Republicans for Obama
You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / Militias Regrouping in U.S., Report Finds
By AGrandmother - Posted on 12 August 2009
We already knew it... but now its official.
It's Deja-vu all over again! Same thing happened under Clinton... A Democrat gets elected, and they get their guns and prepare to fight the next Revolutionary War. The last time this crap happened was when all of the Waco BS was happening.
Where you have a lot of revolutionary smoke there will always be a couple of fires willing to kill people for their beliefs, and then have to be shut down by the government riot forces.
Yeah and between all of this, the shootings and threats of the past 6 months, it's obvious how wrong Homeland Security was. Obviously they were just out to vilify conservatives like so many claimed...
Oh no, it's the rise of the organizations like "Eagle of Christ" that turn two harmless members of the Happy Smile Patrol, Teddy Tickles and Harry Hugs into armed right wing militiamen hiding in the Black Hills, using bear traps and brush fires to hold off police and the National Guard.
Just a good old SNL spoof from the 90s . . . Apparently history likes to repeat itself.
Not really related except in the extremism department but an interesting interview last night about a religous group called 'The Family'.
THIS one I am going to watch. Be back in a few minutes with my comments. ;-)
The family and the House on C Street fascinate me in a way that is also disturbing. I feel like it is the tip of an iceberg, and the rest could really sink the ship.
I want to see and hear everything I can about this. I am mentally trying to connect the dots, but my tinfoil hat isn't working too well. I need Reynolds Wrap instead of off label. lol
I meant to pick up the book when I was out today, and forgot. Something tells me this group has a long reach, and we need to be aware. It was nice to be able to laugh about it. ;-)
Doonesbury - Last Week's Complete 'C Street/The Family' Storyline
"I have sinned, but I'm special" I love Doonesbury.
I have to say I am becoming seriously concerned. Scratch that, I am becoming fearful.
Crazy people are always with us. Most people even those on the far right do not support militias.
Granted, it only takes one Timothy McVeigh to kill.
But my problem with the ABC story is again trying to put blame on the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Rush has around 14 million listeners. 99.999999% of them would never join any kind of hate group or militia group.
We must hold people responsible for their own actions and not try and blame radio entertainers.
99.999999% of them would never join any kind of hate group or militia group.
ANd you know this how? Just look at what the lobbyist Dick Armey did in a matter of days, got people all worked up. It's spreads like the flu.
I think that there is a small percentage, not sure what the percentage, that I now call absolutists. They listen to Rush, Beck and such and believe every single word. They don't check out what they say, they take it as gospel.(same goes for the extreme left). Some people get desperate and do nutty things based on their fears, which is being pumped into the average and unwitting citizen.
Now with that said, if i hear something that scares me, I have to find out if it is true. So I reasearch, then I thought process and make my own conclusions based on how I feel about, think about and if it makes sense to me or not. Alot of people don;'t and I know many people like that already, including my mom. But now she asks me to look it up instead of taking it word for word.
So yes, I think there are some, and I think that anyone that promotes fear is an enabler for people to do these crazy things.
...(same goes for the extreme left). Some people get desperate and do nutty things based on their fears...
...(same goes for the extreme left). Some people get desperate and do nutty things based on their fears...
There are, of course, some on the left who also enjoy gallows humor and show a propensity to express themselves in violent terms. Last year we had the guy who hung a mannequin dressed up as Sarah Palin. The over whelming reaction from the left was “NO! NOT ACCEPTABLE!” there were a few cases where protesters hung Bush in effigy; again overwhelmingly the reaction from most liberals was “not acceptable”. Even here a while back I relayed a bad joke I had made concerning Marine One. It was deleted and I was properly chastised.
That is the difference as I see it.
So if I, knowing you are gullible and prone to drastic reactions, convince you that your neighbor is a Satanist who is planning to sacrifice you child at midnight and you decide to protect your child by burning his house down…who is guilty? You are, of course, but so am I.
Limbaugh et al have long cultivated an audience they know is gullible, not well educated, and prone to violence. And yes, prone to violence… take a look at the “comedy” this group seems to enjoy. Jokes about poisoning the speaker of the house… and let’s not forget Anne Coulter, her jokes are so funny! (Not). What about Scooter Libby’s book where he has a young girl raped by a bear as entertainment (yes, rape, any kind of rape, is violence). The cartoon last year that equated Obama with a chimpanzee that had been shot and killed was well received by the extreme members of the right I know. In fact I have never seen a single word of protest from the right on any of this or any of the other offensive jokes I have seen spewed by the conservative commentators. Nor do they seem concerned about people who have made the news by hanging Obama and congressmen (and women) in effigy. This behavior is escalating and even after the violence of the last year that includes the shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church (where the shooter was found to have books by O’Reilly, Savage, and Hannity), the murder of Dr. Tiller and the killing at the holocaust museum these right wing commentators not only do not tone their rhetoric down, they continue to ramp it up. All in the name of ratings with a battle cry of “freedom of speech”.
