Mike Renzulli


The Antiwar.com Money Trail?

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.
Then I got to thinking. Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants and possibly funneling the money to Islamist organizations.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the FBI to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.
With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism. 
Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com and Freedoms Phoenix along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.
If you think I am off my rocker, consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.
Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.
Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.
Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

15 Comments in Response to

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Mr. Haggard … This sounds like an apology coming from you, and I quote what you said: “My jibe regarding your english [English] was petty, and in retrospect, uncalled for. For that, I wish to say that I'm sincerely sorry for my comments and causing you offense.”


If you are blowing over a kiss to a friend like me for a make up and a make over of his hurt feelings to see to it that everything is at least back to normal, you are more than just apologizing.  If you are in fact offering a sincere apology, that I accept. Confucius once said that “…you can never beat a good man …” That being said, even though we agree to disagree, when a good man speaks his heart out, although it may be wrong, nothing could be wrong.


Before we signed this closure, one more important caveat I want to share with you when you use English as a means of communication, either by mouth or in writing.


In the university, I never taught grammar to my journalism class. I taught students how to communicate, not how to write a composition. I leave the teaching of grammar to those other Professors outside the area of Journalism.


Never criticize any writer’s English or grammar … that writer could be a literary genius, for all we know. This is one of the reasons why I do not see eye-to-eye with condescending “grammarians” who can speak correct English but cannot communicate.


Also never criticize one’s writing style. Every writer’s way of communication through writing is an individual signature – like a finger print…because writing styles are never the same.  Before I retired as a UN diplomat, this erudite subject was once my bread and butter, and believe me you might have learned a lot more had you been in my mass communication class in those halcyon days I have had in the academe.


And because I like you, I also want you to know that there is no such thing as “perfect grammar”.  The only perfect grammar is when it is broken for the purpose of communicating EFFECTIVELY. Again be that as it may, I want you to know that the only important lesson to remember is when you can communicate well enough to be understood.


The use of a long sentence or just a single word, could mean the same thing or could achieve the same purpose. In putting a message across between you and your receiver – technically described as the “decoder” – even the language of “silence” can deliver a profound message.


Lastly, you will also discover, perhaps only from these accidental exchanges that you  have with me, that the world’s most famous literary genius William Shakespeare “an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist” --is one of the world worst violators of grammar!


Sorry, this is longer than it should be. This is the common problem of those who want to let out some of a lot of information stored in their cranium all those years as accumulated experiences simply turned them into a walking library.


Comment by J. Michael Haggard
Entered on:


My jibe regarding your english was petty, and in retrospect, uncalled for. For that, I wish to say that I'm sincerely sorry for my comments and causing you offense.

As to the rest, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

Please enjoy your weekend,

Mike Haggard

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

The Argument that shows a serious mental fatigue …

To our friend Mike Haggard … It dawns to me after I read your next comment below, that we are both Libertarians, with the same loyalty to liberty and freedom. The difference is, your Libertarian loyalty to liberty and freedom is directed to the likes of Antiwar.com that the F.B.I. had investigated if not raided last year because of its connection to terrorist/Islamic-jihad organizations. Mine is directed to the preservation and protection not only of our liberty and freedom but of our established institutions – the State, the Government and the System that our great forebears had dared to put up for you and me, and for our children’s children, with their signature in blood, and over their dead bodies.

Unlike yours, mine is especially loyal to our American way of life that the enemy within and their Islamic jihad backers want to destroy. Yours are helping them accomplish this macabre goal – mine is their worst nightmare!

Anyone may disagree or agree with what this objectivist writer Renzulli is writing about. Whatever he writes, he is protected by our freedom of speech, the institution my loyalty wants to preserve, while the enemy within and accomplices want to tear down off the pages of the U.S. Constitution.

I noticed with great astonishment that your written loyalty to Ernie, publisher of this website, is admirable. For your own good, my only discomfort is that our readers might interpret such show-off as pandering. I hope you do not make your personal devotion to him too obvious. I know Ernie … he always thinks that hero-worshiping him is childish, and such overt head-stroking would embarrass him to no end because it is petty and Ernie is much larger than that.

I also noticed that you made reference to my English as my "second language". It used to be, until it became my first language. However, you should know that my parents had told me that I was already speaking English right after I was born. When I was a baby, the very first words that ever came out of my mouth was "Ma ..Mommy" and "Da … Daddy". And that’s English.

I have multiple Awards of Excellence in Journalism in my more than four decades of writings … short-stories, novels and novelettes, poems, and books included – all in English. I have a longer life in the academe teaching in English, much longer than you can ever imagine.

In my years of law practice, I won my big cases in the court of law where legal briefs are written only in English, and in court arguments where only the English language is used.

Insofar as your English is concerned, I don’t know what have you to offer in comparison, but if anyone is barking at the wrong tree, help is needed. No offense intended, but when dogs bark at the wrong tree, it is dangerous … they need to be vaccinated.

I want to point out to you more what your real problem is in using the English language … here is what you have written in your comment, which you confessed is your problem: I can only imagine the difficulties one must encounter when trying to write one’s argument or illustrate one’s point when English is your second language.

I don’t know what your first language was before English became your "second language" of which you admitted you are having difficulty in presenting your argument … may be your first language was Arabic?

If your first language is any of the languages of Islam before English became your "second language", I have information for you which you can use to rid yourself of this problem.

President Obama was raised in Indonesia since his childhood. He was Muslim and spoke the Indonesian language as his first language while English was his "second language", until English became his first language. Today, Obama can beat any argument you have in English hands down anytime of the day. And there lies your hope of solving your problem in the use of English as your "second language", at least in presenting your argument which you admitted that it is difficult for your to do.

Mr. Haggard, I can see the mental fatigue of your argument by trying so hard and still it doesn’t work. I can summarize it for you briefly: It is all right for you if Antiwar.com or FP.com is receiving funds from Islamic terrorist organizations to destroy our way of life here in America. Your justification is that if we can funnel funds to enemy countries to change the people’s way of life in those countries, why can’t communist Russia and terrorist/jihad organizations in the Middle East send their financial support to Antiwar.com or FP.com for the same purpose … to change our way of life here in America?

Ah, you forgot the difference … out there, the purpose of our tax money and support in kind is different: we give a better life to those who needed our help… to those who hunger for liberty and freedom, to those who need to free themselves from the eternal bondage of dictatorship, repression and oppression … But here in the United States of America, what better life Islamic terrorists can offer to the American people other than to vanquish them, destroy their way of life, and wipe out all what they stand for?

The problem of your premise is when you strike back tit-for-tat for purposes that don’t match or for ends that do not meet. Your tit-for-tat position was the flawed argument of terrorists, which was Osama bin Laden’s claim of responsibility for that 911 infamy. You destroy us, we destroy you … but for another reason, which you don't know that this makes a mountain of difference!

Finally, many still believed that 911 was not the handiwork of Al Qaeda terrorists under the dictate of Osama bin Laden, but the workings of the U.S. Government, i.e. the collapse of buildings supposed to have been engineered by government operatives ... supposedly an inside job …an analytical speculation under the theory of a secretly devised plan of the people in the government or a government conspiracy.

It is the fantasy of this Conspiracy Theory that some people still live with that Renzulli attacked in his editorial expose. I am tired of hearing it, until this objectivist author pointed out where the Antiwar.com money trail was leading us to.

It is the fantasy of this Conspiracy Theory that some people still live with that Renzulli attacked in his editorial expose. I am tired of hearing it, until this objectivist author pointed out where theAntiwar.com money trail was leading us to.
Comment by J. Michael Haggard
Entered on:


I apologize for the lack of paragraph breaks. They were in my original draft, but apparently did not "take" during my cut/paste (along with some italics and various other implements utilized for clarity). :-(
Comment by J. Michael Haggard
Entered on:


My goodness, I almost don’t know where to begin. Certainly, I should probably heed Mr. Gammill’s inference and just drop it, but alas, I find I can not. I suppose I should begin with an apology. There is some credence to the accusation that I was being intellectually lazy. At least, I believe that was the gist of the accusation, as it was slightly difficult to discern. I for one have never taken the time to learn a second language. A regret that perhaps sometime in the future I will be able to remedy. Not being able to even speak another language, I can only imagine the difficulties one must encounter when trying to write one’s argument or illustrate one’s point when English is your second language. As a student of Ernie’s teachings, let me work now to “switch on the light of enlightenment” and correct my earlier lassitude and hopefully redeem Ernie’s “side of the discussion” (which I can only guess is referring to my reference of his example of posting all views?). I was initially prompted to respond because I found it ludicrous that the author would purport that not only was it acceptable for antiwar.com and freedomsphoenix to be investigated because they might be receiving funds from Islamist, but that the entire premise for the right to conduct these investigations was based on the author’s foundation that the events of 9/11 were the result of an Islamist attack. Really? Did a handful of Islamist shut down NORAD? Did they work for weeks covertly planting explosives in building 7 of the world trade center complex in order to execute what can only be described as a textbook implosion of that building? How does one account for the complete disintegration of two, ten-foot tall Pratt/Whitney jet engines that powered the alleged 757 that struck the Pentagon? These are just some of the most rudimentary examples of questions that I find have not been answered satisfactorily. I find it difficult to believe that there may still be people who have not learned of these inconsistencies, but for any that remain, please allow me to point you to a site with several convenient sources of information regarding these and many other unanswered questions. link text While working to remedy my initial lackadaisical comment, I see there are many other issues worth addressing. In the first paragraph, the author writes: “Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.” Reading Raimondo’s article, his claim seems reasonable to me. I find it more disgusting that the author seems to have a blatant disregard for the fourth amendment and does not appear to understand why it even exists. Raimondo’s premise comes from a document citing, “information obtained under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C., Section 1801. Such FISA derived information shall not be used in any criminal proceeding, including grand jury proceedings …” I’m disgusted by commentary that supports the idea that our government should not and does not need “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” In the next paragraph, the author refers to an individual having his house raided as a result of “F.B.I. evidence.” I wonder if these raids were executed under the same Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) derived information as that referenced in the documents obtained by antiwar.com? I don’t see the relevance of the two raids mentioned in the second paragraph, but I submit that the laundering of half a million dollars in government grants would not be an issue if our government was not taking our money and issuing grants with it! In the third paragraph, the author somehow surmises to know the intentions of the F.B.I., as he cites what prompted them into action, and somehow appears to know what they were hoping to “determine” from their investigation. With all the redactions cited in Raimondo’s commentary, I can’t see how one could possibly state with any reasonable assurance, what caused the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation, or even more irresponsibly, conclude what they determined from their investigation. Once again, in the fourth paragraph, the author implicates that he somehow knows why, and for what purpose, the F.B.I has initiated this investigation. The paragraph is confusing however, due to a lack of clarity in the wording, as well as some apparent contradictions. He just finished telling us in paragraph three, why the F.B.I. is conducting the investigation, yet seems to make an inference (in parenthesis) that there may not actually be an investigation. I find this both confusing and contradictory. Near as I can tell, the author states in paragraph three that the F.B.I. initiated the investigation against antiwar.com due to their publicizing a terrorist watch list and because commentaries by their authors were passed out at anti-war protests. He goes on to state in paragraph four, that the investigation is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism. Upon what evidence are these conclusions based? I find it both preposterous and highly irresponsible for the author to claim to know the mind of the F.B.I. and not provide any evidence to support such claims. I believe I’ve already addressed my concerns regarding paragraph five and it appears the next point I’ve taken issue with is the concept of funding, or “illicit funding.” Freedoms Phoenix, antiwar.com, and most assuredly, thousands of other organizations, all have ideals for which they stand for. Whether these ideals are inline or contrary to, Mr. Renzulli’s views, my views, or anyone else’s views, is irrelevant with regard to whom they receive their contributions/funding from. As Ernie has pointed out, Russia Today (RT) is at this moment broadcasting propaganda aimed at showing the American people all the many ways our government works to deceive us. They do this, not through lies, but by finding the truth, because the truth is much more powerful than any lie one could make up. Furthermore, the entire technique is one they learned from us and one with which they learned was tremendously effective. My point is this; it’s the message of an organization that matters, not where they get their money. It’s the responsibility of the organization to ensure they’re not corrupted by the money, and it’s the responsibility of the people to apply a keen intellect to discerning the validity of the message. Mr. Renzulli seems very concerned about Islamist infiltrating our country. Here’s a little mental exercise. How does it make you feel when you think about another nations people infiltrating your country and implementing changes in your established way of life? That feeling you have right now (your stomach should be turning), is exactly the torment our nation causes on the people of the countries we have invaded. It seems fairly hypocritical to me, that one my condone such action when the United States does it, yet even the thought of the action is condemned, were it to be reversed. I find it difficult to stomach the idea that there are those who do not seem to understand the simple concept of “do unto others…”, and are apparently unable to comprehend the sound logic of a non-interventionist foreign policy, or extrapolate how such a policy would work to solve much of the issues addressed in the latter half of Mr. Renzulli’s article. With over twenty years of service to this country, it greatly saddens me to witness a continuation of the rhetoric expressed in this article, for it leaves me little hope that others will not be called upon (one way or another) to render a similar service to their country.
Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

When Gammill says "He even has bakadude's support." Does he mean support of the author, and not of the author's argument?


Where is that part of Bakadude's comments that say he supports the author and not the writer's argument that the F.B.I. raided Antiwar.com because of the funding support it is receiving from terrorist organizations?


Misinformation does not work or cannot work without being toothcombed or noticed by Bakadude, much more of a slant that hides an innuendo.


By the way, what’s wrong with “Oracle of Reason”? It is for the likes of our friend Gammill to prove that it is malicious or malevolent.  And that means using what's inside the coconut shell, not just using what is coocoo or loko. And we have this tenacity to talk about freedom of speech … c’mon …don't make feel so embarrassed.




Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Gentlemen, this is "The Oracle of Reason" we are talking about here. He even has bakadude's support.  There is nothing left to say.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

By the way, Ernie loses his side of this discussion if his supporters' expertise in name-calling takes over and throw a tantrum mud all over the place! Those who have nothing to argue about because they don't know how to argue or don't know how to engage in an intellectual debate, would certainly put out the light or switch off the light of enlightenment on this discussion and for that matter on any other important debates.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Does this makes sense? Yes, it does ...

The issue Renzulli raised is whether or not Antiwar.com, including this website FP.com, are receiving support funds from sources having ties with terrorist organizations that was why anti-government haters whose agenda is to destroy this country by all means fair or foul was investigated and raided by the F.B.I. This objectivist author is implying that FP.com might be next in the line of F.B.I. raids. That’s why the publisher disclaims Renzulli’s writings as the reflections of this website’s thinking [in order not to lose patronage, perhaps?]

That the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and FP.com this I have no doubt in my mind that it does. But are they receiving Stealth Jihad funding, that I am not sure.

On one hand, what we have here in FP.com are paper r3volutionaries that would speak out anything against the State, Government, the Establishment or the System. They will call anyone a patriot … a freedom fighter, or even a hero if you hate your mother-in-law that much or even more than they hate the Government or the System that to embarrass your mother-in-law or to destroy the System is the object of their affection – I mean the subject of their struggle, and/or the object or the goal of their paper r3volution!

On the other hand, if the Islamic revolutionary jihad organizations like very much what those State-haters are doing and would like to express their appreciation and support to continue the latter’s government-bashing activities, or for anyone for that matter who would like to manifest their appreciation in monetary terms would do exactly the same, I am not sure what law was violated that would warrant an F.B.I. investigation other than breach of national security or the law on treason.

What I am 100% sure about is that no one would court the F.B.I.’s attention and "affection" and put a tail on you unless it has hard evidence of your activities identifying you as the enemy within or that you are the State’s potential enemy hiding behind the cloak of liberty and freedom. Although I disagree with Renzulli most if not all the time, it is in this area where the argument he posited makes some sense.

Comment by J. Michael Haggard
Entered on:


Ernie, kudos to you for sticking to your principles and allowing this @#&?!! to be posted on your site. The opinion states, "But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com and Freedoms Phoenix along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism." Ernie you're a much bigger man than I. Left to my determination, I wouldn't have posted this article (most likely out of anger), but your example helps me see more clearly the true libertarian way, and hopefully, this persons words will help show others just exactly how convoluted some peoples beliefs can be despite all evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

 Read more of this writer's opinion columns here.

Comment by Goldman Sachs
Entered on:

Did they change your compensation into dollars, or did you get paid directly in shekels?

Comment by Darren Wolfe
Entered on:

Jury Nullification May Be The Only Salvation For The Antiwar Activists

Comment by Darren Wolfe
Entered on:

I'm glad you trust Saint Govt so much, kneel down before the Whitehouse  & worship it, you're a great citizen of the empire. We know that the US govt doesn't abuse its power. Only other countries do. This is the exceptional America, it does no wrong. Now I'd like to talk to you about that bridge in Brooklyn....In other words, stop being a shill for the warmongers & come back when you have some real evidence.

Jury Nullification May Be The Only Salvation For The Antiwar Activists
Comment by Sheila Dean
Entered on:

This devil's advocate presents accusations as if they are the FBI and they have some sort of hard evidence of an actual crime or some sort of case that presents reasonable suspicion of a crime. We all can see by this writing - THERE IS NO CASE. Only a policy of reasonable indication whereby political oppotunitists phone in an oppressive surveillance of their challengers. Anyone reading Dick Cheney's memoir realizes that there is an idea out there - an absolutist idea - that NO ONE should have opposed the war in Iraq following the September 11th attacks. The perspective represented in this account is one where the American people and citizens who opposed the war are being openly challenged, using our own alt-media. The press and Americans at AntiWar.com are entitled to report the news. Free Speech is not exclusive to members of the Semi-retired Underground Bunker club. Attributing criminality without any ACTUAL criminality is more about certain militarized dictates sponsored by a select policy market. They don't represent the whole of America. NeoCons are on a press junket right now promoting the normalization of sustaining tax-sponsored torture, human rights violations against the same Geneva conventions we set up, warrantless wiretapping, FISA, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act and domestic surveillance of noncriminal activity to sustain a totalitarian democracy against the United States citizen. The Bush Adminitration's crimes against Liberty are long long long.  But we hear what you are saying Mike Renzulli. It just doesn't change our tune.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: