By Kevin Barrett, http://www.truthjihad.com

[For a succinct list of points and sources to help improve my Wikipedia page, click here.] 

9/11 hero William Rodriguez has been telling me for years that I need to correct the lies and distortions in my Wikipedia biography. Until now I just didn't see the need.  I always said, "Willie, it's so bad it's good! Anybody with a shred of critical thinking skills can see that it's a rabid, incoherent, over-the-top smear-job. When a slavering pack of vicious morons attacks someone so ineptly, it reflects well on their intended victim. I'm deeply honored by this hideous biography." 

Willie wasn't convinced. "Most people just skim the surface, and they get a bad impression of you," he insisted. "You have to fight back." I told him I would get around to it some day, and left it at that. 

Then a few weeks ago William called me up to touch bases, and the subject of Wikipedia came up again. He explained that a professional truth-movement-wrecker and sexual-harrassment specialist I will call Brian Bad was mostly responsible for my so-bad-it's-good Wikipedia page. Since Brian Bad was also repeatedly trashing Willie's Wikipedia page, Willie made me promise to launch a counter-offensive. In honor of William Rodriguez's appearance on "Fair and Balanced" Tuesday, March 24^th alongside Bush-busting hero Splitting-the-Sky, I decided it was time I kept my promise. 

Wikipedia, the unedited on-line reference tool, presents itself as an encyclopedia. But this claim, explicit in the very name "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia," is deeply dubious. 

Encyclopedias are edited by a team of carefully chosen experts. That is why they are regarded as authoritative. Every claim in a real encyclopedia is the responsibility of a specific, identifiable individual expert--not just some anonymous internet user. 

Wikipedia, unlike a real encyclopedia, is written and edited according to the "bathroom wall principle" -- anybody can come by and scrawl anything.  On Wikipedia as on bathroom walls, the scrawlers are anonymous. And unlike an actual encyclopedia, which sources its information to specific, identifiable authors of published works, Wikipedia allows its anonymous "writers" and "editors" to "source" statements to anonymous blog posters! In other words, anonymous scribblers on Wikipedia's bathroom wall can "authoritatively cite" any other anonymous scribbler on any other bathroom wall. When anyone can say anything about anybody, anonymously, the possibilities for defamation are endless.  And organizations like the CIA and Diebold capitalize on those possibilities; they use their vast financial resources to "routinely edit entries to bury criticism and manipulate the truth." 

Wikipedia's service as a CIA-corporatocracy tool may be one reason it is so rife with hidden bias. While Wikipedia professes to maintain a "neutral point of view," it obviously does not. On Wikipedia, those who cite evidence for official complicity in 9/11 are pejoratively termed "conspiracy theorists." Those who, without citing any evidence, blame 19 Muslims led by a guy in a cave, are not. Since the definition of conspiracy is "two or more people planning or executing an illegal or immoral act," those who theorize about 19 Muslims led by a guy in a cave are theorizing about a conspiracy, just like those whose theories are based on overwhelming evidence that the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolition. By calling only one side in this debate "conspiracy theorists," Wikipedia is loading the terms of the debate--sort of like a 1930s Stalinist calling US leaders "capitalist vampires" or a 16^th century pope referring to Protestants as "damnable infidels." Such loaded language offers the exact opposite of a "neutral point of view."   

Along with its propaganda for the official myth of 9/11, Wikipedia (like most of the mainstream U.S. media) is a cheerleader for the Zionist movement. The short-and-sweet definition of Zionism is "the ongoing project of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine." This project required, and continues to require, the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, just as a project to establish a white Episcopalian state in and around Peking, or an Arab Muslim state in and around Rome, would require the invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing of those regions. Considered from any genuinely neutral point of view, such a project is dubious at best. But Wikipedia, and other pro-Zionist propaganda outlets, use loaded language to try to make the Zionist invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing project seem natural and good, while painting those who oppose it in unflattering terms. For example, a vicious Wikipedia entry on anti-Zionist activist Wendy Campbell, apparently penned by an excitable pro-Zionist named "Historicist" who considers her a "loathsome specimen of humanity," dogged her for years until it was finally taken down. (Campbell's response here.) And the entry on Zio-skeptic professor James Petras has also been notable for its unflattering claims and insinuations. My own Wikipedia entry smears my "views of Jews and Zionism" presumably because those doing the smearing are pro-Zionists, while I make no secret of my anti-Zionist (but pro-Jewish) views. 

One would expect even those professional journalists who share Wikpedia's biases on these issues to understand that citing Wikipedia is like citing a bathroom wall. And most do. But my life, and the lives of my wife and children, were damaged last summer when a local journalist, David Giffey, published an article citing a libelous Wikipedia statement falsely linking me to "Holocaust deniers." Numerous mainstream journalists had investigated the claim and found it baseless, which is why it never appeared in any of the dozens of earlier mainstream media stories about me, and why it has since been debunked by an otherwise derogatory piece in Politics magazine. But Giffey, a normally decent and thoughtful guy who serves as the main reporter and editor of the Spring Green, WI Home News, apparently thought that Wikipedia was authoritative. (He later told me he had not realized that Wikipedia was written and edited by anonymous internet users sourcing other anonymous internet users.) 

Giffey's Wikipedia-inspired libel outraged my wife, who has had ambivalent feelings about my status as a public figure since I was targeted by a McCarthy-style witch-hunt in 2006. A proud and sensitive woman, she does not appreciate the smear campaign launched against me in the media and on the internet. The surge of attacks greeted my announcement that I was running for Congress had already driven her up the wall. Now Giffey's defamatory article -- the first coverage I had gotten in any local news outlet -- left her furious and humiliated. Her anger about being dragged through the mud in the eyes of the community shook me out of my usual bemused complacency about media hatchet jobs, and I grew angry too.  

Our anger, which should have united us, temporarily divided us. The bad feelings unleashed by Giffey's libelous article, and the libelous Wikipedia entry on which it was based, triggered a marital crisis.

That crisis became a tremendous opportunity for personal and spiritual growth. Our marriage has not only healed, but grown happier and more peaceful and loving than ever. One of the reasons is that I now actually listen to my wife. 

My wife, like William Rodriguez, has long urged me to defend myself against the barrage of media and internet slanders rather than just continue to ignore them.  

I have finally learned my lesson: Always listen to Willie, and always listen to your wife. 

Wikipedia Entry Deconstructed 

Below is the Wikipedia entry on me downloaded in early January, 2009, followed by my critique and editing suggestions. 

In only 2400 words, Wikipedia manages: 

15 outright lies, marked LLPF (Liar Liar Pants on Fire) and highlighted in red

29 serious distortions, marked P.I.S.S. (Pants Is Starting to Smolder) and highlighted in pink

9 non-sequiturs/irrelevencies, marked WTF and highlighted in green 

WIKIPEDIA entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett 

Kevin Barrett

Part of a series on the:

9/11 Truth Movement 

Kevin James Barrett (born February 1959) is a former university lecturer and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.[1] He is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth[2] and is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance (MUJCA), established October 30, 2004 with the stated aim of improving "interfaith dialogue, coexistence, and understanding" in light of the events of 9/11. Barrett first received national attention when he introduced Dr. David Ray Griffin at Griffin's lecture in April 2005, in Madison, Wisconsin to 450 people. The talk was shown on C-Span's Book TV. Barrett became controversial in 2006 when he held a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. [3] 

In the fall of 2006, Barrett taught an introductory class called "Islam: Religion and Culture", an undergraduate course for which he had formerly been a teaching assistant since 1996. (4) Before the semester began, he announced his plans to devote a week or two of the sixteen-week class to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. (5) Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to discuss conspiracy theories in his lectures.[6] An internal university probe of his performance as a teaching assistant found that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom" and that the department-approved syllabus, which included a section on the war on terror, had been followed.[7] 

Since leaving the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barrett has remained in Madison as an increasingly vocal activist on 9/11 truth issues. [8] In the 9/11 truth movement, Barrett is known for flamboyant self-promotion, frequently immoderate statements, and his inclusive "big tent" philosophy on 9/11 theories, which some researchers consider irresponsible and harmful to credibility. [9] On October 22, 2007, Barrett disrupted a talk by conservative pundit David Horowitz for several minutes, causing a major disturbance. Barrett was driven from the hall by chants of "Asshole! Asshole! Asshole!" [10] 

A few months later, Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA. [11] 

In 2008 Barrett ran for Congress in Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district as a Libertarian. Though Sean Haugh, the Political Director of the National Libertarian Party asked Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate Barrett,  [12] and stated that he (Haugh) would "go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP," after endorsement by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura  Barrett won 59% of the vote in the primary on September 9, easily defeating his challenger Ben Olson III. In the general election Barrett got 2 percent of the vote. The incumbent got 62 percent.  

Barrett was born in 1959 to Peter Barrett, an Olympic athlete (sailing: silver medal in Finns in 1964, gold medal in Stars in 1968), one of the founders of North Sails (then and now a world leader in sail-making technology) and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater professor in business and accounting. In 1988, says Barrett's book "Truth Jihad," while living in Paris, Barrett hoaxed the French press by posing as a nonexistent Hollywood film director, "Christopher Maudson," for the benefit of some wannabee rock stars.[13] In the early 1990s, Barrett received master's degrees in both English literature and French from San Francisco State University and married a Moroccan-born Muslim woman. He converted to Islam in 1992, having been a former Unitarian. (sic) 

Barrett returned to the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1995. The United States State Department gave him a Fulbright Scholarship in 1999 to study a year in Morocco. He received a Ph.D. in African languages and literature with a minor in folklore from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004, focusing his dissertation on the topic of Moroccan legend. Barrett has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. 

