Olavo de Carvalho
A high-profile research and educational institute that includes some of the top thinkers, human rights leaders and activists in the Western hemisphere is asking the FBI to reveal whether there have been “hate speech” allegations and an investigation launched against one of its prominent fellows.
The request is coming from officials with The Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought.
Fellows there include Justice Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court; former Honduran President Roberto Micheletti; Prof. Herbert Titus and Dr. Edwin Vieira, both nationally known constitutional scholars, litigators and authors, Dr. Judith Reisman, author of “Sexual Sabotage,” known internationally for exposing the sex crimes and fraudulent sex research of Alfred Kinsey, a godfather of the sexual revolution, MovieGuide publisher Dr. Ted Baehr, Prof. Paul Gottfried, historian, political philosopher and prolific author on contemporary politics, Alejandro Pena-Esclusa, a leading opponent of Hugo Chavez, recently released from jail on house arrest, Col. Alfonso Plazas Vega, a leading figure in the fight against Marxist guerrillas in the illegal drug trade in the Western Hemisphere and others.
The president of the institute is Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher and writer who is in the U.S. after having taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Paraná, Brazil, until 2005.
It is against de Carvalho that the allegations and claim of a visit by FBI agents have been raised, according to John Haskins, Senior Fellow for the PublicUnderstanding of Law, Propaganda and Cultural Revolution, speaking for the institute.
Professor deCarvalho has written a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. His latest outreach is an online radio show.
According to his biography at the institute, the keynote of his work is the defense of man’s innermost consciousness against the tyranny of collective authority – especially when such tyranny is based upon a “scientific” ideology.
“To Olavo de Carvalho the objectivity of knowledge and individual consciousness are joined together by an undissolvable link, of which one loses sight when the criteria for validation of knowledge are reduced to an impersonal and uniform set of formulae designed to be used by the academic class.”
The institute was informed a onetime adviser to de Carvalho, whose name was withheld, had spoken of a visit from two FBI agents who told her that de Carvalho was under investigation for propagating “hate speech” against homosexuals and abortion advocates.
Haskins confirmed that de Carvalho called FBI headquarters, and was referred to the Miami office, where an agent suggested the organization may have been victimized by impersonators.
Another agent then added that without the names of the “impersonators,” nothing could be done. But the “agents” had not left any business cards, de Carvalho confirmed.
Haskins said that the organization also is sending a written request.
He noted de Carvalho never has written on those topics in English, and never anything that could be considered “hate,” raising the question of whether such intimidation, whatever it’s source, might actually be aimed at the Institute generally, for a plethora of reasons.
Other Fellows have written in English on abortion as well as the militant homosexual movement’s encroaching threats to freedom of speech, religion, association and parents’ rights. At least four Fellows also have written in national media or delivered lectures challenging Barak Obama’s lawful occupancy of the White House based on the Constitution’s natural born citizenship requirement.
Also, the institute has contacts with Julio Severo, the Brazilian journalist whose international exposes of militant excesses and oppression of dissent by the homosexual movement somehow put his website under apparent surveillance by Homeland Security Department personnel, though Severo does not live in the U.S. under their jurisdiction.
Haskins said “a few minutes spent at our Fellows page reveals that the Institute is unique among think tanks and educational institutions outside the stream of politically correctness in that it has gathered persons of high rank who are viscerally hated by the left in multiple countries and who can testify to a high degree of international coordination in measures to silence or even imprison them. This situation makes it very difficult to be sure who might be doing whose bidding if the FBI is actually attempting to intimidate one or more of us.”
Haskins explained that de Carvalho, whom the U.S. government itself admitted to live and work in the U.S. under exceptional circumstances as a “Foreigner With Special Abilities,” nevertheless, could be targeted with special punishments, such as objections to his status as a resident in the U.S.
Haskins described the scenario under which the report of an alleged FBI visit came to the Institute as “bizarre,”and the warning was that de Carvalho back off on his advocacy. Prof. de Carvalho was sued by the then-sitting president of Brazil, and fled that nation to the United States after years of death threats from the left.
The FBI headquarters told WND it knew nothing of the alleged incident, although something could have been arranged by local agency offices, but that raised for Haskins the prospect of a rogue FBI team on the loose.
He said the strategy is to make public the information about the warning and its target.
The issue of “hate” and “hate speech” has been a hot-button topic in the United States since just before Barack Obama’s election in 2008. It was pushed onto the front page mostly by homosexual organizations and activists who started condemning those who disagreed with them as perpetrators of “hate.”
In fact, they were the primary force behind the so-called federal “hate crimes” law signed by Obama shortly after he became president. It essentially criminalizes thought in the United States by raising the penalties for certain offenses if there was “hate” against the victim.
Attorney General Eric Holder had some revealing comments about the plan, when he was being questioned about it in a congressional hearing.
When asked by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., about a situation in which a homosexual attacked a minister after the minister preached about his religious beliefs and the Bible’s perspective on homosexuality, would the “hate crimes” law protect the minister?
No, said Holder.
“The statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover.”
Of an attack by a homosexual on a minister because of the Bible’s teaching?
“We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute,” Holder stated.
WND columnist, and former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, later observed that those who have other standards by which they live also have been described as “haters.”
He cited those who argue that the nation’s immigration laws should be enforced.
“Without any doubt, the three most prominent and respected immigration-reduction organizations are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Numbers USA, and the Center for Immigration Studies,” he wrote.
But he noted that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning organization that repeatedly has launched attacks on conservative and constitution-oriented groups, “calls FAIR a hate group. While the latter two are not listed as ‘hate groups,’ the SPLC calls them part of the ‘nativist lobby’ and says they all have racial motivations behind their opposition to mass immigration. The SPLC even calls Progressives for Immigration Reform, an organization led by a liberal African-American, a ‘front group’ with ‘ties to white nationalists,’ whatever that means.”
It doesn’t end there either. Obama, after having created a “flag” website during the 2008 campaign where people were asked to monitor the speech and opinions of their friends and neighbors and report them, now has launched an AttackWatch site for the 2012 campaign, with similar goals.
Liberal members of Congress repeatedly have attacked as “racist” or “haters” those who lobby for the U.S. government to be returned to the limited form of organization that the founders envisioned.
Christian organizations also have been targeted in investigations by companies such as PayPal for their alleged “hate” when they espouse biblical precepts.
The ThomasMore Law Center challenged the federal “hate crimes” law in court, and Robert Muise, the senior trial counsel, said, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. First, it creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And secondly, it creates ‘thought crimes ‘by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
The law center revealed that all 50 states already have criminal laws punishing violence against others, Holder himself admitted there is no evidence “hate crimes” were unpunished at the state level, and in 2008, of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 243 dealt with the victim’s sexual orientation.
The Hate Crimes Act was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from being protected by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. In fact, during congressional debate, supporters argued that all “philias,” or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected.
Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” in October 2009 after Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense-appropriations bill.
The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the “perception” of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.
The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a “menace” to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they’ve already been cleared in a state court.