JUNE 15, 1998
Self defense
© 1998 WorldNetDaily.com

I expect criticism, both for what I write here and elsewhere, and for what I say on my daily radio talk show. I have a thick hide, and normally don't find it worthwhile or necessary to respond to those who simply "... refuse to be confused with facts which contradict their preconceived opinions." However, I was surprised to discover that Michael Reagan, a talk-show host of whom I had previously been supportive, used his web page to take (what I consider) an inaccurate dig. Monday, June 8th, a listener wrote: "Mike, I have been reading some of the information provided by a fellow named Geoff Metcalf, a guest contributor to WorldNetDaily. ... Says some shocking things about laws for the internment of American citizens in army supervised camps. Is Metcalf credible and his material worth consideration? Or is he a sensationalist?" Mike's response was: "Sensationalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Notwithstanding the excess of 30 exclamation points, I reviewed the 23 columns I have written thus far for WorldNetDaily in an effort to identify what I had written that was either not credible, or might brand me a "Sensationalist" by the erstwhile speedboat driver. The two "Hidden Threats" pieces I wrote noted the existence of such camps is something many of us have heard about for years, and frankly, something I had avoided. Avoided until two quotes which I felt were significant. The U.S. Army director of resource management confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development. The document said "Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization" and the procedure to "establish civilian prison camps on installations." Then, when asked about the issue, Congressman Henry Gonzalez acknowledged "... the truth is yes -- you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here ... whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism ... evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps." Review of my WorldNetDaily body of work revealed I have written (and ranted) about the conspicuous absence of morality; ethics and honor; selective reporting by the mainstream; Newsweek's spiking the Lewinsky story (my piece preceded the national feeding frenzy by two days); character; Clinton's professor Carroll Quigley; rights; the Y2K threat (which subsequently/coincidentally MANY others have echoed); sour grapes (oddly appropriate); the significance of the Tailgate/Zippergate story; Jim McDougal's death (which lead to an excellent follow up by the Washington Weekly and Wes Phelan); sleaze; government violation of privacy (by treaty); Ron Brown; Impeachment; the China threat; Clinton's "stall" policy; and the internment camp epiphany. Many of the issues I have written about are not routinely covered in the mainstream. THAT'S why I write about them. I don't take my assignments from the establishment controllers. I don't rely on "officials speaking on conditions of anonymity." With the exception of my purely opinion/visceral rants, I don't write anything without corroboration. I have no quarrel with Mike Reagan if he chooses to disagree with my analysis of an issue or my opinions. We are both in the opinion business. However, I do take umbrage to his suggestion that anything I have written is not credible. I wrote Michael last week to provide him an opportunity he never provided me, to respond to me personally. To date I have heard nothing from him. I am a Constitutional Conservative. I have heard Reagan espouse many of the themes I do on his talk show. I have heard him embrace many of the issues I have. I find it odd, and moderately distressing that within a group of conservatives who should reasonably be allied, some (for reasons of either ego or myopia) find it necessary to "eat their own."