[edit] Controversy 

Barrett first drew attention to his views by writing letters to the editor of the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks [14]: "As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape." Barrett has also claimed the 2005 London bombing, and the 2004 Madrid bombing, were committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists. 

Following a June 28, 2006 talk radio segment on WTMJ, Barrett's views came to the attention of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, U.S. Representative Mark Green, and State Representative Stephen L. Nass. [15] After conducting a 10-day review of Barrett's past teaching and plans for the class, UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell determined that Barrett was fit to teach. Barrett told the Provost that his course will spend one week examining current issues, such as viewpoints on the war on terror which will be based on the discussion on readings representing a variety of viewpoints. 

On July 11, 2006, Barrett appeared on the television show "The O'Reilly Factor", [16] and the show's host, Bill O'Reilly, said about Barrett, "This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, would have--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor." In response, Barrett filed a complaint with the FCC. [17] Barrett has written a largely autobiographical book covering the controversy, entitled "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle against the 9/11 Big Lie," published by Progressive Press in early 2007. The book alleges that Barrett has had precognitive dreams. [18] He also edited "9/11 and American Empire" (vol. 2) from Interlink Books, published in Dec. 2006. 

Barrett taught the Fall 2006 class he'd been hired for, but took a sabbatical the following term. In May 2007, he announced that he had applied to teach during the Fall 2007 semester. 

In Fall 2006 Kevin Barrett began hosting a talk show twice a week on the Genesis Communications Network called "The Dynamic Duo," and another talk show, hosted weekly on Republic Broadcasting Network, titled "Truth Jihad Radio." The topic of both shows is mainly conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. [19] 

Barrett's views on Jews and Zionism came under focus in late 2006 when statements from an email exchange were documented in which he stated, "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." [20] Some activists have also commented on a pattern of public statements by Barrett suggestive of violence toward reporters and journalists, such as, "journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold," and "anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity." [21]  

[edit] Recent History 

In April 2007, Barrett did a series of speaking engagements in Michigan, Chicago, and Wisconsin with William Rodriguez, whose failed Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit had accused President Bush of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Barrett's press release credited Rodriguez with rescuing ten people from the burning World Trade Center on 9/11, and with saving hundreds of lives. The month after this tour, Barrett announced to the press his intention to fly to Morocco to "apprehend accused 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri." Unable to locate his quarry, Barrett had to content himself with penning dispatches from cafes, and a humorous airport story. [22]  Barrett began promoting Captain Eric May and his numerological predictions of upcoming "false flag" (faked) terrorist attacks, none of which ever came to pass. [23]  In early August Barrett spoke at a conference in Madison, "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not" that featured the notion that TV reporting of the World Trade Center attacks was faked. [24] 

In late August a dispute erupted between Webster Tarpley and several women in the anti-war movement after Tarpley issued the "Kennebunkport Warning" of impending false flag attacks. Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright denied that they had signed the warning. Tarpley said they had, and was quite unpleasant about it. Barrett refused to distance himself from the Tarpley group, even when its members accused respected 9/11 activists of being government agents after they took the side of the peaceniks. [25] 

In early October, Barrett accompanied William Rodriguez on another midwestern speaking tour. About this time, Barrett started the website "WhereTheyLive.org — Confronting the elite and their agents WHERE THEY LIVE" which stated as its mission the publishing of home addresses of people Barrett considered evil-doers. [26] Though the website espoused nonviolent principles, Barrett's simultaneous promotion of the "War on War Week," a series of demonstrations that were to feature firecrackers and "V for Vendetta" disguises, led some activists to express concern about the vigilante overtones involved, and after a west-coast 9/11 group voted to deny funding, the project flopped. [27]  Barrett expressed a fascination with the stylized violence of the V for Vendetta movie in an interview on internet radio, adding the claim that apartheid had been ended in South Africa through threats of violence, and stating that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. [28] 

In November, the internet activist "Col. Jenny Sparks" issued a humorous but firm request that Dr. Barrett rein himself in, saying he was "hurting, not helping" the 9/11 truth movement. She asked that Barrett silence himself on Jews and the holocaust, stop predicting imminent false-flag attacks, stop promoting TV-fakery theories, stop threatening people with execution, and stop using material from a fringe web site. [29] 

Later that fall, Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA. [30] 

In March, 2008 the blogger "Arabesque" wrote an essay complaining that Barrett had hurt the 9/11 truth movement's credibility "with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements." [31] 

In April, after Barrett allegedly asserted that no Israelis had died on 9/11, several 9/11 activists were inspired to declare Barrett "fired" from the 9/11 truth movement. [32] 

In May, 2008, Barrett's blog at the popular forum "911blogger" was deleted. [33] Over 100 of his posts, and hundreds or even thousands of comments, were removed. Barrett's posts had been poorly received at 911blogger, receiving an average rating of 6 stars out of a possible 10.  

On May 22, Barrett published confidential email correspondence with the left icon Noam Chomsky, after Chomsky had asked him to keep the emails private and after Barrett had promised he would do so. Barrett's reason for doing this, he said, was because Chomsky had implied that he was a liar and because Chomsky had backed out of an agreement to appear on Barrett's internet radio program. [34] 

Barrett introduced architect Richard Gage at Gage's presentation of "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" at the University of Illinois Chicago campus on May 30, 2008. Gage's presentation claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed not by airplanes and fire, but by controlled demolition with incendiaries and/or explosives. Gage is the founding member of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," which counts more than 550 architects and engineers among its registered supporters.  

Barrett's "Truth Jihad" internet radio program on Republic Broadcasting Network was cancelled some time in 2008. As of December the program no longer appears on RBN's schedule and is omitted from RBN's list of archived programs. The last available archives are from mid-July, 2008.  

"The Dynamic Duo" radio program on Genesis Communications Network ceased to broadcast after the November 21, 2008 show. Barrett's final live broadcast on that show was on November 7. [35] 

[edit] Congressional campaign 

Barrett announced in May 2008 his plans to run for Congress as a third-party challenger to incumbent Rep. Ron Kind in the November 2008 election. On May 14, 2008 Barrett sent an email to supporters claiming to have received the endorsement of WTDY talk radio show host John "Sly" Sylvester. Questions were immediately raised about this claim, which Barrett was never able to prove. Some said Sly was joking. [36] Also on May 14 Sean Haugh, the Political Director of the National Libertarian Party, asked the Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate Barrett, and stated that he (Haugh) would "go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP." Michael Badnarik, Libertarian presidential candidate in 2004, has signed the 9/11 Truth Statement,  and Haugh said he had no problem with 9/11 Truthers in the Libertarian party, but Barrett's "calls for mass murder" and "qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America" put Barrett "beyond the pale." [37] 

Wearing a V-for-Vendetta mask, Barrett visited Rep. Kind's office in La Crosse, WI on October 2 to deliver a "pink slip" symbolic of Kind's imminent removal from office in the election November 4. [51] A poll sponsored by the La Crosse Tribune, Wisconsin Public Radio and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and released a couple of weeks later showed Kind could expect 63 percent of the vote and Barrett 3 percent. [38] 

Barrett received the endorsements of 9/11 activists Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Carol Brouillet, Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Kevin Ryan in late October. [39] Barrett got 2 percent of the vote. [40] 

[edit] Arrested for alleged domestic abuse 

According to the Wisconsin State Journal and the Associated Press; Kevin Barrett, 49, was arrested in Madison on Tuesday afternoon September 16, 2008 after police said he violated a Sauk County court order forbidding contact with his family. He reportedly turned himself in and was released from the Dane County Jail after posting $500 cash bail. On Friday September 12th, Barrett had been charged with disorderly conduct in Sauk County Circuit Court after being accused of hitting his 13-year-old son at home on the morning of the Sept. 9 3rd District Libertarian primary, which he won. His wife, Fatna Bellouchi, had obtained a temporary restraining order against Barrett. [41] 

In October when Barrett appeared in court on the charges, prosecutors filed additional charges alleging that he had violated a restraining order by sending roses to his wife on her birthday. "When roses are outlawed, only outlaws will send roses," Barrett said. [56] 

BREAKDOWN OF LIES (P.I.S.S.), DAMN LIES (LLPF), AND IRRELEVANCIES AND NON-SEQUITURS (WTF). 

[1] "former university lecturer and 9/11 conspiracy theorist." P.I.S.S. 

This word-choice betrays obvious pejorative intentions. Why was "former university lecturer" chosen over, say, "Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, author, editor, speaker, political candidate, talk radio host"?  Anyone can be described by any of their many earlier occupations, but normally this is not done; recent activities are usually given precedence. (Any university professor could be described as a "former lecturer" or "former teaching assistant" or "former kindergartner" for that matter.)  This description was presumably chosen for its mildly pejorative overtones, making it sound as if I have been inactive since I left the University of Wisconsin, which is hardly the case.

            As for "9/11 conspiracy theorist," this expression is an insult without any actual meaning.  A "conspiracy" is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or misdeed, while a "theory" is simply an attempt to explain a set of facts. The official account of 9/11 is obviously a conspiracy theory, since it posits a criminal scheme by 19 young Arabs and a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan. So are all of the many other extant accounts. Everyone who thinks or talks about 9/11 theorizes a conspiracy. The use of this expression to insult people whose accounts one disagrees with is dishonest.

            Editing suggestion: former university lecturer and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.  Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, author, editor, talk radio host, and 9/11 truth supporter. 

[2] "He is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth." LLPF 

I resigned as a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth in May, 2008, due to my disapproval of the way Jim Fetzer was emphasizing polemic over scholarship in his approach to questions about alleged TV fakery.  I told Jim I will rejoin if and when he publishes a solid scholarly article on the topic. 

Editing suggestion: He is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He is a member of Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 (SPINE).  

[3] " Barrett became controversial in 2006 when he held a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." P.I.S.S. 

This sentence makes no sense. Why would holding such an appointment lead to becoming controversial? A competent editor would remove this awkward sentence, which adds no information whatsoever to the article. Additionally, the expression "became controversial" is not accurate. It would be accurate to say that I became well-known, nationally-known, etc.; that I garnered national and international media exposure; or that I became a nationally-known figure involved in controversies about 9/11, free speech, and academic freedom. But someone who becomes nationally known as the result of controversies cannot be properly said to have "become controversial." For example, Noam Chomsky is an extremely controversial figure, but if Wikipedia claimed that he "became controversial" (as a pejorative way of summing up how and when he became well-known) it would be an obvious attempt to smear Chomsky through pejorative word-choice.  

Editing suggestion: became controversial gained national media exposure 

[4] "In the fall of 2006, Barrett taught an introductory class called 'Islam: Religion and Culture', an undergraduate course for which he had formerly been a teaching assistant since 1996." LLPF 

I had taught and/or served as a Lecturer, TA, Research Assistant, Course Designer, and so on for many courses, several involving Islam, but I had only served as TA in this particular course once, in 2003.   

Editing suggestion: remove  an undergraduate course for which he had formerly been a teaching assistant since 1996. 

[5] Before the semester began, he announced his plans to devote a week or two of the sixteen-week class to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. LLPF 

I did not "announce" any such plans. The only reason anyone even noticed my syllabus was that neocon talk radio host Jessica McBride called me up out of the blue (having read about my 9/11 activism on the internet) and sweet-talked me into appearing on her radio show. She asked me to email me my syllabus, which I did.  She then launched the barrage of media lies about how I would be "teaching conspiracy theories" at the university. So the news came from an ambush by McBride and her Republican colleagues, not from any announcement by me. 

Also, my syllabus did not plan "to devote a week or two of the sixteen-week class to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism." In fact, the syllabus listed a one-week rubric "the War on Terror," not 9/11, and presented "diverse interpretations" of 9/11 and GWOT, including the US government version, the blowback hypothesis, and the position held by the vast majority of the world's Muslims that 9/11 was an inside job. All of these views, like all views I present in my classes, were not espoused, but held up for critique. (Source: www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/education/01madison.html) 

Editing suggestion: he announced his plans to devote a week or two of the sixteen-week class to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. Republican talk radio host Jessica McBride, the wife of the Republican candidate for Wisconsin Attorney General, discovered and publicized the fact that Barrett would be devoting one week of his sixteen-week class to the war on terrorism and planned to present several interpretations for students to critique, among them the Muslim-majority interpretation that 9/11 was an inside job. 

[6] Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to discuss conspiracy theories in his lectures. P.I.S.S., LLPF 

As an experienced university-level Composition teacher, I am qualified to tell you that this sentence deserves an F. Good writing teachers urge students to write active sentences with concrete, specific subjects whenever possible. Abstract subjects, and passive-voice sentences, tend to obfuscate the truth about WHO actually did WHAT. The clause "controversy erupted" hides the truth, which might be accurately expressed as "media neocons  including Jessica McBride, and Republican politicians led by Steve Nass, attacked Barrett."   

Likewise, the clause "it became known that" (by whom? who made it known? how?) hides, rather than reveals, what actually happened.  

Finally, what allegedly "became known" -- that I was "planning to discuss conspiracy theories" in my class -- is simply false. Nowhere in my syllabus, lectures, or assigned readings did the expression "conspiracy theories" occur. My brief, critical examination of the various interpretations of 9/11, which neither emphasized nor omitted the majority-Muslim belief that it was an inside job, had no more to do with "conspiracy theories" (whatever those are) than did any other Islam professor's approach to questions related to GWOT. 

Editing suggestion: Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to discuss conspiracy theories in his lectures.  Falsely claiming that Barrett would be "teaching conspiracy theories," Rep. Steve Nass led an unsuccessful Republican campaign to have Barrett fired from his teaching job. Nass's campaign against Barrett, and Barrett's responses, became a major national media story. 

[7] An internal university probe of his performance as a teaching assistant found that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom" and that the department-approved syllabus, which included a section on the war on terror, had been followed. P.I.S.S. 

This sentence is not especially pejorative, just confused. It appears to mix up a summer 2006 review of my past performance not only as an Islam TA in 2003, but in many other teaching positions, with another alleged review of my performance as a lecturer teaching in the media spotlight in 2006. In 2003, there was no "department-approved syllabus, which included a section on the war on terror." And in 2006, when there was a "section on the war on terror," there was no subsequent administrative review of my performance that I am aware of, although I did receive extremely positive student and peer evaluations. The 2003 evaluation was not just of my performance as a TA in one class, but of my overall performance in more than ten years of teaching as a lecturer as well as TA. 

Editing suggestion: Change the sentence to: An internal university probe of Barrett's ten years of teaching at the University found him a fair, balanced, and highly-rated instructor. 

[8] Since leaving the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barrett has remained in Madison as an increasingly vocal activist on 9/11 truth issues. LLPF 

More false information. I did not "remain in Madison," but immediately moved to Lone Rock, Wisconsin, a small town about an hour west of Madison in a different congressional district, where I ran for Congress in 2008. (Note that I did not "leave the university" willingly, but have repeatedly re-applied there, and have been repeatedly been turned down for jobs I am qualified to teach -- the same kinds of jobs I nearly always got prior to being blacklisted.) Nor did I become "increasingly vocal." I had been an extremely vocal 9/11 truth activist during my free time while teaching at the University, and I have grown no more vocal since leaving the university. I have, however, become a talk radio host, author, congressional candidate, and public speaker. If that is what "increasingly vocal" is supposed to mean, it should be made explicit. 

Editing suggestion: Since leaving the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barrett has remained in Madison as an increasingly vocal activist on 9/11 truth issues. After Barrett finished teaching his fall 2006 Islam course, he repeatedly re-applied at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has been repeatedly turned down. Barrett believes he has been blacklisted due to his political views and religious identity, and argues that he has been passed over in favor of demonstrably less-qualified candidates. While continuing to re-apply at the University, Barrett has worked as an author, editor, public lecturer, talk radio host, and congressional candidate. 

[9] In the 9/11 truth movement, Barrett is known for flamboyant self-promotion, frequently immoderate statements, and his inclusive "big tent" philosophy on 9/11 theories, which some researchers consider irresponsible and harmful to credibility. P.I.S.S. 

Another F.  Remember, kids, always use concrete, specific subjects! "Barrett is known for" is a classic weasely passive-voice clause that hides the actual subject -- the knower. WHO "knows" this? Someone or other "in the 9/11 truth movement" ?  Who, exactly, are these "some researchers"? Who cares, for that matter, what "some researchers" may think, when "other researchers" undoubtedly think the exact opposite, and may be dozens or even hundreds of times more numerous? My radio guests from 2007-2009 have included almost all of the biggest names in the 9/11 truth movement, not one of whom has ever complained about any of these issues.  A few anonymous internet scrawls have appeared, under such ridiculous monikers as "Arabesque" and "Col. Sparks."  Are anonymous attack entities, which most people in the 9/11 truth movement consider potential disinformation agents, reliable indicators of what actual people with real names think? Wikipedia's sentence--more accurately, the sentence of an anonymous latrine-wall scrawler--implies that these utterly unsourced opinions are representative of the millions of actual people with real names who support the search for the truth about 9/11. Yet not a shred of evidence has been presented to support that assertion. The intent of this sentence, which asserts without evidence, is plainly defamatory. 

Editing suggestion: Remove this biased, irrelevant sentence. 

[10] On October 22, 2007, Barrett disrupted a talk by conservative pundit David Horowitz for several minutes, causing a major disturbance. Barrett was driven from the hall by chants of "Asshole! Asshole! Asshole!" WTF 

WTF? Talk about non-sequiturs...what does this have to do with anything before or after? Why is this particular incident selected for inclusion (rather than, say, my Amy Goodman interventions, or one of my many dozens of public lectures)? And why has it been described in this pejorative way?  The phrase "major disturbance" is odd, given that there was no intervention whatsoever by the massive security force. And describing the zionazi lunatic David Horowitz as a "conservative pundit" is like describing Hitler as a "conservative German." This non-sequitur sentence, like so many others, seems to have no purpose than to defame. The perspective of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims and their billions of supporters around the world, who tend to view Horowitz as a genocidal lunatic who deserves vastly worse than I gave him, is completely absent from this account. The anonymous latrine-scrawler's motto must be "Let's just throw whatever random splatters of mud we can dig up, spin it to sound as bad as possible, and see if any of it sticks." 

Editing suggestion: On October 22, 2007, Barrett disrupted a talk by conservative pundit David Horowitz for several minutes, causing a major disturbance. Barrett was driven from the hall by chants of "Asshole! Asshole! Asshole!"  Barrett has interviewed nearly all of the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement, as well as such major figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Jesse Ventura and John Perkins, and engaged in public confrontations with Salman Rushdie, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Rep. Ron Kind, and David Horowitz.  

[11] "A few months later, Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA." P.I.S.S. 

By linking "A few months later (after the Horowitz incident)" to "Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA," this sentence implies a nonexistent relationship between the two unrelated events, and values both events negatively, when in reality the first was a mixed positive, and the second 100% positive. 

Along with the hate-mail from zionists, I have gotten quite a bit of fan email from people who viewed my standing up to Horowitz and his zionazi youth brigade as an act of unbridled heroism--rather as if someone had had interrupted a Hitler stump speech in 1932. (The positive-to-negative email ratio on the Horowitz affair was about 3 to 2.) 

Whether one sees my disruption of Horowitz as brave or rash, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lou Stolzenberg taking over at MUJCA. Since co-founding MUJCA in 2004, I had been hoping capable people would come forward to assume responsibility for the organization and take it to the next level. When one person plays an inordinate role in founding an organization, as I did with MUJCA, the test of that organization's success is whether it continues viably in other hands. Also, a Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization needs leadership from Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. So when Lou, a Methodist, volunteered to take over as MUJCA coordinator, I was overjoyed. (Her desire to do so, of course, reflected well on me and my work building up the organization.) I consider Lou's assumption of the reins at MUJCA one of my most important accomplishments. It means the organization is permanent and multi-confessional. The anonymous Wiki-scrawler's attempt to make it sound like a negative is ridiculous, and transparently defamatory. 

Editing suggestion: Remove this sentence, or replace it with: In January 2008, a Christian activist, Lou Stolzenberg, succeeded Barrett as coordinator of MUJCA. 

[12] Though Sean Haugh, the Political Director of the National Libertarian Party asked Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate Barrett... P.I.S.S. 

It should be noted that great many people, including me, were demanding Haugh's resignation throughout the 2008 election season, as documented by dozens of entries at Independent Political Report. Haugh has been accused of advocating a criminal act by Libertarians he worked with, and his false and libelous assertions about me were, for many Libertarians, the last straw. As I predicted and demanded, Haugh has been fired by the Libertarian Party. The Wiki-scrawler neglects to mention that Haugh is a disgraced, fired FORMER political director whose attacks on me backfired and contributed to his demise. 

As for the assertion that Haugh asked Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate me, it is either false, or Haugh is incredibly ignorant about his own party. The Wisconsin Libertarians do not nominate candidates. 

Editing suggestion: the Political Director of the National Libertarian Party asked Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate Barrett, 

the controversial former Political Director of the National Libertarian Party attacked Barrett, 

[13] while living in Paris, Barrett hoaxed the French press by posing as a nonexistent Hollywood film director, "Christopher Maudson," for the benefit of some wannabee rock stars. P.I.S.S. 

This sentence gives me far too much credit. In fact, I merely participated in a hoax devised and principally executed by others. I was not even the first "Christopher Maudson" -- that honor befell some Australian guy from the youth hostel. 

Editing suggestion: while living in Paris, Barrett hoaxed the French press by posing as a nonexistent Hollywood film director, "Christopher Maudson," for the benefit of some wannabee rock stars. 

while living in Paris, Barrett helped the rock group Les Casse-Pieds hoax the French press by posing as a nonexistent Hollywood film director, "Christopher Maudson,"  

[14] Barrett first drew attention to his views by writing letters to the editor of the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks... P.I.S.S., LLPF 

This sentence is doubly false. First, the "letters" in question were not letters to the editor at all. They were op-eds, otherwise known as guest editorials. Characterizing them as mere "letters" downplays my accomplishment in publishing the first hard-hitting 9/11 truth op-eds ever to appear in any mainstream US newspaper. 

Second, this was most certainly not the way I first drew attention to my views! I began doing extremely visible 9/11 truth activism in the spring of 2004, leading a series of teach-ins on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, among a great many other highly visible public activities. I did not publish my op-eds until 2006. 

Editing suggestion: Barrett first drew attention to his views by writing letters to the editor of the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks... 

Barrett first drew attention to his views by publishing guest op-eds in the Madison Capital Times in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, that recent "Bin Laden tapes" are phony, that the media has covered up the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and that critical 9/11 research protected by academic freedom is good public policy. 

[15] Following a June 28, 2006 talk radio segment on WTMJ, Barrett's views came to the attention of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, U.S. Representative Mark Green, and State Representative Stephen L. Nass. P.I.S.S. 

In fact, Nass (and perhaps other Republican strategists) had obviously pre-arranged the ambush interview with Jessica McBride on WTMJ. The radio show was from 8 to 10 pm. McBride blogged about either later that night or the next morning, while Steve Nass, who triggered the whole furor, issued his angry press release the morning following the show. Nass says he first heard about me on Jessica's blog, which nobody would have read until that very morning! How could Nass have gotten his press release out on the very morning the blog appeared? Clearly the whole thing was pre-arranged. It was a Rovian attempt to stop the progress of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, by scapegoating a "9/11 truth professor" pour décourager les autres. They presumably picked me because I was outspoken, just out of my Ph.D. program, raising two young children, without financial resources, and deeply in debt, thus unable to hire lawyers to fight the forthcoming avalanche of slander. 

Doyle, the Democratic governor, did not get involved until later, and generally came down (weakly and ambivalently) on the side of free speech and academic freedom, as did almost all Wisconsin Democrats. Of the 61 state representatives who signed Nass's letter attacking me, all but one were Republicans. The Wiki-scrawler leads with Doyle, a Democrat, in order to create the false impression that I was targeted by a bipartisan consensus, when in fact it was essentially a 100% Republican witch-hunt opposed or ignored by virtually all Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and independents. 

Following a June 28, 2006 talk radio segment on WTMJ, Barrett's views came to the attention of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, U.S. Representative Mark Green, and State Representative Stephen L. Nass. 

Just hours after his 2006 talk radio segment with Republican host Jessica McBride, Barrett was attacked in a press release by State Representative Stephen L. Nass, who led a partisan Republican campaign to have him fired from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

[16] On July 11, 2006, Barrett appeared on the television show "The O'Reilly Factor"... LLPF 

Contrary to the assertion of the Wiki-scrawler, I was not on the show with O'Reilly when he issued his infamous death threat. I did not appear on O'Reilly until December, 2006. 

I did, however, appear on Hannity and Colmes in July 2006. Why does the Wiki-scribbler falsely claim I appeared on O'Reilly, but fail to mention my appearance on Hannity? Could it be because my Hannity appearance was one of the most effective pro-9/11-truth segments ever to hit the mainstream media, and the Wiki-slanderers and anti-truth gatekeepers don't want to emphasize it? 

On July 11, 2006, Barrett appeared on the television show "The O'Reilly Factor"... 

On July 9, 2006, Kevin Barrett traded barbs with Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes. On July 11, 2006 Bill O'Reilly,  host of the O'Reilly Factor, said about Barrett, "This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, would have--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor." On October 11^th, 2006, Bill O'Reilly attacked Barrett and condescended to his guest, one of Barrett's students, on "The O'Reilly Factor."  On December 19^th, 2006, Barrett personally appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. 

[17] In response, Barrett filed a complaint with the FCC. LLPF 

False. I filed no such complaint.  Strike this sentence. 

[18] Barrett has written a largely autobiographical book covering the controversy, entitled "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle against the 9/11 Big Lie," published by Progressive Press in early 2007. The book alleges that Barrett has had precognitive dreams. WTF 

WTF? If it covered the controversy, of course it was autobiographical!  

And why the wildly-out-of-context  non-sequitur reference to, among the zillions of minor details in the book, my few, rather mundane experiences of apparent precognitive dreams? (John Donne's experiments have shown that just about everybody has them.) There are so many other more salient features of the book, notably its outrageous humor and satire -- a first among 9/11 books. It would appear that someone dredged through Truth Jihad obsessively trying to find something, anything, to take out of context that could make me look bad. If this was all they could find, I must have portrayed myself far more positively than I realized. 

Barrett has written a largely autobiographical book covering the controversy, entitled "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle against the 9/11 Big Lie," published by Progressive Press in early 2007. The book alleges that Barrett has had precognitive dreams. 

Barrett has written a book covering the controversy entitled "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle against the 9/11 Big Lie," published by Progressive Press in early 2007. The book, whose cover alludes to Don Quixote, is notable for its alternately self-deprecating, satirical, and absurdist humor. Author Eric Larsen called it "one of the funniest things you are ever likely to read." 

[19] The topic of both shows is mainly conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. LLPF 

False. First, as we have seen, the expression "conspiracy theory" is a lie. But even if we translate that obscene expression as "9/11 truth issues," the statement is false. My conversations with even those guests who are known for their expertise or involvement in the 9/11 truth movement cover a wide variety of topics. But the majority of my guests are experts in subjects other than 9/11 truth. Let's take a look at the top of my guest list as shown in the right-hand column at my website, www.truthjihad.com. 

Steve Alten: Bestselling novelist and 9/11 truth supporter. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. +

Mitch Altman: TV-B-Gone inventor. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad: Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Michael Andregg: Peace studies professor and 9/11 truth supporter -- but conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Terrell Arnold: Not an identified 9/11 truth supporter. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Dylan Avery: Loose Change director. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. + 

Joe Bageant: Not an identified 9/11 truth supporter, though he expressed sympathy for 9/11 truth for the first time on my show. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Carolyn Baker: A known 9/11 truth supporter, but with other areas of expertise (sustainability). Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Mike Berger: Director of Improbable Collapse. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. + 

Jason Bermas: Loose Change director. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. + 

Steve Bhaerman: Spiritual/philosophical humorist and pundit. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Tim "tribute to John Lennon" Biancalana. Tribute artist and musician. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Jack Blood: One of the nation's primo talk show hosts. Conversation mainly about other matters. -

William Blum: Empire critic -- like Chomsky only better. Conversation mainly about other matters. -

Brian Bogart: Peace activist. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

John Boly: Marquette University literature professor. Conversation mainly about other matters. -

Col. Bob Bowman: Rocket science Ph.D., former Space Weapons chief, etc. Conversation split about equally between 9/11 truth and other matters. 0 

Francis Boyle: International law professor and human rights attorney. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Carol Brouillet: 9/11 truth and global justice activist. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. + 

Ellen Brown: Lawyer, author, and expert on currency reform. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

John Buchanan: Journalist and 2004 9/11 truth candidate for president. Conversation mainly about 9/11 truth. + 

Fred Burks: Webmaster of wantoknow.info, which catalogues and documents important information ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

Mike Byron: Economics professor and sustainability expert. Conversation mainly about other matters. - 

The grand total: Of my conversations with these twenty-three guests, six focused on 9/11 truth, sixteen did not, and one was about evenly split. Roughly the same ratio would pertain if we analyzed my entire guest list. Thus Wikipedia's claim that my shows "mainly" focus on 9/11 is false. In fact, only about a quarter of my shows focus on 9/11. In terms of how much airtime I devote to 9/11 as opposed to other topics, the ratio would be even smaller. 

A crucial omission from Wikipedia's entry on my radio shows is their failure to list those on We the People Radio Network (broadcast 2007-2008) and its new spin-off, Freedom Underground Radio (wfuradio.com), my only current radio outlet.  

The topic of both shows is mainly conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. 

The topics of Barrett's shows include politics, spirituality, art, music, and other subjects, with an emphasis on topics and viewpoints Barrett claims are too controversial for the mainstream media. 

[20] Barrett's views on Jews and Zionism came under focus in late 2006 when statements from an email exchange were documented in which he stated, "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." P.I.S.S., LLPF 

This sentence is not just incoherent, but also serves up lies within lies in the service of libel. It begins with a passive-voice construction with an abstract subject ("views...came under focus") as a way to foster a bad impression about me with out actually saying anything. 

It incoherently links "Barrett's views on Jews and Zionism" when in fact these are two completely different topics. My views of Jews are generally positive--I have gravitated toward Jews all my life and could even be described as a judeophile--while my views on Zionism are quite the opposite (I regard it as anti-Jewish, genocidal, and utterly, irredeemably evil, and wholeheartedly support the liberation of Palestine as a secular nation with equal rights for all religions and ethnicities.)  

The idea that ANYONE's views of Jews and Zionism should be considered together is ridiculous, since it was in fact the anti-Semites who wanted to chase the Jews out of Europe and into Palestine in the first place. Those of us who like Jews would rather they were here, rather than halfway around the world murdering and expelling Palestinians. What's more, the secular-atheist founders of Israel were obviously not Jews at all--they had no more genetic relation to anyone who has ever lived in Palestine than I do, being Khazars from eastern Europe, nor did they profess the Jewish religion, being atheists. 

So why would the Wiki-scrawler link "Jews and Zionism" ?  Because the public has been brainwashed into thinking that while it's fine to be Islamophobic, it's terrible to be anti-Jewish. The scrawler is desperately seeking to impugn my credibility by suggesting that I am prejudiced against Jews, which I most emphatically am not. The scribbler hopes to confuse the reader into reading my (real) anti-Zionism as (nonexistent) anti-Semitism. 

Nowhere, in my rather large output of public discourse that includes books, eight hours of talk radio a week for two years, huge numbers of quotes from dozens of mainstream media articles about me, and hundreds of internet articles by me, have I ever said anything remotely anti-Jewish. So in order to foster the false and libelous impression that there is something fishy about my "view of Jews and Zionism," the Wiki-scrawler posts a false, utterly imaginary quote about three people I know next to nothing about: "Green," "Irving," and "Zundel." This quote is the libelous invention of a certain internet whack-job named Mark Rabinowitz, a shrill, paranoid creep who is universally loathed by everyone I know who has had the misfortune to meet him, a rude, vicious asshole who has never actually published anything, never done any public speaking, never worked with any activist organizations, never produced any films, never organized any conferences, never hosted talk radio, never even guested on talk radio, never earned any advanced degrees, but instead just hides in his mother's basement living on his father's money posting second-hand garbage on the internet and starting fights with activists who are actually doing something. Rabinowitz claims to have taken the quote out of context from a private email exchange in 2004 or 2005. In fact, I had never even heard of any "Green" at that time -- it wasn't until a late 2008 telephone conversation with Sofia Smallstorm that I even knew who "Green" referred to! As to Irving and Zundel, I knew nothing about them but their names and bad reputations until 2008, when I read finally read a book by Irving and watched a documentary on Zundel. The Wiki-scrawler claims this false quote is "documented" yet not a shred of documentation has ever been produced that I said this.    

Now, as of late 2008, having finally read David Irving's Hitler's War alongside some scholarly reviews, I can offer an opinion o the subject. Neither I nor any informed person could possibly "dismiss" this book; indeed virtually everyone, including Irving's harshest critics, seems to agree that it is an important book. That certainly does not mean that I agree with any of Irving's thousands of views about thousands of subjects. Nor does it mean that I sympathize with Hitler. On the contrary, I find the Hitler portrayed by Irving to be extremely unsympathetic--a psychopathic mass-murdering warmonger, not all that unlike the Hitler I had earlier read about in books by people like William Shirer and John Toland. (When I was all over the national media comparing Bush to Hitler, that wasn't meant as a compliment.) 

Despite the recurrent posting of this libelous quote on my Wikipedia page, none of the many dozens of articles about me in mainstream publications have ever even brought it up--because upon investigation they find it is false. Most recently, a Politics hit-piece stated that this allegation is false. 

Editing suggestion: 

Barrett's views on Jews and Zionism came under focus in late 2006 when statements from an email exchange were documented in which he stated, "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." 

Barrett is a leading advocate of honest interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Jews. While a Muslim and professed anti-Zionist, Barrett has defended, befriended and promoted Steve Alten, a Jewish pro-Zionist 9/11 truth supporting novelist; served as lead editor of 9/11 and American Empire v.2 alongside pro-Zionist Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky; and co-founded the Muslim-Jewish-Christian  Alliance for 9/11 Truth, an organization dedicated to interfaith dialogue. 

[21] Some activists have also commented on a pattern of public statements by Barrett suggestive of violence toward reporters and journalists, such as, "journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold," and "anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity." P.I.S.S., LLPF 

The anonymous wiki-slanderer once again avoids beginning the sentence with a concrete, specific subject. Who precisely are "some activists" and why should their opinions, rather than the many and various opinions of the other 99% of activists, be relevant? Why are the opinions of ANY anonymous "activists" (whatever that means -- are we simply talking about people with an opinion who post it on the internet? then everyone's an activist) important in the first place? And what exactly is "a pattern of public statements" ?  When someone is putting out an average of more than a thousand public statements a day, as I was when doing eight hours of talk radio per week, a "pattern" would obviously consist of a very large number of statements. Yet no evidence of any such "pattern" is offered. Instead, the wiki-scrawler posts two sentences that I am alleged to have spoken, neither of which involves "violence" unless one regards the results of the Nuremburg tribunals as a form of violence--which may be technically correct, but is a very misleading choice of words. (Please note that I oppose capital punishment, and have never called for capital punishment even for the world's worst war criminals--I have simply predicted the likelihood of such outcomes.) The first alleged quote, "journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold," is hardly controversial. Nobody with the faintest understanding of international law would disagree with it. As for the second alleged quote, "anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity": This sentence makes little sense. Why "in the past"?  I doubt very much that I ever said precisely this--it sounds like something a journalist would have put together from garbled notes--but I may have said something like it. I often use black humor and hyperbole, and whatever I said along these lines was obviously an example of that style. When someone is using a rhetorical style like sarcasm, irony, parody, or black-humored hyperbole (which often comes across in the tone of voice) and another person transcribes it, takes a quote out of context, and presents it as if it were a solemn, straightforward utterance in such a way as to denigrate the speaker, that person has lied and committed libel. This assertion is libelous, and both Wikipedia and the person who posted this are guilty. 

Editing suggestion: 

Some activists have also commented on a pattern of public statements by Barrett suggestive of violence toward reporters and journalists, such as, "journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold," and "anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity." 

Barrett has argued that media owners, executives and journalists who propagandize for illegal wars should be tried before war crimes tribunals. Sean Haugh falsely accused him of "calling for the death of journalists." In fact, Barrett opposes the death penalty in all cases. 

[22] The month after this tour, Barrett announced to the press his intention to fly to Morocco to "apprehend accused 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri." [28] Unable to locate his quarry, Barrett had to content himself with penning dispatches from cafes, and a humorous airport story. P.I.S.S. 

This is a misleading  description of the al-Shehri affair. It ignores the fact that the whole exercise was tongue-in-cheek, and successful in its real aims. Here is my response to Mike Palacek's question about the episode: 

MP: Did you ever take a day off? 

KB: Yeah. April 23rd, 2005.  

MP: You even went to the Middle East, right? 

KB: That wasn't on my day off.  

In fact, it wasn't even the Middle East. I went to Morocco (which is as far west as the UK) in May 2006. I put out a bunch of tongue-in-cheek press releases saying that since I couldn't get hired at the University, I had taken a job as a bounty hunter, and was heading for Morocco to bring back the alleged 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shahri "dead or alive." Waleed al-Shahri had supposedly murdered a stewardess and flown a plane into a building, yet he turned up alive in Morocco shortly after 9/11. In fact, he's just one of the ten accused suicide hijackers who later turned up alive. For details, see Jay Kolar's article "What We Now Know About the 9/11 Hijackers" which was published by the leading scholarly publisher in Europe, Elsevier. Anyway, my press release said: "Waleed, I don't know how you got out of that plane alive, but it was the last miraculous escape you'll ever make. I'm coming to get you and bring you back in handcuffs to face charges of terrorism and mass murder." 

I might as well tell you the truth, Mike: Going after Waleed al-Shehri was not my only reason for taking my family to Morocco! I lived there in 1999-2000 doing my dissertation fieldwork on a Fulbright, l and my wife's family is from there. Morocco is my academic specialty. I love the place. I may be moving there soon. So it wasn't like my whole purpose of going there was just to "get Waleed." I obviously never thought I was likely to find him. But I did think I might be able to learn more about why he surfaced in Morocco right after 9/11 and then disappeared. And I also thought it wouldn't hurt to get some media coverage of the fact that a bunch of supposed hijackers turned up alive after 9/11.  

As it turned out, I succeeded on both counts and then some. I got lots of media coverage in both the US and Morocco, including a story in one of Morocco's top newsmagazines, and I even got to meet Morocco's leading mainstream journalist covering terrorism-related issues, and hear his off-the-record doubts about whether al-Qaeda was real. I gave a talk in Oujda that drew an overflow crowd, and sold almost 40 books -- more than I've ever sold at any speaking gig in the US. And I got some really interesting off-the-record interviews, including one from a high-level person with the Royal Saudi airlines, that strongly pointed toward Waleed al-Shahri being a US/Saudi intelligence asset whose cover was working for the Saudi airline (not Royal Air Maroc as the BBC Reported), who repatriated to Saudi Arabia shortly after he surfaced in Morocco.   

Editing suggestion: 

The month after this tour, Barrett announced to the press his intention to fly to Morocco to "apprehend accused 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri." [28] Unable to locate his quarry, Barrett had to content himself with penning dispatches from cafes, and a humorous airport story. 

The month after this tour, Barrett made a tongue-in-cheek announcement that he would travel to Morocco to attempt to "apprehend accused 9/11 hijacker Waleed -al-Shehri." The affair generated mainstream media coverage of claims that "at least ten on the FBI's final list of 19 (alleged 9/11 hijackers) have been verified to be alive."*

 *(Jay Kolar, "What We Now Know About the Alleged 9/11 Hijackers," In Paul Zarembka, The Hidden History of 9/11, Elsevier, 2006.) 

[23] Barrett began promoting Captain Eric May and his numerological predictions of upcoming "false flag" (faked) terrorist attacks, none of which ever came to pass. LLPF 

False. First, in no sense have I ever "promoted" Captain May (whose work goes far beyond "numerological predictions"). Imagine someone charging Hannity and O'Reilly with "promoting Kevin Barrett," i.e. allegedly agreeing with me and trying to spread my views, simply because they invited me on their shows! By falsely claiming that I "promoted" Captain May (when in fact I have merely invited him on my talk radio show, as have many other radio hosts) and singling out Captain May's "numerological predictions" (which I don't fully buy into) for emphasis, rather than the many other less controversial aspects of his work (some of which I do in fact agree with), the wiki-scrawler is lamely trying to tar me by first making Captain May look bad, and then linking me to Captain May. Once again, we see the hand of someone who has spent an immense amount of time poring over my work in search of something to use against me. In this case, the anonymous scribbler appears to have gone through my very long list of radio guests in search of one to denigrate, in a desperate effort to find something to attack me with.  

To the general reader, what this business about Captain May has to do with me, and why it merits inclusion in my Wikipedia biography, must be a mystery. In fact, it was placed in the biography by Brian Bad, an apparently insane individual who infiltrated the Bay Area 9/11 truth movement by offering to do lots of grunt work for whoever was unfortunate enough to take him up on the offer. While doing grunt work for 9/11 activist Carol Brouillet, Bad suddenly announced that he was madly in love with Brouillet, pleasing neither Brouillet nor her husband and family. Repeatedly rebuffed, but unable to take no for an answer, Bad then began sending unsolicited and extremely unbalanced emails accusing Brouillet of having affairs with various 9/11 truth movement leaders, including me. After Brouillet ordered the mad stalker out of her life, he began harassing me (and others such as William Rodriguez) at every opportunity. Janice Matthews told me that Bad has called 911truth.org  asking them not to carry my books. And William Rodriguez has proven that it is Bad who has been vandalizing our Wikipedia biographies. 

Editing suggestion: Strike this false and irrelevant sentence. Then write the Wikipedia editors asking that Brian Bad be banned, pending psychiatric treatment. 

[24] In early August Barrett spoke at a conference in Madison, "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not" that featured the notion that TV reporting of the World Trade Center attacks was faked. P.I.S.S. 

I have spoken at a great many conferences, "featuring" many thousands of "notions" on 9/11, Islam, American literature, African literature, criticism, French literature, Folklore, and dozens of other subjects. (The ludicrous expression "featuring the notion" apparently means that one of the more than a dozen speakers at this particular conference addressed this topic among others.)  

Why is just one of the thousands of "notions" presented by one of the thousands of people who have presented at one of the dozens of conferences I have attended listed in my Wikipedia biography? Only a dedicated follower of intra-9/11-truth squabbles could possibly figure it out. There is a tiny faction of the 9/11 truth movement that vociferously deplores "TV fakery," just as there is a tiny faction that fervently supports it--while the vast majority, including myself, pays very little attention to it. A few members of the tiny faction that vociferously deplores this notion has tried to smear me for not spending my time vociferously deploring it along with them. To these paranoid fanatics, anyone who does not join their witch hunt must also be a witch. Since one of the thousands of people who have presented at one of the dozens of conferences I have attended, namely Ace Baker, is (in their view) a witch, and since I have not called for him to be burned at the stake, I must also be a witch. 

It is a universally accepted premise of academic and intellectual conferences that nobody at a conference is responsible for ideas presented by other attendees at that conference, just as no university professor or administrator is responsible for ideas presented by other professors and that university. The wiki-scrawler who is straining to smear me simply because I attended the same conference as someone the scrawler doesn't like apparently doesn't get it. And why the scrawler should be inflicting his or her opinions about obscure 9/11 truth movement controversies on readers remains a mystery. (Some "neutral point of view!")

Editing suggestion: 

In early August Barrett spoke at a conference in Madison, "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not" that featured the notion that TV reporting of the World Trade Center attacks was faked.  

Strike this irrelevant sentence. If it reappears, replace it with a similar sentence about another conference I have spoken at, along with one of the hundreds of notions "featured" at that conference. For example: "In June 2007, Barrett served as emcee at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, which featured the notion that the Twin Towers were destroyed with nuclear weapons, as well as the notion that they were destroyed with thermate."  Or "On September 11^th 2006 and 2007, Barrett spoke at the New York 9/11 Truth conferences at Cooper Union, New York City, which featured the notion that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77." Or "In April, 1998, Barrett spoke at a conference in Montana which featured the notion that literary theorists should spend more time working for concrete human rights goals." 

[25] In late August a dispute erupted between Webster Tarpley and several women in the anti-war movement after Tarpley issued the "Kennebunkport Warning" of impending false flag attacks. Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright denied that they had signed the warning. Tarpley said they had, and was quite unpleasant about it. P.I.S.S. 

This appears to be an attempt to smear Webster Tarpley, one of the most important writers, speakers, and radio personalities in the 9/11 truth movement. By listing four people on one side of the dispute, and only Tarpley on the other, this sentence fosters the impression that it was Tarpley's word against the word of the four women. In fact, there are many people on Tarpley's side in this dispute, and many witnesses have attested to the fact that the four women did sign the document in question (the document with the signatures was immediately posted on the internet, and one of the signers later admitted she had signed the document and then had falsely claimed she hadn't signed it). The suggestion that Tarpley's behavior in this dispute was "quite unpleasant" may or may not be true. But whatever Tarpley may have said can hardly be as unpleasant as proffering false accusations of forgery, a very serious crime, which is what at least some of the four women apparently did.    

But wait a minute -- why is the Wiki-scrawler smearing Webster Tarpley on my Wikipedia page?! Shouldn't that be on Tarpley's page? 

[25] Barrett refused to distance himself from the Tarpley group, even when its members accused respected 9/11 activists of being government agents after they took the side of the peaceniks. LLPF, P.I.S.S. 

Okay...so after Tarpley did something "unpleasant" -- perhaps he belched at an inopportune moment -- I "refused to distance myself" from him. That's why they're smearing Tarpley on my Wikipedia page. 

Just one problem: I never "refused to distance myself" from Tarpley. Nobody ever asked me to distance myself from Tarpley. Nor did I ever refuse any such request. This statement is a lie.  

I was asked to mediate between the two groups (by Gabriel Day) and I briefly did. I made one phone call, to Bruce Marshall and Jeanine Weir, and convinced the Tarpley group to take down a scurrilous cartoon they had been posting. Other than that, I was not involved in this controversy. 

Who is putting up these irrelevant lies on my Wikepedia page, and why? Again, you have to be fully-versed in intra-9/11-truth issues to decipher this bizarre code. If you spent twelve hours a day perusing 9/11 websites, you might know that a tiny group of utterly mediocre, mainly anonymous people  (none of whom have ever even published a book or even a print article) launched a witch-hunt against Webster Tarpley in 2007. I neither joined this witch-hunt nor refused to join; I was never even asked.  

Which is a good thing, because I have no idea what "distancing myself from Tarpley" could possibly mean. He lives in Washington, D.C.; I live in Wisconsin. That's about 800 miles between us right there. He has his own ideas. I have mine. We agree on some points, and disagree on others. He is one of the many people I have had as a radio guest. I greatly admire some aspects of his work, and admire others less. The same could be said of dozens of my other radio guests. So what? Why is this on my Wikipedia page, which is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, but instead seems to have been hijacked by a tiny fanatical coterie speaking in a code that only they can understand?

Editing suggestion: Remove this irrelevancy. 

[26] About this time, Barrett started the website "WhereTheyLive.org — Confronting the elite and their agents WHERE THEY LIVE" which stated as its mission the publishing of home addresses of people Barrett considered evil-doers. LLPF 

This is a lie. My proposal did not say anything about people I "considered evil-doers." The idea is to have a collectively run site calling for peaceful civil disobedience at the homes and workplaces of those who deserved such treatment according to the site's users, NOT according to me. The users would post home addresses of alleged high perps along with an explanation of why this particular person deserved to have picketers outside his or her home or office. An editor might oversee the postings -- but I never intended to be that editor, nor to make any postings myself. I simply threw this idea out there to see if it might catch on. 

 It was actually Rev. Frank Morales who inspired the idea. He told me that the most effective form of protest against police abuses in New York had been pickets (and threatened pickets) of the homes of those responsible for the abuse. The same principle, we agreed, could be used against apparent 9/11 perps like Larry Silverstein, the self-confessed demolisher of World Trade Center Building 7. 

While WhereTheyLive generated immense interest, both positive and negative, it has not yet caught on...but someone else is interested in acquiring the domain and making it happen, so this idea may still come to fruition, though out of my hands. If it does, I may deserve just a little bit more credit (or blame) than Pete Guest deserves for the success of the Beatles. 

Editing suggestion: Either strike this, since I'm no longer working with WhereTheyLive.org, or substitute as follows. 

About this time, Barrett started the website "WhereTheyLive.org — Confronting the elite and their agents WHERE THEY LIVE" which stated as its mission the publishing of home addresses of people Barrett considered evil-doers. 

About this time, Barrett started the website "WhereTheyLive.org — Confronting the elite and their agents WHERE THEY LIVE" which stated as its mission: "WHERETHEYLIVE.ORG is founded in the spirit of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Abdul-Ghaffar Khan, and the many other heroes of principled nonviolent resistance. 

It will publicize the home addresses of those who are alleged to have seriously abused their power over others, for the purpose of facilitating legal, NONVIOLENT demonstrations on public property outside those home addresses, in accordance with the people’s right to petition for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, international law, and principles of universal justice." (source: wheretheylive.org) 

[27] Though the website espoused nonviolent principles, Barrett's simultaneous promotion of the "War on War Week," a series of demonstrations that were to feature firecrackers and "V for Vendetta" disguises, led some activists to express concern about the vigilante overtones involved, and after a west-coast 9/11 group voted to deny funding, the project flopped. LLPF 

Another false and incoherent sentence. The topic of the sentence is "the website" -- meaning WhereTheyLive. No west-coast group was ever asked to fund this website. In fact, I have never asked any west-coast group to fund anything.  

Nor was I the architect of War on War Week, which was the joint creation of Carol Brouillet, John Leonard, and Sherry Clark. I thought it was a great idea, and organized an event in Madison, Wisconsin. Whatever Carol or John may have been doing on the west coast was their project, not mine. The implication that I asked a west coast group for funding and was denied is false, as is the statement that my own War on War event in Madison flopped. In fact, it was a great success. 

Editing suggestion: Strike this false and irrelevant sentence. 

[28] Barrett expressed a fascination with the stylized violence of the V for Vendetta movie in an interview on internet radio, adding the claim that apartheid had been ended in South Africa through threats of violence, and stating that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. LLPF, P.I.S.S. 

Yet another sentence that manages to be both false and incoherent at the same time, this one strings together three unrelated assertions, all of which are false, in an attempt to create a bad impression of me. 

First, I haver never expressed any "fascination" with "stylized violence" on any internet radio program. Written from a neutral perspective, the sentence could be made true: "Barrett said he views V for Vendetta as an extremely important and aesthetically successful film. Asked whether the film's violence bothered him, he said that it did not, adding that the violence was so stylized that he did find it disturbing." (But why is this important?) 

Moving along the line of non-sequiturs...I have never claimed that apartheid ended ONLY through threats of violence. I have simply pointed out what no honest historian could deny: That the armed struggle of the ANC, and the accompanying threat of an impending bloodbath, was a major factor motivating the white apartheid government to turn power over to an elected black majority. This proposition is utterly non-controversial among historians. (I took a Ph.D. seminar in South African history, so I'm not just making this up.) 

Finally, I did not say that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." That was Mao Tse-Tung. I may well have cited him (which is very different from endorsing him or the statement). Obviously political power does partly depend on organized violence, given the importance of police forces and militaries. I personally work in the realm of nonviolent power, but I recognize the all-too-obvious role of violence in power. Taking my citation of the Mao quote of context, in an attempt to paint me as a fan of violent political protest, is grossly deceptive. In fact, I have never been involved in any way in any violent political protest.  

Editing suggestion: Strike this false and irrelevant sentence.  

[29] In November, the internet activist "Col. Jenny Sparks" issued a humorous but firm request that Dr. Barrett rein himself in, saying he was "hurting, not helping" the 9/11 truth movement. She asked that Barrett silence himself on Jews and the holocaust, stop predicting imminent false-flag attacks, stop promoting TV-fakery theories, stop threatening people with execution, and stop using material from a fringe web site.  WTF 

WTF? Again, if "internet activist" means someone who posts his or her opinions on the internet, everybody is an internet activist. Why is an anonymous internet entity called "Col. Sparks", among the tens of millions of bloggers out there, and the thousands of bloggers and hundreds of mainstream sources who have opined about me, cited on my Wikipedia page? (The answer, almost certainly, is that it is 'Col. Sparks' who is tooting her own deranged horn here.) 

As for the content of this bizarre non-sequitur, it is utterly incoherent. "She asked that Barrett silence himself on Jews and the holocaust."  In over a thousand hours of talk radio, three books (two authored, one edited) and volumes upon volumes of public writing, I have never addressed the topic of either "Jews" or "the holocaust." How can I silence myself when I'm not talking? stop predicting imminent false-flag attacks. There is not a single documented instance in which I have ever predicted an imminent false-flag attack. stop promoting TV-fakery theories. I have never promoted any such theory. I do believe all theories must be examined before they are judged, as do all other reasonable people. False and libelous claims that I have "promoted TV fakery theories" can be easily disproven, simply by looking at my radio guest list -- not one guest in over 1000 hours of talk radio has any connection with these theories that I am aware of. Were I "promoting" them, obviously many or even most of my guests would be supporters of them. stop threatening people with execution Obviously I have never threatened anyone with execution (see #21 above) and the assertion that I have is libelous. stop using material from a fringe web site What can this possibly mean? Some, perhaps most, people think all 9/11 truth sites are "fringe," while of those who use these sites, everyone has a different opinion about which sites are good and which are less good. If there is any common thread, it is that most 9/11 truth activists believe that anything using real names is serious, while anything posted under pseudonyms like "Col. Sparks" is fringe and possibly cointelpro. (For my own preferred sites, see the right column at www.Truthjihad.com.) 

Clearly the expression "fringe web sites" has no content; it is simply an empty smear attempt. 

Editing suggestion: Anonymous "internet activists" are a dime a dozen, as are their opinions. Strike this sentence. 

[30] A few months later, Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA. [11] P.I.S.S. 

The implication is that I "resigned" because some anonymous blogger that calls itself "Col. Sparks" supposedly told me to stop doing things I had never done. How utterly ludicrous. My friends and colleagues are a who's who of the 9/11 truth movement, and none of them know or care anything about this "Sparks" person, who has never authored a book, founded a nonprofit organization, earned a Ph.D., hosted a radio show, organized a 9/11 truth conference, attended a 9/11 truth conference, published an op-ed in a real newspaper, run for office, or even posted anything under a real name--yet apparently has enough time on his/her/its hands to vandalize Wikipedia with libelous non-sequiturs.  

The implication that "resigning" at MUJCA was a negative is equally ludicrous. Lou Stolzenberg's assumption of the reins at MUJCA was a major step toward making MUJCA a durable, effective, genuinely interfaith organization. Lou's decision honored me, and was one of the highlights of my 9/11 truth career.  

Editing suggestion: Strike this sentence.  

[31] In March, 2008 the blogger "Arabesque" wrote an essay complaining that Barrett had hurt the 9/11 truth movement's credibility "with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements." WTF 

WTF? Who cares what one among millions of anonymous bloggers think? Why would one random anonymous blogger be quoted, while the dozens of actual 9/11 truth leaders who have said nice things about me are not? Since there are dozens of positive quotes about me from real, respected 9/11 truth leaders out there, and apparently not a single negative quote from any real respected leader anywhere, it seems bizarre that negative quotes from anonymous bloggers are littering my Wikipedia entry.  (If quotes from anonymous entities are better than quotes from real, accomplished people, I guess I could always make them up myself and post them at pseudonymous blogs of my own, then cite them on my Wikipedia page!) 

Editing suggestion:  Strike this sentence. 

[32] In April, after Barrett allegedly asserted that no Israelis had died on 9/11, several 9/11 activists were inspired to declare Barrett "fired" from the 9/11 truth movement. LLPF, P.I.S.S. 

I never asserted this. Again I ask you: since everybody with a computer is an "internet activist" why are libels from a few anonymous "activists" (out of the zillions of opinions out there) littering my Wikipedia page?  

Editing suggestion: Strike this sentence. 

[33] In May, 2008, Barrett's blog at the popular forum "911blogger" was deleted. P.I.S.S., WTF 

 911blogger may have been a popular forum in 2006, but its web traffic subsequently collapsed. In any case, which blogs I blog on, and which one I don't, is of dubious biographical relevance. If the fact that I don't currently publish at 911blogger is important enough to list, it should at least be followed by a statement about where I DO currently publish, such as New American Dream and Op-Ed News, as well as my own website, truthjihad.com. 

[34] Barrett's reason for doing this, he said, was because Chomsky had implied that he was a liar and because Chomsky had backed out of an agreement to appear on Barrett's internet radio program. LLPF 

False. What I said (which is true) is that Chomsky stated (not "implied") that I was a liar, and that his failure to retract his assertion obliged me to publish the correspondence in toto so the world could decide who was lying. I never said that I had decided to publish the emails because Chomsky backed out of his agreement to appear on my radio show. 

Most feedback on my decision to publish the Chomsky exchange has been positive. The exchange offers a rare and fascinating window into Chomsky's incoherent thought process concerning 9/11, and offers evidence that he is acting in bad faith in his pronouncements on this issue.  

Editing suggestion: 

Barrett's reason for doing this, he said, was because Chomsky had implied that he was a liar and because Chomsky had backed out of an agreement to appear on Barrett's internet radio program.   

Barrett's reason for doing this, he said, was because Chomsky had acted in bad faith, calling him a liar and refusing to retract the statement after it was shown to be false.

[35] Barrett's "Truth Jihad" internet radio program on Republic Broadcasting Network was cancelled some time in 2008. As of December the program no longer appears on RBN's schedule and is omitted from RBN's list of archived programs. The last available archives are from mid-July, 2008.  

"The Dynamic Duo" radio program on Genesis Communications Network ceased to broadcast after the November 21, 2008 show. Barrett's final live broadcast on that show was on November 7. WTF 

This entry on my radio shows omits my most important show, which ran on WTPRN.com throughout 2007 and 2008 under the names "9/11 and Empire" and "Truth Jihad Radio" and continues on the new network Freedom Underground Radio (wfuradio.com) every Saturday 5-7 pm Central. It also omits my other current show, "Fair and Balanced with Kevin Barrett," broadcast on noliesradio.org every Tuesday, 11-noon Central. 

Why would the Wiki-scrawler omit my current shows, while harping about old shows? To create a negative spin? To keep people away from my current shows? Here again, the "neutral point of view" is conspicuous by its absence. 

Editing suggestion: Replace the whole thing with:  As of 2009, Barrett moved his radio shows to  WFURadio.com and NoLiesRadio.org. 

[36] On May 14, 2008 Barrett sent an email to supporters claiming to have received the endorsement of WTDY talk radio show host John "Sly" Sylvester. Questions were immediately raised about this claim, which Barrett was never able to prove. Some said Sly was joking. P.I.S.S. 

The weasely passive-voice construction "questions were raised" (what questions? by whom?) again rears its ugly head. Likewise the "some said" construction, attributing an imaginary statement to everybody and nobody.  

In fact, I never tried to "prove" that Sly said he was endorsing me on his radio show. If anyone thought he didn't, it was up to them to disprove my claim--which was based on the word of several people who heard the show, and heard his endorsement--and none ever did. Anyone could have easily tried to disprove my claim by calling Sly and asking him--but had they done so they would have learned that Sly did in fact state on his radio show that he was endorsing me, though he later claimed he had done so in a humorous vein.  

This entry, with its weasel words and non-assertions, passive constructions and "some say" attributions, once again strains mighty hard in its lame attempt to impugn my credibility. Why is someone is working this hard, and having to resort to stuff like this, to try to make me look bad?  

Editing suggestion: Strike this irrelevant sentence. 

[37] Also on May 14 Sean Haugh, the Political Director of the National Libertarian Party, asked the Wisconsin Libertarians not to nominate Barrett, and stated that he (Haugh) would "go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP." Michael Badnarik, Libertarian presidential candidate in 2004, has signed the 9/11 Truth Statement, and Haugh said he had no problem with 9/11 Truthers in the Libertarian party, but Barrett's "calls for mass murder" and "qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America" put Barrett "beyond the pale." LLPF 

As we have seen, Haugh is a disgraced ex-Director who was fired shortly after the elections, as I called for and predicted (see #12); his claim that I issued "calls for mass murder" is ludicrous and libelous (see #21); and his claim that I supported "holocaust deniers" is equally false and libelous (see #20). Haugh was fired precisely for his habit of going off half-cocked. Amazingly, though I was the Libertarian candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 3^rd District, Haugh did not even contact me to get my side of the story before he went public with re-hashed internet libels.  

Editing suggestion: Since the Haugh affair was already mentioned (see #12 above) this is an unnecessary repetition and should be removed. 

[38] Wearing a V-for-Vendetta mask, Barrett visited Rep. Kind's office in La Crosse, WI on October 2 to deliver a "pink slip" symbolic of Kind's imminent removal from office in the election November 4. A poll sponsored by the La Crosse Tribune, Wisconsin Public Radio and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and released a couple of weeks later showed Kind could expect 63 percent of the vote and Barrett 3 percent. WTF 

WTF? This particular visit to Kinds office (among many) was hardly the most newsworthy or history-worthy event of my campaign. And what's the relevance of a pre-election poll, since we have the election results? What about the scientific polls I commissioned showing that 22% of people in the (older, conservative) heavily-voting households in the conservative rural district think 9/11 might have been an inside job, while 33% either think the WTC was taken down by controlled demolition, or we need an investigation to find out? How about my debate with Ron Kind, which several non-supporters in the audience told me I won hands down? Aren't these things more important than the poll cited here? 

Editing suggestion:  

Wearing a V-for-Vendetta mask, Barrett visited Rep. Kind's office in La Crosse, WI on October 2 to deliver a "pink slip" symbolic of Kind's imminent removal from office in the election November 4. A poll sponsored by the La Crosse Tribune, Wisconsin Public Radio and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and released a couple of weeks later showed Kind could expect 63 percent of the vote and Barrett 3 percent. 

Barrett's top campaign issues were civil liberties, the economy, the need to end the war, 9/11 truth, and the need to restore the Constitution. His campaign commissioned a scientific poll showing that 33% of likely voters in his district either thought that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, or that we need an investigation to find out; and that 79% of voters nationally wanted to bail out homeowners rather than bankers.* Barrett has called his debate with Ron Kind and Paul Stark, in which Barrett was able to raise issues like 9/11 truth, currency reform, and the need for war crimes prosecutions, the biggest highlight of the campaign. 

[39] Barrett received the endorsements of 9/11 activists Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Carol Brouillet, Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Kevin Ryan in late October. WTF 

Okay, so why isn't their endorsement quoted? Why does the wiki-scrawler directly quote attacks by anonymous internet entities with no accomplishments or real names (see #9, #28 and #30) while refraining from quoting four of the leading lights of the 9/11 truth movement?  

[40] Barrett got 2 percent of the vote. P.I.S.S. 

Actually it was 2.3%  ; )  But seriously, let's put this in context: I got about double the votes of the other major Wisconsin Libertarian congressional candidate, Joe Kexel; seven times the votes of Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr; and about the same as Mike Munger, the biggest non-presidential Libertarian candidate in the country, who ran for Governor of North Carolina. Additionally, I got more total votes than Jeff Zastrow, who ran in my district in 2002 on the coattails of Ed Thompson, the all-time record-breaking Libertarian vote-getter. And I did far better than Cynthia McKinney, the leading 9/11 truth candidate. 

By simply citing the percentage, rather than the number of votes (over 8,000) and the context (I did better than almost all other third party and 9/11 truth candidates, and I was running to call attention to key issues, not to get elected) the Wiki-scrawler again is trying to denigrate my accomplishments. 

Editing suggestion: 

Barrett got more than 8,000 votes (2.3%), far outpacing all other third party candidates in his district. 

[41] His wife, Fatna Bellouchi, had obtained a temporary restraining order against Barrett. P.I.S.S. 

She dropped the order and wrote to the D.A. rescinding her allegations. But don't look for that on Wikipedia. 

Editing suggestion: 

His wife, Fatna Bellouchi, had obtained a temporary restraining order against Barrett, but later dropped the order, rescinded her allegations, and stated that Barrett is innocent of all charges.  

Between the bogus prosecution, and the endless lies and distortions proffered by Wikipedia, it's almost enough to make me imagine there is some sort of conspiracy against me. After all, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ; )