So yes, they carry a level of responsibility for the violence that is brewing.
Bush was routinely called a Nazi and had cartoons drawn about him comparing him to Hitler and Nazis. He was routinely hung in effigy by far left anti war groups.
The talk show hosts on Air America especially Mike Malloy and Randy Rhodes (both no longer with AA) frequently wished death on Bush, Cheney, Rice and other Republicans.
It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. But those who are screaming about it now didn't seem too upset when it was Republicans on the receiving end.
Who Bush? . . . No way
Sure, the Bush=Nazi thing is totally wrong, and no one should have used it-- even if they were being tongue-in-cheek. Some of the idiots doing it may have been serious about it, making it all the worse.
However, as far as Bush/Cheney trampling on the constitution is concerned, that was right on target.
Brandon, where is the gun or bomb violence from left extremists? Specifically violence targeting conservatives. We have examples of right extremists bombing federal buildings, shooting an abortion doctor, shooting 3 police officers, shooting at a Holocaust Museum, etc....
There really is no defense of the right wing radio hosts, especially with the size of their listeners. They take no responsibility for spreading immeasurable fear to these people and filling their heads with nonsense.Especially when their wackos are usually angry gun owners on the verge of snapping. What's a wacko on the left on the verge of doing?
Most of the bomb-throwing by left-wing radicals was in the 60s and 70s.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
The extreme left has been violent at various WTO meetings like the one in Seattle a few years ago. Plus they have threatened violence at the recent political conventions where security has to be unbelievably tight.
As Tin points out, the left was extremely violent during the late 1960s/early 1970s. Do you remember Chicago in 1968 or the Weathermen or the Yippies or the Days of Rage?
We're talking about now and we're talking about individual violence like we've seen the past few months. Was there individual violence targeting conservatives during the Bush years? Please make me aware of it so we have a comparison.
What we're dealing with is another breeding ground that gave us Tim McViegh only magnified this time with Obama. The WTO was terrible but that size of people getting together with the emotions is hard to control. No excuse either way, but we've been over this in another thread once and the focus here is on individual violence from the left with a bomb or gun attacking or targeting conservatives. Where is it? We have multiple examples of it happening THIS YEAR with right extremists and tensions only seem to be getting worse and it's being led by the Beck's and Limbaughs. No one on the left has the amount of listeners that Rush or Beck have and that should come with responsibility.
You are correct that no one on the left is even close to Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck in ratings. Left leaning radio doesn't even compete even in our 3 biggest cities:
In New York, WABC has 1.2 million listeners. WWRL has 113,000.
In Los Angeles, KFI also has 1.2 million listeners. KTLK has 217,000.
In Chicago, WLS has 735,200 listeners. WCPT has 105,000.
The closest I can remember is at last year's party conventions. I watched some coverage on FreeSpeechTV (an admittedly very left-wing source) and a little bit on the internet. Those folks were pretty violent in some cases, but in other cases the authorities overreacted too.
One memorable case was the mob assaulting a Fox News camera man who was a little too close to them for their comfort, given their feelings (and apparently many others' feelings) about Fox News. I'll find the video if you want.
There really was quite a lot going on at both conventions which didn't make it (much) into the mainstream media.
Again Tin, unruly protesting crowds are nothing new. The focus is on gun and bomb violence like we've seen 3 or 4 examples of, just this year. Luckily (as sick as it sounds), those examples only involved guns and no explosives going off....
EDIT: Again with a focus of violence specifically targeting conservatives. We've seen liberals targeted in the last 3 years.
Agreed. Like I said, the best I can come up with is back in the 60s and 70s.
Although I agree that the WTO protests were pretty shocking IMO, they didn't reach the same level.
The LA riots of '92 weren't political in the same way, either. I mean, they were political for sure, but they were focused on a specific subject. If that makes any sense.
Or maybe it's all a left-wing media conspiracy to not report on such left-wing violence? <g>
Wait -- what? We've seen liberals targeted for violence in the last 3 years? Since when?
Yeah, but like with Kaczynski, it's sometimes hard to separate those who are just plain wacko from those who really do have a political message/cause/etc.
In my opinion.
I'm kind of researching the subject right now. I'll post if I find anything interesting (unless someone beats me to it).
I can find some from the 80s. Is that still too far back?
Otherwise it is hard to find much in just a shallow search. Maybe I'm not using the right terms?
Note: Searching for all political violence, not just left or right.
On the subject of the WTO riots in 2000.
“Police were overwhelmed Nov. 30 when marches by several groups converged on the downtown core. In addition to clogging streets and hampering the WTO gatherings, the crowds provided cover for a small number of individuals who smashed windows and looted stores, resulting in an estimated $3 million in property damage”
Note in particular “small number of individuals who smashed windows and looted stores”.
Though it is possible that some of these people were liberals doing violence as a political statement in general this type of crime is generally opportunistic criminal activity. Over all the protest, though disruptive, was peaceful. A small number of people took opportunity for personal gain. And the violence was renounced by the bulk of liberal community. It is really hard to lump this as “liberal violence”.
I have to point out that there was not a single political killing during the Bush years. There was the young man who tried to jump the fence to get into the White House. He wasn’t armed. Never heard any more about it (beyond that he was emotionally disturbed). I don’t remember his motive ever being publicized.
If we have to go back 40 to 50 years then, well, is it really relevant today? Of course if you want to we can also remember incidences like the Birmingham church bombing and other anti-civil rights violence. I’m sure we can go tit for tat for at least 100 years. Is there any point to it?
"Is there any point to it?"
No, there is not any point to it and as I said both extreme sides are WRONG and should be denounced by mainstream conservatives and mainstream liberals.
My original point is that we should blame the extremists and denounce their actions and not radio entertainers.
If Rush, Beck etc. were calling for assassinations, violence etc. I'd agree with you, but just calling Obama a socialist or saying a policy is the same as the Nazis is not the same.
When I said no political murders during the Bush years I some how deleted “perpetuated by liberals”. Sorry, I do that when I’m tired.
There were, of course, the anthrax attacks, and they were probably politically motivated (letters were mailed to five newspapers and two democratic senators). Most people I know assume the attacks were anti war statements but if we examine the targets this doesn’t seem to make sense. One of the most confusing aspects of this case to me is the inclusion of the National Inquirer as a target. Could there be a less political paper? Anyway logic dictates that if it was a liberal terrorist attack the targets would have been more conservative, maybe FOX news and republican politicians?
I also remember a couple of assaults reported as liberal violence that both turned out to be hoaxes. The second one was the young woman who claimed to have been attacked by Obama supporters shortly before the election. The first one I think was around the 2004 election, a young man claimed to have been stalked and assaulted by unknown radical liberals.
I also remember a report of the Republican headquarters in a town being broken into and ransacked, reported as a political attack. This was retracted when it turned out the democratic headquarters in the same town, a few blocks away, had been broken into and ransacked the same night.
And of course they are myriad reports of campaign signs being stolen and/or vandalized on both sides. Most of these were traced to children.
I am not saying liberals can’t be violent. No individual is perfect and in any group of people, the bigger the group the more likely you are to find individuals with extreme ideologies and/or bad tempers. What I am saying is that at this point the majority of liberals advocate against violence.
My problem with Limbaugh et al is that, although they may not be directly advocating violence (Beck has crossed that line with his poison skit) they see what their words are stirring up and not only refuse to offer calming words, instead stoking things up further. They are convincing people they are in danger, that their very lives are being threatened. They know that many in their audience will see taking violent action as self defense. They aren’t stupid. They didn’t get where they are by not knowing their audiences. Limbaugh in particular seems to be glorying in the power he currently welds. He can even make members of the Republican Party dance to his tune. His fun and games are going to get people hurt as surely as if he were shooting a shot gun at a public square.
both extreme sides are WRONG and should be denounced by mainstream conservatives and mainstream liberals.
I can not agree with you more on this.
Umm, I don't think the window-smashers and looters were in it for personal gain. I'm sure they were doing that as political statement.
Same with the Earth First movement burning a bunch of new vehicles on car lots and some logging equipment in the Northwest during the early 2000s.
Although I would only have to find one instance, are you sure there were no left-wing political murders or bombings during the Bush years? I would be very surprised to tell you the truth.
As for whether it's relevant today, I think that the actions of the 60s and 70s are relevant because the political times are pretty comparable in my book. Or at least it is interesting to compare and contrast the two.
And yes, the anti-civil-rights violence of the 50s, 60s, and 70s is very relevant, especially those acts perpetrated by government. As is government's often overreaction to legitimate protesters.
We were obviously watching different news shows. I saw the cartoons and effigies renounced consistently with the message that all civil violence was unacceptable, even in effigy. That anyone who loves this country, no matter how much they may hate the Bush, would not want to see this country erupt in violence.
What I think is really funny is that Keith Olbermann, who I know many of you here can’t stand, was always the loudest voice on this. Maybe that’s why you missed it. Chris Matthews was another who was vocal on this, as was Anderson Cooper on occasion.
This is not to say they tried to squelch when the fascist aspects of the Bush administration (can we say Patriot Act?). and of course they touted the time Bush expressed he would like to be dictator… but they did most defiantly reject any implications of violence.
RepublicansforObama.org is not affiliated with the Obama Presidential Campaign