS of what one’s position on this issue is, it is NOT the job of LP employees to “determine who brings disrepute to the LP.” That’s the job of the membership, the LP caucus voters, and the LNC itself.

    Since the LNC has not made public statements on this, nor held a vote, it’s safe to say that the inference that Haugh (or Cory) were acting under their instructions are quite false.

  3. I’m sorry to say that Sean had apparently descended into being less than an upstanding supporter of liberty. Add in the “OK” he communicated to Shane Cory on the now infamous posting on the LP website, calling on the FBI to step up efforts in so-called child pornography enforcement, and we see that Sean Haugh has all but abandoned principled libertarianism.

    Sean Haugh’s demise as Political Director of the LP is likely eminent. Don’t let the proverbial door hit you on the a*s as you leave Sean.

  4. I’d rather LPHQ employees didn’t comment on pre-nomination candidates at all.

    However, if they’re going to (and they ARE going to, as the pro-Paul and anti-Ruwart escapades prove), then they could do a lot worse than Haugh just did. Barrett’s candidacy is an attack on the LP and on libertarianism per se. If Sean’s response was going to be anything other than a curt “no comment,” then it should have been exactly what it was.

  5. We need to see the disputed email to make a judgement here.

  6. “However, if they’re going to (and they ARE going to, as the pro-Paul and anti-Ruwart escapades prove), then they could do a lot worse than Haugh just did. Barrett’s candidacy is an attack on the LP and on libertarianism per se.”

    Barrett’s candidacy is no more of an attack on the LP and on libertarianism than the campaign of Bob Barr is. If anything, the campaign of Bob Barr is more of an attack on the LP and libertarianism than the campaign of Kevin Barrett.

    The only problem that I see with Kevin Barrett’s campaign is that he’s a recent convert to the Libertarian Party who came from the left and has not gotten rid of all of his leftist economic views.

    “If Sean’s response was going to be anything other than a curt ‘no comment,’ then it should have been exactly what it was.”

    As a paid employee of the party, his response should have been a no comment. Attacking Barrett was unprofessional.

  7. Andy,

    You write:

    “As a paid employee of the party, his response should have been a no comment. Attacking Barrett was unprofessional.”

    I can agree with that, my dislike of Barrett’s 9/11 nutjobbery, support for Holocaust denial and anti-libertarian policy positions notwithstanding. Obviously I’m more sympathetic to Sean’s response than I would have been if the candidate he’d been speaking of was anything resembling a libertarian, but I do agree that when anti-libertarian whackjobs try to hijack the LP ballot line in the states, LPHQ should stay out of it and hope said state LPs can defend themselves.

  8. […] Last Free Voice for truth, justice and the american way « Barrett asks for removal of LP Political Director Sean Haugh […]

  9. I previously requested the email in question from the Barrett campaign, but have not yet received it.

    I have, however, received an email from LP Political Director Sean Haugh, which may shed more light on this controversy. It is in the next entry.

  10. “I can agree with that, my dislike of Barrett’s 9/11 nutjobbery,”

    9/11 “nutjobbery” which is supported by candidates for whom you previously worked in Aaron Russo, Michael Badnarik, and Steve Kubby (who signed the Libertarians for Justice ( http://www.LibertariansforJustice.org ) petition to call for a new investigation and who participated in the Libertarians for Justice event at the National Convention).

    9/11 “nutjobbery” which is also supported by L. Neil Smith whom you have cited as an influence.

    “support for Holocaust denial”

    I don’t think that Barrett actually DENIED that there was a Holocaust. He just supported looking into evidence that the actual number of deaths is not as high as many people believe. This is NOT the same thing as denying that there was a Holocaust.

    Here is a quote from Barrett.

    “In fact I may be the only Muslim on earth who does NOT question the basic facts of the standard Western holocaust narrative.”

    This doesn’t sound like “Holocaust Denial” to me.

    “and anti-libertarian policy positions notwithstanding.”

    His actual anti-Libertarian policies on Social Security and healthcare are far bigger issues, however, he is not the only Libertarian candidate running this year who strays from Libertarian principles.

    “Obviously I’m more sympathetic to Sean’s response than I would have been if the candidate he’d been speaking of was anything resembling a libertarian, but I do agree that when anti-libertarian whackjobs try to hijack the LP ballot line in the states, LPHQ should stay out of it and hope said state LPs can defend themselves.”

    The bottom line is that LP HQ should not be involved with this. If people in the state party or individual members (who are not party employees) from anywhere in the country want to make critical remarks about Kevin Barrett, they should be free to do so, but PAID EMPLOYEES of the National Office should stay out of it.

  11. Just a quick scan of his website makes one wonder if he understands what this philosophy is all about.

    MW

  12. Whether or not Barrett is a Holocaust Denier is in dispute. That Barrett is a 9/11 Denier of the worst kind is not in dispute.

    Barrett is scheduled to be featured in an upcoming ad showing why here:

    http://911truthisalie.blogspot.com

  13. Geez, Rick Stanley rides again!

    This one is simple:

    1.) Barrett is a nut.
    2.) Brian is correct, the LPUS PD job is to execute the job, not comment on state-level candidates (candidates running for a state-level or districted position, not the national one of President). Leave the WI candidates to LPWI to worry about.
    3.) LPWI should take care to make sure that they keep the party organization positions separate from the candidate. I had to do that as Media Director for LPCO in 2002 with Stanley. Call it a lesson learned.
    4.) Whether Haugh is a libertarian or not, he needs to back off and let LPWI handle it. But he shouldn’t resign over this, either.

  14. Quoth Andy:

    “9/11 ‘nutjobbery’ which is supported by candidates for whom you previously worked in Aaron Russo, Michael Badnarik, and Steve Kubby (who signed the Libertarians for Justice ( http://www.LibertariansforJustice.org ) petition to call for a new investigation and who participated in the Libertarians for Justice event at the National Convention).”

    How many times do you think you’ll have to try to pull THAT trick before I miss calling you on it. “Supporting a new investigation” is not the same as the “9/11 nutjobbery” I’m talking about … and you fucking well know it.

    Classic bait-and-switch —

    Claim: “Overwhelming evidence that US government personnel were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.”

    Question: “What evidence would that be?”

    Claim: “I’ve presented it dozens of times. You’re just ignoring it.”

    Question: “Really? Can you point me to a link where you’ve presented it? Ever?”

    Claim: Hey, candidates YOU have supported are on MY side — they’ve CALLED FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION.”

    Of course, all that’s required to dispel the bait and switch is three more questions:

    Questions: “In what way does calling for a new investigation in any way imply the claim that US government personnel were complicit in the 9/11 attacks”

    Question: “Why do you try to portray it as such?”

    Question: “Why does your fascination with who has called for an investigation ALWAYS manifest itself as a subject-changer right after I’ve pointed out that you’re a whackjob and/or right after I’ve called you to the carpet on the FACT that you’ve NEVER presented ONE IOTA of ACTUAL EVIDENCE for your claim?”

  15. Michael Seebeck wrote “Geez, Rick Stanley rides again!”

    Out of curiosity, is Rick Stanley still in prison?

  16. It’s beyond stupid to think that someone who compares Bush to Hitler is Holocaust denier:

    UW Instructor Compares Bush to Hitler

    By CARRIE ANTLFINGER
    The Associated Press
    Wednesday, October 11, 2006; 5:38 AM

    MILWAUKEE — A university instructor who came under scrutiny for arguing that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay his students are being required to buy for his course.

    The essay by Kevin Barrett, “Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11,” is part of a $20 book of essays by 15 authors, according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press.

    In a file photo University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor Kevin Barrett sits outside his cabin on July 6, 2006, in Lone Rock, Wis. Barrett, who has come under scrutiny for saying that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks, compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay that his students are being required to buy. (AP Photo/The Capital Times, Mike DeVries) (Mike Devries – AP)

    The book’s title is “9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out.” It is on the syllabus for Barrett’s course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Islam: Religion and Culture,” but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett’s essay.

    Barrett, a part-time instructor who holds a doctorate in African languages and literature and folklore from UW-Madison, is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group’s members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

    “Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” he wrote.

    Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

    “That’s not comparing them as people, that’s comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that’s an accurate comparison that I would stand by,” he said.

    He added: “Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.”

    Moira Megargee, publicity director for the Northampton, Mass., publisher Interlink, said the book is due out at the end of November and the editing isn’t finished.

    “It is not final and for all we know that essay may not be in the book or may be edited,” she said.

    The university’s decision to allow Barrett to teach the course touched off a controversy over the summer once his views became widely known.

    Sixty-one state legislators denounced the move. One county board cut its funding for the UW-Extension by $8,247 _ the amount Barrett will earn for teaching the course _ in a symbolic protest, even though the course is unrelated to that branch of the UW System.

    Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and his Republican challenger, Mark Green, have both said they believe Barrett should be fired.

    One essay Barrett is requiring students to read is entitled: “A Clash Between Justice and Greed,” and argues that conflicts between Islam and the western world were made up after the “collapse of the Soviet Union to justify U.S. ‘defense’ spending, and to provide a pretext of controlling the world’s resources.”

    The author of another essay, “Interpreting Terrorism: Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?,” contends some western intelligence agencies are commiting acts of terrorism to make them look like the work of radical Islamics.

    The university’s chief academic officer, Provost Patrick Farrell, decided to retain Barrett for the course after reviewing his plans and qualifications. He said Barrett could present his ideas during one week of the course as long as students were allowed to challenge them.

    He later warned Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views.

    Farrell said he has not seen the essay, but faculty can assign readings that may not be popular to everyone.

    “I think part of the role of any challenging course here is going to encourage students to think of things from a variety of perspectives,” he said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101100292.html

  17. ElfNinosMom;

    Haugh’s email can be found here:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483

    btw

    The “media” referred to at the bottom of the page, is a christian-right political operative from Wisconsin named James Widgerson. He hates Libertarians.

  18. Galileo,

    You write:

    “It’s beyond stupid to think that someone who compares Bush to Hitler is Holocaust denier”

    Yep. Almost as far beyond stupid as interpreting the statement …

    “He [Barrett] has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America.”

    … to mean that the person who made it “think[s] that someone who compares Bush to Hitler is a Holocaust denier.”

  19. “Out of curiosity, is Rick Stanley still in prison?”

    ENM, I will be the ignorant apathetic on that one:

    I don’t know, and I don’t care.🙂

  20. “Out of curiosity, is Rick Stanley still in prison?”

    ENM, I will be the ignorant apathetic on that one:

    I don’t know, and I don’t care.🙂

  21. Sorry about the double post!

  22. […] original Barrett press release is here. Sean Haugh’s response is […]

  23. “How many times do you think you’ll have to try to pull THAT trick before I miss calling you on it. ‘Supporting a new investigation’ is not the same as the ‘9/11 nutjobbery’ I’m talking about … and you fucking well know it.”

    If a person supports a new investigation they obviously do not believe the official government story. If a person believes the official government story about 9/11 then they would see no need to re-open the investigation.

    I don’t know where exactly Kevin Barrett’s views about 9/11 differ from the view that we held by Aaron Russo about 9/11 (Russo called it an inside job and said that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolitions), or the view that is held by Michael Badnarik (there are videos of him on-line questioning the official government story, and he signed a petition at http://www.911Truth.org to call for a real investigation), Steve Kubby (Kubby appeared on Barrett’s radio show in 2007 and said that the attack looked like a false flag terror operation), and L. Neil Smith (I spoke to L. Neil Smith at the National Convention and the subject of 9/11 came up and he was pretty knowledgable about it. He even mentioned the 5 dancing Israelis that were caught video taping the buildings come down as they celebrated).

    If one does not believe the official government story about 9/11 then one is a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

  24. “If a person supports a new investigation they obviously do not believe the official government story. If a person believes the official government story about 9/11 then they would see no need to re-open the investigation.”

    That’s a classic non sequitur.

    First, it does not follow from the fact that one supports a new investigation that someone “obviously do[es] not believe the official government story.”

    By way of analogy, you’re saying that if someone believed the Warren Commission’s conclusions regarding the assassination of JFK, they would see no need to re-open the investigation … when, in fact, numerous supporters of the Warren Commission’s conclusions have conducted independent investigations and/or called for new government investigations to establish the correctness of said conclusions. See, for example, Jim Moore (A Conspiracy of One) or Gerald Posner (Case Closed).

    Secondly, “the government did it” does not automatically follow from “not believ[ing] the official government story.” The government story could be SIGNIFICANTLY defective in NUMEROUS respects, to the level of cover-up, without in any way implying that the government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

    You mention the “dancing Israelis” in New Jersey, partying and celebrating while they watched the carnage across the water. If you’ve read Justin Raimondo’s The Terror Enigma, you know that Raimondo makes a pretty good case for Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks.

    That doesn’t imply US government complicity in the attacks — Israel is not the US, and it is well known that Mossad holds its intelligence close when it sees Israeli interests as being at stake. Few would argue that the 9/11 attacks weren’t a windfall for Israel. I believe it’s very likely that Israel had foreknowledge and decided NOT TO SHARE that foreknowledge with the US intelligence community, because a) they preferred the attacks to succeed, and b) A long-held principle of intelligence work is “need to know” — and Israeli operatives/allies in the US government DIDN’T need to know, and might in fact have acted to prevent the attacks had they been informed.

    Is possible Israeli foreknowledge an important issue? Yes. Is it grounds for calling for a more thorough investigation? Yes. If one believes that Israeli foreknowledge was likely, must one necessarily believe that the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the attacks? Obviously not.

    Skepticism exists as to what actually happened on Flight 93. Some people believe that it was shot down by US military aircraft rather than crashing during an attempt by passengers to re-take control of the plane. Is that skepticism and related hypothesis reasonable? I think it is. And I could see why the US government would want to cover it up. Why take any portion of blame yourself when you can let al Qaeda have it all? Calling for a new investigation into Flight 93 does not necessarily require one to hold that the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

    I’ve personally always been bothered by the hole in the Pentagon. I’ve been inside reinforced concrete bunkers in Kuwait and looked out through the holes made by entering cruise missiles or JDAMs. The hole in the Pentagon was consistent with that kind of impact, and I’ve seen reasonable arguments that it is NOT consistent with entry of a crashing commercial jetliner. Is it possible that a weapon of that type was fired at the flight which allegedly hit the Pentagon and itself hit the Pentagon (perhaps with another bringing the flight down in Chesapeake Bay)? I don’t know. I do know that I won’t be comfortable with the government’s official story on that until they release the video showing what actually happened instead of “selected frames” that show nothing. It’s a far cry from “something doesn’t look right here” to “the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.”

    I’ll start giving serious consideration to the theory that the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks when and if anyone propounding such a theory ever produces any evidence whatsoever in support of said theory. After seven years of claims of such evidence, followed by complete failure to produce it, I’m not holding my breath.

  25. I tend to agree with calls for new investigations – even though I think parts of the gov’t stories are correct by lack of contrary evidence…

    I think there may be serious questions raised about prior knowledge of the attacks by US Gov’t officials – in a manner similar to the allegations about foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. IMHO this seriously rates further investigation, and possible prosecutions.

    OTOH I’m prepared to believe that the WTC buildings came down ONLY because of the airplane hits… George Phillies, in his other life as a Physics Professor at a medium high ranked college (WPI) had considerable professional contact with the folks that did the collapse investigation and has convinced me that the collapse videos are consistent with the official theories… I have problems with the “demo charge” and other deliberate destruction claims simply because IMHO the size of the job to install demo materials would be to big / need to many people to not have had somebody stand up either out of ethics or to get that million dollar book deal and admit to being involved…

    Flight 93 and the Pentagon I’ll consider to be more open questions… There a “non-official” result could have been obtained by a small enough number of people that it wouldn’t have leaked…

    ART

  26. […] Barrett asks for removal of LP Political […]

  27. […] is there Mr. Sean Newton Haugh, 47 years old of Durham, NC, Barrett asks for removal of LP Political Director Sean Haugh Last Free Voice Blogger: User Profile: Sean Haugh […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: