The arrests of members of a Michigan-based "Christian" militia group should convince doubters that there is good reason to worry about right-wing, anti-government extremism -- and potential violence -- in the Age of Obama.
I put the word Christian in quotes because anyone who plots to assassinate law enforcement officers, as a federal indictment alleges members of the Hutaree militia did, is no follower of Christ. According to federal prosecutors, the Hutaree -- the word's not in my dictionary, but its Web site claims it means "Christian warrior" -- are convinced that their enemies include "state and local law enforcement, who are deemed 'foot soldiers' of the federal government, federal law enforcement agencies and employees, participants in the 'New World Order,' and anyone who does not share in the Hutaree's beliefs."
According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local police officers. "Possible such acts which were discussed," the indictment says, "included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade" with homemade bombs.
Nine members of the Hutaree were named in the indictment. Eight were arrested during weekend FBI raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana; one suspect remains at large. The group's Web site shows members in camouflage outfits traipsing through woods in "training" exercises. They could be out for an afternoon of paintball, except for the loony rhetoric about "sword and flame" and the page, labeled "Gear," that links to several gun dealers. Along with numerous weapons offenses, the Hutaree are charged with sedition.
The episode highlights the obvious: For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.
It is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are "crazies on both sides." This simply is not true.
There was a time when the far left was a spawning ground for political violence. The first big story I covered was the San Francisco trial of heiress Patricia Hearst, who had been kidnapped and eventually co-opted by the Symbionese Liberation Army -- a far-left group whose philosophy was as apocalyptic and incoherent as that of the Hutaree. There are aging radicals in Cuba today who got to Havana by hijacking airplanes in the 1970s. Left-wing radicals caused mayhem and took innocent lives.
But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. An anti-globalization movement, including a few window-smashing anarchists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environmental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.
By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, "constitutionalists," tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold "Christian" values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been infiltrated and dismantled by authorities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been "taken away," that their elected officials are "traitors" and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn't be surprised if some listeners take them literally.
If you want to do crap like crosshairs on political leaders you have that right but I also have the right to judge such actions.
Yeah, merely using a graphic of a target on Palin's website for targeting unpopular Democrats to run against and replace in elections with Republicans. How violent.
That's so much less subtle than Democrats producing books and movies over the last 5 years that fantasize about assassinating President George W. Bush. And angrily calling Bush a war criminal and a murderer.
You saw some guy tried to shoot republican Rep. Cantor of Virginia, right? (A shooter who just happens to be a gay muslim who donated --twice!-- to the Obama campaign. )
Someone else threw a brick through a Republican Representative Eric Cantor's window.
Liberals (mostly gay activists) attack Christian churches. In backlash to public rejection of gay marriage amendments.
Liberals disrupt speeches at book appearances of Conservatives(Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, in the last 2 weeks). Conservatives may object to what Liberals have to say, but at least we allow them to talk and have a dialogue with us.
But liberals borrow a page from Stalin and Mao, and just want to shut down any dissenting conservative views, preventing Conservatives from speaking, by declaring Conservative views as hate speech, by baselessly slandering Conservatives as racist or violent, or trying to revive a twisted Fairness Doctrine (thinly veiled liberal censorship) to drive conservatives off the air.
Far-Left violence is a threat, because it is constantly given a free pass, which only encourages more violent and uncivil Liberal attacks on conservatives. That doesn't matter to the 80%-plus liberal media, who abdicate their responsibility by not reporting it.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Liberals disrupt speeches and book appearances of Conservatives. Conservatives may object to what Liberals have to say, but at least we allow them to talk and have a dialogue with us. But liberals borrow a page from Stalin and Mao, and just want to shut down any dissenting conservative views, preventing Conservatives from speaking, by declaring their views as hate speech, by slandering them as racist or violent, or trying to revive a twisted Fairness Doctrine to drive conservatives off the air.
Far-Left violence is a threat, because it is constantly given a free pass, which only encourages more violent and uncivil Liberal attacks on conservatives. That doesn't matter to the 80%-plus liberal media, who abdicate their responsibility by not reporting it.
Case in point, Karl Rove's booksigning interrupted by liberal (Code Pink) protestors :
Real liberal violence and intimidation and shut-down of free speech by liberals.
-vs- potential "hate speech" by conservatives.
Interesting how the lesser one is manufactured into a page one issue in the media for a week. And the more severe actual attacks by liberals go virtually unreported, despite video evidence of liberal violence, liberal intimidation, and liberal violation of free speech.
The episode highlights the obvious: For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.
The old saying "You're not paranoid if they're really trying to get you" applies.
It's not conspiracy theory that our leadership has been putting us on a path toward globalism for decades:
NAFTA and GATT were strongly opposed by citizens who wrote their Representatives and Congressmen to oppose it (myself included).
The offshoring of jobs has been widely opposed by Americans.
Moves to open our borders with Mexico in the form of ports, truck drivers and international highway systems have been widely opposed by Americans.
Amnesty for illegals has been widely opposed by Americans.
Deficit spending that threatens to collapse the dollar --which I amd many others believe it is intended to-- is widely opposed by Americans, as the Tea Party movement manifests.
But despite majority opposition to these things, the government (i.e., a globalist elite, who undermines our sovereignty) does them anyway.
So to some degree, these right-wing militia guys have a legitimate argument about preparing to defend themselves against federal tyranny. Because our sovereignty is in jeapordy.
But where I draw the line is when some of these militia guys talk about attacks on police officers. Even if police officers are tools of a tyrannical government, they are unwitting tools, and targeting police officers just hurts innocent people not responsible for destroying our rights and sovereignty. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO PEACEFULLY, SHORT OF VIOLENCE, OPPOSE WHAT IS OCCURRING, AS THE TEA PARTY IS DEMONSTRATING. And it's character assassination to connect the Tea Party to these trigger-happy lunatics.
They are NOT representative of conservative opposition. Any more than PETA or the Weather Underground's terrorist antics are representative of the majority of Liberals.
The only difference is dangerous lunatic conservatives get national media coverage, and dangerous lunatic liberals do not.
If you want to do crap like crosshairs on political leaders you have that right but I also have the right to judge such actions.
Yeah, merely using a graphic of a target on Palin's website for targeting unpopular Democrats to run against and replace in elections with Republicans. How violent.
....
A rifle crosshairs won't seem so tame after one of the crazies from the right try to assasinate a democrat. Besides it's not just that, she has alot of angry rhetoric that goes along with her crosshairs.
MEM, I'm having problem with the RKMB search function. Could you dig up the posts from 2004 and 2009 where you condemned the Democrat Party for this "crap"?
Because I'm sure you did. Anything else would make you look stupid and hypocritical.
A rifle crosshairs won't seem so tame after one of the crazies from the right try to assasinate a democrat. Besides it's not just that, she has alot of angry rhetoric that goes along with her crosshairs.
Ah, so you're falling back on being a hypocrite. Not surprising.
If your objection is now that the Palin map was accompanied by violent or militaristic language (ex: "a call to arms") then your attempt to draw a distinction still fails. One of the maps above refers to republican districts as being "behind enemy lines," which is, of course, a military or war term.
But keep splitting those meaningless hairs. I'm sure we won't find more similar rhetoric in both parties to keep making your argument look disingenuous.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
That has to be the worst attempt at justification that I've seen in quite some time. Horrible. Just horrible. You're working way to hard to project the Republicans as the evil ones and the Democrats as faultless and good.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Oh, wow.
I think all that semen you ingest has finally killed whatever remained over your brain cells.
Erick Erickson will pull 'shotgun' over Census CNN contributor and prominent Republican blogger Erick Erickson is threatening to pull out a "shotgun" to scare away census workers.
Erickson — the founder of the conservative blog RedState — said on his Macon, Ga.-area radio show Thursday that if a census worker carrying a longer American Community Survey form came by his house, he would "pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door."
"They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying," Erickson said, in a recording by the liberal media watchdog Media Matters. "The servants are becoming the masters. We are working for the government. We are becoming enslaved by the government."
On his blog, RedState, Erickson wrote Friday that he was being "misconstrued."
"ACS Surveyors are getting belligerent," he wrote, "and have showed up on people's doorsteps to harass them and threaten jail. I said if some ACS person showed up on my doorstep to try to arrest me for not wanting to tell the government how often I flush my toilet, I'd get out my wife's shotgun and get them off my property. Naturally the left is out today saying I was on the air advocating killing census workers."
Despite having a history of inflammatory rhetoric — he once called retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat f—ing child molester" — Erickson was touted by CNN as an "agenda-setter" who is "in touch with the very people" the network hopes to reach when they signed him to provide commentary in March.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
That has to be the worst attempt at justification that I've seen in quite some time.
MEM, you have to be kidding. Anyone and everyone knows that targets are used in shooting. For example:
If you have something beyond denouncing me I'll listen.
No, you wouldn't. And that's the point.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Are you a parody of a progressive or are you being serious?
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical. If they were I think you would have some examples of politicians using crosshairs. Do you have any?
Of course. One would point out similarities in order to argue things are the same.
I've already set forth my position as to why they are the same. In fact, I am happy to point out that crosshairs are simply one type of target used in shooting practice, along with others I've cited. Case in point:
As I said before, can you explain why they are different?
To date, I haven't seen you cite a single example of how they are different.
Furthermore, I would like to remind you that you are the person who started a thread and insinuated that politicians using this type of imagery are inciting violence. Therefore, I think the burden is on you at this point to explain why the DNC doing it is okay but a republican doing it is different/wrong. I, personally, accept that both sides do it as a form of harmless political metaphor.
At least take a shot (no pun intended) at explaining why one kind of target (Palin crosshairs) is different than another (DNC bullseye).
Take your time. Take all day in fact to consider your position if you want. Feel free to make your post as long as you want. I don't think Rob has a character limit.
If you can explain your position, great. If you can't, just admit it.
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
How's that for splitting hairs?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
I think you can "target" somebody without a gun being involved. A "crosshairs" however just automatically brings to mind a gun being aimed at somebody. Add to the fact that Palin used words to go along with it to support that idea of a gun being used it's hard to ignore. Even more so when current events have a right wing militia planning to kill cops. If that's what she wants to do at her prep rallies, that is her right but I think it's at best poor leadership on her part.
oh won't someone defend the poor innocent little faggot?
