American conservatives are preparing for an armed revolution - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dunedan · 08-14-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

I think "i have the freedom to own guns and the government shouldn't do anything about it" is a perfectly valid ethical argument.

No argument here.

Quote:

I don't see why the need to make utilitarian claims

Because Statists usually refuse to make the acknowledgment you did above. Statism/collectivism is a largely result-oriented paradigm, whereas Individualism is a rights/ethics-based paradigm. Since Statists are the ones trying to ban guns, the only hope Individualists have of convincing them not to do so (absent violence), is by persuading them on a results-based level. I personally and philosophically agree with you. However, since the gun-grabbers are unwilling to even acknowledge, much less work with, the ethical arguement, utilitarian arguments prevail.

filtherton · 08-14-2009, 06:12 PM

No really. Guns = Safety. That's why no cop has ever been killed in the line of duty. That's why no armed rebellion has ever been overwhelmed by state controlled military. That's certainly why there's never been a successful armed rebellion that, once established as the state resulted in crippling oppression. People with guns, because they have guns, are the only thing standing between us and crushing state oppression.

Willravel · 08-14-2009, 06:12 PM

I don't know if "statist" is the right term for the antithesis of individualist in this context. I'd be more comfortable with something a bit more general, like collectivist.

The_Dunedan · 08-14-2009, 06:29 PM

Collectivist it is, then. That's the level it all gets down to in the end, after all.

roachboy · 08-14-2009, 07:05 PM

so we flip from militia speak to von mises language then.

it seems to me that the central question here is what democracy consists in. is it a matter of procedures? is it a matter of a polity being able to access information so that they can make informed judgement based on one or another types of deliberative process? is it a matter of representation? when can polity revoke a representative's status? every two years? every four? every six? at any time? or does democracy hinge on being left alone?

when are you free? what does that word mean really?

everyone throws these words around as if the meanings are obvious.
i dont think they're obvious.
so what do you think they mean?

Baraka_Guru · 08-17-2009, 05:45 AM

I see this little thread I created has found new life while I was a Canadian urbanite touring touristy areas of the lovely communist Cuba. (You must see Old Havana; it's a delight.)

I also see we've come down to a common denominator: What is freedom?

This is good. Freedom cannot be compartmentalized into a single idea or thing. Freedom is a complex state.

In Canada, I believe I have many freedoms. I would argue that I might even have more freedoms than many of my American counterparts.

I have no guns, and it's very hard for me to own one. And if I do wish to own one, there are only a select few types that aren't illegal here.

What is the source of my freedom? Oh, let's see: a government set up to ensure these freedoms. One that functions and survives only when these freedoms (and other things) are upheld and kept chugging along. Unlike the U.S., the Canadian government can fall in a day at any time whenever a "motion of confidence" fails. When we lose faith in our government, we're off to the polls to engage in our rights in freedoms through an election. We don't have to wait out any terms or such, though it's nice when government plays ball and terms are fully served.

But where are our guns? Where is the threat of violence?

They aren't necessary. We have a system that works. And if it doesn't work, we press the reset button and we have another go at it. The threat is a threat of political failure—a loss of political power.

Not all aspects of democracy are good. But certain democratic systems (in this case, Canadian democracy) make living under good or even mediocre governance a valuable and cherished thing. Both conservatives and liberals (oh, and socialists too) take all of this quite seriously.

Vigilante · 08-18-2009, 07:58 AM

Sure it would be great if we as Americans could be as chill as Canada. I would love that. However you are comparing Sparta to Athens.

Plan9 · 08-18-2009, 08:16 AM

Perhaps we should compare the US to another gun-owning country instead of Canada.

If that's possible.

Baraka_Guru · 08-18-2009, 08:30 AM

But this is my point. We are quite different culturally, socially, politically, and yet both of our nations provide levels of freedom that much of the rest of the world can only dream of. These states of freedom aren't of the same brand, they aren't derived from the same source, and yet there they are.

The threat of violence is not a prerequisite for maintaining freedom. However, one may find that violence is employed to protect it, as it has been in the past. But that's another story.

roachboy · 08-18-2009, 08:50 AM

i'm really unclear about what you mean when you say that the united states & canada provide "levels of freedom that other countries can only dream of."
i think most of the "freedoms" particular to the united states are formal. it seems to me that, for example, a political system in which the polity is able to vote one day every two years and in which the options that are presented amount to little more than the option of engaging in faction rotation within an oligarchy, and in an information environment that is not at all about providing people with what is required to make informed or rational decisions about issues...that's not real free. being part of a market demographic in the context of which freedom is a word that gets associated with alot of products because it sounds nice, because it's flattering--that doesn't seem to me terribly free.

i think sometimes folk understand categories like authoritarian as requiring a particular type of state action, as if the state is the only institution capable of being such surveillance and management of a population. but those days are long past, and even in the earlier manifestations--say germany of the 1930s--state rule was accompanied by a single dominant media apparatus (radio) and a quite new for the time understanding of the close relation between politics and public relations (edward bernays anyone?)...in the historical treatments of that period, the centrality of radio as an opinion co-ordination mechanism tends to get downplayed and the role of state violence becomes the exclusive center. but that's to make how that particular form of fascism work incomprehensible. and it's always mystified me that this is the case.

i think you get something similar amongst folk who imagine that having a gun makes them anything beyond someone who has a gun--the exclusive object of concern regarding possible outcomes like "tyranny" is the state.

but think about the logic of neo-colonialism for a second: why bother with direct domination when it's much cheaper and more effective to convince people to dominate themselves?
better still if you can convince them that dominating themselves is in their own best interest.

this can only get started if you regard "freedom" as an attribute and not a process. so "freedom" is like the leg of a table. it doesn't require any particular action or doing or process. it's a part of an object that the Bad State can maybe take from you, in the way a bully could take your peanut butter & jelly sandwich from you at recess by the swingset.

Baraka_Guru · 08-18-2009, 09:06 AM

The freedoms I speak of are largely those that are legislated and ingrained in the culture. There are many things we can do in North America that are illegal in other countries. Consider the plight of women that is still going on in other areas. Consider how religious and cultural minority groups are treated elsewhere.

I agree with what you are saying in that there is much that is dicey when it comes to freedom and authoritarianism, but then you consider the fact that virtually any one of us can go to a library or use the Internet to find out what's what, or maybe even contact certain helpful organizations and groups that are eager to help. Not so in some other areas.

Vigilante · 08-18-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The freedoms I speak of are largely those that are legislated and ingrained in the culture. There are many things we can do in North America that are illegal in other countries. Consider the plight of women that is still going on in other areas. Consider how religious and cultural minority groups are treated elsewhere.

Yes, BUT that has nothing to do with our freedoms, other than to say we don't want to follow their paths.

...I have about 5 different tangents that followed as I typed after that statement, but figured it best to try and stick with where we are now.

Baraka_Guru · 08-18-2009, 11:36 AM

What do you mean by "follow their paths"? We moved away from those situations I mentioned.

jmcdaniel_ee · 08-27-2009, 01:18 PM

There's been some lag, but I just wanted to comment after reading the majority of this thread (heck, I signed on here because I found a forum thread about an occasional difficulty I have with yawning): this thread has been dormant a while, so I figured I'd take the liberty to throw in my 2 cents:

Anytime there is political volatility, I worry. I worry that an armed revolution would take place in this country. Not because I think any armed revolution is bad in any circumstance (such as a theoretical internal armed revolution against NAZI Germany), but I worry about the outcome. I'm not a socialst by any means (I'm practically an anarco-capitalist), but a conservative armed revolution does worry me, primarily because of what would follow. Any time that the left side of a (pseudo) two-party system is in power and things go awry, the tendancy of the masses is to elect the extreme polar opposite. As much as I dislike the Obama administration, the Bush administration was worse in other ways. Both are seeking to reduce their citizens freedom, only in different ways. And what's really sick about it, is that the 4 or 8 year cycle fools the majority into crying out for more of their freedoms being taken away (either through survelance and police state tactics ala "security" and anti "terrorism" or through increased property confiscation and redistribution through socialist programs). The people who aren't pleased with the present administration (such as myself) may end up with a right-wing dicatator-tyrant for the next term. Yikes!

It was said earlier in the thread that the outrage at referring to recent policies as "socialistic" in nature is unjustified. I would agree. But not because I don't think they're socialistic, but because they're no more socialistic than most other policies pursued in the last 100 years or more, regardless of the right or left-wing status of the administration. It's nothing new at all.

My whole issue that some don't seem to understand about gun ownership is that each person owns him or herself. And therefore each person has a right not to be harmed by others. When one is not harming others, and yet is still aggressed upon by anyone (whether or not they wear a badge or government uniform), then an injustice has been done. If I am not harming another person, no one, regardless of the uniform they wear or the "authority" they claim to possess, has a right to do any harm towards me. When man A has lethal firepower and man B doesn't, it is morally wrong for man A to use his lethal firepower to threaten man B to do anything against his will. It makes no difference if man A is a woodsman at Ruby Ridge or if man A has a fancy badge and government uniform. Unless and until weapons are no longer in existence, the only way to prevent those with weapons from aggressing upon you is to be able to pose a significant counter threat. Can a counterthreat be posed without the posession of weapons? I'm not sure how.

James

Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. --Oliver North

Baraka_Guru · 03-05-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason
Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.

Mother Jones
By Justine Sharrock | March/April 2010 Issue

THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.

His belief that that day is imminent has led Pray to a group called Oath Keepers, one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

Pray (who asked me to use his middle name rather than his first) and five fellow soldiers based at Fort Drum take this directive very seriously. In the belief that the government is already turning on its citizens, they are recruiting military buddies, stashing weapons, running drills, and outlining a plan of action. For years, they say, police and military have trained side by side in local anti-terrorism exercises around the nation. In September 2008, the Army began training the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team to provide humanitarian aid following a domestic disaster or terror attack—and to help with crowd control and civil unrest if need be. (The ACLU has expressed concern about this deployment.) And some of Pray's comrades were guinea pigs for military-grade sonic weapons, only to see them used by Pittsburgh police against protesters last fall.

Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"

In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"—the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho—where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers.

[...]

[Article continues for a few pages]

Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason | Mother Jones

Wes Mantooth · 03-05-2010, 02:35 PM

America has always been this way to some extent or another and for some reason militia/survivalist/whatever groups seem to become more vocal when a democrat is in office. I remember this same kind of stuff under Clinton, the nightly news focusing on "dangerous" groups running around the country side, drilling for the eventual armed take over. When Bush was elected these groups seemingly disappeared from the mainstream and nobody gave them much thought.

In the end it always seems to be nothing more then posturing, groups of American Nationalists who feel its their birthright and duty to defend their freedoms at the end of a gun. And why not, its always been ingrained in our culture to stand up and fight to the death when we feel we have something to fight for. I never really paid these people any mind and probably never will.

If the group in the above article were to try and take a stand we'll probably just wind up with another "Waco" style standoff that in the end accomplishes very little and will largely be forgotten.

Baraka_Guru · 03-06-2010, 07:15 AM

What's disturbing to me about the Mother Jones article is that this concern for preparedness hinges on the issue of martial law. If the Obama government were to do so for any particular reason, it seems this group would construe that as some sort of excuse of the government for taking its "socialist totalitarianism" to some kind of "Phase 2." It's as though they view Obama's option for martial law as the one significant move that would enable him to galvanize his Stalinesque rule over America, placing people in concentration camps and perhaps executing those who become too resistant.

Though I don't doubt the existence of facilities for detention centres for both federal and military use, I can't think of a single nation who'd I suspect doesn't have these sorts of things. It's not that the concept of law and order is new or anything.

All of this to me is simply ludicrous. What makes it more so is the fact that these people are members of the armed forces, both military and civilian. To serve and protect, right?

What's funny to me, in the end, and no matter how sardonic, is the connection all of this has to the Tea Party movement and how it views the Obama administration as a socialist machine gearing up to take its agenda to Nazi-like proportions if necessary.

I don't know what to think anymore. At first the Tea Party movement just seemed like a bunch of whiny conservatives upset because their guy lost the election. Now I think the group under which the Tea Party flag flies is far too fragmented and multifaceted to apply any one value to it.

My greatest fear is that it's being co-opted by extremists: the kind we should be far more concerned about than anything that would come out of a decidedly centrist president. And it all starts with propaganda, as did most things to be ashamed of in our human history.

Poppinjay · 03-06-2010, 07:50 AM

The common term for that soldier would be "nut job". They will always exist.

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-06-2010, 12:16 PM

No we're not.

Wes Mantooth · 03-06-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

What's disturbing to me about the Mother Jones article is that this concern for preparedness hinges on the issue of martial law. If the Obama government were to do so for any particular reason, it seems this group would construe that as some sort of excuse of the government for taking its "socialist totalitarianism" to some kind of "Phase 2." It's as though they view Obama's option for martial law as the one significant move that would enable him to galvanize his Stalinesque rule over America, placing people in concentration camps and perhaps executing those who become too resistant.

Though I don't doubt the existence of facilities for detention centres for both federal and military use, I can't think of a single nation who'd I suspect doesn't have these sorts of things. It's not that the concept of law and order is new or anything.

All of this to me is simply ludicrous. What makes it more so is the fact that these people are members of the armed forces, both military and civilian. To serve and protect, right?

What's funny to me, in the end, and no matter how sardonic, is the connection all of this has to the Tea Party movement and how it views the Obama administration as a socialist machine gearing up to take its agenda to Nazi-like proportions if necessary.

I don't know what to think anymore. At first the Tea Party movement just seemed like a bunch of whiny conservatives upset because their guy lost the election. Now I think the group under which the Tea Party flag flies is far too fragmented and multifaceted to apply any one value to it.

My greatest fear is that it's being co-opted by extremists: the kind we should be far more concerned about than anything that would come out of a decidedly centrist president. And it all starts with propaganda, as did most things to be ashamed of in our human history.

I think the problem is people are getting hung up on the words of a vocal minority that's bouncing around the usual conspiracy theories that always seems to permeate this culture (militia/survivalist) The vast majority of conservatives, while holding a strong disdain for Obama, don't really hold these view they simply disagree with his policies for better or worse. A very loud vocal minority is using the Tea Party movement (which is all over the map with its platform) as a means to get its message out, unfortunately its the one everyone is hearing. In turn the whole thing gets blown out of proportion by the media and becomes the only thing associated with a group. Its in some way similar to the 9/11 truthers getting all wrapped up and confused with any left wing group that opposed Bush.

I grew up in a place where these militia type groups were very active and it was rather common to see policemen, firemen, military members, town council men, pastors, ect all being involved. They view it as a patriotic duty to defend their freedom against a "tyrannical"govt...So I guess in a way they are protecting and serving. Honestly these people and groups have been around for ages and I just don't see this group as being any different than the countless others we've been hearing about for decades (complete with the usual conspiracy theories about concentration camps, confiscating guns and martial law.) Judging from recent history I just don't see much here to worry about.

Baraka_Guru · 03-30-2010, 10:15 AM

Is this an isolated thing? Some say the number of militia groups is growing....

Quote:

Feds: Militia members sought to spark uprising

Last of 9 arrested after search in Mich.; they allegedly plotted to kill police

NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 7:57 a.m. ET March 30, 2010

DETROIT - Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral — all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government.

Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the Michigan-based Hutaree were arrested over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The ninth suspect was arrested Monday night after the FBI played recorded messages from family and friends, who urged the man to give himself up, over loudspeakers outside a home in rural southern Michigan.

FBI agents moved quickly against the group because its members were planning an attack sometime in April, prosecutors said. Authorities seized guns in the raids but would not say whether they found any explosives.

The arrests have dealt "a severe blow to a dangerous organization that today stands accused of conspiring to levy war against the United States," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Authorities said the arrests underscored the dangers of homegrown right-wing extremism of the sort seen in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.

In an indictment unsealed Monday, prosecutors said the group began military-style training in the Michigan woods in 2008, learning how to shoot guns and make and set off bombs.

David Brian Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., and one of his sons were identified as the ringleaders of the group. Stone, who was known as "Captain Hutaree," organized the group in paramilitary fashion and members were assigned secret names, prosecutors said. Ranks ranged from "radoks" to "gunners," according to the group's Web site.

"We're guessing he's been in there at least a day," Andrew Arena, head of the FBI's field office in Detroit, said after Joshua Stone surrendered.

Arena noted the pleas from Stone's family and friends. "They worked with us. They recorded some messages for us," he said.

Military-style training
According to the indictment, the group had been meeting and conducting military-style training exercises in the Michigan woods since 2008 to prepare for an impending war with its enemies. Members practiced building and detonating explosives and shooting firearms and built storage bunkers, investigators said.

Prosecutors said David Brian Stone, the militia leader, downloaded information about how to build explosive devices from the Internet and e-mailed diagrams of them to someone he believed was capable of making them, NBC reported.

He then directed his son and others to begin gathering the needed materials. Stone was charged, along with his wife and two sons.

The Detroit News quoted Donna Stone, the ex-wife of Stone, as saying his growing radicalism was a factor in their divorce three years ago.

"You pray as a family, you stay together as a family," the News report Stone as saying. "When he got carried away, when he went from handguns to big guns, it's like, now I'm done."

The group says on its Web site that Hutaree means "Christian warrior" and describes the word as part of a secret language that few are privileged to know. The group quotes several Bible passages and states: "We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. ... Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment." Religious scholars contacted by NBC News on Monday had not heard of the term.

The site also features a picture on the site of 17 camouflaged men, all holding large guns, and includes videos of camouflaged men toting guns and running through wooded areas in apparent training exercises. Each wears a patch on his left shoulder that bears a cross and two red spears.

Investigators: Police seen as enemy
According to investigators, the Hutaree view local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel as a "brotherhood" and an enemy, and planned to attack them as part of an armed struggle against the U.S. government.

The idea of attacking a police funeral was one of numerous scenarios discussed as ways to go after law enforcement officers, the indictment said. Other scenarios included using a fake 911 call to lure an officer to his or her death, killing an officer after a traffic stop or an attacking the family of a police officer.

Once other officers gathered for a slain officer's funeral, the group planned to detonate homemade bombs at the funeral, killing scores more, according to the indictment.

After the attacks, the group allegedly planned to retreat to "rally points" protected by trip-wired improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for what they expected would become a violent standoff with law enforcement personnel.

The indictment says members of the group conspired "to levy war against the United States, (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States."

The charges against the eight include seditious conspiracy, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, teaching the use of explosives, and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction — homemade bombs. All seven defendants in court on Monday requested to be represented by the federal defender's office, and a bond hearing is set for Wednesday.

Raids over the weekend
The raids on the group began over the weekend. FBI agents in Michigan swarmed a rural, wooded property Saturday evening in Adrian, about 70 miles southwest of Detroit. The same night in Hammond, Ind., law enforcement agents flooded a neighborhood, startling workers at a nearby pizzeria. In Ohio, authorities blocked off streets and raided two homes.

Outside Adrian, Heidi Wood, who lives near the property that was raided, said she hears gunshots "all the time" from near two ramshackle trailers that sit side-by-side. On Monday, a long gun leaned against a washing machine that sat in the yard, and on top of a nearby canister was another long gun.

Wood's mother, Phyllis Brugger, who has lived in the area for more than 30 years, said Stone and his family were known as having ties to militia. They would shoot guns and often wore camouflage, she said.

"Everybody knew they were militia," Brugger said. "You don't mess with them."

In Ohio, one of the raids occurred at Bayshore Estates, a well-kept trailer park in Sandusky, a small city on Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland. Neighbors said the man taken into custody lived in a trailer on a cul-de-sac with his wife and two young children.

The wife of one of the defendants described Hutaree as a small group of patriotic, Christian buddies who were just doing survival training.

"It consisted of a dad and two of his sons and I think just a couple other close friends of theirs," said Kelly Sickles, who husband, Kristopher, was among those charged. "It was supposed to be a Christian group. Christ-like, right, so why would you think that's something wrong with that, right?"

Sickles said she came home Saturday night to find her house in Sandusky, Ohio, in disarray. Agents seized the guns her husband collected as a hobby and searched for bomb-making materials, she said, but added: "He doesn't even know how to make a bomb. We had no bomb material here."

She said she couldn't believe her 27-year-old husband could be involved in anything violent.

"It was just survival skills," she said. "That's what they were learning. And it's just patriotism. It's in our Constitution."

‘Extremist fringe’
The FBI's Arena said the case "is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society. The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States."

FBI spokesman Scott Wilson said agents arrested two people Saturday after raids in two towns in Ohio. A third arrest was made in northeast Illinois on Sunday, a day after a raid took place just over the border in northwest Indiana.

Michael Lackomar, a spokesman for the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, said one of his team leaders got a frantic phone call Saturday evening from members of Hutaree, who said their property in southwest Michigan was being raided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"They said they were under attack by the ATF and wanted a place to hide," Lackomar said. "My team leader said, 'no thanks.'"

The team leader was cooperating with the FBI, Lackomar said. He said SMVM wasn't affiliated with Hutaree, which states on its Web site to be "prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren't."

Lackomar said none of the raids focused on his group, which is affiliated with the Michigan Militia, a larger militia umbrella group. About eight to 10 members of Hutaree trained with SMVM twice in the past three years, he said. SMVM holds monthly training sessions focusing on survival training and shooting practice, he added.

NBC Justice Correspondent Pete Williams as well as the Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36075836...news-security/

The_Dunedan · 03-30-2010, 06:06 PM

Questions:

1: How was this act provoked? Given the long history of federal agents provocateurs operating within Militiae and other anti-Gov't groups, and encouraging them to commit illegal acts, I look forward to seeing how this group was egged on. Remember that agents provocateurs were the instigators of violence during the Battle Of Seattle, the Ruby Ridge massacre, and that "Militia radio shock-jock" Hal Turner was recently revealed to have been on the FBI/ATF payroll for most of the last decade: time which he spent trying to stimulate and provoke violence among the FBI/ATF's target groups in the militia/patriot movement and being paid for doing so by the Federal Gov't. His whole job was to create violent criminals so that they could then be arrested and either "flipped" as informants or incarcerated as examples to the public and statistics for The Agency.

2: Was the group actually moving towards or committing an act of violence, or were they simply talking about it? "Seditious Conspiracy" has a lovely ring of Lefortovo and Pinochet about it. Knowing, or researching, or even -practicing- how to make bombs is not illegal. If you have the proper licenses (where required) making and using bombs is not illegal. It's even legal to discuss, in a theoretical sense, how an otherwise-legal bomb might be used in an insurgent or insurrectionist capacity. In my job I come into contact with large numbers of LEOs and Military personell, including a US Army bomb expert who is one of my best customers. Such conversations are hardly unusual among such people, despite the fact that neither I nor any of my customers are planning on blowing up anything more than disobliging boulders and tree-stumps. Furthermore, insurrectionist discussion and talk is likewise legal, is in fact protected by the Constitution. So long as no concrete violent act takes place or is palpably and imminently about to, discussion remains discussion, no matter how insane or ridiculous or dangerous the topic.

Baraka_Guru · 03-30-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Questions:

1: How was this act provoked?

The provocation, ostensibly, would have been the appearance of the "Antichrist."

Quote:

2: Was the group actually moving towards or committing an act of violence, or were they simply talking about it? "Seditious Conspiracy" has a lovely ring of Lefortovo and Pinochet about it. Knowing, or researching, or even -practicing- how to make bombs is not illegal.

I think intent is important. Bomb-making for blowing stumps out of your property to make a road is one thing, but the "seditious conspiracy" mentioned would fall under the Smith Act, would it not?

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

It was handy for purging Communists, apparently, but I suppose now it's deemed unconstitutional.

My question, though, is this: does treason truly need action? Is it treason if someone takes your information and training and uses it for their own ends? The Web is a great tool for disseminating information. Also, when does one become an enemy of the state?

I think all of this is very interesting.

For the record, certain forms of treason in Canada don't require action. It begins at the conspiracy to commit high treason or to use violence for the purpose of overthrowing a government body.

ASU2003 · 03-30-2010, 06:56 PM

Something doesn't sound right about that whole story. There are plenty of militia groups around, is the government trying to send a message to them? Are they trying to get enough of them to plan or carry out violence against the government in order to make the voting public thing the right wing is crazy and shouldn't get voted for in Nov? Is there some other story that the media should be reporting on, but the feds are making news to distract? Are they trying to link the Tea Party movement to these 912ers, libertarian, truthers, birthers, religious and other groups?

Or are these people really wacko like I would think at first. I mean the first commandment is "Thou shall not kill.".

Anyway, their plan sucked.

Baraka_Guru · 03-30-2010, 07:05 PM

ASU, you're making it sound like waiting to do battle with the Antichrist by preparing to kill a bunch of cops and eventually their mourners is something that can be incited by the government. How can that happen?

If busting up this organization sends a message to other nutjob organizations, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. They're nutjobs, right?

Anyway, I don't see how the government action in this case was in anyway an incitement. It was a reaction to evidence.

The_Dunedan · 03-30-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

My question, though, is this: does treason truly need action?

No. The US Constitution specifically defines Treason as either actively making war against the United States, or adhering to the enemies thereof in a declared war. Article 3, Section 3.

Quote:

Anyway, I don't see how the government action in this case was in anyway an incitement. It was a reaction to evidence.

We don't know that yet. If this action was encouraged, financed, or facilitated by an agent provocateur as has happened in the past, that person needs to suffer the severest punishment, along with whomever was "running" them. If this -was- a case of violent wackos moments or days away from executing what was known to be an unprovoked attack of which they were capable and for which they had the means, I applaud the efforts of Law Enforcement in this case. Such people need to be interdicted and dealt with, by one means or another. However, given the history of the past several administrations and the complacency of the national media throughout, I remain skeptical.

Charlatan · 03-31-2010, 12:41 AM

I think there needs to be a clear distinction between Government and the Law Enforcement Officers that are carrying out these arrests.

While conspiracy theorists would like to think that Obama (or someone high up) is pulling the strings, one should remember that these Officers had their jobs before the current Admin was elected and will likely be around after they are out of office. They serve the law and are accountable to the law, not the Administration.

ASU2003 · 03-31-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

ASU, you're making it sound like waiting to do battle with the Antichrist by preparing to kill a bunch of cops and eventually their mourners is something that can be incited by the government. How can that happen?

The problem is that this was one out of 512* or so groups across the country that wants to do what this group was planning to do. Now, not all of them are close to taking action, and not all of them want to go after local law enforcement. But, where does it end? What is just fantasy planning versus actual plans to carry out an attack?

* Hutaree: Why is the Midwest a hotbed of militia activity? - Yahoo! News

It's not that the government 'made' or 'pressured' these people into doing this, it's that I wonder why they only arrested this one group, and why did they do it prior to them actually trying to carry out this plan?

The_Dunedan · 04-01-2010, 06:12 AM

An interesting take from CNN's Ali Velshi and a University of Michigan Graduate student:

CNN.com - Transcripts

Quote:

But first, gripes about government are more than an American tradition; they're a birthright. Redress of grievances is at the very top of the Bill of Rights. But nine people now in custody, in federal custody in Michigan. These eight arrested over the weekend, plus another man arrested last night, aren't in trouble for circulating petitions. Allegedly, they plotted to kill police officers in hopes of sparking all-out war against Washington.

They're part of a so-called Christian militia group called Hutaree, which openly trained for an end-times showdown with the, quote, "new world order," end quote. Not just the feds, apparently, but the U.N., the European Union, as well. You're watching a video that they put on YouTube.

The charges include attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and seditious conspiracy. Quoting from the indictment, "The Hut-uh- ree -- the Hut-ARE-ee did knowingly conspire, confederate and agree with each other to levy war against the United States." That's from the indictment.

I have to point out two important facts. This group's Web site and videos may speak for themselves, but criminal charges have to be proven, and they haven't been proven yet.

Secondly, the Hutaree aren't alone. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps track of extremist groups and militias, and its latest findings might scare you a lot.

In 2008 the SPLC counted 149 groups that fall in the so-called patriot category. They basically view the federal government as the enemy of liberty-loving Americans.

In 2009, the numbers soared to 512. Not all of those groups are violent by any means or harbor any criminal intent.

But take a look at the patriot militia count. This is a subset of the larger group. In 2008 there were 42 known militias. Look at last year: 127. Every state in the union has several patriot groups or chapters. Michigan has the most, followed by Texas, California, Ohio, and Indiana.

All right. This is an interesting topic. You may not have been thinking that this was a big deal, but it is. I want to bring in Amy Cooter. She's working toward a Ph.D. in sociology at the University of Michigan, and that has meant two years of research into the Michigan militia and similar groups. She joins me now from Ann Harbor.

Amy, this is not news to you, but it is news to a number of Americans, the degree and the scope and the scale of these anti- government groups and how many of them are willing to take up arms to do what? What is the aim? What did you learn? What do these people want to achieve?

AMY COOTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PH.D. CANDIDATE: You know, the vast majority of this movement aren't so antagonistic toward the government that they're ready to start a fight. I think what we've seen with this group that's been in the news these last few days is sort of the extreme of this movement.

Most of the militia movements see their involvement as more of a political protest than anything. They do practice. They do target practice and general training with firearms. But for the most part, they're not particularly afraid of the government and aren't worried about them banging down their door and coming after their individual rights.

VELSHI: So in this fight that may happen between them and the government, where do the rest of us fall? Is this a fight? Do they imagine it to be a war? Or is it a "we're armed, and don't -- don't interfere in our lives"?

COOTER: You know, for the most part, like I said, most of these groups don't see this war as coming. For those that do, I think that they see themselves as a last line of defense for their communities. They don't see the average, everyday citizen as being on the side of the federal government or as being a target of their activity, for the most part.

VELSHI: Amy, stay right there. I want to talk about how these people we recruit, who's joining them and whether or not there are people who might be our neighbors. Stand by.

Amy Cooter is with us from Ann Harbor, Michigan. She's a doctoral candidate. She's studying -- she's doing -- she's studying for her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. We're going to talk about these groups that may or may not be a threat to you. She'll tell us whether those extremist groups are, in fact, a threat. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: In the case of this group, it was all cast in terms of the coming of the anti-Christ, which the group seemed to associate very closely, in fact, with the United Nations. So it's really quite similar to other militias' ideology but with a very particular biblical kind of twist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: We're rejoined by Amy Cooter. She's a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan.

Amy, you have spent time with -- have you spent time with the Hutaree or other groups?

COOTER: Mostly with other groups, since the Hutaree is this fringe element that isn't representative of the overall movement.

VELSHI: All right. So the people you've spent time with, I would almost say you've been embedded with them; you've spent sort of really good time with them, a lot of time with them. How would you describe them? Would they -- would they strike us as sort of everyday, normal Americans with concerns about too much government, or is there something more? Do they have more of an edge to them? COOTER: I think that most people would be surprised at how normal they are. Some of them have government jobs. In my interviews with them, most of them are actually slightly more educated than the average U.S. citizen.

The overall movement, they're not particularly religious. Most of them are married, have kids. And you wouldn't know they were militia members if you encountered them in the grocery store, unless they happen to have their militia T-shirt on.

VELSHI: And what -- so what drives them? What's their big concern here? Is it too much government or is it something more than that?

COOTER: You know, a lot of these militia members are a little concerned about big government. They feel that the Constitution isn't being followed to the letter of the law. They usually don't see it as a living document.

And for a lot of them, their militia involvement is kind of a political statement, as well as a way for them to continue military service in this patriot sentiment that a lot of them share.

VELSHI: Are they attracting sort of fringe folks who like weapons and might be sort of hoping that there's some kind of battle? Are they -- is there an element in there like the Hutaree that may be sort of not what you're describing?

COOTER: To be honest, that's pretty rare. If those people show up to the meetings of the main group, they're usually either asked to leave, if they're very forward about their ideology, or they quickly figure out that this group isn't going to offer them the opportunity to do that, and they fall out. They may find another group like Hutaree, but those groups are fairly rare.

VELSHI: What -- so what, then, is the motivator? If you feel like the Constitution is not being followed, that there is too much government, what is the motivation to join one of these militias? What are you going to get out of it? What's the takeaway for them?

COOTER: Well, as I mentioned, a lot of it is sort of this protest activity. They feel like they're not especially represented in the Tea Party system, and this is their way of saying, "Hey, we want to hold onto our guns. Don't infringe upon our Second Amendment rights."

And I think you have to be -- pay attention to the camaraderie element, too. In any social group people will band together...

VELSHI: Sure.

COOTER: ... with people who are like-minded. And a lot of the media folks who have been out to the trainings recently say, "Well, these guys look like grown-up Boy Scouts," and they're really surprised at the image they convey. VELSHI: But did you encounter anything that was like the Hutaree -- the Hutaree groups that were that much further off sort of the mainstream?

COOTER: It's pretty rare. Including the Hutaree here, there are one or two groups that look a little bit like that, yes.

VELSHI: OK. Interesting. Amy, great conversation. Thanks very much for joining us. Amy Cooter is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Michigan.

And an equally important reminder from The Independent about the past, and present, troubles of the FBI and their COINTELPRO programmes which the US Left somehow came to love:

How the Left Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the FBI | The Beacon

Quote:

At the close of World War I, the federal government created the General Intelligence Division, an agency that eventually morphed into the modern FBI. One of GID’s main tasks was to compile a list of hundreds of thousands of radicals—socialists, anarchists, labor activists and antiwar agitators. Thousands were arrested for being suspected Communists. Hundreds of anarchists were deported to Bolshevik Russia, the silver lining being that left-anarchists like Emma Goldman discovered and wrote about the pure horror of Leninism and the fact that “proletarian dictatorship” was not any sort of improvement upon the wartime corporatism of the U.S. under Woodrow Wilson.

In the late 1920s, the renamed Bureau of Investigation spied on such “socialist” threats as Albert Einstein. Under Franklin Roosevelt, although the FBI continued to keep track of left radicals, it found a new enemy in the form of opponents of the New Deal. FDR used the FBI to spy on multitudes of peaceful rightwingers, unleashing a Brown Scare that was later turned against the left during the McCarthy-era Red Scare. Roosevelt even spied on his Republican presidential opponent, Wendell Willkie.

But during the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations again focused the FBI, for the most part, on disrupting the left. Its COINTELPRO operation—a program to “track, expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities” of political radicals—was a great success. FBI’S COINTELPRO forged letters to bring about violence between the Black Panthers and United Slaves. In 1976, a Senate report showed that the FBI had boasted that “Although no specific counterintelligence action can be credited with contributing to this overall situation, it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest [among left radical groups] is directly attributable to this program.”

While the FBI was used to infiltrate rightwing anti-Civil Rights and anti-integrationist activists, it was also targeted against stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement. The FBI monitored everyone from Martin Luther King in the 1960s to John Lennon in the 1970s. In the late 70s, the Church Committee reports in the Senate culminated in some effort to rein in this horribly abusive federal agency.

In the 1990s, the FBI was at the center of the militia scare, with its snipers and strongmen turned against peaceful separatist Randy Weaver and his family, and later at the Waco, Texas, standoff with Branch Davidians, at the end of which FBI agents gassed, shot and killed dozens of David Koresh’s followers at their home at Mt. Carmel. They used incendiary devices, which might have brought on the fire, and then lied about it.

It was in this period that the modern left became enamored of the federal police state and especially the FBI. Almost none of them stood up for the Branch Davidians. They came to think of FBI agents as a professional, national and enlightened force populated by such figures as the Jodie Foster character in Silence of the Lambs, an agency that enforced civil rights, protected the country from “rightwing extremists,” and overturned the injustices of local, prejudiced law enforcement.

But during the Bush II era, when the administration was reported to be reviving COINTELPRO, the left’s distrust of national police forces also became revived. In October 2003, the FBI extensively spied on peaceful Iraq war protesters, focusing especially on “anarchists. . . capable of violence.” Bush’s FBI activities were a throwback to the post-World War I General Intelligence Division’s obsession with anarchists. In 2005, the ACLU sued to reveal in court that it had been monitored by the FBI, which had over a thousand pages of documentation on the organization, as had Greenpeace and other politically leftist organizations. Religious pacifist groups were also spied on and infiltrated. And one “terror plot” after another allegedly discovered and broken up by the administration just in the nick of time turned out to be a group of poor saps of below-average intelligence who had been duped by federal informants into saying something threatening or “planning” a terror attack on American infrastructure with no chance at all of being successful, and probably no chance of having even come up with the idea without federal prodding and agitation. The concern about the return of Cold War-era FBI infiltration of fringe groups was once again seen on the left.

Now we are back to the Brown Scare, to militia hysteria, to fears that the out-of-power anti-government right, Christian groups, separatists, gunowners, opponents of national social programs, census and tax resisters and so forth are a great threat to American security. With all the Bush-era anti-Muslim hysteria and war on terror authoritarianism still in place, we have under Obama a revitalization of 1990s-style paranoia about “hate groups,” survivalists and indeed the entire populist right. Just as Bush conservatives could not differentiate Saddam Hussein from Osama bin Laden, or an innocent Muslim doing charity work in Pakistan from an engineer of 9/11, or an antiwar American activist from an anti-American enemy within giving comfort to the enemy abroad, so too do the Obama leftists conflate peaceful separatists with violent racists, peaceful survivalist militia men with Timothy McVeigh.

Every act of violence or alleged plan to commit violence or even adamant anti-government activism that can be pinned on the “extremist right”—the shooter who murdered a guard at the Holocaust museum, the man who murdered an abortion doctor in church, the man who flew a plane through an IRS building, some “militia” members allegedly planning anti-government violence—all of this is seen as part of a general trend, even a rightwing conspiracy, one about as coherent as the neoconservatives’ lumping together all anti-US Muslims under the banner of “Islamofascism.” Indeed, I am surprised that not many have yet warned of the “Christofascist” threat to America, although there has been plenty of talk comparing the tea party movement to the Nazi brownshirts and talk that this kind of militia activity is often associated with “race war,” even when the particular subjects at hand are not even accused of being racially motivated.

And so when a progressive like Rachel Maddow cheers that the Michigan militia members can be indicted and imprisoned without having done anything violent, when she reports that the FBI has infiltrated this group for months and stepped in to arrest them just in the nick of time, we should not be too surprised when she fails to make the obvious connection, and fails to be the least bit skeptical of the federal government’s police agents infiltrating a group for months only to discover that that group’s members are saying things about government that amount to “seditious conspiracy.” What kind of Orwellian world is it when the government can arrest people accused only of planning to commit violence against government agents and unleash a “civil war” that we all know is only a fantasy? What kind of world is it when the very media figure who denounced Bush’s “preemptive war” and Obama’s adoption of Bush’s “pre-crime” approach to imprisoning “enemy combatants” in “prolonged detention” before they commit violence is happy to see a group indicted on federal charges of talking about committing violence—talk that we can safely guess was likely incited by the very FBI that had been infiltrating this group for months? What kind of absurdist dystopia has the left crying foul when a private citizen infiltrates ACORN, but has no similar apprehensions about the FBI infiltrating “extremist” groups and arresting them for “seditious conspiracy”? How can anyone who saw through the Bush lies of war and crackdowns in the name of “national security” and stopping madmen from getting “weapons of mass destruction” really believe that fewer than a dozen Americans with some rifles and some pipebombs were themselves planning to use “weapons of mass destruction” in any way that posed a threat to the U.S. government? And what about the charge of having weapons in connection to a crime—that crime being the intention of one day committing a crime?

Of course, preempting people from committing acts of criminal violence is just and sometimes necessary, but the list of questionable charges levied at these people, on the tail end of months of FBI infiltration, would seem to be in a different category, and at least warrants more critical examination before passing judgment. One can abhor and condemn the idea of violence and oppose vehemently the types of acts that these men and women are accused of planning—and certainly, I do—while still smelling a rat in the way such sting operations are conducted, or at least demonstrating some journalistic skepticism that the government’s side of the story is 100% accurate and justifies the imprisonment of these people and the hysteria on which this kind of government activity thrives.

But once again, with their people at the helm of state, the left has decided to embrace the FBI, take it at its word, assume that people are guilty until proven innocent once accused of guilt by the police state that they now see as the guardian of order against rightwing extremism. Especially strange is the tendency of leftists to fear rightists out of power even more than in power. The same dynamic can be seen on the other side. The left and the right love power, and although that power is often directed against their own when the other side is at the reins, they cannot abandon the idea that a police state can be pinpointed only against those they hate, and not those with whom they sympathize. The responsible, non-partisan and indeed American thing to do is to harbor extreme skepticism toward the state when it spies, infiltrates, arrests and imprisons anyone, and most especially those whose alleged crime is “sedition” or “conspiracy” or in any way being the enemy of the state.

A note on sources: Much of this history is discussed in Geoffrey Stone’s Perilous Times. A lot of the stuff on the FBI’s history I read years back in Roland Kessler’s Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI. A good treatment of COINTELPRO can be found in James Bovard’s Terrorism and Tyranny. On Waco see Carol Moore’s the Davidian Massacre and my Waco archives. And see the ACLU on some of the surveillance abuses under the Bush administration.

dksuddeth · 04-01-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

ASU, you're making it sound like waiting to do battle with the Antichrist by preparing to kill a bunch of cops and eventually their mourners is something that can be incited by the government. How can that happen?

If busting up this organization sends a message to other nutjob organizations, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. They're nutjobs, right?

Anyway, I don't see how the government action in this case was in anyway an incitement. It was a reaction to evidence.

hence, the beauty of the government plant. Find a group of sufficiently questionable ideology, foster the fears from within, incite them to actively participate towards one of those goals, then bust them while parading FBI representatives in front of the media with outlandish stories of said nut jobs religiously wacko ideas to garner popular support for the operation. It's an ideal message to tell the saner militia groups out there 'we'll fuck your world up too'.

roachboy · 04-01-2010, 07:31 AM

well, according to the southern poverty law center, there were 512 "patriot" organizations out there last year, 127 of which are militias.

Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2009 | Southern Poverty Law Center

the new issue of splc's "intelligence report" is of interest:

Rage on the Right | Southern Poverty Law Center

FuglyStick · 04-01-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

hence, the beauty of the government plant. Find a group of sufficiently questionable ideology, foster the fears from within, incite them to actively participate towards one of those goals, then bust them while parading FBI representatives in front of the media with outlandish stories of said nut jobs religiously wacko ideas to garner popular support for the operation. It's an ideal message to tell the saner militia groups out there 'we'll fuck your world up too'.

This must be an April Fool's joke

Baraka_Guru · 04-01-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

This must be an April Fool's joke

I'm not so sure about that. This is Tilted Paranoia.

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, according to the southern poverty law center, there were 512 "patriot" organizations out there last year, 127 of which are militias.

Huh, that's kinda funny—"patriot" groups. Are universities considered among the non-militia variety?

FuglyStick · 04-01-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm not so sure about that. This is Tilted Paranoia.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

HOLY CRAP, YOU'RE RIGHT! Once again, the "new posts" function has led me off the interstate of rationality into Crazytown. Back to the Land of Logic and Reason I go!

DaveOrion · 04-01-2010, 10:33 AM

This is the best joke ever, conservatives preparing for an armed revolution? Conservatives have always had someone else fight their battles for em, especially the poor, unemployed, minorities and such as that. Perhaps they could hire some of the downtrodden to fight this battle for em too.

Join now, fight for the bankers, credit card co's, and all the ultra rich so they can buy their 50th vacation home in God knows where. Onward conservative soldier!

dksuddeth · 04-01-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

This must be an April Fool's joke

you really think that the US Government isn't willing and/or capable of that kind of scheming?

The_Dunedan · 04-01-2010, 02:10 PM

Especially since one of their most successful agents provocateur, Hal Turner, was just outed a few months ago?

Fuglystick, others, here's the thing about Mr. Turner. This guy was on the radio for 10+ years, [i]being paid by the FBI for the specific purpose of egging people on to violence and lawbreaking. That was his job. You paid for this inbred to try and turn people towards violence so the FBI could arrest them or flip them into informants. Mr Turner has admitted all of this in open court. His role as an agent provocateur is a matter of public record.[i]

You can't just say "The Feds don't do that!" when the Feds just admitted to doing it and paraded their agent (do-er) before the world.

As for the SPLC, PUH-LEEZE. Morris "Sleaze" Dees has been seeing Klansmen under his bed (and bilking similarly terrified morons out of their money) for twenty years. His entire fortune (which is considerable) and the political clout of his organization (which is considerable) depend entirely upon dreaming up crises involving legions of "haters" who are out to kill every kike, nigger, papist, and spic they can find. The problem is that the SPLC includes pretty much anyone to the right of John Lennon or Bobby Seale on these lists of "hate groups" and "haters" because, after all, More Haters = Sacrier. Scarier = More Money. I trust the SPLC and ADL about as far as I can throw Mark Potok. They are professional fearmongers and liars, nothing more and a great deal less.

It's a leftist gravy train in the same vein as the John Birch Society on the right, except with a somewhat less tenuous connection to reality.

roachboy · 04-02-2010, 07:36 AM

gee, i've not heard anyone reference the southern poverty law center in those terms who was not part of a militia group. sometimes i used to listen to world wide christian radio for the christian identity and militia survivalist and black helicopter recognition call-in shows...in some of those programs the patriots would get pretty exercised about splc and would make all kind of outlandish statements in the process, statements that didn't really make sense beyond their situational function of indicating that the speaker just plain didn't like the splc and didn't like the information they'd gather and didn't like morris dees for being involved with the gathering because well splc talks about patriot groups and other neo-fascist outfits together and militia people like to pretend they're separate; and there's an attention to nativist and other racist groups and militia people like to think that they're just against illegal immigration on grounds that are often almost exactly like those of nativist groups so obviously the problem is pointing out the similarity.

yeah.

longliveusa · 04-14-2011, 11:40 AM

1. the Constitution forbids the government from keeping Americans from owning guns.
2. the Militia movement has nothing to do with any racism or oppression
3 Americans have the right to Change the government when the government is destructive to our freedom.
4.America is a constitutional republic
5. christian identify is not a Militia the kkk is not a Militia
6. slandering people who are experts at living at living off the land does not make your point come across as being logical
7 the SLPC is run by CAIR which had a reporter fired who voted for Obama just cause he questioned islam.

The_Jazz · 04-14-2011, 11:44 AM

Slander? Where specifically?

08-14-2009, 07:05 PM	#165 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so we flip from militia speak to von mises language then. it seems to me that the central question here is what democracy consists in. is it a matter of procedures? is it a matter of a polity being able to access information so that they can make informed judgement based on one or another types of deliberative process? is it a matter of representation? when can polity revoke a representative's status? every two years? every four? every six? at any time? or does democracy hinge on being left alone? when are you free? what does that word mean really? everyone throws these words around as if the meanings are obvious. i dont think they're obvious. so what do you think they mean? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-17-2009, 05:45 AM	#166 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I see this little thread I created has found new life while I was a Canadian urbanite touring touristy areas of the lovely communist Cuba. (You must see Old Havana; it's a delight.) I also see we've come down to a common denominator: What is freedom? This is good. Freedom cannot be compartmentalized into a single idea or thing. Freedom is a complex state. In Canada, I believe I have many freedoms. I would argue that I might even have more freedoms than many of my American counterparts. I have no guns, and it's very hard for me to own one. And if I do wish to own one, there are only a select few types that aren't illegal here. What is the source of my freedom? Oh, let's see: a government set up to ensure these freedoms. One that functions and survives only when these freedoms (and other things) are upheld and kept chugging along. Unlike the U.S., the Canadian government can fall in a day at any time whenever a "motion of confidence" fails. When we lose faith in our government, we're off to the polls to engage in our rights in freedoms through an election. We don't have to wait out any terms or such, though it's nice when government plays ball and terms are fully served. But where are our guns? Where is the threat of violence? They aren't necessary. We have a system that works. And if it doesn't work, we press the reset button and we have another go at it. The threat is a threat of political failure—a loss of political power. Not all aspects of democracy are good. But certain democratic systems (in this case, Canadian democracy) make living under good or even mediocre governance a valuable and cherished thing. Both conservatives and liberals (oh, and socialists too) take all of this quite seriously. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-17-2009 at 05:48 AM..

08-18-2009, 07:58 AM	#167 (permalink)
Vigilante Broken Arrow Location: US	Sure it would be great if we as Americans could be as chill as Canada. I would love that. However you are comparing Sparta to Athens. __________________ We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -Winston Churchill

08-18-2009, 08:16 AM	#168 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Perhaps we should compare the US to another gun-owning country instead of Canada. If that's possible. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-18-2009, 08:30 AM	#169 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	But this is my point. We are quite different culturally, socially, politically, and yet both of our nations provide levels of freedom that much of the rest of the world can only dream of. These states of freedom aren't of the same brand, they aren't derived from the same source, and yet there they are. The threat of violence is not a prerequisite for maintaining freedom. However, one may find that violence is employed to protect it, as it has been in the past. But that's another story. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2009, 06:12 PM	#162 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	No really. Guns = Safety. That's why no cop has ever been killed in the line of duty. That's why no armed rebellion has ever been overwhelmed by state controlled military. That's certainly why there's never been a successful armed rebellion that, once established as the state resulted in crippling oppression. People with guns, because they have guns, are the only thing standing between us and crushing state oppression.

08-14-2009, 06:12 PM	#163 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't know if "statist" is the right term for the antithesis of individualist in this context. I'd be more comfortable with something a bit more general, like collectivist.

08-14-2009, 06:29 PM	#164 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Collectivist it is, then. That's the level it all gets down to in the end, after all.

08-18-2009, 08:50 AM	#170 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm really unclear about what you mean when you say that the united states & canada provide "levels of freedom that other countries can only dream of." i think most of the "freedoms" particular to the united states are formal. it seems to me that, for example, a political system in which the polity is able to vote one day every two years and in which the options that are presented amount to little more than the option of engaging in faction rotation within an oligarchy, and in an information environment that is not at all about providing people with what is required to make informed or rational decisions about issues...that's not real free. being part of a market demographic in the context of which freedom is a word that gets associated with alot of products because it sounds nice, because it's flattering--that doesn't seem to me terribly free. i think sometimes folk understand categories like authoritarian as requiring a particular type of state action, as if the state is the only institution capable of being such surveillance and management of a population. but those days are long past, and even in the earlier manifestations--say germany of the 1930s--state rule was accompanied by a single dominant media apparatus (radio) and a quite new for the time understanding of the close relation between politics and public relations (edward bernays anyone?)...in the historical treatments of that period, the centrality of radio as an opinion co-ordination mechanism tends to get downplayed and the role of state violence becomes the exclusive center. but that's to make how that particular form of fascism work incomprehensible. and it's always mystified me that this is the case. i think you get something similar amongst folk who imagine that having a gun makes them anything beyond someone who has a gun--the exclusive object of concern regarding possible outcomes like "tyranny" is the state. but think about the logic of neo-colonialism for a second: why bother with direct domination when it's much cheaper and more effective to convince people to dominate themselves? better still if you can convince them that dominating themselves is in their own best interest. this can only get started if you regard "freedom" as an attribute and not a process. so "freedom" is like the leg of a table. it doesn't require any particular action or doing or process. it's a part of an object that the Bad State can maybe take from you, in the way a bully could take your peanut butter & jelly sandwich from you at recess by the swingset. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-18-2009, 09:06 AM	#171 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The freedoms I speak of are largely those that are legislated and ingrained in the culture. There are many things we can do in North America that are illegal in other countries. Consider the plight of women that is still going on in other areas. Consider how religious and cultural minority groups are treated elsewhere. I agree with what you are saying in that there is much that is dicey when it comes to freedom and authoritarianism, but then you consider the fact that virtually any one of us can go to a library or use the Internet to find out what's what, or maybe even contact certain helpful organizations and groups that are eager to help. Not so in some other areas. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-18-2009, 11:36 AM	#173 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What do you mean by "follow their paths"? We moved away from those situations I mentioned. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-27-2009, 01:18 PM	#174 (permalink)
jmcdaniel_ee Upright	There's been some lag, but I just wanted to comment after reading the majority of this thread (heck, I signed on here because I found a forum thread about an occasional difficulty I have with yawning): this thread has been dormant a while, so I figured I'd take the liberty to throw in my 2 cents: Anytime there is political volatility, I worry. I worry that an armed revolution would take place in this country. Not because I think any armed revolution is bad in any circumstance (such as a theoretical internal armed revolution against NAZI Germany), but I worry about the outcome. I'm not a socialst by any means (I'm practically an anarco-capitalist), but a conservative armed revolution does worry me, primarily because of what would follow. Any time that the left side of a (pseudo) two-party system is in power and things go awry, the tendancy of the masses is to elect the extreme polar opposite. As much as I dislike the Obama administration, the Bush administration was worse in other ways. Both are seeking to reduce their citizens freedom, only in different ways. And what's really sick about it, is that the 4 or 8 year cycle fools the majority into crying out for more of their freedoms being taken away (either through survelance and police state tactics ala "security" and anti "terrorism" or through increased property confiscation and redistribution through socialist programs). The people who aren't pleased with the present administration (such as myself) may end up with a right-wing dicatator-tyrant for the next term. Yikes! It was said earlier in the thread that the outrage at referring to recent policies as "socialistic" in nature is unjustified. I would agree. But not because I don't think they're socialistic, but because they're no more socialistic than most other policies pursued in the last 100 years or more, regardless of the right or left-wing status of the administration. It's nothing new at all. My whole issue that some don't seem to understand about gun ownership is that each person owns him or herself. And therefore each person has a right not to be harmed by others. When one is not harming others, and yet is still aggressed upon by anyone (whether or not they wear a badge or government uniform), then an injustice has been done. If I am not harming another person, no one, regardless of the uniform they wear or the "authority" they claim to possess, has a right to do any harm towards me. When man A has lethal firepower and man B doesn't, it is morally wrong for man A to use his lethal firepower to threaten man B to do anything against his will. It makes no difference if man A is a woodsman at Ruby Ridge or if man A has a fancy badge and government uniform. Unless and until weapons are no longer in existence, the only way to prevent those with weapons from aggressing upon you is to be able to pose a significant counter threat. Can a counterthreat be posed without the posession of weapons? I'm not sure how. James Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. --Oliver North

03-05-2010, 02:35 PM	#176 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	America has always been this way to some extent or another and for some reason militia/survivalist/whatever groups seem to become more vocal when a democrat is in office. I remember this same kind of stuff under Clinton, the nightly news focusing on "dangerous" groups running around the country side, drilling for the eventual armed take over. When Bush was elected these groups seemingly disappeared from the mainstream and nobody gave them much thought. In the end it always seems to be nothing more then posturing, groups of American Nationalists who feel its their birthright and duty to defend their freedoms at the end of a gun. And why not, its always been ingrained in our culture to stand up and fight to the death when we feel we have something to fight for. I never really paid these people any mind and probably never will. If the group in the above article were to try and take a stand we'll probably just wind up with another "Waco" style standoff that in the end accomplishes very little and will largely be forgotten. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

03-06-2010, 07:15 AM	#177 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What's disturbing to me about the Mother Jones article is that this concern for preparedness hinges on the issue of martial law. If the Obama government were to do so for any particular reason, it seems this group would construe that as some sort of excuse of the government for taking its "socialist totalitarianism" to some kind of "Phase 2." It's as though they view Obama's option for martial law as the one significant move that would enable him to galvanize his Stalinesque rule over America, placing people in concentration camps and perhaps executing those who become too resistant. Though I don't doubt the existence of facilities for detention centres for both federal and military use, I can't think of a single nation who'd I suspect doesn't have these sorts of things. It's not that the concept of law and order is new or anything. All of this to me is simply ludicrous. What makes it more so is the fact that these people are members of the armed forces, both military and civilian. To serve and protect, right? What's funny to me, in the end, and no matter how sardonic, is the connection all of this has to the Tea Party movement and how it views the Obama administration as a socialist machine gearing up to take its agenda to Nazi-like proportions if necessary. I don't know what to think anymore. At first the Tea Party movement just seemed like a bunch of whiny conservatives upset because their guy lost the election. Now I think the group under which the Tea Party flag flies is far too fragmented and multifaceted to apply any one value to it. My greatest fear is that it's being co-opted by extremists: the kind we should be far more concerned about than anything that would come out of a decidedly centrist president. And it all starts with propaganda, as did most things to be ashamed of in our human history. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-06-2010, 07:50 AM	#178 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	The common term for that soldier would be "nut job". They will always exist. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-06-2010, 12:16 PM	#179 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	No we're not. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-30-2010, 06:06 PM	#182 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Questions: 1: How was this act provoked? Given the long history of federal agents provocateurs operating within Militiae and other anti-Gov't groups, and encouraging them to commit illegal acts, I look forward to seeing how this group was egged on. Remember that agents provocateurs were the instigators of violence during the Battle Of Seattle, the Ruby Ridge massacre, and that "Militia radio shock-jock" Hal Turner was recently revealed to have been on the FBI/ATF payroll for most of the last decade: time which he spent trying to stimulate and provoke violence among the FBI/ATF's target groups in the militia/patriot movement and being paid for doing so by the Federal Gov't. His whole job was to create violent criminals so that they could then be arrested and either "flipped" as informants or incarcerated as examples to the public and statistics for The Agency. 2: Was the group actually moving towards or committing an act of violence, or were they simply talking about it? "Seditious Conspiracy" has a lovely ring of Lefortovo and Pinochet about it. Knowing, or researching, or even -practicing- how to make bombs is not illegal. If you have the proper licenses (where required) making and using bombs is not illegal. It's even legal to discuss, in a theoretical sense, how an otherwise-legal bomb might be used in an insurgent or insurrectionist capacity. In my job I come into contact with large numbers of LEOs and Military personell, including a US Army bomb expert who is one of my best customers. Such conversations are hardly unusual among such people, despite the fact that neither I nor any of my customers are planning on blowing up anything more than disobliging boulders and tree-stumps. Furthermore, insurrectionist discussion and talk is likewise legal, is in fact protected by the Constitution. So long as no concrete violent act takes place or is palpably and imminently about to, discussion remains discussion, no matter how insane or ridiculous or dangerous the topic.

03-30-2010, 06:56 PM	#184 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Something doesn't sound right about that whole story. There are plenty of militia groups around, is the government trying to send a message to them? Are they trying to get enough of them to plan or carry out violence against the government in order to make the voting public thing the right wing is crazy and shouldn't get voted for in Nov? Is there some other story that the media should be reporting on, but the feds are making news to distract? Are they trying to link the Tea Party movement to these 912ers, libertarian, truthers, birthers, religious and other groups? Or are these people really wacko like I would think at first. I mean the first commandment is "Thou shall not kill.". Anyway, their plan sucked.

03-30-2010, 07:05 PM	#185 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	ASU, you're making it sound like waiting to do battle with the Antichrist by preparing to kill a bunch of cops and eventually their mourners is something that can be incited by the government. How can that happen? If busting up this organization sends a message to other nutjob organizations, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. They're nutjobs, right? Anyway, I don't see how the government action in this case was in anyway an incitement. It was a reaction to evidence. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-31-2010, 12:41 AM	#187 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think there needs to be a clear distinction between Government and the Law Enforcement Officers that are carrying out these arrests. While conspiracy theorists would like to think that Obama (or someone high up) is pulling the strings, one should remember that these Officers had their jobs before the current Admin was elected and will likely be around after they are out of office. They serve the law and are accountable to the law, not the Administration. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-01-2010, 07:31 AM	#191 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, according to the southern poverty law center, there were 512 "patriot" organizations out there last year, 127 of which are militias. Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2009 \| Southern Poverty Law Center the new issue of splc's "intelligence report" is of interest: Rage on the Right \| Southern Poverty Law Center __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-01-2010, 10:33 AM	#195 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	This is the best joke ever, conservatives preparing for an armed revolution? Conservatives have always had someone else fight their battles for em, especially the poor, unemployed, minorities and such as that. Perhaps they could hire some of the downtrodden to fight this battle for em too. Join now, fight for the bankers, credit card co's, and all the ultra rich so they can buy their 50th vacation home in God knows where. Onward conservative soldier!

04-01-2010, 02:10 PM	#197 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Especially since one of their most successful agents provocateur, Hal Turner, was just outed a few months ago? Fuglystick, others, here's the thing about Mr. Turner. This guy was on the radio for 10+ years, [i]being paid by the FBI for the specific purpose of egging people on to violence and lawbreaking. That was his job. You paid for this inbred to try and turn people towards violence so the FBI could arrest them or flip them into informants. Mr Turner has admitted all of this in open court. His role as an agent provocateur is a matter of public record.[i] You can't just say "The Feds don't do that!" when the Feds just admitted to doing it and paraded their agent (do-er) before the world. As for the SPLC, PUH-LEEZE. Morris "Sleaze" Dees has been seeing Klansmen under his bed (and bilking similarly terrified morons out of their money) for twenty years. His entire fortune (which is considerable) and the political clout of his organization (which is considerable) depend entirely upon dreaming up crises involving legions of "haters" who are out to kill every kike, nigger, papist, and spic they can find. The problem is that the SPLC includes pretty much anyone to the right of John Lennon or Bobby Seale on these lists of "hate groups" and "haters" because, after all, More Haters = Sacrier. Scarier = More Money. I trust the SPLC and ADL about as far as I can throw Mark Potok. They are professional fearmongers and liars, nothing more and a great deal less. It's a leftist gravy train in the same vein as the John Birch Society on the right, except with a somewhat less tenuous connection to reality.

04-02-2010, 07:36 AM	#198 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	gee, i've not heard anyone reference the southern poverty law center in those terms who was not part of a militia group. sometimes i used to listen to world wide christian radio for the christian identity and militia survivalist and black helicopter recognition call-in shows...in some of those programs the patriots would get pretty exercised about splc and would make all kind of outlandish statements in the process, statements that didn't really make sense beyond their situational function of indicating that the speaker just plain didn't like the splc and didn't like the information they'd gather and didn't like morris dees for being involved with the gathering because well splc talks about patriot groups and other neo-fascist outfits together and militia people like to pretend they're separate; and there's an attention to nativist and other racist groups and militia people like to think that they're just against illegal immigration on grounds that are often almost exactly like those of nativist groups so obviously the problem is pointing out the similarity. yeah. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-14-2011, 11:40 AM	#199 (permalink)
longliveusa Upright Location: America	1. the Constitution forbids the government from keeping Americans from owning guns. 2. the Militia movement has nothing to do with any racism or oppression 3 Americans have the right to Change the government when the government is destructive to our freedom. 4.America is a constitutional republic 5. christian identify is not a Militia the kkk is not a Militia 6. slandering people who are experts at living at living off the land does not make your point come across as being logical 7 the SLPC is run by CAIR which had a reporter fired who voted for Obama just cause he questioned islam.

04-14-2011, 11:44 AM	#200 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Slander? Where specifically? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo