Wisconsin Libertarian for Congress, Kevin Barrett, has been run through the mud for his views on 9/11, and his support for Social Security and other Libertarian heterodoxies. But now he’s apparently been called a supporter of holocaust deniers, too, by LP political director Sean Haugh.
In what’s being called a “verified email” sent by Haugh to members of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin on May 14, Haugh allegedly 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.
Says the Barrett campaign:
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.
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.
Haugh has come under fire recently since it was publicized that he endorsed and suggested the infamous “kiddie porn” press release issued by Shane Cory.
Haugh’s salary has also been called into question, particularly the $1200 per month he was paid to run the LP.org “candidate tracker.” At times, there were as few as six candidates to track, making it a $200 per candidate, per month job.
UPDATE: Here’s a quote, supporting Haugh’s accusation, attributed to Barrett by Wikipedia:
As a rational person who is not a specialist in the subject of WWII, but who has studied the history of Zionist Big Lies vis-a-vis Palestine, I cannot possibly dismiss the arguments of people like Green, Irving, and even Zundel.
UPDATE #2: The full text of Sean Haugh’s statement, as reported by IPR contributor Tom Knapp:
In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett.
I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called “9/11 Truther.” I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:
1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.
2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers. It’s a blatant racism borne of a deliberate stupidity and I will do absolutely everything in my power to make sure that Holocaust deniers do not feel they have a home in the LP.
I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.
yours in liberty –
Sean HaughPolitical Director
Hello. Realize that true happiness lies within you. Waste no time and effort searching for peace and contentment and joy in the world outside. Remember that there is no happiness in having or in getting, but only in giving. Reach out. Share. Smile. Hug. Happiness is a perfume you cannot pour on others without getting a few drops on yourself. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Airbrush tanning information. I found only this – airbrush tan products. When it provides to tanning a tan skin, you can ask from between tanning a optimal airbrush requirement by treatment paint then or you can like a care by owning a tanning tan, airbrush tanning. The most fair bed of enhanced affordable lifestyle manicure hacer is to clog the colour putting before the airbrush is advised and after the reaction is reached, airbrush tanning. With best wishes :o, Tex from Tome.
LibertarianSteve:
“How is his 9/11 hypotheses baseless when it is backed up by many experts in the field of engineering, demolitions, physics, etc..?”
A number of bona fide experts have questioned various aspects of the government’s account of the events of 9/11.
However, Barrett’s hypothesis is that the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, and in the seven years since those attacks the proponents of that hypothesis have yet to display a shred of evidence, from “experts” or elsewhere, to support that hypothesis.
sunshinebatman,
You write:
“How hilarious is it that ‘radical’ Knapp broke from the LP yet still vigorously embraces tyranny-enabling government lies regarding 9/11, far more than the average LP member, and even more than Barr?”
As Trent points out, no, I have not “broken” from the LP.
On the matter of 9/11, I have publicly supported, and continue to publicly support, calls for a new, real, transparent investigation of the events of that day.
I am skeptical of various elements of the government’s account. I believe that a good case can be made for Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. I question the government’s account of the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93.
When the hypothesis that the US government or elements thereof were complicit in the planning and execution of the attacks first came up (long before the dust had cleared at Ground Zero), I began considering that hypothesis. I stopped considering it after some time when no evidence to support it emerged. If evidence ever does emerge to support it, I’ll start considering it again.
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/22/2250/
Knapp did not “break” from the LP, and is actually one of their congressional nominees in Missouri.
PS. How hilarious is it that “radical” Knapp broke from the LP yet still vigorously embraces tyranny-enabling government lies regarding 9/11, far more than the average LP member, and even more than Barr?
As a Barr supporter who finds the ninnying of the anti-Barr crowd tiresome, I have to say I am just as offended by cheap shots coming from the likes of Haugh in the national LP. Barrett is not running a campaign based on WWII history. In fact the wikipedia quote comes from a *private* email Barrett sent a while back to a fanatical supporter of the official government conspiracy theory. He has in no way built his status as a public figure on WWII historical disputes.
Unfortunately, Barrett didn’t help matters by getting a juvenille anti-Barr letter published in the Madison paper last week. He managed to misrepresent Barr’s positions even more than IPR, which is no mean feat.
FULL TEXT OF BARRETT’S STATEMENT:
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 [email protected] or http://www.barrettforcongress.us
Rolf Lindgren; 608-279-5889 or [email protected]
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/pressreleases.htm
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.
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
It’s beyond stupid to claim that someone under fire for comparing Bush to Hitler is, at the same time, a Holocaust denier!
“Barrett’s candidacy is — in effect if not in intent — an attack on the Libertarian Party and on the concept of libertarianism itself. It’s an attempt to use the LP to support not only Barrett’s baseless 9/11 hypotheses”
How is his 9/11 hypotheses baseless when it is backed up by many experts in the field of engineering, demolitions, physics, etc..?
This view is also held by many people who are long time members of the Libertarian Party and in no way violates Libertarian principles.
“and his anti-libertarian policy agenda,”
Barrett does hold a few points of view that are not Libertarian, but so does Bob Barr and so do some other candidates. If the Political Director is going to attack Barrett, then why doesn’t he attack them?
“but now his support for Holocaust ‘revisionism.’ ”
Barrett indicated that he wouldn’t be quick to dismiss their arguements without researching them. That is not the same thing as supporting them, nor does it indicate in any way that Barrett supports Nazi policies.
How is a willingness to examine what they have to say a qualified statement of support?
In what way does this violate Libertarian principles?
I’ve had more than one go-around with Sean Haugh, but I don’t see what the major heartburn with him is here. Haugh’s description of Barrett, as quoted, is clearly accurate and factual.
The apparent occasion for Haugh’s statement (which appears in its entirety below my sig) was an interview request concerning Barrett from a Wisconsin newspaper. Was he supposed to lie to the media on Barrett’s behalf?
Barrett’s candidacy is — in effect if not in intent — an attack on the Libertarian Party and on the concept of libertarianism itself. It’s an attempt to use the LP to support not only Barrett’s baseless 9/11 hypotheses and his anti-libertarian policy agenda, but now his support for Holocaust “revisionism.” Kudos to Sean Haugh for not allowing himself to be so used.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Sean Haugh’s statement as posted to the LPWI group by Julie Fox:
In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett.
I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called “9/11 Truther.” I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:
1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not
support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.
2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before
coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust
deniers. It’s a blatant racism borne of a deliberate stupidity and I will do absolutely everything in my power to make sure that Holocaust deniers do not feel they have a home in the LP.
I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to
disassociate him from the national LP.
yours in liberty –
Sean Haugh
Political Director
Haugh doesn’t say that Barrett IS a holocaust denier (I had to edit the article — I misread Barrett’s press release, which seemed to indicate that’s what Haugh had said), but that he made “qualified” statements of support for holocaust deniers. Again, assuming the wikipedia quote is accurate, then the statement by Haugh is accurate.
Of course, I could make a “qualified statement of support” for a holocaust denier, too: David Duke is better on foreign policy than Barack Obama.
Again, what does the LP Political Director do? That’s the question.
I did not mean to imply that I thought Haugh was right; just that I’m not sure what a Political Director is SUPPOSED to do.
I don’t see how it is appropriate for a paid staffer at LP National to single out a Libertarian Party candidate and attack them, especially when the subject of the attack is based on the candidate’s willingness to examine a subject which some would say is not politically correct, but does not violate libertarian principles to discuss.
Kevin Barrett never said anything about being in agreement with the political views and actions of Nazis or supporting the Holocaust. Judging from the views expressed on Barrett’s website, Barrett is very anti-war and anti-police state and is far from being a Nazi.
I would say that Kevin Barrett’s view on Social Security does go against Libertarian principles, but then again, there seems to be quite a few Libertarian candidates right now who have views that violate Libertarian principles (cough-Bob Barr-cough).
I don’t know. If the wikipedia quote is accurate, then Haugh’s statement is accurate.
Whether that makes it appropriate to send an email to party members, I don’t know. Is this within his job description?
This is yet another reason to shitcan Sean Haugh.
Why isn’t Haugh attacking Bob Barr for his anti-libertarian stances? The same goes with George Phillies. Etc..
As for what Barrett is alleged to have said about the Holocaust, he did not say that he necessarily agrees with Holocaust Revisionists, he just indicated an openess to look at what they have to say. Also, this does not indicate that a Holocaust did not happen, it just says that there is debate among historians over the actual number of people who died in it. If the number was really less than 6 million, it in no way justifies it. One innocent person being murdered is bad.
I find Barrett’s support of Social Security to be more disturbing. Then again, I find Bob Barr’s support for the Fair Tax and his comments about keeping hard drugs illegal to be more disturbing as well.
Fair enough.
Yes, I wrote the “payola” post. I realize that linking is not intended to suggest support for Kevin Barrett, but I find his views to be so repugnant that I felt a need to emphasize the point that I do not support him.
Did you write the “payola” post?
Linking is not intended to suggest you support Kevin Barrett.
Nor does the article reflect personal support for Barrett (I personally do not support him) nor endorsement of his call for Haugh’s removal.
The link is used to show that Haugh has come under fire for a variety of reasons.
Jeez.
I’m not a big fan of Sean Haugh. But I don’t really like the idea of something I wrote being used as support for somebody like Kevin Barrett.
I wouldn’t want anybody to think that just because Kevin Barrett and I share a disrespect for this one person, I stand with him in any other way. I do not.
I think on the issue of Kevin Barrett, if I had to pick a side, I would have to side with Sean Haugh.